Is evolution true science? (Christian/atheist debate) 

Loveday Atheist And he (Rask) got an introduction, and Bernie didn't. Not very equal. Not much of a "debate"

That sounds like a reasonable consequence of Dr. Rask's ideas... easily shows the fallacy of his ideas.

SecHummer I loved the finger nail example you have. BTW. Glad to see your still putting out content! Keep it up!

I'm not sure your computer evolution example is good. For example, we have lots of sea creatures, but there's no "best" (dolphins, whales, crabs, salmon, etc.) Your computer analogy could probably come up with another design if it was given a new seed. I assume the seed is random. Biological evolution may be quite a bit different just because it involves biology... computers are more mental and thought/logical related.

Evolutionary algorithms don't come up with the 'best' design, but the do find a locallly stable solutions. This solution differs depending on the constraints and initial conditions. I think this is very much analogous to how we have many different distinct species that continue to adapt over time. Each in different environments and with different resources available (constraints and initial conditions). And when the environment changes drastically, some species (stable solutions) are no longer stable and either evolve and adapt over time, or go extinct.

Jonathan Pritchard that's not analaogous to evolution

He's a medical doctor, pretending to be an expert at biology. Here's his anti-evolutionary book: "Evolution By Affirming the Consequent: Scientific Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution" www.amazon.com/Evolution-Affirming-Consequent-Scientific-Challenges/dp/1936320606

Dr. Rask paid for the room rental. No one gave it to him.

SecHummer Ah, not much you can do about that. It's a free country, for the moment. It was infuriating to listen to. After all these years, still the same denial of science for no reason other than to bolster belief in god. I would have loved to hear him explain why we share Endogenous Retroviruses with other animals. I've yet to hear a creationist answer that one.

Evolution is a fact. It's been proven and I'm not sure why you're denying it - were you not taught this in school or anything? It is 100% fact and we can physically see it happen in labs and on agar dishes at home. Certain living bacteria or pathogens will reproduce very rapidly, and when in a body's blood stream, white blood cells have to adapt and EVOLVE to counter these cells. We can physically see it happen. On a larger scale, if you start off with a naked mole rat billions of years ago, in a warm, dry climate and then, over time, the climate begins to dip slowly. During this time, when a new mole rat is born it will have cells in its body that will want to adapt and defend against these environments somewhat colder than its parent's. From this, the UNDEVELOPED stem cells of the foetus begin to (metaphorically) figure out what they need to do in this cold environment, which is not suited for the genetic build they had a few hundred thousand years ago. This will then force the stem cells to develop into things such as heart muscle (for faster warm blood to pump around the body) or hair follicle cells. Ofcourse, this change would happen slowly, but you see the same thing happen here as I mentioned in cells on a larger scale. The mole rat would then have the cells rearrange themselves into a different pattern which would allow it to do something helping it to survive - a natural animalistic instinct. If two animals with the same natural gene change traits breed this REINFORCES the genetic change, allowing their offspring to have these changes and develop more. If this happens to millions of this animal species (which it did) then you can see a clear physical change when measuring one time to another. This is evolution - the pure and simple truth of life. It is about offspring having genetic mutations, deviations or adaptations compared to their parents, not something that creationists and such imagine when they are reminded of evolution, which is that during the life span of one creature they magically change and develop wings and then suddenly all animals reckon thats a good idea. Evolution took time - time of which is proven to have existed from measurements such as dendrochronology, relics and monuments decaying and being compared to how materials erode over time, fossils of nonhuman creatures, petrified faeces, animals in amber, the development of mountains and volcanos through tectonic plates. You get the picture, but I could go on ??????. Evolution HAPPENED, whether you like it or not. Ignoring the facts and - which I assume you did - not fully reading what I have to say is extremely naive and (dare I say) typical of a closed-minded theist like yourself. If you somehow have a retort that has depth and is not "your a reterd becuase God exists in my heart" then please reply. If you have proof of this big dude making someone out of mud then tearing out a rib then making a woman with a perfect reproductive system then hit me up! I'd gladly let an all perfect, kind, merciful deity force me to burn in hell for all of eternity because I looked down a microscope and used my noggin if that's what you want.? Evolution is real. Evolution is simply change over time. Why else do you think you have to get a new flu vaccination each year? Because the virus had changed or adapted to the old vaccine. It's quite simple.?

Exactly. Whenever I hear the watch maker argument I ask “well do watches have sex and produce slightly altered offspring?”

RE: "Thought it very telling that Dr Rask thought it acceptable to redefine the definition of species, since the accepted definition of species he thought to ambiguous. " It is interesting that he doesn't have a Ph.D. in biology but feels he has the authority to define "species;" yet those with a Ph.D. in biology would disagree with his definition.

checl also creation.com scientists found a real motor called flagellum. we know that a motor need a designer. even if its very small and have a self replicating system

dcscccc ﾚԾﾚ! Ok.

blackestjake do you believe in evolution?

No offense but evolution is a very important part of biology, thus one lacking such knowledge shouldn't be a surgeon or in the medical field.

MrNateSPF I partly agree with you MrNate, but i guess if he's qualified as a surgeon and can help people then I'm more than happy for him to use his medical skills to do so. It's very sad that he won't accept evolution though.

MrNateSPF , That might be true that you don't need to know about evolution in order to minimally do your job as a surgeon.

What is sad about it?

Hosoi Archives , He claims to be an expert in evolutionary theory and why it is not valid, but he's not. He can't logically justify his points against evolution.

Only a credulous moron would emphasize the guy's "collegial" manner.

RE: " slug it out in a church basement" Actually, the event was in a conference room at Portland State University, not in any basement.

Also, a case in not knowing what deductive logic is, and how we can learn from it. Look at the evidence and deduce what the best explanation is. Hint: It isn't "God's magic."

It's not? Well, back to the drawing board for me.

Erwin Müller , They think that saying "God did it by Magic" is a decent alternate hypothesis, but it's not scientific.

SecHummer neither is evolution.

Erwin Müller prizes have nothing to do with science

Hosoi Archives , A Nobel peace prize in the sciences category has everything to do with breakthrough science.

SecHummer lol the same Nobel prize awarded to Barack Obama? Prizes have nothing to do with science.

It’s literally the Pot calling the silverwear black. We’ve won the argument.

Hosoi Archives , I don't agree, because he represents himself as an expert in biology but doesn't even know the basics of evolutionary theory. A reasonable person wouldn't dismiss the theory without first understanding the evidence for it, and in this case some of the best evidence are pseudogenes and our fused human chromosome number two, which are clearly signs of descent from other species.

I get varying definitions of the theory from evolutionists themselves, so hard to hold that against Bart. Also, which specific species did we evolve from and how did you determine it. Hope your health is well. I think Bart did an excellent job of processing the claims of evolutionists and demonstrating that they don't rise to the level of science. BTW do you have a science degree?

Hosoi Archives , No I don't have a science degree. But I understand the evidence for evolution. And I pointed you to a video presentation by a Christian PhD biological scientist that also believes in evolution because of the strong evidence for it. Evolutionary theory has taught at every public university, bar none. It's that universal. The only schools that reject it are religious schools!

SecHummer thats the whole thing, if you had studied science you would not be making these arguments. Science is not determined by majority polls or what percentage of schools teach or what a random Evangelical believes, rather by what is observable in nature and reproducible in a lab. As Bart brilliantly explains evolution fails that test spectacularly. Evolution is not science.

Hosoi Archives , Have you ever heard the term "scientific consensus?" And do you know what that term means? You asked me for evidence for evolution. And I gave it to you. Did you bother to look at it?

Jo Vonn "Fuck I don't know" is not the state we are in anymore. Maybe 200 years ago, it would be okay to say that. But not today. With all the scientific discoveries in the past 200 years, we can come to some kind of conclusion. If you say "Fuck I don't know", then you're ignoring the mountains of evidence. It would be like a criminal investigator is examining a murder, the victim was killed by a bullet, the gun is still lying next to him and fingerprints on it point to his neighbour. And then the investigator would say "Fuck I don't know"? That's ridiculous.

Jo Vonn There is none. The point is, we have evidence that the Universe must have had a beginning. At some point, the Universe was not there. And then it was. Maybe it was there before, but in another state. Or maybe it wasn't and had to be created somehow. There are not many possibilities. But standing there, saying "I don't know" is not how people make discoveries. Science proposes hypotheses and theories. Smart people have ideas, not empty minds. They don't say "fuck should I know? They make educated guesses.

Saying the universe created itself is a very weird statement. It would be more accurate to say it is self-existent.

"There is none. [Evidence]" Well then, you are not talking about science. The point is, we have no evidence that the Universe must have had a beginning. There is no evidence that, at some point, the Universe was not there. "Maybe it was there before, but in another state. Or maybe it wasn't and had to be created somehow." Or maybe something more complex "created" it... there is no evidence for any of this. But standing there, saying "I know" is entirely dishonest. Science proposes hypotheses and theories based on EVIDENCE. Science is not an educated guess. Claiming to be smart and having an idea does not make it true. Over the past few hundred years we have collected tons of evidence of how things formed after the big bang, though the fact still remains that "I don't know" is the only honest position on what was there and what happened before the big bang. You can say what you think as long as it's not presented as knowledge.

Jo Vonn I get it. We can't be sure of anything. Nothing can't be proven to a perfect degree. Maybe in mathematics. But when there is no good evidence, then we can't know for sure. I'm not stupid. I can admit that I don't have knowledge about certain things. Fact is, the Universe, as we know it, had a beginning. We don't know what happened before or what caused it. We don't even know if it needs to have a cause at all. But if one had to make an _educated guess_, like scientists always do, it would be reasonable to assume that the Universe either didn't need a cause or it caused itself. It would be _irrational_ to believe that some almighty, intelligent Superman spoke the Universe into existence with an incantation spell. Science predicts things. People have always made assumptions and hypotheses based on evidence that were later proven to be true by other people, long after the original person who made the claim died. Like Darwin, for example. Many of his foresights haven been proven to be true much later in time. Scientists have proven many things and made many new discoveries without doing the actual observations or experiments, by using the predictive power of science. Often times scientific experiments are only made to be able to present solid proof for discoveries that were made in the minds and papers of scientists long before and there was a broad consensus in the 'scientific community' about the truth of these findings. Even without solid, empirical proof. That's what you get when you use logic and common sense. If you consider the evidence then it should be obvious that God didn't create the Universe. Any god. Religious people are wrong. It's really simple.