Genesis Impact (2020) museum docent presents his best case for evolution but student challenges [text transcribed:full Movie: see comment]

...Now, in closing today, we've seen that the Earth has gradually changed over millions of years and that the continents have drifted. Radiometric dating has solidly established that the Earth is billions of years old, leaving plenty of time for the engine of evolution, natural selection, and mutation to drive evolutionary progress. Now, Charles Darwin may have discovered the key principles of human evolution that we base these principles on, but it is my hope that you, the next generation, would take these theories and continue to help us prove just how evolution happens.

"Well, you mentioned that one of the leading evidences that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor is that human and chimp DNA is 98% similar."

[McGuire] "Well, the exact figure varies over the years, but the last count was 3.097 billion base pairs. And how about chimps?"

[McGuire] "Okay, so chimps have about 134 million more base pairs than we have, which means their genome is about 4.3% bigger. How is it possible to say that our DNA is like 98% similar when actually it's 4.3% bigger?"

[McGuire] "Well, when they made the comparison between our genome and theirs, they were so different that they had to break them apart into chunks that were similar, and then the comparisons were made."

It is assumed that folks who do not believe Evolution are backward thinkers. But that in itself is an assumption.

There are thinkers who are evolutionists and there are thinkers who believe in creation or Alien visiting from long ago or whatever. The assumption that only evolutionist are thinkers is just that; an assumption. An arrogant one if you think about it, but it is an assumption.

The evolutionists also say that if you don't believe in evolution, you are not scientific. This is also an assumption, and another arrogant one. For true science is all about proofs, and standing up against testing. It's not about consensus, it's about repeatability, verifiable data, and the theory standing up against ALL questions.

One that I love to stump the evolutionists, is to ask whether Charles Darwin believed evolution took billions of years or something less. I good evolutionist will admit that Charles Darwin believed it took place in a Hundred thousand and went much less before he died.

Then they will cite Radio Carbon dating, ice cores and geology. And that at this point it is believed that Billions of years are necessary.

Then, I ask what about the Lunar Lander, when men first went and walked on the moon in 1969?

They reply, "What about it?"

Well, do you remember the probes shadow as it came down before it landed? And that if the probe did not find solid enough ground underneath, they were to immediately abort rather than to be buried in moon dust and not be able to return?

They reply, "So?"

That probe was based on the theory of evolution that the moon had been bombarded by meteorites for billions of years and could have resulted moon dust so deep the astronauts would have been buried and unable to return.

But the probe did find solid enough ground underneath the dust. But do you remember the Neil Armstrong hesitating before steeping solidly on the moon? I do.

That hesitation was also due to the theory of evolution, for maybe the probe hit a meteor under the dust, but may not have been where he was to step?

But Neil felt solid enough ground under only an inch or so of moondust and took the RISK of a short walk. As the photos later showed nice footprints as if walking in about an inch and a half of impressionable moondust.

So, my question to the evolutionist is "if there were Billions of years worth of meteorites and space dust accumulating on the moon, why was it only around an inch and a half when they were clearly expecting more?

You know the earth has a molten core, right?

Evolutionist: "Yes, so?"

Why is it not solid then after Billions of years? It's a logical question.

From either of these I expect an attack?

Evolutionist: But you are clearly a creationist. How can you say the earth is only a couple of thousand years old.

To which I reply, "Did I say I was?" Evolutionist? "Well aren't you?

"The question is logical one, why isn't the core solid?" (folding my arms across my chest and keeping silent from then on while the evolutionist flounders, At this point the audience is beginning to get my point.

That arrogant assumptions are being made and when there is any push back they DON'T answer the question and attack the person rather than defend their position.

My point is to poke holes in the theory, (of which there are many) not to disprove evolution, but to SHOW THAT THINKERS DON"T HAVE TO BE EVOLUTIONISTS and that SCIENCE IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE EVOLUTIONIONIST EITHER.

Very true. and to believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for complex life with its profound intricate complexity and extensive diversity, can be all a result of purely natural processes requires much faith. More so i submit, than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a being of supreme power and intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter, and laws regarding the same.

Then, I ask what about the Lunar Lander, when men first went and walked on the moon in 1969?...Well, do you remember the probes shadow as it came down before it landed? And that if the probe did not find solid enough ground underneath, they were to immediately abort rather than to be buried in moon dust and not be able to return?

Although in mid-1966 America successively soft-landed five Surveyor spacecraft on the lunar surface,Surveyor series, indicating it was safe to land, it would seem that there should have been much more dust, but due to accumulation rates, etc. YEC themselves have overall abandoned that argument/ From https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system/ :

for the purpose of “proving” a young moon, the meteoritic dust influx as it appears to be currently known is at least two orders of magnitude too low. On the other hand, the dust influx rate has, appropriately enough, not been used by evolutionists to somehow “prove” their multi-billion year timespan for lunar history. (They have recognised some of the problems and uncertainties and so have relied more on their radiometric dating of lunar rocks, coupled with wide- ranging geochemical analyses of rock and soil samples, all within the broad picture of the lunar stratigraphic succession.) The present rate of dust influx does not, of course, disprove a young moon.

Before we use an argument, then we should anticipate the counter argument (which we should have knowledge of) and be able to refute it is invalid.

You know the earth has a molten core, right? Evolutionist: "Yes, so?" Why is it not solid then after Billions of years? It's a logical question.

Not just earth's, but some other planets as well. This does indeed seem to present a problem for non-theists. While Earth is estimated by them to be about 4.5 billion years old, the solid inner core of Earth is estimated by non-theists to be a mere billion years old. Earth's core is 9,800° F) about the same as the surface of the Sun , yet the inner core is a solid ball of 96% iron. Why it does not liquefy, or that the outer core has not solidify is a mystery, with varying theories being offered. The Moon's core is mostly solid with just a tiny molten layer. (https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.232565899/asset/b8c28654-bd3d-4564-b587-2cefbc98fb99/assets/graphic/pq2325658001.jpeg View of the Earth's interior. The volumetric relation of the various regions of the core to the whole Earth is shown: outer core (pale blue) occupies 15%, the inner core (pink) occupies less than 1%, and the innermost inner core (red) constitutes only 0.01% of the Earth's volume. The Earth's core lies beneath 3,000-km thick, heterogeneous mantle (anomalies with higher than average seismic speed are shown in blue and those with lower than average speed are shown in red), making investigations of core properties challenging.)

Dating is the major issue btwn YEC's and the old earth camp. My hypothesis is that as Adam and Eve were created as fully adult, so would the earth, but when Adam sinned, and death came, then he and the rest would test to be far older. Thanks for the stimulating input.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.