The elites worship Satan (see Ted Gunderson, Roger Morneau, Antony Sutton) that is why the scientific establishment have to toe the line and this film has shown how anyone that doesn't toe the line will be swiftly removed from their position. That's how it works. Thank you for making this.
Expelled ..only Creationist Propaganda allowed..Ben Stien does not seem a bad guy ..in fact I kinda like him ..I may disagree with him on some things ..but I don't dislike him.However I may have to re-think my oppinion of him.How he could so blatantly mis represent some of the people he interviews for this hack job of a film does bring his character into question.He has very good points...why did he stoop to such tactics.Also he does not fully ivestigate the claims by some people in this film.
I love how all the comments and dislikes here just help prove the point that is trying to be made in this video.
The majority of them are so idiotic as well. "Ben Stein is so dumb, "wow, this is so stupid," etc. Yeah, those are REALLY intelligent reasons to be saying shit about this film.
Interestingly, if you research the people in this video that were supposedly fired for their ID beliefs, you'll find that no one's employment was ever terminated based on their beliefs. My favorite example is Guillermo Gonzalez who claims to have been denied tenure because of ID despite the fact that he provided little research and garnered little funding. Apparently he feels that he deserves tenure despite his lackluster career at his university.
@TheSeventhSon Ok, and where did you find this information? Though you COULD be correct on this issue, you could also be incorrect. Even in this video you see institutions try to deny that certain people were dismissed based on ID. That doesn't mean it's true. The places in which you researched these people could very well have been from the same institutions in which they were apparently mistreated. Not to mention, whether or not these particular claims are all true or wholly true, there is NO
@TheDowntown86 doubt that Intelligent Design scientists are absolutely dismissed in the general scientific community (aka the powers that be). Their findings are listed on even Wikipedia as completely useless and widely unaccepted. And back to your original argument, I SINCERELY doubt that the foundation this film was based upon, the mistreatment of ID scientists by their various institutions, are completely false at all. In fact, are most likely mostly true.
You are correct, ID "scientists" are being dismissed in the scientific community because their research is nothing more than speculation. Why should they be taken seriously? They, however, are not being fired for their beliefs. There are plenty of well-known religious researchers that still maintain positions in universities. "Most likely mostly true"? What is your basis? Because they said so? It sounds like you want to believe that they're being mistreated.
@TheSeventhSon Their research is nothing more than speculation?? Are you kidding me? Even your opening statement about the subject refutes itself! Speculation is opinion based on incomplete evidence. Research is scientific or scholarly investigation or inquiry. How in the world can REAL scientists, (which they are, regardless of what side they are on), do "research that is nothing more than speculation??" Do you even hear or understand yourself?
@TheDowntown86 Secondly, I do NOT want to believe these scientists are being mistreated, as you say it sounds like I do. In fact, I very much wish they were not being mistreated and dismissed, and would like it very much if they weren't. But because I have a brain and have the ability to observe what's going on the world, I can observe that they, in fact, are COMPLETELY mistreated. Not just scientists either, ordinary people who argue for ID. Because I'm one of them!
Okay, so despite the fact that all evidence outside of this video demonstrates that these employees were not actually terminated or ostracized because of their beliefs, you're going to maintain that they, in fact, were because the video says so. Yeah, okay. It's not incredibly obvious that you have a biased opinion on the issue. While Guillermo Gonzalez had declining numbers of publications and little outside funding, you still assert that he was denied tenure because of ID.
@TheSeventhSon Because you're avoiding a point I made, I will just let it go for now and attempt to answer this question you're posing. No. I am NOT asserting that Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of ID, and I have already stated. It is plausible that you are correct. His declining numbers of publications and little outside funding could have been the cause instead. HOWEVER. There are MANY questions to be asked here. I would like to read what you read about these people.
What point am I avoiding? Do clarify. You suggested that it is very likely that the claims here are true which would mean that Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his ID beliefs. The information on his publications is readily available. You can easily perform a search using your favorite search engine to research the evidence against the claims within this video. I suggest you do.
@TheDowntown86 You asked my basis for thinking this film has accurately depicted the treatment of these scientists? Because I can see it every day in the world around me. How myself and those like me who defend ID are treated. It's no secret at all. Though of course the government and evolutionary scientists would want to make it one. And it is actually you my friend, who seems to want to demolish the argument that these people are being mistreated. Not me wanting them to be mistreated.
So, your personal anecdotes validate the claims of this video? "I have experienced this, therefore these claims must be true!" Sorry, but that doesn't make that so. Again, do you have any evidence to suggest that the claims in this video is true and that the outside information that directly contradicts these claims is false?
You do understand what ID is, yes? ID presupposes that a supernatural creator exists and assumes that this supernatural creator must be responsible for whatever we can't currently explain using what we know about nature. Do you not understand why this is entirely blind speculation and in no way substantial evidence for an intelligent creator? If you can explain why presupposition is valid here, please be my guest.
@TheSeventhSon YES. Of course I understand what ID is. And you obviously DO NOT. You have completely misrepresented the very definition of it, and here you are accusing the makers of this video for misrepresenting information. How ironic. If you're going to argue against something, at least know what the thing you're arguing against actually STATES and believes. Dear god....
Oh, I've misrepresented it? Please explain what intelligent design is then and I'll gladly show you exactly why your definition translates to what I just said. Intelligent design suggests that an intelligent source must have created life because life is too complex to have come about through natural means. What that means is that we don't actually know how life began, so we're going to assume that it was an intelligent source that usually means "god". Please explain your side.
@TheSeventhSon First of all, can I ask that we message each other instead of commenting on this video? Because finding all the replies to comments is getting really confusing. If you don't want to that's fine, but I would much more clearly be able to understand what you're talking about.
This information is widely available on the internet and takes little to no effort to uncover. There's even an exposed website dedicated to explaining everything wrong with this video. So yeah, you will see in this video that the institutions are trying to deny that certain people were dismissed based on ID. That's because ID wasn't the issue, it was a coincidence.
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
@htomerif everyone accepts the reality with which they are presented,...and since you have always assume that lies were the truth when you are presented with the real truth you title it a lie... open you mind and analyze,,, be brave enough to go futher what you have always known,,,then you will learn....and ultimately find truth!
@leontina06 I wish I could open my mind to you and show you the vast and intricate structure of interconnected knowledge that I rely on, but as its taken my lifetime so far to accumulate, I dont think 500 characters will be enough.
Just know this: the chasm that separates us is wider than you can imagine.
@htomerif Atheists represent! We need state atheism! Enforced Atheism. Let the rivers flow with the blood of many millions, without which state atheism has never occured!!!! viva REVOLUTION, RELIGION IS CHILD ABuSE
. . . continued from previous . . . an alternate reality where Kennedy survived the assassination attempt. But, science can not prove that these alternate realities exist. There could even be an after-life, but if so, it's outside the physical realm, and science can not test for it. Science can only deal with how the physical universe works. So, Intelligent Design, ID, is not science. Evolution is a fact. New species did not just magically pop into existence.
Intelligent Design, ID, is NOT science. That's why it's not given equal time in science classes. Should we give equal time to Astrology in an Astronomy class, or Phrenology in a class on Neurology, or Alchemy in a Chemistry class, or the flat earth hypotheses in a Geography class, or teach about the stork in a Biology class? Sorry, but God can not be proven or dis-proven, so religion must be left out of science classes. Science can only work with the physical realm. Ben Stein is an IDiot!
@BigFatHeretic Its already been proven., Its called electrons protons and neutron. Ill keep it simple. Theres two possible theories based on their function(Which is to disappear and reappear at random) One is parallel universe. The other is that they disappear and reappear into another human being, and connects use to everything. I believe its both. Universes that are in different hz in each dimension or universe which gets dense or light depending on the vibrations stacked upon each other.
@ITSjustanothercommen - I have done a lot of reading on Quantum Physics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, parallel universes, etc. etc. I also understand that 11 dimensions are needed to describe all the properties of sub-atomic particles. I do believe in multiple dimensions ans parallel universes and alternate realities, for example, there could be an alternate reality where Nazi Germany won World War II or an alternate reality where President Kennedy survived . . . to be continued . . .
Not ONLY has this Cult of Scientism suppressed 'God'--they are SO FAR removed from any deep intelligence they will not realize that they and the patriarchal monotheists ANd patriarchal polytheists--from which science emerges-- suppressed the GODDESS, and thus Her Nature!!
Creationism doesn't exist yet these atheist scientist disprove their own theory when they clone genetically program splice manipulate DNA (genetic computer code) and create species out of raw materials (like glo-fish) and are a stones throw from making whole and completely new species, and have even made human sperm in a lab. But creationism doesn't exist ....Tunnel vision much?
Science is not a matter of opinion. If ID is correct then evolution is wrong & should not be taught, ergo to teach ID is to give scientific credibility for the existence of god. But the very nature of faith is belief without proof & the nature of science is acceptance of theories than can be tested.
ID & evolution are incompatible, so to compare them in a science class is wrong because it leaves a student having to make an opinion on what is correct, & science is not a matter of opinion.
I hate how this controversial topic brings out the worst in people. Jesus was real and he performed miracles as stated by SECULAR historians. I don't really buy into the mud that learned to walk and talk thing. And if evolution was real, there would be no place where monkeys and humans both exist b/c allegedly humans came from monkeys. I'm sorry evolution just doesn't seem feasible.
@TwolfStud Look, Why couldnt they exist together? Its not as if every single primate (not monkey) had instantly transformed at the same time. Some evolved differently than others.
@triggerhurt8 Incorrect if evolution were true then the human "ancestor" and the present day human could not both exist in the same environment. It wouldn't make sense if only one group evolved
@TwolfStud Why not? You didn't answer my question, but only restated your ideas. So why couldn't a group split into two, each individually evolving to meet different needs, as long as both can survive? You must use evidence and facts to back up your ideas, just as you can't say that the earth is flat because it wouldn't make sense if it was round after being asked that question. The lack of facts, avoiding questions, and assumptions really ruin an argument or debate.
@triggerhurt8 I did answer your question I said in the same environment with the same conditions it wouldn't make sense for only one segment of the population to evolve and the other to perpetually stay the same.
@TwolfStud@TwolfStud It is "Theorized" that modern day primates and humans had evolved from the same thing, neither staying the same. If one had changed slightly, yet was successful, it could meet different needs and continue to do so until a new species had formed. Just look at something like the banana. It had changed, and become an entirely new kind of plant. Sure, maybe the survival was helped by humans, but I think it shows that yes, two can exist at the same time, each living differently.
@TwolfStud Well, I think that that more recent example would help give evidence, but if not:
1 Bacteria evolves to avoid death by modern antibiotics.
2 In the last 20 years, E Coli has been able to metabolize citrate
3 Fossils of older living things show changes, and similarities
All of these, and more, could be easily googled, and though they may be "Micro-evolution", or adaptation, you might imagine many small changes adding up over millions of years. Have any more questions?(ran out of space)
@TwolfStud ....I have truly never understood why some argue that microevolution is possible, yet large changes, enough to create a new species, over time are impossible. So now I must ask you, how do you think we got all the different species we have today? Why doesn't it make sense that two species can't evolve from one?
@triggerhurt8 Because there is no direct evidence for it. If you look at humans even 300 years ago you can tell that we have grown much taller as a population, however, this proves that small changes can happen in hundreds rather than thousands of years and since only height has changed again there is no evidence that we are moving towards a new species of man
@TwolfStud I feel we have witnessed evolution, just not as it is happening. Like a crime, you rarely know everything, but are left with some clues. Something may come up later, to either back up other evidence, or show there may be different options. So, now I'm interested, how do you feel we got all our species today?
@triggerhurt8 Well unlike many people I do not claim to have all the answers. Maybe God put all the animals on the Earth at once (unlikely but possible) or maybe if species go extinct he replaces them so that the ecosystems of the world can still function. I don't know definitively and neither does anyone else. I refuse to put my faith in something that goes against the Bible and secondly has no proof. As said in the movie Darwin took his studies with the finches and applied it to all life flsly
Ben Stein has inspired me to make the movie "Expelled: No Matrices allowed" Because I'm not allowed to teach my theory of reality based off of the movie, "The Matrix" as an alternative to the darwinist evolutionary doctrine. Than I'll make the movie "Expelled: Elephants Puked the Universe out of it's Ass allowed" Because I can't teach my theory that elephants shat out the universe even with all the evidence around. I mean... have you seen an elephant. They're HUGE. Obvious evidence
if you have Netflix ck out a program, Creatures that Defy Evolution 1. 2. 3...the host was brought up in "Darwinism" a briliant person and one who taught in the Univercity..until 2 of his students challenged him to work with them to "PROVE" the THEORY [fantasy] being shoved to the masses. He/they could NOT find the evidence and now is a Intellegent Design biologist. It's sad Darwinists only get mad without being able to prove anything. The earth isn't FLAT, DNA= NO EVOLUTON
if you have Netflix ck out a program, Creatures that Defy Evolution 1. 2. 3...the host was brought up in "Darwinism" a briliant person and one who taught in the Univercity..until 2 of his students challenged him to work with them to "PROVE" the THEORY [fantasy] being shoved to the masses. He/they could NOT find the evidence and now is a Intellegent Design biologist. It's sad Darwinists only get mad without being able to prove anything. The earth isn't FLAT,
1 out of 5 stars. This will not appeal to the "intelligent" people out there because it is chock-full of creationist propaganda. It is severely slanted to make the creationists (aka the "ID proponents") look like innocent good guys while the so-called "evolutionists/darwinists" (aka the scientists) are made to look angry and oppressive. It interviews supporters of evolution but it is not a well-rounded movie at all. Check the Rotten Tomatoes rating for this.
I always find it interesting how proponents of creationism will try to cloak their theories language of science, all the while trying to discredit it. And where the hell do they get off claiming persecution? The religious lobby has done everything it can to force its intolerant views into the classrooms, fearing science and the idea that youth will be educated in such a way as to see past the dogma they'd force on them. Demanding tolerance when you forcibly deny it is total hypocrisy.
i dislike the association with hitler, hitler was a catholic, and a lemarcksist he didnt accept evolution, otherwise hed have promote interracial babies, he never inquired this part of the "documentry" with a real historian
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery."
@CarlosMarti123 ill forgive the namecalling, heres a quote from mein kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ur right he could also be a muslim, he does praise their religion, in the book, but what he believed is not even really relevant, he used the christian belief to rally the german people. also the first treat he made was with the vatican. their 1st ever
@MGsven Yes, shall we believe all of his other lies too then? Shall we believe what he liked to tell the public, or what he wrote in his own journals? Like breaking the treaty with the USSR?
@CarlosMarti123 ur missing the point though, even so i agree hitler was a compulsatory liar, wich can be seen through many of his actions, this doesnt change the fact that he used christian belief to motivate and advance his ideals and political views. if germany of that time was not under 1 religion but a multicultural society like it is now this way of rallying people wouldnt have worked
@MGsven Hitler wasn't a Christian, neither did he use Christian values!!! That's part of this documentary too. He believed in a pure race and the perfection of humans. Which is coherent with Darwin's theories, Hitler was actually a strong proponent of the science of that age in a way. He didn't use Christian beliefs to motivate Germans, he used scientific speculation. Sorry If I'm taking this out of context.
@sumedhraghavan8732 darwinism doesnt in any way prefer any race over another, u should do ur research, hitler was a lemarcksist, lemarck had a theory which was a predecesor of evolution, but picturing the change as a ladder with the white race on top, evolution merely is that the enviroment determens what changes are benefitial, like a polar bear in the sahara wont survive and a snake wont survive on the north pole. so the envirement determent which species are "better" but only for that place
@MGsven OF COURSE DARWINISM DOESN'T PREFER A RACE!! I never said it did, my point was that Darwinism states that humans evolve as time goes on (in a nut shell), Hitler simply thought he was accelerating the process by 'purifying the lesser'. So Hitler basically took the concept of Darwinism and twisted it to his own means. As the catholic church and other institutions did with the bible. My whole comment was in contradiction to you saying Hitler "used christian beliefs".
@sumedhraghavan8732 as i explained before evolution there was lemarck's theory of evolving towards a goal(he stated the goal is the be white) this is what hitler accepted, darwins books where outlawed in ww2 in germany,
christian beliefs are also: killing of witches, children who curse their parents, people who worship idols and other gods, people who work on the sabbath and adulterers.
things the bible doesnt prohibit: rape, genocide, child abuse.
@MGsven We are not arguing about what the bible says orwhat it doesn't say, we're talking about whether or not Hitler used it for his own needs. And for the record it does prohibit, rape, genocide and child abuse. Maybe you should read the whole bible instead of choosing what you want to read and then telling other to read those parts, because it also says 'love thy neighbor as thy self". That doesn't sound like something hitler would say does it?
I'm not saying Darwinism is what inspired Hitler, my point is that Christianity definitely did not, and Hitler could not possibly have used the bible to support his actions without completely altering it. My entire argument is not against Darwinism but rather against your claim:
"this doesnt change the fact that he (Hitler) used christian belief to motivate and advance his ideals and political views".
@sumedhraghavan8732 ben stein abviously doesnt know a thing about history, the catholic church hunted jews for over a 1000 years, for the crime of herecy and killing jesus. hitler also shared this view, hitler did in fact use the "struggle of christ" in a lot of his speeches.
on the side note, do u know of the nazi bookburnings, the origen of species was one of the books on the burning pile, it was forbidden in nazi germany. wether or not he actually believed in god was irrelevant.
@sumedhraghavan8732 i think u need to study history a bit more in detail, i can see the eroneous links made by many christians between hitler and atheism, its true hitler said some negative things about christianity, this mostly to compliment islam, he said if the germans wouldve been muslims they wouldve surely concurred the world. but he did say he felt he was doing gods work in killing jews, and got his ideas to kill handicapt people from a lemarck worldview, but i do concede this last point
@MGsven So once again, I'm not making the erroneous link between atheism and Hitler, I'm simply arguing against the erroneous link of Hitler and Christianity. And saying "You need to study history a bit more.." is just a little condescending. In that case I can say "you need to understand YouTube posts better" but that would just plain rude. And that sir, is not something I'm trying to be :)
@sumedhraghavan8732 but them if i were to accept your point, why did hitler go and made a deal with the vatican, why did the catholic church support such a man, why did hitler invoke jesus and god in speeches often, why did new soldier swear upon the furher and jesus the lord their savior, and why did their belts say god mit uns(god's with us)? if you could explain these things, if hitler had no link to christianity?
@MGsven Because the church is corrupt! Of course! It rarely hasn't been corrupt. You can't seriously think that when the Vatican did this they were following the bible do you? And Hitler could just have easily used Darwin in those speech as much as used Christ, doesn't mean the teachings of Christ are in parallel with his ideas does it? What you're saying is that Hitler connected the two because they went well together. I'm simply saying Hitler connected the two because he took out of context.
@sumedhraghavan8732 that from an evolutionairy perspective taking out the handicapt will improve the human race, but there is no division between white black asian or any other race. before darwinism however it was commonly believed by whites that other races where less human, us laws pre civil war included black slaves where included with live stock. also the catholic church never condemned the holocast, and actually helped lots of nazis escape to south america.
@MGsven Slavery ended in the western world thanks mainly to William Wilberforce's efforts, not Darwin if were going to put a man responsible. And Racism existed well after Darwin anyway. And using the Catholic Church to potray is not a valid argument. And aIready answered you in between your last two posts.
@sumedhraghavan8732 of course, im not saying darwin stopped racism, my point is in those days people where way more racist then we can imagine now a days, we are generally becoming less and less racist. neither from the bible nor from evolution are race killings justified, however jew hatred was pretty much the standard under the chatholic churches theocracy, and is where hitler got his idea's. now if u where to look at lemarcks theory ull see it fits hitlers views perfectly though, exept jews
@MGsven Yes I agree, the catholic church is full of bad, bad men. Most of whom seem to have a taste for young boys. And that is why the Catholic Church is a very bad representation of Christianity, none of the church's actions are Christ-like. We're not talking about how Hitler used the Catholic Church we're talking about how he used the doctrines of Christ.
@sumedhraghavan8732 i didnt say he used christs words to motivate people, he used the faith and the catholic dogma to manipulate people. my point was in a multifaith society this is impossible. u dont need to use specific parts of the doctorin, just saying jeses' name will oblige many to follow, in those days at least. christ did do bad things also, he introduced hell so im not sure if he was even a good person.but aside from the bible we cant know much
@sumedhraghavan8732 its funny to see as i call them neo christhippies. who are all for jesus is love and live and let live and oh jesus is the son of god and our saviour etc. without ever reading the bible, christ also said the rules of god remain the same, howeve we are adding eternal torture if u dont believe me. highly immoral id say. but just believing in peace and love is good, but those people need to realize ist not jahweh, he isnt for peace nor love
@sumedhraghavan8732 please check some history, and check up in this info i gave u, i noticed the churches in the us try to make atheism look bad, but u should be able to see the difference between rational thinking people, and dogmatic systems. just look at current europe, lots of atheism, lower crime rates, less poverty and higher happyness grades. if u look at north korea it isnt an atheis country, they believe in their leader, a dogmatic system, not at all a free thinking country, irrational!
@MGsven Dubai and many wealthy Arab nations are extremely religious but their wealth exceeds the better part of the EU and I'm sure you know how far crime gets over there. So saying that atheism is better for a country is not a valid argument. And still, what you have said has nothing to do with how Hitler used Christianity to further his plans. All you have said is "the bible is violent, Hitler was violent so he could have used it". And that sir is a highly irrational argument indeed.
@sumedhraghavan8732 those wealthy arab countries also have extreme poverty rates, in their cases its that a few rich people can literally suck the money out of the ground. and their happiness statistics are amazingly low, of course i can argue for nations being secular is better, just look at theocracies, the middle east is a scientific black hole, so is much of africa who are rules by voodoo customs or catholism. in such countries human suffering skyrockets, the usa is in between on that view
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome whats ur point? the word minister might come from religion, but the way it is used in govt terms isnt religious anymore. but idk what u are trying to say, in any case most europeans dont blindly and fanaticly follow supernatural beliefs anymore. even though historicly we did as much and perhaps even more so
@sumedhraghavan8732 manipulating people via belief is easy, look at the republicans in the us, here in holland i can see ot too, in the south and east of holland live most farmers who are believers, those provinces always vote for teh christian party. just by arguing against abortion u can easily win christian votes, also by doing so against gay rights, euthenasia, sex before marriage(abstinance programs). just think about it, an open atheist wouldnt be chosen for president, then tell me that
@sumedhraghavan8732 people arent motivated by their religion in politics. in those days many people still had hatred towards jews(remnants of the inquisition) and where mostly catholics, but inciting jesus and god in speeches its a means to soften criticism of the people, then saying what many people feel towards jews, abusing religious dogma 101.
Darwinism was/is only "wild imagination" that an 1800's bioligist wrote up and then was pushed into our education system by "God Haters" as legitimate science.. He didn't have DNA, there was no space travel to look at the universe. Yet the masses risk losing their jobs by not keeping their mouth shut about a "joke" disquiesd as science. Darwinists take the challenge, religion aside, try to find any evidence and when your done fight for those who are being censored.
If you want to find evidence go to a natural history museum. There you don't read fiction, instead you touch fossils that tell a very different story. Why this obsession with "there is no evidence whatsoever" when in fact there is an abundance of them?? I'll try the siplest question: What about Neanderthals?? This poor extinct cousin alone suffices to bring down any religious doctrine of "Adam and Eve" or of that sort. European museums are flooded with their Bones...
@amegoulis Sir, where was the INTELLIGENCE in FIRING a man simply for POLITELY asserting his 1st Amendment RIGHT in the USA to free speech? Believe what you will, but others should be able to believe as THEY wish without the FEAR of losing their livelihood, freedom, sanity, or persecution!
@prophetbyronmotley There's no need to invoke one's constitutional rights, because this is not the point. You are free to beleive whatever you want, even that the world is 6,000 years old. You may go and shout it out at a square if you like. But you CAN'T TEACH it, because there's no evidence and because it's ridiculous....
@amegoulis Yes you CAN, if you have FAIR justification to believe what you are teaching IS correct! The teaching of creationism went on for CENTURIES and the world survived JUST FINE........long enough to be born! The question of creationism V evolution would go away if the data supporting evolution were satisfactory! I myself LOOKED for way to refute creationism with evolution, but I found the evolution theory to be RIDDLED with holes and many HOAXES! "Piltdown Man" SADLY is one of many hoaxes!
@prophetbyronmotley But Neanderthal is not. Museums are flooded with his bones and he is a man allright! He coexisted with Sapiens (to this point he was more succesful than us) and he disappeared pushed by Sapiens and a collapsing habitat. He is totally ignored by all stories of creation on earth. This poor extinct cousin alone negates any religious doctrine of "Adam and Eve" or of that sort.
@amegoulis Very good point! I also read about quite recent hypothesis that Neanderthal might not have extinct completely and the Basques, Berbers as well as the ancient Etrurians were possibly his descendants. It's bold hypothesis to say the least but if it's correct, than what would religious freaks say than? That the Basques or the Berbers are not "children" of their god?
@XMisanthropyPureX It is only a bold hypothesis!! Neanderthal developed no culture. He made tools, he hunted, he made primitive clothes and shoes and that was as far as he could go. The ability to understand abstract concepts, to "feel" a world beyond senses belongs entirely to Sapiens. The first simple engravings, only 24.000 years old, were found at the cave of Koonalda, Nullarbor plain, Australia. Neanderthal was long gone by then... Ergo, he could not have left "clever" descendants...
@amegoulis You made it here with many of YOUR forefathers believing in creationism and they did NOT die off! At the end of the day, elitists are FIRING good scientific minds simply for believing in God!
Pardon the phrase.......what kind of BULLSHIT is that? What happened to freedom of expression?
What VALUE is there in what Larry Flynt "does for a living?" He goes on producing SMUT and is well paid! He has HIS livelihood but a scientist who believes in God LOSES his livelihood? That's WRONG!
@prophetbyronmotley I would agree with you but the truth is you have to leave your own personal beliefs out of the classroom.. and a college or university is not going to risk its reputation and its entire staff to allow one person to support, what has been deemed in court as, "repackaged creationism" and push their beliefs on students.. especially a belief that is ridiculous compared to the evidence of evolution, limited tho it may be
Imagine this, I take some various metals, plastics, and other raw materials; I put them in a jar and put on a lid, I shake the jar for several hours, later I remove the jar and a cell phone is now made.............It is ludicrous to believe this is the process which created life. Sounds pretty unreal to me............
Imagine this. a creationist drone comes up with a new argument....nah, too weird.
"It is ludicrous to believe this is the process which created life"- get back to us if you ever find anyone who does believe shaking stuff in a jar IS such a process.
@CaptainRed2011 If you took the time to learn about the "EVILution" you creationists always try to crucify like the hypocrites you are, you'd know it'd be more like taking a jar the size of a planet and coming up with something the size of a cell phone divided by two hundred million that can hardly be considered alive at all. We've already created synthetic life, us humans ourselves have indeed CREATED LIFE, it's not all that complicated it's just very tricky to work with something so small.
Stein is not advocating the teaching of religion in secular schools....he is a huge supporter of Science and technology and wants to see this country maintain its level of excellence....He is essentially asking whats happened to our educational system. Its so repressive and suppressive. Joe McCarthy was right on one thing.....The Marxist Communist would bring down our country not through military conquest but through our educational system...Brainswashing...seems he was right.
@MarkFFHH No, brainwashing is what they do in parochial schools. Ben claims the education system is suppressive because nobody will accept his ID hypothesis as a reasonable explanation for the origins of the universe and life, mainly because it is not. ID is a hypothesis, and it has no empirical evidence that supports it, which is why it is not taught in public schools, it is not science, just speculation. That is blatant disregard for science and its principles.
@Colthrone Only if you choose to believe that it is superior to something that is provable. I mean everyone has a right to believe what they want, especially in the face of uncertainty, but to reject something factual in favor of something completely subjective, and then turn around and say that the factual thing is "just a theory' or not provable to your satisfaction... doesn't really make sense.
It seems that mainstream science has taken on the role of the Vatican 4 or 5 centuries ago. That is suppressing scienctific theory, opinions, questioning of hypothesis...etc....Lets put Galileo Stein under house arrest.... If ID can be so simply dismissed I say do it.....I border between being atheist and an agnostic and see no real connection between ID and religion. Einstein said that you can look at everything as a miracle or nothing as a miracle...its a matter of opinion.
@plhearn The Berlin wall and the iron Curtain suppressed thought, took away freedoms of all type....Political, scientific, religious etc. Just like Mainstream science is doing today.
ps - Richard Dawkins is a HOMOSEXUAL, so he NEEDS to destroy religion, to justify the dispicable things he does involving boys.
Before he can feel comfortable kissing a mans anus, he has to claim that god CANT exist, to get the guilt from his mind.
Also, if he can convince himself, perhaps he can convince your young son or grandson, that there is no reason not to penetrate his backside, and get covered in excrement, in the name of love.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Wow, what caused you to come to these conclusions? Richard Dawkins is an advocate of reason and science and critical/rational thinking. And God does not fit in with those 4 aspects of reality. That is why he is an atheist. You say, "He's a sick bitch!" You created a scenario that defies 3 of the aspects of reality that I just listed. You fail. Your analysis is completely rediculous.
Excuse me, but SCIENCE is actually just a short word to describe the phrse "SCIENTIFIC METOD" (something which has been STUDIED, under certain methods of investigation and reason, and a conclusion reached).
HOWEVER, from what i see of these scummy evolutionists (and that does NOT include quantum physicists, or aero engineers), they have things like PILTDOWN MAN, and LUCY and NEANDERTHOL.
And they were ALL claimed to be the missing link, but the link is STILL missing
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Unfortunately, you have this preconception that a missing link actually exists. There is no such thing as a missing link. All of the fossils just represent the gradual evolution of homosapiens. Claiming there is a missing link is a fallacious argument. Theoretically, everytime you find a "missing link" you create two more gaps in the link, therefore two more "missing links". And Neanderthol is not part of our evolutionary decent, they branched off of one of our ancestors.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Neanderthol are our cousins, and we're too genetically different to create offspring or fertile offspring, just like we are with chimpanzees today. Neanderthols are irrelevant.
After llsitening to "1 liner" comments, from evolutionists, who then use that ONE LINE of normally false information, as though it totally proves beyond any doubt that Dawkins is their true god, I realise:
Not only are you just twatting out the same old shit you heard, from some other "would be" modern intillectual (which actually makes you more of a sheep, than aradical thinker), but you actually call yourself BUTT FACE !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Normally false information? What does that mean? Nothing is sometimes true and sometimes false, it's either true or not. You are living in a fantasy world if you think anyone worships Richard Dawkins. And for you to say that these ideas are not my own is completely hypocritical considering you worship a magic bearded man in the sky that grants wishes. You just join the religious bandwagon and repeat the same ignorant counterargument to evolution that you get from Ben Stein.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Actually I do not consider myself a scientist, and I'll be the first to admit I'm far from it. And nowhere did I say science disproves God, but it does disprove the logical fallacies that people use to try and prove he exists. I claim that God does not exist because their is no physical or scientific evidence that supports her existence. The only way to prove his existence is to ignore science and logical, rational thinking.
Oh, so NO WHERE do you say that god doesnt exist, BUT god doesnt ecist, because you say so !!??
What are oyu on ?
Look, i gont know if god exists, and if he does exist, i dont know HOw he exists, or WHERE he exists, or in what form.
Al i KNOW is that no one can PROVE he does or doesnt.
So, it really pisses me off, when people with an ego, bigger than their brain, attempt to dissprove the possibility of god existing, with nothing but their idiotic sense of reason.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You can't prove that God does or doesn't exist? If you can't prove that he exists, then he probably doesn't exist. And how is reason idiotic? That is a fallacy. Claiming something that defies reason is unreasonable.
@buttface112211 Whether God can be proven or uproven is irrelevent to me...its what it motivates one to do..hopefully something positive.....That being said do you think that ID is a legitimate question?Why is it suppressed? ..Its quite fascinating to me....if you separate it from religion,But mainstream science does not seem to be able to do that. When you look at the universe you have to at least debate randomness vs design....it just seems that science connects ID to closely to Religion.
@MarkFFHH ID is a hypothesis, not a theory, or a fact, it still requires credible evidence and it needs to be proven before it can be taught in the public education system.
@MarkFFHH You acknowledged that ID is a question before. When a scientist asks a question, its called a hypothesis because experimentation is yet to be conducted and evidence is yet to be gathered. That is why it is not taught, there is essentially nothing to teach if it is just a question. ID is just a new term for creation, because creationism has already been banned. You cannot seperate ID from religion, if it wasn't God that "designed" the universe, who else could it be? Not aliens.
But isn't evolution also a hypothesis??? If it is a fact, it must have been observed by somebody millions of years B.C, but there were no humans then and facts are based on observations so how do you make evolution a fact? Of course there was a kind of evolution over time as 2000 years ago there was no TV. But it is partially right that aliens didn't help life to begin,and so for many people the only person able to do this would be God. But it hasn't been proofed that aliens are inexistent.
@Myonlinecartoons Evolution has been observed, a quick google search will give you over 100 instances in which it was observed, you don't need to watch it happen before your eyes, however for some species it can happen that quickly, which makes me think you are specifically talking about the origin of man. Technology is irrelevant, the theory of evolution pertains to biology, technology does evolve, but not like life. Evolution says nothing aboout the origin of life, that is abiogenesis.
@Myonlinecartoons Abiogenesis is a theoretical field, and experiments have shown that the necessary compounds needed to form life, can come about through natural processes. When you speak of aliens you refer to a hypothesis known as panspermia, that is not the scientific explanation of the origin of life. Claiming that God did it is also a hypothesis, there is no evidence that suggests that to be true at this time, and it requires as much evidence as any other hypothesis.
@Myonlinecartoons Asserting that God did it is just the way out. You immediately say "the only person able to do this would be God." That is the direct result of asking the question, "Who created life on earth." And that is wrong question to ask, perhaps you should ask what natural processes created life. Asserting that only a higher being could do it already limits the possible number of potential answers. Just because many people have faith that God did it, does not make it true.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You are fucking stupid. I don't know what else to say. You have a sick fucking mind, the mere fact that you fabricated such a story gives me insight on how deluded and messed your mind must be. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. Fucking bigot.
Thirdly, I thought it was the catholic church who rapes little boys?
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome OH I'M THE SCARY FUCKER, YOU FUCKING BIGOT. Everyone should have the right to their own choices- does homosexuality affect you in any negative way? I'm sorry, but if you want to deny people of their rights then you are the sick fucker. Fucking bigot. Homosexuality happens all the time in nature, across all species, it is natural. You are one scary, sick fucker to deny others their rights as human beings!
really ? Ive never seen a bull shagging another bull, or a dog, cat, or any other animals - you made that up because you are a dirty little lier, who want speople's children to think that having something up their backside, is normal/natural.
Well, its NOt, and you are adirty filfthy little botty boy, who no one likes, because yu stink like soemone elses shit !
BENT on the cross !
Yes, a real dirty little soddomist, here folks - he's even claiming that animal are homos, now
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Another bigot. It is natural, now I certainly don't condone it (it doesn't help a species survive) but you guys really are pathetic. Let people make their own choices. And yes, just because you haven't seen it yourself doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Because it does happen accross various species. I'm filthy? And of course, you're a theist, you base your life around superstitions and bigotry of sheepherders who lived 2000 years ago, no wonder you're such a douchebag.
You are a dirty little homo lover, and you KNWO it. You even call yourself BENTcross.
I couldnt care less if the law says they can bugger each other indoors, but i DO reserve the rigth to dissaprove of it, and to identify creepy little weirdos like Dawkins, who have a VESTED REASON, for getting religious teachings OUT of peoples mids (that being, that he wants to BUGGER his victims, the second after he's convinced them its a GOOD thing).
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I personally disapprove of homosexuality but if someone wants a dick up their ass and the guy taking it is okay with it, who am I to tell them they can't? There's certainly no reason for me to hate them, either. You're wrong about dawkins, and your fantasies are a little strange. You want to get raped by him? By the way, you are a huge bigot.
I really hate the Youtube Like/Dislike system. It essentially poisons the well.
ATLMastering 2 weeks ago
The elites worship Satan (see Ted Gunderson, Roger Morneau, Antony Sutton) that is why the scientific establishment have to toe the line and this film has shown how anyone that doesn't toe the line will be swiftly removed from their position. That's how it works. Thank you for making this.
rudyell 1 month ago
What is the musical in the beginning? I love it!
CaptainRed2011 1 month ago
@CaptainRed2011 "ALL ALONG THE WATCH TOWER" Instrumental Version
PlntPeace 2 weeks ago
Expelled ..only Creationist Propaganda allowed..Ben Stien does not seem a bad guy ..in fact I kinda like him ..I may disagree with him on some things ..but I don't dislike him.However I may have to re-think my oppinion of him.How he could so blatantly mis represent some of the people he interviews for this hack job of a film does bring his character into question.He has very good points...why did he stoop to such tactics.Also he does not fully ivestigate the claims by some people in this film.
copycoonie 2 months ago
I love how all the comments and dislikes here just help prove the point that is trying to be made in this video.
The majority of them are so idiotic as well. "Ben Stein is so dumb, "wow, this is so stupid," etc. Yeah, those are REALLY intelligent reasons to be saying shit about this film.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
Misrepresenting information IS dumb. So yes, that is an intelligent reason to be saying "shit" about this film.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon what information was "misrepresented?"
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
Interestingly, if you research the people in this video that were supposedly fired for their ID beliefs, you'll find that no one's employment was ever terminated based on their beliefs. My favorite example is Guillermo Gonzalez who claims to have been denied tenure because of ID despite the fact that he provided little research and garnered little funding. Apparently he feels that he deserves tenure despite his lackluster career at his university.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Ok, and where did you find this information? Though you COULD be correct on this issue, you could also be incorrect. Even in this video you see institutions try to deny that certain people were dismissed based on ID. That doesn't mean it's true. The places in which you researched these people could very well have been from the same institutions in which they were apparently mistreated. Not to mention, whether or not these particular claims are all true or wholly true, there is NO
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86 doubt that Intelligent Design scientists are absolutely dismissed in the general scientific community (aka the powers that be). Their findings are listed on even Wikipedia as completely useless and widely unaccepted. And back to your original argument, I SINCERELY doubt that the foundation this film was based upon, the mistreatment of ID scientists by their various institutions, are completely false at all. In fact, are most likely mostly true.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
You are correct, ID "scientists" are being dismissed in the scientific community because their research is nothing more than speculation. Why should they be taken seriously? They, however, are not being fired for their beliefs. There are plenty of well-known religious researchers that still maintain positions in universities. "Most likely mostly true"? What is your basis? Because they said so? It sounds like you want to believe that they're being mistreated.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Their research is nothing more than speculation?? Are you kidding me? Even your opening statement about the subject refutes itself! Speculation is opinion based on incomplete evidence. Research is scientific or scholarly investigation or inquiry. How in the world can REAL scientists, (which they are, regardless of what side they are on), do "research that is nothing more than speculation??" Do you even hear or understand yourself?
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86 Secondly, I do NOT want to believe these scientists are being mistreated, as you say it sounds like I do. In fact, I very much wish they were not being mistreated and dismissed, and would like it very much if they weren't. But because I have a brain and have the ability to observe what's going on the world, I can observe that they, in fact, are COMPLETELY mistreated. Not just scientists either, ordinary people who argue for ID. Because I'm one of them!
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
Okay, so despite the fact that all evidence outside of this video demonstrates that these employees were not actually terminated or ostracized because of their beliefs, you're going to maintain that they, in fact, were because the video says so. Yeah, okay. It's not incredibly obvious that you have a biased opinion on the issue. While Guillermo Gonzalez had declining numbers of publications and little outside funding, you still assert that he was denied tenure because of ID.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Because you're avoiding a point I made, I will just let it go for now and attempt to answer this question you're posing. No. I am NOT asserting that Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of ID, and I have already stated. It is plausible that you are correct. His declining numbers of publications and little outside funding could have been the cause instead. HOWEVER. There are MANY questions to be asked here. I would like to read what you read about these people.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
What point am I avoiding? Do clarify. You suggested that it is very likely that the claims here are true which would mean that Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his ID beliefs. The information on his publications is readily available. You can easily perform a search using your favorite search engine to research the evidence against the claims within this video. I suggest you do.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86 You asked my basis for thinking this film has accurately depicted the treatment of these scientists? Because I can see it every day in the world around me. How myself and those like me who defend ID are treated. It's no secret at all. Though of course the government and evolutionary scientists would want to make it one. And it is actually you my friend, who seems to want to demolish the argument that these people are being mistreated. Not me wanting them to be mistreated.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
So, your personal anecdotes validate the claims of this video? "I have experienced this, therefore these claims must be true!" Sorry, but that doesn't make that so. Again, do you have any evidence to suggest that the claims in this video is true and that the outside information that directly contradicts these claims is false?
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
You do understand what ID is, yes? ID presupposes that a supernatural creator exists and assumes that this supernatural creator must be responsible for whatever we can't currently explain using what we know about nature. Do you not understand why this is entirely blind speculation and in no way substantial evidence for an intelligent creator? If you can explain why presupposition is valid here, please be my guest.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon YES. Of course I understand what ID is. And you obviously DO NOT. You have completely misrepresented the very definition of it, and here you are accusing the makers of this video for misrepresenting information. How ironic. If you're going to argue against something, at least know what the thing you're arguing against actually STATES and believes. Dear god....
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
Oh, I've misrepresented it? Please explain what intelligent design is then and I'll gladly show you exactly why your definition translates to what I just said. Intelligent design suggests that an intelligent source must have created life because life is too complex to have come about through natural means. What that means is that we don't actually know how life began, so we're going to assume that it was an intelligent source that usually means "god". Please explain your side.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon First of all, can I ask that we message each other instead of commenting on this video? Because finding all the replies to comments is getting really confusing. If you don't want to that's fine, but I would much more clearly be able to understand what you're talking about.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
I have no problem with that.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Ok good. I'm more than willing to continue the conversation over messaging.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
That will make things much easier as we won't be limited to 500 characters per message.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86
This information is widely available on the internet and takes little to no effort to uncover. There's even an exposed website dedicated to explaining everything wrong with this video. So yeah, you will see in this video that the institutions are trying to deny that certain people were dismissed based on ID. That's because ID wasn't the issue, it was a coincidence.
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
funny how the likes and dislikes are split. I thought Ben was a smart guy.
MisterMcKinney 4 months ago
Starring Ben Stein?? Whoa whoa whoa, slow your roll..
bushiyo2 4 months ago
Watch G. Edward Griffin's documentary: "World Without Cancer."
YourUTubeMonitor 4 months ago
LOL, this movie took less than 10 SECONDS to enact Godwin's Law!
enigma19833 4 months ago 6
@enigma19833 oh yeah, Well you are a NAZI
firebirdthecody 1 month ago
whats that song in the beginning? I like very much, is nice! ^^
FreakmundZoid 4 months ago
Best thing about this film is the string version of "All Along the Watchtower."
Huffstuff420 5 months ago
thank you very much gangstas! lol
swayone69 5 months ago 3
imho this movie is just another conspiracy theory.
tushkanch1k 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
I got about 5 minutes in. I cant watch this crap. Ben Stein is the king of lies.
htomerif 6 months ago
@htomerif
Well, what did you expect anyways? They are trying to prove something that is not true. They cannot use logic, so they are using lies.
piotrmil 6 months ago
@htomerif everyone accepts the reality with which they are presented,...and since you have always assume that lies were the truth when you are presented with the real truth you title it a lie... open you mind and analyze,,, be brave enough to go futher what you have always known,,,then you will learn....and ultimately find truth!
leontina06 6 months ago
@leontina06 I wish I could open my mind to you and show you the vast and intricate structure of interconnected knowledge that I rely on, but as its taken my lifetime so far to accumulate, I dont think 500 characters will be enough.
Just know this: the chasm that separates us is wider than you can imagine.
htomerif 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@htomerif Atheists represent! We need state atheism! Enforced Atheism. Let the rivers flow with the blood of many millions, without which state atheism has never occured!!!! viva REVOLUTION, RELIGION IS CHILD ABuSE
fashklash 5 months ago
The people responsible for making this film still have jobs. Thats a friggin miracle, miracles=God. Silly buggers were right all along.....
TenBobSwagger 6 months ago
. . . continued from previous . . . an alternate reality where Kennedy survived the assassination attempt. But, science can not prove that these alternate realities exist. There could even be an after-life, but if so, it's outside the physical realm, and science can not test for it. Science can only deal with how the physical universe works. So, Intelligent Design, ID, is not science. Evolution is a fact. New species did not just magically pop into existence.
BigFatHeretic 6 months ago
@BigFatHeretic whats a glofish?
fawkUtube 5 months ago
Intelligent Design, ID, is NOT science. That's why it's not given equal time in science classes. Should we give equal time to Astrology in an Astronomy class, or Phrenology in a class on Neurology, or Alchemy in a Chemistry class, or the flat earth hypotheses in a Geography class, or teach about the stork in a Biology class? Sorry, but God can not be proven or dis-proven, so religion must be left out of science classes. Science can only work with the physical realm. Ben Stein is an IDiot!
BigFatHeretic 6 months ago
@BigFatHeretic Its already been proven., Its called electrons protons and neutron. Ill keep it simple. Theres two possible theories based on their function(Which is to disappear and reappear at random) One is parallel universe. The other is that they disappear and reappear into another human being, and connects use to everything. I believe its both. Universes that are in different hz in each dimension or universe which gets dense or light depending on the vibrations stacked upon each other.
ITSjustanothercommen 6 months ago
@ITSjustanothercommen - I have done a lot of reading on Quantum Physics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, parallel universes, etc. etc. I also understand that 11 dimensions are needed to describe all the properties of sub-atomic particles. I do believe in multiple dimensions ans parallel universes and alternate realities, for example, there could be an alternate reality where Nazi Germany won World War II or an alternate reality where President Kennedy survived . . . to be continued . . .
BigFatHeretic 6 months ago
Not ONLY has this Cult of Scientism suppressed 'God'--they are SO FAR removed from any deep intelligence they will not realize that they and the patriarchal monotheists ANd patriarchal polytheists--from which science emerges-- suppressed the GODDESS, and thus Her Nature!!
zezt 6 months ago
he just fukin told ya ya daft cunt!!
zezt 6 months ago
Creationism doesn't exist yet these atheist scientist disprove their own theory when they clone genetically program splice manipulate DNA (genetic computer code) and create species out of raw materials (like glo-fish) and are a stones throw from making whole and completely new species, and have even made human sperm in a lab. But creationism doesn't exist ....Tunnel vision much?
fawkUtube 6 months ago
@fawkUtube "made human sperm in a lab" When? Name who and when please. I will look forward to your reply.
Godfather7full 6 months ago
@Godfather7full try google : human make sperm in a lab .... Its really not that hard to do your own research.
or right here on youtube :Eugenics - Human Sperm Created in British Lab ..../watch?v=4Tt8ncDFjkg
fawkUtube 6 months ago
Science is not a matter of opinion. If ID is correct then evolution is wrong & should not be taught, ergo to teach ID is to give scientific credibility for the existence of god. But the very nature of faith is belief without proof & the nature of science is acceptance of theories than can be tested.
ID & evolution are incompatible, so to compare them in a science class is wrong because it leaves a student having to make an opinion on what is correct, & science is not a matter of opinion.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago
I hate how this controversial topic brings out the worst in people. Jesus was real and he performed miracles as stated by SECULAR historians. I don't really buy into the mud that learned to walk and talk thing. And if evolution was real, there would be no place where monkeys and humans both exist b/c allegedly humans came from monkeys. I'm sorry evolution just doesn't seem feasible.
TwolfStud 7 months ago
@TwolfStud Look, Why couldnt they exist together? Its not as if every single primate (not monkey) had instantly transformed at the same time. Some evolved differently than others.
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
@triggerhurt8 Incorrect if evolution were true then the human "ancestor" and the present day human could not both exist in the same environment. It wouldn't make sense if only one group evolved
TwolfStud 6 months ago
@TwolfStud Why not? You didn't answer my question, but only restated your ideas. So why couldn't a group split into two, each individually evolving to meet different needs, as long as both can survive? You must use evidence and facts to back up your ideas, just as you can't say that the earth is flat because it wouldn't make sense if it was round after being asked that question. The lack of facts, avoiding questions, and assumptions really ruin an argument or debate.
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
@triggerhurt8 I did answer your question I said in the same environment with the same conditions it wouldn't make sense for only one segment of the population to evolve and the other to perpetually stay the same.
TwolfStud 6 months ago
@TwolfStud @TwolfStud It is "Theorized" that modern day primates and humans had evolved from the same thing, neither staying the same. If one had changed slightly, yet was successful, it could meet different needs and continue to do so until a new species had formed. Just look at something like the banana. It had changed, and become an entirely new kind of plant. Sure, maybe the survival was helped by humans, but I think it shows that yes, two can exist at the same time, each living differently.
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
@triggerhurt8 There is no evidence for your claims, you're just adding more speculation
TwolfStud 6 months ago
@TwolfStud Well, I think that that more recent example would help give evidence, but if not:
1 Bacteria evolves to avoid death by modern antibiotics.
2 In the last 20 years, E Coli has been able to metabolize citrate
3 Fossils of older living things show changes, and similarities
All of these, and more, could be easily googled, and though they may be "Micro-evolution", or adaptation, you might imagine many small changes adding up over millions of years. Have any more questions?(ran out of space)
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
@triggerhurt8 I'm not arguing species don't change slightly over time I am merely stating that changes to one species does not give rise to another
TwolfStud 6 months ago
@TwolfStud ....I have truly never understood why some argue that microevolution is possible, yet large changes, enough to create a new species, over time are impossible. So now I must ask you, how do you think we got all the different species we have today? Why doesn't it make sense that two species can't evolve from one?
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
@triggerhurt8 Because there is no direct evidence for it. If you look at humans even 300 years ago you can tell that we have grown much taller as a population, however, this proves that small changes can happen in hundreds rather than thousands of years and since only height has changed again there is no evidence that we are moving towards a new species of man
TwolfStud 6 months ago
@TwolfStud I feel we have witnessed evolution, just not as it is happening. Like a crime, you rarely know everything, but are left with some clues. Something may come up later, to either back up other evidence, or show there may be different options. So, now I'm interested, how do you feel we got all our species today?
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
@triggerhurt8 Well unlike many people I do not claim to have all the answers. Maybe God put all the animals on the Earth at once (unlikely but possible) or maybe if species go extinct he replaces them so that the ecosystems of the world can still function. I don't know definitively and neither does anyone else. I refuse to put my faith in something that goes against the Bible and secondly has no proof. As said in the movie Darwin took his studies with the finches and applied it to all life flsly
TwolfStud 6 months ago
@TwolfStud Well, though I still disagree, that was a much better answer than I'm used to.
triggerhurt8 6 months ago
This video is a prime example of what happens when both sides of an issue is fairly presented; The truth.
piusvapor 7 months ago
@piusvapor fairly presented? the editing was on full fox-news-level!
UberTankred 7 months ago
Ben Stein is a presumptuous hag.
Bleumange 7 months ago
Ben Stein lost the entirety of his credibility after dismissing obviously sourced speculations about the financial crash that was to occur.
Bleumange 7 months ago
Watching this in honor of the bankruptcy of Premise Media Holdings LP. Propaganda, apparently, isn't profitable.
Suitecake 7 months ago
Ben Stein has inspired me to make the movie "Expelled: No Matrices allowed" Because I'm not allowed to teach my theory of reality based off of the movie, "The Matrix" as an alternative to the darwinist evolutionary doctrine. Than I'll make the movie "Expelled: Elephants Puked the Universe out of it's Ass allowed" Because I can't teach my theory that elephants shat out the universe even with all the evidence around. I mean... have you seen an elephant. They're HUGE. Obvious evidence
LeeRLang 7 months ago
if you have Netflix ck out a program, Creatures that Defy Evolution 1. 2. 3...the host was brought up in "Darwinism" a briliant person and one who taught in the Univercity..until 2 of his students challenged him to work with them to "PROVE" the THEORY [fantasy] being shoved to the masses. He/they could NOT find the evidence and now is a Intellegent Design biologist. It's sad Darwinists only get mad without being able to prove anything. The earth isn't FLAT, DNA= NO EVOLUTON
trishdiane 7 months ago
if you have Netflix ck out a program, Creatures that Defy Evolution 1. 2. 3...the host was brought up in "Darwinism" a briliant person and one who taught in the Univercity..until 2 of his students challenged him to work with them to "PROVE" the THEORY [fantasy] being shoved to the masses. He/they could NOT find the evidence and now is a Intellegent Design biologist. It's sad Darwinists only get mad without being able to prove anything. The earth isn't FLAT,
trishdiane 7 months ago
I like the documentary. I seen way worse.
quezcatol 7 months ago
1 out of 5 stars. This will not appeal to the "intelligent" people out there because it is chock-full of creationist propaganda. It is severely slanted to make the creationists (aka the "ID proponents") look like innocent good guys while the so-called "evolutionists/darwinists" (aka the scientists) are made to look angry and oppressive. It interviews supporters of evolution but it is not a well-rounded movie at all. Check the Rotten Tomatoes rating for this.
carlsm95 7 months ago
America is under threat of being set back 1000 years by these creationists. Interesting how they weave a web of lies.
azzy314159 7 months ago
Ben is a dumb ass lol.
Dogmeat1950 8 months ago
I always find it interesting how proponents of creationism will try to cloak their theories language of science, all the while trying to discredit it. And where the hell do they get off claiming persecution? The religious lobby has done everything it can to force its intolerant views into the classrooms, fearing science and the idea that youth will be educated in such a way as to see past the dogma they'd force on them. Demanding tolerance when you forcibly deny it is total hypocrisy.
houseofwilliams 8 months ago
What is the music called that is playing in the beginning of the film? Can someone email me the title? captain_red2003@yahoo.com
CaptainRed2011 8 months ago
i dislike the association with hitler, hitler was a catholic, and a lemarcksist he didnt accept evolution, otherwise hed have promote interracial babies, he never inquired this part of the "documentry" with a real historian
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven HITLER WASN'T A CHRISTIAN YOU MORONS!
How about you stop taking cheap shots and do your research?
davnet*org/kevin/essays/hitler.html
answers*org/apologetics/hitquote*html
homepages*paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler*html
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery."
CarlosMarti123 8 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 ill forgive the namecalling, heres a quote from mein kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ur right he could also be a muslim, he does praise their religion, in the book, but what he believed is not even really relevant, he used the christian belief to rally the german people. also the first treat he made was with the vatican. their 1st ever
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven Yes, shall we believe all of his other lies too then? Shall we believe what he liked to tell the public, or what he wrote in his own journals? Like breaking the treaty with the USSR?
CarlosMarti123 8 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 ur missing the point though, even so i agree hitler was a compulsatory liar, wich can be seen through many of his actions, this doesnt change the fact that he used christian belief to motivate and advance his ideals and political views. if germany of that time was not under 1 religion but a multicultural society like it is now this way of rallying people wouldnt have worked
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven Hitler wasn't a Christian, neither did he use Christian values!!! That's part of this documentary too. He believed in a pure race and the perfection of humans. Which is coherent with Darwin's theories, Hitler was actually a strong proponent of the science of that age in a way. He didn't use Christian beliefs to motivate Germans, he used scientific speculation. Sorry If I'm taking this out of context.
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 darwinism doesnt in any way prefer any race over another, u should do ur research, hitler was a lemarcksist, lemarck had a theory which was a predecesor of evolution, but picturing the change as a ladder with the white race on top, evolution merely is that the enviroment determens what changes are benefitial, like a polar bear in the sahara wont survive and a snake wont survive on the north pole. so the envirement determent which species are "better" but only for that place
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven OF COURSE DARWINISM DOESN'T PREFER A RACE!! I never said it did, my point was that Darwinism states that humans evolve as time goes on (in a nut shell), Hitler simply thought he was accelerating the process by 'purifying the lesser'. So Hitler basically took the concept of Darwinism and twisted it to his own means. As the catholic church and other institutions did with the bible. My whole comment was in contradiction to you saying Hitler "used christian beliefs".
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 as i explained before evolution there was lemarck's theory of evolving towards a goal(he stated the goal is the be white) this is what hitler accepted, darwins books where outlawed in ww2 in germany,
christian beliefs are also: killing of witches, children who curse their parents, people who worship idols and other gods, people who work on the sabbath and adulterers.
things the bible doesnt prohibit: rape, genocide, child abuse.
i think u need to read the bible :)
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven We are not arguing about what the bible says orwhat it doesn't say, we're talking about whether or not Hitler used it for his own needs. And for the record it does prohibit, rape, genocide and child abuse. Maybe you should read the whole bible instead of choosing what you want to read and then telling other to read those parts, because it also says 'love thy neighbor as thy self". That doesn't sound like something hitler would say does it?
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
I'm not saying Darwinism is what inspired Hitler, my point is that Christianity definitely did not, and Hitler could not possibly have used the bible to support his actions without completely altering it. My entire argument is not against Darwinism but rather against your claim:
"this doesnt change the fact that he (Hitler) used christian belief to motivate and advance his ideals and political views".
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 ben stein abviously doesnt know a thing about history, the catholic church hunted jews for over a 1000 years, for the crime of herecy and killing jesus. hitler also shared this view, hitler did in fact use the "struggle of christ" in a lot of his speeches.
on the side note, do u know of the nazi bookburnings, the origen of species was one of the books on the burning pile, it was forbidden in nazi germany. wether or not he actually believed in god was irrelevant.
MGsven 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 i think u need to study history a bit more in detail, i can see the eroneous links made by many christians between hitler and atheism, its true hitler said some negative things about christianity, this mostly to compliment islam, he said if the germans wouldve been muslims they wouldve surely concurred the world. but he did say he felt he was doing gods work in killing jews, and got his ideas to kill handicapt people from a lemarck worldview, but i do concede this last point
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven So once again, I'm not making the erroneous link between atheism and Hitler, I'm simply arguing against the erroneous link of Hitler and Christianity. And saying "You need to study history a bit more.." is just a little condescending. In that case I can say "you need to understand YouTube posts better" but that would just plain rude. And that sir, is not something I'm trying to be :)
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 but them if i were to accept your point, why did hitler go and made a deal with the vatican, why did the catholic church support such a man, why did hitler invoke jesus and god in speeches often, why did new soldier swear upon the furher and jesus the lord their savior, and why did their belts say god mit uns(god's with us)? if you could explain these things, if hitler had no link to christianity?
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven Because the church is corrupt! Of course! It rarely hasn't been corrupt. You can't seriously think that when the Vatican did this they were following the bible do you? And Hitler could just have easily used Darwin in those speech as much as used Christ, doesn't mean the teachings of Christ are in parallel with his ideas does it? What you're saying is that Hitler connected the two because they went well together. I'm simply saying Hitler connected the two because he took out of context.
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 that from an evolutionairy perspective taking out the handicapt will improve the human race, but there is no division between white black asian or any other race. before darwinism however it was commonly believed by whites that other races where less human, us laws pre civil war included black slaves where included with live stock. also the catholic church never condemned the holocast, and actually helped lots of nazis escape to south america.
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven Slavery ended in the western world thanks mainly to William Wilberforce's efforts, not Darwin if were going to put a man responsible. And Racism existed well after Darwin anyway. And using the Catholic Church to potray is not a valid argument. And aIready answered you in between your last two posts.
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 of course, im not saying darwin stopped racism, my point is in those days people where way more racist then we can imagine now a days, we are generally becoming less and less racist. neither from the bible nor from evolution are race killings justified, however jew hatred was pretty much the standard under the chatholic churches theocracy, and is where hitler got his idea's. now if u where to look at lemarcks theory ull see it fits hitlers views perfectly though, exept jews
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven Yes I agree, the catholic church is full of bad, bad men. Most of whom seem to have a taste for young boys. And that is why the Catholic Church is a very bad representation of Christianity, none of the church's actions are Christ-like. We're not talking about how Hitler used the Catholic Church we're talking about how he used the doctrines of Christ.
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 i didnt say he used christs words to motivate people, he used the faith and the catholic dogma to manipulate people. my point was in a multifaith society this is impossible. u dont need to use specific parts of the doctorin, just saying jeses' name will oblige many to follow, in those days at least. christ did do bad things also, he introduced hell so im not sure if he was even a good person.but aside from the bible we cant know much
MGsven 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 its funny to see as i call them neo christhippies. who are all for jesus is love and live and let live and oh jesus is the son of god and our saviour etc. without ever reading the bible, christ also said the rules of god remain the same, howeve we are adding eternal torture if u dont believe me. highly immoral id say. but just believing in peace and love is good, but those people need to realize ist not jahweh, he isnt for peace nor love
MGsven 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 please check some history, and check up in this info i gave u, i noticed the churches in the us try to make atheism look bad, but u should be able to see the difference between rational thinking people, and dogmatic systems. just look at current europe, lots of atheism, lower crime rates, less poverty and higher happyness grades. if u look at north korea it isnt an atheis country, they believe in their leader, a dogmatic system, not at all a free thinking country, irrational!
MGsven 8 months ago
@MGsven Dubai and many wealthy Arab nations are extremely religious but their wealth exceeds the better part of the EU and I'm sure you know how far crime gets over there. So saying that atheism is better for a country is not a valid argument. And still, what you have said has nothing to do with how Hitler used Christianity to further his plans. All you have said is "the bible is violent, Hitler was violent so he could have used it". And that sir is a highly irrational argument indeed.
sumedhraghavan8732 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 those wealthy arab countries also have extreme poverty rates, in their cases its that a few rich people can literally suck the money out of the ground. and their happiness statistics are amazingly low, of course i can argue for nations being secular is better, just look at theocracies, the middle east is a scientific black hole, so is much of africa who are rules by voodoo customs or catholism. in such countries human suffering skyrockets, the usa is in between on that view
MGsven 8 months ago
Comment removed
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome whats ur point? the word minister might come from religion, but the way it is used in govt terms isnt religious anymore. but idk what u are trying to say, in any case most europeans dont blindly and fanaticly follow supernatural beliefs anymore. even though historicly we did as much and perhaps even more so
MGsven 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 manipulating people via belief is easy, look at the republicans in the us, here in holland i can see ot too, in the south and east of holland live most farmers who are believers, those provinces always vote for teh christian party. just by arguing against abortion u can easily win christian votes, also by doing so against gay rights, euthenasia, sex before marriage(abstinance programs). just think about it, an open atheist wouldnt be chosen for president, then tell me that
MGsven 8 months ago
@sumedhraghavan8732 people arent motivated by their religion in politics. in those days many people still had hatred towards jews(remnants of the inquisition) and where mostly catholics, but inciting jesus and god in speeches its a means to soften criticism of the people, then saying what many people feel towards jews, abusing religious dogma 101.
MGsven 8 months ago
Indeed, no intelligence is allowed in this video...
amegoulis 8 months ago 7
Darwinism was/is only "wild imagination" that an 1800's bioligist wrote up and then was pushed into our education system by "God Haters" as legitimate science.. He didn't have DNA, there was no space travel to look at the universe. Yet the masses risk losing their jobs by not keeping their mouth shut about a "joke" disquiesd as science. Darwinists take the challenge, religion aside, try to find any evidence and when your done fight for those who are being censored.
trishdiane 7 months ago
@trishdiane
If you want to find evidence go to a natural history museum. There you don't read fiction, instead you touch fossils that tell a very different story. Why this obsession with "there is no evidence whatsoever" when in fact there is an abundance of them?? I'll try the siplest question: What about Neanderthals?? This poor extinct cousin alone suffices to bring down any religious doctrine of "Adam and Eve" or of that sort. European museums are flooded with their Bones...
amegoulis 7 months ago
@amegoulis Sir, where was the INTELLIGENCE in FIRING a man simply for POLITELY asserting his 1st Amendment RIGHT in the USA to free speech? Believe what you will, but others should be able to believe as THEY wish without the FEAR of losing their livelihood, freedom, sanity, or persecution!
prophetbyronmotley 7 months ago
@prophetbyronmotley There's no need to invoke one's constitutional rights, because this is not the point. You are free to beleive whatever you want, even that the world is 6,000 years old. You may go and shout it out at a square if you like. But you CAN'T TEACH it, because there's no evidence and because it's ridiculous....
amegoulis 6 months ago
@amegoulis Yes you CAN, if you have FAIR justification to believe what you are teaching IS correct! The teaching of creationism went on for CENTURIES and the world survived JUST FINE........long enough to be born! The question of creationism V evolution would go away if the data supporting evolution were satisfactory! I myself LOOKED for way to refute creationism with evolution, but I found the evolution theory to be RIDDLED with holes and many HOAXES! "Piltdown Man" SADLY is one of many hoaxes!
prophetbyronmotley 6 months ago
@prophetbyronmotley But Neanderthal is not. Museums are flooded with his bones and he is a man allright! He coexisted with Sapiens (to this point he was more succesful than us) and he disappeared pushed by Sapiens and a collapsing habitat. He is totally ignored by all stories of creation on earth. This poor extinct cousin alone negates any religious doctrine of "Adam and Eve" or of that sort.
amegoulis 6 months ago
@amegoulis Very good point! I also read about quite recent hypothesis that Neanderthal might not have extinct completely and the Basques, Berbers as well as the ancient Etrurians were possibly his descendants. It's bold hypothesis to say the least but if it's correct, than what would religious freaks say than? That the Basques or the Berbers are not "children" of their god?
XMisanthropyPureX 6 months ago
@XMisanthropyPureX It is only a bold hypothesis!! Neanderthal developed no culture. He made tools, he hunted, he made primitive clothes and shoes and that was as far as he could go. The ability to understand abstract concepts, to "feel" a world beyond senses belongs entirely to Sapiens. The first simple engravings, only 24.000 years old, were found at the cave of Koonalda, Nullarbor plain, Australia. Neanderthal was long gone by then... Ergo, he could not have left "clever" descendants...
amegoulis 6 months ago
@amegoulis You made it here with many of YOUR forefathers believing in creationism and they did NOT die off! At the end of the day, elitists are FIRING good scientific minds simply for believing in God!
Pardon the phrase.......what kind of BULLSHIT is that? What happened to freedom of expression?
What VALUE is there in what Larry Flynt "does for a living?" He goes on producing SMUT and is well paid! He has HIS livelihood but a scientist who believes in God LOSES his livelihood? That's WRONG!
prophetbyronmotley 6 months ago
@prophetbyronmotley I would agree with you but the truth is you have to leave your own personal beliefs out of the classroom.. and a college or university is not going to risk its reputation and its entire staff to allow one person to support, what has been deemed in court as, "repackaged creationism" and push their beliefs on students.. especially a belief that is ridiculous compared to the evidence of evolution, limited tho it may be
snoweyeball 6 months ago
Imagine this, I take some various metals, plastics, and other raw materials; I put them in a jar and put on a lid, I shake the jar for several hours, later I remove the jar and a cell phone is now made.............It is ludicrous to believe this is the process which created life. Sounds pretty unreal to me............
CaptainRed2011 8 months ago
@CaptainRed2011
Imagine this. a creationist drone comes up with a new argument....nah, too weird.
"It is ludicrous to believe this is the process which created life"- get back to us if you ever find anyone who does believe shaking stuff in a jar IS such a process.
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@CaptainRed2011 If you took the time to learn about the "EVILution" you creationists always try to crucify like the hypocrites you are, you'd know it'd be more like taking a jar the size of a planet and coming up with something the size of a cell phone divided by two hundred million that can hardly be considered alive at all. We've already created synthetic life, us humans ourselves have indeed CREATED LIFE, it's not all that complicated it's just very tricky to work with something so small.
VariousEnd 8 months ago in playlist Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [HQ] Full Film
@CaptainRed2011 yeah imagine we were made by magic skyman instead :)
MGsven 8 months ago
you are god.
gearofduty2012 8 months ago
Stein is not advocating the teaching of religion in secular schools....he is a huge supporter of Science and technology and wants to see this country maintain its level of excellence....He is essentially asking whats happened to our educational system. Its so repressive and suppressive. Joe McCarthy was right on one thing.....The Marxist Communist would bring down our country not through military conquest but through our educational system...Brainswashing...seems he was right.
MarkFFHH 8 months ago
@MarkFFHH No, brainwashing is what they do in parochial schools. Ben claims the education system is suppressive because nobody will accept his ID hypothesis as a reasonable explanation for the origins of the universe and life, mainly because it is not. ID is a hypothesis, and it has no empirical evidence that supports it, which is why it is not taught in public schools, it is not science, just speculation. That is blatant disregard for science and its principles.
buttface112211 8 months ago
8:28 so if you can't prove something, it's nonsense??
Colthrone 8 months ago
@Colthrone That's what atheist tell us
tisthegifttobesimple 8 months ago
@Colthrone Only if you choose to believe that it is superior to something that is provable. I mean everyone has a right to believe what they want, especially in the face of uncertainty, but to reject something factual in favor of something completely subjective, and then turn around and say that the factual thing is "just a theory' or not provable to your satisfaction... doesn't really make sense.
houseofwilliams 8 months ago
It seems that mainstream science has taken on the role of the Vatican 4 or 5 centuries ago. That is suppressing scienctific theory, opinions, questioning of hypothesis...etc....Lets put Galileo Stein under house arrest.... If ID can be so simply dismissed I say do it.....I border between being atheist and an agnostic and see no real connection between ID and religion. Einstein said that you can look at everything as a miracle or nothing as a miracle...its a matter of opinion.
MarkFFHH 8 months ago
Um... why does this movie open with footage of the Berlin Wall being constructed? What does that have to do with evolution?
plhearn 8 months ago
@plhearn The Berlin wall and the iron Curtain suppressed thought, took away freedoms of all type....Political, scientific, religious etc. Just like Mainstream science is doing today.
MarkFFHH 8 months ago
Have we invented a drinking game yet for this idiotic movie? How about, take a drink every time Ben Stein says "free" or "freedom?"
Quanglewanglewiki 9 months ago
ben talks like kim peek...
wertyty 9 months ago
ps - Richard Dawkins is a HOMOSEXUAL, so he NEEDS to destroy religion, to justify the dispicable things he does involving boys.
Before he can feel comfortable kissing a mans anus, he has to claim that god CANT exist, to get the guilt from his mind.
Also, if he can convince himself, perhaps he can convince your young son or grandson, that there is no reason not to penetrate his backside, and get covered in excrement, in the name of love.
He's a sick bitch !
(thats what i think, anyway)
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Wow, what caused you to come to these conclusions? Richard Dawkins is an advocate of reason and science and critical/rational thinking. And God does not fit in with those 4 aspects of reality. That is why he is an atheist. You say, "He's a sick bitch!" You created a scenario that defies 3 of the aspects of reality that I just listed. You fail. Your analysis is completely rediculous.
buttface112211 9 months ago
@buttface112211:
Excuse me, but SCIENCE is actually just a short word to describe the phrse "SCIENTIFIC METOD" (something which has been STUDIED, under certain methods of investigation and reason, and a conclusion reached).
HOWEVER, from what i see of these scummy evolutionists (and that does NOT include quantum physicists, or aero engineers), they have things like PILTDOWN MAN, and LUCY and NEANDERTHOL.
And they were ALL claimed to be the missing link, but the link is STILL missing
sobogoff
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Unfortunately, you have this preconception that a missing link actually exists. There is no such thing as a missing link. All of the fossils just represent the gradual evolution of homosapiens. Claiming there is a missing link is a fallacious argument. Theoretically, everytime you find a "missing link" you create two more gaps in the link, therefore two more "missing links". And Neanderthol is not part of our evolutionary decent, they branched off of one of our ancestors.
buttface112211 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Neanderthol are our cousins, and we're too genetically different to create offspring or fertile offspring, just like we are with chimpanzees today. Neanderthols are irrelevant.
buttface112211 9 months ago
@buttface112211:
Oh, they are our "cousins", now - not our ancestors, but our UNCLE'S ancestors - oh, that makes REAL sense !
But you distract form the issue - they are NOT our ancestors, and yet were portrayed as our ancestors for DECADES, by BIOLOGISTS like Dawkins !
Then they move on to Lucy, or some other bullshit monkey, until THAT get sproven to be a monkey, or ahuman. But they have NEVER found a true one.
And again, the news a few weeks ago - "SCIENTISTS FIND MISSING LINK" (again)
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@buttface112211:
You knwo what though ?
After llsitening to "1 liner" comments, from evolutionists, who then use that ONE LINE of normally false information, as though it totally proves beyond any doubt that Dawkins is their true god, I realise:
Not only are you just twatting out the same old shit you heard, from some other "would be" modern intillectual (which actually makes you more of a sheep, than aradical thinker), but you actually call yourself BUTT FACE !
Why am i talking to you ?
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Normally false information? What does that mean? Nothing is sometimes true and sometimes false, it's either true or not. You are living in a fantasy world if you think anyone worships Richard Dawkins. And for you to say that these ideas are not my own is completely hypocritical considering you worship a magic bearded man in the sky that grants wishes. You just join the religious bandwagon and repeat the same ignorant counterargument to evolution that you get from Ben Stein.
buttface112211 9 months ago
@buttface112211:
AGAIN, you speak falsely. I did NOT say i "believe in a bearded man in the sjy" (that was a LIE AGAIN).
I AM saying that SCIENE is a METHOD of measuring any given subject, to determine its validity
This does NOT mean that anoyone who considers the possibility of god is right, NOR that any idiot who deosnt , is wrong.
YOU, however, claim that god does not exist, because you: a) consider yourself a scientis
b) LIE that science disproves god
YOU ARE A LIER !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Actually I do not consider myself a scientist, and I'll be the first to admit I'm far from it. And nowhere did I say science disproves God, but it does disprove the logical fallacies that people use to try and prove he exists. I claim that God does not exist because their is no physical or scientific evidence that supports her existence. The only way to prove his existence is to ignore science and logical, rational thinking.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211:
Oh, so NO WHERE do you say that god doesnt exist, BUT god doesnt ecist, because you say so !!??
What are oyu on ?
Look, i gont know if god exists, and if he does exist, i dont know HOw he exists, or WHERE he exists, or in what form.
Al i KNOW is that no one can PROVE he does or doesnt.
So, it really pisses me off, when people with an ego, bigger than their brain, attempt to dissprove the possibility of god existing, with nothing but their idiotic sense of reason.
Thats YOU
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You can't prove that God does or doesn't exist? If you can't prove that he exists, then he probably doesn't exist. And how is reason idiotic? That is a fallacy. Claiming something that defies reason is unreasonable.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211 Whether God can be proven or uproven is irrelevent to me...its what it motivates one to do..hopefully something positive.....That being said do you think that ID is a legitimate question?Why is it suppressed? ..Its quite fascinating to me....if you separate it from religion,But mainstream science does not seem to be able to do that. When you look at the universe you have to at least debate randomness vs design....it just seems that science connects ID to closely to Religion.
MarkFFHH 8 months ago
@MarkFFHH ID is a hypothesis, not a theory, or a fact, it still requires credible evidence and it needs to be proven before it can be taught in the public education system.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@MarkFFHH You acknowledged that ID is a question before. When a scientist asks a question, its called a hypothesis because experimentation is yet to be conducted and evidence is yet to be gathered. That is why it is not taught, there is essentially nothing to teach if it is just a question. ID is just a new term for creation, because creationism has already been banned. You cannot seperate ID from religion, if it wasn't God that "designed" the universe, who else could it be? Not aliens.
buttface112211 8 months ago
But isn't evolution also a hypothesis??? If it is a fact, it must have been observed by somebody millions of years B.C, but there were no humans then and facts are based on observations so how do you make evolution a fact? Of course there was a kind of evolution over time as 2000 years ago there was no TV. But it is partially right that aliens didn't help life to begin,and so for many people the only person able to do this would be God. But it hasn't been proofed that aliens are inexistent.
Myonlinecartoons 8 months ago
@Myonlinecartoons Evolution has been observed, a quick google search will give you over 100 instances in which it was observed, you don't need to watch it happen before your eyes, however for some species it can happen that quickly, which makes me think you are specifically talking about the origin of man. Technology is irrelevant, the theory of evolution pertains to biology, technology does evolve, but not like life. Evolution says nothing aboout the origin of life, that is abiogenesis.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@Myonlinecartoons Abiogenesis is a theoretical field, and experiments have shown that the necessary compounds needed to form life, can come about through natural processes. When you speak of aliens you refer to a hypothesis known as panspermia, that is not the scientific explanation of the origin of life. Claiming that God did it is also a hypothesis, there is no evidence that suggests that to be true at this time, and it requires as much evidence as any other hypothesis.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@Myonlinecartoons Asserting that God did it is just the way out. You immediately say "the only person able to do this would be God." That is the direct result of asking the question, "Who created life on earth." And that is wrong question to ask, perhaps you should ask what natural processes created life. Asserting that only a higher being could do it already limits the possible number of potential answers. Just because many people have faith that God did it, does not make it true.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@MarkFFHH muppet
claydon82 7 months ago
@MarkFFHH muppet
claydon82 7 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You are fucking stupid. I don't know what else to say. You have a sick fucking mind, the mere fact that you fabricated such a story gives me insight on how deluded and messed your mind must be. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. Fucking bigot.
Thirdly, I thought it was the catholic church who rapes little boys?
BentOnTheCross 8 months ago
@BentOnTheCross:
Ther's NOTHING wrong with homoseuality ?
Well, it legal, but that doesnt mean its completely ok !
Its TOLLERATED, but that doesnt mean its good !
If sticking your penis into another mans backside seems NORMAL, to you, i'd hate to see what you consider ABNORMAL !
You're one scary, sick fucker !
(literally)
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome OH I'M THE SCARY FUCKER, YOU FUCKING BIGOT. Everyone should have the right to their own choices- does homosexuality affect you in any negative way? I'm sorry, but if you want to deny people of their rights then you are the sick fucker. Fucking bigot. Homosexuality happens all the time in nature, across all species, it is natural. You are one scary, sick fucker to deny others their rights as human beings!
BentOnTheCross 8 months ago
@BentOnTheCross:
really ? Ive never seen a bull shagging another bull, or a dog, cat, or any other animals - you made that up because you are a dirty little lier, who want speople's children to think that having something up their backside, is normal/natural.
Well, its NOt, and you are adirty filfthy little botty boy, who no one likes, because yu stink like soemone elses shit !
BENT on the cross !
Yes, a real dirty little soddomist, here folks - he's even claiming that animal are homos, now
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Another bigot. It is natural, now I certainly don't condone it (it doesn't help a species survive) but you guys really are pathetic. Let people make their own choices. And yes, just because you haven't seen it yourself doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Because it does happen accross various species. I'm filthy? And of course, you're a theist, you base your life around superstitions and bigotry of sheepherders who lived 2000 years ago, no wonder you're such a douchebag.
BentOnTheCross 8 months ago 2
@BentOnTheCross:
You are a dirty little homo lover, and you KNWO it. You even call yourself BENTcross.
I couldnt care less if the law says they can bugger each other indoors, but i DO reserve the rigth to dissaprove of it, and to identify creepy little weirdos like Dawkins, who have a VESTED REASON, for getting religious teachings OUT of peoples mids (that being, that he wants to BUGGER his victims, the second after he's convinced them its a GOOD thing).
Just like YOU, bugger boy !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I personally disapprove of homosexuality but if someone wants a dick up their ass and the guy taking it is okay with it, who am I to tell them they can't? There's certainly no reason for me to hate them, either. You're wrong about dawkins, and your fantasies are a little strange. You want to get raped by him? By the way, you are a huge bigot.
BentOnTheCross 7 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You have never been on a farm buddy. Happens all the time. dont get to any conclusion but happens.
azzy314159 7 months ago