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.

 

The Evolution Video: shatters evolutionary theory

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
This is no doubt posted on a Intelligent Design website, but was interesting. The original video can be found at MultiMediaApologetics









[edit on 20-4-2009 by sunny_2008ny]




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
This is no doubt posted on a Intelligent Design website, but was interesting. The original video can be found at MultiMediaApologetics









[edit on 20-4-2009 by sunny_2008ny]



Your link is broken.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Shakezoola
 



Your link is broken.


Thanks for pointing this out
The link is corrected now
not well versed with posting vidoes



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
This is a neat video.

First let me say this. I don't believe in the big bang theory since there is no proof for it. We may in fact be living in the brain of God but who's to say the brain of God aka the universe doesn't change?

Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean that you believe that animals and us don't have souls. Why just because you believe the universe grows and is changing must I also believe that I don't have a soul? As many creationists like to tie the two together.

The most important evidence in the video was transitional forms. Well that was the only 'evidence' tbh...


Examples of transitional fossils See also: Evolution of the horse, Evolution of cetaceans, and Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles The reconstruction of the evolution of the horse and its relatives assembled by Othniel Charles Marsh from surviving fossils form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types, is often cited as a family tree. However, modern cladistics gives a different, multi-stemmed shrublike picture, with multiple innovations and many dead ends. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik[4] and various hominids considered to be proto-humans.
en.wikipedia.org...


It is commonly claimed by critics of evolution that there are no transitional fossils.[5][3][6] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature,[5] or according to Donald Prothero, may be a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory.[3] Prothero has called that claim the "favourite lie" of creationists and further said that it was "manifestly untrue".[3] A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[7]. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight. Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of remains, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Creationists often argue against this, claiming it is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. Progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, however, and in modern thinking, evolutionary lines of development are understood as being bush-like in appearance, not as the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion.


There are many examples listed on that link.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
"Scientists say that the universe is not eternal"

Creationists say:
Many scientists had originally thought that the universe might be infinite and eternal. However, there was a major problem with the theory. If the universe were infinite, the amount of light falling on the earth would also be infinite (assuming an approximately uniform density of galaxies throughout the universe. The reason for this is that the volume of the universe increases 8-fold with doubling of distance, while the decrease of light is only 4-fold with the doubling of the distance. The result is that the amount of light falling in the earth would double every time the size of the universe is doubled. Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not expect the sky to be dark at night. Since the night sky is dark, we know that the universe could not be infinite.

-
The "science crowd" hasn't come to any conclusions. The universe appears to be expanding, from which we can deduce the very early universe was small, dense, and very hot. Wether this was the beginning or just a transitional point is impossible to tell.


~
When will creationists and evolutionists just get over it? They're both right. There is a God and there is evolution. But if you SERIOUSLY believe the bible word for word then may God help you.

Tech-snow



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Behe's tired old argument repackaged. The list of "problems" with evolution are the same old strawmen creationists have been spouting since Darwin published his book.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow

Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean that you believe that animals and us don't have souls. Why just because you believe the universe grows and is changing must I also believe that I don't have a soul?


It's true that bacteria have souls, and that they go to bacteria heaven.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
2:00 in and I can have already run out of fingers counting the falsehoods, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations.

If the author of the video wishes to "shatter" what is probably the strongest and most well supported theory in all of science - then I suggest he learn a bit more about it.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Can you list some of these for us? I'm not asing you to list all of them in great detail, but would like some examples of what you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gdc934
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Can you list some of these for us? I'm not asing you to list all of them in great detail, but would like some examples of what you're talking about.


Here is GREAT DETAIL. Have fun with that.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Thanks I will look into that, seems there is a LOT of information there.

One thing that has always bothered me about this whole evolution thing, is why religions around the world think God can't exist if evolution is true. It makes no sense to me how people who think God is all knowing and all powerful, couldn't have created life through evolution. It must be another sign of our very limited knowledge on life in general. We can't even create life in a controlled lab, yet we limit God's ability to create life to only the "creation theory".



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gdc934
Thanks I will look into that, seems there is a LOT of information there.

One thing that has always bothered me about this whole evolution thing, is why religions around the world think God can't exist if evolution is true. It makes no sense to me how people who think God is all knowing and all powerful, couldn't have created life through evolution. It must be another sign of our very limited knowledge on life in general. We can't even create life in a controlled lab, yet we limit God's ability to create life to only the "creation theory".


Part of the problem is that if evolution is true there's no reason to believe we are the "crown of creation". That implies that we are NOT God's chosen children, but just what happened with life went the way it did. If that is true, then we get knocked off the top rung of the ladder of creation. An ego blow for the people who think they know the mind of God.

"If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're insane."



new topics




 
3

log in

join