Like I've said, Theoretical is an armchair philosopher with no formal training and you're taking his opinion over Craig who has multiple doctorates in this very subject? Crash, why do you seem to accuse everyone of deceit and misrepresentation as almost a knee jerk reaction?

Honestly, guys, the argument is absolutely terrible. There's a reason why someone with a doctorate in philosophy used it as a stand up comedy routine to other philosophers and theologians. Again this may come as a shock to you, but angry YouTube atheists are more often than not nothing more than attention seeking laymen.

What did you think of the curator of the hospital in the film. What did she say when Ben asked her if the doctors were crazy?

What did she say was the motivation of the doctors? Darwinism?

What did you think of Eugene Scott. She said there were no peer reviewed articles on ID in the science journals. She was saying this to Myers who published in the Smithsonian journal which cost the first guy his position due to her. Would you call this a lie or a d&*n lie?

What about the guy that said one guy could the privileged planet guy could do what he wished and he had nothing against him but when confronted with an email laughed a nervous laugh as he was caught in a lie.

Or the dean who said on letting one person go ID had nothing to do with his decision but an email showed him to be lying.

Or what about Rouse who tried to convince Stein life came form crystals- what a joke. He watched to the movie "Andromeda strain" to many times.

Or what of Dawkins that said we dont know how life came about but trumpets with absolute confidence God cold not have done it despite the impossible odds of an uncaused origin of life.

Stein did a great job in my view. Im sorry all your heros took such a hard fall. 

And again, like I've said to JB Crash and like I've openly stated in my previous posts I know exactly what TB is trying to say, and what he thinks he's proven, and still I don't think you two are willing to face the glaring problem in his argument. As P1 is worded it technically does away with all efficient causation. Regardless of what you believe the interpretation to be, or the "spirit" of the argument it's language and philosophical assertion does exactly what I said it does. If something which exists cannot cause something which did not exist to begin existing it means that nothing can begin to exist. Because, you see, the argument presupposes that only causes which have a pre-existing material cause are things which actually exist. This is where you and JB are getting confused. You see the actual abstract concept of something begins to exist when it comes into being via its efficient cause. When I tell a story I don't simply create air vibrations which resonate with other peoples ear, I literally bring a story (an abstract concept) into existence. If I did not bring that abstract concept into existence no one would be able to identify it. "Lawlessones story" would never begin to exist. Similarly I would never begin to exist, as the concept of me is not composed of material substances, only my body is.

So for TB to claim that only those things which have a pre-existing material cause can begin to exist, he does away with literally all abstract concepts, music, art, history, countries, etc. For example, America was not composed of any pre-existing material. One day a certain landmass was unnamed, the next it was named America and do America was born. On P1 this cannot happen as "America" is a concept applied to a land mass. The land mass did not change at all when it became the USA, but rather a country was born.

I must stress, guys, that there is a reason this was used as a standup comedy routine amongst philosophers and theologians. Color coding my posts and trying to hamstring my explanation as to why absolutely no real philosopher takes TB seriously at all is just an exercise in dramatics. Honestly, dude, just watch all the atheist/theist debates that have been done in academia and notice that no atheist has ever come even close to repeating this argument. There's a reason. The reason is that's it's a terrible and sophomoric argument.

Ok so you agree the about Scott & the guys that try to get ID leaning professors fired was wrong presumably. You may have even found it astonishing that the curator at the hospital actually was "apologetic" for the maniac doctors motivated by Nazi doctrine and justifying their actions by social Darwinism. 

Lets have a particular point of the film to discuss. Stop arm waving. BTW have you actually watched the film?

Anyway, yes I have seen the film, and read about the film, and watched interviews with Ben Stein.  Everything about it is awful.  The Dawkins interview in that example is particularly bad, from the fact that the writer only seemed to transcribe Dawkins with the free flowing speech you use in real life to make him look unconfident/dishonest, to the fact that Ben Stein's voice over clearly missed Dawkins' point.

Honestly vmancha, Expelled and Ben Stein are below the bottom of the barrel.  I don't actually believe that the mistakes and misrepresentations in the film and Stein's interview could be unintentional, they're that bad.

If you want to talk about a single scene, or piece of information, then sure.  Not something quite so long and wall of text-y though.

You misunderstand Dawkins' claim, he isn't dodging any issue here, he is simply rejecting the possibility that complexity can just pop into existence.  He is committed to the truth and necessity of evolution to bring complex life into being because complexity can't just happen.  He allows for the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, and even intelligent design for us, but however the first intelligence arose, it can't have been caused by something intelligent.