Episode #001 (National Center for Stupid Excuses)

http://www.creationguys.com/episode.php?number=1

This is our Pilot Episode of Creation Guys, hosted by Jonathan Sampson.

In our first episode we welcome Eric Hovind of GodQuest to discuss some of the latest controversy surrounding the Expelled ("No Intelligence Allowed") movie coming out in theaters April 18, 2008.

Among our discussion we cover content found on digg, as well as silly statements made in Time Magazine.

Meet Eric Hovind in Irvine, CA
April 18th, and 19th (2008) at

Evangelical Formosan Church of Irvine
17422 Armstrong Avenue
Irvine, CA
92614

Mention "Creation Guys" to Eric and get a free DVD!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Creation
• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• Sampson
• Hovind
• Controversy
• Science
• Biology
• Darwin
• ID
• Creationism
• God
• Jesus

[thecreationguys]

>"No matter what evidence is brought to you, you have already decided what you want to think."

Ofcourse, so have you. How else would you affirm a position unless you've already decided what you believe? Face-palm.

I agree with SA when it's reasonable. Not when it suits me. Of course I don't accept EVERYTHING, as I don't accept everything from creationist literature.

Do you think SA is faultless and perfect? Do you think whatever they write is holy and true?

Is SA your Bible? Holy and True?

[trin1721]

'The "15 Answers..." article was a bunch of nonsense.'

So SA is a credible, authoritative, well informed scientific magazine which is worthy of being brought up in a scientific discussion about evolution ONLY WHEN IT AGREES WITH YOU. When I bring it up the article is 'a bunch of nonsense'.

I see.

You have just proved everything I thought. No matter what evidence is brought to you, you have already decided what you want to think. There is no point in debating any further.

[thecreationguys]

The "15 Answers..." article was a bunch of nonsense. No credible Creation Scientist uses the argument "Nobody has seen a new species evolve," from my experience.

"The evidence is astounding," seems to be the only evidence you guys offer. Come on, Physics offers us REAL evidence. Chemistry offers REAL evidence. All of the operational sciences do. The idea of common descent hasn't produced a single shred of conclusive evidence, unlike all of operational science. Stop playing yourself - think.

JS

[thecreationguys]

Dude, do you read, and then think before you respond? You're stilled tripped up over thinking I quoted SA in an effort to show problems with evolution - I DIDN'T! You're wasting my time if you're incapable of reading what I'm writing.

Re: Mules, a clear demonstration that the definition needs work. Regarding infertile people, another example, the definition needs work.

Which is the point of SA argument - the concrete definition hasn't been found yet, regardless what your fanciful thinking is.

[trin1721]

(2)

No article in SA or NewScientist, recently published, implies evo did not take place. NS recently did a whole special issue on evolution and SA published an article in 2002 called '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense' - of which no. 12 was 'Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.' tinyurl(dot)com/5m367l

There is not one popular scientific journal which is anti-evolution. What do you know which the majority of other scientists in the world do not? The evidence is astounding.

[trin1721]

(1)

You cite SA as an argument from authority in 3 of your last posts but the SA article is not an anti-evolution article. It is simply an article exposing the inadequacy of human definitions when describing nature (something I never denied, and actually what we would expect - not the case if life never varies beyond distinct 'kinds').

RE: fertile mules. In nearly 500 years only 60 have been recorded. When a couple can't have children do we conclude they are a different species?

[thecreationguys]

Mules actually are fertile sometimes. High school bio! Regarding asexual organisms, of course you need a new definition - because there is no sufficient definition for "species," which is clearly demonstrated.

What do you consider a "speciation event" in asexual organisms?

Why do you assume I don't read anything critical of my position? Why would you assume I shield my self from criticism - it simply doesn't follow. I let you post, don't I?

Jonathan Sampson of

The Creation Guys

[trin1721]

Interbreeding to produce FERTILE offspring. All dogs are the same species but members of different subspecies. Zebras and horses, lions and tigers, are different species because mules and ligers are infertile. High school level bio!

Asexual organisms: the definition is slightly different. But speciation events in sexual organisms have been observed so that is irrelevent.

Of course I read the SA article, and the primary literature, unlike you who only reads that which supports his own side.

[thecreationguys]

Expelled says the Academic community is hostile to questioning evolution. Which it is.

This is why simple bills which suggest "critically examining evolution" are deemed as religious by frightened evolutionists. Even when the bills make no mention of alternative ideas, and only call for critical thinking.

You suggest that because I like a movie, I agree with it its argument? Wow...that's a rather large leap.

But yes, Expelled was an honest movie. Sorry to upset you.

Jonathan Sampson of

TCGs

[thecreationguys]

Now you find your first problem. Many organisms simply don't have sex. Are they not the same species? According to your definition, no, they're not. Yet dogs, wolves, and coyotes are the same species, because they can. But don't in the wild, so they're not. Then we have horses and zebras, lions and tigers, all interbreeding, yet different species.

Please, give us a definition that is grounded in evolutionary biology that works. I read the SA article, did you?

Jonathan Sampson