Ben Stein is a true genious! I can understand why he would logically conclude the fact that the talking snake theory makes more sense than a scientifically proven theory. Who needs facts when you have God? How does God do it? He's magic and thats all there is to it!
@Boleskine33 I hold no faith in anything other than the scientific method. Do you know why? Because I can go look at the evidence myself. I can cross check said evidence with alternative studies. I can ask my peers what they know of the subject. My understanding is based on clear evidence supported by numerous experts, not on fairy tales passed on to control the weak. We mock you because you have a simple mind. You base your ideals on feelings, you use your mind to no higher degree than a dog.
the truth is that every body claims that has the truth, and knows everything. well we should be free to think where ever we want!!! When schools teach children about the theory of evolution they are putting that " theory" in their minds. i think children should be teach facts! not things that a person thought! AND IF THERE IS A FLAW OR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT 100% CORRECT CHILDREN SHOULD KNOW THAT TO THAT WAY THAT BOY OR GIRL IS ABLE TO CHOSEE WHAT THEY WILL BELIVE IN.
@gabriel47120 there are no flaws in evolution that could lead anyone do beleive its not true. there are things we dont 100% understand, same as anything, but evolution is a fact, we know it happens. im pretty sure you dont want schools to teach an alternative to the "theory" of gravity
By your logic we shouldn't teach GRAVITY in schools. Because the Theory of Gravity has a flaw. It has a HUGE flaw.
Furthermore, in physics, there really isn't such a thing as a fact that is 100% true. Quantum Mechanics fucks over our normal conception of the universe with its nondeterminance like to that. While barely noticeable in our normal, large scale, macro world (albeit still present), it is EXTREMELY noticeable at the quanta level as well. So, we can't teach physics?
@gabriel47120 If you're too retarded to know the difference between thinking WHERE ever you want and WHATever, you're probably also too retarded to actively search out, let alone understand the overwhelming evidence that has been accumulated over the past century to support this widely accepted theory. Bottom line is; I don't want people with your level of comprehension deciding what can and cannot be taught to children. There is no controversy to teach. War's over, God lost. Get over it. GTFO
Darwin doesn't explain gravity, physics or how to plant sand in the sky? Damn, here I was hoping it did... Now I gotta go figure these things out too? Gee, thanks puppet-dude-thingy... <-- the 3 dots !
When Bennie lost his game show and then that great Visine gig, it's pretty obvious he's desperate for money. I'd imagine he's racked up some cash after joining the dark side. He surely isn't this dumb--just greedy.
I think perhaps Stein secretly accepts evolution, he just wants to disassemble creationists from the inside, that or he is actually a retard, for his sake I hope its the first option lol.
Ben Stein is an idiot recommending to buy banks at the beginning of a financial crisis and telling Ron Paul he is anti semitic for recommending we don't occupy countries in the middle east ... tired of people scaring others into not speaking up .... shame on you Ben Stein.
Human creationism can be explained by studding the oldest civilization discovered on this planet...the Sumerians...Thus covering the HUGE hole in human the human evolution theory...They were here over 7000 years ago and knew how many planets were in our solar system...what they consisted of and what they looked like..they also explain our moon and the asteroid belt...using science....but science seems to ignore them lol...there you go...too bad stein did too...haha
Hahaha... yeah right they were a civilisation from outer space! Of course, how else could they know of stars and planets? Through observation? No way! Ben Stein must also be an alien, most likely he is from the planet Moron II which is inhabited by a race called Republican Retards!
you will have to research the sumerians...they say that we were engineered by an alien race...they were here on this planet 7000 years ago..they knew all the planets...the human dna...alot of things...look them up.
Look, once I attended some courses in the sumerian language in university (just because I was interested). We read a lot of cuneiform writings but none of them mentioned an alien race or stuff like. It were mostly contracts and inventory lists. Only because the sumerians knew about planets (like other early civilizations because they were not restricted by christianity) that doesn't mean mankind was created. I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous claim. It's not "evidence" it's mere speculation.
no its not...you just did not learn about that part...lol they defiantly do mention an alien race..I believe they call them the anu naki meaning beings that come from the heavens..any way like I said look it up...they dont teach any of that crap in your schools colleges ect...oh yeah and they knew what the other planets looked like...we did not know what neptune looked like until 1970's its not speculation..it is plainly stated in their writings...
The sumerians called some gods of the pantheon anunna. What gods usually do is walking around in heaven. That doesn't mean they are aliens. I doubt the sumerians knew of neptune let alone what he consists of. They knew Mercure and other planets close to the earth. The greeks did to. Where do you have got this information from? I guess it's from one of those weird nibiru-sites where they spread a lot of bollocks citing unreliable sources. I'd rather go with science taught in university!
Here is where things go wrong...I am correct...I have studied them for 10 years now...they did know these things...they wont teach you this in college..hell they still teach that the pyramids were built by people dragging the stones with vines ect...even though if you do the math it is completely impossible...just recently one of their drawings was confirmed to be a replica of the human dna...they even knew about pluto..Ive read many books on this subject.
Did you study this subject in a university or only in the internet? There is a reason why they do not teach you this kind of stuff in university. It's because conspiracy theories are bogus, that cannot be verified by scientific findings. I'm sorry to say that, but you probably read the wrong books on this subject.
If I remember correctly annunaki are the akkadian gods of the netherworld who have few in common with the sumerian Annuna (meaning Gods from the semen of Enki). They are usually regarded the oldest layer of the sumerian pantheon - but that doesn't make them aliens. Do your homework ! (the information you get in the internet is probably not a good source on the sumerians). Why do you fall for that kind of bogus?
you really should do your homework....see it is very hard for people to believe that they have been tought wrong their whole lives...who writes your textbooks...look it up...I am sorry to say that your university may have thought you only some of the truth...I looked it up...did my homework over and over again on ancient civilizations...I have read almost all the work...All the information taken in does get me a little twisted around sometimes trust me Universities do not always teach the truth.
Sitschin basically relies on translations of sumerian texts that have been shown to be incorrect. Furthermore his understanding of physics is weak to say the least. The claim, that an advanced race of aliens could evolve on a planet orbiting the sun beyond Pluto without any sunlight but instead has a thick atmosphere and radioactive decay to keep it warm and habitable is absurd. His claims are pretty arbitrary and not confirmed by other scientific findings.
This high pitched puppet is WAAAY funnier than it should be. Still hard to listen to for more than a few minutes, but puppets and scathing sarcasm is always a good combo!
Why is it the rabid response like this one offers so little of substance? Surely something intelligent still exists among the naysayers. To ridicule, create straw man arguments, and be otherwise profoundly dismissive, only reinforces the contention Ben Stein raises.
Like most pieces that ridicule the documentary, this talking puppet contributes nothing to the debate, apart from ridicule.
But to be fair, I submitted to the silly rant all the way through. This has been the issue. Can we have openness enough to listen. If we can for green falsetto'ed silliness, all in the name of science, what is wrong with listening the ontological argument?
to ridcule someones belief system? Lemme him alone. Science ma yhave been around hundreds but God has been for eternity. We all know where you are going when you die
Yeah, ad hominem attacks. It's not like calling somebody old is an ad hominem attack. It is kinda funny, though, how calling somebody old and senile tends to be popular as long as the person believes in some kind of god. Just a curious observation.
Hm...now see, I can see where Expelled looked like a bid for ID to be accepted as the theory, but I saw it more as just a movie about how modern day scientists are completely dismissing the idea as creationism (which it's not). And how we should be willing to at least listen to the idea and not immediately dismiss it. After all, I don't believe in it but that's because I looked at the idea objectively and then decided. ID would tear itself apart in the classroom, let it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ben Stein was absolutely right. People in the varying fields of science are in fact being discriminated against for having creationist beliefs, particularly Christians.
People in varying fields of science are discriminated against for having any beliefs which are non-refutable and have no evidence in their favor, especially when they go about defending those beliefs with fallacies and lies.
Oh shut up. I will have to put up with the ridicule and discrimination of assholes like you very soon because I too do not hold evolution to be true. I didn't choose to be interested in science the way I am, nor did I choose to not be so shallow as to actually believe a materialistic universe to be true. And you know what the most beautiful part about it all, is?
There's no proof for your side of the story. Biological evolution, abiogenesis, astronomical evolution, has, no, proof. Fascists.
I don't assume. I look up from 6 millenia of prophecy perfectly fulfilled to this very day. It's what you would call, "Not being a blind tool." I happen to know for a fact what's happening, and, therefor, who will be "QQing" very soon. It most certainly wont be me.
Well... Both cities have ruins left, each showing destruction by fire from archaeologists. Not only this, each city is pelted with little crators containing ancient ash and...nearly perfectly round little balls of 96-98% pure monoclinic Sulfur, with trace amounts of magnesium for an extremely high temperature burn. Pelted as in, shot-gun like. Both cities were annihilated by "burning hail"
No angels visited lot through, right?
Maybe...just like the cities not existing in the first place.
Yes it has to be in some places. Whether intentionally or not, vague or not, amongst all the crap, the bible must have bits of truth in it somewhere. Statistically it has to.
Quick checking reveals nothing, but I should probably hit the journals. Before I do, though, relay your citations. Journal Name, Date, Volume, Number, pages and Article title, with the author names. That's the minimum necessary amount of work needed to prove your claim in a passable manner.
To my knowledge this discovery does not have a normal Archeological journal passed around 50 people and stamped 50 times. But if you can't ...open google, and type "Sodom Gommorah Sulfer balls" and get something, then something must be wrong with your internet.
"Journal Name, Date, Volume, Number, Pages and Article title"
I'm sorry, did you just say "astronomical evolution"? No such field exists! The other real sciences you mention has tons of proof. What about it don't you understand?
Good to see we're still name calling. Put in that respect, it makes sense doesn't it? Of course, a solar system is going to change over time but I'll give you credit in that the term is misleading. You're not suggesting that solar systems come into existence in 6 days are you? I mean come on!
Oh I want to know this proof of yours for biological evolution. Tell me, when have we observed one kind, give rise to another kind? i.e. a different species that it's unable to breed with?
Well, glad you asked. Plants: Oenothera gigas, Primula kewensis, Tragopogon, Raphanobrassica, Galeopsis tetrahit, etc. Animals: Drosophila paulistorum, Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Phylloscopus trochiloides, Ensatina eschscholtzii. Any questions? I'm sure you'll come up with some clever creationist way of ignoring or reducing the significance of the evidence, so let's have it.
Plants. Evolving. Into different kinds of plants so different they can't even breed. Evolving. Not breeding them together. Hell, where do you think donkeys come from? I wanted evolution, not a list of crap you knew damn well wasn't evolution.
So basically, I was right. You focused on the artificial selection while completely avoiding the natural selection portion. I think we're done then cause I can't waste my time with someone who ignores evidence. This is why I excluded Darwin's finches cause I knew you'd jump on that. Anyway, enjoy your discrimination cause you're going to get a lot of it.
:( I'm actually a student of science myself, and I'm scared because I believe as I begin to take my college courses I will be discriminated against by those who are intolerant of my views, even though theirs by definition cannot be proven. So this issue effects my directly. And you come off as a damn fascist.
Oh dear god! You may want to switch your studies now to one where you don't have to think critically and provide evidence: get a job at Fox News. You will be discriminated against if you believe unsupported claims, yes. Certain things are provable but explaining why they are facts can be a challenge. Since we're name calling, you're an idiot!
Science isn't interested in anyone's "view." It's only interested in truth. If you promote your "view" without evidence you'll be rightfully ridiculed within the science community, so if you can't handle that, which seems to be the case, save yourself the heartache and study something else.
Cultists?!? Ha! Speak for yourself. If only accepting things grounded in reality is cultist then...wow! You fail. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go pray to my non-existent cultist god. Cause, you know, us non-believing folk do that: pray.
Hmm. A harder subject than the plants, but it doesn't seem like anything's conclusive...some of the flies you mentioned, the people who purported they might BE incidents of true speciation warned heavily against it, as that was not by a long shot, a fact. Still, very interesting. Just not conclusive.
At this point, I can see why you may believe in evolution and I apologize for being so dismissing of your worth for doing so.
But I still say, there is nothing conclusive about evolution.
Hmmm, well, back to evolution some other time but you're making a mistake by classifying the Christian god as reality because it's just as likely for any other god to exist. What if you're wrong and Allah sends you to Hell? What if you're wrong and Ra sends you to Hell? What if we're all wrong and some unknown god sends us to Hell? If God was proven someone would've won a Nobel Prize for supplying the proper evidence. Not the case.
Not necessarily, you'd still end up with a few gods, at least, that fit any attributes you came up with. Mithra fits the attributes of a Christian god. Why not worship him then?
We could certainly argue on the accuracy of that claim. The evidence seems to say that the Catholic church used the similarities to convert Pagans. That said, considering that they coexisted in a similar time period for a time, I think it's more likely they borrowed from each other.
Let's see....well. If there is a GOD God, that means that this God made everything in the universe. That already sweeps a crap load of the deities off the bus...Let's see, the JudeoChristian God, Allah...hmm......Hinduism touches on this with Brahman and Brahma, but Brahman, though possessing the neccesary qualities is not "alive" or intelligent perse, and Brahma, the creator god lacks the qualities himself, disqualifying both.
The sheer, laughable limitations of the grecian/roman gods and the egyptian gods, painting them as fools and even laden down with man-like imperfections clearly disqualifies them as well, as well as the limitations of each of their individual abilities. None of them could be "The Creator God" Same goes for the norse Gods.
Maybe, but if we're made in God's image we should be perfect. You could also say if we're made in a god's image that they should be foolish at times. And why does a god have to have created the world? Nothing says this has to be but the Bible and we don't know if it's right so maybe a god that didn't create the world exists and we're doomed for not believing in him/her. You need something more than one questionable source and intuition.
I am not aware of the mythologies of every religion on the planet, but so far it seems all we have left is the Judeo-Christian God, and Allah, both of which are supposedly singular beings, intelligent, and possessing infinite qualities.
So, excluding the rest of the debate, we both could still be damned to Hell for not believing in Allah since he seems to be God's only acceptable alternate. So why bother with religion at all if the odds of going to Hell are so high? Both gods say you can't follow the other so you can't live in both worlds to insure yourself, so again, why bother if no real evidence exists for either? To me this illustrates the improbability of any god, period.
I think if a god controlled the universe (s)he'd control science too, so I don't think that's asking too much personally. That aside, did we not conclude Allah and God were equal contenders? If so, how can you logically conclude which one to follow?
Stop looking for evidence. Scientists have been doing it for years and havn't found any. They keep finding splendid order, laws, and beauty, but then they find the laws making them so. Then it becomes easy to saw these laws are natural and not god breathed. Naturalistic proof is not proof, because God is not naturalistic. God is beyond this reality, as is the central spark that formed your spirit.
You want proof? You want the whole story? Then I have a suggestion, assuming you care about truth.
Stop looking outwardly for God, and start looking inwardly. Turn off your computer, your music, whatever else, and focus on your inner being. Look past your flaws, perfections, even your own mind and memories, into the hum of your existence.
And do it for more than a few seconds or minutes. Really force yourself to reflect. Look inside as deep as you can, and ask it, not your brain, is there a God? Is there something beyond the materialistic world?
I honestly can't count the number of times I've done this but it yielded no results. And yes I honestly tried. The only thing I come up with, and not because of my love for science, are ideas like the meta-universe. To me, if we imagine a god-like something, this is God. Once, the Gnostic god Barbēlo seemed like a good candidate since he promotes a "whatever" policy but how likely is it that he's real: not very.
I use to be a fanatic theist as well, except I never really heard of evolution until I was virtually in high school.
I never believed my brand of religion to be fair but learning about mythology and of course a better understanding of science, I began to see that religion was just an illusion and for some, the extremists, a downright delusion.
IF there's a god it's not how we picture it: not a man or being at all but a consciousness or metaverse as I like to put it.
Also, I don't mean to harp but why isn't Allah a good candidate? You seemed to agree that he had god-like qualities but never gave a valid reason for rejecting him.
Also, drawing from my personal experiences, why don't I find your version of God when I do your experiment but one that's far different and, frankly, much more humane? If God were real we all should find him this way and no other god be it Yahweh, Barbēlo, or Allah should've been conceptualized.
This reflection is meant to alert you to a spiritual world, not necessarily the truth of it. It is nowhere near enough to find truth, merely to find the portal to a world outside of materialism completely, yet so personally connected to human experience that it cannot be brushed off as useless.
The truth of this world is an altogether different story. Most likely, what are you are viewing is not God, but super-conscious phenomena, like spirits, or aspects of your own immaterial body. :|
Look, science claims to explain the natural world but shies away from the supernatural for good reason. If you want to think God put us here, fine but respect the natural world He put you in. All the points for creation have been refuted so could anyone say the creation theory is on the same level as evolutionary theory. Creation isn't even a theory in the scientific sense. Evolution is far more conclusive and probable than creation.
Me and my friends went to see Expelled because we knew it would be hilarious. When they brought up Nazis, we all cracked up in the theater, and this guy in front of us in the theater was like "What's funny!? What's funny!?" We laughed harder.
You're wrong about Evolution. Evolution is defined as the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. What you're referring to is called Abiogenesis.
I think the problem with the term "Intelligent Design" is that it encompasses many different theories. One being "God" is the intelligence behind all evolution. Another being, that the "missing link" is missing because it doesn't exist and our development as a species was given a genetic push by some other species for some reason.
Anyway, my point is that "Intelligent design" seems to be science's new name for the "Other" category.
I'll only accept your "Other" category if you mean to say it's a category that exists as an alternative to reason. Its followers are an irrational group that would rather believe its collective delusion than anything that is backed up by an avalanche of evidence.
I'm in no way saying they are right, but there are quite a few 'Intelligent Design' theories that are very well thought out. Some even include Darwinian evolution, such as the missing link theory. While others are just fetched and completely ridiculous when thought about rationally.
Although I agree that I have yet to see any Intelligent design theorists come up with any concrete evidence to support their claims.
What you said in the last paragraph is the entire point. A "theory" in science is not the same as in the vernacular. A scientific theory REQUIRES evidence (empirical data) - and otherwise it is simply a hypothesis.
With all the many years and endless money behind it, if intelligent design hasn't made it past hypothesis then it is extremely unlikely it ever will.
I agree, most haven't gone past the hypothesis stage, however there are a few that actually have evidence to support their theory.
I guess that means I'm not a scientist, because I don't dismiss theories until they are irrefutably proven false. Hell, if we all dismissed wacko theories right off the bat Quantum mechanics wouldn't be where it is today.
Where is the evidence that an intelligent creator must have existed? And please don't state "well, because such-and-such seems inexplicable by any other means." Such a statement is not a theory, but a non-sequitor. There is no basis for making the jump from "I don't know why it happened" to "intelligent creator did it".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Some theories are based on Sumerian scripts. Others are based on Dogon tribe histories. Both of which also describe scientific principles which are surprisingly close to Quantum mechanics.
One of the cool things about quantum mechanics is that, though we don't know HOW it works, we know THAT it works because results are ALWAYS consistent with the theory, which is why it is a theory - reliable predictions can be made with the theory.
I agree. However some Intelligent design theories are very difficult to prove or disprove. The universe is a crazy place and I personally will not dismiss any theory, just because at the moment we have no way to prove it. Nor can we disprove it. Therefore, even though it clashes with my personal beliefs, who's to say it's wrong if it cannot be disproved. There are many ID theories that can be debunked by science, but there are also some that we currently cannot.
Now, can reliable predictions be made with intelligent design? Has ID put man on the moon? Can ID heal people beyond mere statistical noise? All of these are things that science has accomplished, and ID has yet to deliver on, across the entirety of its existence.
Intelligent Design is not a field, it's a theory. If you replace ID with Alchemy or Faith, then your statement would make more sense. Evolution has done none of these things, science has.
3:30 that's funny because I remember Ben Stein saying that he used to write speeches for Richard Nixon. I think that goes to show what kind of people Stein works for, Liars, now he's with the Discovery institute, the main proponents of Intelligent Design.
What you must remember is that Stein is NOT a scientist-he's an economist by training and a political speechwriter and commentator by profession. Ergo, he has no legitimate right to question Darwinism.
When the movie was on it's prerelease tour I had a chance to watch it and talk to both Ben Stein and the producer.
They said that the main point was not the creationist stand but more along the lines of the blackballing of anyone who believed in ID. I don't agree with most of the movies point but I do think that people shouldn't be blackballed for the beliefs.
Ahh, sorry about that. I didn't completely read that right.
That makes more sense. It's been a while since I've seen the movie so I can't remember the whole thing.
I do remember thinking "ID leads to naziism? that doesn't sound right" anyway what the nazis were doing was more like un-natural selection rather than natural selection.
Yeah, they were choosing what they believed to be the better, not what would be useful to the survival of the species in the environment that they live.
The problem is mainly that ID is not science, the supreme court ruled that way a while ago. There is no science in ID ergo it should not be taught in public schools as science. If people want to teach it in private school or in home schooling then fine, but that still does not make it science.
Wait a minute. All Ben stein said about the whole Natzism thing was that darwin influenced them...which it did. not that they practiced natural selection. They saw that natural selection eliminated the weak, so they took and and tried to speed it up by killing those they saw weak. This is shat.
"the whole Natzism thing was that darwin influenced them.." The Swastika was originally a Hindu/Jainist symbol to denote good luck, which Hitler took and perveted, so what, it has no bearing upon the symbol's usage in Jainism. It is merely a ploy used by Stein to smear evolution, it has no bearing on the ID/evolution discussion. Stein is a prick for doing this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Richard Dawkins couldn't see the difference between 1 good piece of evidence from another even if it bit him on his...
At least that's what I think.
I used to be an evolutionist but as my quest for knowledge & truth through honesty continued I soon realised (age 22 in the midst my university years) that evolution is after all just a fairytale for people who don't want God in their lifes.
& Those who want God & accept evolution struggle real hard
Couldn't you believe in God and evolution? They aren't exactly mutually exclusive. There is space to believe in God as a creator while nevertheless believing in the scientific principle of evolution.
wow, you are a weak minded fool. evolution a fairytale?? Evolution is the most comprehendable idea backed up by tons and tons of scientific evidence, its overwhelming. evolution is Fact. how can you say something backed up by loads of scientific facts is a fairytale? compared to creationism. backed by nothing, and goes against all logic and common sence. and completely contradicts anything that we have learned to be as scientific Fact.
Idiot
Bobbymann10 3 months ago
Biologists say "Darwinism" all the time.
TheMillion84 1 year ago
Ben Stein is a true genious! I can understand why he would logically conclude the fact that the talking snake theory makes more sense than a scientifically proven theory. Who needs facts when you have God? How does God do it? He's magic and thats all there is to it!
somethingdiffereable 1 year ago
When Ben Stein said that evolution couldn't account for gravity, I knew that something wasn't right there.
georgekostaras 1 year ago 2
Lol this was great, pwned by a puppet, gotta love it.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
This is awesome!
tipoomaster 1 year ago
A yellow puppet with a hand up its ass makes more sense than a real person.....that is SAD
theShadow117 1 year ago 5
At first I thought it was a parody... I really did.
YEAH PUPPETS!!!
totoro1591 1 year ago
LMAO! Oh fuck.......lamqaoalmosmae
akrulla 1 year ago
"people who grow corn upport nazis"
this is one funny puppet.
he looks like the love child of kermit the frog and marge simpson.
faithisuneducated 1 year ago
haha
menonfire12 1 year ago
Well Done!
cunninglinguist82 1 year ago
perhaps it's you guys who are too attached to your beliefs? And at least he has the guts to show his face.
Boleskine33 1 year ago
@Boleskine33 I hold no faith in anything other than the scientific method. Do you know why? Because I can go look at the evidence myself. I can cross check said evidence with alternative studies. I can ask my peers what they know of the subject. My understanding is based on clear evidence supported by numerous experts, not on fairy tales passed on to control the weak. We mock you because you have a simple mind. You base your ideals on feelings, you use your mind to no higher degree than a dog.
lyricaljunkster 6 months ago
+50000 respect for making this.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
The ageist remarks are objectionable.
sptfgpn 1 year ago
the truth is that every body claims that has the truth, and knows everything. well we should be free to think where ever we want!!! When schools teach children about the theory of evolution they are putting that " theory" in their minds. i think children should be teach facts! not things that a person thought! AND IF THERE IS A FLAW OR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT 100% CORRECT CHILDREN SHOULD KNOW THAT TO THAT WAY THAT BOY OR GIRL IS ABLE TO CHOSEE WHAT THEY WILL BELIVE IN.
gabriel47120 1 year ago
@gabriel47120 If you can bring forth something that makes more sense please do so, if not get the fuck out.
SDub817 1 year ago
@gabriel47120 there are no flaws in evolution that could lead anyone do beleive its not true. there are things we dont 100% understand, same as anything, but evolution is a fact, we know it happens. im pretty sure you dont want schools to teach an alternative to the "theory" of gravity
yngvaibucketrucci 1 year ago
@gabriel47120
By your logic we shouldn't teach GRAVITY in schools. Because the Theory of Gravity has a flaw. It has a HUGE flaw.
Furthermore, in physics, there really isn't such a thing as a fact that is 100% true. Quantum Mechanics fucks over our normal conception of the universe with its nondeterminance like to that. While barely noticeable in our normal, large scale, macro world (albeit still present), it is EXTREMELY noticeable at the quanta level as well. So, we can't teach physics?
tskasa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gabriel47120
"When schools teach children about the theory of evolution they are putting that " theory" in their minds."
A theory IS a fact. Regardless of how you try to phrase it. By the very definition of science, a theory IS a fact.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@gabriel47120 If you're too retarded to know the difference between thinking WHERE ever you want and WHATever, you're probably also too retarded to actively search out, let alone understand the overwhelming evidence that has been accumulated over the past century to support this widely accepted theory. Bottom line is; I don't want people with your level of comprehension deciding what can and cannot be taught to children. There is no controversy to teach. War's over, God lost. Get over it. GTFO
lyricaljunkster 6 months ago
This is awesome. A puppet calling people on their bullshit. Definitely subscribed.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
5:37 AAAAHHHHH!!!! The best.
billyjoejimbob75 1 year ago
Darwin doesn't explain gravity, physics or how to plant sand in the sky? Damn, here I was hoping it did... Now I gotta go figure these things out too? Gee, thanks puppet-dude-thingy... <-- the 3 dots !
MikeRomulus 1 year ago
Lightning striking a mudpuddle is abiogenesis, not evolution. Ben stein is far too stupid to know that though.
Xadreos 1 year ago
When Bennie lost his game show and then that great Visine gig, it's pretty obvious he's desperate for money. I'd imagine he's racked up some cash after joining the dark side. He surely isn't this dumb--just greedy.
RegressLess 1 year ago
I think perhaps Stein secretly accepts evolution, he just wants to disassemble creationists from the inside, that or he is actually a retard, for his sake I hope its the first option lol.
Hoggie6000 1 year ago
I have the same feelings of Ben shalom zionist jewboy stein, a zionazi nut job!!
roughcutone2 2 years ago
Stein is a nazi right wing nut!
unclelight13 2 years ago
And them Jew Nazis are the worst!
schadenfreudelolz22 2 years ago
OMFG! this is hilarious well done.
tallifer1 2 years ago 13
Still believe this? Hope not. We are headed for idiocracy if these beliefs get the upper hand.
entwood 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ferris Buller DOES NOT make you smarter then "RON PAUL"
AvidLifestyle 2 years ago
Ben Stein is an idiot recommending to buy banks at the beginning of a financial crisis and telling Ron Paul he is anti semitic for recommending we don't occupy countries in the middle east ... tired of people scaring others into not speaking up .... shame on you Ben Stein.
polarbeach 2 years ago 22
more proof there is no hope for the sheeple that believe in evolution...
MG42pillbox 2 years ago
Human creationism can be explained by studding the oldest civilization discovered on this planet...the Sumerians...Thus covering the HUGE hole in human the human evolution theory...They were here over 7000 years ago and knew how many planets were in our solar system...what they consisted of and what they looked like..they also explain our moon and the asteroid belt...using science....but science seems to ignore them lol...there you go...too bad stein did too...haha
serphant420 2 years ago
Hahaha... yeah right they were a civilisation from outer space! Of course, how else could they know of stars and planets? Through observation? No way! Ben Stein must also be an alien, most likely he is from the planet Moron II which is inhabited by a race called Republican Retards!
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
Im not standing up for stein here...Just saying that there is evidence in the issue of human creationism...thats all...
serphant420 2 years ago
If so, could you present that "evidence" to the audience please?
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
you will have to research the sumerians...they say that we were engineered by an alien race...they were here on this planet 7000 years ago..they knew all the planets...the human dna...alot of things...look them up.
serphant420 2 years ago
Look, once I attended some courses in the sumerian language in university (just because I was interested). We read a lot of cuneiform writings but none of them mentioned an alien race or stuff like. It were mostly contracts and inventory lists. Only because the sumerians knew about planets (like other early civilizations because they were not restricted by christianity) that doesn't mean mankind was created. I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous claim. It's not "evidence" it's mere speculation.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
no its not...you just did not learn about that part...lol they defiantly do mention an alien race..I believe they call them the anu naki meaning beings that come from the heavens..any way like I said look it up...they dont teach any of that crap in your schools colleges ect...oh yeah and they knew what the other planets looked like...we did not know what neptune looked like until 1970's its not speculation..it is plainly stated in their writings...
serphant420 2 years ago
The sumerians called some gods of the pantheon anunna. What gods usually do is walking around in heaven. That doesn't mean they are aliens. I doubt the sumerians knew of neptune let alone what he consists of. They knew Mercure and other planets close to the earth. The greeks did to. Where do you have got this information from? I guess it's from one of those weird nibiru-sites where they spread a lot of bollocks citing unreliable sources. I'd rather go with science taught in university!
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
Here is where things go wrong...I am correct...I have studied them for 10 years now...they did know these things...they wont teach you this in college..hell they still teach that the pyramids were built by people dragging the stones with vines ect...even though if you do the math it is completely impossible...just recently one of their drawings was confirmed to be a replica of the human dna...they even knew about pluto..Ive read many books on this subject.
serphant420 2 years ago
Did you study this subject in a university or only in the internet? There is a reason why they do not teach you this kind of stuff in university. It's because conspiracy theories are bogus, that cannot be verified by scientific findings. I'm sorry to say that, but you probably read the wrong books on this subject.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
If I remember correctly annunaki are the akkadian gods of the netherworld who have few in common with the sumerian Annuna (meaning Gods from the semen of Enki). They are usually regarded the oldest layer of the sumerian pantheon - but that doesn't make them aliens. Do your homework ! (the information you get in the internet is probably not a good source on the sumerians). Why do you fall for that kind of bogus?
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
you really should do your homework....see it is very hard for people to believe that they have been tought wrong their whole lives...who writes your textbooks...look it up...I am sorry to say that your university may have thought you only some of the truth...I looked it up...did my homework over and over again on ancient civilizations...I have read almost all the work...All the information taken in does get me a little twisted around sometimes trust me Universities do not always teach the truth.
serphant420 2 years ago
Sitschin basically relies on translations of sumerian texts that have been shown to be incorrect. Furthermore his understanding of physics is weak to say the least. The claim, that an advanced race of aliens could evolve on a planet orbiting the sun beyond Pluto without any sunlight but instead has a thick atmosphere and radioactive decay to keep it warm and habitable is absurd. His claims are pretty arbitrary and not confirmed by other scientific findings.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
I offer you look into Zecharia Sitchin findings and translations...more and more of his claims get verified every day....
serphant420 2 years ago
Ben Stein is a moron!
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
yeah he is so dumb that he has more degrees than you can ever dream of...lol
serphant420 2 years ago
You are right! The more "degrees" from weird christian diploma mills you get, the dumber you are.
Elvikowsky 2 years ago
This high pitched puppet is WAAAY funnier than it should be. Still hard to listen to for more than a few minutes, but puppets and scathing sarcasm is always a good combo!
rhysxk 2 years ago
funniest thing here is that even a puppet can understand evolution better than Stein does XD!
dapanzy 2 years ago
Why is it the rabid response like this one offers so little of substance? Surely something intelligent still exists among the naysayers. To ridicule, create straw man arguments, and be otherwise profoundly dismissive, only reinforces the contention Ben Stein raises.
OAbrey 2 years ago
Like most pieces that ridicule the documentary, this talking puppet contributes nothing to the debate, apart from ridicule.
But to be fair, I submitted to the silly rant all the way through. This has been the issue. Can we have openness enough to listen. If we can for green falsetto'ed silliness, all in the name of science, what is wrong with listening the ontological argument?
OAbrey 2 years ago
to ridcule someones belief system? Lemme him alone. Science ma yhave been around hundreds but God has been for eternity. We all know where you are going when you die
elainew1970 2 years ago
rofl.. this is prety funny.
Jaredz2000 2 years ago
A puppet critic of real people? How childish. Mr. Garrison needs to get his hand out of politics.
slowtyper5 2 years ago
Yeah, ad hominem attacks. It's not like calling somebody old is an ad hominem attack. It is kinda funny, though, how calling somebody old and senile tends to be popular as long as the person believes in some kind of god. Just a curious observation.
lstdy 2 years ago
Hm...now see, I can see where Expelled looked like a bid for ID to be accepted as the theory, but I saw it more as just a movie about how modern day scientists are completely dismissing the idea as creationism (which it's not). And how we should be willing to at least listen to the idea and not immediately dismiss it. After all, I don't believe in it but that's because I looked at the idea objectively and then decided. ID would tear itself apart in the classroom, let it.
Sydpart2 2 years ago 3
Ben is paid to lie.
sailmiata 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ben Stein was absolutely right. People in the varying fields of science are in fact being discriminated against for having creationist beliefs, particularly Christians.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
People in varying fields of science are discriminated against for having any beliefs which are non-refutable and have no evidence in their favor, especially when they go about defending those beliefs with fallacies and lies.
Tmilicus 2 years ago 3
What can I say. You'll see. :)
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
/salute
I salute you, sir(or ma'am, can't be bothered to open your profile in a new tab).
Ewe haz brain. Ai leik.
It's the fact that they simply accept something with no proof of it that damns them, not their belief in and of itself.
It's not a becoming behavior of a scientific mind... THAT is why they are ridiculed.
Kalenos 2 years ago
Oh shut up. I will have to put up with the ridicule and discrimination of assholes like you very soon because I too do not hold evolution to be true. I didn't choose to be interested in science the way I am, nor did I choose to not be so shallow as to actually believe a materialistic universe to be true. And you know what the most beautiful part about it all, is?
There's no proof for your side of the story. Biological evolution, abiogenesis, astronomical evolution, has, no, proof. Fascists.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
QQ moar.
Kalenos 2 years ago
Hah. Yeah.
Very soon, -I- won't be the one QQing.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
/golfclap
Way to assume. While I do find the theory of evolution interesting, I do not prescribe to it(or religion).
And yes, you will be QQing -- for the rest of your life. Fact.
You will always become testy when confronted by an individual whom makes claims that oppose your own.
Human nature. We dislike any thing that contests our little corner of reality.
Kalenos 2 years ago
I don't assume. I look up from 6 millenia of prophecy perfectly fulfilled to this very day. It's what you would call, "Not being a blind tool." I happen to know for a fact what's happening, and, therefor, who will be "QQing" very soon. It most certainly wont be me.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
You asked for some..prophecy or proof.
Well, here's one. It's not iron clad, and, you could probably just call it a coincidence.
Not that any reasonable person should, and if you do I'm going to straight up block you. I'm not interested in "it's a coincidence" BS.
Sodom and Gomorrah were once thought to be fairy tales. They never existed.
Wrong. We have now found sodom and gomorrah.
Well certainly they can't have had fire rain on them and what not, right? That part has to be fake.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Well... Both cities have ruins left, each showing destruction by fire from archaeologists. Not only this, each city is pelted with little crators containing ancient ash and...nearly perfectly round little balls of 96-98% pure monoclinic Sulfur, with trace amounts of magnesium for an extremely high temperature burn. Pelted as in, shot-gun like. Both cities were annihilated by "burning hail"
No angels visited lot through, right?
Maybe...just like the cities not existing in the first place.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
People implying that the bible doens't contain some degree of history are idiotic.
I'm sure some of it is true.
Curious though. WHere can I find information on this? Detailed pictures, reports, etc.
Kalenos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'll send a link.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Yes it has to be in some places. Whether intentionally or not, vague or not, amongst all the crap, the bible must have bits of truth in it somewhere. Statistically it has to.
jamesmagmar126 2 years ago
Law of averages dictates it. xD
Kalenos 2 years ago
Oh I forgot to mention.
The ittle 96-98% pure monoclinic sulfur with trace amounts of magnesium balls?
That is the only place in the entire world you will find them. There is nothing like them, anywhere else on this damn planet.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
As the man says, [Citation Please].
Quick checking reveals nothing, but I should probably hit the journals. Before I do, though, relay your citations. Journal Name, Date, Volume, Number, pages and Article title, with the author names. That's the minimum necessary amount of work needed to prove your claim in a passable manner.
GabrieLaVedier 2 years ago
Quick checking reveals nothing?
To my knowledge this discovery does not have a normal Archeological journal passed around 50 people and stamped 50 times. But if you can't ...open google, and type "Sodom Gommorah Sulfer balls" and get something, then something must be wrong with your internet.
"Journal Name, Date, Volume, Number, Pages and Article title"
You have an internet connection.
Google it.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
in b4 "You didn't do what I asked for? pass."
I don't need a team of scientists to tell me what I had for breakfast. It's called thinking for yourself...try it out sometime.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
I'm sorry, did you just say "astronomical evolution"? No such field exists! The other real sciences you mention has tons of proof. What about it don't you understand?
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Yes. Astronomical Evolution is a term, it's regarding to the formation of solar systems and celestial bodies through slight changes over time.
You are now the second moron this week to not know this.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Good to see we're still name calling. Put in that respect, it makes sense doesn't it? Of course, a solar system is going to change over time but I'll give you credit in that the term is misleading. You're not suggesting that solar systems come into existence in 6 days are you? I mean come on!
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Oh I want to know this proof of yours for biological evolution. Tell me, when have we observed one kind, give rise to another kind? i.e. a different species that it's unable to breed with?
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Well, glad you asked. Plants: Oenothera gigas, Primula kewensis, Tragopogon, Raphanobrassica, Galeopsis tetrahit, etc. Animals: Drosophila paulistorum, Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Phylloscopus trochiloides, Ensatina eschscholtzii. Any questions? I'm sure you'll come up with some clever creationist way of ignoring or reducing the significance of the evidence, so let's have it.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
I think I need to repeat myself.
Plants. Evolving. Into different kinds of plants so different they can't even breed. Evolving. Not breeding them together. Hell, where do you think donkeys come from? I wanted evolution, not a list of crap you knew damn well wasn't evolution.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
So basically, I was right. You focused on the artificial selection while completely avoiding the natural selection portion. I think we're done then cause I can't waste my time with someone who ignores evidence. This is why I excluded Darwin's finches cause I knew you'd jump on that. Anyway, enjoy your discrimination cause you're going to get a lot of it.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Good! They should be cause they're absolutely wrong and should know better!
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
:( I'm actually a student of science myself, and I'm scared because I believe as I begin to take my college courses I will be discriminated against by those who are intolerant of my views, even though theirs by definition cannot be proven. So this issue effects my directly. And you come off as a damn fascist.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Oh dear god! You may want to switch your studies now to one where you don't have to think critically and provide evidence: get a job at Fox News. You will be discriminated against if you believe unsupported claims, yes. Certain things are provable but explaining why they are facts can be a challenge. Since we're name calling, you're an idiot!
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
You have no idea what you're even saying.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Science isn't interested in anyone's "view." It's only interested in truth. If you promote your "view" without evidence you'll be rightfully ridiculed within the science community, so if you can't handle that, which seems to be the case, save yourself the heartache and study something else.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
No. I won't "save myself the heart ache". I wont let a bunch of cultists change my way of life or being.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Cultists?!? Ha! Speak for yourself. If only accepting things grounded in reality is cultist then...wow! You fail. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go pray to my non-existent cultist god. Cause, you know, us non-believing folk do that: pray.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Hmm. A harder subject than the plants, but it doesn't seem like anything's conclusive...some of the flies you mentioned, the people who purported they might BE incidents of true speciation warned heavily against it, as that was not by a long shot, a fact. Still, very interesting. Just not conclusive.
At this point, I can see why you may believe in evolution and I apologize for being so dismissing of your worth for doing so.
But I still say, there is nothing conclusive about evolution.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
One that that is conclusive is that God is proven, he is reality. I look up from 6 millenia of fulfilled prophecy perfectly to the letter.
I'd say, if I am blind, that evolution is absolutely true...
I am by no means anywhere near as blind as the materialists.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Hmmm, well, back to evolution some other time but you're making a mistake by classifying the Christian god as reality because it's just as likely for any other god to exist. What if you're wrong and Allah sends you to Hell? What if you're wrong and Ra sends you to Hell? What if we're all wrong and some unknown god sends us to Hell? If God was proven someone would've won a Nobel Prize for supplying the proper evidence. Not the case.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Well one thing we can do to narrow the list down is go into the necessary attributes of God, right?
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Not necessarily, you'd still end up with a few gods, at least, that fit any attributes you came up with. Mithra fits the attributes of a Christian god. Why not worship him then?
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Mithra predates Jesus Christ, the problem is, all the similarities he had with Christ came after Jesus Christ, he was basically re-written.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Comment removed
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
We could certainly argue on the accuracy of that claim. The evidence seems to say that the Catholic church used the similarities to convert Pagans. That said, considering that they coexisted in a similar time period for a time, I think it's more likely they borrowed from each other.
Also, what about Barbēlo?
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Let's see....well. If there is a GOD God, that means that this God made everything in the universe. That already sweeps a crap load of the deities off the bus...Let's see, the JudeoChristian God, Allah...hmm......Hinduism touches on this with Brahman and Brahma, but Brahman, though possessing the neccesary qualities is not "alive" or intelligent perse, and Brahma, the creator god lacks the qualities himself, disqualifying both.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
The sheer, laughable limitations of the grecian/roman gods and the egyptian gods, painting them as fools and even laden down with man-like imperfections clearly disqualifies them as well, as well as the limitations of each of their individual abilities. None of them could be "The Creator God" Same goes for the norse Gods.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Maybe, but if we're made in God's image we should be perfect. You could also say if we're made in a god's image that they should be foolish at times. And why does a god have to have created the world? Nothing says this has to be but the Bible and we don't know if it's right so maybe a god that didn't create the world exists and we're doomed for not believing in him/her. You need something more than one questionable source and intuition.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
I am not aware of the mythologies of every religion on the planet, but so far it seems all we have left is the Judeo-Christian God, and Allah, both of which are supposedly singular beings, intelligent, and possessing infinite qualities.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
So, excluding the rest of the debate, we both could still be damned to Hell for not believing in Allah since he seems to be God's only acceptable alternate. So why bother with religion at all if the odds of going to Hell are so high? Both gods say you can't follow the other so you can't live in both worlds to insure yourself, so again, why bother if no real evidence exists for either? To me this illustrates the improbability of any god, period.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Well you assume Science should be your guide to knowing God. That the God should display scientific evidence.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
I think if a god controlled the universe (s)he'd control science too, so I don't think that's asking too much personally. That aside, did we not conclude Allah and God were equal contenders? If so, how can you logically conclude which one to follow?
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Stop looking for evidence. Scientists have been doing it for years and havn't found any. They keep finding splendid order, laws, and beauty, but then they find the laws making them so. Then it becomes easy to saw these laws are natural and not god breathed. Naturalistic proof is not proof, because God is not naturalistic. God is beyond this reality, as is the central spark that formed your spirit.
You want proof? You want the whole story? Then I have a suggestion, assuming you care about truth.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Stop looking outwardly for God, and start looking inwardly. Turn off your computer, your music, whatever else, and focus on your inner being. Look past your flaws, perfections, even your own mind and memories, into the hum of your existence.
And do it for more than a few seconds or minutes. Really force yourself to reflect. Look inside as deep as you can, and ask it, not your brain, is there a God? Is there something beyond the materialistic world?
This would be the first step in discovery.
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
I honestly can't count the number of times I've done this but it yielded no results. And yes I honestly tried. The only thing I come up with, and not because of my love for science, are ideas like the meta-universe. To me, if we imagine a god-like something, this is God. Once, the Gnostic god Barbēlo seemed like a good candidate since he promotes a "whatever" policy but how likely is it that he's real: not very.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
I use to be a fanatic theist as well, except I never really heard of evolution until I was virtually in high school.
I never believed my brand of religion to be fair but learning about mythology and of course a better understanding of science, I began to see that religion was just an illusion and for some, the extremists, a downright delusion.
IF there's a god it's not how we picture it: not a man or being at all but a consciousness or metaverse as I like to put it.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Also, I don't mean to harp but why isn't Allah a good candidate? You seemed to agree that he had god-like qualities but never gave a valid reason for rejecting him.
Also, drawing from my personal experiences, why don't I find your version of God when I do your experiment but one that's far different and, frankly, much more humane? If God were real we all should find him this way and no other god be it Yahweh, Barbēlo, or Allah should've been conceptualized.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
This reflection is meant to alert you to a spiritual world, not necessarily the truth of it. It is nowhere near enough to find truth, merely to find the portal to a world outside of materialism completely, yet so personally connected to human experience that it cannot be brushed off as useless.
The truth of this world is an altogether different story. Most likely, what are you are viewing is not God, but super-conscious phenomena, like spirits, or aspects of your own immaterial body. :|
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Prophecies? Alright, which version of the bible do you follow?
I'll read it myself and see just how vague your versions predictions are.
Kalenos 2 years ago
Look, science claims to explain the natural world but shies away from the supernatural for good reason. If you want to think God put us here, fine but respect the natural world He put you in. All the points for creation have been refuted so could anyone say the creation theory is on the same level as evolutionary theory. Creation isn't even a theory in the scientific sense. Evolution is far more conclusive and probable than creation.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
Sir, I am not not interested in just saying "Oh no, evidence! No! It's all bs!"
I will go down the list, as I researched each plant.
Oenothera Gigas has been known to NOT be case of evolution for years now.
Primula Kewensis is a case of Polyploidy, not evolution.
Tragopogon...Polyploidy (sigh)
Raphanobrassica. Polyploidy...yay...let's see if a single one of these is an observed piece of evolution....
Galepsis Tetrahit - Good GOD MAN. POLYPLOIDY.
Let's see us about some animals
MorpheusOmikron 2 years ago
Me and my friends went to see Expelled because we knew it would be hilarious. When they brought up Nazis, we all cracked up in the theater, and this guy in front of us in the theater was like "What's funny!? What's funny!?" We laughed harder.
LanceDirk 2 years ago 4
I wish someone would post it on YouTube so I could laugh at it too.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
These videos are great! I happened across Rant Puppets three hours ago and have since achieved largely nothing constructive! Distraction Faction FTW!
PS: At 2:16 I think perhaps he meant "astronomy", not "astrology".
JohannGasmask 2 years ago
Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon in fact.
And you are probably right about this movie being a parody. It definitely has been a great blow to creationism.
prakkari 2 years ago
The puppet was Intelligently Designed...
goneutt 2 years ago 3
Well done, I enjoyed this.
AtheistAussie 2 years ago
I "believe" Ben Stein's new movie IS a hidden parody and it was very deliberate.
ScienceIsKnowledge 2 years ago 2
Evolution is true! According to this video, a huge dick evolved from spontanious generation!
med991 2 years ago
Who doesn't love porn and fried chicken? =P
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago 3
You're wrong about Evolution. Evolution is defined as the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. What you're referring to is called Abiogenesis.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
I think the problem with the term "Intelligent Design" is that it encompasses many different theories. One being "God" is the intelligence behind all evolution. Another being, that the "missing link" is missing because it doesn't exist and our development as a species was given a genetic push by some other species for some reason.
Anyway, my point is that "Intelligent design" seems to be science's new name for the "Other" category.
theoriginalKland 2 years ago
To theoriginalKland:
I'll only accept your "Other" category if you mean to say it's a category that exists as an alternative to reason. Its followers are an irrational group that would rather believe its collective delusion than anything that is backed up by an avalanche of evidence.
pntmass 2 years ago
I'm in no way saying they are right, but there are quite a few 'Intelligent Design' theories that are very well thought out. Some even include Darwinian evolution, such as the missing link theory. While others are just fetched and completely ridiculous when thought about rationally.
Although I agree that I have yet to see any Intelligent design theorists come up with any concrete evidence to support their claims.
theoriginalKland 2 years ago
To theoriginalKland:
What you said in the last paragraph is the entire point. A "theory" in science is not the same as in the vernacular. A scientific theory REQUIRES evidence (empirical data) - and otherwise it is simply a hypothesis.
With all the many years and endless money behind it, if intelligent design hasn't made it past hypothesis then it is extremely unlikely it ever will.
pntmass 2 years ago
I agree, most haven't gone past the hypothesis stage, however there are a few that actually have evidence to support their theory.
I guess that means I'm not a scientist, because I don't dismiss theories until they are irrefutably proven false. Hell, if we all dismissed wacko theories right off the bat Quantum mechanics wouldn't be where it is today.
theoriginalKland 2 years ago
To theoriginalKland:
Where is the evidence that an intelligent creator must have existed? And please don't state "well, because such-and-such seems inexplicable by any other means." Such a statement is not a theory, but a non-sequitor. There is no basis for making the jump from "I don't know why it happened" to "intelligent creator did it".
pntmass 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some theories are based on Sumerian scripts. Others are based on Dogon tribe histories. Both of which also describe scientific principles which are surprisingly close to Quantum mechanics.
theoriginalKland 2 years ago
To theoriginalKland:
One of the cool things about quantum mechanics is that, though we don't know HOW it works, we know THAT it works because results are ALWAYS consistent with the theory, which is why it is a theory - reliable predictions can be made with the theory.
pntmass 2 years ago
I agree. However some Intelligent design theories are very difficult to prove or disprove. The universe is a crazy place and I personally will not dismiss any theory, just because at the moment we have no way to prove it. Nor can we disprove it. Therefore, even though it clashes with my personal beliefs, who's to say it's wrong if it cannot be disproved. There are many ID theories that can be debunked by science, but there are also some that we currently cannot.
theoriginalKland 2 years ago
To theoriginalKland:
Now, can reliable predictions be made with intelligent design? Has ID put man on the moon? Can ID heal people beyond mere statistical noise? All of these are things that science has accomplished, and ID has yet to deliver on, across the entirety of its existence.
pntmass 2 years ago
Intelligent Design is not a field, it's a theory. If you replace ID with Alchemy or Faith, then your statement would make more sense. Evolution has done none of these things, science has.
theoriginalKland 2 years ago
3:30 that's funny because I remember Ben Stein saying that he used to write speeches for Richard Nixon. I think that goes to show what kind of people Stein works for, Liars, now he's with the Discovery institute, the main proponents of Intelligent Design.
VforVendetta200 2 years ago 2
so I wasn't the only one thinking Ben Stein had secretly joined the seculars :P
Sutskoen 2 years ago
What you must remember is that Stein is NOT a scientist-he's an economist by training and a political speechwriter and commentator by profession. Ergo, he has no legitimate right to question Darwinism.
baarbear 2 years ago
yeah, he needs to stick to the clear eyes commercials.
modevotion1 2 years ago
economist? well whats intoresting was Adam Smith was an economist and smiths ideas influenced charles darwin.
pbrskater26 2 years ago
That was cool.
AtheistOnTheEdge 2 years ago
When the movie was on it's prerelease tour I had a chance to watch it and talk to both Ben Stein and the producer.
They said that the main point was not the creationist stand but more along the lines of the blackballing of anyone who believed in ID. I don't agree with most of the movies point but I do think that people shouldn't be blackballed for the beliefs.
TheUltimateMullet 2 years ago
Nope, all the people that he interviewed who supported ID were liers or telling half truths.
Glacies12 2 years ago
Would that include Richard Dawkins?
TheUltimateMullet 2 years ago
Do you even understand what I said?
The SUPPORTERS of intelligent design, were either lieing outright or diluting the truth.
Glacies12 2 years ago
Ahh, sorry about that. I didn't completely read that right.
That makes more sense. It's been a while since I've seen the movie so I can't remember the whole thing.
I do remember thinking "ID leads to naziism? that doesn't sound right" anyway what the nazis were doing was more like un-natural selection rather than natural selection.
TheUltimateMullet 2 years ago
Yeah, they were choosing what they believed to be the better, not what would be useful to the survival of the species in the environment that they live.
Glacies12 2 years ago
The problem is mainly that ID is not science, the supreme court ruled that way a while ago. There is no science in ID ergo it should not be taught in public schools as science. If people want to teach it in private school or in home schooling then fine, but that still does not make it science.
Tavereen 2 years ago
you should edit this video
at 2:17 you say "astrology", i think you meant to say "astronomy"
muhammedalix 2 years ago
Someone get this puppet on a pro-science TV show so he can educate kids about the beautiful world of science!!!!
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
Wait a minute. All Ben stein said about the whole Natzism thing was that darwin influenced them...which it did. not that they practiced natural selection. They saw that natural selection eliminated the weak, so they took and and tried to speed it up by killing those they saw weak. This is shat.
xerocoo1 2 years ago
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed over uses this point though.
DanielBMS 2 years ago
"the whole Natzism thing was that darwin influenced them.." The Swastika was originally a Hindu/Jainist symbol to denote good luck, which Hitler took and perveted, so what, it has no bearing upon the symbol's usage in Jainism. It is merely a ploy used by Stein to smear evolution, it has no bearing on the ID/evolution discussion. Stein is a prick for doing this.
DuctTapeMyFace 2 years ago
mrhogg, you do a great impression of an aborted fetus. Too bad no one else got it R.I.P. (maybe)
ZotDudot7 2 years ago
The puppet looks like Kermit with that weird skin thing Michael Jackson has.
problem49 2 years ago
Lol the puppet pwns Ben Stein ^^
dekippiesip 2 years ago 4
HAHAHA! We have the PUPPETS on are side! Take that, Michael Behe!
Internetaccount133 2 years ago
WORD!
batboyandy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richard Dawkins couldn't see the difference between 1 good piece of evidence from another even if it bit him on his...
At least that's what I think.
I used to be an evolutionist but as my quest for knowledge & truth through honesty continued I soon realised (age 22 in the midst my university years) that evolution is after all just a fairytale for people who don't want God in their lifes.
& Those who want God & accept evolution struggle real hard
--
w. evolutionfairytale . com
--
God bless
leinadamil 2 years ago
Couldn't you believe in God and evolution? They aren't exactly mutually exclusive. There is space to believe in God as a creator while nevertheless believing in the scientific principle of evolution.
Gargruk 2 years ago
wow, you are a weak minded fool. evolution a fairytale?? Evolution is the most comprehendable idea backed up by tons and tons of scientific evidence, its overwhelming. evolution is Fact. how can you say something backed up by loads of scientific facts is a fairytale? compared to creationism. backed by nothing, and goes against all logic and common sence. and completely contradicts anything that we have learned to be as scientific Fact.
buddieG420 2 years ago 2