Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution Disproved, Refuted by Biologists and Scientists from Cambridge, Chicago, Munich universities ! Creation proved by Scientists ! Part 3 / 7

Intelligent Design proved by - Biologists, Scientists from Cambridge, Chicago, Munchen - debating and refuting Evolution Theory ! Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Disproved, Refuted by Biologists and Scientists !

Creation proved by Scientists !

Please watch all parts of this movie:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7gV41PNcA

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-ll0SZXNk

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NQTMfG4FB4

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpNt8d2jgSU

Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQh1E_jT8iw

Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWUF7zAw

Thank you for watching !


Tags: % can science prove that evolution in wrong? %* can science prove Existence of God? New York Times can science prove the the - universe was created? () (_)can science prove creation? can science disprove God? can science disprove creation? can science disprove evolution? Who created the universe? % What created the universe? How did everything begin? How did everything start? Is there a God who created the earth? Is there a God who created the universe? Do we %_ -,- % know everything about evolution? Tags (-): Do we know everything about creation? %* Is there a proof of creation? % Is there anybody out there? Is the truth is out there? Can we rely on science . regarding the evolution? Can we rely on Bible regarding the creation? Can we understand the creation of all things? ^*%$ Can we understand the evolution of all things?

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• charles
• darwin
• richard
• dawkins
• How
• to
• win
• debate
• against
• creationist
• architecture
• structure
• function
• protein
• living
• cell
• stupid
• critics
• critic
• toxin
• biology
• mystery
• mistery
• evidence
• for
• creation
• refuted
• not
• true
• biochemic
• chemistry
• tissue
• organic
• inorganic
• lie
• life
• begin
• by
• chance
• fundamental
• origin
• of
• evolving
• tree
• on
• earth
• engine
• complex
• complexity
• atheism
• atheists
• agnostic
• live
• evolution
• creationism
• dna
• gene
• genetic
• bible
• young
• nobel

[Jonicvsmario]

ur mom

[podoau]

Eyes, ears and hearts, can evolve gradually,, and do. The eye in an insect is nowhere near as complex as the eye of a human, and by the same token, eagles have much better eyesight than humans.

There is your evolutionary pathway right there.

[ArcanaKnight]

@K40 "None of these examples absolutely required the belief in molecule-to-man evolution" That's called moving the goal post. You had just asked for practical applications of evolution, so that's what I provided. Your ad-hoc excuses for ignoring these applications is nothing but hand-waving nonsense.

[ArcanaKnight]

@K40water1 "Darwin only explained how species change after they are already created." That's all evolutionary theory was ever meant to explain. You can't fault it for not explaining how life itself arose because that is outside it's scope; that would be like faulting it for not explaining the origin of the universe as well.

[ArcanaKnight]

science does. The problem with those early ideas of evolutionary change is that they generally lacked a mechanism that could drive it, or proposed one that was demonstrably wrong.

It appears you may have gotten all your information about Blyth from sources like The Darwin Papers, which presents fallacious, sometimes outright false claims about both Blyth and Darwin: tinyurlDOTcom/6ntzykr

[ArcanaKnight]

@K40water1 "arwin plagiarized Edward Blythe's concept " No he didn't; Blyth's concept of NS was more one of stabilizing selection, rather than a selection which can cause change. Its also untrue that he never got any recognition; Darwin mentions him in the acknowledgements of 'Origin'. Besides, its not even that original a concept to Blyth, basic evolutionary ideas date back all the way to ancient Greece, and you can't fault Darwin for building on what came before, that's what CONT

[nolobede]

@K40water1

Hahahahaha... you are truly an idiot. You REALLY need to pay more attention at what isreally going on around you and what is "said" as opposed to what you "hear."

Dawkins claimed that aliens (its called panspermia) is more likely than your ridiculous god fantasies.

Seriously try to get your bullshit straight at least.

[nolobede]

@K40water1

And blythe and Darwin weren't the only people on the planet researching natural selection you do lt. The concept was studied all over the world. Darwin was just the one who figured out how to explain it, theorize it and back it up with evidence. Its amazing how clueless you are, yet its entertaining.

I wonder your age and education. I have my own estimation.

[K40water1]

@nolobede Blythe didn't fail at anything. He succeeded at giving Darwin the foundation of what he believed. Darwin was clueless to how intricate the cell is. How is what Darwin says is truth, although evolutionists don't agree how the species really originated. Darwin only explained how species change after they are already created. Naturalists say the cell was made on the backs of crystals. Richard Dawkins our planet could have been seeded by aliens. There's your sorcery.

[nolobede]

@K40water1

AND you just contradicted yourself.

-if blythe included god into his supposition, and Darwin did not, then they are dfferent concepts. and exchanging information and hypothesis is how science works. If you had a clue you'd KNOW THAT. no 1 person makes a scientific theory. it is a consensus amongst the WORLDS scientific community.

And Blythe failed, because this WORLDs scientific community asked him for a basis for his god inclusion.. and he had nothing just like always