Genesis Impact (2020) | Full Movie | Hannah Bradley | Reggie McGuire | Becky Emerick

[Music] [Music] does what we believe about creation or evolution even matter or does what we believe about our ancient past have any impact on our lives today can we just believe whatever we want and live our lives the best we can what about the bible how many people today will trust what it says about salvation if they believe it doesn't get the beginning correct i mean how many pages will we have to turn in the bible to run into truth that we can trust you see there's one simple question and depending on how we answer that question can cause our lives to hang in the balance where do we come from what compelling evidence is there for evolution and when we have fossils we have you can see it in certain bones like we have whales who have i believe it's tail bones left over or hips well i think over time you know we evolved the apes or like you could see them evolving to look like us we actually have a 99 um dna with shared with them you can look at species like green sheep pythons or animal tree bows who both have co-version evolutions with their onogenic color changes and their cross worlds completely different species they're completely different genuses and they both have developed similar evolutions for that so can you observe evolution taking place i mean doesn't it take millions of years believe that there are actually some cases of squirrels developing resistances to certain venoms like hey sweetheart what are you watching up north valley it's an old video i found online people talking about the origins of life in what way physical features so you think you're a talking primate maybe not like right now but like i guess in the past do you really believe you're a primate talking primate yeah i do do you think man has a common ancestor with primates yeah for sure do you believe in evolution yes who's sad do you think you have a common ancestor with primates well i'm not a biologist they're right what would make you say that what do you mean how closely related we are i don't know it's just connor and i were talking about creation and you said some things that got me thinking i mean the scientific evidence for evolution is pretty overwhelming what if god used evolution what do you believe honestly i don't know anymore i remember i was i was just a little bit older than you when i had some of these same questions i was fascinated with uh how we came into existence so i studied both sides of the argument and it all changed for me one day how i went to a lecture at the natural history museum there was a man there he was giving a lecture on the evidence of human evolution museum today i encourage you to visit the exhibits that will help you visualize what we've discussed today and these exhibits should be marked in the maps that we provided for you first we have a wonderful exhibit that shows that apes and humans share about 98 of their dna now remember after 6 million years the human line diverged from chimps based on this one to two percent dna difference we also have fossil evidence of key ape to human icons we also have the human family tree exhibit which shows the slow progression of human evolution over millions of years and of course this exhibit it proves that human evolution is a clear fact now in closing today we've seen that the earth has gradually changed over millions of years and that the continents have drifted radiometric dating has solidly established that the earth is billions of years old leaving plenty of time for the engine of evolution natural selection and mutation to drive evolutionary progress now charles darwin may have discovered the key principles of human evolution that we base these principles on but it is my hope that you the next generation would take these theories and continue to help us prove just how evolution happens now with that i'll open up the floor any questions you may have okay well thank you for your time and enjoy the museum [Music] sir i have a question well quite a few questions actually uh okay go ahead uh ask away well you mentioned that one of the leading evidences that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor is that human and chimp dna is 98 similar uh yes well how big is the human genome how many base pairs well the exact figure varies uh over the years but the last count was 3.097 billion base pairs and how about chimps the last count was 3.231 billion okay so chimps have about 134 million more base pairs than we have which means they're genome is about 4.3 percent bigger how is it possible to say that our dna is like 98 similar when actually it's 4.3 percent bigger well when they made the comparison between our genome and theirs they were so different that they had to break them apart into chunks that were similar and then the comparisons were made well how much of the human and chimp denim do they live out well when they came up with the 98 similarity figure they excluded 25 of the human genetic material and 18 of the chimps isn't that called cherry picking well you may see it that way it sure seems like it's me i'm sorry sir i didn't mean any disrespect i just i've been doing a lot of research and i'm really fascinated by all this you know no need to apologize i like it when people do a little critical thinking thank you sir well how similar are the human and chimp genomes when the entire genome is compared without cherry picking like that well when the researchers factor in the non-similar data into the comparisons the similarities were only between 66 and 86 that's a lot less than 98 doesn't sound very similar to me well they recently resequenced the chimp genome and the technology is getting better so what did the new study show [Music] okay well here it is based on the new data in 2018 they now say the human and dna similarity is a maximum of 84 but it says they didn't include the areas of human dna that could not be matched up so the actual estimate is lower so we went from 98 similarity to 84 maximum similarity between the comparable regions plus the chimp genome is four percent bigger evolutionists claimed that the 98 similarity figure supported their idea of humans branching off because they were so close with the 84 maximum similarity figure there would obviously be way too many genetic changes to make within their supposed six million year timeline when humans supposedly branched off i mean we're talking hundreds of millions of additional changes above what their 98 estimate would equate to yes but the fact remains that we share many similar genes with apes wouldn't you agree well yes but we also share many similar genes with other mammals because we have similar metabolisms and biochemistries it's a basic engineering principle common code doing a similar purpose i mean i could even pull up a national geographic website with a gene calculator that shows me i'm 88 similar to a mouse 85 similar to a cow and 84 similar to a dog you really seem to know your stuff you know most people they hear that 98 figure they have no idea about its limitations or where the figure even came from yes and because the mantra has been quoted so long in so many places most people just accept it as proof for evolution okay so what else is on your mind you said you had several questions yeah [Music] i had a couple questions on the leading fossils you showed that supposedly show how humans evolved over time could you go back to the side you have on artie sure i'm sure you're referring to this issue well actually no this uh skeleton was reconstructed from over 110 bone pieces that they found over a 30-foot area took them over a decade to put it together the picture on the cover is only a digital reconstruction of what they found what kind of shape are the bones in well they weren't found in very good shape at all in fact uh the scientists who found it it took them three years to dig it up about a decade to put it together they said the bones were found in a terrible condition and literally crumbled when touched the lead scientists called it like road co were any of the bone pieces found connected together no all the 110 plus bone pieces were found separately over the 30-foot area that doesn't sound odd to you let's take her head for example what type of evidence did they find for reconstructing her head which is displayed in school textbooks and museums everywhere well this skull was found in pulverized condition in 34 scattered pieces and was compacted to about one and a half inches thick so they tried making digital reconstructions what about her skull made her seem anything but ape-like i mean did she have a bigger brain than most chimps have something else actually no her brain was about the same size as bonobos or female chimpanzees but one of the ways we can tell she walked upright is based on her skull specifically where the spine enters the base of the skull called the foramen magnum can you show me what you're talking about sure this is actually a version um that took them thousands of hours to develop digitally based on what remained of the skull after the 11th digital version they set it on this one 11 versions how can you tell where her spine enters her skull from the pieces they found i mean and do they have any of her other neck vertebrae so we can see how it might have gone into her skull no so let me get this straight they don't actually have the entire base of her skull to see where her spine answered but they made a digital reconstruction so they could guess where it might have been but they don't have her neck vertebrae either and they think she walked upright based in part on these two things but they don't really have either one well the human-like curve of her lower spine is another reason they thought she walked upright okay how much of her lower spine did they find did they find any of her lower spine vertebrae um well none actually um they estimated the curve of her spine called lumbar lordosis based on her pelvis dr lovejoy believed that her spine was probably long and curved like a human's rather than short and stiff like a chimps suggesting that she was an upright walker you see we have four curves in our spine to facilitate upright walking while chimps just have a slight bend over their entire spine he based this assumption on the reconstruction of arty's pelvis and the belief that artie probably had six lower spine vertebrae but they didn't actually find any of her lower spine vertebrae no but they were able to reconstruct what they think the pelvis looked like and that helped them guess what the lower spine may have looked like how many lower spine vertebrae do chimps have most apes typically have three or four uh humans have five okay so they don't have any of her lower spine vertebrae so they added some imaginary ones gave her a couple extra beyond what typical apes have gave her an entire imaginary spine complete with a human-like curve and fed it up to a hole in the imagined base of her skull with some neck vertebrae which they also didn't find don't any other evolutionary scientists have concerns about this uh well actually they do there are some who believe that the theory that's already walked up right is faulty because it's based on highly speculative inferences about the presence of lumbar lordosis and on relatively few features on the pelvis in the foot so payload experts aren't buying it yes several are not so if they're basing her upright walking on her pelvis what was her pelvis like well it was too damaged and fragile to take it out of the matrix it was in so dr lovejoy made a restoration based on his knowledge of primate anatomy and a micro ct scan and after 14 different configurations this is the one that they settled on it's the one you see in most reports they reconstructed her pelvis digitally 14 times yes and i'm sure you want to know what other paleontologist experts think about that well there is speculation among some experts who believe that choosing the correct pelvis reconstruction is like seeing images in a rorschach inc block test thus making it hard to think that it's accurate look i know there are concerns about artie uh she's not the perfect proof of the eight to human lineup look at her hands and feet they look ape-like they're really curved and long with short thumbs very similar tree drilling apes of today that uh use them for getting around in trees why would a creature with such big divergent toes which are used by every ape today for getting around in trees be an upright walker like humans wouldn't that be awkward trying to walk on level ground with a big toe sticking out to the side could you go back to the side arty's skeleton see i just don't buy that she's an early human ancestor she had a brain the size of a chimps in a head like a chimps with an imagined base of the skull and an imagined curved spine but because of a bump on her pelvis she was supposedly walking around like a human i mean it looks like there's a lot of speculation going on here in some cases even exaggeration it doesn't look like she would be a good walker to me but i bet she'd get around in trees like other apes you had a slide showing already next to a bonobo correct when you put her next to a bonobo it sure looks like she fits into the ape family just fine you know we have several fossils that show evolutionary steps between ape-like creatures and humans take lucy for example she's probably the best evidence of human evolution she's displayed in museums and school textbooks around the world as the leading ape to human icon well here check out this short bbc video narrated by dr donald johansen the person who found lucy we now have 400 specimens of lucy species australopithecus afarensis named after the afar region and we know that they're very large individuals which were males and the smaller ones uh are certainly female did they really find hundreds of complete skeletons like they show on the video no here's what they actually found what they mean by 400 specimens is 400 bone pieces and over 30 of those are teeth so no there's only enough to display on a picnic table so here is lucy and the rest of the fossils they believe are from her species they're scattered on the table i'm sure you can only fill a bucket or two with them that sure doesn't look like what they show on the video when they say they've found 400 specimens it looks like they're exaggerating quite deliberately when it comes to lucy's fossils specifically did they find her bones at the same place and were they all connected uh no she was found in hundreds of pieces scattered across a three meter area on a hillside they sifted a total of 20 tons of sediment covering 50 square meters to find what resulted in only about 20 of all of her bones but they didn't find any hand or feet bones except for one small finger bone yet you showed us pictures of lucy rendered by different artists with human-like hands feet and even eye whites could you pull that one up [Music] do apes even have eye whites like the picture you showed no look i know that lucy has some limitations they didn't find much but remember lucy is 3.2 million years old and we have a few million years of ape to human progression since then okay tell me about the next million years from say three million to two million years ago what does the fossil record look like during that period the fossil record is quite sparse during that period how sparse well dr kimball the director of the institute of human origin said due to how rare the homo fossils are from two to three million years ago you could probably fit all of the fossils into a small shoebox and still have room for a good pair of shoes don't you think that's an unusually long time to go without any supposed transitions between apes to humans so charles darwin said as by evolution theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth he also said why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory you seem to have come prepared with props and books just like i have i i'm just trying to understand i mean when you look at the big picture how many ape to human fossils are there all in all well according to dr tattersall you could fit it all in the back of a pickup truck if you didn't mind how much you jumbled everything up all the evidence for the entire human line yes look i'm not saying we have hundreds and hundreds of clear connections between eight like creatures and humans the record is in fact sparse i'm i'm admitting that look watch this clip i didn't show it during the presentation this is the leading paleo expert dr berger giving a speech at google i'm a paleoanthropologist i look for early human ancestors i actually look for the rarest sought after objects on the planet i'm in a field of science that actually probably has uh more scientists in it than it does objects that we study there are literally just a a few thousand of these incredibly precious objects most of them are just fragments tiny little bits and pieces about 80 percent of the record of human origins in africa represents isolated teeth the remaining say 18 of that represents little bits and pieces of post-cranial bones of which we almost have had no complete elements from the neck down those skulls and stuff that you see on national geographic and such those are incredibly rare number in just a few dozen all right so there's the big picture now let's focus in on some of the points about lucy to see how she fits in the human evolution tree overall lucy was about three and a half feet tall and likely weighed about 64 pounds to put that in perspective female chimps are about the same height as lucy and typically weigh between 70 and 100 pounds but lucy's body type was more similar to a pygmy chimp or a bonobo which is a cousin to the chimp they're about the same size as lucy females average three feet eight inches and about 68 pounds so lucy was basically the same height and weight as many chimps and most bonobos we see today in zoos well in many ways she was very similar to bonobo but we believe she had several features that show she was becoming more human-like let's start with the head and we'll work our way down to her toes lucy's complete skull is shown in museums and school textbooks across america but did they actually find her skull no but we did find these skull fragments [Music] so these few brown pieces are what they actually found and the rest is well imagined i wouldn't go that far but did they find the white parts no so how can they not be imagined besides don't you think her skull looks very similar to a modern bonobo school i see what you're saying i mean lucy's discoverers said lucy's skull was almost entirely missing so knowing the exact size of lucy's brain was the crucial bit of missing evidence but from the few skull fragments we had it looked surprisingly small later estimates reveal that lucy's brain was just one-third the size of the human brain making her brain about the average size of the average chimp so just what is it about her skull that makes her anything but an ape what do you want me to say yes there's a lot of controversy about her skull some anthropologists believe her skull's very ape-like while others convinced it's more human-like may i lucy's claim to fame is that she supposedly walked upright like we do but how could she walk upright when studies show that the spine of her species entered the base of her skull at an angle just like chimps today also her face was totally sloped like a chimps that certainly wouldn't have helped our spine enters into the middle of the base of our skull at a relatively straight angle so that we can walk upright with ease and turn our heads as we walk but in both chimps and lucy's kind the spine enters more towards the rear of the skull and comes in slanted forcing her to walk hunched over so she can see where she's going i also understand that the semicircular canals and lucy species would have made it really difficult to walk on two legs have you heard about that no not yet but i'm sure you would enjoy enlightening me may i use your laptop to pull something up be my guest well humans and apes have three semicircular canals embedded deep within their ears to keep balanced while moving scientists have learned from the skull scans of other australopithecines that they were best suited for walking occasionally on two feet just like chimps do today dr wood's study revealed that the semicircular canals of lucy's kind were more like those of chimps than modern humans and suggested that lucy's species would not have been restricted to walking on two feet other studies in the scientific american have found that the semicircular canals of lucy's kind resemble those of african apes today it seems like she was much better equipped for living in trees like chimps today so now moving on from her head what's that little bone at the bottom of her skull well that bone is not supposed to be there any longer what do you mean it's not supposed to be there excuse me that's her thoracic vertebrae and scientists learned about five years ago that it belonged to an extinct relative the baboon called the therapicus d'artie a common eight black creature around when lucy was alive it didn't belong to lucy or her species then how did it get mixed in with lucy's skeleton we're not sure but remember lucy is made up of hundreds of broken bone pieces that were scattered across a hillside and they screened 20 tons of dirt over 50 square meters to be sure they collected everything so i guess it accidentally got included with her fossil if this is the case then why haven't you removed the bone from her display case we just haven't gotten around to it yet have any other natural history museums removed it no none that i'm aware of this chicken's this is all just a bunch of guesswork who does she think she is i know but the docent doesn't seem to be giving any solid evidence to support his claims what about her wrists and hands were they like those of apes or humans they were quite ape-like over 20 years after lucy was found some scientists discovered that lucy had the same kind of locking wrists with ledges and notches that are classic features of knuckle-walking apes and we don't have locking wrists correct it's only found in apes that walk using both their hands and feet the fingers of lucy's species were quite curved and ape-like even by ape standers and best suited for swinging in trees what about her feet well they didn't find any of lucy's foot or toe bones well that sure didn't stop them from putting feet on her in basically every natural history museum in america that's because they found a couple of hundred bones in another location that represented 13 to 17 or so creatures they believe were her same species and some of those were foot or toe bones maybe enough to put into a lunch box they also found some footprints called the leotoli footprints they believe they were made by lucy's species where did they find them and did they date about the same time as lucy's fossils they found them in tanzania about a thousand miles away and they dated the footprints to about half a million years older than lucy's bones i'm sorry it's just i had no idea human evolution was so weak it's not weak she's just not relying on science even if they did have lucy's feet based on the size of her species how well would they fit into the footprints found at leotelly now that's a hot topic because experts agree that the footprints they found looked human i mean completely human and some of them were quite long like over 10 inches in modern terms that equates to nine and a half foot shoe size and a person about five feet nine inches probably made by a male how tall was lucy again about three and a half feet tall but that doesn't make any sense they believe that lucy was a full-grown female at only three and a half feet tall but they say that a male of her species was five foot nine and made the footprints with a massive 10 inch feet that's like 65 taller than the female version i'm not buying it sounds more like the human footprints were made by humans and your dating timeline is off i mean way off also didn't they find 13 fossils belonging to the genus homo in that region that looked human yes but the team that found lucy later reclassified those bones as lucy's species sounds convenient if the footprints look unmistakably human human-looking bones were found around the footprints and lucy's fossils were found about a thousand miles away wouldn't it make more sense that the footprints were actually made by humans and that your timeline is off sure i guess one would certainly make that argument but we know for sure that humans were not around back then [Music] i thought you might say that did you know that just a couple of years ago they found anatomically modern human footprints in western crete that supposedly dated to 5.7 million years old the article stated that the footprints were a million years older than ardopithecus remittas that conflicts with the hypothesis that arty is a direct ancestor of later hominins so using the evolutionary timeline these human footprints pre-date both artie and lucy it sure seems like the ape to man story doesn't line up with these footprints dating to a time before upright walking was even supposed to happen it sounds more plausible to me that these ape-like creatures died in ice age flooding that happened after noah's flood just thousands of years ago a flood that there was no evidence for well i actually believe there's a lot of evidence for noah's flood but the evidence that you claim to have for lucy is based on hundreds of bone pieces glued together to make a fragmented skeleton of about 20 of her bones by the way may i pull up something else just a few years ago cnn did a report on a study done by a team of scientists where lucy fell 40 feet from a tree traveling 35 miles an hour where she died so what was a little ape who was supposedly walking upright doing 40 feet up in a tree yet when millions of students every year see lucy in museums she's shown with complete human-like feet and hands eye white's like a human walking upright with human-like gazes and poses sometimes they even remove the hair from her skin again trying to make her appear more human-like hey come on you're not a credible source i bet all these trained paleo experts don't even have these concerns about lucy as i've already brought up though there's a whole lineup of famous paleo experts who would stand up here and say these same types of things just read dr oxnard's order of man he said that australiopithecines are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism all of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks dr herbert says that his fellow paleoanthropologists compare the pygmy chimps to lucy one of the oldest hominid fossils known and find the similarities striking they're almost identical in body size in stature and in brain size [Music] okay everybody what's your name by the way christina christine christina i think all these folks really want to get to the exhibits that they all paid to come see i'm not stopping anybody i simply had some questions i was hoping you could help me with let me guess you have more yes we move on from lucy the next in the line for human evolution is homo habilis correct yes okay how many complete homo habilis creatures have they found like a few hundred skeletons no not that many i'm guessing a dozen skeletons actually they haven't found any you're losing me here they haven't found any well of course they found fossil pieces fewer than 100 they believe belonged to homo habilis but they haven't found any complete creatures okay so this creature is shown in complete form even with human looking eyes with eye whites in museums around the world but they haven't found any complete creatures what is the best shot for homovilus the most defining fossil set are there enough bones from the same creature to recreate it as they do in the museums well they've never found even a partially complete habilis skeleton but they do have up to 100 bone pieces categorized in this species and a few partial skulls the best set they have is a small collection of bones they refer to as the official type specimen it was found over a widely excavated area and was mixed with bones from species from the cow the pig the horse and the tortoise families and a few catfish and birds this defining specimen consists of a jawbone with 13 teeth a molar a couple of skull fragments and 21 finger hand and wrist bones how did they know all these bones were from the same homo habilis creature well it went through some revisions they later found out that six of the 21 finger bones did not belong in one of the finger bones was a vertical fragment two others belonged to a monkey originally they uh described the hand as human and because it looked like it had precise grasping abilities they called it homo habilis which means handyman they suspected that it was a slightly larger brained early human that made the thousands of stone tools found in the same area interesting do they know whether the stone tools they found near the fossils were used by homo habilis or if they were used on homo habilis by humans they don't know in the same archaeological bed several sites were found where thousands of animals of different kinds were butchered and eaten along with thousands of stone tools of many varieties they also found the rock foundation on a 12-foot circular hut nearby also in the same archaeological bed and they described this circular stone foundation as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present-day nomadic people in the same area today i also heard they found the stone circle in a layer beneath the typeset bones for homo habilis is this the case yes so wouldn't this mean that whoever was there working with tools and making huts was on the scene before homo habilis even showed up on the fossil record well i guess it would so how does using this creature support the evolutionary theory it seems backwards to me yes i see what you mean i mean it seems out of order compared to what we would expect it's a good point could you please go back to the slide showing the stone hut foundation they found sure what types of animal bones are shown scattered all around the hut well they're bones from species in the croc crow hippo elephant horse tortoise and pig families how many bones did they find outside the hut area it looks like 348 and how many were found inside the hutt foundation only 11 small fragments mostly toes and teeth and what about the leftover rock pieces that get chipped off when they're making tools called debitage debit was that found mostly inside or outside of the hub foundation well this slide shows that they found 50 pieces of debitage and 48 of 50 were found outside the stone hut foundation you've got to be kidding me so just to be clear they found a 12 foot stone hut foundation below homo habilis bones with almost all discards from tool making outside the hut and they also found over 300 bones from eight different types of butchered animals outside the hut and the paleo experts who discovered the site said it was similar to how nomadic people still live even today it seems quite obvious that humans were living here not apes well that line of thinking would agree with mary leakey she was the lead paleo expert over the site and she said that the two key giveaways that the stone hut foundation was an artificial like a man-made site were the six mounds of heaped rocks evidently for support poles and the disproportionate number of bones and tools they found outside the head not inside along with the two foot buffer around the circle without a lot of tools or bones she said it was a a lot like the one that people in the same area built today can you please tell me about the types of stone tools they found at the site where the hut foundation was found they found choppers polyhedrons discoids and many small tools like scrapers burns and flakes where did they get the materials to make the stone tools and did they just use any kind of rock actually they mostly use a rock called quartzite because it can be flaked to a razor-like edge that type of rock was not found in the area they had to quarry it from a location miles away and bring it to where they used it to butcher the animals what steps would need to be taken to turn this quartzite rock into the tools they found these animals butchering sites i mean is it easy to do actually it's really difficult to do and there are several steps that have to be taken well first you've got to have the right kinds of rocks like the quartzite they found because it can be flaked and shaped into sharp handheld tools for animal butchering then you have to shape the rock using percussion or pressure tools like pointed hammer stones or synological hammers like long bones most of the stone tools found were sized to be held in the hand for processing the meat off of animals like a primitive slaughterhouse one more thing didn't the leakys the very scientists who discovered homo habilis find fossil evidence that led them to believe that australiopithecus homo habilis and homo erectus all lived at the same time how is one supposed to evolve into the other if fossil evidence points to them living at the same time well actually they did say that and their position perplexed many evolutionary scientists and many do not agree with them but i respect their opinion because their family spent more years excavating and mapping the areas where these early fossils were found than anyone else did that sounds a lot like nomadic tribes of humans we're setting up camp making specialized hand tools using special rocks found miles away and butchering and eating animals including apes just like people have been doing for a long time okay look you've made your point about homo habilis i suppose you know all about the next in the evolutionary lineup neanderthals have they always been regarded as some type of evidence for supporting the idea that humans are evolving just decades ago they were regarded in textbooks and museums as gorilla-like cavemen but now we know that they had families with humans that's probably because they were humans yes dna samples extracted from them show that they were basically human and we've found the remains buried together with humans showing that they lived together worked together had kids together and were accepted as members of the same family clan and community with humans neanderthal burial sites include jewelry and purses artwork weaponry and some grave sites even have clues of uh burial rituals in fact they've recently found that in the anthemthal's uh colon beaches and went diving to find certain shells to be used as tools that's definitely not my dad or my grandfather's version of neanderthals where they're presented as brutish gorilla-like cavemen carrying clubs just like the sides you showed could you pull those up but now they're diving for shells found buried with humans creating artwork and musical instruments they're even portrayed in museums as sporting stylish ponytails and suits so much for that evolutionary icon could you pull up the slides you showed that showed the different human evolution tree uh this one can you explain this slide to me uh sure it shows the idea of the human evolution tree over time this chart is from professor klein at stanford it was published on the 200th anniversary of darwin's birth to show how much we've learned about human evolution since darwin's time and what do the eight question marks on the chart mean well they are inferred relationships between the different fossil icons in the chart same with the dashed lines and the thin solid lines they show the theoretical evolutionary connections between the fossil icons they're all based on guesswork yes um only the thick vertical bars show the actual fossil evidence that was discovered sir there is no fossil evidence connecting arty to afarensis none connecting afarensis to habilis none connecting habilis to ergaster or erectus and no fossil evidence whatsoever connecting them to homo sapiens in any intermediate form the lines drawn from early australiopithecine apes to the first humans are speculation and inference well without going back through time we can't see the actual connection so yes it's inference forgive me but every topic we've discussed has some loophole and a whole lot of guesswork i mean is there anything in the theory of evolution that you would consider to be your number one proof well yeah darwin's finches what do they show i mean how do these finches support the idea of evolution when darwin visited the galapagos islands in the 1830s he observed the finches that lived on the different islands and found that the sizes and shapes of their beaks tended to vary island by island he believed that this was evidence of evolution by nature selecting the fittest birds to survive because certain types of beaks were better suited for gathering the food resources available on the different islands so changes in beak sizes and shapes based on which island they lived on sounds like they're just adapting to their environment and food sources within their own god prescribed genetic programming how is that evolution well we believe that adding millions of years to the process can lead to changes that add up and new kinds can emerge wow that takes an incredible amount of faith doesn't it i mean we have thousands of years of recorded history and no one has ever seen a new kind emerge sure we see speculation and changes but there are over 300 breeds of inter-fertile dogs but dogs can only breed dogs there's also over 300 breeds of the horse kind and you can breed the largest horses with the smallest horses and they'll still always be horses excuse me but i can add to this discussion she's totally right modern science has now shown us that darwin's single best evidence for evolution darwin's finches never really actually supported darwin's ideas for evolution modern studies have tracked over a thousand finches that lived in either rural or urban environments to determine how and why their beak sizes and shapes would differ based on where they lived the studies revealed significant differences in beak depth and width between urban and rural population of finches they were caused by epigenetic mechanisms such as dna methylation methyl tags change the way a gene is expressed without changing its dna this mechanism enables rapid adaptation in finch beaks and other traits as they fit their new environments even between a couple generations so rather than darwin's evolutionary ideas explaining the changes in finches i believe the changes are evidence for an intelligent master engineer who designed creatures with built-in adaptive mechanisms that enable them to turn on and off certain features as they continuously track environmental changes to fill the earth [Music] as their creator commanded sir i don't mean any disrespect but i believe that the theory of evolution is the most fluent ever-changing theory on the face of the planet just in my lifetime this squishy theory keeps changing over and over and over again articles keep coming out with headlines like we still have not found the missing link between us and apes and the human eight missing link is still missing and new fossils keep redrawing the human evolution tree and pushing back supposed human evolution hundreds of thousands of years i mean to me it makes way more sense that humans were put here by god in complete functioning form we did not evolve into the image of god we were made in the image of god drawn from the dust and given dominion charge to be stewards over the earth if we evolved then you'd have to explain to me things like a conscience and all of these all or nothing systems we have our complex five-part hearing system that has mechanical hydraulic chemical and electrical systems that all work together in perfect unison and don't even get me started on the eye and which evolved first the blood veins or a pumping heart i mean you kind of need all three at the same time for the system to work and what about blood coagulation there's like five really complicated automatic systems that our bodies put into place as soon as we get a cut to automatically stop bleeding without that entire stepwise system in place right from the start every person would bleed to death after their first cut leaving no way for evolution all these things had to be in place at the same time for everything to work um you know christina you um you bring up some good points but i believe that radiometric dating completely debunks the theory that a god created everything out of nothing the earth is billions of years old which allows evolution to take place you said in your lecture that dinosaurs lived between about 220 million years and 65 million years ago and the human lines started to branch off several million years ago that is correct verified evidence and this timeline is based on radiometric dating precisely it's it's a tried and true method for telling the age of things for example the unstable isotopes in uranium eventually change into stable atoms such as lead and we can estimate how long this process takes these methods are useful for dating igneous rocks which are formed when hot molten rock crystallizes and solidifies radiometric dating is also useful for dating the ash layers in which we find the dinosaurs since we can't go back in time to watch these rocks get formed or check the decay rate of these atoms over time what are some of the assumptions that radiometric dating studies make well you listed one of them which is the rate of decay we can only know what the decay rate is today based on what we observe in laboratories we don't know what the decay rate might have been in the past or in different earth environments we have to assume this in addition to this assumption we also have to assume the starting amount of the parent element like uranium and the starting amount of the data element like lead using the examples i mentioned again we have to assume them to be true when we date things using radiometric dating and if these three major assumptions are not correct then the ages we get from the study are also incorrect what if we took some rocks that were formed in a volcanic eruption rocks that people actually watched right out of written history and then dated these rocks shouldn't the radiometric dating age of these rocks be the same as the known age of the rock the age we know for sure because people actually watched the rock format of an eruption well that sure seems like a fair way to test it if the radiometric age of the rock was the same as the known age of the rock based on when people watched the rock form it would validate the assumptions in the analysis and the process as a whole to be correct did you know that these types of studies have already been done and that radiometric dating missed the known ages by millions and millions of years what do you mean several studies have been done on rocks around the world to try to validate radiometric dating and it fails all the time in each of these studies the radiometric age of the rocks far exceeds the actual known ages by millions and millions of years in fact i know of an example if you let me in the 1980s mount saint helens and washington erupted and produced all kinds of volcanic material including rock called decite just like this one and sent it in for radiometric dating the results this ten-year-old rock showed ages from 340 thousand to two million eight hundred thousand years all for a rock that we know was only about ten years old okay so we can't actually prove it so what's the biblical idea about the age of the earth i mean does the bible offer anything better actually the bible is very straightforward about this we have clear genealogies in genesis which are even repeated in the new testament that go all the way back to adam the first man who was breathed into existence by god he was made from the dust of the earth not evolved from some ape-like creature he was given charge over the earth and named everything including the apes within a couple thousand years later the earth was flooded and all life on earth was wiped out except those on the ark this happens to be the same time even secular historians admit that human writing disappears from the face of the earth the strange coincidence no doubt so the bible's clear that god breathed creation into existence with all the planets and orders spiraling through the universe in perfect order to sustain life days nights season oxygen it's all perfectly calibrated to sustain life on earth so if god created everything in perfect order how do you explain pansea the theory that all the continents used to be joined together exactly i mean it's quite obvious that they fit together like a puzzle but they've been moving slowly apart for over millions of years plus we have correlated fossils on each side of the continents that were together now they're separated we can see this on the continents on each side of the mid-atlantic ridge for example which is a 10 000 mile tear or rift like a baseball seam running right down the middle of the earth have you ever considered that the continents were once together and were quickly and catastrophically separated not slowly over millions of years i mean you do have millions of the same creatures like chilobites that are buried in mud layers on each side of the matching consonants we can also see how they match perfectly if they're put back together and we have quite a clue about how they were split apart the obvious mid-atlantic ridge you pointed out uh yes but it took millions of years and it did not happen quickly we know this because today they're moving apart slowly only inches per year based on gps measurements well then how do you explain the morrison formation where 13 states of dead dinosaurs in the middle of america are buried with marine creatures under unimaginable amounts of mud and ash i'm not sure i'm following you oh well i have a mobile app from genesis apologetics that has a video that explains it in just a few minutes check this out have you ever wondered how the massive dinosaur kill zone in the middle of america happened we're talking about three countries 14 states and a stretch over 1800 miles long and 1 000 miles wide over a million square miles are filled with the remnants of most known dinosaur species and they're all mixed with other land animals fish birds and all sorts of sea life the leading theory asserted by evolutionists is that an asteroid hitting the yucatan peninsula in mexico over 1 000 miles away from the heart of this disaster zone is why millions of dinosaurs are buried in mud and ash but that doesn't make sense because the billions of fossils in this area were buried in multiple mud and ash layers from successive watery events there's also vast areas of crumpled and buckled geology from land masses that were laid down wet and then folded and this action was obviously driven by rapidly subducting plates evolutionists explained how oceanic plates like the farallon plate slowly subducted over tens of millions of years under the north american continent uneventfully while the millions of dinosaurs now buried in this kill zone somehow just kept living and thriving both secular and creation scientists agree that the feral on plate subducted under north america even carrying massive volcanic plateaus like the conjugate shatsky rise along with it going from the west to the east but we disagree and with good reason that the dinosaurs somehow just kept peacefully thriving in this area while this was happening this abducting action would be like a spatula sliding beneath an undercooked pancake creating massive folding and buckling just like we see all over north america today the process even explains the rapid and catastrophic formation of the rocky mountains this happened just thousands of years ago during noah's flood when the fountains of the great deep were broken apart and the year-long process of the worldwide flood unfolded massive oceanic rifting on a worldwide scale created new seafloor that was pulled under the continents creating cycles of tsunamis that occur when the sea floor binds and then releases just like tsunamis are generated today this explains the multiple layers these creatures are found in as they were buried by the ever-increasing flood waters and tsunamis these dinosaurs were buried furiously with over 90 percent of them now found disarticulated or torn apart many of them are even found choking on mud as they died with their necks arched backwards widespread volcanism that occurred during this process also shows this happened quickly over a year and not millions of years with no volcanoes in the morrison formation itself where the bulk of these dead dinosaurs are found logic demands that the huge volume of volcanic ash in the morrison formation to have been erupted from mega volcanoes on the west coast lofted and carried far to the east by wind the morrison formation's brushy basin member alone spans five states and includes over four thousand cubic miles of volcanic material that's enough to cover the state of new jersey in ash 740 meters deep and there are plain indicators that this happened rapidly not over millions of years how else can we explain this recently discovered massive dinosaur graveyard where 10 000 adult myosora were found buried in mud without a single young mixed in with the entire herd that was buried every single dinosaur in the area was at least nine feet long it sounds like the adult dinosaurs were stampeding away from the imminent danger of raging floodwaters their young could not keep up and became engulfed in some lower part of the peninsula these evidences sure point to the rapid and widespread catastrophe of the flood okay i'm not sure i'd agree with everything on that video but they do explain a few possible theories but sir don't you see the real clincher for me is the soft tissue they found in dinosaur bones over just the last few decades scientists have been discovering soft tissue in dinosaur bones and i'm not talking about creationist publications i'm talking about over 50 peer-reviewed secular science journals that have now reported 14 bio-organic materials found in dinosaur bones they're finding blood cells blood vessels connective tissue and even collagen which has a maximum shelf life of just tens of thousands of years with some stretching it out to 900 000 years either way with a maximum shelf life of less than 1 million years what's collagen doing in dinosaur bones that are supposedly 65 million years old many dinosaur bones are even found unfossilized in places like madagascar alaska and montana even the founder of the largest dinosaur museum in the world admitted that usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil i mean just look at how stretchy and pliable this dinosaur bone is it sure doesn't look like a 65 million year old brock to me you've made your points nicely done um i bet the seal of the deal would be nice for a creationist to find a living dinosaur somewhere in the swamp in the condo actually i think that what we've covered is even better than discovering a living dinosaur somewhere and why is that well if someone found a living dinosaur it would be easy for evolutionists to explain it away they would just say that evolution was idle for eons they've already done this many times when so-called living fossils are found like this live coelacanth someone hauled up in a fishing net off madagascar in 1938 before they found it alive coelacanths were considered a key missing link between fish and amphibians dating back to the time of dinosaurs and beyond so the reason that the discovery of dinosaur biomolecules cells and tissues is even better than finding a live dinosaur is that the laws of chemistry hold evolutionists accountable for claiming either that thermodynamics the process by which tissues break down were idle for eons or even more far out that the bio-organic materials are not even there but because we know these bio-organic materials were present when they were living and we still have them now leaves undeniable evidence for noah's flood staring the world right in the face christine you've given me a lot to think about you believe this in a job hey are you okay i i've never felt so wrong about anything in my entire life my life completely changed that day mark and i we tried to continue having a relationship but he wasn't too happy with me suddenly believing in god so we argued a lot and then we ended up breaking up but i ended up becoming friends with the girl who was debating with the museum docent that day she showed me the truth [Music] i believed her and i surrendered my life to jesus and i haven't been the same since in fact if christine and i hadn't become friends then i probably wouldn't have met your dad she introduced me to him and then you probably wouldn't be here i love you sweetheart and i want you to know that you can believe that god's word is true but the choice is yours [Music] believe in the bible yes i do do you believe what jesus said yes i do you know jesus destroyed evolution in one sentence this is what he said in the beginning god made them male and female he didn't make them as primates he made them as male and female so do you believe that yes i do then you don't believe evolution i don't believe in evolution do you know what the bible says is the cause of death why we die what is it calling the bible says the wages of sinner's death god is paying you in death for your sins sin is so serious in his eyes he's given you the death sentence whosoever calls upon the name of the lord shall be saved he that believes in them shall not perish but have everlasting life there's dozens of promises saying the same thing repent trust in the savior and god will remit your sins grant everlasting life as a free gift is this making sense very rich you're going to think about what we talked about today yes yes do you have a bible at home yes i do this makes sense what i'm saying yes it does does that make sense yeah yeah anything about this seriously yeah i will i'm a sinner who needs to change i change my ways and i just want to say that like it really had me like thinking about what i should do like now into the future to put your faith in jesus is that what you're saying yes when are you gonna get right with god as soon as possible [Music] [Music] [Music] you

Channel: Christian Movies

Views: 28,379

Rating: 4.8653846 out of 5

Keywords: Films, Movies, Entertainment, christian movies, christian films, faith based films, new religious movies, religious movies, Feature Films, Brett Varvel, Hannah Bradley, Reggie McGuire, Becky Emerick, Daniel A. Biddle, Genesis Impact 2020 Full Movie, evolution, creationism, creation vs. evolution, lecture, science vs. religion, Genesis Apologetics, House of Grace Films, English, USA

Id: qKj1ffiU5-w

Length: 67min 41sec (4061 seconds)

Published: Fri Dec 18 2020