Creation versus evolution debate

May 14, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 270

On Saturday May 12, the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, Calif. held a debate featuring Creation vs.

Full Story
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#1 May 18, 2012
While many have issues with debates like this, usually in how it can lend credence to Creationism where no credence should be given. I think the key to educating the public on science and evolution in particular are debates such as these.

Ignoring Creationists certainly hasn't made them go away. We need to address the issues in public forums. We all know that we are never going to convince a hard-core Creationist, but what about the people who aren't hard-core yet? Ignoring the situation because it might be seem as to give an unearned level of legitimacy will only help harden Creationists, especially if the only way they can hear a countervailing opinion is by taking a biology class -- and how many are going to be willing to do that?

Scientists should sharpen up their debating skills and engage more! Address their comments head-on, show the audience that science has actual evidence on it's side. You don't even have to address the religious issues, just address the claims. Show why the world isn't 6000 years old, why is evolution on of the most strongly supported theories in science, why the three stooges ...oops, sorry wrong post!

But you get my drift?

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#2 May 18, 2012
Ted, I get your drift but disagree. The problem with addressing the issues is that it takes much to long to explain a lot of the main topics regarding certain scientific theories to a layperson without a basic understanding. Scientists end up with only a quick rundown of some basic facts but not a detailed description of how they put together the entire puzzle. For example, how do you explain the age of the earth to someone with little to no knowledge of plate tectonics, dating methods, ice core samples etc.? Debates aren't built for full explanations of these phenomenon because of time and interest factors but instead are based on trying to win the audience over with "wow" factors. Remember the Gish Gallop?

If a scientist could get a debate together that focused specifically on one issue you might have a better shot on at least placing the listener on the right path, but afaik creationists tend to avoid these knowing they'd get trounced due to lack of evidence on their part.
LowellGuy

United States

#3 May 19, 2012
My main beef is format. The creationists usually go first, so they carpetbomb with bullshit, so the opponent has to clear debris before their points can be taken in the correct context. I would recommend such debates reverse the traditional order, so we can lay down basic premises of logical argument and science without having to clean up the crap the other guy leaves in his wake.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#4 May 20, 2012
llDayo wrote:
Ted, I get your drift but disagree. The problem with addressing the issues is that it takes much to long to explain a lot of the main topics regarding certain scientific theories to a layperson without a basic understanding. Scientists end up with only a quick rundown of some basic facts but not a detailed description of how they put together the entire puzzle. For example, how do you explain the age of the earth to someone with little to no knowledge of plate tectonics, dating methods, ice core samples etc.? Debates aren't built for full explanations of these phenomenon because of time and interest factors but instead are based on trying to win the audience over with "wow" factors. Remember the Gish Gallop?
If a scientist could get a debate together that focused specifically on one issue you might have a better shot on at least placing the listener on the right path, but afaik creationists tend to avoid these knowing they'd get trounced due to lack of evidence on their part.
I think you have several valid points, but I still think scientists need to try harder. Yes, a basic understanding would help, but where does that framework come from? Primary and Secondary school education. Guess what's under attack? Without scientists being engaged, the attacks will continue and one of the reasons is because scientists aren't as involved as they should have.

As for Creationists getting trounced, I agree! And if scientists were more engaged in the debate, and more willing to debate creationists, rather than creationists using their unwillingness as a support point, scientists would gain that side of the debate. You're right, many would never show up or accept an invitation. Which is a victory in itself!

Scientists who are willing to get engaged certainly add weight to the science side of the equation. Did you read about Tejon California attempting a 'Philosophy' class that really turned into a class on Creationism, ID, and Noah's flood. It took a student's parent, a rocket scientist, who uncovered it and protested. The class was stopped in spite of all the underhanded tactics used by the proponents. That's the type of involvement we need on a regular basis!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#5 May 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
My main beef is format. The creationists usually go first, so they carpetbomb with bullshit, so the opponent has to clear debris before their points can be taken in the correct context. I would recommend such debates reverse the traditional order, so we can lay down basic premises of logical argument and science without having to clean up the crap the other guy leaves in his wake.
I say let them go first, as long as our side gets to go last. I love it when the creationists specific points are dismantled one at a time! Let them climb up on their ladders while we cut the legs out from under them!

The worse thing I see is when a Creationist is also the one presenting the science arguments. Talk about a stacked deck! We can't allow them that have the first word, and the last word, and many times every word in the debate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 May 20, 2012
The problem is that creationists can spew BS at a very high rate of speed. It can take five minutes to debunk a claim that takes less than 30 seconds to make. To be fair there has to be a method to limit that tactic. Perhaps if a claim is shown to be fallacious then the time used should be counted against the person who made the fallacious claim.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#7 May 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
My main beef is format. The creationists usually go first, so they carpetbomb with bullshit, so the opponent has to clear debris before their points can be taken in the correct context. I would recommend such debates reverse the traditional order, so we can lay down basic premises of logical argument and science without having to clean up the crap the other guy leaves in his wake.
Exactly... "Carpet bombing" indeed! It may take hours to present the facts to refute 5 minutes of idiocy.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#8 May 20, 2012
I believe the OP is looking at this completely from a one-track perspective. Creationists can also rightfully argue, why does evolutionists defend the theory so zealously? Is it because people are so desperate to get the Creator out of the picture? The fore-runners of evolution did not know the facts because of limited technology. Ernst Haeckel is credited for making Darwinism popular. After studying evolution, he concluded that it was possible because the cell structure was as simple as a ping-pong ball - nothing more that a blob of microscopic jelly. In sincere ignorance he then embraced this theory and took off with it. Modern technology such as the electron microscope, X-ray crystallography, nDNA/mDNA sequencing, phylogenomics and NMR technology have shown amazing complexity that was unknown when evolution was born. People don't like to let go of beliefs so even though evolution was founded upon mis-information, people continue to build upon it. The problem now is that as technology and science increase, more and more information has to be ignored for the evolutionary paradigm to hold up. Evolution only sounds credible because evolution advocates toss out any evidence that does not support their predetermined outcome. Evolution as a belief system only survives because people take everything at face value and refuse to look outside of evolutionary science. Anything that proves to contradict evolution is labeled as religious and is therefore cast aside.
Maccoat

Erie, PA

#9 May 20, 2012
Don't worry, the first amendment bans the teaching of creationism in schools.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#10 May 20, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
I believe the OP is looking at this completely from a one-track perspective. Creationists can also rightfully argue, why does evolutionists defend the theory so zealously? Is it because people are so desperate to get the Creator out of the picture? The fore-runners of evolution did not know the facts because of limited technology. Ernst Haeckel is credited for making Darwinism popular. After studying evolution, he concluded that it was possible because the cell structure was as simple as a ping-pong ball - nothing more that a blob of microscopic jelly. In sincere ignorance he then embraced this theory and took off with it. Modern technology such as the electron microscope, X-ray crystallography, nDNA/mDNA sequencing, phylogenomics and NMR technology have shown amazing complexity that was unknown when evolution was born. People don't like to let go of beliefs so even though evolution was founded upon mis-information, people continue to build upon it. The problem now is that as technology and science increase, more and more information has to be ignored for the evolutionary paradigm to hold up. Evolution only sounds credible because evolution advocates toss out any evidence that does not support their predetermined outcome. Evolution as a belief system only survives because people take everything at face value and refuse to look outside of evolutionary science. Anything that proves to contradict evolution is labeled as religious and is therefore cast aside.
All you are doing is showing off your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory matches the evidence, which is a claim Creationists cannot make. OK, well they make the claim, but they never seem to be able to back it up.

Please, learn what evolution really is before you comment here again. Like other science disciplines, no belief is necessary because it works. Claim there is no gravity and you don't go floating away from the planet. Gravity works whether you believe or not ... the same with Evolution. It's actually a pretty simple concept.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#11 May 20, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
All you are doing is showing off your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory matches the evidence, which is a claim Creationists cannot make. OK, well they make the claim, but they never seem to be able to back it up.
Please, learn what evolution really is before you comment here again. Like other science disciplines, no belief is necessary because it works. Claim there is no gravity and you don't go floating away from the planet. Gravity works whether you believe or not ... the same with Evolution. It's actually a pretty simple concept.
Interesting response, you and I haven't even debated anything before you jumped to the conclusion that you have a much greater understanding of evolution than I do. Before we get into this further I'm curious to know something. Which of these Evolutionary models do you support and please explain why do you support that one over the other 3.

A) Multi-regionalism Model.

B) Out of African Model.

C) African hybridization-and-replacement Model.

D) Assimilation (or partial-replacement)Model.
Bollocks

London, UK

#12 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting response, you and I haven't even debated anything before you jumped to the conclusion that you have a much greater understanding of evolution than I do. Before we get into this further I'm curious to know something. Which of these Evolutionary models do you support and please explain why do you support that one over the other 3.

A) Multi-regionalism Model.

B) Out of African Model.

C) African hybridization-and-replacement Model.

D) Assimilation (or partial-replacement)Model.
They all sound sensible when compared to the creationist story, Adam & eve pfft
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#13 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
I believe the OP is looking at this completely from a one-track perspective. Creationists can also rightfully argue, why does evolutionists defend the theory so zealously? Is it because people are so desperate to get the Creator out of the picture?
Highly unlikely, as nothing in science makes any theological claims. This includes evolution. And in fact there are theists who accept evolution.
The Nerd wrote:
The fore-runners of evolution did not know the facts because of limited technology. Ernst Haeckel is credited for making Darwinism popular. After studying evolution, he concluded that it was possible because the cell structure was as simple as a ping-pong ball - nothing more that a blob of microscopic jelly. In sincere ignorance he then embraced this theory and took off with it. Modern technology such as the electron microscope, X-ray crystallography, nDNA/mDNA sequencing, phylogenomics and NMR technology have shown amazing complexity that was unknown when evolution was born. People don't like to let go of beliefs so even though evolution was founded upon mis-information, people continue to build upon it. The problem now is that as technology and science increase, more and more information has to be ignored for the evolutionary paradigm to hold up. Evolution only sounds credible because evolution advocates toss out any evidence that does not support their predetermined outcome. Evolution as a belief system only survives because people take everything at face value and refuse to look outside of evolutionary science. Anything that proves to contradict evolution is labeled as religious and is therefore cast aside.
Then what evidence do you have that falsifies evolution and what scientific alternative do you propose?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#14 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting response, you and I haven't even debated anything before you jumped to the conclusion that you have a much greater understanding of evolution than I do. Before we get into this further I'm curious to know something. Which of these Evolutionary models do you support and please explain why do you support that one over the other 3.
A) Multi-regionalism Model.
B) Out of African Model.
C) African hybridization-and-replacement Model.
D) Assimilation (or partial-replacement)Model.
What does it matter when you apparently reject evolution anyway? Are you aware that scientific debates over the specifics of a theory are different than a debate over the validity of one theory compared to another competing theory?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
amazing complexity
BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! There's that word again, "complexity!" Wonder what that means?

Whaddya think guys, another KAB in the making?

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#16 May 21, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
Scientists who are willing to get engaged certainly add weight to the science side of the equation. Did you read about Tejon California attempting a 'Philosophy' class that really turned into a class on Creationism, ID, and Noah's flood. It took a student's parent, a rocket scientist, who uncovered it and protested. The class was stopped in spite of all the underhanded tactics used by the proponents. That's the type of involvement we need on a regular basis!
Which leads to another issue of scientists having to set aside doing scientific research and testing to combat ignorance. That may be a large reason why they aren't so active.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#17 May 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Highly unlikely, as nothing in science makes any theological claims. This includes evolution. And in fact there are theists who accept evolution.
So you're saying there are no scientists currently in the field that are in fact atheists?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what evidence do you have that falsifies evolution and what scientific alternative do you propose?
Evolution cannot be falsified because it's a real phenomenon that we see transpiring in nature. However, the evolutionary paradigm model that you cater to is not something we see transpiring in nature and it IS unscientific.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What does it matter when you apparently reject evolution anyway?
Which part of my previous comments states that I reject evolution?

Level 2

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#18 May 21, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Whaddya think guys, another KAB in the making?
After seeing this, I had to look this person up. Viewing some of his/her comments I'll have to conclude that we do not share the same beliefs.
Bollocks

Hull, UK

#19 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>After seeing this, I had to look this person up. Viewing some of his/her comments I'll have to conclude that we do not share the same beliefs.
Nerdy person, are you a believer in the great sky fairy? And one who believes everything in the Bible book of the Harry potter series mate. Is the earth 6000 yrs old & was T Rex on Noahs ark? You seriously can't believe that? Not in your heart of hearts surely?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 May 21, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying there are no scientists currently in the field that are in fact atheists?
There are both theists and atheists. However their theological opinions are irrelevant to the validity of scientific concepts.
The Nerd wrote:
Evolution cannot be falsified because it's a real phenomenon that we see transpiring in nature. However, the evolutionary paradigm model that you cater to is not something we see transpiring in nature and it IS unscientific.
And how is that exactly?
The Nerd wrote:
Which part of my previous comments states that I reject evolution?
Well the above, for one. Perhaps you could clarify.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 min Chimney1 696
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min DanFromSmithville 134,026
How would creationists explain... 5 hr Dogen 435
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web