Jump to content

Evolution vs Creation Debate


Recommended Posts

In this very good debate, a well educated evolutionist teacher debates a very bright creationist.It's a little slow as the first 15 minutes or so starts with the evolutionist attacking the creationists educational background, but after the creationist begins to speak it gets very good.This is a long video, almost 2 hours long and like I said it's a little boring at first, but it is worth the watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest darkdan

I haven't even started the argument. I'll do that tomorrow after I see the video.

Just pointing out one more Evangelist going to jail over tax stuff. Seems to be a reoccurring thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ace123

Creationism is a theory based on mans desperation for a governing factor in their world. Our world is based on limitations for everything, and because of those limitations we feel the need to be governed in every aspect of our existence. For example, communication is based on simple audible signals conveyed with vibrating wave patterns carried threw the air picked up by a thin membrane that tranfers the wave patterns to a signal transmitted to the brain. Thats the reality of it. Despite its simplicity, we feel the need to create "four" letter words that exist simply to not be said.

The same applies to mans existence in the universe. We cannot just exist without asking "why do we exist" We then apply a governing factor "god" in an attempt to vailidate our existance and explain our creation. In desperation, as technology starts to explain our world and infringe on the religious view of creationism, we begin to fabricate evidence and vaguely argue other scientific theories based on real world math and evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkdan

Nice to see she addresses how the strata are radiometric dated now (someone I discussed the last video of this guy you posted).

I can see why she attacks his credentials. I mean he has a "PhD" from a HOUSE on philosophy. I mean I thought the college I went to is a joke, but a house?

The poles shifting. She must not have understood the question. No, you cannot go to the ocean floor and put a compass and have it point south. What it does show is that magnetic particles in the rocks settled facing north, then south, then north, then south in pretty even stripped formation. That shows that the magnetic poles flip flopped every so often.

That was awesome when he said he didn't want his tax dollars being used to pay for stuff. Now he's in jail for tax evasion. LOL. I'm sure plenty of people don't like the idea of their tax dollars going to bus private school kids to and from school, but I don't see them putting up videos on the internet. I'm sure there's people out there that don't care about the fact churches aren't taxed. Besides, the appeal to "your taxes" is just an old way of getting people emotionally involved in the cause. Anytime someone mentions taxes it gets people perked up and ready!

The eye. The eye always comes into play. Now the eye is backwards from what you think. Imagine your camera being plugged into the TV. The TV is the brain, the cord is the optic nerve/blood vessels and the lens of the camera is the photocell (catches the light). You'd think that the camera would face the light right? Nope! In our eyes the cord faces out. The light has to pass through the cord and the back of the camera to get to the lens (photocell). Hovind says it's this way to protect it from UV light. Well our eye lens absorbs the UVA light and NOT the blood vessels ( http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/...unettes-eng.php ). Plus, there are other creatures out there that have correctly wired eyes.

He says natural selection can't make anything new. It can. Errors in DNA replicating can duplicate a section of DNA. Now there's some extra DNA there and that can mutate. Thus all the old information and now new information.

Thinking of DNA, they barely touched on it. All they really mentioned was number of chromosomes. Thanks to DNA we can more accurately see things with common ancestors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see she addresses how the strata are radiometric dated now (someone I discussed the last video of this guy you posted).

You mean that dating technique that said shells from modern living creatures was 50K years old, the technique that dated different parts on one animal to be vastly different in age? :lol2

I can see why she attacks his credentials. I mean he has a "PhD" from a HOUSE on philosophy. I mean I thought the college I went to is a joke, but a house?

If you don't like the message then attack the messenger. Pretty common for Christians to have to go through that and it's a specious argument anyway. Hovind clearly won the debate, it doesn't matter where he went to school, or even IF he went to school.

The poles shifting. She must not have understood the question. No, you cannot go to the ocean floor and put a compass and have it point south. What it does show is that magnetic particles in the rocks settled facing north, then south, then north, then south in pretty even stripped formation. That shows that the magnetic poles flip flopped every so often.

I have no doubt that the poles shift and the continents drift, but I believe it happened very quickly geologically speaking. After the flood the "earth was divided" according to the bible, in the days of "Peleg".

That was awesome when he said he didn't want his tax dollars being used to pay for stuff. Now he's in jail for tax evasion. LOL. I'm sure plenty of people don't like the idea of their tax dollars going to bus private school kids to and from school, but I don't see them putting up videos on the internet. I'm sure there's people out there that don't care about the fact churches aren't taxed. Besides, the appeal to "your taxes" is just an old way of getting people emotionally involved in the cause. Anytime someone mentions taxes it gets people perked up and ready!

I don't recall taxes being mentioned in the debate, but since you bring it up, who hasn't broken some tax law? Last time I checked the tax law in this country would fill a small library. Hovind had a lot of enemies, it would be no shock to me that they went after him because of the waves he's making.

The eye. The eye always comes into play. Now the eye is backwards from what you think. Imagine your camera being plugged into the TV. The TV is the brain, the cord is the optic nerve/blood vessels and the lens of the camera is the photocell (catches the light). You'd think that the camera would face the light right? Nope! In our eyes the cord faces out. The light has to pass through the cord and the back of the camera to get to the lens (photocell). Hovind says it's this way to protect it from UV light. Well our eye lens absorbs the UVA light and NOT the blood vessels ( http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/...unettes-eng.php ). Plus, there are other creatures out there that have correctly wired eyes.

Hmmm, that's strange, I can see pretty well, I can't complain to God about any faulty vision. :beer

He says natural selection can't make anything new. It can.

He's not talking about variations from breeding (or natural selection as it's called) such as the variety you can create in dogs and finches. That information is already there, nothing has been added.

Errors in DNA replicating can duplicate a section of DNA. Now there's some extra DNA there and that can mutate. Thus all the old information and now new information.

Errors? I thought information was added by natural selection, now it's errors? I'm pretty sure there is no way to add information to DNA by error, or some charged particle making a beneficial mutation, mutations are always destructive.

Thinking of DNA, they barely touched on it. All they really mentioned was number of chromosomes. Thanks to DNA we can more accurately see things with common ancestors.

That commonality would be they had the same designer. :lol2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkdan

Carbon-14 dating has ranges. We know that it can't date past 50k to 60k years. Why would it accurate date something that is still alive? That's like trying to measure a sprinter's speed using only the hour hand on a watch. Once again, pseudoscience. As far as dating different parts of the same animal, I can see that happening. After all if the carbon-14 weren't evenly distributed.

He mentioned taxes several times, "I don't want my taxes dollars being used to teach this in schools." A great way to get people to empathize with him.

Compared to many other animals you can't see well.

Yes, they are errors in replication. Natural selection doesn't pick how it wants to mutate. A mutation happens and if it's beneficial to the animals survival it obviously would pass those genes onto the next generation. If it wasn't helpful then chances are the animal doesn't survive.

Errors? I thought information was added by natural selection, now it's errors? I'm pretty sure there is no way to add information to DNA by error, or some charged particle making a beneficial mutation, mutations are always destructive.

This shows you do not have a clear understanding of the theory of natural selection and the role DNA plays in it. Change in DNA leads to change in animal, leads to the selection process, leads to the continuation of discontinuation of that new DNA. It doesn't go natural selection makes a change in the DNA.

One reason that it's hard for humans to understand the universe in general (including evolution) is our brains handle short amounts of time (relative to the age of the universe) and 3 dimensions. It's hard to think of how LONG a billion years is. It's hard to imagine what can happen in 3 billion years.

Plenty of time for new species to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh believe me I have a very clear understanding of natural selection.

I'm saying your theory of macro evolution (not natural selection) relies on trillions of beneficial, externally caused mutations.

The complexity of even the most basic parts of living creatures demands that the structures within them need to be fully formed to be functional, and could not have come about incrementally and on accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkdan
I'm saying your theory of macro evolution (not natural selection) relies on trillions of beneficial, externally caused mutations.

Yup, and billions of years gives enough time for that to happen.

The complexity of even the most basic parts of living creatures demands that the structures within them need to be fully formed to be functional, and could not have come about incrementally and on accident.

What's your example and evidence of something that isn't formed and not fully functional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...