On Wednesday night, my friendly nemesis John Counsell is having a creation scientist on his “Ask The Pastor” show. It is open line and open topic, and they will be taking questions from the hours of 10PM-12 midnight.
I have an unverified report that the creation scientist will be: Laurence Tisdall
Without question, I will be jumping in on this one, but I’d like to put it out to all of you to help me. I asked John awhile ago to bring one of his creation scientists on so we could talk evolution vs. ID. He has finally done it, and I want to make it tough.
There are two things I’d like to ask of all of you:
1: Help me build a list of really tough questions to present to them on the show.
2: I’d like others to call in and pose questions, because I will only be able to get in one or two personally.
Some may see this as a waste of time, but John has always been open to the other side’s opinion, and is not a “hang-up fiend” like Lowell Green is. We could all have a lot of fun with this I think.
Here is all the information you will need to take part:
- The Station is: 580 on the AM dial. It is CFRA.
- You can listen online here: http://cfra.com/listen/default.asp
- The time is 10PM to Midnight on Wednesday
- The call in number is: 613-521-8255
So let’s build a list of kick butt questions that will put this creation scientist on the spot. Give me the best ones you got, and I know many people in our group probably have the best, and most challenging ones out there. Lets Do This!!
Update!:
We had a lot of fun on the show! Here’s the audio file of the whole thing.
2010/02/16 at 2:04 am
What seems more probable:
That a woman listened to a talking snake and ate an apple convincing a man to do the same and hunanity has been sinful and fallen ever since at the decree of a loving God for less than 10.000 years
or
Man has developed gradulaly into a civilized society over hundreds of thousands of years using his capacity to reason
?
MIke
2010/02/16 at 9:22 am
Good to see the blog coming back live.
It is not a waste of time, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Suggested questions:
(1) the Universe, by definition, contains everything. How can a god exist that created the Universe if the latter contains everything ?
(2) How can a god create something from nothing ? It is physically impossible.
(3) How a pusportedly existing god came to be if he created everything ?
(4) Christians are a small fraction of a small fraction of living species on a small planet in a small star system in one galaxy out of billions of galaxies in the Universe. The planet itself is utterly insignificant, unremarkable and indistinguishable from other planets in space when looked at from a distance. Why would an imaginary god create the entire Universe for the benefit of that particular small christian sect, and not, for example, for another insignificant sect of another species on another planet in another star system in another galaxy ? References: Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan.
This will do for now. I have more questions but good manners prevent me from typing them here.
2010/02/16 at 9:23 am
Sounds like fun. Ask pretty much anything about Noah’s Flood. That’s the easiest thing to poke fun at.
2010/02/16 at 10:28 am
I agree, poking fun is the best tactic.
Your objective in this debate ought to be to persuade the audience that he is so far off base that it is laughable.
You should NOT take an adversarial or angry stance, as that will lose you credibility with the audience.
You need to use short sound bites that are funny to torch his credibility: i.e. “So after the flood, Noah was able to distribute all of the marsupials to Australia, and to Australia only, purely on foot…”
2010/02/16 at 11:33 am
Xander,
Spread the word about this effort to the Ottawa Skeptics as well. I’m sure many would also be able to contribute to this.
2010/02/16 at 9:24 am
purportedly
2010/02/16 at 9:26 am
What seems more probable:
That hundreds of years of geological study and dozens of independent examinations by the world’s best and brightest all confirm the age of planet earth to be approximately 4.6 billion years, with multicellular life occupying but a tiny fraction of that span?
OR
That the entire universe is designed so that it appears to have come about this way, but in fact came about some other way, with no means whatsoever to verify this empirically?
2010/02/16 at 9:27 am
RE: thier explanation that light has changed velosity to account for the light reaching us from millions of years ago.
Using the formula E = MC^2, if the constant C changed, then either mass or energy had to change to compensate. So does the IDiot claim that the earth had the mass of a marshmellow or a bird landing on a twig would release the energy of an atomic bomb?
2010/02/16 at 9:31 am
Personally, I CFRA and its talk radio brethren to be a form of mental torture and take no satisfaction this sort of discussion in with brick-wall-creationists. To each his own at an interpersonal level.
However, you are keen and looking for suggestions. You could take your pick from here:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Or, more specifically, for a creationist:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
Contradictions in particular get to the core problem for biblical literalists:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
2010/02/16 at 10:36 am
I would not get into quoting scripture with the guy.
It is very important to deny the credibility of the bible. Sam Harris’ take on these documents being incomplete, heavily edited, heavily added to over time, and entirely questionable should be as far as you have to go.
If you really need to, some of the contradictions are good. I don’t mean the logical contradictions, I mean the factual contradictions. Vertical vs. Horizontal readings of the gospels, for example, reveal glaring differences as to who was at Jesus’ tomb, whether the stone was rolled away or not, what Jesus’ last words were, etc, etc. This stuff is OK to use on a radio program, so long as the bigger point that the bible is a man-made document is the main point that you are raising.
But getting sucked into a “this is what author X really meant” kind of debates only grants credibility to the document and to the creationist.
Just stick to the Sam Harris attack and you should be fine…
2010/02/16 at 11:11 am
I would be wary of quoting the bible, even to point out what seem to be obvious contradictions. First, it is an item of evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine that “even Satan quotes scripture for his nefarious purposes” (eg http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/satan_tempts_jesus/lk04_09-10.html). Second, most creationists claim that their arguments are based on science, not religion, so I think we should respond to the scientific claims, and leave the religion aside for other debates.
2010/02/16 at 9:46 am
Here’s another:
Do you believe that humankind could have come about in a universe not perfectly optimized to its needs?
If yes: Why? What evidence have you to back this bizarre claim?
If no: Then , if it is simply impossible for us to exist in a universe not precisely amenable to our existence, why is it at all remarkable that we exist in such a universe? How does our existence here, which you have just agreed is the only possible place we could exist, suggest anything? Does the presence of marine fish in the ocean imply that a Prime Mover put them there, and that otherwise they’d be strewn about the Sahara Desert and the Himalayas, flopping helplessly? Or, rather, does it simply imply that things happen where they CAN happen?
2010/02/16 at 10:11 am
Good prep for a debate (brief sound-bites):
If you can develop a succinct verbal description of this video, he’ll have some explaining to do:
You would have to describe the centromere and telomere, as well as the fact that almost all of the other alleles on the chromosome, literally millions of data points, are also EXACTLY THE SAME. To Miller’s point at the end of the video, either evolution is true, or god is a liar.
2010/02/16 at 10:57 am
[...] by humanistottawaweb under evolution Leave a Comment Some suggestions for those who want to fight the good fight in support of science and reason: For anyone who plans to phone in, I highly recommend that you check out the talk.origins archive, [...]
2010/02/16 at 10:58 am
For anyone who plans to phone in, I highly recommend that you check out the talk.origins archive, http://www.talkorigins.org, particularly the index of creationist claims, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
The rest of my post got too long for a comment, so I made it into a blog post- you can read it here: http://humanistottawaweb.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/talking-to-creationists/
2010/02/16 at 11:17 am
(5) Why otherwise intelligent people don’t realize that organized religion is nothing but organized crime (ref: history) that maintains its wealth and power by brainwashing people with nonsense from an early age and coercing them into sending money by intimidation and unintelligible purpose-designed mumbo-jumbo?
2010/02/16 at 11:19 am
Intimidation: hell, wrath of god
Unintelligible purpose-designed mumbo-jumbo: bible
2010/02/16 at 11:21 am
Any idea who the creationist is? A lot of these guys have pretty stereotyped schticks, and if you can find out what they’re likely to say that helps a lot.
2010/02/16 at 11:28 am
Working on it. Just waiting for John to email me back.
2010/02/16 at 11:23 am
I agree with those saying let’s keep this fun. If you call in, don’t get angry, just try and tie them in knots on the air.
I must admit that Counsell has consistently showed me respect on his show even when I radically oppose his stance. What I really want to do here, is make things difficult for them.
2010/02/16 at 11:28 am
One question I was going to ask is:
“If we were to take intelligent design seriously as a scientific explanation, then it must provide a mechanism in which it may be falsified in order to be considered science. What would need to be demonstrated in order for you to consider Intelligent Design false. (Do note that evolutionary theory provides many answers to this same question).”
2010/02/16 at 11:57 am
Perfect question. You may want to exposit a bit about why falsifiability is necessary for experimentation.
2010/02/16 at 12:00 pm
Well, if he is actually a scientist, he will know what I mean. I’ve also talked about falsification on JC’s forums before.
If I had enough time though, I agree it would be important to talk about falsification and the scientific method.
2010/02/16 at 12:19 pm
Creation “scientists” are often actually engineers, and as such may not be too concerned about following the scientific method. Creationists often take the approach that if they can point out just one flaw in an evolutionary explanation, the entire theory crumbles to dust.
2010/02/16 at 12:24 pm
Yeah, it’s the “only two possibilities” problem. By attempting to render evolution by natural selection false, ID or creation is true by default.
There are actually points of view that could be brought up to smash this, even if they are outrageous:
1: Certain angles of solipsism could do the job.
2: Quantum fluctuations could do as well. The only thing that exists is the present, and our past came into existence along with the present for just the instant we are living in right now.
Ridiculous, but just as legitamte as the creationist view point
2010/02/16 at 12:50 pm
Yup – check out “last Thursdayism” (aka omphalism) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
2010/02/16 at 12:43 pm
This question may backfire:
They can say there can be no such mechanism, therefore intellignet design cannot be proven false, therefore it is true. Why can there be no such mechanism ? For the same reason as there is no mechanism to prove that god doesn’t exist. I.e., it cannot be proven that god doesn’t exist, therefore god exists.
But that is the usually convoluted and contorted rationalization you can expect from those “scientists”.
Their simple answer is: because we believe.
Anyhow, the entire creationism debate is a farce and just another way for them to fill their airtime. I will listen to have a laugh, but will not call, because I would be declaring them clinically insane inside a minute.
2010/02/16 at 12:48 pm
P.S.: this “creation scientist” character must be a graduate of one of those “universities” run by churches. He may have a divinity degree, too. Or a Ph.D., in which case whatever he says must be true, because he has a Ph.D.
2010/02/16 at 2:16 pm
The objective of my question is not to prove anything to be true or false, it is instead intended to show what is science, and what is not.
2010/02/16 at 11:34 am
If they pull out the old crap about “wouldn’t you rather believe you were created by a loving god in his own image, as opposed to that your parents were monkeys” or similar: ” No I do not think being created out of mud and magic by an invisible man who lives in the sky so he could watch over us and punish us if he doesnt like our sex life”
The other thing, even more important is to constantly remind them to provide positive evidence for creation. Even if evolution were proved wrong tomorrow that would not mean creationism, especially christian creationism, would win by default. Also ask which creation stories they want us to teach. Inca? Native American? Hindu? Norse? Bob the universe farting hippo? Do they have any evidence that their particular one should be taught as correct?
Main thing is don’t get angry, just ask them for facts, And make them provide it. If you corner them on something and they try to “Gish Gallop” to another subject, call them on it. Try to be near the internet so you can google any “facts” they just pull out of their ass.
2010/02/16 at 3:58 pm
Tell it, Brotha’!
Beware the false dichotomy indeed.
2010/02/16 at 1:44 pm
This quote from the King James Bible could it have really be divinely inspired?
“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.” Malachi 2:3
2010/02/16 at 2:18 pm
I have gotten an unverified report that the guest is: Laurence Tisdale
2010/02/16 at 2:36 pm
Here’s his website, if it’s him:
http://www.creationnisme.com/
It looks like pretty stock creationist stuff. I don’t speak French at all well, but he’s got the Grand Canyon and some other items on there that look like they’re lifted right from Hovind’s arguments.
You might want to brush up on your counter arguments to the William Lane Craig nonsense, too.
2010/02/16 at 2:50 pm
Laurence Tisdall? http://creationwiki.org/Laurence_Tisdall
here’s a YouTube video:
(And for all your Canadian Creationism needs: http://www.creationinfo.com/)
2010/02/16 at 4:06 pm
Another question as a counter to intelligent design theory that parses the “creationist” out of the pseudo-scientific veil is this:
“If it was to be shown that many things about life are in fact intelligently designed, then it is likely that the designer was a life form that arose as a result of a natural process (or it’s creator,or it’s creator,and on) such as Evolution by Natural Selection, thereby putting us back where we started.
Is there any logical way to terminate this loop without positing a super natural being which is inherently unscientific?”
2010/02/16 at 4:58 pm
(A)
This idea is well exploited in SF, and any reasonable, normal, intelligent person would arrive to this conclusion with some due consideration: we, as life-forms on Earth may or may not have been designed. If we have, then our designer may or may not have been. And so on. Very obviously, at the end of the chain there is only one possibility left: evolution. Even the blind can see it. Anything else is superstition. Mr. “creationist scientist” can take it home to chew on it.
(B) On the philosophical level: if we have been designed, then no doubt the designers possess(ed) more advanced intelligence than we do. It is very hard to fathom such an advanced intelligence to be anything less than morally and ethically mature. If we are their design, then we are a dead-end failed experiment as we have faults in the design. Mental instability being the most obvious. We are sort of a Frankendesign that was abandoned due to unsuccessful outcome. Not terminated, because that would have been morally unacceptable by the designers. ——- Then again, this hypothesis is assuming a lot. And still doesn’t prove god, obviusly. It only provides a possibility for the origins of life on this planet. Plain logic, any way one applies it, eventually arrives to evolution. The middle name of “creationist scientists” is Mike Alfa Delta.
2010/02/16 at 5:27 pm
It is sad that mankind is wasting so much time, energy and resources on such inanities as creation in particular, and religion in general. I admit to being at fault by letting myself be dragged down to this kind of needless defense of sanity vs. insanity. No-one would consider seriously debating the validity of hallucinations of an asylum inmate with the inmate. I can’t tell anyone how to spend their time, but dignifying the creationists by actually engaging with them in a debate is already an acknowledgement of taking them seriously. They are a joke. but of course, everyone knows that.
2010/02/16 at 5:38 pm
I don’t know if it is a waste of time, and especially in this instance. It is John Counsell’s show. Many people that will be listening are christians that have hardly been exposed to the other viewpoint.
I also don’t like letting bad ideas fester. I think it is important to stand up and challenge them. Too many ridiculous movements have fired up in our history simply because people left them unchallenged.
Everyone can do what they like, but I have no problem calling in and mixing it up on the show. I actually think it will be fun.
2010/02/16 at 5:44 pm
I have no illusions that anyone is going to change the minds of Laurence Tisdall, ,or John Counsell. So why bother? We do it for those who are as yet undecided, or have recently become a bit doubtful. I was at a creationism debate a few years back, and, as I expected, all of my questions and challenges made ZERO impression on the impenetrable wall of the creationist (Jonathan Cucan). However, at the end of the talk, several of the audience members peppered me with more questions that they had been told would invalidate evolution (such as “What good is half an eye?”). Those people actually listened to the answers, and appeared to be giving thoughtful consideration to the possibility that they were being mislead by their creationist pastors.
2010/02/16 at 5:48 pm
It’s also good practice for one’s self as well. Not everyone is up for it, but personally, I enjoy debating people on these issues to strengthen my own ability to debate the issue.
The guy already has a podium, so why not try and take him to task?
2010/02/16 at 11:18 pm
A question – why do are religious organizations have no built in process to protect themselves from that special 1% of the population. The people born, so they can’t be evil, to use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse. I would not be surprised if a psychopath like Col. Russell Williams was a born again, he was according to a mutual acquaintance of mine, very slick. Sounds like a good tel-evangelist. Someone who believed in evolution would accept the theory that they are born to safe the species in a famine and it is better for a few selfish life than all die. But you would have to acknowledge God creates with intention 1% of the babies born every where in the world to do evil. Which they do growing up and running American oil firms which pay for people like you to argue against evolution and CO2 caused climate change .
2010/02/17 at 1:14 am
1.We witness every day in myriad ways all parts of nature(including human beings) creating and re-creating, and we know this has been occurring for a very long time. We also know that a child isn’t a carbon copy of its parents, so we know that life changes minutely even in the short term of a generation.
Isn’t it the ultimate in self aggrandizement to claim that a single human-like persona could do a better job of creating all of nature than all of nature does creating and re-creating itself?
2.We know that humans enjoy creating fictional stories and fictional characters. Our libraries and bookstores are full of them. Fictional characters all have the characteristic that they can’t be experienced in reality by scientific means, just like imaginary gods. Isn’t it natural and sensible to conclude that gods are products of human imagination, just like other fictional characters?
2010/02/17 at 1:46 am
Related to debate:
2010/02/17 at 9:27 pm
xxxThe Peachxxx FTW!
2010/02/17 at 3:57 pm
Looking forward to speaking to all of you on the call tonight…
Just so you’ll know, I do not have a Ph.D., I do have a B.Sc. in agriculture and M.Sc. in plant genetics and have worked as as world-wide program and project manager in multi-national computer firms for the last 13 years. I do have a couple of scientific publications to my name from when I was doing my Master’s degree at McGill. I try to be as open minded as possible but so far none of my evolutionary colleagues have given me any good reason why I should believe in the evolutionary molecules to man hypothesis. And I believe there is a reason why 85% or the Canadian population says that man is not the product of evolution.
Have a great day.
2010/02/17 at 4:23 pm
I’m looking forward to having a chat Laurence. I watched your debate, and I understand where you’re coming from. I doubt that neither us nor you will be able to change each other’s minds, but at least we can make for an interesting hour or two of talk radio.
2010/02/17 at 5:52 pm
Dear Laurence, thank you for visiting our blog, your attention is appreciated. This will be an interesting listen, and those who will call will have a blast, no doubt.
I personally feel sad that you, being the educated person that you are, stand so firmly up for creationism, at least based on what I read on the blog and your comment. Forgive me to be honest here, but I find it somewhat embarrassing for you to let everyone know that you have those University degrees and scientific experience, yet you are a firm believer in creation. All the more, because you have your degrees in real science and from real universities, unlike some other so-called “doctors” holding Ph.D. this, Divinity Degree that, from universities of Jesus Christ and the Lord and the kitchen sink.
So, let me assure you, I do have respect for you as a practicing scientist with expertise in your field, as the case may be, and far be it from me to make fun of your degrees the way I do with those mentioned.
However, I am thoroughly perplexed as to how can a man of your knowledge stray into the realm of superstition the way you proudly advertise you do. You said you have yet to hear a convincing argument for evolution, and I hear your plea. But the same goes the other way around, and calling up statistics is not a proof. The discussion of why Canadians and Americans and the rest of them are religious goes way beyond the scope of this blog post, so I leave it to you as an exercise in rational thinking to arrive to the correct answer.
Beyond that, once again, I hope you’ll forgive me if I cannot take you seriously as far as your belief in creation goes, and on this particular point I consider you a comedian. I wish you well, and I hope at the end of the program you will not be the laughing stock of CFRA listeners, even though in fact I am rooting for that eventual outcome.
2010/02/17 at 6:07 pm
GB, everybody has beliefs. Science can only go so far. One either believes that matter is eternal or that a pre-existing non-material Creator is eternal. The first option cannot be true based on what we know concerning matter today, the second cannot be proven through scientific methodology. In my opinion, that’s what makes the origins topic so interesting.
Since I believe that my brain is the product of a non-random, very directed Creator… I presume my thoughts will hopefully follow a rational process. In my opinion, the scientific model that best fits what we observe is the creation model. Hopefully that will be clearer during the show.
Seriously, do you really believe (this cannot be proven scientifically) that we all evolved from a single very, very lucky cell over 600+ million years? That is as much, if not more faith than I have…
Have fun.
2010/02/17 at 6:50 pm
“Science can only go so far. One either believes that matter is eternal or that a pre-existing non-material Creator is eternal.”
I would almost refer to this statement as a deepity. On first pass it almost seems logical, but on second pass, it emerges as fallacious.
“Eternal matter” assumes that there has always been “something”, as opposed to “nothing”. It assumes that all matter,energy, forces, and even information are rooted in this. I certainly agree with you that it is troublesome for the human mind to grasp the idea of something with no start or end.
However, when you take the creator route, you allow the idea of “nothing”, but get away with “something” anyways in the form of a “non-material creator. As you said, this creator is to be seen as eternal in the same way the matter was to be seen, so technically the ground is no more solid here than it was there.
This is the type of philosophical sleight of hand that so many people seem to fall for. You have simply delayed the problem by passing it up a level, nothing at all has been explained or solved that is any different than the other alternative, but now, you are also forced to explain the nature of this posited creator. You have unnecessarily complicated the problem.
Saying that the creator is beyond the reach of science, and is not rooted in the material world is simply excusing yourself from the responsibility of providing a legitimate explanation, but allows you to walk away from it thinking that it has been solved.
2010/02/17 at 10:09 pm
“Seriously, do you really believe (this cannot be proven scientifically) that we all evolved from a single very, very lucky cell over 600+ million years? That is as much, if not more faith than I have…”
It doesn’t take a lot of faith for me, simply probability.
Drake’s Equation is an interesting way to look at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
If you’re unfamiliar, it simply tries to estimate the amount of potentially life supporting planets that exist in the visible universe. It then calculates the probability of life arising with even the astronomical probability you have proposed, that is likely close actually (i’d even give you a few hundred x million more if you like).
When you pop in all of the variables, it actually becomes quite probable that life originated somewhere.
If you have a 600 million to 1 chance that this life starting natural event will occur, and you have 600 million + potential life supporting planets then guess what the odds are?
And if it was such a vanishing chance that amongst the hundreds of billions of planets out there life only emerged in on place, we know that place would be here.
2010/02/17 at 8:16 pm
Laurence, I feel compelled to tell you that all my previous posts on this thread were written without bias, as I have not watched the video posted on top, and I had no idea who you are. In fact, I took you a lot more seriously than those divinity degree holders, purely based on your own written statements concerning your education and fields of expertise.
Unfortunately for you, I just started watching the video. Inside ten minutes you are already talking pseudo-science, not to mention contradict yourself. At 6’12″ you said: “It’s not the majority that decides what’s right. What is right is right.” In that context you deny that the Earth is older than 6000 years, and refuse to believe the opinion of the vast majority. Yet, above in this blog thread you call up the 85% majority of Canadians to prove you are right on creation. So, which way is it, Laurence ? It seems to me there is inconsistency here, and that is already undermining your credibility, and enhancing the comic value of your arguments.
As for your explanations about magnetic field diminishing, etc., they sound scientific to the untrained ear, but they are not. They ignore a multitude of factors that play important role in the real physical world (nonlinearity being one blatantly obvious), and build a case on a few cherry-picked details that will confuse the majority of listeners without scientific and/or engineering background, thus making them believe if what you say sounds like science, it must be science.
Very unfortunately, that is exactly how holders of divinity degrees and Ph.D.-s in the field of the study of the mind of the lord operate on TV, radio, stadiums, etc., and that’s how they get filthy rich on the ignorance of the masses.
Sorry Laurence, you are not any better than them.
I still have a faint hope that your actual work in plant genetics and IT don’t deviate from proper academic methods.
Cheers.
2010/02/18 at 12:58 am
Laurence, you keep saying on the show that there’s no evidence for evolution. Xander hit you with the citrate example that you hadn’t heard about.
Do you know where that example came from?
It is one of the main chapters from the book:
“The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” written by Richard Dawkins. And as you know he is one of the most respected evolutionary biologists, and the spokesperson for the viewpoint that you are touring around trying to oppose.
If you haven’t read that book, considering your field of science, and also considering that you debate the topic publicly, then I just cannot consider you an expert at all. I have to consider you nothing more than a talking head.
Nice try. Next.
2010/02/18 at 1:15 am
Here is a response to the citrate argument – http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
But like I said bacteria don’t represent higher animals in the way their genetics work. They certainly cannot be used to model higher animal evolution and to suggest that they can is simply dishonest.
Glad you particpated.
2010/02/18 at 1:32 am
The fact of the matter is that you are posing as an authority on the topic (I’m not doubting that you have strong technical foundations in the subject), and you are appearing in the media announcing that “evolution is dead”. But at the same, you’re not even up to date on the topic.
You haven’t even read the most influential modern “bestseller” writings on the topic. It is a joke.
You can easily position us as laymen and make it seem on the radio that we don’t know what we’re talking about. But a few of our members could have easily got up on that show and argued all of your positions for you. It’s all old debunked news.
You really should take some time and read that book, and maybe Jerry Coyne’s as well. You may find all that “evidence for evolution” that you can’t seem to find.
2010/02/18 at 1:54 am
There was one other loose end I have to address. Laurence, you claimed that galaxies don’t look different as you look across space and time. This is totally false. for example:
Quasars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
These things are only seen at the edges of the visible universe (which sits at 14.5 billion-ish light years away). They are much larger, and more violent than what we see much closer to us.
Due to the fact that we are looking across both the chasm of space and time, we are seeing something that shows us what the old universe looked like.
This is what I meant about you having to discard so much established science. So all of this physics, astronomy, and cosmology stuff is just part of the big scientific religious agenda as well I guess?
How does your 10k timespan explain these? Actually you don’t have to answer, I’m familiar with all of the creationist answers. (Just look to Chuck’s post for comments on the “speed of light slowing down” bit)
2010/02/18 at 9:29 am
see – “The biggest challenge to the standard model of galaxy formation could be the number of large galaxies showing the spiral structure in the early universe.” Ivo Labbé, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mature Before Their Time,” Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139
Figure 168: Spiral Galaxies. The arms in these six representative spiral galaxies have about the same amount of twist. Their distances from Earth are shown in light-years. (One light-year, the distance light travels in one year, equals 5,879,000,000,000 miles.) For the light from all galaxies to arrive at Earth tonight, the more distant galaxies, which had to release their light long before the closer galaxies, did not have as much time to rotate and twist their arms. Therefore, farther galaxies should have less twist. Of course, if light traveled millions of times faster in the past, the farthest galaxies did not have to send their light long before the nearest galaxies. Spiral galaxies should have similar twists. This turns out to be the case.21 The galaxies are: A) M33 or NGC 598; B) M101 or NGC 5457; C) M51 or NGC 5194; D) NGC 4559; E) M88 or NGC 4501; and F) NGC 772. All distances are taken from R. Brent Tully, Nearby Galaxies Catalog (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
2010/02/17 at 10:21 pm
The question I would ask this Coren fellow is: Since a university is a non-religious, state-run institution, and, in our country , there is supposed to be separation between “church and “State”, why does the student union allow any religious groups to form and continue, whether they are ‘pro-life’ or not?
Religious groups of any kind never belong on a university campus. What is more : there should never be any relgious group permitted to form their so-called “college” or “university”. I am disgusted with our Ontario government allowing any relgious community to form ‘private’ or ‘separate’ schools , colleges or, (like those in the USA), ‘Christian universities’.
A university is for those willing to enlarge their ways of thinking, intellectually, to develop mentally and exponentially, more effective ways to improve society. There is no time to waste on activities which reward emotional weakness.
Diane Schmolka
2010/02/18 at 12:06 am
The CFRA moderator just said this a few minutes ago:
“Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are trying to advance a dogmatic, faith-based agenda”
I was expecting comedy, but this is sheer lunacy, and it’s time for me to stop listening. I don’t know who this CFRA character is, but claiming that a scientist is advancing a dogmatic, faith-based agenda while his guest is doing exactly that is just plain narrowminded bigotry.
I always knew listening to creationist talk radio is a waste of time.
These CFRA people are very troubled, indeed.
Someone call 911, please, psychiatrists urgently needed.
2010/02/18 at 12:11 am
=) That was both unbearable, but somehow still fun.
2010/02/18 at 12:14 am
Patrick, you rock buddy!
2010/02/18 at 12:27 am
Agreed, props to Patrick.
As I expected, what we got was a Gish Gallop — and when Tony tried something similar on them, he got shut down. And of course, at the end he pulls this “cougars and dinosaurs” thing out of nowhere and Counsel declares victory.
2010/02/18 at 2:48 pm
Thank you, all, for the kind words. It was my first foray into a public debate in a while, and I’ve been kicking myself for all of the missed opportunities since last night.
I’m glad that you all feel that I handled myself, and our cause, well.
I hope to see you all tomorrow night at the dualism talk, as this is an area of special interest to me.
2010/02/18 at 2:51 pm
We all kick ourselves over what we could have said, but hey, practice makes perfect. =)
2010/02/18 at 12:32 am
Xander, nice one! I would say that you nailed him on the citrate example. So obviously this guy hasn’t even read Dawkins new book about the evidence for evolution.
Real credible….
2010/02/18 at 1:11 am
Interesting. I give a complete response to the citrate metabolism question and you say that I was “nailed” ? A little biaised or maybe you didn’t understand my response.
I have leafed through Dawkins book, nothing new there and certainly no answer for a mecanism for evolution. In fact, he even brings up fossils claiming they are links, when in fact they have been already shown not to be links. A little out dated.
And I appreciate you all calling in and making the show interesting.
Concerning the fossil record… here is a quote from Stephan Gould (Harvard, but of course you would all know that)
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear, morphological change is usually limited and directionless…
No matter what the local zonation, species do not appear gradually… rather they appear suddenly and fully formed
Natural History 86:14 (1977)
Sounds like creation to me, not like anything that would be predicted by the evolutionary theory. But it is a free world, so feel free to believe the impossible becomes possible if given enough time. In the meantime, I chose to consider empirical evidence… which clearly points me to an all intelligent and powerful Creator.
Wishing you all the best.
2010/02/18 at 2:55 pm
Creationist Quote Mining at it’s usual sliminess…
Here’s the full context of the Gould quote. In the very next paragraph, he affirms his stance on evolution, giving his stand on punctuated equilibrium (not a denial of evolution). You’re a geneticist, Laurence. You should know the context of his quote. I find it…questionable…that you did not know the context.
Quote #14
“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Snipped in the ellipsis is:
“We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”
Following this passage is:
“Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. …. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
“Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
“Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.” to p183.
- John Wilkins
2010/02/18 at 1:02 am
OK, I’m hopelessly biassed, but I think Seanna did the best of all you lot
.
2010/02/18 at 1:06 am
She did a great job, Xander did to, so did Patrick.
Great stuff!
2010/02/18 at 1:08 am
That’s also why she’s the president.
2010/02/18 at 9:08 am
Jason Wiles summed it up very well in the viedo on top by stating that these debates give the impression of there being a serious debate about creation, when in fact there is no debate.
The whole idea of creationism, just as the rest of all religions, is nothing more than a mental aberration, onto which multitudes of people subscribe. As said before, just because a majority thinks something is true that doesn’t make that thing true. And no matter how many websites or presentations they create, their idea will not be any more valid.
To put it plainly, religion, god, young earth, and the rest of it is nothing but wistful thinking. It is equivalent of some guy not being able to get a girlfriend due to being a dork, so he buys himself an inflatable doll and pretends it’s real.
Laurence Tisdall fits the definition of a charlatan, therefore he is a charlatan by definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charlatan). I stopped taking him seriously when watching the video on top and discovered that he is a young-earth creationist.
Why, despite his real academic credentials is he such a staunch advocate of young earth creationism ? One of three reasons, or any combination of them. (1) He has a mental problem. (2) He cannot achieve fame in his field of expertise, so he turns to pursuing a controversial field in hope of gaining fame and recognition. (3) Money.
Anyhow, I stopped listening to the CFRA program after the host proclaimed that Dawkins and Hitchens are advancing a dogmatic faith-based agenda. Now I know why I haven’t listened to this station before, and why I will not in the future. At least listening to CHRI passes as comic entertainment. CFRA is just plain waste of time, and the station is a relic from medieval dark ages.
Richard Dawkins summed it up even better: it is sad that one has to waste time by fending off these yappy little terriers snapping at your feet with this poky little parochial idea of a 6000 year old Earth.
2010/02/18 at 10:57 am
I have figured it out: creationists are predisposed towards dark humor, and they are using the idea of creation to provoke unsuspecting people into wasting time with debates. At the same time, since their ideology does not require real scientific research but can be supported with a minimal effort of digging up references from the Internet and spinning them in a way that appears to be supporting their ideas, they keep at it in order to get into the spotlight and possibly for financial gains.
I suggest to stop wasting time with such nonsense and make efforts to solve real problems, such as the elimination of religion from schools.
2010/02/18 at 4:18 pm
I was just listening to the radio show discussion between Tony and Laurence and I’ve reached a point that I absolutely must comment on.
Laurence argued that there is no known mechanism that could allow an eye to spontaneously appear on an insect. About a minute later, Tony is talking about non-evolutionary explanations for dolphins to be born with legs where their fins ought to be – which Laurence casually dismisses as mere “errors.”
Laurence – it doesn’t take much imagination to see how a body might grow an extra toe. To my laywoman’s mind, it seems that the body already has all the information needed to grow toes and the error is simply in the number of them. But an error that produces entire limbs that ought to be, according to your worldview, totally unknown to the creature? A leg is a complex thing. It’s much more difficult for me to imagine a simple error giving rise to such a sudden great change!
And if, in your worldview, such massive errors do happen, why do you reject evolution? Why do you reject the idea that a body could spontaneously develop with a different organ, such as an eye?
Of course, such sudden skips are not part of evolutionary theory (nice job on that strawperson, by the way!). But it seems strange to me that you are able to reject the very possibility of a phenomena while in your next breath accepting it as obvious truth but dismissing it as completely unimportant.
This is precisely why I dislike young-earth and creation “science.” Evidence exists or does not exist at will, reality can be championed or casually disregarded whenever “the Spirit moves.” You cuddle uncomfortably close to dishonesty, Laurence.
2010/02/19 at 12:39 pm
Laurence, I gave some thought to your arguments, and you convinced me. I want to follow your example. From now on, I also want to advocate that the Earth is 6000 years old.
I also have a Masters Degree in Engineering, another degree in Computer Science, and many years of experience in these fields as well as others. Furthermore, I am pretty darn good in creating convincing supporting arguments for any ideas whatsoever.
Can you please help me with this ? Please tell me which church or religious organization is financing your efforts. They obviously need people with credentials to support their cause, and if they offer enough money, I am on board.
But I have to tell you, the offer better be good. Selling my soul doesn’t come cheap.
All the good things I could do with the money. Philantrophy, be an anonymous benefactor, etc.
It’s win-win for you, me, the church, everyone.
2010/04/15 at 1:07 pm
[...] show, where I presented a list of moral dilemmas to John to try and answer. There was the “Evolution vs. Creationism show with Laurence Tisdall” where many members of our group called in and tried to stump the creation scientist. There have [...]
2010/07/06 at 1:23 pm
[...] décrit ainsi ses qualifications (sur un forum): Just so you’ll know, I do not have a Ph.D., I do have a B.Sc. in agriculture and M.Sc. in plant [...]
2010/08/11 at 3:32 am
“Just so you’ll know, I do not have a Ph.D., I do have a B.Sc. in agriculture and M.Sc. in plant genetics and have worked as as world-wide program and project manager in multi-national computer firms for the last 13 years. I do have a couple of scientific publications to my name from when I was doing my Master’s degree at McGill.”
Wait a minute Laurence – you claimed on the Michael Coren show that you were a geneticist. You are actually not a geneticist but rather a computer consultant as it seems to be the case for the last while. I’m not sure how making a couple publications in an agricultural journal suddenly makes you an expert on evolutionary biology. Actually, most of your arguments I’ve seen you make on various creation websites demonstrate you lack an understanding of even the basic principles of how evolution works, and you seem to prefer using arguments from personal incredulity on a regular basis.
2010/08/11 at 3:36 am
For reference, these are the journals published by Tisdall:
* Donnelly, D. J. and L. Tisdall. 1993. Acclimatization strategies for micropropagated plants. In Micropropagation of woody plants 153–156. Ahuja M. R. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
* Tisdall L. ; Donnelly D. J. ; A rapid clearing and staining method for tissue-cultured plantlets and greenhouse-grown leaves, HortScience, 1988, vol. 23, no6, section 1, pp. 1059-1061.
* Tisdall, Laurence, Acclimatization of micropropagated ‘Silvan’ blackberry, 1990.
So, what I’d like you, Laurence, to explain is this: why the fuck do you think you’re qualified to discuss evolution when you don’t seem to be trained even remotely in the field? None of your publications are related to evolutionary biology, and working in what amounts to plant agriculture only to jump to computer consulting does not make you an expert on biology, hate to break it to you.
2010/08/11 at 3:46 am
Oh for fuck’s sake Laurence, you’re an outright liar. On your own damn association’s website it says “Laurence Tisdall est titulaire d’une licence en Agriculture générale et d’une Masters en sciences (micro-propagation) de McGill”.
Since when the fuck does a Master’s of Science in Micropropagation equal a “M.Sc. in plant genetics”? Micropropagation does not translate to ‘plant genetics’, but rather “the practice of rapidly multiplying stock plant material to produce a large number of progeny plants, using modern plant tissue culture methods” as per the definition on Wikipedia as of today and found on numerous other sites if you type ‘micropropagation’ into a search engine.
Since when the fuck does studying micropropagation mean you got a Master’s of Science in general plant biology? You fucking twat of a liar.
2011/11/08 at 7:27 am
[...] décrit ainsi ses qualifications (sur un forum): Just so you’ll know, I do not have a Ph.D., I do have a B.Sc. in agriculture and M.Sc. in plant [...]