Programming of Life

2011, Conspiracy  -   974 Comments
Ratings: 6.92/10 from 86 users.

Programming of LifeIt is a good deceiving religion documentary film that avoids to mention religion, god, bible, etc. The authors spice up the video with science talk in order to attack evolution. They did this by not letting the public know their true intention.

Since at this moment science does not have all the answers to DNA, they insinuate that evolution is wrong and the answer should be some place else. They explain their science from their point of view and do not share the arguments for evolution.

They explain how perfect and wonderful life is and that it could not come by chance. They forgot to explain the imperfections and/or limitations of nature (cancer, shortcomings of the body, etc).

In short, this is a documentary film that promotes ID (Intelligent Design). I think it is good to see their reasoning wrapped up in a slick propaganda video.

From the authors: Programming of Life is a documentary created to engage our scientific community in order to encourage forward thinking.

It looks into scientific theories "scientifically". It examines the heavy weight theory of origins, the chemical and biological theory of evolution, and asks the extremely difficult questions in order to reveal undirected natural process for what it is – a hindrance to true science.

Information is an essential part of our lives. The code that's in every cell, every piece of DNA and all living things. Even though we've made many breakthrough discoveries in science there's still so much more to be discovered.

More great documentaries

974 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Carlos

    you have made some significant claims. can you back them up with actual demonstrable evidence? i will list the claims so far to remind you.

    - " I believe the biblical account of creation because its the only one
    that fits what we see in the Geological and Biological evidences."

    -"there are no examples of "evolving", only speciation, which is contradictory to evolution."

    -"speciation supports only Creation"

    can you back these claims up?

    1. "Rapid" Speciation - Supported by a Biblical creation, see Robert Sarfati- Refuting Evolution 1 &/or 2

      As far as geological evidences- I refer you to the work of Steven A. Austin - see "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics"

      Biological - "Wonders of the Human Body" lecture by Frank Sherwin

    2. All these people are with the Creation Institute and have been exposed as frauds by mainstream science, the only science that counts. This makes you a fraud as well.

    3. Explain "Fraud". Their credentials are false? I seem to think that you mean they are men of science that have strayed from the MaterialisticNaturalistic Priesthood. That's does not make them frauds, it makes them truth seekers, since they were willing to truly investigate ALL options.

    4. Maybe you should have a look at punctuated equilibruim, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay.

      As for geological evidence, look at any recent textbook.

      Wonders of the human body.... hmmm, I wonder if you ever have felt the pain of a sore back because of a bad design if you'd still call it a 'wonderful design'. Great design, BS it's that great. There are many flaws in our design. For seconds if the back isn't enough, look at our appendix. If that doesn't do it for you, have a look at a pic of 'Brad Pitt' and then a mirror and compare what you see and what you'll find others say about that comparison ;)

  2. If life as we know it are evolved over time, and the fossil record is 'proof' that we stem from the same thing, where are the TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS? I believe the biblical account of creation because its the only one that fits what we see in the Geological and Biological evidences.

    1. please google "transitional fossils" you will be presented with a lifetime of evidence. what id i could show you an observed,repeated and fully documented example of one species evolving into another species. would that convince you?

    2. yes it would, show me this proof. truth is, there are no examples of "evolving", only speciation, which is contradictory to evolution.

    3. why would you say "there are no examples of "evolving", only speciation, which is contradictory to evolution." ? it is exactly what is claimed by the theory. as for my example i give you "the long term e-coli evolution experiment" where one species through a series of mutations evolved into another.

    4. Show me the experiment where e-coli has evolved in to a fish, or a dog or anything else than e-coli.

    5. that is not what i offered or what you said that was required to convince you. not one of your posts has backed up your claims, you have offered absolutely no evidence for claims, you have provided absolutely nothing as a refutations of evolution or the claims/evidence of others and you display the characteristics of someone who does not understand the subject in which you are discussing. please answer my direct question above and explain why the e-coli experiment isn;t exactly what is claimed by the theory

    6. What other planets does E-coli exist on? What other planets has life spontaneously erupted out of molecules? Where else in our solar system (i'll narrow it down for you) has INFORMATION come out of randomness? The problem is sir, that YOU have no EVIDENCE. For your THEORIES to hold water they must then be duplicated or repeated. Life has not 'happened' anywhere else... or has it? Answer wisely lest we truly see who's wearing the tin-foil hat.

    7. i thought we were discussing evolution? now you go off on some rant. but even though you refuse to answer direct questions and when shown to be wrong you change the question. but one last time i will address your posts. but i will not after this post until you actually address my statements and questions in some detail as i have

      -"What other planets does E-coli exist on" i do not know and any answer to that question does nothing yo challenge evolution.

      - " What other planets has life spontaneously erupted out of molecules" i do not know and where does the theory of evolution claim that (hint it doesn't)

      -" has INFORMATION come out of randomness" where does evolution claim that. that is nonsense

      -"YOU have no EVIDENCE. For your THEORIES" i provided evidence but you have yet to address it

      -" to hold water they must then be duplicated or repeated." the example i gave you has been repeated

      -"Life has not 'happened' anywhere else... or has it?" i do not know and that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution

    8. You don't even know the first thing about information. The problem, sir, is that you are woefully ignorant of science.

    9. Your statement reveals that you have no idea how evolution works, that you are completely ignorant of basic biology, including what a species is and phylogeny Furthermore, you place your bible where even the order of creation is wrong over science which makes you idiotic and pathetic.

    10. Name calling. Is that what they teach in your institutes of higher learning? Speaking of Pathetic...

    11. and by the way using multiple names is against the comment policy. please do not change it again.

    12. No, they educate us. Now, what's your story?

    13. You obviously have no idea what speciation is. Why don't you read about the evolution (and I don't mean on creationist websites) before keyboarding any further ignorance?

    14. Rapid speciation is supported by the Biblical creation account. Since Creation and evolution are diametrically opposed, speciation supports only Creation if YOU understand it correctly.

    15. Your problem is that you don't understand speciation at all, much less basic biology. Now once again, SPECIATION FORMS A PART OF EVOLUTION. What about that is beyond your comprehension?

    16. What you believe is only garbage. It's what you can prove--and for your information, ALL forms of life are transitional. In addition to over the edge's recommendation, I suggest you read the wikipedia articles on tiktaalik, anchiornis, troodonts and dromaeosaurids. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and probably never will, as you are no more than an ignorant religee.

    17. lol, you think radiometric dating is reliable... and i'm the i*iot...

    18. Absolutely. The problem is you know nothing about it.

    19. I know nothing about it... quite the assumption. Let me tell you about some more assumptions you believe in if you think radiometric dating is accurate. Radiometric dating is based on 3 MAJOR assumptions:
      1) No Initial Concentration Of Daughter Element
      2) Decay Rates Are ALWAYS Constant
      3) Decay Has Taken Place In A Closed System - No Contamination

    20. Absolutely not! You don't know the first thing about radiometric dating and your knowledge of it comes from what you've cribbed off creationist websites. There's a detailed article on the subject on Wikipedia. Why don't you read it before keyboarding any more of your ignorance?

    21. You've yet to refute my 3 points with facts.... unless when you decry "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" it was supposed to make me believe. I'm Christian, not gullible.

  3. Religious ( closed minded dogmatic acceptance of a gospel handed down by a chosen authority) belief is for the unintelligent even when your priests are scientists.

    1. Sometimes authority is given, and sometimes authority is earned. There is a huge difference between faith and scientific rigor, however many do not distinguish between the faith driven arguments and the rationale driven arguments. Scientific rigor implies an anti dogmatic approach and requires criticism for acceptance of a theory, while faith requires the assumption of particular truths regardless of whether those truths are compatible with the natural world. It is very disheartening however, that even if science is fundamentally not religion, many treat it as such, and blindly give over authority where authority should essentially be earned.

    2. Care to provide an example or two?

    3. Sure, in regards to which statement I made?

    4. "It is very disheartening however, that even if science is fundamentally not religion, many treat it as such, and blindly give over authority where authority should essentially be earned."

  4. A note to the religious posters here, there and every where. Most people like myself who don't believe in god are happy to discuss and debate the beginnings of life with any body with a reasonable sounding argument. ID is fine, but it drags along religion, ID by itself is quite defensible taken in the right context. However once brought into the context of the bible it becomes ridiculous. Once you accept logical arguments into your beliefs you are going to have to accept that Jesus was not born from a virgin, he was not the son of god any more than any one else is and he definitely didn't come back from the dead.

  5. Those who adhere to a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence
    of life, are left struggling to find mechanisms to create such a
    sophisticated information source...

    LOLOLOLOL....Yeah cause they don't give up thinking and just say "It must be magic!"

  6. Theosophey is a science.....right? So God bless everyone

    1. Theosophy [not spelling]--Madame Blavatsky, a bigger phony never existed.

  7. I am quite afraid of those truly religious, because in order for someone to believe in any one religion, something clearly has to be amiss in their brain. This was my view as a child, and it remains my view today.
    There is no point in arguing with (most) religious people, as they simply cannot follow logic, due to some faulty mechanism in their brain.
    No matter what evidence and logic you may bring to the table, it is of no importance, simply due to the fact that these two aspects of life is of no interest to them. I am of the belief that (most) religious people are mentally ill, and thus they do scare me. Just like someone with severe schizophrenia does.

    How religious people dare demand respect for showing a remarkable lack of logic and critical thinking is beyond me. God is equal to Santa and the Easter Bunny. Get over it as a child or be ridiculed. Or do you believe in them, as well? Considering one can't prove they do not exist? Dragons, witches, wizards, magic, tooth fairy, boogeyman?
    If you do not believe in all of the above mentioned, and much more, and you are religious, you're nothing but a hypocrite. A stupid one, at that.

    1. People are always afraid of what they do not understand, its natural. Just because you do not understand it does not make it possible. (Or correct)

    2. Religious people are scary understands it quite well. It's you who understands it as well as you understand biology.

  8. Why do people hate God so much? Einstein believed in god. Nikola Tesla believed in God. It is not against God to understand science and live a life of knowledge. Many scientific discoveries have been made by Christians. Stop attacking valid scientific questions and theories just because it happens to fall within the creationist realm. There are NO FACTS about the origin of life. As soon as there is hard evidence, then we can throw the invalid theories out the window. But at this point, evolution and the big bang are just as much a theory as anything else.

  9. I think that the only conspiracy here is the implication in the description that the evolution theory is the truth and must not be questioned..
    "it's not up to us to just prove a given theory, it's up to the theory to prove itself against the laws of science. "
    so true! As science evolves, more and more evidence is coming up which does not fit with the Darwinian evolution theory. These facts should not be ignored so that the theory fits, the theory should be changed so that it fits with the facts!
    Why are people so desperately holding on to the evolution theory as the only explanation to origins of life? I'ts just a theory, and not a very likely theory either.
    Unless we know something for sure, we should be free to speculate about it. And the truth is that no one really knows the origins of life, therefore all theories should be equally accepted. Not labeled as "conspiracy" because it doesn't fit with the mainstream theory...

  10. Hey everyone, just one question. When we start cloning people, will the creator be called God or just MiniGod?

  11. I got sucked into this from the discussion board for a Coursea,org class about Genetics. My radar was down, yea a few hints at the start that this might be an ID vid. They stick with the facts and then in the last ten minutes bring out the come to Jesus moment-sheep clothing, beware they are getting better.

  12. “Biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.”
    Richard N. Ostling, “Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator,”
    “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”
    Antony Flew, “Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology,”
    “I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.”
    Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, “Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all,”
    A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.
    Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information"

    1. Quotes from authority establish nothing.

  13. This is a good documentary. It shows how much more we need to/can advance in the process of answering the question: How we came about? Then we'll probably have to answer the 'why' and so on. The quest for knowledge is never ending!! I might one day reach the conclusion that there is a Creator but that will be a conclusion at the end of the search not the beginning! The trouble with most of the people is that they want to give up on the search and agree to the fact that there is a third entity behind creation and that it's omnipotent and the only way you can reach/communicate with that entity is by abandoning all knowledge and going dumb!! And if you are a 'good' person you'll get the best of the lot!!
    I don't really mind religions, they are just a rule book with one master to serve and please or face the wrath of. The trouble is that these servants want to increase their forces!!! I'm not one to join the rank and file!! Never was never will be! The maximum threat to that is that I'll not gain the knowledge I seek and end up searching. Fine by me!

  14. I love how this video is filed under Conspiracy.
    The summary is full of "they insinuate that evolution is wrong" (actually, they don't, you're the ones that say that),
    and "It is a good deceiving religion documentary" (what exactly in the video did you find "deceiving"?)
    also "They explain their science from their point of view" ("their" science ?... silly me, i tought science is neutral... this must be "religious" science then)
    or "a slick propaganda video".
    "The authors spice up the video with science talk in order to attack evolution. They did this by not letting the public know their true intention."
    I guess this was no longer "science", merely "science talk" because, well, you're nothing but biased douches with no critical thinking skills.
    "Attack evolution" ? Not really, it doesn't argue *against* evolution. "Attacks my own belief system" is what it should've said.
    "not letting the public know their true intention" ??? Would the scientific reality of this video be less valid based on their "true intention" ?

    And you have the nerve to call theists ignorant/arrogant ! Pah !

    1. Just Claudiu
      myself and others have pointed out specific falsehoods and wording that show this doc to be dishonest. look through the posts again.

    2. For deception, begin with the treatment of biology which opens the documentary and continue to the pseudomathematical discussion which ends it.

      The distortions and downright falsehoods contained in this video stem from its makers' intent to support a viewpoint unsubstantiated by mainstream science, the only type of science that matters. Thus, their intent has a lot to do with the validity of the "scientific reality" presented in this video.

      Terming evolution a belief system is a sign of ignorance coupled with lack of critical thinking skills, all of which combine to make you the biggest douche of all.

    3. give one example of a distortion

    4. Treating organelles and proteins as if they have minds of their own as opposed to being part of a natural process. The discussion of probability towards the end.

    5. ^ What? Wow, go back to your institutionalized indoctrination where you can keep learning how to regurgitate your ignorant dismissal of critical thought. If you can not offer an honest valid response without obvious bias against religion, then say nothing. You perpetuate the ignorance of the modern "collective mind".

    6. @Just Claudiu,

      If you scroll down you'll realize that there are 900+ comments here, which is approximately a book of 350 pages, and there you can find some very clever thoughts of why the blurb is the way it is.

    7. And then he said "God bless America" and strait away drank down a tall glass of water!...amen

    8. @21:22...there's a somewhat subtle argument against evolution right there, I'll spell it out for you because you seem to be rather slow...he says, and I quote, "Those who adhere to a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of life, are left struggling to find mechanisms to create such a sophisticated information source"...*two second pause* "In any case, etc....". He is clearly referring to evolution when he says "purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of life". To those with common sense, he is very straight-forwardly saying that people who believe that evolution is the answer to life, which I believe it to be, are still struggling to explain it. But if you, or the narrator of this video, have ever seen just a couple of videos by Richard Dawkins, Potholer54, or QualiaSoup, all three authors of multiple documentary's on this very site, also three very intelligent men who very plainly and clearly explain all aspects of evolution, you would have to laugh at that quote. But I suppose you won't, will you?

  15. Where did we come from. A spiritual being in a physical body? Since we are only being taught physically and not spiritually, no one is ever going to get far at all. The traffic light gives you information etc etc etc etc and a cell, so on and on.

    1. You can't even prove the existence of a spirit.

    2. You can't disprove the existence of a spirit, either.

    3. If you assert that a spirit exists, it's up to you to prove it. So your answer is silly.

  16. Have you not seen how the camel was created in all its perfection?

    1. The camel was not created; it evolved. And just what is perfection?

    2. Please prove to me how it evolved. Tell me how parts of it developed that could not survive without the other parts of its body.

    3. Try reading a book on basic biology (evolution) or for starters the excellent article on Wikipedia. Then ask your questions. As it is, you know nothing.

    4. Robert, this condescending tone you speak to me in shows just how disrespectful you are to my faith, or any faith for that matter. I have a question for you Robert. Why do you waste your time replying to my comments since I am wrong, and stupid, and uneducated and since there is no God anyways why do you even bother trying to explain that to me? I think we both know why. You're trying your hardest to prove to YOURSELF that there is no God, but it keeps on coming back and nagging you therefore you seek out the so called nonsense arguments of the Creationists and their supposed ignorance makes you feel better? Am i right Robert? Because most atheists wouldn't really care to explain anything to me since I am stubborn. But you Robert are destined to become a believer. Its like you have nothing better to do in your life than reply to anti-evolution posts? Like it matters right? But we both know the real reason you are here Robert.

    5. You're right. I have no respect for your faith or any other faith, as they involve abrogation of the intelligence trying to pass for fact and produce pathetic creatures such as you. Like most wilfully ignorant religees you claim knowledge that you don't have such as the reason that I post (which is nothing like what you aver) make unsupported and idiotic statements such as that I am destined to become a believer.

    6. In that case, i just have one thing to say to you: arrogance will lead many people to Hell and I pray for you to come to the straight path.

    7. @Yamaan Farhat:

      Do not do your hell stuff on these posts, you have no pipeline to any type of gods. And have shown no proof of your hells and gods

      Any further veiled threats will be removed.

    8. What not spend your time in something useful, like education?

    9. Modern day camelids are the only living representatives of the suborder Tylopoda (from the Greek words tylo, meaning callous, and pous, genitive podos, meaning foot). The four Recent species are well adapted to arid environments. A unique wide pad of connective tissue on the base of the feet provides support on soft, sandy soils. The fossil record of this subfamily begins in the mid-Eocene deposits of North America (the center of camelid evolution). The camels radiated out from North America to Eurasia in the Pliocene, and to South America during the Pleistocene, disappearing from North America around 10,000 years ago.
      The feet of modern camels seemingly defy the definition of "ungulate": the two digits in the feet (III and IV) sit almost flat on the ground (i.e., are digitigrade) as part of a wide pad. Instead of hooves, the distal phalanges bear nails on their upper surface. Nevertheless, the fossil record distinctly shows that camels are ungulates: fossilized camels from the Oligocene have the same two-digit foot structure, but were nearly unguligrade and likely had true hooves. These early camels display one of the characteristic features of Tylopods: the metapodials (foot bones) are fused to form a cannon bone, but the distal ends separate and flare outward, forming a "Y" of bone (the arms of the "Y" lead to the two digits). A general climatic shift to more arid conditions occurred in the Miocene, and was coupled with a secondary development of a digitigrade foot posture. All camelids since the Pliocene have been digitigrade.

      The position of this family within the order Cetartiodactyla was formerly confounded by the fact that camelids ruminate (regurgitate and rechew their food) - at was thus assumed that they were more closely related to the ruminants than the Suiformes. However, molecular evidence suggests that this feature evolved independently from the Ruminantia; the stomach of the Camelidae is only three-chambered. All members of this family are renowned for "spitting" when upset, although it is actually stomach contents which are ejected at annoying objects.

      The upper lip of all members of the Camelidae is split into two finger-like projections which aid in the collection of tough forage. The dental formula is I 1/3, C 1/1, P 2-3/1-2, M 3/3 x 2 = 30-34. There is no gall bladder. Unique among mammals, the red blood cells of the Camelidae are oval in shape. There is no connective skin between the hind legs and the belly, increasing the apparent length of the hind legs. Camelids walk with a "pacing" gait, where both the front and hind legs on one side of the body are moved forward together. The result is that the body weight is shifted from one side to the other, creating a rocking motion - camels are thus often called "ships of the desert".

      All four species of recent camels have been domesticated. The two domestic forms from South America (the llama and alpaca) were formerly considered as species in their own right; today, they are lumped together with their wild counterparts (the guanaco and vicuña, respectively). While domestic camelids are found in large numbers, the wild species are all listed on the IUCN's Red List. Indeed, the dromedary or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius), is now extinct in the wild (although feral populations exist, notably in Australia).

      Literature Cited
      Martin, R. E., R. H. Pine, and A. F. DeBlase. 2001. A Manual of Mammalogy, Third Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
      Nowak, R. M. [Editor]. 1991. Walker's Mammals of the World. Fifth Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

      Price, S. A., O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, and J. L.Gittleman. 2005. A complete phylogeny of the whales, dolphins and even-toed hoofed mammals (Cetartiodactyla). Biological Review: 80: 445-473.

      Vaughan, T. A., J. M. Ryan, and N. J. Czaplewski. 2000. Mammalogy. Fourth Edition. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia.

      Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder [editors]. 2005. Mammal Species of the World (3rd Edition). Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp.

    10. That certainly responds to YF's question in spades, but how much of your answer do you think he'll understand, much less appreciate?

    11. LOLOLOLOL the camel is created perfectly?

      the camel evolved.

  17. This review kind of bias? WOW!

    1. bias or true?

  18. A completely rational and reasonable program, interseting and stimulating. I am disgusted by the bias of the synopsis above and am utterly baffled as to why this documentary is in the Conspiracy section. It appears Top Documentary Films has an agenda I was hitherto unaware of. How sad.

    1. "We always have to keep in mind that a Documentary, after all, can tell lies and it can tell lies because it lays claim to a form of veracity which fiction doesn’t."

      What puts this particular video into the 'doubt' category is the motive of the producers and the bias of the content. There have been many posts at great length about this.

      As far bias in the synopses goes (there are two), one is from the owner of this site; it is followed immediately by one from the authors.

      That isn't bias, that is balance.

    2. What's sad is that you know nothing about biology, much less probability (mnathematics.) I suggest you go through Kateye's fine analytical posts on this documentary, starting with those from about a month-and-a-half ago and find out why this documentary is everything but a rational and reasonable program.

    3. yes the agenda is towards ACTUAL SCIENCE

  19. Hi robert,
    Thanks for the perpetual insults.
    I did read that comment from Kateye, and now read it again. Once again, it does little to deal with the facts being brought up in the film, and even less its main theory.
    If you didn't like the presentation of the film, then I could be inclined to agree with you. It's not the type of presentation that engages my interest the most. I had to watch a few minutes before feeling engaged. But that said, if you have some real experience with information and data, the reasoning of the film makes a whole lot of sense. Kateyes comments did not respond to this in an adequate way.
    Sure, if someone considers himself of superior intelligence to the rest of humanity, he/she might perhaps be beyond the stage of having a need for things to make sense in order to believe them. Unfortunately, I am not. Information from nonsense is nonsense. Information that develops itself without having powerful data processing tools is the same. Kateye points the following two main arguments against the film: 1) Information Science is not commonly applied to microbiology. 2) References are made both to evolution of more complex forms of DNA material, and of exogenesis - the creation of the simplest forms of DNA material from dead matter, and this is in her eye confusing. Yet the following facts remain: 1) microbiology IS showing that DNA is an enormous information system, being processed by principles highly similar to modern computer science. 2) Both the exogenesis AND the evolution towards higher levels of "program complexity" appear unfeasible with all currently known biological and physical processes.
    If you want to convince me (and perhaps others) otherwise, then it would be far more helpful if you could point at known processes that have a realistic chance of producing such developments. And until then, please be a little bit more humble with regards to science - despite your atheist convictions and preconceptions. True, preconceptions are needed for any form of understanding. But they also make emotionally deeply engaged people blind.

    1. Laban Kossam
      both Kateye and myself (among others) pointed out specific problems with this presentation. they show a complete ignorance or disregard of the facts of the areas of study they question. but i will ask. what is your positive proof for this designer? please don't give me an analogy, inject a designer into an ares of study we haven't fully explained, a misrepresentation of what we do know and so on but actual proof.

    2. There's so much wrong with this film, that a short post can't begin to answer it. I posted quite a bit at the beginning of these comments; you'd have to go back several weeks to read everything I posted.

      TBH, I'm not interested in repeating what I've already posted; if you really want to know my views in detail, you'll have to go back to the beginning of the thread.

      Not trying to be dismissive, I'm just tired of repeating myself. My knowledge of science is as a lay person; my knowledge of advertising and marketing is professional. That's why my posts are more towards the motivations of the producers rather than the actual content.

      However, there are many posters on this site with the actual science background to refute the type of 'science' being offered up; they, too, have posted extensively.

      I considered the source. You can draw your own conclusions.

      Just don't kid yourself; there are ulterior motives and I personally am still appalled that a man with a science background is trying to insert religious belief into science classrooms.

      EDIT: It isn't a matter of considering oneself to be 'superior' or needing to be 'humble.'

      I, and other regular posters on this site, are either academically qualified or have done extensive self-directed study.

      If you have qualifications in a particular area, offer them up--but make sure you can back them up by the content level of your own posts, as they will be judged accordingly.

    3. Despite all your mumbo jumbo, the documentary is merely a promotional video for intelligent design which is a religious and philosophical concept and not a scientific one as Kateye has rightly pointed out in several posts. And as is so typical of creationists, the documentary is filled with misconceptions, such as the portrayal of the various organisms as possessing little brains which guide them through their processes when indeed these processes are simply naturalistic and no more, such as the the ignorant use of probability in a deceptive attempt to demonstrate the iimprobability of the universe coming together as it did--ostensibly justifying the unscientific concept of intelligent design.

    4. God will show you his signs in the universe and in your own body until it becomes clear to you that He is the Truth, is it not enough that Our Lord is a witness over everything?

    5. How do you know this?

    6. It is all written in a clear and Holy Book.

    7. And because it is written in what you term a holy book, it is true. By the way, what's the difference between a holy book and a not-so-holy book?

    8. The Torah, the Bible, and the Qu'ran are all Holy Books. All from the same One God with essentially the same message.

    9. they are three different books written at three different times, by three different cultures of people that expand on the same myth.

    10. You know after watching this documentary and reading all of your comments, i finally realized something, that you people are not scientists. You have placed this preconceived idea that no God exists and this documentary has said a great many things that i would have liked to say. It would be wiser for you to give this idea lots of thought and embrace the fact that One God created everything. Its clearer than the sun concerning the probability of abiogenesis so why do you insist on believing in this natural process occurring on its own?

    11. "Probbability of abiogenesis" shows as much knowledge and makes as much sense as your claim that the posters here began with the preconceived idea that no god exists.

      "It would be wiser for you [to] . . . embrace the fact that One God created everything." On your ignorant say-so?

      What you need is an education.

    12. What you need is faith.

    13. Faith is simply stupidity copulating with ignorance to create a false virtue.

      What you need are intelligence and a education to go with it, but with your attitude, you will forever remain a despicable ignoramus.

    14. Yamaan Farhat
      please show me "the fact that One God created everything." if this is a fact what are these facts?

      please explain how you know "you people are not scientists."

      where did i or anyone responding to you state "no God exists "

      and if "It is all written in a clear and Holy Book" you can show me these clear facts? not an interpretation or some vague any out of context passage but "clear" for all to see?

    15. You really are over the edge aren't you? If the documentary above isn't enough to convince you of anything then I am quite sorry for you, as someone who closes his heart to God's existence will never believe even if the dead were resurrected before his own eyes and they told him to believe.

    16. You can't even prove that there is a god and you go about making idiotic statements. I don't feel sorry for you, only disgusted.

    17. You claim to believe in intelligence and education? Have you studied religion? God/s, creation, beliefs? And for that matter, do you have years of study and life experience on the subject? Can you honestly say that you have never, in your entire life, had faith in anything, if only remotely? Yes, you can't prove there is a God, but you can't disprove it either. For someone to be disgusted, just because someone has belief/faith in something is ridiculous. I may not believe in religion, but I don't hate or put down the people who have it. I actually agree with the majority of concepts and teachings from various religious texts. I've studied religions from all over the world. Years of study. Even though, I may not have believed in them, I tried practicing them as well. I wanted to get the whole picture, see both sides of the story before I weighed things in. Both science and "Faith", as you put it. Why don't you try study them. Not just study, but practice. If you truly believe it to be false, what have you to fear? You have nothing to lose, and only knowledge and experience to gain. And isn't that what science is really all about? You just seem to want to put people down. Maybe you shouldn't be so narrow minded. You might actually learn something.

    18. Reliance yes, based on hard evidence, faith, based on nothing, no--and I don't practice what I don't believe in and what is fraudulent, such as religion and doing so, as you suggest, would render me a hypocrite.

      You seem to have trouble getting it through your head that the burden lies on the person asserting the existence of a supreme being to prove that there is one.

    19. How do you, ("tried practising them as well")?? Does a person have to be a brain surgeon to practise religion? All it entails is simply paying allegiance to your gods, to grovel, have good knee pads, to have running conversations/praying, to the invisible gods in your mind, to belong to cults so you can be all hypnotized en-mass, so you end up with a warm fuzzy feeling of being "saved" whatever that means, and to be smug hypocrites as most religee's are.

      And last but not least, make sure you take your check-book along.

    20. Warm and Fuzzy...yep..can't think of a better description for what happened to me 33 years ago...ever since He forgave me of all of the sins that I committed before, today, and in the future I have become a "new creation" not perfect and yes at times a profound hypocrite; so I'm glad His saving me isn't contingent on me being good enough.

      My being "saved" doesn't stem from the discovery that the profs I had in college that showed the most enthusiasm for evolution also showed the same contempt toward Jesus Christ...everyone else got a pass; however, you will see these people will hammer Christ alone.

      Seemed kinda weird that such hatred was meted out towards the "only" Deity that came to earth and told us we couldn't live up to God's perfect law (His 10 Commandments) and since He is a perfect and Holy God He said that we were going to have to be punished for our many sins; however, He never left us there to permanently stand guilty before Him, He instead came and took the punishment for our "law breaking" by dying in my (and your) place on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago.

      He made it simple for us to escape the punishment we deserved by telling us all we have to do is "believe" that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that He came and died for your sins and that you were placing your faith in Him alone for forgiving you and saving you from Hell (eternal punishment)...Get a Bible and read the Book of "John".

    21. Because you can't offer proof for any of the drivel you've keyboarded into this post, like all religious r*tards, you merely claim knowledge and intelligence which you don't have. One way or the other, don't insult those who see you for the mo*on you are by dragging them into your idiotic scheme of things--"He instead came and took the punishment for our 'law breaking' by dying in my (and your) place on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago."

    22. Yamaan Farhat
      i pointed out in previous posts the things this doc got scientifically wrong (as did others). are you going to make baseless assumptions? where did i give the impression "will never believe even if the dead were resurrected before his own eyes and they told him to believe."? and do you plan on answering my questions ? or do you oftem make claims that you cannot back up ?

    23. Actually I have a science degree. I think its safe to call myself a scientist.

      I dont think you understand what the process of abiogenesis is, so how can you say you dont believe it?

      your entire belief system is based on ignorance.

    24. And what makes them holy, your label? And what makes you think they're from "God" rather than man? How much scholarship have you engaged in?

    25. Well if you probably had read the books and tried to compare why the stories are quite similar in many cases, not to mention the vast knowledge written in the Quran demands an explanation that could not have been conceived from one man in the desert who was an illiterate. The Quran has not been altered in any form as the original is available today in Turkey i think and its exactly the same as the copy produced today, unlike the Bible and Torah which were unfortunately altered.

    26. The Koran of today was canonized in the 7th century A.D. by Uthman Ibu Affan, after which Uthman had all other existent codices destroyed. So don't try to snow me with your garbage about the Koran not having been altered in any way.

      One way or the other, the only knowledge contained in the Koran is the knowledge of its time. So don't try the trick of bringing it into conformity with modern science through eldritch reinterpretations. and deliberate mistranslations.

      The stories in all these "holy books" are similar because they all drew from earlier sources.

      Once agian, you really need an education.

    27. Yes the Quran was canonized about 25 years after the Prophet's death, but the copy kept intact was the one which the Prophet himself had seen written and completed before his death, therefore all other copies were destroyed so that there would be no confusion and only the Known Original would be replicated. So there is no problem there at all. Please you hardly know any Islamic history, don't come here and explain to me how my religion was changed. Actually there is lots of information in the Quran beyond its time. Such as its knowledge of the lowest land elevation on Earth, the shore of the dead sea. “The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will soon be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after, is with God.” (Quran 30:2-4) The Romans were defeated in the lowest land, and this matter was spoken of in the Quran and it predicted their victory, which also turned out to be true. As for the earlier sources, you have no proof whatsoever and you are only giving suggestions. The last thing the Jews or the Christians would have done is to teach Muhammad what to put in his Quran. Once again Robert, you fail to produce a satisfying response.

    28. There is no scientific information in the Koran which was not generally known at the time of its writing and don't insult my intelligence by trying to back up your statement with a quote about "the lowest land." For your information, by the time the Koran was written, the Roman Empire had ceased to be a world power--so much for what you call a prediction.

      You are sorely in need of an education, especially in history and literature. So why don't you obtain one before posting any further ignorance.

    29. the quran contains no special information that wasnt already known at the time.

      the rest is just vague imagery in words that people like you use to explain whatever you want.

    30. What makes me think? I have read the entire Quran several times and memorized 2/3's of it, that's about 400 pages. The way in which it is written (In arabic of course) is like no other text on Earth, not to mention the compelling information it gives you to believe.

    31. I am unimpressed. It is no different from any other so-called "holy book."

  20. 'Information science' is a new concept because although information has been around forever, people are only really starting to get into studying it. Good on them- if they used their information ideas to prove evolution a heap of people would be cheering them on. But since they've got another idea (shock horror!) they're being ridiculed.

    And surely if we evolved, and certain human traits are bred into us, then the universality of religion as part of the human condition must have evolved too. Darwin teaches us that things don't evolve unless they have a purpose, so religion must have an evolutionary purpose, otherwise it would have been bred out of us. So all those people who say it's the worst thing ever, well, we can thank our evolution for it.

    1. Why don't you read about Darwin and evolution in general before posting your ignorant drivel? He never said anything of the sort--and yes, religion is the worst thing ever, especially if it results in nonsense such as what you have posted--and for your information, religion is not universal nor is it the product of biological evolution.

    2. The only "purpose" to evolution is to replicate genes. I don't believe Darwin ever said anything beyond that Edit--if he even said that.

      The need to assign purpose to the world around us is a human need. There's no 'universal' need for religion any more than there is for politics--in fact, they're the same thing; Religion's 'purpose' is power and control of large human populations. Not any big mystery there.

      Like politics, religion is a way to persuade strangers to live in large groups without total chaos. So, it serves a purpose, but not the perceived one of elucidating spiritual mysteries.

  21. I have to say that one thing that upsets me about us humans is that we discredit past civilizations. We always find a way to say that they were incapable of doing the things they did.

  22. Quit watching after 5 mins. It's obvious the dude has not gotten a clue.

  23. That was so dry and stupid. I stopped half-way through. Felt like a Religious doctrine cleverly disguised as a science documentary. A lot of the science scenes were ripped from other doc's. "I don't know, therefor; God."

  24. It is a pity that the authors didn't declare themselves and show their evident religious point-of-view since the beginning.

    It is a pity because the documentary is very well done and based on serious researches, even though I don't think religion needs to defend/protect itself from science but, if anything, from the wrong use of scientific discoveries in human society.

    I would suggest the authors to keep going with their educational efforts but, next time, to be more open and "loyal" to the audience.

    There is nothing bad or to be ashamed of in loving religion.

    Here's something that could help progressing in the debate.

    "...What can be more important than Science and Religion?
    Science gives us the Knowledge, Religion gives us the Meaning..."

    Quotation from a speech of Michal Heller
    Catholic priest, Astrophysicist, Professor of Philosophy, Theologian
    Winner of the 2008 Templeton Prize

    In his recent book "The science and God" he genuinely tries to overcome old contrasts between religion and atheism - like denying the Evolution Theory or promoting the "ID - Intelligent Design" from one side and speculating about the ultimate "TOE - Theory Of Everything" from the other.

    In essence, as well as we all know, it looks impossible to give a rational answer to an old philosophical question:
    "Why there is something rather than nothing?"

    Mysteries remain mysteries, including the cause of the universe, the consciousness of being conscious and the human love...

    Science must keep going its own way, so religion.
    With equal dignity and mutual respect.

    1. I suggest you read Kateye's fine analysis of this documentary which, despite what you think, is riddled with lies and distortions.

      Being an abrogation of rational thought, religion is shameful in and of itself. How dare you equate the dignity and respect which science engenders to what religion has to offer, namely nothing. So now, what are these wrong uses of science in society and what right do you have calling them wrong? Can religion do any better?

      Spare us the quotations from authority. They mean as much as your entire post.

    2. "I suggest you read Kateye's fine analysis of this documentary which, despite what you think, is riddled with lies and distortions."

      Excuse me for disturbing the police patrol man robertallen1 here, but I did read all I could of Kateye's comments, at least on the 4 oldest comment pages. I didn't see any coherent analysis about the contents of the film, but read plenty of comments about it's authors. Still, for being *riddled* with lies and distortions I was surprised to not really find any on-the-subject factual discussion. It was about how the film was made and by whome, rather than about the arguments presented.

    3. Then you must be dyslectic, for Kateye commented almost point by point in detail on one of her posts.

  25. I don't see why the written introduction to this video needs to come with a warning. Portraying the creators of the documentary as religious doesn't discredit them or their views. And it's a bit over the top to assume everyone watching it on this website is a militant atheist who can't handle any kind of alternative information, and, in a way, to belittle those who aren't.

    1. As religion is at the bottom of all the lies and misrepresentations in this documentary, its creators, their views and those who subscribe to them deserve being discredited, belittled and humiliated.

      P.S. There is no such thing as "alternative" information, except in the minds of creationists and the like.

    2. For people like you I guess, if it did not bother you, why even write a post about it?

    3. True. Just because someone has a 'motive' doesn't render their arguments invalid. An intellectually honest person, whether believing in evolution or not, will consider both sides of the debate without belittling either one. Ad Hominem is not good debate, and I see it come from the atheists more than anyone else.

  26. I laugh with gentility - umm.... do you guys ever sleep or just post? Take care TD-crew.

  27. Actually, instead of all the things I would like to say, I will ask this question: What is so NOT plausible about Intelligent Design? I am not saying it is God. I am saying, if you compare the theories out there, and they are all theories, what is so baffling about their being some intelligent design force? If one knows the true, deep complexities of the human body, the earth, the universe, and I mean the really deep workings, then causality would demand there is something that has purpose and intent behind what exist. And, please dont think that I am naive enough to think this hasnt been debated a billion times. Part of my point is that if we (HUMANS) are to be tolerant of others views, philosophies, perspectives, why wouldnt I entertain intelligent design?

    1. There could be many explanations (for what? you didn't say). For the origin of life (not the universe), there is serious scientific research on multiple fronts. "Plausible" explanations are not scientific conclusions.

      "Intelligent design" is not a serious scientific effort, however. So far, its proponents have not provided any scientific proof of their hypothesis. This video contains none.

      ID has been ruled in more than one court case to be another iteration of creationism, which itself is a specific religious viewpoint, and therefore cannot be taught in publicly-funded schools.

      You can easily find all this out for yourself by googling the author, participants and producers of this documentary, as well as reading the Design Institute's "Wedge Document."

      Their stated aim is to replace the teaching of objective science with a theistic model of education for the purpose of promoting their theological view of morality.

      The proponents of this viewpoint have turned to repackaging it. The author of this video is a proponent of ID, as are the participants, and it was produced by an advertising and marketing agency (not a film company).

      From the research I did when this video was first posted, I came to the conclusion that it is a marketing video to make the authors' book on ID palatable to sympathetic school boards, teachers, and/or parents as a science textbook.

    2. First of all, you need to read up on what a scientific theory is. Second, intelligent design is not science. Third, universal causality has never been proved. Fourth, complexity does not imply a creator, purpose or intent. Fifth, there is no scientifc proof for intelligent design nor can there be, as it is no more than a religious concept. You can entertain whatever you want, but don't expect respect or toleration by virtue of your entertaining something.

    3. davidjemeyson
      first you ask "What is so NOT plausible about Intelligent Design? " i agree that it is plausible but that in no way makes it scientific. also it is not up to anyone to prove it wrong you have to demonstrate that it is right.

      "I am not saying it is God" good but for something to be scientific it has to do more that not claim god it has to give a natural explanation (absent of god or any supernatural agent)

      "they are all theories" not from a scientific standpoint they are not. you want ID to be seen as scientific? here it a few things that have to be done before a scientific theory can be claimed.
      1. show observations that are not currently explained within scientific theories or disprove existing theories
      2. it has to be absent of supernatural agents
      3. form a hypothesis based on observation and evidence
      4. make falsifiable predictions based on hypothesis and perform tests and gather evidence to prove predictions correct.
      5.when a scientific criteria are met and tests are shown to confirm hypothesis a theory can be proposed based on hypothesis.
      6. form theory show all evidence for theory ,allow others to repeat all tests and observations and describe the process in eliminating or adjusting any theories that are in conflict.
      7. put theory up for peer review and allow others to inspect methods and evidence while repeating all tests.
      8. gain acceptance from a majority of scientists in relevant fields.
      this is by no means an exhaustive list but until all of the above are done ID is not a theory.

      finally the public forum or the classroom is not the place for ID to prove itself. you have to present it to the experts and have them accept a new idea first before we inflict it onto students. the proponents of ID do not wish to follow the rules set up to provide the best possible answers because they know it cannot stand up to scrutiny. they do not wish to educate they wish to indoctrinate.

  28. No, he is accusatory and biased. It is his/her opinion that it is "veiled" the authors of the documentary show now signs of disguising their belief in "intelligent design". And, isnt intelligent design another plausible explanation just like any other explanation? Or, do you to believe there is only one explanation?

    1. davidjemeyson
      when you are done reviewing the description how about a review of the doc and include facts that prove your case. then you ask "isnt intelligent design another plausible explanation " i guess so but it isn't science and nobody has provided actual proof of this designer. who do you think the designer is? ID is creationism plain and simple. the groups that advocate and fund the vast majority of ID are religious. this doc cannot even get through the first two minutes without showing that they are either purposely misrepresenting science or they have less then a high school understanding of the scientific facts

    2. If intelligent design is so plausible, why are there so many out-and-oue lies and misrepresentations in this documentary?

    3. Like I said earlier, intellectual honesty requires considering alternatives. Fine, you don't have to believe the alternative at the end, but it's good to do additional research.

    4. You might want to research the motives and backgrounds of the people who published this documentary. They are well-known ID proponents whose stated goal is to put religion into science classrooms.

      This is not a secret; look through these comments for my postings and you will find the results of my own research. You might start with the fact that the documentary was produced by an advertising and marketing firm. Not an indictment, but hardly unbiased. Also look the author's book up on Amazon; you'll find viewer reviews that clearly state their approval of the religious slant.

      Is that intellectually honest enough for you?

      As Vlatko posted on the home page of this website, "We always have to keep in mind that a Documentary, after all, can tell lies and it can tell lies because it lays claim to a form of veracity which fiction doesn’t."

  29. Whomever wrote the intro review of this documentary obviously has their own biases. Who is the author of the intro? Dont you realize you are just as biased as the authors of the documentary?

    1. No, he's just as honest as the authors of the documentary are dishonest.

    2. The author of the intro is the owner of the website. Since he hosts and maintains the site, he certainly entitled to review the documentaries he puts on it.

      However, if you read the second half of the intro, you will see the words "From the authors:" where he lets them speak for themselves.

  30. Don't you all have a better forum to perform your atheist circle jerk? Or do you want to try to cut to the chase about this documentary and it's statement that it's operationally impossible to get a cell from basic materials?

    1. "There are more things in heaven and earth, AprilOneal,
      Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  :)

    2. Your first post and that is all you can come up with?
      Insults and nothing else, have fun!

  31. You all want a good laugh.

    Aron Ra promo video with Ray Comfort

    1. I've already seen this and commented on it. However, does anyone know who the older guy is with Ray Comfort.

    2. robertallen1
      thanks for the heads up . let me know if he answers. the old guy is Pat Robertson (if possible he is more nuts than ray)

      7pm PST edit sorry doc i meant 7 typed 10

    3. So that's what he looks like. Thank you.

      As I mentioned to you about two days ago (somehow my comment got deleted), I'm glad this is going to be an audio and not a video broadcast, for while Mr. Ra knows his topic, there's a lot to be desired about his appearance. He comes across looking like a classless hippie while Mr. Comfort comes off as casually conservative. Those already in the choir probably don't care, but what about those who need to be convinced, like just about all of middle class America? There is a psychology to appearance--notice how Dr. Dawkins generally dresses. Whether casual or formal, he looks respectable. On the other hand, Mr. Ra is a total turnoff--and I'm stating this as someone who couldn't care less about his dress except on certain occasions.

      Also, Mr. Ra's pomotional video leaves much to be desired. Everytime Mr. Ra appears, it's to a background of offensive garbage which detracts from what he is saying. In other words, he's going at cross-purposes.

      I'm hoping this won't get deleted again for I see nothing in it that violates comment policy.

    4. robertallen1
      i didn't delete it but i will not speculate as to why. his appearance can be off putting (thunderfoot as well but he is also too timid). but having a cross section of society that appeal to other tastes is a good thing (but i agree on the background music). if he attracts a different audience and relates to some who do not like Dawkins approach i am all for it. the audio only approach is to the detriment of Comfort i agree.

    5. But if we're talking about mainstream middle class America (and Canada), other tastes have nothing to do with it. The main thing is to put the point across without hindrance or distraction. However, as you mentioned, in this respect, the radio broadcast levels the playing field in this respect.

  32. Over_the_Edge, Achem, Epicurus, Vatko, etc.
    I believe I have found Aron Ra's e-mail address. It is Aronra @ Gmail [dot] com. In light of the upcoming debate with Ray Comfort, I have written him a hortatory e-mail which has not yet come back to me and so I assume that the address is correct. I provide this information in case some of you wish to do as I.

  33. Listen people, there is a God. Do you not understand that somethings in the world cannot just evolve over time like darwin so claims that life as we know started on the back of a glacier or some ridiculous mess. Imagine all things from small matter to great from a plant cell to the human heart, or anythings eye. Why do you think the Bible tells us to recall these things over an over. God created us for the purpose of happiness and to be at one with the creation, but ever since Satan corrupted mankind we strived not any longer to learn, but accepted false teachings from the one called by many names i.e. father of all lies, the accuser, and the wicked one...

    You say the there is not I.D. because of human short comings, but imagine if you can that our problems rest in our own hands. Humans have destroyed ourselves due to wickedness. The seven deadly sins tell a lot about mankind, the main being pride for it leads to all the others. The Bible saids that all nations use to sacrifice their children to the god baal, and commit all type of perverted sex with them(children) and each other. Even the jews started to do these things, so he exiled them over and for their wickedness. All these still happen the only thing that has changed is instead of golden god, we allow money to determine the doom of many, i.e. 3rd world countries. From the kidnapping of millions in turning them into child soldiers, and sex slaves, to the actual rape and molestation of millions more all throughout the world.

    1. EnShaquwa Moore
      you state "there is a God" great so you have proof? i don't mean an analogy, interpretation, something we don't fully understand so you attribute it to a god or an attack on a differing explanation. but actual demonstrable proof. here is your chance what is this proof?

    2. "Listen people, there is a God."

      *sigh* there is not.

      "Do you not understand that somethings in the world cannot just evolve over time like darwin so claims that life as we know started on the back of a glacier or some ridiculous mess."

      why not?

      "Imagine all things from small matter to great from a plant cell to the human heart, or anythings eye"

      all those things evolved by natural processes. no god needed.

      "God created us for the purpose of happiness and to be at one with the creation, but ever since Satan corrupted mankind we strived not any longer to learn, but accepted false teachings from the one called by many names i.e. father of all lies, the accuser, and the wicked one..."

      why did god create satan and why doesnt god just get rid of satan? doesnt this just seem like a make believe story to you?

      "You say the there is not I.D. because of human short comings, but imagine if you can that our problems rest in our own hands."

      i say there is no ID because there is no evidence for it.

      "The Bible saids that all nations use to sacrifice their children to the god baal, and commit all type of perverted sex with them(children) and each other."

      well the bible is wrong. not all nations did those things. just more proof that the bible is lying.

      your post was nothing more than empty assertions based on your preconditioned cultural biases. impressive that you could type that out and not recognize how flawed the logic is. im just amazed at how ignorant some of you people INSIST on being.

    3. On point as usual, but notice you get frustrated too and out and out call posters, especially this one, wilfully ignorant--and rightly so--and Vlatko, Over_the_Edge and Achem have done the same--and again rightly so. While it might violate the letter of the comment policy and rile a few, those few deserve to be riled.

    4. ya i wont say it until its clear. until i have tried to explain it a couple times and they refuse to accept clear evidence. at that point im willing to say they are probably just choosing to stay that way.

      i think its mostly your strength with words. you have a bite to that tongue of yours.

    5. Keyboard please. You've never heard me speak.

      Fine, but this is the first post I've noticed from EnShaqwa. Let's face it, some posts are so wilfully ignorant and pathetic that they deserve summary treatment. Also, I'm sure you'll admit that you can generally tell from the first post where the poster stands, his level of education and his mental makeup.

      I would also like to point out that agreement or disagreement has little to do with it. If you haven't already done so, I would like you, both as moderator and poster, to read the exchanges between Dzon and me on "The Missing Years of Jesus," especially the last one regarding the physical existence of "Jesus." She [I think it's a she] does not believe he ever existed and I believe that he did, BUT ONLY AS A MAN. It's obvious that, like Kateye, this poster has done her homework and therefore merits a different type of response than one who posts out of sheer ignorance and dogma. This is the type of person I like to disagree with and I hope that she(?) will continue to post.

      Your thoughts.

    6. you are right. most of the time you can tell the poster right off the bat. the one that has no interest in learning anything new but insists their belief is absolutely true.

      this posters first line got to me. and then it was just more and more of the same nonsense but about things we actually know.

      but i think the way i tell people they are ignorant is slightly nicer than the way you do if you notice i said "im just amazed at how ignorant some of you people INSIST on being." whereas you might have said something like, "Your level of ignorance is on par with that of a semi-retarded 5 year old child from Zimbabwe" LOL (i actually made myself laugh with that one)

      I will have to go through that conversation you are mentioning. perhaps join in, although i dont really study much on the religious side anymore. I am more comfortable arguing from a scientific perspective than a biblical one.

    7. You've described my thought process exactly while I was reading that post. You're right, like P.Z. Myers, I go straight for the jugular; it's simply more effective that way and I hope Aron Ra does the same in his upcoming match with Ray Comfort which i don't think you want to miss. Anyway, would you mind changing Zimbabwe to Libya and semi-r*tarded to r*tarded? I believe in a full dose.

      The older I grow and the more I learn, the more comfortable I find myself arguing from both perspectives

    8. oh wow thank you for letting me know about aron ra and ray comfort. im going to have to get up to date with that, i really dont want to miss it.

    9. Thank over_the_edge for bringing it to everyone's attention.

    10. only thing you did is reposted my post. so fine if you guys want logic open up your own eyes and the truth for once. you are blinded by pride in an useless education. not one of you can disprove Jesus, or any of the prophets of the Bible because everything they say come to past. he tell how to overcome a world giving over to satan because of the deeds of men turned against God. just look at the world we live in, what thing that is made by man stands the test of time? all the empires of yesterday are exactly what the prophets of the bible say they would be, smashed to pieces with no one living in them. it is this way because of the arrogance of the kings in those days, and God did away with them. if he did not we would all be little ******* allister crowleys.

      yes God made satan and when made satan and his angels over mankind to make sure we develop correctly he knew satan had the will to be evil. he mated with the daughters of men and taught humans technology far more than we even have, and too much for them.
      i.e. its like giving a gun to a baby, oh yea and teaching them about sex.

      God is faithful to humans, and punishes all who do wrong, even his most esteemed angel. and even though he allows these things to go on he is still just. if man were holy we would repent from our ways of fornication, murder, lying, stealing, and idolatry. so yea some people deserve the same treatment as satan.

      i dont have to proof my God is real because on the day of judgement he will proof it to you.

    11. LOL you believe all this make believe nonsense?

    12. You are blinded by your own wilful lack of education, especially as to the bible about which you know not the first thing, as evidenced by your "discussion" of prophecy. Your understanding is basically that of a five-year-old child who's just learned how to read, but still believes in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the wicked witch of the west and the ogre under the bridge--and until the child grows a little older, it's sometimes impossible to disembarras him of these ideas. You obviously never grew a little older.

    13. The only thing that I sometimes like about your fundy religion, is when y'all do your old time gospel music, rock and roll beat for your Christ, y'all know how to shake your booties for your man in the sky.

    14. I, for one, hate everything about it.

    15. I like turtles.

    16. I can name one thing worse then giving a child a gun, or teaching them about sex. Give them the belief that their fairy tale is the only possible correct version, and the arrogant belief that they have the right to impose it on others.
      Then you'll get a whopper of a problem... religion, and the trappings that come with it, some of which you mention, i.e. murder, lying, stealing.
      Didn't your god say, according to your book, it was his job to judge, not yours? So why do you say some people deserve the same treatment as satan? Lovely judgement you make there, with all your brotherly love displayed. You can't even stick to your own fairy tale. lol. I guess you'll be joining the rest of us 'wrong-doers' on your judgement day then hey. ;)

    17. Speaking of judgment day, don't miss the debate this Monday between Aron Ra and Ray Comfort, 7:00 p.m. PST.

    18. PST, or PDT?
      I'd hate to miss because of daylight savings. :( That should be about noon Tuesday here.

    19. According to over_the_edge, it's at 7:00 p.m. Pacific time at radio-Paul[dot]com.

    20. ? I set up a gmail alert a few days ago to find out if this debate (Aron Ra and Comfort) is on-line or on tv. No response yet. Does anyone know if it is on-line and where? I don't have a tv.

      Edit - Just saw your response to docoman - tnx.

    21. Also, Mr. Ra's e-mail address is AronRa@Gmail[dot]com in case you would like to send him an e-mail concerning the upcoming festivity.

    22. ...this is not only directed at EnShaquwa Moore but to believers in general.

      I know a bit about religion because as a lad I went to Catholic primary school (1-7) and we prayed every morning (I still know those orisons). Our first class everyday was religion, catechism or bible study if you like. I wasn't precocious but neither was I stupid so by grade two (I was six)I knew that religion was a crock - amen to that I declared. Since then I keep an eye on it because not only is it intellectually fascinating but it is impossible to avoid as it is a major cause of many of mankind's troubles.
      @EnShaquwa Moore
      Your point on angels and satan is crap in so many ways. Here is a simple rebuttal using the theistic interpretation of the three key underpinning attributes of god - without these attributes your god doesn't fly. Note - this argument isn't new and has been delivered in different ways by many more skillful than I.

      Accepted attributes of god:
      Omniscience - infinite knowledge
      Omnipotent - unlimited power
      All Loving - all loving

      You say - "yes God made satan and when made satan and his angels over mankind to make sure we develop correctly he knew satan had the will to be evil."

      I respond - But god in his almightyness - he who is all knowing (future too) and all powerful - not only knew (omniscience) the outcome or future of this event with his angels: god set the devils free. But he could've changed (omnipotent) the outcome. But no he didn't - so you should ask yourself - is your god omniscience and omnipotent and if you answer yes, as I am sure you will with a mighty chorus of hallelujah - then next ask yourself - is he, 'all loving'!?

      The answer has to be a resounding NO! NO - he can't be all loving. Why? - because he destroyed his angels - the most beautiful entities he ever created. He let them fall and become the most vile creatures ever imagined - devils. (And he knew all this from the get-go - witness omniscience).

      So whether he was/is omniscience and omnipotent now becomes a moot point because he lacked 'all loving', and if your god is not 'all loving', then he can't be god.

      In fact as this is how it played out, as the bible clearly states then not only is your god not 'all loving' but he is the epitome of a psychopath.

      I rest my case!

      Note - And on the sixth day or thereabouts he pretty well (redux) did the same thing with Adam and Eve only this time he used a devil to do his dirty work. To pit a mere human against the awesome force of a devil is not quite 'all loving'. Agree?
      Take care - we don't need gods or angels or devils - we need each other.

      (a tad long - sorry guys)

    23. And also if god is so all-fire omniscient, there's no need to pray, for he already knows what we want and has already made up his mind whether to grant it.

      P.S. You forget omnipresent.

    24. Without trying to save my butt (that is for children and believers) - you are right in that I forgot (error of omission) to include 'omnipresent' and to adhere to biblical dogma I certainly should have. But in a way omnipresent is superfluousness because omniscience covers it. No?

    25. No. They're two different concepts. You can be everywhere and know nothing (like too many posters) and you can know everything and be nowhere like Hillary Clinton. However, I consider your omission venial.

    26. Godamn! listen people there is a God! something a child would say after stamping the feet having a temper tantrum!

      That is all most religee's are like anyway, child-like. So scared of their Satan boogeymen.

    27. You're right, of course, but I wish you would read my comment to Epicurus' answer to EnShaquwaMoore and get back to me with your thoughts. Once again, comment policy or no, you are assuredly in the right!

    28. Ha, Ha, once in awhile I might say things I should not have, but since you have asked, no I do not say words as an almost default reply system as you do, like willful ignoramus and such, as Epic says "you have a bite to that tongue of yours" (no disrespect intended)

    29. Don't lay a guilt trip on yourself. These people deserve it plain and simple and the reason they deserve it is because they pass their ignorance and dogma on to others like rabies.

    30. Won't disagree with you, but since we moderators have to moderate others, our objective is to try to keep TDF a happy place, per the "comment policy"

    31. It certainly is happy if you know what you're posting about.

    32. lol i really wish i could see you in a family setting.

    33. Please read the comment policy about preaching.

      Your entire post is no more than an idiotic argument from incredulity and ignorance. You have obviously not read anything about evolution, biology, physics--as a matter of fact, about science in general. In addition, you make claims neither you nor anyone else can back up--and don't try using the Bible which you don't know the first thing about.

      Your post is an insult.

  34. Sorry folks.

    Disqus just "decided" to switch to their new format. Unbelievable. Their new version is available since the beginning of 2012 but I didn't want to use it because it SUCKS. Well the old version sucks too, but the new one is horrible. Sorry about that, they did this without my consent.

    1. Right - it threw me for a loop too. I don't like it. Can you get back to - or are we back in the old (familiar) format?

    2. I thought so because had you known, you would have informed all of us ahead of time. However, now it's back to the old way, but the activity tab on the profile is not working. In other words, we can't see a poster's previous posts.

    3. I know, it is annoying. Here is a workaround. Right click on the avatar (the profile image), open in new tab (window).

    4. That works. Thank you.

    5. Disqus is weird that way, thumbs down Disqus! why fix something if it is not broken?

      This disqus version is the best, especially the option to switch to the old moderation view, easy and straightforward that way for moderating and following the posts.

  35. I think stating that "a cell forming spontaneously is operationally impossible" ruffled some feathers (however accurate it may be).. methinks it soured some grapes. Question evolutionary theories, and be marginalized. I'm glad I don't pour my cool aid from Vlatko's jug.

  36. @Epicurus, Achem, Over the Edge, etc.
    Have you read about the latest controversy regarding Dr. Pepper? Its Facebook page now shows an ape evolving into a man after drinking Dr. Pepper. As expected, this has drawn a lot of slack from a whole slew of ignorant religees. So I suggest that another image be added to the site, this time of Jesus rising from the dead with a can or bottle of Dr. Pepper in his hand.

    1. Had not heard of that, will have to look it up.

    2. Did you ever see the old Guinness ad? Evolution in 90 seconds and the tagline 'worth waiting for' :)

    3. No, but thanks for the info.

    4. the new version showed me that you follow over 30 do you keep up?
      You are a rabbit.


    5. I don't know, I have a busy brain and I just like people. You're all my favourites ;)

    6. Doux flirt.
      It is interesting to look at TDF as a board game. As soon as i realized that a new format had "happened" I noticed how much easier it was to track people according to the information disclosed.
      I noticed that the most frequent participants either did not follow anyone at all or a few did 1 or 2 people. In most case they were followed more than they followed others.
      You were a stricking exception. I love that about you.
      I imagine you running a youth hostel when you retire, and all the rooms would have quilts and home made curtains. A good place to rewrite the bible.

    7. Sounds perfect! Not sure what I'd do with an empty house, or retirement for that matter :)

  37. So I believe in the Big Bang theory too, but it takes faith to believe that the Law of physics was able to come up with this little ball of matter and then to fling it out at a speed faster than light. Since light determines time, how did that affect time? esp since we know that as the objects speed up, time slows down-right. We also know that the basic hydrogen atom has a limited half life, which means something initiated it's formation-right? and it was there in that little microscopic ball of matter. We are limited to three dimensions and how do we know other Big Bangs are not happening in different dimensions that we humans are unable to detect? If not, how do you know? Maybe you have something we all need to know? I'm listening.......??

    1. Just what is the "law of physics?"

      "We also know that the basic hydrogen atom has a limited half life, which means something initiated its formation-right?" What makes you think so? Where is the logic?

      "We are limited to three dimensions . . . " No, we're not.

      Have you ever cracked open a book on basic physics? There's a fine Wikipedia article on the Big Bang which I suggest you read before posting further.

    2. ....sigh.....

      this is all an argument from incredulity.

  38. Well morality is good behaviour whereas immorality is bad behaviour. But what is behaviour? In the end it is electro chemical reactions in your brain causing you to react to a given situation and so, I believe, has as much bearing on evolution as predation or environmental pressure (natural selection).

    1. You're confounding behavior in general with what is considered "moral" and "immoral"--and this varies from society to society and from era to era.

      Once again, what you believe is irrelevant. It's what you can prove.

    2. No i was generalizing moral behaviour to make the point that what we 'think' is as important to evolution as what we 'do'.

  39. By the way robertallen1 75000 years ago humanity was brought to the brink of extinction yet here WE are and not the cockroaches.

    1. Just what are you referring to?

    2. Forgive me for being facetious, but cockroaches are not only more numerous than us, they have more total biomass than us. We like to think we win because we've been to the moon, invented robots and nanotechnology (Significant, 1st time feats for beings of planet Earth... yay Earth!). If you measure success by your own standards you are likely to miss the point.

      Newton and later Einstein said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Apply this to evolutionary biology, and you see that being a human, a chimpanzee, a bonobo, canine, platypus, lizard, frog, fish, shark, mollusk, annelid, jellyfish, or sponge doesn't make you better or worse. You and me couldn't be here thinking and typing without all the great humans inventors, but we also couldn't be here without millions of years of ancestral selection.

      Long before the Toba eruption a "simple" amphibian mated with another "simple" amphibian that was the ongoing dynasty of the gene line you, I, and all humans carry. From simple and humble beginnings all things flow.

      If you want to feel humble just remember that insects have been around for over 400 MILLION YEARS, and cockroach like insects far outdate dinosaurs. Humans have never made it past a major extinction event. We barely made it past the Toba eruption, which, by definition, was not a mass extinction event. We almost perished 75,000 years ago, but cockroaches have been around over 300 MILLION YEARS.

      Sending a robot to Mars proves nothing in terms of survivability, which, in the long run, is all that matters. Look at charts of fresh water depletion, fishery depletion, fossil fuel depletion, climate change, top soil depletion, etc. and you'll see that Homo sapiens is having a very extravagant and brief party. A party that will be a blip on a geological timescale.

    3. Hi, Brian. Haven't heard from you for a while. Thanks for your input--it's nice to read something intelligent and well-informed. I understand that there is still controversy as to the existence of the genetic bottleneck allegedly created by the Toba eruption. Could you possibly elaborate?

    4. Considering, regardless of past bottlenecks, that we as hominids have managed to wipe out (or out-last, at any rate) every other hominid species besides ourselves, our chances for continued evolution might end up being pretty slim compared to cockroaches.

    5. Did we wipe out other hominid species?

    6. Well there aren't any left, are there? Not sure if it was all our fault, although I'm sure we didn't help any, considering our track record since.

    7. Everything that I've read indicated that certain hominids just somehow became extinct. I really can't say one way or the other.

    8. Me neither, but since we're the only hominids left, there aren't any others to take up our slack when we go extinct. While cockroaches, on the other hand....

    9. Actually, the term hominidae can refer to the great apes of which there are four extent genera or it can refer to humans of which there is only one type still left--but perhaps this is a bit pedantic. Like you, I give it to the cockroaches.

    10. It troubles me that people consider cockroaches, sharks etc above humans because they have been around for 200+ million years. Umm so have we, in fact every species living now came from the same primordial soup. We HAVE made it past every single ele otherwise we would not be here.
      Having a large biomass does not guarantee survival. I believe our downfall will be our dependance on technology to the point where the technology is the species.

    11. Wishful thinking is the furthest thing from science--and by the way, speaking of science, how can technology be a species? And just what would you replace technology with?

    12. It isn't that they are 'above' humans in any way other than being tremendously more successful in continuing their genetic lines relatively intact. Our own species is comparatively quite young, and hasn't proven itself viable for a long haul yet. The point is that we are not 'above' them, either, no matter how egocentric our view is.

    13. SOME people believe they are above others; mentioning no names. Again we are no younger or older than any other species alive today, we didn't just appear out of a vacuum (unless you believe certain nutters).
      I suppose only time will tell if we can continue our genetic line but consider this - in 500 years time we have discovered how to travel to the stars, we colonize another world and then the Earth explodes. Humans are then the only survivor and cockroaches, no matter how many there are, are all dead.

    14. When I was referring to sheer numbers and biomass I was being facetious... as I stated.
      I must commend you Ramus73 for the recognition that just because roach-like creatures have existed for 300 million years it doesn't make them better/worse than us. However, the body plan of a roach HAS existed much longer than the body plan of primates. It HAS survived for hundreds of millions of years because it works. I'm not saying a primate adaptation won't be around 100 million years from now, but I am saying that a roach body plan sure has its advantages.

      Let's say you lived on planet Earth 500 million years ago. You are the first jellyfish, and, likewise, the first organism with two cell layers. That might not seem like much, but its a tremendous evolutionary leap. Having two cell layers instead of one doesn't get you to Mars, but it has tremendous advantages (a fascinating subject, really).

      So you are the first two cell layered being to have ever existed. You say to yourself, "Wow! I'm the most highly evolved being that has ever existed. Everything before me was essentially inconsequential, and there's nothing that could possibly come after. I am what evolution was leading toward, two cell layers. Go me!"

      Unfortunately, for our hypothetical, cognizant jellyfish two cell layers led to three, which led to a spinal column, and later a dorsal nerve ganglia, later still a primitive brain, then a lymbic system, and a pre-frontal cortex. Every step along the way the creature at the forefront of evolution couldn't conceive anything could come after.

      My point is that you are indeed correct, Homo sapiens has a more complex body-plan than cockroaches, but given enough time even a primate is a mere cockroach to what may come in another 300 million years.

      As a side note, I'd highly recommend a detailed study of the Corvidae Family of birds (crows, ravens, jays, magpies). Current research shows they're the most intelligent of birds, and (in my opinion) uncoincidentally they have a brain-to-mass ratio equivalent to primates. The young also have abnormally long periods of dependence on parents; a behavior pioneered by mammals and "perfected" by primates.

      Give the Corvidae Family another 10 million years, and they'll mock primates for their lack of flight and foresight... I do mean this quite literally, a birds feathers are spectacularly more complex than a mammals hair.

    15. I know corvidaes are extremely intelligent, but aren't macaws, cockatoos, hawks, falcons and eagles just as much so?

      Something else. Do you have any idea what caused hominid extinction (and I'm referring to types of humans, not great apes)? Do you think homo sapiens had anything to do with it?

    16. lol the cockroaches are still here. and we were down to a few thousand people and those people had not yet been spoiled by the luxuries of our modern society.

      if society collapsed i dont KNOW if people would be able to be as successful as we were.

      Homo Sapiens have only been here 200,000 years. homo erectus was around for over a million years. we are still so young.

    17. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this genetic bottleneck allegedly caused by the Toba eruption still in dispute as well as our being down to a few thousand people?

    18. it could be anywhere from a few thousand to like 25000. i dont know for sure if its confirmed but i remember talking about it last year with my genetic anthropology professor who was talking about it as thought it happened.

    19. Wikipedia shows 3,000-10,000. Also the article seems to indicate some controversy about whether this bottleneck existed.

  40. You may be right but if you had two civilizations that are the same except one commits murder I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would say the murderers are more evolved. Anyway in my opinion morality has as much to do with evolution as anything else because it still has an effect on the biological.

    1. What someone might say about murderers is irrelevant to a discussion of evolution and to aver that I may be right, but you'll stick with your opinion anyway relegates wilful ignorance to the level of obscenity.

    2. What is your definition of morality? Just curious.

  41. Evolution happens because of outside influences. Our evolution has come to a virtual standstill because we can control many of the outside influences, food, shelter, communication etc. I don't think there is a `pinnacle` of evolution, we can always do better. Anyway, we still murder each other so we are far from being a perfect evolutionary example.

    1. Evolution and morality have nothing to do with each other.

  42. The review of this is way to biased, I was turned off at first because it. But by the end of the video I thought it made some interesting points to think about.

    This video reminds me of Roger Penrose's book "The Road To Reality" how mathematical truth exists separately from the physical and mental.

    There are a lot of phenomenon in mathematical statements that we can't understand or wrap our minds around, but they surely exist. They are truths that we didn't invent that exist beyond human cognition, an underlying "intelligence" of the universe.

    It's interesting to think about. Alot of people..even scientists...are turned off by complicated equations and numbers, but taking the time the understand there statements embedded in the universe can have profound effects.

    1. Just what are these mathematical statements that we can't understand or wrap our minds around and what are these complicated equations and numbers that scientists are turned off by? And just what is your mathematics background? And while you're at it, just what are these truths that exist beyond human cognition and how do they point to an underlying "intelligence?"

    2. The square root of a negative number...imaginary numbers, the number e and the fact that e^x is its own derivative, planks constant, hubbles constant, all the constants we observer to be embedded in the universe, or even pi. Physicist like Richard Feynman would argue that the number 137 is one of the greatest mysteries of physics because of the reoccurring role it plays. The mathematical entity known as "the mandelbrot set" is a simple equation that forms an extraordinarily elaborate structure. These things are not of the Physical world, nor do we invent them, we simply observe them.

      Roger Penrose makes a pretty cool argument in his book about how the mental, physical, and mathematical 'worlds' are all separate but in relation. He uses a lot of Math that is beyond our understanding, like imaginary numbers and reiman spheres to depict how the universe actually works.

      And if you don't give a **** about Roger Penrose, fair enough. But the fact that Einstein discovered General Relativity purely through mathematics alone should speak volumes on the subject.

      As for me, I'm just a college student interested in Science. I'm majoring in Bioengineering, particularly in Neuroscience. And from my experience a lot of scientist don't like math, even though its an incredible tool for uncovering the mysteries of the universe.

      I don't know if this video here speaks any truth about evolution. I've been under the impression that dna formed by chance in the early conditions of earth, we have had 4 billion years to get to where we are now after all... or maybe we had even longer than that and our dna came here on an asteroid or something.

      Life is crazy though, and its mind blowing how complex our biology is... so why not be open minded about it?

    3. @Cam Baptista,

      Now calculate the odds for creation of life by chance (simple silica or carbon proto molecules with the ability for self replication) given the fact that there might be 100 billion "Earths" in this universe.

      There are nearly 14 million lottery combinations, which means to CERTAINLY win the lottery you need to buy 14 million tickets (all combinations). However if you buy (or already have) 100 billion tickets you'll win the lottery over 7100 times.

      See, we used math and we increased the chances spectacularly. So spectacularly that you'll be certain winner not once but 7100 times. Math can go both ways given enough SPACE and TIME.

      The next stage is the evolution of complex life forms. The chance for instant creation (appearance out of nowhere) of complex life forms (cells, animals, plants) is extremely small. The odds are 1 : 10 to the power of 81 (all the atoms in the observable universe). Simply it will never happen, unless if we take the universe as infinite. In that case all things that all people on Earth can imagine already happened or will certainly happen somewhere in the universe.

      Having said that, cumulative evolution (small cumulative changes over vast periods of time) can certainly lead to complex life forms. In fact it is inevitable, since the very nature of the process reduces the improbability to a great extent.

    4. The old creationist trick of using of creating false mathematical models. to demonstrate equally false improbabilities. Dembski employs this frequently. However, with true mathematical models patterned after your last paragraph, the odds seem to disappear.

    5. Can't argue that.

    6. Obviously, you've not taken analytic geometry, calculus and complex analysis, for there is nothing baffling about imaginary numbers, e^x being its own derivative (i.e., its tangent line equal to the function), e itself or pi (simply the ratio between a curve and a straight line)--and for your information, like all mathematics, the Mandelbrot set, as you call it, is a representation of the physical world. In short, there is nothing supernatural, eerie or mind-boggling (fascinating, yes) about any of these. As for scientists not liking math, why does it play such a prominent role in all the sciences?

      In short, you don't know what you're talking about and perhaps a few more years of education might remedy this.

    7. Thanks for setting me straight.

  43. lol i just noticed this is in the conspiracy section. Right on Vlatko.

  44. Wow, this is the first doc. I've seen here that comes with an introduction telling us how to interpret the film before we've even opened it.

    1. You must not have read the descriptions of many docs here then. I often read them, and the comments as well, to see if it's the kind of documentary I want to spend my time on.

      Didn't you read the authors' description as well?

    2. I agree normally opinions are in the forum not on the cover.

    3. but its not an opinion, its fact.

    4. I am just saying that my impression is that normally we don't get Vlatko's first comment on the film box.

    5. he was clearly especially disgusted by this video...he even put in in conspiracy section (which i think is awesome).

      but remember he could have simply censored it and just not ever put it up on his site.

    6. here here, and the conspiracy category? WTF?

  45. Vlatko,

    "The book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.....But it is not science fiction: it is science."

    Is Dawkins trying to confuse people with statements like that?
    How can something be "almost" science fiction?
    Science is either fiction or fact.

    In the words of robertallen1...... Dawkins has stated a non sequitur.....
    a completely illogical statement.

    1. @Emanouel,

      Okay, just read the book, and point your questions regarding semantics to Dawkins himself.

    2. Emanouel, I think Vlatko gave you a quote that just confused you. Here is an extract from the wiki article on the book:

      "In the foreword to the book's 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he "can readily see that [the book's title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents" and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler's advice and called the book "The Immortal Gene."

      "...In describing genes as being "selfish", [Dawkins] does not imply that they are driven by any motives or will—merely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were.

      "...the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.

      " Andrew Brown has written: "Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process."

      "This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it."

      It's an excellent book that changed how the field was viewed and answered many puzzling questions. There was an event held at the London School of Economics on its 30th anniversary edition; from the The Edge's web page for it:

      "Physicist and computer scientist W. Daniel Hillis has noted:

      "Notions like Selfish Genes, memes, and extended phenotypes are powerful and exciting. They make me think differently. Unfortunately, I spend a lot of time arguing against people who have overinterpreted these ideas. They're too easily misunderstood as explaining more than they do."

      Hope this helps. Do read the book, it's excellent.

    3. Dollars to Confederate bills, he won't.

    4. I'm just hoping he'll read all the way through to the end of my comment, not merely skim it.

      But I do hope he does read the book, I thoroughly enjoyed it, myself.

    5. I could say that you're wasting your time on this poster; however, this is a public forum and if someone else benefits, you've accomplished something.

      I had problems with the book as I have with some of Dawkins' other works. He does not seem to have pinpointed the audience he is writing for: Is it the general public or is it the cognescenti? In certain sections of the book, there was simply too much detail given for the point being made and parts of it were just plainly boring. (I'm referring to the latest edition) However, I admit the premisis is intriguing, that if evolution/genetics is responsible for the "physical" aspects of living things, why not for the "mental?" This is not to say that I totally buy into the concept of memes except as an artificial term, but it is certainly worth considering.

    6. "However, I admit the premisis is intriguing, that if evolution/genetics is responsible for the "physical" aspects of living things, why not for the "mental?"
      I just had to make people read this once again.

    7. And your point is?

    8. You know how some people quote famous people on TDF, I myself used to write poetry but was told to stop. I just quoted you.

    9. Once again, your point is?

    10. You do take many bets...i wonder how many you win as an average.
      I like how you phrase it differently depending if you are betting on a Canadian or Us citizen.

    11. In the words of robertallen 1, I have read the book. Now why don't you BEFORE asking questions?

    12. the reason he said that is because he will be using theoretical examples and scenarios to enable the reader to better conceptualize the science he is explaining.

      it seems to me like you are not even trying to understand the language but rather trying as hard as possible to scrutinize it.

      that is fine we can play semantics all day.

    13. Hi Epicurus

      Was the first single cell conscious of its own mortality?
      Is this the reason why it reproduced?
      Even if early life forms were somehow conscious of their own mortality, why develop an ability to reproduce? Why did they not just live their lives, and then simply perish. Why bother reproducing?
      Its just that, if you answer this by saying "to pass on the genes,"
      the "why" question arises again? Why pass on the genes?
      I will read the book to see if it can answer my questions.

      Hey rob, when you say to Kateye70 "that you're wasting time on this poster," it tells me that you are a control freak...trying to influence peoples' behaviours as well as their thoughts. If you feel that I am a waste of time, please do not feel obliged to respond to my posts anymore.


    14. You did not copy the rest of the post which reads, " . . . however, this is a public forum and if someone else benefits, you've accomplished something." Quoting out of context like this makes you a cheat!

      Now let's see if you'll actually read the book. I don't believe you will.

    15. No cells are not conscious of their mortality. they are more like a plant that "reaches" for the light source. they are not aware. its just what life does.

      the ability to reproduce was a biproduct of cell division. cells divide not because they want to but because they must based on their chemistry.

      its all a byproduct of chemistry and physics.

    16. @Emanouel,

      To get a clue why genes pass on and why bodies reproduce, step outside the current view of the world as biomass of animals and plants. Look at it as a biomass of genes. An enormous gene pool.

      Put the genes in the center. They are the ultimate drive force, they're in command. Bodies simply don't matter. They're used only as vehicles. What shape or form in a given space genes occupy it doesn't matter. What matters is the efficiency of their survival and replication.

      Bodies die rapidly, genes ultimately survive. The blueprint is ever existent, even more now and then improved to fit nicely into nature's rules.

      And that process is blind, unconscious, it doesn't know what future will bring. It doesn't have long term strategy, but by making short term adjustments genes manage to survive on the long run.

      You share genes with monkeys, fish and bananas. Those same genes reside in many different bodies, shapes, forms, species.

      Why develop the ability to reproduce? Efficiency. Given the laws of nature on this planet, genes prefer replication through reproduction. They could have simply stayed contained in one cell organisms (bacteria) but apparently they devised lot of other ways of replication.

    17. Thanks Vlatko

      Appreciate the response.

  46. wow, the review is sooo bad. So one sided.....Im very dissapointed

    1. If by "review" you mean the site's description, you obviously didn't bother to see that it includes the authors' description as well. It was a balanced description.

      I have concluded from my own research that the film is advertising for a pseudoscience book promoting ID, which the author and his backers would like to see used as a science textbook.

      Although it purports to be aimed at the scientific community, it is written and produced for adolescents and a lay audience at a high school level of education, not for professionals with advanced degrees.

    2. but its also true.

  47. "we can survive through our genes"

    Yes, but besides how, why did life create the ability to reproduce ?

    Science says reproduction ensures the survival of the species.
    To me, this just seems an inadequate explanation.
    After all, life could originate and then simply perish.
    Could there be a higher purpose of reproduction, that science has not yet determined?

    1. @Emanouel,

      The ability to reproduce is only a mechanism for passing on the genes (the immortal replicators).

      Life could just originate and simply perish, but today there are no conditions for that. Lot of things changed since 3.5 billion years ago.

      I just finished reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. I think you should read it too. It will answer lot of your questions.

    2. Thanks Vlatko

      I will consider reading it.
      I find it odd that a gene can be described as "selfish."
      A chemical is a chemical. It is what it is.
      How can we attribute a personal quality to it? (by calling it "selfish")
      Sure, a human can be called selfish....but to describe molecules as selfish ?

      Is this book based on a theory or hard scientific evidence ?

    3. @Emanouel,

      The author explains very well why the title of the book was chosen as such among the other suggested titles.

      Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" to express the gene-centred view of evolution. Not that the genes are selfish as people or animals are.

      Here is a little quote from the book:

      "The book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science."

    4. Why don't you read the book and ask questions later?

    5. Purpose is philosophical, not scientific, not worthy of consideration.

    6. reproduction enables survival because it allows the genes to change and by changing it allows them to survive different environments.

      sexual reproduction is a greatly beneficial trait.

      and remember some life does originate and then perish. wonder why a god would create life which 99% of has gone extinct.

    7. I agree that sexual reproduction is a greatly beneficial trait--it can be a lot of fun too if you do it right.

    8. What would doing it wrong be?

    9. That's a pretty good question.
      "wonder why a god would create life which 99% of has gone extinct."

  48. I would like to know how they modeled the probabilities of a cell/life evolving by undirected natural processes to come up with 10^164/10^340, grabbing the original grain of sand is impossible but what do would all the other gazillion grains (probable outcomes) yield? consciusness as we 'dont know it?....o_O....thats my critical thinking for the day

    1. And excellent critical thinking it is. In a nutshell, they either don't know the first thing about probability or they want to delude the naive into believing that they do.

  49. @Robert and all those other smart cookies,
    From now on, my role on TDF will be to sound as stupid as possible which will make me sound more honest in your opinion. I will no longer be rated by my failure at being smart but by my smart at being stupid.
    I am French, 54, underuneducated but well travelled, curious, unashamed, sincere.
    Not that this will change much what i write!

    1. I, for one, rate you by your failure to be informed. So how about putting your curiosity to good use and before posting, read up--and I don't mean on pseudoscience.

    2. You are far from stupid, and none of us are that smart, you have probably learned a lot since you have been on TDF, I know that I have. Hang in there, curious is all that you need.

  50. It may be justified to say that at the present time, "we" humans are at the pinacle of evolution. Not one construction is conceptualize by animals, not one word is uttered with sense by animals (unless taught by humans), not one result of science is writen down by animals, and in fact our entire reality is describe by what humans sense and live. If we could understand the mind of an animal perhaps we could see what pinacle they are reaching.
    Humans are not at the pinacle of living healthily with the earth but that's a whole different story.

    1. Can you echolocate like a bat? Is your short- term memory as good as a gorilla's? Do you have the finely developed sense of the hunt as the lion and tiger? "Not one construction is conceptualize [sic] by animals, not one word is uttered with sense by animals (unless taught by humans) . . . " On what do you base this? How do you know how animals conceptualize or even if they all conceptualize in the same way? How many different types of animals have you studied? Have you studied the "language" of any animal, such as the chimpanzee?

      Once again, empty speculation.

      You have so little knowledge of science or for that matter of any other area of knowledge and yet you make groundless statements such as this.

  51. "quit hiding behind pronouns" athiests must be so proud to have Rob leading the charge

    1. Why are you so afraid to tell us what you're talking about?

    2. So what scintillating comments do YOU have to contribute to the conversation?

      Show us your stuff!

    3. Scintillating? Do you guys live in the real world or in Websters?

    4. I do have a good vocabulary =)

      I'm waiting for you to **sparkle** for us.

    5. You want @branrx: to sparkle? he is probably rammed up so far in his gods rectum he can hardly breathe.

      Was that a bad thing to say?

    6. Yes, but it's deserved. However, please add a final e to the last word of your first paragraph.

    7. LOL..oh my God..Hey, Prozac does wonders for that OCD condition of yours

    8. I take back my last reply to you. Your make-up is intelligence-repellent.

    9. Let me put it this way, I do not want what you have. Does anyone?

    10. And just what does Achem have that nobody wants?

    11. Well you seem pleasant, so I'll hush.. the other one?..(rolls eyes)

    12. Kateye70

      Now you see what I mean by two coherent sentences.

    13. I'm waiting for him to write two coherent sentences.

    14. What's the matter? Too educated for you?

    15. Yes way to educated..Basemant people ruling the cyberwaves..Scary.. Get out and soak some rays my friend.

    16. zomg nowai !!?!?!?!?1one11 Gamer meme hits topdoc!! lol!

      Fortunately, I'm sitting at work at my desk in a sunny room, with rays coming in through the skylight. Sadly, the pool is closed down now for the end of summer.

    17. I'm glad you appreciate those rays, for they're all that's standing between us and entropy.

    18. Way toO educated? Get out and read some books--and by this I do not mean some crank, religee-type material.

      P.S. I'm not your friend.

  52. @Epicurus
    It's the one at Talk Origins

  53. so is this film any good?

    1. The film sucks but the thread is interesting.

    2. And now you know why it is worth a watch.

  54. Replying to oQ

    oQ...Yeah I know, what to do, what to do? most theoretical physicists from Planck down, Kaku et al say we collapse the wave form to form what we see, so that means if we are not looking it is not there? They must be all new age scientists, no ifs and no buts. Don't ever talk about shrodinger's cat, a thought experiment, a lot of people do not understand that the universe can be flipped every Planck second, is the cat dead or alive, or both.

    I have to put in a disclaimer, so no one will think I believe all the top scientists, do not want to be classed as a new age'r,... it is math, to the nth degree, math looks good on paper as in super-string theory, many worlds/mutiverse theory and so on, but no empirical proof as yet, if ever there will be, maybe in 10,000 years when the human race aspires to be a class 3 civilization as Michio Kaku says in his book "Visions"

    1. You're right. Empiricism is death to math--even in the math of statistics. Mathematics is founded on logic, mostly deductive with some inductive thrown in. It is such a beautiful mirror of the world we know. The problem comes with the world we don't know. For example, we can do math for any number of dimensions, but is there any meaning in ten? We can integrate ad infinitum, but is there any meaning after three? One way or the other, it's fascinating on paper and I guess that's what I like about it.

    2. Yes, I agree and its seems that the math logic did not add up for Einstein's cosmological constant so he revised it and to his benefit, scientists realized that his initial finding was right all along.

    3. Something similar happened with with respect to Wile's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

  55. "I'll wake up in the middle of the night to a preacher who is asking people to mail him $2,000"

    "For you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night"

    1. And just what is this supposed to mean?

  56. By out of mainstream i mean sites not normally visited. I also noticed with Science AAAS, one has to join/suscribe in order to read some of the articles.

    1. yea sorry i have a subscription to many many journals because of my University, i tend to forget some of them require a subscription. if that is the case just let me know you want to see the whole thing and i will download it.

    2. the title of the one i tried to open is Climbing in 190 Dimensions. How do we do this? You email it?

    3. i can email it to your yahoo account.....?

      or if you have skype that would be easy

    4. Email is good, thank you Epi.

  57. Can anyone tell where to find the text of these videos here? Because I am not speaking English, so I can't catch every word. Thanks for giving help.

    1. you arent missing anything of value. its nonsense.

  58. Woohoo, another God documentary that skyrocketed...A life without believing in that higher power sure strikes a nerve against those that believe.. Why is that? Are you 'personally' that angry with the attrocities a religious world has done? Or is it much more personal?..Are you so full of yourself that you want to be your own divine presence? Yet the belief really hasnt given you that spark of life others have. So to attack, you have arranged and labled all tangible evidence to show that the strength they have is imaginary ..Unfortunately for us, we really cant show you in a lab why we believe. Scientifically all we cay say is, its possible, or the probability exists. Sorry for the misuse of something good. Its ironic that perhaps the most compassionate figure in history, Jesus Christ, could cause such a problem.

    If your science shows no evidence of God, the only proof perhaps, is the character of a man that 'truely' believes and lives in alignment with this belief. You can attack this comment for sure, highlighting several names in history that have caused countless attrocities, but I did say a true believer and follower, not one that hijacks this belief for power or money.

    Ill tell you that I believe the absense of this faith is scientific. For without this belief, a vital enzyme within your physiology is missing. An essential catalyst that runs the machine efficiently both physically and mentally. Without this enzyme, the system runs, but sluggishly, with worry, with anger, with resentment, etc. So yes, it is science. But you can't measure this with carbon dating, power telescopes or microscopes, advanced mathematics, physics.. You measure it by simply letting go and falling. Cutting the ties with the physical world that define your existence.

    the johova at your

    1. Just what are you rambling on about like the script to a cheap horror movie?

    2. Sorry I can't articulate my thoughts as well as you do.

  59. lol you people talk to much. i cant keep up with the discussions!

  60. to all ID proponents
    why do these discussions always swing to evolution,abiogenesis, big bang and so on? why does it seem that the same quotes are always used even if another person believes as you do and even if they are considered geniuses that lends no credibility to a claim without proof. i sound like a broken record but even if all scientific theories are refuted it lends absolutely no weight to a designer claim. so please lay out your case, show me the evidence for your claims or simply admit that you have no proof and it would be irrational to accept your beliefs/claims absent of proof.

    1. over the edge

      Silly me!

      I thought it was the personal beliefs of "considered geniuses" that was the driver of their scientific discoveries.

    2. What does this have to do with Over the Edge's comment?

    3. Emanouel
      you state "I thought it was the personal beliefs of "considered geniuses" that was the driver of their scientific discoveries." you are mistaken it is what they can support with evidence that is important. Newton believed in alchemy that in no way is more possible because he proved other things. again lay out your case FOR ID. can you?

    4. Personal beliefs of "considered geniuses" inspired them to do their great works.

      Do you disagree that personal beliefs play no role in science?

      You stated "what they can support with evidence that is important."

      How can I disagree?

      Not here to promote ID.
      Just sharing genuine personal thoughts and my own ideas.
      Hope I haven't offended

    5. Emanouel
      you haven't offended. i was under the impression you supported ID (i am too lazy to go back through posts).

  61. Hi Vlatko

    Interestingly, science claims that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist because of the lack of proof yet proposes a theory
    (infinite universe) stating that it just may well exist! Don't we have enough asteroids to worry about let alone the dangers presented by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    So, it does seem that, on one hand, you are open to the (incredible)concept of a theory of infinite universes, but , on the other hand, totally reject the possibility that this universe was created. Both concepts have no scientific proof, yet you are open to the possibility of one but not the other.

    Just because many cultures throughout history adopted "God" as one of their own does not preclude the existence of a "God" if in fact "God" exists.

    Many of the ancient cultures never came into contact with each other, yet believed in a "God". The existence of "God" is the common denominator.

    1. @Emanouel,

      I don't believe in either of those concepts.

      The first one (multiverse) is just a scientific concept, which has no solid tangible evidence, and probably it will never have. The second one (ID) is pure pseudoscience, a deception.

      The presence of God through the cultures is just another proof that it is indeed a meme, not that he really exists.

      If we take one Godless nation of babies (Of course they will be Godless. Everyone is born atheist. Tabula rasa.) and we raise them untouched by the cultures, the chances that they will develop belief in some supernatural deity is extremely high.

      The above is just a hypothetical experiment, but it was unintentionally done, in a sort of way. Just google Cargo Cults. That will explain to you why people have the need to invent Gods.

    2. I notice you use the word concept. When i used the same word this week Robert made allusion to my ignorance of how science works.
      Just saying.
      How much of the science budget goes towards reasearching the multiverse "concept".
      @Achems, you seem to support the research and the possibility of such concept, am i right?

    3. Which post are you referring to?

    4. You do the digging, my memory is clear since i was the one being attacked. You won't have to go far in your dashboard under You Only, it is recent.

    5. You are the one who made the assertion. It's up to you to prove it and this post clearly demonstrates that you can't.

    6. It clearly demonstrate that i don't want to.
      It is clearly there for anyone who wants to dig.

    7. You made the assertion; you have to dig and the onlyreason I can think of for your refusal to do so is because you know you can't find it. So this is now the third piece of dishonesty you've engaged in.

    8. The reason i didn't want to search for it was that i didn't want to have to read through the barrage of insults you spread in TDF.
      I looked in my dashboard and here it is: Contrary to what you write, scientific research doesn't begin with concepts, but rather with observations. If you read up on the history of modern science (which you obviously won't do), you would know this."
      How do they observe multi dimensions and multiverses?
      @Vlatko i am more than fed up with Robert spreading that i am a dishonest person and the insults that come with it.
      My posts have been on topic with the exclusion of when i have to defend myself relating to a comment you have tolerated.
      My impression or my imagination?

    9. That's exactly what I wrote. So what? It doesn't call you to task for using the word "concept." Had you quoted this initially, there would have been no problem.

    10. @oQ,

      The guilt is mutual. You nitpick, he insults, you quarrel like kids over who said what?

      You demand from him to look at "pseudoscience" sites, he demands from you to read science.

      I disagree with you on almost all of the arguments, but I'll not take sides. I've had to delete hundreds of comments from both of you in the last several days. Not good.

    11. lol *clap clap clap*

    12. There's no quarrel over who said what. The facts speak for themselves:

      1. She did write that the scientists that she mentioned did NOT use the scientific method. This was also noted by Achem. I have no idea why Disqus didn't note what must have been an change to the original post, except as I've informed you, sometimes Disqus is not reliable. She could easily have owned up to the error and nothing more would have been said about it.

      2. In her quotation from the Wiki article on the definition of science, she left out one of the key sentences which gave the false and misleading impression that the article slanted in her direction. This was noted by both you and I believe Achem. In her initial post, she could have copied both definitions and even if she had stated that she preferred to the first one, that would at least have been honest.

      3. In her latest post, she accused me of chiding her for using the word concept and when I asked her for the quote, tried to place the burden on me to find it. When she finally unearthed the post, it turned out that all I had stated was that observation precedes concept, advising her to read up on science. She could have initially quoted from me directly and that would have prevented a search.

      I find all three of the above to be dishonest--not good.

    13. @oQ,

      Nitpicking again. When nothing else left, just pick on semantics.

      Let me rephrase myself again. In my opinion Multivesre is just a hypothesis, and I guess very little funds goes into the research there, since it is impossible to be empirically proven (read tested).

    14. "... Multivesre is just a hypothesis, and I guess very little funds goes into the research there, since it is impossible to be empirically proven (read tested)."

      The Multiverse is really just a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis that is, however, maintained by some serious, mainstream, scientists.

      On the other hand, the quantum world is a reality which is as crazy as the craziest dream. And that is not an exaggeration. That reality has been scientifically tested many times, and every time its results prove that what is happening at the micro level of our existence has nothing to do with what we actually see in our 'real' world.

      And when real science is pointing in a direction that doesn't fit our world view, what do we do? Ignore it. So, what is it actually? We want science or we don't want science? If science is experimentally obtaining weird results, experiment after experiment, why is it that we don't stop for a moment and ask ourselves what is really going on there. Instead of sticking to the 18th, 19th or whatever past century science.

      Multiverse is indeed just a crazy hypothesis, but in view of the real, experimentally proven weirdness of the world that surrounds us, why not just be open to the possibility that perhaps another crazy theory may be a possibility and not discard it without any experimentally provable supporting evidence for or against. It points to an established word view, not interest in scientific exploration.

      That trait of otherwise rational and intelligent people I will never understand.

    15. The "weird" results of quantum theory or quantum mechanics started off with direct, physical observation of the natural world which blossomed into the indispensable tool that it is today. Can the same be said for multiverse?

      What other "weird results" are we obtaining experiment after experiment that are not being researched? From what I've read about scientists in general, "weird results" are their bread and butter.

      Are you positing that we should consider every cockamamie idea such as supernaturalism, mental telepathy and spend the time and money researching tjem? I don't think so. There must be a process of scientific selection grounded in the natural world.

    16. The weirdest result so far is that you are basically nothing (well, maybe that's not so weird), you actually hardly exist in material terms, but... weirdly enough, and contrary to what quantum experiments show - you are still there! Oh, sometimes I wish the perceived macro reality would match the experiments in the micro cosmos :)

      But what would you know about that?

    17. And just what are you talking about. From a cursory reading, it seems completely off topic, especially considering that you chose to leave my questions unanswered and instead engage in a personal attack which is all right with me.

    18. Why do you even bother engaging into a conversation that you don't understand anything about?

    19. If you are supporting scientific research into the unscientific (unnatural), it is you who do not understand.

    20. Define "unnatural" :)

    21. Once again, you don't answer any questions of mine. I don't see why I should have to answer any of yours.

    22. Robert, you are a star :). Thank you!

    23. Besides, what does the following nonsense mean "There must be a process of scientific selection grounded in the natural world." ?

      Define "natural world".

      Do you think that a 'quant' is part of the natural world?

    24. As you refuse to answer any of my questions, I don't see why I should answer any of yours, but I assure you this is not a feint: I do have answers.

    25. Sure you do... :)

    26. @WTC7,

      But you're forgetting one thing. Quantum mechanics is tested and mathematically proven. For example all of the particles discovered in lab were first predicted by theoretical physics and mathematics. Even almighty Higgs went to that kind of scrutiny.

      So in short quantum mechanics is quite understood, tested, proved, and makes predictions. The mathematics there is dead on. We can't say that about multiverse hypothesis. The only problem with quantum mechanics is that its laws don't fit with the macro world (read Einstein).

      To delve into quantum mechanics core you do need a massive understanding of physics and mathematics, which you, me, and probably all the readers here don't posses.

      From a layman perspective it is very easy to mix quanta with awareness, telekinesis etc., but I think in order to properly make such leaps of faith you do need to really understand what actually is going on there. And for really I mean to spend your life in that field.

      If you want to accuse scientists or institutions about not directing quantum research properly, you probably need to cite examples of were exactly the conspiracy is taking place.

      I think watching several documentaries and reading couple of superficial books is not qualifying us to make such judgments about the work of thousands of scientists across the globe.

    27. I agree and what I like about quantum mechanics (what I can understand of it, that is) is that it is grounded in the herein and now and is in no way linked to philosophy.

    28. That is correct. Since 1920s philosophy departed from physics department.

    29. Indeed, it had to, for it had nothing to offer physics, but wouldn't you say the same has been holding true for biology (evolution) since about the 1920's as well?

    30. Not only did many cultures around the world believe in a 'god', they also believed in goddesses as well. Why is the feminine no longer worshiped?

      That, to me, is a valid theological question, and yet I see no one in mainstream christianity willing to answer it. I feel hurt, devalued, demeaned and marginalized by a religion that originally seemed to have more women than men in its early ranks. Oh, wait, I used the word 'religion'...which is a human construct.

    31. When I use the term gods, I don't take sex into consideration.

      As an antidote for your feelings of hurt, devaluation,marginalization, etc., I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Pope Joan.

      P.S. I still write and say, "Everyone has his book" and if the feminists don't like it they can employ the plural construction.

    32. Pope Joan, pshaw, one probably mythological pope out how many men?

      You may use the masculine pronoun when referring to humankind; I don't care =) I'm a feminist, not a 'femiNazi' and happily admit the differences between genders!

    33. Good because I wouldn't want to see the phrases "thar she blows" or "let 'er rip" excised from the language.

      P.S. You might be interested in knowing that etymologically the term female is unrelated to the term male.

    34. blooming good points there Kateye70. I never thought about the goddess thing before but I guess they have been pushed out and replaced by the overtly misogynistic god of Abraham in many regions. Is there or has there ever been a religion suitable for a feminist?

      Btw, has anyone ever heard Ann Coulter talk about the role and rights of women? It's as if she's a self hating woman.

    35. Yes there has, it's called feminism.

      Anne Coulter one of those who single-handedly turned idiocy into an art form.

    36. I believe there have been many, and all around the world =) I've mentioned elsewhere a book called "The Alphabet vs. the Goddess"; don't really know how good the science is but the hypothesis was interesting.

      I avoid the thought of Ann Coulter as much as I can.
      =P,,, That's me, spitting out the taste.

    37. I'll bet you speak a lot better than she does. As a matter of fact, I'll bet you speak a lot better than Hillary or Condolezza--of course, that's no great accomplishment. My bird speaks better than all three.

    38. You need to re-read Vlatko's answer. You confound infinite possibilities with belief in all claims.

      And no, Vlatko and others are not saying that the universe was not created, but rather that he who asserts this must supply scientific proof and that none has been forthcoming.

      And for your information, there have been many ancient cultures, among them the Greek, Roman, Babylonian and Sumerian who believed in a number of gods. And your last paragraph has verified Vlatko's statement that belief in a supreme being is no more than a meme.

  62. @Emanouel,

    You asked a non-yes/no question of Vlatko and then expect a yes/no answer? and dismiss his answer?

    He gave you the short answer: "God is a meme." You got annoyed at that, but sociology is a complex subject. I recently came across a paper published on the website for NYU Psych dept about political affiliation (topical subject considering the upcoming elections--just google it, its a pdf file)

    "Shared Reality, System Justification, and the Relational Basis of Ideological Beliefs" by John T. Jost, Alison Ledgerwood, and Curtis D. Hardin.

    From the abstract: "The present paper integrates system justification and shared reality theories to propose that ideologies may function as prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships."

    It also contains this quote (apropos your 'love' question). "Often our need for others is not love at all but only the need to be sustained in our illusions, even as we sustain others in theirs. – Thomas Merton" (If you don't know who Thomas Merton was, you should look him up.) This is a complex statement about a complex subject, which could be pondered for quite a while.

    1. Hi Kateye70,

      We have the ability to ponder about our origins, reflect on our lives, feel love, joy , sorrow and guilt; the list goes on.
      To say the cause of this is because we are complex survival machines made up of a gazillion cells seems an inadequate explanation - for me anyway....gotta be more to it.....wishful thinking on my part? ....absolutely !

    2. There are many different fields of study that examine the question of "why we exist." That we are complex survival machines is a "what we are" question, not the same thing at all IMHO =)

      Here's another question: If the basis for our thoughts and emotions is a complex chemical and neurological interaction within a physical organ, does that negate the validity of asking questions about 'why' we exist'?

      In my opinion, science has been, and will continue to be able to, provide answers to many of the 'what' questions. When you move into the realm of the 'why' questions about the meaning of existence, you've moved into a different area altogether, and the 'what' questions, to me, become irrelevant.

      So what if our complex neurons and chemicals are the 'what' of how we experience emotions? I don't think its relevant to the 'why' of existence questions that people ask. I, like you, experience these emotions, but what is faith if not the ability to let go of the physical and experience the intangible in our imaginations? What is creativity?

      I keep coming back to the motivations for those who are trying to insert ID/creation theology into science classrooms. Why are they doing this? What is motivating them?

      I think the short and obvious answer is money and power. When people stop paying religious organizations to make them feel safe and comfortable, the humans who run these organizations must feel threatened. (That's my human trait of empathy speaking.)

      I'm sure its more complex than that; if you glance through that paper I mentioned earlier, you'll see its discussing how we affect each other as social beings. We all have, as they said, "... basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships."

    3. I can never understand why people are so concerned about "why we exist" and similar questions. There is a fundamental difference between asking what causes thunderstorms as opposed to why thunderstorms. The first is a scientific question leading to increased knowledge, the latter an assumption of supreme causation with a presumption of one answer leading to a deadend.

    4. Why the "Why" --It's the creative ingredient in our chemical brain soup!

    5. My creative ingredient tells me that there is no need for it and that it's much more fruitful and a lot less frustrating to try to understand the world about us

    6. Wouldn't 'supreme causation' for natural phenomena be a 'what' question rather than a 'why' question?

      "Why thunderstorms" is not really a good analogy; you're talking about a natural phenomenon and trying to assign purpose to it.

      The "why we exist" questions are about purpose and meaning for a self-aware being that doesn't like--or outright rejects--the idea of no longer being aware of self.

    7. I'm not trying to assign a purpose to thunderstorms at all, quite the opposite. To examine their cause leads to increased knowledge, to attempt to examine their purpose assumes that there is a supervening purpose which can lead only to a deadend.

      Let me put it this way, it is far more viable and fruitful to examine their function in the scheme of things, including their internal workings, rather than assume a purpose and then try to figure out what it is.

    8. But your original comment was, "why do we ask why?" (paraphrased). What do you think of my proposition? And do you never ask these questions yourself, even speculatively?

    9. Never. I know grass is green because of the chlorophyll in it, but I don't ask the purpose of grass. I know that thunder is created by lightning and results from pressure and temperature. But I don't ask its purpose. I know certain people have talents that others lack, but I don't ask the purpose of this imbalance.

      In short, I simply appreciate the world around me, trying to understand certain aspects of it. I couldn't care less about its so-called purpose--as a matter of fact, i don't even care if there is one.

    10. Now I get to press you for an answer (!!!).

      What did you think of my proposition that people (excluding yourself, apparently) ask the "why we exist" questions because they are about purpose and meaning for a self-aware being that doesn't like--or outright rejects--the idea of no longer being aware of self.

    11. I'd say that they're wasting their time.

    12. Can I infer from that answer that you yourself are not bothered by no longer being self-aware after death?

      Actually, this question could be asked of anyone who says they do not believe in god(etc.).

      So: If you do believe in an afterlife, then it would be reasonable to ask the purpose questions. If you don't then it becomes a waste of time.

      I realize this is the exact opposite question of the one posed in the video, about the 'origin' of life.

    13. No, I am not. What about you?

    14. Hi Rob,

      You answered Kateye70 that you are not bothered by no longer being self-aware after death.

      That is what a zombie would say, if a zombie could indeed communicate on a meaningful level.

      After all, the purpose of reproduction is to ensure the survival of the species.

      Any conscious orgasnism/being aims to survive as long as possible; science itself constantly examines way of extending life: perhaps indefinitely.
      Why are you different ?

    15. What does this have to do with being self-aware after death?

    16. Rob

      I just find it odd that you are not bothered whether self-awareness exists after death.
      In my opinion, it is only natural that conscious/self-aware beings
      would be interested in such a question. Otherwise, why would science investigate ways of extending life, perhaps into perpetuity?
      Hope I've expressed myself better this time.

    17. No, you haven't. What does science's attempts to extend life have to do with whether self-awareness exists after death and why would conscious/self-aware beings naturallybe interested in such a question? Two non sequiturs in a row. Your entire post makes no sense.

    18. we can survive through our genes.

    19. Just FYI, robertallen is not the only person who has made this statement to me; I was simply curious to hear his take--it was exactly the same as the others I have heard.

      I do speculate on what might happen after death, but its more along the lines of wishing I could be reincarnated to see where technology and the world is going--but that would also include being *aware* of my previous life so I could compare notes with myself =P

      Or maybe we reintegrate as neurons into some celestial brain. I really don't think a discrete separate being will sit in judgement on me and condemn me to everlasting hell or heaven. If nothing happens after we die, well, I won't know anyway, will I?

      It's speculation, which is all that any of us actually have in this life. Unless you believe in the speculations of other people, which is faith.

      P.S. Aren't zombies reanimated dead people? Sound familiar?

    20. Hello Kateye70

      I, too, was interested to hear his take. I brought up your name in my question to him so he could revisit his initial response to you.

      I am satisfied with his response; we are not in a court of law.

      I watched another documentary on this site - "The Primacy of Consciousness" which, according to my understanding of it, suggested that matter does not cause mind, but rather that mind causes matter. Further, it suggested that matter is not real and that the physical world is just a construct created by our minds....supported by findings in quantum mechanics....still trying to get my head around many of the ideas...may have to watch it a few more times! I must thank Vlatko for providing this documentary.

      Why am I saying all this? Well, if a universal consciousness does exist, it could mean that life, as we know it, did not arise through sheer chance or via the accepted paradigms as we know them, but through an agent, supernatural or otherwise. Again, I reiterate that I am happy for science to prove or disprove this.

      On a completely different note, today I spoke to a wealthy muslim man I have dealings with, who told me that in order to make his pilgrimage to Mecca (which is what is required of every good muslim man at least once in his lifetime) a special, "one time only" payment of $7,000 must be paid to the "appropriate" religious authorities on top of all other necessary travel disbursements. Somehow, I do not think this will surprise you in the least.


    21. "If a universal consciousness does exist, it could mean that life, as we know it, did not arise through sheer chance or via the accepted paradigms as we know them, but through an agent, supernatural or otherwise." Another glaring non sequitur.

    22. Hello Rob,

      If you disagree with my conclusion, please feel free to put forward the correct conclusion, since you have obviously watched the said documentary. I hope I haven't blinded you with all my glaring non sequiturs of late.

    23. There is no "correct" conclusion to a statement which makes no sense in the first place.

    24. No, the 'religious tax' doesn't surprise me at all. I've often made the distinction between spirituality (which is interior) and religion, which I consider a social power construct.

      Sometimes when I forget to set the sleep timer on my tv, I'll wake up in the middle of the night to a preacher who is asking people to mail him $2,000 'seed money' with the promise that it will come back to them 'multiplied many times over'...seems to have worked for him, lol--he can afford to pay for air time and some *very* nice suits! Just goes to show...

    25. "Well, if a universal consciousness does exist, it could mean that life, as we know it, did not arise through sheer chance or via the accepted paradigms as we know them, but through an agent, supernatural or otherwise."

      Humans are conscious, there is no doubt about that, although at this point we are scientifically not able to explain what consciousness is. But I am sure we will achieve that in the future. The assumption is currently that the conscious life, that we know of anyway, arouse here on Earth with human ancestors. I am not sure that this awareness (I don't know how else to translate into something understandable) could have sprung out of nothing just like that but no other living creature possesses it or has ever possessed it (at least not in the sense that humans do).

      We call ourselves the pinnacle of evolution exactly for that reason - we are self-aware, we are conscious. Would it be unimaginable that this hitherto unexplainable, and incomparable to any other form of life, quality of humans could have been also slowly evolving since the Big Bang finding it's most evolved expression in humans as a life form most adaptable to the environmental changes? Besides, it is assumed that even some higher animal life forms possess some sort of self-awareness. Just a thought...

    26. This awareness you write about, what makes you think that humans are the only ones who possess it? As a matter of fact, you contradict yourself later on when you state, "It is assumed that even some higher animal life forms possess some wort of self-awareness."

      Who's calling homo sapiens the pinnacle of evolution? Quite frankly, there is no such thing. Life just keeps evolving.

    27. Let me think about it... Did I say humans are the end of the evolution process? Hmmm, no, I don't think so

    28. You used the word pinnacle.

    29. Well, English is not my first language and I can be excused if I am not familiar with proper meaning of a word here and there :).

      Edit: on the other hand, I can still say that humans are at the pinnacle of evolution - at this stage of evolution. Would that be appropriate?

    30. No, it would not. Evolution has no pinnacles. You're statement was, "We call ourselves the pinnacle of evolution for that reason . . . " And I asked who's doing the calling. If it's you, why don't you just admit it instead of hiding behind the pronoun we? If it is indeed you, on what do you base this statement, when you term a heightened counsciousness? If so, how does this makes us the "pinnacle of evolution . . . at this stage of evolution?"

    31. Technically, what was said is not that we are AT the pinnacle of evolution, but that we CALL ourselves the pinnacle. Meaning, humans in general. Excepting those of us who know better.

      I think you're nitpicking here and maybe not understanding a generalization when you see one.

      Edit: The pinnacle is where we WISH we were! Reality may not agree with us.

    32. She stated, "We call ourselves the pinnacle of evolution for that reason . . . " I want to know who "we" refers to. If it is a generalization, first of all it is not well-expressed. Secondly, I question its accuracy.

    33. As for it being a generalization, so what if it isn't well-expressed? We're not perfect. As to it's accuracy, I refer you to your favorite book:

      "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

      There are an awful lot of people who take that to mean we are at the PINNACLE of evolution--assuming they will admit to there being such a thing as evolution, and assuming that there is a pinnacle to it (which we know there isn't, as it is an ongoing process).

      Personally, I think it was perfectly well-expressed. You're nitpicking again. =)

    34. If the sentence had begun with something like, "Many think," it would have been clear and had it begun with something like "I think" or "I believe" that would have been accurate.

      Mankind is not the pinnacle of the evolution, but only one branch of the evolutionary tree. There are so many living creatures who can do things of which man is incapable. Yes, mankind seems to be superior as far as certain types of brain power, but to say categorically that everyone agrees ("we") that man in his present state represents the current pinnacle of evolution is patently false.

      n short, she turned her personal "observation" into universal agreement and it's disappointing hat you consider this well-expressed and any criticism of it nitpicking.

    35. For someone who stated her first language is not english, it was expressed well enough to get her meaning.

      But I will withdraw 'nitpicking'. ok? =)

      I'll just point out that there are many, many people who completely misunderstand what evolution is and therefore will buy into the self-serving concept of human perfection. These are the same people who apparently think there is some force 'planning' evolution to reach a so-called 'pinnacle.'

      It's so nice to be able to say one is better than every other living being, even if one just happens to be the absolute dregs of the human species.

    36. I, for one, didn't at first read it that way.

      They call that wishful thinking, an particularly virulent epidemic endemic to religees.

    37. My conclusion is still, despite your profound explanation of the term 'pinnacle', that the humans are at the hight of evolution - at this stage of evolution. There is always a current stage at some point of any development toward a more developed state. Evolution does not end here, that's a fact, but it's a 'now' at some point in time. We rule the world because of our advanced brain capacity. So, yes, we are at the highest evolutionary stage - at this point of evolution. Maybe chimpanzees take over soon, but I doubt they will.

    38. Do we really rule the world? What about the oceans which encompass most of it?

      You know so little about biology and yet you make such sweeping statements. One way or the other, considering your general lack of knowledge which has been brought to your attention by a number of posters besides myself, your conclusion is as meaningless as it is wrong.

    39. "I can still say that humans are at the pinnacle of evolution - at this stage of evolution. Would that be appropriate?"

      actually you cant.

      evolution doesnt have a pinnacle. any organism that can adapt and survive is fit. humans might be the most intelligent. but i dont think our intelligence guarantees our survival. imagine a meteor hits earth, all humans are likely to die out before all cockroaches.

      and im sure if an eagle were to be the judge of what makes something the pinancle of evolution it would say flight and eye sight, the cheetah would say speed, etc, and the human says intelligence.

    40. I agree; however, the word intelligence needs to be refined to mean the type of intelligence which distinguishes humans from other living creatures and which we are constantly exploring and learning about.

      Once again, thanks for that link--the one on abiogenesis. The last page with the long list of creaionist fallacites is particularly informative.

    41. no problem. for some reason MY posts keep getting deleted.....

    42. Perhaps the moderators are at cross-purposes.

      But getting back to your last post. The problem is that too many such as oQ not only speculate on subjects they know nothing about, but endeavor to pass off their speculations as either fact or profoundity. In other words, they assert when they should ask. This explains why they have to be corrected so often and so loudly--not that the correction does them any good, not that it will inspire them to research what they don't currently know.

    43. @Epicurus,

      That must be some kind of glitch. As far as I can see (and you can too) there are only two of your comments deleted, two weeks ago.

    44. ya i know, i went through them....pretty strange. oh well, nothing to lose sleep over.

    45. If the cockroaches were to survive a meteor hit that would not exactly be the same as a species developing through evolutionary necessity. If our sun tomorrow reached it's end and engulfed the Earth in it's explosion, not even the cockroaches would survive - it has not much to do with the evolution.

      Let me ask you a hypothetical question, that has more to do with evolutionary development. There is a nuclear war tomorrow and only the cockroaches survive, but by some weird chance, a few humans survive (because they had foreseen the nuclear war and previously built appropriate shelters, e.g.). Given their highly developed brain capabilities, do you think they would be in a position to regain the rule of the world or not? I think they would, and in a relatively short period of time I'd say because we are much smarter than cockroaches. The latter may be better equipped (in some ways) to survive certain environmental conditions, but because of our BRAINS we can CREATE tools that can easily kill them.

      So, how do you measure evolutionary progression? By the physical or genetic evolutionary adjustments purely or by some other kind of evolutionary adjustment that is more advanced - like the one that at this point we reached, although we still can't explain it, and is related to our highly advanced brains compared to other living creatures.

    46. your last paragraph would pretty much be my response to your first two lol

    47. Wrong again. Even with their so-called superior minds, humans would be in no position to gain control of the world for they would have nothing to feed on. Also they could not multiply as fast as cockroaches and develop beneficial mutations as quickly. So, despite what you think and don't actually know, it's the cockroaches hands down. Now, why don't you read up on basic biology to enable you to ask some intelligent questions.

    48. If we ate nothing but cockroaches, we may stand a chance. It all depends on how many people and how conglomerated the people would be.
      @WTC7 what do you say?

    49. No, we wouldn't. On a diet consisting of cockroaches, we'd die of dysentery--by the way, what would we drink? Remember there are just homo sapiens and cockroaches. On the other hand, cockroaches are far more adaptable and could easily feed on us. So it has nothing to do with conglomerations of people.

      You really need to read a lot more--and speaking of reading, why don't you begin with brianrose87's answer, not that you'll accept it even though he knows more about the subject than you.

    50. She writes: "(because they had foreseen the nuclear war and previously built appropriate shelters, e.g.)".
      Now it depends if the remaining people are "officials" who have been preparing for this for years building bunkers. This reminds me of an undergroung world in movies.
      And as for the cockroaches, when that's your only chance you go for it.

    51. Eventually the food supply would run out along with everything else and the cockroaches would win. Obviously you haven't read Brian Rose's response and probably won't.

    52. "Now, why don't you read up on basic biology to enable you to ask some intelligent questions."

      Well, it seems that basic biology is is where you are stuck at. I bet that is the reason why you, who is responding to every single comment I post, have not challenged my post about the RNA theory where I put forth the basic premises of the problems this theory is addressing (Epi did, elegantly saying molecular biology is not his field of expertise, still finding it appropriate to bash me for my ignorance, hehehehe). Had you any guts, you would have researched it and responded to the challenge.

      You see, RNA world theory is a scientific theory related to the first forms of life, which is trying to overcome the shortcomings of the existing theories of the origins of life. Problems essential to the scientific reasoning behind the scientific explanations of the origins of life. Yes, there are problems there, I guess you didn’t even know there were any :). By the way, even scientists who are advancing this theory are open about the problems it is facing (meaning real scientists). I just tried to bring the basic biology discussion to a more advanced level. No wonder it didn’t work.

      If you want to remain stuck to basic biology, help yourself. Remain basic and be proud of it :).

    53. The only reason I haven't responded to your statements about "RNA theory" is that first of all it's a hypothesis (you obviously haven't mastered the definition of scientific theory) and secondly because I have nothing to add to what Achem, Epicurus and, I believe, Over the Edge have told you. And don't kid yourself, you're not bringing basic biology discussion to a more advanced level.

    54. How do you know we aren't just the mind-controlled puppets doing the bidding of some super roach somewhere?

      They certainly inhabit the world we labor to build, and live off the bounty we provide them. Who's the boss of you then? O.O

    55. And they can be the hardest damn things to get rid of. Talk about survivors--300,000,000+ years of survival.

    56. Oh, you never actually *get rid* of them...they just move next door for a while, then move right back in.

    57. Now, that's a profound thought. I would have never come up with something like that. Not even my imagination goes that far. I really cannot provide an appropriate reply. You beat me :(.

    58. No, no, just speaking from personal experience of roach infestations.

      They make me shudder, btw...probably a carefully-contrived aversion response to make us unwilling to investigate the roach overlords spurring us to develop ever more sophisticated habitations for them.

      Did you know roaches will feed on electric wire insulation? They do. I swear it. We have catered to them so much they have become gourmands of our technology.

    59. I agree, they make me shudder too, I am really not fond of these creatures.... Tough ones, I still think they are not my masters :).

    60. "science has been, and will continue to be able to, provide answers to many of the 'what' questions."

      Only 200 years ago, who could have possibly foreseen the digital code of DNA?

      Can we even begin to imagine what science will reveal in say, another 200 years?

      When I say "science will reveal", it is really the human mind which will unlock the secrets.

      No wonder George Wald, Nobel Laureate, said that our universe is composed of "Mind-stuff."

      No doubt various organisations have their agendas, rightly or wrongly, but scientific progress will always has.

    61. As long as you realize it for what it is and as long as you don't try to say it is so.

    62. so you would rather say, "its a magical being that can do anything....dont worry everyone we figured it alllllll out"

    63. Hey Epicurus

      What would you say then with regard to the thought that I put forward?

      Our ability to ponder our origins, self-reflection, reasoning skills, capacity to feel compassion, sense of justice, altruism, wide range of emotions , intelligence, appreciation of beauty etc....

      Attributable to a bunch of cells coming together coupled with chemical reactions perhaps ?

      Appreciate your thoughts

    64. The bi-products of a bigger brain for the size of our body.

    65. Rob

      I'm impressed. Design flaw (no pun intended)

    66. i think the way you put it makes it seem like cells and chemical reactions are not enough to produce all those things you listed.

      seems like an argument from incredulity.

    67. You're right it does, but it got me to thinking. At times, an argument from incredulity might be valid, for example, in a historical discussion. For example, it's beyond belief that Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death," the reason being that nothing in the minutes of that session indicates that he did so--even though he might have.

    68. an argument from incredulity is usually used by someone who doesnt have enough information about something, yet because of this lack of information OR lack of their ability to understand it, they say it MUST be something else.

      its not that it is always wrong, just that it is not a logical position to hold. but of course even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    69. So I guess my historical exampleis not really an argument from incredulity but quite the opposite because it is based on information and the ability to understand it.

    70. precisely

    71. Refer me to a book or a site where it is explained how they do it, please. I am dying for this type of information!

  63. Most scientists believe our universe is either infinite or/and there is infinite number of parallel universes.
    What we see is only "observable universe", there is plenty more out there.

    10 to power of 164 is huge but practically NOTHING in comparison INFINITY!
    And even if first life is so extremely improbable - it is not impossible.
    Of course from first cell evolution takes over, and it is not improbable at all.

    Well, this is only the worst case scenario. There is a lot of self-organizing principles in nature which can help to reduce probabilities drastically.

    The documentary has really cool animations - worth the watch - but logic is just shallow!
    there is much more to the problem than shown here.

  64. i wouldnt mind if you all shut up

  65. Achems_Razor

    Is this what you consider an answer, deleting my post to you which was directly on topic? I asked WTC7 for definitions of two terms she used and for support for her statement that philosophy and science are close to which I was told to shut up. Why haven't you reprimanded her for this? Is it because she's some special friend of yours as mentioned in some of the earlier posts?

    I believe I am entitled to the courtesy of an answer to this, my third post to you.

    1. @robertallen1:

      WTC7 already gave an answer to the philosophy and science thing.

      It is not up to you to tell me anything, such as reprimanding someone.

      And none of your business to what kind of friend she is. You got my answer so now let it go.

    2. @robertallen1,

      No one is a special friend. If she doesn't want to talk to you that is her business. You don't need to be persistent with your questions. You've already made your point that there is no definitions for those two terms. No need of pressing any further. Just relax and be polite as much as you can.

  66. Okay, without any prejudice to any one, this is as far as it goes with off topic comments, even mine, will delete all.

  67. Hi WTC7,

    Long time no see, Epicurus would be one of the ones to talk of RNA, he knows more than I on that subject.

    What is it that you are getting at? I know you ain't religious, but are you saying that religion and science should merge, there is no hope for that to ever happen, not in this reality anyway. No, science and philosophy are not close at all, even Hawking says philosophy is dead, cannot keep up with science.

    If you are delving into science for all the oneness you are describing, could be, but all basically math constructs for now, when you get down to the quantum level, anything is probably possible in the quantum foam and the sea of probabilities, I suggest read all of Brian Greene books on those paradigms.

    1. I don't think WTC7 is talking religion.

    2. I know religion was not WTC7 prime concern, as a matter of fact she basically abhors religions as much as I, she just wanted to know if there are still scientists that adhere to the religious code, but alas she went to bed, catch her later. We all have to keep this on topic or will be deleted.

    3. Hi Achems Razor,

      Great to hear from you.

      Pity Epicurus is not here to respond to my question, but I thought there were others that stated here that they were experts in the field of biology and were providing some lectures to other people - laymen like me. Now I don't see any of them. I hope someone will answer tomorrow.....

      What is it that I am getting at? I am not getting at anything. I am having a conversation here. I never said religion and science should merge - can you quote me on that?????? Of course you can't.

      Hawking may have said philosophy is dead, but there are some of his colleagues that believe these two are not that far apart lately because of the quantum physics implications. At least to you I shouldn't need to explain that. Because quantum physics, as you are well aware, has got beyond the confines of newtonian physics and is piercing into the unknown realms of physics that have not been encountered before in the history of human kind - it is getting into the unknown lands of the micro-cosmos which nobody, not even Hawking, knows.

      Brian Green is a great guy, and I love him for his enthusiasm in his field.

      But I would still like to hear the answer to my question about the RNA from Vlatko. Fair play, neither of us is an expert in biology, but would love to hear about his dismissal of the questions I posed in my comment from a scientific point of view.

    4. Always happy to hear from you WTC7.

      You are right, you never said religion and science should merge, I stand corrected.

      Would like to know which of Hawking colleagues deem that philosophy and science are not to far apart tho.

      I do know what you are saying about the quantum revolution, the new frontier in science. Hope to see more of you posting.

    5. Achems, my friend, I could not cite the names of those scientists who stated that the quantum physics is getting into the realm of philosophy by heart, but I can tell you that I have heard that stated by scientists in several of the science documentaries on this very website (not conspiracy or anything like that). I could make an effort to watch all of those that deal with quantum physics again to see who these guys are but, even for your sake, I don't think I am ready, nor do I have the time, to do that.

    6. There is a distinction between natural philosophy and moral philosophy.

      On the Past and Future of Natural Philosophy
      by Walter Noll

      "Hawking contra Philosophy" under Philosophy Now, a magazine of ideas.

    7. “Would like to know which of Hawking colleagues deem that philosophy and science are not to far apart tho.”

      Wow Razor that’s a question with more tap-roots than answers.

      In order to limit the scope, Hawking’s statement that philosophy is dead is the logical conclusion to his statement that time didn’t exist prior to the moment of the BB. Therefore there was no time for a god to create the universe in and it follows there is no god. Then logically prior to the BB nothing existed (what ever nothing is). So the specific philosophy he spoke of was concerning the concepts of a god as the prime cause of creation.

      The question that then remains is was or what was the prime cause? To date there are no definite, reproducible and testable answers on the macro scale. We will have to wait until we achieve a level III type civilization. I doubt any here will see that.

      Hawking’s statement actually surprised me. It in it self is a philosophy. It might be understood that we should cease to research prior to that point in the void. That strikes me as too limiting as it does many others in quantum physics today, multiple universes and dimensions beyond four, etc.

      One area of Philosophy is Epistemology: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity. That sounds a lot like what science seeks to discover and codify. A valid answer to your question would be that science is a philosophy and the two are inseparable and there are too many Hawking colleagues to enumerate.

      Is uncertainty actually uncertain? An individual’s answer reveals their philosophy.

  68. At the end of the video, one can conclude based on the probabilities by chance or otherwise, as of now, I think we are created but I don't have a religion so I'll just call the "?" CREATOR.

    Now please make another video about purpose or reason of our existence...

  69. Yes, I read the comments first and now I will watch the video. Is that cheating?

    1. Not cheating at all--or if it is, I do it too =)

  70. I am more interested to know the purpose, why make human to live in a giant zoo? We are preoccupied with desire to progress but why do we play the descendent game?

  71. Some funny stuff; if you don't see the propagandist slant I pity you, must suck to be that malleable.

    As for you preachers, your all wrong, and i'm right. There, that's pretty much your argument flipped back at you. M*rons.

    Believe what you will, but don't force it onto other people, countless people have died over century's because of their 'god', that fact alone should show you its a load of bull****, but what ever. I wont waste my time trying to convince you or then id be just as bad as you lot.

    Do me a favour tho, don't have kids.

  72. I liked it.
    I liked the conclusion - evolution is incomplete but open your mind and let the evidence (and the math) carry the argument.
    I can't tell you how many times I have been attacked (insulted, smeared) by bigoted religious fanatics just because I am a scientist. These stupid thugs even try to limit my children's future because of one bigotry or another.
    I didn't see any of that here - just a little too much glee about science error and a bit of worshipful type music.
    Evolution driven by natural selection certainly exists but it is proving not to be the driver.
    Wall was wrong when he said that time will allow every miracle to happen. That was the first epiphany (pardon the reference) I got from computer science was/were the limits - there is not enough time in the several universes to solve many simple exponential problems much less life.
    Matter transmitters are tough enough, placing the correct atoms in place, but then consider that the state of each atom (?).
    I feel that is a guiding light. It is more likely a force or intrinsic mechanism similar to gravity as the first mover. After that I think you will find shapers - maybe alien grad students but more likely AI's loose about the area with time on their 'hands'.
    I don't think the research will lead to a benign Lord worthy of worship but that hasn't been disproven and I applaud the push forward of critical thinking.

    1. What do you mean by stating that evolution is incomplete? What type of a scientist are you?

  73. Uniformitarianism is such nonsense. You constantly malign and defame the opposition, argue minutia, and as always, ignore the biggest questions and most obvious evidences, because it hurts your head. God is here, and there, and everywhere, but you've shut your eyes and closed your minds, and make yourselves believe that you're the genuine critical thinkers, and the faithful adherents to reliable, evidential, science. You will not believe, despite the fact that it takes much less effort and faith to acknowledge a creator, than to believe in your "crap shoot," with CRAP being the operative word. Lay down your your eyes and your mind, and stop fighting against God, Himself. You'll thank me later on.

    1. What gods are you talking about? I thought this doc was about ID. We are probably just a "hologram" in one of our 10^500 universes/multiverses. Makes more sense than your pie in the sky gods. Get with the program!

    2. I prefer dough nut on the ground, than pie in the sky.

    3. You and your other dimensions and about you live in the real world, and stop invoking fanciful, pie in the sky, by and by. Stop the hypocrisy and start abiding by your own rules, and let's have some solid, testable, proof of your delusional dimensions. This video has no need to invoke the bible, or God, or Christianity. It acutely demolishes your godless religion, which you'll stick to against all of the massive evidence against you. What fools these mortals be...

    4. what is the best argument against evolution?

      and when life popped into existence fully formed, did it making an audible popping noise and little sparkles fall around the being that appeared? like magic?

    5. To funny, you are telling me to live in the real world?

      Show us your proof of why..."This video has no need to invoke the bible, or God, or Christianity. It acutely demolishes your godless religion"? And what do you mean by godless religion? And what massive evidence?

    6. Like all your other posts, the last two have not said one solid thing--just merely a wall of ignorant rant and despicable preaching from someone with an inferior education and intelligence to boot.

    7. I tell you what; you believe what you believe and let others have their own beliefs.

      Your a prime example of why religion has a bad name, let others think for themselves instead of trying to force/convince others your beliefs are 'correct'.

      Its hilarious when a documentary is uploaded on here which involves religion, be it pro or against, you get this army of opinionated biggots who take to there keyboards in defence of their god, which ever one they follow, each claiming to know for sure they are in the right; countless millions have died over this very topic, that fact alone should be proof enough its all a load of bull****. Be spiritual, have your own beliefs, if you want to conform to an organised religion go ahead (more fool you) but do not try to force your **** onto someone else, if they agree, fantastic, if they dont, take it as a hint that they want or need need to hear any of your dark age nonsense.

      As for this docu, if you cant see the propagandist slant here then your either lying to yourself or your just a bit slow. Critical thinking is great, I suggest you apply it to this documentary and take a minute or two to reflect upon what you've just seen.

      I like this site and alot of the comments here can be interesting and insightful but as soon as the topic is religion it descends into a preaching fest full of utter ****, funny that.

    8. You need to read the comment policy against preaching. I have flagged your post for action by a moderator.

    9. I did not delete @Chrispy777 flagged comment, he was basically sitting on the fence on his attempted preaching, will wait to see what he says next.

    10. That's what I expect from a hypocritical false prophet, like yourself. That's okay, Robert, I won't flag you.....obviously you have cornered the market on the ultimate truth of origins...

    11. chrispy, why are you so angry?

      I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
      Mahatma Gandhi

    12. I don't even like his Christ with his "I'm the way, the truth, the light" and "turn the other cheek."

    13. yeah I think Jesus is way over rated too and what an ego on him: son of god, ruler of heavan and earth. When you look at it objectively it's wacky as hell.

    14. And what an even greater ego on the actual writers.

    15. Although I did like the part when he went ninja on the moneychangers.

    16. That's one of my least favorite parts. Shows what a jerk he was.

    17. I like the turn the other cheek, and love thy neighbour. but im a filthy socialist, what do I know.

    18. Suppose your neighbor is a drug-dealing pederast?

    19. it cant be used universally of course. i would have to call reductio ad absurdum on your counter here.

    20. It is.

    21. which is a logical fallacy.

    22. P.S.
      If someone had stood up to Hitler when he began his plans for conquest, who knows what might have been averted, but everyone was too busy turning the other cheek. What happened to Czechoslavakia was a disgrace.

    23. if hitler were to turn the other cheek we wouldnt have worried about him.

      the axiom is to be applied universally.

      however of course in reality it cant be, but still ought to be used as often as is rationally possible. if we dont turn the other cheek to crazy terrorists we end up in two wars on the other side of the world with no solution.

    24. You read anger into a comment that was anything but. Resignation would've been a more appropriate term.....but then you guys are always reading into something that isn't there.

    25. its all your comments together. either way you are just rambling, its not like anything you are saying is true or matters

    26. And the kettle, calls the pot black... Ya ya, go back to saving people from a non-existent devil so that you can earn the respect of your creator enough so that he does not consume you in flame, I can't handle this mentally incapacitated nonsense much longer, I will bust out the big guns and shoo you away with Logic if I have to.

      Also,if you do or haven't already brought up the "king's rainment" science vs religion vs philosophy, don't, because it will just prove how little logic you use in your rationalizations.

      Just stop Chrispy, if you're going to argue science vs religion, LEARN both sides. It is quite clear that you have only ONE aspect backing your fundamentalist thinking.

      BTW, I used to be just like you, all brainwashed, then I went to school, and learned about REAL science. It helps... just a tip.

    27. I wish more people did as you.

    28. And obviously you've cornered the market in ignorance and pharisaical posturing.

    29. someone forgot to take their medication today!

    30. In the form of a wafer.

    31. If I could "fight" God, that is, if he were real... I so would. IMO he deserves a swift kick in the nuts for the horrid state of affairs that he so "lovingly" put us into. But, lemme guess, he acts in mysterious ways right? How's this for mysterious, I'd punch Jesus square in the mouth if he were real, even if he was God, and then I'd burn in "hell" for it because I'd rather be there than with some twisted psychopathic control fr*ak serving his sociopath *** for all eternity.

  74. An extremely and well presented Documentary that contains ample data from a scientific and a philosophical perspective that will leave the reader with his own critical and logical conclusion. Who invented the "software" to run the "program"? Thank you for a superb presentation?

    1. who invented the person who invented the software to run the program?

    2. Who cares about philosophy? It's only the science that matters.

      Are you thanking the makers of this documentary or TDF for making it available?

  75. Science: Looks for answers for the evidence.
    Religion: Looks for evidence for the answers.

    I can see this doing as well as Expelled. Ridiculed and exposed for what it is - propaganda.

  76. I've been trying to do more research on this video. My assertion that this is intended for lay and student audiences is born out by what I have (not) found.

    First, I tried to find something--anything--on "Prescriptive Instructional Information"

    However, the only 3 names that came up were:
    David L. Abel
    David J. D'Onofrio
    Donald E. Johnson

    When I tried to find reviews of the book this video was based on, I came up with some Amazon customer reviews. No peer review articles. No discussion elsewhere of this subject that I could locate.

    I did come across a response by D. Johnson to the 2-star review, which I thought particularly interesting, since he states very clearly,

    "If I had answers for the observations from empirical science, be assured I would have included them..."

    REVIEW by SonnyRandell:

    "Johnson's lightweight (literally) treatment of bioinformatics consists mainly of a collection of quotes assembled with little consideration of the evidence for or against those arguments. Some quotes are from eminent scientists, often taken out of context, while many are from the fringes published outside mainstream peer-review.

    "Most importantly, he does not deal with the fundamental issues. For example, one of his basic assertions is that information in biological systems is "non-physical formalism." Yet he does not even attempt to deal with the foundational principle of information science as articulated by Rolf Landauer in 1961: "Information is physical."

    "He also asserts that horizontal gene transfer can but does not generate new information. He does not provide supporting evidence or clarification of the kind of information to which he refers, even though in other parts of the book he acknowledges a variety of meanings of the term "information."

    "In another section, he seems to confuse Shannon's analysis of channel capacity in the presence of noise and diverse symbolic sets with code development. These are complex issues with which he does not deal adequately.

    "His treatment of randomness is mixed. In some sections he accurately understands the relationships between randomness and functional information but in others he seems to miss the role of randomness in generating new information.

    "Johnson does raise many fascinating issues and has assembled a remarkable montage of assertions but he leaves a thoughtful discussion of their merits to the reader.

    RESPONSE by D. Johnson:

    "Randell seems to have missed the primary thrust of the PoL book. Information can certainly be stored/transferred using physical media, as I clearly explained. Randomness has NEVER been observed to produce functional information, and I invite Randell to provide evidence to the contrary. I did not say HGT can create new information (which it can't), but did say it can produce a replicate of existing information (which does not explain the source of NEW information). Shannel Capacity does indeed prohibit coded information transfer from an alphabet of fewer intrinsic symbols to one with more intrinsic sysbols (see Yockey and others). Dozens of references to peer-reviewed publications were included to clarify and support the assertions made. The "physicality is all" assertions often made lack any scientific substance for the creation of functional information, particularily prescriptive (algorithmic) information. It is true that I leave it to the reader to explain, using science, the functional information observed.

    "If I had answers for the observations from empirical science,

    "be assured I would have included them, but instead the challenge was presented for others to provide mechanisms that would scientifically explain what is observed, or else to stop making unwarranted assertions.


    From another Amazon review, that states exactly what I said about the level of readership this book is intended for:

    "The Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson is an excellent presentation of the parallels between the everyday practical cybernetics of computer science and the programming, control and regulation mechanisms of cellular life.

    "The book is easily understandable by non biologists, and seems to be written on a college freshman level.

    "It has good illustrations. It also has extensive citations and quotes from peer-reviewed literature. It's perspective and content are well supported, and should be readily received by a properly skeptical scientific community (of which I am a member). The book is a fun, quick, interesting read of under 150 pages. In my opinion, the book is amazingly underpriced for what it provides. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It provides a unique education that I have never seen available from any source other than technical scientific literature, but

    "it is wonderfully explained in lay terms.

    "This would be a great mini text for public high school AP Biology classes. "
    And after a rather lengthy (5-star) review of his own book by Don Johnson, came this one:

    REVIEW by "Donald Mitchell "Jesus Loves You!"":

    "Dr. Johnson concisely defines life in terms of its information content, citing many different scientific sources. Viewed from this more complete perspective, there's no chance that the current evolutionary theories are correct.

    "I found it refreshing to see such an examination be conducted solely from a scientific perspective. Too often, evolution is uncritically praised or challenged in nonscientific ways. For those who like to understand a subject, it's better to use scientific concepts and perspectives to address a scientific theory.

    "Clearly, a new theory for the origin of species is needed. Who will provide one?

    "If you would like to get past any misunderstandings you have about how random interactions might have created life, read this book.

    "I couldn't help but think that high schools, colleges, and universities would be well served to have independent libraries available that specialize in thoughtful resources for understanding ourselves and our world from both the perspectives of thinking (science and logic) and faith (the Gospel).

    "Otherwise, many young people will graduate from whatever school they attend with many incorrect views about the world."

    1. i feel like im liking more of your comments then i am writing of my own.

    2. I had the same problem trying to get background on this film, the book and the people behind it. I unearthed very little, all very underhanded.

  77. listen to the arrogant tossers. not one of them has even been into space or for that matter to any of the trillion star systems in the known universe and they think they know it all. you may actually be the smartest person on this thread ( you know who i'm talking to ) but solid scientific guesses are still just guesses. one who makes concrete statements bases on such guesses clearly is more concerned about lording arrogant superiority over others. and quiet frankly alot of mature intelligent people would call such people "Jerks".

    1. Adam Young
      you actually believe science is based purely on guesses? it forms theories and laws based on the best available evidence checked and double checked. you must be terrified to leave the house seeing that the only thing keeping most everything around you from falling apart and possibly killing you is backed only by guesses. what would your alternative be?

    2. no, science is not based on guesses. i should of been more specific. i was referring to the more elusive aspects of nature and the unknown that at we have at this time is best scientific supported guesses. then i was referring to those experts who make grand statements of truth regarding a universe that we've barely stuck our big toe in

    3. And just who are these experts?

    4. You contradict yourself..."solid scientific guesses are still guesses"? if it is "solid" it sure as h@ll isn't a guess. There is no guesses in empirical scientific facts.

      But religion is all guess work yes? that I would agree with.

    5. i think hes talking to clearly the smarter person on this thread. (brushes shoulder off)

      lol in all seriousness, science doesnt make guesses. it makes predictions and tests them to create theories.

      your lack of understanding of what science is leads me to disregard the rest of your post.

  78. Oh i get it! If you had answered my comment with that i would have understood but you answered Lakhotason and for a few seconds it didn't make sense. Excuse my French!

  79. WHoever wrote the description sure has a huge problem with allowing people to make up their own minds. Nothing like a long winded essay on how you're supposed to interpret a science doc before you watch it.

    In REALITY the documentary is dealing with facts and it's very black and white about things. They are trying to make a case for creation and that is their right. I'm 3 quarters of the way through it and I have found nothing dishonest about it and no reason why it needs any kind of disclaimer from some atheist with a god complex.
    If you don't like the conclusion they promote then SAY THAT instead of trying to brainwash people with some ignorant diatribe about how it's a subversive attempt to manipulate people with "facts" and "information" that may offer another perspective.
    Jeez dude. "Since at this moment science does not have all the answers to DNA, they insinuate that evolution is wrong". What the hell? Are you insane? They believe evolution is wrong and one piece of evidence is that science can not explain certain things. What part of that are you having trouble with?
    You realize if it's wrong then they wouldn't be able to explain these things? Of the things evolutionists CAN explain there is NOTHING that proves the theory is true and there is plenty of evidence to show it's unlikely.
    I could run around telling people that the plot of The Matrix is true and I'd probably be able to make just as good a case as I can for evolution or creation. To be honest I believe that's a pretty good analogy of how most evolutionary theory was conceived. We could all spend a billion years without being able to disprove any of these theories. The fact that I have absolutely no REASON to suppose that the plot of the Matrix would happen and no mechanism for it to exist IS something worth noting.

    To be honest I'm finding more paranoid dellusion and outright brainwashing coming from the so-called "scientific" side. I have to keep reminding myself that any close minded sheep with an opinion can claim to represent science just to keep from losing complete faith in the entire institution.

    1. do you care to elaborate on "They believe evolution is wrong and one piece of evidence is that science can not explain certain things" or "99% of what they CAN explain either doesn't prove evolution o"r doesn't make sense to begin with.."?

    2. Refrain from calling people insane. And fix your username.

    3. The only reason you believe the documentary is dealing with facts and that there is nothing dishonest is because you lack the requisite scientific knowledge and from the rest of your post the education or intelligence. See Kateye70's penetrating analysis.

      Evolution has been verified time and time again through at least five or six diferent branches of science and is currently in use, especially in immunology, but again, you wouldn't know this because all your information probably comes from creationist websites and publications. The bi-products of evolution are many and obvious. Now, what has creationism come up with? As a matter of fact, what type of proof does creationism offer to support itself? So far, nothing.

      If you think there are flaws in evolution theory, why don't you bring them up rather than making a bald statement? And while you're at it, why attempt something scientifically superior? As a matter of fact, why don't you read up on evolution (and I don't mean in some creationist site) before trying to tear it down?

      You offer this screed to cover up your lack of evidence to support creationism. So who's the paranoid one?

    4. The 'documentary' is not cut-and-dried, black-and-white, nor fact-filled.

      You should always consider the source of information you are accepting as valid. I've done my research, have you done yours?

      My research says: It is cleverly produced marketing to sow doubt about what science really is in the minds of children and lay-people.

      You appear to be a member of their target audience. A well-hooked member, at that.

      Based on what you've posted, I don't think you know how scientific research is actually conducted. A scientific theory is not science fiction. It isn't wild ideas and speculation, ala The Matrix. It's done through meticulous research, testing and retesting, peer review, and still more testing and more peer review.

      That is a far cry from 'having an opinion.'

    5. "You appear to be a member of their target audience. A well-hooked member, at that."

      almost exactly what i said to him without having even read this.

    6. this video is geared towards people like you. and you will buy into it hook line and sinker. enjoy.

  80. "From the authors: Programming of Life is a documentary created to engage our scientific community in order to encourage forward thinking."

    This film is not aimed at any science community. There is nothing any scientist could possibly learn from it.

    It is aimed directly at children and lay people.

    Even in the author's own blurb, the first sentence is deceptive.

    1. "It is aimed directly at children and lay people."

      In your opinion.

      If it isn't just your opinion, then could you please back your statement up with some clear evidence. This style of inquisition appears to be the trend on forums like this, so please follow suit and come forward with some solid tangible proof.

      "This film is not aimed at any science community. There is nothing any scientist could possibly learn from it."

      Blanket statements. Since you appear to be quoting other people's blanket statements, I'd like to see these backed up also if you have the time.

      If you can't back these statements up, then you are just another pickle in the same jar as everyone else who is receiving derogatory and defamatory remarks for their opinions.

    2. You should scroll back through the comments. I've been posting since shortly after the film was put up here, and my research into this doc has already been posted. Don't be lazy.

    3. You haven't offered anything worthwhile or even verging on intelligence. At least Kateye has.

    4. Just to save you the effort, here's some of what I've posted previously. I have been following the ID marketing strategy since the Dover PA case took place and was in the local news where I live. I have a personal background in advertising as an artist, copywriter, and marketing director. I do recognize marketing when I see it, based on years of professional experience. As someone who wrote advertising copy for a living, I can parse it out very easily. You'll see I did that in one of my posts--my comments are in parentheses. You certainly are not required to take my word for it, but you asked, and I'm giving it to you.

      It's worth noting that the production studio, LaBarge Media, is an advertising multi-media production company. Their client list includes Exxon Mobile, Kodak and Adobe. That's why the production values are so slick. The copy is nicely written, as well.

      In reply to oQ:

      At the very beginning, the narrator "Chris" says,

      "Hi, my name's Chris, and we're going to dive deep into the world of cellular biology and INFORMATION SCIENCE to see if we might get a little closer to the big question, "Where did we come from?"

      I capitalized "information science", because that was my first clue. It is now code for "intelligent design." I know this because I keep checking their website.

      From wiki:

      "Information science is often (mistakenly) considered a branch of computer science. However, it is actually a broad, interdisciplinary field, incorporating not only aspects of computer science, but often diverse fields such as archival science, cognitive science, commerce, communications, law, library science, museology, management, mathematics, philosophy, public policy, and the social sciences.

      "Information science should not be confused with information theory, the study of a particular mathematical concept of information, or with library science, a field related to libraries which uses some of the principles of information science."

      Please note that cellular biology is not included in that list. In fact, I don't see any biology fields listed there.

      At 38:39 the placard "OPERATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE" concludes the probability explanation--already discussed by others.

      Narrator "Chris":
      "So, knowing all of this, should the popular scenario of chemical and biological evolution be taught globally as the only explanation of the origin of life and species? (Note that "ORIGIN OF LIFE" is concatenated with "species". Now the origin of SPECIES has become a 'popular scenario' and apparently is not a well-researched field of study.)

      "It's my belief that we're not opening our minds to the possibility of other explanations. (I thought scientist did that already, but whatever, it's his opinion.)

      "Now, one of the most basic concepts you should have learned...
      (note that this documentary is pretty basic; no practicing scientist would actually watch it to learn anything; clearly aimed at a student and lay audience.)

      " that if observations and data contradict the theory you're testing, then theory should be modified or abandoned. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be happening to the present, most popular model of origins. (So, Are we talking ORIGIN OF LIFE or ORIGIN OF SPECIES here?)

      "Instead, many scientists are trying to take information and make it 'fit' the evolutionary models." (Now we are talking "EVOLUTION" instead of origin of life.)

      This is a rather long post, and I've cut it short. As you can see, I actually transcripted the video and then dissected what the narrator was saying.

      I also have been closely following the ID marketing strategy as outlined their "Wedge Document." I have also given my opinion as to their motives:
      In reply to Simon Gramstrup:

      I have to disagree that the proponents of ID/creationism are not perfectly well-aware of scientific methods.

      As I've stated before, I've tried to puzzle out their objection to science and critical thinking, and have concluded that it erodes the very benefits that religion confers...i.e., that they have a pipeline to god(etc.)'s ear.

      The fewer people that swallow their assertions wholesale, the less money their religion receives, and the less power it has. Money and Power. Two awesome motivators.

      Btw, this is based on many different articles and books I've read, to try and figure this out. But it truly is simple.

      Science means you test something, it either proves or disproves. Anyone else can also test the same thing you did, and should achieve the same results. If they don't, you compare methodology to figure out where the difference is.

      Religion requires that you believe someone's word that their god(etc.) spoke to them. No one else can disprove what they said; no one else can prove it, either. If you accept their word, it is on your faith that they are not lying to you.

      I believe that there is a spiritual quality to the world that each of us must experience for ourselves; it fills us with joy, wonder, and awe. We really don't need anyone else to explain that experience to us, do we? Nor am I asking you to believe; I am simply stating what I believe. No charge.

    5. And my question is so simple. Have you finished Ravitch?

    6. Why yes, yes I have =) Finally! I was actually much closer to the end than I realized, and finished it yesterday. While I am not a legal scholar by any stretch, I do take his warning to heart that the Discovery Institute and their ilk are not planning on giving up. This very documentary, regardless of what RuskyJim thinks, is a perfect example of slick marketing spin. And obviously it's catching quite a few fish in the net, wouldn't you say?

    7. I hope that more get away than are caught--but that's just hope. You're right. We're not done with creationists, but you must admit that Dover certainly took a lot of the wind from their sails. I have an idea as to how to deal it a further blow. It's probably impractical or impracticable, but if you are interested, I will be happy to share it with you.

      Now that you have finished Ravitch, may I suggest "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers (get the 2005 edition). It's a lot of reading, but it's right up your alley.

    8. "it's catching quite a few fish in the net, wouldn't you say?"

      Well, it did convince me. I'm sorry Kateye70, but unless I unplug my common sense I can't get this documentary to be all wrong, marketing slick or not.

    9. It convinced you of what?

    10. Convinced me that life in its simplest forms is too complex to stem from random processes.

    11. And who said that life stems from random processes?

    12. These are not random processes, but natural ones.

    13. Do you wait until the angels come to you (death), or your Lord comes to you (the Day of Judgement) or the signs of your Lord come, the day the signs of your Lord appear a soul will not benefit from faith had it not believed before or did good deeds in its faith, wait Robert, for I shall wait with you and we shall see.

    14. I suggest you read the comment policy regarding preaching. This is not your personal pulpit. Any further violations will be reported to a moderator for further handing. Act accordingly.

    15. it CONVINCED You of that?

      but that is not something we know for certain and not something the vast majority of scientists working in the field would say.

      so you trust the word of a intentionally deceitful documentary over the scientific community.

      i think you are suffering from a confirmation bias in this instance sir.

    16. Finally, here are several more posts I made, including one to you.

      Here's another book by the author of this video: "The Digital Code Of DNA – Solid Proof Of Intelligent Design" – Dr. Donald E. Johnson

      Can you say ID Marketing?
      Reply to RuskyJim:

      Just FYI: "atheist" simply means "non-theist." It describes a lack of belief. I'm not pigionholed in any 'xxxx-theist' description because quite frankly, I don't give a rat's a$$.

      What is DANGEROUS about this particular video, and the Discovery Institute's agenda in general, is that they are attempting to pollute the pursuit of science by injecting theology into it, as if the two were one and the same.

      Why? Follow the money, honey. As fewer people believe in the 'benefits' of religion, fewer people are willing to pay for its upkeep.

      ID is pure, unadulterated marketing to discredit the pursuit of knowledge that makes people question the value of religious institutions.

      I and others have had long debates on other videos on this site. I don't care what flavor of theism you believe in, I don't care who what when or how you worship.

      Keep theology out of science classrooms. It is child abuse.
      In reply to robertallen1:

      Perhaps "fallacies" was the wrong word. But it was so clear where the documentary was going--as Preston Duncan said, perhaps it was his tone of voice...

      I was waiting to hear a clear statement of intent (usually what happens when watching a real science documentary) and instead this unctuous side-stepping began...whatever it was, I was gagging on it, and ended up fast-forwarding. The true statement of intent is at the end, with a few key phrases thrown in here and there.

      I'll be honest, I could not bear to listen to the whole thing. I was at work, I had tasks to finish up, and all I wanted to do was sit there and make a list of every "wrong" statement he was making.

      It had nothing to do with whatever science they talked about and *everything* to do with the slick sideshow. It was too much for me, and when I realized it was being aimed at a school audience, it made me angry again--you know how I feel on this subject!

      As a note to the above: What made me so angry was hearing the narrator "Chris" make a (paraphrased) statement to the effect that "if you're still here with me, it means your INSTRUCTOR..." If that isn't clearly aimed at students, I don't know what else it could be
      In reply to Simon Gramstrup:

      I have to disagree that the proponents of ID/creationism are not perfectly well-aware of scientific methods.

      As I've stated before, I've tried to puzzle out their objection to science and critical thinking, and have concluded that it erodes the very benefits that religion confers...i.e., that they have a pipeline to god(etc.)'s ear.

      The fewer people that swallow their assertions wholesale, the less money their religion receives, and the less power it has. Money and Power. Two awesome motivators.

      Btw, this is based on many different articles and books I've read, to try and figure this out. But it truly is simple.

      Science means you test something, it either proves or disproves. Anyone else can also test the same thing you did, and should achieve the same results. If they don't, you compare methodology to figure out where the difference is.

      Religion requires that you believe someone's word that their god(etc.) spoke to them. No one else can disprove what they said; no one else can prove it, either. If you accept their word, it is on your faith that they are not lying to you.

      I believe that there is a spiritual quality to the world that each of us must experience for ourselves; it fills us with joy, wonder, and awe. We really don't need anyone else to explain that experience to us, do we? Nor am I asking you to believe; I am simply stating what I believe. No charge.
      In reply to Moha:

      Dear Moha: I disagree. People need to know upfront that this is ID marketing propaganda. It is an attempt to sneak theology into science classrooms. All you have to do is look at the people who are in it.

      For instance: "The Digital Code Of DNA – Solid Proof Of Intelligent Design" by Dr. Donald E. Johnson. He is one of the featured scientists in this video. He states that he is a proponent of ID in the title of his book.

      However, if you did not know this about him, you would assume he was an unbiased scientist simply presenting scientific information--when in fact, the Discovery Institute has yet to produce any real science in support of their hypothesis...

      ...I think more people ought to be aware of this video, and aware of who made it. Forewarned is forearmed. That way, when people try to sneak it into the classrooms, they can be caught out.

      In reply to Emanouel:

      Maybe the search for truth is interesting...quoting a facebook meme photo certainly should be embarrassing, however. (Although I do admit that Gene Wilder's Willie Wonka is wonderfully wicked.)

      I have no problem with theist scientists, although what that has to do ID marketing is beyond me. If you haven't figured it out, that's what this doc really is.

      As to your comment that "If information is indeed gleaned from creationist websites, this does not necessarily render it invalid." I have to disagree.

      When an organization takes it upon itself to inject theology INTO science, that is highly dishonest and immediately renders any information they produce as suspect.

      You should locate and read the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" and even better, read "Marketing Intelligent Design" by Frank S. Ravitch, to find out exactly why so many of us are disgusted with them. You will find every marketing tool in the book (literally and figuratively) in this video.

      As I've said before, spiritual beliefs are one thing. But religion is man-made, and relies on money and power.

      If this is not enough for you, RuskyJim, you may completely disregard anything and everything I have to say.

  81. And you're reading books that tell you what you want to hear. I absolutely HATE Ehrman because I know that 99% of the things he writes are complete bull5h|t and misrepresentation of the facts.
    He ignores evidence that goes against his preconceived notions and fabricates intricate theories to discredit the bible that a normal and reasonable human being wouldn't have come up with naturally. They're only plausable because someone you think is smart is telling you they are!
    He's making a living creaing propoganda for a popular group of Darwin worshippers. He could say anything as long as it discredits the bible and you'll all turn out in droves with wallets in hand. (further evidence that evolution is a religion)

    Do yourselves a favour and research the other sides of the arguements that Ehrman makes.
    I'm probably wasting my time here but who knows maybe you're not all cement heads and actually see the value in getting ALL the information. Try watching a video titled "New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts - Peter Williams" on youtube without any preconceived notions and ask yourself which view of the bibles accuracy is based more on solid evidence. It's a little bit of a turnoff that the guy appears to be speaking in some sort of church but he is a guest speaker who does research in the U.K..

    1. What makes you think you are qualified to go up against one of the top biblical scholars in the United States? Your empty assertions? "You know" that 99% of the things he writes are bs and misrepresentations. How about providing a few examples so we can judge the extent of your biblical scholarship which so far seems to be none? "You know" doesn't cut it.

      How much do "you know" about Dr. Ehrman? From what you write, I'd say next to nothing, especially when you attempt to link what you term "Darwin worshipers" to Dr. Ehrman's works. By the way, how much have you read about Darwin. I'd say about as much as you've read about biblical scholarship.

      Those "preconceived notions" and "intricate theories" of Dr. Ehrman which you consider beyond the ken of a "normal and resonable" person have formed the core of mainstream biblical scholarship for the last two centuries ? Is this meaningless attack an example of the level of your intelligence? Would you consider yourself "normal and reasonable?" From what you have written, this is certainly open to question, for you are obviously unable to refute Dr. Ehrman and mainstream biblical scholarship except through vain expostulation.

      And no, evolution is not a religion; it's a science, but in light of your wilful parochialism, the difference which would be obvious to a third grader will always escape you.

      What's the matter with discrediting the bible when the facts show otherwise? When the accounts contained therein contradict each other? When it goes against our scientific knowledge? It's no more than a series of books written and compiled over 2,000 years ago. There is nothing sacrosanct about it just as there is nothing of any substance in your post.

    2. Had to use a differen't login.

      I've probably read and researched more then you on BOTH sides of the bloody issue from biology to physics to history and philosphy. I'm well aware of how people like you function. You know that a belief in God is stupid so you spend all your free time indoctrinating yourself with complicated and conveniently presented circumstantial evidence put together by condescending scholars like Ehrman.
      I have total respect for people who don't believe a god exists and for people who think evolution is the most likely scenario. What I HATE is people who don't understand that creation is a perfectly reasonable belief, especially when held up beside atheism and evolution which are even MORE unbelievably crazy.
      Thinking that creation is silly shows that you're not even mentally equipped to grasp the reality of atheism or evolution.
      ANd the icing on the cake is people who believe ANYTHING that might serve to support creation automatically HAS to be discredited.
      Jesus EXISTED! Get over it! Yes there are mountains of people working round the clock trying to discredit the bible but the truth is the bible is the most accurate historical record if the first few thousand years of mans recorded history. Secular records support it and it's been exceptionally preserved!
      WHo the hell is Ehrman to think he's qualified to go up against 200 years of scholars who say that Jesus most certainly existed even if you don't believe in God or miracles? This guy is a fraud and of all the scholars, scientists, and historians that you could follow I award you the least amount of respect for choosing him!
      The whole "mythical jesus" theory is about the most ignorant theory ever concocted because it was completely fabricated for individuals like yourself who actually don't care at all about accuracy or truth and just swallow up anything that allows you to add to your collection of "expert" opinions.
      I have neither the time nor the inclination to start debating various aspects of his theories because frankly the fact that you believe he makes sense shows me it's a waste of time. I'll give you ONE example off the top of my head that a 4 year old should be able to grasp. Go read Hebrews 8 IN CONTEXT all the way through. If when you're done you believe that verse 4 somehow proves Paul didn't believe Jesus lived on earth then please just don't say another word.
      Ehrman has created most of his evidence out of thin air and spent more time working on the fabulous way in which his spins it rather then actual fact based research.
      He relies almost entirely on the fact that most of his readers aren't going to care about the truth and will ALWAYS give him the benefit of the doubt.

    3. I wonder why no one is replying to you? Oh wait! is it because you have said..."Jesus EXISTED! Get over it"? without proof. Whatever 00.1 credibility you had just went to zero.

    4. He now has two, both from me.

    5. I know Dr. Ehrman's qualifications, but other than your assertion that you've read and researched various topics, including apparently evolution (which from your post is an obvious lie) I know nothing about yours although I can hazard an educated guess. And speaking of Dr. Ehrman, have you read his book, "Did Jesus Exist?" in which he confirms Jesus' existence as a man? Obviously not. So your statement about him in this regard is another bald-faced lie. As a matter of fact, I'll bet you haven't read one book by Dr. Ehrman, much less anything about evolution or history. .

      Don't try to fool me. You have neither the time nor the inclination to debate any of Dr. Ehrman's "theories" because you are scholasticlally and intellectually unequipped to do so, just as you are scholastically and intellectually unequipped to provide any scientific proof for creationism. Just as you are scholastically and intellectually unequipped to provide any scientific proof counter to evolution and just as you are scholastically and intellectually unequipped to come up with anything better independent of dogma and superstition.

      Now which secular records are you referring to which allegedly support the bible's account of the first few thousand years of man's recorded history? As a matter of fact, which historical period are you talking about?

      Your post consists of nothing but ignorant allegations. There is not one single fact contained therein. Your qualifications are as much of a fraud as you are. I HATE people like you who try not only to pass off their ignorance as knowledge, but attempt to pull down someone as highly respected and eminently qualified by biblical scholars the world over as Dr. Ehrman. You deserve no respect, only condemnation.

    6. Jesus existed. Ok. Next you'll be telling us he's the sons of god (but god at the same time! how does that work?). Next you'll be claiming he turned water into wine, healed the sick, fed 5000 from a meal barely enough for two, died and rose after 3 days, ascended to heaven and mediates between god and humanity because of original sin etc. Even if you’re not saying any of that, compared to evolution, faith in Jesus or any other religion looks “even MORE unbelievably crazy” than science.
      The bible is one of many important religious texts but the word of god it is not. Why? For one, there is no proof god exists. If no god exists, there is no such thing as god’s word. It’s impossible to get beyond that first obstacle; you have to resort to faith which is meaningless.

    7. Water into wine. My favorite and the first of Jesus' miracles. Forget the miracle and consider the proposition. A wedding party and everyone has "drunk well". Then and only then does Jesus come up with the really good wine. Sound like any party you've ever been to?

    8. I often save the best for last so yeah I have. Maybe I'm god. I guess your point being Jesus was generous and did the opposite of other people who cynically save the rough plonk for later when the drunks are unsuspecting. Do we really need the self-appointed son of god to tell us not to be mean? I say the good stuff is wasted on a wasted crowd because they are too blunted to care or discern.

      Anyway, you’re racing too far ahead, what about obstacle number one: prove god's existence? If you do that then we can talk about which god and which religion and which interpretation etc.

    9. I am not the least bit interested nor am I inclined to prove the existence of God. Don't know where you mistook what I said as a belief in anything. Remember I did say "forget the miracle and consider the proposition".

      I only mentioned the water into wine miracle because it irritates Bible thumpers when you point out that Jesus was in fact partying.

    10. I beg your pardon. Thanx for the clarification. We have the same intention and hobby; irritating believers. Peace ;-)

    11. You are god and so is every one else. God is no man in the sky, god is the assembly of us all living creatures, at any moment. We create our reality, we as a unit are the creators.
      We need opposition, it is what fuels our wanting to know. We need compatibility, it gives us a resting step to go beyond. We need cooperation because it is when we stop fighting that we advance further.
      God has been emprisoned in the mind of man for eons.
      Science, knowledge of man, is the only way that will free the concept of god and give it a new meaning, a right meaning.
      The combination of the science of yesterday, the science of today and especially the science of tomorrow will reveal to us what our awareness is.
      Science is the only way to find out who we are, that combined with that awareness that is inside all of us. Or is it within?
      Mud? more like rising dough. I am a dough nut.

    12. @oQ,

      No he is not God, and no it is not so everyone else. God is not assembly of us all living creatures. That is only your imagination in action embedded in your routine sermon.

      Science will not free the concept of God and will not give it a meaning.

      If science reveals to us what our awareness is that would have nothing to do with God, especially not with the God you're ascribing to.

      God is a meme. It is not real.

    13. If science reveals to us what our awareness is...that will have to do with what science finds, you do not know what that will be the same way as i don't. If science wants to reinvent the word god, and give it a new meaning, it will.
      You do not know what god i ascribe to, i don't either as i don't ascribe to one specifically.
      I suspect we create our reality, we hold it together as a mass, we change it as a mass.

      @Robert i have answered you about my science background, Achems or an other moderator deleted it. I consider the case close. You want more, DIG in TDF, i am an open book.

    14. @oQ

      "If science reveals to us what our awareness is...that will have to do with what science finds" - correct, which means will have nothing to do with any God.

      "If science wants to reinvent the word god, and give it a new meaning, it will." - I doubt that. Science is not concerned with God whatsoever.

      "You do not know what god i ascribe to, i don't either as i don't ascribe to one specifically." - Yes I do not know, but I can say that your belief resembles new age spiritualism. You know, stuff like we are all one, awareness, we are all God etc... mixed with science talk here and there. In essence that is not very different from any other organized religion. They all expect science to explain their fairy tales.

      "I suspect we create our reality, we hold it together as a mass, we change it as a mass." - What that suppose to mean? As if you understand something very profound but you're not telling it all.

    15. Dear Vlatko,

      You know well that I am with you in the belief that there is no god (I write it in small letters intentionally to accentuate my standpoint).

      Science may not be concerned with god, but some scientist certainly were/are. Some of them are Nobel prize winners in their respective scientific fields. Max Planck is an example. A scientist who is considered to be the founder of Quantum mechanics, states in a 1937 lecture he delivered that "both religion and science require a belief in God." Whatever he meant by that, he was a scientist that changed, or largely contributed to the change of our view of the world. And there are many others.

      The Higgs Boson has even been branded the "God particle". Hence, there must be some consideration of the 'god' issue among scientists occasionally.

      "New age spiritualism", the meaning of which I don't even understand and I am sure those who use the term don't either - appears to have become the standard indiscriminate and meaningless vilification of the opposing view. In my eyes, it's not an argument for anything and requires a bit more elaboration of why a certain view is considered the "new age". What does that mean? I apologize if my question sounds stupid, but I really don't know the meaning of it.

      What prompted me to respond to your post, however, is your:

      "You know, stuff like we are all one, awareness, we are all God etc... mixed with science talk here and there. In essence that is not very different from any other organized religion. They all expect science to explain their fairy tales."

      Since you think that it's all fairy tales that, accidentally, use cutting edge science "here and there" as their background, I would like to hear your scientific explanation of why you think the oneness is a fairy tale. To state something like that, you must have some hard scientific evidence to dismiss it. Please, indulge me. I certainly do expect from science to explain to me the nature of life. I am an inquisitive spirit.

      Questions like this should be answered, otherwise science becomes another organized dogmatic religion which does not allow for legitimate inquiries, just like christianity and others.

      One more question, since there appear to be ample of experts on this thread in this field, what is the latest on the RNA theory of the origin of life?

    16. Wrong. The original term as used by Leon Lederman was the goddam particle, but his publisher toned down the term.

      One way or the other, so some scientists were concerned with the existence of a supreme being. What does that prove?

      Just what is this "oneness" that you refer to and if it's some philosophic concept, forget it. It has nothing to do with science.

      Also, just what do you mean by "the nature of life" and how does not explaining it make of science another organized dogmatic religion. Again, if it's a philosophic concept, forget it. It has nothing to do with science.

      The only job science has is to gather information and provide naturalistic explanations, not answer philosophic questions.

    17. And what exactly are you talking about? If there is nothing you understand, why are you responding? The comment was not for you anyway.

      Unless, if you have nothing meaningful to say, are you an expert in biology? Can you answer my last question? If you can't, what is it that you want to talk about?

    18. In case you didn't know it, this is a public forum and anyone can respond to anyone else. If you don't like it, your option is obvious.

      I'll repeat my questions, whether you like them or not. What is this "oneness" and this "nature of life" that you refer to? If they're philosophic concepts, they have no place in science--and one does not need experise in biology to realize this.

    19. Another minus for you, science and philosophy nowadays are quite close. By the way, do you have the answer about the RNA? Have you succeeded to find it on the Wiki yet? It's easy (well, kind of)

    20. That's not what I've been hearing, especially from Vlatko who states that they've been moving farther apart and for my money, the farther apart the better. The accomplishments of science are many and unquestioned; those of philosophy nebulous at best. So the minus is on your side.

    21. If Vlatko is your final source, then it must be the latest scientific fact, hahahaha. I would like to hear from Vlatko himself though, I am not so sure you understand what you were told to transmit.... not that I don't trust you (:)).

    22. Hey WTC7, nice to have you come back....i bet Achems would have gotten involved if he was around, especially after you called him god a little while back.

    23. Achems is my good friend. But I doubt he would have got involved when I am in the middle of an argument with his other friends here. I understand that and that's fine. We do understand each other though :)

    24. You are right, but i did not suggest that he would have come to the rescue, which you do not need. He may have had an opinion on your first post.
      See he is here!

    25. See Vlatko's answer to me four days ago on the thread "Learning to Think Critically."

      As you are the one asserting that science and religion are coming closer together, it's up to you to prove your this, not for me to disprove you.

    26. I am so sorry for you. Contrary to you, Vlatko, being a good guy, is not my guru. So, what he says is not my command. By the way, the new mantra about proving things one never posited in the first place you will have to keep for your next life, not with me - me friend.

    27. You are the one who asserted that philosophy and science are coming closer together. It is up to you to back it up.

    28. Besides, who said you have the capacity to talk for the scientific community? You?

    29. O.K. Then of just what use is philosophy to hard science?

    30. Don't know about philosophy in science but the General Medical Council and hospitals certainly have ethics committees. Perhaps there is confusion between philosophy and ethics.

    31. If you're saying ethics is a form of philosophy, perhaps you have a point; however, that's not what I was discussing.

    32. This brings up an interesting point. There are many questions that science cannot answer and wouldn't want to attempt to answer. There are some human realms in which science has been either entirely excluded or only enters under the strict supervision of philosophy.

    33. And just what are these areas under the strict supervision of philosophy. As a matter of fact, how can philosohy supervise anything?

    34. Science can't say when human life begins nor will it ever. That's philosophy's realm. Science is fully capable of cloning a human yet it is philosophy that tells science how far it can go in that direction.

    35. Philosophy tells science absolutely nothing.

    36. Ah, well, I'm off to bed. By the time you find the answer to my question, that you don't know by the way... It's going to be tomorrow here...

      I am still looking for someone who knows about biology and can provide an answer as to the newest developments regarding the RNA and with regards to the origins of life.

    37. im going to need you to be a little more concise about your question here.

    38. Hi Epi, good to hear from you.

      My question was about the latest scientific developments in the theory of the RNA (prebiotic) world. From what I understand, the theory was proposed in order to resolve some problems of the paradox arising from the interdependence between the DNA and the proteins. Proteins, as one of the major building blocks of life, cannot be built without the genetic information in the DNA but the DNA cannot process the necessary information without some specific proteins. So, it's the chicken or egg question. Meaning, the science has stumbled in it's efforts to explain how life actually began.

      So, some scientists proposed that there existed a "RNA world" in the prebiotic primordial soup that preceded the existence of both DNA and proteins. "RNA can simultaneously store information (like DNA) and catalyse chemical reactions (like proteins)." It is assumed that this prebiotic RNA evolved into the "DNA-protein world" of today where the "RNA currently functions as an intermediary between DNA and proteins."

      Now, the RNA world theory apparently has its own problems in explaining the origin of life as it assumes prior existence of some RNA building molecules that could have hardly come to be in the conditions of the primordial soup (that's actually only one of the problems of the theory).

      Assuming that I have properly understood the theory of the RNA world and the reasons it was proposed (hey, I am not a biologist of any sort), my question was whether there are any new scientific developments that would come closer to resolving the problems inherent in the RNA world theory.

    39. @WTC7,

      Hey long time no see. I'm glad you're here. Let me see if I can answer some of the questions.

      Yes Max Plank was tolerant towards the religions and he was criticizing atheism a lot. And so many others from his time too. Also lot of scientists back then were also affiliated with the Nazis (except Einstein, Plank and some others). Yes it is true, lot of scientists actually signed a document officially acknowledging and supporting the Nazi regime.

      The above can only tell us that scientists are human beings too. They're prone to all external influences (culture, religion, politics, war - depending on their upbringing and surrounding), like me and you. In my opinion all that has nothing to do with the science. Simply it doesn't matter if a scientist was religious or not.

      As for the Higgs boson, @Robert is right. Because the particle was so elusive Higgs called it "The Goddamn Particle" (as a title of his book). The publisher knowing that this title will cause turmoil, persuaded him to rename it as "The God particle".

      I was a little bit vague when I said "new age spiritualism". When I said that I was referring to all modern gurus and religions (appearing since 60s and 70s) who claim to know the truth. Usually they all postulate their "teaching" on premises like "we are all God", "there is collective awareness", "the oneness" etc. I intimately know this, since I was reading a lot of their stuff in one period of my life. Just to name few: Osho, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti etc.

      I think "oneness" is a fairy tale not that I have evidence against it, but because the "oneness" has no evidence to support itself. You know were the onus belongs. It is totally and completely a subjective concept. Like any other religion.

      As for your last question, and probably the most important one, I have to embarrassingly say that I don't know what is the latest RNA theory about the origin of life.

    40. "Human beings are very complicated survival mortal machines which are used for propagation of their immortal genes. Those immortal genes have very extended reach. They can pre-program your body, and through it they can influence other bodies."

      "Cells are complex and they're also survival machines, but we are extremely more complex since we're made of trillions of cells working together."

      These two phrases written by you, gives me the impression that in your own way you support oneness.
      As a human we are a oneness of the totality of our own cells, the same way as the combination of all living humans are the oneness of present humanity, the same way as the many participants in these threads hold together the oneness of TDF.
      It is no mystery to me why oneness makes sense.
      The word has been identified to "new age spiritualism" who says there is collective awareness.
      There is the institut of Noetic Science founded by Edgar D. Mitchell, ScD, PhD, you can read his biography on the site page


    41. Just what is "oneness?"

      Let's take a look at the Institut of Noetic Science. According to Wikipedia, among other things, this entity "investigates" spontaneous remission, alternative healing practicves, consciousness-based health care, spirituality, psychic abilities and survival of consciousness after bodily death. Stephen Barret, M.D. co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, lists the Institute of noetic Science among the 729 organizations that he views "with considerable distrust." There is are full wikipedia articles Dr. Barret, Dr. Mitchell and both of their organizations. I suggest comparisons of the credentials of one man against the other and of one institute against the other.

    42. If you want to take a look at Noetic Science, you should look into Noetic Science not Wikipedia.
      It contains some interesting writings and videos by (highly) educated people.

    43. No, I'll look on mainstream sources, not advertisements.

    44. Then skip the advertisements, and read or listen to what people have to say.

      There is no better way to find out about something than to go to that thing when possible. You can even pick and choose whom you think is most educated. That seem to be one of your prerequisite to intelligence.

    45. No, I'll go by what the experts say. Anecdotal testimony, especially from laymen, means next to nothing. The Noetic Institution is as much a fraud as its founder and all those people who you claim are scientists.

    46. @oQ,

      "These two phrases written by you, gives me the impression that in your own way you support oneness."

      Rest assured, that is only your impression, or should I say imagination.

    47. Thanks for your response Vlatko. You are a smart and a cool guy and I do like you a lot :).

    48. "God is a meme. It is not real."

      Can science prove that a parent loves his/her child?
      If science cannot prove this, does this mean the parent, whom claims to love their child, is delusion or perhaps insane?

      Surely if the scientist cannot prove scientifically that a parent loves a child, then the parent must be deluded, much like all those whom believe in an "unproved" designer.

      Sometimes I just wonder how the atoms in my body become happy, sad, compassionate or mournful.

      Cheers Vlatko

    49. @Emanouel,

      Hmmm... and your point is? Since we can't prove the non existence of your God, then your God must exist. How about you scientifically persuading us that your God is real? How about that. You can't prove it, it is only for you, it is subjective, it is not an universal truth, and you're still imposing your belief (God) onto others, which is deceitful, especially when practiced on children.

      The point is that your reasoning is in the domain of "belief", it is not grounded, not rational, not honest. If it serves you well and helps you to live your life, glad to hear that, but please don't impose it in schools, politics, innocent children, etc...

      Human beings are very complicated survival mortal machines which are used for propagation of their immortal genes. Those immortal genes have very extended reach. They can pre-program your body, and through it they can influence other bodies. Their immortality is partly ensured with the help of memes (an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture). Your belief in a creator or ID is also a meme.

      Emotions are integral part of these complex survival machines, as many other fascinating patterns.

    50. Hi Vlatko,

      I did pose a question or two, and I feel that you have not answered it directly. Shouldn't a scientifically learned person like yourself, be able to answer it directly with a simple yes or no?

      You also stated that 'emotions are an integral part of these complex survival machines.' (Humans)

      Correct me if I am wrong, but science has taught us that even the most earliest, primitive single-celled organism was a complex survival machine as we are. Did it contain emotions? After all, it was
      "a complex survival machine."

    51. @Emanouel,

      My answer to your questions was "And your point is?" which means I don't know what are you trying to communicate. In other words your questions don't make any sense.

      Science can't prove love thus parents are delusional about loving their kids. What on earth this have to to do with anything. I gave you one analogy: Science can't prove non existence of you God, thus your God exists. Or here is another one: Science can't disprove the existence of my beloved supernatural being "the Spaghetti Monster", therefore it exists. This can go to infinity. Science can't prove or disprove many things (countless) but that doesn't mean we have to ascribe to every single one of them. Why don't you believe in Hindu Gods? Can you disprove them? Certainly not.

      Cells are complex and they're also survival machines, but we are extremely more complex since we're made of trillions of cells working together. Genes in primitive creatures (one cell organisms) propagate themselves with rather primitive, but yet very effective means, while our genes propagate by using very complex means.

    52. Hi Vlatko

      Under the scientific theory of infinite universes, anything and everything is possible because of the infinite possibilities. So, how dare you discount the existence of "the flying spaghetti monster!!"

    53. @Emanouel,

      You're correct. In an infinite universe or infinite number of universes everything is possible. That also means that there will be countless of variations of that same monster, existing right now. Does that require from me to believe in infinite number of claims? I don't think so. I'll believe in the monster when there will be solid evidence for it. Meanwhile I'll reject all supernatural claims.

      Your questions also begs my previous question which you didn't answer. Why don't you believe in Hindu Gods, or some African Gods? They seem ridiculous to you don't they? Why? Because you didn't grow up in their societies and cultures. Their Gods are real to them as is your God (Intelligent Design) to you, no matter how ridiculous they appear to be. I told you God is a meme.

    54. You've just demonstrated why possibilities are useless.

    55. And many times a parent does not love his child. Can science prove this? Your statement is ridiculous.

    56. Since "love" is a term used to describe a wide range of emotions, I believe it would be difficult for anyone to prove much of anything about it, without first defining exactly which type of "love" they are discussing.

      Parental love is an emotion that prompts bonding with one's offspring. As many of us know through sad experience, this bonding does not necessarily preclude dislike or even abuse. It is also the emotion that couples with empathy to allow non-parents to bond with children, since raising children requires a cooperative effort within a social group.

      I could go on, but it was kind of silly for someone to use a complex emotion as an example in a rhetorical question and expect a yes/no answer to it.

    57. That's my point.

    58. "Can science prove that a parent loves his/her child?"

      yes. now i want you to go look up "what is love" and you will find out how the brain reacts when we "love" something. then you are able to hook a parent up to a machine that would record the levels of things like dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin when in the presence or just talking about their child.

      the atoms in your body dont become happy, sad, or mournful. once again, you are using your own ignorance about reality to make arguments for your ignorance. its a vicious circle and you would be better to take a position of agnosticism because you clearly have not thought these through in an intellectually honest way.

    59. There's that beautiful little film on here, where they scan people's brains as they think of their lover. Can't remember what it's called though :)
      Edit! Sorry that made no sense, predictive text again. All better now!

    60. Hey WTC7, long time no see.

    61. Thanx for the clarification.

    62. After much digging in biblical history, Robert agrees Jesus existed or at least that's what i understood from his past comments in other docs.

    63. RobertAllen has never taken a position otherwise. One of the things we agree on.

    64. But I wish to stress AS A MAN ONLY.

    65. ok.

    66. "I've probably read and researched more then you on BOTH sides of the bloody issue from biology to physics to history and philosphy."

      i promise you that you have not researched more than I on any of those topics. and it is clear by your posts and the way you try to present the arguments.

      "What I HATE is people who don't understand that creation is a perfectly reasonable belief, especially when held up beside atheism and evolution which are even MORE unbelievably crazy."

      im sure its also unbelievably crazy to look at the stars and sun and say that the earth is the one rotating, but the evidence gives us what is not obvious. the evidence points to evolution so much so that it is probably the most supported theory in science, and to quote the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".

      atheism is the position that one doesnt believe there is a god. the reasonable position is not to claim the existence of something that lacks evidence. hence atheism is a much more logical position.

      "Thinking that creation is silly shows that you're not even mentally equipped to grasp the reality of atheism or evolution."

      right there is nothing silly about looking at the fossil record then saying "ALL THIS POPPED INTO EXISTENCE IN ITS PRESENT FORM!", and then not supporting that with any falsifiable claims.

      "Jesus EXISTED! Get over it!"

      possibly some dude who was a jew who ended up being a cult leader was named jesus back then, but that doesnt mean he was divine in any way. Siddh?rtha Gautama (Buddha) also existed.

      "The truth is the bible is the most accurate historical record if the first few thousand years of mans recorded history."

      so you are saying that there were millions of jewish slaves in egypt and they escaped in a giant exodus? you are saying that its historical fact that the dead rose up out of the ground and the sun stopped in the sky (once again, the language they used implied that the sun was the object moving not the earth....stup!d bible people)...hmm so you are saying that the earth was flooded entirely and all life killed except for one man and his family who dispersed all the animals to their respective lands and then repopulated the globe to 7 billion people in a few thousand years by having sex with their own family members? you are saying that people lived to 900+?

      there is some historicity found in EVERY ANCIENT TEXT. that doesnt make it historically reliable. i promise you that you can NOT use the bible as a reference when writing a history paper.

      i dont care about whether this man jesus existed or not. i do care that you pretend to understand science, biology, evolution, or just basic history and then say stup!d sh!t like all that drivel.

    67. As always a clear rebuttal - in this case to HTDGJ... .

      I particularly liked this passage -

      "possibly some dude who was a jew who ended up being a cult leader was named jesus back then, but that doesnt mean he was divine in any way. Siddh?rtha Gautama (Buddha) also existed"

      Why? Because it's right. To think or rather to believe otherwise is asinine.

      Note - You and some of the crew here (you know who you are) - might want to muse on taking the show on the road - that is to say , 'the debating circuit'.

    68. lol i spend a lot of time on "stickam" (a chat website) in a room called Debate. we debate religion there pretty often.

      anyone and everyone is welcome. you wont miss me there, i go by the same name.

    69. I'm a little confused. Ehrman is not the only biblical scholar out there, I don't know why you think nontheists would only read one author.

    70. Maybe because he's one of the more popular ones. We're hardly dealing with an individual with a wide range of knowledge.

      Once again, thanks for the great work.

    71. robertallen1
      pertaining to Jack's comments and the video he suggested i did start to watch it (maybe 25 min in) when i realized that he debated Bart Erhman on a christian radio station. i am 45min into that one not only does he not refute Ehrman but when he disagrees the christian host tends to back up Ehrman. the debate is audio only but interesting to listen to (based on the book misquoting Jesus). if interested go to youtube and search "Misquoting Jesus: Bart Ehrman vs Peter Williams ".

    72. I also watched that debate a long time ago and he did a lousy job debating Erhman. But the bottom line is that I take all the information and decide which is meaningful and which is circumstantial or only valid if it's supported by a fact or two.
      I found the evidence presented in the video to be extremely compelling and much more meaningful then anything Erhman has EVER come up with. And that video was just based on the details of the gospels.

    73. The bottom line is that you are ill-equipped and too under-educated to pass anything approaching substantial judgment on any of the information.

    74. Thanks a lot. Will do.

      In praising Kateye for her research on the documentary, I accidentally left out all your fine work. Please accept my apologies and my belated thanks.

    75. Watched it. What a shame they didn't argue about the last 12 verses of Mark. I noticed that at times, Mr. Williams does not respond directly to the issues raised by the Dr. Ehrman, but what can one expect from a person who places doctrine before hard evidence.

  82. It's worth noting that the production studio, LaBarge Media, is an advertising multi-media production company. Their client list includes Exxon Mobile, Kodak and Adobe. That's why the production values are so slick. The copy is nicely written, as well.

  83. So, when I was in college writing computer code, I was, in effect, an intelligent designer? Well, ain't that something. Omnipotence is cool. I have a vision of personal godlike grandeur that those who have never written computer code could ever appreciate. Kneel before me, unworthy ones.

    1. As an after thought, I could create a cyber world in which its inhabitants must be grateful for their existence to me. They must show their gratitude by heaping praise on me and believing in me. Those who refuse will be subject to my wrath and spend cyber eternity in hell-fire. Those who do will receive my grace and will be allowed to spend cyber eternity loving me and saying nice things about me.

      Omnipotence is so cool.

      But alas, my coding skills have suffered from lack of use. Maybe I take on a collaborator. Wait a minute. If I take on two collaborators we could be the Trinity. I, of course, would be the Father, the top dog, so to speak.

      Omnipotence is so very cool.

  84. I just finished watching the doc. I would like those who think this is a religious (hidden agenda) doc, point to me where exactly this is said in the doc.
    Vlatko had researched the makers of the doc and included in his description his opinion, but if he had not, where in the doc would someone have thought it was.
    I am not arguing anyone here, i am asking.
    Include the phrases and the timing so i can rewatch. Thank you!

    1. It's mostly implied. The smug git in the hiddeous brown shirt mentioned the undirected origin of life being near impossible, in other words GOD. No? If it's not an ID film then what is it?

      I have no time for you but it's towards the end(ish) when he's doing the grain of sand nonesense.

    2. from your facebook page:
      "Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith."
      How do you propose ID proponents or doubters, including religious people who are praisers go about doing that?
      Here i am saying there are people who have no affiliations with religion who still think an intelligence design is at work, be it a computer, or the universes itself.
      What if one lines himself with pantheism or monism or other ism?

      "The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general." wiki under religion.
      Copied from the wiki page on pantheism:
      In 2008, Albert Einstein's 1954 German letter in which he dismissed belief in a personal God was auctioned off for more than US$330,000. Einstein wrote, "We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul ("Beseeltheit") as it reveals itself in man and animal." in a letter to Eduard Büsching (25 October 1929) after Büsching sent Einstein a copy of his book Es gibt keinen Gott. Einstein responded that the book only dealt with the concept of a personal God and not the impersonal God of pantheism. "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly," he wrote in another letter in 1954."

      I will most likely be attacked for including a quote by Einstein but it is right there under pantheism.

    3. @oQ,

      And your point is?

      While you're at Wikipedia read the articles about ID, Discovery Institute, and Donald E. Johnson (the author of the book that this video is based on). Further more read about all the people who appear in the video.

      I see you like quotes so here is one:

      In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

      So instead checking the credibility and the intentions of the film you went to Wiki and quoted Einstein. Bravo.

    4. My point is, perhaps many people would not have seen the hidden agenda if it was not pointed by you in the description.
      I did look into the makers of the doc prior to you kindly suggesting it here.
      I quoted Einstein not to you but to Dean, in order to support my question to him. I made it clear where the quotes came from. I see nothing wrong in quoting wiki, Epicurus and others do it often , and you are doing it here.
      Bravo? Your comment to me are most of the time condescending.

    5. As long as you quote honestly.

    6. I always do.

    7. Is your quotation from the Wikipedia article on science an example of what you consider honesty? If so, you have a lot to think about.

    8. Yes it is. I have thought about it.

    9. Because you left out a relevant and key quotation, it's dishonest.

      Let me provide you with an appropriate analogy from law. If an attorney cites only a portion of a case to support an argument and omits another portion of that same decision which goes against his argument, he can be disabarred for misleading the court.

    10. I left out (approx) 99% of the wiki result for SCIENTIST. As i said i wrote down the first phrase and added it was from WIKi. Nothing dishonest about that. I did not try to hide anything, or skew anything. Actually if i had only copied the key quotation you refer to (not sure which one that is, out of the whole page)...i would have done the same thing you are accusing me of...even worst as it would not have been at the beginning of the article referred to.
      You can think of me in all the dishonest ways your mind come up with, it is not my problem, it's yours.
      had to edit from the word SCIENCE to SCIENTIST, which is the page i had copied the first phrase.

    11. What you did makes you a cheat pure and simple.

    12. Then you should have copied both, not just the one which you think favors you. Obviously my analogy to law did not penetrate.

    13. Which are the both?

      When science is done with an inclusion of intangible aspects of reality it is called natural philosophy. OR
      We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. OR
      Scientists include theoreticians who mainly develop new models to explain existing data and predict new results. OR
      Scientists can be motivated in several ways. Many have a desire to understand why the world is as we see it and how it came to be. OR

      which other one? I copied the first phrase, if you don't like what it says in wiki, i would suggest you do as you had suggested to someone not long a go...edit the page.

    14. None of them. You still omit. "Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of NATURE, including PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL and SOCIAL realms [emphasis added]." Both Over the Edge and Vlatko called you on this serious omission. What is there that you don't understand--or is it all a poor attempt at cover-up? One way or the other, it doesn't wash. You're dishonest and that's all there is to it.

    15. your as clear as mud you are mate.

    16. @oQ,

      I didn't say you are forbidden to quote nor that it is bad to quote.

    17. I didn't say that either.

      You said: "So instead checking the credibility and the intentions of the film you went to Wiki and quoted Einstein. Bravo."

      no instead...i did check the makers before there was even one comment on the whole thread. 262 comments ago.
      What was bravo suppose to mean?

    18. @oQ,

      Why are you nitpicking?

      You said: "I see nothing wrong in quoting wiki."

      I said: "I didn't say you are forbidden to quote nor that it is bad to quote."

      Do I have to rephrase myself. So be it. There is nothing wrong in quoting wiki.

      Bravo = Approval of a performance.

    19. I'm not sure what youre getting at.

    20. May be i made my question confusing by adding wiki links, although i was hoping to add to the clarity of my question.

      From your facebook page you say you support the philosophy of Secular humanist: In the page linked to your page it says: "Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith."
      How do you propose ID proponents or doubters, including religious people (who are praisers) go about doing that?

    21. @oQ,

      If it has "hidden agenda" would you expect their message to be directly delivered to you. For starters read all the comments, especially the ones made by @Katye70. Thank you.

    22. That's exactly my question. Would people have thought by just watching the doc that there was a hidden agenda?

    23. @oQ,

      Children and those without medium to high subject matter knowledge would certainly not. Can you see the dishonesty?

    24. oQ,
      maybe i am just getting used to the games that ID uses but here are a couple of things that bothered me . right off the start at 1:25 the video claims that every cell contains DNA which is totally false and if the makers were actually interested in a scientifically accurate investigation such a glaring mistake would never be made (mature red blood cells do not contain DNA) "information science" is no more of a science than "political science " is . then it tries to tie chemical interactions within the body ("information " transfer) to things like " information requires a sender and a receiver" (4:30) to imply that an intelligence is required. the question "can information form by chance" (3:57) chance being another buzz word used by ID referring incorrectly to evolution being solely by chance. they also compare a known non living man made item to living things (stop lights,pennies and mount Rushmore to name a few). or at 35:30 "what is the probability of a simple cell evolving by undirected natural processes" another old ID lie . evolution is not undirected it is directed by natural selection and only creationists refer to it as "undirected". then immediately followed by a probability given without the equations and reasoning behind the statement given. a scientist would never state a probability without giving the evidence,reasoning and methodology used to reach such a conclusion. now i just skipped through and picked these out (i like you but i am not going to watch entire doc again lol) i am sure there are many more.

    25. Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion.

      about cells and DNA..."DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA)."
      I found this under Genetic Home references.
      Please explain your stand on DNA and cells.

    26. good work.

    27. At the very beginning, the narrator "Chris" says,

      "Hi, my name's Chris, and we're going to dive deep into the world of cellular biology and INFORMATION SCIENCE to see if we might get a little closer to the big question, "Where did we come from?"

      I capitalized "information science", because that was my first clue. It is now code for "intelligent design." I know this because I keep checking their website.

      From wiki:

      "Information science is often (mistakenly) considered a branch of computer science. However, it is actually a broad, interdisciplinary field, incorporating not only aspects of computer science, but often diverse fields such as archival science, cognitive science, commerce, communications, law, library science, museology, management, mathematics, philosophy, public policy, and the social sciences.

      "Information science should not be confused with information theory, the study of a particular mathematical concept of information, or with library science, a field related to libraries which uses some of the principles of information science."

      Please note that cellular biology is not included in that list. In fact, I don't see any biology fields listed there.

      At 38:39 the placard "OPERATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE" concludes the probability explanation--already discussed by others.

      Narrator "Chris":
      "So, knowing all of this, should the popular scenario of chemical and biological evolution be taught globally as the only explanation of the origin of life and species? (Note that "ORIGIN OF LIFE" is concatenated with "species". Now the origin of SPECIES has become a 'popular scenario' and apparently is not a well-researched field of study.)

      "It's my belief that we're not opening our minds to the possibility of other explanations. (I thought scientist did that already, but whatever, it's his opinion.)

      "Now, one of the most basic concepts you should have learned...
      (note that this documentary is pretty basic; no practicing scientist would actually watch it to learn anything; clearly aimed at a student and lay audience.)

      " that if observations and data contradict the theory you're testing, then theory should be modified or abandoned. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be happening to the present, most popular model of origins. (So, Are we talking ORIGIN OF LIFE or ORIGIN OF SPECIES here?)

      "Instead, many scientists are trying to take information and make it 'fit' the evolutionary models." (Now we are talking "EVOLUTION" instead of origin of life.)

      At 40:10 "Chris" continues:

      "...As we gather information, it is up to us as scientists, students and colleagues, to bring science to a level of integrity and critical examination that it deserves. (Apparently the current field of science does not currently have integrity nor are results critically examined.)

      "If we approach science with an UNSUPPORTED PREARRANGED BIAS, then what we're trying to accomplish is not really science at all. (Casting doubt on current science as lacking integrity, critical thinking and as being biased and unsupported by evidence.)

      "The beauty of science is that we're able to move away from accepted dogma to examine the evidences. (Current science is now ACCEPTED DOGMA.)

      "It's not up to us to disprove a given theory, it's up to the theory to prove itself against the laws of science. If a theory fails to do this, then it should be rejected and we should search for more knowledge in order to, as Sigmund Freud said, discover the entire truth. (I believe this done on a regular basis by scientists.)

      "The possibility of life evolving, using the known laws of chemistry and physics, is operationally impossible. When we consider the laws of information, that possibility now becomes impossible. (The laws of chemistry and physics are now superceded by the laws of information--see definition, above.)

      "Meaningful, prescriptive information cannot arise from nothing, no matter how much time you allow. And until we acknowledge this, we will never discover the origin of life."

      In the end, there is no actual proposition of a theory to replace the "accepted dogma" of current science.

      So what is the point of this video, other than to convince students and lay people who are NOT scientists that science is dishonest, dogmatic, and close-minded? Which, by the by, is a marvelously adept MARKETING STRATEGY.

    28. You've certainly put in a lot of time and effort on a worthy cause and I for one applaud you. The first part of the documentary was obviously not as good as I thought it was and I retract any positive comments I made about it. Once again, thanks for your effort.

    29. you prove my point!

    30. @oQ,

      No he doesn't. In fact you don't have a point. @Robert from the very beginning agreed that this video is ID junk. He ONLY stated that the first 15 minutes are well made and could be used in class.

    31. I agree Robert from the very beginning agreed that this video is ID junk.
      I should have said Robert shows how the doc could have had a different impact.
      I am still awaiting an answer from Dean.

    32. What point?

    33. Why thank you =)

  85. In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 % of U.S. scientists said they believe in God.

    Page 2 of 2

    Kateye70, if you can be as bothered reading the full article as you can be bothered attacking me,

    try googling.....

    "evolution and religion can coexist, scientists say
    national geographic"

    It's an interesting read and the search for truth is not embarrassing....for me anyway

    1. Emanouel
      how many of these 40% deny abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang? how many of them believe in the same god as you do? but as long as we are using stats here is one for you. the discovery institute released a petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" as of august 2008 a grand total of 761 signatures were collected. here is a quote just to show you the impact of ten years of collecting signatures
      "After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press" (source: Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins)

    2. Maybe the search for truth is interesting...quoting a facebook meme photo certainly should be embarrassing, however. (Although I do admit that Gene Wilder's Willie Wonka is wonderfully wicked.)

      I have no problem with theist scientists, although what that has to do ID marketing is beyond me. If you haven't figured it out, that's what this doc really is.

      As to your comment that "If information is indeed gleaned from creationist websites, this does not necessarily render it invalid." I have to disagree.

      When an organization takes it upon itself to inject theology INTO science, that is highly dishonest and immediately renders any information they produce as suspect.

      You should locate and read the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" and even better, read "Marketing Intelligent Design" by Frank S. Ravitch, to find out exactly why so many of us are disgusted with them. You will find every marketing tool in the book (literally and figuratively) in this video.

      As I've said before, spiritual beliefs are one thing. But religion is man-made, and relies on money and power.

    3. I agree. BTW "yes" to causing mischief ;-)

    4. You're not going to find it on a creationist website.

  86. Thanks.
    Haven't seen it yet.
    Will watch it soon.

  87. Disgusting documentary. But amusing at the same time. Theists engageing in science will always end up digging their own graves. There is no proof whatsoever for the existence of any god. The sooner everyone accepts that the better off everyone will be.

  88. I was all riled up for a laugh hoping this was some unashamed "creationist camp" educational lecture with talking dinosaurs and whatnot, yet I find it's exactly the same as all those boring "Discovery Science" productions you see on TV every day.

    The first few chapters of any introductory litterature in biochemistry (such as Lehninger: Principles of Biochemistry for example) make alot more sense than the attempt-at-being-confusing language and naggingly suggestive imagery of this documentary.

    I personally have nothing against the Intelligent Design movement, and I'm not well-read on their methods and organisation, but if this documentary represents their "serious face" in public media, I can't imagine they present much of a threat to established theories about the origin of life. After all, you can't be wrong when you're not even making a claim in the first place. These people should grow some balls where their wallets currently occupy.

    The process of actually studying biochemistry and genetics opens up far more interesting avenues of thought than what can be accomplished by endlessly pondering the implication of a creator into it all. That's what I think anyway.

    1. One of the positive results of posting this documentary. Vlatko had the right idea.

  89. So science has much work still to do, that's not news. I struggled to find the central point the film was trying to make other than implying a god directed events to bring about life evidenced by the probability figures. It offered nothing in the way of an alternative theory other than to recommend being sort of open minded.

    If the film is correct, what god should I now choose as my creator? Religious people take a huge leap of faith when they choose*** a religion because it's impossible to get father down the path of belief than Deism. Deism is sort of a dead end and we’re still left needing pure science to provide the answers to the big questions.

    Pointless video if all it did was to remind us to be critical thinkers. Of course it’s really a subtle and slightly underhanded presentation of Intelligent Designs’ strongest arguments. And that awful chocolate brown shirt.

    *** Essentially, it chooses them as the random outcome of where they were born.

  90. Interesting for sure.
    But just assuming the program has some truth, then it could be argued all of life
    and its activities are the result of a "programmed scipt"

    Hence so called free will is an illustion, and thats been suggested before today.

  91. How smug is that presenter? And that awefull chocolate brown shirt. Why are relgious appologists always so badly dressed?

    1. You're right. Sack cloth and ashes would be more appropriate.

  92. Let us move forward. we rejected christianity while others still believe in it. I move on and reject Evolution as an explanation to the origin of life. anyway if it is not like a religion why are you stuck in it. Let us think critically I see we have Evolutionist to fight as it is more of a religion now than ever.
    to vlatko even if you are evolutionist you shouldn't have described the doc that way. leave us to judge or else the site looses credibility and it becomes one of the evolutionist site. Freedom of expresion should be there even if someone speaks crap just form your own opinion but let us hear him/her first. thank you vlatko for having the courage to post this documentary.

    1. How many times do you have to be told in your various incarnations that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life (abiogenesis)? How many times do you have to be told that evolution is not a religion, for it is based on facts and that if the facts change so greatly as to render it no longer viable, the science will change. On the other hand, religion is based on faith and dogma which are antipodal to science. If you can't see the difference, you need a better education.

      Freedom of expression is not the issue and don't try to make it one. It's a matter of the wilful deception of creationists and the like.

    2. Avant Garde