Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Part 01 of 16]

[Grant692]

I'm a Christian, but I also find the theory of evolution to be rather compelling. Admittedly, the fossil record is desperately lacking, but each new discovery further bolsters the theory. It can't fully account for the diversity of life, evolutions of similar features (ears, eyes, etc), and many, many other holes, but the evidence we have so far makes evolution almost undoubted.

[Drgamedood]

@Grant692 The fossil record isn't even the strongest evidence for evolution. It's more like the icing on the cake. There's genetics, Lenski's E coli experiment, Atavisms, homology, phylogeny, molecular evidence, etc.

[RUKEAL]

Fossilisation may be a rare occurence but with 4 billion years to play with the evidence that one 'species' changed over time into a new one is severely lacking!

All we find are fully formed species in the fossil record.

Evolution of one species into the other is a delusion!

[RUKEAL]

Evolutionists really believe that all life, over a period of 4 billion years, simply lay down and died in the perfect conditions for fossilization.

On top of this they believe in common ancestors for all life - even though the examples are not found in the fossil record.

Further to this, not even the slightest example of evolutionary change (from one species to another) has ever been recorded in the whole of human history!

Historically all we find are 'flood stories' not 'evolution stories'

[fdasherv]

@RUKEAL Actually, fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence. The "perfect conditions" required are many and upon discovery of those conditions, scientists tend to search in likely areas. Every single one of the thousands upon thousands of fossils found rewrite the history of evolution. They never negate the theory, they bolster it. Evolution has been vilified for 150 years, but it keeps getting stronger with more evidence. Even without the fossil record, genetics alone prove evolution.

[BigLundi]

Why is it whenever a debate like this comes up, it's usually religously sponsored?

[RUKEAL]

@BigLundi - Because main-stream science hold 'creationists' in ridicule - and would therefore, more often than not, find it beneath themselves to do so.

[BigLundi]

@RUKEAL Meh, well it's not like that's not without good reason I suppose.

[0mniaV1nc1t]

A) Evolution is a scientific theory.

B) All world-views are equally religious? Let's try that one. Rationalism is as religious as Christianity? Hmm... Secular Humanism is as religious as Fundamentalist Islam? This isn't even a logical fallacy - it's just horse-shit.

[0mniaV1nc1t]

Institute for Creation Research? Talk about a job where you have to make up work in order to look busy...

[5tonyvvvv]

GISH is a legend...We only see left handed amino acids when proteins are present..but proteins only form when u have LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS!!..Paradox....so how can life happen through a evolution process from simple chemicals and molecules, impossible.now science says crystals brought life here.thats not a testable science its a faith based assumption..all man can do is play with life and take pre existing information and rearranged it

[0mniaV1nc1t]

@5tonyvvvv There are some biological systems that actually make use of right-handed amino acids. Identical proteins can be formed using right-handed amino acids, they are just in the opposite configuration. Any process that produces amino acids actually tends to produce a racemate (a mixture of left and right handed optical isomers), but by chance the first biological systems made use of left-handed molecules. Proteins don't form amino acids. They are naturally occurring molecules.

[5tonyvvvv]

@0mniaV1nc1t yes I know but no one has separated them.. Homochirality has not been solved..they have new ridiculous assumptions like deep sea vents or panspermia .or the backs of crystals..or in ice or bubbles..or dirt..the list goes on and on..Stubborn atheist scientists just keep pushing the problem somewhere else..and call it good science...I say its anything to avoid INTELLIGENCE!!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@0mniaV1nc1t "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.

Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance..

[5tonyvvvv]

@0mniaV1nc1t You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes to make a cell..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.

[5tonyvvvv]

@0mniaV1nc1t

You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! .. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste !!!...LOL!..

[0mniaV1nc1t]

@5tonyvvvv You seem to have very little knowledge of abiogenesis, apart from parroting some nonsense from the likes of Michael Behe and William Dembski. If you educate yourself on the theory of abiogenesis, it really isn't so implausible.

[5tonyvvvv]

@0mniaV1nc1t No your a stubborn moron..everything is stated is the TRUTH..we dont see abiogenesis because its IMPOSSIBLE..!!!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@0mniaV1nc1t

You have Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed !!!

[1337rofflecopters]

@5tonyvvvv So you've never watched any videos on abiogenesis? Plus, you're willing to believe that a God can have no origin, but everything else requires a creator? very convenient. Wait..... this is too stupid. You're a poe. a fake christian trying to make christians look bad just like edwardcurrent or tamtampamela.

[adkinsjr]

It's Ironic how similar Gish looks to an ape. LOL, he has the long straight mouth with no lips, and he's ugly as hell. I think we'll call this species 'creanderthal.' Note that Gish also works for the instittue of creation (a.k.a. fairytale) research, which means he probably believes the world is 6,000 years old, that there was a global flood, and that dinosaurs lived with people, and may have even been on the 'ark'. I think that says something about his sanity.

[Gorteenminogue]

@adkinsjr It shouldn't come as a surprise. We are apes.

[FreindlyRanger]

I am sceptical as to whether Dr. Gish is wearing his own hair.

[0mniaV1nc1t]

@FreindlyRanger Hell of a toupee...

[beriukay]

I have no idea what molecules to man is supposed to mean.

You seem to have garbled my cemetery analogy. The odds of digging up the bones of a species that is an immediate ancestor are slim-to-none, just like digging up, say, Ruth Bedford d. 1895 in Iowa, she's probably not either of our great grandmothers.

Information comes from people. In our absence, it is just chemical and physical reactions. DNA is a fun one because it has the awesome-but-non-magical property of self-replication.

[0mniaV1nc1t]

@beriukay 'Molecules to man' is a creationist strawman that lumps the theory of abiogenesis together with the theory of evolution, in a way that implies that chemical interactions AND evolutionary processes are a matter of pure chance.

[RUKEAL]

@beriukay - Pity that - because the fossil evidence (all 4.2 billion years of it!) should be overwhelming.

[beriukay]

@RUKEAL Seriously!

[beriukay]

So then everything that has ever happened is untestable. So then this debate never happened, because 1988 was in the past, and is therefore untestable. Believing that this debate happened is equally religious as the Biblical creation myth.

[jamestomaszewski]

Howdy beriukay,

Your argument is null and void because you are viewing a historical event recorded on film media. The fact the the series of frames you watch bares witness that these events happened as you see them. The fossil record on the other hand bares record that the organism has died. If the bones do not match any current living organism one has to come to the conclusion that the organism is extinct, you must agree to that. Beyond that you have speculation and that is ok.

[beriukay]

Does it? I think the devil just put this file on YouTube to test my faith. So by your argument, Star Wars really DID happen, and the movies that Lucas published are a testament that those events happened! Nothing I said was speculation. It was farce.

The fossil remains are possibly, but not necessarily, members of an extinct species.

[jamestomaszewski]

Now we're getting to the nuts and bolts, you now have to define your statement :DID happen". Yes they actually filmed the show, they are actual people recorded on the film, and that is historical evidence that those series of events actually happened. Now was the story fictional or documentary is another argument.

We have a bunch of fossil bones on the table, there are 2 ways to interpret the data. Evolutionary Ancestors OR Extinct animal remains. Science Fiction or Fact.

[beriukay]

Agreed, to the first bit. Though you might have difficulty showing that Gish was implying all these nuances to his broad sweeping statement.

As for the fossils, it is not likely that any given set of bones comes from your direct ancestor. It would be similar to digging up the bones of some random person in some random cemetery and saying you are their direct descendant.

Also, you seem to ignore other possibilities, like it is both an ancestor and extinct.

[jamestomaszewski]

A bit confused by your last comment.

Any random bones other than human Bones dug up couldnt possibly be my ancestor - molecules to man or ape to man theory wise, but as to human bones then there would be. Immediate family perhaps not, species wise yes.

I assume you believe molecules to man ? Please tell me where information comes from ? DNA is information (and some scientists believe digital code) embedded in analogue protein...

[wauft]

it is demonstrable, we have video evidence

[Wwallace67]

Thanks for putting this important debate in the creation/evolution controversy up on youtube!