Did you watched the debate of (creationist)Laurence Tisdall and (Evolutionist)Jason Wiles?

Question

it is obvious that the Evolutionist is defeated on that debate, what is your opinion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

Answer 1

I thought that Laurence Tisdall presented his case very well and gave Jason Wiles ample opportunity to defend the "science" of the theory of evolution.  The host was very disruptive in his commentary and even went as far as challenging the creationist with a question that was really irrelevant to the debate at hand, namely the thought that the earth is much younger than previously believed.  The creationist was obviously under the impression he was to be debating about evolution and intelligent design.  The evolutionist did not once present a rebuttal to Tisdall's challenge and was seemingly in retreat the entire duration of the debate.  I would like to see the debate take place between the two again, but without the obnoxious disruptions by the host.

Answer 2

what i found interesting is that all of the assumptions of pr Tsidall were answered long before on talk origine: Like the fossils that he interpreted as a coexistence of humans and dinasaurs. he twisted the facts.

Answer 3

I found that Laurence presented lots of convincing evidence against evolution e.g. that scientists have found the shortest gene they can reduce genes to was about 390 base pairs- that's in a very simple cell. You can't ignore evidence which points against the proposed mechanisms of genes developing into more advanced genes.

All scientists look at the evidence with certain assumptions about the world which sways how they look at the evidence. Often it's protecting their own careers & research direction. The longer I'm in the medical research field (currently completing PhD) the more I'm discovering how political science is, in a personal & factional sense. Science is not always as objective as it claims to be, and history shows this!

Even to the end of the debate I was waiting for Jason Wiles to present any positive evidence for evolution, & what he said was "there's heaps of convincing evidence in the fossil record, biotechnology etc..."

I wasn't very keen on Ben Stein...
Am just watching another interesting clip with Kent Kovino (taught anatomy for 15yrs). Look it up on Utube:
Debate: an evolutionist vs two creationists: old earth vs a young earth