More Refutations to the Answers in Genesis YouTube Channel

Awhile ago I made a video response to “Check This Out: Evolution Refuted” on the Answers in Genesis channel. They’re pretty snappy videos chalk full of creationist bullshit and propaganda for Christianity, which makes them easy to pick on. However, something is odd about the other three videos in the series: they actually contradict themselves and are helpful guides to certain parts of science. Let’s take a look.

Check This Out: Radiometric Dating

The first thing I want to pick apart in this video is where he says that there’s a discrepancy of fifty million years and asks why there’s such a large gap, as if that refutes old age. Let’s do simple math: 4,550,000,000 / 4,600,000,000 = 0.99. There’s a discrepancy of 1%. That’s pretty damn accurate if you ask me.

He goes on to say that we shouldn’t actually… I don’t know, examine the science because it’s too technical, as he presents what looks to be a simple radioactive decay model, either a percentage formula or some double-derivative of a change formula, and some graph with lines. Not something that would go over your head if you actually wanted to know about the nature of the universe instead of simply bowing down to a simplistic deity, but hey, he wants to show us a “Straight-Forward, Simplified” model. In other words, “Inaccurate, Misleading” one.

The rest of the video talks about simple radiometric dating and talks about certain assumptions with parent materials that we need to make. It’s actually pretty informative. He addresses the process and things we need to keep in mind, which is what any scientist would tell you. Of course, he leaves out isochron dating which doesn’t need the same assumptions and in fact can be used to figure out parent materials in rocks. Over all, he doesn’t make a point, this is literally a video about radiometric dating and how to accurately use it. Good job?


The Fossil Record

This video only has two things I wish to refute since the vast majority is just preaching. First off, his example of viewing current evidence through a lens is a bit faulty. The “naturalist” lens isn’t something you look through, it’s what is there. It’s what we observe, it’s what everyone one of us uses in almost every single incident. Only certain times do people put on the Bible goggles to blind themselves. Second, fossils on the tops of mountains is not evidence against the geological layers or fossilization or anything of the sort. If you go back to a public education freshman Earth and space science class, you’ll learn that the answer to this is plate tectonics.



The Nature of Science

In all of these videos, there’s something eerie I find with saying how obvious the historical/observational science in the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate was. They all mention this distinction. It’s largely the main argument in this video.

The whole thing is an argument that we can’t trust things we didn’t directly see which is pretty stupid when you think about it. Eye witness testimony may be high in the court of law, but in science, we don’t treat UFO photos as evidence. Your eyes are faulty; the vast range of the electromagnetic spectrum is not visible. The majority of the universe is unobservable, be it because it’s too large, too far away, or because it’s dark matter/energy.

He says that we can’t test historical science which is pretty idiotic. When we have an explanation about something which happened in the past, we can confirm it by observations in the present which should have happened. It’s not any less than observational science: in fact, in every experiment, we could say that… maybe… there is a god which changes variables as some omnipotent lurking variable. Maybe smoking cigarettes doesn’t cause a mutation in the p53 gene to cause cancer, maybe god just smites people he wants at that certain spot to fool us. We can’t know that either.

This entry was posted in Christianity, Creationism, Debate, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to More Refutations to the Answers in Genesis YouTube Channel

  1. Tim says:

    Let me help you with the point of the radiometric dating video. If you walk in a room and see an hourglass overturned with sand falling through at a constant rate, you might assume you can figure out how long it has been falling for. But you MIGHT be wrong. You don’t know how much sand was at the bottom when it first got turned over (perhaps the world was created “fully mature”/aged, but actually young), AND you don’t know if the rate has ever changed in the past (perhaps the supernatural forces of the year-long global flood had an effect on atmospheric conditions which affected decay rates). You assume it started with all the sand in the top, and you assume the rate has remained constant. But you don’t really know that. You see corroboration from different hourglasses in the same room, but the same assumptions apply to those as well. Now assume you find a handwritten note in the room with the hourglasses that reads: “I am the one who started the hourglasses. I turned them over 4 hours ago. When I turned them over there was already some sand in the bottom. Two hours ago, I came back in the room and shook the hourglasses up.” Now, what do you do? Your calculations said they had been running for 12 hours. Do you ignore the note (new evidence) and stick with your 12-hour calculation or do you rethink your assumptions?

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s