I am not the most educated atheist/evolution believer. Could you explain/disprove this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5880769103467938524

Look at the whole thing. Around 45 minutes a few minutes give or take, it says it disproves darwinism.

Why is this in main?

Why is anything ever in main?

I know why

No one gives a shit otherwise

This makes no sence.

Evar.

It is an interesting thing, and its points about ID are interesting. But it is nice to see that science is finding stuff that challenges what is FACT or so to speak.

Gosh, Lee Strobel? This is going to be good.

7:00 - His wife was an agnostic at marriage and 5 years later became a Christian, and when her attitude and values improved, he said "Maybe that means there is a god"? That's a bit of a non-sequitor. That was not evidence that a god might exist, but evidence that his wife lacked moral fibre in the first place, and required something to back up her morals, because obviously her parents didn't do a very good job of teaching her. Furthermore, as Geroge Bernard Shaw said, "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

11:34 - This scientist proposes an experiment where one takes all of the pieces inside of a living cell and puts them inside of a test tube with conditions perfect for the development of life. He says that you would never come up with a living cell. NO SHIT, ****TARD. I hate how so many idiots think that the formation of life on earth means that a fully formed, modern cell has to form by itself. NO SCIENTIST IN HIS RIGHT MIND THINKS THAT. The way abiogenises would work isn't that a modern cell would form by itself, but that a very simple, easy form of not-quite-life, similar in structure to a virus, would form, andt hat this would, though a process not yet known by science, develop the ability to reproduce, and through natural selection come closer to early single-celled organisms. Scientists like this, that completely ignore the theory of evolution when talking about the origins of life, get me so ****ing mad that I just wanna crush their skull because of their stupidity.

13:46 - Oh my ****ing god, are they going where I think they're going with this? They're saying that if all modern life arose from a common ancestor, that the fossil record should be filled with evolutionary transitions. If this guy says that the fossil record should show more animals than it already does, then I'm going to stop watching this bullshit. It's too goddammed stupid and so easily refuted.

15:58 - Not only that, but they're also using the cambrian explosion as a refutation of evolution. The argument that they are using is that if we put all of the history of life on a 24 hour clock, then from 00:00:01 to 21:00:00 there would be nothing but single celled organisms, and then suddenly, in the space of under 2 minutes,the Cambrian Explosion takes place, and that is too little time for life to form.
Think about that for a moment. 2 minutes out of 1,440. That's 1 out of 720. And we think life formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Thats 6,388,888 years out of 4,600,000,000. If we use his 2 minutes to 24 hours ratio, the precambrian explosion had 6,388,888 years to work with!

Lee Strobel is a ****ing idiot.

I'm done. This is going to give me an ulcer.

I back up what Ash said.

Man I can't be bothered to watch an hour of that, so I agree with ash...

Ash I have to agree with some of your points but others. Like that "experiment" with the cell, it was shit. I thought that he was going to place the amino acids in the solution, and see if they started to slowly change. Then as for your complaint about their portrayal of Darwins tree, i.e. everything has a common ancestor, everything should be the same, simply due to natural selection and evolutions. By this I mean that since evolution and natural selection is going to select and allow only the beneficial mutations, then surely there will be grades of the beneficial ones. Which is going to end up homogenizing the gene pool. Which then means that there is the one species.

It is interesting how your points don't go past the 15 minute mark, and it is a ~59 film. As after the evolution segment it goes into the probability of us randomly coming into existance.

Hey Ash, I do have to ask you in your opinion where did that information in DNA come from?

I feel I have to post in this thread, even if just to move out of the "and others" category, although I have every confidence that what Ash said was good.

Before I go away and spend an hour watching this and typing I want to answer Steyene's question: Once you have a basic piece of DNA (and you'd only need the tinyest ammount to make an amoeba) it copies itself millions of times and mistakes appear. Some of those mistakes will involve adding extra bits on, increasing the complexit of the molecule and the organism as a whole. Repeat until you have a human*.

*In fact toads have much more DNA than humans but no one would have understood if I'd said that.

Yes I know that is what DNA is, I know that there is information on there, but to paraphrase the video "Embedded intelligence indicates intelligence". What I am asking is, that the actual information encoded into the DNA molecule. That information can't arise randomly, as then you would lose the information for the formation of the proteins required for the cell to function.


Edit:
@Zed. I probably should have phrased my sentences better

I'm not going to be pressed to watch the entire thing, but it looks pretty biased. I can't watch something that has an agenda like that.

EDIT: At about 7 minutes, when he talks about positive changes in his wife after her conversion, that raises a red flag. I suppose it is interesting though, as he once was an atheist.

EDIT2: Ugh now it is getting really bad. Not enough fossils? Give me a break, there are plenty. I mean, after billions of years I wouldn't expect there to be many fossils remaining.

EDIT3: Ha, 600 scientists are skeptical out of hundreds of thousands. Not like that matters anyways. A majority or a minority of people does not determine what is truth and what isn't. Science is not a democracy. What an illegitimate point.

EDIT4: Now they are contradicting themselves. They are saying that when the universe began, something must have started it. You can't just get a universe out of nothing, everything must come from something. So the universe must come from something, and they are assuming that that something is God. But if everything must come from something, then what does God come from? They do a poor job of bouncing around this question.

Now I am done watching this. Time to go blow heads off in RE5.

Here it is. I hope to never have to do anything similar again. If you go to the film to refer to the times look a few seconds before the stated time because I paused the film after I saw a mistake and just put down the time there.

1:26 - Just a minor point, hardly relvant, but he should have sought psychiactric help at this stage.

1:40 - No, journalists are looking for a good story that they can get paid for.

2:40 - There's the problem right there. When you have someone who wants absolute truth and thinks he can find it there is no hope for him.

5:30 - This is ignorance and imbecility in its purest form. He tried to be an atheist who kept a completely closed mind about the possibility of the Bible being metaphorical and that in itself takes a degree of faith. He started off too close to Christianity. The slightest evidence can tip these people and then they become one of the most damaging people from our point of view because religious people can point to them as "scientific types" who realised that religion had got it right.

6:45 to about 7:00 - Two possibilities; 1) He's mixed up cause and effect. She started trying to become a better person and as a result decided that it was best to choose a religion, 2) She decided that since she was now a Christian she had better try and get into heaven, thus good things were necessary of her. Also, if God was making her do good things then this compromises the notion of free will (not that it exists to begin with but run with it) which destroys any theistic deffence against the problem of evil, thus his argument actually goes against God's existence.

11:39 - Ash covered this well, although I also want to point out that actually, if you wait long enough that all possible combinations of arangements of atoms within that test tube have been tried (the atoms are constantly moving around remember) you could, in fact, put humpty dumpty back together again. It would take a while but it's possible, and that gives it a damn sight more liklihood than intelligent design. It probably isn't how it happened but that guy's wrong anyway.

12:20 - I stand by the law of large numbers and elementary probability theory. It does the job, although I won't claim it's scientific because I can't propose an experiment to disprove it.

13:11 - Bullshit. DNA in all living organisms alone provides evidence supporting the hypothesis.

14:07 - Anyone with an even rudimentary grasp of basic archaeology and paeleontology should know that only an miniscule proportion of animals fossilise; the conditions need to be perfect.

15:55 - He said it himself. Before the cambrian explosion there was nothing, ie. no competition and no predators. More or less anything that happened to evolve could carve out a niche somewhere. Generally putting a bullet through the machine at random is unlikely to improve performance, but if no one is testing the machines and asking them to produce anything that mistake will go unnoticed. Therefore, with no competition you can evolve anything you like. There was probably also some shift in the local geology that meant things fossilised better so we have a better record of this time.

16:58 - No shit Sherlock. Completely differant species don't suddenly start breeding with each other? And I was looking forward to creating a species where I mixed a turtle and zebra. Anyway, there is no logical contradiction in saying that life turned up in more than one place at once.

18:22 - That would be more convincing if we had seen any evidence whatsoever. I also note that a large proportion of those scientists he mentioned were American. If you look at the nationalities of others as well you see a strong correlation between fundamentalist Christianity and the number of people who refuse to accept Darwinism. Make of this what you will.

18:30 - This should be good.

24:30 - Not necessarily. Firstly the non material thing would have to act in conjunction with the physical thing which goes against everything that exists having a cause and defeats your basic principle. Secondly; string theory.

25:02 - No it isn't. There is nothing in the world more complex than God and the attempts at proving his existence. No argument involving God can be simple. Besides, Occham's Razor would say that when you have two equally plausible alternatives the simplest one is correct. No matter how you cut it, God is not as plausible as string theory.

25:28 - I contest your job title being "cosmologist". There is such a thing as the trade descriptions act.

25:38 - Even if you could say that it was necessary for it to be God; you havn't proved the God of classical theism. All you have done is said that there is a start point and given it the name "God". You might just as well have had a dyslexic type the hypothesis up and call it "dog".

28:30 - Another individual who really should take his degree course again. If you havn't heard of string theory get the **** out of a debate on the begginings of the universe.

29:19 - So a bioctillion then? What's with all the billions?

29:40 - Big deal. I could do that. (Given infinite attempts like string theory has, it wasn't just satirical boasting)

29:55 - again with the multiple trillions...

30:18 - what is it with these people?

31:15 - Ah, here we go

31:57 - Oh. My. God. I cannot believe my stupidity in thinking for a second that they might have had someone who knew what they were talking about. You know, I genuinely wrote the 31:15 bit before watching on.

32:13 - Their inadequecy with large numbers is really starting to get on my nerves.

32:40 - As opposed to God who of course could fill a crime museum with the evidence for His existence.

32:47 - As opposed to God who of course is fully capable of opening a crate with the crowbar that's inside it.

33:05 - Why didn't I think of that? "This whole string theory thing is far too complicated for me so we'll claim it happened by magic."

33:21 - Debatable but I'll let this one slide because I've spent an hour and a half on this already and I'm just half way through.

34:55 - No. I'm sure many alien species would dread this horrible, toxic and over-reactive oxygen that we breathe. We have just evolved to use what we had. I'm sure he's about to bring in a load of similar examples but I won't comment on them all.

35:29 - I was right.

36:15 - 1) did they take into account time scales? I doubt it because they don't know how far to extend in the future direction. 2) The above mentioned factors (that not all life requires what we require) mean that theirs is a significant under-estimate 3) String theory still applies.

37:25 - Wrong. Survival of the fitest is a gross over-simplification anyway, but an inquiring mind is very much beneficial to a species that is reliant on its inventions and discoveries.

37:56 - I bring you back to the clock you mentioned earlier. If God wanted to get to us, why did he not bother evolving complex life for the first eighteen hours? (this argument is flawed on many levels but to reach those flaws you must reject their arguments anyway)

38:13 - Not really. Ask any real scientist and he'll tell you how difficult it is to observe things when you're studying quantum physics. The very act of doing so distorts your results.

38:41 - I present you the polar bear. an animal which has evolved in very differant temperatures to the camel. Animals adapt to their climate; not the other way around.

39:20 - I think you're a moron. At least I have undistorted evidence.

39:26 - "Left Behind" Did you hear that? Did you? Our "Christian" friend here just denied the existence of a theistic God! Maybe it was a Freudian slip of the tongue but I'm latching on to this one. "The Lord has delivered him into my hands."

39:40 - No. We push him into a smaller and smaller realm, progressing him towards nothingness. It's a good thing too, but that's a debate for another time.

99:99 - This is a random sentance to see if anyone has paid attention this far in. If you have, quote it and gain my eternal respect.

39:51 - Finally

40:08 - I doubt that severely.

40:37 - He actually brought in Behe. I'm gonna enjoy this. I predict irreducible complexity.

43:04 - I knew it. I can't believe he's actually going to try and use the phlagellum example. This one was scientifically discredited within fifteen minutes of publication. Still, let's see what he has to say...

45:06 - And they succeeded too you imbecile.

45:57 - Told you so

47:49 - Evolution does not only work upwards. You can also build a scaffolding and work back down. An example is best here. Lets say that you need A, B and C to function, and without any of these, nothing happens. It is possible to arrive there, adding one thing at a time, each one beneficiary, as follows: D; D,E; D,E,F; C,D,E,F; B,C,D,E,F; A,B,C,D,E,F; A,B,C,D,E; A,B,C,D; A,B,C. et voila. In fact the phlagellum example was even easier to destroy because it is so close to a mechanism that some types of bacteria use to attack other types of bacteria. The phlagellum was not always a method of propulsion, it just started being used as one when it was discovered to be efficient.

48:19 - Luckily it doesn't.

48:40 - FAIL You utter, utter troglodyte. You claim to be a scientist. A true scientist tries to falsify his own theory (like Darwin did) because this failure to falsify is the only way that it can become a scientific theory. You, however, are refusing to accept all the evidence to the contrary, not even by explaining it away, but by ignoring it. You are not worthy of the title homo sapien.

49:50 - You sound rather American don't you? I'm a little suspicious here but let us press on.

51:06 - By people who didn't understand what they were talking about.

52:24 - Wrong; see topic: physicalism by me.

53:20 - Those are chimpanzees actually. I'm surprised you didn't notice, you are more closely related to them then you are to me.

53:33 - You assume total blind chance. You cannot simply ignore natural selection when it doesn't fit your equations.

53:50 - I knew it; a yank masquerading as someone of intelligence, simply because he broke into Cambridge and stole a piece of paper when no one was looking.

54:15 - I reckon I could form a convincing argument against the existence of intelligence in the first place. You will form my primary example.

54:33 - Um...no. Not really.

55:00 - I'm interested into how and where this shepherd learned to write. It seems a little iffy to me.

55:30 - Why not a huge carving down the side of the Grand Canyon saying "God woz 'ere" instead of the stuff which seems to indicate his non-existence?

55:36 - Definition of hypocritical I believe.

56:19 - Yes it is! You wouldn't have even considered intelligent design unless you were starting from that point and then clutching at straws to "prove" it.

57:16 - That's just plain wrong.


If you read all the way through that, get a life.

Quote from Buttons

I am not the most educated atheist/evolution believer. Could you explain/disprove this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5880769103467938524

Look at the whole thing. Around 45 minutes a few minutes give or take, it says it disproves darwinism.

Evolution believer? Darwinism? If you want to sound like an educated evolutionist, take those two labels out of your vocabulary.

Quote from Ash

The way abiogenises would work isn't that a modern cell would form by itself, but that a very simple, easy form of not-quite-life, similar in structure to a virus, would form, andt hat this would, though a process not yet known by science, develop the ability to reproduce, and through natural selection come closer to early single-celled organisms. Scientists like this, that completely ignore the theory of evolution when talking about the origins of life, get me so ****ing mad that I just wanna crush their skull because of their stupidity.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0696457CAFD6D7C9

Quote from zed

I feel I have to post in this thread, even if just to move out of the "and others" category, although I have every confidence that what Ash said was good.

Before I go away and spend an hour watching this and typing I want to answer Steyene's question: Once you have a basic piece of DNA (and you'd only need the tinyest ammount to make an amoeba) it copies itself millions of times and mistakes appear. Some of those mistakes will involve adding extra bits on, increasing the complexit of the molecule and the organism as a whole. Repeat until you have a human*.

*In fact toads have much more DNA than humans but no one would have understood if I'd said that.

Amoebas have much, much more DNA than humans or toads. You'd only need a small amount to create a virus or a bacterium.

I've seen this movie refuted in dozens of Youtube videos. Especially good are the ones from that guy(cdk007) I linked after Ash's quote. Later on in the video they mention the irreducible complexity of the flagellum and other arguments I've seen and taken part in myself. Cdk has a good explanation to combat the flagella argument.

It's really just a compilation of all the things ID thinks they can use to convince teenagers in biology classrooms to believe in their god. They throw in some decent cgi, British guys giving quotes, inspirational music, etc and it seems legit. Utter bullshit.

OGrilla, I typed this and saw this when I was sick late last night. My vocabulary was manipulated by the video, I was just using phrases out of the video. Anyway, thanks guys, you've helped me a lot to understand.