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

[My2Cents]

Wrong. He left the evolutionist sputtering.

Your arrogance proves my previous point.

[Poohbah]

Wrong. He left the evolutionist sputtering.

That says nothing without detailed explanation of WHY the evolutionist was sputtering.

I would have been sputtering if I'd been the evolutionist on the podium in a couple of debates--generally, I don't appreciate people delibertely LYING in a debate, which I've seen Gish do. He's been corrected on some of his bigger goofs, he's acknowledged that he was incorrect--and then he repeats the same "mistake" in the next debate.

[f.Christian]

g3 ...

evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.

The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.

This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.

Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.

In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.

That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.

It is ... pseudo-science (( link // source )) --- for morons.

With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.

We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.

sop ...

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.

g3 ...

It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.

539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000

[AndrewC]

Only the Creationists and ID'ers deny this.

Strange how you can assert this since you have difficulty seeing that delta S being negative has some meaning.

[Dimensio]

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

Yes, because only atheists accept the theory of evolution...

Oh, wait, that's not the case. Only idiots believe as much.

[f.Christian]

What evolutionists are doing ...

is using conservative scientific rhetoric to force teach liberal tyranny (( satanism // atheism )) ---

a bolshevic monopoly to persecute theists (( true conservatives )) !

[Stultis]

Excerpt from Georgia Skeptic Electronic Newsletter, Fall 1993

Author Unknown

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught. Evidence supporting the theory of the stork include the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human fetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim, since everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, many well-documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are declining.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

[Dimensio]

Tell me, how does the theory of evolution submit itself to the scientific method?

Well, if you can get past the gaudy HTML, there's some stuff here. There's a little blurb here that explains some modern myths about just what a "theory" is.

[Con X-Poser]

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

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

---

They're PAID to do so (mostly with PUBLIC money stolen from the pockets of creationists), and if they don't they often stop getting paid.

[jennyp]

The Vast Atheist Scientific Conspiracy is coming to get ya!

[jennyp]

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.

Please tell us what the best arguments were that the creationist made at this debate that changed your life.

[Con X-Poser]

<< Well, it's usually a dumb idea for evolutionists to do these debates because the audience is always stacked full of creationidiots >>

Don't blame us because your side is too afraid to support their man publicly. When I arranged the Hovind-Paulson debate, we did it ON CAMPUS of the UW-0. We should've had throngs of college students. Professor Paulson, and others, had been advertising it *on campus* for weeks.

Actually there were lots of college students among the overflow crowd (over 600 came, several hundred latecomers were turned away). But the evolutionsts haven't been as successful at brainwashing their students as they might imagine. Many of them regurgitate what they've been force-fed in a public school and believe in a Creator anyway.

<< and the creationidiot participating in the debate is usually a demagogic tool like Gish. >>

Usually the ad hominem attacks and insults don't begin until the evolutionists have emptied their water pistols and are out of evidence. It seems that you are one of the rare evolutionists who recognize that you're out of evidence from the beginning!

[BibChr]

Yes, because only atheists accept the theory of evolution... Oh, wait, that's not the case. Only idiots believe as much.

Yes, and after all, I did say that only atheists are evolution religionists.

Oh, wait, I didn't say that at all.

Only an idiot would suggest that I had.

Dan

[jennyp]

I forget if this excellent op-ed from the school's student paper got posted here:

There are essentially two types of proselytizers: those who argue with reason and those who argue with deceit. The former persuade with logic and sound premises, which they air openly and honestly. The latter persuade with trickery and misrepresentation, and attempt to undermine opposing arguments rather than seek affirmation of their own. It is this second species, the vulture of intellect, that will descend upon the McKale Center on May 10.

It is no small wonder that the event taking place that night — a debate on the topic of creation vs. evolution — is taking place on a university campus at all. ...

[PatrickHenry]

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.

Yeah, but I like my approach. I deal with the creationoids on the terms they profess to want -- I treat creationism as if it really were a science, capable of making predictions that can be tested. That puts the burden right on them, as it would be with any genuine science; so that any unexpected transitional species, for example, or any evidence of chronologically ordered appearance of new species, disproves their "science." Sure, they can fall back into their final fortress -- religion, and say that it's all a miracle. But then -- ah then! -- we've got creationism precisely where it belongs. In the churches, and out of the science classrooms.

[jennyp]

Let's see... Four creationist lectures at the church, then a break while everyone gets bussed over to the godless university campus to hear the hapless eviloooshunist professor vs. the Gish Gallop, then the next day there are 3 more creationist lectures back at the church.

They're not taking any chances, are they? :-)

[f.Christian]

To: whattajoke

waj ...

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.


ph ...


Well stated. That is also my position.


112 posted on 04/29/2003 3:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)


fC ...


Overlordism ...

I'm only surprised that you publicly admit it (( you 're not joshing // tricking me ? ? )) !

"We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are)" ---


fC ...


Is that only what your worried about ... what leftist think ---

"The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left."

What's the difference between your village and hillary clinton's ?





wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.


fC ...

classic ... elitisim !


To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[jennyp]

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

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Children may need overwhelmingly powerful Authority Figures to provide them with a list of dos & don'ts, but adults come to understand why we have moral codes: It's because of the real world consequences of right vs. wrong behavior, and the long-term good or bad effects these behaviors will have on our lives and the lives of those people we value.

Only postmodernists & creationists think that objective notions of right & wrong are concepts that cannot be provided by the real world. You should be deeply troubled by knowing you have such bedfellows.

[f.Christian]

What evolutionists(( faux conservatives )) are doing ...

is using conservative scientific rhetoric to force teach liberal tyranny (( satanism // atheism )) ---

a bolshevic monopoly to persecute theists (( true conservatives )) !

[Festa]

I thought this entire debate was settled with Aquinas. No theory of natural change in matter contradicts the reality that God is first in explanation.