Darwin on the evolution trail
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2009
- www.evolution-of-life.com
Filmmaker: Yannick Mahé / Production: CNDP (2009)
Curious by nature, Charles Darwin embarks on a voyage around the world as naturalist aboard the Beagle. Follow in his footsteps...
eureka. i went thru ten videos that were ok but ultimately disapointing. this one is exactly what i was looking for, right to the point and not just a music video with no text or narration
Many thanks for your feedback!
Thank you
Thank you for this video! It discusses Darwin well, without including controversy. Is there a way to make the sound louder? I had difficulty showing in my classroom because the sound was much softer than on other videos.
Thanks for your feedback! Maybe through the years sound of videos tend to be louder. 13 years ago a professional sound designer worked on the Darwin movie, so I think it was well done. Unfortunately I have no better idea how to increase sound for classroom show... Sorry.
We get an unnerving insight into Darwin's character from an entry he made in his personal ledger during his voyage on the Beagle. While he was journeying through the Argentine pampas in South America there was a bloody slaughter of the indigenous natives taking place, conducted by the rogue General Juan Manuel de Roses, a self proclaimed despot, in 1833. Indian women and children were thrust through with saber and shot down like hunted animals.
Darwin traveled through the territory as a guest of the General, and he wrote of the war in his diary:
" . . . women who appear over twenty years of age are massacred in cold blood while the children are sold into slavery" however he was also able to write on a lighter note: "This war of extirmination (sic), although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits, it will at once throw open four or five hundred miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." Beagle Diary, by Charles Darwin, edited by R.D. Keynes, 1988, pp.180-181, pp177; and The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, pp.326, 1821-1861, F.H. Burkhardt and S. Smith ed., Cambridge University Press, University Library, Cambridge, 1983-1984
Practical man that he was, Darwin could definitely see the positive side of this genocide. Perhaps if there had been electric lighting back then Darwin might have also come up with some novel ideas for interior design with the by-products of this slaughter, as some of his followers in the twentieth century did during the holocaust.
Desmond and Moore wrote that "Darwin shook a hand soaked in blood" when he struck up his acquaintance with General Rosas, whom he decribed as "a perfect gaucho." Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 141.
While Darwin was a guest of the General, who had loaned Darwin some of his horses to go exploring on during his sojourn in Argentina, he received a correspondence from Fitzroy back on the ship, who desired to know how Darwin's "campaign with General Rosas" was going.
Desmond and Moore report: "Well armed, with fresh horses and ruthless companions, he had little to fear from the hostiles. Indeed he was beginning to appreciate the 'great benefits' of General Rosas' 'war of extermination ." (Ibid, pp. 141)
In Darwin's mind it was all fairly simple: "Less Indians => more cattle => healthier Spaniards: Survival of the fittest!" (Although the term "survival of the fittest" was not coined until the 1850's by another rogue, Herbert Spencer, founder of the modern pseudo-science of sociology and from whose work the communists and national socialists in the twentieth century built their dark machinations with, Darwin clearly had the concept buttoned down in his notes years before)
Apparently the slaughter of the Indians didn't weigh too heavily on his conscience, for Darwin boasted when describing his living conditions while riding with Rosas' men: "I . . .drink my Mattee; smoke my cigar, then lie down & sleep as comfortably with the Heavens for a canopy as in a feather bed." Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vols.. 1-9, (1821-1861), Cambridge University Press, See also Browne, pp. 256-257 and Desmond and Moore, pp.141.
Love this video, thank you for posting. We are using it as inspiration to help us design a Charles Darwin themed strategy board game expansion. Called Robinson Crusoe: Adventure on the Cursed Island: Voyage of the Beagle.
genial
Merci!
Lovely animations and narrator needs to do more work (her voice is perfect)
Hester Wilcox (that's her name)'s voice is built for narration
Indeed it is surprising not to have more reactions from creationists... on the german version of the video there are plenty of comments. On the other hand the question is if it is contributing anything interesting to have this kind of debate between creationists and scientists which tends to be very emotional & irrational.
Much has been said by historians of Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos islands while sailing on the Beagle, but little is mentioned of another incident Darwin had with some less fortunate birds on a different island during his voyage. We have three accounts of an excursion made by Darwin and the Captain from the Beagle to St. Paul's Rocks between the Cape Verde Islands and the coast of Brazil.
First we shall read Darwin's version of the episode: " We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds-the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of Gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geologic hammer." The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin, pp.10, The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City New York, 1962.
Browne mentioned the appalling incident in her biography of Darwin: " Uninhabited except for dense flocks of seafowl, and previously unvisited by any scientific recorder, they were an alluring target for a restless naval man and an eager friend . . . Darwin and Fitzroy had a marvelous time of it, whooping and killing birds with abandon". Browne, pp.204. See also the original, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. Adventure and Beagle, Vol. 2:56.
Fitzroy recorded the bloody scene in his personal narrative as well. According to him, one of the seamen asked if he could borrow Darwin's hammer to kill some of the birds with, to which Darwin replied, "No, no, you'll break the handle." Then, apparently struck by the novelty of this idea, Darwin himself picked up his hammer and began killing the peaceful birds in this manner, as Fitzroy related "away went the hammer, with all the force of his own right arm." Narrative of the Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, by Admiral Fitzroy, 1839. See also Amabel Williams Ellis, "The Voyage of the Beagle, Adapted from the Narratives and letters of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, pp. 26, J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia and London, 1931.
We get an unnerving insight into Darwin's character from an entry he made in his personal ledger during his voyage on the Beagle. While he was journeying through the Argentine pampas in South America there was a bloody slaughter of the indigenous natives taking place, conducted by the rogue General Juan Manuel de Roses, a self proclaimed despot, in 1833. Indian women and children were thrust through with saber and shot down like hunted animals.
Darwin traveled through the territory as a guest of the General, and he wrote of the war in his diary:
" . . . women who appear over twenty years of age are massacred in cold blood while the children are sold into slavery" however he was also able to write on a lighter note: "This war of extirmination (sic), although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits, it will at once throw open four or five hundred miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." Beagle Diary, by Charles Darwin, edited by R.D. Keynes, 1988, pp.180-181, pp177; and The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, pp.326, 1821-1861, F.H. Burkhardt and S. Smith ed., Cambridge University Press, University Library, Cambridge, 1983-1984
Practical man that he was, Darwin could definitely see the positive side of this genocide. Perhaps if there had been electric lighting back then Darwin might have also come up with some novel ideas for interior design with the by-products of this slaughter, as some of his followers in the twentieth century did during the holocaust.
Desmond and Moore wrote that "Darwin shook a hand soaked in blood" when he struck up his acquaintance with General Rosas, whom he decribed as "a perfect gaucho." Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 141.
While Darwin was a guest of the General, who had loaned Darwin some of his horses to go exploring on during his sojourn in Argentina, he received a correspondence from Fitzroy back on the ship, who desired to know how Darwin's "campaign with General Rosas" was going.
Desmond and Moore report: "Well armed, with fresh horses and ruthless companions, he had little to fear from the hostiles. Indeed he was beginning to appreciate the 'great benefits' of General Rosas' 'war of extermination ." (Ibid, pp. 141)
In Darwin's mind it was all fairly simple: "Less Indians => more cattle => healthier Spaniards: Survival of the fittest!" (Although the term "survival of the fittest" was not coined until the 1850's by another rogue, Herbert Spencer, founder of the modern pseudo-science of sociology and from whose work the communists and national socialists in the twentieth century built their dark machinations with, Darwin clearly had the concept buttoned down in his notes years before)
Apparently the slaughter of the Indians didn't weigh too heavily on his conscience, for Darwin boasted when describing his living conditions while riding with Rosas' men: "I . . .drink my Mattee; smoke my cigar, then lie down & sleep as comfortably with the Heavens for a canopy as in a feather bed." Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vols.. 1-9, (1821-1861), Cambridge University Press, See also Browne, pp. 256-257 and Desmond and Moore, pp.141.
你好
Bonjour!
King Pl4ys_41 Guten morgen.
Am fosst trimis de d na de bio
I'm surprized that after 3 years you don't have at least one Creationist who attempted to contradict evolution.
because some of us like myself feel that it isn't worth bothering.
besides, i believe in this
Darwin's finches show the exact opposite of evolution. Why? Because they are, and all their descendants will be, nothing but 100% finches! Now we see "beak" changes in people even, and in horses and dogs and so on. Yet the people stay people, the horses stay horses and dogs stay dogs. If not, what are the finches, etc. "evolving" into that are not finches etc.?
.
I used to call myself an atheist and thought Darwin was a genius. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
.
Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, and turtles et al? Zero again.
.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genomes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
.
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor life forms, like trilobites. are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. In fact, 90% of the fossils on land are marine. Golly, how did that seawater get everywhere all over the planet? Hmmm....
.
Take a look. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, so called "Cambrian", trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world. (They are supposed to be at the bottom of the GC.) www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites%20On%20Mountains&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=trilobites%20on%20mountains&sc=0-23&sk=&cvid=9008D75298A54105AD924CA3AACAE385 Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many. This is also seen with innumerable sea shells, mollusks, etc.
.
Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved, intact and conjoined, vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils in the countless billions to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains. Not uncommonly the fossils are in their original shape with perfect details as you see in the link. "Plate tectonics" are purely speculations, piled on theories, heaped on hypotheses. They can't explain the lack of erosion which should have caused those fossils to be nothing but dust and rubble after their so called millions of years trek.
.
(And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). Again, the fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 90% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports.
.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minuscle changes that leave them basically what they were before.
.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species in a genus moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom to become a new family. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from an order, class, phylum or Kingdom.)
.
Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over - in the conveniently invisible and unverifiable past.
.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any lifeform of Family A to turn into a lifeform of Family B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, dolphins stay dolphins, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, tulips stay tulips, chimps stay chimps, fruit flies stay fruit lies, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change.
.
This fits in with what the Bible says about creation having been halted. What also fits is that no new strands of DNA are ever created. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy, on and on. DNA can be somewhat altered by mutations and natural selection, selective breeding and even genetic engineering, but is never seen to be created from "scratch."
.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidence-free, data-free, descendants. We'll call that science."
.
This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years.
.
"Missing links" (2 to 5 million Darwin years' worth of them between you and Lucy or some other such "transition" du jour) is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
.
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them used in every defense in evolutionary literature.
.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
.
You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
@Psalm1Tree:
This has to be a main comment rather than a reply!!
Well written!! Thanks a lot
@Vimal Sehgal There have been many studies where creatures have been observed evolving into other.
mspd, en section euro svt on nous a donné cette vielle vidéo éclatée ou est censé remplir une feuille mot à trous et en plus on va se corriger en mode autocorrection 😭😭😭😭
un vrai bordel on regarde tout sauf ça
@@manonlejeune5772 d'accord.
@@alicia5322 imagine les ge,ns de la section euro ils voient nos commentaires...
Vengo por la tatea de la escu3la tecnica 👍
x2
@@tevistadetevez X3, entendiste algo de lo q dijo, x q yo no se ni una mierda de inglés :v
@@ilianabelenhinojosa4754 Traduciro a español
Humans inbreeding animals to make new breeds and even inbreeding themselves along with all the gas drilling and oil/coal, cutting trees, blowing up mountains... so much pollution.. poor old Mother Nature will rise again and we’ll all be less then dust in the wind
Yo no entender English ❌
Alguien expliqueme please q carajo dijoooo
Euuu same ola:(
hahaha, and the earth is a disc....
We get an unnerving insight into Darwin's character from an entry he made in his personal ledger during his voyage on the Beagle. While he was journeying through the Argentine pampas in South America there was a bloody slaughter of the indigenous natives taking place, conducted by the rogue General Juan Manuel de Roses, a self proclaimed despot, in 1833. Indian women and children were thrust through with saber and shot down like hunted animals.
Darwin traveled through the territory as a guest of the General, and he wrote of the war in his diary:
" . . . women who appear over twenty years of age are massacred in cold blood while the children are sold into slavery" however he was also able to write on a lighter note: "This war of extirmination (sic), although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits, it will at once throw open four or five hundred miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." Beagle Diary, by Charles Darwin, edited by R.D. Keynes, 1988, pp.180-181, pp177; and The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, pp.326, 1821-1861, F.H. Burkhardt and S. Smith ed., Cambridge University Press, University Library, Cambridge, 1983-1984
Practical man that he was, Darwin could definitely see the positive side of this genocide. Perhaps if there had been electric lighting back then Darwin might have also come up with some novel ideas for interior design with the by-products of this slaughter, as some of his followers in the twentieth century did during the holocaust.
Desmond and Moore wrote that "Darwin shook a hand soaked in blood" when he struck up his acquaintance with General Rosas, whom he decribed as "a perfect gaucho." Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 141.
While Darwin was a guest of the General, who had loaned Darwin some of his horses to go exploring on during his sojourn in Argentina, he received a correspondence from Fitzroy back on the ship, who desired to know how Darwin's "campaign with General Rosas" was going.
Desmond and Moore report: "Well armed, with fresh horses and ruthless companions, he had little to fear from the hostiles. Indeed he was beginning to appreciate the 'great benefits' of General Rosas' 'war of extermination ." (Ibid, pp. 141)
In Darwin's mind it was all fairly simple: "Less Indians => more cattle => healthier Spaniards: Survival of the fittest!" (Although the term "survival of the fittest" was not coined until the 1850's by another rogue, Herbert Spencer, founder of the modern pseudo-science of sociology and from whose work the communists and national socialists in the twentieth century built their dark machinations with, Darwin clearly had the concept buttoned down in his notes years before)
Apparently the slaughter of the Indians didn't weigh too heavily on his conscience, for Darwin boasted when describing his living conditions while riding with Rosas' men: "I . . .drink my Mattee; smoke my cigar, then lie down & sleep as comfortably with the Heavens for a canopy as in a feather bed." Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vols.. 1-9, (1821-1861), Cambridge University Press, See also Browne, pp. 256-257 and Desmond and Moore, pp.141.
The theory is incorrect. Except for survival of the fittest ...random damage to the DNA is not going to generate millions of new body plans. How could a random process generate new information and the precision coding necessary for linking amino acids and precisely folding the proteins. How did you get blood without a heart? How do you get a heart without blood? Did they appear simultaneously? How? Random damage to the DNA?. Let's get real.
The theory is not correct except for survival of the fittest The greatest hoax in the history of the world. A random process will not generate the precision coding necessary for new body plans. Natural selection is a slave to a random process.
Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
.
Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches , G.I. turtles et al? Zero again.
.But if you can provide data that they "evolved" from something else, please do so. Not theories presented as evidence, now, but scientific data.
.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
.
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland.
.
Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion. Others claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fossils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present."
.
(And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 75% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. The one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports.
.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before.
.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal (ditto for plants) Kingdom, to become a new genus.
.
However, if you've got any actual data to show any mutation ever caused Lifeform A to turn into Lifeform B, do include it. It is easy to present unverifiable theories about what happened in the untestable, unverifiable ancient, past.
.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. In the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different genus. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over.
.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science."
.
This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years.
.
"Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
.
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature.
.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
.
You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Are you one of those dumb creationist 😂😂😂 you do realise if God flooded the entire earth we'd all be fucked right plant life can't live under water you idiot
Looked for confirmation of your Muller quote. Found out, no Charles Muller ever won a Nobel.
@@bskec2177 Thank you for correcting me. It was Hermann Muller.
Now, look at the facts. Can you actually give an example of where the data shows a so-called beneficial mutation led to evolution? Can you give an example of where natural selection led to evolution? I don’t mean things like variation within kinds, like changes to a gecko that leave it still a gecko, changes to foxes in Russia that leave them still foxes, changes to bacteria that leave them bacteria, and so on.
While you’re at it, try to find an example either in the living world or in the fossil record where you can absolutely state that any animal ever moved outside of its the taxonomic family into a new class, order, or phylum. Evolution claims that happened over and over.
It had to be happening constantly for evolution to take place, for bacteria to turn eventually into people for example. But the actual data it in the fossil record and in the real world shows such things don’t happen.
Are you buying it that you’re nothing but a bacteria, or fish, or Lucy update? If so, wake up. Find out who you really are.
There are so many wonderful resources on creation science which show the absurdity of evolution. One quick and funny one they can be good to start with is
SEX Crevo Rant 13.
To funny. "Evolution" is scientifically impossible. But a cartoon is good for indoctrination.
Shut up this taught me new things
Grammar error in your very first word helped establish your level of expertise. Well done!
Only stupid idiots don't believe in evolution like you
Charles Darwin must not have read the Bible Which In Genesis explained everything perfectly ! But Charles didn’t want to believe I a Creator , so Charles Created His Own Ideas Which Made Him Something he didn’t believe in a Creator but ideas was all Charles could creat he had no proof just ideas ! GOD also explained his Creation Of All That There is Which makes more sense than Evolution ever Could ! Evolutionist Believe we all evolved from fish that crawled out of the ocean and became every living species that is including mankind and survival of the fittest ! But if so how come mankind doesn’t have gills and how come More species have gills And it seem strange that these fish weren’t eaten by other creatures before they could evolved unless Evolutionist are saying fish were the only living Species on earth so did all plant life evolve from fish to ? Like apples , oranges , tangerines , lemons , limes , bananas, and the rest of the Fruits And Vegetables ? The Bible Clearly states that GOD Created All These Things For man whom he Also Created ! The one thing GOD Created also Were Animals Which he Clearly stated that he gave mankind dominants Over all creatures on earth ! Which is obviously true because you don’t see any other of GODS Creations building city’s and cars and aircraft and ships etc , etc , etc , The one most important book Charles Darwin Should Have Taken With Him he left Behind was the Bible !
Ernest Reichardt The bible is a fairytale. Evolution is a fact.
In de bininging