2 Sweet Documentaries

[Immortal4life]

I was recently watching two interesting and educational documentaries about Nature, the Origins of Life, and theories about evolution.

First up, here is the documentary Icons of Evolution. Documented are many examples where what is claimed in textbooks to be the "evidence" in fact is false and distorts the evidence. Watch all your favorite evolutionary icons fall.

Icons of Evolution-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlyW5rnvIgU

Icons of Evolution Website-
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/


Here is the cool Documentary, The Collapse of Darwinism. His theory is picked apart bit by bit, piece by piece.

The Collapse of Darwinism-

The Collapse of Darwinism websites-
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/
http://www.srf-tr.org/collapse_of_darwinism.htm Edited February 26, 2013 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

Here is one of my favorite previews from "Icons of Eovlution". The popular "Embryo Charts"

 

 

Articles

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_04.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a003726.html

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/17rec03.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/5ad85cdb636964524c34df654b199d16-726.html

[Marblehead]

Hey Immortal!

 

Why do you keep riding this old horse. You need to put her up to rest.

 

You will never be able to discredit the fact of evolution.

[Mattimo]

Hey Immortal!

 

Why do you keep riding this old horse. You need to put her up to rest.

 

You will never be able to discredit the fact of evolution.

 

Why is that exactly? Evolution is still a theory and there are still many questions that remain unanswered. I highly recommend reading the book "Darwin's Black Box," written by a biochemist who makes a case for irreducible complexity. Interesting stuff. Many people falsely assume that if one is questioning evolution one is automatically championing the big-guy-in-the-sky creationist view. Not so.

[Mandrake]

Why is that exactly? Evolution is still a theory and there are still many questions that remain unanswered. I highly recommend reading the book "Darwin's Black Box," written by a biochemist who makes a case for irreducible complexity. Interesting stuff. Many people falsely assume that if one is questioning evolution one is automatically championing the big-guy-in-the-sky creationist view. Not so.

 

On the other hand, "irreducible complexity", has already been both observed appearing in newly evolved species today, evolution paths given for past examples, and the concept debunked in the scientific community - which consists of more people than a single biochemist.

I guess IC will be one of those arguments that intelligent designers will rehash over and over again, as the creationists do with the second law of thermodynamics.

 

 

Mandrake

[Marblehead]

Why is that exactly? Evolution is still a theory and there are still many questions that remain unanswered.

 

Hi Mattimo,

 

But evolution is a fact. Therein is the problem. Denying the facts. To suggest that it is still only a theory is an error.

 

The fact of evolution does not negate any belief system. There never has been an attempt to negate any belief system using the fact of evolution as the 'proof'. (Yes, some have attempted in doing so but I suggest that any such arguement cannot be supported properly.)

 

Yes, there is still so much that is not understood about evolution. This is because of the lack of 'proof' to be able to make final connections. Sometimes we just have to be satisfied with saying that it appears that this process is valid without having every piece of the puzzle.

 

As there are no written records of anything that happened before man created the written languages scientists have to rely on fossil remains as well as what is presently observable.

 

It is my understanding that there are enough fossil remains as well as current evidence to be able to state that these processes that we observe, and what we can presently observe, are sufficient to state the fact. Until the facts have been proven wrong there is, IMO, no reason to not accept them.

 

The only concept that evolution negates is the concept that some god created each and every plant and animal in exactly the form it currently consists of and that no evolution has occurred. And we all know that everything in the universe changes over time. This is an unquestionable given. Why is it necessary to pretend that species do not change? It just does not make any sense whatever. Just look at the human species and how it has changed over time since the migration out of Africa!

[ralis]

Why is that exactly? Evolution is still a theory and there are still many questions that remain unanswered. I highly recommend reading the book "Darwin's Black Box," written by a biochemist who makes a case for irreducible complexity. Interesting stuff. Many people falsely assume that if one is questioning evolution one is automatically championing the big-guy-in-the-sky creationist view. Not so.

 

I think you need to read up on what a theory means. A theory is a set of postulates based on provable facts which can be replicated. That is the purpose of peer review.

[Immortal4life]

Why is it necessary to pretend that species do not change?

 

There's a difference between a species changing and adapting, and a species becoming a whole nother species.

 

A moth becoming a "peppered" moth is not necessarily the same as saying a bacteria evovled into man, that a Dinosaur evolved into a bird, or that humans evolved from some type of unknown ape.

[Marblehead]

There's a difference between a species changing and adapting, and a species becoming a whole nother species.

 

A moth becoming a "peppered" moth is not necessarily the same as saying a bacteria evovled into man, that a Dinosaur evolved into a bird, or that humans evolved from some type of unknown ape.

 

Once again, lemur are a subspecies of the monkey line. There are nearly 100 species of lemur now and each species is unable to mate with another species. Monkeys (including lemur) and the great apes are a different linage. The great apes include man. Yes, they may have evolved from a common ancestor. There is no proof of this yet but it is suspected to be so.

 

And don't give up on the birds evolving from dinosaurs yet. There is still plenty of evidence that indicates that this is what really happened. Maybe enough proof will never be found. But this does not negate the possibility.

 

And yes, humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans are of the same linage. No, we cannot mate, one with the other. We each evolved into separate species. But an Asian human and a Caucasian human can successfully mate. The three major 'races', Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid did not evolve sufficiently to prevent this. And today we are all mixed up.

 

Evolution works only when there is sufficient separation for a sufficient amount of time.

 

Species with a very short life span, when separated from its own kind, have the best opportunity for evolving into separate species.

[Immortal4life]

All these subjects are investigated in detail in these documentaries.

[Marblehead]

All these subjects are investigated in detail in these documentaries.

 

Hehehe. By people with biases and agenda. Although I cannot honestly say I have no biases I can honestly say I have no agenda.

[Immortal4life]

There are indeed many sides to the debate. The evolutionist side can be very pushy and close minded in their beliefs, so alternative views to counter the evolutionary view must also be known, in order to balance things and provide an antidote to the evolutionist biases.

[doc benway]

Many people falsely assume that if one is questioning evolution one is automatically championing the big-guy-in-the-sky creationist view. Not so.

Not true - evolution as a scientific theory is so consistent with observable data and so strong in predictive value, that the only folks calling its overall validity into question are those who believe in an alternative assertion (not a scientific theory mind you). As a rule, all of these folks are attempting to gain support for Creat-Intelligent Design-ism due to their fervent desire that the book of Genesis represents reality rather than allegory. That's the bottom line.

 

Yawn...

[doc benway]

There are indeed many sides to the debate. The evolutionist side can be very pushy and close minded in their beliefs, so alternative views to counter the evolutionary view must also be known, in order to balance things and provide an antidote to the evolutionist biases.

No there are not many sides to the debate. There is evolution - one of the most powerful scientific theories in existence, and there is a small group of vocal "believers" desperately trying to gain support for viewing the beginning of the book of Genesis as the origin of humanity on Earth. Of course evolution is not a perfect representation of reality. Words, ideas, and theories can never be a perfect representation of reality. This is also a core error in fundamentalism - the word is not the thing. Words come from man, not God. They are simply approximations and conventions of communication. The word is never the thing. Repackaging the creation assertion using pseudo-scientific terms and methods does not change the heart of the matter. At least be honest with yourself, if not us...

[stan herman]

No there are not many sides to the debate. There is evolution - one of the most powerful scientific theories in existence, and there is a small group of vocal "believers" desperately trying to gain support for viewing the beginning of the book of Genesis as the origin of humanity on Earth. Of course evolution is not a perfect representation of reality. Words, ideas, and theories can never be a perfect representation of reality. This is also a core error in fundamentalism - the word is not the thing. Words come from man, not God. They are simply approximations and conventions of communication. The word is never the thing. Repackaging the creation assertion using pseudo-scientific terms and methods does not change the heart of the matter. At least be honest with yourself, if not us...

 

Hmmm, seems to me there's at least one more side (e.g. mine) which says the issue is not closed. It's quite conceivable that the process of evolution is one of God's tools. Recall, God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. With respect to "words", indeed a tool of man (see below), but again are man's tools exempt from God's purpose? Or is the whole thing--the big system--all one?

[doc benway]

Hmmm, seems to me there's at least one more side (e.g. mine) which says the issue is not closed. It's quite conceivable that the process of evolution is one of God's tools. Recall, God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. With respect to "words", indeed a tool of man (see below), but again are man's tools exempt from God's purpose? Or is the whole thing--the big system--all one?

I couldn't agree more - theories and words are limited approximations. The issue will never be closed IMO. If you consider yourself separate from and outside of "God" then certainly you may attribute what's going on (evolution, words, and all the rest of it) to some super-powerful, external entity and call it whatever you like. If God is infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent, how are you outside of that? God + 1? Or are all of us separate? Then what are we speaking of when we refer to God? Of course the whole thing is one, that is what all of the great traditions recognize and teach in their sutras and scriptures. It's the institution that encourages a feeling of separation from God, otherwise they would have no power over the individual.

[ralis]

There are indeed many sides to the debate. The evolutionist side can be very pushy and close minded in their beliefs, so alternative views to counter the evolutionary view must also be known, in order to balance things and provide an antidote to the evolutionist biases.

 

That is the same argument advocates of intelligent design are using in some states. Their agenda is to teach intelligent design in high school science classes as another point of view. They insist that evolution is "just a theory and not based on fact." Obviously, this is just propaganda due to the fact that such advocates never bothered to research what the meaning of the word theory is. Judging by your use of the term "antidote", you are inferring that evolutionary theory is a poison.

[Immortal4life]

I think more and more often, some people believe in science too absolutely, and too literally. They begin to believe science is always correct, and start to even begin making decisions and living their lives, while being influenced by this type of thinking.

[Seth Ananda]

Not true - evolution as a scientific theory is so consistent with observable data and so strong in predictive value, that the only folks calling its overall validity into question are those who believe in an alternative assertion (not a scientific theory mind you). As a rule, all of these folks are attempting to gain support for Creat-Intelligent Design-ism due to their fervent desire that the book of Genesis represents reality rather than allegory. That's the bottom line.

 

Yawn...

Really well spoken

[thelerner]

I think more and more often, some people believe in science too absolutely, and too literally. They begin to believe science is always correct, and start to even begin making decisions and living their lives, while being influenced by this type of thinking.

 

To believe in Science as always correct is to misunderstand the concept and certainly its history. SCIENCE EVOLVES

[ralis]

To believe in Science as always correct is to misunderstand the concept and certainly its history. SCIENCE EVOLVES

 

Yes!!

[Marblehead]

Hmmm, seems to me there's at least one more side (e.g. mine) which says the issue is not closed. It's quite conceivable that the process of evolution is one of God's tools. Recall, God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. With respect to "words", indeed a tool of man (see below), but again are man's tools exempt from God's purpose? Or is the whole thing--the big system--all one?

 

Hi Stan,

 

I have no arguement with looking at the possible existence of a creating god. There are processes in nature. This is a given. One of these processes is evolution. Who, or how were these processes created? I don't know. All I know is that they exist. I use the term "Tzu-jan" and leave it at that.

 

However, I don't agree with what is in the attachment. We do not create the universe by thinking it exists. We are part of the universe. The universe existed before man evolved onto the land of the Earth and started thinking.

 

All we do is percieve and interpret our experiences, our interaction with the rest of the universe.

[ralis]

Wisdom from Richard Feynman. I hope Immortal 4 Life views these videos which reveal how science really works.

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2011 by ralis

[doc benway]

Wisdom from Richard Feynman. I hope Immortal 4 Life views these videos which reveal how science really works.

 

 

 

Beautiful - Richard Feynman meets Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Feynman is a very cool character and brilliant teacher.

[doc benway]

To believe in Science as always correct is to misunderstand the concept and certainly its history. SCIENCE EVOLVES

Very well said.