Alright, thank you so much.  I’ll say first of all, I do not feel threatened by science, Genesis can handle everything science has to throw at it.  I think the evolutionist are threatened by real science because the theory of evolution will not stand the light of day.  It has to have exclusive monopoly in the schools, that’s why they don’t want Creation taught along side of it because it will look really silly alongside something as obviously true as Creation.
 Textbooks will say that natural selection is how the process of evolution works.  This is what Dr. Prewitt said and I appreciate him saying this. He said natural selection and mutation, let me just talk about those things.  Evolution is really founded on two faulty assumptions which he admitted it.  Mutations are supposed to make something new.  Nobody’s ever observed that.  And then natural selection is supposed to make it survive and take over the population.  These are the two corner stones of evolution… and of course with genetic isolation.  It has to get a new species evolve, a little better than the rest, and the rest have to die off of course.  The superior survive, the inferior die, that’s essential for growth.  Of course Hitler certainly believed that and practiced it.  Mutations do happen; there’s no question.  Every known mutation is harmful, fatal or neutral.  Or if you do get one that is beneficial, which nobody’s ever proven a beneficial mutation.  I would love to see one, Dr. Prewitt; if you know of one please let me know.  Who would that mutated superior one marry?  And who would its grandkids marry and great-grandkids marry?  It’s going to be blended back into the population.  If your going to stake your whole eternity on this, I think you’re really on shaky ground.  Mutations happen, here’s a five-legged bull.  That’s a mutate, I want you to know that the bull got an extra leg, he did not get a wing, a feather or a beak.  He already had the gene pool to produce legs; he just built on in the wrong place.  That is no new information, it is scrambled existing information.  Short legged sheep, same thing, it’s a mutant but there’s no new information, it is scrambled information that preexists.  Two headed turtle, that’s a mutant, not ninja, but it’s mutant.  He’s going to freeze, first winter.  Nobody makes a double neck, turtle neck sweater.  Mutations are harmful or fatal.  The scrambling of information that is preexisting.  How can you say that it creates something new?  Even Pierre-Paul Grasse says mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.  That’s a dead end street if you’re going to on mutations to get your head.  You have millions of detrimental ones, never a beneficial one and then their going to say that natural selection is going to do something for this.  This textbook says… this book is used in Pensacola here, natural selection causes evolution.  That’s just a bold faced lie.  Creationist agree that natural selection happens but its not a creative process to make something new, it keeps the species strong, that’s all it does.  It can’t create anything new.  They know that.  Natural selection can not create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.  Natural selection doesn’t change the product to something else.  And we could go on for an hour on this topic but mutations do happen and they have nothing to do with evolution and natural selection happens and that is proof of creation.  God wants to make sure that weaker ones are weeded out so the whole gene pool doesn’t become weak.  That’s got nothing… it doesn’t [species] to something else.  I certainly wouldn’t rest my eternity on those two faulty assumptions.

Terry Prewitt: Second Rebuttal

     You’ve got fourteen hours; I’ve got at least my course materials--we should put it out together.  Just think of all the money we could make.  That would be great.  Alright now, I’m really moved by a couple of things that Kent has said and I want to play with this for a second.  Genesis can handle everything, so I’m going to take that premise and I’m going to look at Genesis 1, briefly and I’m going to do it very quick cause I only have three minutes here.  On the first day we have the creation on light, now I’m not going to worry about the water that was there before, there was something there before God does the light thing.  But… And that’s been handled I think adequately by other people on both sides.  Light is separated from dark and we have day and night.  And on the second day a firmament is created and we have sky and the waters below.  And on the third day the waters are divided exposing the land and as sort of a [indeterminable] the plants are created.  And the are of all the different kinds.  Then on the fourth day God creates the stars and the sun and the moon, the lights that light the day and the night.  The things that occupy the day and the night were created on the first day.  On the fifth day God creates the birds and the fishes, actually it is in the other order, the fishes and then the birds.  The things that occupy the sky and the sea.  On the sixth day God creates the animals of all the different kinds and as an afterthought cause He’s not satisfied with the qualities of these animals, not really an afterthought, He creates humans in His own image.  See that distinction between humans and animals is certainly there in the Creation story and it’s one that is [indeterminable] which has been [embedded] in our philosophy for a long time.  My point is, God created according to this story, precisely the large structure of the phylogenetic sequence of the evolution of the various kinds of animals although.   He considers stars, sun and moon, animate creatures, which is kind of an interesting thing.  Now science would tell us today that the universe is billions of light years across.  If God created the world six thousand years ago then most of the light in the universe that we have studied in our lifetimes should not be here yet.  Unless God of course created the light already here which is a curious thing for Him to have thought about doing.  I’d rather not go through the twisted logic of that, I’d rather flesh out the story of creation in Genesis according to God’s natural text, the earth. Thank you.
 
Mike Schultz: Second Rebuttal

     Thank you sir.  Before I click the project on here in just a second, I’d like to speak to that.  As far as about contradictions in the Bible or this star light thing, just go to www.drdino.com.  We’ve got a frequently asked questions page there, answers all those questions, I think very adequately, from a scientific viewpoint.  And I want to keep the discussion to evolution, which is what I was told it was supposed to be.  I do resent the fact that I’m just making things up, I guess is basically what you are saying.  I gave sources for all my quotes at the bottom of the slides; I’ve got books on the table from which I drew all my material from.  Come check out what I’ve got, I have nothing to hide.  As far as I guess… the philosophy here of believing in it, it just might be true, I think that’s ridiculous.  If your going to stake your eternity on something, perhaps you should stake you eternity on something that has at least some backbone to it.  Let’s see here… Thank you sir… Let’s stake our eternities on something has some backbone to it why don’t we.  What about the Scripture?  "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life."   "Neither is there salvation in any other…"   "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…"   I don’t think I should get in trouble for that, we’ve wandered from the discussion topic already numerous times.  You see the big thing is, since Creation is true from my viewpoint there is a Creator but if evolution is true there is no Creator.  And you can’t marry evolution with the Bible and claim that you believe in the Bible or at least that the Bible is error free.  See there’s rules if Creation is true.  There’s no rules if evolution is true.  And there’s a purpose to life if Creation is true and there’s no purpose at all if you believe in evolution.  Folks it affects every step of your life, everything that you think, say and do, how you react.  If Creation is true, man is a fallen creature in need of a savior.  The Bible actually might be right.  If you want to stake your eternity on something that might be right, maybe you should go with something that has not been proven to be wrong.  People have thrown stones at the Bible for centuries but the Bible is still here, people live and die.  Man is evolving with no need of a savior, if evolution is true.  Man brought death into the world if the Bible is true.  If evolution is true, death brought man into the world.  That’s the opposite side of the coin, you can’t marry Satan’s lie, evolution with the Bible’s truth, of no evolution and special creation.  It just goes on and on and on.  It affects everything you do and think and say.  It even effects our government.  How you rule, it effects if you’re a racist or not.  Surely one species must be better than another.  It’s ok to be a racist if you believe in evolution.  Folks… it changes how you think about government and it changes how you treat you body.  If evolution is true, you are just a random sampling of chemicals.  If you have a headache, you’d better take an aspirin.  Well, the Bible puts it pretty clear you know, God told us to eat fruit, vegetable and seed and we’re eating hamburger, french fry and Coke.  Ok?  You don’t take an aspirin… when you take an aspirin when you have a headache; you’re just unplugging.  I believe that Satan has been using this evolution theory and the resulting thinking since the Garden of Eden to lead people astray.  And I think that’s all evolution does is confuse people and lead them astray.  There’s certainly no point to it; there’s no science behind it.  See it’s just crazy.  Alright, times up, thank you very much.

Nick Power: Second Rebuttal

     I don’t feel the need to repeat myself but I… There was a couple of points made that I’d like to respond to.  First of all we shouldn’t be begging big questions here about one’s eternity and who gets to stake whose eternity on what.  I don’t see my eternity up for grabs here; I never had a well-developed sense of my own eternity to begin with so I didn’t loose much.  But again, those of you who think your eternity is up for grabs here, I think your missing my first point that this isn’t just a debate between science and religion, it’s a debate between science, religion and people trying to make science out of religion.  Right?  My opponents here, I think they're the ones that are threatening, if they are at all, your eternity.  Look, a couple of other things.  No one has ever observed speciation, new species arising.  We keep hearing about dogs making dogs and bananas making bananas and that’s again a sophism.  Right?  That’s just a kind of verbal trickery, I think, I think it’s unfair, I think it deserves comment.  Yet, our guests here are conceding that changes do occur over generations.  Right?  They do agree that we evolve and if they believe that and they are scientists, they have to give us a mechanism by which that happens.  Right?  They have to tell us how is it that this variation developed over time.  Not evolution, I’m not talking about evolution here, again that’s a buzzword but just change and variation occurs, they’re going to admit this.  Well, once they specify a theory of the mechanisms that could possibly account for that, I bet it would look something like evolution by natural selection and a selection being over genes and things at the genes’ eye level.  Right.  That’s what accounts for the variation in us and once they concede that much then why can’t speciation, the differences between… emergence between two different species.  Like red squirrels and gray squirrels, they happen to be separated by a big body of water and can no longer breed, interbreed.  Why is that so baffling?  If your going to admit micro-evolution, go whole hog, admit biology, evolutionary biology, evolutionary theology, what the hell geology too.  Accept it all.  No one’s ever observed speciation; no one’s ever a cat coming from a dog or a man coming from a monkey.  That’s just bad.  Right?  I never observed what happened to Nicole Simpson, but I’ll give you two theories about it.  Only one of them will be reasonable.  Right?  Even though nobody observed it we can still know reason theories from unreasonable ones.  And evolution through natural selection is much more reasonable than the hodgepodge Creation science that my opponents have brought here today.  Thanks.