Ken Ham vs. Eugenie Scott

cih1355 · #1 (**permalink**) 01-11-2009, 06:40 PM

Below is a link to a debate between Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott. Both of them were on a radio talk show and there were listeners who called in and asked them questions.

One of the things that Ken Ham said was that there needs to be an increase of genetic information in order for molecules-to-man evolution to work. Eugenie Scott thought the idea of an increase in information was vague so Ken Ham tried to explain what an increase of genetic information would be. There was no response from Eugenie Scott because the talk host show had a caller ask a question.

Ken Ham said that he did not trust the radiometric dating methods because they rest on assumptions, but he did not explain what those assumptions were and why those assumptions were false.

Eugenie Scott said that evolution was the idea that living things have a common ancestry and that there is descent with modification. She talked about the kinds of biological change that a creationist would agree with.

Eugenie Scott vs. Ken Ham

Grymir · #2 (**permalink**) 01-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Great link!!!!

Zeno333 · #3 (**permalink**) 01-11-2009, 08:22 PM

In the Evolution vs Creationism debate, I feel that one should note the fact that the last sentence of the 2nd edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species" states that the just described Evolution process is controlled by the "Creator", (the word Creator there is with a capital C so it is clearly referring to God). So according to the 2nd edition of Darwin's book, Darwin is a "Creationist", or at least what the term should stand for.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #4 (**permalink**) 01-11-2009, 09:22 PM

Darwin was referring to the Deistic "god" not the Theistic God.

staythecourse · #5 (**permalink**) 01-11-2009, 11:23 PM

It may be worth mentioning that this woman was also in the "Expelled" movie.

Thanks for digging this up

Re4mdant · #6 (**permalink**) 01-12-2009, 10:08 AM

Thanks for sharing

cih1355 · #7 (**permalink**) 01-12-2009, 01:05 PM

Eugenie Scott defined evolution as the idea that that living things have a common ancestry and that there is descent with modification. Her definition of evolution does not clearly distinguish between the difference between what evolutionists believe and what creationists believe. Creationists believe that living things have a common ancester and that there is descent with modification. The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that they have different beliefs about which organisms have a common ancester and which do not and what kind of genetic modifications there can be.

Creationists believe that plants and animals cannot change beyond the boundaries of their own kind, but evolutionists believe that those things can change beyond the boundaries of thier own kind.

steven-nemes · #8 (**permalink**) 01-12-2009, 05:24 PM

I understand from having listened to Kent Hovind lectures in the past that radiometric dating assumes that the Earth is at least 30,000 years old or so (if I understand it correctly).

They date the age of something by testing the amount of [some substance] in it (this said substance is one that decays at a certain rate so that by x amount of years, only half of the previous amount is left) and comparing that amount to the amount of [some substance] in the atmosphere. They determine how much of it decayed by comparing it to the amount of that substance in the atmosphere, assuming that the earth has been around long enough for the substance, which is absorbed by plants and animals through the air and such, to stabilize: that is, that the amount of that substance in the air has reached equilibrium with the amount of that substance being absorbed on the earth's surface. It takes around 30,000 years or so for that substance to reach equilibrium, so the assumption behind radiometric dating is that the earth is at least 30,000 years old-which kind of begs the question if you ask me.

Now I might have misunderstood this, so don't take my explanation as a text-book explanation of the process.

**Marrow Man** · #9 (**permalink**) 01-12-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeno333

In the Evolution vs Creationism debate, I feel that one should note the fact that the last sentence of the 2nd edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species" states that the just described Evolution process is controlled by the "Creator", (the word Creator there is with a capital C so it is clearly referring to God). So according to the 2nd edition of Darwin's book, Darwin is a "Creationist", or at least what the term should stand for.

Or, it would appear (deistic assumptions aside) that Darwin was in some way an advocate of some sort of "intelligent design." Would you happen to be able to link that last sentence (or quote it here)? And how do anti-ID types respond to such statements from Darwin?