Evolution vs Creationism Debate

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 03/31/2006 - 2:36pm

We have finally got the debate encoded for you to download for free (and availabel in a few formats). The total length of the video is 2 hours and 33 minutes.

The Bower vs. Pendleton Debate is can be obtained via torrent on and as MP3 (audio only, good quality, average 56 kbits/s)

Also, Dr. Bower did a radio interview on KAHL 1310 on Monday April 3, 2006. Download it here

You may want to browse TalkOrigins and Creationwiki while watching the debate.

Mr. Pendleton in action!

Debated:

Origin of Life
Age of the Earth
Origin of Man
Fossils
Mutations

Speakers:
James Bower, Ph.D. (Professor of Neurocomputation) & John Morris Pendleton (Chemist/Creationist). Read their biographies

Survey results

The debate surveys in PDF format.

Coverage by our Johnny-on-the-spot, Melissa Ludwig!

The Bible

Submitted by eagledare on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 6:54pm.

Who stated that the Bible says the world was created 6000 years ago? Whoever it was does not understand the Bible at all and needs to check it out. If we believe the Bible to be Gods Word ( as I do) there cannot be one contradiction in the whole Bible.
In Genesis 1:25 it stated that the animals on the fith day. Then on the sixth day He made Man. So the animals were made first then Man. All agree on this? Ok that was easy now look at Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Then the plants and rivers were formed and the garden of Eden was established and Man was put in the garden. Note no animals yet. Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Do you see a contradiction?

I don't think that the Bible

Submitted by teammarty on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 6:17pm.

I don't think that the Bible says any specific birthdate for everything, but some (English, I think but don't remember) guy added up all the lifespans from somewhere in the OT, added the current year and decided that's how long the earth has existed. Obviously before fossils and Darwin and any of that.

Which implies that unless

Submitted by The Fuzzy One on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 6:56pm.

Which implies that unless the Bible is immune to the rules of arithmetic (it already doesn't need to worry about Jesus' genealogies making sense or getting any accurate value of pi) there's something wrong.

links to video

Submitted by dirkness_03 on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 3:36am.

hey can't make any of the web links to the debate video work on here. I'd like to see it. Thanks.

I have a copy. I have an

Submitted by adam on Wed, 04/04/2007 - 4:26am.

I have a copy. I have an xvid version around 1 gig and the DVD release. Contact me off list and I'll set you up (I won't pay shipping though). adam@npjh.com

OYFG!

Submitted by Xoloitzcuintle on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 7:48pm.

OYFG!

The people are insane!

did you watch the surveys?

Torrent

Submitted by Easter Claus (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:16pm.

Is anybody willing to seed or should I just watch low quality stream?

Added the debate surveys in

Submitted by jeremy on Sat, 04/22/2006 - 3:28pm.

Added the debate surveys in PDF format.

why is it?

Submitted by atheistbob2 on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 2:38am.

maybe its just me, but why is every creation debate about fossils and carbon dating? id like to see one of these debates get to the core of the issue and prove how 'intelligent design' isnt science at all! why doesnt one of these debate guys break down how the creation arguments are based on anecdotal claims at best? maybe if they would destroy their claims of 'scientific' proof, then the creation guys wouldnt have a chance at all...

Not ID

Submitted by chris on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 12:23pm.

The debate was not ID vs. Evolution it was Creationism vs. Evolution. It was even that magical form of creationism that states the biblical story of God creating the world, the universe, and all life in 6 days around 6000 years ago is acutually what happened!

I never touched her I swear! Ok, ok, I touched her, but she was dead when I got here! Oh, sorry, wrong conversation.

The Bible

Submitted by eagledare on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 6:52pm.

Who stated that the Bible says the world was created 6000 years ago? Whoever it was does not understand the Bible at all and needs to check it out. If we believe the Bible to be Gods Word ( as I do) there cannot be one contradiction in the whole Bible.
In Genesis 1:25 it stated that the animals on the fith day. Then on the sixth day He made Man. So the animals were made first then Man. All agree on this? Ok that was easy now look at Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Then the plants and rivers were formed and the garden of Eden was established and Man was put in the garden. Note no animals yet. Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Do you see a contradiction?

i definitely need to check

Submitted by atheistbob2 on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 12:55pm.

i definitely need to check that one out! you said you guys have them on dvd? i should pick up a copy... it makes me really interested to see that he debunked that crap as pseudo. ive been waiting for a debate like that. i saw a debate on the infidelguys page one time, and both debaters sucked ass.
http://www.novellgold.com/funnies/audio/ROBOTO.WAV

?

Submitted by carlos on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 2:47am.

Did you even watch the debate?
---------------------------------------------------------
I will never side with those who condone violence

missed it.

Submitted by atheistbob2 on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:06am.

ive read your postings on the debate, and im glad that its available for download now. did your side prove its religion and not science? ive seen a few of these debates and they never go that way. heres what you guys said was debated:

Origin of Life
Age of the Earth
Origin of Man
Fossils
Mutations

Bower actually attacked

Submitted by carlos on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:14am.

Bower actually attacked religion as not being science, and made Penndelton look like the dumb ass that he really is. ---------------------------------------------------------
I will never side with those who condone violence

coo'

Submitted by atheistbob2 on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:18am.

damn thats cool. im gonna download it now, if thats cool. ive been waiting for a debater who had the balls to do that! usually they get trapped in a muddle of 'intelligent design' bullshit. glad to hear it!

You have to see the video...

Submitted by chris on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 12:17pm.

Calos is correct, Bower just came out with both guns firing. It was just wonderful to behold. Pendleton was completely out gunned and out classed, he never stood a chance. Bower owned the stage that night. He made creationism, and Pendlenton look like what they both really are, stupid.

I never touched her I swear! Ok, ok, I touched her, but she was dead when I got here! Oh, sorry, wrong conversation.

Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record: Defining Terms

Submitted by jeremy on Mon, 04/10/2006 - 11:27pm.

Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record: Defining Terms
By Penny Higgins

"A common argument of creationism is that no transitional forms between major organismal groups (e.g. the classes of the vertebrates: fish, birds, mammals etc.) are seen in the fossil record. Evolution posits that such intermediates do exist, but may not be recognized as such. In the end, it often boils down to an argument of semantics.

Science prides itself in its open framework. Science is considered to be at its best when authors freely disclose any and all assumptions that were made in their research and also present all the raw data before giving their own interpretation of it. This way, as new understandings arise and assumptions are shown to be invalid, scientists coming later can re-interpret the raw data in this new light. While laying out all the information that goes into a conclusion leaves the first scientist open to be disproved, it is GOOD science nevertheless.

In the spirit of this open framework, I wish to explain here some basic principles of biology and paleontology that, if improperly understood, can strongly affect the answer to the question: Are transitional forms found in the fossil record?" Continue reading.

Further topics covered are:
The biological species concept
The morphological species concept
Taxonomic nomenclature
Primitive versus Advanced
Taxonomic relationships vs Phylogenetic relationships

Praise Jesus! Mighty Creator of the Mexican Pterodactyl!

Submitted by regis. on Thu, 04/06/2006 - 1:58am.

That's how a REAL scientist spends his time! Not cooped up in a "laboratory"!

Ahhh

Submitted by Allie on Mon, 04/10/2006 - 5:50pm.

You never cease to amaze me Regis.

Run, Pendleton, run!

Submitted by chris on Thu, 04/06/2006 - 1:19pm.

That is too funny!

SA Express write up

Submitted by johnmpendleton (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:20pm.

The SA Express and Melissa got it wrong. Darwin did not know anything about genetic mutations. Also, Darwin did not go on the Beagle LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE, he was just getting the impression of his theory a year or two after he got back from his trip. THE PAISANO did a much better REPORTING article than SA Express:http://www.paisano-online.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/03/4432bf8ea1658 John Pendleton

The Beagle

Submitted by chris on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:02pm.

You are correct, Darwin knew nothing of genetic mutations. However, your complaint that, "Also, Darwin did not go on the Beagle LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE, he was just getting the impression of his theory a year or two after he got back from his trip." interest me a great deal. Is your complaint that Darwin actually didn't come up with the Theory of Evolution till AFTER he took the time to study in detail all that he found on his trip? Are you bothered that he FIRST closely examined the world around him, THEN formed an opinion? Are you concerned that he took the time to first become informed BEFORE coming to a conclusion? Is it this type of careful and critical thinking that does not sit well with you? Is it this kind of loyality that Darwin showed to objectively, and painstakingly evaluating the empircal data, and evidence that you object to? If not, why bring it up?

Melissa did not mention anything about Darwin's trip on The Beagle in her article inspite of your implication that somehow she was wrong about why he went on the trip in the first place. Did you just want her to be wrong about more than just the one thing because you dislike her overall fairhanded article? Is the fact that she referred to you as a "self-titled creation scientist", instead of just a scientist that would make you act this way? Is this what made you imply there where more errors in her article than there actually were? Well, sir I am sorry to inform you that that is exactly what you are, a self-titled creation scientist. Because you are not an actual scientist. A B.S. in Chemistry, or any other natural science does not a scientist make. A scientist, does actual research, which you do not, inspite of the "proof" you offer.

"Pendleton, who heads an organization called the International Group of Creation Scientists, believes that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and that human and dinosaurs roamed it together. He holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin and offered as further proof of his scientific credentials his goal to capture a live pterodactyl, which he believes can be found in Mexico."

Webster's defines the word credentials as
1 : something that gives a title to credit or confidence
2 plural : testimonials showing that a person is entitled to credit or has a right to exercise official power
3 : CERTIFICATE, DIPLOMA

Furture plans, regardless of how insane, do not fall under any of these definitions. They are also not proof of ones credentials. Proof of ones credentials would be documentation of one's educational and professional work history that can be verified by another. How does you being an "automobile techician", whatever that mean, qualify you to refute Evolutionary Theory? What scientific research have you done? What papers have you written? Where have they been published? Have you been published in any crediable scientific professional journals? Has any of your research been published in even a sudoscience journal? In case you don't know sudoscience means fake science. If you have been published have you been published by anyone other than yourself? How many actual scientist belong to your "International Group of Creation Scientists", and don't count yourself, because as I stated before you are not a scientist?

Mr. Pendelton, words, like facts and evidence are important. One should understand them before one tries to use them. An idea which you seem to have missed.

Ronald Miller wrote the

Submitted by carlos on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:16pm.

Ronald Miller wrote the article for The Paisano. He is a creationist who left way before the debate was even over. So much for nonpartisan coverage. BTW I'm glad to see that you play the "satanist" game of D&D. We could use another fighter(as that is the character class in your profile.)

---------------------------------------------------------Inconsistency is the source of all bullshit.

He holds a bachelor's Degree?

Submitted by jeremy on Sun, 04/02/2006 - 8:09pm.

"He holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the University of Wisconsin and offered as further proof of his scientific credentials his goal to capture a live pterodactyl, which he believes can be found in Mexico." - Express-News

That would be cool if one was found alive. That dipshit thinks the Ica Stones 2, 3, are actual depictions of dinosaurs made by men who lived with dinosaurs. Silly Creationists...

Ica stones and dinosaurs

Submitted by johnmpendleton (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:29pm.

So, Jeremy, how would you prove, show, convince that the Ica Stones are not dinosaurs with humans drawn 700 AD or older? It is one thing to doubt and ridicule, it is another to show proofs.John Pendleton

John Pendleton is pretty much crazy...

Submitted by jeremy on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:26pm.

ROFLOL, burden of proof anyone?

Ica stones: yabba-dabba-do! - Notes on a Strange World - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
Ica stones - The Skeptic's Dictionary
The Ica Stones by David Bailey
Ica stones - wikipedia

All of the arguments that we might get into on this thread are already on the internet (presented from both sides too), use google or whatever...

Ica Stones, fake

Submitted by Spander on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 5:28pm.

First welcome to our site Mr. Pendleton. The Ica stones are with a doubt Fake. The two people that carved the stones have admitted to it.

The Seven Warning Signs of

Submitted by adam on Fri, 03/31/2006 - 6:48pm.

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

This seems rather appropriate.

Carl Sagan's - Baloney Detection Kit

Submitted by jeremy on Fri, 03/31/2006 - 8:31pm.

Carl Sagan's - Baloney Detection Kit

Apply that to both evolution and creation

Submitted by johnmpendleton (not verified) on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:33pm.

Hi Jeremy. I liked that by Sagan. Just at a glance, his points seem quite sound and unprejudiced.How about we try applying his BALONEY DETECTION KIT, one at a time to the evolution and creation issues?Know why Dr. Bower did not bring evidence for a young earth? He did not have any. And nice attitude: "I am a scientist and I don't have to obey the rules."John Pendleton

I know why

Submitted by chris on Thu, 04/06/2006 - 2:35am.

Mr. Pendleton, I know why Dr. Bower did not bring evidence for a young earth. It is because he wasn't arguing for a young earth, you were. You were suppose to bring actual evidence for a young earth, but all you brought were the same old half-truths and lies, no actual evidence. Maybe that is why you did so poorly, you were confussed about what was suppose to happen that night. Were you under the impression that Dr. Bower was going to provide evidence to back up whatever you said? You did know it was a "debate" right?

Attitude

Submitted by chris on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:47pm.

Yes, Dr. Bower does not have to obey your nonsense rules you demanded, out of your fear of going into areas where your "powerpoint science" was not preprepared for you. Yes, we know that you didn't even know enough about this subject to prepare your own debate material, but borrowed someone else's. If you are wondering how we know this it is really very simple.  We do our research. A habit that you may want to try to pick up someday.

Second, I can say with total honesty that Dr. Bower, never LIED while he was on stage. While you did lie. You misrepresent what the second law of thermodynamics is.  The theory of evolution is in complete compliance with the actual second law of thermodynamics. The actual law states, "For a CLOSED system, the TOTAL entropy of the sysem does not DECREASE".  A holder of a B.S. in chemistry knows this.

You, misrepresented the evidence on carbon-14 dating, by citing examples outside the range of where it is valid, but intentionally not mentioning that they outside of the valid range. You are fully aware that you can not carbon-14 date a living organism. Also, carbon-14 dating will not give valid results for anything older than 50,000 years, and finally do to the industrial revolution you can not carbon-14 date things younger than 150 years. A holder of a B.S. in chemistry knows this.

These are just two of the lies you told on stage during the debate. If you actually did not know these things I do apologies for calling you a liar, but then you need to go back to the University of Wisconsin at Madison and demand your money back because a person that holds a B.S. in chemistry should know these things.

Lastly, I want to thank you for your preformance on the night of the debate. Due to your behavior, and the wonderful preformance of Dr. Bower more than a handfull of CRU members have told us, and have also told Dr. Bower personally, right after the debate and via email since then, that they are going to be rethinking their belief in Creationism. Also, as you can see in the survey results there was a noticable shift in the strongly Creationist crowd towards a better understanding of what Evolutionary Theory actually is.  Clearly 10% to 15% of the Creationist that attended are more open to Evolutionary Theory. This would not have happened without your involvement in the debate. Please, keep up the good work.

More lies

Submitted by chris on Thu, 04/06/2006 - 2:25am.

If anyone would like me to list more lies that Pendleton told on stage during the debate, and explain why they are lies just ask and I will be happy to do so. I might not be able to post them right away because I am going to be very busy for the next few days, but I will get to them as soon as I can. Also, I will be explaining in greater detail why what Pendleton said about the Second Law of Theormodynamics is a lie, but once again you might have to wait a few days for me to post it because I am going to be really busy. You can blame my professors, I know I am.

Lice

Submitted by Spander on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 6:18pm.

What if we apply some of these tools from this Baloney Detection kit to you sir? 1.Let's start with the statement "try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just becuase it's yours." Have you done this sir? Or have you filtered the hits and dismissed the misses from your "evidence" of a young earth? 2. The statement "spin more then one hypothesis- don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy" is one that you haven't done at all. You believe that your Christian god is real and all evidence must support that. Your only hypothesis is that god did it. 3. "Independent confirmation of the facts" you have failed this as well. You sir have only looked at "facts" or "evidence" that are slanted toward what you believe.

I don't understand the point of bringing these questions up to a student group, if your claims have any real weight they will be better off puslished in a respected scientist peer reviewed magzine, but none of you claims are. You sir have done nothing more then prey on the people's beliefs, feed them lies their looking for, and make a living off of them. You are the definition of a parasite.

The reason he's posting here

Submitted by Jonathan Fisher on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 6:26pm.

The reason he's posting here is clear.

He's mining us for quotes for his next presentation.

Think of him as a cross between a corporate forum infiltrator and a troll.

Of course, we SHOULD remind him that everything on this board is copyrighted by our group and that permission to use the material has NOT been granted.

And perhaps...

Submitted by jeremy on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:11pm.

Also he is probably trying to advertise and influence the visitors who come here to download the debate. He also probably thinks that he will not convince us of the silly shit he is spouting but maybe he will get someone else to fall for his "arguments." In which case one should go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ which presents the creationists' arguemnts better than Pendleton can!

And almost all of the arguments he will bring up here, were covered in the debate, thats what it was for! (I also suggest that if we are going to start discussing creationism, that it be moved to another thread and a link to that thread be posted here?) I suspect this thread is going to do a bit of growing too...

Actually...

Submitted by chris on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:57pm.

Actually, he is probably upset to see that we have posted the debate as a free download, since he wants to sell his recording of it. We want to educate as many people as possible about what evolutionary theory really is, which is why we are giving our copy away. He is just looking to turn a buck by pandering to people's religous view.

quoting chris "probably

Submitted by elves (not verified) on Fri, 04/07/2006 - 11:04pm.

*quoting chris* "probably upset to see that we have posted *end quote* sadly, this probably IS the case. I personally believe in creation...but if everything I believed was based on that debate, I'd be evolutionist all the way. That was poor work on Pendleton's part.

Why?

Submitted by chris on Sat, 04/08/2006 - 4:32pm.

Why do you believe in creationism? Have you ever really looked into what evolution really is? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
The acceptence of evolution does not preclude the belief in a god. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Before you ask, yes I have looked into what Creationism really is. Which is the reason I know it is not true.

note I said I

Submitted by elves (not verified) on Sun, 04/09/2006 - 9:50am.

**note** I said I believe in creation, not creation-ism ** big difference ;) Creation merely is the idea that God created. This could allow for the creationism belief that the earth must be 6,000 years old, it could allow for I.D., or it could allow for evolution.Creation-ism, on the other hand (note the key letters "ism"), demands a literal 6-day view of Genesis (which I actually find funny, because Genesis 1 is poetic in nature, quite similarly to a nursery rhyme), and while I'm not saying "that couldn't happen"...I'm not stupid enough to say "it must"

Pick and choose

Submitted by Nemo on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 3:37am.

on what grounds do you decide which parts of scripture to take as fact and which as fiction
it can all be easly taken as fiction
but as fact??
water into wine?

nice idea though

Inhale

Exhale

Ok

Submitted by chris on Sun, 04/09/2006 - 7:42pm.

Then what is the point you are trying to make? Accepting the definition of the the word creation that you stated practically every single(I really want to say all but my rational judgement got the better of me) theist on the planet by definition believes in creation. Therefore when a theist states that "I believe in creation" this is a nonstatement, because it contains no additional information. I am not trying to be dismissive or anything like that, rather I am trying to understand the point of your post.

Also, actually the word 'creationism' does not demand a literal 6-day view of Genesis. Once again you should ckeck out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html. Read the definition of Old Earth Creationism. Pendleton argued for Young Earth Creationism, but that is not the only form of Creationism.

I never touched her I swear! Ok, ok, I touched her, but she was dead when I got here! Oh, sorry, wrong conversation.