I'm sure that this video of a debate will interest ALL who love the forums such as DP.com. Hopefully this will spark enough interest in those who refuse to even consider other possibilities or theories (other than the weak theory of Evolution).
Look, the majority of science refused to believe that there was more than one solar system OR, perhaps, that we weren't the center of the universe but the Bible tells us that we were NEVER the center. The Bible also explains MANY aspects of DNA and even the loony intelligent design folks who have many VERY interesting yet off the wall ideas KNOW that the genetic issue will NOT support evolution. We are winning in the global warming debate and 'alternative' theories pertaining to our origin is winning as well because TRUTH or truths ALWAYS surface (regardless of how THEY have tried to silence such truth). The left always back up their OPINION by calling our opinion LIES or claim that they are right and we are wrong (just as a child would react to a truth that it was not willing to accept).
What you find in our world (physical evidence) is in Horizontal 'adjustments' rather than vertical "improvements to higher forms of life". Any time a vertical change occurs, it is either a decline in a species and/or extinction itself. We explain creation and creation suggest that SIN causes all things to continually decline. The extinction of animals right down to the death of stars. This is due to the curse that God placed on His creation after the fall of man. Even horizontal 'adjustments', although saving a species for a while, the end result is inevitably a decline not a climb or a promotion to a higher form of life. In basic physics, we have constants but the quality of energy always decreases over time. Chaos is always the end result and we believe this will always be the case until the Creator does what he says He will do at the end. The big bang suggests chaos and from chaos comes no order and what we see in Creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design and other theories requires substantial ORDER of the highest level. So unless Evolution can explain something besides the Big Bang or whatever else may have started this vast and amazing CREATION, there must be a beginning (even if one must contemplate a beginning from a beginning). The main theme of my saying all of this is: If you can't prove anything, yet other reasonable explanations are available, there is no logical reason not to explore or teach ALL possibilities for a STRONG foundation of REAL science. We do not have a problem in teaching evolution but we detest the limitations that lemmings place upon us all through their ignorance and intolerance.
Within Evolution, one would expect, after billions of years of horizontal "transitions", to find intermediate forms...vast numbers of intermediate forms. Instead, we find none and only find extinction of the same forms that existed then existing today. Creation seems to have a much firmer foundation in this as we find sea and land animals within the same layers as the same geological times (which suggest that our Creator also preserved proof of the Great Flood). To suggest that there are intermediate forms of life...especially when such life forms share a common trait or living condition, one must (for example) assume that their are Cogs or Dats somewhere within fossil records. Likewise, there should probably be 'Whows' and 'Coales' intermediates (from the cow to whale example that evolutionists have preached in times past). There are none, of course, and this is a big problem with evolution just as the chaotic Big Bang Theory is to the highly organized gradual promotion of ORDER that is necessary for evolution. To suggest that chaos and random "accidents" have provided the miraculous universe we have to day would be irresponsible to say the least. One of the funniest things that I enjoy about evolutionists is that they say that evolution takes place to slowly to see....however, the lack of proof we see with fossils having evolved, they say, are because changes happened too fast for us to have intermediate life form changes. Which is it. You can't have it both ways YET evolution is full of these irregularities. Evolutionist then walk by faith...not by site but FAITH is not a science....as they so eagerly tell those such as myself. The creation model, unlike the evolutionary "model" explains the "GAPS" within fossil records whereas evolution is stomped by them. I found it particularly interesting that Dr. Morris seemed very respectful and dealt with his theory without criticism of the opposing view or without a seemingly god-like knowledge of what the other may say. I simply got an entirely different tone from the the opposing side and because of this seeming attack, learned much less of evolution and more of how evolutionists are not only superior in knowledge but have the capability to read minds. Dr. Morris, as a Geologist before becoming a Creationist knew of dating methods and has extensively explained the imperfections of such dating methods. As for the billions of light years away and our seeing stars from that far....I look at this as a theory as well because we have no way of knowing what the star's distances actually are. Of course, this is my limited understanding but as an excellent marksmen, I can tell you that I have judged distances through laser range finders and to get an extremely accurate register of distance, lasers MUST be able to pinpoint a target and return and this time of return provides the distance it takes for this burst of light to reach the receiver of the range finder. How can one do this if it would take said beam of laser to get to the target and return (all within our lifetime). Dr. Morris did suggest that the furthest that we could speculate a relative distance of stars would be about 300 light years so if stars are 2,000 light years away and if light was not simply spoken into existence within its destination, then it would have already gotten here long ago. This would also account for an BORN stars of recent (IF) we discover newer stars that may have been created 6,000 light years away (the approximate age of CREATION according to the Bible). Dr. Morris did not have a problem with Miller's so called "gotcha moment" because if something as fast as the universe can be spoken into existence then ALL things (including set motion activities such as LIGHT and the age of mature rocks, plants and animals would also be 'spoken'. In Miller's own words, he confirmed, yet again, the accuracy of what Dr. Morris has explained in greater detail so as to not mis-lead the audience...information that Miller failed to mention in his opening speech when discussing the "gotcha moment". Miller also stated that the 'estimate' of a star's distance is dependent on variables, one of which was the assumption of a star's distance being judged by its brightness. WOW...out of all the sizes, colors and intensities of millions of stars, they base their "ASSUMPTION" of distance on any particular star's brightness. No matter though because if you're that powerful as to create even the smallest of micro organisms FROM NOTHING then you should have no problem with other factors. Dr. Morris also revealed some VERY interesting facts about the inconsistencies and other factors as to determining age of rocks or fossils and how that it is something that can not be confirmed with any accuracy. An example was given when they had aged recent volcanic rock that, although VERY young, was aged at millions of years. For one thing it depends on how much exposure something has been subjected to and the consistency of how long it was exposed in addition to being within a closed system without corruption from various other sources and extraordinary circumstances but these variables can never be confirmed just as the distances of stars can not be confirmed unless we actually visit said stars or are able to generate a measurement system that is MUCH faster than the speed of light that can be transmitted and received at a certain amount of lapsed time. No, just as everything else in their THEORY, it is assumptions from which they attempt to stay afloat. As for Miller's pointing out that Morris's Creation theory has gaps regarding no record of angiosperms, he pretty much cut his own throat by essentially staying that the gaps in his theory, likewise, prove that the gaps in so-called transitions prove that there are NO transitions or evolved forms. Good job Mr. Miller! Miller also made reference to how the creator "welded us" by using the same fabric of life. If this is true, should not ALL forms of life share a very distinct and extremely common strand of DNA? After all, if we share 50% or our DNA with Bananas shouldn't we share at least 75% with say...an opossum? Fifty percent relativity to bananas isn't even all that much, considering any two randomized DNA sequences will have 25% match overall. Heck, even the 95 or so percent isn't much at all considering how the slightest of change within DNA strands can be very significant. by chance. Given the constraints already mentioned in that there are a basic set of genes needed by any organism, I'd guess that 50% match is probably near the limit of "unrelatedness." As cognitive scientist Daniel Povinelli, of the University of Louisiana, puts it: “That rough similarity in our nucleotide sequences obscures the fact that the same genes may have dramatically different activity levels in the two species.” In other words chimps and humans aren’t anywhere near as alike as Dunbar would have us believe, nor even remotely as alike as dogs and wolves actually are. STILL, my question would be that; "if we were all created by ONE Creator, wouldn't the evidence of DNA similarities simply point to a single Creator/Designer?" Hhhmmmmm...Meanwhile, Dunbar’s analogy also crumbles when we consider that by some scientific forms of reckoning dogs are actually two members of the same species (canis lupus, canis lupus famliaris), while chimps and humans (pan troglodytes, homo sapiens) aren’t even in the same biological family. Morris was challenged to provide quotes, evidence and other things and Morris took him up on that and recieved loud applause for doing so...respectfully, I might add. Miller, in his [gotcha moment] said: "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." Yeah...well, it was Miller who seemed to be the one 'delivered'. HA!!! Sadly, ridicule, during PART 4 of the debate (which was the question segment from audience members) was issued to Dr. Morris when it was Dr. Morris who had been so civil, respectful and tolerant to the other side. This is the same attitude and intolerance that we so often times see from the left and it is sad that rebuttal can't be delivered without sarcastic remarks and disrespect...even for great minds such as Dr. Henry Morris.
I had the privilege to meet Dr. Henry Morris and he was not only a gentlemen of the truest since of the word but was also a brilliant mind of our day. I find it repulsive at the MANY personal shots that Miller fired off to Dr. Morris while Morris remained a gentleman and OPEN to other's ideas. Yes, I side with Dr. Henry Morris for obvious reasons BUT, I truly believe that if I were not a Christian and I were still a believe in Evolution as I once was, Morris would have gained much respect and raised many legitimate questions as to the origins of creation. I hope this debate between Miller and Morris is given the attention that it deserves so that we may be able to discuss all "possibilities" and theories that actually have evidence and not speculation. I would view such questions and opinions as educational and hope that opinions are treated with respect because this is a very sensitive subject.
Debate between Morris/Miller (1981) *In the closing comments, Morris killed Miller and was applauded (at Miller's own college unless I'm mistaken)!!!
Reply With Quote
Did anyone expect anything else out of the 'great' mind? I suppose we should all just 
in awe of his superiority. 
Originally Posted by red state
