Creationists are coming to town

Hello to All:I have a request and to be honest, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be asking. Three creationists are coming to my town next month the enlighten us all on the "Scientific Merits of a Creationist World View". Oh boy...I can hardly wait. The presentation is by Dr. James A. Fryling (an organic chemist), Dr. Nigel Crompton (a molecular and cellular biologist), and Prof. Ron Meyers (chemistry and mathematics), all of whom are from Conerstone University. Does anyone out there know of these three gentleman? I have never heard of these guys so I am a bit unsure what, specifically, they will be talking about. If I knew in advance something about what these guys are going to discuss, I could be better prepared for questions at the end. Oh, I have a general idea what they're going to say (probability of proteins evolving by chance is too low to have happened, the eye is irreducibly complex, evolution is a religion, blah, blah, blah.), but if I knew more specifics about what the might bring up, I could be better prepared with some questions at the end of their wonderful talk. I will not get into a debate with them (I had the honor of meeting and talking with Stephen Jay Gould and he told me to never get into a debate with someone at their own presentation. He said: "He who has the microphone controls the debate and will win every time.", so I know better than to try to stump these guys), but I would like to at least ask them a question or two, if at all possible.
Anyway, that's basically my request. Can anyone help me out with information about these three guys? I apologize if this is not the correct place to ask and will gladly "move" to a more proper location if that is required. None-the-less, I would really appreciate any help I can get.

Matthew:Who said I was going there not willing to listen? If you are implying that perhaps these professors are going to give us all some new discovery in science that will set the world of evolutionary biology on it's head, well I have my doubts. I have attended creationist programs in the past and have always heard the same old stuff, so I guess I am just assuming that this one will be like all those others. But as always, I will go there with an open mind.So why bother going, you ask? Well for once I would like to ask a question or two at the end. If, for example, the "probablilty of a protein evolving by chance is too low to have happened" argument is brought up, I would like to ask the professor if he really has no idea how to perform statistics or if he is intentially misleading the audience? Or if they mention how "radiometric dating is extremely inaccuarate", I'd like to ask them if they honestly think that literally thousands of scientists don't know this or are lying to protect some gigantic evolution conspiracy? Maybe they'll bring up the irreducibly complex nonsense and I can ask them about some of the many fatal flaws to that argument that I have read about right here at this very web site.I guess I'm sick and tired of just setting there and letting these people tell such utter nonsense and fabrications that I feel it is worth personal humiliation and ridicule just to ask them a question or two. But who knows, maybe I'll be surprised and they will be honest with their audience and very early on in the presentation will admit that nothing they are about to say can in anyway be considered scientific nor can it be offered up as a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Wouldn't that be a nice change.Oh, and before I forget...thanks to the people who have supplied me with some info on these guys. As it turns out, a friend of mine has a colleague that specializes in the aging process.[This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 03-22-2004]

Denesha:Yes, I'm well aware of the "dangers" of debating this, and I'm sure I'd get creamed as a result. However, if they do bring up these topics (especially the protein thing) I feel I have to do something. I mean, if they try to show that a protein could not have evolved because the probability is too low, I have to point out that they are either not aware of how calculate a probability or that they are lying. It's one of the two, and it should be mentioned in public.Ya know, I am open to suggestions on how to handle this issue. I certainly don't want to call them liars, as I'm sure they have dealt with this issue in the past and know how to BS their way out of it. Should I just play stupid and ask them to explain how they calculated the probability and point out errors as they go along? I'm not a mathematitian and would certainly not do well in a debate about math, but I do know that you cannot look at a string of amino acids, calculate that probability of that sequence (which will be an incredibly low value) and then state that the protein had to have been designed.Or would it be best to just keep my mouth shut and go home at the end?

Hello skylark2002:I'm not sure where to begin or what to say. I guess I’ll start with this, just so I’m up front about it. Early on in the talk Dr. James A Frying posted portions of things some of us (mostly me) wrote earlier on this thread. I’m sorry to anyone that responded to my earlier post and didn’t want their words to be brought up at a creationist presentation as a means of showing how confrontational we evolutionists can be. I should have known better, and for that I am sorry. I would also like to note that there was a strong assertion that evolutionary biologists are atheist baby killers and I for one don’t appreciate the subtle little things Dr Frying implied about abortion and how it relates to The Theory of Evolution. It’s a disgusting assertion to make and has nothing what-so-ever to do with valid scientific research.Let me also point out that the question and answer period was not what I expected. Questions had to be written down on a note card and then some kid got to read the ones he felt like reading. This method basically prevented any sort or real discussion from getting started, and allowed the panel of experts to say anything they wanted without fear of a follow-up question or being asked to explain their answer. As an example, one question did ask about the vapor canopy and how it might have played a role in the global flood. The answer given was something along the lines that the vapor canopy idea is no longer in-vogue within the creationist community and that the Bible does give lots of other ideas and indications as to where enough water to flood the entire Earth may have come from. That was it! They made no attempt to tell us where it did come from. They made no attempt to explain all the problems associated with the rate at which the water needed to arrive. They made no attempt to explain where this water has since gone. Dr. Frying did mention Mars and the fact that we believe it once had water but no longer does. Was he trying to suggest that the water for the flood came from Mars? Of course, that might explain why Mars no longer has water but doesn't really address the problem of where it has gone to since. Maybe it took off and flew to Uranus.Dr. Fryling also repeatedly said throughout the presentation that he is "not foolish, stupid, or a liar". Now, neither Dr. Crompton nor Mr. Meyers made this claim, but I think I can safely assume that they would agree with it about themselves as well (if this is not the case then I apologize). I only mention this because as the talk progressed, more and more things were said that made me really question the validity of that statement.For example, during the question and answer period Dr. Crompton addressed the issue of the Ark. He said that there need only have been about 1,500 hundreds animals on the Ark! Only 1,500!! Are you friggen kidding me? And better yet, he said they were all herbivores. Really? They all ate plants. And your evidence for this, Dr. Crompton, is what? Better yet, if all the animals on the Ark were herbivores, why have we not found any fossils of an herbivorous T-Rex? Earlier, one of the three (Dr, Fryling, Dr. Crompton, or Mr. Meyers, I honestly can’t remember which) stated that the dinosaurs went extinct shortly after the Ark had landed. Now, keeping in mind that this was only 4,000 years ago at best, would someone like to explain the unbelievable fast evolutionary processes that would have been required to change and herbivorous T-rex into a carnivorous animal, then for them all to go extinct, and then for them to fossilize in such an incredibly short period of time. WaitI can now explain the extinction of the dinosaurs! It had nothing to do with a meteor hitting the Earth. It was cholesterol. Their digestive system couldn’t adapt quickly enough from the vegetarian diet they had when the got on the boat to the new, meat only, diet they had when they got off. They all died of heart attacks! Thanks Dr. Crompton, for allowing me to become rich and famous by being the guy that determined why the dinosaurs really went extinct. Isn’t bogus science great! But seriously, creationists always talk about the lack of transitional fossils. Now it’s my turn. Where are the herbivorous T-Rex fossils?And are we really suppose to believe that one kind (oh, I should mention that Dr. Crompton said that the creationist kind would be roughly equivalent to Family in the biological hierarchy system) of Felidae has given rise to all the cats we see now? In only 4,000 years! Did the two original catslet’s say they were lionsso did the two original lions get off the boat, hump, and produce a tiger, a cheetah, and a serval? Each of these then quickly dispersed, humped, and then themselves produced some of other species of cats. And while this rapid speciation was going on they were all also shedding their herbivory and evolving into carnivores? And that’s just for the Family Felidae. What about beetles?there are over a million species of beetle. How about Canids? Not all Canids can crossbreed, despite Dr. Crompton’s assertion that they can. For that matter neither can many members of Felidae. Crossbreeding is pretty rare, to say the least, at the Family (or as the creationists call it Kinds) level. And yet these guys claim that they are not foolish, stupid or liars.Many times, during this story hour, Dr Fryling talked about how, if he asked a question on an exam and a student didn’t know the answer but wrote God did it, that he would mark it wrong. Good for him. However, what if he asked Please explain where the water for the global flood come from, and how it would be possible for the water not to be boiling hot nor carry the top soil completely away when it receded, and also explain where exactly it recede to? Wouldn’t he then have to accept God did it as the only answer (so much for science)?I guess it can all be summed up quickly if we listen to what Dr Frying said about science. He said that he accepts quite a few things scientists (even evolutionary biologists) sayup to a point. However, he went on to say that once the scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, then the science is wrong. Plain and simplethe Bible is always right, no matter the evidence to the contrary. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. If science says one thing and the Bible says another, then without even attempting to look at the science, according the Dr Fryling the science is plainly and simply wrong. And yet we scientists are often times called closed or narrow minded.astounding to say the least.So, skylark2002, my response to how I felt about the presentation was that it was perhaps the most ridiculous pile of nonsense I have ever sat through, and keep in mind that I have been to a few other creationist presentations. I am stunned that in this day and age, in a relatively well educated group of people, that someone can get up in front of me on a college campus and with a straight face tell me that the dinosaurs were all herbivores prior to the flood, that they all got on the boat with Noah, that many of them became carnivores after getting off the boat a year later, and then promptly went extinct. That these same individuals would claim that they themselves are excellent, practicing scientists but that they flat out reject anything that contradicts the Bible absolutely floors me...seeing as how it totally goes against everything we stand for in real science. In a nut shell, skylark2002, I walked out of the auditorium in a state of shock, anger, and disbelief, but mostly I walked out with a feeling of deep sadness.

Hello Kodiak:Welcome to the forum and thanks for the reply. I do have a few questions for you and a few comments I want to address and perhaps clear up.First off, I’m sorry that this reply is a little slow in coming. I was not aware that you had responded to my post and I now see that the discussion has gone in other directions. However, in this post I will reply to your original thread and avoid the issues of worldview, which God is the real God, who’s the best pool player, and how to make a pie. Crashfrog is doing a wonderful job (as usual) and he certainly doesn’t need me to come along and try help him out, cuz he’s much better at this than I am.
Having said that, let me now say this: I never said that Dr. Fryling referred to evolutionary biologists as atheist baby killers (and as for your statement that he would never say thatwellneither you nor I can make that claim). Rather, I said he made the assertion that evolutionists are such. It was, I might add, no subtle implication and it was repeated at least three times during the presentation.You go on to say:Please understand that the ToE is a scientific theory, not a device from which any sort of moral law should be derived. If others corrupt or bend it for political purposes, that is not the fault of evolutionary theory. Not true. No scientist would stick with a theory that has been shown to be false, be it the ToE or any other. Not for pride and certainly not for fear of having their scientific world cumple down around them. We STRIVE for new ideas, without a bias for the conclusions. We do not worship evoution. It is not a way of life. These sorts of arguments are just silly, unfounded claims put forth by creationsists to somehow justify putting their beliefs on the same plane as the theory of evolution.As for the supposed vapor canopy to help explain the flood you say: Nice scientific expanation. The problems with the global flood are addressed in numerous places on this forum and I will not repeat then all here, except to say that enough water to flood the Earth in 40 days to a depth that would cover Mt Everest is an accomplishment that I want you to SCIENTIFICALLY explain and justify.Let me ask you a simple question. What is a science? Back in my college days, in simple terms, I learned that science was a discipline that strictly adheres to the scientific method. So let me ask you a related question. What is the scientific method? I am truly interested to read how the students at Cornerstone University get around the scientific method when it comes to considering creationism as a valid scientific idea.In science, sometimes data can be interpreted in a few different ways. Usually what happens is addition experimentation is performed and the various interpretations of the data are narrowed and/or the data show that the underlying hypothesis is false. That’s how science works for most of us. For Dr Fryling, Dr. Crompton, and Mr Meyer however, it seems a bit different. They apparently can simply pick and choose which data are true and which are false. For example, to say that radiometric dating, tree ring data, ice core dating, fossil stratification, coral formation, light years and the speed of light (and probably a few others that I have forgotten) are all wrong, because they disagree with a literal interpretation of The Book of Genesis, is a bit ridiculous. I would dearly love to read their scientific explanation for making the claim that these are all, indeed, incorrect. Do you understand what I’m asking for Kodiak? I want scientifically supported data that show all of these methods of dating are wrong. By the way, citing the Bible as a scientific source is not allowed. How, exactly, did I misrepresent them? Tell me, I want to know what I said that falsely represented what their views were. It was not my intent then, nor is it now, to make any untrue statements in regards to their presentation, so if I made any false statements please point them out to me and I will gladly apologize. Childish? My response was childish? Really? How so? Was it childish of me to mention that some of the things they said are scientifically impossible....that they would violate the physical laws of the Universe? Was it childish to ask for proof that T-Rex was an herbivore? Was it childish to point out that no tough questions could be asked? Was it childish to mention that 1500 pairs of animals giving rise to the millions of different animals we see now, all in about 2000 years is a claim that has no scientific validity? (talk about childish). Was I childish when I said that it is close minded to ignore mountains of scientific of evidence because you don't like what it says? Despite your belief, I did approach the subject objectively. However, when the presenter himself says that he agrees with most science until it conflicts with is own personal interpretation of the Bible, then his objectivity goes out the window, not mine. Hmmm, that’s a real good question. I guess I would have liked to have heard some scientifically valid reasons for a few of the statements that they made. For example, they could have justified the statement that the decay rates of radioisotopes are not constant, or that the speed of light has changed dramatically in the last couple thousand years. I, for one, would have appreciated scientific justification for herbivorous snakes. If the flood was 4000 years ago, I would have like to have heard their explanation on why no other civilization bothers to mention it in their writings. You know what thoughthere is one area I would like to have explained to me more than any other...speciation. One cannot simple make the statement that four-thousand years ago, one herbivorous cat kind pair got off a boat, mated and produced offspring ("that ate what", I might ask. If the were still herbivorous, what plants did the consume, seeing as how the Earth was very recently covered in water? And if they magicaly became carnivors in just one generation, what then did they eat?). These offspring then began to crossbreed, somehow avoided inbreeding depression, somehow switching to a carnivorous diet (Do you have any idea of the physiological ramifications of this? And don’t give me that nonsense about how some cats can eat some vegetation some of the time. That won’t cut it as a valid explanation for ALL members of the Family Felidae) and that this somehow led to the variety of extant species (as well as the extinct species) of cats we see today dispersed over the entire planet Earth. That is, to say the least, a very, very bold assertion to make and I would like to have you support it with sound scientific research. Good luck. As for what would be sufficient proof of the existence of a creator, I will ask you this in return. Do you want me to give you scientific proof, or would faith be enough?

Hello Again Kodiak: Fine, you can continue to vouch for the moral integrity for your professors as long as you’d like, but I wasn’t aware that I had attacked their moral integrity. However, I was at the presentation and will tell you flat out that the implication was made that evolutionary biologists are both atheists and proponents of abortion. I did not say that I have no bias towards the Theory of Evolution. What I said was that when scientists design and conduct experiments to test hypotheses, they show no bias towards reaching desired results. We don’t go into a project with preconceived conclusions. Can you make the same claim?I asked you in my previous thread to explain how the students and professors at Cornerstone University define Science and also to do the same with the Scientific Method. So I repeat the question hereplease, give us your definitions.
In your reply to Crashfrog you put forth an argument that we have read at this forum many, many times. That being that ToE is like creationism because it too cannot be falsified. Crashfrog explained the absurdity of that argument already, so I won’t get into that. However, I’m thinking that once we read your definition of science and the scientific method, maybe we can see why you would make such a claim. So please, for once, don’t behave like so many of the other creationists at this site by avoiding answering some basic questions. No, Kodiak, the vapor canopy idea is not just a theory. There is NO vapor canopy theory! None. It is not a theory at all, Kodiak. I asked for your definition of science because as I continue to read your reply it is becoming evident to me that you really don’t know when something is scientific and when something is just a story. You really need to go take a science class. As for Mt Everest and the floodagain, Kodiak, you have NO theories to explain how it may have become covered in water. Do you know what it takes before we in science refer to something as a theory? Apparently not. What you have are some ideas (not even hypotheses) as to what you (and maybe some others) think happened to explain a global flood. It is not at all plausible to propose that there were no mountains 4,000 years ago. It’s ridiculous and borders on the absurd (go talk to a practicing geologist about how mountains are formed). What is plausible is that the Bible does not mention mountains because the writers knew nothing of the Himalayas or any of the other large mountain chains throughout the World. But hey, it’s your fairly tale not mine. I will ask this of you however. Support it. Show me some scientific evidence that supports this claim. You cannot just claim that something is plausable and let it go at that. You need to support a claim as complex as the spontaneous formation of mountains with some sort of verifiable, scientific evidence. No, Kodiak, your flood story is not supported by other cultures worldwide. Yes, other cultures also have flood stories, but many are vastly different from yours. Additionally, if your story is correct, then their stories cannot be correct. And if their stories are not correct then they cannot be used to corroborate your story. Can’t you see this?
For example, how did all these other cultures write about the global flood if they themselves were (by your own account) killed in the flood? Do you not see the corner you have painted yourself into? You claim that your interpretation of your Bible is the correct interpretation. So isn’t it then also your claim that only Noah, his family, and 1500 animals (I’m still stunned by that number) survived the flood? So who is the Gilgamesh dude? Was he a stowaway on the ark? And did Chief Marerewana and his family tie their canoe along side Noah and his ark? Also, do the dates for these other floods coincide with the date for your flood? In order for you to use these as examples of evidence to support your flood, they would have had to occur at the same time. That is to say, they would all have to be telling a tale of the SAME flood.
Waitlet me guessyour going tell me that these are all stories of the same global flood, but they are incorrect in that while it is true that the flood did occur, the portions of their stories about there being survivors are not true (other than the previous mentioned Noah et. al.). If this is anywhere near what you believe, then how did their stories get passed on? If the Arawak peoples of South America were wiped out in the global flood, who was left to pass on the myth? And if Marerewana and his family survived, then your flood story is wrong. Help me out here, which is true? I absolutely cannot wait to read your explanation for this onebut at the same time, I do not doubt for a second that you will have one.I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.