True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Woody Allen, uh' to 'Woody Allen, uh, stammer' - edited by griefer_queafer

Tim Allen!

That is not how you spell Alfie!

I find the fact that Theon's sister Asha has about as much respect as Alfie's sister Lily did

http://videosift.com/video/Lily-Allen-Alfie-Music-Video-1

You can only be sure if you apply. I am sure the Woody Allen quote was included for a reason.

I'm just waiting for Virtual Celebrity Sex on my holodeck. Me, Michelle Pfeiffer, Melissa Theuriau, Cate Blanchett, and Karen Allen circa Raider's are gonna have a party.

"The film includes interviews with celebrities and other influential people who support the work of these controversial speakers, including:

Ricky Gervais
Woody Allen
Cameron Diaz
Stephen Hawking
Sarah Silverman
Bill Pullman
Werner Herzog
Tim Minchin
Eddie Izzard
Ian McEwan
Adam Savage
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali
Penn Jillette
Sam Harris
Dan Dennett
James Randi
Cormac McCarthy
Paul Provenza
James Morrison
Michael Shermer
David Silverman
...and more.

www.unbelieversmovie.com"

The amazing part to me, is that Woody Allen looks the same now as then. Hard to believe he was only 25. And I don't mean that in any disparaging way.

The one with Woody Allen was even worse.

Interaction with the audience is a big part of Carr's stand-up, and the basis of the interaction is that Carr is quicker and wittier than the audience members. People who go to his show deliberately heckle him just to see him tear them to shreds. That part of Carr's on-stage persona is very much the sort of wise-cracking "my-knob-is-bigger-than-yours" thing that Fry attributes to American comedy.

I also don't think the self-deprecating "hapless loser" style of comedy is a new thing in America. Self-deprecation has always been a big part of Jewish comedy (Woody Allen is a good example), which has been central to the American comic tradition. Besides that, I already mentioned Lucille Ball, who certainly isn't a recent phenomenon. You can add the Three Stooges to that list. Also Phyllis Diller and (more recently) Chris Farley.

It might be true that self-deprecating humor is more common in British comedy, but it has been a big enough part of American comedy that I find it a little misleading to characterize it as a specifically British trait.

Hey, thought you might be interested in this little moment of much-delayed sanity: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/backdown-on-internet-filter-plan-20121108-290qr.html

Still not perfect, but a step in the right direction.
In reply to this comment by Asmo:
>> ^kymbos:

@star69 - equating the act of a no-name comedian at a union event with the career-long actions of Tony Abbott is pathetic.
How has Gillard taken Australia 'so far backwards'?
Also, you would be able to downvote if you actually contributed something to this community.


I'm pretty sure he's referring to Gillard's comments re: libs attending the Allen Jones speech, castigating them for not getting up and leaving... In which case, the situations are analogous.

Data retention?

Compulsory internet filtering?

Two policies that forever damn Labor in my eyes. Two policies Gillard has not canned or dropped. I keep hoping Malcolm Turnbull get's up as leader of the opposition and wins the next election, but Abbott hasn't committed to pushing the fascist nanny state yet so I'll roll the dice on him...

*quality

I really love this skit, it just hits all the right notes, in the right way AND at the right time(s). It's on the mark, over the mark, hyperbolic, ridiculous, sometimes completely correct, but always introduced with a point that is reamed into your mind over and over again--with some people unable to even get the joke if you read Youtube comments for all or any of their skits (reading these comments is actually one of the funniest/funnest things you can do; I swear you literally can find the dumbest people on the planet on Youtube just by reading their comments; for some reason they seem to all like Tea Party related material, HAARP, "Black Helicopters, UFOs, ghosts AND the fact that shows like, "Ghost Hunters", as these idiots always like to say, "IT IS REAL!", and various other stupidity expenditures that in all likelihood takes one I.Q. point off every time they post--they are usually EPICALLY idiotic and can almost induce strokes just by reading their comments at times, as many of you are may be very well aware of--these idiotic posters are contained in this vestibule of the Internet, almost like an abscess of "The Tubes™"...) . A great vaudevillian type skit... Which is why I like so many of Key and Peele's skits and their material as it DOES have that vaudeville quality and atmospheric vibe going for it. I feel as though if you can't like Key and Peele you certainly have a genetic disorder that compromises your ability to enjoy humor and life.

It quite frankly, is a type of comedy that is dying in American television (indie comedies on Cable stations are the key shows still keeping it alive for now--shows like Key and Peele, Portlandia, etc...) and has basically completely disappeared from movies all-together. I think the last comedy that was great, and good enough to count as something along these lines was, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". Woody Allen and quite a few other directors/writers made a movies that fit this vein, but Mel Brooks really was the king of this type of slapstick and understood this field better than most directors and writers have for a long time.

Although, I know I haven't watched EVERYTHING there is to see, so I readily admit I might be missing some real winners that I REALLY should be mentioning (for example I know Community is very popular, but I don't know what type of comedy it is--is it a typical generic platform comedy, like Friends, or is there something more to it...) . Make sure to post below any other comedies that you feel should be added into the mix, comedies that can be simple on their face, but end up having a lot of intelligent discourse hidden underneath or they just have influences like Key and Peele that give them the feel that a bit of vaudeville and improv (the reason why shows like, "Whose Line Is It?", did so well and if you do a search on Videosift--or Youtube--you quickly realize it was a HIGHLY enjoyed, liked, and well thought of in almost ALL of it's skits, sketches, and comedy routines--a program, that should be mentioned, that originated in the U.K. on the BBC; that version ALSO being excellent in execution, production, and an extremely very well thought out program from it's very inception) are included in their style of comedy and their skits.

Anyway, just my two cents...

/My comment on the state of current U.S. comedy in mainstream media sources is added in so my quality markup isn't just sitting there all alone... Plus it gives us something to talk about besides just this clip/skit.

>> ^kymbos:

@star69 - equating the act of a no-name comedian at a union event with the career-long actions of Tony Abbott is pathetic.
How has Gillard taken Australia 'so far backwards'?
Also, you would be able to downvote if you actually contributed something to this community.


I'm pretty sure he's referring to Gillard's comments re: libs attending the Allen Jones speech, castigating them for not getting up and leaving... In which case, the situations are analogous.

Data retention?

Compulsory internet filtering?

Two policies that forever damn Labor in my eyes. Two policies Gillard has not canned or dropped. I keep hoping Malcolm Turnbull get's up as leader of the opposition and wins the next election, but Abbott hasn't committed to pushing the fascist nanny state yet so I'll roll the dice on him...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'woody allen' to 'woody allen, Play It Again Sam' - edited by Trancecoach

>> ^lurgee:

ok, but she is hotter > cute >> ^ant:
>> ^lurgee:
WRONG! She is smokin hot. >> ^ant:
She's cute.


Both!