Darwin's "Downfall?"

[ProLifeSkeptic]

This individual who calls himself Keith Truth has made a recent documentary in which he illustrates the "downfall" of Evolution (you can watch the whole documentary if you choose, or click on the numbers in the description of the video to jump to his arguments)



He shows "evidence" Against Macro-evolution: 05:25 - 31:07, he tries to show Alleged Evidence for Macro-evolution: 31:08 - 01:08:06, and proof for the age of the Earth and the flood The Age of the Earth and the Flood: 01:08:07 - 01:24:28

The final segment of the documentary is typical "evolution teaches that we're animals" and stuff like that.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 29 by H.sapiens]

I don't really try and talk to Christian fundamentalists. I don't want to be giving them any idea that I'm anything like their Bible claims I am.

I am heavily involved in keeping them out of our science classrooms so I debate locally and rather often. I do these forums to stay in training. The local pastors (and such) are pretty bush league and rarely stand a chance, they start of rather smug, but the reality is they're usually unprepared ... so it's more like shooting fish in a barrel. I really don't care if they want to think their bible describes me or not ... that is a complete irrelevancy.

[ProLifeSkeptic]

[Replying to post 31 by H.sapiens]

So, it doesn't bother you one bit of they pull the Romans 1:18-21 escape hatch?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 31 by H.sapiens]

So, it doesn't bother you one bit of they pull the Romans 1:18-21 escape hatch?

There are many approaches, my favorite is to cite the studies that prove that chimps have an innate sense of fair play.

[ProLifeSkeptic]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

How does that work?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by ProLifeSkeptic]

The video you posted is a religious apologists video. It's filled with false information and deceit. I only needed to watch the first 6 minutes of it to see this. It's a theistic lie that there are no transitional fossils or that this somehow represents a problem for scientists.

Theists are constantly trying to discredit science in an effort to support their false theologies. But the truth is that science cannot be discredited so easily.

And besides if this is a plea for one of the Biblical religions such as Christianity then it's even more absurd because it can easily be demonstrated that the Hebrew Bible cannot be true as written. It simply contains too many self-contradictions, not to mention supporting obvious immoral principles that are being attributed to a supposedly all-righteous God.

In fact, these theists have actually turned to trying to bring doubt upon the sciences precisely because they cannot support their own religious mythologies anymore. But the fact is that the sciences are not wrong.

In fact, the sciences have proven their credibility by revealing the falsehoods of religious superstitions repeatedly. For example, we now know what causes various illnesses that were once believed to be "demonic possessions". In fact, science has exposed countless falsehoods concerning religions like Christianity.

Let's not forget that the demigod Jesus was supposed to cast evil demons from people. We know that's a farce. So there isn't really any sense in trying to keep that religion afloat anymore, especially when the only way left to try to support the religion is through these extremely lame attempts at discrediting science.

Theists need to stick to their apologetic arguments for their original myths. And if you pay any attention to how that's been going you will see that the theists can't even convince each other of their lame apologetic arguments in support of their indefensible dogmas.

Christianity itself has fallen into countless disagreeing sects and denominations. Each being supported by theists who can't even convince each other of their totally outrageous and illogical apologetic arguments.

There is no hope for these Abrahamic religions.

If a theist wants to continue to believe in a "God" today their best bet is to look into something like Buddhism. And take note that Buddhism does not even conflict with science or evolution. So Buddhism is a religion you can embrace without any need to embarrassingly pretend that there are problems with the sciences when there aren't.

Buddhism also doesn't have embarrassingly immoral and self-contradictory dogma that needs to be apologized for either.

So the wise theists should look into Buddhism if they want to retain a theistic view of reality. And then they will no longer need to argue against science which has already been well-established to have revealed the truth of the natural world in which we live.

Well stated.........and there is nothing more absurd than a debate among Christian theists in direct conflict with each other from the young earth, mid earth and old earth theists arguing which view syncs up with their Bible. ..........

.........or any number of doctrinal differences that lead to debates within Christianity about views so opposed to each other that the finger pointing of damnable heresy charges are claims at each other............even despite their very scriptures claiming the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth of the scriptures to those saved in Christ.

It is a complete joke that Christianity has so much infighting within its core beliefs that everyone's absolute truth claims are in conflict with each others.

You point this out so well...........and the lack of consistency among those who sincerely believe all this junk is proof not such Holy Spirit or divine revelation of any kind exists in reality.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I've recently de-converted from Christianity, and I'm still trying to learn about evolution, because even I still have trouble understanding it.

Pehaps this may help..............living organisms are subject to mutation in their genetic codes which they end up replicating that mutation into successive generations. This provides a dynamic process that inanimate objects do not have, since they change and reproduce............you cannot compare a watch, airplane or any other inanimate object to living organisms as a result which is what theists too often make a mistake in doing.

Mutations take on many variations and some may provide an advantage for an organism to survive long enough for it to replicate that mutation into another generation...........

A random mutation that provides a living organism the most adaptable variation to the pressures of survival in an environment is what is known as natural selection.

There is no conscious intent in that selection process like a God claim but the process will happen on its own just like when you pour water into a glass.....so that no matter what the shape of the container the water will conform to it and level out at the top.

This selection process over time will show up in ever increasing populations and can even shift that population from say a fish with fins that flip on land to fins that are more webbed for feet........for instance. We still see this transition with mud hoppers and other fish that live outside of water and flop to the next pond during drought seasons or lower water beds.

Mutations are random and environmental pressures are random.........but the result of the mutation surviving a specific combination of environmental pressures is a powerful natural selector in molding the organism to a new and different living species over time which can appear to have all the hallmarks of a conscious intent but in fact has no intelligent conscious intent behind these variations.

Think of it this way...........randomness on its own won't develop anything............so random mutations won't do anything to evolve an organism without another random process cross pollinating those odds........which is random environmental pressures like a climate, weather or other factors such as predators or food supply.

Think of random mutations like picking one card out of a deck of cards........you could do this for a long time and never come up with a process by which you pick each card in numeral value in order............

But now think of picking one card out of that first deck (the mutations) and then you have a second deck of cards where if a given card from the second deck (an environmental pressure) will only allow you to keep the random card you pick from the first deck if it is the lowest value (say 2 of spades)........and then the next time you pick from the first deck the second deck won't let you keep that first deck card until it is the next card in line (3 of spades)........

Now it will take some time for this to happen but the random selections of cards from each deck interact with each other to drive that sequence or natural selection process over a period of time..........its not the best analogy........ but one where you get the appearance of purpose or design by multiple random variables cross pollinating each other......

[ProLifeSkeptic]

[Replying to post 9 by Delphi]

Even if radiometric dating is completely wrong, it does nothing to dispel the truth of evolution or provide any evidence whatsoever of a supernatural designer.

But doesn't it jeopardize the theory?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 30 by ProLifeSkeptic]

[Replying to post 29 by H.sapiens]

I don't really try and talk to Christian fundamentalists. I don't want to be giving them any idea that I'm anything like their Bible claims I am.

Don't worry, if you don't talk to them they will make up plenty of crazy stuff on their own... like that video.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 9 by Delphi]

Yeah, baby! The problem is that there is no problem with radiometric dating. The creationists love to bring up anomalies and poorly-conducted bottom-rung science reports. The fact is that radiometric dating is a wonderful heuristic that is supported by physics. It works despite what creationist videos want to report.

Even if radiometric dating is completely wrong, it does nothing to dispel the truth of evolution or provide any evidence whatsoever of a supernatural designer.

But what about those times that he mentioned where Radiometric dating was a bit off?

Since no one went into radiometric dating very much, I thought I'd give you a few more details.

First, to clarify some things. All radioactive material is in the process of shedding off extra material and energy as the atoms in the radioactive material go from an unstable state to a stable one. The extra material and energy are what make it unstable and, therefore, "radioactive". For example uranium eventually decays into lead. Lead is the first "stable" element that is reached after uranium atoms rid themselves of extra energy and matter. Not to confuse matters, but it is worth mentioning that uranium actually decays into other isotopes which decay into more isotopes. There's something like 26 different isotopes that U-238 changes into before becoming good old lead (U-238 is one type of radioactive uranium, the 238 being the number of protons (92) and neurons (146) in the nucleus added together.)

Now, one of the first claims they make (and this is a common thing done in creationist propaganda) is to state that there is no way to know if there is any contamination of old rock samples, and therefore no way to know that the comparison being made between the amount of radioactive material (parent material) to the left-over non-radioactive material (daughter material) is accurate. THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE, AND IT IS EASY TO EXPLAIN WHY.

Take a sample of rock with U-238 in it. The first thing they will do is check for contamination. If a rock is loaded with lead, then there is a high probability that the bits or uranium in the same sample could have lead next to them which did NOT come from the decay process of that particular bit of uranium. So the sample is considered tainted.

But what if there is no lead anywhere in the non-uranium bits, and none of the 26 in-between isotopes that will exist between U-238 and lead as the uranium decays? And when they examine the U-238 and find some parent material (uranium), some daughter material (lead), as well as the other in-between isotopes? The only rational conclusion to reach is that the lead is a direct result of the decay of the uranium. Most rocks will contain many bits of uranium too. So the chances that extra lead got into the rock sample and ONLY ended up right next to the uranium bits is statistically zero.

Even better, some samples contain multiple types of radioactive material, like uranium and rubidium. When you have that situation, and there is no daughter material contaminating the rock sample, we get even greater accuracy of the dating of that find. This also proves that the decay rates of these things must have been constant over deep time. If that wasn't true the two different radioactive elements would give different dates ALL the time. Instead they always confirm each other.

Radiometric dating is a very useful method of determining the age of things. Science does not just assume any radioactive sample can be used for dating, and science does not ignore potential problems that may exist with certain isotopes. There are plenty of different radioactive isotopes on Earth, but we only use select ones primarily because of their LACK of possible problems. Science only wants to get it right.

There were other idiotic claims in that video, but as this post has already gotten long, I will leave it at that. If you have any questions about this or another topic in that video, please ask.

[Kenisaw]

I would like to add, separately, that I hope you see the rather interesting double standard that cultists have in their dealing with science. They never claim science is wrong as it relates to their cell phones, or GPS, or computers, or medicines, or any time they use a plane or a car or a boat to get somewhere. Why? Because it doesn't contradict with their ancient manuscripts. But suddenly you get into the theory of evolution, and science is now some totally inaccurate mass conspiracy, incapable of getting anything right as it relates to the age of the planet or the progression of life.

It's a ludicrous self serving ploy.

Science cannot be both a highly effective and efficient form of investigation into the universe, AND a self-serving conspiracy with the main goal of hiding the truth about a particular god being that just so happens to be the basis of belief for the people claiming foul and evil intentions.