Evolution vs. Creation Debate in Tucson, Arizona May 10

Calvery Chapel Tucson and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ^ | May 10, 2003 | Fellowship of Christian Athletes

[\/\/ayne]

Click on the image below for a PDF flyer



click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files

Saturday May 10, 2003

All Saturday meetings except the debate will be held at Calvary Tucson’s East Campus 8725 E. Speedway Blvd.

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

[f.Christian]

Evolution ... the moans // groans of the spiritually -- mentally --- dead !

[Dataman]

The philosophy of imperialism: How it was based in part on the theories of Charles Darwin.

Many people accepted the philosophy of imperialism because it seemed to be confirmed by natural science. In 1859 Charles Darwin, an English biologist, published a book entitled The Origin of Species. It was one of the most important books ever published, because the central idea of the work has had a profound influence upon all modern thought from that time to this. Darwin maintained that the various species of plants and animals as we know them were not originally created in their present form. He said they had gradually "evolved" from simpler forms of life. Every plant and animal, according to this theory, endeavors to live and reproduce its kind; but more individuals are born than can find proper nourishment. The result is a "struggle for existence" in which the strongest shove aside or destroy the weak. Thus, according to this theory of evolution, the law of life is not peace but conflict.

[Darwinists] pointed out that from earliest times tribes and nations had fought for food and wealth and desirable territories. Those that were stronger shoved aside or enslaved or destroyed the others. The victors established their customs and laws, their language, their religions-- in short, their civilization. The progress of civilization was brought about only throught the incessant conflict of peoples and races. War is one form of this conflict and threfore a natural, and even a necessary, means of human progress.

--Silver and Burdett's The Story of Civilization, page 710.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Perhaps you can tell us all: (1) Who the creationist from the Bible college was; (2) what his arguments were that so effectively slaughtered his opponent; (3) who the rising star geologist is; (4) what the geologist's relative had to say that was "so effective in exposing the holes in traditional evolutionary views of geology;" and perhaps most enlightening, (5) what the geologist's suprising creationist theories are.

It has been ten years since I was in college and my level of recall isn't detailed enough this far removed in time to answer your questions. All I remember from the above was that the Bible college was located in Pennsylvania and that the geology professor's surprising new theories related somehow to catastrophies accounting for parts of the fossil record, which creationists have argued for decades about all of the fossil record.

But what I do recall is sufficient to make the points I was making, which were: (1) My own experience confirms what others have said, namely, that prominent evolutionists are strangely reluctant to defend their views in formal, public debate settings; and (2) Even some evolutionists today don't agree with a previous poster that the traditional evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record is fruitful for understanding.

[atlaw]

So what accounts for Roman and Napoleonic imperialism?

[whattajoke]

Now its imperialism. Last week it was communism. 2 weeks ago it was socialism. I've also read capitalism. Atheism. Humanism.

Ism, schmism.

If I were so inclined, I'm sure you're aware I could dredge up some citations crediting christianity with racism, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Your point is?

[whattajoke]

haha, what the hell is "baited breath" anyway?

[Stop Legal Plunder]

So what accounts for Roman and Napoleonic imperialism?

Sin, of a species called "greed."

Human nature hasn't changed, of course, but modern imperialism is distinct in its strong ideological basis. In modern times, the two leading core philosophies undergirding imperialism have been evolution and Marxism.

[PatrickHenry]

In modern times, the two leading core philosophies undergirding imperialism have been evolution and Marxism.

Ah. So that's why Saddam invaded Kuwait! I was wondering. Darwinism!!

[Stop Legal Plunder]

You seem to be arguing that the consequences of applying a biological theory to social systems should have some bearing on the validity of the biological theory. It does not work that way.

Evolution isn't just a biological theory; it's also a worldview. Given how the application of the worldview in modern times has had some terrible consequences it's natural to want to put the genie back in the bottle, to go back to saying "it's only a biological theory." But reality doesn't work that way, and evolution today (whatever else it may have been in the past) is a complete worldview.

[whattajoke]

You might want to ask one of the 10's of thousands of scientists whose work is somehow related to evolution. Ask them if their chosen field affects their "worldview."

You'll find these scientists at Freeper rallies, Dem fundraisers, Green Party protests, Socialist back alleys, Commie gatherings, temples, mosques, igloos, military bases, public universities, private universities, jesuit universities, etc.

Ok, maybe not igloos.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

"In modern times, the two leading core philosophies undergirding imperialism have been evolution and Marxism." Ah. So that's why Saddam invaded Kuwait! I was wondering. Darwinism!!

I guess, from your skepticism, that you weren't aware that Saddam consciously, systematically, and publicly patterned his regime on Stalin's Russia. Just one example is his effort to exterminate the lesser race of the kurds.

[BibChr]

I may be demanding too much precise attention to my wording -- if so, it's partly because I *try* to word myself precisely.

I depict the evolution-religionist as repeating, "There is no God who will judge me." Note the caps, and the qualifying phrase. I am not saying that they all say, "There is no god."

Not am I saying that they deny any god at all, but a specific God, the God of the Bible, who is the God who will judge them. They may be perfectly content to construct an idol, a "safe" god who is fatherly and loving and accepting, without any "edges" such as absolute demands of obedience to specific, unwelcome laws, particularly if coupled with the power and declared intent to enforce His demands.

I observe that the root of most blind devotion to evolutionism, particularly in those who feel compelled always to reply with quickdraw bile to even the suggestion of anything like Biblical creationism, in unthinking post after unthinking post, is moral and spiritual, not intellectual.

Because, plainly put, if Biblical creationism is true, then you are not your own god, nor am I; we are creatures. And there is such a God as the Bible depicts, and He will judge us.

And that makes a difference some here find personally terrifying.

Dan

[k2blader]

Wish I could attend!

Please keep us updated. :-)

[js1138]

I think it's the result of eating sushi.

[atlaw]

Ah well. I hope you understand my disappointment. We hear on this board fairly regularly that there are just plain devastating arguments against evolution and that more and more scientists are rejecting evolution and adopting intelligent design and/or creationism. But we never seem to get the specifics of the arguments or the names of the scientists (other than the half-dozen or so usual suspects).

[PatrickHenry]

I guess, from your skepticism, that you weren't aware that Saddam consciously, systematically, and publicly patterned his regime on Stalin's Russia. Just one example is his effort to exterminate the lesser race of the kurds.

Well BFD. Ain't that just iron-clad proof that evolution isn't good science! (I assume, by the way, that you're utterly unaware that Stalin was violently anti-Darwin. But don't let facts interfere with your fantasies.)

[Dimensio]

Evolution isn't just a biological theory; it's also a worldview.

Evolution contributed to a paradigm shift but it is not, in and of itself, a worldview. It is a biological theory, it is an attempt to explain observed phenomenon with biological organisms. Your previous attempts at asserting that evolution makes "rape" right remind me of a USENET kook named Jabriol who has a habit of using every recent tragedy (Columbine, Iraq's atrocities, the WTC attacks) as an attack on evolution, calling it "natural selection in action". Despite repeatedly being told that he is utterly misrepresenting the theory, he keeps at it. He also has a habit of posting in rape vicitm support newsgroups and telling the people there that according to evolution, what happened to them was just and right.

So far, he's not won any converts. People realise that his arguments are intellectually bankrupt.

[js1138]

And that makes a difference some here find personally terrifying.

I suppose it would be terrifying to believe in a God who punishes people for their thoughts. It may be rational to fear such a God, but how does it follow that He is good?

[Dimensio]

Not am I saying that they deny any god at all, but a specific God, the God of the Bible, who is the God who will judge them.

Well, you're assuming your conclusion, and you're ignoring the fact that there are people who claim to follow the God of the Bible, who believe that this God will be the judge of all and who believe that evolution is a viable theory.

Because, plainly put, if Biblical creationism is true, then you are not your own god, nor am I; we are creatures. And there is such a God as the Bible depicts, and He will judge us.

Given that Islam and Judaism use the same creation story, your "if Biblical creationism is true" actually implies at least three possibilities. Of course, I find it interesting that most creationists only present their version of Creationism as a possible alternative to evolution, even though there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of creation stories throughout human history. Why is yours so special that it receives exclusive consideration?

[PatrickHenry]

Learn something. Try it. Lysenkoism.