Genesis Impact (2020) | Full Movie | Hannah Bradley | Reggie McGuire | Becky Emerick (click to watch)
Secular museum docent (Reggie McGuire) presents his best case for evolution at the natural history museum, but little does he know that Christina (Hannah Bradley) has a few questions at the end of his talk that turn the tables… Christina’s questions dismantle evolution and her meek yet powerful presentation of the Bible’s account of origins awaken many to the truth. Length: 67 Minutes
Lead Actors: Reggie McGuire, Hannah Bradley
Produced by: House of Grace Films
[Transcribed* — since copying a YouTube transcript results in a wall of text — mostly using a version of ChatGPT: https://poe.com/, which was told (for each approx. 2,00 word segment allowed), in rendering transcripts readable (to humans) to always just add punctuation, paragraph spacing, capitalization of pronouns, and place any interpolation being in brackets, but this aspect was only done by myself in the transcript below in adding speaker names the best I could.]
[Museum docent Reggie McGuire] Today, I encourage you to visit the exhibits that will help you visualize what we've discussed today. 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 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]
[Christina] "Sir, I have a question — well, quite a few questions, actually."
[McGuire] "Uh, okay, go ahead. 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."
[McGuire] "Uh, yes."
[Christina] "Well, how big is the human genome? How many base pairs?"
[McGuire] "Well, the exact figure varies over the years, but the last count was 3.097 billion base pairs. And how about chimps?"
[Christina] "The last count was 3.231 billion."
[McGuire] "Okay, so chimps have about 134 million more base pairs than we have, which means their genome is about 4.3% bigger. How is it possible to say that our DNA is like 98% similar when actually it's 4.3% bigger?"
[McGuire] "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."
[Christina] "Well, how much of the human and chimp DNA do they leave out?"
[McGuire] "Well, when they came up with the 98% similarity figure, they excluded 25% of the human genetic material and 18% of the chimps'."
[Christina] "Isn't that called cherry-picking?"
[McGuire] "Well, you may see it that way."
[Christina] "It sure seems like it to me." "I'm sorry, sir. I didn't mean any disrespect. I've been doing a lot of research, and I'm really fascinated by all this."
[McGuire] "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?"
[McGuire] "Well, when the researchers factor in the non-similar data into the comparisons, the similarities were only between 66% and 86%."
[Christina] "That's a lot less than 98%. Doesn't sound very similar to me."
[McGuire] "Well, they recently resequenced the chimp genome, and the technology is getting better."
[Christina] "So, what did the new study show? [Music]"
[McGuire] "Okay, well, here it is based on the new data. In 2018, they now say the human and chimp 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."
[McGuire] "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."
[McGuire] "Yes, but the fact remains that if we share many similar genes with apes, wouldn't you agree?"
[Christina] "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."
[McGuire] "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.”
[Christina] "Yes, and because the mantra has been quoted so long in so many places, most people just accept it as proof for evolution.
[McGuire] Okay, so what else is on your mind? You said you had several questions. Yeah. [Music]
[Christina] "I had a couple of questions on the leading fossils. You showed that supposedly show how humans evolved over time. Could you go back to the slide you have on 'Arty'?"
[McGuire] "Sure. I'm sure you're referring to this issue."
[Christina] "Well, actually, no. This skeleton was reconstructed from over 110 bone pieces that they found over a 30-foot area. It 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?"
[McGuire] "Well, they weren't found in very good shape at all. In fact, the scientists who found 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'."
[Christina] "Were any of the bone pieces found connected together?"
[McGuire] "No, all the 110-plus bone pieces were found separately over the 30-foot area."
[Christina] "That doesn't sound odd to you?
[McGuire] 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?"
[McGuire] "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."
[Christina] "What about her skull made her seem anything but ape-like? I mean, did she have a bigger brain than most chimps? Something else?"
[McGuire] "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."
[Christina] "Can you show me what you're talking about?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] 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?
[Christina] No, so let me get this straight: they don't actually have the entire base of her skull to see where her spine entered, 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!"
[McGuire] "Well, the human-like curve of her lower spine is another reason they thought she walked upright.
[Christina] Okay, how much of her lower spine did they find? Did they find any of her lower spine vertebrae?
[McGuire] 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 chimp's, suggesting that she was an upright walker.
[Christina] 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?
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] 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 her bones. But they didn't find any hand or feet bones, except for one small finger bone.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] 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?
[McGuire] The fossil record is quite sparse during that period.
[Christina] How sparse?
[McGuire] 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."
[Christina] 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? 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."
[McGuire] You seem to have come prepared with props and books, just like I have.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] All the evidence for the entire human line?
[McGuire] Yes, look, I'm not saying we have hundreds and hundreds of clear connections between ape-like creatures and humans. The record is, in fact, sparse. 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 more scientists in it than it does objects that we study. There are literally just 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 percent 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, numbering just a few dozen. Alright, so there's the big picture."
Now, let's focus on some of the points about Lucy to see how she fits into 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.
[Christina] So, Lucy was basically the same height and weight as many chimps and most bonobos we see today in zoos.
[McGuire] Well, in many ways, she was very similar to a 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.
[Christina] But did they actually find her skull?
[McGuire] No, but we did find these skull fragments. [Music]
[Christina] So, these few brown pieces are what they actually found, and the rest is, well, imagined.
[McGuire] I wouldn't go that far, but did they find the white parts?
[Christina] No, so how can they not be imagined? Besides, don't you think her skull looks very similar to a modern bonobo skull?
[McGuire] 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 an average chimp.
[Christina] So, just what is it about her skull that makes her anything but an ape?
[McGuire] What do you want me to say? Yes, there's a lot of controversy about her skull. Some anthropologists believe her skull is very ape-like, while others are convinced it's more human-like. May I?
[Christina] 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 chimp's. 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.
[Christina] I also understand that the semicircular canals in Lucy's species would have made it really difficult to walk on two legs. Have you heard about that?
[McGuire] No, not yet, but I'm sure you would enjoy enlightening me.
[Christina] May I use your laptop to pull something up?
[McGuire] Be my guest.
[Christina] 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.
[Christina] 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.
[Christina] So now, moving on from her head, what's that little bone at the bottom of her skull?
[McGuire] Well, that bone is not supposed to be there any longer.
[Christina] What do you mean it's not supposed to be there?
[McGuire] 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 Therapithecus darti, a common ape-like creature around when Lucy was alive. It didn't belong to Lucy or her species.
[Christina] Then how did it get mixed in with Lucy's skeleton?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] If this is the case, then why haven't you removed the bone from her display case?
[McGuire] We just haven't gotten around to it yet.
[Christina] Have any other natural history museums removed it?
[McGuire] No, none that I'm aware of.
[Audience] This chick's saying 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.
[Christina] What about her wrists and hands? Were they like those of apes or humans?
[McGuire] 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 standards, and best suited for swinging in trees.
[Christina] What about her feet?
[McGuire] Well, they didn't find any of Lucy's foot or toe bones.
[Christina] Well, that sure didn't stop them from putting feet on her in basically every natural history museum in America.
[McGuire] 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 lunchbox. They also found some footprints called the Laetoli footprints. They believe they were made by Lucy's species.
[Christina] Where did they find them, and did they date about the same time as Lucy's fossils?
[McGuire] 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.
[Audience] 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.
[Christina] 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 Laetoli?
[McGuire] 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 a nine and a half-foot shoe size and a person about five feet nine inches, probably made by a male.
[Christina] How tall was Lucy again?
[McGuire] About three and a half feet tall.
[Christina] 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.
[Christina] I mean, didn't they find 13 fossils belonging to the genus Homo in that region that looked human?
[McGuire] Yes, but the team that found Lucy later reclassified those bones as Lucy's species.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] Sure, I guess one would certainly make that argument. But we know for sure that humans were not around back then. [Music]
[Christina] 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 Ardipithecus ramidus. That conflicts with the hypothesis that Ardi is a direct ancestor of later hominins.
[Christina] So, using the evolutionary timeline, these human footprints pre-date both Ardi 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.
[McGuire] A flood that there was no evidence for.
[Christina] 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.
[Christina] 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, and 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 whites 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.
[McGuire] Hey, come on, you're not a credible source. I bet all these trained paleo experts don't even have these concerns about Lucy.
[Christina] 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 Australopithecines 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]
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] I'm not stopping anybody. I simply had some questions I was hoping you could help me with.
[McGuire] Let me guess, you have more?
[Christina] Yes, we move on from Lucy. The next in the line for human evolution is Homo habilis, correct?
[Christina] Okay, how many complete Homo habilis creatures have they found? Like a few hundred skeletons?
[McGuire] No, not that many. I'm guessing a dozen skeletons.
[Christina] Actually, they haven't found any.
[McGuire] You're losing me here. They haven't found any?
[Christina] Well, of course, they found fossil pieces, fewer than 100 they believe belonged to Homo habilis, but they haven't found any complete creatures.
[Christina] 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 Homo habilis?
[McGuire] 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, pig, horse, and 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.
[Christina] How did they know all these bones were from the same Homo habilis creature?
[McGuire] Well, it went through some revisions. They later found out that six of the 21 finger bones did not belong. One of the finger bones was a vertical fragment, and two others belonged to a monkey. Originally, they 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.
[Christina] 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.
[Christina] I also heard they found the stone circle in a layer beneath the type specimen bones for Homo habilis. Is this the case?
[McGuire] Yes, it is.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] Well, I guess it would.
[Christina] So, how does using this creature support the evolutionary theory? It seems backward to me.
[McGuire] Yes, I see what you mean. I mean, it seems out of order compared to what we would expect. It's a good point.
[Christina] Could you please go back to the slide showing the stone hut foundation they found?
[Christina] What types of animal bones are shown scattered all around the hut?
[McGuire] Well, they're bones from species in the croc, crow, hippo, elephant, horse, tortoise, and pig families.
[Christina] How many bones did they find outside the hut area?
[McGuire] It looks like 348.
[Christina] And how many were found inside the hut foundation?
[McGuire] Only 11 small fragments, mostly toes and teeth.
[Christina] And what about the leftover rock pieces that get chipped off when they're making tools, called debitage? Was that found mostly inside or outside of the hut foundation?
[McGuire] Well, this slide shows that they found 50 pieces of debitage, and 48 of 50 were found outside the stone hut foundation.
[Christina] 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.
[McGuire] 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 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 hut, not inside. Along with the two-foot buffer around the circle without a lot of tools or bones, she said it was a lot like the ones that people in the same area built today.
[Christina] Can you please tell me about the types of stone tools they found at the site where the hut foundation was found?
[McGuire] They found choppers, polyhedrons, discoids, and many small tools like scrapers, burins, and flakes.
[Christina] Where did they get the materials to make the stone tools, and did they just use any kind of rock?
[McGuire] Actually, they mostly used 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.
[Christina] What steps would need to be taken to turn this quartzite rock into the tools they found at these animals butchering sites? I mean, is it easy to do?
[McGuire] 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 hammerstones 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.
[Christina] One more thing, didn't the Leakeys, the very scientists who discovered Homo habilis, find fossil evidence that led them to believe that Australopithecus, 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?
[McGuire] 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 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.
[Christina] 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.
[McGuire] Yes, DNA samples extracted from them show that they were basically human, and we've found their 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 burial rituals. In fact, they've recently found that Neanderthals went diving to find certain shells to be used as tools.
[Christina] 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?
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] This one.
[Christina] Can you explain this slide to me?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] And what do the eight question marks on the chart mean?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] They're all based on guesswork.
[McGuire] Yes, only the thick vertical bars show the actual fossil evidence that was discovered.
[Christina] Sir, there is no fossil evidence connecting Ardi 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 Australopithecine apes to the first humans are speculation and inference."
[McGuire] Well, without going back through time, we can't see the actual connection, so yes, it's inference.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] Well, yeah, Darwin's finches.
[Christina] What do they show? I mean, how do these finches support the idea of evolution?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] How is that evolution?
[McGuire] Well, we believe that adding millions of years to the process can lead to changes that add up, and new kinds can emerge.
[Christina] 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.
[Audience member] 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 populations 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 of 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.
[Christina] 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-ape 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.
[Christina] We did not evolve into the image of God; we were made in the image of God, drawn from the dust and given the 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.
[Christina] 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 are 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.
[McGuire] Um, you know, Christina, 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.
[Christina] 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.
[McGuire] That is correct, verified evidence, and this timeline is based on radiometric dating, precisely. 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, we have to assume certain things.
[Christina] What are some of the assumptions that radiometric dating studies make?
[McGuire] 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 daughter 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.
[Christina] 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 form in an eruption?
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] What do you mean?
[Christina] 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 St. Helens in Washington erupted and produced all kinds of volcanic material, including rock called dacite. They sent it in for radiometric dating, and the results? This ten-year-old rock showed ages from 340,000 to 2,800,000 years, all for a rock that we know was only about ten years old.
[McGuire] 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?
[Christina] 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.
[Christina] This happens to be the same time even secular historians admit that human writing disappears from the face of the Earth. A strange coincidence, no doubt. So, the Bible is 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, seasons, oxygen—it's all perfectly calibrated to sustain life on Earth.
[McGuire] So, if God created everything in perfect order, how do you explain Pangea, 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.
[Christina] 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 trilobites that are buried in mud layers on each side of the matching continents. 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.
[McGuire] 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.
[Christina] 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?
[McGuire] I'm not sure I'm following you.
[Christina] 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 Farallon 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 subducting 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 seafloor 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 floodwaters 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 Maiasaura 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 pieces of evidence sure point to the rapid and widespread catastrophe of the flood.
[McGuire] Okay, I'm not sure I'd agree with everything in that video, but they do explain a few possible theories.
[Christina] "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 rock to me.
[McGuire] 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 a swamp or a condo.
[Christina] Actually, I think what we've covered is even better than discovering a living dinosaur somewhere.
[McGuire] And why is that?
[Christina] 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, it leaves undeniable evidence for Noah's Flood staring the world right in the face.
[McGuire] Christine, you've given me a lot to think about.
[Audience members] You believe in this...? Hey, are you okay?
[Audience member] I... I've never felt so wrong about anything in my entire life.
[Mother recalling this exchange to her son, Avery] My life completely changed that day. Mark and I 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. 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.
[Ray Comfort to person on the street] Believe in the Bible?
[Man] Yes, I do. Do you believe what Jesus said?
[Person] Yes, I do.
[Ray Comfort] 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?
[Person] Yes, I do.
[Ray Comfort] Then you don't believe in evolution?
[Person] I don't believe in evolution.
[Ray Comfort] 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 sin is 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 Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.' There are 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, Avery? You're going to think about what we talked about today?
[Person] Yes, yes.
[Person] To put your faith in Jesus, is that what you're saying?
[Ray Comfort] Yes, when are you gonna get right with God?