Lol fucking atheists. You could have God right in front of your eyes and you still wouldn't believe he exists. "Just another natural phenomenon hmmm yeah"
@camronfritz theres so many diffrent type of animals from the same common ancestors that can not longer reproduce with each other. due to many genetic diffrences over extended periods of time and separation. but you bible thummpers still turn to god even tho there 100% no evidence for existance.
Pray for god to convince me he exists. I give you and him my permission to change my mind. The free will argument no longer applies, I honestly desire the truth and invite it into my mind. God being omnipotent should be able to just magically MAKE me believe. God being loving and wanting people to know him should be willing and ready to change my mind ask I'm asking. I won't even ask for evidence, just have my mind BE miraculously changed.
@TheDano1947 Thanks for reminding me. I had a friend of my mums come to visit one day some years back now. She has temporal lobe epilepsy. On this one particular evening she has a seizure. Just as it seemed to relax, she bagan to believe she saw the devil and then some angels, it's all crazy stuff. My Cousin's dad (not married into family anymore) has schizophrenia. When he was really bad also many years ago, he thought he was God, had to have everything all white.
Its called a theory for a reason. Its the most likely explanation that we know of. If there is one thing more annoying the militant creationist, its militant atheist. They can booth fuck off.
Why is everyone afraid of the answer, "I don't know"? It's pretty damned simple, people. We don't know, and we may never know. There is also nothing wrong with coming up with a theory. The perversion comes when a theory is regarded as fact, and this happens to both theists and atheists... I get a long fine in life not knowing whether god created me or whether I evolved from a mud puddle... who... fucking... cares?
@bw2182 God invented time. Time is something of this universe. God is above time. Since God is above time he has always existed and always will. There is no time for God and therefor no beginning and no end to God. Nothing created God. There you go.
Big Bang Theory: Part of this universe, therefor victim of time, therefor needs a beginning, an origin. No one can explain where things came from without God. End. Of. Story.
None needed. Invented is a verb and verbs can only happen at times, and so there was already a time at the... time... god was supposed to have invented it.
How about this? Time and universe always existed. It's on the same basis as God had always existed. Time is a concept, not a constant, fucken retard. You obviously know nothing of physics.
Actually, "Expelled" addressed academic persecution of individuals who are willing to entertain ID purely as a model to help guide further research. ID can just as easily indicate alien design, as it makes no claims as to the identity of the designer. The film went too far in some places, but the overall question the film addresses is why some scientists should be ostracized for supporting ID.
@erentheca Actually, "went too far in some places" is a huge understatement. It went too far in a lot of places, so if you only watched about the first 20 minutes of the film, you can really just skip the rest, because the latter really has nothing to do with the former.
Umm if everything had to be created what created god? And which creationism story is right just the fact that most religions have different creation stories unsupported by facts in Norse religion man was created from drops of water off icicles!
Evolution doesn't have anything to say about how life originated. Correct, why should it? Theories like Abiogenesis pertains to the origin of life.
Evolution does explain how we have so many working parts that all work together etc. If Ben had any understanding of what Evolution is he have realized that.
@Khyrid let me ask you this, how did those cells get there, how did the lightning strike get there, tell me how the stuff got there in the first place, tell me how everything came to be to start this chemical reaction. I also want to say this, if evolution is possible, how do we make our own decisions, since we are just, atoms hitting atoms hitting atoms hitting atoms.......
@warnMPMP Well If you want to trace the cause and effect back, we can go as far as the big bang reliably, then there is M-Theory but it isn't well understood yet.
If you want to talk about how evolution worked/works that should be separate than how did it all start as it's a different mechanism. We actually don't make our own decisions, free will is an illusion. All of our actions are the result of countless variables of cause and effect. We reproduced better like this so we became this way.
@Khyrid let me ask you this, what started the chemical reaction, how did the chemical(s) get there, how can i make my own decisions if i am just a chemical reaction?
@Khyrid Here's the thing, though, I think they actually DO know what the theory actually says. I think they understand how evolution works and so they have to be deliberately dishonest, deliberately misleading in order to get people to believe they have creditably. I mean just how long has the Creationist "Theory" been around? Yet it has never convinced any real scientists and it never will. It can't because it's not science. They only argue to people who don't know better.
@FrankLightheart So dishonest then. That's what I suspect, Ben is probably a smart guy who doesn't give a shit and he will rake in the dough spewing this creationist crap.
@karlkarlkarl1234 You should know karl is an open supporter of Hamas and their activities, he believes the FEW people Hamas may have killed are of no importance, this is why you get all the Anti Zionist (Jew) stuff from him, he supports one sides Ideas about killing and brutality because as a JEW himself he hates his own people that much, he has even stated that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime is something to be admired.
Biology theories have everything to do with physics theories. EVERYTHING.
Videos like this bring out all the idiots on youtube. Just look at all the idiotic comments about "team leaders" and the retards quoting scriptures from The Damn Bible.
Here's the secret: Ben Stein doesn't actually believe ANY of that ID crap. He's a smart guy. But he does believe in the Southern Strategy, popularized by his mentor Richard Nixon. And since his political clout has faded he has to show that he can still reach and influence southern voters. His movie was just an ego play to show he still has power.
The most fundamental question of all: What is the underlying law of nature.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons would have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
@Trip03ci the fact that you would say this actualy explains alot about where you went wrong in your "reasoning" Pity you will likely never allow yourself to appreciate this as much as I do
Don't you just love it when IDiots couple evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang?
0:55 "Evolution has nothing to say about how life originated, it has nothing to say about the governing principals in the universe originated," I should say it doesn't as evolution only deals with genetic change in a population of organisms over time. What a fucktard.
Why do you close-minded bible humpers resort to ad hominem attacks when a knowledgable person explains a scientific theory (Darwinism)? Because your stupid fucking beliefs don't hold up to any scrutiny. Fuck your beliefs. If you want to reject science go live in a cave.
On international television he openly called Ron Paul an "anti-semite" for merely disagreeing with his point and refused to give an apology with Ron Paul demanded one.
He is such a shyster he uses his Jewish heritage to make baseless attacks to discredity people who disagree with him.
"[...] The economy is still very strong. The most cagey players on Wall Street like Goldman Sachs are now trying to buy — not sell — as much distressed merchandise in the mortgage area as they can. This is a good clue about where the smart money is going.
You can panic if you enjoy being panicky. But this will all blow over and the people who buy now, in due time, will be glad they did."
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Heb 11:1 "Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." James 2:26
its the written word of God! [= you know the things that are going on now? The bible wrote that these things would happen in the book of revelation. Just keep watching and see what the "kings of the earth" do to false religion. aka babylon the great.
@askegg However, one thing you're overlooking is who makes these scientists with these theory-a-day proposals an authorative source? They change their minds so often that they can't be trusted, and the "big bang theory" is absurd for many reasons. 1) What created the large mass that later blew apart? 2) If the mass was ever present (as some claim God can't be - same principle, only applied to a mass and not a figure)...what starts a chain reaction explosion in an ever-present mass?
@jmr1068204 They change their minds when new evidence is put forward. As they should. A person who never changes their mind and wont listen to any reason is who I wouldn't trust.
fuck off, ben stein. point is, it's the best explanation we have going. want to improve on it? be everyone's guest. if you want to come at me with the bible in the guise of science? fuck off.
Okay wow. I have had enough. Why is it that when someone dare questions Darwanism. (Something one is suppose to do with all scientific theories) We are marginalized and Ad-hominized. This universe is incredibly complex and the idea that that complexity points to a Disigner is not illegitimate.
Is your God at all complex? By the same argument, does he not also require a designer? If not, then you are special pleading.
Also, it's a legitimate argument IF you have any proof at all that a complex God can be without a designer, but another complex thing (such as the universe) cannot. Explain your reasons and show us your evidence. Until then, get out of the science class!
A singularity is not nothing. It's an entire universe away from being nothing. In any case, we do not have the technology to delve into sizes below the Planck length - it's a complete unknown. Into this unknown you insert God. It's a god of the gaps argument.
At best, the big bang theory says the universe came from a singularity, which is still an infinity away from being nothing. While our mathematics and observations coincide until the Planck length, there they diverge. The maths is extrapolated to the extremes, but we do not have the tools to delve into the microscopic world of those sizes.
Until the evidence is in I cannot say where or how the universe came into being, but I see no need to invoke some deity to solve the issue.
Because the God of Israel has given prophesies that have cone true, for example the formation of the state of Israel. Also there is the physical reserection of Christ of which historians outside the bible account to. Many religious leaders claimed they would come bac from spiritually, only One came back physically.
it isn't. what most people fail to realize is how connected all religions are & how heavily they've all borrowed from each other. in effect, you're all worshipping the same god(s). here's everyone's 1 commandment: be a good person. i personally don't believe in a "god." like askegg said, it's attributing superstition & the supernatural to things we've yet to explain. it's clear to see that the more we've defined our world, the less we've needed "the gods."
That is a metaphysical question, we require a designer not because we are complex, but because our universe has laws which limit matter, time, space, and energy. These laws even need a source, God does not need a designer as such laws never applied to it, God be definition is the un caused cause. We all acknowledge an un caused cause, it really comes down to were we place it in time and whether or not this UCC was conscious, complex, intelligent, and choosing to interact with us or not.
Read up on what the philosophy of science is. A designer has no place in science because science begins with the assumption that everything is explainable in the context of natural processes. Whether you do or don't accept the theory of evolution, the proper place for arguments is philosophy and not science. Though it is unfortunate that atheists have misappropriated science by putting the cart before the horse and not realizing where their assumptions lie.
with all due respect. Darwins book is titled "On the origin of species" it does assert that ALL living things evolved from the same source. Science text books for years have clearly stated that the first cell came into existence by lightnight stricking a primordial soup. This of course is pure fantasy as even one cell is incredibly complicated.
Macro Evolution is not scientifially observable or verifiable. It is an act of faith.
Your mistake is in thinking the first biological cell was as complex as the modern day single celled organisms - this is not true. All you need is a self replicating molecule competing with others (or variations of itself) to start the process. It may take millions of years to develop any sort of reasonable complexity - and that's pretty much exactly what we do see.
Given we share 95% of our DNA with the great apes - can you point to the section of DNA which is immune to mutation?
I have no problem with dissent on scientific ideas as that is how our knowledge grows. However, if the dissent is not informed of what it is even dissenting about, it is useless.
No science textbook claims that through abiogenesis, a eukaryotic cell as it appears today, was formed by "lighting striking a primordial soup" (spelling errors corrected). Not only are you dishonest, but misinformed. Read up on this stuff. It won't kill you. Inform yourself, then conclude.
You don't have to "see" something to be able to have evidence for it.
Nobody has EVER seen, or will EVER see a black hole, yet we know they exist because of their effect on the surrounding environment.
It's impossible to accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution because macro-evolution is just micro-evolution + time. It's like saying you believe in flying to your neighboring state, but that it's IMPOSSIBLE to fly to Australia, for instance.
This is Abiogenesis, not Evolution, but anyway; it's not "pure fantasy", it's not chance as so many Creationists try to argue. The chemicals have a natural tendency to form these molecules, you can put basic molecules in a jar and with no influence they form basic molecules essential for life. Scientists have created Amino Acids from non-organtic matter, the building blocks of life.
The chemicals don't have a "natural tendency" to form those molecules. I'm assuming you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment when you say scientists have created amino acids from inorganic matter, if so there was influence in the amount of energy added and the ratio of chemicals added to the mix. To call that a natural tendency is the same as claiming bread naturally occurs since there is "no influence" when it's in the oven. In nature the most advanced molecules are basic alkanes normally
Darwin himself said that evolution explicitly deals with the evolution of organisms and the creation of new species, NOT abiogenesis or the origins of the first life forms. I really don't see Stein's contention here.
Furthermore, it disgusts me that espousers of ID are too goddamned lazy and moronic to pursue tough questions. Instead they resort to god and the Bible when they can't find an answer. Same thing that's been happening for centuries now! Eradicate the imposition of such foolishness!
Darwinian Evolution makes not distinct starting point. it implies that everything we see today came to existance all by itself. I was tought in school that evolution starts with basic non living chemicals and from that everything "evolved". It was described as "scientific" but it is purely fantasy.
Evolution is vaguely defined. What is its official starting point? Please advise
Evolution explains the diversity of life and not its origin. The theory on the origin of life is abiogenesis, which i don't feel like explaining but google it or something. To say that evolution is fantasy because it doesn't explain the origin of life is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity is fantasy because it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Evolution doesn't start with non living chemicals, it starts with single celled organisms.
Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, or matter itself. When Darwin first proposed the idea, the question was not if it were true, but was this the method used by god or not. in 150 years we have gone backwards.
Evolution does not have a starting point in the pure sense. All that is required is a self replicating "cell", or molecule. From there change and competition for resources start to take effect.
I hate having to clear this up. Learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis and learn it well. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life while abiogenesis explains the ORIGIN of life from non-living material.
"with all due respect. Darwins book is titled "On the origin of species" it does assert that ALL living things evolved from the same source."
No it doesn't. A species is different from "ALL living things". And if you can't figure out that much, you should read more.
Re-reading that, I'm estimating your response (if you do respond) and feel as if I must pre-emptively explain.
There are a lot of "forks" in the "Tree of Life" - the map of the evolution of all known living things. As you go backwards, each "fork" is the origin of a species. Back further and that former "fork" is the origin of that species.
You regress this to the very point that the original "common ancestor" began. That is where the realm of abiogenesis commences. Look up potholer54's vids.
For your sake, we will call the chances of life begat from non-life as "extremely improbable" instead of "impossible." Here is the basis for your 'faith.' Indeed, I would consider you a great man of faith.
"Just because we don't have the technology now does not mean it is impossible. 100 years ago people would have said walking on the moon was impossible."
Not impossible? There are statisticians that would suggest that the 'probability' of life occuring from non-life is so astronomically improbable that it is essentially 0%. The thing is, that you HAVE to accept this explanation because if you don't, then you must realize the reality of a creator.
Now, on the issue of 'simple cells.' You seem to think that there would exist cells at one point in time that would've been truly 'simple.' The thing is... life of any kind is not simple- there are extremely complex and intricate operations at work in even the most 'simple' of life processes. Consider DNA... here we have a code, a meaning for the code, and a process that results in a manifestation of that code. Even at its basis, that would be suggestive of intelligence.
Very well. But how sure are you? What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, you're accountable to the God you attempt to discredit.
similarly, it takes faith for you to believe that life came from non-life. The idea of life coming from non-life is a totally unobservable phenomenon. Since it cannot be proven, it takes a measure of 'faith' on your part to believe it actually happened. So I will put my faith in God and you will put your faith in chance random processes over a long period of time. At the heart of this, though, is one question: What happens to you when you die? You will tell me that nothing happens.
After reading your 'testimonial,' Askegg, it seems to me you have a bigger problem with the idea of who God is as opposed to of if He actually exists. It's very clear that this is more than a discussion of reason, but for you it is a very emotionally-driven issue. Whether or not it makes sense that intensely complex biological systems were designed by an intelligence will not convince you because your mind has already been made up through your emotions.
"Askegg, it seems to me you have a bigger problem with the idea of who God is as opposed to of if He actually exists. "
This is called "projection". Since you can't handle the idea of someone not believing in your God, you assert I have a problem with the idea of him instead.
"It's very clear that this is more than a discussion of reason, but for you it is a very emotionally-driven issue. "
Thank you for your psychoanalysis bullshit. Address the arguments, not the person.
"Whether or not it makes sense that intensely complex biological systems were designed by an intelligence will not convince you because your mind has already been made up through your emotions."
OK. If I accept your argument that complexity requires design, then where did your designer come from? How do you logically escape from this infinite regress?
Remember, beliefs and emotion are not valid arguments here.
Thank you, I am well aware of what 'projection' is. I am comfortable in conversation with people choosing to back whatever position they wish. The reason I bring up the point is that through your verbage, it's obvious that this issue has a very definite emotion-based component to it for you. Here is the main thing though, Sir. To answer your questions: 1) God always existed. He is the Alpha and Omega. But why belabor that if you don't believe the Bible, anyway? It takes faith to believe-
I'm curious to know what you are attempting to prove by this statement? My faith is that God always existed and is responsible for what we see today. Your faith is that non-intelligent forces always existed and are responsible for what we see today. We already knew this.
I would very much consider it a great leap of faith to 'believe' that life arose from non-life. You can no more prove that life came from non-life and chance, random processes than I can prove that God created life. Therefore, since you cannot prove it on account of it being an unobservable phenomenon- it requires a measure of FAITH to believe it.
Not that I find abiogenesis compelling enough to believe, but life from non-life is science, because it doesn't involve the supernatural (as life from life does). In that sense, evidence can be found for the former.
Do you believe evolution? There's a TON of evidence in support of it. Do you go against it because your faith tells you it's wrong? Do you think faith > logic?
Beside that, scientists are estimating that within the next decade they'll be able to create life from the basic proteins.
Ahh.. okay, so you scientists may hypothesize that they may be able to create life from simple proteins? But the reality is that you are making a truly loaded statement by suggesting that even simple proteins are infact 'simple.' Infact, even the most simplistic of proteins, which consists of 8 amino acids, has never been observed to form naturally. You suggest that simple proteins will be able to form life, but in truth, thousands of different proteins with varying degrees of complexity are
are required to form life. In fact, even a very simple protein forming at random is estimated at worse than 1 in 10,000 odds.
I would also point out that in experiments, both Left and Right-handed chiral amino acids are formed- whereas in life only Left handed amino acids occur. That is to say that there isn't even reliable evidence that appropriate amino acids could've formed randomly on the primordial earth.
I would challenge you to come up with one piece of irrefutable evidence to support macroevolution. I believe in variation within a species over time, but I do not believe in dogs, humans, and crawdads all having a like ancestor at some point in the 'evolutionary tree.' My beliefs are based on evidence as well; in this case I feel that the evidence is not nearly compelling enough to say with any degree of accuracy that life ever came from non-life.
The sad humor for the blueblood evolutionist is that they must cling to the astronomical absurdity that life came from non-life and then coin their absurd faith as 'science' and hope that it is indeed truth. Ascribers to the THEORY(not fact) of evolution routinely attempt to minimize the complexity of the building blocks of life as well as the reality that not only do these extraordinarily complex components need to exist, they also need to exist together in perfect harmony in all systems.
Thus, even in the most simple of single celled organisms are biologically constructed in such a fantastically complex way that it would put any of man's most complex productions to ultimate shame. We look at something as simple as a pair of scissors and deduce that it had a creator- and yet we can look at the marvelous complexity of 'simple' mycoplasma and conclude its existence by random processes. This does not even begin to touch the biochemistry that exists within the biological machinery.
That's all you've got for me? The point I'm trying to make is that the chances of this happening is so outrageously negligible that it is essentially zero. I find this interesting, considering that so many people that ascribe to life from non-life based evolution take it as FACT and then attempt to make any other point of view look to be unintelligible. What a hypocritical sham that is. Again, I invite you to bring forth any piece of information that is irrefutable evidence against I.D.
Greywyn, I can appreciate your ability to recall random quotations (much like Wilson, from 'Home Improvement'), but I believe it was you who stated that there is a TON of evidence to support life from non-life origins. I am simply asking you to recount some of this 'ton of evidence' so that way may have an intelligent discussion about it. What real evidence compels YOU to believe that life came from non-life? Or is it something you just regurgitate because you heard it was so?
Darwinian evolution makes no account for any type of 'creation,' even at the single-cell level. Is it of your opinion that amino acids just happened to pre-exist on the primordial earth, which formed proteins, which ultimately formed the first single-celled organisms, which lead to what we see today?
I form my opinion based on the same information available to everyone else- as a biology major in college, I'd heard a multitude of opposing arguments. Hardly what I would call regurgitation
Yes, but it assumes that God had no hand in evolution, so, following from that, Darwinian evolution theory also implies that God had no hand in creation. This means that although Darwin says what happened prior to his theory taking hold, he never says what led to his theory, which is a grinding problem with Darwinism.
It just makes much more sense to me that immensely complex systems, absurdly more complex than anything 'intelligent' man can create would have been created by an intelligence, as opposed to having occured by chance over (insert huge amount of time here).
"It just makes much more sense to me that immensely complex systems, absurdly more complex than anything 'intelligent' man can create would have been created by an intelligence, "
And how do you account for the existence of this creative intelligence?
Sir, the only way for those cells to become so much more 'complex' would be for the information to be inherently contained within these comparatively "simple cells." Even the most simple cells are immensely more complex than anything manmade so to attempt to make any cell seem simple is totally ignorant. I would suggest that life follows chemical principles, but your faith is that as long as we have enough time, we can make life come from the inanimate. I would consider that great faith.
"Even the most simple cells are immensely more complex than anything manmade so to attempt to make any cell seem simple is totally ignorant."
You are making 2 horrible assumptions here.
1) Just because we don't have the technology now does not mean it is impossible. 100 years ago people would have said walking on the moon was impossible.
2) You are equating modern cells with the first cells. The first cells to exist would have been much simpler than todays examples.
I am always amazed at the audacity of individuals so quick to discredit intelligent design in favor of having the 'faith' that life, of which each cell is astronomically more complex and intricately engineered than anything man has ever created, just occured out of nothing. Even the foremost biologists in the world cannot reasonably explain where life came from- or in other words, how life came from non-life. It takes more faith to believe life happened on accident than to believe God created.
The modern day cell is far more complex than the first cells would have been. In fact the gap between complex chemicals and the first cells is very narrow. Billions of years of evolution builds complexity from there.
Are you suggesting life somehow does not follow basic chemical principles?
Are you suggesting the BB came from nothing at all - because no scientist ever suggests that. The only ones who believe the universe came from nothing, as they say God poofed it into being.
I am really annoyed these silly arrogant and scientifically challenged evolutionsists who blindly condemn faith in the Bible but take a much bigger and blinder step of faith believing in unsubstantiated "evolution".
Can you please tell me. What is the evidence for macro evolution. What observable and reproducible evidence do we have that from a worm or a rock, all living creatures "evolved".
well why do whales have hip bones if they don't use them. it's not just whales either. we also have organs and bones that aren't necessary any more. i'm not calling it proof, but it certainly is evidence of the possibility of macro evolution. also, life didn't come from a rock. life came from a single cell that was created only after everything needed to support life was on earth.
Is this really an adult person speaking? How can someone be so stupid and ignore the simpliest explanation. He just leaves out the steps inbetween. I guess he didn't understand Darwin at all. Even more it is a lame trick to say "Darwin's theory is great, he's a good guy, but...". It's the old trick to stab someone in the back. But that doesn't work, because Stein is talking pure crap, against any logic.
This is hilarious. i have never been one for making fun of others but...if the shoe fits. This depiction of those slower thinking evolutionists that will not even listen to debate, reason, and logic as dimwitted, clueless students that simply cannot understand a word of what the intelligent professor is saying is very appropos.
It was all done by magic.
TheDano1947 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol fucking atheists. You could have God right in front of your eyes and you still wouldn't believe he exists. "Just another natural phenomenon hmmm yeah"
camronfritz 1 month ago
@camronfritz Well, I am convinced.
askegg 1 month ago 9
@camronfritz theres so many diffrent type of animals from the same common ancestors that can not longer reproduce with each other. due to many genetic diffrences over extended periods of time and separation. but you bible thummpers still turn to god even tho there 100% no evidence for existance.
compendiumgravemind 1 month ago
@camronfritz
Pray for god to convince me he exists. I give you and him my permission to change my mind. The free will argument no longer applies, I honestly desire the truth and invite it into my mind. God being omnipotent should be able to just magically MAKE me believe. God being loving and wanting people to know him should be willing and ready to change my mind ask I'm asking. I won't even ask for evidence, just have my mind BE miraculously changed.
I'll tell you when it works.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@camronfritz It's funny how this God only appears to schizophrenics and not normal people.
01101100d 1 month ago 3
@01101100d That's why they call it Temporal Lobe Schizophrenia.
TheDano1947 1 month ago
@TheDano1947 Thanks for reminding me. I had a friend of my mums come to visit one day some years back now. She has temporal lobe epilepsy. On this one particular evening she has a seizure. Just as it seemed to relax, she bagan to believe she saw the devil and then some angels, it's all crazy stuff. My Cousin's dad (not married into family anymore) has schizophrenia. When he was really bad also many years ago, he thought he was God, had to have everything all white.
01101100d 1 month ago
@camronfritz I bet you were homeschooled.
RaynorGo 1 month ago
Ok, fair enough, but I bet you don't know of any quick fixes for my DRY RED EYES.
jibblesmgee 1 month ago
Fucking retard
Triipticz 1 month ago
@Triipticz Retard is a verb!
TheDano1947 1 month ago
Its called a theory for a reason. Its the most likely explanation that we know of. If there is one thing more annoying the militant creationist, its militant atheist. They can booth fuck off.
mcbain434444 4 months ago
@mcbain434444 Well, at least you have found a way to feel superior to both.
askegg 4 months ago 11
@askegg As opposed to one?
mcbain434444 4 months ago
Why is everyone afraid of the answer, "I don't know"? It's pretty damned simple, people. We don't know, and we may never know. There is also nothing wrong with coming up with a theory. The perversion comes when a theory is regarded as fact, and this happens to both theists and atheists... I get a long fine in life not knowing whether god created me or whether I evolved from a mud puddle... who... fucking... cares?
hurbt1980 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hurbt1980
"who... fucking... cares?"
everyone with half a brain
without those people you would be sleeping in that mud puddle of yours, or dying of something a frigging pill will fix today....
oh who am i kidding without them we could never support a population of 7 billion you would have never been born
Dreamerx47 1 month ago
What's stupid is thinking science furnishes truth; it does not.
joelthomaspeterson 7 months ago
@bw2182 God invented time. Time is something of this universe. God is above time. Since God is above time he has always existed and always will. There is no time for God and therefor no beginning and no end to God. Nothing created God. There you go.
Big Bang Theory: Part of this universe, therefor victim of time, therefor needs a beginning, an origin. No one can explain where things came from without God. End. Of. Story.
Guitarheroadam18 7 months ago
@Guitarheroadam18 "God invented time.”
Citation needed.
askegg 7 months ago 13
@askegg
None needed. Invented is a verb and verbs can only happen at times, and so there was already a time at the... time... god was supposed to have invented it.
The plagiarist.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@askegg And what did he base it on.?
TheDano1947 1 month ago
@Guitarheroadam18
Fucken idiot.
How about this? Time and universe always existed. It's on the same basis as God had always existed. Time is a concept, not a constant, fucken retard. You obviously know nothing of physics.
ThebanPhalanx 5 months ago
@Guitarheroadam18 wow I found something really fun replace god with magic in this guys post and it works out perfectly
tommo1313 5 months ago
@Guitarheroadam18 That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Have fun.
charliepossenriede 1 month ago
Man made God, God did not make man
Sreewtyui 7 months ago
Actually, "Expelled" addressed academic persecution of individuals who are willing to entertain ID purely as a model to help guide further research. ID can just as easily indicate alien design, as it makes no claims as to the identity of the designer. The film went too far in some places, but the overall question the film addresses is why some scientists should be ostracized for supporting ID.
erentheca 8 months ago
@erentheca Actually, "went too far in some places" is a huge understatement. It went too far in a lot of places, so if you only watched about the first 20 minutes of the film, you can really just skip the rest, because the latter really has nothing to do with the former.
erentheca 8 months ago
Umm if everything had to be created what created god? And which creationism story is right just the fact that most religions have different creation stories unsupported by facts in Norse religion man was created from drops of water off icicles!
bw2182 8 months ago
@bw2182 well of course there's the infallible "god has always been there" loophole, which of course negates the need to explain how god came about.
dajdawg69 5 months ago
American youth!
benjlm 11 months ago
The thinking Goyem may call Stein a babbling Jew.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts
anti semitism... the last great bastion of racism...
shame
Yeeeooo000 9 months ago
@Yeeeooo000 "Jews = God's chosen people." Jewish superiority......man's first bastion of racism.
Damn shame.
FaganRoberts 9 months ago
i actually agree with you.
williamkendrick 1 year ago
Thermodynamics? What the hell has he been smoking?
ArchhereticK 1 year ago
Evolution doesn't have anything to say about how life originated. Correct, why should it? Theories like Abiogenesis pertains to the origin of life.
Evolution does explain how we have so many working parts that all work together etc. If Ben had any understanding of what Evolution is he have realized that.
Is he stupid or dishonest? Deluded?
Khyrid 1 year ago
@Khyrid "Is he stupid or dishonest? Deluded?" - Yes.
askegg 1 year ago
@Khyrid let me ask you this, how did those cells get there, how did the lightning strike get there, tell me how the stuff got there in the first place, tell me how everything came to be to start this chemical reaction. I also want to say this, if evolution is possible, how do we make our own decisions, since we are just, atoms hitting atoms hitting atoms hitting atoms.......
warnMPMP 1 year ago
@warnMPMP Well If you want to trace the cause and effect back, we can go as far as the big bang reliably, then there is M-Theory but it isn't well understood yet.
If you want to talk about how evolution worked/works that should be separate than how did it all start as it's a different mechanism. We actually don't make our own decisions, free will is an illusion. All of our actions are the result of countless variables of cause and effect. We reproduced better like this so we became this way.
Khyrid 1 year ago
@Khyrid let me ask you this, what started the chemical reaction, how did the chemical(s) get there, how can i make my own decisions if i am just a chemical reaction?
warnMPMP 1 year ago
@Khyrid Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Deluded? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
shaynapunim1 11 months ago 2
@Khyrid Here's the thing, though, I think they actually DO know what the theory actually says. I think they understand how evolution works and so they have to be deliberately dishonest, deliberately misleading in order to get people to believe they have creditably. I mean just how long has the Creationist "Theory" been around? Yet it has never convinced any real scientists and it never will. It can't because it's not science. They only argue to people who don't know better.
FrankLightheart 5 months ago
@FrankLightheart So dishonest then. That's what I suspect, Ben is probably a smart guy who doesn't give a shit and he will rake in the dough spewing this creationist crap.
Khyrid 5 months ago
@Khyrid Which is actually worse than being ignorant, when you consider it.
FrankLightheart 5 months ago
Ben Stein is a fucking moron.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlkarlkarl1234 You should know karl is an open supporter of Hamas and their activities, he believes the FEW people Hamas may have killed are of no importance, this is why you get all the Anti Zionist (Jew) stuff from him, he supports one sides Ideas about killing and brutality because as a JEW himself he hates his own people that much, he has even stated that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime is something to be admired.
con2477 1 year ago
lol darwin was 150 years ago, get over it
we kow about dna now bitch
thefutureboom 1 year ago
retarded... no skill. All you did was layer the video with another Ben Stein sound byte.
Also, you guys have no grounds to say Stein is an idiot, he is really rather intelligent.
Just because you do not agree with his beliefs doesn't mean he is an idiot.
Zayin1993 1 year ago
hilarious
simonchang23 1 year ago
Biology theories have everything to do with physics theories. EVERYTHING.
Videos like this bring out all the idiots on youtube. Just look at all the idiotic comments about "team leaders" and the retards quoting scriptures from The Damn Bible.
WimpyMcWeaksauce 1 year ago
Here's the secret: Ben Stein doesn't actually believe ANY of that ID crap. He's a smart guy. But he does believe in the Southern Strategy, popularized by his mentor Richard Nixon. And since his political clout has faded he has to show that he can still reach and influence southern voters. His movie was just an ego play to show he still has power.
spacesergeant101 1 year ago
There is no such thing as Darwinism !!!!!!!!!!!
MirageScience 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The most fundamental question of all: What is the underlying law of nature.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons would have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
lightning striking a mud puddle? who says that... this guy is a moron
AForsakenHero 2 years ago
Come on. Study Dawkins and Ruse, your team leaders before you open your big fat mouth. You stink.
Trip03ci 2 years ago
Team leaders? I am not on a team.
askegg 2 years ago
@Trip03ci wow check it out, a trolololololo.
hey faggot, i think your god is calling you.
no wait, that was just a sheep.
my bad.
williamkendrick 1 year ago
@Trip03ci the fact that you would say this actualy explains alot about where you went wrong in your "reasoning" Pity you will likely never allow yourself to appreciate this as much as I do
robertmck12 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ferris Buller DOES NOT make you smarter then "RON PAUL"
AvidLifestyle 2 years ago
Hahaha Ferris Bueller's Day Off is like my all time favourite film, this is blissfully good!
enhanceUK 2 years ago
Don't you just love it when IDiots couple evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang?
0:55 "Evolution has nothing to say about how life originated, it has nothing to say about the governing principals in the universe originated," I should say it doesn't as evolution only deals with genetic change in a population of organisms over time. What a fucktard.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
Why do you close-minded bible humpers resort to ad hominem attacks when a knowledgable person explains a scientific theory (Darwinism)? Because your stupid fucking beliefs don't hold up to any scrutiny. Fuck your beliefs. If you want to reject science go live in a cave.
eldizzler83 2 years ago
Y_Y jar jar jar jar jar, hope you don't die any time soon ! chick
XjyujX 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eldizzler83
"Fuck your beliefs. If you want to reject science go live in a cave."
Quoted for truth.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
It's all Ben Stein, and indeed, it hurt my feelings when I heard him talk about this. I thought he was actually a smart person.
ginmortal1 2 years ago
He is just asking questions! Did you vote for Wendy Testibular?
XjyujX 2 years ago
@ginmortal1
On international television he openly called Ron Paul an "anti-semite" for merely disagreeing with his point and refused to give an apology with Ron Paul demanded one.
He is such a shyster he uses his Jewish heritage to make baseless attacks to discredity people who disagree with him.
That is a sign of a deceitful dickhead.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
oops i accidently rated one star, didn't mean too ! O.o sorry lol
RandomRealist 2 years ago
There is someone else speaking on this video, not just Ben Stein. Ben Stein makes sense, but that other person's argument is completely whack.
citizenanna 2 years ago
It is Bill o Reily the fox news pshychopath interviewing ben stein.
They are both idiots.
DanielFrisbee 2 years ago 12
But Ben Stein taught me about voodoo economics. I don't think he's an idiot.
citizenanna 2 years ago
"[...] The economy is still very strong. The most cagey players on Wall Street like Goldman Sachs are now trying to buy — not sell — as much distressed merchandise in the mortgage area as they can. This is a good clue about where the smart money is going.
You can panic if you enjoy being panicky. But this will all blow over and the people who buy now, in due time, will be glad they did."
-- Ben Stein, March 2007
BrokenCurtain 2 years ago
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Heb 11:1 "Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." James 2:26
gurlwittwitt 2 years ago
Psalms 83:18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You ALONE are the Most High over all the earth. /watch?v=YmoPlqomgqA
gurlwittwitt 2 years ago
What makes the bible an authoritative source?
askegg 2 years ago 3
its the written word of God! [= you know the things that are going on now? The bible wrote that these things would happen in the book of revelation. Just keep watching and see what the "kings of the earth" do to false religion. aka babylon the great.
gurlwittwitt 2 years ago
What "things that are going on now" specifically?
rkil007 2 years ago
Which movie is it showcased in the video? Remember that guy.
tomkasto 2 years ago
Ferris Buller's Day Off.
askegg 2 years ago
Thank you :D
tomkasto 2 years ago
@askegg However, one thing you're overlooking is who makes these scientists with these theory-a-day proposals an authorative source? They change their minds so often that they can't be trusted, and the "big bang theory" is absurd for many reasons. 1) What created the large mass that later blew apart? 2) If the mass was ever present (as some claim God can't be - same principle, only applied to a mass and not a figure)...what starts a chain reaction explosion in an ever-present mass?
jmr1068204 1 year ago
@jmr1068204 They change their minds when new evidence is put forward. As they should. A person who never changes their mind and wont listen to any reason is who I wouldn't trust.
Khyrid 1 year ago
fuck off, ben stein. point is, it's the best explanation we have going. want to improve on it? be everyone's guest. if you want to come at me with the bible in the guise of science? fuck off.
KP5000 2 years ago
Great video. The student zombies LOL!!!
"It is different with God because God is eternal. He didn't begin to exist, he just is. Therefore does he not need a cause. "
I fail to see how this is an acceptable answer for anyone.
Carl Sagan, amongst countless others, addressed this view pretty well.
Why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
"maybe we're wrong and maybe we're stupid" is the understatement of generations!!!
omarlives 2 years ago
The designer just might love playing with a libtards mind.
The teaching of evolution has evolved to make a mockery of libtard revisionism.
Revisionism that will never teach our kids the undisputable in any lib history book:
3 biggest killers in world history were atheist or abandoned God - not practicing Christians;
JFK is aligned with Bush on life, war, marriage, tax rates, immigration, and more;
You can get pot in SF but murders are up;
When Obama's at war, the nation is ok with it
MoBushin04 2 years ago
what on earth are you talking about, freak?
you're certifiable.
KP5000 2 years ago
Okay wow. I have had enough. Why is it that when someone dare questions Darwanism. (Something one is suppose to do with all scientific theories) We are marginalized and Ad-hominized. This universe is incredibly complex and the idea that that complexity points to a Disigner is not illegitimate.
MrAbolitionist 2 years ago
Is your God at all complex? By the same argument, does he not also require a designer? If not, then you are special pleading.
Also, it's a legitimate argument IF you have any proof at all that a complex God can be without a designer, but another complex thing (such as the universe) cannot. Explain your reasons and show us your evidence. Until then, get out of the science class!
askegg 2 years ago
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist (Big bang)
Therefore the universe has a cause (Creator)
It is different with God because God is eternal. He didn't begin to exist, he just is. Therefore does he not need a cause.
MrAbolitionist 2 years ago
A singularity is not nothing. It's an entire universe away from being nothing. In any case, we do not have the technology to delve into sizes below the Planck length - it's a complete unknown. Into this unknown you insert God. It's a god of the gaps argument.
askegg 2 years ago
No the big bang does say that the universe came from nothing. Are you saying that the universe is eternal?
MrAbolitionist 2 years ago
At best, the big bang theory says the universe came from a singularity, which is still an infinity away from being nothing. While our mathematics and observations coincide until the Planck length, there they diverge. The maths is extrapolated to the extremes, but we do not have the tools to delve into the microscopic world of those sizes.
Until the evidence is in I cannot say where or how the universe came into being, but I see no need to invoke some deity to solve the issue.
askegg 2 years ago
Why is your god more likely than other gods?
wanderbang5 2 years ago
Because the God of Israel has given prophesies that have cone true, for example the formation of the state of Israel. Also there is the physical reserection of Christ of which historians outside the bible account to. Many religious leaders claimed they would come bac from spiritually, only One came back physically.
MrAbolitionist 2 years ago
it isn't. what most people fail to realize is how connected all religions are & how heavily they've all borrowed from each other. in effect, you're all worshipping the same god(s). here's everyone's 1 commandment: be a good person. i personally don't believe in a "god." like askegg said, it's attributing superstition & the supernatural to things we've yet to explain. it's clear to see that the more we've defined our world, the less we've needed "the gods."
KP5000 2 years ago
That is a metaphysical question, we require a designer not because we are complex, but because our universe has laws which limit matter, time, space, and energy. These laws even need a source, God does not need a designer as such laws never applied to it, God be definition is the un caused cause. We all acknowledge an un caused cause, it really comes down to were we place it in time and whether or not this UCC was conscious, complex, intelligent, and choosing to interact with us or not.
chukmaty 2 years ago
this topic is so deep and fascinating, so why the kids lookin at him like he's from outer space?!
omarlives 2 years ago
this is a clip from ferris bueller with current ben stein audio, not his lines from the movie.
KP5000 2 years ago
Read up on what the philosophy of science is. A designer has no place in science because science begins with the assumption that everything is explainable in the context of natural processes. Whether you do or don't accept the theory of evolution, the proper place for arguments is philosophy and not science. Though it is unfortunate that atheists have misappropriated science by putting the cart before the horse and not realizing where their assumptions lie.
Iknow789 2 years ago
It is an act of pure faith to assert that from nothing a self fuplicating molecure formed. Where did the information come from?
Can you please give me your best evidence that MACRO evolution is a scientific evidence supported theory.
Considering it is taught as a "fact" i would imagine that you should not have any problem.
- Is it in the fossils?
- Is it in the DNA?
- Is it in vestidial structures?
theot58 2 years ago
Where did the information for "God" come from? Rather a silly question isn't it? Why not simply assume the universe is eternal and move on?
Personally, I would consider the DNA evidence the strongest single reason to accept the theory of evolution is true.
askegg 2 years ago
with all due respect. Darwins book is titled "On the origin of species" it does assert that ALL living things evolved from the same source. Science text books for years have clearly stated that the first cell came into existence by lightnight stricking a primordial soup. This of course is pure fantasy as even one cell is incredibly complicated.
Macro Evolution is not scientifially observable or verifiable. It is an act of faith.
theot58 2 years ago
Your mistake is in thinking the first biological cell was as complex as the modern day single celled organisms - this is not true. All you need is a self replicating molecule competing with others (or variations of itself) to start the process. It may take millions of years to develop any sort of reasonable complexity - and that's pretty much exactly what we do see.
Given we share 95% of our DNA with the great apes - can you point to the section of DNA which is immune to mutation?
askegg 2 years ago
I have no problem with dissent on scientific ideas as that is how our knowledge grows. However, if the dissent is not informed of what it is even dissenting about, it is useless.
No science textbook claims that through abiogenesis, a eukaryotic cell as it appears today, was formed by "lighting striking a primordial soup" (spelling errors corrected). Not only are you dishonest, but misinformed. Read up on this stuff. It won't kill you. Inform yourself, then conclude.
v3ntulus 2 years ago
You don't have to "see" something to be able to have evidence for it.
Nobody has EVER seen, or will EVER see a black hole, yet we know they exist because of their effect on the surrounding environment.
It's impossible to accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution because macro-evolution is just micro-evolution + time. It's like saying you believe in flying to your neighboring state, but that it's IMPOSSIBLE to fly to Australia, for instance.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
"Science text books for years have clearly stated that the first cell came into existence by lightnight stricking a primordial soup"
That's total crap, Evolution has NOTHING to do with the creation of life, it's ONLY concerned with how life evolved after it's already there.
"This of course is pure fantasy as even one cell is incredibly complicated."
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
This is Abiogenesis, not Evolution, but anyway; it's not "pure fantasy", it's not chance as so many Creationists try to argue. The chemicals have a natural tendency to form these molecules, you can put basic molecules in a jar and with no influence they form basic molecules essential for life. Scientists have created Amino Acids from non-organtic matter, the building blocks of life.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
The chemicals don't have a "natural tendency" to form those molecules. I'm assuming you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment when you say scientists have created amino acids from inorganic matter, if so there was influence in the amount of energy added and the ratio of chemicals added to the mix. To call that a natural tendency is the same as claiming bread naturally occurs since there is "no influence" when it's in the oven. In nature the most advanced molecules are basic alkanes normally
Iknow789 2 years ago
Can you please advise where/how you came to the conclusion that Evolution starts with the first cell.
Is this the "official" evolutionary position, or did you make this conclusion.
theot58 2 years ago
Darwin himself said that evolution explicitly deals with the evolution of organisms and the creation of new species, NOT abiogenesis or the origins of the first life forms. I really don't see Stein's contention here.
Furthermore, it disgusts me that espousers of ID are too goddamned lazy and moronic to pursue tough questions. Instead they resort to god and the Bible when they can't find an answer. Same thing that's been happening for centuries now! Eradicate the imposition of such foolishness!
cogitoergosum321 2 years ago
Evolution has nothing to with the way life started, it simply explains how life has gotten to this point.
MMbass420 2 years ago
So what is the starting point for evolution.
Darwinian Evolution makes not distinct starting point. it implies that everything we see today came to existance all by itself. I was tought in school that evolution starts with basic non living chemicals and from that everything "evolved". It was described as "scientific" but it is purely fantasy.
Evolution is vaguely defined. What is its official starting point? Please advise
theot58 2 years ago
Evolution explains the diversity of life and not its origin. The theory on the origin of life is abiogenesis, which i don't feel like explaining but google it or something. To say that evolution is fantasy because it doesn't explain the origin of life is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity is fantasy because it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Evolution doesn't start with non living chemicals, it starts with single celled organisms.
MMbass420 2 years ago 2
Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, or matter itself. When Darwin first proposed the idea, the question was not if it were true, but was this the method used by god or not. in 150 years we have gone backwards.
Evolution does not have a starting point in the pure sense. All that is required is a self replicating "cell", or molecule. From there change and competition for resources start to take effect.
askegg 2 years ago
maybe you're not getting the gist of his idea. darwin is saying everything came from one single cell, not nothing.
and it makes perfect sense to say that the first life forms on earth were created from things that are necessary to make life.
epicfails614 2 years ago
I hate having to clear this up. Learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis and learn it well. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life while abiogenesis explains the ORIGIN of life from non-living material.
"with all due respect. Darwins book is titled "On the origin of species" it does assert that ALL living things evolved from the same source."
No it doesn't. A species is different from "ALL living things". And if you can't figure out that much, you should read more.
v3ntulus 2 years ago
Re-reading that, I'm estimating your response (if you do respond) and feel as if I must pre-emptively explain.
There are a lot of "forks" in the "Tree of Life" - the map of the evolution of all known living things. As you go backwards, each "fork" is the origin of a species. Back further and that former "fork" is the origin of that species.
You regress this to the very point that the original "common ancestor" began. That is where the realm of abiogenesis commences. Look up potholer54's vids.
v3ntulus 2 years ago
Comment removed
Podmore9 2 years ago
Comment removed
Podmore9 2 years ago
For your sake, we will call the chances of life begat from non-life as "extremely improbable" instead of "impossible." Here is the basis for your 'faith.' Indeed, I would consider you a great man of faith.
Podmore9 3 years ago
"Just because we don't have the technology now does not mean it is impossible. 100 years ago people would have said walking on the moon was impossible."
Not impossible? There are statisticians that would suggest that the 'probability' of life occuring from non-life is so astronomically improbable that it is essentially 0%. The thing is, that you HAVE to accept this explanation because if you don't, then you must realize the reality of a creator.
Podmore9 3 years ago
Now, on the issue of 'simple cells.' You seem to think that there would exist cells at one point in time that would've been truly 'simple.' The thing is... life of any kind is not simple- there are extremely complex and intricate operations at work in even the most 'simple' of life processes. Consider DNA... here we have a code, a meaning for the code, and a process that results in a manifestation of that code. Even at its basis, that would be suggestive of intelligence.
Podmore9 3 years ago
Very well. But how sure are you? What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, you're accountable to the God you attempt to discredit.
Podmore9 3 years ago
What if Muslims are right? Pascals wager is a stupid argument, you guys should really stop.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
similarly, it takes faith for you to believe that life came from non-life. The idea of life coming from non-life is a totally unobservable phenomenon. Since it cannot be proven, it takes a measure of 'faith' on your part to believe it actually happened. So I will put my faith in God and you will put your faith in chance random processes over a long period of time. At the heart of this, though, is one question: What happens to you when you die? You will tell me that nothing happens.
Podmore9 3 years ago
After reading your 'testimonial,' Askegg, it seems to me you have a bigger problem with the idea of who God is as opposed to of if He actually exists. It's very clear that this is more than a discussion of reason, but for you it is a very emotionally-driven issue. Whether or not it makes sense that intensely complex biological systems were designed by an intelligence will not convince you because your mind has already been made up through your emotions.
Podmore9 3 years ago
"Askegg, it seems to me you have a bigger problem with the idea of who God is as opposed to of if He actually exists. "
This is called "projection". Since you can't handle the idea of someone not believing in your God, you assert I have a problem with the idea of him instead.
"It's very clear that this is more than a discussion of reason, but for you it is a very emotionally-driven issue. "
Thank you for your psychoanalysis bullshit. Address the arguments, not the person.
askegg 3 years ago
"Whether or not it makes sense that intensely complex biological systems were designed by an intelligence will not convince you because your mind has already been made up through your emotions."
OK. If I accept your argument that complexity requires design, then where did your designer come from? How do you logically escape from this infinite regress?
Remember, beliefs and emotion are not valid arguments here.
askegg 3 years ago
Thank you, I am well aware of what 'projection' is. I am comfortable in conversation with people choosing to back whatever position they wish. The reason I bring up the point is that through your verbage, it's obvious that this issue has a very definite emotion-based component to it for you. Here is the main thing though, Sir. To answer your questions: 1) God always existed. He is the Alpha and Omega. But why belabor that if you don't believe the Bible, anyway? It takes faith to believe-
Podmore9 3 years ago
> 1) God always existed. He is the Alpha and Omega.
Non-intelligent forces have always existed. They are the Alpha and Omega.
See, it works both ways.
sy1234 3 years ago
I'm curious to know what you are attempting to prove by this statement? My faith is that God always existed and is responsible for what we see today. Your faith is that non-intelligent forces always existed and are responsible for what we see today. We already knew this.
Podmore9 3 years ago
Then it's not faith smart guy.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
I would very much consider it a great leap of faith to 'believe' that life arose from non-life. You can no more prove that life came from non-life and chance, random processes than I can prove that God created life. Therefore, since you cannot prove it on account of it being an unobservable phenomenon- it requires a measure of FAITH to believe it.
Podmore9 2 years ago
Not that I find abiogenesis compelling enough to believe, but life from non-life is science, because it doesn't involve the supernatural (as life from life does). In that sense, evidence can be found for the former.
Do you believe evolution? There's a TON of evidence in support of it. Do you go against it because your faith tells you it's wrong? Do you think faith > logic?
Beside that, scientists are estimating that within the next decade they'll be able to create life from the basic proteins.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
Ahh.. okay, so you scientists may hypothesize that they may be able to create life from simple proteins? But the reality is that you are making a truly loaded statement by suggesting that even simple proteins are infact 'simple.' Infact, even the most simplistic of proteins, which consists of 8 amino acids, has never been observed to form naturally. You suggest that simple proteins will be able to form life, but in truth, thousands of different proteins with varying degrees of complexity are
Podmore9 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
are required to form life. In fact, even a very simple protein forming at random is estimated at worse than 1 in 10,000 odds.
I would also point out that in experiments, both Left and Right-handed chiral amino acids are formed- whereas in life only Left handed amino acids occur. That is to say that there isn't even reliable evidence that appropriate amino acids could've formed randomly on the primordial earth.
Podmore9 2 years ago
I would challenge you to come up with one piece of irrefutable evidence to support macroevolution. I believe in variation within a species over time, but I do not believe in dogs, humans, and crawdads all having a like ancestor at some point in the 'evolutionary tree.' My beliefs are based on evidence as well; in this case I feel that the evidence is not nearly compelling enough to say with any degree of accuracy that life ever came from non-life.
Podmore9 2 years ago
The sad humor for the blueblood evolutionist is that they must cling to the astronomical absurdity that life came from non-life and then coin their absurd faith as 'science' and hope that it is indeed truth. Ascribers to the THEORY(not fact) of evolution routinely attempt to minimize the complexity of the building blocks of life as well as the reality that not only do these extraordinarily complex components need to exist, they also need to exist together in perfect harmony in all systems.
Podmore9 2 years ago
Thus, even in the most simple of single celled organisms are biologically constructed in such a fantastically complex way that it would put any of man's most complex productions to ultimate shame. We look at something as simple as a pair of scissors and deduce that it had a creator- and yet we can look at the marvelous complexity of 'simple' mycoplasma and conclude its existence by random processes. This does not even begin to touch the biochemistry that exists within the biological machinery.
Podmore9 2 years ago
Comment removed
Podmore9 2 years ago
If you're going to bring up percent chance of something like that happening; small chance is chance yet.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
That's all you've got for me? The point I'm trying to make is that the chances of this happening is so outrageously negligible that it is essentially zero. I find this interesting, considering that so many people that ascribe to life from non-life based evolution take it as FACT and then attempt to make any other point of view look to be unintelligible. What a hypocritical sham that is. Again, I invite you to bring forth any piece of information that is irrefutable evidence against I.D.
Podmore9 2 years ago
Burden of evidence is on you to prove yourself right, not for me to prove you wrong.
I think it was Hitchens who said something along the lines of, "Incredible claims made without evidence can be dismissed with out it."
Greywyn7 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Podmore9 2 years ago
Greywyn, I can appreciate your ability to recall random quotations (much like Wilson, from 'Home Improvement'), but I believe it was you who stated that there is a TON of evidence to support life from non-life origins. I am simply asking you to recount some of this 'ton of evidence' so that way may have an intelligent discussion about it. What real evidence compels YOU to believe that life came from non-life? Or is it something you just regurgitate because you heard it was so?
Podmore9 2 years ago
"but I believe it was you who stated that there is a TON of evidence to support life from non-life origins"
Well you'd be wrong, because I said that of evolution. Evolution doesn't equal abiogenesis, common creationist mistake though.
"What real evidence compels YOU to believe that life came from non-life?"
None, I don't know enough about it to formulate an opinion.
"Or is it something you just regurgitate because you heard it was so? "
Funny, coming from a theist.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
Podmore9 2 years ago
Darwinian evolution makes no account for any type of 'creation,' even at the single-cell level. Is it of your opinion that amino acids just happened to pre-exist on the primordial earth, which formed proteins, which ultimately formed the first single-celled organisms, which lead to what we see today?
I form my opinion based on the same information available to everyone else- as a biology major in college, I'd heard a multitude of opposing arguments. Hardly what I would call regurgitation
Podmore9 2 years ago
Like I said, I do not know enough about the subject to formulate an opinion.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 3
Yes, but it assumes that God had no hand in evolution, so, following from that, Darwinian evolution theory also implies that God had no hand in creation. This means that although Darwin says what happened prior to his theory taking hold, he never says what led to his theory, which is a grinding problem with Darwinism.
hkobb7 2 years ago
It just makes much more sense to me that immensely complex systems, absurdly more complex than anything 'intelligent' man can create would have been created by an intelligence, as opposed to having occured by chance over (insert huge amount of time here).
Podmore9 3 years ago
"It just makes much more sense to me that immensely complex systems, absurdly more complex than anything 'intelligent' man can create would have been created by an intelligence, "
And how do you account for the existence of this creative intelligence?
askegg 3 years ago
Sir, the only way for those cells to become so much more 'complex' would be for the information to be inherently contained within these comparatively "simple cells." Even the most simple cells are immensely more complex than anything manmade so to attempt to make any cell seem simple is totally ignorant. I would suggest that life follows chemical principles, but your faith is that as long as we have enough time, we can make life come from the inanimate. I would consider that great faith.
Podmore9 3 years ago
"Even the most simple cells are immensely more complex than anything manmade so to attempt to make any cell seem simple is totally ignorant."
You are making 2 horrible assumptions here.
1) Just because we don't have the technology now does not mean it is impossible. 100 years ago people would have said walking on the moon was impossible.
2) You are equating modern cells with the first cells. The first cells to exist would have been much simpler than todays examples.
askegg 3 years ago
I am always amazed at the audacity of individuals so quick to discredit intelligent design in favor of having the 'faith' that life, of which each cell is astronomically more complex and intricately engineered than anything man has ever created, just occured out of nothing. Even the foremost biologists in the world cannot reasonably explain where life came from- or in other words, how life came from non-life. It takes more faith to believe life happened on accident than to believe God created.
Podmore9 3 years ago
The modern day cell is far more complex than the first cells would have been. In fact the gap between complex chemicals and the first cells is very narrow. Billions of years of evolution builds complexity from there.
Are you suggesting life somehow does not follow basic chemical principles?
Are you suggesting the BB came from nothing at all - because no scientist ever suggests that. The only ones who believe the universe came from nothing, as they say God poofed it into being.
askegg 3 years ago
Here here well said.
I am really annoyed these silly arrogant and scientifically challenged evolutionsists who blindly condemn faith in the Bible but take a much bigger and blinder step of faith believing in unsubstantiated "evolution".
theot58 2 years ago
and what do you mean by unsubstantiated? that's not true at all!
epicfails614 2 years ago 6
Can you please tell me. What is the evidence for macro evolution. What observable and reproducible evidence do we have that from a worm or a rock, all living creatures "evolved".
theot58 2 years ago
well why do whales have hip bones if they don't use them. it's not just whales either. we also have organs and bones that aren't necessary any more. i'm not calling it proof, but it certainly is evidence of the possibility of macro evolution. also, life didn't come from a rock. life came from a single cell that was created only after everything needed to support life was on earth.
epicfails614 2 years ago
lol, Darwin's theory of evolution NEVER said humans came from monkeys and NEVER touched the origin of life!
Cantara 3 years ago
Is this really an adult person speaking? How can someone be so stupid and ignore the simpliest explanation. He just leaves out the steps inbetween. I guess he didn't understand Darwin at all. Even more it is a lame trick to say "Darwin's theory is great, he's a good guy, but...". It's the old trick to stab someone in the back. But that doesn't work, because Stein is talking pure crap, against any logic.
JesusLikesHitler 3 years ago
I've always laughed at Ben Stein, so this is comfortably familiar.
UberRoboCorn 3 years ago
This is hilarious. i have never been one for making fun of others but...if the shoe fits. This depiction of those slower thinking evolutionists that will not even listen to debate, reason, and logic as dimwitted, clueless students that simply cannot understand a word of what the intelligent professor is saying is very appropos.
maxbps8 3 years ago 2