Google Videos - Best of Google Video


(also best of YouTube)
Best of google video.com is not sponsored by or affiliated with or .

More from TED talk - David Deutsch

 
Interesting
January 14, 2007
 
 24
 13
64%

Comments

Ulf  -  January 14, 2007, 13:54
Thanks for the video Brody!
 Keisari_P  -  January 14, 2007, 14:59
Knowledge is power. Great ideas and philasophy. It would be better for humanity, if everyone would think like he thinks.
 Brody  -  January 14, 2007, 16:40
Cool ULF This video get the mind thinking. I feel this guy had much more important information to relay rather then the last TED talk vid.
 PBD  -  January 14, 2007, 17:23
Don't agree with a lot of what he says, but it's good thinking material.
 Zealiot  -  January 14, 2007, 19:21
Nice thinking yea, can't agree with everything though
aa (guest)  -  January 14, 2007, 20:12
Interesting ideas. The lighting is horrible he somethimes looks like a zombie.
 Deleted0001  -  January 14, 2007, 22:34
Zombie? Well, it was a great speaking, and I think everyone could learn from it.
 OGrilla  -  January 15, 2007, 03:32
Great lecture. I didn't think he would be able to hold my attention for as long as he did, but after a while I just couldn't help myself from soaking everything in. I, too, didn't agree with some of the things he mentioned, but that doesn't matter. The ideas he proposed had me thinking a great deal about our situation in the universe. Thanks for the vid!
 blindgaenger  -  January 15, 2007, 14:32
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/
pre (guest)  -  January 16, 2007, 09:35
no we are not "chemical scum" if evolution was true, and random chaotic mutations ran the show, how two things on the opposite end of the universe resemble eachother? my opinion is it is a common creator.
pre (guest)  -  January 16, 2007, 09:45
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=r_stjohn that was the best ted speach i think!!!
heyjoe (guest)  -  January 16, 2007, 13:34
Pre, i think he answered that since we are all the same due to physics because we invariably came from the same source in the beginning. Now wether that was a creator or not he never really ran into. He just showed a common bond between all things in the universe. Science is the study to find explanation. Cause God created it isnt science :P
 PBD  -  January 16, 2007, 17:23
he he he... pre, you are so predictable. Just like all your other creationist, once you lose somewhere you just go to another place to keep on spewing your BS. Either shut up or tell me how you explain this- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/handing_out_a_little_rope.php#c273929
 PBD  -  January 16, 2007, 17:30
and besides, random chaotic mutations don't rule the show. Natural SELECTION as well as other selections rule the show. The mutations/random events just produce the variety and opportunities. and how can two things resemble each other? convergent evolution. Similar environments require similar adaptations.
pre (guest)  -  January 16, 2007, 22:32
we all came from the same source? tell me more about the source? and if you give me "its just a theory crap" you can take it elsewhere. My point was, over millions of years, after many "random evolving changes", how could things be so similar. not because of evolution, but because they are governed by systems, self sustaining systems, obviously designed.
 Keisari_P  -  January 16, 2007, 23:25
PBD, the link you posted about DNA retrogenes and pseudogenes was simply great! I recomend to everyone. Too bad creationists lack the capasity to understant such conclusive arguments. After all, knowing some of the bacis mecahisms how DNA actually contstruts, no mysterious explonations are needed. Hopefully cultural evolution will catch up eventually, and ID nonsence will die out on it's own.
 PBD  -  January 17, 2007, 00:30
Yes we all have common ancestors. What do you mean tell you more about the source? at what point? are you talking about the common ancestor of humans and other apes? or of mammals? or of all life? MY point was that EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM (usually anyway. There is genetic drift and all that). And things are similar because they evolved in the same environment! Pre, what would it take for you to accept evolution? ... As someone pointed out a while back, this isn't the best place for debates. If you want you can e-mail me at [email protected]
R2K (guest)  -  January 18, 2007, 03:43
: ) http://r2000.blogspot.com
pre (guest)  -  January 20, 2007, 06:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegbObLl95Q the whole "intelligent design" concept i dont' totally agree with either. some still believe in millions of years. i believe in a literal 6 day creation.
 PBD  -  January 20, 2007, 07:59
Coward.
pre (guest)  -  January 20, 2007, 09:26
gee i'm arguing against everyone else, and you resort to name calling. Aim higher. How is stating that I believe in a six day creation being a coward? Evolutionary trees are nonesense. You think biology all points to a common ancestor, I say show me, you can't. I say dogs make dogs, flowers make flowers, thats observable. You say given time its possible, I still say you can't show me. You say evolution is not random, but its natural selection that chooses the RANDOM "mutations". I say there was a world wide flood, and can show you a globe with water splashed all over it, coal and oil underneath the earth, fault lines all over the earth, fossilized shells and fish on mountains, and you still won't see. You think its possible to pass down DNA to your offspring that has more DNA and is evolved, I say DNA does NOT become more complex, rather less complex, thus problems occur, not evolving life. Ther are no "numberless intermediate transitions" in the fossil record that Darwin exlaimed should be true if his theory is correct. You see i think arguing here is pointless because you immediatly question my IQ because i believe God created matter. But i can't get over how completely dumb a theory is that SKIPS the first and most important part of how matter got its start. It is the beginning of your whole elaborate theory and you don't have any substance on it. Sure sure its not "science" to believe in a God, but i think of it as common sense. I look at life and its beauty and see design. If evolution was true, and we were evolving, adpating to survive, I don't see it, I see beauty.
 pre  -  January 20, 2007, 09:34
i went ahead and registered :) thus the extra thumbs down.
 PBD  -  January 20, 2007, 18:56
You're not a coward for your beliefs, you're a coward because one- you waited 3 days before posting your link, and I saw some of your comments in other videos so I know you visited the site. Two- you don't reply to specific points. I and others have made specific arguments, and you completely dismiss them and instead post some stupid website. Three- You didn't email me. That means you must be afraid of a real debate, not just what can be said in here. You WANT to keep being ignorant in order to keep your beliefs. If that's not being a coward, I don't know what is. It is not until that last post that you started making semi-specific arguments. I'll reply to the rest of your comment in my next post, but what do you have to say about the link I posted above? ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/handing_out_a_little_rope.php#c273929 ) How do you explain ALL of that without common descent?
 PBD  -  January 20, 2007, 19:05
Yes, biology points to common ancestors. I already gave you a link about chromosomes, pseudogenes, etc. Explain all that without common descent. Another thing that shows common descent are fossils. By looking at when and WHERE fossils were found, you can CLEARLY see how species change over time, and what do you know, it follows exactly as it should if evolution is true. As for "dogs make dogs" and the rest, For one, wolves made dogs. Artificial selection is a sped up version of evolution, and therefore you can see how species change. If you want one species becoming another, I already told you about maize, drosophilla, the mosquitoes trapped in a tunnel, the goatsbeard plant, and there are many others. Populations of all of them started out as being one species but then turned into another. There is NO evidence for a worldwide flood. It is physically impossible for all that water to come out of nowhere, it is impossible to start out a whole planet from just two individuals of every species, etc.. The shells and fish on mountains are there because of plate tectonics, not because of a flood. If it had been a flood, heavy things like that would not have somehow floated to the surface and landed on top of mountains, and they couldn't possibly have grown there in 40 days.... to be continued
 PBD  -  January 20, 2007, 19:23
As for DNA. It is certainly possible to pass down more DNA to your offspring. One way is called polyploidy (the duplication of WHOLE GENOMES), which in animals usually results in horrible diseases such as down's syndrome. However, plants seem (more) immune to this kind of thing, and many of the plants we eat (bananas, watermelons, grapes, etc) are polyploid. There is even a species of polyploid mammal, a mouse-like rodent living in south america I believe. There are also other ways (in mammals and others) to get more DNA in your offspring. Transposons are segments of DNA that often code for themselves and often replicate themselves to ridiculous numbers in genomes, there are also mutations that duplicate certain genes (pseudogenes), some that replicate whole sections of chromosomes (forgot what they're called), genes from viruses (retrogenes), etc. I can't give you a biology lesson here. There ARE hundreds of transitional fossils. Those of , whales, humanoids, and horses are particularly well documented, and there are transitional fossils of a wide variety of other organisms. If you want specific names and whatnot, click this- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html You see beauty, I see beauty. In fact, I am majoring in biology. However, I see the whole picture. I also see the horrors and unfairness of nature. Many birds lay many eggs (eg. pelicans lay 3 eggs), and when they hatch the baby birds throw each other off the nest, so the two younger birds end up starving to death below the nest. Others peck the other one to death and then eat it (some raptors do this). Lions often kill their (big) pray by suffocating them, and sometimes start eating them alive. Coons (or coots? I forgot) lay about 9 eggs, but after the eggs hatch, the parents kill their own chicks one by one, until they only have 3 or so chicks. As David Attenborough said- "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy".... and of course, there are thousands of other examples.
 pre  -  January 20, 2007, 22:31
I have made specific points, all the way back on the stupid richard dawkins "a war on science". first of all i don't want to email you, that doesn't make me a coward, there is no time limit on these posts. now stop changing the point and making me defend myself. all your points you get from "scientific" articles. you keep making semi-retarded arguments that would never hold up in court. like shells never being able to float up to mountains. were not talking about still waters. all these arguments of yours... DNA code, already discussed, dogs and wolves, already discussed, hundreds of transitional fossils (haha) already discussed. What i see is a bunch of guys (so called scientists) who make their very FIRST argument "there is no God". then talk there way out of it. Man, you list so many dumb theories, none of them prove anything, and they are all half ass. pardon the french. "There are also other ways (in mammals and others) to get more DNA in your offspring." what?? adding to dna is abnormality, a product of a cursed world, not the creators design. "there are also mutations that duplicate certain genes (pseudogenes), some that replicate whole sections of chromosomes (forgot what they're called), genes from viruses (retrogenes), etc. I can't give you a biology lesson here." anyone else see how this argument isn't worth responding too? "And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually," Yes! "Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy" Man is to blame for the earth's problems, not God. We turned our backs on God. "and of course, there are thousands of other examples." None of which are God's original design. as far as your "http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/handing_out_a_little_rope.php#c273929" link you threw at me. Evolutionists like to take words and give them stupid meanings. like common descent. this is nothing more than a common creator in my view. not proof for evolution. yet simple similarities like this are hailed as great proof for evolution. words words words says the evolutionist, of which i've read them all. Stop blaiming things on God.
 pre  -  January 20, 2007, 22:33
I'm sorry if i come across rude.
 PBD  -  January 20, 2007, 22:56
you're STILL not saying anything. you insinuate my sources aren't scientific and that they're retarded, yet what are your arguments? that scientists give words stupid meanings? WTF? that i should stop blaming god? that "this is nothing more than a common creator in my view. not proof for evolution."? OH please. And what do you mean "already discussed"? if you have, it wasn't with me. Scientists don't start with "there is no god". Look at history, and practically every scientist was affiliated with churches and believed in god. However, the EVIDENCE is what has made scientists stop doing what you're doing. Scientists used to think the earth would be in the center of the universe because god put it there. Well, the evidence showed it wasn't. People used to think people got sick because god was punishing them. Well, the evidence showed they were wrong. Look. If you want to believe all that crap then fine, but don't say there is no scientific evidence for evolution, or that creationism/ID are science, or that you are believing what you believe for any other reason than faith. It has become crystal clear that you have no actual arguments for any of the science, and the sole reason you believe all that is because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
 pre  -  January 22, 2007, 05:09
actually "warm fuzzy feeling" couldn't be farther from the truth. i don't believe because i feel this way or that. i believe because i see evidence for design. pure and simple. as for evolution "proofs" all i hear are very complex arguments of which there can be no hard evidence. only guess work. you say i have no actual arguments, its simply because you look past them at a glance. to say i have no actual arguments is... wrong.
 PBD  -  January 22, 2007, 05:16
You should read up on logic and the scientific method. You DON'T have any arguments whatsoever.
 Zealiot  -  January 22, 2007, 05:46
Joining in - "i don''t believe because i feel this way or that, i belvete because i see evidence for design, pure and simple. as for evolution "proofs" all i hear are very complex arguments of which there can be no hard evidence." Alright lets start with clearing up some things here - You said that there's very complex arguments, well it's true, even I can agree with that allthough it doesn't have anything to do with science, it's about the persons way of expersing theirselves. However when you say that there can be no hard evidence you're actually wrong, I can actually understand why it's hard for you to seem them as evidence and that's probably cause you know so little about the subject itself. You also wrote that "i see evidence for design, pure and simple." This is something alot of creationists like to write (no offence) but honestly, give me one evidence. Lastly, it's obvious that this is more related to faith than it is to science for you so - I have nothing what so ever against you believing in what you want, I do however have something against people trying to push their faith onto other people and claming that it would be science. About scientist saying that "there is no god" and then talking their way out of it is pure nonesense, I've actually been a very deep beliver, I went to church at least 2 times every week and I thought everything I read and heard was the truth (being honest) then when I started to learn about biology, chemistry, Physics etc I really started to doubt my religion and got very intressted in science. As a result I've gone from a true believer to a true Atheist. Once again I've nothing against you believing in something, I just have a big problem with people forcing their beliefs onto things where they don't belong. Just admit it, it's your faith that's for Intellgent Design, not science. ~I'm sorry if you find this rude it wasn't my attention.
 Zealiot  -  January 22, 2007, 05:49
alot of typos, sorry kinda tired :S
 PBD  -  January 22, 2007, 07:14
Zealiot, congratulations for being big enough to admit you were wrong. I can't say I did the same thing, even though I was raised catholic, went to a catholic school, etc. I never really honesty believed any of it. As for your reply, I think it won't do anything for pre. He will say "When I look at nature I see beauty. When I look at a flower I see evidence for design". That is all he has. The warm fuzzy feeling, and the extremely arrogant view (disgustingly arrogant) that because he doesn't understand how something could come about naturally, then the only other possible explanation is that some omnipotent, perfect, omniscient being created things out of thin air. His god is a god of the gaps. What's more, his god is a god of HIS gaps. He thinks he is so smart and so wise, and that he knows enough about science/biology that he can say with 100% confidence that the over 99.9% of scientists who actually spend their lives studying what is in question are wrong.
 PBD  -  January 22, 2007, 07:20
And that argument is called an argument from incredulity. (just because he can't fathom something, then the only other possible explanation is the god he believes in). It is the same fallacy that led many scientists, including but not limited to Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and hundreds of others to point to god when they faced their limitations. The thing is, we now know better. We now know that everything that stumped them has perfectly natural and mundane explanations.
DMD (guest)  -  January 22, 2007, 07:51
"We now know that everything that stumped them has perfectly natural and mundane explanations." Well, not everything. Maybe someday yes but there are still things we have not found mundane explanations for. I don't know about the whole design vs science debate. To me there is no reason the two can not live together in the same world. Simply because something can be scientifically proven doesn't mean there's not something behind it we don't yet understand. Also, just because something can not be scientifically pinned down, doesn't mean we have to chalk it up to a deity and forget about it. The more you move toward either end of an absolutist view, the more you close your mind to future understanding.
 PBD  -  January 22, 2007, 16:22
Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot? Basically this guy made an analogy about god with a teapot. He said that if he were to assert that there was a celestial teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, you would not be able to disprove it. Yet it would be preposterous to even seriously consider the idea of a china teapot really being there. It's certainly POSSIBLE that there could be one, but WHY should ANYONE believe such a thing? We are all teapot atheists. The issue of god(s) (and which god(s)) is the same thing. WHY would ANYONE believe such a thing? we have absolutely zero evidence for such a thing, and in fact we have hundreds of years worth of observations that have been explained by purely natural means.
 pre  -  January 23, 2007, 06:42
Would you believe that IF the teapot was there, someone created it? Or did it over millions of years evolve into a space teapot?
 PBD  -  January 23, 2007, 06:59
That someone created it. There are no natural mechanisms by which a teapot could have been created in an orbit between the earth and mars,teapots cannot be subdivided into other things that can do the other things that teapots can't do: teapots do not reproduce, teapots do not have mutations because they have no DNA, teapots do not experience natural selection, etc. etc. etc.
 PBD  -  January 23, 2007, 07:47
And what about you pre? if you could go out when it was snowing and see the snowflakes http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg , what would you think? would you think that each one of them was created individually by the hand of god and thrown into some clouds or something?
 pre  -  January 23, 2007, 08:11
wow those snow flakes were absolutly amazing. God did create the system that created those snow flakes yes. God is amazing.
pre (guest)  -  January 23, 2007, 09:05
the earths magnetic field has been observed getting weeker. at this rate 25,000 years ago, the magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist. the earh's population is about 6.6 billion strong. all of us could fit into the city of jacksonville, florida. evolution states that man has been around for 3 million years. if you take the OBSERVED population growth rate and start back 3 million years ago, we would have roughly 140,000 people per square inch!! there is nothing more observable than the laws that govern the universe for example: gravity, boyles law, coles law, centrifugal force, inertia, etc. how about the law of the conservation of angular momentum? this states that an object breaking away from a spinning object will spin the same direction as the object it broak away from. if we all came from the orgin of the big bang, which was a spinning dot, how come planets, moons, galaxies, etc don't all spin in the same observable direction? and how come matter is not evenly distributed? how come laws arent evolving? the moon has been observed to be getting farther away from the earth at about one inch per year. if you reverse this by time, the moon would collide with earth. time is not a magic ingredient to make things possible. everything leads to dis-order. we lived in a cursed world because of our own actions. the good news is Jesus died for us! If you accept him into your heart, He will wash away all the pain, guilt, sin, and sorrow. He is just waiting to do that for us. Here is something interesting, Noah (the man who built the arc with his sons) was thought to be crazy in his time because God told him he was going to destroy the world with a flood. When he told everyone else they laughed at him. The Bible is amazing. Some people will not believe the Bible until it is proven right. I will believe the Bible until it is proven wrong. The Bible talks about "the life of the flesh is in the blood". Scientists were wrong when they used to let blood using slugs. The Bible talks about how the earth is sphereical, even when scientists theorized it was flat. the Bible is correct in its genealogy, archaeology, politics, relationships, family living, and so on! Your going to think i'm crazy here. The bible also teaches Jesus is going to come back for his church. One day "in the blinking of an eye" the church (those who believe in Jesus) will rise to meet him in the air. So one day the earth will witness many people vanish. I guess when you boil it down for me, God makes the only logical sense for this existence. Where did energy come from? where did light come from? sound waves? matter and all that. wow its late, 3:05 am. i hope everything is spelled right and makes sense, until next time...
 PBD  -  January 23, 2007, 18:10
"God did create the system that created those snow flakes yes. God is amazing." Why can't you say that god created the system that created life and allowed it to evolve? or that it created what allowed the big bang to happen? Yes the magnetic field has been getting weaker, but it is only because it is flipping. It has happened before, and multiple times when life was around. Man has NOT been around for 3 million years. Taking the observed population growth is retarded. Far more people survive now than they did before. Diseases, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, predators, volcanoes (including supervolcanoes), etc. not only slowly take a few every year, but periodically there are huge ones that kill a whole LOT of people. Celestial bodies don't spin in the same direction because of gravity and other things. matter isn't evenly distributed because of gravity, and because the matter at the big bang wasn't either. Why should laws "evolve"? Some hypothesize the moon broke off from the earth as a result of a planetary collision, but that the moon is moving away is irrelevant. Entropy ("everything leads to disorder") only works in closed systems. This is why a spermatozoon and an ovum can multiply their order by a factor of a few trillion times. Scientists WEREN'T wrong when they used to let blood using slugs for two reasons: One, they didn't use slugs, they used leeches. And secondly, they weren't scientists, or at the very least they weren't acting scientifically. The earth was known to be a sphere even before the bible was written, and actually the bible NEVER, not even ONCE says the earth was spherical. In fact, it often talks about it being flat. I already think you're crazy. (lol just kidding).
 PBD  -  January 23, 2007, 18:19
about your bible stuff: "I will believe the Bible until it is proven wrong" That is where the problem lies. Scientists (and me of course) will only believe things if there is evidence supporting it, and we will admit we were wrong if you provide sufficient evidence against it. Have you ever wondered why you believe what you believe? Would you believe this if whoever raised you (and/or your neighbors and schoolmates, etc) didn't indoctrinate you? I was watching to a very interesting video about religion and science, and I think it was Richard Dawkins who brought up this point: If you take a map, you can easily show the distribution of major religions. In other words, what people believe about god, the afterlife, prayer, etc. can be easily mapped by such arbitraty methods as countries. (such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldreligion.png ) However, it would be preposterous to even attempt to map out the beliefs of scientists in that way. All over the world, scientists accept the big bang, evolution, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, etc. I think this just goes to show that there is no logic to religion. If there was, it would be impossible to make maps like that. People only believe what they believe because they were brainwashed. They were told since they were very little, when they will believe anything their mom tells them, that god exists and he is this way or that. Or what, are Americans able to somehow feel god but not Egyptians? are americans the ones who god speaks to but not aborigines? The fact is, people around the world don't randomly start believing in jesus or mohammed or whatever. They have to be BRAINWASHED into believing it. In contrast, atheism, agnosticism, (and the scientific method to some extent) pop up in every (free) society. This is because one does not need to be brainwashed in order to be atheist. People are born atheists, you have to brainwash them so they become christians, muslims or jews.
 pre  -  January 23, 2007, 23:26
no i'm not brainwashed. address the issues, your just getting of subject.
 pre  -  January 23, 2007, 23:26
*off subject
 PBD  -  January 24, 2007, 00:28
I did, and you're the one who is getting off subject. We were talking about evolution, then you randomly start talking about the big bang and matter in the universe and the bible and whatnot.
 pre  -  January 24, 2007, 04:05
this is pointless i think PBD, i thought i was on subject.
 pre  -  January 24, 2007, 04:05
this is pointless i think PBD, i thought i was on subject.
iCooler (guest)  -  March 1, 2007, 06:40
I thought it was a common knowledge that microbiology killed Darwin's child. cell can NOT be split in simpler elements, it just stops functioning thus could not evolve. -Everything you see has a source with greater capacity. -Less can not produce more -Simple can not produce complicated - you can not extract more voltage from lesser source -you can not see brighter light from lesser source - Humans can not be produced by accident before trying prove that theres no God , please learn how immune system works. and after if you can say that that mechanism was an accident, then theres good chance you are not being honest with yourself.
he is (guest)  -  March 1, 2007, 06:44
I think that dude is really a Chemical Scum and he likes to be called that way, lol. honestly I thought he was a werewolf
 pre  -  March 19, 2007, 06:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI
lol (guest)  -  October 18, 2007, 04:21
I got lost (or at least my interest) after 5 minutes, but he just keeps on going. ;)
ron johnson (guest)  -  July 6, 2008, 18:20
hawkins hasn't got much idea about the human race and the importance thereof he only has some idea about phisical matter. He should spend a bit more of his so called intelligence studiying the spirit world and he would come to realise that the phisical matter is only the beginig of life and has little to add to the un derstanding of LIFE/GOD which are the same synonamous. It has been said that if one could chang their viabration rate they woould see a completely different universe. This life is in terms of size almost unmessureable or see-abley small less than an atom in to the solar system comparisson. Life is endless evolution has no beginning or end. Also this lecture is so limited. Man is the spirit of the planet God is the spirit of the universe and man is made in the image of GOD
seotonsaggressive (guest)  -  December 31, 2010, 13:31
Hello everyone! :) My name is Eloise and it made some weeks that I read regularly www.bestofgooglevideo.com, I found lots of help and I say that as of today is for me to contribute as well. This is the first time that I post on a forum so I hope this is the right section to post my presentation if I'm wrong I thank in advance a moderator move the topic. I am 24 years old and live in your country for only eight months, I apologize for the mistakes of language that I do, feel free to correct me. Otherwise, in life I'm brown and the head I am a true blonde, I have a beautiful 2 year old child and I love football, big cars and playing video games and I own a small website dedicated the seotons. http://fr-fr.facebook.com/profile/pic.php?oid=AQB52pio4Hxp-LOf8YjjfoY84PYN1VBtDgYCb6_s88wjY1A6fiZAALfG5EMnyKHhOKs&size=normal&usedef=1 my facebook: http://fr-fr.facebook.com/people/Eloise-Baes/100000574781263 That is me in a nutshell.




5 random popular videos

76% funny
Animal interactions
Animal interactions

80% interesting
Iran - Nation of bloggers
Iran - Nation of bloggers

92% crazy
Worst burglar ever
Worst burglar ever

88% funny
Rowan Atkinson - Invisible drum kit
Rowan Atkinson - Invisible drum kit

100% impressive
Parkour in 1930
Parkour in 1930