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

[whattajoke]

Yeah, really.

Note to Gish: Out of context quotes and personal incredulities with certain facts are not evidence.

Note to FR creationists: This goes for you too.

We've seen thread after thread after 700+ post threads and all I've ever seen is the evo's posting facts, links, and research and the creationists posting literay criticisms.

Just ONE piece of evidence please!

[forsnax5]

Here's a piece from today's Bozeman Daily Chronicle that has an interesting point of view...

Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.

Despite movements across the nation to teach creationism in public schools, a science historian said Monday that Christians haven't always used a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain the world's origins.

"For them, the Bible is mostly to teach a religious lesson," said Ernan McMullin of the earliest Christian scholars.

McMullin spoke to a crowd of about 60 people at Montana State University on "Evolution as a Christian theme."

McMullin, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and a Catholic priest, is recognized one of the world's leading science historians and philosophers, according to MSU.

He has written about Galileo, Issac Newton, the concept of matter and, of course, evolution.

It's a subject has been hotly debated ever since Charles Darwin first published "On the Origins of Species" in 1859.

Christian fundamentalists have long pushed the nation's public schools to teach creationism as an alternative, which in its strictest form claims that the world was created in six days, as stated in the Bible's Old Testament Book of Genesis.

But McMullin said creationism largely is an American phenomenon. Other countries simply don't have major creationist movements, leading him to ask: "What makes it in the U.S. ... such an issue (over) evolution and Christian belief?"

The answer probably lies in the nation's history, with the settlement by religious groups, he said. Also, public education and religion are more intertwined here than other countries.

McMullin discussed how Christians have tried to explain their origins over the past 2,000 years, using several examples to show that many viewed Genesis as more of a religious lesson than an exact record of what happened.

It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century that Genesis started to be taken literally. Then theologians started using nature - and its many complexities - as proof of creation.

Charles Darwin spoiled that through his theory of natural selection, and the battle lines have been drawn ever since.

"It replaced an older view that had sounded like a strong argument for the existence of God," McMullin said.

[rustbucket]

6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer

They forgot the 7:00 PM talk: "Why 600,000 Scientists Accept Evolution"

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You left the Hedonists off of your home page.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century that Genesis started to be taken literally.

I thought I remembered that the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy dated to the the late 18th or early 19th centuries. Now I'll have to look it up...

[BibChr]

In the one you saw, did the creationist kick the goo-to-you guy's butt? From what I've read, that's the usual, and for that reason it gets hard to find targets... er... debaters.

Dan

[Saturnalia]

Still waiting on a testable creationist theory bumpz0r and bookmark.

[VadeRetro]

Well, it's usually a dumb idea for evolutionists to do these debates because the audience is always stacked full of creationidiots and the creationidiot participating in the debate is usually a demagogic tool like Gish.

It's well known how these things go. The creationist needs only to conduct his half of the time as a "drive-by shooting," spewing more attacks on evolution than can possibly be rebutted in an equal amount of time. (Saying anything definite about what creationism actually means would only highlight divisions in his own camp, anyway.) His attacks are all bogus, being illogical, untrue, or both. Nevertheless, each one of them takes time and effort to show the fraud. The cleanup takes longer than the spill. That's why the creationist can't really lose. Almost all of his spewing will necessarily go unrebutted.

The evolutionist needs to spend some time on the virtues of evolution and probably some time rebutting the drive-by shooting. (If he ignores the latter, he risks the charge of "ducking" the C arguments.) It's hard to come out well. Paradoxically, he has too much evidence and no time to present it.

Live debates are made to order for the snake-oil salesmen, a far less friendly venue than an Internet teeming with linkable sites full of real scientific data. It's hard to get better than a draw against a Gish or a Hovind with thirty minutes of a 1-hour debate. On the Net, if a creationist makes twenty bogus arguments, you can refute all twenty and still point out the scientific usefulness of evolution. Night-and-day different.

[My2Cents]

I'll say this: the creationist more than held his own, which at the time I considered a crushing defeat for the evolutionist/geneticist. They are so arrogant in their attitude, they think they can walk over a cogent creationist argument, and they are sadly mistaken.

[Dimensio]

Anything that contradicts the theory of evolution will be interesting. And anything that supports creationism will be very interesting.

But...but...but Creationists insist that anything that contradicts evolution theory is de facto evidence FOR creationism! I'm so confused!

[Dimensio]

they think they can walk over a cogent creationist argument,

Oxymoron.

The problem with an organized 'debate' is that creationists are often organised with nice-sounding bits of information that seem convincing even if they are completely detached from reality. In order to counter them, however, real scientists prefer to reference real research which takes time and typically such resources are not available right at hand in a debate.

[Dimensio]

The problem with the 'failed' predictions of creationism is that they are easily explained away with "God made it that way for reasons that we do not yet understand." Transitional species only look like transitional species, it's just a coincidence. When you invoke divine intervention, anything can be explained away. That is one of the reasons why creationism is not scientific.

[Poohbah]

I'll say this: the creationist more than held his own, which at the time I considered a crushing defeat for the evolutionist/geneticist.

Translation: he threw out thirty minutes of pure, unadulterated bulls**t that would take the evolutionist at least ninety minutes to merely identify the factually incorrect claims made by the creationist.

[Natural Law]

Why is it so hard for anyone to accept that God created a process by which life will survive and prosper in a dynamic environment. Evolution exists because God made it so.

[stanz]

The problem is, at least according to some of the responses I have seen here over time, that creationists do not accept the validity of the fossil record or DNA testing. They argue that speciation, say, as evidenced in humans fossils, is a result of deformation of samples or science's utter failure to classify the samples correctly. As to comparative primate morphology, creationists refuse to accept the structural similarities from primates to proto-hominids-to modern humans and insist that either some fraud is being perpetrated or that the forms are strictly variations within one species. The fact that humans and chimpanzees differ gentically by only one chromosome is probably the most difficult for them to explain away.
The problem lies in the passage of time and in the geologic changes have which have had such great impact on flora and fauna. If you're not willing to accept the age of the earth and the date of emergence of now-extinct species which gave rise to more modern forms (which is what creationists are hobbled by) then, you are relegated to the dust bins of pseudo-science where predictions must fail, or as you said, discoveries never discovered due to lack of research and inquiry.

[BibChr]

They are so arrogant in their attitude

Amen. See above.

It's all whistling past the graveyard. "There is no God to judgme me! There is no God to judge me! THERE IS NO...."

Dan

[Lady Eileen]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Why do evos deny this simple truth?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Why do evos deny this simple truth?

Only the Creationists and ID'ers deny this.

[\/\/ayne]

What about the hoaxes?

[My2Cents]

real scientists prefer to reference real research

Real research, eh? Tell me, how does the theory of evolution submit itself to the scientific method? It's a theory based upon leaps of faith.