Hi Tim,
thanks for you response.
It would help considerably if you stated precisely what the alleged, “deceptive claims and bad logic” are.
again, it would help considerably if you stated precisely what the alleged, “logical fallacies, bad arguments, and slander” are.
You say you will provide some examples, but again, you do NOT state precisely what the alleged, false dichotomies are other than a broad description, “like atheistic usage of a caricature of evolution as a philosophy being the only alternative to YEC” , so what exactly is it?
or
“generalisations”, other than, “like using atheists with bad philosophy to argue against evolution” so what is it precisely?
or
“circular reasoning”, other than, ““we’re right because our position is the correct one” so what is actually stated in the film that makes you think this?
or
“propaganda techniques, like preferentially citing people whose philosophy is bad as examples of those who affirm evolution)”, so what people, what bad philosophy, what do you believe is a correct one?
or
the, " at least half a dozen other types that I’m not remembering." What are they?
You state, “the claims that mutations don’t produce new information,” so what mutations do you believe are examples of mutations that produce new complex information of the type that is absolutely required for evolution in the microbes to mankind sense? That is, new information of upward complexity that codes for new features in the ascension from an alleged single celled life form to the biodiversity we see and ultimately mankind that is necessary if evolution were a real process.
I don’t think anyone has ever stated that ALL mutations are harmful, it is known that on extremely rare occasions a damaging mutation may confer a positive or beneficial advantage to an individual in certain circumstances, however when those certain circumstances are removed, it is clear that the vast majority if not all, of those mutation situations are less fit than their unmutated peers.
If you disagree, what examples of mutations that produce new information of the type that is required for evolution in the microbes to mankind sense do you offer in support of your accusation?
“that random processes do not make information,” so what is actually stated in the film that has you make this accusation? Be specific!
“that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are fudge factors,” well as far as I am concerned, to have the belief that Cosmologists tell us we live in a universe filled with invisible, unobserved stuff—74% dark energy and 22% dark matter. … 96% of the stuff in the universe that we have never seen, conveniently because its invisible, and never observed in any way whatsoever, sounds very much like a fudge factor to me, designed to prop up belief in the Big Bang myth to account for the severe lack of stuff in the universe that belief in the Big Bang equations requires.
If you want to read more on this subject, I can recommend an article by Physicist Dr John Hartnett:
"that redshift differences among angularly associated objects are a problem" but there most definitely is a problem with the belief that High Redshift objects are distant and Low Redshift objects are nearby, when we (such as US Astronomer Halton Arp), have discovered High Redshift Quasars physically associated with nearby Low Redshift Galaxies such as the example provided in the Honest, Truthful Christian documentary “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” that has a Quasar with Redshift (z) of 2.11 sitting there for all to see right front of Galaxy NGC 7319 with Redshift (z) of 0.0225; which obviously means that the use of Redshift to calculate distances is gravely in error.
If you think that is wrong, then please explain why you think it is wrong.
You state: “and the denial of cracks in bent rock formations that have them are all lies.”
What is actually stated in the film about bent rock formations is:
"…and marine fossils on top of the highest mountains like Mount Everest, well how did they get there, well evolutionists would say that slow gradual uplift over millions of years led to the formation of the mountain ranges and pushed the fossils up along with them.
But there are some things about modern mountain belts that we see that don’t seem to fit with this conventional view. Rock is brittle, it doesn’t bend very easily, if you try and bend it, it breaks, now granted, if you bent it on a big scale you might be able to get some pretty big bends out of a large rock, but these bends are tight and close and you can walk from one end of them to the other. This type of bend and folding without breaking brittle rock means that maybe it wasn’t brittle rock at the time of its formation. These might have been much softer materials after all they were laid down during Noah’s flood, had been compacted down, and started off horizontal but tectonic movements occurred that shifted them and folded them while they were probably still soft. So when we look at it this way, what we realise is that the really tall mountain chains, the Alps, the Rockies, the Himalaya’s, they didn’t exist before the flood, the whole reason that they exist is because of the flood.
This True and Faithful documentary film then goes on to state, by Australian Geologist Dr Tas Walker,:
“When we look at the geology of the Earth, we find that present processes do not explain what we see, rather what we see points to catastrophic processes in the past and when we think about what those could be, it fits exactly with the account in Genesis of Noah’s flood which destroyed the whole Earth.”
The Flood wipes away millions of years from the geological record, [i.e., they never existed], those millions of years are necessary for evolution to occur.
No millions of years, No evolution!
"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”. Genesis 9:11
My hearts aches for you honest, trusting and wonderful brother and sister Christians for whom Christ died, who believe that evolution is real and that the Flood of Noah was only a “local” flood.
But Tim, WHY do you make such blatantly, untruthful false accusations against fellow Christians?
I must ask you to again, be specific, where in this brilliant and honest Christian Documentary Film has anyone, “implicitly accuse[d] all honest biologists, geologists, paleontologists, and cosmologists of being incompetent;”
Although to be perfectly honest here, I know for a fact that no such slander or accusation is made in the subject of this matter, the Documentary film, Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s.
Here again,you make vague generalisations but do not provide even one example when we should all have seen many thousands, if evolution were real and the necessarily trillions upon trillions of intermediate forms actually existed. Can you list even 100, or even only 50, or even just 10 genuine clear examples of an evolutionary transitional form where a less complex creature has evolved into a more complex creature with greater information on its DNA?
Please Tim, get a grip on reality here, there is nothing wrong with my credibility here.
I am not talking about mere limited changes within a specie or a genus or Biblical kind to be more accurate. I am talking about about the BIG changes in transitional fossils that clearly demonstrate the absolutely necessary upward increase in complexity of an organism from one type to another, in the evolutionary sense as would be required for microbes to become microbiologists. Where are the intermediates at the Family, Order, Class and Phylum levels?
Creationists recognise limited change within individuals in a species or Biblical kind but it is dishonest to attempt to use three Sea Snails of the same Genus as an example of an evolutionary transitional form in the Big picture evolution sense required for microbes to become microbiologists. But that is what honestly needs to be demonstrated, i.e., the big changes!
As yet I have NOT seen even one, yet according to evolution they existed, so where are they?
Out of the untold trillions that must have existed, why don’t we have huge numbers of them to study?
You may be interested to know that the documentary film ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s’ received the Dove Foundation’s ‘Faith Friendly’ seal and highest ranking; the reviewer noted, “If we could award Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels more than five Doves, our best rating, we would! This is an intelligent and remarkable look at the holes in the theory of evolution”.
Okay, what are they?
Do they demonstrate the BIG changes as demanded by evolution that allegedly claims a single cell evolved to the biodiversity we now see in the world?
Yes, that would be a very helpful start, rather than just making broad generalisations and throwing false accusations at me and ethical, honest Christians who have contributed their time and funds to making the documentary film, ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s’.
Thank you for the collection of roughly 10 organism clades you present from other threads, I don’t accept the premise that clades exist in reality as defined by evolutionary theory.
But I need to ask, what makes you believe the examples you have listed are anything more than examples of individual diversity within a genus or species as the case may be?
I get it that you use their general morphology and the stratigraphic position they are located within, but there are likely many other explanations besides your conclusion that they are intermediates.
Do you recognise that very real possibility?
Yes, of course, if it is as you say, and I don’t doubt your integrity whatsoever, you are searching and of course, all the while hoping to find an intermediate you can publish as yet another paper of ‘proof’ of evolution, then when you come across some individuals with discrete variations in their morphology, you say, ‘Eureka!’ I’ve discovered another intermediate, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Once again, what needs to be demonstrated beyond doubt are the BIG changes required by evolution in the uphill, increase of information and corresponding morphological changes sense.
But again, what are these alleged, " demonstrable lies in the “documentary”?
Well yes, Amen to that, absolutely and wholeheartedly!
Tim, you state that you "quickly become suspicious of the honesty of someone who repeatedly promotes demonstrable falsehoods’.
But here once again, you are NOT specific, this is yet another generalisation that sadly smears the integrity of wonderful, honest, kind and generous Christian men and women without even the slightest evidence given.
Please provide specific examples from the very good Christian documentary, ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s’ where information is ‘dishonest’ and where ‘demonstrable falsehoods’ are promoted?
God bless you Tim,
jon