Creation vs Evolution Debate on Major Secular Newspaper website

[Gup20]

I saw this on AiG (as they are one of the participants).

http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001149.html - opening statements
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001165.html - rebuttals


Australian Skeptics vs AiG–Australia
Australia’s largest metropolitan newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, is hosting this debate on its website

15 June 2005

AiG–Australia has accepted an invitation for a written ‘mini-debate’ with the Australian Skeptics on the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) weblog of Margo Kingston (a well-known Australian journalist) which began earlier this week. This is an exciting opportunity to get the message out to many thousands of secular folk.

Topic: Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?
The format includes three essays each up to 1500 words:

13 June—Opening essay
16 June—Second essay (rebuttal and/or new material)
19 June—Final essay (rebuttal, summary, etc.)
The link to see the debate text on those days is http://webdiary.smh.com.au/index.html. We will post direct links on this webpage to the essays as they are posted. In between the essay postings, Margo Kingston’s weblog will discuss some of the issues and visitors will also be able to post comments.

Please pray for this opportunity and for wisdom for our team (Don Batten, Jonathan Sarfati, Tasman Walker, Carl Wieland), that the debate might be God-honouring and might assist in ‘demolish[ing] arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God’ (2 Cor. 10:5).

 

[BobRyan]

We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.

It’s silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proven false (i.e. falsified). In reality, both paradigms have led to fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the underlying axioms (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.

What a great quote! Thanks Gup20!!

Why is it that Christians are free to be objective and cogent - stating the "obvious" over and over and evolutionists are confined to misdirection and half-truths?

Could it be that truth is just "easier to state" than the many-varied lies of evolutionism?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Travelsong]

Just follow the evidence folks. Don't turn your brains off. That's all anyone can ask.

 

[Travelsong]

AIG starts out with the same accusations that have been addressed over and over again.

First they don't even present the philosophical or doctrinal underpinnings of their admittedly "different set of assumptions". Is there a relationship between the Gospel of salvation and the specifics of God's creative works? Come on, out with it! Aren't you missionaries appointed by God to spread the tuth of His Word?

Of course they also take plenty of time to beat the atheist dead horse. Hello, there are many many people, scientists included who have no problem reconciling the Biblical creation Account with evidence from nature - and honestly that means whatever the evidence may show. AIG and the beast it represents have made an issue out of something which poses no problem to the Christian faith. It's one of the most obvious signs of false teaching.

I'll have to read further tomorrow.

 

[Gup20]

Just follow the evidence folks. Don't turn your brains off. That's all anyone can ask.

It's startlingly obvious that both sides use the same science, and the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions. Why? Because their assumptions are different.

I also think it's funny that the aussie skeptics basically said "there are absolutely no absolutes in science".

The first essay by the skeptics was ripe with errors and strawman arguments. They tried to define creationists with completely false framework of what creationists believe. For example, they claimed that creationists contend that not only all animals, but all plants that were not on the ark perished. That's the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. No creationist believes this - moreover it doesn't say that in the Bible. It just demonstrates the complete lack of critical thinking - they don't even know what creationism is!!

The 2nd essay response by the skeptics was pretty weak. The whole first half of the essay was ad hominem and strawman arguments. They were doing their best to equate creation science with religion. They have failed miserably to cast science and creation as opposites. They made the hypocritical absolute claim that there was no evidence for creation. That's funny, because AiG's post was chalk full of evidences - anyone reading can see that.

It was quite clear that AiG was successful in delivering the argument that science and evidence means nothing outside one's paradigms and presuppositions.

What I have come to notice is that creationists and evolutionists use the same science on the same evidence - then apply their own assumptions and come to their own conclusions. Science and evidence is the same for both sides... but the assumptions they start with lead to completely opposite conclusions.

BobRyan is exactly right to highlight that line -

We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.

It takes just as much faith to be an evolutionist as it does to be a Christian.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Gup20:
It's startlingly obvious that both sides use the same science, and the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions. Why? Because their assumptions are different.

YE "science" has but one agenda: Poke holes in commonly accepted theories. It does not even attempt to demonstrate how the evidence fits a young earth model. It's assertions are untestable and unfalsifiable. In short, It isn't science.

This debate has made that abundantly clear to even you.

 

[Travelsong]

There are many lists of logical fallacies on the Internet, and I would like to spend the remainder of my 1500 words identifying as many fallacies as I can in the creationists’ arguments.

There’s ad hominem, of course, where my opinions are attributed to my atheism and we are all “long-standing public anti-creationists”, plus the special case of ad hominem tu quoque because Ken Smith should know better, being a “committed Christian”; there is massive Appeal to Authority (ad verecundiam); there’s Appeal to Belief (a lot of people believe in creationism and they can’t all be wrong) which segues nicely into Appeal to Common Practice; there’s Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, because people who reject creationism are going to Hell; Appeal to Emotion is there for people who just feel bad about evolution; Appeal to Fear (ad baculum) is there because evolution apparently threatens Christian faith (it doesn’t); ad populum, an Appeal to Popularity, is in there as if science is some sort of plebiscite.

There’s the old Appeal to Ridicule, where evolutionists (whatever they are) are presented as poor, deluded fools who wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped off the page of a holy book at them; there’s the Appeal to Spite (evolutionists just do this because they don’t like God); needless to say there is Appeal to Tradition; there’s the Bandwagon fallacy, where scientists just agree with evolution because it makes life easier; could there be a better example of Begging the Question than “God must exist because it says so in the Bible, which was written by God”; the Burden of Proof is placed on evolutionists to prove that creation didn’t happen; there’s the False Dilemma, where the truth of creationism is claimed if evolution can be seen to be flawed; the exquisitely named Genetic Fallacy appears when the Bible is given as the source and it is assumed to be true.

Red Herrings are all over the place (except, perhaps, fossilised at Canowindra as evidence of a mass extinction not caused by a flood), and we are all on the Slippery Slope to Hell as evolutionists have no moral compasses; Special Pleading lets creationists change a debate by saying that it is unfair to expect them to provide evidence because they aren’t materialists; Straw Men are everywhere, such as those scientists who say that the universe has been around forever and that Darwin person who admitted that transitional fossils would be hard to find.

This man is a candidate for the kingdom of heaven. I wonder where he might have a stumbling block?

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.

It’s silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proven false (i.e. falsified). In reality, both paradigms have led to fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the underlying axioms (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.

What a great quote! Thanks Gup20!!

Why is it that Christians are free to be objective and cogent - stating the "obvious" over and over and evolutionists are confined to misdirection and half-truths?

Could it be that truth is just "easier to state" than the many-varied lies of evolutionism?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Probably an even better phrase would be “materialistic naturalism”.
Materialistic naturalism fully covers ideas expressed in the atheistic evolutionary doctrine that attempts to give an explanation for why the universe exists.

Materialism is the belief that matter is the only reality.
Naturalism expresses the idea that everything can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

The late Carl Sagan’s expressed it eloquently during the opening statements of his PBS special “Cosmos”; “The Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be”

Of course once you believe in a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent God, then any theory that includes evolution really isn’t materialistic or naturalistic.

Rob

 

[Gup20]

I would like the evolutionists here to take a close look at the arguments for evolution:

It is the reliance on the Bible which is most puzzling, however, as our opponents have now stated that the Authorised King James version of the Bible from 1611 is not inerrant and is, in fact, an unreliable translation! That’s right – the most important and influential book ever written in the English language (the works of Shakespeare and the Book of Common Prayer make up the trifecta) is, as many have surmised, merely a magnificent work of literature and not the Word of God. What was God thinking when He let King James’s editors put this book together? Why did He allow them to make mistakes? Could it have been a test, or perhaps, as Phillip Grosse suggested with regard to fossils and Adam and Eve’s navels, just God being deceptive?

The real question becomes “What else in the Bible is wrong?”. If we cannot accept that Genesis 2 is correct, then what can we accept? If translation errors are possible, who is to say that the English translation of the Sermon on the Mount in the King James Bible is anything like a true account of what Jesus said? After all, it was translated from Greek and the author of Matthew was working from a third-hand account of a speech given in Aramaic. Much emphasis has been placed on the lack of first-hand, eye witness accounts of evolution happening, but surely the same caveat must be placed on hearsay filtered through multiple translations. What a mess! If the King James Bible can’t be trusted to tell us about the Rising of the Sun, what can it reliably say about the Rising of the Son?

Frankly, I have seen better points made on this message board than the ones offered by the Skeptics in this debate. The Skeptics got thoroughly trounced by AiG in that debate. At the end here, they realize it and simply lash out at Christianity - demonstrating their real inentions. That, my freinds, is the heart and core of evolution. It is a philisophical idea meant to compete with the Bible, not support or coincide with it. It is the lie that contradicts the Word of God.

Indeed hath God said? Surely God hath not said! - Satan said that, and evolution is the same exact message.

 

[Travelsong]

So that evidence for a young earth was......

Still waiting..........

and waiting....

 

[Gup20]

You wanted the YE evidence presented in the debate by AiG?

Well just looking through the first post by AiG here are the scientific evidences they provided. These all went entirely un-refuted by the Skeptics. They claimed, instead, that AiG had not provided any evidences.

There is much evidence consistent with a relatively young age of the universe, such as the decay of the earth's magnetic field, including rapid paleomagnetic reversals; fragile organic molecules in fossils supposedly many millions of years old; too much helium in deep zircons; not enough salt in the sea; carbon-14 in coal and oil supposedly many millions of years old; polystrate fossils that extend through strata supposedly representing many millions of years; inter-tonguing of non-sequential geological strata; the small number of supernova remnants; magnetic fields on 'cold' planets; and much more see What about carbon dating?).

Elapsed time extending back beyond one’s own lifetime cannot be directly measured, so all arguments for either a long or a short age are necessarily indirect and must depend on the assumptions on which
they are inevitably based.

Young-earth arguments make sense of the fact that many fossils show well-preserved soft parts. This requires rapid deposition and rapid hardening of the encasing sediment. Observations of e.g. multiple geologic strata and canyons forming rapidly under catastrophic conditions in recent times indicate that the entrenched slow-and-gradual, vast-age thinking may well be markedly in error.

They provided pages and pages of links to their website where they discuss these evidences in detail with fully footnoted articles.

To this, the Skeptics apparently conceded all points as they stated:

Instead, what we get from creationists is obfuscation, misrepresentation and logically fallacious arguments which purport to prove that an alternative theory is worthless because it is not perfect. That there are flaws in the evidence for a very old Earth and universe does not in any way validate the theory that the ages must be very short. Still, when you have no evidence you have to do the best with what you’ve got..

AiG listed off a list of evidences - not one of which was refuted by the Skeptics. No evidence was presented to refute AiG's evidence. Clearly AiG presented evidence. If you look at the debate it was the Skeptics who's arguments lacked evidence.

They were spending too much time calling an atheistic jihad on the Bible and Christians to even bother with cognoscente responses.

 

[Gup20]

You know... the schemes of evil should be revealed.

Here we have evolutionists claiming that creationism isn't science because the science isn't falsifiable. Then they claim that creation has been examined and falsified.

The reason these evolutionists are putting the blinders on to the fact that AiG listed evidence is because to refute creationist evidence would give legitimacy to creationism as science - it would make it falsifiable, which they are desparate to claim it is not.

We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.

It’s silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proven false (i.e. falsified). In reality, both paradigms have led to fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the underlying axioms (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Gup20:
You wanted the YE evidence presented in the debate by AiG?

Well just looking through the first post by AiG here are the scientific evidences they provided. These all went entirely un-refuted by the Skeptics. They claimed, instead, that AiG had not provided any evidences.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is much evidence consistent with a relatively young age of the universe, such as the decay of the earth's magnetic field, including rapid paleomagnetic reversals; fragile organic molecules in fossils supposedly many millions of years old; too much helium in deep zircons; not enough salt in the sea; carbon-14 in coal and oil supposedly many millions of years old; polystrate fossils that extend through strata supposedly representing many millions of years; inter-tonguing of non-sequential geological strata; the small number of supernova remnants; magnetic fields on 'cold' planets; and much more see What about carbon dating?). . .

</font>[/QUOTE]"such as the decay of the earth's magnetic field, including rapid paleomagnetic reversals"

Nonsense. The earth's magnetic field remains as strong as ever, it merely reverses directions over geological ages; its total energy remains fairly constant.

"fragile organic molecules in fossils supposedly many millions of years old"

Nonsense. The "fragile" organic molecules are found only after CHEMICALLY REMOVING THE SOLID MATRIX THAT PROTECTED THEM.

"too much helium in deep zircons"

Ignores the ability of helium to be created by radioactive decay and migrate

"not enough salt in the sea"

Ignores the known processes of removing salt (think - where DID all those salt mines come from?)

"carbon-14 in coal and oil supposedly many millions of years old"

Ignores the tiny amounts specified and known means of producing them (radiation events, for example, could have done that - )

"polystrate fossils that extend through strata supposedly representing many millions of years"

misrepresents and ignores the known history of these fossils.

"inter-tonguing of non-sequential geological strata"

ignores simple explanations such as gullys eroded that get filled in later

"the small number of supernova remnants"

astronomers don't agree its a problem. Supernova remnants are often white dwarves or invisible black holes.

"magnetic fields on 'cold' planets"

This is a problem for an iron core body?

"see WHAT ABOUT CARBON DATING" . . .

Ignores the calibration of carbon dating from ice core annual layers and lake bottom sediment annual layers and tree rings - These all agree together and show a SMALL (note, small) correction to the theoretical model based on constant carbon 14 creation BECAUSE

a) Just another one of those astonishing coincidences that were allowed to come along and confuse the faithful

or

b) They are all valid means of tracking a true target and converge because they are finding the truth

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
We have pointed out that evolution is a deduction from the philosophy of materialism. So the correct contrast is ‘creationist v materialist’ not ‘creationist v scientific’.
...

What a great quote! Thanks Gup20!!

Why is it that Christians are free to be objective and cogent - stating the "obvious" over and over and evolutionists are confined to misdirection and half-truths?
...
</font>[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Probably an even better phrase would be “materialistic naturalism”.
Materialistic naturalism fully covers ideas expressed in the atheistic evolutionary doctrine that attempts to give an explanation for why the universe exists.

Materialism is the belief that matter is the only reality.
Naturalism expresses the idea that everything can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

The late Carl Sagan’s expressed it eloquently during the opening statements of his PBS special “Cosmos”; “The Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be”

Of course once you believe in a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent God, then any theory that includes evolution really isn’t materialistic or naturalistic.

Rob

Ok so - "Humanism" vs "Creationism" when having the discussion "among Christians" that DO believe in an all-powerful Creator-God?

The problem with the "Materialistic Naturalism" gift to devotees of evolutionism's doctrines is that it "pretends to believe" that they have been honest with science and nature, science and what is actually "observed".

The horse series disproves that.

The classic "smooth transition" arguments they made disproves that.

The "inherit the wind" falsehood and hype disproves that.

Their "fall-on-our-sword over speculation" when it comes to abiogenesis disproves that.

The "deny all entropy and obfuscate for evolutionism" approach they use disproves that.

And their own atheist icons making "confessions" about the blunders and foibles of evolutionisms "faithful" disproves that!

Why pretend it is true. Just call it a denomination of humanism's "faithful" expressing their "beliefs" and bending science as "needed" to their usages?

In Christ,

Bob