(Larger Image)
|
Biological Evidence of Creation: From a Frog to a Prince
Director: Gillian Brown
Product Group: Video
Studio: American Portrait
ISBN: 6305022372
EAN: 9786305022374
UPC: 026297886936
VHS Tape
Running Time: 28 minutes
Release Date: 1998-01-01
Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
SKU: T071212-3659
Condition: New
Comments: New VHS. New condition. Plastic sealed. Ships first class same day or next well protected. Enjoy.
|
Editorial Reviews
|
Description
A kiss from a princess can't turn a frog into a prince, yet evolutionists claim that ancestral amphibians did change into people just by chance and natural selection. Such major biological change needs new information: from where could it come? At Oxford University, a prominent defender of Darwinian evolution, Dr. Richard Dawkins, says the selective accumulation of lucky mutations can explain it. This view is challenged by biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner in Israel, and by molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton in New Zealand. In German, Dr. Werner Gitt, an information scientist, explains that evolutionary processes cannot produce new information. And in Australia, bilogist Dr. Don Batten shows there are clear limits to biological change; frogs will always breed frogs.
|
Customer Reviews
|
Read this first.
Rating  (1)
Date: 2006-01-18
0 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
The interview with Dawkins was conducted under false pretenses and edited dishonestly.
|
|
This video is really, really stupid.
Rating (1)
Date: 2004-12-29
2 out of 8 customers found this reveiw helpful
The video's very first claim, that modern scientists consider it an established fact that living things evolved without the involvement of a divine creator, is simply false. No scientific theory, including evolution, says anything at all about supernatural beings or actions. Many prominent evolutionists and many prominent creationists agree that evolution and God are entirely compatible, so the video starts with a blatant falsehood.
Next, Michael Denton claimed that complex biological features are not fully functional unless all their components are in place simultaneously, which means such features can't possibly evolve one step at a time. Denton used aerodynamic feathers as his example of something that could not possibly exist in less than its fully developed form. Well, I suggest he consider the next chicken he eats for dinner. Before it arrived on his plate, that chicken was covered with feathers, not a single one of which was fully aerodynamically functional. Denton's own example refutes his argument. Feathers CAN exist in less than "fully functional" form.
Werner Gitt proclaimed that information cannot come from random processes. Wrong! Even other creationists, such as William Dembski, agree that information can come from random processes. Furthermore, even if Gitt were correct, it's irrelevant, because evolution involves survival of the fittest, and that is a law-like process, NOT random. Duh!
Don Batten proclaimed, "There is no new genetic information . . . every single beneficial mutation actually loses information." Wrong! First, mutations, beneficial or not, are still new genetic information, which contradicts Batten's first statement. Secondly, his "loss of information" claim is an extremely narrow-minded view. Specifically, his statement referred to the flightless cormorants of the Galapagos Islands, which lost the ability to fly, hence the alleged "loss of information." But the anatomical changes that made the cormorants unable to fly also enabled them to become very efficient divers. Since they feed on fish in the shallow waters around the islands, this new ability, based on new genetic information, is obviously a valuable improvement.
Spetner compared cars and computers to living things, arguing that cars and computers both need a designer, therefore living things must need a designer too. Wrong! Spetner's argument is an analogy, and analogies are valid only if the essential elements relevant to the analysis are identical. In this case, reproduction is one of the essential elements of evolution. Living things reproduce, but cars and computers don't, therefore they are missing one of the essential elements relevant to the comparison, and the comparison is invalid. This is elementary logic, but apparently even elementary logic is beyond the grasp of some creationists.
Batten made a very interesting claim, one I actually agree with, regarding the great variety of ancient horse fossils. Batten said that despite that great variety, it is impossible to verify that those fossils actually represent separate species (i.e, incapable of fertile interbreeding with modern horses). Batten said that if all those primitive horses were alive today, there might be a breeding chain uniting them all in a single species, the same way that all dogs, from miniature Chihuahuas to Great Danes, are united in a single species. In other words, even though a miniature Chihuahua might not be able to mate directly with a Great Dane, nevertheless, the Chihuahua can mate with a slightly larger dog, which can mate with a still larger dog, and so on, until some dog mates with the Great Dane. This "breeding chain" from the smallest to the largest breed unites all of those breeds in a single species, and evolution of one breed to another would thus qualify as "microevolution," which creationists readily accept. Batten says the "breeding chain" concept applies to all those different "breeds" of horse fossils.
I think Batten is absolutely right here, and that's absolutely devastating to creationism, because his argument can be applied to other species too.
For example, if all ancient ape and hominid fossil forms were brought back to life, there's no reason to believe we wouldn't find a breeding chain linking them to modern humans. And thus the evolution of apes into humans would also qualify as microevolution, which creationists should readily accept, using their own "horse sense" reasoning! Of course, creationists refuse to follow their own reasoning here, but applying Batten's basically correct argument shows just how nonsensical creationism is.
One of the most hilarious statements was by Spetner, to the effect that "I've done the math showing that evolution is impossible." Mathematical arguments may look impressive, especially to gullible or poorly educated folks, but in reality, mathematics, by itself, is meaningless. In the 1800s, conservative Christians like Samuel Birley Rowbotham used math to "prove" that the earth was flat. More recently, con artists at the Greater Baptist Ministries used math to show gullible Christians how profitable their investment program was, right up to the day its managers were charged with criminal offenses. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure, so Spetner's phony math arguments are simply worthless.
The narrator ended the video, proclaiming in solemn tones that Genesis states that living things are the result of design, not chance. My response: "So what?" Evolution involves more than mere chance. It also involves the law-like process, survival of the fittest.
Evolution and design are entirely compatible (even creationists accept at least microevolution), so the narrator could just as easily have proclaimed, in equally solemn tones, that the Bible supports evolution, because evolution exhibits the regularity and order that we associate with designed processes. "God formed man from the dust of the earth" is basically a poetic description of evolution!
In short, this video vividly demonstrates how nonsensical and dishonest creationism is.
|
|
An Interesting Overview of Evolution-Creation Debate
Rating  (5)
Date: 2000-07-27
6 out of 8 customers found this reveiw helpful
This video from American Portrait Films raises serious challenges to the theory of Evolution. To be clear, the feature is not a complete chronicle of the Creation-Evolution debate with the many issues and sub-issues underlying, but it is a good introduction to Creation Science. In addition, The look on the face of no-it-all Evolutionist Richard Dawkins when the Video's host asked a question he didn't have an immediate answer to is worth the price of the video.
|
|
|