It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution is a conspiracy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
video

This video uncovers some interesting facts. Or should I say lack of facts?

It talks about how there is actually little evidence for the process of evolution.

It mentions several coverups and frauds that have widely been accepted as fact.




posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
video

This video uncovers some interesting facts. Or should I say lack of facts?

It talks about how there is actually little evidence for the process of evolution.

It mentions several coverups and frauds that have widely been accepted as fact.


many problems with this video

1: it brings up connections to consistently demonized groups
pagans
communism
atheism
the new age movement
no attempt at biasing the audience there

2: it then connects darwinism to the big bang, 2 seperate theories, each have their own seperate proofs

3: it brings up the "it's too complex to be random" argument, which is inherently nonsensical because, as author and biologist richard dawkins will bring up, evolution is NOT random

4: it's outdated. my evidence for this statement?
they say we haven't seen evolution, which we have repeatedly observed on the micro scale
it seems to have been made in the early 80s

5: it uses over a dozen strawmen in the first 15 minutes

6: it calls radiometric dating as "unreliable" and sets it up as a set up method, providing a single man's testimony as the only evidence
subpoint A: they NEVER provide evidence, only TESTIMONY from biased sources
subpoint B: REPEATS this statement several times

7: it says that, according to evolution, mutations are caused by "cosmic rays" which is also NOT an evolutionary argument

8: brings up the "transitional forms" argument, which is an argument that has been repeatedly disproven
subpoint A: we are ALL transitional forms in one way or another
subpoint B: we do not need a specific missing link, it's a straw man to say we do

9: forces evolution's side into a position of bringing up evidence, without bringing up evidence to support their own claims

10: archaeoptrix has now been PROVEN by EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS to be a fake, yet is brought up as an "evolutionist cover up"

11: brings up the "what good is half of a wing?" argument, another repeatedly thrown out argument that is easily disproven

12: says "monkeys becoming humans" is what evolution is, and that's just not true

13: the DDT adaptation argument is just thrown out as "not evolution" because it is compatible to creation. they then ask for a huge leap in our lifetime to prove evolution

14: actually states that "the more we learn about paleontology, that is fossils, the more we see that evolution is based on faith alone"
just look at the treasure trove of evidence for evolution (and is that how you spell trove?)

you know what, after 26 minutes, i think i've found enough problems with the video



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I wonder if Emu's, Ostriches, Kiwi's and a whole raft of other flightless birds could be classified as a transitional species ?.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
I wonder if Emu's, Ostriches, Kiwi's and a whole raft of other flightless birds could be classified as a transitional species ?.



Yes and no. They're currently evolving into something else (as is everything on the planet), but they are different species that came from a very very ancient common ancestor.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Evolution. Creationism. It's all up in the air for me.

Put it this way: We have carbon dating and such, but all we need are thousands and thousands of years worth of fossils that track the evolution of any given species.

As far as a magickal land where God created everything in seven days, well, I'll believe that when there is proof.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised
Put it this way: We have carbon dating and such, but all we need are thousands and thousands of years worth of fossils that track the evolution of any given species.


the problem with this is that the fossil record isn't consistant

hardly anything fossilizes
and to expect the entire (or even most of the) evolutionary chain of even a single species to survive is asking for a lot



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join