The Genius of Charles Darwin

The Genius of Charles Darwin

Science  -  Playlist 1,438 Comments
8.25
12345678910
Ratings: 8.25/10 from 220 users.

The Genius of Charles DarwinThe Genius of Charles Darwin is a three-part television documentary, written and presented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

Life, Darwin and Everything. In the first episode Richard Dawkins explains the basic mechanisms of natural selection, and tells the story of how Charles Darwin developed his theory. He teaches a year 11 science class about evolution, which many of the students are reluctant to accept. He then takes them to the Jurassic Coast in Dorset to search for fossils, hoping that the students can see some of the evidence for themselves.

The Fifth Ape. In the second episode Richard Dawkins deals with some of the philosophical and social ramifications of the theory of evolution. Dawkins starts out in Kenya, speaking with palaeontologist Richard Leakey. He then visits Christ is the Answer Ministries, Kenya's largest Pentecostal church, to interview Bishop Bonifes Adoyo. Adoyo has led the movement to press the National Museums of Kenya to sideline its collection of hominid bones pointing to man's evolution from ape to human.

God Strikes Back. In the third and final episode, Dawkins explains why Darwin's theory is one of history's most controversial ideas. Dawkins uses this episode to discuss the opposition that evolution has experienced since it was first discovered. He starts by approaching various anti-evolutionists, ranging from John Mackay from Creation Research, Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, to English school teacher Nick Cowen. In order to address concerns they bring up, he shows the evidence for evolution, including fossil and DNA evidence.

More great documentaries

1.4K Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Akram
Akram
11 years ago

This guy is doing exactly what he said he hates..He's MAKING us believe in something which shows how arrogant he is.He should inform us instead and let us think for ourself.And i do believe in evolution but I also believe in god(but not in the bible).Who/What created that first cell?

chip griffin
chip griffin
11 years ago

it is quite simple. male and female.THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN DARWINISM or in any shape fashion or form. nothing would requiere another sex to make another of either. get in. a would always repurduce a and b would make b. not a and b to make either an a or b...

Helmer2
Helmer2
11 years ago

Thanks, brilliant documentary. Where on earth would we be without science and reason, still believing in old creation myths?

Jahwawah Raggasoul
Jahwawah Raggasoul
11 years ago

darwin was just paid to make theories....by a foundation for genetics....what we called paid officials or a professor hired tor sale his theories are all bulls*it too bad it took 150 years to find out...he did more work and damage than he was paid for......

Bull Rag
Bull Rag
11 years ago

Hahaha, great movie.

Mark Croke
Mark Croke
11 years ago

i have terminal brain and lung mellanoma and find myself tempted to hedge my bets but logic must prevail man made god in his image for an answer to the big question and im notbuying into such a destructive and viscious mallavolant indoctrination i would be worse than joining the nazi party .if there is something else im so sure its much more wonderful than we can articulate;-]

Gary Lowe
Gary Lowe
11 years ago

I feel very sorry for all creationists. The evidence of evolution is in every Natural History Museum in the world. Thanx Richard for such an enlightening and riveting Documentary

Alma Vasquez
Alma Vasquez
11 years ago

Jesus is the sherperd, and people is his sheep., Hey, wait a minute, don't sherperds eat their sheep. well, it just sucks to be a sheep, doesn't it. or, one can choose to live without god, and not be his meal ticket, no scientist ever asked you for a donation, but priests always do. if god is so mighty, why does he need any money? maybe he is just broke today, or everyday? or maybe it's all a big scam, and there is no god, but no priest will ever admit that, not ones who need your money anyway. How anyone believes in "god" is beyond me.

Alma Vasquez
Alma Vasquez
11 years ago

a christian wants to live forever, in heaven, and will stick to the dogma that gets them their ticket to heaven, science does not promise immortality, science shed light on reality, a reality that christian are terrified of. We will all die one day, but christian deny this reality, christians are cowards. Christians are too afraid to see the truth, they choose to be idiots.

Ken Davis
Ken Davis
11 years ago

Darwin was quite a genius alright. He fabricated a huge hoax that most people still believe.

Trueanglo
Trueanglo
11 years ago

THE GOD DELUSION

BY

RICHARD DAWKINS

A review of the above titled book by Michael Henry Cook

The preface of this book is a subtle brainwashing of indoctrinating the reader; in legal jargon it is known as “leading the witness,” a means by which Mr. Dawkins can convert the reader into believing in his God! Oops, I meant atheism, and his atheistic zeal in propagating it. He goes on to quoting prominent intellectuals to support his argument, pointing out, no doubt proudly, “that they too are atheists.” Those who choose to believe in God do the same, naming, as Mr. Dawkins does, elite members of society in support of their argument; claiming, “that they too are believers,” which simple counter argument negates his shallow reasoning

Mr. Dawkins on page 27 of his book uses the analogy of atheists to herded cats, because they, (cats), tend to act independently and will not conform to authority, so creating a picture of himself and other atheists as unique, as standing out among the masses as independent in their thinking! Is that not a superior attitude bordering on the divine? Does Mr. Dawkins have his head in the clouds; does he aspire to a higher office? Or is his head somewhere else, for the smell is already offensive, and I have not yet come to the first chapter. Is this man not aware of those God fearing men throughout history who have stood by their own independent beliefs in God, going against the accepted doctrine of the time, knowing they could be burnt at the stake, disemboweled, and many were. Yet they stood firm in their personal convictions, and were willing to pay the ultimate price of forfeiting their lives, rather than lose that which they felt was more important than life itself, a trueness to ones own self, a personal integrity of belief, which without it, life to them would not be worth living.

They did not hide, they had no protection from the authority of the day, they did not have a position of professorship to protect them, they spoke out in a hostile intolerant world, not in a medium of security as is afforded to the likes of the “brave,” Mr. Dawkins.

The author quotes Microsoft word on page 28 of the paperback version of his book, which defines “delusion,” as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.” Implying those who believe in a God have a mental problem! Is it not possible that atheists persist in a false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence! Having yet to begin to read the first chapter of this book, I am still in the pages of the puzzling preface, coming to the conclusion that this book should be re-titled, “The Dawkins Delusion.” He has the affrontry to call the billions of believers in God over the millennia, to quote page 25 of his book. “ When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.” He goes on to boast quite openly that those religious leaders who read his book would be an atheist when they put it down. That will make them like him surely? And when many people suffer from a delusion like that, does it not make them followers of “Dawkinism?” It is all right for them to believe in his book, but not the Bible? Is it better to follow Dick Dawkins, Professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, receiver of numerous honours; The Michael Faraday Award; The Shakespeare Prize, etc., or are people insane for following a man called Jesus Christ, Son of God, The Messiah, King of Kings, etc., compare the pedigree of Jesus Christ with that of Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford! There is not a name in the whole of human history that has affected mankind more than that of Jesus Christ, as one commentator succinctly summed up Christ’s profound affect upon the lives of the people’s of the earth in these words;

“ All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the Kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man on the earth as powerfully.”

Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Henry The Eighth, Napoleon, their combined impact upon mankind pales into the margins of history, compared to that of Jesus Christ! Even history’s timetable of events is determined by the life of Christ. B.C. or A.D. What delusional impression does Mr. Dawkins expect to leave behind? Mr. who? Where will you be in twenty years time Mr. Dawkins? I will tell you, forgotten, and that is no delusion sir! The self-righteousness of the man increases on page 22 of his book where he lays the blame for people turning to religion as the fault of the educational system, they have, he claims, not been properly taught “Darwin’s astounding alternative;” or is it Dawkins astounding alternative? I have read and studied both Darwinism and Dawkinism and find them offensive and delusional in the extreme that they could think that such staggering order, design, and law could originate by chance. His statement on page seven, a memoriam to a Douglas Adams, which says; “ Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” Mr. Dawkins has convinced himself that fairies don’t do gardening; but gardeners do Mr. Dawkins, and one can appreciate the gardener’s horticultural flair, even those deprived of an education can appreciate a well-managed garden! He further implies, that one does not have to believe in a God to appreciate a beautiful garden, he might feel that way but there are many others who see God’s green fingers in such beauty.

The author goes on to say that many will be warned off from reading his book, as it will be looked upon as the work of Satan. He should be so lucky, my study of the Bible over many years, and the Devils past recorded behaviour, shows he would not touch Mr. Dawkins book with an Oxford barge pole? I know that Satan has had a go at Adam, Moses, the Kings of Israel, Jesus Christ, them I know, but Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford? And this guy is a Professor? The forked tongue logic of Mr. Dawkins and his intellectual disciples is well summed up in the expression, “Thank God I am an atheist.” They all acknowledge the awesomeness of the universe, the beauty of a garden, the wonders without number that are all about us, they attribute it all to “nature,” “ natural selection,” “ evolution,” just as one speaks to a seaman or a miner, and I have been both, you will find they have a language all of their own that becomes familiar to you as you become one of them.
So to has atheism, the one consistent theme of atheists language, is that there is no greater intelligence than theirs, making them the highest intelligencia of all?

Does that make them Gods? Is atheism a smokescreen for the egotism of atheists to usurp God, so by becoming a God themselves?
Is that the goal of Mr. Dawkins, for he is gaining a devoted following, will he establish churches, sorry, places of learning where people can be taught Mr.Dawkins interpretation of Darwin’s astounding alternative!
Will Mr. Dawkins preach his message of salvation, which is, to save us from God and religion, to turn the Israelite into a Dawkinite, the Christian into a Darwinian? For remember Mr. Dawkins everything is made after its kind, a world filled with Dawkinite atheists, in contrast to a world filled with followers of Christ, Christians. These Dawkinite atheists remind me of the man who was presented with quisine of the highest quality, food prepared as works of art with the taste to match, enjoying meal after meal, day after day, a seeming endless banquet of beauty and tastes, with not a word of praise or thanks to the chef, as he could not accept that such excellence of craft could have a heart and soul behind it? There are none so blind as those who see! Mr. Dawkins and his disciples are praising the Emperor, atheism, and how astoundingly dressed he is, when he, the Emperor in his nakedness and swaying genitalia praises their finery, and they all march off naked and exposed to Mr. Dawkins temple of delusion to discuss how they can dress even more nakedly.

My conclusions on Mr.Dawkins book are that he has admired the banquet, but not tasted of it. I agree with him about religions disgraceful history, and its hypocrisy, never more so than what we see today. That I believe in the existence of God does not close my mind to asking questions of both God and religion, whether people feel my questions are blasphemous or not, for how otherwise am I to learn if I am restricted in my curiosity of thought. I must agree with a former President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson as quoted on page 64 of Mr. Dawkins book, “Question with boldness even the existence of God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

My feelings and my reasoning powers led me, like Mr. Dawkins to write a book called, “God, mans loving enemy,” under the pen name of Adam Bolton, and I, like Mr.Dawkins have asked many questions of God and religion which have so disturbed me. But unlike Mr. Dawkins I have not denied God’s existence, and as I say in my book on page 81, “I look and see God’s creation as staggering in its diversity, his universe as awesome, one cannot deny the obvious, but he seems to have difficulty with the thinking and reasoning element of his creation,” “Maybe a Creation to Far.” This is where he and I differ, his foundation for dealing with God and religion is to deny both, where as I accept their existence, but do not necessarily agree with both. It is like denying there was an Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich, we could strongly disagree with their objectives, but we could not deny their existence. That 12-year history of the Nazi Party, profound as its affect was on the world, is nothing compared to God and religions domination of human affairs, mainly I might add to man’s injury.

Yet Mr. Dawkins is adamant in the non- existence of God, so then why challenge something you are so convinced does not exist. If he does not exist what is there to fear? Why write a book about a God who is non- existent? This non- existing God seems to have got Mr. Dawkins hot under the collar! I am sure Mr. Dawkins respects peoples right to believe in God’s, Ghosts, Phantoms, Devils, Demons and Atheism, it just seems to me that he is so convinced of his own beliefs, that he cannot understand others believing as strongly as he does, but to the contrary? This speaks to me of intellectual snobbery, superiority of thought, which seems to come about in those who feel they are part of an elite section of society, which position and notoriety seems to embolden and corrupt many men. What I find missing in his book, is an air of humility, also the lack of a becoming mind that is touched by soulful reasoning. When one reads the numerous ways in which Jesus Christ dealt with the many people he came across, one cannot but admire and be touched by his warm consideration of others! If atheism has made Mr. Dawkins what he is, then give me Jesus every time.

On page 68 of his book Mr. Dawkins quotes Nehru, once head of state for India who said, “ Religion almost always seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.” Mr. Dawkins is trying to justify his condemnation of religion by quoting celebrated figures of the past and present, what he cannot see, as he is blinded by so much hatred of religion, that if he was to take the word religion out of the quotation and insert atheism, it would prove that they who are atheists are just as capable of exploitation, bigotry, dogma, with their own vested interests close at heart? It is so easy to paint others black, as we seek to justify ourselves, and because of that we can find difficulty in seeing that we are no better than those whom we choose to condemn, it seems to be criminal to do it in the name of God, but not in the name of atheism!

What if atheism ruled supreme, with Richard Dawkins as our atheistic King? Would that mean no more wars? No more hunger? No more disease? No more crime? What if some did not agree with King Richards’s form of atheism, and wish to set up their own atheistic agenda, with their own devoted followers, will King Richard make war upon them? Will he establish a set of laws for all to follow, “An Atheistic Bible, a “little red book,” a “Koran of atheism,” a “Mosaic Law,” or should I say, “Dawkins Law.”

What would the reaction be, would there be atheistic sects springing up everywhere, hostility, differences of atheistic interpretation, endless debates on Darwin’s origin of the species, leading to division, even to war? A world divided, sound familiar Mr. Dawkins? Then we start to see people writing books on the evil of atheism, preaching that a belief in a God will solve our problems. Do you get the picture Mr. Dawkins? The cycle goes on? If God and Jesus Christ have not solved mans problems, who is Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford to think that he has the remedy? This crusade by Dawkins with the banner of atheism as his emblem, followed by evolutionism, agnosticism, naturism, secularism, rationalism, and all the other isms, are no different from the opposing religious factions and their isms, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, and Judaism. The reality is we are all in a lunatic asylum of dogmatism, idealism, meism, and I’m rightism.

As Ecclesiastes says in chapter 12 v 12,” As regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning. To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” And Eccl, 1v18 adds, “For in the abundance of wisdom there is an abundance of vexation, so that he that increases knowledge increases pain.” I would recommend to Mr. Dawkins the reading of Ecclesiastes; a powerful summation of life is within this brief, but moving book, that even the most ardent atheist could not but smile and nod with approval at many of its conclusions that sum up perfectly our brief time on this earth. A book written by someone who knew a great deal about life.

My reading of Mr. Dawkins book has indeed been wearisome to the flesh, a book given to me by my daughter, who after reading less than two chapters, found it went off into a disturbing dimension of mental dysfunction that even a gaggle of psychiatrists could not unravel. To help you understand what I mean, I will re-phrase it in Mr. Dawkins language. "They had become lost in a hieratic aslant which disturbed their ataraxia." I am quite sure that if a survey was done on this book, most people would freely admit, providing they were honest atheists, that they never got past the second chapter! Even though Mr. Dawkins has by now convinced us, so he believes, that we came about by natural selection through “Darwin’s outstanding alternative,” in contrast to creation, but is perplexed by the fact that billions of people over millenniums and in all parts of the earth have desired to worship a God, and still do? What a powerful demonstration of the spirit of man, from the prince to the pauper, from the educated to the barbarian, from the richest to the poorest, from the jungle to the city, the belief in, and search for God continues? Mr. Dawkins himself was once a church goer as his book reveals, his about turn for what ever reason, and I believe there are quite a few, has not stopped his obsession about God. His life is taken up with that which according to him does not exist? His lectures, his writing, his broadcasting, he seems to be keeping alive that which is non existent, (God), he is making more people aware of God, does that make him an evangelical atheist? Is God using him to prod people’s consciences? What are they saying in the heavens, thank God for Mr. Dawkins? He has certainly awakened many people out of their spiritual slumber; it would not surprise me if church attendances increased, I know there’s one pew vacant, vacated by Mr. Dawkins, or is it?

In chapter 10 of his book he uses the experiences of some children who make an imaginary friend for themselves, which he believes turns into God, as they grow older! The imagination of children is what childhood is all about, one could interpret this natural childhood characteristic into anything, and we could use it to justify all kinds of fanciful theories if we were so inclined. The apostle Paul said, and I believe his words speak for the majority of adults, “ When I was a babe I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe, but now I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a babe,” and the evidence shows that Mr. Dawkins to has an imaginary friend, “Darwin’s outstanding alternative,” which has become his God as he has grown older! (1Cor. 13v11)

He keeps grasping at straws to justify his belief in atheism, using expressions to impress, like those children’s imaginary friends who he believes are going through a psychological “pedomorphis,” look at the change that Mr. Dawkins has went through, from a believer, to a committed fire and brimstone firebrand for atheism; is that not a “metamorphosis,” deserving of a professorship? He goes on to swamp us with the, “bicameral mind,” the “Gilbert Pinfold voice,” whatever that is? Egyptian inscriptions of the God “Ptah,” the “paedomorphosis theory,” and there’s more! Surely this desperate don of delusion must be right, he is a Professor at Oxford? I cannot understand a thing he is talking about, but who could use such sophisticated language and be wrong? Does not the fraudster project an image of honesty, does not the prostitute project her fleshly wares, and does not the criminal project a legitimate front? The fool is soon parted from his money, as those in want of heart fall by the wayside in their pursuit of flesh, to be struck with guilt and shame, as disease now invades their body, and guilt their soul. So go all deceivers, it is our own personal responsibility to weigh up all that is put before us, and as I conclude Mr. Dawkins book I feel I should be compensated for having to read such ranting of thought by a disturbed mind, no doubt caused by past experiences that have filled the author to seek revenge. I am in no doubt as I look at the elite of our society, whether they be in politics, the arts, financiers, etc., has brought me to the indisputable conclusion that the lunatics are in charge of this world!!

The staggering irony of it all which I have kept till last, and that is, if we were to accept Mr. Dawkins belief that there is absolutely no God, and he is utterly convinced of this, and no doubt his disciples feel the same. Then we must lay all the blame for the world’s troubles at the door of Darwin’s outstanding alternative, natural selection, evolution, call it what you will. For some intangible reason and no doubt to Mr. Dawkins annoyance, his beloved Darwin’s outstanding alternative, has spawned and spread throughout the whole of the world a belief in God!!! For if there is no God, where else could this belief come from? So then, Mr. Dawkins is talking about, writing about, and broadcasting about, his own beloved beliefs as the cause of all our troubles? Does he know this? Or is he well named, D*CK DAWKINS, DARWIN’S DELUSIONAL DON!
Thank God I’m not an atheist.

Contributed by Michael Henry Cook.

sommer martin
sommer martin
11 years ago

And didn't Darwin convert to christianity before he passed?

sommer martin
sommer martin
11 years ago

Where are the files/books Darwins daughter opposed publishing after he died? I am interested...

inewyorkerp
inewyorkerp
11 years ago

see now..in 38-40 and 44-46 minutes.. beautiful and fruitful points!!!

inewyorkerp
inewyorkerp
11 years ago

i ve only watched like 10 minutes so far.. why this man is trying SO HARD to battle between evolution and religion??
i thought that this documentary was all about THE GENIUS of Darwin!
this man is trying to brainwash us and it is sad.. he truly overshadows such an incredible man for what? an endless debate??
and pls do not get me wrong and think that I arguw in favor of my God, because I do not have one. I just point out that religion is irrelevant to the matter at hand, a scientist that indends to inform us about another scientist shouldnt confuse and become so offensively persuasive in a documentary that is meant to be informative.

hellosnackbar
hellosnackbar
11 years ago

Where is th documentary?

Giacomo della Svezia
Giacomo della Svezia
11 years ago

It seems Richard Dawkins has taken up a fruitless battle since even teachers cannot or dare not convince their pupils to start thinking for themselves. I have all the more respect for him and I hope he is and will be an inspiration to many. He has inspired me greatly, though I had many doubts about him initially.

Giacomo della Svezia
Giacomo della Svezia
11 years ago

My observations after watching the first part:
1. My respect for Richard Dawkins, however great it had already become, continues to grow. My initial impression of him was that he was a blind materialist ignoring unexplainable phenomena. Now I am convinced he is fighting for the noblest of causes: "Think for yourself and look at the facts."
2. It takes an extreme wilfulness to ignore the evidence presented here and elsewhere and deny evolution. Creationists have nothing remotely resembling evidence to counter Darwin's theory.
3. Maybe it will be mentioned further on in the documentary, but the step that Darwin took was a very audacious one. His theory was very revolutionary, more than those of his fellow scientists of the time.

Brad H
Brad H
11 years ago

Evolution is not true!Cats do not chane into Dogs and Horses do not turn into Ducks.Man did not evolve form being a monkey! Why does evolutoin tell you that your brain bacame smaller while you grew smarter? Does less brains mean we can retain more thought.And never forget the title ;The ''THEORY'' of Evolution.

Brad H
Brad H
11 years ago

Darwinisim is a Religion.It says there is NO god and there-fore you need not worry about, or concern yourself with, your neighbour, your friends and,or your family.If you kill/murder someone you have only but yourself to answer to.You need no conscience to get through your life you only need determination,drive and luck.You need no love for or from anyone but yourself.There is no god so there are no cosequences!
Someone should have shot Darwin twice in the head!

zj9etl
zj9etl
11 years ago

Why can't they both be true,one not having any relationship to the other. Can't a religion with erroneous theologies still be everlastingly true. And hasn't science itself eared time and again. Why not just stick to science if that's all there is, what's all this urgency about. Are you nuts!

Michael Hoevenaar
Michael Hoevenaar
11 years ago

There is definatly a bigger power than us out there , whos to say that a higher power didnt create the big bang? Whos to say that our universe isnt just a molecule of a bigger creation?

Michael Hoevenaar
Michael Hoevenaar
11 years ago

You still have to combine science and spirituality.......

Kurt OConnor
Kurt OConnor
11 years ago

A thoughtfull temperary genius will eventually will be succeeded by an advancement and the enlightenment of even more modern logic and truth as it surfaces. But, with restrictments in money systems and religious ferber, Gods don't and refuse to accept new advanced methods in higher culture that bring mankind out and away from dictator enslavement. There comes a time to revalue what your told to believe, and open your mind to the modern facts of life, and how things really evolve.

gerardbaya
gerardbaya
11 years ago

:) Goodnight guys!

gerardbaya
gerardbaya
11 years ago

If my reply to Epicurus is not posted, I will stop posting here!
This will mean that you cannot have a fair debate!

gerardbaya
gerardbaya
11 years ago

My comments need approval by the moderator now! I wonder why??

Achems_Razor
Achems_Razor
11 years ago

@gerardbaya:

Are you omitting talking to @robertallen1 on personal grounds?

No room for personality clashes or personal agendas here on TDF, posts are open open for everyone.

As robertallen said you fail to provide sources for your quotes, I would like to see them also.

gerardbaya
gerardbaya
11 years ago

Dear OTE,

thank you for pointing the policy of the site out. Since you are not keen to talk about other topics of sciences as this one is dedicated to evolution and moreover since as you point out yourself, you are not willing to talk about "Faith" here as an atheist and as your past experiences. I do respect that and thank you for your objectivity.

Where I sure you made a mistake though is about philosophy as it is a science, a natural science. From what I have understood, modern sciences, namely physics, derived from philosophy. Well I stop here since I am already out of topic :). (History, anthropology and ect)

I personally think that it is quite sad that you think "Faith" should not be considered as a science. The global population comprises more believers, certainly of different faiths, than atheists. Many natural sciences are centered on the behavior of societies, sociology for instance. Out of context, I am again! I'm out! :)

Best regards!

gerardbaya
gerardbaya
11 years ago

I have a question or two; why did life start and how did it happen? If you are replying by the big bang theory, then why did the big bang happen? All are invited to reply!

Patrick Hough
Patrick Hough
11 years ago

Meg,
You are by your simple words indeed a blind religious follower.
Saying evolution is a theory is the same as saying gravity, oxygen and water are theories too. Just like any intelligent creature, Darwin grabbed a thought and proved it with science. Just because it's not in the terribly written fictional book people call the bible doesn't make it less true.

Dumb dumb.

Meg Grotte
Meg Grotte
11 years ago

My name Meg. I have been studying Evolution since i was highschool. Very few highschools in America teach about Evolution and the concept of Intelligent design. I am now 33 but i am also a Christian. I studied this because alot people assume that Christians are blind followers of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I found this movie interesting but there are a few issues that i have with it. First the Professor speaking mentioned that he does not believe in God or any of kind of religion. I guess it is so he can be objective but he failed. His religion is Evolution. He puts his faith, hope, and understanstanding in a man who created the theory of Evolution who only collected evidence for adaptation.

He has poor understanding of what Bible says about Creation. The story of Genesis says that God created the earth, animals and people to show his glory. He wanted to have a personal relationship with humanity but sin entered the world thus separating man from God. It effected all aspects of life concerning the earth. How animals interact with each other, social institutions like family, marriage and what not. Sin was death in every sense of the word. Death was physical, mental, emotional.

He mentions that we were created in God's image but he does want to acknowledge man's sinful nature. This is not the idea that humanity have two natures. We all humans have had internal wars in their souls. For example, you want to show love but another desire in wants to be selfish.

The narrator also indirectly lables God as being the one who causes suffering in the world. Forgot the fact that man kind is responsible for the selling of woman world wide. He did an interview with a woman who had never contracted Aids even through she has been a prostitute for 25 years. She even acknowledges that God has protected her.

This movie does a poor job in showing the edvidence for Evolution that teaches an animal turns completely some other animal over time. They talk about how fossils which basically are foundation of the idea that the earth is million and millions of year old. But already there is a problem. It only takes a short time for something to die and decay. How is it that Evolutionists can say that the earth is millions and millions of years old?

The movie talks about DNA which seems to be the only supports that an animal turns into another animal. DNA would actually seem to support the concept of Intelligent Design. The fact that four genes can be used in the design of so many . They talk about breeding but that in itself is still not evolution. True that fossils that were collected and they did change but again this has to do with adaptation.

At best What Charles Darwin presented for Evolution was a theory. It has no point, no goal and excuses how humanity behaves. There is alot more i could share i have a feeling it would not do any good.

I am really glad i watched this movie because it really gave me a clear understanding what Evolutionists believe. It helped me to see that Evolution has no real evidence to support it.

Jesse Bondi
Jesse Bondi
11 years ago

If i built it would u believe even if i lived only in a skin suit and noting else did i possess but all creations wisdoms of truth to all knowledge, hummm test my god, and i will baffle you....

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

I have had two already. Earth and Geo. And right now i am taken phycis and Environment. So uncivilized

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

Bye maybe agian next week

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

Phycis right now, and I have taken or am in four different scientific courses. Yes gammer is important, and it is a skill I am working on as of now.

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

I am going for Civil Eng. Which is off topic. and i added the site to my favorites.

(ps) math geek thats am why me grammeringed aren't too well.

(that is why i'm not very concered with my English.)

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

Sorry the last post was rude.

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

Thank you all You all have proven why i disargee with your little therory because it makes the person who believes it an animal because thats what you believe and the way you act. With one expcetion and that Over the Egde
who stayed on topic. and the rest of you just did the gain pile tacit on one person. Then you all start to attack someone who cheated on his tax return. Who hasn't cheated or lied on this site??? quick to point the finger but doesn't relize that three are pointing right back at you. Sorry for getting off topic.

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

The people that claim that their ancestor are rocks are the people who say they believe in all six aspects of the Theory of Evolution. (I’ll post if you need them) Which I hope if you believe in this theory you already know them.

If you need farther reasoning why this faith (Darwinism is a religion or faith) believes that they came from a rock is… Well lets just trace Evolution backwards.

We are Human, which came from Apes (since apes are mammals) Apes came from reptiles, and reptiles came from amphibians, and amphibians came from fish, and fish came from (the videos doesn’t go this far) muti-celled organisms, and muti-celled organisms came from signal-celled organisms which came from a unliving source or bluntly a rock.

Now your going to ask how do they think this happened? Well over billion of year as the surface of the Earth began to cool then it started to rain (I do not know where the rain came from, but they say it did) on these cooled rock and then lighting stuck the rock and made life (that’s why when a movie brings something to life it was struck by lighting [Frankenstein] [Igor] just something funny) and this made the first living organism ( there are probably more theories or this but this one is the most accepted one) Which that is what a Scientific theory is. A Scientific theory is “a well-tested and widely accepted view that the scientific community agrees best explains certain observable facts.” That in the tarbuck lutgens tasa Earth science book the 12th edition.

But now there are problems now, since only one aspect of Evolution has facts the Evolutionist believes this proves their case. Everyone knows that species are kin. A species can come in a very great amount of ways. Lets take the canines species for an example. There is a vast number of different kind of them, there is short ones, tall ones, some have long ears, some pug noises, and some are fierce hunters and others can fit in a tee cup, but here’s is a very interesting fact they all are still dogs.

Evolution also has holes like the missing fossils. Interesting fact they found the fish that supposedly became the first amphibian, but a major problem was that it was not even a shore line fish but a deep sea one therefore it could not have become the first amphibian. Another hole is the circular reasoning behind Evolution. Like this How old are the fossils in the ground? Well it depends on what rock layer they are in. Well, how old are the rock layers? Well the geological time line tells us that. Well, How does the geological time line determines the age of the rock layers? Well by using index fossils which lived only for a brief time. How do we know the age of the index fossils? We know this from the rock layers they are in. and this can go on and on and……

I’m sorry I carried on.

To the next question there are other ways other than what the atheists and the creationists believe there are the people that believe in many gods and the people that believe that all of reality is not really here and it is just a subordinate function of our brains.

So I have to apologize for saying that their were only those two way, but they are (well at least in my own mind) the top to conflicting ones.

And to the third question “what are your issues concerning [this] area of study?” I like this kind of question because it is to the point of way I posted this. Well one of my issues is that this had a lot of unanswered questions that I myself am searching for. Another is that this guy says that he is right in a way that is a little to boisterous for my liking. I don’t like anyone putting down what anyone believes without trying to do it in a nice way and showing how they are wrong. And all they do is attack Creationist. It seems to me that atheists talk more about God than most Christians in know.

Thanks for your time and if you want to know more of how I believe go to the Kent Hovind web page just type in Kent Hovind in google and you should find him.

Sorry this post is so long I’ll try to answer any other questions when I receive them. But if you go and listen to Kent Hovind I don’t think that I will have to answer any cause most of what I know is form him.

P.S I used to believe in Evolution. And i am sorry if anyone was offend by this post. I do know that animals have different features and that some die out. But they still stay the same kind of animal not change to other.

321qwerty
321qwerty
11 years ago

There are two views.

1: I believe a higher being made us (God)

And the other

2: I believe my first ancestor was a rock (or before that nothing) and time molded us to what we are.

Its one or the other.

Callie_D
Callie_D
11 years ago

--those big dinosaurs what if they died in a simmilar fashion about a problem in metabolism or virus or any other way in a period of 1week or a month after origin so fossil don't count.--

I honestly have to giggle. I know next to nothing about evolution, (the reason I guess I am still able to enjoy these videos) and it seems to me that this statement, no matter how true or untrue it is would only strengthen the validity of "survival of the fittest." Ok that's all.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

over the edge
my last and final post here.First the theory doesn't contradict but you said that my knowledge isn't explaining darwin and not according to evolutionary theory.Did i say evolution didn't exsist?All i say is that their are alternates to darwin's theory. and you can't deny darwin's theory or proove it for you don't have anything surviving from past other than fossil which could have alternate.what we find in fossils appear to exsist before or at the time of primitive man.They also appear to be strong and having much of the capabillity to survive in harsh conditions.How is it that they got extinct and humans survived.No.It is greatly possible that these organisms never lived.During course of evolution they died off without having some part of them left incomplete.WHat darwin did?His theory of evolution has alternates and they do come to use and are still studied.You see just you can't give any proof to darwin's theory yet you think it's the right one.That reasoning is illogical.It's a theory no more than that.If i give you alternates you cant prove them wrong or i to prove them right.But if you cansider darwin to be true then by same reasoning you could consider mine true.You see at the alternates to darwin's theory you will find not all of them are proved wrong.Scientist lost intrest in it but they will come back just like the fact when no intrest was taken in cosmological constant even eintein who used it in his theory called it a biggest mistake.but now again i think in 1992 intrest was again generated.
robert allen
you are illogical and again absolutely illogical.I read something of course if it's from the books and not just one than it is quite clear to me that what i said isn't wrong.It's not ignorance but you fail to admit the fact that you just can't prove darwin right or me wrong.
Kateye 70
why should i prove my ideas validity.I simply said it as a joke you know it.Darwin never could prove his idea could he.You can not prove his theory for his theory needs evidence like how evolution stopped today or when an ape today turns to man i will 100% agree that darwin was the most brilliant person.You look at big bang or other theories their formers were never given nobel prize because their theory never became a law.deal with it.If i say ape evolved from a man it is just as good.Or if i say that we came into exsistence suddenly all at once due to rapid changes it would also be just as good.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

kateye 70
you are not familliar with the fact that speed of light is faster than the speed of sound.I think any science person will tell you that.The right and logical one will be the one who might understand what i am saying.i MADE MYSELF QUITE CLEAR AND I KNOW I AM RIGHT.
ROBERT ALLEN
all your previous comments say the same thing THAT i don't have enough knowledge ETC ETC ETC.
but i have it.AND I GOT THOSE FROM BOOKS I DOWNLOADED AND SOME I HAVE.YOU SEE for you truth is better lost than found for it will ruin whatever you believe in.All my argument to all of you is this that darwin's theory has alternates and they will be considered one day.Darwin was never the only one.
You have to consider through everyone perspective.I KNOW YOU CAN'T PROVE MY THEORY WRONG FOR YOU DON'T HAVE ANY THING OF THE PAST THAT MIGHT SPEAK AGAINST ANY THEORY OF PAST.MY theory does not make much sense i know it as i told you but you cant dissprove it.Same is the case with darwin you have no prove.He was always the outcast and it takes little spark to ignite a fire.He scribbled down simple concept which is still a theory which was believed in by a large number of scientists who started to twist facts into theories and did not look for alternate.That's all.His work is still a theory you can't change that.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

kateye
i am saying you can't dissaprove mine simply because you don't have the facts of that era.You only have a fossil and anything else.FOSSIL is the remains of an organisms in its era of life but what if that animal never excisted what if during the course of evolution it couldn't get complete developed or metabolism didn' work it soon after birth.those big dinosaurs what if they died in a simmilar fashion about a problem in metabolism or virus or any other way in a period of 1week or a month after origin so fossil don't count.
About rats i know perfectly well what i read and i think some other people must also have read it and it must be on the net.
AND ABOUT your theory listen simply an old saying where there is thunder there's lightning.Due to sudden changes in electric potential the lightning discharges are produced which gives energy in many form it must also produce energy in sound.Also i must also say due to conduction molecules do vibrate hence forth could have effect in producing sound.So why do lightning shine not much at the same time of sound production.The answer is simple light travels faster than sound.
Over the edge
i really dont want to write any more comments.You see you say that my knowledge is contradicting with your theory of evolution WHILE i am perfectly sure i told you about darwin's theory.SO WHEN you say evolutionary theory do you mean oparin and haldane evolutionary theory or evolutionary theory which states rapid changes being responsible for life on planet.
robert allen1
i think i know what i say about and i really don't want your advice.AND OF COURSE IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST what i say then bring it.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

katye 70
you just said that if thunder was caused by angels i know you don't believe it but i can still prove you wrong because of factual evidence we have and you know it.But what factual evidence will you give on evolution specifically explained by darwin and simillarly mine.Heel theory is lamarck not me.I say it has been a good and dominant theory for a century at least.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

Robert allen 1
I REALLY don't understand how simple is my english in previous comment.
I am saying that there are alternates to darwin's theory and better aplicable.Is darwin's theory the only one.Lamarckism even when disproved is still studied.I KNOW IT'S DISPROVED YOU CAN IMAGINE ME SHOUTING AT HIGHEST POINT. BUT IT'S STILL NOT THE ONLY ALTERNATE.There other surviving every evidence.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

robert allen 1
what am i saying is that I AM NOT ADVANCING ANY THEORY.I am saying that if charles darwin' s theory can't be disproved than my theory which wasn't the result of thinking but imagination of which i don't totally accept.But i am saying can you disprove it.It is very simple question none of you is either reasoning logically or answering.Why i ask you to dissprove it is this that just like you can't dissprove darwin you cant dissprove me take your fossil record or any other argument.So there could be many other theories like the theory of exsistance by rapid changes a competent of darwin introduced as an alternate.Thinking broadly means having every possible consideration.
If tomorrow scientist fail to prove darwin then they will always come to the alternate.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

robertallen 1
you are wrong here.wikipedia first paragraph on piltdown man
These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.
Now to lamarckism i know that if you are disproving it than it must be due to
ae housman's experiment of tails of the rats but you see it has it's significance.Darwin knew something but you should mention what.What else did he say other than finding simillarity and selective breeding phenomenon leading to better survival.Lamarckism might be discredited but you see that not all are discrediting it.Some scientist still find it suitable for some factual explaination.It is just out of the headlines right now.You remember vaccination.first edward jenner introduced it then it was completely rejected because of some primitively thinking doctors but he still continued and time proved him succesful.Later on louis pasteur REDISCOVERED It.So you cant say it's discredited 100%.And even after that i say there could be many many other alternates to his theory.So don't take darwin as the first point of cojecture.Enough said.

Khalid
Khalid
11 years ago

robertallen 1 what did i say wrong.