Evolution is not true. Here's proof!?

Question

Watch this video. It proves it's not true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs&mode=related&search=

Did you know that skeletons of giants have been found, but scientists suppress the information? It's true. Giants were mentioned in the Bible.

Don't believe the evil lies of evolution.

Do you agree?

Answer 1

The kid is reading Kent Hovind. That is why he is looking off to the side ... it's not a dramatic effect, he is reading from his monitor. In a way this is hilarious ... but I find it chilling to watch a kid read stuff like this from a glowing monitor as if receiving instructions directly from the hive-mind!

So that's all this is. A high-school kid reading from a Kent Hovind web site. All it does is export to the rest of the world the image that American High Schools are turning out drones and idiots.

He's even copied Kent Hovind's short, choppy, humorless delivery. Can't you guys do *anything* original?

As an example of the level of utter hooey that Kent Hovind (and mini Kent Hovind in the video) can descend to ... somehow we get as "proof that evolution is not true" a discussion of how the street plan of Washington D.C. is a pentagram. (?!) Hovind (and mini-Hovind) present it like a top-secret revelation now only revealed by looking at satellite photos, where anybody can see this just by looking at a friggin' *map*. D.C. was laid out this way by Pierre Charles L'Enfante, who was a freemason, not a satanist (although people like Hovind like to equate the two). What?! We have freemason symbols in our country? (This isn't news to anybody who has ever looked at a dollar bill.) Shocking? If you are prone to bouts of paranoid conspiracy theories, yes. But "proof" against evolution? Huh?

As for the "Giants" ... is it really the scientists suppressing the information? Or is it the creationists who refuse to make these "skeletons" available for inspection? Why are they only shown as quick flashes in a powepoint presentation? Perhaps because some or all of them can be easily proved to be fakes made of plaster and bailing wire?

This is what happens when you take people like Kent Hovind seriously. You end up making YouTube videos that make you look like a raging nutjob ... a raging DWEEB nutjob.

Answer 2

Dude, that video was ******* funny! I don't know if it was a joke or not (it's actually a lot funnier if you assume it's not) but it was ridiculous from beginning to end.

Am going to sit and watch it again and do a bit of a running commentary as I go through...

"Some people believe that Charlie Darwin started the theory of evolution, actually it was Satan in the Garden of Eden..."

Funny, funny stuff! Did you know that Satan published his work in Nature? He originally submitted to Science, but was knocked back and rather than re-write he went to another core journal. Calling Charles Darwin Charlie? It makes him sound silly! From that point alone, I felt my supposedly impenetrable walls of logic and science crumbling...

I see a few people have noted the direction of this video, it's pure genius, one shot of dorky bloke looking into camera, one shot of dorky bloke side on to look deep, repeat.

Loved his spot the difference competition, it was just lovely!
Did notice he was using Fire Fox though, kind of made me want to swap back to IE7!
And his big, **** eating grin he gave the camera immediately after panning away from the computer screen, brilliant!

Liked his whale bit, it's a shame he has it all backwards bless him. The current theory is that aquatic mammals such as the dolphin and whale were once land dwelling. So whales did not evolve into cows, it was actually kind of the opposite.

Loved the evolution of cutlery, it was great! Clearly our friend thinks that the stages involved in evolution are generated soley through the use of physical matching, apparently the field of phylogenetics does not exist!

Nooooo! I'm a biological machine, a slave to chemical reactions in my brain, I can feel all of the trust in my thoughts failing!

Blah, blah, discrediting ID (not that it's hard), liked his use of the word diametrically though, made me realise how clever he clearly is.

Ok, 12 - 15 foot man skeletons? This bit was just weird, does anyone have any idea where I can find these man skeletons? Are we sure they aren't fossilised giraffes? Or trees? Does anyone think that Photoshop rather than God may have been responsible for this "evidence"?

He just got a bit freaky again, "...the most important building in the world is at the bottom of a giant Satan pentagram?" Town planning, or evidence of Evil in Washington, you decide!

Loved it, each and every second of it was pure class.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to church, halleluiah, or something...

Answer 3

Oh, yeah, so convincing to have a nobody do a movie sitting on his bed in front of a web cam which he spends half the time not looking at directly for "dramatic effect" and derived all his "proofs" from a fairy tale book (the bible).
If this is the best anyone can offer, evolutionists can sleep soundly, creationists pose no threat, except that they are likely to have kids and reduce the quality of the human genome.
If skeletons of giants were found and that the information has been "suppressed", then how come you know about them, huh?

Personally, I do not believe the lies of creationists, they got nothing but a silly book, available in several variously edited versions, and all of those have the interesting characteristic of self-contradicting on numerous points (see link if you dare).
Evolutionists have one thing over creationists: they use their brain to derive laws from facts. Creationists twist facts until they meet their interpretation of the bible. Creationists are the evil ones, because their faith is based on *nothing*, and they want to force their view on everyone else.

Answer 4

Wow I'm convinced. Now 'scuse me while I toss out 150 years worth of peer reviewed publications like Journal of Biology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Science, Nature, Comptes Rendues, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA and hundreds of other journals in English, French, Russian, German, Japanese, Chinese, Italian and Spanish just to name some, on the strength of an amateur 9 minute video. You weren't serious? Well neither was I.

Who repeatedy lies about the second law of thermodynamics, the bombardier beetle, the Paluxy "footprints", the human eye, the age of the Earth, carbon dating, the fact that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the appearance of life, the Piltdown cranium, the Dubois finds and the peppered moth? It aint the Queen of England that does, old son.

Giants, yes they would have had trouble getting on a professional basketball team these days. All of 6'6" they were.

Answer 5

a million. How do you comprehend there became a surprising die off of the adult males? you do not, which makes you finished argument void, because of the fact it hinges on the surprising die out. 2. not all evolutionary branches are valuable. 3. If this species has environmental stresses that kill it, that's going to in all probability be unable to evolve because of the cloning and one hundred% genes coming from one determine, meaning much less variability for alterations. 4. on your concepts, do you think of atheists could clarify this variety of element because of the fact we don't think of god snapped his palms and each thing popped into life?

Answer 6

Whilst I believe in creation, I also believe in evolution.

Just look at human beings. 100 or more years ago, the 5' was tall and the average lifespan was approximately 40 years.

Today, 6'5 is tall and we are all living longer. Due to our greater knowledge, we are eating better and have evolved into taller beings.

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive

Answer 7

Did you know that the theory of evolution is officially accepted by the Catholic Church? (By the way "theory" doesn't mean "as yet unproven", it simply means a suggested explanation for "how" something works - like "atomic theory"). In other words, many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) believe in both God and evolution.

Believing in God doesn't mean you have to believe in a flat earth, or that the sun revolves around our planet (two ideas that "heretics" were burned alive for believing).

And if it turns out that the science of evolution is wrong, I don't think God would send me to Hell for believing in it. He wouldn't send me to Hell for believing in a flawed theory of Quantum Physics, would He?

Answer 8

The guy that makes this video claims that the White House is at the bottom of a pentacle, meaning that Satan rules us. Sorry, but he's an idiot (and I haven't even mentioned his disgraceful creation arguments).

Answer 9

Yes indeed, it is one of Satan's biggest lies he has going.
Stewart,you mentioned the Catholic Church accepting evolution. All THIS does is prove they are sorely misled. They follow a false doctrine which relies on works for salvation(among NUMEROUS others) so why should anyone believe them when they say evolution is true?

For believers in the lie of EVILution, here's some food for thought:
How do gifts evolve?These are attributes like laughing, singing, dancing, reading, playing, understanding, complex thinking, offering sympathy, and simply smiling. Experts on evolution rarely tackle these qualities because they can’t explain them. Is Albert Einstein a product of natural selection, or is he merely a product of many genetic mutations? Or Mark Twain? Or Gandhi? Or Shakespeare? Or Mother Teresa? What about “idiot savants” who can play thousands of songs on the piano without a lesson? Evolutionary theories do not explain these special skills.
The Problem of Intermediates : Thousands of animal species suddenly exploded on the scene in the Cambrian period, and many more “sudden-species” have shown up since. Some experts have argued that there was an atmospheric problem, like low oxygen tension, that prevented fossil formation in certain areas—yet there are much older, unrelated fossils in the same areas. Note that the whale, the largest animal on the planet, lacks significant fossil evidence. (Darwin said whales came from bears, but there are no part-bear, part-whale fossilized bones.)

If humans truly had monkeys as prehistoric intermediates, shouldn’t there still be, somewhere in the world, a remote family of humans that still walk on all fours, or a few folks with very long arms, or people who hang from and procreate in trees, or groups who still eat ticks found on their spouses? Shouldn’t some humans have retained a hairy coat? Desmond Morris wrote that there are 193 living species of monkeys and apes and that 192 are covered with hair. It seems odd that only one line requires parkas, gloves, and electric heating for chilly nights. Survival of the fittest should have enhanced those who had natural protection from the cold. And where did that tail go? The entire appendage just dropped off.

Listen to Mr. Darwin’s worries on the subject:

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the Earth must be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Ape babies pass through the birth canal with their faces looking up, whereas most human babies face downward. How did the birth of a child swing around 180 degrees without any intermediate stages? It seems as though the entire human race would have perished if that change had evolved slowly—a baby would die quickly if its head passed through the pelvis sideways and got stuck; it would probably kill the mother as well. If this flip-over had happened suddenly, the change would have required an immeasurable number of simultaneous, purposeful, genetic mutations in both mother and baby. It couldn’t have just happened. So if it could not have happened slowly and it could not have come about quickly, where’s the answer? That depends on one’s belief system, not known facts. It’s also odd that the gorilla, which is double human-size, delivers an infant that is 50-percent smaller than the average human baby. Maybe we humans should have smaller babies, which favors survival—not ones whose heads are so large they can damage and sometimes kill their mothers. Perhaps the original primates delivered their babies face down, and apes (not us) are the changed ones. If so, one would then have to explain how the intermediate monkeys survived childbirth.

Answer 10

i beleive in evolutions because they came from satan in the garden of eden in the very beginning of the world but dont like to tamper with the devil not while Gods on my side.