Earth's History Plays Out On A Football Field

Not suitable for creationists.

Login to rate this video.

You can place this video on your website by inserting the (X)HTML code below:

Embed code:
<iframe src="" width="400" height="330" frameborder="0"></iframe>

You can email this video to your friends by entering their addresses below:

Your information:

add Add another recipient

Human verification:

People who liked this video also liked

AtmosFear freefall tower at Liseberg Gothenburg in Sweden
I Can't Taste Anything
1087 Days in Just 15 Minutes - Growing Plant Time Lapse COMPILATION
Colored balls elevator. Particle fluid. Music. Molecular Script. Video 4K
2019 Tasmanian Tiger Photo
Budgie Balancing Trick


7 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.

Expand all comments

Picture of Scotsman5045 achievements

+4 1. Scotsman50 commented 8 years ago

14 hours 218 views, 0 comments???

I actually found this quite interesting and a very clever way of explaining the evolution of the world.

Thanks for posting ChuckMaurice:squirrel::squirrel:
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

0 2. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

Religious based creation pretty much debunked! Amazing visualization of a timeline! Merci beaucoup Monsieur ChuckMaurice! <3
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

0 3. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

You can't debunk something that can't actually be proven either way. Even Richard Dawkins can't explain that spark of life that caused everything to get started, that's why it is called the "theory" of evolution.
Picture of Urmensch44 achievements

+2 4. Urmensch commented 8 years ago

#3 Evolution is both a fact and a theory. And theory here means the scientific sense, which is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
It has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Not theory as used in the non-scientific sense.

Abiogenesis is the origins of life from non-life, and it isn't the same as evolution. Abiogenesis has not been observed nor replicated yet, sure.
This is nothing to do with evolution being called a theory. If abiogenesis were demonstrated beyond doubt we would still talk about the theory of evolution. Because the fact of evolution is observed all the time. Antibiotic resistance, or the way the 'flu mutates are observed facts.
The theory part is which mechanisms gave rise to what. Then you get into natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, genetic drift. These are all mechanisms that can drive evolution.
Picture of thundersnow58 achievements

0 5. thundersnow commented 8 years ago

#4 Thank you for explaining it so well...we need that here sometimes! :)
Picture of sux2bu67 achievements

+1 6. sux2bu commented 8 years ago

#4 So like has been established , life from non-life has never been observed or replicated and is just the best non- creationists can come up with since to them the idea of a creator is unpalatable.
It doesn't diminish science one bit to believe there is something greater than man.
Picture of Urmensch44 achievements

0 7. Urmensch commented 8 years ago

#6 Your characterisation of the situation is down to your worldview, that there is a creator, and that scientists find this idea unpalatable which leads them to invent a story that doesn't need a creator. That's what I get from your comment; correct me if I'm wrong.

I was giving you the scientific definition of theory, and explaining that when you said, "Even Richard Dawkins can't explain that spark of life that caused everything to get started, that's why it is called the "theory" of evolution.", you are mistaken.

Let me put it this way. Say we one day got good evidence that life began on this planet by an act of an intelligence, ignoring who that might be, then evolution would still be a fact, and the mechanisms of evolution would still be exactly those that operate without abiogenesis. There is imperfect replication over generations, and that allows changes to build, and those changes can make organisms more or less suited to their environments. Environments are always changing too over that time.
That intelligence would have created life that would evolve, because that is what all the evidence shows. Regardless of what creationists might claim.
It is projection on the part of creationists. They are the ones with the pre-existing belief that they wish to immunise from facts, and thus they reject evolution.

Ken Miller is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who believes in God and understands that the variety of life is a product of evolution. There are many scientists like him who don't see it as an either / or choice.