Jump to content


Photo

The Evolution Of Animation Makes More Evidence For Evolution.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:03 AM

When I was in high school, movies about evolution were boring. Between a couple of fossils, and a long lecture, it was almost unbearable to watch. But along comes animation, and the imagination of the person who believes in evolution, comes alive.

But is convincing people using animation as a replacement for a process that can never be observed (millions of year of claimed evolution) actual science? It would seem so as now millions flock to theatres to watch the newest animated evolution cartoon. As much as 100 million dollars are spent on the latest animation to convince the audience that evolution has been proven, and is a true fact.

The only problem is that if you remove the animation from every evolution film, what you get is what I used to have to look at in high school. Today there is not one evolution film made that does not have animation in it. And some have as much as 90% animation. Does animation now replace physical evidence as evolutionists try to prove evolution using a virtual world? So let's take a look at some of these animated videos.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...hS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The video above and below is 100% animation. Now why would it need to be 100% animation? It's because the actual physical process for this claimed millions of years of evolution cannot be provided, observed, tested, or retested. So what science cannot convince people of with physical evidence, they will through high priced animation.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...OmE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:34 AM

The BBC gets into it. The animation stands upright, so it's accepted as evidence that it did stand upright. The animator confesses that it will only work one way. Which causes a problem for the progression to upright walking. Proving that the ideas of evolution are only provable and convincable in a virtual world. This video I cannot embed because the function is disabled. But here is the link.



Now I want you to notice how the woman walks next to some foot prints that were found.

Attached File  BBC_footprint.jpg   26.88KB   20 downloads

They are not as in good shape as the ones below that were found along side dinosaur prints.

Attached File  image001.jpg   8.29KB   3 downloadsAttached File  print_2.jpg   13.35KB   3 downloads

But yet because the ones in the video support the accepted theory, they are accepted as evidence while the others, which support creation, are rejected. And I have yet to see any of the reasons why they were rejected ever pan out.

Here we have the science channel taking a stab at animating some evidence for evolution. Notice how several assumptions are made about an animal that has never been observed.



1) He hunts in the day light.
2) He only eats certain things.
etc...

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:03 AM

And here we have another animation that assumes how a animal lived that has never been observed. Watch how many assumptions are made here as well.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/scWwqYF7B5U&hl=en&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/scWwqYF7B5U&hl=en&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Added: Video above was removed because it was challenged here by creationists. This is a usual tactic when evolution cannot stand up to being challenged. Why else remove it?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-0dTksls7I&hl=en&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-0dTksls7I&hl=en&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Notice that it says: Documentary. How can you document a process that is unobservable? Does it mean that if I can animate creation I can also call it a documentary as well? LOL.

So it would seem the animated virtual evidence proves evolution more than actual physical evidence. For it allows the evolutionist to sell their ideas more on the imagination of what they believe to be true, instead of empirical evidence.

So evolution becomes an absolute true fact in a virtual world.

#4 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2009 - 01:32 AM

Yes, the tool is good for producing propaganda.

Conspicuous by their absence are the state-of-the-art renderings of the evolution of bats.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 February 2009 - 07:22 AM

The BBC gets into it. The animation stands upright, so it's accepted as evidence that it did stand upright. The animator confesses that it will only work one way. Which causes a problem for the progression to upright walking. Proving that the ideas of evolution are only provable and convincable in a virtual world. This video I cannot embed because the function is disabled. But here is the link.


View Post

I am simply amazed at how much guess work is overlooked... actually it's not overlooked, it's given the label science and called esoteric... so hands off please... no scrutiny allowed we are working very hard to tell you da truth. :o

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 February 2009 - 10:34 AM

I was always told that the latoeli footprints were too small to be modern human.By looking at the picture they are obviously the same size or even larger.That little 3 ft. tall ape sure had some big feet.

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 February 2009 - 01:47 PM

Well you know that soon they'll stick us all in a virtual world then evolution will become a absolute truth.

#8 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2009 - 03:06 PM

Since I can't watch the whale vid, perhaps someone can answer a question for me. Does it by any chance portray the nostrils moving from the tip of the snout to the rear of the head? I've been wondering what path they'd take, and as a creationist, I'm not allowed to speculate.

#9 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 February 2009 - 05:26 PM

Since I can't watch the whale vid, perhaps someone can answer a question for me. Does it by any chance portray the nostrils moving from the tip of the snout to the rear of the head? I've been wondering what path they'd take, and as a creationist, I'm not allowed to speculate.

View Post


Why not? After all, the Bible makes no mention of whales in the Garden of Eden so they must have come from somewhere. Micro-evolution from a freshwater whale maybe?

#10 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2009 - 06:50 PM

Since I can't watch the whale vid, perhaps someone can answer a question for me. Does it by any chance portray the nostrils moving from the tip of the snout to the rear of the head? I've been wondering what path they'd take, and as a creationist, I'm not allowed to speculate.

Why not? After all, the Bible makes no mention of whales in the Garden of Eden so they must have come from somewhere. Micro-evolution from a freshwater whale maybe?

View Post

I'll tell you why I'm not allowed to speculate. Because if I mention the obvious, and practically inescapable implication, I'll be accused of constructing a straw man. I'll be told "the theory of evolution doesn't say that". Which is somewhat true, considering the fact that there is no "theory of evolution".

Of course, you're at liberty to mention the path. Perhaps you'd care to do so? Shoot, I wouldn't mind hearing about alternatives, for that matter. Perhaps a non-breathing "intermediate" was involved?

I truly am beginninng to appreciate one beautiful feature of evolutionism: There's no reductio required to reach absurdum. It's already there!

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 February 2009 - 07:00 PM

Ooh this is fun. I want to know how the woodpecker's tongue evolved?

Posted Image

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2009 - 07:07 PM

Exactly! These animators have no excuse. They have the technology. They should be showing us these things.

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 February 2009 - 07:15 PM

Can we get an animation for how the bombardier beetle evolved?

Posted Image

Posted Image

#14 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:01 PM

I'll tell you why I'm not allowed to speculate. Because if I mention the obvious, and practically inescapable implication, I'll be accused of constructing a straw man. I'll be told "the theory of evolution doesn't say that". Which is somewhat true, considering the fact that there is no "theory of evolution".

Of course, you're at liberty to mention the path. Perhaps you'd care to do so? Shoot, I wouldn't mind hearing about alternatives, for that matter. Perhaps a non-breathing "intermediate" was involved?

I truly am beginninng to appreciate one beautiful feature of evolutionism:  There's no reductio required to reach absurdum. It's already there!

View Post


I would have thought that if it was designed it would have gills like every other sea creature. It almost seems cruel to design a creature to live in water and force it to breathe air.

#15 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2009 - 09:10 PM

I would have thought that if it was designed it would have gills like every other sea creature.  It almost seems cruel to design a creature to live in water and force it to breathe air.

View Post

It almost seems cruel to have such an ample supply of questions evolutionists must evade at all costs.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:20 PM

I would have thought that if it was designed it would have gills like every other sea creature.  It almost seems cruel to design a creature to live in water and force it to breathe air.

View Post


Is that the best scientific debunk you can muster up? It's cruel :) . I tell you what's cruel. Having to wait millions of years for organs to evolve and work, Having to lug around a use-less organ until it decides to start functioning. Having to breathe water, then be forced to grow lungs and breathe air instead. Having to be struck by lightening to even exist. Being weeded out (killed) just because you are not quite perfect. Being looked upon as a lower lifeform just because of race or skin color. etc...

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 February 2009 - 04:34 PM

I would have thought that if it was designed it would have gills like every other sea creature.  It almost seems cruel to design a creature to live in water and force it to breathe air.

View Post

I think the whale was one of many uniquely designed creatures to help creationists show that evolution is foolish. God was planning ahead for us to have to deal with this vein philosophy that would make time and chance the ultimate rulers of existence.

I would like to see the animation associated with these:

Venus Flytrap
Posted Image

Monarch Butterfly
Posted Image

Evolution is such a failed pseudo-science. It abuses and twists real science and is a parasite on the successes of science. I guess only time will tell if people are interested in the truth or if philosophical naturalism will remain the soothing ointment for people to ignore the implications of ignoring God.

Adam

#18 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 08 February 2009 - 06:11 PM

Is that the best scientific debunk you can muster up? It's cruel  :)  . I tell you what's cruel. Having to wait millions of years for organs to evolve and work, Having to lug around a use-less organ until it decides to start functioning. Having to breathe water, then be forced to grow lungs and breathe air instead. Having to be struck by lightening to even exist. Being weeded out (killed) just because you are not quite perfect. Being looked upon as a lower lifeform just because of race or skin color. etc...

View Post


That wasn't an attempt at a scientific debunk. I was trying to think about it from a creationists point of view.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 February 2009 - 07:59 PM

That wasn't an attempt at a scientific debunk.  I was trying to think about it from a creationists point of view.

View Post

Try emulating Adam.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 February 2009 - 05:11 AM

That wasn't an attempt at a scientific debunk.  I was trying to think about it from a creationists point of view.

View Post


It almost seems cruel to design a creature to live in water and force it to breathe air.


Well then I could also claim my response was along those lines as well.

Is that the best scientific debunk you can muster up? It's cruel    . I tell you what's cruel. Having to wait millions of years for organs to evolve and work, Having to lug around a use-less organ until it decides to start functioning. Having to breathe water, then be forced to grow lungs and breathe air instead. Having to be struck by lightening to even exist. Being weeded out (killed) just because you are not quite perfect. Being looked upon as a lower lifeform just because of race or skin color. etc...


I made the comment to show that evolution is on equal footing cncerning that issue.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users