BDC

bdcwho ( 3 months ago on Aug 8, 2009 11:40 GMT)

This is a joke, right? Just more propoganda helping to bring back the dark ages and keep Americans stupid.

nivthumper

Monty Jones ( 7 months ago on Mar 30, 2009 03:44 GMT)

I thought the video was very informative. The speaker presented it in a manner that was easy to follow without dumbing it down.

Monty

Monty Jones ( 8 months ago on Mar 4, 2009 08:50 GMT)

The video was very informative. The falsehood of the evolutionist push toward fossils supporting their view was presented exceptionally well.

Hendrik

Geluk ( 9 months ago on Feb 4, 2009 09:14 GMT)

If it is your interest, to watch al long talkshow about a kind of evolution theory, who might live or not by the grace of people with a status among mankind. It is a little to mucht yhatie,ya, ho, boaring and so on; and also confusing. We should be becareful not to be brainwashed with an overload of some good and foremost bad information. We are all mankind and equal!!!! It looks like who is the supreme or inferior amongst mankind. So, no bull..... well you know what I mean.
If you wanna realy know facts.... you better stay on the brahmins side of the story. But if there is any information to it, as I do know for sure....look for it!

Rod S

Rod Sims ( 9 months ago on Jan 26, 2009 09:07 GMT)

Very good and well documented. A must watch for those who want to know the true age of the Earth.

zoozanth

Colin Taylor ( 9 months ago on Jan 24, 2009 06:09 GMT)

thought provoking

nivthumper

Monty Jones ( 7 months ago on Mar 30, 2009 01:22 GMT)

I thought the fellow did a great job with his historical facts. He could have presented the Easter Story with more enthusiasm, but he presented the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He is no myth.
I would encourage others to watch it for the historical evidence.

(2) comments »

.

fab ( 2 months ago on Aug 30, 2009 01:48 GMT)

The video is interesting although there a number of omissions about models and theories of the origins of life which has, by the way, evolved a lot since Darwin. In fact, the speaker gives a number of arguments not really against the theories of the origin of life but that rather question some details about the theories. Altough some arguments are relevant, some other are incomplete even in the field of chemistry. For example, Antoine Danchin has done a lot of work to propose relevant models based on scientific evidences about the synthesis of biomolecules and the underlying problems of stereochemistry of those molecules. No scientist is cited, only Darwin is mentionned who can be easily criticized because of the lack of scientific knowledge at that time when he gave his contribution to the famous therory. A number of arguments are based on either the oversimplification of the current models about the origin of life or the presentation of complex systems which are apparently not reconcilable with the current models. It's a bit like if you would explain the life of a wasp from the caterpillar to the adult stage but just showing the beginning and ending of its life and coming to the conclusion that only a miracle can explain the metamorphosis. Obviously, there are some evolutionary concepts related to time and complexity which are largely underestimated or simply ignored. There are very recent scientific works that show how very complex systems like the ribosome may have emerged and evolved (Bokov & Steinberg, 2009) and how proteins like chaperones may have contributed to unlikely evolution and selection of complex proteins (Kerner et al., 2005). Unfortunately, there is nothing in the video that ressemble to a new theory of evolution and origin of life, only a series of arguments that question the current models or theory. Overall, the attempt to demonstrate that the current models and theories in biology are questionable is just not persuasive. The scientific works about the study of the origins of life at the molecular level continue to provide data that contribute to the evolution of the models and theories in this field. Anyone who may contribute in this field is welcome: the theories generally stand as long as there is no other system of ideas that better explain the overall scientific data. This is about science.

(2) comments »

Good but lacking history

Casper ( 1 year ago on Mar 30, 2008 06:18 GMT)

this was an interesting debate but i feel that they could have improved their argument by raising the issue of the role history has had on religion. The absobtion of tales from many faith into Judo-Christo faiths and rejection of the smaller groups/heretic in shaping the function of faith in society.

looks intresting...

undercurrents ( 2 years ago on May 19, 2007 01:06 GMT)

will dowenload it and see (:

Reasonable, logical argument for design

Hong Lei ( 1 year ago on Mar 28, 2008 03:18 GMT)

Credit to Prof. McLintosh! Excellent lecture.

Evolution needs to explain how intricate designs can come about by purely natural selection operating on random variation. Given any amount of time, the theory fails to explain what we see around us.

Darwinism points to uncontroversial micro-evolution (changes within species over time) and extrapolates with a lot of arm waving to gloss over the details. Despite the title, Origin of Species does not explain the origin of species. The lecture highlights that the more we learn the more implausible Darwinism becomes, not less!

Prof. also addresses the problem of the fossil record relating to birds. Evidence does not match the imaginary "tree of life."

Evolution is a religion. Nothing more. As Darwinist Richard Dawkins said (as quoted in the lecture) it takes "faith" to believe it. I'd argue that you need a awful lot more faith to accept Darwinism that infer an intelligent designer.

(4) comments »

There is no spoon

Dax ( 2 years ago on Nov 20, 2007 04:45 GMT)

The truth is that humans are very fragile. They want to believe that there is someone watching over them. Yeah, there is, but it`s not a powerful god yet is the government and all those secret services.

I don`t know if you noticed, but sinced the church lost their power civilisation advanced very quickly. We got electricity, cars, airplanes, sattelites, television, internet, modern medicine, etc Every one of this wouldn`t be possible if religion would have still controlled the world.

It doesn`t take to be a scientist to figure out there are no gods. It only takes a little logical thinking. 2-3 minutes tops.

(4) comments »

This user has not left any comments.