Excellent review, Mikayla. I watched this farce of a film with a Freethinker group at my university, and we just laaaaaughed the whole time. I was particularly frustrated with Stein's reaction when a (credible) scientist discussed the crystal hypothesis of abiogenesis (as a side note, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis!) and Stein said, basically, "Really? We're supposed to believe that?"
Fortunately for Stein, no one he put in the movie discussed the thermal vent hypothesis.
As for the pro-ID "scientists," they likely lost their jobs because they couldn't publish. Most scientists will laugh you out of the room if your submission to a scientific journal ends in "Jesus in the beginning with his finger."
Wait. The Holocaust which was carried out by Hitler and his Nazi army, was made possible by Darwins theory. I am curious how they make that leap. Hitler said in his own Manifesto ,otherwise known as Mein Kompf, that he believed he was acting without the will of the almighty creator.
you can not compare non biological objects to biological systems. Inferring that because the coke can was designed therefore so was the gastrointestinal tract is a bit of a stretch. Two coke cans don't get together to procreate and create a baby coke can that is slightly different from it's parents.
Okay, I got to defend Darwin on this one. Darwin, as far as I know, was not a eugenist. "Survival of the fittest" originally came from Herbert Spencer. Francis Galton, Darwins cousin, was a eugenist. Eugenics is a evil pseudoscience. If you want to look at the real culprits of the eugenics movement, search, Charles Davenport, Josef Mengele, Harry Laughlin. As far as I know, Darwin didn't have much to do with this movement.
Something hard to figure out, is when you really pin them down, scientists don't really know how we got here, but they do know that God didn't do it. (??????) Ok, if you don't know how we got here, then how can you "KNOW" that God didn't Create everything. This is a perfect example of the mentality of evolutionists/neodarwinists.
Evolution doesn't explain anything. Ever since Darwins ORIGIN of Species, it has been used to explain the origin of life. Recently though, neodarwinists, seeing the writing on the wall, have distanced themselves from discussions of origins, claiming they don't know how it started, just here's what happened later. Cop out. It's also interesting that if one admits they don't know how life started, then that leaves open the possibility that GOD Created life.
It's not a cop out, It's being honest. There are a few hypotheses about how life originated. The problem with your version, IE: god did it, comes with a lot of baggage. This being guilt, humiliation and eternal torture if you don't tow the line.
"guilt humiliation and eternal torture". Ok I see what is attracting so many to the hokey belief in evolutionism to explain away life without a Creator. It allows one to expound themselves of personal responsibility - no Creator, no responsibility - no purpose for life, no meaning, it's all about you and that's it. (I ME MY). Is that what you're trying to say?
No that's not what I'm saying. I don't think evolution is the catalyst for sociopathic behavior, just like I don't believe, the only thing keeping you from committing crimes against humanity is that you believe in god and or jesus. Our morality comes from an understanding of what makes a society succeed. People who kill their children don't progress that far in the greater scheme of things. For a society to progress you need to protect children.
Why do people bring up Hitler? Science as well as the knowledge it produces are tools. If some one kills someone with a hammer you don't ban hammers. The hammer isn't evil. It is just a tool that some one misused.
In my opinion, husbandry is more responsible than evolution. Husbandry is more mentally accessible to the masses than evolution. I also believe the devil made hammers.
Ummm I'm not sure what you are getting at here.You say that it's illogical to ban hammers because someone murdered someone with a hammer. Then you say hammers were created by the devil.
I'm not having a go at you. I just want you to clarify that statement.
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin...
Abe's wife was pretty bummed about the death of a child and had to turn to a local preacher because old honest Abe couldn't bring himself to tell her the kid was in heaven with some make-believe god. Now that's sticking to your guns. It's a lot of work to be honest with yourself. God can be an amazing friend, even if she's only imaginary.
Well, it is debatable what Abe Lincoln's personal beliefs actually were. Saying some famous person in history, even a very smart person, believed such-and-so doesn't prove anything.
Oh, is he? Could you post links or book references or whatever you have...I've not looked deeply into the words left by Lincoln but I am interested. Thanks
Nice. I saw the video in the storeand laughed at ben stein in his student outfit. Nevertheless, I was intriguied by this movie. Intriguied, but not enough to actually watch it. Creationism is just dumb, and it is an irony for ID-ers to claim their view as "intelligent" when they're so stupid. Ben stein should stick to acting.
From my knowledge, Hitler was a christian. He was also against organized religion. And the "evolution" that Hitler is reported in mentioning, is NOT in relation to Darwin's theory of evolution.
Unfortunately the reviewer has done limited research and is confused between two very distinct principles/practices: creationism and intelligent design.
To start an argument with a flawed premise leaves the entire argument flawed.
Actually, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with creationism and there are intelligent scientists who suggest that based on the premises that Darwin himself suggests, that he would disagree with his theory today.
ID has everything to do with creationism. Why do its proponents squirm around answering who this designer should be? As yet, there is no evidence to support ID. Check out this vid: "cdesign proponentsists - The missing link"
Darwin lived 150 years ago & would not have believed in space travel either. Just because something is of yet inexplicable doesn't validate the ID argument; that's bad logic. Evolution is a persistant public observation, like gravity. ID is based on ignorance of science.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races... ... The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is astonishing that someone could dispute the connection between Darwin and Hitler.
Of course there was religious anti-semitism through history, but it Darwin that gave it a scientific basis. Darwin was the first to propose extermination of Jews or other lesser races. The Nazis adopted Darwin wholeheartedly. Hitler referred to Aryans as the "Master race". Where do you think that phrase came from?
I will still check out the film. I agree that all should do their homework and research the origins of their beliefs.
I do think that many Religions and their believers have not actually read the origins of their beliefs. Sad... However, I believe too that Evolutionists & Darwinists have failed to do their homework as well. In the end, each individual comes to their own conclusion. No one should be threatened by a film like this, nor use this film alone as an argument for their beliefs
I agree almost 100%, though films like this worry me since they threaten to undermine the public understanding of science. It would definately help if everyone would do some of their own research--or at least read about the research of others.
What is an evolutionist/darwinist? That's like saying everyone who ascribes to Newton's Laws are Newtonianists, and those who ascribe to Einstein's General Relativity are Einsteinists. The term evolutionists implies that that evolution is a religion, while it is clearly not.
There's no hypocrisy in regard to the Snopes' case. The movie didn't promote the Snopes verdict, but pointed out that popular opinion had been steered away from what was factual: it was a loss. Snopes was fined a whole $100, which Jennings-Bryan offered himself to pay.
Often edited out of the Snopes issue is that the law Snopes came up against was against a particular text book, and specifically for teaching *Eugenics*.
Also, I like how a difference of opinion now is called "dishonesty".
This is your quote in your video. "At some point in the film they mention the scopes trial and how evolutionists consider that to be a victory. But no it wasn't it was a lost case, because the law against teaching evolution was upheld in Tennesee, and scopes was found guilty." You clearly show your lack of understanding on this issue. The fact that Eugene Scott, someone who opposes this movie even realizes this is quite telling.
Please tell me then, what exactly is the point and where am I missing it? I know that the situation that lead to this trial was a setup meant to challenge the law.
My *point* is that when there is a law against teaching evolution, the ID folks don't consider that to be a bad thing. They say they just want their ideas heard, but I think it's clear (esp in their claims that 'Darwinism' leads to to stuff like the Halocaust) what they would really like is to rid the world of evolution.
By the way my definition of new information is new functional amino acid sequences. Their is only one example I know and that is the frameshift creating a new enzyme (pretty impressive to say the least!) Besides that statisticaly speaking large new information increases are not likely to happen.
You made a screwup on the scopes trial! While their was a law called the butler act, banning evolution from being taught. The ACLU set the case up, KNOWING that even if the butler act was upheld and they lost, it would give them publicity. Even Eugene Scott admits this. Although as a young earth creationist (skeptical one to be sure, I need to do further research) I agree that Expelled does not show ID persecution. Although to be sure ID/creation persecution does exist.
I know all this. Thanks. So, what did I say in the vid to contradict. I was only commenting about what they said in the Expelled flick, not about the real historical events. At any rate, they seemed pleased at the idea of evolution teaching having been banned.
cousin. Good looking guy though. It runs in the family. Find Gish and Dr. David Berlinski. David is really interesting because he is not a christian, I am. I do some work with people in carbon dating and geology. I do counsel with some biologist about things in the other fields. You have to teach evolution to publish.
"Macroevolution is nothing more than accumulated microevolution. You are displaying your ignorance here" O you are so wrong I work in the field and you have no idea. For macro, it takes thousands of positive mutations not different colors or shapes allowed by an already established gentic code. Micro evolution is science. But no evidence that animials evolved from and single cell organisim. Sorry you are really behind. Watch a few debates so you don't sound so ignorant.
PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins both work in evolutionary biology--so give me some very compelling reasons why I should trust what you say and not what they say on the topics of science and biology.
PZ Myers does, Richard Dawkins is more of a evolutionary biology popularizer. It should also be noted he does nothing to deal with how new information rises by random mutation. And quite frankly gives natural selection almost magical powers.
Well for one no one in the movie said it was justic for someone teaching evolution to get fired. Second I would love to know how the youtube crowd knows there is all this evidence for Macro evolution and origin of life when no else in the world can find any including Dawkins. I know you guys would love there not to be a God or a creator but there is no proof of macro evolution or the big bang. In fact the laws in know world make it impossible.
That is, they were glad that the ban on teaching evolution was upheld. Regardless of their claim that they want to have both sides to have an equal hearing, they seemed to think Tennessee's old ban on the teaching of evolution was a positive thing. They are hypocrites.
"Second I would love to know how the youtube crowd knows there is all this evidence for Macro evolution and origin of life when no else in the world can find any including Dawkins. I know you guys would love there not to be a God or a creator but there is no proof of macro evolution or the big bang. In fact the laws in know world make it impossible."
Macroevolution is nothing more than accumulated microevolution. You are displaying your ignorance here...
Macro-evolution requires new genetic information, (IE information that creates new amino acid sequences) micro is just losses and variation of existing traits. Your right in the sense that macro can use the same mutations that micro does IE frameshifts, points, inserts, etc.
yep, first it was - evolution does not happen, but when our technology advanced to level when we can see evolution happening in real time, creationists labeled it "micro evolution". Macro evolution is everything what you cant demonstrate in lab (because it take a lot of time), so, because you didnt and couldnt possibly see/find all steps, God did it.
I love the comments on Youtube by people who first seem really uneducated on the subject of ID or evolution. The movie never said someone got fired for teaching evolution. I don't believe that you are smart enough to follow the movie. You misquote the movie probably 8 or 9 times. Your have no idea, as most on here about evolution. If evolution is true you should be real upset because you are getting really unlucky in several areas.
I am quite certain that I have acurately presented both the content and intent of this movie. I was, however, working from memory and did not take notes while I was there. So, if I have made any mistakes in my representation of the film, send me the specific corrections and (after confirming that they are correct) I will post a new video stating the corrections.
Mikayla, great point on the Scopes trial. Recently the ADL released a statement condemning Expelled on their use of the Holocaust to further their political cause.
Excellent review, Mikayla. I watched this farce of a film with a Freethinker group at my university, and we just laaaaaughed the whole time. I was particularly frustrated with Stein's reaction when a (credible) scientist discussed the crystal hypothesis of abiogenesis (as a side note, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis!) and Stein said, basically, "Really? We're supposed to believe that?"
Fortunately for Stein, no one he put in the movie discussed the thermal vent hypothesis.
CancaoDoDragao22 1 year ago
@CancaoDoDragao22
As for the pro-ID "scientists," they likely lost their jobs because they couldn't publish. Most scientists will laugh you out of the room if your submission to a scientific journal ends in "Jesus in the beginning with his finger."
CancaoDoDragao22 1 year ago
Wait. The Holocaust which was carried out by Hitler and his Nazi army, was made possible by Darwins theory. I am curious how they make that leap. Hitler said in his own Manifesto ,otherwise known as Mein Kompf, that he believed he was acting without the will of the almighty creator.
bighaus54 2 years ago
Did you watch the video?
thelastdon15 2 years ago
you can not compare non biological objects to biological systems. Inferring that because the coke can was designed therefore so was the gastrointestinal tract is a bit of a stretch. Two coke cans don't get together to procreate and create a baby coke can that is slightly different from it's parents.
ptango101 2 years ago
Okay, I got to defend Darwin on this one. Darwin, as far as I know, was not a eugenist. "Survival of the fittest" originally came from Herbert Spencer. Francis Galton, Darwins cousin, was a eugenist. Eugenics is a evil pseudoscience. If you want to look at the real culprits of the eugenics movement, search, Charles Davenport, Josef Mengele, Harry Laughlin. As far as I know, Darwin didn't have much to do with this movement.
Oliver1456 2 years ago
Something hard to figure out, is when you really pin them down, scientists don't really know how we got here, but they do know that God didn't do it. (??????) Ok, if you don't know how we got here, then how can you "KNOW" that God didn't Create everything. This is a perfect example of the mentality of evolutionists/neodarwinists.
Haekel68 2 years ago
you have to get it through your head that we don't know for sure how we got here. You're explanation is that god breathed on some dust!!!???!!!
Evolution is the explanation of the diversity of life, not it's origin.
ptango101 2 years ago
Evolution doesn't explain anything. Ever since Darwins ORIGIN of Species, it has been used to explain the origin of life. Recently though, neodarwinists, seeing the writing on the wall, have distanced themselves from discussions of origins, claiming they don't know how it started, just here's what happened later. Cop out. It's also interesting that if one admits they don't know how life started, then that leaves open the possibility that GOD Created life.
Haekel68 2 years ago
It's not a cop out, It's being honest. There are a few hypotheses about how life originated. The problem with your version, IE: god did it, comes with a lot of baggage. This being guilt, humiliation and eternal torture if you don't tow the line.
ptango101 2 years ago
"guilt humiliation and eternal torture". Ok I see what is attracting so many to the hokey belief in evolutionism to explain away life without a Creator. It allows one to expound themselves of personal responsibility - no Creator, no responsibility - no purpose for life, no meaning, it's all about you and that's it. (I ME MY). Is that what you're trying to say?
Haekel68 2 years ago
No that's not what I'm saying. I don't think evolution is the catalyst for sociopathic behavior, just like I don't believe, the only thing keeping you from committing crimes against humanity is that you believe in god and or jesus. Our morality comes from an understanding of what makes a society succeed. People who kill their children don't progress that far in the greater scheme of things. For a society to progress you need to protect children.
ptango101 2 years ago
that comment was for Haekel68.
ptango101 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shes ugly. Ugly. UGLY
dubbeltid 2 years ago
Shut up you idiot!.
ptango101 2 years ago
THIS was for dubbeltid
ptango101 2 years ago
Why do people bring up Hitler? Science as well as the knowledge it produces are tools. If some one kills someone with a hammer you don't ban hammers. The hammer isn't evil. It is just a tool that some one misused.
In my opinion, husbandry is more responsible than evolution. Husbandry is more mentally accessible to the masses than evolution. I also believe the devil made hammers.
creationrules 3 years ago
Ummm I'm not sure what you are getting at here.You say that it's illogical to ban hammers because someone murdered someone with a hammer. Then you say hammers were created by the devil.
I'm not having a go at you. I just want you to clarify that statement.
ptango101 2 years ago
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin...
Abe's wife was pretty bummed about the death of a child and had to turn to a local preacher because old honest Abe couldn't bring himself to tell her the kid was in heaven with some make-believe god. Now that's sticking to your guns. It's a lot of work to be honest with yourself. God can be an amazing friend, even if she's only imaginary.
styrofoamheart 3 years ago
if Christianity is so smart, why was Abe Lincoln an atheist?
styrofoamheart 3 years ago
Well, it is debatable what Abe Lincoln's personal beliefs actually were. Saying some famous person in history, even a very smart person, believed such-and-so doesn't prove anything.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
how do you debatable his own words? he's pretty explicit in many letters to his wife.
styrofoamheart 3 years ago
Oh, is he? Could you post links or book references or whatever you have...I've not looked deeply into the words left by Lincoln but I am interested. Thanks
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
Who said Lincoln was an atheist? I figured he was smarter than that.
Haekel68 2 years ago
Sad to have to bite the bullet, isn't it?
mindtraveler2350 3 years ago
Nice. I saw the video in the storeand laughed at ben stein in his student outfit. Nevertheless, I was intriguied by this movie. Intriguied, but not enough to actually watch it. Creationism is just dumb, and it is an irony for ID-ers to claim their view as "intelligent" when they're so stupid. Ben stein should stick to acting.
saibooba 3 years ago
From my knowledge, Hitler was a christian. He was also against organized religion. And the "evolution" that Hitler is reported in mentioning, is NOT in relation to Darwin's theory of evolution.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago 4
(a bit late :)
"And the "evolution" that Hitler is reported in mentioning, is NOT in relation to Darwin's theory of evolution."
Well, yes and no. It was actually based on Eugenics, which is derived from breeding. Of course breeding was known long before Darwin.
But blaming Darwin is like blaming Newton should someone fall from a cliff.
Newton "invented" gravity, so it is all his fault.
;)
mindwis3 3 years ago
I'm glad you're pleased that your vid is popular.
Its not easy to follow which side your views are.
I'd thought you were a Christian Evolutionist at first.
simonrorke 3 years ago
you paid to see the movie? wow, how stupid is that... you supported it financially. good job.
Jars0fCIay 3 years ago
Unfortunately the reviewer has done limited research and is confused between two very distinct principles/practices: creationism and intelligent design.
To start an argument with a flawed premise leaves the entire argument flawed.
iknovate 3 years ago
Intelligent design is bogus from a scientific point of view and is the trojan horse for creationism.
rhabdoviridae 3 years ago
Actually, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with creationism and there are intelligent scientists who suggest that based on the premises that Darwin himself suggests, that he would disagree with his theory today.
iknovate 3 years ago
ID has everything to do with creationism. Why do its proponents squirm around answering who this designer should be? As yet, there is no evidence to support ID. Check out this vid: "cdesign proponentsists - The missing link"
Darwin lived 150 years ago & would not have believed in space travel either. Just because something is of yet inexplicable doesn't validate the ID argument; that's bad logic. Evolution is a persistant public observation, like gravity. ID is based on ignorance of science.
rhabdoviridae 3 years ago
Darwin, from Descent of Man:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races... ... The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Read Darwin before defending him.
Haggz51 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is astonishing that someone could dispute the connection between Darwin and Hitler.
Of course there was religious anti-semitism through history, but it Darwin that gave it a scientific basis. Darwin was the first to propose extermination of Jews or other lesser races. The Nazis adopted Darwin wholeheartedly. Hitler referred to Aryans as the "Master race". Where do you think that phrase came from?
Haggz51 3 years ago
read darwin before you post tripe
fool
McMonster65 3 years ago 5
Who is this comment directed to? I have read Origin of Species, just for the record.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
I will still check out the film. I agree that all should do their homework and research the origins of their beliefs.
I do think that many Religions and their believers have not actually read the origins of their beliefs. Sad... However, I believe too that Evolutionists & Darwinists have failed to do their homework as well. In the end, each individual comes to their own conclusion. No one should be threatened by a film like this, nor use this film alone as an argument for their beliefs
belchmelch 3 years ago
I agree almost 100%, though films like this worry me since they threaten to undermine the public understanding of science. It would definately help if everyone would do some of their own research--or at least read about the research of others.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
What is an evolutionist/darwinist? That's like saying everyone who ascribes to Newton's Laws are Newtonianists, and those who ascribe to Einstein's General Relativity are Einsteinists. The term evolutionists implies that that evolution is a religion, while it is clearly not.
TooMuchButtHair 3 years ago 3
Wow, nearly 250 views. This is my most popular vid yet :)
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
There's no hypocrisy in regard to the Snopes' case. The movie didn't promote the Snopes verdict, but pointed out that popular opinion had been steered away from what was factual: it was a loss. Snopes was fined a whole $100, which Jennings-Bryan offered himself to pay.
Often edited out of the Snopes issue is that the law Snopes came up against was against a particular text book, and specifically for teaching *Eugenics*.
Also, I like how a difference of opinion now is called "dishonesty".
theaxemeister 3 years ago
This is your quote in your video. "At some point in the film they mention the scopes trial and how evolutionists consider that to be a victory. But no it wasn't it was a lost case, because the law against teaching evolution was upheld in Tennesee, and scopes was found guilty." You clearly show your lack of understanding on this issue. The fact that Eugene Scott, someone who opposes this movie even realizes this is quite telling.
navyspetnaz 3 years ago
Please tell me then, what exactly is the point and where am I missing it? I know that the situation that lead to this trial was a setup meant to challenge the law.
My *point* is that when there is a law against teaching evolution, the ID folks don't consider that to be a bad thing. They say they just want their ideas heard, but I think it's clear (esp in their claims that 'Darwinism' leads to to stuff like the Halocaust) what they would really like is to rid the world of evolution.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
By the way my definition of new information is new functional amino acid sequences. Their is only one example I know and that is the frameshift creating a new enzyme (pretty impressive to say the least!) Besides that statisticaly speaking large new information increases are not likely to happen.
navyspetnaz 3 years ago
You made a screwup on the scopes trial! While their was a law called the butler act, banning evolution from being taught. The ACLU set the case up, KNOWING that even if the butler act was upheld and they lost, it would give them publicity. Even Eugene Scott admits this. Although as a young earth creationist (skeptical one to be sure, I need to do further research) I agree that Expelled does not show ID persecution. Although to be sure ID/creation persecution does exist.
navyspetnaz 3 years ago
I know all this. Thanks. So, what did I say in the vid to contradict. I was only commenting about what they said in the Expelled flick, not about the real historical events. At any rate, they seemed pleased at the idea of evolution teaching having been banned.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
cousin. Good looking guy though. It runs in the family. Find Gish and Dr. David Berlinski. David is really interesting because he is not a christian, I am. I do some work with people in carbon dating and geology. I do counsel with some biologist about things in the other fields. You have to teach evolution to publish.
bazildaddy 3 years ago
bazildaddy...
Do you use the same username in MySpace? The material posted there pretty much matches the things you are saying here, so it makes me wonder.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
"Macroevolution is nothing more than accumulated microevolution. You are displaying your ignorance here" O you are so wrong I work in the field and you have no idea. For macro, it takes thousands of positive mutations not different colors or shapes allowed by an already established gentic code. Micro evolution is science. But no evidence that animials evolved from and single cell organisim. Sorry you are really behind. Watch a few debates so you don't sound so ignorant.
bazildaddy 3 years ago
You work in what field exactly, and what organization to you work for? Do you have any published papers on biology? Just curious...
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins both work in evolutionary biology--so give me some very compelling reasons why I should trust what you say and not what they say on the topics of science and biology.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
PZ Myers does, Richard Dawkins is more of a evolutionary biology popularizer. It should also be noted he does nothing to deal with how new information rises by random mutation. And quite frankly gives natural selection almost magical powers.
navyspetnaz 3 years ago
Well for one no one in the movie said it was justic for someone teaching evolution to get fired. Second I would love to know how the youtube crowd knows there is all this evidence for Macro evolution and origin of life when no else in the world can find any including Dawkins. I know you guys would love there not to be a God or a creator but there is no proof of macro evolution or the big bang. In fact the laws in know world make it impossible.
bazildaddy 3 years ago
"Well for one no one in the movie said it was justic for someone teaching evolution to get fired"
I never said they did said that. I said they said the Scopes trial verdict was an upholding of the law.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
That is, they were glad that the ban on teaching evolution was upheld. Regardless of their claim that they want to have both sides to have an equal hearing, they seemed to think Tennessee's old ban on the teaching of evolution was a positive thing. They are hypocrites.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
"Second I would love to know how the youtube crowd knows there is all this evidence for Macro evolution and origin of life when no else in the world can find any including Dawkins. I know you guys would love there not to be a God or a creator but there is no proof of macro evolution or the big bang. In fact the laws in know world make it impossible."
Macroevolution is nothing more than accumulated microevolution. You are displaying your ignorance here...
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
Macro-evolution requires new genetic information, (IE information that creates new amino acid sequences) micro is just losses and variation of existing traits. Your right in the sense that macro can use the same mutations that micro does IE frameshifts, points, inserts, etc.
navyspetnaz 3 years ago
yep, first it was - evolution does not happen, but when our technology advanced to level when we can see evolution happening in real time, creationists labeled it "micro evolution". Macro evolution is everything what you cant demonstrate in lab (because it take a lot of time), so, because you didnt and couldnt possibly see/find all steps, God did it.
aarreeaa 3 years ago 2
LOL I must be getting linked to by the idiot squad. At least I know I'm not just preaching to the choir :)
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
I love the comments on Youtube by people who first seem really uneducated on the subject of ID or evolution. The movie never said someone got fired for teaching evolution. I don't believe that you are smart enough to follow the movie. You misquote the movie probably 8 or 9 times. Your have no idea, as most on here about evolution. If evolution is true you should be real upset because you are getting really unlucky in several areas.
bazildaddy 3 years ago
I am quite certain that I have acurately presented both the content and intent of this movie. I was, however, working from memory and did not take notes while I was there. So, if I have made any mistakes in my representation of the film, send me the specific corrections and (after confirming that they are correct) I will post a new video stating the corrections.
Thanks.
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
since when do you have to be "educated enough" to understand ID? I guess it takes a PHD to understand ad hoc reasoning and circular logic.
styrofoamheart 3 years ago 2
Nice..but i hope you sneeked in the movie and didnt pay for that crap
trexx32 3 years ago
Thanks :)
MikaylaStarstuff 3 years ago
WELL SAID!
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Mikayla, great point on the Scopes trial. Recently the ADL released a statement condemning Expelled on their use of the Holocaust to further their political cause.
busymartian 3 years ago
Excellent points Mikayla! 5 stars!
Scrapheap71 3 years ago