Automata are really interesting, and the French took the art to new heights. From wikipedia:
A new attitude towards automata is to be found in Descartes when he suggested that the bodies of animals are nothing more than complex machines - the bones, muscles and organs could be replaced with cogs, pistons and cams. Thus mechanism became the standard to which Nature and the organism was compared. Seventeenth-century France was the birthplace of those ingenious mechanical toys that were to become prototypes for the engines of the industrial revolution. Thus, in 1649, when Louis XIV was still a child, an artisan named Camus designed for him a miniature coach, and horses complete with footmen, page and a lady within the coach; all these figures exhibited a perfect movement. According to P. Labat, General de Gennes constructed, in 1688, in addition to machines for gunnery and navigation, a peacock that walked and ate. The Jesuit Athanasius Kircher produced many automatons to create jesuit shows, including a statue which spoke and listened via a speaking tube, a perpetual motion machine, or a cat piano which would drive spikes into the tails of cats which yowled to specified pitches, although he is not known to have actually constructed the instrument. He also wrote an early description of the magic lantern, in Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae (1671).
The world's first successfully-built biomechanical automaton is considered to be The Flute Player, invented by the French engineer Jacques de Vaucanson in 1737. He also constructed a mechanical duck that could eat and defecate, seeming to endorse Cartesian ideas that animals are no more than machines of flesh.
In 1769, a chess-playing automaton called the Turk, created by Wolfgang von Kempelen, made the rounds of the courts of Europe, but in fact was a famous hoax, operated from inside by a hidden human operator.
Other Eighteenth Century automaton makers include the prolific Frenchman Pierre Jaquet-Droz (see Jaquet-Droz automata) and his contemporary Henri Maillardet. Maillardet, a Swiss mechanician, created an automaton capable of drawing four pictures and writing three poems. Maillardet's Automaton is now part of the collections at the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

squat toilets are very common in Asia. Especially as public toilets. When I was in Japan, I avoided public #2s when I could. Although I've been told that they are much more healthy than a standard toilet in that it's the natural squatting posture that humans are supposed to use when defecating. Low hemmoroids levels in Asia.

Wow, Kirk Cameron, now there is a source that I would accept less readily that the Bible.

Claim #1 - Why are humans and apes similar - they have a common "designer"
Response: Perhaps they have a common ancestor, as evolution claims; no need for an additional, non-parsimonious designer.

Claim #2 - Interviewing "believers" in evolution.
Note the sarcastic response of the blonde college student. Why didn't they go to the "experts?" They seem to conclude that because these people don't have detailed answers, therefore evolution is wrong and they believe it on blind faith. I wonder how many people that believe in God could tell you chapter and verse (or even who said) of biblical passages. By that same logic, I suppose we can dismiss the bible, because its believers pretty much know jack about what is in it.

Claim #3 - "Does THIS PROVE that man evolved from apes?"
Response: Only the creationist trying to make claims about the invalidity of evolution claims to believe that man evolved from apes.

"Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html

Claim #4 "Apes aren't our relatives, they are a completely different species" Their evidence, that the orangutan tries to eat their salad ("covets their salad", something the purposefully made different than what the orangutan has. It acts like a "beast untrained").

I suppose small children are also not related to humans, a different species perhaps; they too act like this so called "beast untrained." They "covet" things that they do not have and grab for objects; they do things such as defecate on themselves. They throw things as well; perhaps some training can get their "beast" to make facial experessions mimicking Kirk Cameron.

Interestingly, they also say that the orangutans don't form themselves into orchestras. Neither do children, now without guidance for sure.

Claim #5 - Something is not in the fossil record and "proof" of a claim.
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and certainly the false dichotomy that "evolution is wrong, therefore Biblical creation must be correct" is absurd. Also, scientists do not "prove" something to be true. They provide evidence in favor or against a particular claim.

Claim # 6: "Experts" speculation about evolution as support that evolution is foolish.

Ernst Chain (not ERNEST as they put in the video) and others. Speculation by experts does not make their claim valid. Sir Isaac Newton , clearly a great thinker spent much of his days as an alchemist trying to change lead into gold; just because someone is a 'great thinker' does not mean that all his or her ideas are valid.

Claim # 7 "Man will believe anything as long as its not in the Bible"
Better yet, man will believe anything, period, including that a text which has how many versions and ambiguities in the very words that are used was "divinely inspired!" Why SHOULD man believe the Bible? Because it provides the simplistic "god did it" response? OK, now we can move on and continue making our widgets, all of the necessary knowledge can be summed up in "god did it."



Why don't they tell you who the biologist with the PhD is? Why don't we hear more than what they clip?

Are they trying to be "anti-intellectual?" Yes. They select "proof" of their side (the confirmation bias, clearly unscientific.)

At the end, ahhhh we get to the real point. See, there is no "evidence" presented in this video, just some carefully selected and edited clips.

Kirk Cameron....enough said.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If I had to choose a favorite short film genre, it would probably be old corporate training videos. They reek of worker exploitation, misery and hollowness - and shallow, condescending corporate greed. Somehow, I like this. Sort of like watching a horror movie to be scared I guess.

My first job was at a Popeye's Chicken fast food place. (like KFC) The 20-something managers smoked a lot of pot and tried to seduce all the high school counter girls. Pretty miserable place on all levels. Unless you're the owner I suppose.

I'm surprised that this video didn't mention defecating in the Wendy's Chili. I'm told by a past worker with some authority that this is the "secret" ingredient.