Evolution's Achilles' Heels

97 minutes of religious claptrap, wow, someone has a lot of time to waste away, sorry gobspeed, no one is going to watch all of this nonsense 😖

I’m not going to watch 97 minutes of sophistry.

Summarise the points made, and I’ll happily address them for you

Unfortunately, that means you’ll have to actually watch and understand the claims made in the video... so I guess that won’t be happening, huh?

I watched the trailer.

The trailer says that carbon dating isn't any use for dating articles in the deep past. But no one ever claimed that it was. A National Geographic article puts the practical limit at about 60 thousand years. See https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/radiocarbon-dating-explained

This statement from one of the anonymous talking heads stood out to me in the Ethics section:
[quote]If the creator made us then he owns us and has the right to make the rules for us.[/quote]
This is presented as though it is a fact, but it is merely an assertion.

It looks as first sight as though it has the form of a syllogism that tries to say that A made B so A rules over B.

But it boils down to a pair of assumptions presented as universal truths but which are easily seen to not be universal:
"A made B therefore A owns B": Builders make houses but they generally do not own them.
"A owns B therefore A rules over B": I own my own house, yet there is a long list of things that I cannot legally do with it.

But even if the statement could somehow be rescued from error It is also completely beside the point when discussing the supposed "Achilles' Heels of Evolution" because evolution makes no ethical claims.

[quote]In case I didn't make myself clear enough, this video was put on her to refute evolution.[/quote]
You have only posted the trailer. If you really wanted people to comment on the whole film you should have posted that.

[quote]It has yet to be challenged by those 'would be scientists' on here.[/quote]
There isn't anything in the trailer that a scientist could challenge from a scientific point of view because it is merely a set of talking heads spouting unsupported claims that are too vague to be meaningful, straw men, or simply statements of faith.

[quote] 'would be scientists'[/quote]
Perhaps insulting your audience works as a way of encouraging people in religious circles but in rational circles it just puts peoples' backs up.

Instead of some quack's video, why can’t you just link a peer reviewed publication? Because nobody did the work and nothing to publish exists.

No worldwide recall for schoolbooks? How can teachers do their job?

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”
― Richard Dawkins

Which one are you?

Look Speedy. One either believes that "God Said" and theres an end to it, or one doesnt.. This one doesnt...😷

DUUUDE!!! No way I'm gonna watch a 97 minute video!

First of all, I can read 3X as fast as talking heads talk. More importantly, I can skim to the key parts far faster. No way I'm gonna watch a 97 minute video. Got something concise that I can read online?

It's all refuted in the following sequence of videos

Start here for definitions & terminology:
[media=https://youtu.be/GcjgWov7mTM]

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c673362230887ef:evolution-and-natural-selection/x4c673362230887ef:evidence-of-common-ancestry/v/evidence-for-evolution

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c673362230887ef:evolution-and-natural-selection/x4c673362230887ef:evidence-of-common-ancestry/v/understanding-and-building-phylogenetic-trees-or-cladograms

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c673362230887ef:evolution-and-natural-selection/x4c673362230887ef:natural-selection/e/understand-natural-selection

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c673362230887ef:evolution-and-natural-selection/x4c673362230887ef:natural-selection/v/natural-selection-and-the-owl-butterfly

This stand-alone video is also valuable
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/crash-course-bio-ecology/crash-course-biology-science/v/crash-course-biology-119

If you can't refute the scientists in the video above, you're wasting time on this thread. Your opinions hold no water.

Here is some advice. You try to victim blame and put the burden on non-believers to just believe. After all there is all this evidence that convinced YOU. But that is just it. It convinces YOU. You didn't make the choice to believe. Something or someone convinced you. So the burden is on YOU now to convince others. That is how debate, arguments and convincing works. That is how BELIEF works. You know that word theists love to toss around?
It is not on people just to believe you. And there are multiple people with various standards of evidence. You are not going to be able to convince some people not because they cant be convinced but because you don't have good enough arguments and evidence. So the burden is not on them to believe. It is on you to convince. Jesus didn't expect people to just believe what he said. He actually did stuff. But people in modern times aren't fooled by magic tricks and unknowns of the dark ages when religion ruled anymore. They expect scientific rigor that can stand the test of time. Like genetics, heliocentrism, relativity and evolution.
You are dealing with Gods and magic. So you would have to overturn every thing we have ever known, break all the laws of physics, and have some really messed up psychology in the beings involved in order to find a place where things like the deluge is even physically possible.
You have had thousands of years and your arguments are still not beyond trickery and scams.

@Bushranger Its more because a typo or misspelled word is the only real concrete critique he can come up with. I have no problem with a person having faith or beliefs, be they Flying Spagetti Monster or Jedi Knight. But to claim them as facts against scientific evidence is just wrong. Then to claim the science is fraudulant is just stupid. The science can be replicated.😷

It’s amazing how desperate these superstitious clingers must be getting to post crap like this.

Learn to spell!

Well that's a helpful edit. At least 150 million people should be able to understand the voice over. Unfortunately I'm not one of them, three weeks of Russian 50 years ago wasn't enough I'm afraid.

This is just fucking LAME!! And poorly spelled

Ich frage mich, welche besonderen Behauptungen ich widerlegen sollte, GodSpeed63. Vielleicht könnten Sie mir eine vorschlagen?

Vielleicht Ihr bestes Beispiel für eine Schwachstelle?

All bibble babble, the questionable ravings of a few very questionable scientists who's so-called facts are easily disputed by common logic. The Creationist theories of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark make even less sense.

Oh, and learn to spell.

@ninalanyon [quote]This is presented as though it is a fact, but it is merely an assertion. [/quote]

Until shown otherwise, it is a fact and not an assertion.

[quote]You have only posted the trailer.[/quote]

Forgive me, I put another film in its place.

[quote]Perhaps insulting your audience works as a way of encouraging people in religious circles but in rational circles it just puts peoples' backs up.[/quote]

For one thing, a lot of these skeptics insult themselves by passing themselves off as 'scientists.' For another, it's irrational to think that something came from nothing out of chance at a random time. The 2+2= any number but 4 is not rational.

This is all tired, debunked junk science. Like seriously, these arguments are 20 years old. But hey...

Are you going to tell me that you thought this would convince anyone other than a Russian speaker? Seriously, did you even watch it? If you did, are you saying that you are fluent in Russian so you understood it?

The edit was a wate of time. We all saw your spelling mistake.

Wtf is "evoltion"?