Evolution: The grand experiment

[nebula]

Apparently, this was aired on the NRB Network tonight.

But you can still order the book and the DVD.

~~~~

Did whales walk on the land? Did dinosaurs fly? Is this the dawn of the theory of evolution? Or, is this the waning hours of a theory in its final throes?

NRB Network viewers will learn the answers to questions like these that deal with the viability of the theory of evolution in the controversial documentary, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, produced by Audio Visual Consultants, Inc. of St. Louis, MO. . . .

The program documents that many of the best current scientific evidences for the theory of evolution, including dinosaurs with feathers, walking whales and flying dinosaurs are fraudulent, or are the result of overzealous scientists creating evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Confessions of creating intermediate links by some of the most prominent evolutionary scientists living today expose the problems of the theory of evolution in a most dramatic way. With video tapes rolling, the story unfolds before the filmmakers (and the television audience).

Filmed in three continents and seven countries over a 12-year period, the program has highlights from 12 dig sites, 60 museums, and many universities. The show is narrated by Andres Williams of London, with music from British film music composer Simon Wilkinson. The presentation is unusual in that nearly all of the scientists interviewed support evolution but acknowledge the evidence is lacking in their area of expertise or they created it.

1 minute video segment

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/

[Guest Ditchens]

Okay, there's a few things wrong with this...

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory? The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism). Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air? Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...) seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does, and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria. And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works. Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

[Fraught]

evolution can never be real to me because latent genetic traits explain all.

with this understanding, most of the theories in evolutionary science just appear silly.

[Fez]

Okay, there's a few things wrong with this...

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory? The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism). Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air? Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...) seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does, and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria. And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works. Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

Yes it has been done on a few occasions! They are well documented.

And Darwin, poor deluded Darwin, admitted that he could in no way explain the "evolution" of the eye (it's a famous quote, look it up)

We have been around the Darwin tree so often on these boards, and no one has yet been able to show me their monkey.

[Sir Gareth]

I tried debating darwin once, but he didn't say much...

[nebula]

LOL @ sir Gareth!

[MorningGlory]

Okay, there's a few things wrong with this...

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors, does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory? The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism). Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air? Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...) seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does, and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria. And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works. Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

The Supernatural Being, i.e., God created YOU. So how do you explain that? Oh, and since you didn't bother to introduce yourself, welcome to Worthy.

[MorningGlory]

I tried debating darwin once, but he didn't say much...

[nebula]

A. Just because the fossil record contains no intermediate between bats and pterosaurs and their walking ancestors,

Umm . . . who ever claimed a link between mammal bats and reptile pterosaurs?

I understand your wanting to make a point, but your details are too far off-topic.

The video presentation isn't saying they can't find links between pterosaurs and modern animals, the video presentation is saying - or rather the evolutionists themselves are saying they cannot find a fossil ancestry for the pterosaurs. No ancestor, no transition, nothing! For all the fossils they have found of pterosaurs, they have found nothing that can be claimed as an ancestor to the animal.

does that mean we have to throw out the entire theory?

It means there is room for doubts, questions - challenges!

The fossil record has holes because not every singe species can be expected to fossilize. There are all sorts of fossils showing the gradual emergence of fish from land to water and into amphibians, terrestrial mammals into that water as what we now know as whales and dinosaurs into birds. This clip also does not take into account the amount of proofs for evolution we find in the bodies of these animals (for example, the residual pelvic bones of whales, the many reptilian traits of birds and the toe nails of manatees. All these are perfectly explained by evolution, not creationism).

From the advertisement, it appears these issues are addressed in the series as well. So, until someone can find what is presented about this claim in the series, it will be difficult to debate this point.

Just because a theory needs some minor tinkering here and there does not by any means show that it's faulty. Lots of other scientific theories accepted by religion are still being perfected. Why be so hard on evolution?

Evolution by its nature denies a Creator.

The other scientific theories you mention do not call the Bible a lie the way the Theory of Evolution does.

B. What motivation do these scientists have for forging the proofs of evolution? None! If you had a phd in biology, would you seriously go around planting fake fossils here and there? Any geologist can tell you they're authentic (or is geology a scam too?). Do creationists seriously believe scientists are making this up just to make them mad? May I remind people that when evolution was first discovered, almost all scientists, Darwin included, were religious?

Remember that primitive lemur that was discovered in Germany not too long ago, "Ida"? The big announcement of its discovery claimed it to be a human ancestor species. There was even a special documentary on Discovery or History Channel about this find and promoted the claim. Sometime last month a lesser announced report came out that further stated scientist who studied the animal in more depth have concluded there is no link between the animal and human ancestry. (Link to article)

Now, can you tell me why the first report was so quick to claim the animal as a human ancestor?

C. Even if we assume evolution DOES have some fatal flaws (I assure you it doesnt), is the next best option really to assume that a supernatural being created everything out of thin air?

At this point, is another option available?

Doesnt a logical, thought out, PROVEN scientific train of logic (ah logic, that old enemy of religion...)

Being derogatory will get you nowhere. Assuming that Christians do not use logical thinking is a bigoted claim.

seem a bit more reasonable than immediately assuming a god is behind everything just because an ancient book written before the invention of science says so? Science may not have all the answers but, unlike religion, it doesnt pretend that it does,

Me: Except where evolution is concerned, apparently.

and it admits this (again, unlike religion), it fine tunes itself to better explain new discoveries (still, unlike religion) and it used simple tools like logic and reason and doubt (doubt, you see, is humble. Something we could all use) to better explain things. No body thinks that god causes objects to fall instead of gravity, or that god causes chemical reactions instead of atoms, or that god causes disease instead of bacteria.

You just don't want to believe there is a Supreme Being to whom you are accountable. Really, the more I study nature, the more I am convinced there is a "mind" behind it all. (For example, this article I posted recently.)

And Ive noticed that just about everyone that likes to comment on how evolution is a "lie" has truly no idea how it works.

Actually, I do. I'm in the science field myself. I learned a lot about this.

Go read some Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and, if you have an open mind, evolution will sell itself.

No, it doesn't. You just don't want to be scientifically critical against this theory.

[MorningGlory]

What is the NRB network? I don't even see it on my cable line up.