Can't watch it. Is it up anywhere other than google or youtube?

I am not going to finish watching it because the individuals on the film have no clue of what evolutionary theory is. Another reason is the suggestion of taxpayer dollars being wasted smells of a politically motivated film. Any science that proves or disproves anything is worth the money. No findings are findings. Also, not finding evidence of life in a couple scoops of soil from Mars has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The scientist offer no viable alternative explanation and the idea of mutations does not involve multiple heads and arms.

Everything that I was going to say has already been said in the comment section of the Google video page.

Vastet, I am sorry but I cannot find the video outside of Google.  Can you not download with Google Player then rename the file from *.gvi to *.avi? Or what is the problem?

RationalSchema, if I dared to refuse to consider evidence before making a subjective entry, you would have a field-day with me! Where is your rational response, RationalSchema? I beg you to pick up where you left off, as that is where it starts getting good.  Plus, why would a non-profit organization out of Europe care about tax waste in the USA? It was showing that the lack of finds, were not justifying the amount of money spent.

Mindspread, did you even read the first entry in its entirity? I asked for Rational Responses, the thing which this site is supposed to have so many of, but one which you did not give. If you have no evidence against what is in the movie to rationally respond, then tell us what your favorite entry in the comment section is, hmm?

I don't know much science either, but I've responded to you in one or two other threads, and you haven't responded back. Yes, you don't ask good questions. You seem to post other material.

Nationalities of the scientists?! You think we're bigots? Science is science. Science transcends race, gender, and nationality. You think we're going to personally attack you, but you imply that we'll be prejudiced against scientists of different nationality? Come on. Let's be consistent at least.

Look, Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome, for your sake I'll watch the whole video, and give a response. But I want something in return. I want you to start doing your own homework. Go to this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Bookmark this site. Please spend some time looking through it.

When your going to post things about creationism, look and see if it's already addressed at talkorigins. If it is, and you have no good arguments to counter talkorigins, don't post it. Deal?

If you accept I'll try to get something up Thursday or Friday. It's a long film, and might take a while to go through. I'd rather read some text, it would make it so much easier on us to go through and give our "rational response."

Holy Spirit, I will ask you to read again what I wrote. There is not subjectivism here. I explain that not finding evidence of something is a finding and is the sole purpose of science. If money is given to a study that finds nothing it is not a waste. I would suggest you remember your statement about knowing nothing of science and go learn that science is not about proving theories but disproving them.

Also, the observation that these gentlement know nothing of evolution theory is not subjective. If a guy claiming to know something about mathemathics thinks 7 X 7 = 51 would you keep listening????

Holy, I also want to ask you if you think the individuals on the video, not the scientists, but the narrator are being objective??

I've watched this before and its retarded to say the least. I agree with RationalSchema when he says they know nothing of evolution. I even think the people at the Discovery Insitute say the things in this video are not good arguments against evolution. I could be wrong on that but not on the fact that these people know nothing of evolution. I'll let  the people on here who really know evolution explain why this guy knows nothing about evolution.

RationalSchema, you are proving yourself to be irrational:

1a) Quote-"...the individuals on the film have no clue of what evolutionary theory is. Another reason is the suggestion of taxpayer dollars being wasted smells of a politically motivated film..."

1b) Quote-"...I will ask you to read again what I wrote. There is not subjectivism here..."

1c) Quote-"I explain that not finding evidence of something is a finding and is the sole purpose of science."

1d) Quote-"science is not about proving theories but disproving them."

1e) Quote-"Also, the observation that these gentlement know nothing of evolution theory is not subjective."

1f) Quote-"If a guy claiming to know something about mathemathics thinks 7 X 7 = 51 would you keep listening????"

1g) Quote-"I also want to ask you if you think the individuals on the video, not the scientists, but the narrator are being objective??"

2a) Definition-subjective: 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 

2b) Definition-Science: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 

2c) Definition-mathematics: 1. (used with a singular verb) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.

2d) Definition-irrational: 1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. 3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

2e) Definition-Peter Wilders: Delft University of Technology professor, Department Of Mathematics, and Narrator of "Evolution: Fact or Belief?"

3a) CONCLUSION 1: (1a) exists in the mind of the speaker, without objective evidence, ergo IAW (2a) is subjective, which contradicts (1b)

3b) CONCLUSION 2: (1c) asserts that science states nothing=something, but (2b.2) asserts that science is a gained systematic knowledge. These are not exclusively equal.

3c) CONCLUSION 3: (1d)=/=(2b).

3d) CONCLUSION 4: (1e). For someone to provide biological, genetic, and geological evidence against evolution, whether he has a working knowledge of evolution or not, is evidence for which the evolutionist is required to give a logical counterpoise.  Since the film makers knew exactly what evidence to provide, one can believe it was either extreme luck, or that these men knew about the theory of their opponents.

3e) CONCLUSION 5: By (2b) and (2c), mathematics is a subset of science but not vise versa, making (1f) an invalid illustration. 3e.a)(But for arguments sake, the evidence provided in the film tells me that evolution is theorizing ways to make 7 x 7 = 51.  Rather than not keep listening, I am providing reason to show that 7 x 7 =/= 51. So to answer your question, yes i am continuing to listen to learn the loops in the theory of evolution to better equip myself.)

3f) CONCLUSION 6: (1g). By (2e), the narrator is a professor of the Science of numbers, a scientist of a form. He is not unaquainted with objectivity since he teaches arguably the most objective form of science. It is still possible that he was subjective, but it is more likely that he tends to the objective side. What I think of him is subjective and therefore irrelevant.

3g) Conclusion 7: By (3a) (3b) (3c) and (3e) minimally, as compared to (2a) and (2d), it can be concluded that you, RationalSchema, have spoken subjectively and irrationally.

Google video and Youtube are blocked administratively. I'm at work.

I admit, I chuckled at this.

It's an interesting attempt at logic.  I'll give you that.

3a Invalid conclusion.  You are attempting to equate the subjective statement "x doesn't know about y" with the empirical evidence that supports the proposition that "x doesn't know about y." 

3b Invalid conclusion.  1c, properly read, states that a scientific inquiry which yields negative results has achieved results.  The use of the words "something" and "nothing" are incorrect here.  Fallacy of equivocation, if I remember correctly. 

3c Invalid conclusion.  The definition of science given was not comprehensive, and did not bother to define experimentation or observation.   Experimentation does indeed include the concept of falsification (disproving!).

3d,e,f,g: Invalid conclusion.  These are arguments.  Not conclusions.

You've done a remarkable job of posting a poorly thought out essay in the form of a logical proof, but it is not, in fact, a logical proof.

Try again.

Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome, did you eat a dictionary and then crap it out?

The dictionary's definitions of science and mathematics are very broad, and leave out a lot of detail. Science is not just "gained systematic knowledge." Science is a process of gaining knowledge about the physical world. This process involves inductive logic.

Who said that science states nothing? The discussion was about the failure to find evidence of life on Mars in the 1970's. This is something. It's knowledge that the experiments gave no evidence of life near the spacecraft. Or to put in in a positive way, mars was sterile around the spacecraft.

How is someone going to have evidence against evolution, when they don't even know what evolution is? Please explain? Why should biologist take seriously the objections of people ignorant of biology?

Or they knew a straw man version of evolutionary theory which they then attacked.

Mathematics is NOT a subset of science in the following sense. Science studies the natural world using INDUCTIVE logic. Mathematics is NOT about studying the natural world, and uses DEDUCTIVE logic.

No, because 7 x 7 = 51 can be show false by deductive reasoning (given the normal axioms of arithmetic). The theory of evolution is based on inductive reasoning, using evidence and experiment. These are different methods for gaining knowledge of different things.

So are you going to agree to the deal I mentioned in my last post?

Thank your Mr. Rage, you just saved me alot of time I don't have.

I would like to add that according to Holy Spirit's arguement even everybody is irrational and always subjective. Yes, in a way everybody's own biases, judgements, stereotypes and heuristics influence your thinking. However, an individual can recognize these and work towards being objective as possible. This is why we have scientific evidence, validation studies, Replication studies and so forth. I don't know what is irrational about suggesting that no finding is a finding and that these gentlemen completely have evolution wrong. Yes Holy, they are presenting evidence against something and for something. One problem. It isn't evolution and it isn't for GOD.

 BTW the dictionary is something that changes frequently with culture. Language and linguistics have change and Evolved (four letter word) over the course of history. So, your dictionary is a collective subjectiveness of how our culture generally defines these terms at this point in time.

Holy Spirit Wrote -

For someone to provide biological, genetic, and geological evidence against evolution, whether he has a working knowledge of evolution or not, is evidence for which the evolutionist is required to give a logical counterpoise. Since the film makers knew exactly what evidence to provide, one can believe it was either extreme luck, or that these men knew about the theory of their opponents.

You call me irrational. I guess rational responses would be irrational to someone who is irrational.

How can you provide evidence against something you don't even know about?????

They are not providing evidence against evolution. They are providing evidence against what they think is evolution!!! Again finding no life in about .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of Mars soil has nothing to do with Evolution. You can't mix apples and oranges. I don't really know how else to dumb this down for you.

Please tell me this makes sense!!! 

Exactly. It's such a common error, I wonder why I overlooked it in my last reply. I've watched the first 9 minutes of the video and they're trying to disprove abiogenesis, not evolution.

It's been a day, and my posts are STILL UNANSWERED by Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome.

He should know you replied, I mean he is the Holy Spirit! Isn't he??

You'd think so. He used to indwell me once. I guess he left after I became an atheist.

I'm not trying to be rude or mean to Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome (HSiW), but this is the second time I've made rebuttals to his/her own blog posts that he/she has ignored.

HSiW is employing the "give me a rational response to this" rhetoric. He/she accuses us of being irrational when we blow off this video. But HSiW doesn't actually want to search out both sides of the issue before posting these videos, or so it appears to me. (That's the whole point of my "deal" in an earlier post.) This is highly irrational to me.

HSiW, are you really here for dialog?

It is good to see everyone chipper and alive! I enjoyed several days away from this website, and now I see a number of folks have been waiting for my return to reply. My apologies, that I have kept you all waiting.

Vastet, I tried uplaoding it to my personal site for your download, but it is too large. If you give me a mailing address I would be happy to send you a copy of the AVI on a cd.

Well, I assume it was one of the administrators who assigned me such a goofy avatar, but rather than delete or change it, I will keep it as it attests to the general consensus of this site of my reputation.  (God blesses those people who are treated badly for doing right. Matthew 5:10) Thank you, who ever you are.

Hambydamit, thank you for your segment on my posting. Fortunate for me, you are not the standard of logical perfection.

MrRage and RationalSchema, there is a trend in your posts. You are discounting the definitions of words which I referenced from Dictionary.com and then copied and pasted directly into my post.  (Yes dictionaries change over time, RS, but it is because definitions of words change. In order to say exactly what i mean then i should be able to do so using a current dictionary, such as dictionary.com? What standard is better at defining words?) I knew that your worldviews define yourselves as the ultimate standard, but have you broadened that philsophy even to the dictionary and definition of words? If you will not take any of my standards as your standards, tell me what you do consider a standard, from which i can begin.  (And stating that yourself is that standard is circular, since you are the one deciding, and if it is science, keep reading.)

Well i see that most arguments are steming off of the first 9 minutes of the video.  Here are some other points mentioned if one took the time to watch the film in its entirity:

"Evolution: Fact or Belief?" Sarong, 1998

9:40-Absence of transitional species in fossil record.

15:04-Genetics, molecular biology and species transition

21:00-Geology, Banks, Strata, and Layers. Depth provides no indication of age.

51:30-Aging Techniques and their assumptions/down-falls

60:00-Zoology, molecular biology, muations, varieties, genetic drift.

68:55-Brief recap.

I know that this is not the first time you have heard of some or all of these. I am sorry, but that does not concern me as much as how these points crumble many of the pillars that evolution tries to build on, and consequently why you still choose to hold so fastly to it. Is it, as the film shows, that you are holding to it becuse it is your philosophy?

Perhaps discussions on these subjects, and the words of the scientists in the film over these areas will prove more productive than the strife of the more recent posts. Share with me the vast amount of evidence which refutes these things, people...my plea is simple!

PS, the Holy Spirit dwells in me...I am not He.

PPS, No deal MrRage. God's laws are greater than man's, and he has given Christians (including me) a job to do.

Since I am just getting started, i am still learning the evolutionists side...yes. But if you genuinely find it irrational not to study both sides of an argument, then you won't mind watching the video in its entirity and giving your responses to the above topics, regardless of if i accepted your deal or not.

This shit is over an hour long! I'm afraid that because I have no immortal soul and only this one life to live, I can't waste that much time indulging you, particularly since I can't imagine this video offers any new arguments which I've never heard before. If you have a specific argument you want to take from the video, please post it here and I'll response to it. Otherwise, my time is too important.

The only other offer I'll make is, if you go to: http://www.myspace.com/145688843

and watch each and every one of the videos embedded there (not even an hours worth), I'll be convinced that you're serious enough to warrent me watching your whole video. Agreed? 

Holy Spirit, since you're such a great logician, you won't mind answering my refutation of your proof, will you?

I won't really respect your dismissal of my logic skills unless you can demonstrate that I'm wrong.

That is, after all, how logic works, right?  Demonstrating validity?

I wasn't holding my breath. Good to see you haven't abandoned us.

I really wish that the admins would make it clear that the avatar wasn't added by the user. But yes it does reflect your reputation. Maybe you should do something about that?

I didn't discount the definitions. I said the definition of science you were using was too broad. It's impossible to reduce the complexity of science and math down to a handful of sentences.

No, it doesn't.

No, I don't. I strive to use the word science as scientists use it

You need to use words in their proper context. That's all I pointed out. Use the words science and mathematics as scientist and mathematicians use them. Once again, you were using too broad of a definition of science, and were conflating math and science.

Do you actually disagree with my previous post? If so, why don't you show me where I was wrong instead of saying that I just made things up?

That's all I've watched because you haven't agreed to my deal.

Many of those listed points have been dealt with over and over, so it's not true that they "crumble many of the pillars that evolution tries to build on". I'm not persuaded by the points against evolution because I think they have been adequately responded to (not in this thread, but in other places.)

Are you holding on to creationism because of your philosophy? Take the plank out of your own eye first.

I'm sure any refutation we can possibly give is already in the talk origins site I linked to earlier. You say the claims of the video are "still unanswered." I say the answers are at talk origins. Go there and find them yourself.

I have studied both sides. In fact, I've studied the creationist side the most. I used to be one. But you refuse to look at "the other side" when I asked you to. You, by your own standard, are the who is irrational.

Why is it that you want us to do your homework for you? You want us to watch a film over one hour long, take notes about all the points made, and then write responses up for you? That's going to take me two or three hours at least. I'm not going to jump through hoops for you if you're going to be unreceptive.

When I ask you to do something as reasonable as doing your own fact checking, you say you can't do that because God gave you a job? Doing your own fact checking breaks God's laws? Do you see how intellectually dishonest this sounds to me? Why should I take you seriously?

Holy, you come on here and claim I am being subjective, so all I did was point out to you that according to your definition of subjective your definitions are also subjective.  I never said that it would not be a good idea to use your definitions. Where did you get that irrational idea???

As for what you said about our worldviews and standards, I am having trouble following what you are trying to say. However, it sounds like you are making assumptions about me and Mr. Rage without any sufficient evidence. You are making claims about us based on a few sentences that you seem to have misinterpreted. Also, please tell me how I am being circular. I pointed out your circular reasoning on being subjective. According to you there would be no objectivity!

As for understanding the other side, I agree with you. The problem is, you and the scientists on the video need to understand what evolution is before you start making claims. In regards to this, you have not at all responded to my posts as to why your film is worthless and as to "why you can't argue against something you don't know anything about."  Talk about some irrational statements.

I will say it again and please try to follow.

What the video disproves/proves is not evolution.

The facts of the video may be true. However, it has nothing to do with evolution.

For example, it may be true G.W. Bush is a Moron, but that has nothing to do with other presidents being morons.

If you cannot respond to these very simple and basic arguements then don't expect me to respond to you.

In response to you suggesting that we are holding on tightly to the theory of evolution:

First, I can only speak for my self, but my own personal philosophies do not stem from evolution. Evolution does not have anything to do with how I view equality, justice, kindness, and humnaity. Nowhere in my posts do I mention that I am not willing to listen to contradictory evidence or at least entertain other scientific explanations. I say scientific explanations because creationism and intelligent design are not science. They do not pass the principle of falsifiability. Second, evolution does not make the assumptions and claims of creation about the origin of the universe. It makes assumptions about the origin of species. A very large difference that you somehow are having trouble grasping. There may be other explanations other than evolution. However, at this time the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution.

To make further points, there are not always just two sides to a story, but multiple. Therefore, just because you show something to be false does not make your claim correct. In other words if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3 and you prove that 2 + 2 does note equal 5, you are still wrong.