Evolution's Achilles Heels Pt. 1

I haven't been engaging others for too long in regards evolution vs. creationism. Mainly because for most of my life, I was on the creationism side turning a blind eye to anything which did not confirm my belief and twisting what was impossible to ignore. It helped that there are just enough scientists out there to support the idea to keep the young earth creationism theories.
Recently a new book and movie came out called Evolution's Achilles Heels. To be fair, I didn't watch the whole thing. I watched to extremely abridged versions, also known as "previews" in commoner terms.
I'm going to take the snippets they showed for free to make a few observations and my first observation is: If these guys have the scientific knowledge to prove evolution is false and the Bible is true, they might have to be some of the most immoral people of all time to charge people money for the information when souls are at stake. Maybe their bank account is more important than the billions of souls which could be saved. Seems legit.
On to the preview.

 

"Natural selection can't actually generate anything new. It can only operate on what is existing."

 

They start off with a true statement, but the implication is a lie. Natural selection is a part of the evolutionary process which slims the choices down. Genetic mutation is the part of the process which makes the variants to be selected. I'm really not sure if the person saying this phrase simply doesn't understand the terminology, or if he's being intellectually dishonest. At best there must be a portion which denies genetic mutation all together, which is false, but maybe he's just refuting natural selection in addition to mutation, in which case he might be severely uninformed. Or maybe he's just saying natural selection does remove mutations which have to exist before their removal in the most deceptive way possible.

 

"14 Ph.D. Scientists"

 

14?! Somebody call the New York Times and let them know that there's a whole 14 Ph.D. scientists in this movie! I'm honestly not sure if this number is meant to impress the viewer or not. There could be 1,000 or a group of flamingos in lab coats holding up cue cards. It's not the minds presenting the information that I care about, it's the information itself.

 

"Many evolutionists claim that the origin of life is not part of evolution, but come on, they believe that all living things came from a single cell, which in turn came from a primordial soup."

 

"But notably absent from any rock anywhere is any trace of a primordial soup."

 

I want so badly to hop all over the term "evolutionists" here like a jackelope on the hot sands of West Texas, but I'll save it for later since there is so much wrong with this.
Technically these guys believe in abiogenesis if they think the creation account is true. Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. A god could have created life a billion years ago and evolution would still be true. Evolution has happened and is happening now. Abiogenesis does not have to be proven to support it.
I would like to what someone's belief has to do with the case against evolution. What does the lack of evidence for something someone hypothesized happened have to do with evolution? Just in case they wanted some filler, they should have mentioned the sun is not a chariot ridden by Helios and Superman's fortress of solitude isn't real either. There are a million possibilities besides primordial soup so I don't think anyone should be surprised when they don't find it.

 

"Existence of a fossil by itself is actually proof that something happened very, very fast. We also know therefore that the rocks the fossils are formed in must have formed quickly as well."

 

Fossils are great examples of a specimen getting buried quickly. There are multiple things fossils can be buried in as well such as sedimentary rock or volcanic ash. There are different types of fossils though and not all can be explained as happening rapidly. A short timeline is years though and it only goes up from there when it comes to sedimentary rock.
They follow the statement with something about Noah's flood but they don't give evidence so I won't get into the weeds on that one because it is a pretty clear move from a case against evolution to religious propaganda.

 

"If the whole earth was pure carbon-14, it could only last about a billion years before it's all gone and we couldn't detect it. And yet, we repeatedly find carbon-14 in objects which are claimed to be millions, and even billions, of years old including diamonds."

 

Carbon dating is kind of complicated, but I'll try to explain this simply. Carbon-14 is radioactive and becomes nitrogen-14 with a half-life of 5,700 years or so and is generally not used to date anything over 20,000 years. By the way this phrase is said, we shouldn't find carbon-14 in anything at all if the earth is billions of years old, but they don't say that. The reason why they don't is because carbon-14 is produced on earth in different ways so many things become contaminated with it. After a certain point when objects have too little, or no carbon-14, but undergo the test for carbon dating, background radiation will seem as if it is the smallest margin of error for the test. This is how you get carbon-14 where there might actually be none and why something formed a billion years ago would test for younger. Of course the technician running the test might question your motives for the test in the first place if you knew the object was likely older than the test was accurate for. I would probably classify that with falsifying evidence.

 

"If the creator made us, then he owns us and has a right to make the rules for us. But if things made themselves, then there's no right or wrong. We're just really bags of rearranged pond scum. So what is murder? It's just one bag of chemicals impacting another bag of chemicals."

 

I won't argue the first part of this because I don't know what evidence he may have to support his claim of a creator. Things making themselves is as wrong as using a pickle spear to stir your hot chocolate. Something cannot make anything until it exists, especially not itself. I know causality is an important part of logic for humans, but isn't this a bit far fetched?
Right and wrong are concepts well beyond the scope of such a short post, but I would say if there were no humans around to ask what is right or wrong, would the concept exist at all? We see lots of "moral" behavior in mammals. Ours has become so complex it's confusing, but on the individual level, we decide what we think is best for us and our group. I honestly prefer meat machine to bag of chemicals, but I don't have a Ph.D. to back up such technical terms. I like to think my life has more intrinsic value to myself than other animals because I have the ability to comprehend it more than they. In that same thinking, I have respect for the lives of others because they too are valuable to themselves, to their family, and to their friends. I have a respect for the human condition which conflicts with biblical morality in that I believe people have value beyond their belief in God or Jesus.

 

"There's another reason why an evolutionist would hold onto their belief system even when all the fatal flaws are revealed and that is because if evolution isn't true, it strongly points them in a different direction."

 

I wonder if the saying this realizes the pope is an evolutionist and that is not his belief system? Evolutionists are just those who accept the evidence of evolution, no belief required. And besides all that, why would I care if the evidence lead in a different direction? I'm absolutely fine with being wrong. I guess they saved all the "fatal flaws" for the actual movie though. As a more appropriate rebuttal to this statement:
The reason why a creationist would hold to their belief system even when all the fatal flaws are revealed is because if evolution is true, it strongly points them in a different direction.