Creationism VS Evolution Debate @ Christ Church in Yukon, OK Part 8

[RJL738]

There is intepretation but I hope he is not saying that we should have some intetional biase. Evidence does matter and he should not act like the only difference between the two theories is interpretation. I love how she breaks into stories but one option is to print 3 dimentional organs. A person can learn so much more from these debates. Science has so much potential in so many weird areas.

[RJL738]

Creationism is not an artbitrary injections of saying God did it because we don't know exactly what happened. It's important to realise that creationists don't want to believe what they believe for the sake of it, why would you otherwise so thoroughly defende an idea that is hard to accept in today's world. However true or not true this is not something just made up above all else people need to remember this.

[RJL738]

Actually even though evolutionists in a sesne say that common ancestry actually means that all the decendants are in some way the same creature they don't say directly that worms turned into eagles. I'm not even sure the lamen designations of ancesters in this theory are corrent but in any case this is more how it would have happened. It is annoying how he acts like this is a casual theory and not a well thought out explaination true or not.

[david84two]

if i told you that Bill Gates got all of the information for his software by random chance , that there was no intelligent design to any of his software you would call me a lier . But you are willing to except that the most complex coed ever developed came about by random chance , a error detecting self replicating code like DNA was just random chance ? where did the original information come from ?

[Futureplanet]

how can you explain evolution to morons in 1 hour?

Answer: You can't

Especially if they are determined to not listen, and assume it's some scientific conspiracy.

The lunacy is infuriating.

[RyuHadokenMaster]

This creationist is deliberately attempting to deceive the audience with misconceptions of evolution "worms turn into bald eagles", "monkey people", "every evolutionist believes in spontaneous generation" he is inches away from out-right lying!

[RyuHadokenMaster]

This creationist is deliberately attempting to deceive the audience with misconceptions of evolution "worms turn into bald eagles", "monkey people", he is not being honest here.

[pumpstations]

Worms turn into bald eagles? Does this man have shite for brains? Proof may not be evidence but lack of even evidence what is that? Can anyone name someone that wrote in the bible that even saw Jesus with his own eye? Now that is lack of even evidence. Yes, lets trust him with no good reason. I can think of some other times in history we trusted our religious leaders. Let's visit the good old days. Wow, he cant even see it. "The filter is strong with this one" - Yoda

[LukeNewb]

@pumpstations The 4 gospels, Matt-John are all first hand accounts.

[pumpstations]

@LukeNewb Well you caught me. Good job!

Now, in the interest of saving space or just shear forgetfulness, I did leave out the most important part. PROOF. IT is so obvious to be needed with a reply, I may have just overlooked in a quick comment. You can start by proving Jesus actually existed, To even be seen. Upon receiving your noble prize and who knows what other honors, I will grant you the Matt - John thing. It should be easier to find proof of one god/man than four regulars

[benthemiester]

If apes are supposed to be so closely related to us, then why would any Darwinist object to his daughter bring home an ape as a mate? Humans differ to other humans genetically by no more than two percent, and many would have you believe that humans and apes differ by the same two percent. So if your a Darwinist, whats the freaken problem?

[JackWisps]

@benthemiester

no, human genome variation is 0.1 to 0.5%

Regardless, what you're saying is foolish and you know it. Appeal to ridicule. Look it up.

We're different species, species are (in general) attracted to their own species. As a social creature with culture, societies, etc we frown upon such intermingling for more than just "they're fuzzy". Combine those and no assent being capable, and you get no ape son-in-law. Sorry.

On a side note, some people do 'mate' with bananas... how odd! o.o

[benthemiester]

@JackWisps If your speaking of single nucleotide polymorphism, then your correct, however there are other ways to account for variation. In fact, if you include other factors that are sometimes left out in genome comparison, the differential between humans and chimps can be as low as 70%. Sorry but I'm not going to touch on the banana hypothesis.

[JackWisps]

@benthemiester

I do know the numbers change quite a bit depending on how much code you're looking at. If I'd had more characters available, I'd have mentioned it in my other post. However, based on the numbers you gave originally, mine were right. You can't use one focus for one point, and then switch the focus for the next just so the % mentioned change. They are %s of different areas, so comparison is foolish.

Banana mate's a joke from the 50% in common we have with them :p

but not w/ apes!

[lizazoon]

Creation should be taught the way it happened. God made a man in mud, blew his faul breath(no toothpaste yet) over it, and it came alive and upright. No problem. One question remains, did Adam have a penis, because Eve was created only because Adam complained of lonelines. Suppose god had given Adam a computer, and had never been lonely, what would have happened ?

[atysays]

The only difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is time scale.

If we're walking one step at a time, we're going to walk a mile.

[xnothingbutthetruth]

Could we at least get someone to argue against him above the age of 19. I agree, she's a smart girl.. but really now.

[noproofforjesus]

other funny point he thinks we could all come off Noah ark fact is there is not enough genetic diversity for 2 animals to interbreed over and over again with out the species dying out from mutations in inbreeding over thousands of years. the cheetah is having this problem. their low genetic diversity. because of there low diversity you can transplant any cheetah skin graph from any cheetah and it will take. i think donexodus or cdk has a vid on this.

[noproofforjesus]

wow did you see him say we found red blood cells in a T rex this is untrue if you go to talk origins they show all the real findings of a soft collagen tissue like that of a bird. their was no DNA that could be recovered he is out and out lying and he knows it.

[williamguycoov]

Mary Schweitzer fond the leg of a t rex containing red blood cells. The t rex was found in Montana i think? Dr Jackson is not lying. It was in Science Magazine! And other others as well. Not just the "intelligent design" scientists.

[noproofforjesus]

no they found something that looked like a red blood cell but it turn out it was not a red blood cell or we would have dino dna, sorry you have look this stuff up on the web you will find out the real story. you will notice he says "looks like" he never says it is. lets remember he is a high school level science teacher nothing more yet he speaks on anthropology, global rock formation. basically he acts like he is a master of all when he has studied none of this. there is a reason we have

[williamguycoov]

"they" the ones who fond the leg? Well They say it contains red blood cells. I have looked it up. And Dr Jackson has 2 or 3 masters and a doctorate in science education. And on top of that he is a lifetime member of Mensa. You really think he is nothing more then a high school level teacher? And you think he isn't credible? His doctorate and his at least 2 masters, oh and Mensa say otherwise.

[noproofforjesus]

he is not the one that found the bone and if you look up the lady that is credited with the find she and her colleges said its not blood sorry i don't give a shit if he has 10 master degrees if he is not in the field of study and goes against the people who found the bone study the bone and say its not blood he is wrong. do you think the scientist would lie about this dino dna would be a huge find but its not they haven't and your wrong sorry . check the ladies work she said its not blood!

[noproofforjesus]

so which is it 2 or 3 there is a difference and what are they in are the masters of history or literature or science? the fact is he is only a high school science teach these are the facts. if a physicist starts acting like he is a smarter then scientist in other fields of study like paleontology. then calling them wrong he would not be credible, because its not his field of study. sorry you don't know how science works. on top of this he must have per reviewed work proving his point.

[noproofforjesus]

this is how science works not quote mining others peoples research just picking bits and piece to make him self look like these people agree with him when thy do not. per review baby that's how science works. evolution is proven by at least 3 different parts of science. look it up.

[gotnatas]

@williamguycoov

It doesnt matter how many degrees he has or if hes Mr Mensa him self. If hes a deluded person trying to undermine the scientific community and the rest of the world for his own personal credulous then yea hes full of it and should be silenced.

[noproofforjesus]

why we have tons of branches of science each specializing in each area because no one person can really have all the info on all subject. so he quote mines and none of the scientist he quotes from would agree with any of his conclusions. you will notice the girl sticks to her field of expertise. this is why she is credible, and she works in here field of science in research we call these people "scientists" not just some one reading study's and is picking things they like.

[williamguycoov]

whether or not Dr Mary claims to have found Red blood cells? Like you said i'll have to look it up again. I was under the impression that she had. Whether she did or not, I know there is at least proof of soft tissue. How could that be after 68 million years? My point is that Dr Jackson is not a lier. And he is credible. You may no like his conclusions. That doesn't make him wrong.

[williamguycoov]

In the debate, Dr jackson disagrees with the youg ladys interpretation of evidence. Not whether or not she is credible. You see my point?

[noproofforjesus]

yes he does, and the rest of the scientific community also disagrees with him. the scientists he quotes disagree with all his conclusions as well, as they are not based on real research just manipulation of other peoples research. do you get my point. by the way do you understand that for the flood to be true we should find all fossils jumbled up. people with dinosaurs do we find this no we don't we find what science predicts in each layer.

[noproofforjesus]

predictability is one of the main methods of the scientific method if we can predict things with a high degree of probability then they are considered fact. for instance, we know that if you jump up you will come down do to gravity this is how the theory works. i will send you some vids so you understand this point.

[noproofforjesus]

if you really want to read all the real research go to google and type in talk origins dinosaur blood and you can read all info on the subject. it is much to long to go over here. until then i will just assume you are not doing a search for the information from the scientist that worked on the bone. there are to lengthy papers there on the subject and links to all research from the scientists. do your research man.

[ScholarlyGentleman81]

@williamguycoov He is ABSOLUTELY wrong... in both his conclusion and his "evidence".. He states blatant wrongs over and over. Evolution DOES NOT state that earth worms evolved into eagles.. this is nonsense. He is obviously a young earth creationist.. I would love to debate him. Stating that it depends on the way the evidence is interpreted is nonsense as well.. the evidence is the evidence. Species evolve.. there is no distinction in science between macro and micro.. none. Micro IS macro

[VincitOmniaVerit]

whenever I am going to hear a creationist argument I drink beforehand. This is because their arguments are so stupid that I feel that I have to lower my intelligence to their level to be able to comprehend them. If I don't drink then I feel they are speaking a foreign language or gibberish. Well its time for me to drink my coronas and tequila...

[xnothingbutthetruth]

Whenever I read a comment from those who buy evolution... I wait and wait for them to say something relevant to the argument rather than ad hominem attacks.. yet it never happens.

[quinn2469]

1:54 "And then you speak the assumptions as if they're a given..."

Wow!!!! Sounds like he's talking about every metaphysical argument for the existence of god! TAG, Cosmological, Teleological, Fine Tuning, etc, all start by assuming the existence of god- albeit the assumption is very well disguised.

Facepalms anyone?

[scarletwebslingr]

Abbie Smith looks and sounds a lot like Natalie Portman. Adorable!

[cr9527]

this is the problem with debates, its too limiting.

[phoenixshade3]

At 3:20, when Jackson says "the exact same evidence" that leads to the theory of evolution also leads to creation, he proves why creationism isn't science.

See, the theory of evolution PREDICTED its own evidence before it was found. The human chromosome 2 fusion event, for instance, was predicted over 20 years before it was observationally confirmed.

(more)

[phoenixshade3]

(con'd)

Similarly, when ERVs were first discovered, evolution PREDICTED the pattern of identical insertions in related species, BEFORE this pattern had been observed.

Creationism, on the other hand, did not predict ANY of these facts in advance, and in fact they are CONTRARY to what creationists said in the 70s and before.

Evolution by its mechanisms makes predictions. Creationism makes NO objective predictions whatsoever... instead they try to CLAIM evolutionary predictions as their own.

[timeisathand]

Oo whats that they changed it again............

[mikewilliamsda1st]

spontaneous generation is NOT what evolutionist believe anymore. it was proven to be false and hasn't been believed ever since. the doctor said that EVERY evolutionist has to believe that at one time and he's wrong. Chemical Evolution, on the other hand, should've been his choice statement. chemical evolution is the presents of simple chemicals, present in the pre-life environment, becoming simple molecules. from simple molecules, becoming complex molecules (nucleic acids, amino acids, etc.)

[xnothingbutthetruth]

...Which is spontaneous generation - simply by a new name.

semantics. If life happened (and it clearly did) it either happened by happenstance or by creation. If it was by happenstance - that is 'spontaneous generation'.

[mikewilliamsda1st]

I don't believe so, my friend. chemical evolution is explained by the essential molecules' natural tendencies to act and react to their environment. something that's backed up by modern simple chemistry. Spontaneous generation is different because that was considered the answer to where life originated from with NO processes as how it occured.

[tehinfidel]

Jackson gave a lucid explanation of selection and overall evolutionary processes earlier, but now jumps to the "worms -> bald eagle" soundbite. It really seems that he actually understands evolution, but is honing his tactical maneuvers for later financial gain in the Craig/Gish/Comfort/etc style.

Financially bilking godbots is ethically dubious (but hilarious), but the intellectual dishonesty of doing so, combined with the knock-on effect to future education really shows his moral character.

[inf0dump]

Worms, or worm-like creatures probably do have their place as very distant ancestors of birds (and all chordates, as I understand it). But the way Jackson phrased it made it sound like evolutionists believe bald eagles suddenly emerged from a line of worms. And he knew exactly how he was making it sound.

Through this whole thing I'm struck by how often Jackson purposely misrepresents the science.

Ironically, it's the creationists who believe bald eagles appeared suddenly; not evolutionists.

[Chiefley]

inf0dump, You are exactly right.about that. A scienfitic theory is judged by how well it explains the evidence and how accurately it predicts the results of experiments in its area of application. Jackson is deliberate in his misleading the audience. The fact that theories are judged by their documented usefulness is not something he wants people to understand.

[peehead99]

We do know macroevolution happened, we have directly observed in dozens and dozens of times.

[inf0dump]

He keeps saying "evidence isn't proof". At one point he also says that in science we look for proof, not evidence. I'm afraid he's simply wrong about that.

The only scientific disciplines that would even use the word "proof" are mathematics and formal logic. The rest of the time, the best we can do is support a theory with a body of evidence, or reject / revise it if contrary evidence compels us.

Jackson is misrepresenting the scientific method in order to undermine the evidence for evolution.