Gary Hurd and Robert Richert are taking on ditzy creationists John Baumgardner and David Lehman tonight at 7pm Pacific time via the Backyard Skeptics on streaming video. The question is, “Does the Fossil Evidence Proof Evolution is True?” They’ll be taking questions by way of text messages sent to 714-394-6153.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
“Proof”?
Even if the fossil record didn’t provide sufficient evidence, which it does, there are other impressive lines of evidence that do. Someone wrote a book about it. Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True.
Oh, we already know evolution occurs. I’m interested in seeing how the fossil record resolves certain questions about theoretical disagreements about it.
(Suck it, creationists)
Hmmm, the debate got interesting when they turned the tables and started discussing creationism and flood-history-folklore. I realize this would have absolutely no scientific merit, but I’d kind of like to see a debate of creationism rather than a debate of evolution. Like how did the animals get to the ark (god, made them gather; I’d never heard that) and what are the similarities with the biblical and sumerian flood stories (all humans have flood stories but the flood stories of the californian indians do not have any ark in them at all). I mean in a debate of evolution the burden of proof is *entirely* on evolution so any chinks work against it. It’d be nice to put the creationism model (um, what is the creationism model anyway? Where were the dinosaurs living? The flatlands? And the mammals were at high elevations only? Thus the separation of fossil record?) to the same critique.
Besides, it’s such a fascinatingly weird idea.
“Does the fossil evidence prove Genesis is true?”
“How did the draining Flood waters form the Grand Canyon?”
Lots of folk taking PZ’s name in vain over on raw story. Might be worth wandering over there and joining in
Not so, that’s a common creationist canard. When debating x happened vs. y happened, it is quite possible to say “I don’t know” and that “z happened” is actually true. Any “chink” in evolutionary theory (and what creationists consider “chinks” are long-debunked nonsense-claims ignoring the evidence) would only show that our understanding of biology is slightly worse than we thought. An incorrectly dated fossil for example, only shows we need better fossil dating techniques, it doesn’t invalidate other fossil dates, nor does it invalidate evolution.
The kind of evidence that would invalidate evolution would be a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian.
Gary has been a friend for a lot of years; we met during a trip to go see PZ in Los Angeles in fact.
Gary comes into these kinds of debates well prepared.
LOL
tried that before, during an antivaxxer post over there.
antivaxxers got me banned from Raw Story.
irony!
This sounds like a well placed goalpost for moving. If the fossils show species resemble other species, that’s because God doesn’t redesign a basic tetrapod skeleton every time he creates a new species. If the fossils show common descent, that could be common descent as God’s Plan, which doesn’t equate to evolution. “Evolution is true” is such a fuzzy statement.
=8)-DX, #8:
When do we get to the stage where rabbit fossils in the Precambrian would be better evidence for time-travelling rabbits than for 150 years of biology being completely wrong?
“time-travelling rabbits”
Now there’s and idea whose time has come!
Not true. Flood stories are absent from much of Africa.
(And the Pirahã don’t have stories about the distant past in the first place.)
@8
I expressed myself badly. What I meant and should have said: In a public debate for a lay audience it tends to fall on the pro-side to defend the subject. And defense is tiring and erosive and hard. And tedious. For me, this debate perked up and became interesting and more *fun* when they switched from patiently explaining evolution thoroughly and calmly to people who will not listen so putting the creationists through the same grinder. “What kind of creationist are you; there are seven types that I know of?” “So were the animals in close proximity to the middle east at the time of the flood?” “There are sumerian floods stories, you know.” etc. (Although I will admit the creationist guy was a good sport about trying to answer. I was … interested… in his comment that insects and worms were not wiped out in the flood– that most species are insects was his answer to the “how do you go from 7,000 to several hundred million in only 4,000 years” question. I’d have liked to have asked him what that says about the “inerrancy of the bible” as the bible strongly implies the insects and worms required ark love.)
Anyway, for giggles I’d like to see an “Is Creationism Viable” debate. It could even do some good. If the biggest reason a lay public has to not really feel comfortable with evolution is that it violates innerrancy of a book, and if a “c’mon… clams and humans being related? Just look at how different they are” can confer a sense of “there’s something I just don’t quite accept about evolution”, then perhaps a “c’mon… this book says a 6,000 years old world and a bottleneck sea rescue 4,000 years ago? Really” can erase that discomfort and allow the audience to think “hmmm, the world really is kind of bigger and more serious than can be explained in a simple myth; this evolution stuff might be complicated and hard but maybe the reality of the world is that it’s complicated and hard; it obviously isn’t simple and easy”.
… meh… I can dream, can’t I?
Not true. Flood stories are absent from much of Africa.
Guilty. I exaggerated. My point was meant to be that the flood stories of an unrelated people are coincidentally about a flood but otherwise are not related. i.e. they have no ark. This is in response to “Well, flood stories okay in over 200 cultures so there was probably a world-wide flood”. The Ohlone indians origin stories feature a world of water with Coyote, Eagle and Hummingbird watching the waters recede from a mountain top. When the waters recede Coyote finds a woman in a creek bed and makes her eat a tick to impregnate her and create a race of people. *Not* an ark story. But it has a flood *and* a mountain top. Floods and mountains are somewhat universal symbols. A man building a boat full of animals, maybe not so much. The people of the south pacific who *did* have boats full of animals in their past notably do not have any ark stories at all.
(And the Pirahã don’t have stories about the distant past in the first place.)
Really? That’s neat. Surely that’s unusual.
There’s about a million songs about cheating spouses and lovers. Cultures all over the world sing them. That proves there was One Great Cheat. And the real story is told in the One True Blues Song. Only accept the Full 12 Bar Gospel, Brothers and Sisters. Listen only to the One True Prophet John Lee Hooker.
Just how many cars were on that train in the One Great Cheat and how was it big enough for all the heartache?
It was me.
it’s a fair cop.
The “debate” is available: https://instance.clickstreamtv.net/cst/17242968
At some time during the Q&A portion, the whole thing crapped-out. The “atheist” moderator encouraged the creationists to interrupt me, and let the creationists shout me down.
In the afterward, I think we did OK. One creationist presenter, Leman, and 3 audience creationists got angry. That means they think we “won.”
The lone Muslim came up to me to verify that he was NOT a YEC, and people like Harun Yahya did not represent competent Islam. One Christian thanked me for attending, and the atheists were generally happy.
The really big surprise of my entire evening was that John Baumgardner did NOT flip-out. The other big surprise was how weak the creationist’s argument was in their presentation.
The “debate” is available: https://instance.clickstreamtv.net/cst/17242968
It turns out that Bruce Gleason, the “moderator” has been editing the video.
At some time during the Q&A portion, the whole thing crapped-out. The “atheist” moderator encouraged the creationists to interrupt me, and let the creationists shout me down.
In the afterward, I think we did OK. One creationist presenter, Leman, and 3 audience creationists got angry. That means they think we “won.”
The lone Muslim came up to me to verify that he was NOT a YEC, and people like Harun Yahya did not represent competent Islam. One Christian thanked me for attending, and the atheists were generally happy.
The really big surprise of my entire evening was that John Baumgardner did NOT flip-out. The other big surprise was how weak the creationist’s argument was in their presentation.
I think that if you watch the last end of the evening, that the “Atheist” consistently cut off the science responses. I just watched the video again, and it is blatant.
I also noticed that the video is being edited to truncate at least my presentation.