A Great Video Which Is Throws The Theory Of Evolution Out Of The Window

[wsionynw]

in the video it's states that there is variety built into the genetic code of all species, and that some varieties are better suited for different enviorments. If suddenly all people over 6' were getting systematically beheaded, eventually most everyone alive and being born would be below six feet. The species has not "evolved", just a dominant trait has succeeded. Or at least that is how I understand the video's assertion.
From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans. dominant traits and mutations creating higher and higher order.

So, what you believe is that a God clicked his fingers and created life from NOTHING?
This video is utter horse shit, constantly claiming that evolution deals with the origins of life, it doesn't!!!!! This video is religious propaganda, nothing more.

 

[rjr6]

wsionynw,
I thought the video has an interesting point that belief in a christian god does not negate science. yes, the scientific arguments are pretty thin, and I am no scientists, sir, but to say it is complete horseshit I would not. It is a point of view, contrasting "the big bang" and "abiogenesis" (thanks spidergoat), which are theories.
Evolution is a widely taught and accepted scientific theory, but there are missing pieces still. Species improve and change over time; they adapt. But does a sea horse turn into a pony? I think that was what the film was debating.

 

[rjr6]

spurious monkey, I don't remember mendel being brought up in the video
spidergoat, what I inferred from the video was the support of natural selection, not evolution

 

[guthrie]

Mendel is important because he did pioneering work on genetics, which was important later on in the modern syntehsis of evolutionary biology.

Besides, it is actually "Evoklution by means of natural seletion"
WHich bit of each individual has small genetic variations which then affect their fitness within the envirnment they are in, and then those that are less fit are selected out, dont you get?

 

[rjr6]

from my limited knowledge, the video's main fault is trying to debunk abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang all at once. It's in affont on science.
But, all of these theories have got problems, though evolution has been upheld by observations over the years since it's postulation, and nothing has disproven it.
Given this evolution does not explain how life began (thanks spidergoat). Also, whenever a species makes a major shift in it's evolutionary path, there is no fossil record. Scientists claim that these are "abrupt shifts" and are part of macroevoltion and explain why there is a dirth of transistional species. So, nothing disproves evolution, but evolution does not explain, nor tries to explain, how we got here or fully explains the existence of all species. So you try to explain to someone, a child, how man evolved from an ape and you have no proof. I think that this allows for a debate. You have supporting observations and a theory that hasn't been disproven, but no proof. I'm not convinced and I think that the authors of the video aren't either. Hopefully scientists aren't and will continue to investigate.

 

[Oniw17]

I want my 61 minutes back, that was garbage. Assuming that they "proved" everything false that they claimed to, saying that creationism is the ONLY other option or that it MUST HAVE BEEN god, and expecting it to be true just because it was stated is stupid. There is SO much proof of evolution. There are so many things that can be PROVED false in the Bible. At the beginning the guy said something to the extent of: "Sadly 4 years of school brainwashed me..." WOW! The ending reminded me of Nastrodamus interpretations, creating something from nothing. Stating that al of the planets should spin the same way, and then stating that they shouldn't spin at all is not only contradictatory, but in both cases wrong. Saying that everything in the universe is in order, then stating that there are different elements and atmospheres on each planet and that planet and moons rotate in different directions REALLY doesn't help your point. There are so many inaccuracies in that movie, I can't even list them all.

 

[rjr6]

I don't think the video was completely dicounting evolution, just that it dosen't explain our existence. The science was a little thin, I agree, but I think what is important is that people don't look to science for all their answers. Through the years many scientific theories have been believed and turned out false, why hold on to these theories as if they are gospel?
I don't think scientists really understand all the forces behind the creation of solar systems. They postulize and observe neighboring galaxies, but everything we see is a snapshot of what is happening, even if we observe for 100 yrs. For someone to have a different opinion about it is fine in my opinion. we don't know.
If you are a person that believes in a creator, I bet that scientists sound just as arrogant when they explain the universe as the authors of this video do to a non believer. We don't even know where our moon came from. just guesses.

 

[alain]

I don't think the video was completely dicounting evolution, just that it dosen't explain our existence. The science was a little thin, I agree, but I think what is important is that people don't look to science for all their answers. Through the years many scientific theories have been believed and turned out false, why hold on to these theories as if they are gospel?

Ahh, but for each time a scientific theory was discounted, a more accurate one has risen to take its place. These scientific theories are the closest thing we have to the truth, and until they are proved wrong and an alternative proved more correct, they will continue to be believed

 

[Oniw17]

I don't think scientists really understand all the forces behind the creation of solar systems. They postulize and observe neighboring galaxies, but everything we see is a snapshot of what is happening, even if we observe for 100 yrs. For someone to have a different opinion about it is fine in my opinion. we don't know.
We don't even know where our moon came from. just guesses.

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we can go off on a limb and and accept a theory that has nothing to even suggest it's truth, such as a creator's part. Now we do know that the moon's core has VERY similar elements to those found in earth's core, and that is where we get our theories from. That suggests that the moon was once part of earth.

If you are a person that believes in a creator, I bet that scientists sound just as arrogant when they explain the universe as the authors of this video do to a non believer.

Except science is BASED in fact.

 

[rjr6]

"except science is based in fact". That isn't being disputed by the video. Is the big bang a fact? Is abiogenesis a fact? These two theories, in particular, are far from fact. The video gives an alternative explanation to what most people would say is an area that scientists don't have a good explanation for. The video does not dissuade scientific exploration or discovery. It seemed to encourage it.
There is likely more evidence of the power of prayer than there is for the big bang. Does that prove the existence of a creator? Does that make prayer a fact?

 

[Oniw17]

"except science is based in fact". That isn't being disputed by the video.

The video disputes EVOLUTION by stating that some all-powerful creator just poofed all of the life. But there's a lot of really big problems with that. First, it's not based on any fact. Second, what happened to the dinosaurs. Third, what happened to all the other species that have nothing resembling them alive today. Explain how carbon dating is flawed? Only showing half of a debate is propoganda.

Is the big bang a fact?

Stars are spreading apart at all times, so yes it is based on facts. What fact(s) is/are creationism based on?

Is abiogenesis a fact?

Until someone proves it wrong, yes. What else is as or more plausible? That there is some being that has always existed in the void of space? And somehow humans discovery this "god" years after the existance of humans, and somehow know the history of the first man despite that. Monotheism is a Zoroastrian principle, so christianity(from judaism) is the child of the child of something made up by men. The video is complet bullshit religious fundamentalist propoganda. Think about it, kid.

These two theories, in particular, are far from fact.

Not as far as life in a vacuum using magic.

The video gives an alternative explanation to what most people would say is an area that scientists don't have a good explanation for.

The video's explaination is far more inaccurate than what most scientists would tell you.

The video does not dissuade scientific exploration or discovery. It seemed to encourage it.

The video was under researched, and if it wasn't, they couldn't have made it with any hope of fooling someone into believing the bullshit in it.

There is likely more evidence of the power of prayer than there is for the big bang.

Really? Show me a comparison. There's more proof for Moses parting the Red Sea than for Evolution too, right? That's dumb. The video's dumb. You're dumb.

Does that prove the existence of a creator? Does that make prayer a fact?

Payer a fact? What does that even mean? If you mean "does that mean that prayer works?" No. I haven't seen any tests that can be duplicated at any time by anyone proving anything about the power of prayer. We do however know(at least we think we do) that the universe is spreading out, and so the big bang is a plausible theory.

There was just so much stuff in that movie that was strait WRONG. A scientist couldn't duplicate THE MOST AMAZING AND COMPLEX EVENT THAT WE KNOW OF, thus God MUST HAVE...MUST HAVE...MUST HAVE been the cause of the original event. We can't know for sure where the moon came from, so God HAS to be the reason it's there. The Universe is in order, yet planets are spinning in different directions, and on tilted axies, and their moons revolve in different directions, so orderly. Tell me what in that movie provd ANYTHING. You can't, which means that God MUST HAVE made it himself.

 

[wsionynw]

Are you trying to blur religion and science?

 

[rjr6]

oniw17,
you make so many points I wouldn't know where to start. Basically, the video's ascertion is that science does not adequately explain our existence, at this time.

I didn't here the word "poof" once in the video. Spidergoat pointed out that evolution and the origin of life are separate ideas, and the video did not suggests that the entire idea of evolution was incorrect.

Stars are spreading apart and the big bang explains why maybe. the video did not say this was incorrect. Stars could be spreading apart for any number of reasons, not just because they were shot out of a cannon.

 

[rjr6]

abiogenesis is as hard a theory to believe as any idea out there. But it is a start and you must start somewhere. to defend it as truth is premature.

It's funny that you say what does prayer being a fact mean? What does the big bang being a fact mean. you have observations of galaxies spreading apart like they would in an explosion, so it's fact. that's poor logic. the big bang is a model based on observations. the video does not dispute this.

alot of the science they used was, for the third time, thin.

The video never says "god must of done it". It's not a fall back posistion.


wsionynw,

I'm not sure what you mean

 

[Ophiolite]

but there is NO evidence, none whatsoever, that life arose from the elements.

That is not exactly true. Or, to put it in different words: that is incorrect.
We know many organic molecules, including amino acids, are commonplace in space. We know that these and other pre-biotic molecules can be synthesised in a matter of days from atmospheres akin to the primeval Earth atmosphere. We can envisage pathways that could lead from these pre-biotic molecules to primitive replicating systems. Such suggestive observations constitute evidence for abiogenesis.

i find it telling that science seperates these into two processes when in fact evolution is a continuation of the first.

They are separate processes. They deserve separate consideration. This does not mean there may not be overlaps of mechanisms, but rather the two concepts are distinct in character. For one thing life originates as a distinct event. Evolution continues as a process.

Not yet, but then, life had something like 2 billion years to happen?

No it didn’t. It is agreed that life was present on the Earth at least as early as 3.6 billion years ago. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. For the first few hundred million years the planet would have had a molten surface and no trace of an ocean. Even once oceans had been emplaced these may well have been evaporated by bolide impact during the Late Bombardment phase. At best we are left with 800 million years, and more likely around 300 million years for life to emerge.

From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans.

I think in this statement you reveal you have no understanding of evolution at all. There is nothing wrong with that, except when you then choose, no matter how mannered and restrained your tone, to pontificate on the subject.
As has been pointed out by others there is a wide world between abiogenesis (your lightning and chemicals) and evolution (the emergence of humans over a few billion years from a common ancestor to all life).
And why is it, rjr6, that you all have this obsession with evolution and humanity. The interesting bits of evolution have bugger all to do with primates, yet that is all you pore over in such detail. You bemoan the scarcity of human fossils, yet fail to consider the veritable cornucopia of say ammonites or whales, wherein the path of evolution is readily apparent.

I thought the video has an interesting point that belief in a christian god does not negate science.

Nor does belief in evolution, the Big Bang and abiogenesis prevent one believing in God. What makes you think it does? (You imply that it might.)

If you are a person that believes in a creator, I bet that scientists sound just as arrogant when they explain the universe as the authors of this video do to a non believer. We don't even know where our moon came from. just guesses.

No. It is not just guesses. It is anything but guesses. We have combined observations from many fields of science (geochemistry, seismology, geology, astronomy, orbital mechanics, selenology etc) to demonstrate, with a high degree of probability, exactly how the moon was formed. Now, you are correct that this may later turn out to a flawed idea. However, if it does, what will reveal it as a flawed idea is the persistent re-examination of the data by scientists. This is the great strength of science – its continual and continuous reassessment of observations and theories.

 

[alexb123]

There is much wrong with the video but I will just bring up one issue because it needs no science at all to dismiss.

The video stated that man and ape share 98% DNA or thereabouts. It then talked of water melon and clouds sharing 98% water. This is such a stupid comparison I am shocked that they saw fit to even attempt to use this its so flawed.

98% DNA shared is a massive complex network beyond a single mans comprehension. It involves huge indivdual similaritys the numbers I could not give you at the moment. How many genes etc is this does anyone know?

On the other hand to share 98% water (as in cloud and melon) is one element but a lot of it (very simple).

Can you see that this is so stupid it should never be used. Religion uses these far out comparisons because it has nothing better to offer. Its common sense that this is stupid but people still buy it.

 

[Ophiolite]

A very telling point alexb123. To use such an argument means, I think, that the producers of the video are either seriously uneducated, or monstrously cynical. Either way, they and their message are not to be entertained.

 

[rjr6]

I don't think I'm pontificating on evolution, and have not argued against evolution since it was pointed out to me that evolution does not claim to describe the origin of species. The video itself states it's belief in evolution. Do scientists know all the mechanisms behind evolution? no. Is that pontificating?
I'm glad someone stated that science does not negate a deity. That's really what the point of the video is. Sometimes we get too caught up in details about whose right or whose wrong and miss the whole picture. To treat science as a total belief structure for our existence maybe in fact missing the whole point.
Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation, which has never been observed in nature. That's not to say we shouldn't investigate the possibility.

 

[Oniw17]

oniw17,
you make so many points I wouldn't know where to start. Basically, the video's ascertion is that science does not adequately explain our existence, at this time.

And all the points are where I started with the flaws in the video. I'm not even that smart, and I still pointed out all of those things. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can make stuff up, or go by something someone else made up.

I didn't hear the word "poof" once in the video.

What else can creationism be explained as? Especially when they say speciation of genes that already exist, not evolving into another species is how everything came to be. Do you know what that means? That means humans have always been here. That means that we came from NOWHERE, and were "poofed" here. Creationists advocating the bible would make a better arguement if they said since genesis states that man was made at the end of the 6th day, God told Moses that evolution was real, which is still bullshit.

Spidergoat pointed out that evolution and the origin of life are separate ideas, and the video did not suggests that the entire idea of evolution was incorrect.

The video pretty much says evolution isn't real, it just never really attempts to explain why.

Stars are spreading apart and the big bang explains why maybe. the video did not say this was incorrect. Stars could be spreading apart for any number of reasons, not just because they were shot out of a cannon.

I believe that the current theory is that the universe imploded and then backfired itself, like when stars explode, and actually that it will happen again, and may have happened before.

abiogenesis is as hard a theory to believe as any idea out there. But it is a start and you must start somewhere. to defend it as truth is premature.

It's the easiest thing to believe out there, and to claim prooving it wrong just because we don't know exactly how it happened, therefore have yet to reproduce it is propoganda.

It's funny that you say what does prayer being a fact mean? What does the big bang being a fact mean.

You can pray, that much is certain. Does it work? I think that's what you're asking, not is prayer a fact.

you have observations of galaxies spreading apart like they would in an explosion, so it's fact.

I did NOT say that. I said that it's based on fact, and you can see the effects of such a thing. Where do you see the effects of God creating the universe?

that's poor logic. the big bang is a model based on observations. the video does not dispute this.

The video claims to prove the big bang wrong, yet does no such thing. Or does it? Show me.

alot of the science they used was, for the third time, thin.

And that makes a BIG difference. That's pretty much the only thing that matters when trying to prove something.

The video never says "god must of done it". It's not a fall back posistion.

I'm not going to watch the video again to count how many times, but it says "creationism is the ONLY other option" quite a few times. This is my main problem with the video. That is a statement of pure nonsense. And they have the nerve to suggest in the summary that the theory of evolution is a result of bias. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. Like mad.

 

[rjr6]

you either believe there is a creator or you don't. So yes there are just two posistions and they would be right to say there is only one other possibility, creationism.