The "Icons of Evolution" Documentary Part 1

[faelismaegnus]

This video IS intelligent because it makes a strong case. If you call every criticism of the current neo-Darwinian synthesis theory of biological evolution by natural selection through random mutation "religiously-motivated", you are simply not being honest AND exposing your irrational anti-religious bias. Intelligent people are not afraid of ANY questions.

[rodswebdesign]

really informative and interesting

[khijasmith]

interesting video and very informative

[jakroks16]

I still maintain that if you claim to believe it "fails miserably" you should point out specifically why instead of giving such a simple statement to the non-critical thinkers who believe evolution to be irrevocable simply because it is widely accepted; for we must then ask "why is evolution so widely accepted?" Most of you only believe it to be so concrete because it is taught in your textbooks.

[jakroks16]

The key to your ignorance is "never questioned".

[grisgrisy]

some sweet info here

[SuperDogbrown]

really informative and interesting

[8698gil]

It never ceases to amaze me that people in the year 2011 still believe in biblical creation and reject evolution. How is that possible? I never questioned evolution for a second. It has always made perfect sense to me, whereas the bible never did, not even as a very young child. If an 8 year old can see holes in the Noah's ark story, why can't an adult with an education?

[8698gil]

Oxygen deprivation can cause hallucinations which people mistake for seeing the afterlife, when its just a chemical reaction in your brain. Hallucinations do seem very real, people who are having them don't know they are having them. We also know that the delusions the schizophrenic has are not real, but they are certainly real to the schizophrenic.

[jakroks16]

FundieVideoHell, on what grounds can you say that this fails miserably? I have watched the entire dvd, and it brings up perfectly valid points. Saying that the documentary is unintelligent isn't going to make the validity of those points disappear.

[GospelHouseKat]

@jakroks16 They think if they say words that settles it.

[stevethul1]

We have to abolish religion before we end up totally "Brain Dead"...

[breathofmusic95]

I lvoe this movie, I totally understand where it comes from. Being a Christian all the way <3

[propeng1]

Religion has nothing to do with the scientific theories of evolution. I actually do believe in God, but I also believe that linking science with religion is a terrible idea.

[StygianWhite]

It's funny to watch people get into debates on YouTube. So pointless, lol. If you guys want a science/religious debate, go elsewhere. A video-sharing site isn't the place.

[AgApE010]

@StygianWhite

-

RAAWWRRR! What do you mean?! I'll debate you right here and now! Evolution is fake! Bush caused 9/11!! There is no God!! YAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

[StygianWhite]

@AgApE010 Exactly what I mean, lol. I'd also appreciate if someone more intelligible than 'FundieVideoHell' posted this. "At least this TRIES to be intelligent, though it still fails miserably." made me lol.

[FundieVideoHell]

@StygianWhite I posted this close to two years ago, and a lot has changed, like nowadays I try to remain neutral when posting these videos. At the time this was posted, this channel was more of a resource for non-believers looking for debunking material, but since then, I've embraced the fact that both believers and non-believers watch this channel, so I do try to appease both audiences. To be honest, I totally forgot that these videos said that.

[StygianWhite]

@FundieVideoHell I understand that, and I apologize for my rude comment.

[soooooo89]

@AgApE010 there is no God. WOW, that was very convincing.

[AgApE010]

@soooooo89

Dude, my comment was sarcastic.

<<<Christian theist.

[soooooo89]

@AgApE010 how do you justify me as a thiest/christian? if you had of said there was a god i would also have said that was very convincing. would you have cosidered me an athiest? but sure you were only been sarcastic which makes both of us DUDE ; )

[AgApE010]

@soooooo89

No, I mean I'm a Christian theist.

[soooooo89]

@AgApE010 sorry my goodman, i was just been an ass! ; )

[AgApE010]

@soooooo89

Meh. After all, it's the internet. :)

[IcabodCrane]

This is another good watch...the only reason I don't agree with religious views being taught in school is there are simply too many religions to include them all. I'm not a fan of going with the top 3 most popular and leaving everyone else out or causing even more polar discord in public schools and because of this I believe religious learnings should occur outside of schools. With that being said...my favorite theory is Universalism...what if they ALL exist? What if MORE exist?

[AndrewChan84]

This debate has a long history and if any party denies the right of the other to scietifically or logically refute their own theories, then its not science, its dogma. A good evolutionist should not deny any creationist to make scientific rebuttal, and vice versa. If this topic were to be teached in school, students need to learn both sides of the argument, so that they can think critically and not be religious 'scientists'. Its science vs. science dammit!

[Andy97009814]

@AndrewChan84 creation. org

It should explain well to you why creationism is _not_ science.

[AndrewChan84]

@Andy97009814 Since when did I advocate creationism as a science?

[Andy97009814]

@AndrewChan84 Let's see.

"A good evolutionist should not deny any creationist to make scientific rebuttal."

"Its science vs. science dammit!"

It's not. creationtheory. org should explain well why it is not. And the "other side of the argument" is usually debunked 15-150 years ago.

[AndrewChan84]

@Andy97009814 If the rebuttal is scientific, regardless of whether you want to call it creationist or not. What's happening now is, evolutionist, as cognitively plausible as their theory is, do not allow rebuttals from the domain of biological science itself (not creationism), claiming that EVERYTHING, within the sphere of biological science itself lends itself to evolution. Akind to shorting out an incomplete circuit.

[AndrewChan84]

@Andy97009814 And evolutionist are just like creationist. They need to satisfy their need to answer the philosophical question of the origin of human beings (and living things), as both of them will try to 'make' the theory fit the science. They both have an 'innate' unsatisfied desire to know our origin. Whether it's because they hate one another, I don't know (but it seems like it).

Pure biological science, is the real science, and contains the real solutions;Evolution is abstract

To me

[AndrewChan84]

@AndrewChan84 And instead of focusing all that "scientific energy" on real biological science itself which is grounded 100% in reality, yeilding REAL real-life solutions, they both (evolutionist and creationist) prefer to work on an abtract spin-off and try force it to fit into science, constantly finding new ways to see how it can be jammed into science. Akin to sticking showels into the cogwheel of science wherever it seems to fit.

[AndrewChan84]

@AndrewChan84 Therefore they are both the same, both know that living things have to come from somewhere and try to prematurely proof it. The only difference is one believes in God the other doesn't.

The Theory of Evolution is a good contingency to build up, but not force-fed unto people, lest it becomes a religion.

[AndrewChan84]

@AndrewChan84 And I do realize that a lot of our biological researchers, are protagonist of evolution, and alot aren't. Either way, our science of biology now, is still very primitive compared to what can be learned later. And there are alot of model withing biological science itself, stand a very good chance of being rebutted later, as we all know, this process is going on all the time because living things are not simple things. Even biological science itself is unsettled, hahaha

[AndrewChan84]

@AndrewChan84 Even biological science itself is unsettled, and we're trying so hard to jam something up its ass (excuse the profanity).

[dtour360]

Let’s displace rumors shall we? Evolution is a theory and not a fact. Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris will admit this point. Also, if evolution were so then we would see evolution in the Cambrian fossil record which we do not. There hasn't been one documented case where evolution has been observed in a laboratory or in nature. If people simply do not want to acknowledge God then I would have more respect if they would just say so and not make excuses.

[salmagnum]

@dtour360 well said!

[KhemAndKurami]

@dtour360 God is also a theory...not a fact.

[matternicuss]

@KhemAndKurami technically, God is not even a theory...scientifically speaking. The notion of a god is merely a hypothesis.

[heightboosting]

@KhemAndKurami For some its a theory for others its a fact... there are thousands of people who have NDE in which they were clinically declared dead at the hostpital and experience the afterlife... Check out Jefferey Long and his research... Also check out Dr moody i think his name is..... Even atheist and muslims become believers in jesus and God after their NDE.... God is more likely than evolution we can say...

[KhemAndKurami]

@heightboosting There is an explanation for that aswell, they say that the brain will still work after your death and hence explains the dreams one gets after he or she dies. If you die It's like cutting the head of a chicken, the body will still work for a moment even after you cut it's head off. Same thing with our brain.

[heightboosting]

@KhemAndKurami all of the patients say its not like a dream. its not even close... its more real than anything they have ever experienced... And whats even more interesting is that they can overhear and describe things going on in different rooms of the hospital which are far from the room they are in... One girl said that when she left her body she went up to the hospital roof and saw a tennisshoe there, and when the nurses went up to check, they found the shoe, just like she described

[KhemAndKurami]

@heightboosting That is amazing and yeah science doesn't know everything and there is still alot it doesn't know about death. Just because this happened doesn't mean that your God exists though, all your confirming is that afterlife might exist but it doesn't confirm your God exists.

[Gordaton]

@dtour360 No, it's actually a fact. It's not a theory in the way that you think it is. "Theory", has a completely different meaning in science. Your way would be just like saying, "OH, GRAVITY IS A THEORY SO IT MIGHT NOT BE TRUE!", which is obviously complete nonsense because gravity is a theory but you see gravity in action every day. So, there's no reason to not believe in it.

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@dtour360 I've seen videos of every single person you named there saying that evolution is actually a fact not just a theory..

[noiseache]

Read the book written by Alan D. Gishlick that debunks virtually the entire content. It's bullshit and has been show to be so. He uses examples that are often hundreds of years out of date. He's a fraud.

The embryo example is the only correct one and that has already been discredited by scientists since the early part of the last century.

[noiseache]

This book has so many innacuracies, misquotes and out and out lies in it, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

It all looks very professional and convincing but if you look beneath the veneer and do your homework, you'll see it's more lying for jesus.

[99percentatheist]

@noiseache I have the book. Could you tell me were the inaccuracies are? Because you have obviously done your homework.

[tetrahydroscope]

Religious agenda?

Materialism is pretty religious...

[Thayer79]

Watch "why people laughs at creationists" from thunderf00t. It is awesome!

[TheFreebourne]

Courage refutes the accepted. Cowards curry to the popular.

[missarm101]

@TheFreebourne You have summed it up nicely !

[gregrutz]

They didn't show up in court to defend ID. It was shown to be Creationism and banned in schools.

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

ID is NOT Creationism. What happened was the ID proponents couldn't provide a legitimate basis, according to the judge, for it's being accepted as a scientific curriculum. I read about it, I watched footage. There was no sneaking in of Creationism, although it was a favorite tactic of the other camp to accuse the ID proponents of doing this at every turn.

[gregrutz]

@circusOFprecision ID is calling the creator a designer so it can be taught in schools. It did not fool anyone. It is an agrument for a god/creator/designer.

It is not a theory or done by scientists.

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

They don't make claims about the nature of the designer, therefore it is not religious as you claim. They are making a philosophical argument, and they currently lack well developed scientific hypotheses that can be tested and make predictions. It's interesting however to note that parts of evolutionary theory do the EXACT same thing. Lucky for the proponents of evolutionary theory that we still operate within the classical materialistic paradigm.

[gregrutz]

@circusOFprecision My next door neighbor is a designer, maybe she did it.

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

Maybe your mom (which is an evolved african ape) did it.

[gregrutz]

No, everyone who studies the evidence comes to the same conclusions, evolution happened.

All scientists accpept it.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz

If all scientists accepted it, their would be no debate...

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100

Correct, there is no debate. Evolution happened.

Scientist only debate how it happened, the theory.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz How it happened, either micro or macro, is a very significant difference though!

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100

It all happened through evolution.

We can see evolution, calling it micro does not change it.

We have the fossil record showing it happened.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz Micro and Macro are referring to types of evolution. It certainly does changes things.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz How does the fossil record show evolution? What are some examples? I dont think that the fossil record could do anything other than show different animals within kinds. I mean suppose if you found a fossilized cat next to a fossilized dog. Would we be right to suggest that the dog evolved? Or was it the cat?

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 suggest that the dog evolved? Or was it the cat?

YES.

What you find is a mammal that live millions of years ago which evloved into all cats and all dogs. They are both mammals and had a common ancestor, the first mammal. Just like you. Are you a mammal?

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 The fossils are layered like this:

In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,

above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils

and dinosaur fossils.

No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.

No dating method used

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

The fossil record shows dead animal bones. It doesn't show evolution, at least not evolution in a Darwinian sense.

[gregrutz]

The fossils are layered like this:

In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,

above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils

and dinosaur fossils.

No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.

No dating method used

SEE A PATTERN?!?

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

Of course I see a pattern, everyone sees a pattern. That isn't the problem. The problem is that your interpretation is exaggerated and in the Cambrian layer (and now more and more in the Pre-Cambrian layer), all the body plans for all the phyla are there. And random mutation/natural selection is the answer? Doesn't make sense.

[gregrutz]

@circusOFprecision Would you be happier if the Phyla appeared over a long period of time. Say 60 million years? They had to evolve some time.

Remember, It is just the start of the Phyla.

Phyla is a taxonomic rank below Kingdom and above Class.

We are talking about basic forms. There were no land animals in the Cambrian Period. Just small marine creatures.

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 How evolution happened is through natural selection, changes in genes and genetic drift.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz Question: If natural selection happened in the large sense, then once the first organism fails to adapt, its dead. No more organisms to more adapt. There is nothing to naturally select. Unless the first organism is designed for life, perhaps.

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 Correct. Evolution works through death. 99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. Dead. No trilobites. No dinosaurs, and they adapted for 160 million years. Gone.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz

If every scientist accepted it, their would be no debate...

Macroevolution (monkeys to people) has significant debate.

Microevolution (different/adapted 'kinds' of dogs) not so much.

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100

Adaptation is how evolution works.

Glad you accept M. evolution happened.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz Just to be clear, I never stated that I accept M (I am assuming you mean Macro) evolution. I stated that Macro is where the debate is right now. I am a creationist through and through.

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 All you are saying is, ''you proved evolution in the short term but we refuse to see it in the long term.''

They have documented new species being made.

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz You say refuse to see it in the long term as though I am being stubborn. New species being made would not support macro evolution. All that would say is that a new species is adapting from a previous one, of the same kind.

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 Correct again. New species being made is called evolution. ''Origin of Species throught Natural Selection.'' ''a new species is adapting from a previous one, of the same kind. '' Same KIND? Yes! Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods Do you have four limbs? Are you a mammal?

[CapsHockey100]

@gregrutz Your logic doesn't follow. You say same kind - Yes! Dogs make dogs and apes make apes. But then you say, and humans are apes. That does not follow one bit. I thought apes make apes. Now humans are apes too. Seems like you are forcing the puzzle pieces.

[gregrutz]

@CapsHockey100 Watch Dogs don't make non-dogs.

Just click on my name, it is on my home page.

Humans are homo sapians/apes/monkeys/mammals/t­etrapods/vertebrate/etc.

You can't out grow your ancestry.

Great Apes is a classification that incl. chimps, gorillas and humans

And Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

Adaptation is not how evolution works, the preservation of beneficial genetic mutations is how evolution works. Adaptation doesn't require mutations, it simply requires that genes are primed epigenetically and that an organism survives. I swear, people really need to sit down and think instead of simply adopting a doctrine, be it the mainstream doctrine of science, or some religious doctrine, or some philosophical doctrine, or what have you.

[gregrutz]

@circusOFprecision Yes, evolution happened.

[circusOFprecision]

@gregrutz

Apparently you must have watched it unfold yourself, I guess I should take your word for it then. It must be nice to simply circumvent the debate with your decree.

[Collington12]

why do people only consider natural selecton and darwinian evolution?

shouldn't students have the right to learn constroversial sides? what is the purpose of science education? isn't it to educate the students to become a better students understanding science? ONLY teaching darwinian is absolutely absurd

[gregrutz]

@Collington12

Should we teach the earth is flat or round, take you pick?

They teach evolution, not Darwinism.