@exiled30 Well they are to some extent, we've ignored it, and now we see some immoral creationists who've actively been brainwashing children with this for years, and a dentist with no education on the subject in texas can decide what books they should be able to read, they are dangerous, maybe not in the "we're gonna get hurt" kind of way, but to education and the US's future, yeah it's a threat.
@AegeanKing I don't think that's unclear in the video, atleast not the christian part, he might be conservative in the normal sense, but by todays US standards that basically makes him a communist appearently.
@medallish To be honest, the Frank Shaffer of today is not the same Frank of 10 years ago. The Frank of 10 years ago was an honest and faithful Eastern Orthodox Christian. Now, he just goes around bashing the Bible while still pretending to be Orthodox. He is an apostate by every measure.
@AegeanKing lol first of all he's not just "bashing" the bible, it's only with religion and Fox news that quoting out loud is the same as bashing. And you think the word Apostate has any meaning to me? Obviously the group he used to be with wasn't good, and he did the right thing by not staying, if that means to you that he's not a real christian I'm sure he doesn't care, like I don't care what you think of me, I know I'm a good person, I don't need some superficial belief to claim that.
@medallish did I say he was bashing the Bible in this video? read my comment carefully idiot. I said he goes around and bashes the bible. It was a general statement. Not specific to this video. Learn to read moron.
@AegeanKing ololol you're so angry, I didn't say I was refering to the video, I was refering to the fact that all you have to do is quote the bible and you're bashing it. You should learn to read between the lines.
At first evangelicals used to make me sick to my stomach, but now it's starting to become more like pity. Just pity. Pity for their children who are brainwashed and isolated to the point where they can't think. Just fucking pitiful.
Never mind terrorists, it's Christian fundamentalist who are the biggest threat to America. They are no better than the Muslim fundamentalists in some countries who want to run their country by sharia law. These are dangerous people who need to be stopped. The mental illness of religion is getting out of hand.
You clearly don't understand either Biology, Evolutionary Theory or the mechanics of English. I wouldn't want her to waste her time trying to teach a fool genetics anymore than I'm going waste my time trying to teach a badger Abstract Algebra. If you want to understand then throw out those books for laypeople written by laypeople and study it academically. Look up "Project Steve" while you're at it. This is only advice if you want to know what's true but feel free to go on being an asshat.
Frank is a "christian" who dosen't belive the Bible. His mom got it wrong on JFK so she is wacked out? Look at her life, she was the hands of Christ to many, God has a record. Christ commanded His disciples of looking for His return, it's called the Blessed Hope Frank. You don't have to be pre-trib. The Bible teaches the end will come and we are not of this world John 17.
These "looney tunes" cared for and ministered to many lost souls in La'Abri. They just followed Jesus. Politics will end.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
How does any of your claims confirm the existence of a god? Even a biblical god?
I am no biologist, but I have studied religion. And religion is in plain words bullshit.
Besides, there are no legitimate creationist scientist. At least I have never heard of one. Can you mention a few whom does not take their Bible with them?
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@UberLogic "A better question is . . . Can humanity be rescued from the delusional, dogmatic and manipulative people" You mean "Can humanity be rescued from Richard Dawkins?" More to the point.
When he said they have to reject facts as a matter of faith I was completely stunned, in a good way. I've never thought of that before, I just always thought creationists were just stubborn. But no, they're taught that if you believe this even if it be proven then you are not faithful. It's a threat, a black mail against people by using the idea of paradise as a way to get people to think your way. Thank you for the perfect choice of words Frank.
Frank Schaeffer is telling it just like it is! American Fundamentalist Christianity especially the Dominionist stripe is full-blown Christ-Psychosis and as such must be marginalised as much as posible. Unfortunately, they are running the Tea party which is running the Republican Party which is threatening the destruction of the full faith and credit of the United States and with it, total economic collapse! These people have been allowed to run loose for too long, it's time to fight back!
@EdM021 Don't put everyone in the same mould please. There are Christian fundamentalists who hate the tea party and everything they stand for. I am on the left politically as are most of my friends. Evangelicals in the UK founded the British Labor party. There is no automatic link between Christianity and right wing lunacy.
@EdM021Sorry is I mmisunderstood. Fair point, but let's take it further. There is no automatic link between being a creationist and being right wing. In fact in the broader sense anyone who believes in a creator is a creationist. There is too much pigeon holing and too much name calling. It is possible to discuss these matters however in a civilised way. See the debate Jonathan Wells Phd (Creationist) and Michael Shermer Phd (skeptic society) .
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is not idiotic to reject Darwinism. I am a left wing person and I loathe the religious right but my knowledge of Science as a Biologist causes me to reject Darwinism. I do not know exactly how the world started but I do know that the BELIEF that a single cell accidentally turned into everything from banana trees to elephants is not supported by the facts of science.
@jeepsterrr lol yeah right, and we're suppose to believe that shit? Oddly how 99% of smarter people than you (actual scientists) accepts "Darwinism" fully.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@medallish It is incredible how quick so many Darwinists are, pens at the ready, to answer anyone who dares to question the consensus. Darwin himself questioned the consensus. Percentages are not relevant. There was a time when 99% of scientists believed the world was flat. The only reason there are not more proponents of ID is powerful positions is that their way is blocked at every turn by "establishment". By the way calling something "shit" is not a scientific argument.
@jeepsterrr Oh you want scientific? You're right numbers don't always prove something right, but with scientists, especially in a time where we've learned as much as we have it does put a lot of weight on that being true.
But if you were really a Biologist you would realize that what you described wasn't evolution, Darwin never EVER suggested that all life came from one cell, however we do share DNA with all life on the planet, which suggests a common ancestor for all of us.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@medallish It is just incredible that Darwinist so have their head in their ass. The reason is that there is a rising tide of opposition to the most dumb ass thery in the history of science. Of course most scientists believe darwinism. That is certain to be true at a time when people are brainwashed with fundamentalist darwinism from an early age and told clear that if they dare to dissent they are a ",moron" "idiot" etc. Name calling though is not science.
@jeepsterrr Why are they Darwinist? DIdn't you say you were a Biologist? But fine answer this, are Humans and Ape related? That should be a fairly easy question for a Biologist.
@jeepsterrr Just the fact that you call it "Darwinsim," a term used exclusively by creationists, shows that you are not likely a biologist. I'd find it hard to believe that you're even a middle school life science teacher. My girlfriend however, the one that does pancreatic cancer research, she says your an idiot and that's her "scientific" opinion. I just do math and physics so I'd just put it as you have found the "kernel" of truth. (disambiguation: Algebra)
@wkrepelin I use the term Darwinism because because Darwin has become a "god" to materialistic scientists. Just witness the hype over the recenit Darwin Bicenttenial celebrations. Evolution is a slippery word which can mean observable change over time (micro evolution) fact, or can mean molecules to man mythical macro evolution. I see your reasoning, you think I cannot have a REAL scientific background because I do not believe in evolution. A ggod way to avoid real discussion eh?
@jeepsterrr No, I think you can't have a degree in biology because you clearly don't know what evolution IS. Just like I can tell if you really know abstract mathematics by reading what you might have to say about them a REAL biologist (like my girlfriend) can tell your full of ****. Now, one of her coworkers is a staunch Catholic (old style catholic at that) and doesn't believe in evolution but he knows what it is and can describes accurately as he is a biologist. You sound ignorant of it.
@wkrepelin Listen man I will debate you anywhere anytime anyplace. Can your girlfriend give any actual real evidence for common descent other than the normal shit of saying that because certain things are similar they must have a common ancestor. And dont give me all that crap about so called :"junk" DNA. Read teh book THE M"YTH of JUNK DNA. Escellent read.
@jeepsterrr The point is that there are lots of scientists that don't believe in evolution (though very few are biologists and physicists) but they still know science. You seem to not know anything about biology and that's why nobody believes you. Reference a published article, gives us your linkedin account or just tell us what your dissertation was on but you probably can't do any of those because they don't exist.
Respond to this video... By the way, I have the greatest respect for your girlfriend's profession, though it has no relevence to the point you are trying to make. Human anatomy is full of thousands of examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms which defy any evolutionary explanation. My mother recently died of pancreatic cancer so I wish her well in her research.
@wkrepelin By the way, I have the greatest respect for your girlfriend's profession, though it has no relevence to the point you are trying to make. Human anatomy is full of thousands of examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms which defy any evolutionary explanation. My mother recently died of pancreatic cancer so I wish her well in her research.
@jeepsterrr Uh, there was a time 99% of scientists believed the world was flat? Whatcha smokin? No one that would have ever qualified for the title scientist (in the relevant field) ever believed the earth was flat.
@JoeNietzsche I think you have missed my point entirely. I agree with you. There was indeed a time that 99% of scientists believed the world was flat just as now a huge majority (not all) believe in Darwinism. Then as now, the MINORITY are right!
@jeepsterrr bullshit. The block which you speak of is in your own head and so you lose court case after court case because you refuse to entertain data which does not support your predetermined conclusion .... but you will likely brush this asside and I will have wasted my time.
@medallish slow down there buddy. I reject Darwinism as well, but not scientific facts and theories, like evolution and relativity. Darwinism encompasses too much and is a very vague term. It also was an ideological movement.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh my gosh, Frankie your going way to far. "Evangelicals are rotting the brains of America", "Fundimentalists are the village idiot", on and on you go. This is hate speech as well. I don't believe Obama is the anti christ or that he is not a US citizen, but what your saying is just as evil. Get a grip.
@Spillers72 its not hate speach if its the truth Evangelicals are killing this this jesus will never come back there is no end of days its a fantasty not hate speach but pure truth thats need and should be said daily on tv every single fucking day
@jeepsterrr Wow as a biologist, your explanation of evolution is facepalm worthy. U must hav passed with flying colors with the notion that 1 single cell accidentally turned into bananas and elephants. maybe try lookin up Tree_of_life_SVG on wiki
@jeepsterrr If I may ask could you by any chance point me towards any of your published work as a biologist? and If I may also ask what is your specialty in biology? As I am sure you are aware biology is a rather broad field of study.
@jeepsterrr If you knew even the basics then you would know that evolution by natural selection does not say everything happened accidently. It is not a theory of chance and even when you think about it.....it makes sense cos everything starts of small and then grows, expands, gets bigger or whatever. Twins start of as the same one thing. Besides evidence is something which you may wanna take seriously, just something to think about.
@jeepsterrr Who cares if you're left-wing? You're obviously a lousy Biologist/scientist (assuming you are telling the truth, and you're probably not). 97% of scientists in the American Science Academy accept neo-Darwinism as scientifical truth. Even if you ARE a Biologist, you're just one of those lunatics that make up the other 3%. You're outnumbered 3/97 by your (alleged) colleagues. Get it? Bye.
Buffoons. Both of them. I am a Christian, and I have no desire to hurt anyone. The village idiot here though is Schaeffer and his bitter stance on humanity
@Tumenihobbies How so? Schaeffer is a Christian, they weren't generalizing Christians, and the fact is this was and is still going on on the far right, they're not lying or making stuff up.
@medallish Ha ha... they will never provide a reasonable answer for their claim that Schaeffer has a "bitter stance on humanity." The is logical connection between him actually addressing the truth (though it be unflattering to fundamentalist Christians), of which he has a much deeper and clearer knowledge and experience than medallish, and him resenting humanity... just another good example of how a reactionary's mind works. Use name-calling, accusations, character attacks, etc.
@Tumenihobbies There is SOLID EVIDENCE for evolution.Your just afraid of death.get an education.obviously you never went to college.possibly never got past high school for you to believe what you do.
@Tumenihobbies Buffoons because why? They hurt your feelings? Didn't you watch the clip? One THIRD of the conservative right think Obama might be the antichrist. Yet you call Maddow and her guest buffoons?
Liberals live in a fantasy world. I think the death of liberalism in America will be just like the Witch in Wizard of Oz, only slower. We, the voters will keep dumping water on them, and they will continue melting and whining while they meltdown.
@newdimensionfilms Leftists ALWAYS out themselves as leftists. That guy starts by SAYING he is a "Christian" and then bad mouths Christians for the rest of his rant. That man is a LEFTIST, and his RELIGION IS LEFTISM.
@mcpencil You leftists repeat each other like parrots! "talking snake"..do you guy meet and decide what talking points your wish to parrot? Leftism in America has reached the point that I say it is now a religion, and should be recognized as an official religion.
is it leftist to disbelieve in a talking snake? if so, then i am a leftist. You say leftism is a religion. Thankfully, no one really cares what you have to say :)
By the way, was I wrong in saying that you believe in a talking snake? Either you believe in a talking snake, in which case you have no credibility, or you agree that the bible is not to be taken literally, in any sense.
@mcpencil I am a Christian and yes, of course I take Genesis as it is written.
You demand that anyone who believes the serpent was Satan, and talked?
1. I don't know if you have seen the fossil record, but the world was extremely different back then. 2. What do you do, if you walk in a pet store and they have an African Gray parrot that has a 600 word vocabulary? Do you run out of the store with your fingers in your ears??
I don't know if you've seen the fossil record, given that you don't accept evolution, while virtually every credible archaeologist and biologist does.
I believe that any nation where a significant proportion of people take religious texts literally, is fundamentally screwed. Trying to pass off intelligent design as science, is just making american kids dumber, and they fall behind the rest of the world. And you wonder why other countries are beginning to overtake you economically.
@sirjames45 How odd that virtually every biologist on this planet disagrees with you. If you are right about the Theory of Evolution contradicting the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion supporting Genesis, how is it that your theory is only supported by fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Muslims?
Parrots can mimic noises with probably no concept of the meaning behind them. They cannot tempt a woman into eating an apple. We know that snakes cannot talk, except in your fairytale wonderland that is the bible. I honestly believe that anyone who admits to believing in the literal interpretation of the bible, should lose all credibility at that point. Their opinions should be treated no differently to those of a Scientologist.
@mcpencil What you are doing is admitting that animals have VOCAL CORDS.
And when you say "Literal interpretation" you mean you only have problems with the parts of the Bible that impinge upon YOUR LIFE. IN other words, you are in rebellion towards God, and you refuse to turn from sin and TRUST in Jesus, and obey God.
Wrong, i have a problem with the whole thing, given that it is obviously fictional. Literal or metaphorical, its all bogus.... the ones who take it literally are the loons who impose their "holy morals" onto the rest of society, though.
By not accepting evolution, you're saying that almost every biologist, chemist, physicist, archaeologist, is COMPLETELY WRONG. Given that you have nowhere near the intelligence levels of these professionals, your position is extremely weak.
@mcpencil The Bible is NOT "Obviously fictional". Every pharoah, every King mentioned, existed. Every town existed. ALL people groups mentioned existed.
the JEWS STILL EXIST TO THIS DAY. NON-Christian archaeologists have USED the Bible as guide to WHERE to dig! Tiny details in Scripture have been found to be true through ancient writings, historians who lived during that time, clay tablets, papyri, ETC, ETC.
Just because historical details are factual, does not make the miracles that occurred near these places and people, factual. You cannot substantiate that a talking snake, a global flood, noah's ark, jesus' resurrection occurred. It is fictional and based on hearsay accounts and downright fables. Just because it mentions specific details that are historically accurate, does not give any credibility towards supernatural events. your logic fails.
@sirjames45 And several important "historical" claims in the Bible have been discovered by Archeologists to be fictional. A case in point: Moses and the Exodus. Read The Bible Uncovered by Finkelstein and Silberman, two Israeli archeologists who set out to prove the Exodus account and ended disproving it instead.
@sirjames45 "What you are doing is admitting that animals have VOCAL CORDS." ??? So some animals, besides humans, have vocal chords. What are you implying by this insignificant curiosity.
@sirjames45 You SirJames are exactly the kind of person that Frank Schaeffer is talking about, wed to ideas instead of seeking solutions. Badmouthing (or trying to badmouth) other points of view without considering that there might (or might not) have merit. Neither leftism or conservatism are the enemy or humanity, close mindedness, crazy self-delusion, and dogmatic reaction is.
FS is not badmouthing Christians, he is revealing the charlatanism of Fundamentalists (quite different)
Finally, someone on national news, that has the large platform, that will tell it like it is.
...but he'd better be careful, the radical christians of today are no different than those of centuries past; they have every capacity to brutally murder him and or his family, as they have others, for him daring to critique their creed of ignorance and outright lies.
The religious majority were more easily controlled prior to the 20th century. Now, however, we have mass media and a 24-hour news cycle that caters to these people. This is a problem. It's egging them on into political action. When you have a mass of ignorant people in action like this, our wonderful democracy could become a barbarous theocracy in no time.
A word for the wise - The difference between a Capitalist system that regulates where necessary, and one that does not is the same as the difference between a Civilized government and an Uncivilized one.
A word for the wise - The difference between a Capitalist system with regulation and one without is like the difference between a civilized government and an UNcivilized one.
As far as 'Fundamentalist Christianity' is concerned. I have no problem with an individual people who choose to be devout. But as long as daylight falls on everybody the safety of our public culture will be in intact. Unfortunately, people who have 5 minutes a day to study all this... they are going to have a rough time in the stream of media and rhetoric that's plastered all over the place.
@GoblinKnightLeo What about Ron Paul? Just take a look at Rand Paul and you have a good idea how Ron Paul would run things. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
@GoblinKnightLeo Ron Paul raised Rand Paul, which shows what we have to look forward to from Ron himself. Besides Ron Paul is all for complete Deregulation of Big Business. Do some studying on the matter, that would be nothing less than an utterly complete disaster! You see now what resulted from taking away just some of the regulation on the Big Oil Companies. Complete Deregulation would be like handing over a crown to Big Business to rule the world!
@findthelight2000 Disagree completely. You do realize that oil has been the fourth most regulated industry in America for a long time, right? Behind pharma, medicine, and manufacturing, followed by mining. Not a single regulation has been loosened in more than 10 years, no matter what Obama says.
@findthelight2000 You also realize that the reason for the drilling in the Gulf is that 90% of the shallow water wells, which are much safer to drill, are off limits to drilling right?
@GoblinKnightLeo Do you realize that there are much safer, cleaner methods of getting energy than through fossil fuels? The jobs created from such an emerging industry would outweigh those available from oil drilling. So it's a little costly at first, but is costs far less as time goes on. By the way, the money from oil in Iran goes to exactly the same companies as the money from US oil rigs. So why destroy the world's waters when we can still get the oil from places that can dig for it safely
@findthelight2000 Do YOU realize that fossil fuels supply 92% of the world's energy? Approx 6% is nuclear, and the rest "green energy". It's a great idea, really it is, but no amount of idea changes PHYSICS.
Photoelectric cells are limited to 1 kW per square YARD, because that's how much sunlight gets here. But it's worse, because you won't get even 45% of that unless you spend $10,000 per square inch of cell.
Solar-thermal doesn't work when it's cloudy, and it's 2.5 times as expensive as coal.
@GoblinKnightLeo You are a FOX News Tea-party Deadhead. It's impossible to sway you or get you to do any real research. That makes you an IDIOT! Go ahead and poison the planet and turn this country into a Totalitarian Corporatist Theocracy.
Anyone with a working brain knows that is what Rupert Murdock and FOX News wants.
@findthelight2000 Actually, I couldn't despise religion more. I'm also not impressed with Murdoch much, nor most of FOX news.
You have never studied what the idea of "individual rights" means, and I suggest you go read John Locke and Ayn Rand, who spend most of their works writing about and defending the idea of "rights", before you make anymore stupid accusations.
And finally, go read the Manifesto. And then look at America, and tell me what sort of nation we have become in the last 80 years.
@findthelight2000 Actually, I'm an engineering major, and I happen to have DONE my research on the subject of energy generation. I know how energy generation works, and there are definite limits.
For example, hydrogen fuel. Great idea, more joules/lb than gasoline. But a lb of hydrogen is 4 times the size of a lb of gas. Not only that, but the only source is electrolyzed seawater, meaning you spend more energy extracting the H2 than you get back from the fuel.
Neither is ethanol. The best crop for ethanol is canola (leagues better than corn), and we'd need about 40 million more acres of arable land than the US has in order to grow enough to replace gas. And ethanol is less efficient than gas, so we'd burn more of it.
@findthelight2000 Wind farms don't do anything when there's no wind, and the insistence on building horizontal windmills is reducing what efficacy wind has. Vertical mills are much better for low-breeze areas, but can't take high winds as well.
Geothermal is great, even cheap, but it's geographically limited to fault areas.
And environmentalists protest harder than anyone against hydroelectric plants because they're built in dams in rivers.
@findthelight2000 It's also completely impossible to permanently contaminate water, or did you never take a physics or chemistry class?
It's not merely that "green" energy is costly. It actually can't bear the burden at all. Moreover, the maintenance costs of "green" are much higher than those of fossil fuels.
So, what's your suggestion? What could actually replace fossil fuels? Nuclear is a great option, but environmentalists protest those too.
@GoblinKnightLeo Please..., this discussion is lengthy, has gone off topic and it is not fair to the others here. You go your way, I'll go mine and we may resume this discussion in a proper on-topic video.
@GoblinKnightLeo You do seem to have more knowledge on the energy than I, but I do not think digging for oil in waters should be allowed anymore, the risk is too great. I am not saying we should completely go off fossil fuels, but any energy spending these days should be on clean energy only. We have enough oil drills.
I do hold steadfastly to you errors in judging government regulation as the problem with this country. It was Regan's large Deregulation of Business that caused Too-Big-To-Fail.
@findthelight2000 Think about what you just said for a second. First, it's wrong. Hoover and then FDR did the first bailouts. Second, think about the terms "deregulation" and "too-big-to-fail". The second one invalidates the first.
And that's Ron Paul's, and Rand Paul's, point. In a capitalist system, you are responsible for your own business. if you fail, tough luck. But erecting artificial barriers, i.e. regulations, has the net effect of calcifying the market.
@findthelight2000 And the point is that the govt. shouldn't be involved in energy at all. Edison and Telsa developed electrical generation without a penny of subsidy, and both had plants running without govt involvement. Govt.-granted monopolies, such as FPL, are bad for the consumer, because the incentive to innovate is gone. When no one is LEGALLY permitted to compete with you, what incentives do you have to cut costs?
Look at high-tech industries. No regulation, and look at the progress.
@GoblinKnightLeo I am against Monopolies, whether independent or government granted. That is not the point, without government regulations you will have Big Business cutting corners that could destroy our economy and the fiscal health of the population, as well as costing lives and destroying entire ecosystems. By the way, the waters do not "clean up the oil" that was a great LIE told by Rush Limbaugh that got him clobbered as a result of his misinformation.
@findthelight2000 In 1980, the cost of a MB was about $100. Now its less than a penny.
That's the product of an unrestricted free market. Whereas electric costs have been rising lately.
Most of the media information about regulations is complete bull. Calif. in 1980s, for example, did not deregulate electricity. It REregulated, as in rewrote them. The result was rolling blackouts.
A test for you. If high wages are a CAUSE of prosperity, instead of a RESULT, then why not $100/hr minimum wage?
@GoblinKnightLeo In 1958 under President Eisenhower, the richest 1% paid 87% in taxes. They were fine with that, and still lived high on the hog. Today they don't even spend 10%, they cry the blues (who wouldn't when there are so many low-earning gullible fools in the US willing to let them have more?), and the poor and middle class are expected to pick up the difference. Several studies have shown that continually lowering taxes have added more to the deficit than any other cause.
@findthelight2000 Did you read the test I proposed? I said high wages are PRODUCTS of prosperity. High wages are wonderful. So are benefits. But it is prosperity -already had- that makes them possible, not legislation.
And you have made the same mistake that everyone else. Income taxes hit high-earners, not rich people. Rich people often have very low incomes, because income taxes are not wealth taxes.
Your last comment is pure Marxism, whether you understand it or not.
@GoblinKnightLeo Let the Depression hit you in the face, and you'll be crying for what you idiot Ultra-tea-bagging-Social-Conservative-Republicans call "Socialism" that really isn't. BTW, FDR (the Socialist president!!!) was just named by a highly regarded historical society the Best of all Presidents. Obama after a mere 1 1/2 yrs was placed @#15, Clinton #13, & G.W. Bush #38.
The only way to create jobs is to put in work regulations and increasing the Deficit, that is the way it's always been.
@findthelight2000 Actually, in the original sense of the term, FDR was a fascist.
Go on believing that, if you like.
John Maynard Keynes, who wrote the program that FDR used and Obama is still using, was a yes-man, and everything he wrote was apologetics for what governments had already been doing for three centuries
And so what? Just because some historical society names FDR as "greatest ever" doesn't mean anything. I would have given the title to Coolidge, and put FDR at the bottom.
@GoblinKnightLeo In the true sense of the words, FDR was most certainly not a Fascist. Nor was he a Socialist. Those are terms the Tea-Party, the now suppressed Republican party, and the conservative talk show crowd are "using" to instill fear, anger, and hostility toward the opposing side. At no time in history have more dangerous Un-American means been used for a political stronghold. That, in itself, is Fascism!
@findthelight2000 Actually, look up the words "fascist" and "socialist".
Fascism is an economic model in which private OWNERSHIP of property is preserved in name, but absolute control over that property is given to the state. The owner retains all of the responsibility but none of the benefits.
Socialism is an economic model in which the state is the "parent", and is supposed to take steps to improve the economic status of the citizens.
So yes, FDR and all the presidents since him were both.
@GoblinKnightLeo The description you gave isn't thorough. Government regulation is not "absolute control", but a means by which to protect the people, the ecosystem, and the economy from possible disaster. Your description of Socialism is wrong, because any type of Government has a responsibility to take steps to improve the economic status of it's citizens. Would you really want a government that doesn't? This is what all presidents since Washington have done, not just since FDR.
@findthelight2000 No president did any such thing until Wilson. And no government is supposed to.
A police force, a law court, an penal system, an army, a legislature. That's all the US govt. is supposed to amount to.
Thomas Jefferson: "When you depend on the government for food, you will soon want bread."
But I'm not going to spend any more time on you. My advice? Go read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (c 1957) and "Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises (c 1967). Or maybe just some Adam Smith.
white christians are the jesus lovers kiss statues of jesus feet worshiping him ive seen them
aztec714ok 3 days ago
you keep peoples history from them there not the bad ones you are.....and your 98%monkey dna
aztec714ok 3 days ago
I like this guy.
SilentMott 1 week ago
They're not that dangerous. We have to be careful with our rhetoric.
exiled30 1 month ago
@exiled30 Well they are to some extent, we've ignored it, and now we see some immoral creationists who've actively been brainwashing children with this for years, and a dentist with no education on the subject in texas can decide what books they should be able to read, they are dangerous, maybe not in the "we're gonna get hurt" kind of way, but to education and the US's future, yeah it's a threat.
medallish 1 month ago
Everybody should know that Frank Shaffer is a conservative Eastern Orthodox Christian who attends church regularly. He is not an atheist.
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing I don't think that's unclear in the video, atleast not the christian part, he might be conservative in the normal sense, but by todays US standards that basically makes him a communist appearently.
medallish 1 month ago
@medallish To be honest, the Frank Shaffer of today is not the same Frank of 10 years ago. The Frank of 10 years ago was an honest and faithful Eastern Orthodox Christian. Now, he just goes around bashing the Bible while still pretending to be Orthodox. He is an apostate by every measure.
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing Yeah he has become a better person hasn't he?
medallish 1 month ago
@medallish I dont know the man personally so I dont know. But your obvious insinuation is idiotic and childish.
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing lol first of all he's not just "bashing" the bible, it's only with religion and Fox news that quoting out loud is the same as bashing. And you think the word Apostate has any meaning to me? Obviously the group he used to be with wasn't good, and he did the right thing by not staying, if that means to you that he's not a real christian I'm sure he doesn't care, like I don't care what you think of me, I know I'm a good person, I don't need some superficial belief to claim that.
medallish 1 month ago
@medallish did I say he was bashing the Bible in this video? read my comment carefully idiot. I said he goes around and bashes the bible. It was a general statement. Not specific to this video. Learn to read moron.
AegeanKing 1 month ago
@AegeanKing ololol you're so angry, I didn't say I was refering to the video, I was refering to the fact that all you have to do is quote the bible and you're bashing it. You should learn to read between the lines.
medallish 1 month ago
At first evangelicals used to make me sick to my stomach, but now it's starting to become more like pity. Just pity. Pity for their children who are brainwashed and isolated to the point where they can't think. Just fucking pitiful.
Preetima1125 2 months ago
Never mind terrorists, it's Christian fundamentalist who are the biggest threat to America. They are no better than the Muslim fundamentalists in some countries who want to run their country by sharia law. These are dangerous people who need to be stopped. The mental illness of religion is getting out of hand.
ACCSESS247 3 months ago
Love this :)
gorwell97 4 months ago
You clearly don't understand either Biology, Evolutionary Theory or the mechanics of English. I wouldn't want her to waste her time trying to teach a fool genetics anymore than I'm going waste my time trying to teach a badger Abstract Algebra. If you want to understand then throw out those books for laypeople written by laypeople and study it academically. Look up "Project Steve" while you're at it. This is only advice if you want to know what's true but feel free to go on being an asshat.
wkrepelin 4 months ago 2
@PseudoPoiesis I am a qualified Bioligist you are a qualified dick.
jeepsterrr 4 months ago
That was terrifying and fucking hilarious!
The village idiots carry way too much weight in the US today...
TheDisturbism 4 months ago
Frank is a "christian" who dosen't belive the Bible. His mom got it wrong on JFK so she is wacked out? Look at her life, she was the hands of Christ to many, God has a record. Christ commanded His disciples of looking for His return, it's called the Blessed Hope Frank. You don't have to be pre-trib. The Bible teaches the end will come and we are not of this world John 17.
These "looney tunes" cared for and ministered to many lost souls in La'Abri. They just followed Jesus. Politics will end.
JoaquinJB 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52
How does any of your claims confirm the existence of a god? Even a biblical god?
I am no biologist, but I have studied religion. And religion is in plain words bullshit.
Besides, there are no legitimate creationist scientist. At least I have never heard of one. Can you mention a few whom does not take their Bible with them?
bohemianwriter1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
It's so refreshing to see a reasonable christian.
joshdw92 5 months ago
"can christianity be rescued from christians" NO
A better question is . . . Can humanity be rescued from the delusional, dogmatic and manipulative people
UberLogic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UberLogic "A better question is . . . Can humanity be rescued from the delusional, dogmatic and manipulative people" You mean "Can humanity be rescued from Richard Dawkins?" More to the point.
jeepsterrr 5 months ago
When he said they have to reject facts as a matter of faith I was completely stunned, in a good way. I've never thought of that before, I just always thought creationists were just stubborn. But no, they're taught that if you believe this even if it be proven then you are not faithful. It's a threat, a black mail against people by using the idea of paradise as a way to get people to think your way. Thank you for the perfect choice of words Frank.
SnivelyTheGlamful 5 months ago
Rachel Maddow's a heretic! Burn her at the stake! Ha ha, just kidding! She tells it like it is.
scorpin969 5 months ago
hehe Rachel Palin would be a funny mix
Triad3Force 6 months ago
watch?v=i6J3UchBFJk
EdM021 6 months ago
Frank Schaeffer is telling it just like it is! American Fundamentalist Christianity especially the Dominionist stripe is full-blown Christ-Psychosis and as such must be marginalised as much as posible. Unfortunately, they are running the Tea party which is running the Republican Party which is threatening the destruction of the full faith and credit of the United States and with it, total economic collapse! These people have been allowed to run loose for too long, it's time to fight back!
EdM021 6 months ago
@EdM021 Don't put everyone in the same mould please. There are Christian fundamentalists who hate the tea party and everything they stand for. I am on the left politically as are most of my friends. Evangelicals in the UK founded the British Labor party. There is no automatic link between Christianity and right wing lunacy.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr I wasn't putting everyone in the same mould. You forget... Frank Shaeffer is a Christian!
EdM021 6 months ago
@EdM021Sorry is I mmisunderstood. Fair point, but let's take it further. There is no automatic link between being a creationist and being right wing. In fact in the broader sense anyone who believes in a creator is a creationist. There is too much pigeon holing and too much name calling. It is possible to discuss these matters however in a civilised way. See the debate Jonathan Wells Phd (Creationist) and Michael Shermer Phd (skeptic society) .
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is not idiotic to reject Darwinism. I am a left wing person and I loathe the religious right but my knowledge of Science as a Biologist causes me to reject Darwinism. I do not know exactly how the world started but I do know that the BELIEF that a single cell accidentally turned into everything from banana trees to elephants is not supported by the facts of science.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr lol yeah right, and we're suppose to believe that shit? Oddly how 99% of smarter people than you (actual scientists) accepts "Darwinism" fully.
medallish 6 months ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@medallish It is incredible how quick so many Darwinists are, pens at the ready, to answer anyone who dares to question the consensus. Darwin himself questioned the consensus. Percentages are not relevant. There was a time when 99% of scientists believed the world was flat. The only reason there are not more proponents of ID is powerful positions is that their way is blocked at every turn by "establishment". By the way calling something "shit" is not a scientific argument.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr Oh you want scientific? You're right numbers don't always prove something right, but with scientists, especially in a time where we've learned as much as we have it does put a lot of weight on that being true.
But if you were really a Biologist you would realize that what you described wasn't evolution, Darwin never EVER suggested that all life came from one cell, however we do share DNA with all life on the planet, which suggests a common ancestor for all of us.
medallish 6 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@medallish It is just incredible that Darwinist so have their head in their ass. The reason is that there is a rising tide of opposition to the most dumb ass thery in the history of science. Of course most scientists believe darwinism. That is certain to be true at a time when people are brainwashed with fundamentalist darwinism from an early age and told clear that if they dare to dissent they are a ",moron" "idiot" etc. Name calling though is not science.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr Why are they Darwinist? DIdn't you say you were a Biologist? But fine answer this, are Humans and Ape related? That should be a fairly easy question for a Biologist.
medallish 6 months ago 8
@jeepsterrr Just the fact that you call it "Darwinsim," a term used exclusively by creationists, shows that you are not likely a biologist. I'd find it hard to believe that you're even a middle school life science teacher. My girlfriend however, the one that does pancreatic cancer research, she says your an idiot and that's her "scientific" opinion. I just do math and physics so I'd just put it as you have found the "kernel" of truth. (disambiguation: Algebra)
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin I use the term Darwinism because because Darwin has become a "god" to materialistic scientists. Just witness the hype over the recenit Darwin Bicenttenial celebrations. Evolution is a slippery word which can mean observable change over time (micro evolution) fact, or can mean molecules to man mythical macro evolution. I see your reasoning, you think I cannot have a REAL scientific background because I do not believe in evolution. A ggod way to avoid real discussion eh?
jeepsterrr 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr No, I think you can't have a degree in biology because you clearly don't know what evolution IS. Just like I can tell if you really know abstract mathematics by reading what you might have to say about them a REAL biologist (like my girlfriend) can tell your full of ****. Now, one of her coworkers is a staunch Catholic (old style catholic at that) and doesn't believe in evolution but he knows what it is and can describes accurately as he is a biologist. You sound ignorant of it.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Listen man I will debate you anywhere anytime anyplace. Can your girlfriend give any actual real evidence for common descent other than the normal shit of saying that because certain things are similar they must have a common ancestor. And dont give me all that crap about so called :"junk" DNA. Read teh book THE M"YTH of JUNK DNA. Escellent read.
jeepsterrr 4 months ago
@jeepsterrr The point is that there are lots of scientists that don't believe in evolution (though very few are biologists and physicists) but they still know science. You seem to not know anything about biology and that's why nobody believes you. Reference a published article, gives us your linkedin account or just tell us what your dissertation was on but you probably can't do any of those because they don't exist.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
Respond to this video... By the way, I have the greatest respect for your girlfriend's profession, though it has no relevence to the point you are trying to make. Human anatomy is full of thousands of examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms which defy any evolutionary explanation. My mother recently died of pancreatic cancer so I wish her well in her research.
jeepsterrr 5 months ago
@wkrepelin By the way, I have the greatest respect for your girlfriend's profession, though it has no relevence to the point you are trying to make. Human anatomy is full of thousands of examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms which defy any evolutionary explanation. My mother recently died of pancreatic cancer so I wish her well in her research.
jeepsterrr 5 months ago
@medallish Similarity of DNA suggets a common deigner. Nothing more and nothing less.,
jeepsterrr 4 months ago
@jeepsterrr nothing to reply to that? It's funny how quiet you people get when you get caught on your BS.
medallish 6 months ago 8
@medallish Ha ha ha. Me quiet? That is never likely to happen. I will debate you anytime any place anywhere. Just send my airfare! Have a great day.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr Uh, there was a time 99% of scientists believed the world was flat? Whatcha smokin? No one that would have ever qualified for the title scientist (in the relevant field) ever believed the earth was flat.
JoeNietzsche 6 months ago
@JoeNietzsche I think you have missed my point entirely. I agree with you. There was indeed a time that 99% of scientists believed the world was flat just as now a huge majority (not all) believe in Darwinism. Then as now, the MINORITY are right!
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr Well, the minority thinks they're right. The majority also thinks they're right. Neither actually knows if they're 100% correct.
opba93 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr bullshit. The block which you speak of is in your own head and so you lose court case after court case because you refuse to entertain data which does not support your predetermined conclusion .... but you will likely brush this asside and I will have wasted my time.
claudelebel55 4 months ago
@medallish that's because the mass of people are unthinking sheep like you.
jeepsterrr 4 months ago
@medallish slow down there buddy. I reject Darwinism as well, but not scientific facts and theories, like evolution and relativity. Darwinism encompasses too much and is a very vague term. It also was an ideological movement.
giorgiv18 1 month ago
@jeepsterrr.
If Science does not explain THe cell.. Then what does? what evidence for anything else do you have?
Is god credible?
whiskasalpha 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh my gosh, Frankie your going way to far. "Evangelicals are rotting the brains of America", "Fundimentalists are the village idiot", on and on you go. This is hate speech as well. I don't believe Obama is the anti christ or that he is not a US citizen, but what your saying is just as evil. Get a grip.
Spillers72 5 months ago
@Spillers72 its not hate speach if its the truth Evangelicals are killing this this jesus will never come back there is no end of days its a fantasty not hate speach but pure truth thats need and should be said daily on tv every single fucking day
starscreamdkmo 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr i love people that lie about themselves online .... you serve burgers
Dazzler59 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr Wow as a biologist, your explanation of evolution is facepalm worthy. U must hav passed with flying colors with the notion that 1 single cell accidentally turned into bananas and elephants. maybe try lookin up Tree_of_life_SVG on wiki
answer3a3 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr If I may ask could you by any chance point me towards any of your published work as a biologist? and If I may also ask what is your specialty in biology? As I am sure you are aware biology is a rather broad field of study.
evejunkie1942 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr You are not a biologist.
TKStoddart 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr If you knew even the basics then you would know that evolution by natural selection does not say everything happened accidently. It is not a theory of chance and even when you think about it.....it makes sense cos everything starts of small and then grows, expands, gets bigger or whatever. Twins start of as the same one thing. Besides evidence is something which you may wanna take seriously, just something to think about.
rex786 5 months ago
@jeepsterrr Who cares if you're left-wing? You're obviously a lousy Biologist/scientist (assuming you are telling the truth, and you're probably not). 97% of scientists in the American Science Academy accept neo-Darwinism as scientifical truth. Even if you ARE a Biologist, you're just one of those lunatics that make up the other 3%. You're outnumbered 3/97 by your (alleged) colleagues. Get it? Bye.
CarlosMonteiro1985 4 months ago
@jeepsterrr "but my knowledge of Science as a Biologist causes me to reject Darwinism" Nice try.
BillKiernan 3 months ago
@jeepsterrr Hell yeah!!! Those atheist cells!! I hate them?!
magomezga 3 months ago
@jeepsterrr
And now we know you're NOT a biologist!
Because you don't really know what "Darvinism" is and says... ;-))
Oh, I miss the good ol' days when religious people believed lying is a sin!...
No, wait,... they never cared much about that one... :-/
Oh, well...
grozde 2 months ago
The Orthodox Church is the only real church. American christianity is not christian
JohnTheHutDweller 6 months ago
LoL this guy really decimates the fringe lunatics.
linkuei83 7 months ago
Wow, a Christian I agree with.
... My feelings on this are conflicted.
TheGutterMonkey 7 months ago 3
Evangelical culture is a form child abuse. The proof is how ignorant and ridiculous the children grow up to be. Sad, really.
fatouche99 8 months ago 2
Haha, this guy is awesome.
Lostentranslation 8 months ago 2
wha wha wha :-o ANtichrist :-o
KaristaSwiss 8 months ago
Its a shame Texas is so fucking big.
cisseshairdresser 9 months ago
Buffoons. Both of them. I am a Christian, and I have no desire to hurt anyone. The village idiot here though is Schaeffer and his bitter stance on humanity
Tumenihobbies 9 months ago
@Tumenihobbies How so? Schaeffer is a Christian, they weren't generalizing Christians, and the fact is this was and is still going on on the far right, they're not lying or making stuff up.
medallish 8 months ago 10
@medallish Ha ha... they will never provide a reasonable answer for their claim that Schaeffer has a "bitter stance on humanity." The is logical connection between him actually addressing the truth (though it be unflattering to fundamentalist Christians), of which he has a much deeper and clearer knowledge and experience than medallish, and him resenting humanity... just another good example of how a reactionary's mind works. Use name-calling, accusations, character attacks, etc.
gorgorybmus 6 months ago
@gorgorybmus Correction: "There is no logical connection"
gorgorybmus 6 months ago
@Tumenihobbies There is SOLID EVIDENCE for evolution.Your just afraid of death.get an education.obviously you never went to college.possibly never got past high school for you to believe what you do.
tedmon11 7 months ago
@Tumenihobbies Buffoons because why? They hurt your feelings? Didn't you watch the clip? One THIRD of the conservative right think Obama might be the antichrist. Yet you call Maddow and her guest buffoons?
ixnay66 7 months ago
@ixnay66 99.9% of you liberals give the rest a bad name. And yes, that third of conservatives do the same for the rest of us
Tumenihobbies 7 months ago
This guy is awesome!
lewisbreland 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Frank Shaeffer is a Christian? He says he's a "Church going Christian" but really doesnt believe the bible...
xreactx 10 months ago
1 creationist watched this vid
UberLogic 10 months ago
Nailed it.
TheInsanetoker420 10 months ago
Just like the song says.All the dickheads live in Texas
MrMic1146 10 months ago
I grew up in a creationist household and was able to see the light, so to speak. This interview is like catnip.
infinitefandom 11 months ago
Although I disagree with his criticism of richard dawkins, Schaeffer makes a ton of sense here.
VesusSheist 1 year ago 4
if someone took that poll and they were asked if the sky is underground
how many would say yes just to play with the pollster?
usintelreport 1 year ago
Frank needs to relax. I guess he has to write new books for the money. Frank maybe should go to Mt. Athos and pray.
6972741595 1 year ago
Comment removed
starscreamdkmo 5 months ago
i love this guy.
dgb751 1 year ago 3
America is made up of all the villages in the world getting rid of their idiots.
jacksawild 1 year ago 7
Liberals live in a fantasy world. I think the death of liberalism in America will be just like the Witch in Wizard of Oz, only slower. We, the voters will keep dumping water on them, and they will continue melting and whining while they meltdown.
sirjames45 1 year ago
More people watch Fox News therefore creationism is correct and Obama is a Kenyan Muslim bent on undermining the United States.
TheIntolerantAtheist 1 year ago
Or they get elected to the Board of Education in Texas.
DIFowner 1 year ago 15
"Can Christianity be rescued from.......Christians."
Oh boy I lol'd.
newdimensionfilms 1 year ago 2
@newdimensionfilms Leftists ALWAYS out themselves as leftists. That guy starts by SAYING he is a "Christian" and then bad mouths Christians for the rest of his rant. That man is a LEFTIST, and his RELIGION IS LEFTISM.
sirjames45 1 year ago
@sirjames45
I'm sorry, what does anything you said have to do with anything I said?
newdimensionfilms 1 year ago
@sirjames45
leftism is not a religion. believing in talking snakes, is a religion.
mcpencil 1 year ago
@mcpencil You leftists repeat each other like parrots! "talking snake"..do you guy meet and decide what talking points your wish to parrot? Leftism in America has reached the point that I say it is now a religion, and should be recognized as an official religion.
sirjames45 1 year ago
@sirjames45
is it leftist to disbelieve in a talking snake? if so, then i am a leftist. You say leftism is a religion. Thankfully, no one really cares what you have to say :)
By the way, was I wrong in saying that you believe in a talking snake? Either you believe in a talking snake, in which case you have no credibility, or you agree that the bible is not to be taken literally, in any sense.
mcpencil 1 year ago
@mcpencil I am a Christian and yes, of course I take Genesis as it is written.
You demand that anyone who believes the serpent was Satan, and talked?
1. I don't know if you have seen the fossil record, but the world was extremely different back then. 2. What do you do, if you walk in a pet store and they have an African Gray parrot that has a 600 word vocabulary? Do you run out of the store with your fingers in your ears??
sirjames45 1 year ago
@sirjames45
I don't know if you've seen the fossil record, given that you don't accept evolution, while virtually every credible archaeologist and biologist does.
I believe that any nation where a significant proportion of people take religious texts literally, is fundamentally screwed. Trying to pass off intelligent design as science, is just making american kids dumber, and they fall behind the rest of the world. And you wonder why other countries are beginning to overtake you economically.
mcpencil 1 year ago
@ No I don't accept the Theory of evolution. It contradicts the fossil record!
The Cambrian explosion supports Genesis, not Darwin!!
sirjames45 1 year ago
@sirjames45 How odd that virtually every biologist on this planet disagrees with you. If you are right about the Theory of Evolution contradicting the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion supporting Genesis, how is it that your theory is only supported by fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Muslims?
Kailoa36 1 year ago
@sirjames45
Parrots can mimic noises with probably no concept of the meaning behind them. They cannot tempt a woman into eating an apple. We know that snakes cannot talk, except in your fairytale wonderland that is the bible. I honestly believe that anyone who admits to believing in the literal interpretation of the bible, should lose all credibility at that point. Their opinions should be treated no differently to those of a Scientologist.
mcpencil 1 year ago
@mcpencil What you are doing is admitting that animals have VOCAL CORDS.
And when you say "Literal interpretation" you mean you only have problems with the parts of the Bible that impinge upon YOUR LIFE. IN other words, you are in rebellion towards God, and you refuse to turn from sin and TRUST in Jesus, and obey God.
sirjames45 1 year ago
@sirjames45
Wrong, i have a problem with the whole thing, given that it is obviously fictional. Literal or metaphorical, its all bogus.... the ones who take it literally are the loons who impose their "holy morals" onto the rest of society, though.
By not accepting evolution, you're saying that almost every biologist, chemist, physicist, archaeologist, is COMPLETELY WRONG. Given that you have nowhere near the intelligence levels of these professionals, your position is extremely weak.
mcpencil 1 year ago
@mcpencil The Bible is NOT "Obviously fictional". Every pharoah, every King mentioned, existed. Every town existed. ALL people groups mentioned existed.
the JEWS STILL EXIST TO THIS DAY. NON-Christian archaeologists have USED the Bible as guide to WHERE to dig! Tiny details in Scripture have been found to be true through ancient writings, historians who lived during that time, clay tablets, papyri, ETC, ETC.
sirjames45 1 year ago
@sirjames45
Just because historical details are factual, does not make the miracles that occurred near these places and people, factual. You cannot substantiate that a talking snake, a global flood, noah's ark, jesus' resurrection occurred. It is fictional and based on hearsay accounts and downright fables. Just because it mentions specific details that are historically accurate, does not give any credibility towards supernatural events. your logic fails.
mcpencil 1 year ago 4
@sirjames45 And several important "historical" claims in the Bible have been discovered by Archeologists to be fictional. A case in point: Moses and the Exodus. Read The Bible Uncovered by Finkelstein and Silberman, two Israeli archeologists who set out to prove the Exodus account and ended disproving it instead.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sirjames45 "What you are doing is admitting that animals have VOCAL CORDS." ??? So some animals, besides humans, have vocal chords. What are you implying by this insignificant curiosity.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
@sirjames45 You SirJames are exactly the kind of person that Frank Schaeffer is talking about, wed to ideas instead of seeking solutions. Badmouthing (or trying to badmouth) other points of view without considering that there might (or might not) have merit. Neither leftism or conservatism are the enemy or humanity, close mindedness, crazy self-delusion, and dogmatic reaction is.
FS is not badmouthing Christians, he is revealing the charlatanism of Fundamentalists (quite different)
drfoxcourt 1 year ago 3
They are the core root of the Tea Party.
JerezJulio 1 year ago 3
Finally, someone on national news, that has the large platform, that will tell it like it is.
...but he'd better be careful, the radical christians of today are no different than those of centuries past; they have every capacity to brutally murder him and or his family, as they have others, for him daring to critique their creed of ignorance and outright lies.
Joseph565112 1 year ago 29
"...not terribly bright themselves and talking to even stupider people." so funny.
liqdC 1 year ago 3
The religious majority were more easily controlled prior to the 20th century. Now, however, we have mass media and a 24-hour news cycle that caters to these people. This is a problem. It's egging them on into political action. When you have a mass of ignorant people in action like this, our wonderful democracy could become a barbarous theocracy in no time.
LockeXIII 1 year ago 3
being a neo conservative doesn't mean you are a fundamentalist
jinkedful 1 year ago
A Fifth Column of Insanity is perhaps one of the best descriptions I have ever heard of the Christian Right.
butler28 1 year ago 3
Frank, if you want to bring your own speech to telly, please do memorize it :( Silly interview.
whirlii 1 year ago
A word for the wise - The difference between a Capitalist system that regulates where necessary, and one that does not is the same as the difference between a Civilized government and an Uncivilized one.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A word for the wise - The difference between a Capitalist system with regulation and one without is like the difference between a civilized government and an UNcivilized one.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
As far as 'Fundamentalist Christianity' is concerned. I have no problem with an individual people who choose to be devout. But as long as daylight falls on everybody the safety of our public culture will be in intact. Unfortunately, people who have 5 minutes a day to study all this... they are going to have a rough time in the stream of media and rhetoric that's plastered all over the place.
granddad2002 1 year ago
What about Ron Paul?
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo What about Ron Paul? Just take a look at Rand Paul and you have a good idea how Ron Paul would run things. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 I haven't heard anything about Rand Paul yet that I disagree with.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Ron Paul raised Rand Paul, which shows what we have to look forward to from Ron himself. Besides Ron Paul is all for complete Deregulation of Big Business. Do some studying on the matter, that would be nothing less than an utterly complete disaster! You see now what resulted from taking away just some of the regulation on the Big Oil Companies. Complete Deregulation would be like handing over a crown to Big Business to rule the world!
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Disagree completely. You do realize that oil has been the fourth most regulated industry in America for a long time, right? Behind pharma, medicine, and manufacturing, followed by mining. Not a single regulation has been loosened in more than 10 years, no matter what Obama says.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 You also realize that the reason for the drilling in the Gulf is that 90% of the shallow water wells, which are much safer to drill, are off limits to drilling right?
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Do you realize that there are much safer, cleaner methods of getting energy than through fossil fuels? The jobs created from such an emerging industry would outweigh those available from oil drilling. So it's a little costly at first, but is costs far less as time goes on. By the way, the money from oil in Iran goes to exactly the same companies as the money from US oil rigs. So why destroy the world's waters when we can still get the oil from places that can dig for it safely
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Do YOU realize that fossil fuels supply 92% of the world's energy? Approx 6% is nuclear, and the rest "green energy". It's a great idea, really it is, but no amount of idea changes PHYSICS.
Photoelectric cells are limited to 1 kW per square YARD, because that's how much sunlight gets here. But it's worse, because you won't get even 45% of that unless you spend $10,000 per square inch of cell.
Solar-thermal doesn't work when it's cloudy, and it's 2.5 times as expensive as coal.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo You are a FOX News Tea-party Deadhead. It's impossible to sway you or get you to do any real research. That makes you an IDIOT! Go ahead and poison the planet and turn this country into a Totalitarian Corporatist Theocracy.
Anyone with a working brain knows that is what Rupert Murdock and FOX News wants.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Actually, I couldn't despise religion more. I'm also not impressed with Murdoch much, nor most of FOX news.
You have never studied what the idea of "individual rights" means, and I suggest you go read John Locke and Ayn Rand, who spend most of their works writing about and defending the idea of "rights", before you make anymore stupid accusations.
And finally, go read the Manifesto. And then look at America, and tell me what sort of nation we have become in the last 80 years.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Actually, I'm an engineering major, and I happen to have DONE my research on the subject of energy generation. I know how energy generation works, and there are definite limits.
For example, hydrogen fuel. Great idea, more joules/lb than gasoline. But a lb of hydrogen is 4 times the size of a lb of gas. Not only that, but the only source is electrolyzed seawater, meaning you spend more energy extracting the H2 than you get back from the fuel.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 So H2 fuel isn't a replacement for gas.
Neither is ethanol. The best crop for ethanol is canola (leagues better than corn), and we'd need about 40 million more acres of arable land than the US has in order to grow enough to replace gas. And ethanol is less efficient than gas, so we'd burn more of it.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Wind farms don't do anything when there's no wind, and the insistence on building horizontal windmills is reducing what efficacy wind has. Vertical mills are much better for low-breeze areas, but can't take high winds as well.
Geothermal is great, even cheap, but it's geographically limited to fault areas.
And environmentalists protest harder than anyone against hydroelectric plants because they're built in dams in rivers.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 It's also completely impossible to permanently contaminate water, or did you never take a physics or chemistry class?
It's not merely that "green" energy is costly. It actually can't bear the burden at all. Moreover, the maintenance costs of "green" are much higher than those of fossil fuels.
So, what's your suggestion? What could actually replace fossil fuels? Nuclear is a great option, but environmentalists protest those too.
And then what about plastics? We NEED those.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Please..., this discussion is lengthy, has gone off topic and it is not fair to the others here. You go your way, I'll go mine and we may resume this discussion in a proper on-topic video.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 will you admit that I at least HAVE done my research, even if it doesn't jibe with yours? I'll let it go if you do.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo You do seem to have more knowledge on the energy than I, but I do not think digging for oil in waters should be allowed anymore, the risk is too great. I am not saying we should completely go off fossil fuels, but any energy spending these days should be on clean energy only. We have enough oil drills.
I do hold steadfastly to you errors in judging government regulation as the problem with this country. It was Regan's large Deregulation of Business that caused Too-Big-To-Fail.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Think about what you just said for a second. First, it's wrong. Hoover and then FDR did the first bailouts. Second, think about the terms "deregulation" and "too-big-to-fail". The second one invalidates the first.
And that's Ron Paul's, and Rand Paul's, point. In a capitalist system, you are responsible for your own business. if you fail, tough luck. But erecting artificial barriers, i.e. regulations, has the net effect of calcifying the market.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 And the point is that the govt. shouldn't be involved in energy at all. Edison and Telsa developed electrical generation without a penny of subsidy, and both had plants running without govt involvement. Govt.-granted monopolies, such as FPL, are bad for the consumer, because the incentive to innovate is gone. When no one is LEGALLY permitted to compete with you, what incentives do you have to cut costs?
Look at high-tech industries. No regulation, and look at the progress.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo I am against Monopolies, whether independent or government granted. That is not the point, without government regulations you will have Big Business cutting corners that could destroy our economy and the fiscal health of the population, as well as costing lives and destroying entire ecosystems. By the way, the waters do not "clean up the oil" that was a great LIE told by Rush Limbaugh that got him clobbered as a result of his misinformation.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 In 1980, the cost of a MB was about $100. Now its less than a penny.
That's the product of an unrestricted free market. Whereas electric costs have been rising lately.
Most of the media information about regulations is complete bull. Calif. in 1980s, for example, did not deregulate electricity. It REregulated, as in rewrote them. The result was rolling blackouts.
A test for you. If high wages are a CAUSE of prosperity, instead of a RESULT, then why not $100/hr minimum wage?
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo In 1958 under President Eisenhower, the richest 1% paid 87% in taxes. They were fine with that, and still lived high on the hog. Today they don't even spend 10%, they cry the blues (who wouldn't when there are so many low-earning gullible fools in the US willing to let them have more?), and the poor and middle class are expected to pick up the difference. Several studies have shown that continually lowering taxes have added more to the deficit than any other cause.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Price controls, of which minimum wages are a type, are a form of regulation, just FYI.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Right, and without it what would you have? $1.00 a day, 10hr days, and no benefits!
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Did you read the test I proposed? I said high wages are PRODUCTS of prosperity. High wages are wonderful. So are benefits. But it is prosperity -already had- that makes them possible, not legislation.
And you have made the same mistake that everyone else. Income taxes hit high-earners, not rich people. Rich people often have very low incomes, because income taxes are not wealth taxes.
Your last comment is pure Marxism, whether you understand it or not.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo Let the Depression hit you in the face, and you'll be crying for what you idiot Ultra-tea-bagging-Social-Conservative-Republicans call "Socialism" that really isn't. BTW, FDR (the Socialist president!!!) was just named by a highly regarded historical society the Best of all Presidents. Obama after a mere 1 1/2 yrs was placed @#15, Clinton #13, & G.W. Bush #38.
The only way to create jobs is to put in work regulations and increasing the Deficit, that is the way it's always been.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Actually, in the original sense of the term, FDR was a fascist.
Go on believing that, if you like.
John Maynard Keynes, who wrote the program that FDR used and Obama is still using, was a yes-man, and everything he wrote was apologetics for what governments had already been doing for three centuries
And so what? Just because some historical society names FDR as "greatest ever" doesn't mean anything. I would have given the title to Coolidge, and put FDR at the bottom.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo In the true sense of the words, FDR was most certainly not a Fascist. Nor was he a Socialist. Those are terms the Tea-Party, the now suppressed Republican party, and the conservative talk show crowd are "using" to instill fear, anger, and hostility toward the opposing side. At no time in history have more dangerous Un-American means been used for a political stronghold. That, in itself, is Fascism!
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 Actually, look up the words "fascist" and "socialist".
Fascism is an economic model in which private OWNERSHIP of property is preserved in name, but absolute control over that property is given to the state. The owner retains all of the responsibility but none of the benefits.
Socialism is an economic model in which the state is the "parent", and is supposed to take steps to improve the economic status of the citizens.
So yes, FDR and all the presidents since him were both.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
@GoblinKnightLeo The description you gave isn't thorough. Government regulation is not "absolute control", but a means by which to protect the people, the ecosystem, and the economy from possible disaster. Your description of Socialism is wrong, because any type of Government has a responsibility to take steps to improve the economic status of it's citizens. Would you really want a government that doesn't? This is what all presidents since Washington have done, not just since FDR.
findthelight2000 1 year ago
@findthelight2000 No president did any such thing until Wilson. And no government is supposed to.
A police force, a law court, an penal system, an army, a legislature. That's all the US govt. is supposed to amount to.
Thomas Jefferson: "When you depend on the government for food, you will soon want bread."
But I'm not going to spend any more time on you. My advice? Go read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (c 1957) and "Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises (c 1967). Or maybe just some Adam Smith.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago