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

[Mountain_Fire77]

Hey,

First Post but gotta start somewhere but a interesting forum all in all but this video has very credible evidence that evolution is a fraud and observable evidence supports creation

[Moderator Note: the link has been removed, pending Mountain_Fire77's return to answer the direct, pertinent questions asked of the ATM ideas presented]

You can download or stream the video and its non-copyright

The most popular theory held among some scientists and is passed off to the world as the safest and understandable theory, the big bang. That life has no meaning and every living thing we see and eat was a product of chance after a 1 cell bacteria or organism was somehow created and became the father of all life we see today.

But this video has the creationists view of life on earth and the formation of the universe as the bible states, and that there is a intelligent design in life and the possibility's of a universe without a designer are not looking to good when you hear what most scientists would say was solid proof in this video.

So theres only 2 options....

We are the product of chance and we evolved or we were created..... I cannot see a third option.

[Serenitude]

I vote the first option.

Hmmm, the intelligent design, creationist view of the beginning of the universe. You really think that's groundbreaking, eh?

Your post describing your "theory" couldn't be any more vague. It doesn't even give a clear representation of the ID view, let alone any supporting observations. Without evidence, you fail to propose a workable hypothesis, let alone a theory. You fail to give a model that can yield predictable, verifiable results. You fail all of the tests required for a post in the ATM forum. Even your link provides absolutely ZERO science.

It does, however, present a page where one can buy your "secrets" for only $20. I look forward to the moment this rubbish is locked and done away with.

[Ronald Brak]

The most popular theory held among some scientists and is passed off to the world as the safest and understandable theory, the big bang. That life has no meaning and every living thing we see and eat was a product of chance after a 1 cell bacteria or organism was somehow created and became the father of all life we see today.

So science has determined that life has no meaning? That's interesting. I'll have to read the paper. I wonder how they determined that? In fact, I wonder how they even defined meaning let alone set about measuring it. But I'm sure everything will be explained in the paper. Is it available online?

[clop]

That video is utter garbage.

Quote (roughly)

"The solar system evolved from a huge cloud of gas. The sun is made of 97% hydrogen and helium. If the planets evolved from the same cloud of gas as the sun then the planets should have the same composition as the sun."

This is so ignorant it's laughable.

clop

[Serenitude]

I suspect a simple hit-n-run, but what I wouldn't give to hear the answer to that question, even with my limited knowledge

[Mellow]

Seagull posting at its finest.... see my site, buy my stuff etc.

[ToSeek]

I'll give him a chance to return and defend himself, but if he hasn't done so after a respectable interval, this thread will be removed.

[Frog march]

creationist are like a baby that is proud of what it has done in its potty.

[Swift]

<snip>
So theres only 2 options....

We are the product of chance and we evolved or we were created..... I cannot see a third option.

Given the fact that many religions, including the Catholic church, recognize evolution, would seem to indicate that there are more than two options.

[A.DIM]

...
So theres only 2 options....
We are the product of chance and we evolved or we were created..... I cannot see a third option.

Evolutionists are half right while Creationists half wrong.

Of course, I see both sides as happy to remain stalemated between only two choices which merge at TBB.

Evolutionists want to be the only answer.

The same goes for Creationists.

[Demigrog]

Evolutionists are half right while Creationists half wrong.

Of course, I see both sides as happy to remain stalemated between only two choices which merge at TBB.

Evolutionists want to be the only answer.

The same goes for Creationists.

Not true at all; science follows the observations and data. If there were any observations that supported creationism that could not be explained better by evolution, it might be a valid scientific theory. So, it is not that scientists want evolution to be the only answer, it is just that evolution is the only answer that is supported by evidence.

[Uclock]

I noticed the video carefully avoided the subject of the CMB therefore gave no explanation its presence. Unfortunately creationists seem to always avoid things that do not fit their point of view.

True science is a voyage of discovery, faith only gets in the way.

[dhd40]

Unfortunately creationists seem to always avoid things that do not fit their point of view.

The other day I saw a German TV-report stating that George W.Bush is a Creationist. I doubt that this is true. But if so ... any comments concerning the future of America???

[Tog]

The other day I saw a German TV-report stating that George W.Bush is a Creationist. I doubt that this is true. But if so ... any comments concerning the future of America???

This isn't a good road to travel given the politics/religion rules in effect. Best to stop here, and back out slowly...

[Nereid]

Yes indeed. How about we wait and see if the OP returns, to defend the ATM ideas presented?

If it's a 'hit and run', or trolling, then having this thread spiral down into tangential comments, only marginally relevant to the OP, would count, for the OP, as a success perhaps?

And it's not a hit 'n run, then lots of OT (off-topic) posts will make it hard to get the thread back on track.

[dhd40]

This isn't a good road to travel given the politics/religion rules in effect. Best to stop here, and back out slowly...

Yes, you´re absolutely right. This is my problem of overreaction when it comes to creationism.
SORRY

[Aerik]

You're a friggin' idiot. Big Bang comsology and Darwinian Evolution are two entirely different subjects.

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is a description of how life began; evolution is a proven, working, now witnessed theory about how life changes and adapts.

Even your strawman of abiogenesis is stupid. Life didn't begin with a cell. Life began with replicating molecules. The step up from just raw replicating models competing in a soup made up of themselves and each other into a cell, a housing used to protect and replicate said molecules, is in itself an event of evolution. You didn't even go into abiogenesis yourself.

Stop embarassing yourself.

[aurora]

Evolutionists are half right while Creationists half wrong.

Except that evolution clearly has happened in the past, and continues to happen today.

I suspect you are using the word "evolution" to mean something other than biological evolution?

I really hate it when people use the word evolution to mean cosmology or abiogenesis or anything related to human societies.

[clop]

I do have one question though. The video says that modern day evolution acts to modifiy the DNA that already exists, i.e. moths change colour, birds' beaks change shape, but does not introduce new DNA.

I think it means that species are evolving, but there are no new species appearing.

Is this true? If it is then it seems like there was once all the species that could ever exist, and since then they are slowly going extinct, or am I missing something.

If we have lions, giraffes, gorillas, dogs, cats, and they are all evolving within themselves, is that it? Or will we one day have a new animal that doesn't exist now?

clop

[Jim]

You're a ...

You might want to remove the ad hominem. It's a violation of BAUT rules.

[Jim]

I do have one question though. The video says that modern day evolution acts to modifiy the DNA that already exists, i.e. moths change colour, birds' beaks change shape, but does not introduce new DNA.

No new DNA is needed; the evolutionary process works just fine with the material that is already there for the changes you cite.

I think it means that species are evolving, but there are no new species appearing.

There are new species evolving all the time. For example,
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
And for more general issues,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Or will we one day have a new animal that doesn't exist now?

Why not?

[clop]

Thanks Jim

clop

[Peter Wilson]

No new DNA is needed...

I don't know if you realize it, but that statement almost agrees with Creationists. New DNA is added and old DNA is snipped all the time. All kinds of things are going on in the genome, as I recall.

[JohnW]

Except that evolution clearly has happened in the past, and continues to happen today.

I suspect you are using the word "evolution" to mean something other than biological evolution?

I really hate it when people use the word evolution to mean cosmology or abiogenesis or anything related to human societies.

No, I think he means biological evolution. A.Dim thinks Homo sapiens was created by space aliens. See this thread. It's a good workout for the eye-rolling muscles.

[Disinfo Agent]

First Post but gotta start somewhere but a interesting forum all in all but this video has very credible evidence that evolution is a fraud and observable evidence supports creation

"Evolution is a fraud"?... Come on, that doesn't even make any sense.
Try harder.

[Nicolas]

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

The best one I could think of is the second edition of Johnny Knoxville and co's motion picture

[galacsi]

Not true at all; science follows the observations and data. If there were any observations that supported creationism that could not be explained better by evolution, it might be a valid scientific theory. So, it is not that scientists want evolution to be the only answer, it is just that evolution is the only answer that is supported by evidence.

This kind of anwser put me very ill at ease.

"Not true at all; science follows the observations and data."

And also the ambiant ideology , the direction where the wind is blowing , the authority and dont forget the money.

"So, it is not that scientists want evolution to be the only answer, it is just that evolution is the only answer that is supported by evidence. "

When you have sait that , IMO you have said nothing. I do believe in evolution because it is supported by evidence ,yes ! But what kind of evolution ? the darwinian one or another kind ? The pure random action of mutations or a more coordinated action ,something a little more "intelligent " ? (Provocation)
it is easy to bash creationists and litlle more difficult to have a coherent theory of evolution.

[Frog march]

people use the word 'random' lightly, but it is not a trivial concept.

what does randomness mean?

[dgavin]

Radonmness:

1. That sudden and unpredicatable irresitable urge to beat the living snot out of the next person that posts a hit and run ATM topic.

[JohnW]

"So, it is not that scientists want evolution to be the only answer, it is just that evolution is the only answer that is supported by evidence. "

When you have sait that , IMO you have said nothing. I do believe in evolution because it is supported by evidence ,yes ! But what kind of evolution ? the darwinian one or another kind ? The pure random action of mutations or a more coordinated action ,something a little more "intelligent " ? (Provocation)

The Darwinian one: random mutation + natural selection.

Got any evidence for something else?