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

[razorbak]

Thanks for illustrating my point.

[AndrewC]

Only postmodernists & creationists think that objective notions of right & wrong are concepts that cannot be provided by the real world.

The use of "Only" is very arrogant of you and "objective notions" seems to be an oxymoron.

[Aric2000]

Boy, your god must be pretty limited then.

If god couldn't create you through evolution, then he is not a very strong god.

My god on the other hand, can do anything he wants to do, that includes starting the universe, creating the physical laws that bind it, and then allowing life to evolve from his original creation.

And science is discovering what a wonderous thing it is, evolution, microevolution, fossils, etc. etc, ad nauseum, the amount of life that my god created from just a few living cells is incredible. My god did some incredible things, and we haven't even scratched the surface yet. The more science discovers, the more wondrous my god becomes.

The more science discovers the more silly and limited your god sounds.

Sorry, but your god seems to be pretty limited.

I feel like putting some smart aleck comment in here, you know, some childish taunt about how my dad can beat up your dad, but I will let it pass. We're all grown ups here, right? Right?

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Dimensio]

We're all grown ups here, right? Right?

Well, I'm not :)

[VadeRetro]

From your link in #54:

The church was eventually contacted, however, by one willing participant: James McGaha, an astronomer and adjunct faculty member of Pima Community College. At first, the church accepted his offer, but weeks later reneged, citing a problem with McGaha’s “attitude.”

More likely, organizers realized they’d bitten off more than they could chew — or more accurately, more than their ringer, world-renowned creation “scientist” Duane Gish, could chew. McGaha had made a hobby of studying the formulaic and skewed debating tactics of Gish, who is a faculty member at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego.

Very telling! The sponsoring church in no way intends to risk Gish getting the debunking that he deserves.

Creationists dream and drool at being able to spew lies rapidly, freely, in a forum with no way for anyone to expose them before everyone has gone home.

[AndrewC]

My god on the other hand,

Are you not an atheist?

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Do you believe that God makes the sun rise and set; that He makes the rain fall; that He makes the crops grow?

All of these things happen by "natural" causes, but God is the author of the laws of nature, and those laws are the means by which He accomplishes His will. So, too, did He create humanity, through "natural" processes that He created and set in motion, knowing they were sufficient to achieve His purpose.

Your last statement is linguistically a question but stated as a period. Perhaps it's a typo. If you're asking a question, the answer is No. If you're making a statement, then you're begging the question by claiming evolution is a natural process akin to the other natural processes you indicate.

That's the core of the dispute: Is evolution a natural process or is it a cosmology masquerading as science?

[Con X-Poser]

<< 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. >>

Let's see ... the long term effect of stealing is ... thieves get more stuff.

The result ... the best way to survive is to be a better thief and protect yourself against thieves ... IOW - the strongest survive - survival of the fittest.

Seems I have heard that somewhere before.

Without an absolute standard (read: BIBLE) you have no way to determine morality beyond *today's* opinion (subject to change by tomorrow).

Is homosexuality wrong? It used to be, but today's society says no - even with the -40 life expectancy of homosexuals and exponential rate of several diseases, which fit your criteria of having bad effects on lives of people we value (which brings up the point - why do we value certain people?)

Is abortion wrong? It used to be, but not anymore says society, even though it's killed 40 million potential producers in America. Even though it's raised a generation of mothers who no longer value the life of the baby they carry, and have made the statistically most dangerous place for a baby to be its own MOTHER'S WOMB!

Is pedophilia wrong? Wait till tomorrow as politicians campaign for "child rights", lower age of sexual consent, and march in parades with NAMBLA (Man-Boy lust) members.

Is rape wrong? Wait a while until the logic becomes consistent with current liberal logic that rape is simply another sexual orientation and to inhibit rapists is a violation of their civil rights.

<< adults come to understand why we have moral codes >>

Yeah, that's why we are such a moral society compared to previous generations. That's why crime and divorce are far higher than before. That's why our jails are bustng at their seams. We're so much more moral than we used to be ;-)

[Dimensio]

Let's see ... the long term effect of stealing is ... thieves get more stuff.

The result ... the best way to survive is to be a better thief and protect yourself against thieves ... IOW - the strongest survive - survival of the fittest.

Wow. What a stupid assessment.

If you are caught in the act of stealing from someone who is willing to use lethal force to protect their property, then you will die and thus not survive to reproduce. Natural selection in action, weeding out the theives.

The rest of your argument was essentially appeal to the consequences, though it's not clear that you were really to prove any points.

[Con X-Poser]

<< Your bible is NOT science, evolution on the other hand is science. >>

What is your definition of science? If it contains something about observable, repeatable, validated, etc. then evolution is farther from science than the daily horoscope.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Not everyone who believes in a god (or a God) believes in one that has the exact attributes that you claim that it has. They are not atheists merely because they disagree with the exact nature of God.

You're mischaracterizing the lady's points. That's ungentlemanly of you:

(1) Lady Eileen did not refer to God as "it". She quoted the Bible, the God of which is personal. Any God that could be called "it" couldn't be the Creator, so such inferior concepts of God aren't worth bringing up in the present discussion. They would be straw men, not gods.

(2) The lady also did not claim that all who believe in evolution are atheists. Suggesting so is perhaps an effective technique to divide the opposition, but it's not very sporting.

[Dimensio]

I did have to address this...

Is pedophilia wrong? Wait till tomorrow as politicians campaign for "child rights", lower age of sexual consent, and march in parades with NAMBLA (Man-Boy lust) members.

Is rape wrong? Wait a while until the logic becomes consistent with current liberal logic that rape is simply another sexual orientation and to inhibit rapists is a violation of their civil rights.

The typical doom-and-gloom "wait and see" rantings that I've often seen proposed as 'coming soon to a future near you', but I've never seen any evidence that anyone is ready to line up for 'rapist rights' or 'pedophile rights'.

[Aric2000]

No, I am not an atheist, what? Because I believe that the Theory of evolution is the most accurate theory out there of what actually occurred, that somehow makes me an atheist?

Oh please, say it ain't so.

[Dimensio]

Lady Eileen did not refer to God as "it". She quoted the Bible, the God of which is personal. Any God that could be called "it" couldn't be the Creator, so such inferior concepts of God aren't worth bringing up in the present discussion. They would be straw men, not gods.

For crying out loud, this is semantics. I was referring to Lady Eileen's comment that "Evolution with God is a contradiction in terms." It is clear that there are those who believe in a personal God who also accept evolution.

The lady also did not claim that all who believe in evolution are atheists.

She did a good enough job of suggesting it. "I do believe in recognizing it for what it is, which is naturalistic (i.e. God free).".

[AndrewC]

Wow. What a stupid assessment.

If you are caught in the act of stealing from someone who is willing to use lethal force to protect their property, then you will die and thus not survive to reproduce.

[AndrewC]

Because I believe that the Theory of evolution is the most accurate theory out there of what actually occurred, that somehow makes me an atheist?

No. Because I believe you have stated elsewhere that you were. I repeat my question. Are you an atheist? If not, what is the name of your god?

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Boy, your god must be pretty limited then... My god on the other hand...

By definition, people don't possess God; the very nature of God requires the opposite, if anything. Recognizing such is prerequisite for meaningful conversation on the topic. Ignoring it inherently distorts the discussion.

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

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.

It's the Creationists' and ID'ers' strawman theories of evolution that creates the conflict between scripture and science. I still say it's because many of you use these concepts to raise funds.

And you were the one misapplying Thermodynamic concepts. From what I saw I don't think you understood RightWingProfessors' explanations.

[AndrewC]

And you were the one misapplying Thermodynamic concepts

Nope. As I said, a negative delta S means something, despite your protestations.