The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

Sup all on ATS !

I have found these videos on youtube from a member named AronRa. These videoes completely and utterly debunk and destroy all that is creationism. I believe in these videos so much that I am willing to go to the extremes of saying after watching every single video, I guarantee you will either not believe in god or at least creationism. This may very well be the most influential movie ever made that discusses creationism and all its flaws.

Even if you’re already an atheist you should still watch just to educate yourself even further. If you still believe in god or creationism after watching every single video then please tell me why – or if you’d like send a message to the youtuber himself. If you think there are any flaws in the videos at all, please point them out – if you can........

au.youtube.com... 1

au.youtube.com... 2

au.youtube.com... 3

au.youtube.com... 4

au.youtube.com... 5

au.youtube.com... 6

au.youtube.com... 7

au.youtube.com... 8

au.youtube.com... 9

au.youtube.com... 10

au.youtube.com... 11

au.youtube.com... 12

au.youtube.com... 13

au.youtube.com... 14

au.youtube.com... 14 pt 2

Here it all is transcribed for those who think it's too fast.

“evolution = atheism”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

scriptures are the “Word of God”.
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

human interpretation = absolute truth.
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

belief = knowledge
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Evolution = the religion of atheism”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Evolution must explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything.”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Evolution is random.”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Mutations are rare, harmful decreases in genetic information.”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“No transitional species have ever been found.”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“The evolutionary ‘tree of life’ is nowhere implied either in the fossil record, nor in any aspect of biology.”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Macroevolution has never been observed.”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Creation science”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Evolution is a fraud!”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Creation is evident”
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

“Creation is evident” pt 2
darwinwasright.homestead.com...

[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

Just because life may evolve out of natural processes does not exclude a previous evolved species createing us through genetic manipulation. It may have been discribed in lore for a good reason... because it was true.

Both exist... the universe is large enough.

reply to post by andre18


Creation and Evolution are equal partners. These videos don't really blow anything out of the water - it merely represents one biased side of an equation.

Rocks cannot evolve into life, it must have been 'created' initially - whether that be through the hand of a g-d/super entity or as a natural/serendipitous process of the universe.

Once 'life' has been created, then, and only then, can an evolution process play a part IMHO.

There's room for both and to suggest otherwise is a bit restrictive.

IRM

i would love to comment but honestly he speaks too fast. i cant understand him

Creation and Evolution are equal partners.

And exactly why is that? Lets have a look: evolution has evidence, creationism doesn't - equal par???? Evolution has scientific evidence, creationism is just faith. Hardly equal parters in any form what so ever....

These videos don't really blow anything out of the water - it merely represents one biased side of an equation.

You wouldn't say that if 1, you had watched all of it and 2, if you had watched any of it...It would seem your own view on this movie is biased itself otherwise you wouldn't have said creation and evolution are equal parters...

By the ignorance of your post you probably don't know much at all about evolution.

Rocks cannot evolve into life

Bingo! That's not how evolution works, that's even evolution, it's abiogenesis. Your ignorance is amazing and that's not even how abiogenesis works. Why don't you actully watch the vids and learn something.

must have been 'created' initially - whether that be through the hand of a g-d/super entity or as a natural/serendipitous process of the universe.

To better understand evolution go straight to parts 10-11

There's room for both and to suggest otherwise is a bit restrictive.

To suggest otherwise is sane.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18

By the ignorance of your post you probably don't know much at all about evolution.

I stand by what I said that life as we know it today could be a mixture of creation and evolution... and no, I'm not a believer in a g-d but I can't dismiss it because none of us know for sure. Do you? That would be ignorant! Now read again carefully...

through the hand of a g-d/super entity or as a natural/serendipitous process of the universe.

What could a natural/serendipitous process of the universe entail? Abiogenesis perhaps? Maybe you need to brush up on your cognitive skills in relation to the English language?

Your ignorance is amazing

No I'm not ignorant, and nor did I give a black & white answer as you have which suggests you already know it all huh! Abiogenesis is one theory on how life began, nothing more and to believe it as indisputable fact requires... ummmm... faith! Hypocrite!

To suggest you 'know it all' and so fervently defend it based on some YouTubes IS ignorant and somewhat laughable. But hey, your just being you! No surprise there!

IRM

[edit on 7/1/09 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by InfaRedMan


You don't need faith to believe in Abiogenesis because of the evidence. That's the entire point of faith - to believe without the need of evidence. Your not logical one bit.

You're saying i need faith to believe something that's already proven, that's like saying i need faith to believe in the big bang. Not logical.

I stand by what I said that life as we know it today could be a mixture of creation and evolution...

So then what created the creator? You see, you just backed yourself into an illogical corner.

but I can't dismiss it because none of us know for sure. Do you?

Yes we do - i do, how logical (now seriously think about this) is explaining something supernatural as the cause of the universe? You put god in the 'i don't know' spot in your mind, how is that critical thinking?



[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


I recommend that you go beyond Youtube in your scholarly research into matters of science and metaphysics. Perhaps some courses in micro/macro-biology, chemistry, as well as reading up on what creation science actually teaches, as there are numerous text books out there. When you have a better understanding, then you can make a more informed commentary on the subject.

reply to post by BlueRaja


And what am i supposed to learn from creationism? really? we got poofed into existence? Is that your idea of science. Seriously check out the videos. I beg you - learn something.

micro/macro-biology????? There is no such thing - just evolution. If you'd just watch the videos you 'd know that.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

Oh my word these video's are funny.

The guy actually believes that evolution can be theoretically proven through science when in fact it can not. Everything he says about creationism can also be directly applied to the beginnings of evolution.

My thing is this. The narrator is 1/2 right creationism can not be proven. But neither can evolution. That would signify one of two things scientifically if we want to go that route.

1. They are both wrong and there is a third option no one has yet discovered.

But no one ever wants to admit when their wrong so no one will accept this theory. So in that case there is only one possible answer.

2. Science in itself is flawed and is nothing more than a way for man to justify his belief in how we got here. Blood letting would appear to cure diseases because a blood borne pathogen would be reduced greatly in the body and the person, if not dieing from loss of too much blood, would get better if their body could fight off what was left. Not to mention over time they would have got better too but hey it appeared to work back then. Today we do what appears to scientifically work but quite honestly most things have more side effects than they cure just the 20th century dark age if you ask me.

But that can't be the case because if it was then we would have no science and everything we used it for was in vein.

Not true our understanding of science is purely minuscule compared to what all organisms entail however trying to use voodoo science to say there was a big bang and a single amoeba produced millions of species of plants and animals over time is more voodoo than believing we were created by an intelligent being.

Reason is if that is true there should be some kind of life (chances are millions) on every single planet. This is where math and science collide. Science ignores the math of probabilities as says. OK 1 million people played the lottery and everyone won 5 cents for the dollar they placed into it. That is a great thing and chances are will never happen again in our life time. Meanwhile the lottery folks print all winning tickets again for another million because they benefit from only awarding 5 cents of the total dollar everyone used to buy it.

In other words the numbers are staggering at how much life should be in and around every planet. Therefore we see none of this and math once again proves scientists wrong. Think about this, when a scientist forms an idea that conflicts with E=MC2 they come up with a plausible idea that is a sound theory to show what is happening still correlates to E=mc2 because the equation has never proven wrong in any instance so they know they must be wrong and start forming healthy opinions based around that equation.

So how is it millions of species on one planet can come to be over time from one measly amoeba that scientifically would die in the conditions scientists have said in the past existed on earth when it was believed to be formed.

In the end science appears to be wrong and forcing something down everyone's throat who is willing to eat it. Quite sad really, in the end it just limits science to man's primitive speculation on how we came to be when in fact there is so much more to learn I heard this one time and laughed,

"It's like a bunch of life long, isolated men, trying to figure out were a baby come's from, they will always assume the can explain it with logic having never heard of a woman, heck they may even war over the facts in the end, never going out and see the truth beyond their illogical logical barrier."

So in the end mathematically speaking evolution has even less probability than being created by something or someone else. Really it's only our primitive minds that cloud and distort the true nature of possibilities.

Edit: I actually found no scientific points in any of the video's I was really hoping for something good here but it just seems to be another person whining about why no one should believe in creationism and to top it off he keeps counterdicting himself go figure.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Darthorious]

Infared man.... what if GOD is causality, the design of infinity? Would it not then be the creator of both, the angels and this world? Would it not then be true that it has shaped us through our lives? That it would predict our future? Could your "faith", knowing theres something to learn, show you through it lessons and revelations?

Would we all not then be sons of GOD? Could you understand it and in turn love it for its perfection? In that understanding of it, forgive?

it just all makes so much more sense this way.

The fact that anyone could possible believe that life is random and there is no intelligent design behind it are as ignorant and as blind as anyone can be.

Have you actually took the time to look at the complexity behind pretty much everything in life , so many systems relying on other systems to be in perfect synchronization with each other , so many matching pieces of a puzzle as to dismiss it as nothing but chance is ridiculous.

Watch planet earth or something like that and look at all the amazing animals that we have here , look at all the plants and landscape , and space etc .....

way too much going on behind the scenes for nobody to be behind it.

end rant
*thanks god for everything he gave me*
no matter how insignificant i may be in the grand scheme of things.


peace

reply to post by andre18


andre18... You've made one of the classical, ignorant blunders many do on this board and that is to kid yourself into thinking you know it all when in fact you don't. Apparently you have the definitive piece of information that the rest of the world doesn't.

You present a highly illogical and somewhat fanatical standpoint - and it's simply not worth my time. Debating with someone who's under those types of illusions is completely futile. I'm disconnecting from further debate with you.

IRM out!


[edit on 7/1/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Infared man.... what if GOD is causality, the design of infinity?

Hi Wertdagf!

As I've stated, I cannot confirm or deny that there is a god, whether that denotes a 'person' or natural process of the universe.

Personally, I'm not the religious type, but at the same time, to discount that such a 'being' could exist would be ignorant as I do not know for sure. What you are suggesting is equally as plausible as any other belief or theory.

As you put it in your original post, the universe is large enough - there's room for both - at least until something more definitive comes along.

IRM

[edit on 7/1/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by EliteLegends
The fact that anyone could possible believe that life is random and there is no intelligent design behind it are as ignorant and as blind as anyone can
be. Have you actually took the time to look at the complexity behind pretty much everything in life , so many systems relying on other systems to be in perfect synchronization with each other , so many matching pieces of a puzzle as to dismiss it as nothing but chance is ridiculous.

This video - part 7 explains the 'evolution is random' creationist claim.

darwinwasright.homestead.com...

Evolution does depend on mutations, and these do appear to be random. But each cumulative mutation may become significant factors for that organism once pitted against the dynamics of the environment in which they are introduced. Thus natural selection isn’t random; it’s deterministic. Many creationists will even admit this. And as some computer models have already shown, natural selection can actually even exceed the skills of human designers. In fact, natural selection can be so deterministic that it often leads to innovations which some perceive as evidence of intelligent design, and which even rationalists describe as though modified for intended benefit.

Whether it is deliberately guided or not, there is definitely a system of design. But there doesn’t actually have to be any apparent intent or intelligence involved. Because, while our normal intuition might be to imagine one governing body issuing authority from the top down, –a new field of science, the study of “emergent complexity” uses computers to trace numerous patterns in nature which are all “emergent” from the bottom up, being controlled or constructed by an intricate interrelated array of the lowest componants working together in unison, each according to a set of relatively simple rules.

Emergence is a new study revealing many ways in which order can come from disorder, and how chaos can also achieve balance; illustrating how even the origin of life is as much chemical as it is mathematic.

Regardless what field or subject we’re talking about, anything that is regularly analyzed or revised naturally tends to become more complex as those processes wear on, and we know that environmental pressures on population genetics is no exception. Even before computers existed, we already knew that natural selection can, -and often will- produce results which look like trial-and-error experiments, including elements of seemingly-intentional fine tuning.

But for all the implications of apparent design, there is never any indication of any intended goal or final product, nor any hint of infallibility on the part of the designer. In fact, so many errors of so many types are known that even if there was an unnatural architect using miraculous means instead of natural ones, then it seems that entity must either be blind and barely competent, or there are whole teams of designers working on separate lines competing against each other.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

And what am i supposed to learn from creationism? really? we got poofed into existence? Is that your idea of science. Seriously check out the videos. I beg you - learn something.

micro/macro-biology????? There is no such thing - just evolution. If you'd just watch the videos you 'd know that.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by andre18]

My point is that you shouldn't just look for links that support your opinion. It's pretty obvious that you haven't researched what creation science actually is, if you think it is summed up by poofing into existence. Evolutions on the belief in a really big poof, that was random, rather than an intelligent design being seen in the biological make up of things.

There absolutely is micro/macro biology, just as there's micro/macro evolution-

www.cs.uiowa.edu...

"Classification of biology. Biological science can be classified into microbiology and macro-biology. Microbiology studies the microstructure of organisms of living things. It focuses on cell theory (cell structure), origins of cells (biochemistry), mechanism of disease (medical sciences), and principles of drugs (pharmaceuticals and pharmacology). Macro-biology studies the linkage, history, theory of evolution of life, and genealogies between the people, between people and animal, and between animals. "

www.toarchive.org...

"Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic."

"macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels."

Here's some creation science links to peruse-

emporium.turnpike.net...

emporium.turnpike.net...

emporium.turnpike.net...

emporium.turnpike.net...

emporium.turnpike.net...

and here's the home page for the above links for further persual-

emporium.turnpike.net...


I don't expect you to change your mind as a result of these links, but hopefully they'll give some insight and perhaps ever raise some questions.

My point is that you shouldn't just look for links that support your opinion.

Even though that’s exactly what you did in your post. You gave me nothing but links supporting your personal side view. So you’re contradicting yourself.

It's pretty obvious that you haven't researched what creation science actually is

Well I can’t research what doesn’t exist! Creationism is not a science, for example the evidence in science must be an independently verifiable observation. That means that the observation must be replicable independent of the observer: no matter who the observer is, or what he believes, he must observe the same thing in the same circumstances. Design is not independently verifiable, and is therefore not evidence.

if you think it is summed up by poofing into existence. Evolutions on the belief in a really big poof, that was random

What we can do in a laboratory is demonstrate that it’s possible for the building blocks of life – amino acids to come from none living material and yes it’s a bunch of chemicals in an atmosphere. Apply electricity you get amino acids.

That doesn’t tell us exactly how life did form on earth in the past but what it does do, it tells us that life can come from none life

There absolutely is micro/macro biology, just as there's micro/macro evolution

Well micro/macro evolution isn’t a real scientific term. It’s made up by creationists who don’t understand evolution or the big bang properly. Creationists don’t understand evolution so god did it……lol

Simply because of you lack of knowledge of how the universe works, shouldn’t mean filling in that (I don’t understand so god did it) gap with a supernatural creator should make more sense.

I don't expect you to change your mind as a result of these links, but hopefully they'll give some insight and perhaps ever raise some questions.

Creationists like you demand only monstrous absurdities or issue challenges they know still couldn’t be satisfied no matter how true evolution may be; because they know already that whatever they insist on seeing today we may show them tomorrow, and if that happens, they’ll have to make up new excuses for why it still doesn’t count. So they won’t request to see anything evolution actually requires, and they usually won’t define any criteria they would accept either, because they already know they won’t accept anything even if we show them everything they ever ask for.

Did you bother to read any of those links, and if so would you care to refute the assertions?

reply to post by BlueRaja









Creationists like you are the ultimate sceptics, they will believe in men being raised from the dead and talking to ghosts that can impregnate virgins without even a shred of evidence but when confronted with the evidence for biological evolution, they transform into staunch critics upholding the highest burdens of proof ever constructed.

The theory of evolution is actually supported with a wide variety of evidence. Evolution is right up there with the basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, critics adopt standards of such unreasonableness that virtually nothing can be considered true if we applied such standards across all areas of enquiry and knowledge.

The creationist argument is based on selectively rasing standards, if other preposed ideas were supported by evidence to the degree that biological evolution is, creationists would certainly not doubt these ideas – for example the theory of gravity and the atomic theory.
However the theory of evolution is fare game for doubt because creationists selectively demand implausible degrees of evidence for its truth and won’t accept anything less.

Common creationist arguments that utilize this tactic are numerous, for instance they often make the following claims

– There aren’t that many transitional fossils, scientists should have found more.
– Scientists can’t explain in full detail how life first arose or how sex evolved.
– Scientific claims are provisional and are always subject to disproof, why should we believe in evolution if it could be wrong
– Macro-evolution that produces grand and complex changes has never been “observed”

They make these statements even in the face of maintains of evidence, like the complete set of transitional fossils from a fox like creature to the modern day horse. Notice how these facts can only truly be considered criticisms of evolutionary theory of we expected complete and total mathematical proof for biological evolution. The problem of course is empirical science do not deal with formal proofs of absolute certainty, they must instead rely on evidence and probability – like much of our everyday knowledge.

In normal scenarios creationists do not have such high standards of proof, if for instance they found a half eaten deer sounded by wolf paw prints the reasonable conclusion is that the wolfs ate the dear. If subsequently they found wolfs near by covered in deer blood and analysed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat, that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that the wolfs at the deer.

Now if some wolf-loving sceptic wonted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonable high standards of proof to shield him away from criticism. He could argue for instance that because no one ‘observed’ the wolf eating the deer, we can doubt the conclusion. For the sceptic, all the evidence pointing toward to wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details for instance, it doesn’t tell us exactly how many wolves were involved or whether the wolves attacked from the left side or the right side or whether the dear happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue the deer are faster then wolves so it’s impossible. The sceptic could argue that these ‘gaps in the theory’ rule out the wolf hypothesis.

Of course any reasonable person can see that the wolf sceptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not to directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer, the wolf paw prints and the blood splattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit and so on, all show without a doubt that the deer was eaten by the wolves.

Creationists use almost the exact same sort of arguments against evolution. When they argue that huge biological changes resulting from evolution have never been observed, they do not realize that scientist need not directly observe single cell organisms becoming primates in order to reasonably conclude that such an event occurred. Just as those who believe that the wolves ate the deer do not need directly observe the event to know that it truly happened given the abundance of evidence supporting the claim.

When creationists argue there are gaps in the fossil record they fail to realize that geology predicts such gaps and his hardly reasonable to expect every species that ever lived to become fossilized. They also fail to realize that the few transitional forms that have been found are solid evidence for evolution. If for instance one could not find the paw prints of one particular blood covered wolf, it wouldn’t necessarily indicate that the other wolfs whose paw prints were found did not eat the deer. The missing paw print of one wolf is not evidence that he didn’t eat, because the more plausible explanation given the evidence of his blood covered fur is that he ate the deer but perhaps did not leave any prints or that his prints were destroyed by the other wolves walking over them.

The creationist criticism that scientists cannot explain a very specific and complex event like the evolution of sex with absolute accuracy and then remarking that this is evidence against evolution, is like claiming that because we cannot explain how the wolves caught the deer, the wolf scenario must be false. Clearly such an argument would only hold any force for someone with unreasonable expectations of evidence, who for some reason believe that we must prove everything with complete certainty. Even though the sort of accuracy is impossible outside of mathematics.

If one adopts this sort of stance of irrational doubt and applies it to any holy book, it’s clear that they fall short of this high standard of proof. Indeed one of the most interesting things about creationists, is their ability to have such high standards for something like evolution while at the same time having virtually no standards of poof for claims about religion – often justifying those beliefs with faith. One would think the creationists would be consistent with his standards of proof but he sets evolution to such a high standard, because he finds implications inconsistent with his religious worldview.

Basic reasoning and scepticism will suffice in debunking most religious claims, one can only imagine how quickly religious beliefs would be debunked if one approached them in the extreme scepticism, the likes of which creationists brand us as evolution. We can only hope they apply this scepticism to their religion one day….