@leatherneck2044 You must be trolling. No one could be that dumb. To imply that professional scientists from all over the world are wrong and biased, while you know more than they do. Evolution is a fact, its obvious. You have zero evidence and would be laughed off any college campus. It's people like you why the rest of the world thinks America is full of idiots. I'm embarrassed for you.
Arguing with atheists was amusing for awhile, but it's getting boring bc they all chant the same mantras, regurgitate Dawkins, and throw out the same old unsupported opinions. Then, when they lose the argument, they of course throw in the personal insults. Pretty pathetic really.
Ben Stein is one of these hammer-heads that caves in to the modern American meme that is "every fact has two arguments that deserve equal time for debate." This is the kind of guy that centuries ago would have enjoyed burning people at the stake for heresy because they said the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe.
Stein's point is; not that evolution is wrong, but that it doesn't explain how life itself started. And that it's wrong for evolution to be the only explanation for how life came about. Science is getting more and more evidence for intelligent design as the initial cause. Not some lightning bolt striking a mud puddle.
@Micahthetatter Yes, really. You're claiming there's a contradiction. It's your responsibility to explain the contradiction.
There is no contradiction in my statements here. Your hilighted quotes do not demonstrate a contradiction. Which part of the first quote is contradictory to which part of the second quote?
@TrevorBlack79 your blind, anyone with half a brain can see it. I have no responsibility to explain anything to you but I will. You say ToE explains how llife changes, not how it began. When the other person implies that there is evidence for intelligent design as the initial cause, you said no evidence is mounting for ToE. Now all I did is just repeat the conversation again, but I hope now you see the contradiction in your comment.
@TrevorBlack79 LOL, you responded to an initial cause comment with a ToE response. Dont blame me for your mistakes and to call me stupid is quite presumptuous. I will debate you on the subject anytime you would like, which would expose my stupidity. :)
@Micahthetatter Ah. I see the source of your confusion. You think that the sentence "The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day" means "The evidence for ToE as the origin of life continues to mount every day."
Allow me to correct you: The sentence ""The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day" means "The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day." It does not mean "The evidence for ToE as the origin of life continues to mount every day."
@Micahthetatter Now, I perfectly understand how this may have confused you. Perhaps I should have been a little more explicit by placing the sentence on its own line to signify that it wasn't a specified response to the ID claim for life origins.
Then again, if you're not stupid, as you claim, then you would have naturally inferred that I meant the sentence to stand on its own, given the general thesis of my post. I can only assume that you're either dumb as a nail or being intentionally daft.
@TrevorBlack79 really, reread the comment and tell me how someone should infer that the sentence is a stand alone. The name calling is indicative of desperation.
@Micahthetatter "really, reread the comment and tell me how someone should infer that the sentence is a stand alone"
I cannot explain it any simpler than I already have. If my first two statements were to the point that "ToE does not refer to life origins," explain why my third sentence should directly contradict that.
As for "name calling," the shoe fits. You're the one displaying desperation, picking nits and misrepresenting a formatting error as a logical contradiction.
@Micahthetatter Now, I know creationists are desperate to find any avenue of attack. In this entire exchange you've done nothing except cry about a "contradiction" that was easily recognized as an error, while not actually presenting anything of relevance to the topic of evolution vs. creation. Color me shocked.
The fact remains that there is no evidence for ID as anything other than a fairy tale, and that evolution remains the single-most supported theory in human history.
@Micahthetatter No thanks - I don't waste my time "debating" with flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, or creationists. As it stands, as a creationist you pretty much have to be a conspiracy theorist, as you're effectively proclaiming that 99.9% of life scientists (At least 25% of which are theists themselves) are either involved in the largest conspiracy of human history or the greatest misapprehension of fact in human history.
@TrevorBlack79 The only one of those things that I am is a creationist. If you dont want a "discussion", which was the word I used, that is fine. I am in search of what is true, I do not try to put blinders on so that What I do not like is hidden from me. If there are facts I want to know them and likewise I want to know what is not true. It seems to me that you dont want to hear what might shake the foundations of your belief system. Suit yourself blindfold man.
@Micahthetatter If you're a creationist, then you by default are a conspiracy theorist. You are also not interested in seeking out facts, as there are literally hundreds of thousands of individual lines of evidence all pointing to evolution. I'm not interested in what you have to say because I guarantee I've heard it before, and it's false.
@Micahthetatter If you can prove evolution false, I suggest you compile your data into a paper and submit it to scientific journals for peer review. I'll hear about it when it makes the front page of every paper, is reported on every news channel, and you receive your well-deserved Nobel prize. Until then, you're no different from Ben Stein, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and every other "celebrity" creationist - devoid of anything useful to contribute to the discussion.
@TrevorBlack79 I cant prove anything, just discuss the evidence which you are not willing to do. I dont think your going to make any valid statements about anything just mindless rhetoric. I research the subject EVERY SINGLE DAY. I dont see any point in furthering this conversation.
@Micahthetatter Why would any intelligent person debate with a creationist. Just like I would never debate with a holocaust denyer, a person who believes in leprechans, or someone who thinks they can fly.
@MrKGatl Why would an intelligient person debate with an evolutionist when there is not a speck of evidence to prove or even support it. Evolution has never been observed, repeated in a lab, nor does it even appeal to theoretical logic. Evolution is the true fantasy.
@leatherneck2044 Evolution is a truth, and considered so without any reasonable doubt. People who deny evolution are whats wrong with the world. They deny it on religious grounds, which means that they dont believe science because it conflicts with their fairy tales. Want to find a bunch of creationists, visit Baptists churches and trailer parks, which are usually right next to each other
@MrKGatl You have just posted what are called "opinions." I call them evolution "mantras" bc you say them over and over again to brainwash yourself to believe a fantasy. I am asking you for EVIDENCE. Undeniable, indisputable, court-admissable, factual, provable, verifiable EVIDENCE to prove evolution. Do you have it?
@leatherneck2044 Evolution is no more an opinion than gravity is. There are mountains of overwhelimg evidence from every corner of the scientific community. Why is it that only religious fundamentals deny evolution? It's because they make a lifetime commitment to denying facts and evidence, so its easy for them to deny evolution. If you send me your address I will send you my middle school science books that you need so badly.
@MrKGatl Again, you have posted "opinions," not provable facts. Just chanting your mantra does not make it true. I'm still waiting for EVIDENCE. I can prove gravity by dropping a pencil, can you prove evolution as easily?
@leatherneck2044 Mantras? These are truths. Could you be a little more specifitc about what kind of evidence you want, there is just so much. Have you ever been to a museum? One easy piece of evidence is the evolution of dinosaurs into birds. Science has proven evolution true beyond any reasonable doubt, so until there is some incredible new discovery any doubt in evolution is considered unreasonable.
@MrKGatl The kind of evidence I want (and the kind you should hold out for) is that which can be proven, duplicated, repeatable, observable, admissible in a court of law. Evolution meets NONE of that criteria. It has never been observed, duplicated in a lab, and any court in America would laugh at you. Transitional forms have never been found. Dating methods are widely disparate in their conclusions. It is all a ruse.
@leatherneck2044 There are millions of transitional forms in thousands of museums and research facilities around the world. Evolution is a proven theory with absolutely zero evidence against any of it. You are just a fucking moron if you refuse to believe in such an obvious thing like evolution. You would not dispute it, were it not for your religion. Which gives you zero credibility. Ignorant redneck
@MrKGatl Again, just bc you chant a mantra doesn't make it true. Fossil evidence have to be INTERPRETED and you interpret them according to your pre-judgments, (AKA-prejudices)
@leatherneck2044 I didnt chant any mantra, you just dont understand simple facts. Science doesnt interpret things with pre judgements. Have you ever been in a college science course, you would see how wrong you are about how science and scientists work. There always seem to be a few rednecks that reject science because of the fairy tales that they believe.
@MrKGatl There is no way to prove that a certain fossil is a certain age or that it evolved into another species. And, no, dating methods are, to say the least, not conclusive. It is all speculation based on assumptions based on ignorance.
@leatherneck2044 There are many ways to date fossils and materials. None of this is speculation, you are just too uneducated or too brainwashed by religion to see it. You are so close minded and ignorant its embarrassing. Nothing you have said would hold up on a college campus, you would get laughed right off.
@MrKGatl All non-chemical dating methods are anecdotal and based on pre-established pro-evolution assumptions. IOW, they are not science. Unlike you, I won't resort to insults and name-calling bc, unlike you, I have cogent, evidence-based arguments.
read up on Antony Flew,all you moral adolescents,grow up..even he after arguing for evolution for 80 years of life,more accomplished than Hitchens/Dawkins combined,"switched sides"-now believes in designer,BECAUSE of latest scientific discovery in DNA,now knows evolution is impossible as explained by Darwin.,w/help from MIT prof./nuclear physicist GERald Schroeder...read his work for answer on why first verses of Genesis got it right.just google Dr. Schroeder 2day & we can end this nonsense
clearly you all gloss over the fact that Dawkins himself said best answer to how life began is a designer from alien planet,basically, didn't have an answer,& you all gloss over the fact,act like your so smart,that each & every professor/Ph.d in the movie is more accomplished than all of you..&worlds leading atheist scientist of 20th century,Antony Flew became Deist AFTER-debating for athiests for 80 years -of research & what we know about DNA,,BECAUSE of science now believes in designer
Yeah, and hes richer than all the commentors here more than likely. That ignorant way of thought earned him those riches. Stien is a master of research, its his profession, in the stock world its called due dilligence. And due dilligence was applied here with real imperical science, not faith science no one has observed. LOL go ahead attacked me agnostics, I dont even care. Instead of getting pissed at me, go to some of Kent Hovind videos and watch, your heads will combust LOL. I love u all
If you watch the documentary, you will see that the question "What is evolution?" comes up quite a bit. I understand editing a clip for time purposes, but I believe Ben Stein may have been trying to make a point about something. @tingtangs, Can you post the entire interview?
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
So Ben wasn't lying then, evolution doesn't explain any of that. I guess he also could have said it doesn't explain how Santa delivers all his presents in one night to every child in the world.
You don't get it. That's the whole point? Didn't you watch "Expelled"? Scientists are touting Darwin's THEORY as fact and not allowing any other viewpoint. And Darwin didn't have anything to say about those things, he only wrote about how how creatures adapt over a long period of time and calls it evolution. He never went as far back as the origins of life, yet scientist are acting like this theory is written in stone and explains everything and blacklisting those who disagree.
@xisle555 What is your point? The law of gravity doesn't explain genetics, but we accept gravity don't we? Why are you acting like any law or theory must explain abiogenesis? Darwin sought to explain how creatures change over generations, not how they arose from inorganic matter. So do you have a point?
You people are just agitated because your secular theories fall short. Evolution is supposed to explain all that. There are at least 6 different kinds of supposed "evolution" , and they all branch from cosmology all the way to biological life. Of course you would have to explain how all these things came into being in order for your theory to be complete.
@MultiArchangel incorrect on so many levels. Either you are stupid or willfully ignorant. I would suggest reading up on biology before entering this arena. Jesus, you are just so so so dumb. Go to college.
@Bzdi138 - Go to college you say? I suggest you go look at Tuft's University's web page. They have a whole web page devoted to this. We go from Cosmic evolution all the way to organic evolution. "Big Bang to Mankind." Go to the website and learn something. But you are just an atheist I suppose. You people are not that bright. You can't help but be dumb......
You overcut the quote. I suspect he was digging his own hole, but the way it's cut you and he (and I) all agree: Darwin didn't speak to the origin of life. Your overlay is saying something that the video didn't actually show, and it diminishes the point.
The very notion of doubting evolution is a momentous disrespect to science and the achievements of the human mind. To doubt evolution is to doubt fact, logic, and rational thinking.
I weep for the utter stupidity and susceptibility of humanity.
@DarkestChapter The very notion that the theory Concept abstract idea postulation of evolution is fact is not the fruit of logic and rational thinking.Watt great things has human kind acheived?Science in its arrogance has with materialism and no reverance for Gods creation has placed this planet on the eve of total destruction.So is HAARP good science?The utter stupidity and susceptibility of humanity in the acceptance of bad science and unproven theories is bewildering to me.
@luisdez81 the theory of evolution has still to be proven as fact.Evolution has never been observed taking place, there are no experiments to show how 1 species changes into another .If it were not for intelligent design there would be no science .Intelligent science is only possible due to observation of and working with the laws of the natural world.Gods creation.
@2karriizman The theory of evolution has yet to be proven as fact? A theory isn't a fact, it's an explanation of the natural world backed up by facts. id isn't. Evolutuion has never been observed taking place?Why do u think we get flu shots every year?The flu virus is always evolving. We are evolving, we ARE transitional forms evolution doesn't stop. Did anybody ever tell you that natural laws breakdown at he sub-atomic level? Doesn't sound much like intelligence had anything to do with that.
@luisdez81" All of these factors ultimately combined to replace the notion of discrete "particles" with the concept of "wave-packets" of uncertain boundaries, whose properties are only known as probabilities, and whose interactions with other "particles" remain largely a mystery, even 80 years after the establishment of quantum mechanics" I dont have flu shots ! Evolution does not happen extinction does and is increasing .If natural laws break down at any level all the lights go out .
@2karriizman wow... there is no point discussing anything further with you.Evolution does not happen? google, use it. I will not reply to any more of your posts. Your head is stuck firmly in the sand and no amount of facts or evidence will pull it out. Only you can do that. I hope one day you'll just sit back, quiet your mind and just start looking over the overwhelming scientific data in support of evolution by independant fields of scientific disciplines. Please, for the sake of the future.
@luisdez81 " I hope one day you'll just sit back, quiet your mind and just start looking over the overwhelming scientific data in support of evolution " The future of this planet is gloomy due to no reverance for Gods creation .Evolution theory has done nothing to benefit the welfare of life on earth.You assume i have not looked at the evolution theory ,I have and it is not logical.You have been duped by false concepts along with the majority of non thinkers who accept watt they are taught.
@2karriizman is a shitty little creationist spammer who is unable to think rationally. Spamming the video with useless names is just pathetic. Goodbye, spammer.
@2karriizman "Evolution has never been observed taking place," A person aging has never been observed taking place, therefore, people do not age. Are you without the ability to think abstractly? I mean to say, if something isn't shown to you right before your eyes over the span of a few seconds, are you unable to comprehend it?
@thelister4910 " A person aging has never been observed taking place, therefore, people do not age"That is not abstract thought it is nonsense! Evolution CONCEPT (abstract idea) is not fact it is an unproven concept !
@2karriizman I might not have explained myself well enough. You said "Evolution has never been observed taking place,": I said: A person aging has never been observed taking place, therefore, people do not age.
I am commenting on the fact that you seem to think evolution isn't observed because you don't see it happen before your eyes in a short time. I am likening this to people aging, which happens over such a long time, you can't just sit there and watch it happen. Do you understand?
@thelister4910 Evolution concept is unproven. You are young so with good fortune you should have plenty of time to study the concept of evolution ! Good luck with your study ! scientists are still trying to find conclusive proof to prove the concept and they have not as yet stopped looking!
@2karriizman Why are you unable to answer my simple question? Is it because it completely refutes what you said? I have taken at least four college level courses on evolution. Scientists are in no way trying to prove evolution, it is pretty much completely accepted. It was not unusual in these courses for a lifelong religious person to finally have it click god didn't magically do everything, and that things have evolved the way they are. This freaked them out a bit but at least they learned.
@2karriizman There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
@gregrutz" It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists" Do some research and you may be surprized not ALL scientists accept the concept (abstract idea) of evolution.
@2karriizman Some people thing the world is flat, is that evidence? The men who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat and the center of everything until Galileo proved them wrong.
@gregrutz There would not be two many people that did not know the earth is a sphere these days !! The men who wrote the bible were not stupid! they liked astronomy as they had no TV to fill their heads with rubbish, they were well aware of their environment !There are no 4 corners of the earth yet it is still a common phrase used today ! must be a lot of flat earthers still left ??
@2karriizman Astronomy is a science, 2000 years ago there was only astrology. Yes they still say ''4 corners' and yes there are lots of stupid people, look at how many still think there was a global flood.
@gregrutz The evidence for a global flood is irrefutable ! It seems you have been duped by the false information produced by the consensus of evolutionists to perpetuate the concept! Not all information is truth knowledege increases not all is fact ! It was once thought blow flys did not reproduce and were the byproduct of rotting flesh! Scientists are still learning and the theory of evolution will be viewed in the same light as the flat earth concept.Do you view the world with 1 eye?
@2karriizman Geologists proved there was no global flood over 200 years ago. There is no flood mud layer will a lot of dead bodies in it. And 29,029 feet of water didn't just go away. And everythng did not fit on a boat, how silly can you get?
@gregrutz Geologists have not proven there was no global flood! they have discovered the ocean floor is not gently sloping as once thought! Mt Everest is capped with limestone ! the earth is in a state of constant flux it does not take millions of years for dramatic changes to reshape the earths crust! volcanoes can be observed today creating new masses of land. plate tectonics can create huge rapid changes ! earths surface is being constantly mixed there is no way to determine the first layer!
@2karriizman Yes, Mt. Everest is made of limestone, not capped, no clams put there by a flood. The limestone was laid down in a shallow sea, corals don't grow in muddy flood waters.
Look at the Grand Canyon, the layers are not mixed like a flood would make. The oldest layer is still on the bottom.
''huge rapid changes'' The plates move as fast as your fingenails grow. It took millions of years to make what we see.
@gregrutz The plates move as fast as your fingenails grow. It took millions of years to make what we see.
The plates maybe moveing slowly at this point in time ! Have you seen the changes made to the landscape due to earth quakes volcanic eruptions and the mess big floods can make ?earths surface is being constantly mixed there is no way to determine the first layer!
Mt Everest is not entirely made of limestone it was under the sea catastrophic events have occured throughout earths history!
@2karriizman So you are saying that Scientists thought flies were a by product of rotting flesh? No, those were common fools like Ben who never took the time to observe the flies laying eggs, maggots hatching then turning into flies.
@DawnOfTheDead991" The theory of spontaneous generation was finally laid to rest in 1859 by the young French chemist, Louis Pasteur "Conundrums about life as we know it and its origins still exist to this day ! Die hards cling to misconceptions ! Old Ben maybe a bit naive he appears to be steadfast in his belief !The theory of evolution as yet has not become conclusive fact ! As with the theory of spontaneous generation evolution concept will be discarded as a nonsense !
@2karriizman Spon Gen was nonsense, after all, even at that time people realized that insects hatched from eggs. That is how Science works, if you come up with a better idea & some proof, you change it all. That is also why ID is never going to make it, not only is there no proof or even experiments, but Science looks for natural explanations to observed phenomena. That is why any explanation involving spirits, demons, witches, spells, gods, fairies, goblins etc, is un-Scientific from the start
@DawnOfTheDead991 : Unless we find a way to observe spirits, demons, witches, spells, gods, fairies, goblins etc. If and when the existence of such entities could be proven, then it would be scientific to invoke them under the condition they are included in a plausible hypothesis that can be tested. ID doesn't include, however, either proof for its support "intelligent designer" nor any testable hypothesis, which is the reason it's unscientific. ID relies purely on irrational speculation.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Exactly. There is no good science behind ID, hence that is why it is rejected, not some phantom Big Science Conspiracy against Xtians or some nonsense like that.
@gregrutz Some Modern Scientists Who Believe in the Biblical Account of Creation Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
.....Which is better than fact. How so? Because a Theory takes together all the facts and assembles it into one cohesive observation that unifies the data that the facts are comprised of. Theories are the pinnacle of Science.
@gregrutz The Theory i was mentioning was Germ theory of disease which has come to the conclusion that microorganisms are what causes disease. The Theory of Relativity is more so what i was talking about with Gravity so that was a bit misleading, my mistake
@gregrutz aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids). Plasmids make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.This is not evolution!
@2karriizman ''aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt '' Yes natural selection is part of evolution. Evolution has been proven, it has been observed, get over it.
@gregrutz Animals can adapt to their environment Adapting to a new environment has nothing to do with evolution.Evolution is a concept and claims different kinds of living organisms develope from earlier life forms.Humans are renown for changing the environment causing extinctions werever they venture.It does not take to much change in the environment for extinctions to occur.This planets on the eve of mass extinction due to human activity.Evolution has never been proven nor has it been observed
The movie, if you cared to watch it, isn't about evolution. It's about freedom of scientific inquiry and freedom of academic inquiry, which we should have in America. One piece of advice is never criticize what you don't know. I'm sure Ben Stein knows far more about the theory of evolution than you know about what Ben Stein thinks.
@miazagora No it is not. The movie is against evolution and contains many ad hominem fallacies in which he portrays evolutionists as evil. The second reason why he makes up these stories about people getting fired about criticizing evolution is because he has to come up with some sort of answer about why 99,98% of the biologists believe in evolution. Thus he claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy that suppresses criticism and is therefore the reason why not more scientists are speaking up.
i thnk you missed the point though. what he's trying to say is that he doesn't believe in evolution beause of all these scientific variables are unexplained it raises a major obsticle for darwim's theory to be true. he mentions fluidmotion, gravity, physics etc. all those things that evolution needs to sustane life and since they are unexplaind how they began it makes it hard to believe evolution is what created all life
I know Ben Stein, he understands evolution very well. What he's banking on (literally) is that his religious audience doesn't or doesn't wish to. He needed to make some big money fast and as an economist knew if he could make a movie or a reputation of mass appeal to the conservative-religious community he would make a fortune just like Tim LaHaye. There's huge money in being the anti-Dawkins, even if one has to make a complete ass out of oneself. Ben is now a faith-based money machine.
Stein is not arguing against natural selection. Darwin himself claimed ignorance on the ultimate beginnings of life, how or why it came into existence in the first place. Darwin still believed their was a divine thread, however invisible or unexplainable, behind the entire process. How one can call him one of the most disciplined and thorough thinkers in history in one breath and then claim he may have a serious lapse in reasoning in another regarding his views on the God is absurd.
An experiment with chicken embryos found that with the stimulation of a recessive trait, chickens could grow teeth just like their ancestors did. I wonder what will a creationist come up with when see the image of the chic with teeth???
@garyzenuf Yes youtube ppl are far more advanced than ivory league grads that used to write speeches for United States Presidents. Please stop being ignorant ppl.
I'm shocked this came out of his mouth more than once, that nobody pulled him aside and said, "hey Benny, Natural Selection, is biology, thermal dynamics is physics, and there's never been a person in their right mind who expected it to explain anything more than the origin of species; and there's a difference between that and the origin of life." How can someone so smart be so obtuse?
@nemogabe when does he ever say anything about evolution? thats just what the creator put in his comments... have you been eating crazy pills or something?
@Chiefpokeaho Yes, lots of crazy pills for me, that's for sure, but I think insanity, in some forms, is enlightenment. While Darwin didn't use the term evolution in the way we do today, when Stein references his name, it seems logical to deduce he's referring to natural selection/evolution. Otherwise, what does he mean when he says, "Darwin didn't have anything to say about..."
just like saying science can prove gravity, but what happens next to a black hole when physics and gravity as we know it makes no sense. GET IT?
We all know that if you drop something it will fall to the earth, (does this prove gravity) and that cells change over time.(does this prove evo?) The question is why do they do it, and how do they do it... Science doesnt answer either question... You tell me this and have a nice life with your Nobel prize.
@Chiefpokeaho I like that, the Nobel prize comment made me laugh out loud. I agree completely, the difference between science and ID is that science is still looking for those answers, and will accept it when they find what it though was true to be a mistake. ID gets to the point where we don't have the answers and concludes a god did it, without any evidence or testable proof. Stein's mission seems to be to get ID into the science class which is very unscientific.
@MyPottergirl maybe you're kidding and if you are, you got me.
Isacc Newton, who died around 100 years before Darwin went public with Natural Selection, was the person who first recognized gravity. Other ideas like a heliocentric solar system also came long before Darwin.
It's also to important to understand Darwin wasn't the only one to come up with Natural Selection. Alfred Wallace's similar concept prompted Darwin to finally publish the Origin of Species.
I like how the take him in mtv and put him on americas smartest model and present him like some sort of genius expert who have massive knowledge about things
@Chiefpokeaho what facts. gravity also doesn't explain the origin of the universe, does that make it not true? evolution is about biology not physics or any of that other stuff. regardless of ben's IQ, he doesn't know what evolution is; how many times has he said that evolution claims life started when "lighting struck a mudpuddle"?
1) you will never hear a real scientist make that claim
2) evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's about the diversity of life.
It's a bit ironic that what Stein is saying is essentially the same thing that the video poster is blasting him for. Stein is not trying to "disprove Evolution", and never was. HE is stating, like the poster of the video, that Evolution does not explain or even attempt to explain how life began.
What is with you Youtube-people and your hostility toward anyone who even hints at disagreeing with you?
@necpmf Actually, if you watch the full video, he does the EXACT OPPOSITE. His argument is basically that evolution must be BS because Darwin couldn't explain all these things.
He never says its false, just that there is no proof. Just like there is no proof God exists. I.E. If you can believe in evolution than why is there a problem believing in creation... Neither have any scientific proof.
And I dont believe it was creation before u go on ur anti God campaign...
@Chiefpokeaho There is actually lots of proof, every university and every sceintist agrees in evolution, not nessacarly on every detail but about evolution as a whole
The scientific theory by definition is a theory that explains scientific observations. Not speculate regarding scientific observations, but explain.
A majority of the population believe in God. A majority of the scientists doesn't. That is not bias of any kind, it is just impossible to believe in a God while doing scientific work without being heavily ignorant.
@Chiefpokeaho You're confusing the word "theory" for hypothesis. There is an abundance of proof, Natural Selection is one of the most supported theories ever. The fossil records support it, it's observable in microbiology, and the variations in domestic species show us how we can create species to our own liking.
I suspect people who say things like "it's just a theory" have never taken a science class, or don't care enough about science to know the difference between hypothesis and theory.
"Go check a dictionary and tell me that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not synonyms"
You know in like 2nd grade when you learned that sometimes different words have different meanings based on the context? I guess you missed out on that lesson.
If I were to say "she's hot" would you assume that: a) she was on fire, or b) I thought she was cute?
"1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
In science, the word "theory" means something different from the colloquial version. Yeah, in colloquial use, "theory" means "hypothesis." But in science, it is defined as something that explains a phenomena and is supported by ALL evidence, and contradicted by NONE.
I suppose since evolution is "just a theory" you no longer believe in: gravity, cells, atoms, germs, plate tectonics, relativity, or heliocentrism.
"1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
@Chiefpokeaho Maybe you missed biology, or basic science class. If there wasn't proof, it would still be a hypothesis, for something to be a theory there has to be lots of observable proof. The evidence for natural selection is visible in the fossil record, in microbiology, and the same ability to vary is clear in the unnaturally selected spectrum of domestic animals: ex. all the different species of dogs, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane all came from wolf DNA.
@leatherneck2044 You must be trolling. No one could be that dumb. To imply that professional scientists from all over the world are wrong and biased, while you know more than they do. Evolution is a fact, its obvious. You have zero evidence and would be laughed off any college campus. It's people like you why the rest of the world thinks America is full of idiots. I'm embarrassed for you.
MrKGatl 2 weeks ago
Arguing with atheists was amusing for awhile, but it's getting boring bc they all chant the same mantras, regurgitate Dawkins, and throw out the same old unsupported opinions. Then, when they lose the argument, they of course throw in the personal insults. Pretty pathetic really.
leatherneck2044 2 weeks ago
Silly little sand bag video...you ain't got nuthin boy.
lexidart 3 weeks ago
Ben Stein is one of these hammer-heads that caves in to the modern American meme that is "every fact has two arguments that deserve equal time for debate." This is the kind of guy that centuries ago would have enjoyed burning people at the stake for heresy because they said the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe.
magos2k6 2 months ago
@magos2k6 according to Stein on live tv today, the unemployed are all meth junkies, therefore we should not extended benefits.
Olivia85211 2 months ago
Peanut butter and banana, it is the sandwish creationist combo!
ataryo 3 months ago
Stein's point is; not that evolution is wrong, but that it doesn't explain how life itself started. And that it's wrong for evolution to be the only explanation for how life came about. Science is getting more and more evidence for intelligent design as the initial cause. Not some lightning bolt striking a mud puddle.
bjenkinsw16 4 months ago
@bjenkinsw16 "Stein's point is; not that evolution is wrong, but that it doesn't explain how life itself started."
It's not supposed to. The ToE only explains how life changes, not how it began.
"And that it's wrong for evolution to be the only explanation for how life came about."
Again, ToE is NOT an explanation for how life came about.
"Science is getting more and more evidence for intelligent design as the initial cause."
No it isn't. The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 HOLY COW you completley contradicted yourself and didnt even catch it
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter Explain.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 You said "It's not supposed to. The ToE only explains how life changes, not how it began".
bjenkinsw16 said "Science is getting more and more evidence for intelligent design as the initial cause."
You said "No it isn't. The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day."
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter And the contradiction would be...?
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 really?????
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter Yes, really. You're claiming there's a contradiction. It's your responsibility to explain the contradiction.
There is no contradiction in my statements here. Your hilighted quotes do not demonstrate a contradiction. Which part of the first quote is contradictory to which part of the second quote?
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 your blind, anyone with half a brain can see it. I have no responsibility to explain anything to you but I will. You say ToE explains how llife changes, not how it began. When the other person implies that there is evidence for intelligent design as the initial cause, you said no evidence is mounting for ToE. Now all I did is just repeat the conversation again, but I hope now you see the contradiction in your comment.
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter No. There is no contradiction, and yes, you DO have a responsibility to substantiate your claims.
The origins of life (Abiogenesis) have nothing to do with the theory of evolution (Change in organisms and increased diversity).
The mounting evidence for ToE and complete absence of evidence for ID have nothing to do with abiogenesis.
There can be no contradiction if the topics are entirely separate. I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand this, but them's the facts.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 LOL, you responded to an initial cause comment with a ToE response. Dont blame me for your mistakes and to call me stupid is quite presumptuous. I will debate you on the subject anytime you would like, which would expose my stupidity. :)
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter Ah. I see the source of your confusion. You think that the sentence "The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day" means "The evidence for ToE as the origin of life continues to mount every day."
Allow me to correct you: The sentence ""The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day" means "The evidence for ToE continues to mount every day." It does not mean "The evidence for ToE as the origin of life continues to mount every day."
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter Now, I perfectly understand how this may have confused you. Perhaps I should have been a little more explicit by placing the sentence on its own line to signify that it wasn't a specified response to the ID claim for life origins.
Then again, if you're not stupid, as you claim, then you would have naturally inferred that I meant the sentence to stand on its own, given the general thesis of my post. I can only assume that you're either dumb as a nail or being intentionally daft.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 really, reread the comment and tell me how someone should infer that the sentence is a stand alone. The name calling is indicative of desperation.
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter "really, reread the comment and tell me how someone should infer that the sentence is a stand alone"
I cannot explain it any simpler than I already have. If my first two statements were to the point that "ToE does not refer to life origins," explain why my third sentence should directly contradict that.
As for "name calling," the shoe fits. You're the one displaying desperation, picking nits and misrepresenting a formatting error as a logical contradiction.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter Now, I know creationists are desperate to find any avenue of attack. In this entire exchange you've done nothing except cry about a "contradiction" that was easily recognized as an error, while not actually presenting anything of relevance to the topic of evolution vs. creation. Color me shocked.
The fact remains that there is no evidence for ID as anything other than a fairy tale, and that evolution remains the single-most supported theory in human history.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 o.k., well if you like to have a discussion regarding evidence I would gladly comply.
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter No thanks - I don't waste my time "debating" with flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, or creationists. As it stands, as a creationist you pretty much have to be a conspiracy theorist, as you're effectively proclaiming that 99.9% of life scientists (At least 25% of which are theists themselves) are either involved in the largest conspiracy of human history or the greatest misapprehension of fact in human history.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 The only one of those things that I am is a creationist. If you dont want a "discussion", which was the word I used, that is fine. I am in search of what is true, I do not try to put blinders on so that What I do not like is hidden from me. If there are facts I want to know them and likewise I want to know what is not true. It seems to me that you dont want to hear what might shake the foundations of your belief system. Suit yourself blindfold man.
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter If you're a creationist, then you by default are a conspiracy theorist. You are also not interested in seeking out facts, as there are literally hundreds of thousands of individual lines of evidence all pointing to evolution. I'm not interested in what you have to say because I guarantee I've heard it before, and it's false.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter If you can prove evolution false, I suggest you compile your data into a paper and submit it to scientific journals for peer review. I'll hear about it when it makes the front page of every paper, is reported on every news channel, and you receive your well-deserved Nobel prize. Until then, you're no different from Ben Stein, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and every other "celebrity" creationist - devoid of anything useful to contribute to the discussion.
TrevorBlack79 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 I cant prove anything, just discuss the evidence which you are not willing to do. I dont think your going to make any valid statements about anything just mindless rhetoric. I research the subject EVERY SINGLE DAY. I dont see any point in furthering this conversation.
Micahthetatter 3 months ago
@Micahthetatter Why would any intelligent person debate with a creationist. Just like I would never debate with a holocaust denyer, a person who believes in leprechans, or someone who thinks they can fly.
MrKGatl 4 weeks ago
@MrKGatl Why would an intelligient person debate with an evolutionist when there is not a speck of evidence to prove or even support it. Evolution has never been observed, repeated in a lab, nor does it even appeal to theoretical logic. Evolution is the true fantasy.
leatherneck2044 3 weeks ago
@leatherneck2044 Evolution is a truth, and considered so without any reasonable doubt. People who deny evolution are whats wrong with the world. They deny it on religious grounds, which means that they dont believe science because it conflicts with their fairy tales. Want to find a bunch of creationists, visit Baptists churches and trailer parks, which are usually right next to each other
MrKGatl 3 weeks ago
@MrKGatl You have just posted what are called "opinions." I call them evolution "mantras" bc you say them over and over again to brainwash yourself to believe a fantasy. I am asking you for EVIDENCE. Undeniable, indisputable, court-admissable, factual, provable, verifiable EVIDENCE to prove evolution. Do you have it?
leatherneck2044 3 weeks ago
@leatherneck2044 Evolution is no more an opinion than gravity is. There are mountains of overwhelimg evidence from every corner of the scientific community. Why is it that only religious fundamentals deny evolution? It's because they make a lifetime commitment to denying facts and evidence, so its easy for them to deny evolution. If you send me your address I will send you my middle school science books that you need so badly.
MrKGatl 3 weeks ago
@MrKGatl Again, you have posted "opinions," not provable facts. Just chanting your mantra does not make it true. I'm still waiting for EVIDENCE. I can prove gravity by dropping a pencil, can you prove evolution as easily?
leatherneck2044 3 weeks ago
@leatherneck2044 Mantras? These are truths. Could you be a little more specifitc about what kind of evidence you want, there is just so much. Have you ever been to a museum? One easy piece of evidence is the evolution of dinosaurs into birds. Science has proven evolution true beyond any reasonable doubt, so until there is some incredible new discovery any doubt in evolution is considered unreasonable.
MrKGatl 3 weeks ago
@MrKGatl The kind of evidence I want (and the kind you should hold out for) is that which can be proven, duplicated, repeatable, observable, admissible in a court of law. Evolution meets NONE of that criteria. It has never been observed, duplicated in a lab, and any court in America would laugh at you. Transitional forms have never been found. Dating methods are widely disparate in their conclusions. It is all a ruse.
leatherneck2044 3 weeks ago
@leatherneck2044 There are millions of transitional forms in thousands of museums and research facilities around the world. Evolution is a proven theory with absolutely zero evidence against any of it. You are just a fucking moron if you refuse to believe in such an obvious thing like evolution. You would not dispute it, were it not for your religion. Which gives you zero credibility. Ignorant redneck
MrKGatl 2 weeks ago
@MrKGatl Again, just bc you chant a mantra doesn't make it true. Fossil evidence have to be INTERPRETED and you interpret them according to your pre-judgments, (AKA-prejudices)
leatherneck2044 2 weeks ago
@leatherneck2044 I didnt chant any mantra, you just dont understand simple facts. Science doesnt interpret things with pre judgements. Have you ever been in a college science course, you would see how wrong you are about how science and scientists work. There always seem to be a few rednecks that reject science because of the fairy tales that they believe.
MrKGatl 2 weeks ago
@MrKGatl You are right, "science" doesn't pre-judge. Which is why evolution is fantasy, not science.
leatherneck2044 2 weeks ago
@MrKGatl There is no way to prove that a certain fossil is a certain age or that it evolved into another species. And, no, dating methods are, to say the least, not conclusive. It is all speculation based on assumptions based on ignorance.
leatherneck2044 2 weeks ago
@leatherneck2044 There are many ways to date fossils and materials. None of this is speculation, you are just too uneducated or too brainwashed by religion to see it. You are so close minded and ignorant its embarrassing. Nothing you have said would hold up on a college campus, you would get laughed right off.
MrKGatl 2 weeks ago
@MrKGatl All non-chemical dating methods are anecdotal and based on pre-established pro-evolution assumptions. IOW, they are not science. Unlike you, I won't resort to insults and name-calling bc, unlike you, I have cogent, evidence-based arguments.
leatherneck2044 2 weeks ago
@MrKGatl There is no evidence for the arguments you presented thats why those would be silly debates. lol
Micahthetatter 3 weeks ago
@Micahthetatter I didn't really present any arguement.
MrKGatl 3 weeks ago
@bjenkinsw16
hahahahahahahhahaahhah.... hahahahahahahahah
igotsachubby 3 months ago
read up on Antony Flew,all you moral adolescents,grow up..even he after arguing for evolution for 80 years of life,more accomplished than Hitchens/Dawkins combined,"switched sides"-now believes in designer,BECAUSE of latest scientific discovery in DNA,now knows evolution is impossible as explained by Darwin.,w/help from MIT prof./nuclear physicist GERald Schroeder...read his work for answer on why first verses of Genesis got it right.just google Dr. Schroeder 2day & we can end this nonsense
cykoaudio777 4 months ago
clearly you all gloss over the fact that Dawkins himself said best answer to how life began is a designer from alien planet,basically, didn't have an answer,& you all gloss over the fact,act like your so smart,that each & every professor/Ph.d in the movie is more accomplished than all of you..&worlds leading atheist scientist of 20th century,Antony Flew became Deist AFTER-debating for athiests for 80 years -of research & what we know about DNA,,BECAUSE of science now believes in designer
cykoaudio777 4 months ago
Yeah, and hes richer than all the commentors here more than likely. That ignorant way of thought earned him those riches. Stien is a master of research, its his profession, in the stock world its called due dilligence. And due dilligence was applied here with real imperical science, not faith science no one has observed. LOL go ahead attacked me agnostics, I dont even care. Instead of getting pissed at me, go to some of Kent Hovind videos and watch, your heads will combust LOL. I love u all
WDTripps 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 small world I was browsing freely fancy meeting you here! Lol hi
Now concerning the video... Ben stein is a moron :/
Naxer84 4 months ago
If you watch the documentary, you will see that the question "What is evolution?" comes up quite a bit. I understand editing a clip for time purposes, but I believe Ben Stein may have been trying to make a point about something. @tingtangs, Can you post the entire interview?
jagnole 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
So Ben wasn't lying then, evolution doesn't explain any of that. I guess he also could have said it doesn't explain how Santa delivers all his presents in one night to every child in the world.
jimmi161 6 months ago
@2karriizman You forgot Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, Dr. Dre, and Dr. Doom.
ericzap 7 months ago
@ericzap No, most educated people accept evolution.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@2karriizman And the rest of the Scientists accept Evolution. Nice try.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Evolution is dumb..... just saying...
skatexeatxsleep 7 months ago
You don't get it. That's the whole point? Didn't you watch "Expelled"? Scientists are touting Darwin's THEORY as fact and not allowing any other viewpoint. And Darwin didn't have anything to say about those things, he only wrote about how how creatures adapt over a long period of time and calls it evolution. He never went as far back as the origins of life, yet scientist are acting like this theory is written in stone and explains everything and blacklisting those who disagree.
xisle555 7 months ago
@xisle555 What is your point? The law of gravity doesn't explain genetics, but we accept gravity don't we? Why are you acting like any law or theory must explain abiogenesis? Darwin sought to explain how creatures change over generations, not how they arose from inorganic matter. So do you have a point?
thelister4910 7 months ago
You people are just agitated because your secular theories fall short. Evolution is supposed to explain all that. There are at least 6 different kinds of supposed "evolution" , and they all branch from cosmology all the way to biological life. Of course you would have to explain how all these things came into being in order for your theory to be complete.
MultiArchangel 7 months ago
@MultiArchangel incorrect on so many levels. Either you are stupid or willfully ignorant. I would suggest reading up on biology before entering this arena. Jesus, you are just so so so dumb. Go to college.
Bzdi138 7 months ago
@Bzdi138 - Go to college you say? I suggest you go look at Tuft's University's web page. They have a whole web page devoted to this. We go from Cosmic evolution all the way to organic evolution. "Big Bang to Mankind." Go to the website and learn something. But you are just an atheist I suppose. You people are not that bright. You can't help but be dumb......
MultiArchangel 7 months ago
@Bzdi138 - Look in your inbox.
MultiArchangel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. All of your arguments are wrong.
Idontplayaround 8 months ago
You overcut the quote. I suspect he was digging his own hole, but the way it's cut you and he (and I) all agree: Darwin didn't speak to the origin of life. Your overlay is saying something that the video didn't actually show, and it diminishes the point.
notme222 8 months ago
I wish the atheists were right. It would be nice to live life without the fear of judgment and hell.
leatherneck2044 8 months ago
@leatherneck2044 Take solace; we are.
kairobinson 8 months ago
The very notion of doubting evolution is a momentous disrespect to science and the achievements of the human mind. To doubt evolution is to doubt fact, logic, and rational thinking.
I weep for the utter stupidity and susceptibility of humanity.
DarkestChapter 9 months ago
@DarkestChapter The very notion that the theory Concept abstract idea postulation of evolution is fact is not the fruit of logic and rational thinking.Watt great things has human kind acheived?Science in its arrogance has with materialism and no reverance for Gods creation has placed this planet on the eve of total destruction.So is HAARP good science?The utter stupidity and susceptibility of humanity in the acceptance of bad science and unproven theories is bewildering to me.
2karriizman 9 months ago
@2karriizman Only creationists accept bad science ie. intelligent design. BTW which scientific theory is unproven?
luisdez81 9 months ago
@luisdez81 the theory of evolution has still to be proven as fact.Evolution has never been observed taking place, there are no experiments to show how 1 species changes into another .If it were not for intelligent design there would be no science .Intelligent science is only possible due to observation of and working with the laws of the natural world.Gods creation.
2karriizman 9 months ago
@2karriizman The theory of evolution has yet to be proven as fact? A theory isn't a fact, it's an explanation of the natural world backed up by facts. id isn't. Evolutuion has never been observed taking place?Why do u think we get flu shots every year?The flu virus is always evolving. We are evolving, we ARE transitional forms evolution doesn't stop. Did anybody ever tell you that natural laws breakdown at he sub-atomic level? Doesn't sound much like intelligence had anything to do with that.
luisdez81 9 months ago
@luisdez81" All of these factors ultimately combined to replace the notion of discrete "particles" with the concept of "wave-packets" of uncertain boundaries, whose properties are only known as probabilities, and whose interactions with other "particles" remain largely a mystery, even 80 years after the establishment of quantum mechanics" I dont have flu shots ! Evolution does not happen extinction does and is increasing .If natural laws break down at any level all the lights go out .
2karriizman 9 months ago
@2karriizman wow... there is no point discussing anything further with you.Evolution does not happen? google, use it. I will not reply to any more of your posts. Your head is stuck firmly in the sand and no amount of facts or evidence will pull it out. Only you can do that. I hope one day you'll just sit back, quiet your mind and just start looking over the overwhelming scientific data in support of evolution by independant fields of scientific disciplines. Please, for the sake of the future.
luisdez81 9 months ago
@luisdez81 " I hope one day you'll just sit back, quiet your mind and just start looking over the overwhelming scientific data in support of evolution " The future of this planet is gloomy due to no reverance for Gods creation .Evolution theory has done nothing to benefit the welfare of life on earth.You assume i have not looked at the evolution theory ,I have and it is not logical.You have been duped by false concepts along with the majority of non thinkers who accept watt they are taught.
2karriizman 9 months ago
@2karriizman ha
parkateer 8 months ago
@2karriizman How is evolutionary theory not logical?
thelister4910 7 months ago
@2karriizman is a shitty little creationist spammer who is unable to think rationally. Spamming the video with useless names is just pathetic. Goodbye, spammer.
tingtangs 6 months ago
@2karriizman "Evolution has never been observed taking place," A person aging has never been observed taking place, therefore, people do not age. Are you without the ability to think abstractly? I mean to say, if something isn't shown to you right before your eyes over the span of a few seconds, are you unable to comprehend it?
thelister4910 7 months ago
@thelister4910 " A person aging has never been observed taking place, therefore, people do not age"That is not abstract thought it is nonsense! Evolution CONCEPT (abstract idea) is not fact it is an unproven concept !
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman I might not have explained myself well enough. You said "Evolution has never been observed taking place,": I said: A person aging has never been observed taking place, therefore, people do not age.
I am commenting on the fact that you seem to think evolution isn't observed because you don't see it happen before your eyes in a short time. I am likening this to people aging, which happens over such a long time, you can't just sit there and watch it happen. Do you understand?
thelister4910 7 months ago
@thelister4910 Evolution concept is unproven. You are young so with good fortune you should have plenty of time to study the concept of evolution ! Good luck with your study ! scientists are still trying to find conclusive proof to prove the concept and they have not as yet stopped looking!
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman Why are you unable to answer my simple question? Is it because it completely refutes what you said? I have taken at least four college level courses on evolution. Scientists are in no way trying to prove evolution, it is pretty much completely accepted. It was not unusual in these courses for a lifelong religious person to finally have it click god didn't magically do everything, and that things have evolved the way they are. This freaked them out a bit but at least they learned.
thelister4910 7 months ago
@2karriizman There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz" It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists" Do some research and you may be surprized not ALL scientists accept the concept (abstract idea) of evolution.
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman 99.98% of Scientists accept Evolution happens.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@2karriizman Some people thing the world is flat, is that evidence? The men who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat and the center of everything until Galileo proved them wrong.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz There would not be two many people that did not know the earth is a sphere these days !! The men who wrote the bible were not stupid! they liked astronomy as they had no TV to fill their heads with rubbish, they were well aware of their environment !There are no 4 corners of the earth yet it is still a common phrase used today ! must be a lot of flat earthers still left ??
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman Astronomy is a science, 2000 years ago there was only astrology. Yes they still say ''4 corners' and yes there are lots of stupid people, look at how many still think there was a global flood.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz The evidence for a global flood is irrefutable ! It seems you have been duped by the false information produced by the consensus of evolutionists to perpetuate the concept! Not all information is truth knowledege increases not all is fact ! It was once thought blow flys did not reproduce and were the byproduct of rotting flesh! Scientists are still learning and the theory of evolution will be viewed in the same light as the flat earth concept.Do you view the world with 1 eye?
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman Geologists proved there was no global flood over 200 years ago. There is no flood mud layer will a lot of dead bodies in it. And 29,029 feet of water didn't just go away. And everythng did not fit on a boat, how silly can you get?
And evolution has been proven, get over it.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Geologists have not proven there was no global flood! they have discovered the ocean floor is not gently sloping as once thought! Mt Everest is capped with limestone ! the earth is in a state of constant flux it does not take millions of years for dramatic changes to reshape the earths crust! volcanoes can be observed today creating new masses of land. plate tectonics can create huge rapid changes ! earths surface is being constantly mixed there is no way to determine the first layer!
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman Yes, Mt. Everest is made of limestone, not capped, no clams put there by a flood. The limestone was laid down in a shallow sea, corals don't grow in muddy flood waters.
Look at the Grand Canyon, the layers are not mixed like a flood would make. The oldest layer is still on the bottom.
''huge rapid changes'' The plates move as fast as your fingenails grow. It took millions of years to make what we see.
gregrutz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz The plates move as fast as your fingenails grow. It took millions of years to make what we see.
The plates maybe moveing slowly at this point in time ! Have you seen the changes made to the landscape due to earth quakes volcanic eruptions and the mess big floods can make ?earths surface is being constantly mixed there is no way to determine the first layer!
Mt Everest is not entirely made of limestone it was under the sea catastrophic events have occured throughout earths history!
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman So you are saying that Scientists thought flies were a by product of rotting flesh? No, those were common fools like Ben who never took the time to observe the flies laying eggs, maggots hatching then turning into flies.
DawnOfTheDead991 7 months ago
@DawnOfTheDead991" The theory of spontaneous generation was finally laid to rest in 1859 by the young French chemist, Louis Pasteur "Conundrums about life as we know it and its origins still exist to this day ! Die hards cling to misconceptions ! Old Ben maybe a bit naive he appears to be steadfast in his belief !The theory of evolution as yet has not become conclusive fact ! As with the theory of spontaneous generation evolution concept will be discarded as a nonsense !
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman Spon Gen was nonsense, after all, even at that time people realized that insects hatched from eggs. That is how Science works, if you come up with a better idea & some proof, you change it all. That is also why ID is never going to make it, not only is there no proof or even experiments, but Science looks for natural explanations to observed phenomena. That is why any explanation involving spirits, demons, witches, spells, gods, fairies, goblins etc, is un-Scientific from the start
DawnOfTheDead991 7 months ago
@DawnOfTheDead991 : Unless we find a way to observe spirits, demons, witches, spells, gods, fairies, goblins etc. If and when the existence of such entities could be proven, then it would be scientific to invoke them under the condition they are included in a plausible hypothesis that can be tested. ID doesn't include, however, either proof for its support "intelligent designer" nor any testable hypothesis, which is the reason it's unscientific. ID relies purely on irrational speculation.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 6 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Exactly. There is no good science behind ID, hence that is why it is rejected, not some phantom Big Science Conspiracy against Xtians or some nonsense like that.
DawnOfTheDead991 6 months ago
@2karriizman ''The men who wrote the bible were not stupid!'' Yes, men wrote the bible, you finally got one thing right.
'' they liked astronomy '' No, they called it Astrology, there was no science.
gregrutz 7 months ago
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman That's nice. Argument from authority.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@2karriizman Evolution was proven by Darwin 150 years ago. DNA proves evolution happens.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@2karriizman Evolution isn’t fact.
Its a Theory.
.....Which is better than fact. How so? Because a Theory takes together all the facts and assembles it into one cohesive observation that unifies the data that the facts are comprised of. Theories are the pinnacle of Science.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Technically Gravity and Germs are only Theories :P
TheRationalist76 7 months ago
@TheRationalist76 Wrong, Gravity is a fundemental force of nature. There is a theory to explain how it happens.
Germs are small animals. There also are real, you can see them under a microscope. There is a theory to explain how they infect us.
Evolutoin is a process, there is a theory that shows how it works. The process has been observed.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz The Theory i was mentioning was Germ theory of disease which has come to the conclusion that microorganisms are what causes disease. The Theory of Relativity is more so what i was talking about with Gravity so that was a bit misleading, my mistake
TheRationalist76 7 months ago
@2karriizman Actually evolution has been observed in labs and reproduced decades ago.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
IRFAN D. PRIJAMBADA, SEIJI NEGORO,* TETSUYA YOMO, AND ITARU URABE
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan
Received 7 November 1994/Accepted 8 February 1995
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids). Plasmids make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.This is not evolution!
2karriizman 7 months ago
@2karriizman ''aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt '' Yes natural selection is part of evolution. Evolution has been proven, it has been observed, get over it.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Animals can adapt to their environment Adapting to a new environment has nothing to do with evolution.Evolution is a concept and claims different kinds of living organisms develope from earlier life forms.Humans are renown for changing the environment causing extinctions werever they venture.It does not take to much change in the environment for extinctions to occur.This planets on the eve of mass extinction due to human activity.Evolution has never been proven nor has it been observed
2karriizman 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2karriizman Evolution has been proven, try and keep up.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Damn jew just cashing in..
hunkgod 10 months ago
Wow, evolution fanboys.
cb2198 10 months ago
The movie, if you cared to watch it, isn't about evolution. It's about freedom of scientific inquiry and freedom of academic inquiry, which we should have in America. One piece of advice is never criticize what you don't know. I'm sure Ben Stein knows far more about the theory of evolution than you know about what Ben Stein thinks.
miazagora 10 months ago
@miazagora No it is not. The movie is against evolution and contains many ad hominem fallacies in which he portrays evolutionists as evil. The second reason why he makes up these stories about people getting fired about criticizing evolution is because he has to come up with some sort of answer about why 99,98% of the biologists believe in evolution. Thus he claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy that suppresses criticism and is therefore the reason why not more scientists are speaking up.
Wushuki 10 months ago
atheism clearly isnt true retards, just look at peanut butter
dadirtysoufbowss 10 months ago 35
@dadirtysoufbowss What brand? Does it work with jam to?
Kousaburo 10 months ago
i know btw i hate ben stein he is an ignorant bastard whish he would take his monotone dour voice and piss off
darkglobe09 11 months ago
i thnk you missed the point though. what he's trying to say is that he doesn't believe in evolution beause of all these scientific variables are unexplained it raises a major obsticle for darwim's theory to be true. he mentions fluidmotion, gravity, physics etc. all those things that evolution needs to sustane life and since they are unexplaind how they began it makes it hard to believe evolution is what created all life
samdiego 11 months ago
wow, wut an FFin noob
RzzRBladez 11 months ago
I know Ben Stein, he understands evolution very well. What he's banking on (literally) is that his religious audience doesn't or doesn't wish to. He needed to make some big money fast and as an economist knew if he could make a movie or a reputation of mass appeal to the conservative-religious community he would make a fortune just like Tim LaHaye. There's huge money in being the anti-Dawkins, even if one has to make a complete ass out of oneself. Ben is now a faith-based money machine.
emaildoctor 1 year ago
@emaildoctor
Sounds about right, most religious motivation just boils down to money and power in the end. People like this are so dangerous.
I wish the masses would just question their beliefs a little more, start to find doubts and go research them. *shakes head*
PrecambrianRabb 11 months ago
Stein is not arguing against natural selection. Darwin himself claimed ignorance on the ultimate beginnings of life, how or why it came into existence in the first place. Darwin still believed their was a divine thread, however invisible or unexplainable, behind the entire process. How one can call him one of the most disciplined and thorough thinkers in history in one breath and then claim he may have a serious lapse in reasoning in another regarding his views on the God is absurd.
SleepyWob 1 year ago
An experiment with chicken embryos found that with the stimulation of a recessive trait, chickens could grow teeth just like their ancestors did. I wonder what will a creationist come up with when see the image of the chic with teeth???
shahryarmv 1 year ago
This man has not been touched by his noodly appendage.
KrustynailsVideo 1 year ago 23
@KrustynailsVideo he boiled for our sins!
tokyoisawesome 8 months ago 2
@tokyoisawesome he sure did! :D
KrustynailsVideo 8 months ago
@KrustynailsVideo Ra'men
krypekeeper 7 months ago
@garyzenuf Yes youtube ppl are far more advanced than ivory league grads that used to write speeches for United States Presidents. Please stop being ignorant ppl.
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
I'm shocked this came out of his mouth more than once, that nobody pulled him aside and said, "hey Benny, Natural Selection, is biology, thermal dynamics is physics, and there's never been a person in their right mind who expected it to explain anything more than the origin of species; and there's a difference between that and the origin of life." How can someone so smart be so obtuse?
nemogabe 1 year ago
Ben NEVER claimed these things, you just read the comments from the creator of this video and let your simple mind run wild.
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho I was thinking the video clearly shows Ben Stein saying evolution doesn't explain thermal dynamics, or where the Universe came from.
I like your user name, funny stuff. I never meant to offend you, but clearly my comments hit your wrong.
nemogabe 1 year ago
@nemogabe when does he ever say anything about evolution? thats just what the creator put in his comments... have you been eating crazy pills or something?
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho Yes, lots of crazy pills for me, that's for sure, but I think insanity, in some forms, is enlightenment. While Darwin didn't use the term evolution in the way we do today, when Stein references his name, it seems logical to deduce he's referring to natural selection/evolution. Otherwise, what does he mean when he says, "Darwin didn't have anything to say about..."
nemogabe 1 year ago
@nemogabe its a sidebar.
just like saying science can prove gravity, but what happens next to a black hole when physics and gravity as we know it makes no sense. GET IT?
We all know that if you drop something it will fall to the earth, (does this prove gravity) and that cells change over time.(does this prove evo?) The question is why do they do it, and how do they do it... Science doesnt answer either question... You tell me this and have a nice life with your Nobel prize.
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho I like that, the Nobel prize comment made me laugh out loud. I agree completely, the difference between science and ID is that science is still looking for those answers, and will accept it when they find what it though was true to be a mistake. ID gets to the point where we don't have the answers and concludes a god did it, without any evidence or testable proof. Stein's mission seems to be to get ID into the science class which is very unscientific.
nemogabe 1 year ago
didnt darwin come BEFORE the scientists that came up with gravity and the likes.
MyPottergirl 1 year ago
@MyPottergirl maybe you're kidding and if you are, you got me.
Isacc Newton, who died around 100 years before Darwin went public with Natural Selection, was the person who first recognized gravity. Other ideas like a heliocentric solar system also came long before Darwin.
It's also to important to understand Darwin wasn't the only one to come up with Natural Selection. Alfred Wallace's similar concept prompted Darwin to finally publish the Origin of Species.
nemogabe 1 year ago
@nemogabe it was a question so thanks for informing me.
MyPottergirl 1 year ago
me and the easterbunny is gonna do a interview with jesus tomorrow and his gonna tell us everything.i cant wait for it.
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
It's a terrible tragedy that people as ignorant as Ben Stein really exist in our world.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
I like how the take him in mtv and put him on americas smartest model and present him like some sort of genius expert who have massive knowledge about things
parkouras93 1 year ago
@parkouras93
He is a very smart man with a very high IQ. These are facts regardless of how you feel about this topic.
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho what facts. gravity also doesn't explain the origin of the universe, does that make it not true? evolution is about biology not physics or any of that other stuff. regardless of ben's IQ, he doesn't know what evolution is; how many times has he said that evolution claims life started when "lighting struck a mudpuddle"?
1) you will never hear a real scientist make that claim
2) evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's about the diversity of life.
evolution is fact!
nitrorev386 1 year ago
this premiss is whack
illlite 1 year ago
Newton's laws of motion are useless because they don't explain how embryos fight retroviral infections.
Adam Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments is useless because it doesn't explain or support any major theory on sleep.
John Boyd's military theories are useless because they don't explain the financial crisis.
Hume's theory of causation is useless because it doesn't explain why I made this comment.
Indeed Ben Stein has a very valid point!
Pharnax 1 year ago
It's a bit ironic that what Stein is saying is essentially the same thing that the video poster is blasting him for. Stein is not trying to "disprove Evolution", and never was. HE is stating, like the poster of the video, that Evolution does not explain or even attempt to explain how life began.
What is with you Youtube-people and your hostility toward anyone who even hints at disagreeing with you?
necpmf 1 year ago
@necpmf Actually, if you watch the full video, he does the EXACT OPPOSITE. His argument is basically that evolution must be BS because Darwin couldn't explain all these things.
Why do you creotards always lie?
tingtangs 1 year ago
@tingtangs
He never says its false, just that there is no proof. Just like there is no proof God exists. I.E. If you can believe in evolution than why is there a problem believing in creation... Neither have any scientific proof.
And I dont believe it was creation before u go on ur anti God campaign...
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho Yes, he does think evolution is false.
tingtangs 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho There is actually lots of proof, every university and every sceintist agrees in evolution, not nessacarly on every detail but about evolution as a whole
shandcunt 1 year ago
@shandcunt Actually there is no proof. Evolution is a theory.
Just because the masses believe it does not make it true. GG
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chiefpokeaho Actually there is proof, Evolution is a Theory.
Just because the masses dont believe it does not mean it's false. GG
shandcunt 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho "Just because the masses believe it does not make it true."
The masses don't believe it, the scientists do. There are more people who believe in creation than evolution.
"He is a very smart man with a very high IQ."
He is also a liar. It's dangerous for a smart man with a high IQ to lie.
"These questions need answers right?"
These questions do need answers but not having them doesn't mean you resort to magical explanations which haven't a shred of proof.
orion00 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho
The scientific theory by definition is a theory that explains scientific observations. Not speculate regarding scientific observations, but explain.
A majority of the population believe in God. A majority of the scientists doesn't. That is not bias of any kind, it is just impossible to believe in a God while doing scientific work without being heavily ignorant.
LordOfHistory 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho You're confusing the word "theory" for hypothesis. There is an abundance of proof, Natural Selection is one of the most supported theories ever. The fossil records support it, it's observable in microbiology, and the variations in domestic species show us how we can create species to our own liking.
I suspect people who say things like "it's just a theory" have never taken a science class, or don't care enough about science to know the difference between hypothesis and theory.
nemogabe 1 year ago
@nemogabe Go check a dictionary and tell me that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not synonyms.
You sir, are ignorant.
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
"Go check a dictionary and tell me that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not synonyms"
You know in like 2nd grade when you learned that sometimes different words have different meanings based on the context? I guess you missed out on that lesson.
If I were to say "she's hot" would you assume that: a) she was on fire, or b) I thought she was cute?
cont.
flylike1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flylike1 Here's what the dictionary says:
"1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
nemogabe 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho cont.
In science, the word "theory" means something different from the colloquial version. Yeah, in colloquial use, "theory" means "hypothesis." But in science, it is defined as something that explains a phenomena and is supported by ALL evidence, and contradicted by NONE.
I suppose since evolution is "just a theory" you no longer believe in: gravity, cells, atoms, germs, plate tectonics, relativity, or heliocentrism.
Those are all THEORIES as well.
flylike1 1 year ago
Comment removed
nemogabe 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho Okay, here's what it says:
"1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
nemogabe 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho
Evolution is support by the scientific procedure and the evidence provided by research.
LordOfHistory 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho Maybe you missed biology, or basic science class. If there wasn't proof, it would still be a hypothesis, for something to be a theory there has to be lots of observable proof. The evidence for natural selection is visible in the fossil record, in microbiology, and the same ability to vary is clear in the unnaturally selected spectrum of domestic animals: ex. all the different species of dogs, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane all came from wolf DNA.
nemogabe 1 year ago
he was setting up alot of straw mans
ihmen 1 year ago
I was kinda disappointed when I found out that Ben Stein is retarded. I loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
grasd2 1 year ago
He never evolution was supposed to explain any of these things you idiots! He said Darwin not evolution. Now you all shut up plz.
Chiefpokeaho 1 year ago
@Chiefpokeaho He said that evolution was false because it couldn't explain those things.
tingtangs 1 year ago