click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files
Posted on 05/06/2003 11:22:05 AM PDT by \/\/ayne
9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke
10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller
11:00 AM Lunch
1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke
2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller
3:00 PM Break
4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center
6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman
Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke
Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer
Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer
Predicting evolutionary potential: In vitro evolution accurately reproduces natural evolution of the TEM b-lactamase. Barlow, Miriam; Hall, Barry G. Biology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. Genetics (2002), 160(3), 823-832.
(My summary) This paper and others it cites shows both in vitro and in vivo that antibiotic resistance to cefotaxime, cefuroxime, ceftazadime, and aztreonam evolved by single amino-acid substitutions from an ancestral penicillinase gene. The authors conclusion (and I quote) "The authors take this result as evidence that their in vitro evolution technique accurately mimics natural evolution and can therefore be used to predict the results of natural evolutionary processes. "
I have engaged in several debates in the last few days, and I admire FreeRepublic as a forum for the free expression of ideas, but the overwhelming presence of this bunch of loons is very off-putting.
Lenin is supposed to have said that capitalists would sell him the rope by which they were to be hung. The “anarcho-loons” on this forum would not bother to sell the rope but provide it as a public service.
401 posted on 05/06/2003 5:54 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
The Vast Atheist Scientific Conspiracy is coming to get ya!
fC ...
The Vast “Anarcho-loons” pSuedo scientific Conspiracy !
Gish has a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. It's not an Ivy League degree, but then most of the Ivys have inferior biochemistry departments. At any rate, name-calling isn't a logical debate technique, as someone with the handle "ThinkPlease" should know.
I submit to you an example of the half truths that Gish performs in this transcribed radio debate between Hugh Ross and Gish.
There's also the transcribed and annotated debate between Ken Saladin and Duane Gish here.
Now he's not as bad as Kent Hovind, but his debating tactics are quite questionable.
We are discussing facts. We are applying science to the interpretation of a historical record, the equivalent of a crime scene. We are simply asking for your interpretation of the scene.
You do have opinions -- you say the scene does not support the evolutionist story. To say that, you must have an alternate story. So what is it?
You got his number.
That is the primary characteristic of the vast majority of FR evolutionists; they substitute childish playground bullying and name-calling for a reasoned defense.
That is also why they fail to win any arguments on these threads.
Although I don't speak for "Doctor Stochastic," I can assert without fear of contradiction that HE does NOT consider "G3k" to be HIS colleague.
That you consider "G3k" to be your colleague is illuminating, to say the least. Thank you for your candor in this regard.
(1) The humanly unimaginably awesome and complex order of the universe, from the subatomic to the galactic and beyond, requires a cause. And it makes much more sense that a being with the requisite ability to create such a universe, the Creator God, did so than the alternative alleged by evolution, which is that the universe created itself. It's preposterous to claim that something created itself. Yet this view is the foundation of all evolutionary theory.
So evolutionists, rather than creationists, properly bear the burden of proof for establishing the logical grounds for what is the more unlikely claim for the origin of universe and life.
(2) Beauty is real and cannot be accounted for by evolution. The most credible evolutionary theory can only offer an explanation of why men find women beautiful -- it relates to healthly childbearing and the survival of the race -- but it cannot explain why flowers are beautiful to people and not just to bugs that pollinate them. The beauty of form, color and scent of a rose, for example, cannot be explained by evolution, as human perception of such provides no survival benefit. Think also of majestic mountains and oceans and the glory of animals and plants generally. Beauty is real and may be seen from the highest to the lowest realms of the created order. As recognizing the beauty of these things confers no evolutionary advantage on us, evolution cannot explain them. But creationism, with its view that the beauty of nature reflects the beauty of the Creator, does offer a reasonable explanation of the origin of beauty.
(3) Human morality is also explainable only by the existence of a moral Creator God. I expect that most evolutionists on Free Republic believe that rape is wrong. But they can't, under evolution, explain why. In fact, rape is right under evolution, if it means that the superior genes of the stronger impregnate women and dominate in the next generation. By its nature, evolution has only one moral imperative: whatever works to better perpetuate the species is just. Anything to restrict that is sentimentalism and arbitrary imposition of one person's fancy of morality on others. By contrast, the creationist's understanding, that morality reflects God's character and is embedded in his creation, including in human consciences, better explains people's inherent concepts of morality.
The creationist view also explains how morality (e.g. murder is prohibited) may be codified as law and applied justly to all, including those who personally like to break the law, e.g. by murdering another. Evolution, by contrast, is hard pressed to explain why the murderer isn't providing a useful service, that is, reducing the number of the less fit, to the community and the species. That view, however repugnant to our God-given consciences, makes perfect sense under the internal logic of evolution.
(4) Love cannot be explained by evolution. I love my wife. And that love is not just chemical or visual-chemical attraction, which is all evolution may logically claim it to be. Love may include an element of chemical attraction, but it also transcends it. Mere chemical attraction is just lust. Which is why lust, unlike love, never leads to heroic self-sacrifice of the lover for the loved one -- a sacrifice I'd be willing to make to my own detriment and to that of the species. Such self-sacrifice, and thousands of years of love poetry, ballads, quests and the like can never be explained plausibly by evolution. As anyone who has truly loved, or truly been loved, should know at the core of his being.
We are more than just the random collision of atoms over time, which is the essence of evolution. It is telling testimony to the decline of mankind in the past two centuries that so many supposedly literate people can, with a straight face, claim that we are no more than those collisions. Shame on them all.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
(2) Beauty is real and cannot be accounted for by evolution.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
(3) Human morality is also explainable only by the existence of a moral Creator God.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
(4) Love cannot be explained by evolution.
Gratuitious and unsupported assertion.
Kinda monotonous, isn't it?
Evolution makes no such claim. Evolution says organisms evolved from other organisms by mutation and natural selection. This has been repeated often enough that I now accuse you of telling a deliberate untruth; you can negotiate the consequences of that with your moral creator God.
Beauty is real and cannot be accounted for by evolution
I find evolution a particularly beautiful process, and the evolutionary relationships betwen organisms gives me a great deal of aesthetic satisfaction. I'd warrant many if not most life scientists feel the same. Yet if beauty is divine in origin, and if evolution is not true, then your moral creator God has a pitched you a curve, hasn't He?
I expect that most evolutionists on Free Republic believe that rape is wrong. But they can't, under evolution, explain why.
And conversely, the Bible cannot be used to determine the value of Pi.
As anyone who has truly loved, or truly been loved, should know at the core of his being.
"I feel it intensely, and therefore must be true". No Hollywood starlet could argue this any more convincingly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.