So.. The creationists are upset at us scientists because we don't accept bullshit as a basis for factual knowledge. Where's the problem? Let the butt hurt flow through you Ben. Feel the power of the butt hurt side. Embrace your new found knowledge of reality and its consequences.
Darwinism doesn't explain how my God could be real! My God doesn't need a creator! But Darwinism doesn't explain how something came from nothing! So my God came from nothing! But darwinism doesn't explain where my God came from! Ahhhh!
Well, it looks like to you "at the beginning there was a dirt" (or even nothing) and in my view "at the beginning there was God". You choose which is more probable. But both are MIRACULOUS, so please dont tel me you are sooo scientific...! ;-)
@MrSmutnaMezatka Dirt? Where may I ask did you get that from? So, your conclusion is that if given the choice between dirt (which is clearly present on earth today) and God (imaginary thing you've never seen), you're picking the invisible friend? Please enlighten us, when you go to the beach, do you make sandcastles or God-Castles?
Sure, I can explain …by a simple question to you: what, do you think, was at the beginning? I mean, the VERY beginning. Unless you believe the Earth and the Universe are eternal, but thats not the case, is it? Come on! :-)
@MrSmutnaMezatka You can't answer a question with another question. If you're going to engage in an actual discussion, you sorta have to back up your assertions rather than dance around and avoid questions. I'm just curious why dirt seems like a far-fetched idea to you, but imaginary friends aren't?
Well, as I kinda agree with you, let me answer your Q first, hoping you realise that a real discussion is answering Qs from both sides? :-)
So, by "dirt" I really meant "nothing", since it was NOTHING - they claim - that the Universe came from. Only AFTER the initial event of Big Bang (?) there was - they claim - a DIRT. That dirt later clustered, evolved and so on. So, it was a shortcut that I used with that DIRT, ok now? tbc...
And have you even entertained a thought with an idea that a God could actually create TIME, but isnt affected by it? He could just be standing outside of it, or next to it, like Casio stays outside their watches - creator of a watch, but not affected by it or time it measures. :-)
U see, against theory of evolution speaks the very existence of so-called geological column. Do u know what year it was "invented"? Do you know real assumptions behind half-life dating?
@MrSmutnaMezatka First, you need to understand that the Big Bang theory does not say something came from nothing and the Big Bang and evolution are not really connected in any way. I can see this has been pointed out to you before on this comment board, but have chosen to ignore that fact. Second, the theory has nothing to do with "dirt". There would need to be gases, extremely dense matter/anti-matter, and eventually dust clouds that form planets. Dirt comes long, long after.
@MrSmutnaMezatka (Part 2) I'm trying to make sense of your second point- but I'm guessing you're saying time could be invented? Again, evolution says nothing about time or an invention of something. We have no way of realistically analyzing that and we need to stay within the context of what can be observed.
@MrSmutnaMezatka I suppose you could use the word "faith" in reference to my embracing evolution as fact. If one used that word in relation to being confident in the truth of all the scientific reasearch and evidence assembled for proof of evolution, then yes, I have "faith" that evolution is a fact. This is not, of course, the relegious definition which is a belief system is based on the faith without the slightest bit of proof. Do you see the distinction here?
Since the topic of this article seems to be creationist who tell lies I will share this: As part of many conversations with my close Christian conservative Republican friend I explained why I was no longer any of the above: “It is the lies they tell”. If you believe in God, then consider the commandment against lying. Lying about religion or conservative values has the effect, in the long run, of driving away people who might otherwise find reason to support such positions.
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
@JamesRideout123 Dear James, i hate it when people say posts like yours are SPAM. This is just censorship in my opinion, and shame on those that practice it.
@garethb1961 Actually, no, his post WAS spam, read it. It was basically talking about kent hovind's ministry, claiming how he was censored rather than fired, how there's a "dark and evil conspiracy coming to turn our children into beasts," and finally started spamming Bible verses.
No, that post *WAS* spam, tho it does lie on the outer limits of what exactly spam is, it still deserves to be hidden as such. I mean, sucks that it gives him the illusion of being censored, but oh well.
@JamesRideout123 actually he failed to pay his taxes like a good citizen.. the rest of your story (which I am sure will quickly degrade into a conspiracy).. follows a pattern of paranoid idiocy.. (there is a possibility, although very remote, that you are pulling off an extraordinary parody.. in that case I can only just admire your intelligence)
that guy is so fucking stupid, he should be kept away from any and all positions of authority and sharp object, he should also not be allowed to reproduce, his genes are a direct insult and obstacle to intelligent, advancement and humanity in general.
Haha! If thats your "prevention" policy, I pity you, mate. Btw, how on Earth can you be so sure about what youre saying? How can you ever trust your own brain, if it is - supposedly - only a product of a "blind chance"? ;-) So, in your opinion, whos smarter in that film: Ben Stein or the guy hes meeting at the end of the last part of this video? Which one? I bet you say "the other one,not Ben S.". Well, can't you see he is ALSO a creationist, but just of a different type
@MrSmutnaMezatka I exaggerated for comical purposes but I really do think it would be best if Ben Stein never became president or got a job in education. I have no reason not to trust my brain and mind. Yes its the product of blind chance. I dont know if the interviewer is smarter, he isn't giving me enough information to judge but it would be hard to be more ignorant then Ben
Hi. Oh,I see - comical purposes? Looks like Im too serious" then,haha! Well,I appreciate what youre saying about presidency for Ben S.,however I believe the whole point of the film was not to show who's smarter or who's right/wrong,but that the claims of the "official" science are biased. Put it this way:no-one expects u 2believe in "god's miracles",ok? But to me,calling evolution a science (nothing became something & something dead became alive!) takes a lot of faith,too
True, I agree. Therefore, how can u rely so firmly on "a theory" and even call it SCIENCE? Im not claiming my faith is science, but for your "faith" (in Darwinism) you dont have firm science to back it up. And if u did, youd be able to explain how nothing became sth. Can u do that scientifically or will you go theorising?
How can I rely on a theory that does not describe something that it is not even trying to desribe? it's pretty damn easy, if you READ through the theory, if you READ even my comment you would not have made your comment, because it simply does not make sense.
And I dont have "faith". there is also no such thing as "Darwinism"
Please read up before you try to discuss matters like these again, it would save both you and the one discussing with you alot of grief
a lie? to state that Evolution theory does not explain the origin of life and the universe is a lie?
maybe you should READ the theories you discuss, I see you have made a comment on ALOT of the people who have commented in this thread, which must have been alot of work, however you have not spent a few minutes reading up on what you are actually discussing?
...and I also know that evolution is claimed just to be "change over time" (and that is indeed what we observe),but then jumping from micro-evolution to makro-evolution of time-space-organisms-life is a rather huuuge leap,isnt it? In essence,we are both left with no choice than to believe in some sorts of "miracles". However,the difference seems to be that evolutionists believe "at the beginning there was nothing (or dirt)" and I believe in sth smarter that dirt... :-)
@MrSmutnaMezatka that depends really on your definition of miracle and faith, the creation of life can be viewed as a miracle even if it did just occur by chance. You could also say that I have faith in science to answer almost every question. My belief in evolution isn't so much faith as it is the only real option. The origins of life arnt part of evolution but abiogenisis which is vaguely understood, the big bang even less but they will get better in time.
Most of ppl here are wanting creationists to be "real" and be based in facts,not miracles. Well, first of all, you do need a miracle to have a big bang out of "complete nothing, nada, nil". Not to mention, the alleged events after your bang are religious, too. So, what exactly exploded in the big bang, guys? Did you see it? Can you create/make something out of nothing? You need to have a really strong faith to believe in that concept... :-)
"So, what exactly exploded in the big bang, guys?"
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
The Big Bang does not assert something came from nothing.
You have been told all of this before, yet have not corrected yourself.
Calling you a troll was not an insult...it was identification. At this point, you're purposefully spouting off falsehoods just to get a rise out of people. That makes you a troll.
For you I can be a troll if that makes you happy, but this still wont let you go away just with stating that "BB wasnt an explosion" and that proves youre right and Im wrong, mate. So, whatever it was (according to your science), what started the universe? What started an existing matter?
P.S.: really change your tone of patronising me - its getting boring and I thought we are both to benefit from this conversation, ok? Thanx
You stick to your "Big Bang was this, wasnt that" - but... how do you know? Or do you believe it only? I understand youve been given some "scientific" clues, maybe even proofs,but the problem is - to claim Evolution to be scientific true, you need the whole chain of events to be possible. And is the very beginning of this theory even possible? I mean, for nothing became sth??? This is why evolution, meant as an evolution from non-living into living organisms is rubbish.
Blind man you are then.. Here I am. Come on, my challenge is: what exactly did they "create" in those experiments? An organic matter, a living creature, a man possibly...? ;-)
Of course, youre welcomed to BELIEVE they wouldve obtained a living creature. But what would you actually call this "science"? Id call it religion, mate. :-) Looks like youre religious, oops!
Not sure what you are refering to. However, things aren't 'created' Assembled, manufactured, yes, but not created. Adenine, if you are talking about what I think you are.
Actually belief has nothing to do with science. More like, I ACCEPT the findings of their experiment by reading the peer-reviewed paper published on the subject.
Well, well - so, are you saying that the Earth (or a living creature in that experiment) was "assembled,manufactured"? Great,youre then a creationist! Bravo,you!
Look,if theres a design,theres a designer - correct?
And if the experiment you are glorifying was any successful in "assembling" anything living, then Id bow to it. But it is not the case,is it?
What we are talking here are "clues" rather than science–and the clues for evolution are hilarious I think
Not at all actually. Merely that things aren't "created".
Yes, a design requires a design. However, living organisms are NOT design. Can a building or painting reproduce on its own? No! There is a huge different between living organims and non-living objects.
Actually, it was. No, nothing living, but some of the necessary parts for life.
I would hardly consider the past 150 years of scientific research to be a joke.
Hello again - I wonder what makes you make such a presumption that "living organisms are not design". Well, if thats the way the "science" works, then similarly I could assert "humans are cows" & take my whole activity from there, couldnt I? Where would that lead me to? And I also love you stating "the experiment produced some parts of life" and that means it was successful! Just hilarious,cant you see? It takes a lot of faith to believe science like this...
I dont even comprehend your stupidity. How you went from from "organisms are not design" to "humans are cows" is absolutely unfathomable.
Well seeing as how the experiement was to determine if organic molecules could be produced from non-organic molecules, and not only did they find organic materials but also they found amino acids! So to say it wasn't succesful is a huge statement of ignorance for it when't way beyound any expectations.
your claim that "organisms are not design" is theory only. True, paitings cannot reproduce (your own comparison), but a living God - at least theoretically - can design a living thing, cant He? And for this version, I can see abundance of evidence. On the other hand, I understand that evolution seems to be a good theory, but to believe in it as a fact, you need to disregard the beginning of it all. It just doesnt hold...
And only because new species DO come about in front of our eyes, youve been made to believe in the whole "bunch" of evolutions, such as: origin of space, time, MATTER, Earth, life on it etc etc. Only new species coming abut are proven scientifically - not other ones listed above. But they sell it to you as a bundle, call - Im afraid - Evolution. Have u read a book called "Forbidden archaeology"? Cremo/Thompson
It's a little sad that you apply such an intense level of scrutiny to actual scientific theories (or, more appropriately, your pathetic straw men of these theories), yet swallow the lies of Michael Cremo without question and make assertions without corroboration willy-nilly.
This awkward double standard is not uncommon among creationists. It's a hallmark of the fundamental sophistry behind the whole thing.
so if people say that we're so complex, that we couldn't have come about my evolutionary means, and that we were created, wouldn't that creator be even more complex than us to be able to create us? if so, what created that creator? ad infinitum
@123456789robbie I told you to smoke less pot. That way we could actually understand what you were saying instead of spewing out some random nonsense.
@shagoosty dude, it's youtube. not that i'm against grammar in general, but it's just unnecessary to freak out over bad grammar or spelling. not that there are any misspelled words in that comment. further, the grammar is bad because i was tired and didn't really feel like reworking it so that it was correct.
@123456789robbie In the world proper grammar is necessary for communication. If you can't effectively communicate with someone they are not going to take you seriously, and will automatically dismiss any claim you make. It doesn't matter how tired you are, basic grammar should be important to you if you want people to take you seriously. If you want people to assume that you are a little kid then continue what you're doing.
Ben Stein sounds like he's got peanut butter on the roof of his mouth. I think he had a stroke or something, it would explain his... Delusions. Perhaps we should give him a break.
Hahaha - or is it really funny? Make fun if you dont have anything better against thise claims. And what exactly do u have against those claims made in the film? Go ahead - thats my challenge. But please be specific, ok? :-)
Expelled no Intelligence Allowed? clearly not since if intelligence was allowed they would have figured out that their "documentary" was bullshit from the start.
@MrSmutnaMezatka sigh i cant hanlde ur stupidty and ur invalid points.i have to be stupid as u so u can understand me.ok ill give it a try
1)what diseases have to do with religion?NONE! eskimoes dont get cancer?rly? check ur facts again.and what does health has to do with knowledge and beeing civilised? u think anyone who is civilised tends to be sick and not healthy?.sigh...
2)middle age ppl were basing their sociteis on the craps of religion...thats why its cold DARK AGES.
Do u want to exchange invectives or facts & opinions?
Why did I mention Eskimos and cancer? Well, because whats official on this planet comes from evolutionists - science, so-called knowledge etc. Got me?
Now, your equation seems to be based on the above assumption that anything thats called science is based on evolution, because that theory is regarded as a fact, not a theory anymore. Got me?
And youre right: Eskimos do get cancer - only once on Western diets
"your equation seems to be based on the above assumption that anything thats called science is based on evolution, because that theory is regarded as a fact, not a theory anymore. "
Why are you wrong about everything?
Likely because you know you can't refute actual science as it stands, so instead you lie about what it is.
@MrSmutnaMezatka 1)/watch?v=sd7iXASIOdA 2)/watch?v=-ZXOfiaJhZ8&feature=related 3)/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU&feature=channel_video_title 4)/watch?v=TLGGKraKmXc&feature=related 5)h t t p : / / w w w .bibliotecapleyades. net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_7. htm 6)/watch?v=jHPg3kjKBRc&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_525245 7)/watch?v=FDUkd5os4xk&feature=relmfu EVOLUTION 8)/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig 9)/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c&feature=relmfu
@MrSmutnaMezatka (2)develpoment comes when u have ur mind open when u analyse when u look on the facts and u do experiments,trial and error methods etc not nhust by..believing in them.RELIGION IS DANGEROUS AND ITS A GREAT PROPAGANDA ENSLAVING UR BRAIN AND STOPING THE DEVELOPMENTS AND THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD SOCIETY.u have to be a very egotistical person to think ur special and an imaginary daddy does everything 4 ur own sake.u have faith but faith provesNOTHINGbelieving is not the same as knowing
@MrSmutnaMezatka (3)so u say that bible proves itself...ok...then i tell u this..VOLDEMORD EXISTS! how do i know that? cause the book of harry poter says so.getting my point? yr points r stupid and invalid.u have no brains nor critical thonking no indipentent thinking and ur just a sheep following the flock.u say a god existys..OK GIMME PROVES ABOUT THAT AND ILL BE THE FIRST TO ACCEPT UR GOD.GIMME UNDENIYING PROVES.got any? cause i got lots of proves that say that religions r bullshits...
I was talking to a creationist the other day. He claimed to know God existed because "if you take the assumption that God exists, then look at all the biblical claims supported by historical evidence, you can prove that God exists". I took a piece of paper and traced a circle as I replied "If I make the assumption that this teapot which says 'made in China' is a God, and I confirm that the tea pot is actually made in China, then I can prove that this teapot is god".
It'd be funny as hell, if when he was searching "Observed Instances Of Speciation" the drop down box on google shown crazy fetish porn searches! Respect to ThunderF00T though!!
the key factor in americans stupidity is FOX, however did it happen that such a dishonest, openly and extremely biast far right network get to the top of "news-networks". what the fuck is going on?!?
@managarm1349 sensationalism. news don't bring in the ratings. It's the modern era, the era of reality TV and the rest of the garbage. news shows that aren't sensationalizing will fare no better than the weather channel.
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
Oh, I agree completely with that. Well, except maybe that I would say "scientifically irrelevant" rather "scientifically implausible", as I would say that science simply cannot and should not comment on the plausibility of the supernatural. The main reason for that though, would be to avoid giving ammo to the creationists who believe that they can scientifically prove the plausibility of the supernatural.
@MatoVuc I didn't say that it was scientifically plausible to believe in a god. Not that that would matter to a believer, as belief is not scientific. My point is that Agnosticism would be the position supported by science, not Athiesm. As far as scientific evidence goes, the existence or lack thereof of a god is an unknown. There is verifiable evidence for, but there is also no verifiable evidence against either. Simply put, Agnosticism is an admission of the unknown, while Athiesm is a belief.
@IrishRover716 fair enough and taking those labels into consideration i am non-religious/agnostic.
i understand your point, and actually agree with you.
that said, science is concerned with the natural world and God-like beings are not part of that nor does their existence or lack thereof in any way factor into the physical mechanisms of the universe, thus there is no place for them in the field of science. that also means that an "intelligent designer" is scientifically implausible
"Why couldn't there have been an intelligent designer?"
No one said there couldn't, Stein (or at least, any true scientist shouldn't. Remember, lack of proof of existence does not equate to proof of lack of existence). In point of fact, it's entirely possible there is some sort of God, but it cannot be proven by scientific means. But whether or not there is has nothing to do with the fact that new earth creationism does not fit within the strictures of verifiable science. Two different issues.
@IrishRover716 while lack of proof of existence is not proof of lack of existence, that does not make it scientifically plausible to believe in the existence of such a thing.
Only evidence of existence is reason to believe in the existence of something, and anecdotal "evidence" and "philosophical" speculation is not it.
As for the "intelligent designer", there is no need to grasp for a supernatural explanation when the laws of nature are more than sufficient to shape the universe
Stein was never trying to get behind Darwin in the first place. He was simply flattering him in order to lighten the heavy load criticism he was bound to receive.
2:04, I laughed so fucking hard at that impression - once again you let the mallet of reason fall on those who would bring everything humanity and all it has accomplished into ignorance and decay.
nice video. i agree with your point of view. except it is true in most cases. most highschool science teachers combine the big bang theory with the theory of evolution. not strictly as an explanation of the diversity of life.
CARL SAGAN - "Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - CARL SAGAN
notice stein looks at the ground every time he says something that he knows is wrong? He would lose a fortune at poker, hes not stupid hes just a lair.
@fcpictures They can't understand it. They can't understand a life without being led like sheep. So they have to believe that being an atheist means your following someone (they usually choose Darwin for some reason.)
okay, I am not a scientist but have one thing I would like to say that I believe to be accurate. There is no such thing as a scientific hypothesis or theory being brilliant 'for its time'. Something is either right or it is wrong, pseudosciences like phrenology, dowsing, and astrology are wrong and were always wrong.
It's not that simple. There is no atomic model that is correct in every application. We use several models that we KNOW are wrong because they are accurate for certain problems.
All science is like this. Scientific theories are such because they sufficiently explain the current data. They only change when more data is collected. Thus, there are certain theories that WERE brilliant for their time because they fit the data of the time.
However, Stein's implication that evolution no longer fits the current data is just a blatant lie. It fits the current data better than it did in Darwin's day.
Seeing this stupidity and deceit makes me wish that the governments would just terraform Mars already so we freethinkers wouldn't have to listen to Ben Stein, like Ferris Bueller did on his day off.
Isn't the instance of inadvertent honesty on Stein's part weird? "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." Yes you could be and you are, Ben, yes you are!!
Okay, Stein is ignorant on something he made a 'documentary' about. That is bad enough, but non-religious-network reporters sitting there listening to it? Not stopping him when he says, "It doesn't explain gravity."? Show me the scientist who said evolution explains gravity and I'll show you what an exploding head looks like. Ridiculous stuff. Good work TF.
@shabido1 Understand this,To creationist stein is their idiot savant(with a heavy emphasis on idiot)He looks smart and he says smart words,However as TF greatly pointed out Stein is moron of the highest magnitude.
Another good video.To pick up from this is - there are Creationists who see Darwinism as an alternative theology that can be argued or dismissed as a wrong belief, whilst those who attempt to challenge it as a science try to approach their own mythologies scientifically and either miscalculate or misrepresent the results as proven science.It is possible for science and religion to co-exist in the mind but only if faith is strong enough to accept reality, otherwise you'll appear deluded.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
The problem here is that Stein keeps verbally using "Darwinism" as a blanket summation of everything he dislikes. Specious arguements aside it's pretty sad that he can't even articulately name what it is that he objects to. What a clown
To be an athiest is to abandon our rightful place in the World (whatever this World is) and thus to succumb to the dogma of "Materialism"; which teaches that there's nothing beyond the material (that is, that life came into existence from inanimate matter); which ultimately argues that we are are just "Talking Meat"; and nothing more. Believe what you will, but, for my part, we are all much more than "Talking Meat".
@jacob7inch, OK! Though rather than relying on me to prove something, you might conduct your own research. Though, I'll invite you to consider both the following 2 questions & the content contained in the video found at the following link (watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE). So the questions are: "How have Evolutionists accounted for the ORIGIN of the genetic information contained in the DNA molecule?" & "How can MUTATION (i.e. CHAOS) account for an INCREASE of genetic information within the genome?"
@assistme thats Abiogenisis is not evolution maybe thats why you cant find you're answers. anyway first question: user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=5#p/c/100500E4C9404405/2/3H0RXDrfyZc second question type: 'how does dna information increase' into google it's the first link. took me less than 1 minute to find links. maybe your the one that needs to do some research.
@assistme also i asked you to prove i wasnt talking meat not prove evolution or abiogenisis wrong. also the flagelum isnt irreduceable complex /watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w anything else you're like me to google for you?
@Jbob9954, as an Evolutionist, I'd think you'd know best of all, that wishing something were true doesn't make it so; while neither will building a religion from alleged mutations of inanimate matter into complex living beings.
@assistme first off, youre making the assumptions that im an evolutionist and an atheist when all i said was you cant make facts just fit what you wish they would be. second, no one atheist is building a religion. saying atheism is a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color. lets learn to think before making stupid assumptions and then posting a baseless argument....
@Jbob9954, as for whether Atheism is a religion or no, let's consult the dictionary. It turns out that "religion" is defined as: "(1) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons (or sects). (2) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." So, as "Atheism" contains each of these elements, I'd say (and I'm not alone, mind you) that "Atheism qualifies as a religion.
@assistme atheism isnt a specific fundamental set of beliefs, its just one belief that there is no god.... soooooooo it doesnt meet the definition provided. and there are also no practices to atheism. no rituals. no sacrifices. no offerings. no death of the the first borns, etc. sooooo it's actually wrong on all accounts. Your argument would make thinking the earth is round a religion...
@Jbob9954, the THESIS that there is no Creator is a **CONCLUSION**... based on specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons (or sects). These practices include, but are not limited to following a dogma rooted in MATERIALISM? Kindly review the videos saved in my profile for further understanding. Next, (2) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, refers to the GROUP calling themselves "atheists".
@assistme it isnt a thesis. its a response to your hypothesis that world was flat, the center of the universe, orbited by the sun, and created in seven days. if you say you own a unicorn and i say i dont believe you, you cant just say "you cant prove i dont have one!!!!!"
7:55 - 9:00
All you really have to watch.
VUTFC 20 hours ago
Facepalm
aDragonor2 5 days ago
So.. The creationists are upset at us scientists because we don't accept bullshit as a basis for factual knowledge. Where's the problem? Let the butt hurt flow through you Ben. Feel the power of the butt hurt side. Embrace your new found knowledge of reality and its consequences.
therealjammit 5 days ago
Darwinism doesn't explain how my God could be real! My God doesn't need a creator! But Darwinism doesn't explain how something came from nothing! So my God came from nothing! But darwinism doesn't explain where my God came from! Ahhhh!
snoopyd80 1 week ago
@snoopyd80
Well, it looks like to you "at the beginning there was a dirt" (or even nothing) and in my view "at the beginning there was God". You choose which is more probable. But both are MIRACULOUS, so please dont tel me you are sooo scientific...! ;-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka Dirt? Where may I ask did you get that from? So, your conclusion is that if given the choice between dirt (which is clearly present on earth today) and God (imaginary thing you've never seen), you're picking the invisible friend? Please enlighten us, when you go to the beach, do you make sandcastles or God-Castles?
snoopyd80 5 days ago
@snoopyd80
Hello and welcome to the discussion, SnoopyD80!
Sure, I can explain …by a simple question to you: what, do you think, was at the beginning? I mean, the VERY beginning. Unless you believe the Earth and the Universe are eternal, but thats not the case, is it? Come on! :-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka You can't answer a question with another question. If you're going to engage in an actual discussion, you sorta have to back up your assertions rather than dance around and avoid questions. I'm just curious why dirt seems like a far-fetched idea to you, but imaginary friends aren't?
snoopyd80 5 days ago
@snoopyd80
Well, as I kinda agree with you, let me answer your Q first, hoping you realise that a real discussion is answering Qs from both sides? :-)
So, by "dirt" I really meant "nothing", since it was NOTHING - they claim - that the Universe came from. Only AFTER the initial event of Big Bang (?) there was - they claim - a DIRT. That dirt later clustered, evolved and so on. So, it was a shortcut that I used with that DIRT, ok now? tbc...
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@snoopyd80
part 2:
And have you even entertained a thought with an idea that a God could actually create TIME, but isnt affected by it? He could just be standing outside of it, or next to it, like Casio stays outside their watches - creator of a watch, but not affected by it or time it measures. :-)
U see, against theory of evolution speaks the very existence of so-called geological column. Do u know what year it was "invented"? Do you know real assumptions behind half-life dating?
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka First, you need to understand that the Big Bang theory does not say something came from nothing and the Big Bang and evolution are not really connected in any way. I can see this has been pointed out to you before on this comment board, but have chosen to ignore that fact. Second, the theory has nothing to do with "dirt". There would need to be gases, extremely dense matter/anti-matter, and eventually dust clouds that form planets. Dirt comes long, long after.
snoopyd80 4 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka (Part 2) I'm trying to make sense of your second point- but I'm guessing you're saying time could be invented? Again, evolution says nothing about time or an invention of something. We have no way of realistically analyzing that and we need to stay within the context of what can be observed.
snoopyd80 4 days ago
Stein needs a breath mint, because all he does is talk out of his ass.
GrandmasterBBC 1 week ago
@GrandmasterBBC
Haha! And you probably feel this way because you have a firm FAITH in evolution...?
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka I suppose you could use the word "faith" in reference to my embracing evolution as fact. If one used that word in relation to being confident in the truth of all the scientific reasearch and evidence assembled for proof of evolution, then yes, I have "faith" that evolution is a fact. This is not, of course, the relegious definition which is a belief system is based on the faith without the slightest bit of proof. Do you see the distinction here?
GrandmasterBBC 4 days ago
"I'm wrong, I'm often wrong." No Stine, you're ALWAYS wrong.
velosify 1 week ago 2
Since the topic of this article seems to be creationist who tell lies I will share this: As part of many conversations with my close Christian conservative Republican friend I explained why I was no longer any of the above: “It is the lies they tell”. If you believe in God, then consider the commandment against lying. Lying about religion or conservative values has the effect, in the long run, of driving away people who might otherwise find reason to support such positions.
dalecs47 1 week ago
NOPE!
videofreek112 2 weeks ago
Stien is another creationist dumbass.
spearfisherman308 3 weeks ago
I miss when he was just the guy with the annoyingly dry voice that tried to sell me eye drops. :(
TheDreadedlife 4 weeks ago
Stein's smartest statement: I could be wrong, I'm very often wrong.
Floortjahh 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Asking why evolution doesn't explain gravity is like asking why your TV remote doesn't turn on the dish washer...
fredmalone104 1 month ago
Comment removed
fredmalone104 1 month ago
jajaja , its so easy disprove that supersticious bullshit. this guay is hillarious.
EdyMar77 1 month ago
I can't even listen to that man, he's so utterly incoherent.
TheAmorri 1 month ago
Bueller.
Bueller.
MisterTutor2010 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind is in jail because he was trying to warn the world that their is a dark agenda out there that aims at destroying the morality of every man woman and child making them into beasts. In fact Darwinism states that we evolved from mere beasts. God says you should hold your head up because you have been given free will by an all powerful all wise and all loving Creator. Jesus answered "Woe to them who worship the Created (Monkeys/Primates) rather then the Creator."
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 Dear James, i hate it when people say posts like yours are SPAM. This is just censorship in my opinion, and shame on those that practice it.
Your post is a huge laugh! Kent Hovind indeed!!
garethb1961 3 weeks ago
@garethb1961 I thank you for that.
JamesRideout123 3 weeks ago
@garethb1961 Actually, no, his post WAS spam, read it. It was basically talking about kent hovind's ministry, claiming how he was censored rather than fired, how there's a "dark and evil conspiracy coming to turn our children into beasts," and finally started spamming Bible verses.
No, that post *WAS* spam, tho it does lie on the outer limits of what exactly spam is, it still deserves to be hidden as such. I mean, sucks that it gives him the illusion of being censored, but oh well.
AscendedHologram 2 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 actually he failed to pay his taxes like a good citizen.. the rest of your story (which I am sure will quickly degrade into a conspiracy).. follows a pattern of paranoid idiocy.. (there is a possibility, although very remote, that you are pulling off an extraordinary parody.. in that case I can only just admire your intelligence)
daNDayati 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
A1pha2R3d 1 month ago
that guy is so fucking stupid, he should be kept away from any and all positions of authority and sharp object, he should also not be allowed to reproduce, his genes are a direct insult and obstacle to intelligent, advancement and humanity in general.
hughheggen 1 month ago
@hughheggen
Haha! If thats your "prevention" policy, I pity you, mate. Btw, how on Earth can you be so sure about what youre saying? How can you ever trust your own brain, if it is - supposedly - only a product of a "blind chance"? ;-) So, in your opinion, whos smarter in that film: Ben Stein or the guy hes meeting at the end of the last part of this video? Which one? I bet you say "the other one,not Ben S.". Well, can't you see he is ALSO a creationist, but just of a different type
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« How can you ever trust your own brain »
Experience. It's worked for us so far.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka I exaggerated for comical purposes but I really do think it would be best if Ben Stein never became president or got a job in education. I have no reason not to trust my brain and mind. Yes its the product of blind chance. I dont know if the interviewer is smarter, he isn't giving me enough information to judge but it would be hard to be more ignorant then Ben
hughheggen 1 month ago
@hughheggen
Hi. Oh,I see - comical purposes? Looks like Im too serious" then,haha! Well,I appreciate what youre saying about presidency for Ben S.,however I believe the whole point of the film was not to show who's smarter or who's right/wrong,but that the claims of the "official" science are biased. Put it this way:no-one expects u 2believe in "god's miracles",ok? But to me,calling evolution a science (nothing became something & something dead became alive!) takes a lot of faith,too
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
Did you watch the video?
"nothing became something & something dead became alive!"
Is NOT evolution theory, something Thunderf00t said probably 50times in the video...
slaskzor 6 days ago
@slaskzor
True, I agree. Therefore, how can u rely so firmly on "a theory" and even call it SCIENCE? Im not claiming my faith is science, but for your "faith" (in Darwinism) you dont have firm science to back it up. And if u did, youd be able to explain how nothing became sth. Can u do that scientifically or will you go theorising?
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
How can I rely on a theory that does not describe something that it is not even trying to desribe? it's pretty damn easy, if you READ through the theory, if you READ even my comment you would not have made your comment, because it simply does not make sense.
And I dont have "faith". there is also no such thing as "Darwinism"
Please read up before you try to discuss matters like these again, it would save both you and the one discussing with you alot of grief
slaskzor 4 days ago
@slaskzor HA HA!!! no such thing as darwinism? go back to basic biology
cole3454657 1 day ago
@slaskzor
And Hitler had the same policy: repeat a lie 50 times and it will become a truth... ;-)
Whatever they say it is, you need a MIRACLE for that to happen, dont you? So, is it still a science?
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
a lie? to state that Evolution theory does not explain the origin of life and the universe is a lie?
maybe you should READ the theories you discuss, I see you have made a comment on ALOT of the people who have commented in this thread, which must have been alot of work, however you have not spent a few minutes reading up on what you are actually discussing?
slaskzor 4 days ago
@hughheggen
...and I also know that evolution is claimed just to be "change over time" (and that is indeed what we observe),but then jumping from micro-evolution to makro-evolution of time-space-organisms-life is a rather huuuge leap,isnt it? In essence,we are both left with no choice than to believe in some sorts of "miracles". However,the difference seems to be that evolutionists believe "at the beginning there was nothing (or dirt)" and I believe in sth smarter that dirt... :-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka that depends really on your definition of miracle and faith, the creation of life can be viewed as a miracle even if it did just occur by chance. You could also say that I have faith in science to answer almost every question. My belief in evolution isn't so much faith as it is the only real option. The origins of life arnt part of evolution but abiogenisis which is vaguely understood, the big bang even less but they will get better in time.
hughheggen 1 month ago
@hughheggen
Whaaaat? "even if it did just occur by chance"
Ok then - please give me an example of a life coming about by chance! Please, please! ;-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
Most of ppl here are wanting creationists to be "real" and be based in facts,not miracles. Well, first of all, you do need a miracle to have a big bang out of "complete nothing, nada, nil". Not to mention, the alleged events after your bang are religious, too. So, what exactly exploded in the big bang, guys? Did you see it? Can you create/make something out of nothing? You need to have a really strong faith to believe in that concept... :-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
"So, what exactly exploded in the big bang, guys?"
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
The Big Bang does not assert something came from nothing.
You have been told all of this before, yet have not corrected yourself.
Calling you a troll was not an insult...it was identification. At this point, you're purposefully spouting off falsehoods just to get a rise out of people. That makes you a troll.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
For you I can be a troll if that makes you happy, but this still wont let you go away just with stating that "BB wasnt an explosion" and that proves youre right and Im wrong, mate. So, whatever it was (according to your science), what started the universe? What started an existing matter?
P.S.: really change your tone of patronising me - its getting boring and I thought we are both to benefit from this conversation, ok? Thanx
My name is Jack btw
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
You stick to your "Big Bang was this, wasnt that" - but... how do you know? Or do you believe it only? I understand youve been given some "scientific" clues, maybe even proofs,but the problem is - to claim Evolution to be scientific true, you need the whole chain of events to be possible. And is the very beginning of this theory even possible? I mean, for nothing became sth??? This is why evolution, meant as an evolution from non-living into living organisms is rubbish.
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
A HEARING? I would think a Yale la graduate would know that Dover was a full-blown TRIAL, and the DECISION stated that ID is not science.
csmcmillion 1 month ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
Conservative Christian Logic: /watch?v=UDBYGXWMAOw
csmcmillion 1 month ago
I like how the news reporter says "...no intelegence allowed, says it all".
It really does.
MortifiedThePenguin 1 month ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
I've never seen a creationist argue against Abiogenesis. Let alone spell it.
donkeyfieldmouse 1 month ago 9
@donkeyfieldmouse
Blind man you are then.. Here I am. Come on, my challenge is: what exactly did they "create" in those experiments? An organic matter, a living creature, a man possibly...? ;-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@donkeyfieldmouse
Of course, youre welcomed to BELIEVE they wouldve obtained a living creature. But what would you actually call this "science"? Id call it religion, mate. :-) Looks like youre religious, oops!
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
Not sure what you are refering to. However, things aren't 'created' Assembled, manufactured, yes, but not created. Adenine, if you are talking about what I think you are.
Actually belief has nothing to do with science. More like, I ACCEPT the findings of their experiment by reading the peer-reviewed paper published on the subject.
Please leave my personal beliefs out of this.
donkeyfieldmouse 1 month ago
@donkeyfieldmouse
Well, well - so, are you saying that the Earth (or a living creature in that experiment) was "assembled,manufactured"? Great,youre then a creationist! Bravo,you!
Look,if theres a design,theres a designer - correct?
And if the experiment you are glorifying was any successful in "assembling" anything living, then Id bow to it. But it is not the case,is it?
What we are talking here are "clues" rather than science–and the clues for evolution are hilarious I think
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
Not at all actually. Merely that things aren't "created".
Yes, a design requires a design. However, living organisms are NOT design. Can a building or painting reproduce on its own? No! There is a huge different between living organims and non-living objects.
Actually, it was. No, nothing living, but some of the necessary parts for life.
I would hardly consider the past 150 years of scientific research to be a joke.
(reply privatly, allows longer messages)
donkeyfieldmouse 1 month ago
@donkeyfieldmouse
Hello again - I wonder what makes you make such a presumption that "living organisms are not design". Well, if thats the way the "science" works, then similarly I could assert "humans are cows" & take my whole activity from there, couldnt I? Where would that lead me to? And I also love you stating "the experiment produced some parts of life" and that means it was successful! Just hilarious,cant you see? It takes a lot of faith to believe science like this...
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
I dont even comprehend your stupidity. How you went from from "organisms are not design" to "humans are cows" is absolutely unfathomable.
Well seeing as how the experiement was to determine if organic molecules could be produced from non-organic molecules, and not only did they find organic materials but also they found amino acids! So to say it wasn't succesful is a huge statement of ignorance for it when't way beyound any expectations.
donkeyfieldmouse 1 month ago
@donkeyfieldmouse
OK, I will explain it to you, if I may:
your claim that "organisms are not design" is theory only. True, paitings cannot reproduce (your own comparison), but a living God - at least theoretically - can design a living thing, cant He? And for this version, I can see abundance of evidence. On the other hand, I understand that evolution seems to be a good theory, but to believe in it as a fact, you need to disregard the beginning of it all. It just doesnt hold...
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@donkeyfieldmouse
...doesnt hold together well.
And only because new species DO come about in front of our eyes, youve been made to believe in the whole "bunch" of evolutions, such as: origin of space, time, MATTER, Earth, life on it etc etc. Only new species coming abut are proven scientifically - not other ones listed above. But they sell it to you as a bundle, call - Im afraid - Evolution. Have u read a book called "Forbidden archaeology"? Cremo/Thompson
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
It's a little sad that you apply such an intense level of scrutiny to actual scientific theories (or, more appropriately, your pathetic straw men of these theories), yet swallow the lies of Michael Cremo without question and make assertions without corroboration willy-nilly.
This awkward double standard is not uncommon among creationists. It's a hallmark of the fundamental sophistry behind the whole thing.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« if theres a design »
Then demonstrate that there's a design.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSmutnaMezatka 1)/watch?v=sd7iXASIOdA 2)/watch?v=-ZXOfiaJhZ8&feature=related 3)/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU&feature=channel_video_title 4)/watch?v=TLGGKraKmXc&feature=related 5)h t t p : / / w w w .bibliotecapleyades. net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_7. htm 6)/watch?v=jHPg3kjKBRc&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_525245 7)/watch?v=FDUkd5os4xk&feature=relmfu EVOLUTION 8)/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig 9)/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c&feature=relmfu
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
My head hurts from the high levels of stupid
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
so if people say that we're so complex, that we couldn't have come about my evolutionary means, and that we were created, wouldn't that creator be even more complex than us to be able to create us? if so, what created that creator? ad infinitum
123456789robbie 2 months ago
@123456789robbie Smoke less pot.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty excuse me?
123456789robbie 1 month ago
@123456789robbie I told you to smoke less pot. That way we could actually understand what you were saying instead of spewing out some random nonsense.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty oh sorry, i forgot creationists would be reading this. must remember to dumb it down in future.
123456789robbie 1 month ago
@123456789robbie Not a creationist buddy, full on Atheist that has trouble reading comments with no grammar, spelling, or sense.
shagoosty 1 month ago
@shagoosty dude, it's youtube. not that i'm against grammar in general, but it's just unnecessary to freak out over bad grammar or spelling. not that there are any misspelled words in that comment. further, the grammar is bad because i was tired and didn't really feel like reworking it so that it was correct.
123456789robbie 1 month ago
@123456789robbie In the world proper grammar is necessary for communication. If you can't effectively communicate with someone they are not going to take you seriously, and will automatically dismiss any claim you make. It doesn't matter how tired you are, basic grammar should be important to you if you want people to take you seriously. If you want people to assume that you are a little kid then continue what you're doing.
shagoosty 1 month ago
because he looks liek a nerd like erkel, he must be right
fixitluis 2 months ago
Ben Stein sounds like he's got peanut butter on the roof of his mouth. I think he had a stroke or something, it would explain his... Delusions. Perhaps we should give him a break.
HerGuardianAngel1991 2 months ago
@HerGuardianAngel1991
Hahaha - or is it really funny? Make fun if you dont have anything better against thise claims. And what exactly do u have against those claims made in the film? Go ahead - thats my challenge. But please be specific, ok? :-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka I agree with everything thunderf00t said.
If that's what you're asking.
HerGuardianAngel1991 1 month ago
@HerGuardianAngel1991
But Im not challenging him, but you, mate. So?
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka I'm not challenging thunderf00t at all. :|
I just said that Ben Stein is a stupid fool.
HerGuardianAngel1991 1 month ago
i love your fake laugh at 2:05
IvanderHaisley 2 months ago
NOPE!
dragsigma 2 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Ben Stein's initials are B.S.
...I just thought I'd mention it.
JoeLaTurkeyIII 2 months ago 30
@JoeLaTurkeyIII
Ha. That's funny.
Eriance 1 month ago
Expelled no Intelligence Allowed? clearly not since if intelligence was allowed they would have figured out that their "documentary" was bullshit from the start.
hnsolo77 2 months ago
23 parts? WTF?
gutzs 2 months ago
religious people=people of middle ages
itachiitachi1946 2 months ago
@itachiitachi1946
Here is another clever quotation: modern people = cancer winning over them.
And another one: "middle age ppl (like Eskimo, Hunza tribe) = no cancer among them.
And how better are your "civilised" ppl over middle age ones?
And same apply to so called religion. I prefer calling it "faith" in solid grounds of Christ and the Bible testimony, human race & earth history.
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka sigh i cant hanlde ur stupidty and ur invalid points.i have to be stupid as u so u can understand me.ok ill give it a try
1)what diseases have to do with religion?NONE! eskimoes dont get cancer?rly? check ur facts again.and what does health has to do with knowledge and beeing civilised? u think anyone who is civilised tends to be sick and not healthy?.sigh...
2)middle age ppl were basing their sociteis on the craps of religion...thats why its cold DARK AGES.
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
@itachiitachi1946
Do u want to exchange invectives or facts & opinions?
Why did I mention Eskimos and cancer? Well, because whats official on this planet comes from evolutionists - science, so-called knowledge etc. Got me?
Now, your equation seems to be based on the above assumption that anything thats called science is based on evolution, because that theory is regarded as a fact, not a theory anymore. Got me?
And youre right: Eskimos do get cancer - only once on Western diets
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka
"your equation seems to be based on the above assumption that anything thats called science is based on evolution, because that theory is regarded as a fact, not a theory anymore. "
Why are you wrong about everything?
Likely because you know you can't refute actual science as it stands, so instead you lie about what it is.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Whaaaat? Hahaha! Give me one FACT about evolution, dude! Come on, just one. :-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 5 days ago
Comment removed
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
Comment removed
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka (2)develpoment comes when u have ur mind open when u analyse when u look on the facts and u do experiments,trial and error methods etc not nhust by..believing in them.RELIGION IS DANGEROUS AND ITS A GREAT PROPAGANDA ENSLAVING UR BRAIN AND STOPING THE DEVELOPMENTS AND THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD SOCIETY.u have to be a very egotistical person to think ur special and an imaginary daddy does everything 4 ur own sake.u have faith but faith provesNOTHINGbelieving is not the same as knowing
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
@itachiitachi1946
Right - religion is not faith, man!
So, what exactly do you KNOW about evolution, if thats what youre defending, right? O do you BELIEVE in it? Please, solid facts. :-)
MrSmutnaMezatka 1 month ago
@MrSmutnaMezatka (3)so u say that bible proves itself...ok...then i tell u this..VOLDEMORD EXISTS! how do i know that? cause the book of harry poter says so.getting my point? yr points r stupid and invalid.u have no brains nor critical thonking no indipentent thinking and ur just a sheep following the flock.u say a god existys..OK GIMME PROVES ABOUT THAT AND ILL BE THE FIRST TO ACCEPT UR GOD.GIMME UNDENIYING PROVES.got any? cause i got lots of proves that say that religions r bullshits...
itachiitachi1946 1 month ago
5:57 search history "does not compute futurama" xD
RobBrooksMusic 2 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
I was talking to a creationist the other day. He claimed to know God existed because "if you take the assumption that God exists, then look at all the biblical claims supported by historical evidence, you can prove that God exists". I took a piece of paper and traced a circle as I replied "If I make the assumption that this teapot which says 'made in China' is a God, and I confirm that the tea pot is actually made in China, then I can prove that this teapot is god".
His expression was priceless
someonetoogoodforyou 2 months ago
@someonetoogoodforyou
Win.
taiwanoob 2 months ago
Comment removed
someonetoogoodforyou 2 months ago
Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang!
Gradual small changes in species over time says nothing about cosmology (and vice versa)!
Why do people keep freaking conflating these freaking concepts?
P0weredByPie 3 months ago 5
@P0weredByPie
A) Ignorance.
B) Lying.
A + B = C) Faith.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun - you forgot:
D) ???
E) PROFIT
P0weredByPie 1 month ago
Man.. I grew up thinking he was smart.
DDazzle1 3 months ago
The guy at 0:11 looks like an Arab I've seen from somewhere. He is/was famous but I can't remember his name.
NorthCitySider 3 months ago
It'd be funny as hell, if when he was searching "Observed Instances Of Speciation" the drop down box on google shown crazy fetish porn searches! Respect to ThunderF00T though!!
TheRidllerXXThree 3 months ago
the key factor in americans stupidity is FOX, however did it happen that such a dishonest, openly and extremely biast far right network get to the top of "news-networks". what the fuck is going on?!?
managarm1349 3 months ago
@managarm1349 sensationalism. news don't bring in the ratings. It's the modern era, the era of reality TV and the rest of the garbage. news shows that aren't sensationalizing will fare no better than the weather channel.
MatoVuc 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
@MatoVuc
Oh, I agree completely with that. Well, except maybe that I would say "scientifically irrelevant" rather "scientifically implausible", as I would say that science simply cannot and should not comment on the plausibility of the supernatural. The main reason for that though, would be to avoid giving ammo to the creationists who believe that they can scientifically prove the plausibility of the supernatural.
IrishRover716 3 months ago
@MatoVuc sorry, typo. That should be "There is NO verifiable evidence for, but there is also no verifiable evidence against either"
IrishRover716 3 months ago
@MatoVuc I didn't say that it was scientifically plausible to believe in a god. Not that that would matter to a believer, as belief is not scientific. My point is that Agnosticism would be the position supported by science, not Athiesm. As far as scientific evidence goes, the existence or lack thereof of a god is an unknown. There is verifiable evidence for, but there is also no verifiable evidence against either. Simply put, Agnosticism is an admission of the unknown, while Athiesm is a belief.
IrishRover716 3 months ago
@IrishRover716 fair enough and taking those labels into consideration i am non-religious/agnostic.
i understand your point, and actually agree with you.
that said, science is concerned with the natural world and God-like beings are not part of that nor does their existence or lack thereof in any way factor into the physical mechanisms of the universe, thus there is no place for them in the field of science. that also means that an "intelligent designer" is scientifically implausible
MatoVuc 3 months ago
"Why couldn't there have been an intelligent designer?"
No one said there couldn't, Stein (or at least, any true scientist shouldn't. Remember, lack of proof of existence does not equate to proof of lack of existence). In point of fact, it's entirely possible there is some sort of God, but it cannot be proven by scientific means. But whether or not there is has nothing to do with the fact that new earth creationism does not fit within the strictures of verifiable science. Two different issues.
IrishRover716 3 months ago
@IrishRover716 while lack of proof of existence is not proof of lack of existence, that does not make it scientifically plausible to believe in the existence of such a thing.
Only evidence of existence is reason to believe in the existence of something, and anecdotal "evidence" and "philosophical" speculation is not it.
As for the "intelligent designer", there is no need to grasp for a supernatural explanation when the laws of nature are more than sufficient to shape the universe
MatoVuc 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.needgod.com
standingontruth1 3 months ago
Stein was never trying to get behind Darwin in the first place. He was simply flattering him in order to lighten the heavy load criticism he was bound to receive.
NorthCitySider 3 months ago
wait at 1:20 didn't he say old things shouldn't work now .If so the bible doesn't either and he just undermined himself
kizzysbro 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What. a. fucking. idiot.
Louie212121 3 months ago
2:04, I laughed so fucking hard at that impression - once again you let the mallet of reason fall on those who would bring everything humanity and all it has accomplished into ignorance and decay.
porrsmurfen 3 months ago
Another epic PWN!
maujo2009 3 months ago
nice video. i agree with your point of view. except it is true in most cases. most highschool science teachers combine the big bang theory with the theory of evolution. not strictly as an explanation of the diversity of life.
dazdope 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CARL SAGAN - "Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - CARL SAGAN
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
Oh fer... Are you f**king kidding me, Stein?
Gravity has about as much to do with evolution as chewing gum does.
kmikl 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
Wtf is up with that picture behind stein? The one with the white homesteader shaking the hand of the black sharecropper (presumably).
VenousTadpole 3 months ago
Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I lol'd.
1DavidDoom 3 months ago
notice stein looks at the ground every time he says something that he knows is wrong? He would lose a fortune at poker, hes not stupid hes just a lair.
Kingucktoad 4 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists - Thunderf00t
I did not know ben stein was such a dumbass.
torrid426 4 months ago
New rule: anyone who confides in Pat Robertson in any way is an idiot
CarlSagan6 4 months ago 2
@CarlSagan6 thats my number one rule
jlopez9090 3 months ago
lol at 5:57 you can see Thunderf00ts search history. The last one is "does not compute futurama."
shagoosty 4 months ago 2
23 episode in... and this really, really hurts to watch due to the ignorance of some of these religius people.
midevilgamer93 4 months ago
What creationists need to understand is that Atheism is NOT a religious belief.
fcpictures 4 months ago
@fcpictures They can't understand it. They can't understand a life without being led like sheep. So they have to believe that being an atheist means your following someone (they usually choose Darwin for some reason.)
shagoosty 4 months ago
okay, I am not a scientist but have one thing I would like to say that I believe to be accurate. There is no such thing as a scientific hypothesis or theory being brilliant 'for its time'. Something is either right or it is wrong, pseudosciences like phrenology, dowsing, and astrology are wrong and were always wrong.
newfrickinshow 4 months ago
@newfrickinshow
"Something is either right or it is wrong"
It's not that simple. There is no atomic model that is correct in every application. We use several models that we KNOW are wrong because they are accurate for certain problems.
All science is like this. Scientific theories are such because they sufficiently explain the current data. They only change when more data is collected. Thus, there are certain theories that WERE brilliant for their time because they fit the data of the time.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@newfrickinshow
However, Stein's implication that evolution no longer fits the current data is just a blatant lie. It fits the current data better than it did in Darwin's day.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
Seeing this stupidity and deceit makes me wish that the governments would just terraform Mars already so we freethinkers wouldn't have to listen to Ben Stein, like Ferris Bueller did on his day off.
CrazyCheeseMagee 4 months ago
9:03 is just mind blowing. Wow, just wow!
BiHLionHeart 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Thunderf00t should make More videos on this for Michele Bachmann.
pat5168 4 months ago
Respond to this video... It's sad to see stein who is on the down side of his career turn to something like this for publicity!
420gma 4 months ago
Isn't the instance of inadvertent honesty on Stein's part weird? "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." Yes you could be and you are, Ben, yes you are!!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
Okay, Stein is ignorant on something he made a 'documentary' about. That is bad enough, but non-religious-network reporters sitting there listening to it? Not stopping him when he says, "It doesn't explain gravity."? Show me the scientist who said evolution explains gravity and I'll show you what an exploding head looks like. Ridiculous stuff. Good work TF.
shabido1 4 months ago 24
@shabido1 Understand this,To creationist stein is their idiot savant(with a heavy emphasis on idiot)He looks smart and he says smart words,However as TF greatly pointed out Stein is moron of the highest magnitude.
MonTag666 3 months ago
@shabido1 If you really think Fox 'news' is a non-religious network at this point, you need to have your head examined.
RadgarEleding 3 months ago in playlist Why do people laugh at creationists?
@RadgarEleding LOL IDK I don't have a TV. No reporter is supposed to include their beliefs is the point.
I've had my head examined. My doctor says it needs some work done.
shabido1 3 months ago
@shabido1 Look up the outfox'd documentary here on YT. It'll tell you allll about it.
RadgarEleding 3 months ago
Any video that has "Yes, Prime Minister" in it, is pure win be default.
TomFynn 5 months ago 2
Another good video.To pick up from this is - there are Creationists who see Darwinism as an alternative theology that can be argued or dismissed as a wrong belief, whilst those who attempt to challenge it as a science try to approach their own mythologies scientifically and either miscalculate or misrepresent the results as proven science.It is possible for science and religion to co-exist in the mind but only if faith is strong enough to accept reality, otherwise you'll appear deluded.
Batmanh8schocol8 5 months ago
I can't help but notice that CBN's logo has a tiny onion inside the C.
They certainly ACT like a subsidy of The Onion.
rkyeun 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
The problem here is that Stein keeps verbally using "Darwinism" as a blanket summation of everything he dislikes. Specious arguements aside it's pretty sad that he can't even articulately name what it is that he objects to. What a clown
lovecraft4780 5 months ago
Last 50 seconds makes me laugh so hard..
GuitarMannnnnn 5 months ago
"Everyone thinks their opinion matters. Don't argue with a nobody. A farmer doesn't bother telling a pig his breath smells like shit."
jacob7inch 5 months ago
To be an athiest is to abandon our rightful place in the World (whatever this World is) and thus to succumb to the dogma of "Materialism"; which teaches that there's nothing beyond the material (that is, that life came into existence from inanimate matter); which ultimately argues that we are are just "Talking Meat"; and nothing more. Believe what you will, but, for my part, we are all much more than "Talking Meat".
assistme 5 months ago
@assistme prove it
jacob7inch 5 months ago
@jacob7inch, OK! Though rather than relying on me to prove something, you might conduct your own research. Though, I'll invite you to consider both the following 2 questions & the content contained in the video found at the following link (watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE). So the questions are: "How have Evolutionists accounted for the ORIGIN of the genetic information contained in the DNA molecule?" & "How can MUTATION (i.e. CHAOS) account for an INCREASE of genetic information within the genome?"
assistme 5 months ago
@assistme thats Abiogenisis is not evolution maybe thats why you cant find you're answers. anyway first question: user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=5#p/c/100500E4C9404405/2/3H0RXDrfyZc second question type: 'how does dna information increase' into google it's the first link. took me less than 1 minute to find links. maybe your the one that needs to do some research.
jacob7inch 5 months ago
@assistme also i asked you to prove i wasnt talking meat not prove evolution or abiogenisis wrong. also the flagelum isnt irreduceable complex /watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w anything else you're like me to google for you?
jacob7inch 5 months ago
@assistme just cause you wish something was true doesnt mean it is...
Jbob9954 5 months ago
Comment removed
assistme 5 months ago
@Jbob9954, as an Evolutionist, I'd think you'd know best of all, that wishing something were true doesn't make it so; while neither will building a religion from alleged mutations of inanimate matter into complex living beings.
assistme 5 months ago
@assistme first off, youre making the assumptions that im an evolutionist and an atheist when all i said was you cant make facts just fit what you wish they would be. second, no one atheist is building a religion. saying atheism is a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color. lets learn to think before making stupid assumptions and then posting a baseless argument....
Jbob9954 5 months ago
@Jbob9954, as for whether Atheism is a religion or no, let's consult the dictionary. It turns out that "religion" is defined as: "(1) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons (or sects). (2) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." So, as "Atheism" contains each of these elements, I'd say (and I'm not alone, mind you) that "Atheism qualifies as a religion.
assistme 5 months ago
@assistme atheism isnt a specific fundamental set of beliefs, its just one belief that there is no god.... soooooooo it doesnt meet the definition provided. and there are also no practices to atheism. no rituals. no sacrifices. no offerings. no death of the the first borns, etc. sooooo it's actually wrong on all accounts. Your argument would make thinking the earth is round a religion...
Jbob9954 5 months ago
@Jbob9954, the THESIS that there is no Creator is a **CONCLUSION**... based on specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons (or sects). These practices include, but are not limited to following a dogma rooted in MATERIALISM? Kindly review the videos saved in my profile for further understanding. Next, (2) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, refers to the GROUP calling themselves "atheists".
assistme 5 months ago
@assistme it isnt a thesis. its a response to your hypothesis that world was flat, the center of the universe, orbited by the sun, and created in seven days. if you say you own a unicorn and i say i dont believe you, you cant just say "you cant prove i dont have one!!!!!"
Jbob9954 4 months ago