Sperm cells are gametes! You should really take a Biology I course before you blatantly claim:
You do know that the theory of Evolution is extremely flawed, and a lot of the evidence you use to support it makes little to no sense, or can be used to support creationism/ID.
Nothing in the universe is random! (excluding quantum mechanical processes) And again, we're not talking about abiogenesis (maybe you've confused abiogenesis with evolution?), so why talk about whether life is a random occurrence?
It would be really easy to disprove evolution, just find a Precambrian chicken!
Add to the list that you didn't address specific problems, you just wrote off the whole of the three videos as:
Ok, for the first video, all I can say is that that guys has quite a lot of things wrong.
Being a bit of a creationist myself, I know that that guys says we must deny a lot of things, but a lot of them are things we don't at all have to deny, in fact a lot of the stuff he says we deny, actually would deny evolution, and is heavily supported by me and many other creationists.
Ignore the first factors, like the scientific method, that the man talks about. They have a more complex relationship with evolution denial than some of the things later in the video. What I was hoping you would get out of it is the evidence presented later in the video. I don't think you watched the whole thing, personally, for two reasons:
1) You dismissed the videos with vague comments.
2) Evidence for evolution was presented. If you are really so eager to find evidence so you can refute it, why didn't you comment about it, let alone counter it?
For the second and third videos, the guys seems to not understand much about anything except evolution...
Doesn't sound like a problem to me, because that's what the videos are about, proving evolution!
...and even then he's got a lot wrong.
Like what? I expect that you would cite specifics, because you can throw this on the impalpable pile (score one for my crappy alliteration)!
what's the probability of that all happening, and then what is the probability of it helping the life-form?
Evolution has an enormously large chance of screwing up the life-form rather than helping it in any way
These go together. Arch, you should
read up on mutation, especially since it isn't in the "evil zone" for you. The percent who survive after a mutation depends on the species, but for sea turtles it is about 0.3%, and for lobsters about 0.1%. BTW, I found those facts in the videos I linked to, so you either didn't understand what he was talking about, or didn't watch that part.
All considered Evolution pretty much says: "life is just a random occurrence", but if Evolution is random....then it can't be logical.
THE UNIVERSE IS LOGICAL. Roll Eyes Although in favor of both sides, Evolution has a 'nanoscopic' chance of occurring, which tells us that Evolution isn't random.
You solved your own problem! I don't know why you keep repeating it (maybe he's playing a war of attrition), but it is getting exceedingly annoying. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random. Oh, and BTW, evolution is not random. Genetic variation is the "random-ist" process in it, but the natural selection process is not random at all, and is based upon the traits acquired through mutation and their effect, if any, upon the survival rate of the individuals who possess it. If you think evolution is a random process, read this paragraph again, because I'm tired of answering that!
BTW, how does this natural selection thing work, it sounds like a bunch of crap, but I'd like to see what you have to say for it...
There are a couple of things fundamentally wrong about this:
1) Natural selection is the engine of evolution! Trying to understand evolution without understanding natural selection without it is like trying to contemplate the solar system without Newton's universal law of gravitation.
2) The second phrase, combined with the first, by
definition shows that you are dogmatic. You admittedly have no knowledge of it whatsoever, yet have concluded it a "bunch of crap" (well, we atheists have names for your Biblical fairy tales, too!).
Because I already covered it in my last post, I won't say any more, besides one thing: "Survival of the Fittest". Think about it.
Happy now?
No, I'm a bit hungry. Thank you very much for your concern of my well being, though.
I'm a bit relieved, because with your understanding of evolution, I'm not surprised you didn't "believe in it". Whoever told you what you know, though, should be fired/removed from their position/chastised.
So don't go telling me I've got it wrong. 
Don't be blaming others when you got things wrong. What John posted was true, and he is not responsible for how you interpreted it. Also, whether or not he described micro-evolution or not, your own description of your knowledge of evolution is more of an extreme corruption than a manifestation of (but more likely not even derived from) his description.
Even if he was wrong, and his description was as corrupted as yours was today, he still cannot be held 100% responsible, because you have more than enough time to do your own research. Seriously, if the extent of your research is two paragraphs on a gaming forum, you shouldn't expect to in any way disprove evolution.
