Compelling evidence for evolution as science fiction.

Check out this video regarding Creationism vs evolution.

What do you feel are Vance's most compelling arguments?

__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood

In a word, no. I'm not going to spend 50 minutes watching a video -- especially since the couple of pieces of evidence I saw on his website were ludicrously bad. Could you please summarize some of the evidence, or even just the single piece of evidence you found most compelling in the video?

I'm probably going to regret this... but clicking play...


No supporting proof about first major claim except to say it was from some letter which appeared after Ly-els death (haven't a clue how to spell the name, so doing so phonetically).

Confuses origin of universe/abiogenesis/evolution. One of the most common mistake in creation apologetics.

"No one was there 4.6 billion years ago to observe the origin of the Universe." -speaker guy

The universe is far older than that, I believe that is close to the approx. age of the earth, not the universe. Maybe a simple error which he didn't catch till to late to correct himself...?

He fails to realize that all science has some underlying axioms... of course many people who denote themselves scientist (mostly arm chair scientist) make the same mistake...

His rock example is quite stupid. The rocks were not created when the came out of the volcano. Even if they result from cooled magma, the magma itself can be older. The question that should first be answered did the form of dating use account for them being magma, as some properties of the magma continue to exist in the rocks, while other properties are reset (parting due to the whole going from liquid to solid transition).

"Certain assumptions we know are wrong." -speaker guy

What assumptions, and how do we know they are wrong?

At this point, I am just going to say lets save Bible inerrency (spelling again?) for another thread.

Death before sin issue. It is clear (at least to me), that even under a 6 day creation, death as defined by science happened before the fall of man. Not spiritual death, but to eat a plant means to kills part of that plant, and the plants were allowed to be eaten before the fall. So no dice there.

Well, at least he isn't going for the whole 'the devil put the dino bones there' theory (and I use that word so losely I my pants now need to be pulled up).

He finally admits on the dino bones that they were dated using C14 dating, which only works in the ten of thousands of years scale. If these really were only 16k years old dino bones, then I would think more testing would have been done and verify using methods which can acurrately go back far enough, and if they were still shown to be 16k years, then I would expect to see a revolution in science. Of course, he doesn't even name the creature they came from, so it is possibly not even what we would term a dinosaur. Especially considering the dating agency susposedly did not realize them to be dino bones.

Then he goes into the soft tissue, to which I give this link:
PLoS ONE: Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms
and this explanation of that link:
Dinosaur soft tissue--just bacterial biofilm? : Aetiology

10+ minutes in, and I have seen nothing of note here. Maybe if he gave some more information on the 16k year old dino bones, I could go look into that, but consideirng his tract record so far, I'm not gonna be able to 'take his word for it'.

__________________

P.S. I have a quiz in an hour in Network Programming, and this was a great way to procrastinate 8D.

__________________

I've watched most of it. You'll have to tell me which argument was compelling. If you like you can just give a start and stop time in the video of a particular argument that you think destroys evolution.

__________________
"The Bible does not lend any moral support to natural selection...Ergo, natural selection is not a process that human beings should support." - SkyWriting

I watched 20 minutes of it and didn't hear an argument that was either misunderstood or misstated. Is the entire hour made up of strawmen?

hate to heap on the hate bergade , but some of us dont have good enough internet servis to get u tube

Originally Posted by Jesusfreekwanabe

hate to heap on the hate bergade , but some of us dont have good enough internet servis to get u tube

There's no hate involved... just wish the OP would explain in his own words rather than waste our time with videos.

It's just a drive by posting. No intention to actually get into it, and no intention to follow up.

__________________
"The Bible does not lend any moral support to natural selection...Ergo, natural selection is not a process that human beings should support." - SkyWriting