In fact this is fun! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is chock full of the standard junk. We have already torn it's erroneous assertions to pieces here. We can use this as a great example of what creationism is all about.
It has it all. Stawmen, quote mining, out of date information, and total falsehoods. But it is all wrapped in great production values.
Out of interest though Ned, what particular part annoyed you most? I watched the whole thing, trying to be neutral, the big red crosses I guess are meant to make us think " NO, POISON - WRONG " Who knows - maybe a few subliminal cuts were made to convince people.
I did enjoy it though and I do agree with the complex nature of living things, and I do see this as design.
I know, it's a dissapointment I'm still on the creo side. But I'm trying to see my way to the neutral zone a bit more. I guess that is where my main agreement was - the diversity of life being my personal evidence of a creator, with some good little graphics showing the engines in the cell creatures.
I'm a bit out of touch with the evolutionary biology that can combat creationist arguments head-on; I'm much better at simply analyizng the straegy and discussing how it works (hence, I was not a bad "creation apologist" for a time, myself).
Here's an interesting quote from Chapter 7, part 1:
"Arranging the skulls of these extinct apes from the smallest to the biggest, and adding some skulls of VANISHED HUMAN RACES to the series, evolutionists conconcted the scenario of human evolution."
Here it is again:
"...fossils that are included by evolutionists under imaginary classifications such as homo erectur, hom ergaster, or homo spaiens archaic, in fact belong to DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES."
And in case you didn't catch that...
"When these fossils are inspected, in is seen that their skeletons are essentially the same as people living today. The only dissimilarities are a few structural differences in the skulls... [creepy music] but differences like these are to be found in DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES living today."
OK, this is wacky. They're really in direct disagreement with Answers in Genesis, which steadfastly (and, be it noted, correctly) that there is precisely one race of human beings. I'm certain that you can't detect differences between skulls of human ethnic groups (read Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"). The film could have picked up a bit in noting that the variation within each particular human race was more substantial than the differences between the so-called "races," but they simply maintain this false classification of their own, and tack on a deceptive paraphrase from Richard Leakey (I don't know for certain, but I would strongly expect him to have put forth similar views to Gould about the structures of human skulls). On further searching, I note that the film fails to mention the fact that Leakey is no longer active in field work, but has taken some bold political steps for political equality and justice in Kenya.
So, back to the tomfoolery, was homo erectus a black man or a white? Asian? Aboriginal? Was homo ergaster ne of that rare breed of "vato-niggaz from da 'hood?"
Answers in Genesis also maintains, notably, that there has been no evolution of the human "kind" (why not?), so they stake themselves on these fossils being extinct apes or completely human. I wonder where this film gets its endorsement...
The part about the "exposed frauds" of evolution being retained in textbooks today is hogwash; the film is very careful to avoid mentioning any particular fraud that's still around. They're also very careful NOT to mention that it was other scientists, most all of whom were "evolutionists" themselves, that discovered these frauds and set the record straight.
But - phrases aside, I thought you would have argued that the skeletons aren't the same as todays?
I often wonder when I see the skulls in "a line of" what the skeletons would look like. Instead of arguing what words or phrases were used in the vid, how about the skeletons? How do you counter their argument?
"vanished human races" simply means human's like Neanderthal - is he not vanished? If we cannot find a living neanderthal then I guess he is vanished. - I'll admitt this isn't the strongest of arguments but I think that is what was meant.
The only dissimilarities are a few structural differences in the skulls... [creepy music] but differences like these are to be found in DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES living today."
Again, they are suggesting races as simply races, this would agree with the point I made.
If I ask you what race are you? Do you know what I am talking about? Maybe their actual error is to say "human" but then again they could just be making it easy for the listener to understand the context of what they are talking about.
Furthermore, the documentary shown numerous examples of living fossils. It shown dragonflys next to dragonfly fossils, frogs next to frog fossils (no offense Crash), rats, and I think a few others. This confuses me as I could see that these species were exactly the same, even though uniformatarianism says these fossils are millions of years old.
I am guessing the argument from the evolutionist would be that the species has done well, in that there hasn't been much change in the gene pool. Maybe there were no populations that were isolated, and therefore genetic drift wasn't as likely. Maybe the species didn't require change. This would probably be my evolutionist argument...how close am I ?
But then I must ask as a creationist, why they are stuck in this rut. Surely some natural Selection must have taken place. Why is there no change in such a vast amount of time? Could it be that some animals evolve and others don't? Has there ever been a "non-evolving" creature? Is that possible.....If abiogenesis is not part of evolution then surely it is possible.
quote:I am guessing the argument from the evolutionist would be that the species has done well, in that there hasn't been much change in the gene pool. Maybe there were no populations that were isolated, and therefore genetic drift wasn't as likely. Maybe the species didn't require change. This would probably be my evolutionist argument...how close am I ?
That's it! You got the answer correct. An evolving creature does not have to change morphologically. If its present form fits it well, it won't change any more.
quote:But then I must ask as a creationist, why they are stuck in this rut. Surely some natural Selection must have taken place. Why is there no change in such a vast amount of time? Could it be that some animals evolve and others don't? Has there ever been a "non-evolving" creature? Is that possible.....If abiogenesis is not part of evolution then surely it is possible.
Why are they 'stuck'? IOW why didn't they change? Well, if a certain morphology is successful, then any more change is likely to lower the fitness of the creature and will be selected against. It's called 'normalizing selection'. Cockroaches stay like cockroaches even though others come and go, because they found their winning formula some hundred million years ago. Well, they did escape the onslaught that killed dinosaurs with that shape, so I think they will keep it for the future. Every peopulation of creatures is subject to natural selection; some respond by evolving, others respond by staying the same.
Evolutionists "hold a presuppostion world view"? This from a person that evidently clings to beliefs in 2000 year old arcaehic mysticism from musty old scrolls about pillars of fire, stoning whores and snakes passing out apples from trees...sheeez...planet of the apes is more viable....