Maniacsicko, not necessarily a creationist himself, made a blog with a bunch of copied and pasted creationist arguments.
I will repost the bulk of it below, my responses will be in another color:
First off, I invite all of you to view this presentation via this link:
(unfortunately, I cannot embed the presentation video here)
It isn’t really a “documentary”, it grossly misrepresents the science and declares that the judeo-christian god made everything. How scientific.
Do watch all the seven chapters presented (or you can stay ignorant if you want)…
Not one argument I’ve read in this blog I have not heard before. I honestly doubt the creationist flash videos are any different.
Okay, that was somewhat a provocation, but I’d say you definitely should really watch it to shape your opinion on the subject…
Note: Whether you arrive at the same conclusion or not is a different matter altogether… What matter is you should know the argument from all sides to make a good conclusion….
So, again, watch all the seven chapter… I think it summarize pretty nicely of the basic arguments against evolution / Darwinism (as the video call it)…
On the issue of “intermediary species” or the “transitional forms” touched by agnophilo, the video linked above also touched on it briefly (but rather “conclusively”)….
Of course, the short video presentation cannot really elaborate or present the whole “proof” that pointed to the conclusion made…
But if you want to dig deeper on it, I think it was put into the “Atlas of Creation” for you to see and judge by yourself…
Here is a link you might want to watch:
(again, I cannot embed them)
“According to darwin’s theory, lifeless mattter came together by chance to create the first living cell…”
Already they’re talking about something that has nothing to do with evolution, which is a process which works only after life exists. Darwin never tried to explain the origins of life.
Listening on, this video is a demented reinvention of reality. Note also that these people are making money off of this…
The set of videos basically just lay the background, a bit on evolution and the atlas itself, and then goes on (and on) about how it affects the view of people on the subject throughout Europe….
Perhaps it is more of a teaser for the “Atlas of Creation”…
Now, if you don’t actually have a copy of it, you can actually check it out (or download the pdf, or buy a copy) here:
Just for the sake of those who don’t have the time to go through them for now, let me just paste some of the photos from them that are related to the topic at hand…
Here are some pictures on the subject that animals from tenth and hundreds of million years ago are simply as they are now, pointing at “the fact” that evolution never took place….
Actually not one of these species is “exactly” as it was millions of years ago, and none of these fossils are of any modern species. They are however examples of evolutionary stasis. Evolution is driven by environmental pressures which change the rate at which different genetic and physical characteristics are passed on. Some lineages such as alligators, sharks etc haven’t changed much over millions of years. Or more correctly, their skeletal structure hasn’t changed much. However it is impossible that they stopped evolving, since evolution includes adapting resistences to ever-changing viruses, bacteria, climate change etc. This in no way “disproves” evolution, nor does it wish away the plithera of clear transitional forms in the fossil record.
Image source: here
Here are some pictures on the subject of “our ancestors”
Skull contours vary from person to person as well. This proves what exactly? There were several hundred distinct “races” of the same species a few thousand years ago? Come on, anyone can find logical problems with that.
I searched and searched and couldn’t find where this illustration came from. But given the fact that creationists have lied about this sort of thing before (read below about the pig’s tooth) I’m not shocked that they’re making this claim again.
Image source: here
Image source: here
Some on the intermediate species…
This is a creationist depiction which is not accurate. No fish ever evolved into a modern frog, nor did any lizard ever evolve into a rabbit. The actual transitions between fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals have been well documented. Bullshit strawman argument, as usual.
I’ll address these in order.
1. piltdown man was a fraud and was very famous for the simple fact that it was not immediately debunked as frauds usually are in science. It was not debunked mainly because it spent several decades in storage after it was thought not to be an important discovery.
2. “Nebraska man” was purely hypothetical and was never illustrated by scientists on the basis of a single tooth. An amateur paleontologist found a fossil tooth, sent it to a natural history museum, and it was thought to possibly be a primate tooth. A small article was published in a non-scientific non-peer reviewed publication which included an illustration with the following text in both the main article and the caption:
“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.” (Smith 1922, emphasis added)
This entire “argument” is one big fat made up lie. Like nearly all creationist “arguments”.
3. This is incoherent. Of course they’re different species, they’re labeled as such. And of course they didn’t all live in one place, living things migrate. Americans don’t live in africa or europe, so I guess we must not have any relationship with africans or europeans.
4. They “actually” were apes? OMG noes! That totally proves that they have no relation to humans, which are by definition apes to this day. Ape does not refer to a species, it refers to a collective of thousands of species, living and extinct, with similar characteristics. That group includes humans by definition. So far as “they were deceptive”, wtf? Vague much?
5. Ernst Haeckel studied embryology and did make embryo pictures to illustrate his theories. Some of which he found it difficult to obtain specimines for and took a little artistic license. This was discovered, and cost him his professional reputation. Creationists pretend that a) haeckel’s drawings (which were published after origin of species) were the basis for evolution, and b) that they were the sole basis of the study of embryology and therefore discount the actual evidence for evolution that does exist in embryology.
Creationists lie a lot you may notice.
Trilobites are some of the most abundant life forms to have emerged in the Cambrian period. They lived in various parts of the world. One of the most astonishing characteristics of trilobites is their multi-lens eye, made up of numerous units, each unit being a separate lens. Each lens perceives a different image, and these are then combined as a whole “picture.” Research has shown that there were more than 3,000 lenses in the trilobite eye, which meant the creature received more than 3000 images. This, in turn, clearly reveals how perfect were the eye and brain structure of this creature that lived nearly 530 million years ago. Such a flawless structure could not possibly have emerged by way of evolution.
This is a lazy, vague version of the intelligent design argument. Different types of eyes have evolved independantly more than a dozen different times in different forms of life, if you don’t think eye evolution is possible, here is an excellent and brief video that explains how our eyes evolved:
This is just fucking retarded. When creationists say “evolution is mud plus time plus ???” the “???” (and everything else) does not indicate an unknown in evolutionary theory, but their own ignorance of the science. We know how and why life evolves, and it has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with mud or lightning.
Image source: here