Darwin's "Downfall"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2016, 07:35 AM
Darwin's "Downfall"?
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)

https://youtu.be/7IHO-QkmomY

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.

I don't know, some of these arguments seem like the typical PRATT arguments used by creationists. However, there were some arguments that he made about the flood which I thought might be interesting.

But in all regard, why does Keith even bother? He's a Christian who doesn't believe in free-will, and that all people can only do what the God figure predestined them to do. In fact, I've asked him this many times, and I think he might have blocked me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 07:41 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  The final segment of the documentary is typical "evolution teaches that we're animals" and stuff like that.

We are animals, we consume other organisms to survive. Not much you can do to help someone who can't get over the fact that his species isn't a special and unique little snowflake.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-09-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 07:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  The final segment of the documentary is typical "evolution teaches that we're animals" and stuff like that.

We are animals, we consume other organisms to survive. Not much you can do to help someone who can't get over the fact that his species isn't a special and unique little snowflake.
He's just one the muesli people; fruits, nuts and flakes..

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gloucester's post
19-09-2016, 08:16 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 07:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  The final segment of the documentary is typical "evolution teaches that we're animals" and stuff like that.

We are animals, we consume other organisms to survive. Not much you can do to help someone who can't get over the fact that his species isn't a special and unique little snowflake.

I never get that logic if creatards are trying to say "see look at how aweful all the other animals are"my response is

1. Look how aweful the so called special species

2.No matter how much retards like Jason lisile insist to the contrary our origins really don't matter in terms of how we should act

3.We are no doubt were animals but we sure as hell have gone down a very different path them other animals

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 08:16 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  3.We are no doubt were animals but we sure as hell have gone down a very different path them other animals

I'm not entirely sure that's true, even. We're much more like our simian cousins than we'd like to admit. Check out the book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. It was eye-opening, to me.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
19-09-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
Life is short.
Arguing with Creatards is not something I spend the (relatively) few wonderful minutes of being alive I have. Tell him to read Kenneth Miller, (Christian Biochemist from Brown) "Finding Darwin's God" .... it totally destroys Creationism, AND he's a Christian.

Evolution in 2016 does not rest on anything Darwin said or did. A group of English scientists were all coming to the same conclusion around the same time, (fascinating history for those who are interested). Darwin happened to publish first. Millions, (if not billions) of data points support Evolution in 2016. It does not depend on Darwin. It's like saying the Theory of Gravity depends on Newton. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 08:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Life is short.
Arguing with Creatards is not something I spend the (relatively) few wonderful minutes of being alive I have. Tell him to read Kenneth Miller, (Christian Biochemist from Brown) "Finding Darwin's God" .... it totally destroys Creationism, AND he's a Christian.

Evolution in 2016 does not rest on anything Darwin said or did. A group of English scientists were all coming to the same conclusion around the same time, (fascinating history for those who are interested). Darwin happened to publish first. Millions, (if not billions) of data points support Evolution in 2016. It does not depend on Darwin. It's like saying the Theory of Gravity depends on Newton. Facepalm

"Calling modern evolutionary theory "Darwinism" is like calling modern aeronautical engineering "Wrightism". "
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Gawdzilla's post
19-09-2016, 09:31 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  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)

https://youtu.be/7IHO-QkmomY

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.

I don't know, some of these arguments seem like the typical PRATT arguments used by creationists. However, there were some arguments that he made about the flood which I thought might be interesting.

But in all regard, why does Keith even bother? He's a Christian who doesn't believe in free-will, and that all people can only do what the God figure predestined them to do. In fact, I've asked him this many times, and I think he might have blocked me.

They are definitely PRATT arguments. He starts with the Creationist classic: The Quote Mine™, in which they quote only part of what a scientist says in order to make it sound like he says something other than his overall point, or they take something that was written about a lack of a particular kind of evidence (usually a long time ago) before evidence was found on that exact objection. Keep in mind that this is how science works... scientists will point out problems or gaps in what we know, criticizing any argument that is made, and encourage others to fill that gap or explain why it's not the problem it seems to be... or else we reject the hypothesis because it does not explain all the facts. Indeed, that's the entire basis of a predictive model: we say "we have found W, X, and Z... we should find Y in between X and Z if the model is correct", and others will go out and find Y. But that doesn't mean our alphabet is wrong if we have 23 out of 26 letters!

Darwin, in particular, started off each chapter with the objections he expected would be raised against his new idea, then proceeded to answer them, explaining why the objection would not hold weight against it.

The full quote from Chapter 9 of On the Origin of Species is as follows:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

He then goes on for the entire rest of the chapter about what the problem is and why/how it will be solved by geological research after the year 1859. And, of course, it was.

They then proceed on to a list of people who "dissent from Darwinism", except the list is totally dishonest. They don't ask people if they think evolution is wrong. They ask them this question:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Well, hell, given THAT question, I would sign the list. I am skeptical of all claims, including the one that says mutation+natural selection accounts for the complexity of life (there are more factors involved than those two, for one!), and I believe that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged, as well.

If you would like to read about the list then present of "dissenting" scientists, and find out the dishonesty of the people who made this video, WikiPedia has pretty good coverage of the issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientif...#Responses

A couple of good quotes from that article, about what the Discovery Institute (who made that list) is doing:

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed. It wrote to all of them asking whether they thought living things shared common ancestors and whether humans and apes shared common ancestors. According to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, a few of the signatories replied saying that they did accept these principles but did not think that natural selection could explain the origins of life. However, the replies ceased when, according to Scott, the Discovery Institute found out and advised signatories not to respond. She concluded from this that "at least some of the more knowledgeable scientists did not interpret this statement the way that it was intended [by the Discovery Institute] to be interpreted by the general public.

Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

(Bold emphasis my own, because I think Dr. Davidson nailed it.)

And these lies are just two of about a half-dozen I found within the first FIVE MINUTES of this video... do I really need to go on?

These people are liars. They have an agenda, and they're willing to lie for Jesus in order to accomplish that agenda. It's really just that simple.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-09-2016, 09:40 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 09:31 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  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)

https://youtu.be/7IHO-QkmomY

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.

I don't know, some of these arguments seem like the typical PRATT arguments used by creationists. However, there were some arguments that he made about the flood which I thought might be interesting.

But in all regard, why does Keith even bother? He's a Christian who doesn't believe in free-will, and that all people can only do what the God figure predestined them to do. In fact, I've asked him this many times, and I think he might have blocked me.

They are definitely PRATT arguments. He starts with the Creationist classic: The Quote Mine™, in which they quote only part of what a scientist says in order to make it sound like he says something other than his overall point, or they take something that was written about a lack of a particular kind of evidence (usually a long time ago) before evidence was found on that exact objection. Keep in mind that this is how science works... scientists will point out problems or gaps in what we know, criticizing any argument that is made, and encourage others to fill that gap or explain why it's not the problem it seems to be... or else we reject the hypothesis because it does not explain all the facts. Indeed, that's the entire basis of a predictive model: we say "we have found W, X, and Z... we should find Y in between X and Z if the model is correct", and others will go out and find Y. But that doesn't mean our alphabet is wrong if we have 23 out of 26 letters!

Darwin, in particular, started off each chapter with the objections he expected would be raised against his new idea, then proceeded to answer them, explaining why the objection would not hold weight against it.

The full quote from Chapter 9 of On the Origin of Species is as follows:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

He then goes on for the entire rest of the chapter about what the problem is and why/how it will be solved by geological research after the year 1859. And, of course, it was.

They then proceed on to a list of people who "dissent from Darwinism", except the list is totally dishonest. They don't ask people if they think evolution is wrong. They ask them this question:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Well, hell, given THAT question, I would sign the list. I am skeptical of all claims, including the one that says mutation+natural selection accounts for the complexity of life (there are more factors involved than those two, for one!), and I believe that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged, as well.

If you would like to read about the list then present of "dissenting" scientists, and find out the dishonesty of the people who made this video, WikiPedia has pretty good coverage of the issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientif...#Responses

A couple of good quotes from that article, about what the Discovery Institute (who made that list) is doing:

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed. It wrote to all of them asking whether they thought living things shared common ancestors and whether humans and apes shared common ancestors. According to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, a few of the signatories replied saying that they did accept these principles but did not think that natural selection could explain the origins of life. However, the replies ceased when, according to Scott, the Discovery Institute found out and advised signatories not to respond. She concluded from this that "at least some of the more knowledgeable scientists did not interpret this statement the way that it was intended [by the Discovery Institute] to be interpreted by the general public.

Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

(Bold emphasis my own, because I think Dr. Davidson nailed it.)

And these lies are just two of about a half-dozen I found within the first FIVE MINUTES of this video... do I really need to go on?

These people are liars. They have an agenda, and they're willing to lie for Jesus in order to accomplish that agenda. It's really just that simple.

Very well put. Also, as I stated previously, why does this guy even care if he believes everything is predestined by his God?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 09:46 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 09:40 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  Very well put. Also, as I stated previously, why does this guy even care if he believes everything is predestined by his God?

Because he has no choice?
Cool

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: