1. Adam Metropolis > > > DARWIN IS DEAD, Part 2: "Suppressing the Truth"


    from love the cross / Added

    3 Plays / / 0 Comments

    Humanity presumes upon God's grace in its rebellion against him, suppressing the truth that his reign is still in effect. http://lovethecross.com

    + More details
    • Atheism: Unyielding Despair


      from shirley rose / Added

      11 Plays / / 0 Comments

      Lecture by Mark Driscoll

      + More details
      • JOTC #13 : Hasn't Evolution Disproved God


        from Everyday Church / Added

        94 Plays / / 0 Comments

        Some would say that the biggest setback Christianity has faced in the West was the publication of Charles Darwin’s books on “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man.” As a result, Richard Dawkins and others have said that the theory of evolution made it possible for the first time to be an “intellectually fulfilled” atheist. But is there a trade-off between Evolution and God? And what does Jesus have to say on the matter? #Everyday http://www.everyday.org.uk/sermons/jesus-couch/hasnt-evolution-disproved-god

        + More details
        • The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 5


          from Jefferson Drexler / Added

          30 Plays / / 0 Comments

          To purchase the entire DVD set of the Summit Lecture Series, visit summit.org. Charles Darwin proposed a mechanism that causes the process of evolution from a common ancestor to take place without an intelligent agent involved. His mechanism is natural selection acting on random mutation. That’s the core of Darwin’s theory. So, with that being said, let’s take a look at some of the evidence: First off, let’s look at the Miller-Urey Experiment. In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sought to find out how life first emerged from “non-life”. So, they took a beaker and put in it the elements that they thought existed in “early earth”, heated the beaker so that the gases traveled up a tube, and shocked the gas with electricity. However, upon chemical analysis of their results, they found amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. This was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough. They thought that if one simple experiment, imitating the early atmosphere on earth, produces amino acids, then imagine what would happen as science progresses… scientists would be able to explain the origin of life easily! Or, as Carl Sagan put it: “The [Miller-Urey Experiment] is the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.” Now, right away, you should be noticing something that is suspect about this experiment – it is totally intelligently designed. Certain chemicals were chosen (at the exclusion of others); they were placed in a controlled environment; the chemicals and gases were directed into a certain place… information and intelligent human input are all over the experiment! Instead of being a purely blind experiment, it is a directed experiment where information and input are parts of its innate process. Another problem with the experiment is that there is no evidence that this pre-biotic soup ever existed. Too many people assume that there were prehistoric pools of chemicals and elements that would blend to create life, but there is no evidence that these pools ever existed. Thirdly, the early atmosphere was different than the chemicals that Miller and Urey actually used. We know now, due to residue on rocks that we have found through the geological record, that other gases were present than were used in the Miller-Urey experiment. If they were to have used the correct gases, they would get nothing more than a chemical sludge containing no amino acids and is not even remotely close to something that could produce life. But the most crippling aspect of this theory is the fact that amino acids are not life. Even Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion that the simplest form of life is a living cell. The difference between an amino acid and a living cell is like the difference between a single brick and the entire city of Chicago! You see, when they performed this experiment, the scientists didn’t understand the way that life worked. They thought that it was simple. Now that we are able to peer into living cells, we have discovered such incredible technology within them, that now scientists are looking at cells and bacteria to get ideas about how to build better computers. And we’re supposed to believe that this came about by chemicals in motion? I don’t have enough faith to believe that. Now, since 1952, some scientists have conceded that the problem is greater than they had originally thought. Even Stanley Miller stated: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Then, outspoken atheist and fellow scientist Massimo Pigliucci said: “Unfortunately, Miller-type experiments have not progressed much further than their original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.” So, when both sides are looked at, does evolution sound like, “Fact… fact… fact?” Yet, Miller’s works are published in over 30% of our nation’s textbooks today. In many of them, Miller says: “This and other experiments suggested how simple compounds found on the early Earth could have combined to form the organic compounds needed for life.” Not a hint of the other side of the argument or even possibility that an intelligent agent is involved.

          + More details
          • Adam Metropolis > > > DARWIN IS DEAD, Part 1: "Your Children"


            from love the cross / Added

            7 Plays / / 0 Comments

            What are the consequences of the Doctrine of Evolution? http://lovethecross.com

            + More details
            • The Pitt Rivers Museum... is Shut


              from Celia Lowenstein / Added

              Human creativity around the world, centered in one museum. James Fenton narrates the film, with contributions from David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Penelope Lively, Abdul Tee-Jay and the millions of objects from this extraordinary museum in Oxford, England. Channel 4, Rear Window, 1989 Nominated for an Emmy Award 1989

              + More details
              • Is God a Moral Monster?


                from shirley rose / Added

                10 Plays / / 0 Comments

                Does the Old Testament God promote rape, genocide, murder, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.? Paul Copan shows how the New Atheists (like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc.) have no serious understanding or historical context of the Old Testament or of Israel's campaign against the Canaanites.

                + More details
                • Rosy Glow


                  from NutritionFacts / Added

                  For links to all the cited sources, a written transcript, commentary from Dr. Greger, as well as discussion and Q&A about this video, go to: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/rosy-glow/

                  + More details
                  • William Lane Craig Destroys Richard Dawkins


                    from Ken Chen / Added

                    40 Plays / / 0 Comments

                    William Lane Craig not only scares Richard Dawkins but he destroys his arguments against the existence of God.

                    + More details
                    • The Summit Lecture Series: Myths of Evolution with Sean McDowell, part 1


                      from Jefferson Drexler / Added

                      61 Plays / / 0 Comments

                      I was on a plane a number of years ago, and I was watching a video, minding my own business… have you ever tried to watch a movie or read a book on a plane and the person next to you is just intent on nosing in and finding out what’s going on? Well, I was watching PBS’s “Evolution”; and as I finished and closed my laptop, the lady next to me turns to me and asked, “What did you think about that show?” I replied, “Well, I thought it was interesting. It was definitely well done. But I think it was incredibly biased and one-sided.” The moment that I started to show any sign of disagreement with the show – or evolution in general – this previously engaging and inviting woman became dismissive. “Ohhh… you’re one of those ‘evolution haters’, aren’t you?” I replied, “I don’t hate evolution. I don’t want to be a hater of anything, really. I just think that this was a very biased program. I would think that for a public show, it would be more open and fair to all sides of the argument.” What I didn’t know at the time was that this woman on the plane was an agnostic (or some version of atheism) geologist with a Ph.D. And I was just a recent college grad trying to figure out life, its origins, and my own worldview. So, we went back and forth about fossil records and other evidence supporting evolution. Finally, I simply asked her, “Could you name any book that you’ve read, in all your studies, that offer the other side of your argument? What’s the best book you’ve read offering a critique of evolution?” She couldn’t come up with a single one. In fact, she never studied the other side. Which I found interesting, as I had read books by Dawkins, Shermer, Dennett and many others. Now, reading both sides of the argument doesn’t make me right; but I simply find it interesting that someone could go their whole education and receive one side of the story and not the other perspective. There’s actually a Bible verse that speaks to this: “The first to speak in court sounds right – until the cross-examination begins.” (Proverbs 18:17) Yet, throughout our educational system today, it’s clear that when it comes to the origin of life, only one side gets to speak. No wonder people find evolution so compelling. For instance, there are widely held beliefs that stem from quotes such as this from Richard Dawkins: “Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust.” Then he said in a piece for the New York Times: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Another famous quote along these lines comes from Michael Ruse: “Evolution is fact, fact, FACT!” At least National Geographic went against the grain to post a cover that asked the question, “Was Darwin Wrong?” (yet when you opened up the first page, the magazine answered right away, “No.”) But, this all begs these questions: Is the evidence for evolution really as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust? For gravity? Are you stupid, ignorant, wicked, or insane for questioning it? Is the evidence really overwhelming? Or is something else at stake here? Ironically, I believe that we should follow the advice of Charles Darwin, himself: “A fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” You see, even Darwin realized that good education and thinking requires balancing both sides, looking at the evidence , and then freely deciding which explanation best accounts for the most evidence. But before we dive into all this, we need to ask, “Why does this issue even matter?” Shouldn’t we just say something like, “Maybe God used evolution” and stop fighting over this issue? Well, the reason is because: Ideas have consequences. Also, ideas have “feet”, in that they carry themselves out into the world, thus bringing their consequences into our everyday lives. For instance, in 2005 at the London Zoo, there was an exhibit called “Humans In Their Natural Habitat”. They had men and women wearing bathing suits on display, behaving like animals – even pretending to pull parasites out of one another’s hair, socially grooming each other like baboons. This was an actual exhibit at the world famous London Zoo. A little girl was standing near a zoo spokesperson when she asked her mother, “Mommy… why are they in there?” The spokesperson replied: “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals, teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.”

                      + More details

                      What are Tags?


                      Tags are keywords that describe videos. For example, a video of your Hawaiian vacation might be tagged with "Hawaii," "beach," "surfing," and "sunburn."