This is my favorite Moody Science presentation and used to be shown in public schools. Anyone leaving comments here insisting that the Intelligent Design theme presented in this highly polished film is unscientific owe it to themselves to consider the following: “…there is a tendency for natural processes to proceed toward a state of greater disorder.” So says my 1968 physics textbook from Drexel, authored by Resnick & Halliday, when discussing the second law of thermodynamics on pages 641 & 642. The authors concluded by stating, “…the second law of thermodynamics shows us the most probable course of events, not the only possible ones. But its area of application is so broad and the chance of nature’s contradicting it is so small that it occupies the distinction of being one of the most useful and general laws in all sciences.” So why was this statement put way in the back of the book and its importance never discussed in class? I suspect it’s because it doesn’t support evolutionary theory. The 2nd law of thermodynamics may be illustrated by the following example: If we took an original document and went to a photo copier and made a copy, and kept making copy after copy, with each succeeding copy being made from the copy before it, what would we notice? We would see that the further away we got from the original document, the worse looking the copy. Why is this? It’s because there is nothing in our physical universe that works with 100 % efficiency. It stems from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says energy leaks out of all process into its most degraded form---heat. So in view of this, what should we expect happens in the genetic copying processes of all living things? All living things, physically speaking, are genetic copies of copies of copies going back further and further in time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts that there has to be an inefficiency of genetic transfer showing up somehow--- and it does---as mutations, most of which are bad. It stands to reason then that each succeeding generation of living things should be less genetically fit than the previous one. Thus common sense dictates that the gene pools are aging rather than evolving. As to any mutation that might be considered beneficial, we should not rule out the possibility that this could be a reverting back to a previously undamaged condition. But what does evolutionary theory demand? It demands that we must interpret the mutations as exactly the opposite. It insists that we are really witnessing a slow but continual advance in complexity upward. It is worthy of note that the highly respected dating methods used to support huge ages for the universe are in themselves running down processes. Aren’t they called radioactive decay? And yet it is long acting, spontaneous occurring processes that are supposed to have brought everything into existence according to evolutionary theory. At Drexel I remember the physics professor made the statement that a million monkeys on a million typewriters in a million years might type the Encyclopedia Britannica. He never mentioned what was presented on pages 641 and 642 of the physics textbook we were using. On the surface his statement sounds quite formidable. However, when such statements are made, the tendency is not to give accompanying calculations to illustrate the feasibility of such assertions. Let’s look at a similar scenario to the typing monkeys and analyze it from a scientifically statistical point of view. Suppose we were to walk into a room and see a table with a hundred coins scattered on top of it. At first glance it looks like someone carelessly tossed some pocket change onto the table, but then we look more closely. We notice that all the coins are face up. We test all the coins and determine that they are not loaded---they are “fair” coins. Should we conclude that this is just happenstance? Let’s say that everyone in the world was given a set of 100 fair coins. We all start flipping our set of 100 coins simultaneously once a second. That is, once a second there are 8 billion attempts to have at least one set of 100 coins come up all heads. We do this day and night, non-stop. After 50 billion years there is a 99% chance no one was successful. So if we walked into a room and saw 100 coins face up on a table, the natural conclusion would be that some person or persons deliberately arranged the coins so that they would all be face up. That is, it would be concluded that the configuration of the coins was by design, not chance. By comparison, the estimated age of the universe and everything in it is said to have evolved by time and chance in around 16 billion years or so. Statistical science and the second law of thermodynamics and their implications in evaluating evolutionary theory are not taught in the public schools. It they were, there wouldn’t be so many readily accepting the theory of evolution without question.
Moody Science videos always remind me of Colossians 1:16-17King James Version (KJV) 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
If American society wanted its children to be educated, these videos would be shown in every school, in every state. There are reasons why these are not taught, and those reasons have to do with keeping children dull and disinterested, so that as adults, they are more controllable. Our founders stressed that an educated and ethical population is the only way we could succeed, given our Constitution. We HAVE to take back control of the schools.
Anti-theist trolls could easily find videos that agree with their wrong assumptions, but they would rather harass believers. Why? It's not to help people. They know that in every study, believers are shown to be happier than atheists, & they do more good for humanity than atheists. Perhaps the trolls are motivated by envy.
Terrible responses. What's offered as an explanation after 22 minute mark isn't science. This comment offers a scientific explanation that doesn't fit your narrative. I'm so sorry for that, but you're free to ignore.
Chaim, I think trolls are people who love to fight as long as they can be anonymous online. They are cruel, egomaniacal, and sadistic. So they seek people with whom they disagree, not to help them, but to supposedly demonstrate their superiority over them.
He talks about superstition at the same time "he's" being is superstitious. Ironic wouldn't you say? The development / "evolution" of red blood cells was a process of trial and error that took 4.5 billion years to perfect. Each species from the first single cell bacteria "our ancestors" survived by consuming nutrients of gas ,and liquid by different methods and expelling waste by the same biological process, mechanism.The most efficient survived most often. The least efficient reproduced less, died sooner, and in time became extinct in favor of the more efficient system. That's the whole ball of wax. Sorry to tell you, but God had nothing to do with it.
1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding *profane and vain babblings*, and oppositions of *science falsely so called*:”
Peter, how did life begin? Darwinist Professor Paul Davies admits, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Professor of biology at Harvard, Andrew Knoll, said, “We don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A basic, minimal cell needs hundreds of proteins, which simply do not naturally congregate. So how did the first life originate just by chemistry alone, without God?
Peter, how could the DNA code originate? It’s a complex language system with letters & words. What other coding system has ever existed without an intelligent designer?
Peter, since creatures look like they were designed, how do Darwinists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Darwinists, your problem is that creatures feature too much design. When an archaeologist says pottery points to human design, who criticizes him? But if someone attributes the design apparent in life to a designer, that assertion is laughed at. Why do anti-theists insist that science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
My suggestion to you, is to take about 2-3 semesters of undergraduate biology. You can get lectures from some major universities for free on line. Try reading something other than the bible for a change, and you'll see the myths, and dogma, just don't add up. I don't know the codes to the banks vault, but I still get money when I go there. Just because we don't "yet" know every single detail, doesn't mean we aren't in a hairs breath of understanding the development of living organisms, the origins of DNA, RNA, the amino acid structures of proteins, and self assembly. If you prefer to live in childhood fantasy land because you can't deal with your own mortality, then that's your business. Sorry, but life is scary, and life is tough, but I chose not to live like a cowardly fool with my head in the sand.
Wonderful Saviour!
St John 3:16! 💗
JESUS is coming again SOON! HALLELUJAH!
This is my favorite Moody Science presentation and used to be shown in public schools.
Anyone leaving comments here insisting that the Intelligent Design theme presented in this highly polished film is unscientific owe it to themselves to consider the following:
“…there is a tendency for natural processes to proceed toward a state of greater disorder.” So says my 1968 physics textbook from Drexel, authored by Resnick & Halliday, when discussing the second law of thermodynamics on pages 641 & 642. The authors concluded by stating, “…the second law of thermodynamics shows us the most probable course of events, not the only possible ones. But its area of application is so broad and the chance of nature’s contradicting it is so small that it occupies the distinction of being one of the most useful and general laws in all sciences.”
So why was this statement put way in the back of the book and its importance never discussed in class? I suspect it’s because it doesn’t support evolutionary theory.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics may be illustrated by the following example:
If we took an original document and went to a photo copier and made a copy, and kept making copy after copy, with each succeeding copy being made from the copy before it, what would we notice? We would see that the further away we got from the original document, the worse looking the copy.
Why is this? It’s because there is nothing in our physical universe that works with 100 % efficiency. It stems from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says energy leaks out of all process into its most degraded form---heat.
So in view of this, what should we expect happens in the genetic copying processes of all living things? All living things, physically speaking, are genetic copies of copies of copies going back further and further in time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts that there has to be an inefficiency of genetic transfer showing up somehow--- and it does---as mutations, most of which are bad. It stands to reason then that each succeeding generation of living things should be less genetically fit than the previous one. Thus common sense dictates that the gene pools are aging rather than evolving. As to any mutation that might be considered beneficial, we should not rule out the possibility that this could be a reverting back to a previously undamaged condition.
But what does evolutionary theory demand? It demands that we must interpret the mutations as exactly the opposite. It insists that we are really witnessing a slow but continual advance in complexity upward.
It is worthy of note that the highly respected dating methods used to support huge ages for the universe are in themselves running down processes. Aren’t they called radioactive decay? And yet it is long acting, spontaneous occurring processes that are supposed to have brought everything into existence according to evolutionary theory.
At Drexel I remember the physics professor made the statement that a million monkeys on a million typewriters in a million years might type the Encyclopedia Britannica. He never mentioned what was presented on pages 641 and 642 of the physics textbook we were using.
On the surface his statement sounds quite formidable. However, when such statements are made, the tendency is not to give accompanying calculations to illustrate the feasibility of such assertions.
Let’s look at a similar scenario to the typing monkeys and analyze it from a scientifically statistical point of view.
Suppose we were to walk into a room and see a table with a hundred coins scattered on top of it. At first glance it looks like someone carelessly tossed some pocket change onto the table, but then we look more closely. We notice that all the coins are face up. We test all the coins and determine that they are not loaded---they are “fair” coins. Should we conclude that this is just happenstance?
Let’s say that everyone in the world was given a set of 100 fair coins. We all start flipping our set of 100 coins simultaneously once a second. That is, once a second there are 8 billion attempts to have at least one set of 100 coins come up all heads. We do this day and night, non-stop. After 50 billion years there is a 99% chance no one was successful.
So if we walked into a room and saw 100 coins face up on a table, the natural conclusion would be that some person or persons deliberately arranged the coins so that they would all be face up. That is, it would be concluded that the configuration of the coins was by design, not chance. By comparison, the estimated age of the universe and everything in it is said to have evolved by time and chance in around 16 billion years or so.
Statistical science and the second law of thermodynamics and their implications in evaluating evolutionary theory are not taught in the public schools. It they were, there wouldn’t be so many readily accepting the theory of evolution without question.
God bless the person who gave their heart for this science video! 🥺🤧🥰
Moody Science videos always remind me of Colossians 1:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Amen
i agree
please send more
I love these movies. God thought of everything. We can only concur that He is more than brilliant.
The infinite wisdom of Jehovah God. An intelligent Creator could only be responsible for this.
Very informative. Thanks for sharing
+Francis Opolot You're welcome sir. God bless you.
i think so too
I love watching this, it shows how amazing God is.
Love these it’s taught me a lot, god bless you
You're welcome sir. God bless you as well.
These are great videos. Thank you for uploading!
You're welcome.
this is awesome
If American society wanted its children to be educated, these videos would be shown in every school, in every state. There are reasons why these are not taught, and those reasons have to do with keeping children dull and disinterested, so that as adults, they are more controllable. Our founders stressed that an educated and ethical population is the only way we could succeed, given our Constitution. We HAVE to take back control of the schools.
Yes, I agree. We need to abolish the federal Department of Education.
SUPERB!
Amazing video!
Nowadays we don't put water in the radiator of a car
@Vonnie CS my DVD says 1967, 1985,1998
thanks
Wow!
cool story brah
Was this an actual TV show?
20 episodes were made. I'm not sure if it ever aired on TV though. (playlist: ruclips.net/p/PL_rC1cWgkGvMv8o-FTMF3hS37gOzfCSOQ)
I wonder how Moody afforded all of this research
I need this answer. How?
Do you know what year this movie was made?
i have no clue
Anti-theist trolls could easily find videos that agree with their wrong assumptions, but they would rather harass believers.
Why?
It's not to help people. They know that in every study, believers are shown to be happier than atheists, & they do more good for humanity than atheists.
Perhaps the trolls are motivated by envy.
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a cop.
Brilliant responses!
Terrible responses. What's offered as an explanation after 22 minute mark isn't science. This comment offers a scientific explanation that doesn't fit your narrative. I'm so sorry for that, but you're free to ignore.
what do you mean by trolls
Chaim, I think trolls are people who love to fight as long as they can be anonymous online. They are cruel, egomaniacal, and sadistic. So they seek people with whom they disagree, not to help them, but to supposedly demonstrate their superiority over them.
He talks about superstition at the same time "he's" being is superstitious. Ironic wouldn't you say? The development / "evolution" of red blood cells was a process of trial and error that took 4.5 billion years to perfect. Each species from the first single cell bacteria "our ancestors" survived by consuming nutrients of gas ,and liquid by different methods and expelling waste by the same biological process, mechanism.The most efficient survived most often. The least efficient reproduced less, died sooner, and in time became extinct in favor of the more efficient system. That's the whole ball of wax. Sorry to tell you, but God had nothing to do with it.
1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding *profane and vain babblings*, and oppositions of *science falsely so called*:”
Peter, how did life begin?
Darwinist Professor Paul Davies admits, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”
Professor of biology at Harvard, Andrew Knoll, said, “We don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.
A basic, minimal cell needs hundreds of proteins, which simply do not naturally congregate.
So how did the first life originate just by chemistry alone, without God?
Peter, how could the DNA code originate? It’s a complex language system with letters & words. What other coding system has ever existed without an intelligent designer?
Peter, since creatures look like they were designed, how do Darwinists know that they were not designed?
Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
Francis Crick: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
Darwinists, your problem is that creatures feature too much design.
When an archaeologist says pottery points to human design, who criticizes him?
But if someone attributes the design apparent in life to a designer, that assertion is laughed at.
Why do anti-theists insist that science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
My suggestion to you, is to take about 2-3 semesters of undergraduate biology. You can get lectures from some major universities for free on line. Try reading something other than the bible for a change, and you'll see the myths, and dogma, just don't add up.
I don't know the codes to the banks vault, but I still get money when I go there. Just because we don't "yet" know every single detail, doesn't mean we aren't in a hairs breath of understanding the development of living organisms, the origins of DNA, RNA, the amino acid structures of proteins, and self assembly. If you prefer to live in childhood fantasy land because you can't deal with your own mortality, then that's your business. Sorry, but life is scary, and life is tough, but I chose not to live like a cowardly fool with my head in the sand.