AIG: Two Facts that Disprove Evolution

Do you have two and a half minutes to spare? Sure you do. Take a look at this video which was apparently uploaded by the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis, the on-line ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia.

AIG must be very proud of this thing. They call it Refuting Evolution with two Scientific Facts. Click on it. Watch it — if you dare! See if it lives up to its title.

Do we need to debunk this mess? Well, okay, but just their first “fact” — that evolution can’t create new “information.” One way it happens is explained in How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes.

We’ll leave it to you to deal with AIG’s second “fact.” Can you cope with the challenge, dear reader? Do you have the courage? We shall see.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

35 responses to “AIG: Two Facts that Disprove Evolution

  1. “Life has never been observed to come from non-life” ????

    – The universe has not been observed to begin.
    – The mechanisms of evolution have been observed.
    – The statement does not offer proof of anything. I’ve never seen the Mets win a ball game, does that mean they’ve never won a ball game?
    – A large portion of the chemistry needed for life has been shown to self assemble in ‘predicted’ early Earth environments.
    – The ressurection of the christ was not observed by any witness that we know of yet it is presummed true by AiG.
    – AiG expects us to believe that life comes from nothing via a god without evidence for that god.

    Nothing AiG says in defense of their beliefs makes any sense.

  2. Wow, just wow. He dug his own hole and jumped in without the shovel. It is evident tome that Ham evolved into a complex creature but his brain is still in the amoeba stage. Why are these people so afraid and what is it they are afraid of?

  3. The film moves quickly, as creationists leave no time for questions, and gives two assertions which believers already accept, or at least are not equipped to question. It’s preaching to the choir of course, but that’s the intent of the film, and science be damned.

  4. They are afraid of reality. Some people are so fearful of reality that they invent an imaginary universe where death doesn’t exist and they do not need to make any troubling decisions that could be wrong because this imaginary location is also provided with an ultimate authority on everything.

  5. This creationist propaganda film excitedly exhibits the extreme science illiteracy that the aggressively willfully ignorant are so proud of. Firstly, how life originally arose does not have anything to do with evolution, it is a separate scientific subject known as abiogenesis. The creationists could have easily looked this up but they are so averse to knowledge that they never do that [1]. Secondly, they falsely claim that additional information has to be added to an ameba’s genome to get to humans, thereby showing that they are marvelously unaware that there are ameba with genomes that are about 230X larger than the human genome! Although evolution didn’t happen that way, currently existing amebas have more than enough genetic information to eventually become essentially any other life form. Again, this information is readily available [2]. Thirdly, their claim that no new genetic information can naturally arise is obviously false on so many levels that it is totally within the realm of counterfactual insanity [3]. There are species of animals and plants with large numbers of entire chromosome replications (known as polyploidy) [4,5]. Fourthly, their claim that humans are not apes is doubly funny since humans are apes [6], and their cartoon shows monkeys rather than apes (apes do not have tails, among several other morphologic differences). Creationists are always so very eager to make monkeys out of themselves.

    Notes:
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    2. http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml
    3. http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-does-evolution-cause-increases-genetic-information-required-go-single-celled-life-complex-an
    4. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503151605.htm
    5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid
    6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Divergence_of_the_human_clade_from_other_great_apes

  6. This video is so gut churningly stupid that it comes up to awesomely stupid to an extent that I have VERY little hope of these people gaining any intelligence. It would be nice to think this but I’m wrong!!! This is so awesomely stupid that a truly stupid person would not think of it, this was created by a mind so soaked in EVIL that is could be scary if I could stop laughing at it.

  7. I think fear of death says it all. But aren’t we all. I’m 65 now and I think about it nearly every day. But watcha gonna do? Its either the end or it isn’t.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    So this video has been posted for almost a month and just has 201 views? I posted a personal video last month and am over 800. No one is listening. this video is too fast & flashy to catch how many assumptions and leaps it is making … Zetopan did way too much to catch all the stupid, but appreciate it anyway.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    Oh, and the sheer chutzpah to declare evolution as NOT science deserves more than a 2 minute video.

  10. This is an animated video version of the Gish Gallop and the “were you there?” argument.

  11. If I’ve learned one thing, and it may have been from SC or one of the commenters here, that anyone who uses the word ‘evidences’ is probably a creationist.

  12. What did it say about the Bible? I don’t have to energy to go back and repeat it enough to get the exact words. But I am certain, as certain as one can be, that the Bible says nothing about genes, nor about information. And about creating all kinds of living things? The Bible, quite pointedly, does not say anything about creating a human kind. (And, of course, it does not say anything about the creation of the majority of life, the microbes. Such as amoebas. It would be unfair to mention this modern scientific fact, if it weren’t for the pretense that they are drawing science from the Bible.)

  13. “… Zetopan did way too much to catch all the stupid, but appreciate it anyway.”
    I did it because I’m unsure of the scientific literacy level of all of the Curmudgeon’s audience. It would be a thorough waste of time to provide that level of details for creationists since they always ignore whatever doesn’t fit squarely into their irrational worldview. The latter has been true for every single creationists that I have had any contact with. My age is late 60’s and there is no rational reason to fear the nonexistence that death brings.

  14. C’mon, you deluded clutch of evil materialistic Darwinists, y’all [are] being way to harsh on this superlative work from the AiG.

    It demonstrates all the depth of scientific research and experimentation, all the scholarly references to the technical literature, all the bold insight and impeccable deductive reasoning of a TV commercial for Pepto-Bismol!

    On this side of the pond, the analgesic ‘Anacin’ is sold under the tradename ‘Anadin’, with the celebrated commercial slogan, “Nothing works faster than Anadin!” — which is actually, if you give [it] even a nanosecond of reflection, an admission that Anadin retards pain relief and you are thereby advised to take nothing.

    In similar spirit — and with a heavy nod to the Creationists who are incapable of considering empirical data but can only deal in slogans, I’d like to propose the following definitive sound-byte on which absolutely everyone can agree:

    Nothing is more powerful than Oogity-Boogity!

  15. Eddie Janssen

    It has to be made clear to YEC’s that believing the universe and everything in it is only 6000 years old is of the same level as believing the Holocaust did not happen or that Neil Armstrong set a big step for mankind somewhere in the New Mexican desert.
    They must realise how far away they are from scientific reality.
    Of course in the most gentle way.

  16. “Life has never been seen to appear from non-life. The Development Hypothesis, Herbert Spencer, 1852:

    “In a debate upon the development hypothesis, lately narrated to me by a friend, one of the disputants was described as arguing that, as in all our experience we know of no such phenomenon as the transmutation of species, it is unphilosophical to assume that transmutation of species ever takes place. Had I been present, I think that, passing over his assertion, which is open to criticism, I should have replied that, as in all our experience we have never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical to assume that any species ever had been created.”

    “Should the believers in special creations consider it unfair thus to call upon them to describe how special creations take place, I reply, that this is far less than they demand from the supporters of the development hypothesis. They are merely asked to point out a conceivable mode; on the other hand, they ask, not simply for a conceivable mode, but for the actual mode. They do not say — Show us how this may take place; but they say — Show us how this does take place. So far from its being unreasonable to ask so much of them, it would be reasonable to ask not only for a possible mode of special creation, but for an ascertained mode; seeing that this is no greater a demand than they make upon their opponents.”

  17. Oops, another posting from me before morning coffee: apologies. But I am quacking with too much terror to call on the Great Celestial Typo Fixer and Editor to correct the multiple spelling and grammatical errors in my previous post: I do not wish to exhaust His Infinite Patience and Fatherly Benevolence…

    [*Voice from above*] I used my discretion and did a little bit of benevolent meddling.

  18. I apologize to all, ask SC’s further indulgence to correct the url (remove the extraneous stuff at the end which some mysterious computer function felt it had to add to what I typed), in addition to forgiving my proxility in quoting the long excerpts from Spencer, which I felt was necessary to give some of the force of show me your alternative from 162 years ago, still never answered.

    [*Voice from above*] URL repaired. The extended quote is fine.

  19. As for the reflections about death that have appeared in this thread, I guess Epicurus said it best: “‘Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?”

    He said that centuries before the man from Nazareth went around Galilea rambling about how his audience could gain “eternal life”, an idea that has so far proved completely vain. But the simple wisdom of Epicurus is STILL lost on the Hams and the Hovinds of this world.

  20. Kennard Walter

    We couldn’t time travel with the Young Earth Bibblers and show them actual dinosaurs, because it would just prove to them that we lived with dinosaurs. All of the “evidences” leave a gap or doesn’t fill one……by their CreaTORE belief. A mind trap for critical thinking and knowledge, to the ones they bring up in this nonsense. Money for the billboard and museum to others.

  21. If there were time travel, how could one demonstrate it was real?

    Think of some of the reactions to Galileo’s telescope, the device for another way of exploring the remote (in space, rather than time).For example, how do we know what is seen in the telescope is not an artifact of the telescope?

  22. Interesting at the end the Bible is given as the only explanation for the presence and diversity of life. This assertion violates their requirement for observable evidence and also what about competing religions such as Greek and Norse mythology? Those also have unobservable creation myths, why is the Bible the correct one?
    Where is the evidence that evolution can’t innovate? Come on Hambo lets see it!
    While abiogenesis is assumed, the rest of the “molecules to man” evolutionary history can indeed be teased out.
    This video fails on so many levels, yet I can see it be effective at shoring up the flock.

  23. The synthesis of the first two comments (Myatheistlife and Jack) shows the most important point: AIG has exposed itself to refutation. Someone needs to save this little video for a few decades. See, it’s totally imaginable that scientists within a few decades will “create” life from non-life in a lab. I hope to live long enough to witness it, if only to rub it in the creationsts’ faces.

  24. Eddie Janssen is too generous: “is of the same level as”.
    I’d say this level, but without the irony:

    http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

  25. “Life has never been seen to appear from non-life. ”

    Ya so what? I nor anyone else has reliably reported a live animal poofing into existence either, so score 1 against the buyBull!!!!!

  26. : Zetopan: “This creationist propaganda film excitedly exhibits the extreme science illiteracy that the aggressively willfully ignorant are so proud of. Firstly, how life originally arose does not have anything to do with evolution, it is a separate scientific subject known as abiogenesis…

    The propaganda peddlers at AiG (and all other anti-evolution outfits, Biblical or otherwise) know all that. They also know that committed evolution-deniers don’t need to hear any of their nonsense to be good little followers. Rather they target the non-committed deniers and fence-sitters, most of whom would also know that it is nonsense – replete with all sorts of bait-and-switch word games – but lack the time, and/or interest, and/or literacy in science and/or logic, to see through the catchy sound bites. In fact, I hate to say it, but if you think they don’t understand evolution/science/logic, they have scammed you too. I was scammed too way back when. Nowadays, when I hear the same old nonsense – always about their problems with “Darwinism” – I simply remind them of something else that they know but pretend not to – that scientific explanations are not supported on alleged “weaknesses” of anything else, but on their own merits. Then I ask them to state the details (the “what happened when”) of their own “theory” and to support it without dragging in “Darwinism.” If they really believed their nonsense, they’d at least give it a try, however weak or clumsy. But they never, ever do.

  27. Kennard Walter

    Tom S asks “If there were time travel, how could one demonstrate it was real?”

    I can speculate on the how and the mechanism behind the demonstration of time travel….I would also most likely get picked apart at a number of places where I just don’t have the knowledge. That I think it’s plausible we could develop it might be counterintuitive at this point, but I don’t think so. The point was that YEC’s deny demonstrable evidence as proof of anything other than Goddidit. If we could do it, they would still deny it. My first mission, if I were lucky enough to enough to be involved, would not be to look for the garden or the ark, and Blessed be He would not be in my thoughts.

  28. Notice that there is no mention of the young earth in the video.

    AiG must be aware that if they state that the world is only 6,000 years old, they will lose their intended audience, which I believe are “compromising” Christians who accept science. AiG’s strategy must be to erode their audience’s acceptance of scientific knowledge first, then when they are susceptible to alternate beliefs, to bring on the crazy.

    It’s also patterned after the numerous clever punchy videos that teach real scientific knowledge. It’s all part of the masquerade, like the fake museum and the fake scientists and the rest.

  29. Ed: “Notice that there is no mention of the young earth in the video.
    AiG must be aware that if they state that the world is only 6,000 years old, they will lose their intended audience,…”

    That deserves repeating. Not because it’s something new, or even rare for YEC peddlers. It’s neither. It deserves repeating because, unless they’re talking to committed YECs (who don’t need AiG’s propaganda in the first place) they know better than to pretend that evidence supports the most absurd and easily refutable claims. At best these clowns believe a young earth, global flood and “kinds” “on faith,” in spite of evidence that they know refutes it. Or they could they be as I strongly suspect most or all ID peddlers are, privately accepting an old earth, common descent and even speciation by “RM + NS,” but would never dare admit it.

    Whichever it is they know that if they can instill unreasonable doubt of evolution in a science-illiterate theistic evolutionist, that’s most of the battle. AiG must know that most evolution-deniers on the street are OECs anyway, and know they if they (& ICR etc.) have not been able to change that in 50+ years that it makes no sense to try now.

  30. It is an undeniable fact that the human body is most similar, among all the possibilities of life, most similar to that of chimps and other apes.
    What are the “two alternatives” for explaining that?
    If the explanation is that there is common descent, then it is just a fact of nature, which has no consequences for how we should behave. (If my great-uncle was a horse thief, that does not suggest that I should be one too.)
    If the explanation is that it reflects common design for a common purpose, then to keep in step with that common purpose we ought to behave like apes.

  31. Ah, it’s the humilty that I love the most.

    “Excuse me, Mr Scientist. Let me explain to you where you’ve gone wrong in your field of expertise.”

  32. @lanceleuven: Yes, indeed — all the work of thousands upon thousands of cosmologists, paleontologists, geologists, zoologists, botanists, and geneticists is for naught. They should have just spent their time reading the bible, and they would have had a clearer understanding.

    I understand that the Creation Museum is now conferring doctorates in all these fields.

  33. The Trve Miracle™ here is how retrospectively accurate the Holey Babble is! You’ll know it’s Rapturin‘ Time when its interpreters extract a significant scientific prediction from it that turns out to be accurate.

  34. @retiredsciguy
    Yes, except that is isn’t just that the time should be spent reading the Bible. It should be spent listening to ….
    (By the way, this reminds me that among the experts not to be listened to are the historians, archeologists, … and the Bible scholars.) … listening to me.