Vidéos présentement visionnées sur Prise1
Chargement en cours...
Vidéos récemments ajoutées sur Prise1
  | You should do your own philosophy to get the meaning of this number,which is seen everywhere in nature and even in yourself.Be careful while thinking . :D Please also watch the other part Golden Ratio in Human Body to become more careful next time while looking at a mirror. It also includes details about the Fibonacci numbers Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085KSyQVb-U Please rate&share. Thank You!
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | http://www.thisistruth.org
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | Are you ready for that day? And are you sure what will happen or not after you die If not,can be there anything more important than finding it?
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | It just may be stating to these points,no claim more. Please visit: http://www.thisistruth.org
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | If you honestly wonder about your "ancestor",here are some points to think about for you. If you want to be a result of brainless,dumb,deaf and blind chain of chances,then please go to another video,because whatever you see,you won't change your idea,because you want it. Peace :D
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | Fantastic bug Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Arachnida Order: Araneae Family: Theridiidae Genus: Latrodectus Species: L. hasselti
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | In fact this one is very highly "possible" when it is compared with the other calculations. The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10(over)10(over)123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility. Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare?not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | Not only 3 but 33333333... questions can be asked about the holy holy theory of evolution,the one that claims a stupid bacteria is your miserable ancestor. But does it matter? Can disproving this tale,or showing it as a big nonsense prove that "God did it?" Nope,but that must make you change your idea at least,if no evolution logically and no GOD according to you,then find another alternative and share it with the world so that people may be guided ;D Here are "some" more for you to think about: http://www.darwinistsneverrealize.com/ With humble regards.. Peace. Applauds go to IslamoPhilic :D
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | I couldnt believe when i first watched But it is true Accept it theists You loose LOL (Thanks to TJJ)
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | Sure he is an atheist But is he *really*? In fact what he can't comprehend is this. He says "that power" can't jump into existence spontaneously. Did anyone claim such thing?any theist? In fact we claim that there MUST have been some Power which does not have a beginning,for whom,the rules of the so called time don't mean anything. And by his words at the end,"why did that Power hide Xself" we see he doesnt know anything good about the Islamic philosophy. For such famous person who should know much about theistic views as well as his atheism it must be a shame.
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
 | After 30th verse sorrily :D You can download its all mp3 here: http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=echapters&rec itor_id=220 Thanx go to SwedenDawah :)
Auteur: HighFlyingDutchman
|
Ajouter cette vidéo à vos favoris
Envoyer cette vidéo à vos amis
