Evolution, the theory, is wrong? Does Stein understand what "theory" even means in the scientific community? Because we wont allow Church in State, that is, non-factual, non-scientifically verifiable statements presented in science and fact based curriculum/education? Church is the place for exploring religious beliefs. Religious beliefs which are by definition NOT science. This is a bald face attempt to proselytize. Come on, Stein. You can't be this stupid...
It's remarkable to see that people still invest in scientific inquiry as a sufficient metanarrative with overarching explanatory power. It's actually the science departments who have plugged their ears and refused to entertain the new progress in thought. They ignore Derrida, Lyotard, Foucalt, Baudrillard, Sartre, and all of the other titanic twentieth century philosophers who destroyed objective descriptiveness and the power of humans to make empirical observations.
Ben Stein = ZioNazi, Bill Oreilly = Christian Zionist Shill. You want god in the science room then your god becomes a theory and a sadistic racially biased one at that. Why else would godz chosen people lord, master, rabbi, king over the planet by monopolizing the control of our monetary system? Remember the Haavara agreement they made with Hitler and how much money the BIS banksters made bankrolling Hitler, evil spawn they are.
Ben Stein is God's gift to men. I love how he rationalizes this and makes it so clear. He really destroys the atheists and he does it with reason and logic. Love you Ben. God bless. Jesus loves you and all of us :).
"Searching for Evolutionists Who will Defend Their Position (DEBATE DODGERS) " I'll Debate you, Just check my Channel for a Video called "Debate Challenge and terms" and I'll debate if you agree to the reasonable terms outlined.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
@BereanBeacon1 Yahweh is not real, grow up. According to Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT you now have to stone me for blaspheming. You call that a loving and just act? Please!
@podoau I need to use a Bible verse that describes what scripture words are capable of.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
@podoau You cannot understand because the Bible says you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
If someone quotes Shakespeare in context to a situation, the listener is likely to be left with a favourable view of an obviously well read person.
However, if someone starts quoting scripture, someone is probably going to get labelled a nutjob. It would be far more acceptable to quote the former, than the latter if in England!
Yes, because something that has no evidence for existing should be taken seriously in science because lots of people believed it when they also believed in witches, curses, and the idea that the touch of royalty could cure the plague.
You wackos don't get a free pass. Find your evidence and present an actual case.
@Blarghonius Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
Well, don't people have like an ethics class or a religion class? Isn't that where you should learn this? Science is science, religion is religion, i'm not saying they don't cross but i think that they should be understood in different pretenses
What pisses me off is the fact that creationists ask for a fact from evolutionists on how it all started. They think because we don't have that fact yet that we are wrong, yet they don't have that fact either, they have a concept that they believe to be fact.
@TheDeadEndWins What you and I believe is based on faith. Creationists are very interested in real science, not the science fiction of evolution. Evolutionists say they have the facts to prove their faith and all we ask is to show us. Because evolutionists don't have these "facts", they won't allow discussions in a class room. Why is that?
@BereanBeacon1 We have the facts to prove that evolution occurs through genetic decoding, fossil records, and observations. We know how it starts; when a mutation occurs that helps a species survive to pass on its genetic information to the next generation. that is evolution. We don't want it in there because it isn't science. It's faith, it isn't provable, it isn't testable, it isn't a fact. That is not what science is. Evolution is a fact that has years of proof behind it. that is why.
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10,11
@TheDeadEndWins i dont think evolution should be touted as fact, if a mutation helps a species to survive it will pass on its genetic information but theres two problems 1 it doesnt always pass on the mutation 2 it just helped THAT SPECIES to survive. Macro-Evolution has never been observed, unless you have millions of years on your hands it will never be provable just plausible, and it isnt testable, it isnt FACT, it has years of evidence that is interpreted to support, not proove, it is theory
@stijmunkey Ever heard of poaching? Due to poachers attacking elephants with tusks and removing them thus killing them, they have not been able to pass on their genetics. The elephants tusks are important to their survival and they use them as a tool for foraging food. It has helped them survive. It should be strange then that more elephants are living without their tusks. Elephants are genetically losing their tusks to help avoid predators. Poachers.Macro evolution doesnt mean gaining something
@TheDeadEndWins I think you will agree that 90% of the time it does mean gaining something the evolution theory is based on simple life forms evolving to be more complex, at least thats what your "evidence" says, but anyway macro evolution doesnt mean losing something either, im sorry an elephant without tusks is still an elephant youve found an amazing example of adaptation for survival or micro evolution which is observed and tested and provable, but macro evolution is still just theory
@stijmunkey OF course it is still an elephant, what is ridiculous is thinking that an elephant will give birth to something other than an elephant. Why do creationists believe that is what evolution means. It's really quite funny.
@TheDeadEndWins what is ridiculous is assuming thats what all creationists think, evolution (macro evolution anyway) would be small changes like that happening over millions of years to eventually create a generally more complex species, something giving direct birth to something else is ovcourse impossible, what im saying is that will never happen, garunteed if everyone stopped poaching elephants then the would prosper with their tusks again reversing the so called evolution.
@alifeofreason All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
Just listen to the first 15 seconds of Ben Stein's complete failure to describe the theory of evolution. "Humans evolved from apes" . I bet I could find 11 year olds smarter than these two.
Holy shit, when Stein said "Evolution doesn't say how life started, so I think it's invalid." That's like saying "Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't explain how thermodynamics works, so I think it's invalid."
@NiGHTSChao689 Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 Why don't you define "real science" to me? Would you consider metaphysical theory to be "real science"? Would you consider quantum-physics to "real science"?
Everything else in your comment is just a blatant scarecrow tactic to avoid the topic. You should be aware that Evolutionism has NOTHING to do with the Origin of Life. As for Evolution/Anthropology in general, it is extremely obvious that people don't understand it.
"Hurrr we came from monkies" is completely incorrect.
@BereanBeacon1 Regarding the 'Life Science Prize' challenge
Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Have you ever cracked open an anatomy and physiology book and studied all the utter complexity of life? Whats necessary to live? The evidence of God is more then abundant, when you look under a microscope or stare in the mirror either way its as if God is smiling in your face.
God Is Logical and His side of the story should be taught in class as well.
@RespectMyHate IT'S COMPLEX SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT. HURR DURR.
Thankfully, scientists aren't so simple-minded in their study of nature. The scientific process is the best way to understand natural processes. If you can think of another, feel free to share it with the world.
@RespectMyHate IT'S COMPLEX SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT. HURR DURR.
Thankfully, scientists aren't so simpleminded in their study of nature. The scientific process is the best way to understand natural processes. If you can think of another, feel free to share it with the world.
Evoltion theory has nothing to do with the creation of life nor has it got anything to do with god being real. Some people really should get them selfs some night-school lessons and learn what this subjects are actually about and if they still refuse to belive then they should stop using modern drugs for illness' as these drugs are developed around the very idea that bacteria EVOLVE stonger, more resistant strains when exposed to enough of the same drug.
oh i believe in the teapot.. and science cant disprove it so i want it taught in schools that there could be a tea pot in space that started life on earth! just cus you have more than one person believe in your shit doesnt make it any better than mine!
lol the first thing he says "darvenism dosent explain how it began". way was he on tv talking like an expert when he do not know that A: sience has no "ism's" B: evolution never ever explanied how life began, just how it evolved in to what it is now. And even as i dont care isni't atheist that is being prosecuted in America (not in the siencetific community but in general).
@SonofJaphet Indoctrination; and of course one can question a theory, this is how the system repairs its faults after all. One need only to have verifiable evidence to contradict the existing theory, i.e. discover a flaw in it, upon which the theory will be revised until it accounts for the new information.
@GodofCider Many scientists believe transitional species is in the eye of the beholder for one. The theory has been useful for a long time but it's time to improve on our understanding of life on earth.
@sarevor Is in the eye of the beholder? I'm not really understanding what you're saying here, can you elaborate further? Also, what specifically is wrong with the theory?
@GodofCider The interpretation of the Data. Check my counter evolution playlist, especially the problem with theism 5 of *something* to know what I am getting at.
@sarevor Simply explain what you mean here. How is the information being interpreted incorrectly, what information? You think the current theory is flawed, if so where?
@sarevor These videos are terrible; what is this: The Trouble with Atheism (5 of 7) at 2:23 there is blatant editing, it's not even his own voice. Most of these fossils weren't even discovered when Darwin was alive, and certainly not when he was developing his theory.
@sarevor Ya, I kind of gathered that. If it's not editing, then it is one of the strangest recorded transitions that I have ever encountered. So I ask you again, give an example of what you mean, or explain better.
@GodofCider You can find another copy of that program online to see for yourself if you'd like. If it's edited then I am sorry. The videos explain it better than I can. I simply don't understand why I am being drilled for information especially when my stance is already posted on my channel.
@sarevor Because you're not presenting information or even defending your position; you've vaguely pointed at a group of videos and said watch these. If you support it, then I would have to imagine that you understand it. Therefore, I ask you, what are you saying?
@GodofCider I am saying that I am bad at explaining things therefore you should check out the videos on my stance if you would like to know what that stance is. Stevebees channel is a good place imo.
@sarevor So your stance is that there is 'something' flawed with the current understanding of evolution, and that it needs to either be replaced and or refined; however there really isn't anything that you can point to to explain what it is that is flawed with the current understanding of the theory; so I assume you dislike it simply because it contradicts your evident religious position. If this is a wrong interpretation of what you are saying, then correct it.
@sarevor Whatever, as far as I'm concerned there isn't a flaw with evolution, certainly there are flaws in evolutionary theory, but that's a given either way. You simply don't have an argument, and are evidentially incapable of even presenting your reasoning behind your dissatisfaction with the current break down.
@GodofCider You're probing me for information that is already available in libraries and online. Besides that, I explained multiple times that the videos explains my position for me because I am piss poor at it.
@sarevor I'm not even sure how to respond. You have an argument(maybe) and it involves something about evolution(but you're unable to explain anything about it) only you assert that you actually have a position, and that it is opposed to mine(mine being that evolution is not flawed, and my requests for you to point out the apparent flaw in its understanding have gone unanswered) So, I am to conclude that you dislike evolution, because it says your an animal?
@GodofCider We are animals. That notion never bothered me at all. Actually, I used to pretend to be a gorilla in my bedroom when I was ten years old and it felt nice knowing that I have a connection to them. It's not nice to assume things. I am unsure how to respond either, frankly. I explained to you that the current theory is morphing to a point that will change the way we see animals as "evolving". I don't believe in a struggle for life evolution.
@sarevor You're actually posting something that resembles a position now; and no, never did you explain this. So our understanding of evolution is morphing into a different way that we see organisms as 'evolving'. I do not understand your last sentence, elaborate.
@sarevor Very well, how is the current interpretation flawed; surely you can give at least an example as to what you mean; you are proposing this after all.
A Preacher walks into his church one sunday morning. He finds a Math teacher teaching Algebra. When he confronts the teacher and chastises him for being there teaching algebra. The teacher responds. I might as well, you won't stay out of my classroom teaching Religion. Moral of the story? School is for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. Church is for teaching Religion!
Darwinism is a quaint victorian fantasy - anyone who still subscribes to it is ignorant and egostistical and doesn't deserve their professorship. The mass extinctions also stop the mythical millions and millions of years of gradual change. The dinosaurs and all life died - they are in the atheits gastanks. Fruitfly changes don't generate new species - period.
@Masonictoaster9 The base pairs in the genome are subject to mutations. Do you understand what happens when you change the base pairs of a gene? You start to change the gene gradually over time. Now imagine that you change that gene more and more over time. What do you think happens? Nothing? Evolution has been proven, you're just living in the dark.
Gene duplications. "More information" does not mean a more complex organism. Amoebas have significantly more DNA than humans and are obviously not as complex.
Yes. For example, amoebas have about 200 times more DNA than humans. Humans are obviously more complex than amoebas. Evolution discusses the change of genes within populations, not necessarily the gain or loss of information.
Never happened there nemirn - you're brainwashed. Darwinism is a complete fantasy - the last mass extinctions were total. Nothing left to evolve. When scientists tell you the sun was cut off for a year or more its game over for evolution. Everything just died. Then we have a total restart for a new Earth with different flora and fauna. Reminds me of the Hebrew rendering of Genesis 1:2
Evolution should be presented in the same light as "the world is flat" dilemma - purely delusional thinking. You'd think by now we'd have observed spontaneous life occurring or some species "evolving" into something else by now. The only thing I see evolving is atheists turning into complete idiots - displaying the intelligence of the primordials they believe they evolved from. Atheists contribute nothing to humanity, they exist only to serve themselves.
Evening primrose has spawned a new species, Clarkia franciscana in San Francisco. The two cannot interbreed. Pupfish in California, Arizona, and the Gulf Coast have speciated in isolated water bodies following the onset of arid conditions over the past 20,000 years. Cichlid fishes in Cameroon have undergone sympatric speciation in volcanic lakes. Why is this evolution hard to see?
Intelligent design is creationism. Christian creationism. Biblical creationism. A few PhD philosophers have joined the creationist staff, but nothing else has changed. Evolution has occurred and continues as we speak. Our closest relatives are modern apes, and no religious conspiracy shall be permitted to direct the course of the scientific research that explores this area. Period.
I'm not following your saying the science is unsubstantiated. Evolutionary science is supported by thousands of investigations in biogeography, genetics, paleontology, embryology, and molecular biology over decades of research. The fossil record and genetics in particular is revealing invaluable details on the process and how it works. The recent discovery that two chimpanzee chromosomes have fused to form human chromosome number two is particularly interesting. Take a look at those pionts.
The fossil record gives no examples of 'Darwinian evolution', only minor variations within a species. No intermediary link as every been found between dinos/birds, apes/humans, etc. They all end up being fully ape or fully human, but the media peddles the nonsense to people unwilling to do their own research. Molecular biology/genetics reveal coded structures, which are just incredibly unlikely to happen by random chance/mutation. Evolution/adaptation exists but Darwinian evolution is nonsense.
I'm not sure what criteria you need to label a fossil as an intermediary link. Also, how are you defining the terms 'fully human' and 'fully ape'? The record shows clear gradation of traits. If you require them to be at what you define as exact midpoints between major modern groups, then you need to define the midpoint. Regardless, traits associated with numerous fossil forms are clearly intermediate between modern-day taxonomic groups. Examples: whales,horses,primitive amphibians, etc.
It sounds like you have your mind made up before you take the time to examine the discipline, or you're dodging the definitions as science would require because they are vague dodges that conveniently bring you to your preconceived conclusion. You may have difficulty grappling with the mounting evidence in the days ahead. Dedicated scientists ARE addressing detailed questions like the ones I posed to you without success. Darwinism, BTW, is an obsolete term. If you read, you would know.
I could say the same for you, sir. You seem to read the side of the coin which pleases you.. I read both. BTW, the term 'Darwinism' is alive and well(did you not hear Ben Stein use it on this video?). If you read as much as I did, you would know. Evolution and Darwinism are two different concepts.. I reject Darwinism, I accept evolution. By evolution I mean minor hereditary variations within species. Our universe/planet SCREAMS design.. listen closely.
Read 'The Origin of Species' to get a real definition of it. The fantasy idea that all living things have the same common ancestors, and everything originating from that one single-cell onward. Very entertaining, hardly truthful.
You're reading a 150 year old book that presented a general theory in its infantile stages. Darwin himself said that he had little hard evidence but time would bear him out. 40 years later, Mendel provided the foundation for modern genetics. The fossil record has unearthed millions of specimens that tell a story of a very old Earth and monumental changes among species over vast periods of time. Look at molecular genetics, biogeography, and paleontology today to see the vast store of evidence.
You keep telling me to research things that I already have, and the fact is this.. evolution is a speculative theory, which is losing credibility by the day. Palentology? Are you kidding me? Sudden burst of life(no gradation), and no intermediary species of ANYTHING. Convincing? Did you hear of the '5 million year old' squid fossil that was recovered? With an IN-TACT ink sack.. really? 5 million years old? Plants account for half of life.. NOT A SHRED of evidence for plant evolution. Evo = lies.
If you mean the Cambrian, that 'explosion' took place over a 5-20 million year period. This is an ID and anti-evolution effort to distort the facts. Again, I can only base what you know according to what you write. This is a straightforward piece of information that easy to access and investigate, but you might be getting very one-sided information from creationists and the ID folks that Fox News interviews. Believe me, that's going to confuse more than clarify evolutionary theory for you.
This is where I question what -you- know know, sir. Don't most evolutionists claim that is takes about 75 million years to show change? Exactly why it's referred to as the Cambrian 'explosion', because it's a sudden burst of life. I don't watch O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, they seem more your type.. read, repeat, with no exegesis.
75 million is truly a lot of time. That's more than all time since the demise of the dinosaurs. In some cases speciation can occur in a matter of thousands of years. Among 2.5+ million species, we're witnessing a handful of divergences within our lifetimes. The rate at which change occurs is dependent on the environmental selection pressure a population is encountering. For example, with such sweeping exposure to antibiotics, we're seeing resistance in bacteria in a matter of decades.
In some special cases you can even see speciation in a metter of a couple generations, such as with the lizards in New Mexico. Parthenogenesis capable lizards in separate species hybridized to create polyploid individuals who then underwent parthenogenesis, and BAM!, new species.
BTW, the age of Darwin's book has nothing to do with my suggested reference, because the same fantastical idea is still being peddled to unwitting children.. that we all 'gradually' came about, from some miraculous heap of suitable conditions. No evidence, no thanks. Atheists are just like theists, because at the end of the day.. we both have to believe in something (be it God/energy) that transcends our limited thought capacity. Theists ascribe that energy a name.. that's all.
Evolution supporters aren't automatic atheists. I'm not an atheist. I've just seen the massive amount of data that convinces me that life has undergone tremendous changes since its inception. The origin of life argument I shy away from, but science has an obligation to propose natural hypotheses of how it could have happened. That's so far back in time, there will always be speculation. But, if we resort to the supernatural in science, we may as well close the lab doors and end all research.
Massive amounts of speculative data? I agree. Hard facts? Not so convincing, and it's getting decreasingly convincing. The list of scientists who no longer support evolution is ever growing. Why are you so afraid of the supernatural? If the need to infer something is present, don't feel you're any less of an intellectual. Be your own individual, don't keep swallowing tireless rhetoric. Reason I say this, is this.. at the end of the day, the what/how may be answered.. but never why.
I don't fear the supernatural. I just don't think it's useful to answer scientific questions because it can't be measured or tested. Beliefs that can't be tested belong in the realm of philosophy of religion. I could ask as well, with all of the information available from multiple scientific fields to support evolution, why would you be reluctant to acknowledge it? Evolution is an historical science, but a good predictor. We trust criminology and forensics (also historical)..why not evolution?
I acknowledge evolution, but I've told you why I reject it - I reject one species turning into another. It isn't scientifically supported, therefore I reject it. I've had experiences with the supernatural.. hands on, own two eyes kind of thing. I can't prove it, but on a personal level, I know for a fact that what we see isn't all there is to existence. I don't wish it upon anyone, but still.. my beliefs (at the time) were tested. So, don't carry that attitude. But I understand what you mean.
I respect that. My wife is a fairly devout soul, and has similar stories. I do see species changes that you don't support, but it is difficult to see in such short time periods that define our lives. I recognize how critical hope is to us all, and I would like to see the science and the faiths of people resolved where both are respected. I suppose the greatest divide exists with the young Earth creationists and science. Closing that gap doesn't look promising. I do respect your views.
I wouldn't call myself a YEC, just somebody testing the waters. I respect yours, I'm not a militant. Change of topic.. are you into Mixed Martial Arts? Random question, I know.
I'm sorry to say that I'm not even into one martial arts discipline, let alone mixed. I don't have a good record when it comes to physical altercations. I hope you find someone to talk about that with. Keep on monitoring the evolution debate...one thing we can all agree on is that it's never boring. Life's a struggle, and we have such little time to make sense of it all. Best of luck to you.
haha, fair enough. I was just curious as to how widespread it is, I thought asking somebody randomly would be interesting. Indeed it is never boring. Take care, sir.
CONT.. any justice. This will have to be dealt with at the university levels not the high school level or even the judicial system. ID has been sold short by the popular media but the amount of momentum it is gaining by many scientist some of who are very prominent has been consistently growing and well documented. Like I said latter Ill respond to some interesting things you said earlier concerning Darwinian theory. I'm working on an unrelated project right now. Time is scarce.
Firstly there is a difference between secularism and atheism. Secularism is the removal of religion from government operations as a way of displaying religious neutrality. If they were to teach Intelligent Design in public schools, that would be unconstitutional because it would violate separation of Church and state. Teaching Intelligent Design is showing the government approving theism over atheism. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, therefore it is constitutional.
Nonsense, that's not what separation of church and state means and the phrase itself is not even in the constitution. Which states that the government shall not establish any religion. That doesn't mean you cant discuss religion or metaphysics or in this case challenge a theory because of the religious implications. It means you cannot be discriminated against based on non conformity to any religion. In other words, the government cannot adopt a religion and force you to comply.
Not really. If you're allowed to teach that there is theoretically a God, what's to stop you from teaching every other religious belief? If you're allowed to teach about the monotheistic God, then why not polytheistic ones, or hell, even the flying spaghetti monster? It's either all or nothing. You can't just pick monotheism and make that in the school curriculum. And the government is adopting monotheism by doing so, thus being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That's a different question. I don't believe in teaching creationism or even intelligent design, not only in public but also private schools, but not for the same reasons as you. As a person of faith, forcing metaphysics down someones throat is in my opinion a very non Christian thing to do on a scholastic level. Intelligent design which is scientific inference has to go through the same gantlet of scrutiny that all theories do. Teachers are not informed at this point enough to do the theory..
He's correct - it isn't being unconstitutional at all, denoting design doesn't denote any type of religious practice. Flying spaghetti monster, eh? Is he the one who made abiogenesis possible? Evolution = political agenda, political LIES.
You are clearly a moron. Teaching intelligent design denotes monotheistic religions all together. Therefore, it's choosing those religions over other religions. Therefore it's unconstitutional.
I'm the moron, yet you fail to grasp such a simple concept. Teaching intelligent design doesn't denote anything specific(religiously), and can be taught in a manner that is fair to everyone. If something in nature has a structure which infers design, that can be taught to our students.. and let them draw their own conclusions about the ethereal implications. Therefore, not unconstitutional. Understand before you insult, sir. Teaching lies is unconstitutional.
Yes you are a moron because still you fail to understand. Intelligent Design is saying, oh hey look around you, everything looks designed so therefore some supernatural entity with a human-like mind had intentions for it's design so let's turn that into a science even though there is no scientific-backing and it's largely supported by the religious community. Yeah not unconstitutional my ass. And yes it does denote theism over atheism, so people are targeted.
Both of them talk REALY immature by saying secular pinheads and so on. "Can´t figure it out. You´ve had a lot of time" Well lot of time is not really true. 150 years with "origin of species" and close to 60 years since discovery of DNA doubble helix. Is Bill O'Reilly THAT naiv to think everything will be understood within his lifetime. If I gave you one centimetre, you wouldn't be able to comprehend one meter.
The only people I see hijacking academic freedom are the anti-science anti-intellectualism religious fundamentalists, who would see any science that goes against their supposed holy books exponged from all centers of education in America.
Could that possible be because that 'science' you refer to is pretty much 95% speculative God-hating hoopla, or because the remaining 5% of validity it holds has little to do with the 'origin of species', but just variation within a species and adaptation. Teach your kids that we share ape ancestry, go ahead.. I'll teach mine what the evidence REALLY points to.
it's so obvious that neither of them have a fucking clue what they're talking about, lol. notice how he says a fuckload of shit about how many "holes" there are in the theory of evolution, yet the only example he gives has it's own theory and area of science! and the interviewer is just making up random shit!
My point is; The scientific method discredits religion by itself. Simply thinking outside the box (I.E philosophy.) discredits religion.
Try reading a book other than the Bible or whatever religious book, and read something that doesn't CLAIM to be the gospel truth without giving you any evidence to back the content up.
ok so you accpet the some atheist do, bu t i tell you that 100% athesit do otherwise they are not athesits. Also, science never discredits religion. in fact science has simply nothing to do with religion. Does engineering has anything to do with emotions? answer is obvious. What evidence? that is ID is crying always that show us the evidence. by simply keep saying that evolution happened without testable evidence will have no credibility. Evolutionist are defensive because they can't produce it
That's right. The scientific method has nothing to do with blind faith.
God isn't real anymore that Santa is real.
What about gravity? Isn't that real either?
"[...]keep saying that evolution happened without testable evidence will have no credibility. Evolutionist are defensive because they can't produce it"
Can you do me a favor? Search Google for "Evolution" and do some reading.
Have a little respect for yourself.. and your species. :-)
Are O'Riely and Stein really that stupid, or are they just kissing up to the Christards for financial gain.
Either these people have never read the bible (the most sadistic book ever written), or they know they are using religion to gain popularity in their careers.
Creationism should be kept strictly to Sunday school and certainly not as an alternative to evolution. It's pissing me off that people want to teach ignorance to kids. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Evolution is not an opinion, evolution is a scientific theory with lots of data, experimentation, and confirmation with other scientific fields behind it.
To call Evolution an opinion is moronic, like calling gravity an opinion. You creationists piss me off with your ignorance.
I like how ben stein is trying to discredit darwinism by claiming it is outmoded (it was a great theory in the 19th century, but it the 21st century now etc), when what he is proposing as a replacement is bronze age myths. The hypocrisy of everything he says is stunning!
Creationism has been peer reviewed many times, has been subjected to the scientific method, also many times and by thousands of members of the scientific community, and it has failed at the test of disproving the evidences (the major test of every scientific hypothesis to make them into theories). Creationism has been disproven by the whole scientific community. Not denied, disproven. Creationism FAILS.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I f Atheist don't want' creation taught in schools, don't have you kids attend the class that time period while it is being taught, same with evolution, either way you look at it there is something for everybody, if you wan't to believe God created everything in this world and so on, then that's your belief, or same with evolution but don't bring somebody down or discourage them for what they believe in, I have learned this over time.
Darwin wrote '' Origin of Species'' NOT origin of life. Ben you are an IDiot.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Evolution, the theory, is wrong? Does Stein understand what "theory" even means in the scientific community? Because we wont allow Church in State, that is, non-factual, non-scientifically verifiable statements presented in science and fact based curriculum/education? Church is the place for exploring religious beliefs. Religious beliefs which are by definition NOT science. This is a bald face attempt to proselytize. Come on, Stein. You can't be this stupid...
FlintboyG 2 months ago
It's remarkable to see that people still invest in scientific inquiry as a sufficient metanarrative with overarching explanatory power. It's actually the science departments who have plugged their ears and refused to entertain the new progress in thought. They ignore Derrida, Lyotard, Foucalt, Baudrillard, Sartre, and all of the other titanic twentieth century philosophers who destroyed objective descriptiveness and the power of humans to make empirical observations.
nofalltoofar 2 months ago
Ben Stein = ZioNazi, Bill Oreilly = Christian Zionist Shill. You want god in the science room then your god becomes a theory and a sadistic racially biased one at that. Why else would godz chosen people lord, master, rabbi, king over the planet by monopolizing the control of our monetary system? Remember the Haavara agreement they made with Hitler and how much money the BIS banksters made bankrolling Hitler, evil spawn they are.
wiscokiddd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its people like this who hold us back as a species
bucky19man 4 months ago
Glad that Ben thinks evolution is 'wonderful' BTW The Theory of Gravity explains gravity. Search Einsteins Theory of Reletivity.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Ben Stein is God's gift to men. I love how he rationalizes this and makes it so clear. He really destroys the atheists and he does it with reason and logic. Love you Ben. God bless. Jesus loves you and all of us :).
sigurjong 4 months ago
"Searching for Evolutionists Who will Defend Their Position (DEBATE DODGERS) " I'll Debate you, Just check my Channel for a Video called "Debate Challenge and terms" and I'll debate if you agree to the reasonable terms outlined.
ThePuppyTurtle 6 months ago
Evolution does NOT stae that humans came from apes. It also does NOT state, or even attempt to state how life first started.
Maybe its not that this idiot is not allowed to say what he likes.. more that what he is saying is crap
As well as telling kids about creationalism,, we should be mentioning the third alternative.. that life was delivered by a stork... yeah right
podoau 6 months ago
Ben, Darwins theory said nothing of man being evolved from apes or monkeys or any primate. That idea came later by another Scientist.
Killedkennyagain 6 months ago
@Killedkennyagain Thank you.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Yahweh is not real, grow up. According to Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT you now have to stone me for blaspheming. You call that a loving and just act? Please!
Killedkennyagain 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 and why do you think quoting from the bible provides any credibility ?
podoau 6 months ago
@podoau I need to use a Bible verse that describes what scripture words are capable of.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 "" I need to use a Bible verse that describes what scripture words are capable of ""
scripture words are just as good as shakespeare. That doesnt mean everything Shakespear wrote is real.
podoau 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@podoau You cannot understand because the Bible says you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 "" I need to use a Bible verse that describes what scripture words are capable of ""
scripture words are just as good as shakespeare. That doesnt mean everything Shakespear wrote is real.
In terms of describing facts and real events, neither is a credible source
podoau 6 months ago
@podoau There's a huge difference though.
If someone quotes Shakespeare in context to a situation, the listener is likely to be left with a favourable view of an obviously well read person.
However, if someone starts quoting scripture, someone is probably going to get labelled a nutjob. It would be far more acceptable to quote the former, than the latter if in England!
However, I agree with the point you're making!
HarrysSecret 6 months ago
Yes, because something that has no evidence for existing should be taken seriously in science because lots of people believed it when they also believed in witches, curses, and the idea that the touch of royalty could cure the plague.
You wackos don't get a free pass. Find your evidence and present an actual case.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blarghonius Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
Well, don't people have like an ethics class or a religion class? Isn't that where you should learn this? Science is science, religion is religion, i'm not saying they don't cross but i think that they should be understood in different pretenses
Travmann777 8 months ago
@Travmann777 We are all for real science and reject the science fiction of evolution.
YT titles.
Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue
Ancient Dinosaur Blood (68,000,000 Years)
Fossil Fraud Embarrasses Scientists
Scientist Draws With Extinct Squid Ink
AMBER EXPOSES EVOLUTION
Evolution: The Itsy-Bitsy Spider
Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
darwin didn't exist!
slr1238 8 months ago
What pisses me off is the fact that creationists ask for a fact from evolutionists on how it all started. They think because we don't have that fact yet that we are wrong, yet they don't have that fact either, they have a concept that they believe to be fact.
TheDeadEndWins 10 months ago
@TheDeadEndWins What you and I believe is based on faith. Creationists are very interested in real science, not the science fiction of evolution. Evolutionists say they have the facts to prove their faith and all we ask is to show us. Because evolutionists don't have these "facts", they won't allow discussions in a class room. Why is that?
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 We have the facts to prove that evolution occurs through genetic decoding, fossil records, and observations. We know how it starts; when a mutation occurs that helps a species survive to pass on its genetic information to the next generation. that is evolution. We don't want it in there because it isn't science. It's faith, it isn't provable, it isn't testable, it isn't a fact. That is not what science is. Evolution is a fact that has years of proof behind it. that is why.
TheDeadEndWins 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDeadEndWins Are ready to do this?
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10,11
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@TheDeadEndWins i dont think evolution should be touted as fact, if a mutation helps a species to survive it will pass on its genetic information but theres two problems 1 it doesnt always pass on the mutation 2 it just helped THAT SPECIES to survive. Macro-Evolution has never been observed, unless you have millions of years on your hands it will never be provable just plausible, and it isnt testable, it isnt FACT, it has years of evidence that is interpreted to support, not proove, it is theory
stijmunkey 8 months ago
@stijmunkey Ever heard of poaching? Due to poachers attacking elephants with tusks and removing them thus killing them, they have not been able to pass on their genetics. The elephants tusks are important to their survival and they use them as a tool for foraging food. It has helped them survive. It should be strange then that more elephants are living without their tusks. Elephants are genetically losing their tusks to help avoid predators. Poachers.Macro evolution doesnt mean gaining something
TheDeadEndWins 8 months ago
@TheDeadEndWins I think you will agree that 90% of the time it does mean gaining something the evolution theory is based on simple life forms evolving to be more complex, at least thats what your "evidence" says, but anyway macro evolution doesnt mean losing something either, im sorry an elephant without tusks is still an elephant youve found an amazing example of adaptation for survival or micro evolution which is observed and tested and provable, but macro evolution is still just theory
stijmunkey 8 months ago
@stijmunkey OF course it is still an elephant, what is ridiculous is thinking that an elephant will give birth to something other than an elephant. Why do creationists believe that is what evolution means. It's really quite funny.
TheDeadEndWins 8 months ago
@TheDeadEndWins what is ridiculous is assuming thats what all creationists think, evolution (macro evolution anyway) would be small changes like that happening over millions of years to eventually create a generally more complex species, something giving direct birth to something else is ovcourse impossible, what im saying is that will never happen, garunteed if everyone stopped poaching elephants then the would prosper with their tusks again reversing the so called evolution.
stijmunkey 8 months ago
@TheDeadEndWins and you were the one who implied that it was macro evolution not me
stijmunkey 8 months ago
@stijmunkey this is dead.
TheDeadEndWins 8 months ago
I love this: "there are two opinions on this."
lol. You can, apparently, either be Christian or Atheist.
Sophtine 1 year ago
Stein uses the argument that because evolution is an old theory, it's wrong. So, because Bill and Ben are old, they're..?
Shit.
Senship 1 year ago 2
I agree with both of them 100%
thisusernameistaken2 1 year ago
EINSTEIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD! He believed in "Spinoza's god", which is the equivalent of nature if you've read any Spinoza.
alifeofreason 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@alifeofreason All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
Just listen to the first 15 seconds of Ben Stein's complete failure to describe the theory of evolution. "Humans evolved from apes" . I bet I could find 11 year olds smarter than these two.
blobvision 1 year ago 8
Holy shit, when Stein said "Evolution doesn't say how life started, so I think it's invalid." That's like saying "Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't explain how thermodynamics works, so I think it's invalid."
iDaruma 1 year ago 3
Kill me now please.
lanamal 1 year ago
Since when does Evolution have anything to do with the origin of life..
Two completely different topics..
What the fuck is wrong with these idiots...
NiGHTSChao689 1 year ago
@NiGHTSChao689 Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Why don't you define "real science" to me? Would you consider metaphysical theory to be "real science"? Would you consider quantum-physics to "real science"?
Everything else in your comment is just a blatant scarecrow tactic to avoid the topic. You should be aware that Evolutionism has NOTHING to do with the Origin of Life. As for Evolution/Anthropology in general, it is extremely obvious that people don't understand it.
"Hurrr we came from monkies" is completely incorrect.
NiGHTSChao689 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 Regarding the 'Life Science Prize' challenge
Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Which would you take?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
To the evolutionist,
Have you ever cracked open an anatomy and physiology book and studied all the utter complexity of life? Whats necessary to live? The evidence of God is more then abundant, when you look under a microscope or stare in the mirror either way its as if God is smiling in your face.
God Is Logical and His side of the story should be taught in class as well.
THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE IS ASTOUNDING.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Have you cracked open a book on logical fallacies? If so, flip to the chapter on "arguments from incredulity".
foxhole8063 1 year ago 16
Comment removed
ThePhatIndian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectMyHate IT'S COMPLEX SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT. HURR DURR.
Thankfully, scientists aren't so simple-minded in their study of nature. The scientific process is the best way to understand natural processes. If you can think of another, feel free to share it with the world.
ThePhatIndian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectMyHate IT'S COMPLEX SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT. HURR DURR.
Thankfully, scientists aren't so simpleminded in their study of nature. The scientific process is the best way to understand natural processes. If you can think of another, feel free to share it with the world.
ThePhatIndian 1 year ago
Evoltion theory has nothing to do with the creation of life nor has it got anything to do with god being real. Some people really should get them selfs some night-school lessons and learn what this subjects are actually about and if they still refuse to belive then they should stop using modern drugs for illness' as these drugs are developed around the very idea that bacteria EVOLVE stonger, more resistant strains when exposed to enough of the same drug.
weallhaveavalue 1 year ago
Fraud News Corporation.
madjimms 1 year ago
oh i believe in the teapot.. and science cant disprove it so i want it taught in schools that there could be a tea pot in space that started life on earth! just cus you have more than one person believe in your shit doesnt make it any better than mine!
ps sarcasm rocks!
TheJimbojones1980 1 year ago
lol the first thing he says "darvenism dosent explain how it began". way was he on tv talking like an expert when he do not know that A: sience has no "ism's" B: evolution never ever explanied how life began, just how it evolved in to what it is now. And even as i dont care isni't atheist that is being prosecuted in America (not in the siencetific community but in general).
azzazzazzaaaa 1 year ago
Comment removed
azzazzazzaaaa 1 year ago
When in science you cannot question a theory it is called endoctrination
SonofJaphet 1 year ago
@SonofJaphet Indoctrination; and of course one can question a theory, this is how the system repairs its faults after all. One need only to have verifiable evidence to contradict the existing theory, i.e. discover a flaw in it, upon which the theory will be revised until it accounts for the new information.
GodofCider 1 year ago
Darwinism is a dying theory in explaining the complexity of life on earth. It was useful for a while, but it needs an overhaul.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Evolution; and what is wrong with the theory?
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider Many scientists believe transitional species is in the eye of the beholder for one. The theory has been useful for a long time but it's time to improve on our understanding of life on earth.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Is in the eye of the beholder? I'm not really understanding what you're saying here, can you elaborate further? Also, what specifically is wrong with the theory?
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider The interpretation of the Data. Check my counter evolution playlist, especially the problem with theism 5 of *something* to know what I am getting at.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Simply explain what you mean here. How is the information being interpreted incorrectly, what information? You think the current theory is flawed, if so where?
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider I didn't say it was flawed. I said the current interpretation of it is. Look at the videos.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor These videos are terrible; what is this: The Trouble with Atheism (5 of 7) at 2:23 there is blatant editing, it's not even his own voice. Most of these fossils weren't even discovered when Darwin was alive, and certainly not when he was developing his theory.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider lol, there is no editing. I happen to love those videos :D
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Ya, I kind of gathered that. If it's not editing, then it is one of the strangest recorded transitions that I have ever encountered. So I ask you again, give an example of what you mean, or explain better.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider You can find another copy of that program online to see for yourself if you'd like. If it's edited then I am sorry. The videos explain it better than I can. I simply don't understand why I am being drilled for information especially when my stance is already posted on my channel.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Because you're not presenting information or even defending your position; you've vaguely pointed at a group of videos and said watch these. If you support it, then I would have to imagine that you understand it. Therefore, I ask you, what are you saying?
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider I am saying that I am bad at explaining things therefore you should check out the videos on my stance if you would like to know what that stance is. Stevebees channel is a good place imo.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor So your stance is that there is 'something' flawed with the current understanding of evolution, and that it needs to either be replaced and or refined; however there really isn't anything that you can point to to explain what it is that is flawed with the current understanding of the theory; so I assume you dislike it simply because it contradicts your evident religious position. If this is a wrong interpretation of what you are saying, then correct it.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider The videos corrects them for me. ;)
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Whatever, as far as I'm concerned there isn't a flaw with evolution, certainly there are flaws in evolutionary theory, but that's a given either way. You simply don't have an argument, and are evidentially incapable of even presenting your reasoning behind your dissatisfaction with the current break down.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider I have actually, it just doesn't coincide with your worldview so you ignore it. Whatever, man.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Then explain it right now, what is your position? Otherwise you're just trolling.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider Watch the videos otherwise you're just trolling.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor So you're saying that you're entirely unable to explain what your position is; yet you somehow have one?
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider You're probing me for information that is already available in libraries and online. Besides that, I explained multiple times that the videos explains my position for me because I am piss poor at it.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor I'm not even sure how to respond. You have an argument(maybe) and it involves something about evolution(but you're unable to explain anything about it) only you assert that you actually have a position, and that it is opposed to mine(mine being that evolution is not flawed, and my requests for you to point out the apparent flaw in its understanding have gone unanswered) So, I am to conclude that you dislike evolution, because it says your an animal?
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider We are animals. That notion never bothered me at all. Actually, I used to pretend to be a gorilla in my bedroom when I was ten years old and it felt nice knowing that I have a connection to them. It's not nice to assume things. I am unsure how to respond either, frankly. I explained to you that the current theory is morphing to a point that will change the way we see animals as "evolving". I don't believe in a struggle for life evolution.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor You're actually posting something that resembles a position now; and no, never did you explain this. So our understanding of evolution is morphing into a different way that we see organisms as 'evolving'. I do not understand your last sentence, elaborate.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@sarevor Very well, how is the current interpretation flawed; surely you can give at least an example as to what you mean; you are proposing this after all.
GodofCider 1 year ago
A Preacher walks into his church one sunday morning. He finds a Math teacher teaching Algebra. When he confronts the teacher and chastises him for being there teaching algebra. The teacher responds. I might as well, you won't stay out of my classroom teaching Religion. Moral of the story? School is for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. Church is for teaching Religion!
spankeydmonkey 2 years ago
I really hate FOX "news". They just need to stop.
ticisgreat 2 years ago
@ticisgreat yeah, it's all biased garbage
2paranoid2think 1 year ago
Darwinism is a quaint victorian fantasy - anyone who still subscribes to it is ignorant and egostistical and doesn't deserve their professorship. The mass extinctions also stop the mythical millions and millions of years of gradual change. The dinosaurs and all life died - they are in the atheits gastanks. Fruitfly changes don't generate new species - period.
Masonictoaster9 2 years ago
oh - I meant to spell atheists as atheifs. oops.
Masonictoaster9 2 years ago
@Masonictoaster9 The base pairs in the genome are subject to mutations. Do you understand what happens when you change the base pairs of a gene? You start to change the gene gradually over time. Now imagine that you change that gene more and more over time. What do you think happens? Nothing? Evolution has been proven, you're just living in the dark.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
Are there mutations that actually add new information to a gene?
Doctg100 1 year ago
@Doctg100
Gene duplications. "More information" does not mean a more complex organism. Amoebas have significantly more DNA than humans and are obviously not as complex.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
So an amoeba can lose DNA through mutations and evolve into a more complex organism?
Doctg100 1 year ago
@Doctg100
Yes. For example, amoebas have about 200 times more DNA than humans. Humans are obviously more complex than amoebas. Evolution discusses the change of genes within populations, not necessarily the gain or loss of information.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
Comment removed
ANewStateofTrance 2 years ago
Remember, all species evolve and are intermediate species.
nemirn 2 years ago
Never happened there nemirn - you're brainwashed. Darwinism is a complete fantasy - the last mass extinctions were total. Nothing left to evolve. When scientists tell you the sun was cut off for a year or more its game over for evolution. Everything just died. Then we have a total restart for a new Earth with different flora and fauna. Reminds me of the Hebrew rendering of Genesis 1:2
Masonictoaster9 2 years ago
You guys have a lot of insightful comments on here. Thanks!
darkrider12g 2 years ago
Evolution should be presented in the same light as "the world is flat" dilemma - purely delusional thinking. You'd think by now we'd have observed spontaneous life occurring or some species "evolving" into something else by now. The only thing I see evolving is atheists turning into complete idiots - displaying the intelligence of the primordials they believe they evolved from. Atheists contribute nothing to humanity, they exist only to serve themselves.
byblosadvocate 2 years ago
Evening primrose has spawned a new species, Clarkia franciscana in San Francisco. The two cannot interbreed. Pupfish in California, Arizona, and the Gulf Coast have speciated in isolated water bodies following the onset of arid conditions over the past 20,000 years. Cichlid fishes in Cameroon have undergone sympatric speciation in volcanic lakes. Why is this evolution hard to see?
charadester 2 years ago
Intelligent design is creationism. Christian creationism. Biblical creationism. A few PhD philosophers have joined the creationist staff, but nothing else has changed. Evolution has occurred and continues as we speak. Our closest relatives are modern apes, and no religious conspiracy shall be permitted to direct the course of the scientific research that explores this area. Period.
charadester 2 years ago
Too bad your claims are completely unsubstantiated by many scientific disciplines. You very well may be an ape.. I am not. Period.
richp860 2 years ago
I'm not following your saying the science is unsubstantiated. Evolutionary science is supported by thousands of investigations in biogeography, genetics, paleontology, embryology, and molecular biology over decades of research. The fossil record and genetics in particular is revealing invaluable details on the process and how it works. The recent discovery that two chimpanzee chromosomes have fused to form human chromosome number two is particularly interesting. Take a look at those pionts.
charadester 2 years ago
The fossil record gives no examples of 'Darwinian evolution', only minor variations within a species. No intermediary link as every been found between dinos/birds, apes/humans, etc. They all end up being fully ape or fully human, but the media peddles the nonsense to people unwilling to do their own research. Molecular biology/genetics reveal coded structures, which are just incredibly unlikely to happen by random chance/mutation. Evolution/adaptation exists but Darwinian evolution is nonsense.
richp860 2 years ago
I'm not sure what criteria you need to label a fossil as an intermediary link. Also, how are you defining the terms 'fully human' and 'fully ape'? The record shows clear gradation of traits. If you require them to be at what you define as exact midpoints between major modern groups, then you need to define the midpoint. Regardless, traits associated with numerous fossil forms are clearly intermediate between modern-day taxonomic groups. Examples: whales,horses,primitive amphibians, etc.
charadester 2 years ago
All of which you just referred to has two simple answers. Variation within species, and/or seperate species all together. Darwinism is dying.
richp860 2 years ago
It sounds like you have your mind made up before you take the time to examine the discipline, or you're dodging the definitions as science would require because they are vague dodges that conveniently bring you to your preconceived conclusion. You may have difficulty grappling with the mounting evidence in the days ahead. Dedicated scientists ARE addressing detailed questions like the ones I posed to you without success. Darwinism, BTW, is an obsolete term. If you read, you would know.
charadester 2 years ago
I could say the same for you, sir. You seem to read the side of the coin which pleases you.. I read both. BTW, the term 'Darwinism' is alive and well(did you not hear Ben Stein use it on this video?). If you read as much as I did, you would know. Evolution and Darwinism are two different concepts.. I reject Darwinism, I accept evolution. By evolution I mean minor hereditary variations within species. Our universe/planet SCREAMS design.. listen closely.
richp860 2 years ago
Understood. Would you mind explaining your definition of Darwinism. I'm not kidding..I really would like to know.
charadester 2 years ago
Read 'The Origin of Species' to get a real definition of it. The fantasy idea that all living things have the same common ancestors, and everything originating from that one single-cell onward. Very entertaining, hardly truthful.
richp860 2 years ago
You're reading a 150 year old book that presented a general theory in its infantile stages. Darwin himself said that he had little hard evidence but time would bear him out. 40 years later, Mendel provided the foundation for modern genetics. The fossil record has unearthed millions of specimens that tell a story of a very old Earth and monumental changes among species over vast periods of time. Look at molecular genetics, biogeography, and paleontology today to see the vast store of evidence.
charadester 2 years ago
You keep telling me to research things that I already have, and the fact is this.. evolution is a speculative theory, which is losing credibility by the day. Palentology? Are you kidding me? Sudden burst of life(no gradation), and no intermediary species of ANYTHING. Convincing? Did you hear of the '5 million year old' squid fossil that was recovered? With an IN-TACT ink sack.. really? 5 million years old? Plants account for half of life.. NOT A SHRED of evidence for plant evolution. Evo = lies.
richp860 2 years ago
If you mean the Cambrian, that 'explosion' took place over a 5-20 million year period. This is an ID and anti-evolution effort to distort the facts. Again, I can only base what you know according to what you write. This is a straightforward piece of information that easy to access and investigate, but you might be getting very one-sided information from creationists and the ID folks that Fox News interviews. Believe me, that's going to confuse more than clarify evolutionary theory for you.
charadester 2 years ago
This is where I question what -you- know know, sir. Don't most evolutionists claim that is takes about 75 million years to show change? Exactly why it's referred to as the Cambrian 'explosion', because it's a sudden burst of life. I don't watch O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, they seem more your type.. read, repeat, with no exegesis.
richp860 2 years ago
75 million is truly a lot of time. That's more than all time since the demise of the dinosaurs. In some cases speciation can occur in a matter of thousands of years. Among 2.5+ million species, we're witnessing a handful of divergences within our lifetimes. The rate at which change occurs is dependent on the environmental selection pressure a population is encountering. For example, with such sweeping exposure to antibiotics, we're seeing resistance in bacteria in a matter of decades.
charadester 2 years ago
@charadester
In some special cases you can even see speciation in a metter of a couple generations, such as with the lizards in New Mexico. Parthenogenesis capable lizards in separate species hybridized to create polyploid individuals who then underwent parthenogenesis, and BAM!, new species.
ctvwr 2 years ago
BTW, the age of Darwin's book has nothing to do with my suggested reference, because the same fantastical idea is still being peddled to unwitting children.. that we all 'gradually' came about, from some miraculous heap of suitable conditions. No evidence, no thanks. Atheists are just like theists, because at the end of the day.. we both have to believe in something (be it God/energy) that transcends our limited thought capacity. Theists ascribe that energy a name.. that's all.
richp860 2 years ago
Evolution supporters aren't automatic atheists. I'm not an atheist. I've just seen the massive amount of data that convinces me that life has undergone tremendous changes since its inception. The origin of life argument I shy away from, but science has an obligation to propose natural hypotheses of how it could have happened. That's so far back in time, there will always be speculation. But, if we resort to the supernatural in science, we may as well close the lab doors and end all research.
charadester 2 years ago 24
Massive amounts of speculative data? I agree. Hard facts? Not so convincing, and it's getting decreasingly convincing. The list of scientists who no longer support evolution is ever growing. Why are you so afraid of the supernatural? If the need to infer something is present, don't feel you're any less of an intellectual. Be your own individual, don't keep swallowing tireless rhetoric. Reason I say this, is this.. at the end of the day, the what/how may be answered.. but never why.
richp860 2 years ago
I don't fear the supernatural. I just don't think it's useful to answer scientific questions because it can't be measured or tested. Beliefs that can't be tested belong in the realm of philosophy of religion. I could ask as well, with all of the information available from multiple scientific fields to support evolution, why would you be reluctant to acknowledge it? Evolution is an historical science, but a good predictor. We trust criminology and forensics (also historical)..why not evolution?
charadester 2 years ago
I acknowledge evolution, but I've told you why I reject it - I reject one species turning into another. It isn't scientifically supported, therefore I reject it. I've had experiences with the supernatural.. hands on, own two eyes kind of thing. I can't prove it, but on a personal level, I know for a fact that what we see isn't all there is to existence. I don't wish it upon anyone, but still.. my beliefs (at the time) were tested. So, don't carry that attitude. But I understand what you mean.
richp860 2 years ago
I respect that. My wife is a fairly devout soul, and has similar stories. I do see species changes that you don't support, but it is difficult to see in such short time periods that define our lives. I recognize how critical hope is to us all, and I would like to see the science and the faiths of people resolved where both are respected. I suppose the greatest divide exists with the young Earth creationists and science. Closing that gap doesn't look promising. I do respect your views.
charadester 2 years ago
I wouldn't call myself a YEC, just somebody testing the waters. I respect yours, I'm not a militant. Change of topic.. are you into Mixed Martial Arts? Random question, I know.
richp860 2 years ago
I'm sorry to say that I'm not even into one martial arts discipline, let alone mixed. I don't have a good record when it comes to physical altercations. I hope you find someone to talk about that with. Keep on monitoring the evolution debate...one thing we can all agree on is that it's never boring. Life's a struggle, and we have such little time to make sense of it all. Best of luck to you.
charadester 2 years ago
haha, fair enough. I was just curious as to how widespread it is, I thought asking somebody randomly would be interesting. Indeed it is never boring. Take care, sir.
richp860 2 years ago
then you're an idiot.
CaiJHowls 2 years ago
CONT.. any justice. This will have to be dealt with at the university levels not the high school level or even the judicial system. ID has been sold short by the popular media but the amount of momentum it is gaining by many scientist some of who are very prominent has been consistently growing and well documented. Like I said latter Ill respond to some interesting things you said earlier concerning Darwinian theory. I'm working on an unrelated project right now. Time is scarce.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Firstly there is a difference between secularism and atheism. Secularism is the removal of religion from government operations as a way of displaying religious neutrality. If they were to teach Intelligent Design in public schools, that would be unconstitutional because it would violate separation of Church and state. Teaching Intelligent Design is showing the government approving theism over atheism. Evolution has nothing to do with religion, therefore it is constitutional.
LoopholemanIII 2 years ago
Nonsense, that's not what separation of church and state means and the phrase itself is not even in the constitution. Which states that the government shall not establish any religion. That doesn't mean you cant discuss religion or metaphysics or in this case challenge a theory because of the religious implications. It means you cannot be discriminated against based on non conformity to any religion. In other words, the government cannot adopt a religion and force you to comply.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Not really. If you're allowed to teach that there is theoretically a God, what's to stop you from teaching every other religious belief? If you're allowed to teach about the monotheistic God, then why not polytheistic ones, or hell, even the flying spaghetti monster? It's either all or nothing. You can't just pick monotheism and make that in the school curriculum. And the government is adopting monotheism by doing so, thus being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
LoopholemanIII 2 years ago
That's a different question. I don't believe in teaching creationism or even intelligent design, not only in public but also private schools, but not for the same reasons as you. As a person of faith, forcing metaphysics down someones throat is in my opinion a very non Christian thing to do on a scholastic level. Intelligent design which is scientific inference has to go through the same gantlet of scrutiny that all theories do. Teachers are not informed at this point enough to do the theory..
benthemiester 2 years ago
He's correct - it isn't being unconstitutional at all, denoting design doesn't denote any type of religious practice. Flying spaghetti monster, eh? Is he the one who made abiogenesis possible? Evolution = political agenda, political LIES.
richp860 2 years ago
You are clearly a moron. Teaching intelligent design denotes monotheistic religions all together. Therefore, it's choosing those religions over other religions. Therefore it's unconstitutional.
LoopholemanIII 2 years ago
I'm the moron, yet you fail to grasp such a simple concept. Teaching intelligent design doesn't denote anything specific(religiously), and can be taught in a manner that is fair to everyone. If something in nature has a structure which infers design, that can be taught to our students.. and let them draw their own conclusions about the ethereal implications. Therefore, not unconstitutional. Understand before you insult, sir. Teaching lies is unconstitutional.
richp860 2 years ago
Yes you are a moron because still you fail to understand. Intelligent Design is saying, oh hey look around you, everything looks designed so therefore some supernatural entity with a human-like mind had intentions for it's design so let's turn that into a science even though there is no scientific-backing and it's largely supported by the religious community. Yeah not unconstitutional my ass. And yes it does denote theism over atheism, so people are targeted.
LoopholemanIII 2 years ago
guess what, I can still call you an idiot.
ABFox 2 years ago
Both of them talk REALY immature by saying secular pinheads and so on. "Can´t figure it out. You´ve had a lot of time" Well lot of time is not really true. 150 years with "origin of species" and close to 60 years since discovery of DNA doubble helix. Is Bill O'Reilly THAT naiv to think everything will be understood within his lifetime. If I gave you one centimetre, you wouldn't be able to comprehend one meter.
runito75 2 years ago
its like watching to 5 year olds talking, painfull yet funny.
duranmalcolmbunn 2 years ago
The only people I see hijacking academic freedom are the anti-science anti-intellectualism religious fundamentalists, who would see any science that goes against their supposed holy books exponged from all centers of education in America.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
Could that possible be because that 'science' you refer to is pretty much 95% speculative God-hating hoopla, or because the remaining 5% of validity it holds has little to do with the 'origin of species', but just variation within a species and adaptation. Teach your kids that we share ape ancestry, go ahead.. I'll teach mine what the evidence REALLY points to.
richp860 2 years ago
it's so obvious that neither of them have a fucking clue what they're talking about, lol. notice how he says a fuckload of shit about how many "holes" there are in the theory of evolution, yet the only example he gives has it's own theory and area of science! and the interviewer is just making up random shit!
greg3omg 2 years ago
Religious people will go to any length to discredit science.
Sinopa9 2 years ago
And athesit people will go to any lenght to discredit religion. Huh.....
wandp7782 2 years ago
Absolutely not. ..Well maybe some atheists would.
My point is; The scientific method discredits religion by itself. Simply thinking outside the box (I.E philosophy.) discredits religion.
Try reading a book other than the Bible or whatever religious book, and read something that doesn't CLAIM to be the gospel truth without giving you any evidence to back the content up.
See my point here?
Sinopa9 2 years ago
ok so you accpet the some atheist do, bu t i tell you that 100% athesit do otherwise they are not athesits. Also, science never discredits religion. in fact science has simply nothing to do with religion. Does engineering has anything to do with emotions? answer is obvious. What evidence? that is ID is crying always that show us the evidence. by simply keep saying that evolution happened without testable evidence will have no credibility. Evolutionist are defensive because they can't produce it
wandp7782 2 years ago
That's right. The scientific method has nothing to do with blind faith.
God isn't real anymore that Santa is real.
What about gravity? Isn't that real either?
"[...]keep saying that evolution happened without testable evidence will have no credibility. Evolutionist are defensive because they can't produce it"
Can you do me a favor? Search Google for "Evolution" and do some reading.
Have a little respect for yourself.. and your species. :-)
Goodbye.
Sinopa9 2 years ago
Creationist want EVERY single gap of info filled before they would even CONSIDER ditching magic.
This whole argument being kept alive is for POLITICAL reasons.
Btw, check out the new scientific breakthrough by Dr. Sutherland at Manchester (UK)
blaziermissy 2 years ago
Are O'Riely and Stein really that stupid, or are they just kissing up to the Christards for financial gain.
Either these people have never read the bible (the most sadistic book ever written), or they know they are using religion to gain popularity in their careers.
The world needs rational people not Je-holes.
rubberbaby00 2 years ago 2
In the WISE words of the american philosopher stevie wonder
"when you believe in things that you cant understand and you suffer... superstition aint the way"
FUCK ben stein
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
Creationism should be kept strictly to Sunday school and certainly not as an alternative to evolution. It's pissing me off that people want to teach ignorance to kids. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Gnomesmusher 2 years ago 5
well maybe evolution is ignorance, everybody has there own opinion
RideWitChrist 2 years ago
Evolution is not an opinion, evolution is a scientific theory with lots of data, experimentation, and confirmation with other scientific fields behind it.
To call Evolution an opinion is moronic, like calling gravity an opinion. You creationists piss me off with your ignorance.
Gnomesmusher 2 years ago 7
As far as the origin of life, you can call it an opinion. a farcical one
jaybuddy5 2 years ago
no one knows the answer....get over it people....
kingrexrex666 2 years ago
"The state of Kansas, not a CRAZY, LIBERAL state..."
Well, they're certainly not liberal.
AlmightyAtheismo 2 years ago
"The state of Kansas, not a CRAZY, LIBERAL state..."
HEY! That's a half truth!
TheGunpowderTreason 2 years ago
I like how ben stein is trying to discredit darwinism by claiming it is outmoded (it was a great theory in the 19th century, but it the 21st century now etc), when what he is proposing as a replacement is bronze age myths. The hypocrisy of everything he says is stunning!
emphaticapathy 2 years ago 2
The funny thing is we are not even teaching Darwinism in schools we are teaching evolution. There is no such thing as Darwinism.
safewaysecurity 2 years ago
Exactly....the man is manipulative.
blaziermissy 2 years ago
FUCK ben stein, FUCK bill o'reilly, and FUCK religion.
mylittleturd 2 years ago 10
Creationism has been peer reviewed many times, has been subjected to the scientific method, also many times and by thousands of members of the scientific community, and it has failed at the test of disproving the evidences (the major test of every scientific hypothesis to make them into theories). Creationism has been disproven by the whole scientific community. Not denied, disproven. Creationism FAILS.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I f Atheist don't want' creation taught in schools, don't have you kids attend the class that time period while it is being taught, same with evolution, either way you look at it there is something for everybody, if you wan't to believe God created everything in this world and so on, then that's your belief, or same with evolution but don't bring somebody down or discourage them for what they believe in, I have learned this over time.
RideWitChrist 2 years ago
You keep creationism out of schools and we'll keep evolution out of your churches.
OccamKant 2 years ago 5
"You keep creationism out of schools and we'll keep evolution out of your churches."
Excellent!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 4