Creationism VS Evolution Debate @ Christ Church in Yukon, OK Part 3

[RJL738]

Yes Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution overlap a bit but they are almost entirely mutually exclusive. I don't claim all these virus's are fuctional, they don't have to be although at one time they might have been but a large chunk of them are so it is not always a matter of functionality. They may find an exotic component that is different from even virus or that type of concept.

[RJL738]

A weird rule of thumb to remember is most likely when someone who suscribes to the theory of evolution says there is an extra structure or concept that exists somewhere, it most likely is true but has a different use. There are emegent properties due to the complexity of life but that stuff is there. As far as Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design encounpasses Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and just the smallest botton fraction of Theistic Evolution.

[RJL738]

If ERVs are viral and viruses are at the edge of life, sometimes effecting life then it is possible that they are algorithmised cellular satellites or once were in a different environement making them able to translate back and forth throughout the body in a network of some kind. I believe ERVs exist in fact there may be secondary, teriary, quaternary and so on satellites of ERVs that functionally mesh through the genome for better or for worse.

[RJL738]

ERVs are actually good evidence even though I have some doubts but one explaiantion could be that algorithms in certain needed places along an animal's genome merit for them to be there, I won't say it's common designer but it's possible that they are peripheral recursive leverage points for DNA to maintain it's self. The same designer argumant while although partially true is not a good argumant to use.

[billynunns]

From the Bible belt and I'm pretty sure that I'm not dumb or illiterate. People are misinformed about certain facts about where people are from.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

hey don't bother trying to change my world view, god told me the answer to everything and evolution is most definitely false. God told me, i believe it, that settles it...

[pumpstations]

- - EVO - UT - ON - - Well, there is just too many "HOLES" it must be creation. Forget, inter planetary seeding, aliens, a different religion's story, etc., etc. Now lets finally close the labs and facility's to these infidels & Heretic's. They have only brought us: the cure for small pox, plague, and space travel, internet, cars, indoor plumbing, sanitary drinking water, comfortable clothing from synthetic fibers, eyeglasses. Among other things.

They must be stopped. 

[RyuHadokenMaster]

@pumpstations This is the best comment ever. I salute you sit.

[pumpstations]

@RyuHadokenMaster Thank You, you are too kind.

[greenlanternjmp]

It's refreshing to hear a debate where two people are just talking without getting so emotional that they both resort to low blows and mockery.

[followerofjesus1984]

the thing i find fascinating is that evolutionists claim that we came from a common ansestor, an ape man, but all attempts to verify this thoughts have been proven false ---- from piltdown man to lucy all have been forced on us by people who want there own names known

so the missing link ultamately remains a missing link or prehap there never was a link, and it was just over active imaginations

then they they claim that all life came from a rock .... so an inaminate object came to life

[followerofjesus1984]

@followerofjesus1984 and they doubt the creationist cause they feel there is no proof ---- what kinds of proof do they they need, our dna for one is a proof of a creator then the fact i believe is that ape and man do have a common link, its called a creator

the fact that the universe is designed in such a fashion exapes there attention, and the bibg bang theory may not be such a ridiculous idea .... cause it true is a miracle as all that meansis everything came into being from nothing

[jnnmrdgls]

@followerofjesus1984 Problem one: there is no evidence of a creator. There is lots of evidence of evolution. The question neither pole can answer with certainty is how it all began (i.e. Big Bang vs. God's six days). When you say DNA is proof of a creator, you start the problem of infinite regression: if God designed us, who designed God? The "creator" answer is an answer to nothing.

I'd spend more time reading Darwin, et al., before trying to debunk something you don't understand.

[followerofjesus1984]

@jnnmrdgls problem one ------ you are confusing evidence with proof, there is plenty of evidence for a creator, just there is no easy way to prove it

for example the structure of the universe is one such evidence it easy to see from this very fact that it had a beginnign, and it was created

but dont bring up the who ceated the creator line, cause he is eternal and infinate, meaning he is and always was

and back to the evidence verses proof,

[followerofjesus1984]

@jnnmrdgls

just cause u cant prove something, it does not mean there is no evidence, or that its not true

i would would content that evolution has six parts to it and five of them are not true but the six is which is micro evolution, changes with in species

[jnnmrdgls]

@followerofjesus1984 By saying that it's easy to see that our universe was created because of the structure of it is a complete non sequitur. That's the massive leap in logic you are making. You're making the exhausting argument for questions that are big and complicated: God did it. Same goes for your argument against my bringing up the infinite regression of the creator - "don't ask me where my creator came from because I KNOW he's infinite."

[followerofjesus1984]

@jnnmrdgls wow, how far does one have to go to prove nothing, its interesting tho,

since all i said that just by looking in the universe we can see a finally tuned and a structure that didnt come into being from nothing, and it as a beginning, and there is a purpose in all that we see

i never said God did it, i just said that cause of the lay out that its complex just to come from nothing,

[Futureplanet]

@followerofjesus1984

I believe in Ganesh, the elephant god. Because that's my culture. Prove he doesn't exist!! The Earth is fine tuned because Ganesh made it that way. The earth rolled out of a giant turtles shell, and the turtle and Ganesh did that for us all. Praise the Giant Turtle!!

As soon as Gansesh re-grows an amputies arm, that miracle will prove himself.....but....still waiting.

How about if the world-trade centre popped back. hmmm...that would be a beauty!!!

[followerofjesus1984]

@jnnmrdgls i never said dont ask me where the creator came from, i just said that this line of think is not logically following,

the course for the universe has to be uncoursed course, simply because he is out side the creation, and there is not apart of it, so in terms he has to be eternal and infinate,

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@followerofjesus1984 you mean an uncaused cause?

[followerofjesus1984]

@jnnmrdgls once upon a time the scientist thought the universe was eternal, but now they give it an age menaing its finite like us

but since it had a beginning, something powerful and unchanging brought into existance

[jnnmrdgls]

@followerofjesus1984 The wonderful thing about evolution and science in general is that it keeps correcting itself. Theories are proven or disproven, and what we know about the universe keeps changing. What has NEVER changed is what apparent followers of Jesus are supposed to know. You are using an outdated, overtranslated, humanly biased book in order to decide how to live; and it hasn't changed in 2000 years. Even the part about slavery or seclusion for menstruating women. It's stunning.

[followerofjesus1984]

@jnnmrdgls i have no problem with science, just the idea behind evolution, which science still pushes as a fact when most of it evidence has been disproven

as i said there are six stage to evolution and only one can be considered a scientific fact, micro evolution ---- variation in species .... the other are not correct and still get push as a fact

[killeryac]

thank you im glad you think its intelligent

[killeryac]

abbie is wrong jackson is right charles darwen was and idiot thats all there is to know and every one who beleaves in charles darwen are also idiots

[rattrap3]

@killeryac and with an intelligent post like the one you posted, im sure people will take you seriously.

[rattrap3]

@rattrap3 well yea, i mean you state several good points and it really makes people scratch their heads and say to themselves "i never looked at it that way"

have you thought about pursuing a career in the growth industry of college professors?

[shldflght]

@killeryac I believe in Charles Darwin! I know that he existed! How can you not believe in Darwin? That's like not believing in Einstein!

[awesometoast100]

@killeryac and i am also to assume that christians cannot spell?

[lizazoon]

The Vatican and it`s billion followers have no qualms with evolution. The pope has lots of scientist-advisors in wordly matters. Why would they accept evolution, when it so obviously contradicts Genesis ? Two reasons A)overwhelming evidence B) fear of another Galileo showdown.

[FiverBeyond]

His response to the Retroviruses shock me. Not only do we share retroviruses, we share them in the same spot as chimps. Over sixteen, as a matter of fact.

To say that this "fits into creationism" is a simple and clear default to the "God could've made it that way."

In essence, this means that there is no evidence, whether fossil, DNA, chemical, or what have you, could ever, under any circumstances, be considered evidence against Creationism.

[BillKiernan]

she's trying too hard to be nice and cute and funny and should instead go for the jugular against that guys weak presentation.

[TimeDivider]

This is the worst debate I have ever seen. Niether party make any refreshing and new points.

[Elcristoph]

@TimeDivider thats becouse the creation argument is like a broken disk so keeps bringing up the same objections..so the debate doesnt move on or develope...

[TimeDivider]

Exactly! Science makes its claims and creationists say a bunch of nonsensical garbage. It is the way of things.

[cdog4100]

Ya this presentation should be a page one rewrite. She just needs a metaphore to help her story.

[prschuster]

The creationist guy was obviously a professional debater who could sell mined quotes like a car dealer can sell used cars. But Abbie, who knows real science, is not a polished public speaker. I suspect they chose her just because of her inexperience as an orator. It's all about the politics.

[mijamz]

@prschuster ok, Dr. Jackson has 4 degrees in science, is a science professor, and is apart of MENSA. (club for people in top 2% of IQ). This guy knows what He is talking about and rarely shows a bias. He supports creationism because he sees the ridiculous claims of evolutionists. And also sees them going back and changing those claims to make it fit everytime they find something that doesn't make sense with their findings.

[vipsamsam]

She talks SOOOO slow I almost fell asleep!!!!

[NekoMouser]

She's better than some evolutionist presenters in that she points out that the genome isn't all rainbows and sunshine, but that there are many mistakes, that these mistakes get propagated, and that we can use them to tell a lot about decent.

However, evolution is a BIG subject and she spent her entire 10 minutes hitting the same basic point about ERVs over and over. She spent a lot of capital on that. If people didn't buy or understand it, she didn't give them anything else to grab on to.

[noproofforjesus]

You know what is funny you talked about science and he quote mined for 16 min great job, smart chicks are hot. I had a creationist send me to this guys vids on tbn then i Google him to find out his credentials but i found your debate.Di you know his credentials and are they valid or is he another kent hoven.

[TheWorldsStage]

Abbie is cute as hell, but she talks like shes talking to a bunch of 5 year olds. But if I was talking to someone that believes in creationism, I would probally be talking like how you would talk to a retarded kindergarden kid too.

[rattrap3]

dude, we(me, abbie, and everyone in the vid) live in yukon, OK. thats right, the ONLY state to vote COMPLETELY red in the last election, the buckle of the bible belt. the majority of these people are scientifically illiterate, so the only way TO talk to them is like they are five, but therein lies the biggest problem: when they object, saying things like, "Goddidit" and whatnot, she CAN'T be scientifically objective, because it would go right over their heads, and theyd keep believing anyway.

[99minerkc]

My question is if we did evole and "intelligent, educated people" know it to be so, then why didn't the good Dr. Jackson support Abbie? He no doubt is smart enough to know "the truth", so why do people like him "CONTINUE" to lead the uneducated down the path of creationism as being "the truth"?

[quinn2469]

It might have to do with the Law of Identity. It states, "When someone makes a public statement, either verbally or written, they will tend to defend that statement even in the face of contradictory evidence."

What you identify with becomes part of you and your identity. An attack on the things you've publicly identified with is perceived as an attack on your person.

On the other hand, there's a lot of money to be lost if ppl turn away from religion.

[logicCplusplus]

@rattrap3

Abbie Smith got her ass kicked by DaveScot, PaV, and even Micheal Behe regarding ERV's years ago at Uncommondescent.

[nick171720]

"or if Darwin decided to open a salon and day spa in cuba...or something"

Pretty sure Cuba wasn't a country till right before Darwin died. When your trying to sound smart, probably not a good idea to make a reference like that haha. Just sayin'.

[hamsterpoop]

totally tappable...

[saintalex666]

Abbie is a weak debater. Dr. J knows exactly what he's talking about. You people have selective hearing, and you don't understand what he's saying. Creationists are right.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

"Creationists are right."

haha, maybe you should read a college biology textbook and you'll understand why Dr. J's points are not valid arguments.

[minime00]

how about you come up with a real argument... cause that's all people say read a biology book.. I think most people have come up with something real instead of a personal idiotic tall tale speculative selective boring unoriginal "read a biology book" insult!!

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

"boring unoriginal "read a biology book" insult!!"

It's not an insult, it is a piece of advice. saintalex666 is only making a fool of himself by spewing crap which plainly advertises his ignorance of the subject about which he is arguing. He (and you) should read the evolution chapter of a highly accredited college biology textbook, read some of the scientific literature of Nature or Science, etc. The evidence and the majority of the scientific community are against the two of you.

[minime00]

Good, cause i'm going to sue scientist then for killing my cousins... since i'm classified as an ape according to you and your evolution theory... they should all be put in jail for murder correct?

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Wow, your comment is absolutely ridiculous. I don't even know how to respond. The Great Apes (Homininidae) include humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This classification was set in place before Darwin's time. It was set up by a man named Carolus Linnaeus, a creationist from Sweden.

You are incorrect, evolutionary theory does not hold that other primates are our "cousins" (at least not in any useful sense of the word). Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person (HUMAN)

[minime00]

well no we are not human because we are classified as ape's by evolution theory... look it up so it's not ridiculous. I'm going by what evolution says dude.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

No, you are not. Humans are classified under the Family Hominidae. There are four Genuses within this Family: Homo, Gorilla, Pan, and Pongo. Humans are under Homo, Gorillas are, obviously, under Gorilla, Chimpanzees are under Pan, and Orangutans are under Pongo. Just because we are classified under the Family Hominidae does not mean we are not Homo Sapiens. You clearly have no understanding of Evolutionary Theory and what it states for you to have said, "I'm going by what evolution says dude."

[minime00]

Then all the scientist who said humans are ape's are wrong, and you are right huh?

well i guess you are the smartest man alive we should just throw away all that scientist say and believe you huh?...

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Are you kidding me? I've repeated this at least three times. HUMANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS GREAT APES, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE FAMILY HOMINIDAE. Did you read my last sentence? If not, then I advise that you do.

You are being absolutely pathetic right now. And quite immature too. I noticed on your page you say you are 27. Quite frankly I am surprised by your lack of ability to argue effectively, and to understand what I am saying. Humans are classified under Hominidae (Great Apes).

[minime00]

then exactly as i'm saying they are "family"

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Are you an idiot? I don't usually use ad hominem attacks, but you are just pathetic right now. "FAMILY" is a level of classification. That it. Nothing else. It does not mean that chimps are humans or humans are chimps. Chimpanzees are not members of your "family" (lowercase F), in any useful sense of the word. All that evolution states is that we share a common ancestor with the other great apes (as well as all other species), and if you can't grasp that, it's no wonder you're a creationist.

[minime00]

you just said they were cause that's where we evolved from was monkeys... which one is it... we aren't from them we are from them... goodness back and forth is not really fun man.

Still they didn't say we share a common ancestory in this doc, they say there are only 2 or 3 things different but we are basically the same as chimps...

So i'd say you should probably really know what you believe in first so you don't go back and forth

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

I did not go back and forth. I have been perfectly clear in all of my past comments. You simply seem to be incapable of grasping the concept that Hominidae is a group in the level of classification known as Family (capital F), and included in this group are humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, and that these four species share a common ancestor that dates back several million years. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. But nobody said we are descended from chimps.

[minime00]

so where did we come from smart guy? i feel like i'm talking to a child

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

"i feel like i'm talking to a child"

Ditto!

"so where did we come from smart guy?"

can you explain what you mean by this? Because of course, you and I came from our parents. And they came from their parents. Looking at it through a much wider scope, the universe as we know it, in which we reside, came to be the way it is after the Big Bang. What do you mean by "where did we come from?"

[minime00]

I thought you didn't believe in the big bang man... you are one confusing guy.

I believe personally we were created by God, the one mentioned in the bible.

But then evolution says we transitioned from monkeys and prior to that all the other things.

So im not even sure where you stand, like i said it seems to me you are going back and forth. If your not fine, but it just really seems that way

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

When did I say I didn't accept the Big Bang? You are entirely imagining these "back and forth" positions. I have not flip-flopped once during this conversation. Or if I have then cite the exact quotes about which you are speaking.

Evolution states that all organisms share a common ancestor. Common descent is a fact. The Theory of Evolution simply tries to explain the mechanism behind common descent, natural selection.

I'm afraid you are the one who is confused.

[minime00]

cause evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory unless you are getting it confused... cause they don't even know how it happened, big bang is the field of physics and whatever.

we would have a common ancestor if the mother of everything was adam and even, then noah and the others. so yeah we would have common ancestors no doubt. And if all them were on the same boat and retrovirus share between animals and man, they would have got them then easy

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

Ok, I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore. I think you're just a troll. Because even legit creationists who were being serious wouldn't be so thick as to associate common ancestry between humans and all other living things with a few people stuck on a boat. That's ridiculous.

And your silly "sharing viruses on a boat" claim is doubly ridiculous. ERV insertion is highly random and the chances that the same ERV would insert in the SAME location in all animals are astronomical.

[minime00]

apparently you did not watch this whole debate did you?

and the chances that we evolved from a pile of goop are astronomical...

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

I did watch the whole debate.

ERV's are largely random. There is some evidence that they may be slightly selective to certain large areas of the genome, but even taking that into consideration the chances are still astronomically slim.

And anybody can make any proposition sound ridiculous by using ridiculous words to describe it. You're not that special. Abiogenesis is actually very well supported by modern day evidence (there is much more than the Miller-Urey experiment from 60 yrs ago)

[minime00]

since alot of things are based on a census... oh well, there are problems, even the grand canyon "layers" are missing a 150 million year evolution layer... it's not there it's missing.. :)

[opmike343]

I know it's been a couple of months now, but the comments made by minime00 are absolutely asinine; obviously the product of someone who doesn't have the slightest understanding of biology and taxonomy. You have much more patience than I.

[ddiesso]

Biologists do not think that human are descended from apes. We share a common ancestor. Get your facts straight. Do yourself a favor and read about it. I don't know where you are getting your information. Just ask an evolutionary biologist or any biologist for that matter.

[minime00]

so where did we come from? cause they say there are so many transitional fossil's that relate ape's to humans... so thanks for pointing that contradiction out :)

[TheWad1959]

Dr. Jackson did not present any evidence that supported Creation. What he did was, spin or question TOE with a misunderstanding of what the evidence says.

Abbie, unfortunately, speaks over the heads of the audience. She did, however, support her position with factual data that cannot be called into question.

This would have been more on point if a Evolitionary Biologist had presented the information or corrected Jacksons mistakes.

[minime00]

actually it can be called into question, because no one can test a so called billion year old dinosaur for DNA

[slidadog]

"Creationist", are full of it.

[mikimoco2]

Just look at how the evolutionist responds compared to the creationist, in these comments.  Evolutionist could stand to respond scientifically, rather than emotionally. Calling people names is not scientific. It is immature -- just like the evolutionary theory.

[UbiquitousChe]

Ridicule is the appropriate response to the ridiculous.

[davo16747]

you say that yet most evolutionist say you stupid piece of shit and what not all the time

[davo16747]

Evolutionist are full of not just it but it and shit.

[supercheetah]

Go Abbie! You rock!