Evolution Fact or Belief

Posted By on June 3, 2019

almost the 20th 1975 was a very special day for many scientists it was the day of the one mission to the red planet Mars as the team of technicians settled down in front of their computers instruments and monitor screens the final check of the space vehicle was taking place everything was ready that countdown and began this costly space adventure was about to swing into action to prove once and for all that given the right conditions life could evolve from long living matter the basic law of biology states that life can only come from life yet none again some scientists suggest that perhaps life could come from non-life in medieval times for instance the scientific world was convinced that vermin and flies were generated directly from rubbish dumps or garbage in fact the belief was so strong that in 1668 the celebrated Italian scientist Francesco Redi had to demonstrate by means of a simple experiment that vermin and flies breed in garbage they don't come from it he placed a piece of meat in three separate flasks the first flask was covered with a piece of thin cloth the second with a piece of paper and the third was left open to the air very soon flies started to enter the open flask and settled on the decaying meat although the Flies couldn't enter the flask covered with the cloth they could smell the meat and settled on top the one covered by paper blocked in the smell and the Flies ignored it after some time maggots appeared on the meat in the open flask maggots also appeared on the thin cloth covering the second flask the came meat in the third flask however that was covered by paper had no maggots on it it was an obvious to all the scientists that the Flies had laid their eggs on the meat in the open flask and that these had hatched into maggots as the Flies could not get to the meat in the flask covered by the cloth and could only smell it they laid their eggs on the cloth the flask covered with paper had no smell of meat and so the Flies were not attracted to it this flask was free of maggots two centuries later however believed by scientists in spontaneous generation was again very strong this time it concerned the microscopic world of bacteria and algae they just seemed to come from nowhere and most people believed they were generated from the matter where they were found one of the greatest scientists of all time Louie Pasteur didn't share this view he was convinced that the basic law of biology that only life baguettes life was just as good for bacteria as it was for vermin and flies and all other living things so before a skeptical audience he too performed an experiment he first took a flask put some broth in it which he sterilized and sealed it no bacteria formed on the broth then he used a flask with a narrow s-bend top as the dust or particles carrying bacteria were blocked in the neck of the flask no bacteria reached the broth the scientific world was obliged to accept the facts essentially later the belief has grown again that life can come from nonliving matter this time it is believed that long long ago primitive life had been developed from primitive gases and chemicals so all eyes were fixed on Mars the reason was that its atmosphere and climate although extremely cold and dry is more like Earth's than any other planet Mars seemed to be just what was required a sort of natural laboratory floating in space that could settle the question of whether life could evolve from non-life though no longer be much doubt that life evolved on earth if traces of life could be found elsewhere the Viking space rocket was equipped with one of the technological miracles of our day a miniature science lab capable of performing all the experiments of a modern university laboratory but only a cubic foot in size this fantastic apparatus was lowered onto the Martian surface and the experiments began it was designed to scoop up soil analyze it with his ultra-modern instruments and send the results back to earth of one thing the scientists felt sure if life was not existing at present it would have existed in the past there were indications that surface water had once been present on Mars and this would have created conditions similar to those that were believed to have originally existed on earth excited scientists could hardly wait to process the data that was pouring into Mission Control then came the shock it was more like an immense disappointment probably similar to that experienced by their ancestors at the time of Louis Pasteur's experiment they had been so sure that life could be generated from nonliving matter that he was almost unbelievable to find out that the Martians saw him was sterile not only was there no sign of life but there was no proof that life had ever existed in the past they checked and rechecked the data the story was the same in case they had missed something a second mission had been organized the launch of Viking 2 on the 9th of September 1975 rekindled the hopes of some of the scientists the new data was cold comfort it just confirmed the truth that no life had ever existed on Mars of course questions started to be asked after all an enormous amount of money had been spent and the believers in evolution theory were farther away than ever from providing any sort of concrete proof for their belief the investment had provided virtually nil returns and taxpayers money seemed to have been used on trying to justify a belief of a number of scientists in a theory unsupported by scientific data some were even saying that the results indicated that the whole notion of spontaneous generation evolution should be abandoned this program takes over where Viking 1 and 2 after all scientists are interviewed who have researched there is aspects of evolutionary theory to find out what the present position really is many people believe that the fossilized remains of animals proves that evolution has taken place in the past to find out whether this is really the case let's turn to the science which studies fossils the science of paleontology professor roberto Fondy is a specialist in paleontology he teaches at the Department of Earth Sciences in the University of Siena in Italy amongst his other activities he acts as scientific advisor for the reconstruction of prehistoric animals may be surprised to know that the fundamental assumptions upon which evolutionary thinking is based are not at all confirmed by paleontology firstly that living cells arose from nonliving matter by spontaneous generation this means that purely as a result of a chain of chemical reactions in a hypothetical primordial soup a living cell was formed secondly that these cells grouped themselves together into colonists to form complex multicellular structures these structures were then supposed to transform during the course of time into animals and finally man Europe according to these assumptions the ancestors of all living creatures including man can be traced back to a single cell this ancestry is represented as a gigantic genealogical tree with numerous branches sprouting from a single trunk whose roots sink directly into nonliving matter and doesn't paleontology confirm those assumptions no confirm a particle is dark with just one journey the body grupe biology cannot at all all the biological groups from bacteria and blue-green algae to men appear abruptly in the fossil record without any links connecting them with each other why is it then that so many people believe the fossils prove evolution many theory of evolution avian age evolution is presented to grownups and talk to the very young as a fact that has been verified and demonstrated for so long that it is a waste of time and even ridiculous to question it in my books beyond our bed and the organist ik revolution I give the names of well-known scientists who firmly believe evolution is a proven fact such as George Gaylord Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University yet there are also equally well known scientists who believe in evolution and admit there is no real proof such as ml goo you know of the University of Geneva and GA care cut of Southampton University so what is the truth of the matter well there is a history book of the past and that is the rocks and the fossilized remains in them so it is up to the paleontologists to read that book and give the answer and what do you read in that book professor Allegro simply omitting the fact is that after nearly two centuries of intense research the paleontological evidence for evolutionary theory is not only rare but highly questionable the point is that if evolution had really happened the evidence would be in great abundance and incontestable the museums would be overflowing with fossils clearly documenting the transitions between the various biological groups yet there are none moreover there is no indication that the situation will change in the future those very few fossils which are claimed to show some kind of evolutionary link as such as the amphibians it feeis teeka and see Moria the reptile problem magnifies the bird Archaeopteryx and the australopithecines a call Homo habilis are very far from conclusive and what about the supposed evolution of man idea of gradual evolution of man from such creatures as australopithecines is totally without foundation and should be firmly rejected man is not the most recent link in a long chain of evolution he represents a type or taxon which has existed without any substantial change since his first appearance the justification for this statement is abundantly clear from my books so what then professor is your final conclusion quite simply that more progress will be made in biology and other disciplines if they kept away from the dead-end roads of evolution mythology and resumed the fruitful approach of Aristotelian Linnaean q Varian and gaussian morphology biochemistry is the study of the very essence and structure of life it goes into the very heart of matter into the nucleus of the living cell now one these days is more qualified to talk about whether one form of living organism could have changed into another than the biochemist professor Sir Monty a biochemist geneticist and molecular biologist of international repute is just one of those scientists so let's see what his views are on the subject of evolution professor in the light of present day molecular biology how would you view evolution well in fact the recent discoveries of molecular biology F deeply changed our view on many problems one of these problems is evolution in what particular way the result of molecular biology and genetics I've shown that the main claim of evolution namely the fact that mutations are fix it by natural selection is not true what natural selection does is just eliminating the novelties which the mutation can create natural selection as a stabilizing effect on life but surely fossils show that animals and plants were different in the past and they are today so they must have changed this is not true because it's a mistake to think that if organisms were different in the past as compared to the present the present organs should have derived from those which as which are disappeared they have simply became extinct they have not given rise to new organs and this is I would say a general agreement nobody maintains that man must derive from dinosaurs obviously not the case so this is a general misunderstanding the fact that in the past we observe different organisms this means that we derive from these organs evolution theory claims that some organisms more primitive even a bacteria have evolved there were many years in the man what is your reaction professor to this claim well I feel this is ridiculous it's impossible there is no way for a small organism to became men but still more important is that what looks as a simple organist is in fact a very complex biological reality even bacteria there were such complex genetic and biochemical make up that they cannot be derived from simple forms but if this mean that all living things have always been complex right from the beginning yes this is what molecular biology and genetics have shown definitely the complexity is at the beginning we know from our study of the cell nucleus but the apparatus for making enzymes for instance without which no other proteins can be made is identical from bacteria two men since the same main types of theatres and plants alive today we're living at the past it is quite clear that the same complex mechanism of life as a system from the very beginning to the geneticist this is a very obvious proof that biochemical evolution has never taken place one final question professor when it men come out of the scene how did man surely there is no evidence that men derived from some primitive animals whatsoever for what we can say observing the human chromosomes all the human DNA and comparing it with that of other species is that man is original man is not derived from any other species so the statement that mean it's recent creature coming from some primitive form cannot be supported by genetic data at all one of the problems facing geologists today is the fossilized tree there are a number of examples in Australia and America and elsewhere where a fossilized tree can be seen running vertically through a number of coal seams here's an example from the coal fields of Birmingham in Alabama in United States as some of these fossilized trees twelve metres or more in height can be seen running through a number of banks this model gives us some idea of the situation now the curious thing is that we are told that any one of these banks takes millions of years to form now if this was the case it would take millions of years to bury the tree but that's not possible because the tree would decompose or rot long before it was all buried so what is the explanation well a scientist has studied the problem and the episode you're about to see will give you an idea of the implications of his startling but exciting discovery now in order to understand the explanation is important to know the difference between a layer and a bank these are banks these areas colored orange and yellow and blueish in each Bank you can see it a number of strata what you can't see are the layers you can't see them because as each layer of sediment arrived it sorted itself out into the banks that you can see if you could see them but they would look something like this after you've seen the film you will understand why knowing the difference between a bank and a layer is so important it not only provides the key to the fossil tree problem but it also explains why the theory of evolution is crumbling I'm not so important about those rocks well they're not any old rocks they are made mostly of tiny grains of sediment they're called said him it threw rocks and cover three-quarters of all the land on earth and what's more they were formed under the sea when the sea level dropped the sediments were exposed to the air they dried out to become rocks look at this cliff face it's divided into phases sometimes called banks or deposits the sandstone deposit has been colored yellow the deposit of clay blue the limestone colored orange each deposit or Bank is subdivided into strata these horizontal lines are strata to understand the incredible story that this film has to tell a closer look at the strata in the deposit is necessary they follow a pattern the larger particles collect together in a line at the bottom in the smaller ones gather on top this pattern is repeated throughout the deposit sometimes a break or joint can be seen between the top strata in one deposit on the bottom strata in the deposit on top these breaks are called stratification joints or bedding plain partings for some time now there's been a suspicion that these rocks contain a secret which when discovered will change our ideas on the most important subject of all how did mankind originate one of the first sedimentary rock experts was a German his name was Johannes Volta whilst in Italy at the end of the last century he examined the sediments in the Bay of Naples he discovered by boring vertically downwards through the sediments in the bay that the banks that lay on top of each other were in the same sequence as those that were lying next to each other horizontally the sequence of banks that could be seen lying side by side as he went from the coast out to the sea was the same as the sequence of banks that was that lay on top of each other in a downwards direction he realized that the belief that the bank at the bottom was older than the one on top was wrong quite obviously all the banks the one at the top the one underneath and the one at the bottom were all still forming they were forming sideways so that part of the top bank was the same age as part of the bottom bank it didn't take vaulter very long to work out what caused the banks to form sideways the particles of sediment coming into the sea from rivers floods and wind salt themselves according to their size these larger particles colored yellow stay near to the coast the less heavy ones colored blue are washed out a little farther then the tiny sediments the orange ones are carried out by the waves and currents even farther it could be seen that the layers of new sediment are deposited side by side the particles of sediment in the layers sort themselves out according to their size into the banks of various types of sediment this could be a bank of pebbles this a bank of sandstone and this one clay so the banks form sideways that part of the bank nearest the coast is older than the part of the same Bank farther away from the coast so this part of the bank at the bottom is the same age as this part of the bank of the top Avignon afore Johannes Volta or in 1872 Russians call of Kinski's and in Australia had noticed that in ancient ocean basins that had filled up with sediment the same series of deposits could be seen on the surface side by side and vertically one underneath Yaba a feature of these series of deposits or fascists are that they are parallel to the basin slope those in the Gulf of Naples observed by Volta are not they are almost horizontal the reason is but apart from small changes caused by the tides the series of deposits in the Gulf of Naples and elsewhere result from the sea always being at the same level the position of deposits of sediments in ocean basins such as those observed by the two rational scientists would seem to be the result changes in the level of the ocean rising water level is called a transgression falling water level is called a regression when the water rises or transgresses perhaps as the result of tidal waves the sediments deposited parallel to the sloping sides of the ocean basin the larger yellow particles depositing next to the slope when the water level Falls or regresses the sediments deposit with the smallest particles colored orange next to the slope looking at former ocean basins now filled in with sediments the position of the deposits or fascias indicate that the waters of the past must have risen and fallen time after time in fast succession as sedimentology would say transgressions followed by regressions seem to have occurred in cycles the different kinds of deposit are again the result of sediment sorting itself out sideways and not one type of deposit superposing itself upon another in Samba rhythm it would appear the knowing Hindi basis of the origin of sedimentary basins is the result of cycles of a fast rising and falling water level it's more technically transgressions who have regressions the position of deposits is not therefore the result of the principles of superposition and continuity but the application of the law of Gehenna smelter they see secretly these cycles of rising and falling water levels couldn't have taken place all around the world at the same time but perhaps if they were like large-scale ocean time so that where the water level was rising and depositing massive sediments in one place at the same time sediments were being deposited elsewhere this level water level was top in vivo disordered Israel the reaction of the other rock experts was a Johannes valses discovery only explained coastal rocks and the deep sea sediments were always formed by a layer of sediment forming on top of another and that the layer on top is always younger than the layer underneath in this cliff face probably formed from deep sea sediments the strata in the banks at the bottom are believed to be much older than the strata up there in the top the reason for this is that geologists believe that strata and layers are the same thing in the 1970s and 80s several holes bored into the bottom of the Pacific Ocean by the gloma challenger vessel produced samples of sediment that showed Voltas discovery applied to the deep sea sediments just as well as coastal sediments this meant that virtually all sedimentary rock formations in the world must have been formed in the same way so what does all this mean well take what is considered to be the biggest the widest the deepest the longest Canyon in the world the Grand Canyon in the United States the sides of the canyon display banks one on top of the other from the button of a mile deep canyon to the top each Bank is said to indicate an age in geological time yet what we know from Johannes valtor's discovery and the gloma challenger deep sea borings indicates that parts of different banks could be the same age nevertheless there were still those who found this difficult to accept the two recent events have occurred however which should remove all further doubts in 1980 mounts and Helen's a volcano in the United States exploded it flattened an extensive forest and caused a tidal wave in a large local lake within hours six hundred feet of sediment had formed which dried into rocks complete with strata as a result of the explosion huge amounts of mud flowed through the adjacent rocks and board a canyon over a hundred feet deep and 200 feet wide now it has always been believed that strata in rocks and canyons take millions of years to form but both these geological formations were formed within several hours the other event took place in a laboratory French sedimentology ski Bertil discovered two immensely important facts the first was that sand flowing continuously whether in a vacuum in the air or in the water sorts itself out into alternating deposits of large and small particles that look like layers but are not layers the second vital fact emerged during the program of experiments he was directing with the State University of Colorado looking through the transparent sides of a large tank or flume he studied the particles of sediment in the moving water he observed that when the speed of the count was reduced only the large particles of sediment were deposited when the current was increased micro strata started to form so the grading of particles in strata was not just the result of layers of sediment piling up on top of each other as it always been thought the grading could simply be due to variations in the speed of the current when the particles were deposited a further startling discovery was the joints or breaks between strata are the result of desiccation or drying out of sediment it used to be thought that these joints were caused by an interruption in the supply of sediment it was thought that the surface of the laughte deposited strata had hardened and that many years later new sediments started to fall and a new strata formed on top of the old one this theory now has to be abandoned because of two new discoveries the first was that the underwater borings of gloma challenger showed that surface sediments under the sea never harden in fact hardening of sediments only starts 300 metres below the seabed the only known exception is chirped sediments which even so only start hardening 100 meters below the sea bottom the second discovery was in the laboratory it was found that when the sea level drops and the damp sediments are exposed to the air brakes occur between some of the strata as part of the drying out process so these joints or brakes have nothing to do with time these experiments performed by a team of experts over many months under the most rigorous laboratory conditions have been filmed and are available for all to see they confirm the most important fact ever discovered in the history of sedimentology strata provide no indication of age Gabe Ethel has shown that the strata you see in these banks are caused by changes in water currents they don't just deposit themselves one upon the other over vast periods of time formed sideways in a crab-like fashion just like the banks these experiments were then performed on a larger scale and presented to the 14th International Congress of sedimentology in the following documentary film sedimentary rocks are fascinating because they witnessed the past history of the earth their study should unveil mysteries about their formation and the history of living species the principal features of sedimentary rocks include distinct starters a relatively homogeneous material intermittent settling over very long periods of time figure among possible explanations of stratification internally sedimentary rocks display microscale stratification or lamination a relatively coarse and fine particles because sedimentary rocks film from settling of particles underwater it is instructive to study fundamental sedimentation patterns in the hydraulics laboratory a mixture resulting from equal weights of coarse sands in black and fine sands in white is tested in the laboratory consider the motion of a sphere rolling on a horizontal surface the radius of the spheres are the mass is M the angular velocity Omega and the translation velocity V is equal to Omega times R the moment of inertia of the sphere is equal to 2/5 of the product of the mass M and the square of the radius the kinetic energy of the motion is given by the following formula is equal to 7/10 of the product of the mass times the square of the velocity this formula shows that at a given velocity the kinetic energy of a sphere increases with the mass it shows that coarse particles of a higher kinetic energy dim finer particles this example illustrates that rolling coarse particles have more kinetic energy than small particles the mobility of coarse particles in front of obstacles or surface perturbation therefore increases consider a homogeneous mixture of coarse particles in black and small particles in between when we set this mixture into motion the small particles which have a lower kinetic energy fall between the coarse particles and deposit on the bottom of the moving layer the coarse particles with higher kinetic energy roll on top of the fine bed of fine particles particle segregation occurs under lateral motion of the mixture coarse black particles roll on top of fine particles when they have the same specific gravity submerged particles under hydraulic shear stress also display the same particle segregation characteristics the fundamental question about lamination is the following does nature produce a repetitive segregation under a continuous supply of sediment first the submerged conditions are examined the turbulent fluid motion surrounding the particles led scientists to believe that lamination was caused by periodic cycles of turbulence when the same experiment is carried out in the air the settling cone displays all the features of lamination through repetitive segregation moreover the laminae thickness increases with the feeding rate of the sediment mixture it should be noted that lemon a foam in the direction of motion here at an angle exceeding 30 degrees given the absolute vacuum is at minus 29.92 inches of mercury the hypothesis of turbulence is tested near complete vacuum at minus 22 inches of mercury lemmie nation develops without the presence of a surrounding fluid lamination therefore depends on the mechanical interaction between particles of different sizes different shapes and different densities under submerged conditions lamination also occurs during gradual aggradation of the bed under plain bed conditions here's the same lamination sequence in accelerated motion large-scale experiments on stratification were carried out at the hydraulics laboratory of the Colorado State University Engineering Research Centre for the experiments a four-foot wide flume measuring 60 foot long recirculates 1000 cubic feet water and eight tons of a scent mixture this flue provides a continuous supply of coarse and fine sand particles under steady discharge conditions consider a typical Delta sketch on the board at the initial time t1 the Delta is comprised of three parts the top set the four set and the bottom set slope at time initial time t1 over time the coarse particles rolling on the bed slide down the four set slope of the Delta and accumulate as the Delta progresses in the downstream direction finer particles rolling on the bed settle in form a layer of primarily fine particles the particles in suspension are carried through and deposit on the bottom set slope of the Delta after a certain time interval we get a second bed profile at time t2 the sediments accumulated on the bed from time t1 to t2 define what is called a layer of sediment a layer of sediment is the accumulation of sediment between the initial time t1 and subsequent time t2 this typical Delta gradually progresses in the downstream direction a close look at the top set slope in slow motion clearly shows a laminated deposit of finer particles the thickness of a top set deposit decreases in the downstream direction as the faucets slope of the Delta is approached over a long period of time the accumulation of sediments displays clear stratification with fine particles on top coarse particles in the middle in fine particles on the bottom it is important to understand that the chronology of the formation the deposits depends on the layers and not on the strata isochrone thus correspond to the interface between successive layers not strata the thickness of strata is determined by the changes in sediment transport that occur in non-uniform flow it's now considered to particles in the Delta particle a in the upper strata and particle B in the lower strata particle a deposited at a time t1 before particle B particle being the lower strata therefore deposited after particle a in the upper strata increasing the flow depth while keeping the discharge and the supply of sediment unchanged results in more complex sedimentary features substantial deposits accumulate with features including deltas dunes and ripples at various stages of development a dried Delta viewed from the phlume sidewalls displays clear stratification characteristics in terms of superposition of deposits with similar particle size distribution a cross-section is cut through the Delta to examine the primary features of deposits of sediment mixtures carried out under steady flow and a continuous sediment supply the cross-section displays a clear superposition of strata of fine particles in white and coarse particles in black with clear lamination looking at the cross-section of superposed strata it is tempting to conclude that the strata correspond to successive sedimentary layers but they result from discontinuous sedimentary periods that each strata is younger than the one underneath it and older than the one above it and that all points of the same strata have the same age this stratification experiment invalidates these hypotheses because these strata are not identical to successive layers moreover clear stratification is observed on the a continuous supply of a charge in youths and particles why is this important well quite simply because strata have been used a date sedimentary rocks and the fossils in them for over 100 years and now for the first time ever there is experimental proof to show how strata fall and it is quite obvious that strata cannot be used to date either fossils or rocks in fact the fossils in the bottom strata could be younger than the fossils in the top strata here you see some sea creatures which live at different ecological levels a heavy influx of sediment arrives and they all get buried eventually if no air gets to them they could turn into fossils obviously those buried in the top strata are the same age as those in the bottom strata as they were buried in the same layer of sediment then another heavy layer of sediment arrives and more sea creatures are trapped but what is more important is the ones at the top of the previous layer were buried before the one in the bottom of the last layer so the one at the top here is older than the one at the bottom let the director of the research program explain let there be deliveries shown so bad your new Chanel theory is based upon the belief with a succession of fossil species in a scale of geological time demonstrates that evolutionary progress has taken place as we have seen however and as we have shown in the laboratory layers of incoming sediment have been wrongly identified as being strata the scale of geologic time and the chronological succession of fossils have been calculated on this mistaken belief that strata are successive layers of sediment a single layer of sediment can sort itself out into parts of many strata so the position of fossils in the rock strata could simply indicate the ecological zones of marine species stratigraphy as interpreted by observable facts and experimental data challenges the geological time scale and therefore evolution theory how old is the earth is it millions of years or just a few thousand years and what does radiometric dating tell about the age of rocks the science of physical chemistry can throw some light on these questions and professor Edward Bordeaux is a physical inorganic chemist who teaches at a university in New Orleans Louisiana and he has studied these matters so he should be able to help us professor boardroom it is explained elsewhere in the program where the strata and the fossils in the rock couldn't give no indication as the age of those rocks can you tell us if there are any other methods by which the rocks of the strata can be dated for example by carbon-14 dating let us get one thing clear about carbon-14 it is an unstable radioactive form of the element carbon which occurs in all living matter a living organism when it's alive is absorbing and expelling carbon a small amount of which is carbon-14 and at some point in time when an organism dies the carbon-14 that was present remaining at the point of death is what would be detected radioactively a piece of wood for example car a bone would contain a small amount of carbon-14 when the the tree which bore the wood or the animal which bore the bone died at kog'maw 14 that remained is decaying it takes thousands of years for the decay process to occur about five thousand seven hundred and sixty years for half an original amount of carbon-14 to decay so by measuring how much of it has decayed an indication of how long ago the organism was alive can be obtained as rocks were never alive they contain no called 14 even the fossils in the rocks cannot be dated by this method because the original living matter in them has turned into stone does this mean that the fossils can't be dated by radioisotopes well certainly not by carbon-14 with any degree of reliable as you know virtually all the fossils are found in sedimentary rocks and because this type of rock rarely contains radioactive elements the fossils have had to be dated by rock strata in which they are formed and as we know the latest experiments show that rock strata give no indication of age other types of rocks such as crystalline rocks which do not contain fossils and lava do sometimes contain radioactive elements and these isotopes are used to date them can you tell us in simple terms how you data fossil or rock with a radioisotope yes let us take a radioactive element such as uranium this element decays very slowly into a non radioactive element which is led now the rate of the decay can be measured in the laboratory so by comparing what's left of a uranium element in the rock with the amount of decayed lead element that was formed and knowing the rate of decay an idea can be had of how long it has taken for the led to form so if half of the uranium has decayed into lead and by knowing how long it takes for uranium to decay in turn it yes you can tell the age of the rock that's the theory why do you see theory surely if it's a process you can observe and measure it must be affect not at all look again at the diagram you can see that there are a number of uranium particles the orange ones and a number of lead particles the blue ones here we have to make three major assumptions the first is that all of the lead particles who are originally uranium particles but there is no reason to believe that there were not some lead particles in the rock when it was formed you see there is plenty of natural lead in rocks that doesn't come from uranium at all really yes let us take the extreme case if this rock contained radioactive uranium and no lead then the LED that would appear as a consequence of uranium decay would be a fairly accurate measurement of the age of that rock or to take a more likely situation that at least some of the lead was in the rock when it was formed then the age of the rock is much less than we are led to believe then there's the matter of leaking out due to solubility could that happen most definitely salts of uranium and other radioactive elements are quite capable of dissolving in water and therefore will be removed from the sample so if the rock had been exposed to water for some period of time such as during a flood some of the uranium could have been washed out this would mean that the age ascribed to the rock would be much too great but surely there must be other radioactive material elements which are more reliable than uranium well there's radioactive thorium and there is sponson in rubidium and there's potassium but these are no more reliable than uranium the salts of these latter elements are even more soluble in water than uranium salts so a worldwide flood would have made all these methods useless most definitely let me give you an example of how water can affect where do act of dating less than 200 years ago the Hawaiian volcano killed away erupted and the lava which emerged from that eruption was submerged in water it was subsequently dated by the potassium-argon method clearly it should have shown the age of the lava to be about 200 years the date recorded however was 22 million years obviously the highly soluble potassium salt had leaked out of the sample and left it looking very old other samples taken from hulu la a volcano lava from eighteen hundred and one were dated between a hundred and sixty million and three thousand million years old the situation gets worse and worse but there's also another assumption in radiometric dating and that is that the rate of decay has remained constant and has not been influenced in the past there are a number of things which could have influenced rates of decay such as well the production of neutrinos from cosmic radiation could have been enhanced by reversal of the Earth's magnetic field or the explosion of the supernova in a nearby star science has proclaimed that these events have occurred in the past and they could have a stamp substantial effect therefore and the radioactive decay rate so if radiometric dating is no guide what other methods are available there are great many natural processes which date the earth to be relatively young for example if the compelling evidence that the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing with time is a fact then we would find that the earth would be rather young rather than old one final question professor Porter in your opinion how long ago did the Big Bang take place the whole Big Bang hypothesis was constructed to support evolution theory without evolution theory there's no Big Bang it's difficult to believe that all those biologists zoologists and other scientists can be wrong after all they've been trained in the world's leading universities perhaps professor Matty Getty of the Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of dendrology who lectures in population genetics at the Turin University in Poland can help us a good scientist is one who raises his conclusions on experimental data and observations scientists who study genetics psychology anatomy or any other field of experimental sciences he is good and reliable regardless what he thinks about evolution science works really well this way where things do go wrong is when someone claims to be an expert in evolution why do you say that because evolution is not a science it is a philosophy since scientists trust each other they often accept the claim of evolutionists that evolution is a science but it is not it is the opinion of theoretical biologists and philosophers that evolution designs but is there any scientific evidence for evolution what is claimed to be a an evidence for evolution is the universally observable fact that every organism has parents that is one parent now this coupled with the knowledge that there was a time when there were no ants no frogs no men leads to the unscientific postulate that the first frog was born of a non frog the first end of a known name the first human of a nonhuman is on why do you say this idea is out scientific because the available evidence does not support it the science of genetics clearly shows that such change is not possible the evolution is going in further they claimed that living things have evolved from nonliving matter but if there's a scientific data to support the evolutionists claims how is it they managed to convince so many other scientists that evolution is a scientific fact their main argument is that they are small and positive or beneficial mutations occur in their reproduction cells and are retained by natural selection these mutations they say accumulate and cause a species to gradually change into another species now I am a geneticists and I can confirm that in all the studies in all laboratories around the world where many generations of Organists have been produced nowhere have positive mutations have ever been observed and also in the most studied population of all the human population although mutations are either neutral or harmful they are never an improvement in fact nature is programmed to protect genes from changes and to correct errors that have occurred but if mutations don't cause changes what causes all the different varieties of animals and the different types of men the varieties come from recombinations from the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction organism adapted to a set of conditions will concentrate in an environment that has these conditions by interbreeding they will form a population which has the what we call it becomes a variety now also if by accident the population is isolated some features may concentrate in that population and give it a distinct appearance this is what we call genetic drift but don't these varieties represent some form of evolution well many people claim that through this process a new biological types with up will arise but this is not so all that has happened is that some genes have been segregated out from the population and the population that we obtain is impoverished it is poorer in gene content no new genes have been formed now if there are no new genes there is no potential for new organs no potential for new organisms just a different variety of the same species resulted we do this ourselves ourselves all the time inbreeding by selection and isolation we obtain new varieties of animals and plants we select horses cows dogs and so on also in plant cereals vegetables and so on we selected those which are useful to man which have certain characteristics and that are of special interest to us but these populations are restricted in the genetic pool and they are very much dependent on the conditions on the external conditions that are provided for them they are dependent on the conditions that man will create for them and if they are left alone they either die or they will if they survive they will return to the wild state they will cease to be a separate variety so if life-forms are more resistant in a natural state any change that takes place in nature would perhaps be long-lasting just mixing of genes whether in natural conditions or in domesticated conditions does not provide new genes for evolution we need new jeans full of new genetic information there is no natural process known to science which will produce these new genes neither by isolation selection mutation or breeding this is not possible but why is it then but children are taught that one species can evolve into another but I think it is because evolutionists are unwilling to face the fact that genes contain so much useful information information needed for the precise functions that the organs have to perform it's a sense we have been learned how to read the genetic code that we have become aware of the mass of information contained in the genes there's no known way to solve the science of how this information can arise spontaneously it requires an intelligence it cannot arise from chance chance events just mixing letters does not produce poetry the science of molecular biology makes it clear that never in the past could there have been such a thing as a simple organism all organism however primitive they may appear are complex and bursting with information and we know that this information must have been there from the very beginning for example the very complex DNA RNA protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start if not life systems could not exist the only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from intelligence every bacterium every microscopic cell is so precisely programmed that we have to assume that the information contained within it comes from an intelligence far beyond our own the evolutionists do not want to accept this self-evident fact as a result they are producing theories which have no scientific value because they do not provide any ideas how new genetic information is produced now the curious thing is that the school textbooks and the reference books in Natural History continue to say that evolution is an established fact yet as this program has shown in the light of current scientific knowledge far from being a fact scientists are saying that evolution doesn't even appear to be an acceptable hypothesis the idea of gradual evolution of man from such creatures as australopithecines is totally without foundation and should be firmly rejected so the statement that made its recent creator coming from some primitive form cannot be supported by genetic data at all let Theory delivery the theory of evolution is therefore unsupported by geology there are great many natural processes which our date the earth to be relatively young because evolution is not a science it is the philosophy a number of scientists are making the same point they say that if people continue to believe in evolution theory despite the now overwhelming evidence against it that they must be doing so for philosophical reasons and not for scientific ones the new discovery showing that rock strata form sideways is of course enormously important fossil species for instance can no longer be arranged into evolutionary trees it also explains why the fossil links between the different kinds of animals and the different kinds of plants have never been found the scientists presented in this program are just a sample of several thousand who have reached the same conclusion that evolution theory is really a fairy tale for grownups you

Posted by Lewis Heart

This article has 7 comments

  1. To those who cast aspersions upon this documentary I ask, are you in fact actually examining what is being stated? I really don't think you are. This isn't a surprise as we are told that these things would happen well before Darwinian theory was ever postulated. Evolutionary theory is indeed nothing other than a philosophy, camouflaged as science. For those who reject even the possibility of a God or creation, there is no other viable choice, other than to look to unviable natural processes.

    "3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men". (2 Peter 3: 3-7)

  2. Darwinian Evolution is nothing more than a modern creation myth and has been leading people to hell since 1859.

  3. Notice that these kinds of videos never actually NAME the awards they won.  People with no experience in the publishing industry have no idea how many of these "awards" are generated for sales purposes and developed for every possible client.  Publishers have full-time staff to help coordinate such "awards" as well as professional publicists can be paid to come up with an award for whatever you need to sell.  The gullible public eats this stuff up and they know that it works.

    Of course, phrases like "top scientific minds" and "award winning international documentary" are just as meaningless in these contexts.  (By the way, an "international documentary" is simply a video which has speakers from more than one country and/or some footage from more than one country.)

  4. Often the video spends a lot of time IMPLYING falsehoods which they intentionally pour upon the targeted audience of science-illiterates but without quite making an overt statement of the lie.  The only thing the video is good for is summarizing the worst of creationist evolution-denialism arguments of the last half century. As a born-again, Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I am saddened that far too many naive and gullible Christians are promoting rubbish like this.

  5. The video wastes the first ten minutes confusing abiogenesis and The Theory of Evolution and pretending that Louis Pasteur's experiments which debunked "spontaneous generations" myths (e.g., rotting meat generates maggots and flies; sweaty shirts produce lice) somehow render impossible and untenable all modern hypotheses about abiogenesis.  The video lies about the Mars soil survey missions "disproving" The Theory of Evolution. 

  6. "Ground breaking" is a joke.  This is very old (as in 1962 THE GENESIS FLOOD by Morris & Whitcomb) "creation science" nonsense which even embarrass Ken Ham on an honest day. (OK, if he ever HAD an honest day, this would embarrass him.)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *