|
|
TCCSA Debate Page
You Don't Have To Write A Thesis.
Why Not Just Add A Point Or Two To What's Posted?
 Does Sickle Cell Resistence To Malaria Demonstrate Evolution?
For an e-mail debate Dr. Kevin Anderson had with evolutionist Dr. Carl Zimmer, (whose original article was a response to Dr. Anderson's radio broadcast) click HERE
Does Creationism Drive People Away From Christ?
Does Biblical Inerrancy Preclude Free Will?
Is Theistic Evolution The only Intellectually Rspectable Option?
Read What One Theistic Evolutionist Has To Say With Response By Ross Olson
For The Challenge By R**** C****, Click HERE.
For The First Response By Ross Olson, Click HERE.
For Round 2A of Installments, Click HERE.
For Round 2B of Installments, Click HERE.
R**** C**** feels Ross Olson did not answer his challenges.
The reader is referred to the answers which Mr. C**** has been ignoring
or just plain misunderstanding in the first 2 rounds.
Richard Dawkins And The 11 Second Pause
What Happened During The Filming Of
"From A Frog To A Prince"?
By Ross Olson
To View That Clip From The Film (358 KB), Click Below,
If that does not work, try clicking HERE
Link to video clip. Used by permission of Answers in Genesis (The full video is available from www.answersingenesis.org) Unauthorized Use Prohibited
For the Fascinating Web Debate That This Video Launched, Click HERE
Dr. Thomas D. Schneider's Challenge
Dear Ross S. Olson:
I came across https://www.tccsa.tc/archives/debate/o_1.html
While I do not have time to go through all your pages, I think that it would
be worth your time to study the following in great detail:
https://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
I think that in this paper and associated materials (web pages and
program) you will find a clear resolution to many of your unanswered
questions about information gain in living things.
Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
National Cancer Institute
Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology
Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
toms{at}ncifcrf.gov
permanent email: toms{at}alum.mit.edu (use only if first address fails)
https://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/
Dr. Schneider offers a very complex model which he claims adds information to a genome. It reminds us of 19th Century designs for perpetual motion machines. In response we suggest looking at section 4.9 of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch and Iain Strachan's article at https://www.iscid.org/papers/Strachan_EvEvaluation_062803.pdf
Anyone want to take Dr. Schneider on?
Creationists Are Used To Debates
But This One Is Different
IT IS BETWEEN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS
Unlocking The Mysteries of Creation
by Dennis Petersen
Is it a book that will open the minds of young people to examine the evidence for themselves, regardless of political correctness and ruling paradigms?
Or is it a book that will bring ridicule to the cause of Creation because it includes evidence that has not undergone creationist peer review or is peripheral to the basic case for creation?
Check out the debate below, then buy a copy yourself and make up your own mind. Click HERE to visit the Creation Resource Foundation Website.
We Welcome Comments, Pro And Con on this subject. Send Them To The TCCSA Webmaster By Clicking HERE.
For A Review By Tom Ish, Editor Of Creation Illustrated Magazine, click HERE.
For A Critique By AIG The Was For A Time On Their Website, Entitled "Unleashing the Storm," click HERE. Please note that this criticsm was apparently withdrawn, as it no longer appears on the Answers In Genesis website. However, it is preserved on the CMI website. This sequence of events does prove that creation science is much more self correcting than evolutionary science and that human egos can be tamed among the members of the body of Christ.
For Dennis Petersen's Long Response, Entitled, "Calming the Storm & Discerning God's Work," click HERE.
For Dennis Petersen's Short Response, Entitled, "Arrogance and Ignorance, Criticism and Ethics" click HERE.
For tabulation of critics complaints in PDF format, click HERE.
For Responses Received By AIG On Their Website, Entitled "Weathering the Storm," click HERE. Please note that this criticsm was apparently withdrawn, as it no longer appears on the Answers In Genesis website. However, it is preserved on the CMI website. This sequence of events does prove that creation science is much more self correcting than evolutionary science and that human egos can be tamed among the members of the body of Christ.
For Even More Links On This Topic, Look Below.
For A Response By Lyndon Griffin, Click HERE.
For A Response By Creation Research (Australia), Click HERE.
For A Response By Ian Taylor, Click HERE.
For A Response By Ruth Beechick, Click HERE.
For A Response By Malcolm Bowden , Click HERE.
For A Response By Tammy Cardwell , Click HERE.
For A Response By Jim Perloff, Click HERE.
For A Response By Dr. David Stewart , Click HERE.
For A Response By Ross Olson , Click HERE.
For A Response By Paul Abramson, Click HERE.
For A Response By Vance Ferrell, Click HERE.
For A Response By Jim Wiltshire, Click HERE.
For A Response By Russ McGlenn, Click HERE.
For A Response By James J. Lippard, Click HERE.
For A Reply to Mr. Lippard by Ross Olson, Click HERE.
Extra, Extra, Read All About It!
The Final Round Is Now Complete!
"Comparisons of molecules (proteins, DNA) of various species provide
independent and compelling support for the hypothesis of biological macro-evolution"
For the first statement by Dave Thomas, posted on August 16, 2002, click HERE.
For the next response by Dave Thomas, posted on November 8, 2002, click HERE.
For the second response by Walter ReMine, posted (by agreement one day late) on December 21, 2002 click HERE.
For the final submission by Dave Thomas, posted (by agreement later than originally planned) on February 17 2003, click HERE.
For the final response by Walter ReMine (by agreement later than originally planned), posted on April 12, click HERE.
This is a debate of substance but of a length that can be digested -- 1500 words per entry, three entries for each debater.
For a biography of Mr. Thomas, Click HERE.
For a biography of Mr. ReMine, Click HERE.
For the agreed-upon rules of the on-line debate, click HERE.
This Debate has been posted simultaneously on the site of
New Mexicans for Science and Reason www.nmsr.org and Twin Cities Creation Science Association www.tccsa.tc
See Record Of A Completed Debate
Evolutionist says, "Leave it to the professionals."
Edward Max, MD, PhD, distributed this printed challenge at his debate with Duane Gish, PhD on 2/22/01. For the complete text, of both Dr. Max's and Dr. Gish's printed statements, see Articles.
Lehrke Productions no longer exists
But You Can Get The DVDs of Many TCCSA Meetings
For a list of DVDs of TCCSA meetings presently available, Click HERE
or Contact Dave Johnson.
Summary of Debate Regarding: "THE EVOLUTION OF IMPROVED FITNESS"
Dr. Max has clarified several things in this debate. In doing so he has honestly provided a great service to the intellectual community, because his work is undoubtedly looked upon as a major pillar of the case for evolution.
1. He does not claim, and says that he never claimed, that his work on the phenomenon of mutation in antibody production either proves or supports evolution. Rather, he only claims that it shows that mutations can be beneficial.
(Olson counters that the mutations are only beneficial because they are part of a very elaborate system that uses them to produce an antibody most closely fitting the new virus or bacteria which threatens the organism.)
2. He also denies that Dawkins' computer evolution model, starting with random letters and ending up with "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" proves or supports evolution and states that he never said otherwise. Rather, he only claims it shows that unlikely results can be more easily produced by multiple successive steps of approximation than by a single chance event.
(Olson counters that the multiple successive steps only prove that an intelligent programmer can make the transition work. To have any relationship at all with evolution by natural selection, each intermediate step would have to be a meaningful sentence that would be "selected" for its usefulness, not because it is moving towards a future goal.)
3. He has no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and does not see one coming in the foreseeable future. Yet he does not feel any need to postulate a supernatural origin of life, and he gives no credit to creationists for pointing out the lack of a natural explanation ever since Stanley Miller's experiments in the 1950's were touted the forerunner of "life in a test tube."
4. He likewise has no naturalistic explanation for the origin of complex systems, such as those discussed by Behe as being "irreducibly complex" and does not see one coming in the foreseeable future. Yet he still feels that Behe's arguments have been satisfactorily addressed.
For Dr. Max's Final Rebuttal to Critique Five and this Summary, click HERE.
Further Summary
5. Dr. Max made strong statements against arguments for a young earth from the salt content of the ocean (the fact that it is not totally saturated.) But like most scientists who work in their own specialty and defer to other experts for many of their views, he admitted -- for all the world to see -- that he had rejected the young ocean arguments on the basis of things he had heard, and NEVER READ the one short article I linked to my rebuttal.
6. Ironically, others consider Dr. Max's article "The Evolution of Improved Fitness" to be the definitive response to creationist arguments that evolution could not take place by naturalistic mechanisms. For example, a member of Minnesota Atheists who responded to a presentation by Dave Stoltzman, expressed regret that no one had challenged his mathematics and states, "I refer you to the excellent article, 'The Evolution of Improved Fitness' by Dr. Edward Max."
7. Dr. Max continues to assert that it is "pseudoscience" for creationists to claim the existence of a universal tendency towards loss of information. Yet despite his implication, guarded with all sorts of convoluted disclaimers, that raw energy from the sun can increase the information content of an object, or that the loss of information in one area can lead to the gain of information in another, he does not provide a single real life example.
8. Ending in an upbeat way, despite expecting no breakthrough in the foreseeable future for a naturalistic mechanism, he lists a number of molecular transitional forms that he feels might represent enzymes developing a second function while retaining their first. Yet the motivation for accepting these as transitional is the faith that evolution is true, completely analogous to the motivation for considering Archaeopteryx to be transitional but platypus to be a mosaic.
9. To his credit, Dr. Max has continued to link to this debate site and post his own responses on TalkOrigins.org. He feels that this interchange shows that creationists continue to misunderstand him. But does not seem to appreciate the irony of the fact that although he says he never claimed to prove (or even support) evolution, his work is considered by many to have "dealt with" the creationist arguments. And, of course, the title of his article would clearly invite such an interpretation.
10. Dr. Max allows for the existence of God, but does not allow God in his science; he somehow does not consider God to be the cause of -- or even a factor in -- anything that he studies. Although he is to be commended for admitting to the possible existence of God and for even recommending the Bible "to the faithful," what this view does is relegate the supernatural to some sort of beneficial but subjective realm, far from the realities of verifiable science.
Ross Olson
Perhaps Dr. Max will post his own summary on TalkOrigins.org and if so, we will link to it here.
If you want to see the details, examine the arguments linked below.
Check Out Dr. Edward Max's Website Article, "THE EVOLUTION OF IMPROVED FITNESS"
For text of Dr. Max's article as it appeared in March 2001 before revisions made in response to interactions with creationists, click HERE.
If you wish to respond, submit enties to Ross Olson for posting and forwarding to Dr. Max.
Dr. Max promises eventually to respond although his schedule may not allow timely postings.
You may also respond to the articles by Max and Gish that are linked above. For A Paper Distributed at Dr. Max 2/22/01 Debate with Duane Gish, click HERE.
For An Introduction To Answering Dr. Edward Max's Challenge, click HERE.
For Ross Olson's First Critique, click HERE.
For Dr. Max's Rebuttal, click HERE.
For Ross Olson's Second Critique, click HERE.
For Dr. Max's Second Rebuttal to the Second Critique, click HERE.
For Ross Olson's Third Critique, click HERE.
For Dr. Max's Third Rebuttal to the Third Critique, click HERE.
For Olson's Critique Number Four, click HERE.
For Dr. Max's Fourth Rebuttal to the Fourth Critique, click HERE.
For Olson's Critique Number Five, click HERE.
For a Summary of these interactions, click HERE. (See above.)
For Dr. Max's Final Rebuttal to the Fifth Critique and the Summary, click HERE.
On Line Debate
For version 1.0 of his website, on which the debates through 2/2001 were based, e-mail ross{at}rossolson.org
This should only be necessary if some point in the rebuttal seems to have no antecedent.
Tom Lawson is an atheist and evolutionist. He has often attended TCCSA Meetings over the years and is ever willing to debate/discuss/dispute, but always as a friendly presence.
He is a good sparring partner because he pulls no punches and has a wide repertoire of moves, yet has a genuine concern for anyone who comes into his ring.
As one who has engaged in discussions for many years, I find Tom to be like a cross between a pit bull and Lassie -- tears your arm off, and then goes for help.
Would you like to see how a serious opponent of TCCSA thinks? Would you like to try your hand at pointing out fallacies or mistakes? Then try looking at his site
Tom has also agreed to allow interactions to be published on this site, so if you wish, e-mail Tom Lawson and Ross Olson for posting here. Tom Lawson will send a copy of his e-mail to you.
If you want to look at other responses, check out
Recently, Steven "Madd" Macks has taken up the gauntlet and...
has gone pacifistic?
For the full story, click HERE.
Does The Second Law of Thermodynamics Oppose Evolution?
With Dr. Robert Holloway For the Negative
Click HERE To See Kickoff Article On Second Law
By Dr. Edward Blick For The Affirmative
Dr. Holloway has also agreed to allow interactions to be published on this site, so if you wish to interact with his ideas, e-mail Robert Holloway and Ross Olson for posting here. Dr. Holloway will send a copy of his answer both to you and to us.
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith"
James R. HOFFMAN
Teacher of Philosophy at California State University Fullerton
Lists many pro and con refererences on Creation vs evolution
Essentially a debate site from a secular University
But gives a voice to the creation side.
https://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/
"Madd Macks" Debate Topics
With Steven Macks
(NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH EDWARD MAX)
"Mild-Mannered Linebacker" and "Trash-Talking Chess Player"
HERE IS QUESTION #1
How does homosexuality work within an evolutionary framework?
- Natural selection insists that organisms produce the most possible offspring
in order for the species to survive and to maintain itself. This fact alone
defies an evolutionary explanation.
What do you think?
E-Mail Your
Comments To Steven Macks
Anybody Want To Take Him On?
Check out the action so far at Macks Debate Archives.
Active Debate Site
The CHRISTIAN Apologetics and Research Center
Has a debate section that is very active.
Creation/Evolution is one of many sections.
https://www.carm.org/
A Pro-Evolution Site That Invites Discussion
Creation vs Evolution
A science site for teachers and students that seems to clearly tilt towards evolution and yet tries to promote the presentation of both sides. It also invites teens to debate the issue on line.
web site
https://library.thinkquest.org/29178/index.htm
|
|