Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools video series for students

Notes on three more of them:

2b

Uniformitarianism

Lots of scientists believe continents move at irregular speeds.

Yes. Over very short time scales.

[John Baumgardener] showed that continents can move very quickly.

“[Uniformitarianism] refuses to take into account the major catastrophic events of the past.

Only Lyell and Darwin were that obstinate.

“During the 1980’s eruptions at Mt. St. Helens, 200 layers of rock were deposited in three hours. Entire river systems were carved in a matter of months right through 700 feet of hard rock.”

Volcanic ash. Not sedimentary rocks. And those 700 feet could hardly be terms solid.

“If [the layers in the Grand Canyon] took millions of years to form, then the bottom rock layers would be hard and brittle by the time the ones at the top would be deposited. But, near the Grand Canyon, all the layers are bent together. If they were bent together while they were hard [they would break]. The rocks didn’t shatter like they should have, they must have been together while they were soft and pliable.”

They did break. And those bends are pretty large. Even rocks are flexible, if the distance and time are long enough.

“If the river slowly carved the canyon, then we should see all the material piled up in the river delta, but it’s completely missing. In fact, about 1000 cubic miles has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon. Where did it all go? If the canyon was slowly eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California; but, the delta includes only about 1% of the material we would expect if the evolutionary explanation were true.” “Unless it was carved by a massive catastrophe which carried all the material away.”

The only true statement in this paragraph is the volume of the canyon.

“What happens to a clam when it dies? They open up, and their two shells separate. But this clam was fossilized before it had a chance to fall open, or be pulled open by a scavenger.”

Not if they are already buried, WHICH THEY ALMOST ALWAYS ARE.

The well-known fossil of the Ichthyosaur giving birth had to be buried quite quickly.

Yes. But how many small pieces of ichthyosaurs do we have compared to near-perfect ones?

“And they’ve found many dinosaur fossils with red blood cells, soft tissue and even DNA.”

Impressions of red blood cells. Collagen is not bone, but it is still quite tough. Tiny fragments of extremely degraded DNA. If they were only a few thousand years old, we should have hundreds of complete dinosaur genomes.

“But all of these could have been fossilized during the worldwide flood.”

No, they would all be smashed in tiny pieces.

“It doesn’t take millions of years to form a fossil. It can happen rapidly under the right conditions.”

Which are extraordinarily rare.

3a

Did humans evolve?

All of the old ape-men ideas were fakes.

Yes.

“In our book it says that Australopithecus afarensis evolved 3-2.8 MYA. In this book it says that Australopithecus evolved 4-5 MYA.”

How are those contradictory?

A 1951 Life article says that Australopithecus lived ~700 kYA.

That article was wrong.

It was claimed that Homo erectus had a human body, but a different skull. But, in 2013 there was a study showing that many of the differences used to distinguish H. sapiens from H. erectus blur together.

There are still characteristics that distinguish them.

Many specimens of H. habilis are of debated identity, and the genus assignment is uncertain.

Same is true for most pleurocerids, which says nothing about whether they belong in Elimia or Pleurocera (both, sensu latu , probably constitute about five different genera, which are highly cryptic).

The remains of Lucy are quite fragmentary.

So are most dinosaurs. So are my fossil pholadids. All three are distinctive

Lucy was actually a Bonobo-like creature, based on the skull.

The body is rather different from a Bonobo.

Quote to the effect of “True Australopithecus is not a direct ancestor of Homo.

Cladisticly, it cannot be, because if it were, then Australopithecus would be a grade.

Neanderthals and Humans can interbreed, therefore they are identical by definition.

Nobody thinks that all species of Larus are identical, yet they can interbreed freely.

“So either these fossils are completely human, or completely ape, with nothing in between.”

That is a horrendous a-priori false dichotomy.

All of the specimens of the ape-human transitional forms that have been found could fit in the back of a small pickup truck.

I could fit every specimen ever found of Ersilia stancyki into a hollowed-out US penny. That says nothing about how reliable any conclusions about it are.

4a

Does Adaptation Prove Evolution?

Darwin’s finches [which are thraupids, not estrildids or fringillids, as the name suggests] arrived on the Galapagos and underwent speciation. “But is that really evolution?”

Yes.

“[Speciation] isn’t evolution by natural forces if these animals were programmed to adapt like that.”

What caused them to adapt?

Not all changes are caused by random mutations.

No, no one thinks that.

Mutations are always bad.

Sinistrality is a mutation which makes zero difference to the gastropod surviving. It does make it harder to find a mate, however, if one does, and sinistrality is a rare enough mutation in your species (varies between different types of gastropod), then a new population can be established (e.g. Busycon carica & contarium/perversum )

Resistance to pesticides in mosquitoes is from a loss of information in the genome.

Yes, but there are plenty of adaptations that are just changing information, rather than deleting it.

“People count on that loss of information from mutations to create the genetic blueprints for every living creature on earth.”

Nobody sane does. There are plenty of ways to increase the amount of DNA in an organism: polyploidy, grabbing pieces from the environment, etc.

“One basic kind of animal can never change into another.”

You never define “kind”, however, given your examples, it seems to be “things that look pretty similar to me”. Under that definition, Eulimella is much more like Melanella than Bartschella , however the anatomy shows that Eulimella and Bartschella are both members of Turbonilinae, whereas Melanella is a eulimid, which is in a different subclass than Eulimella .

6 Likes

@Kathryn_Applegate

(I just wanted you to see some people had watched the videos and responded.)

I would argue that these aren’t slick! :wink:

LOL. Maybe not the best choice of words.

I read through Tactics by Koukl last year and couldn’t help but to mentally respond to the incomplete arguments. It seems that all of the Genesis apologetics ministries depend on science teachers not understanding science, or for example, not realizing that there’s far more evidence than homologous features that supports common ancestry. A damaging part is when a student interacts with a teacher who knows their stuff, and the argument turns to character malignant- I.e. “they just don’t want to believe in God” etc. Exhibit A is the movie Genesis Impact. @Christy I look forward to reading through this resource :slight_smile:

2 Likes

That’s well summarized. It’s particularly ironic when it’s quite apparently projection–the student just wants to believe in God, and avoid the evidence (that they think, erroneously, denies God) .It takes wisdom and empathy to clearly bridge that gap of fear and misunderstanding.

1 Like

I’d also include empathy for whales, millions of years and individuals that God created are being “cancelled” :laughing:

1 Like

Well that is true. I had meant it takes empathy on the part of the educator who gets that sort of response. I actually benefited greatly from an empathetic prof (several, in fact). They helped me with understanding evolution (though I never thought they were intellectually dishonest)

1 Like

I understand, @Randy! There is only one teacher that I can think of who was empathetic and who I might have been able to talk to, but I was too discombobulated at the time. Being the empathetic teacher is something to aspire to :slight_smile: That’s wonderful that you had people you could talk to! Since I had a lack in that area, I hope to be that role for others with questions.

1 Like

Just from the first video, between the Evolution and Creation shirts, we have some questions. What are they trying to represent? Evidence? Ideologies? Entire worldviews? Us vs Them? Darwin and Jesus? Satan and God? Many of the “points” these characters bring up are rather conflated and it’s difficult to tell what their framework for apologetics is. To me, if evolution could actually say something with words, it would be “look, I’ve been happening”.

1 Like

@Paraleptopecten, Those point are helpful! Watching these videos brings up questions for me, since I have a vague to general understanding in these areas.
I found it interesting how the students brought up the argument that we don’t know if the parent/daughter isotopes were previously different, but at the end the boy quotes the Bible and claims God is saying that “you weren’t there to see it.” Therefore, God must be saying that none of us is allowed to make any assumptions that we haven’t observed ourselves. I have some more thoughts on the radiometric dating video.

First, I wonder what text they are using. I’ve never read that definition of dating rocks except in creation apologetics sources.

Second: The kids don’t give examples of specific dating methods being used, how they are used, and how they overlap. The boy mentions that “some dates match up,” but continues as if that was inconsequential. They make no mention of margin of error, or how dating methods are corroborative.

Finally, what is their view on the rock cycle? They seem to date rocks at their creation, meaning when we observe them coming out of the earth. They don’t explain conglomerates, metamorphic rock with different minerals, or even mention that the material existed before it was laid down or blown out of a volcano and how that would affect how old they are measured to be.

The presumptive straw man seems to be that radiometric dating has to work for nearly everything with no margin of error, and changes mean our methods don’t work and scientists are more dedicated to their narrative than adapting for the best data. God’s Word is pitted against His own creation.

Another thought on the intro video, and this will probably be brought up later, is that the student asks the teacher why there is a lack of transitional fossils. They already know this. Fossilization is a rare process, so it’s reasonable that the fossils we find in our top few feet of crust will only fit in the back of her Prius.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.