Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Deadline]

Dr Kent Hovind debates Dr James Paulson
[GVIDEO]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4440517326780624645&q=creationism+vs+athiesm+video&hl=en[/GVIDEO]



Interesting video... have watched about half of it so far, but figured I would share with you guys. Sit back, grab a tub of popcorn and a liter of soda, you will need it.

I love this sort of stuff, hearing both sides of the stories about Evolution and Creation. I am not for or against either person, but they both have made good points so far... and please, don't flame it until you have at least watched the majority of the video and have heard both sides of the argument.

I know its long so you dont have to go and complain about it here.

If anyone else has any good Creation vs Evolution debates, either video or manuscript or anything, let me know and post it!!!

 

[Smoke]

Very, VERY good debate.

I watched it all, but I`ll stick with my rocks.

 

[Cole]

Obviously robin williams flying right testical made the universe. I can't believe how dumb everyone else is.

 

[theotherguy]

Kent Hovind is the biggest idiot in the religious creationism community. He's a bum with no credentials and a hell of a lot of charisma. The scientist they chose for this debate was also not one of the better ones in the field of evolutionary science, and he opened himself up to alot of holes in the very beginning of his argument, by misdefining evolution and other things.

EDIT: not to mention it is a pretty informal debate hosted by a creationist organization.

 

[Deadline]

EDIT: not to mention it is a pretty informal debate hosted by a creationist organization.

Which is why I would like to watch a formal one =) so lets find one!

And what does a 'formal' debate include?

 

[phantomdesign]

2 hour video?

 

[Deadline]

2 hour video?

I know its long so you dont have to go and complain about it here.

We know... its a debate...


also, one thing I wish I could see is Dr. Hovind debating someone who is actually a good speaker, you could tell the other Doc was not the greatest in that aspect which to alot of people I am sure made him sound less credible.

 

[PvtRyan]

Kent Hovind is an enormous idiot. His points are so incredibly flawed (whenever he tries to 'debunk' evolution he doesn't even talk about it but about cosmology/physics etc) that even a layman can see right through them. He uses so many PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) it's not even funny. Hell, he isn't even a proper Dr, he got his doctorate from a Christian diploma mill on the subject of 'religious education'. What does he know about biology? (something which becomes evident from his videos: jack fucking shit) He has zero credibility in a scientific debate and even creationists think he's full of shit.

Oh, he's in prison too now. Apparently servants of God don't have to pay taxes.

 

[Seppo]

this looks cool

 

[The Monkey]

I pity the creationists.

 

[Deadline]

What I want to know more of, is how Carbon dating works and how at about 1:20:00 they both get asked about carbon dating. Now who is wrong here? Is carbon dating misleading? I have read about Carbon 14 dating, and how it is, at most, accurate up to 6000 years! What are the other forms of Dating and are they accurate? In an article on MSNBC.com news, talking about how there were "Hobbit" species of humans;

"The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years old."

Is that a huge gap or is it just me? I am not denouncing the age, I am just curious why there is such a gap.

 

[Dekstar]

Pld PvtRyan. Now I don't have to watch the vid

 

[brink's]

Just read his Wiki page, youll understand.

 

[Direwolf]

Carbon dating can be skewed somewhat by a number of factors apparently , so thats why they usually give the number as a window.

 

[GhostBoi]

What I want to know more of, is how Carbon dating works and how at about 1:20:00 they both get asked about carbon dating. Now who is wrong here? Is carbon dating misleading? I have read about Carbon 14 dating, and how it is, at most, accurate up to 6000 years! What are the other forms of Dating and are they accurate? In an article on MSNBC.com news, talking about how there were "Hobbit" species of humans;

"The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years old."

Is that a huge gap or is it just me? I am not denouncing the age, I am just curious why there is such a gap.

Maybe that was the span of time they lived on the earth for. I mean unless this article said that all of these specimens were found at the same site.

 

[CyberPitz]

I just hate how the creationism guy kept insulting the evolution and saying it's been proven wrong, and stupid, etc. I'm sorry...but...what?

 

[theotherguy]

What I want to know more of, is how Carbon dating works and how at about 1:20:00 they both get asked about carbon dating. Now who is wrong here? Is carbon dating misleading? I have read about Carbon 14 dating, and how it is, at most, accurate up to 6000 years! What are the other forms of Dating and are they accurate? In an article on MSNBC.com news, talking about how there were "Hobbit" species of humans;

"The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years old."

Is that a huge gap or is it just me? I am not denouncing the age, I am just curious why there is such a gap.

As was already mentioned, there are many specemins over a period of time. It's not liek they're dating a single bone but a huge number of organisms.

And margins of error in the thousands of years is common in Carbon-14 because so many factors can skew the results. Krypton-Argon dating works much better, but can't be used in organic specimins.

Analysis of very old tree rings shows that carbon-14 dating is usually off anywhere from 100-4,000 years;

but in geologic time, 4,000 years is the blink of an eye. To us humans it seems an unbeleiveable amount of time, almost since the beginning of civilization, but in geology or evolutionary biology 4,000 years is nothing. Our most recent cousins, neanderthals lived over 140,000 years ago, our most recent direct ancestors, homo erectus, homo habilis and others lived up to 2 million years ago. The first homonid walked the earth up to 8 million years ago. The dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago. 400 million years ago, land animals were just starting to conolize the planet. 4 billion years ago, the Earth began to form. 6-8 billion years ago, the sun began to form.

I could go back and back and back and the 4,000 years would seem smaller and smaller. In fact, 4,000 years is a million times smaller than the time from the beginning of the earth. So even if your sample of the oldest rock on earth was off by the largest margin of error ever observed, you would still be only 1/1millionth off from its exact age.

It takes exactley 5,730 years for a single atom of carbon 14 to decay. Given the huge time frame, and the millions of things that could have happened to that rock or that bone over many millions of years, it is easy to see how it could get off by 4-6 thousand years!

 

[theotherguy]

Which is why I would like to watch a formal one =) so lets find one!

And what does a 'formal' debate include?

This was technically a formal debate, but I was going for more of an orthadox scientific debate, with evidence from experimentation presented by both sides, a formal question, and a neutral moderator.

its very hard to find formal debates on Evolution vs. Creationism any more. The fact is, evolutionary biologists have no need to debate creationists. The scientific community has so much evidence for evolution, there is simply no academic reason for a lead evolutionary biologist to even give the time to come to a formal debate with a creationist. The world has so far moved on from this "debate", that there simply isn't one. It is public opinion which is still swaying back and forth.

Debates are misleading because they seem to give equal weight to each argument, and the debaters meet on an equal field. If an evolutionary biologist takes the time to debate a creationist, the public message would be something along the lines of, "Both of us are equal, and both of us have evidence." This is simply not the case. Creationism is not a scientific theory, does not fit with evidence, and is certainly not worthy of serious consideration by any scientific community.

 

[Smoke]

theotherguy has it nailed.

 

[PvtRyan]

Indeed, serious evolutionary biologists having a formal debate with a Young Earth creationist is like a cosmologist having a formal debate with a member from the Flat Earth Society. As Dawkins wrote, these people see having a debate at all as a victory, whether they win it or not, giving them recognition as actually credible opponents while they're not. People like Hovind are best completely ignored.