Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in evolution, but he thins that Jesus led the way. Thats what he told Richard Dawkins the 2nd time (I believe) he appeared on his show.
@lracuda76 Yes and what do we call modern apes? We call them apes.
What would we call something that was different.... not an ape.
Think about it this way, you have 10 steps in a creatures process.
Every step it branches out into other species. Let's say step 3 is one of the many offshoots of step 2, step 3 is an ape and everything thus that comes from step 3 is an ape.
This would mean apes are just a small piece of part 2 (one of the many branches) which isn't an ape.
@DarkBunnyLord My point was that the common ancestor would have had a lot in common with modern apes in how it looked and lived. Enough so that if it was alive today it would be classed as just another species of ape.
@lracuda76 A lot in common certainly, but classified I don't believe it would be. There are specific genetic requirements that would be used to classify something as an ape. You go far enough back in this ancestry and at some point those genetics are going to be different enough not to meet that qualification.
Again it's simply that everything belonged to one classification, and then as it split into tree's more sub-categories are added to define the branches but not their root.
@DarkBunnyLord Not so, if all apes were descended from the human/chimp ancestor then maybe, but they're not and so any genetic similarities shared by all apes the human/chimp ancestor would also possess.
@lracuda76 Uh, yes they are. Apes of all sorts are related to the same species at some point. Some have branched farther than others, one can speculate this is from groups traveling to different regions where different creatures or environments meant survival of different things, or perhaps certain traits where shared across multiple species as these traits became exceptionally adpet to the environment (such as underground creatures tending to have poor eyesight as it's not necessary).
@DarkBunnyLord All apes aren't descended from the human/chimp ancestor, gorillas, orangutans, etc split off earlier. Yes all apes share a common ancestor, but humans, chimps and bonobos share a later one that the others don't.
@DarkBunnyLord Agreed they are linked, but your first post stated that the common ancestor of humans and chimps wasn't an ape even though the other apes had branched off at an earlier point.
My point is that if there is something genetic that makes an ape an ape then it predates the chimp/human ancestor and goes back to the common ancestor of all apes.
The chimp/human ancestor being a descendant of the ancestor of all apes would possess the ape DNA required for the classification.
@lracuda76 If we go far enough back my statement is still true, I don't see how you're getting this confused.
The branch may not have occured at the same point, but go back and back and back and you're going to have a common ancestor that's nothing like what exists now.
Also no, it might not. DNA changes with evolution via mutations or simply through exposure to certain elements, food, etc through out time meaning it's DNA might look nothing like it's ancestors. We can backtrack this change.
@DarkBunnyLord No confusion here, at least not on my side:)
Your first statement was that the human/chimp ancestor wasn't genetically an ape, that is the point I am arguing.
If there is ape DNA then the ancestor of all apes had it, otherwise each species of ape would have had to have evolved it independantly.
The only way the human/chimp ancestor wouldn't have it is if it mutated into something else and then changed back so that bonobos and chimps could still be considered apes.
@lracuda76 You are getting confused because you seem to be stuck on this one branch and that things don't change completely over time.
How to put it, let's say you start getting one part of you replaced at a time, eventually all your parts are replaced and nothing you where is left but you where still you.
@lracuda76 Your original statement was that they didn't evolve from something that wasn't an ape (which is wrong). You didn't say what they both split from (when the distinctive line was split) that this was an ape (which is correct).
Further back from that split was, at one point, not an ape.
"the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape" that I disagreed with. Because, technically speaking, all of the ancestors before the split would have been a "common ancestor" so to speak, some of them far enough back not an ape.
@lracuda76 Well see that I can agree with, because that's fact. It was the more broad sweep of your statement that I disagreed with.
Forgive me for not guessing what was not said, simply put there are a lot of people on here that are actually stupid enough to think evolution is merely a theory and not a proven process (given I'll admit it being the origin of life is a theory, but the fact that it occurs is not).
@lracuda76 (cont) We're getting a bit away from the topic here though. Exactly what evolved when is completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the process is proven, not a fact. We see genetic changes, these changes through natural selection can shift a species traits, and over the process of millions of years (again far less so for bacteria / viruses) this can create species far different than their ancestors.
Now the origin of life however is another matter entirely, that is theory.
@thkaal1 Your missing the point "generally scientist who secretly are i.d. proponents are religious so they seperate as they should their faith and their work. so like i said God in their minds supercedes the scientific method itself. this kinda bullshit banter practiced by ignorant weak minded indivisuals is the cause for all the misconseptions on I.D.
@steviewonder417 your only playing into the "us ant them mentality" that we find in academia today. we paint outswpoken indivisuals who practice their rights as free americans as lunatics and valuless idiots who refuse to yieldin their values. hmmm kinda sounds like every athiest i know.
Get a hair cut and it will be easier for me to listen to you. Also, just wait until puberty and your voice will deepen naturally. There's no need to throw your best baritone at us.
And to Joe Clark I very interested in discussing some of these matters. Like yourself I will entertain any man or woman who disagrees or agrees with my views. People like us are not afraid of opposing views. so with that said i wish to discuss ssome of our views in an open and honest discussion. So respond to this comment with a link or something so we can "Get All the card on the academic table." Thanks!
Also, countless ID proponents throughout history and even today are legitimate practicing scientist. These indivisuals do not necessarily disagree with todays commonly held theories on origins, evolution etc.. they simply are opinionated persons like the rest of us, in their minds GOD supercedes any arbitrary understanding you could gain in this world.
(In response to third statement)Okay I understand the common misconseption that ID proponents wish to "to fill in the wholes" of evolution using god as filler. let it be known that most religious/spiritual indivisuals understand and study evolution as they are made to in todays education system. most do not disagree with the basis of evolution but the simple fact evolution falls short. no matter how many leaps in progress theorist make it will never explain the one ques. that matters in life.
You are a very strange student. . .not entirely wrong in parts, entirely in others, and just misunderstanding the other side's viewpoint. but nice try
I already had this discussion with another youtuber - I am not sayng it is a legitimate science, I'm saying some people have beliefs, that they acknowledge as "beliefs" and not scientific fact. This includes people you would consider legitimate scientists, who follow the scientific process. A person's belief does not make them incapable of learning or contributing to science. At the same time, no believer in ID should claim it as a science that follows the scientific method.
I think it's funny that every rebuttal seems to ignore the fact that Stein is saying that scientists are persecuting their PEERS, not the average religious citizen. There are legitimate, intelligent and well-researched scientists whose research reinforces their belief in intelligent design. Not "magic", but intelligence behind the state of existence. If evidence were discovered otherwise, they would adopt it. It's equally ignorant to assume that everyone who believes in ID is an ignoramus.
Yes, I can be saying it. There are plenty of "believer" scientists out there who contribute to scientific discovery through the scientific method who do NOT have the agenda to prove ID. They acknowledge ID as an opinion, not as a scientifically proven fact. I'm talking about the ridiculous notion that being a scientist automatically precludes a belief in God. I agree, I don't anticipate any scientific papers on God anytime soon, but I repeat, a belief in God does not make someone an ignoramus.
I notice you again cite plenty of believer scientists. Yet fail to give a single name.
Im sorry but Im not aware of a single respected scientist who holds the view ID is reasonable, let alone proved.
If they are scientists, and ID as you yourself state is not a scientifically proven fact, could you remind me again why they are being persecuted by their peers? Cont.---
(cont) With that I thank you for your discussion and civility. I can't guarantee I'll be sparing the time to post more on this, but I appreciate the opportunity to chat either way.
Im not sure I understand your last bit, you call the notion that being a scientist automatically precludes a belief in God, ridiculous. (Something I didnt actually say, BTW). Then agree with it.
Granted ignoramus may be a little strong, (for ID, not strong enough). How about intellectually dishonest?? Or an expert at mental decompartmentalisation??
I do agree totally though I don't anticipate any scientific papers on God anytime soon either.
You've missed the point of my comment and evidently are not reading it with the intent to understand what I'm saying. You are obviously more interested in discrediting any opinion that does not mesh with your own opinion. And I emphasize "opinion".
I'll be straight forward. I believe that the universe is intelligently designed. I don't know how that process occurred, but I don't believe that it is in conflict with science to say so. I'll explain why through a couple of questions (continued)
1. As we become more informed and understand science better, we attempt to harness and design our own applications for science. One of the great goals of science is to explain things intelligently. And then do what??? Design things. That's a simplistic way of putting it, but think about it. We are intelligent designers ourselves. Who are we to assume that if we can do it, someone else hasn't already done it, on a grand scale? Surely you can admit this is a possibility.
That's what Scientoligists pretty much are told to believe, that aliens stopped on planet earth and took a shit and that's where L. Ron Hubbard their prophet and immortal father of humanity came from.
2. (More of a statement than a question). Some (not all) scientists fail to notice how willing they are to informally express their own opinions, speculations and ideas. No offense intended but I see some of your comments in this category. I can't ask you to prove everything you say Your response would be (as mine has been), general. There are some answers where science is equally forced to say "we can't prove it, but we hope to be able to some day", just as believers in ID are forced to say.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you are still in the darwinian dark ages, get educated to the new world, anyone who actually does look at the evidence realizes rather quickly that it is dogma and the propositions are funny, put me on the dumb creationist and i d side....you will be the laughing stock of history, as will anyone who supports that laughable old theory, hypothesis ,you think you are on the right side, beware of obvious foolishness, you are the past........
"you are still in the darwinian dark ages, get educated to the new world, anyone who actually does look at the evidence realizes rather quickly that it is dogma and the propositions are funny.."
Ok the only person who could make this claim is one who is COMPLETELY uneducated.
Evidence does not equal dogma, this is where most religious nuts get it wrong.
Dogma such as the Abrahamic religions or any other religion based on faith and not evidence is Santa for adults.
Its simple, Stein should have clearly defined what a scientific theory is and does... Which is, explains something in naturalistic terms, predicts things, is repeatable, and is able to be studied... Now, this is not iron clad or anything but... All Stein did was claim oppression, and how Natural selection cant explain the first replicator... He in now way showed how it was science.... Creationists, who dont care much for rational thought, probably fell for his smoke and mirrors...
That is true. Religion is the dark under side of science. Religion has produced some of the most heinous crimes in all of history. All in the name of God. Science is even used for these wars against other's beliefs. If religion was abolished then there wouldn't be terrorists that believe they'll get into heaven by killing Americans. See how it works. Science woluld then be used for the good of mankind. Religion corrupts plain and simple.
Plain and simple?Sorry to say this but i fear you suffer front he same malady too many scientists suffer-myopia-.Human beings need to believe something to function.If a scientist didn't believe he would obtain useful information from an experiment he wouldn't do it.
A lust for power/autority corrupts.Some religions promote this kind of lust and seek to oppress the world.Not all religion is this way.
Short version=people could be corrupted quite easily w/out religion.
I suppose but I don't think I've ever heard of a scientist killing another scientist just because he didn't believe in his theory. That's where I was going with it. Killing in the name of God and then believing it to be righteous that's true corruption.
I will tell you what is wrong with evolution.1- first law of thrmodynmcs2-second law of thrmodynmcs and the law of biogenesis Let's just see how smart you are? Religon is something man came up with, becuse he thinks he knows something.God created this with a knowledge far greaer then our own, religon says, " Ok God we know how you did it, will take it from here! leave us alone, becuse we are "smart"
That is why we go to war "Becuse I am God Damned! Right, Write, rite wright. ?
Ok, let me tell you what's wrong with Creationism. 1) It proves nothing. 2) Who is God and why did he do it in the first place? 3) Why can't man look for answers? 4) Because man looks for answers to impossible questions automatcally makes him 'stupid'. 5) Why did 'God' leave the world alone after that? 6) The idiots are those that give up the search for answers and accept words without evidence.
That sums it up. Answer those and then we'll talk.
So instead ... Some invisible character created the whooole universe in seven days six thousand years ago ...
According to *contemporary scientific research* and not some *archaic book*, that's just not possible. Fossils collaberate.
Bone discoveries, language acquisition and change, climatology, astronomy, astrology, *evolution*, anything and everything to do with scientific discovery and *repeating* research to obtain the same result collaborates with this.
Great job!! Nothing more need be said... except I think O'Reilly is a common sense guy. I find myself in agreement with him on most subjects... this is not one of them.
intelligent design is not creationism, but yes they give definitive answers which is in opposition to the scientific process. science as doctrine is different than the scientific process.
It's not. Intelligent design does not say the world was created in 6 days and that Adam and Eve existed. It does not state any religious ideologies. It does not deny the big bang or any theories of the universe, it states that its a possibility that the makeup of life, down to the genetic level could have an intelligence behind it. Now, I don't agree with that, but some people would like to see god in nature. The scientific method is what's important anyway.
first ID is against scientific prinziples and it wouldn't stand a chance in peer-review. the big bang theorie wtf has that to do with anything we talking about?
and second it IS crationism acording to a judge. who would you believe more? some random guy on you tube or a judge?
I don't believe anyone more than myself if I've done the proper research. A judge is on the side of keeping ID out of science classrooms, which I agree with. I'm simply saying that ID is NOT creationism. Creationism is based on biblical stories relating to the creation of the world/life. Science explains, to the best of their knowledge, through the scientific method, how life could have begun. They admit they don't have all the answers, but that is why science is good, and not static like ID.
We agree that ID is a problem because it gives answers where there are no clear answers involved. But the idea of intelligent design is not new, nor does it have anything to do with a biblical god, it only suggests that there may be a working intelligence behind the genetics of life. Darwin's theory has it's own problems, but he himself admits that it is incomplete. As for the big bang, that is physics, which explains the elemental table and the existence of matter, so it is relevant here.
ID is a problem because it claims to be science! Thats the whole point. the big banh has nothing to do with genetics of life therefore it's not relevant in this disussion
Like I said, the judge did not want ID in classrooms because it is not based on any scientific method. It is a theory. ID does not claim to be science. It is a suggestion that certain gaps in science could be filled by the idea of an intelligence behind them. WE AGREE that this is simply another rationalization to explain what we do not know. So it shouldn't be in classrooms. But it is still not creationism. Creationism is based on Genesis.
The big bang is relevant because ID agree with it.
True, "Intelligent Design" is often erroneously conflated with Creationism, but as has been alluded: today, it's Intelligent Design; tomorrow, Creationism because the US is a "Christian Nation," after all. It's all just very sketchy, like a way of opening the door for Creationism.
I'll leave alone the logic, or lack thereof behind it to say that ID is at best redundant. If most people subscribe to a religion anyway, why does the "but God did it" clause need to be added to the science?
if you would have done your research better you would know that the judge decided against ID in the sience classroom because it is a new atempt to establish creationism in the sience class. pls type in judge jones or dover trail in google or youtube. So may can we agree that it is not so uterly wrong to think it's the same?
You are confusing Christianity and intelligent design. Ben is not talking about Christianity. Some of your argumets contain strawmans and are making generalizations. There are Christians that study science in depth and in fact many of the great people in American history were some kind of deist, so your argument about those who believe in God as not studying what is there. I do however thank you for your courteousness.
Oh yeah and the most of gay guys ive met just love complimenting each others hair and they are usually the ones with the short gay hair. Besides if you are that unconfident with your sexuality to have to point out on other their lack of emphatizing or to identify with u Supressed Christian lol another rant that like saying im a supressed white single straight man
Intellignet design is a elementary theory that explains nothing and that wishes to expplain nothiong using a sky dady as a scap goat therfore it will not have any grants because it is not a study and is uncapable of producing results. Being subjected to peer review it does not stand up and lives on as privat orgs lol motivated by ppl like stein a ranting jew who is deproffesionalising documentaries and science to a kool aid drinking audience by the way majored jesus bible frauds
My suggestion: I can't hear you so I say that you should let your feminine side out and just speak like how you normally do, even if it's with a high pitched, girly-man voice.
You already have the earrings and long hair to match, and I think a high voice would totally match your persona! Keep up the good work (gurly-)'man'!
My guess: You're fully man (male) with a normally girly speaking voice who is trying to suppress that with a low, deep, and very soft (as in not loud enough) 'man'-like voice. Unfortunately, I had a very hard time hearing you to be honest.
Oh dear! ID is 'study of the physical world' or intelligence 'all on its own'? Do you realise just how ridiculaous both those comments are?
Suppression of free speech? haha! What the ID'ers and Creationists are saying here is that those nasty scientists won't listen to us - even if we produce fallacious, non-scientific piffle designed to support scripture. Because they demand that we comply with scientific process - we're gonna claim denial of free speech.
First of all let me remind, or inform you that ID is not a direct referral to God. It is the study of the physical world, and understanding that it works with a great amount of intelligence wether it stems from a Designer, or if its just intelligence all on it's own. For instance we can see that the human cell has tremendous complexity. There is nothing wrong with realizing that their appears to be intelligence within the workings of the cell.
I think you are coming from the few point that if we allow intelligent design to be studied then we might as well just roll out the scrolls, and start teaching the Bible. This is absurd. For in that case it would be logically equivalent to say that science has the bias of teaching us anti-religion. I don't believe that is the agenda of true science. Wether or not Ben Stein has got all of his facts straight, the point of the movie is about not suppressing freedom of speech, or inquiry. Thanks
I agree, but it seems just a little bit spun, ID as far as I know, and that isnt much, has no empirical validation nor has published any works in scientific literature, of course if suppression were going on it wouldn't, but I have to think that if it had any theoretical basis, yah know facts and models and predictions and falsifiability (certain claims have been falsified) then I think it would be mentioned seriously in the sci community.
Fantastic points although I think what you missed about the First Amendment part was Government Schools firing teachers for discusing ID. I agree it's not even remotely a scientific theory/hypothesis etc. But, when a Government sponsored entity punishes a citizen for saying something that's a violation of the 1st amendment... how to fix? get rid of Government Schools :).
It's rare that I come back to reply to comments, but I think this is an important point.
Teachers that espouse ID are not fired because they are voicing their opinions, but because they are not doing their job as laid out in their contracts.
There is nothing unlawful about firing an employee who is not doing their job.
who do you mean by "the highest IQ's ever recorded"? If for example you are talking about einstein: no he didn't. but plz tell me who else youre talking about. would be interesting.
PS: Rude? How about people employed by my tax dollars refusing to hear both sides? Thats not rude thats criminal. Evolution is a STATE ENFORCED RELIGION. Niether theory is falsifiable. Who is closed minded? It is the Christian that looks at the picture and says, "There might be something more".
this is the third millenium, we have no need to believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more. we are a product of three billion years of evolution. get over it.
Suggesting there are two sides to this debate is like suggesting the scientific community is split on the shape of the Earth; round or flat. That's clearly nonsense, and whatever you believe Evolution is FACT. It is not a "state enforced religion" as it has no god, and is specified by the world-wide scientific community, not the state. It has also been subject to many revisions as new evidence has come to light (this is called science), and is not a rigid dogma as creationism is.
Evolution was and is taught as a theory - it is only a fact in your mind. I always am amazed at how many evolutionists have never carefully read the Bible like 2peter3:5-7 where a primordial extinction is mentioned specifically and complementary to Genesis 1:2.I say take a good look at 2peter and create a hypothesis and see if the earth was destroyed by a flood of material from a dwarf galaxy or cloud of thick material like hydrogen or water. Dogma may be right and this too should be considered
Very good points. My view is very similar to yours regarding Ben.
I always struggle to work out which God we should be attributing life and universe to. Theres the Sun, the roman gods, the greek gods, buddha, allah, christian god, the spirits etc, aliens etc.
If we did teach creationism as a scientific theory then we would have to cover all the religions to ensure we don't descriminate
Spot on, couldn't have said anything better. Its amasing how Fox 'News' allows totally opinionated journalism, where is the neutrality. Bill O'reilly needs to take a leaf out of the books of people like Larry King and Andersen Cooper. Even Lou Dobbs was more accommodating to Christopher Hitchens than any of the Fox republican propaganda machine.
I love that scientists openly admit that they don't have all of the answers. It shows humility and BRAVERY. They devote their adult life to trying to answer questions, trying to find truths (and to be able to PROVE them through the scientific method.) They don't expect people to believe what they say through faith). That is noble.
Much more so than Bill O'Reilly calling them "secular pinheads".
Get your facts straight you idiot. ID is different from creationism. SO if you are going to make an argument I strongly suggest that you work out what you are going to argue before you argue. ID does explain something. ID says that an overall creator put pieces in place to make the universe work in a way so that things aren't completely crazy. Besides if you don't think that ID (not creationism)has any scientific background then you shouldn't be afriad that be talk.
Also, Darwin said that Evolution really had no scientific basis before he died. Not only that ID has no Biblical basis. You are an idiot. "I have a stuck up voice and I know exactly what I am talking about becuase I am an intelligent kid who has been going to college for years and they taught me what scientists have been studying for centuries in a matter of years and I completely understand it." Wake up to the world man, besides have you even seen the movie?
this is funny. also they should give this guy a cough drop. also he should cut his hair. and then i might try and listen to what he's trying to convince me is true, though is false, and yah
Missing links (in order): Sahelanthropus tchadensis Orrorin tugensis Ardipithecus kadabba Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Homo habilis Homo erectus Homo sapiens Homo sapiens sapiens Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists are constantly finding more links in the chain, and it is already overwhelmingly convincing as it is. NOTE: LIST IS CONSISTANTLY REVISED
Some evolutionists have shifted their thinking as to whether any australopithecines are human ancestors.
Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard Uni) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) observed: 'The australopithecines are..peculiarly specialized apes'.
Today, many authorities dismiss the Taung Skull (Australopithecus africanus) as simply that of a young ape, which shares interesting, but irrelevant, features with man.
When Dart visited London, and was invited to address the Zoological Society, he later admitted, 'I realized the inadequacy of my material' while facing an unresponsive audience.
Note that the fossil was about 6yrs old. Younger chimps and gorillas are well known to have more human looking skulls then their adult form.
Detailed studies over the years on australopithecines show that these have been markedly overhyped as potential 'ancestors'. Even the belief that they walked upright has taken a severe blow from CAT scans of the bones housing the organ of balance, from the discovery of knuckle-walking wrist anatomy, and other anatomical features of tree-dwelling primates.
Given that Australopithecus is not clearly a transitional species this means that the other ones before it are pretty much dud as well as they mostly show features close between chimps and austopithecines (re: sahelanthropus ..)
So the theory that australopithicus were upright has been debunked. So ... what makes it transitional then. Mmmm ... not much. And I haven't even started on Homo habilis. Homo habilis looks almost exactly the same as an austropithecines. From ((D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987) )) - This fossil stands about 3 foot tool and its postcranial skeleton is exactly the same as 'Lucy' who was supposed to be 2 million years younger.
All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy."
Australopithecines have NOT been debunked. They are as diverse a group as modern apes! The Australopithicus Robustus has been shown to be a concurrent species with the Gracile Austrolapithecines, which there is good evidence to show fall somewhere along the line to the current apes.
Homo Habilis, like Homo Eragaster, and Homo Erectus are not 100% clear either way, but there is good evidence that either they are a direct ancestor, or if not, then a concurrent relative.
They certainly existed. What I meant by debunked is that they are not a transitional fossil. They are just an extinct species of chimpanzee / ape. It has been long argued that their upright status gave them the ability to be considered a 'transitional fossil'. But unfortunately it is quite clear that virtually all of the evidence other then their knee joints suggests that were at least 'knuckle walking'.
Let's talk Lucy (A. afarensis): Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp's, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy had very long fingers with a decided curve to them, as apes possess for tree-swinging activities. It is believed a. afarensis possessed long toes with a curvature that also suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy's upright-turned shoulder enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile.
You are asking for transitional fossils, OBVIOUSLY it will have features like a primitive ape if it is somewhere on the continuum between primitive ape and Hominid.
That is after all what I'm (and every biologist) arguing isn't it?
Afrensis resembles a Chimp, but it isn't a Chimp. When you take a look at all of the fossils I've listed, you see a definate progression.
BTW I'm no biologist ... although studied it at Uni. I even believed what I was taught in regard to evolution until I realised the whole thing was flawed. It can't be proven on the laboratory table, under the ground, or even theoretically.
Every Biologist that didn't get their degree from a "Christian Science" university does.
Skull Size started to increase with Lucy (A. Afrensis) who departed from earlier apes with 400cc skulls, increasing it to 450cc (A. Africanus is 500cc), this trend continues with the human hominid line.
Height also increases steadily.
Locomotion? The fossils go from tree dwellering knuckle walkers to erect bipedals!
Also, there are other tells, like size Sexual Dimorphism decreasing to modern level
Homo Habilis stood 5 feet tall actually. I don't know where you are getting this 3 foot garbage from.
Again, Habiilis was not a tree dweller, it's hand bones are halfway between primitive ape and human. Its thumbs and fingertips are nearly indistinguishable from modern man, but it's fingers curve. This suggests a terrestrial semi-knuckle-walker. It's not far from there to standing
Again, at this time there were multiple concurrent groups.
Six concurrent hominid groups existed at this time. This is consistant with a branching hierarchy.
There is no D'oh. There is evidence of evolution. One group splitting off as different individuals are better suited for different niches. Over time, allele frequencies change, and Bingo! that's evolution.
Again, I ask you, if not evolution, then what?
Unless you are willing to answer that, I believe this discussion is over.
5 D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987).
The fossil is an adult female that stands about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of "Lucy,". Furthermore, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis.
Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees.
So there is a progression from homo habilis to homo erectus. Its a bit unfortunate they have been found in the same strata....
"In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said."
And what does that prove? It's called a BRANCHING HEIRARCHY. Look it up, all species start off existing concurrently with their ancestors, then they either die off (an unsuccessful branch [like Neanderthals], or they outlive them [Like us])
Seriously, stop making things up.
How about you tell me then, if not evolution, then what? What possible evidence can you show for Creationism? or "intelligent design?"
Honestly, are you suggesting that modern biology is based on an oversight?
Its actually quite easy to deceive a lot of people at once with the right propaganda machine. A lot of Americans used to believe there were WMD in Iraq.
Unfortunately it seemed to branch at the time when homo habilis was first believed to evolve (strata) and there is strong evidence from Leakey they have even found fossils remarkably similar to modern man in that same strata. DOH!
Well, I don't know where your comment went on the 1987 study of Homo Habilis, but quoting a 21 year old study? really? You don't think it might be a tad out of date?
I'm done arguing with you. You lie, mislead and just make stuff up. I strongly suggest taking a course in evolutionary biology, or even reading a book on one, because believe it or not, it IS worth it to study outside the bible.
Unfortunately evidence 21 years ago is still evidence whether you like it or not. You haven't given me one bit of evidence only comments that are unsubstantiated.
Exactly what have I made up? I have backed everything up with solid evidence (I can even name the fossils for you if you wish). It is you that have not produced ANY evidence.
Of course you are done arguing with me. You can't back your comments up with evidence and when I do you just claim it is old evidence. Just because Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity in the early 1900's doesn't make it any less valid. That's the trouble with evolutionists ... you pick and choose your evidence and discard the fossils that don't fit into your 'evolutionary plan'.
If your talking about the Graciles, then you must have some sort of PhD in Biology and are using Youtube as a forum to release your shocking and iconoclastic findings. Otherwise, you're making it up.
If you're talking about Habilis, then sure, however, it shows the transition from ape to Hominid nicely. So, in the end it is still useful, especially when people argue that we did not arrise from primitive apes.
Who is the common ancestor between ape an man then? Please provide the scientific name so that we may no longer be confused on the matter. What's that? You can't?
Organic and chemical evolution attempt to account for the origin of life. Please educate yourself
Evolutionists say get back with us, we don't know yet? So what do they start with the conclusion and work their way backwards?
Go owensphil .... of course there is no ancestor ... it got lost!! :)
Just as the Cambrian layer demonstrates both vertebrates and invertebrates (no intermediates). Just as there are no transitional fossils between dinos and birds (archaeopteryx ain't no transitional fossil). Simple to Complex without intelligence is an unintelligent theory.
Being "a plus in most peoples eyes" Has nothing to do with. Whether Evolution or for that matter Gravity are popular, have no effect on there validity. For the record Stein repeatedly shows a total lack understanding of evolution. On one show he was complaining that evolution couldn't explain gravity WTF. The mans an idiot
I don't know why anyone would take evolution seriously, i mean this was created by man in the 1800's...
Rocknroll8777 3 weeks ago
Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in evolution, but he thins that Jesus led the way. Thats what he told Richard Dawkins the 2nd time (I believe) he appeared on his show.
starfannumberone 6 months ago
Good video man, Really appreciated
shandcunt 1 year ago
You say that man didn't evolve from apes but a common ancestor.
That's not really true, the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape, just not a modern ape.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 Yes and what do we call modern apes? We call them apes.
What would we call something that was different.... not an ape.
Think about it this way, you have 10 steps in a creatures process.
Every step it branches out into other species. Let's say step 3 is one of the many offshoots of step 2, step 3 is an ape and everything thus that comes from step 3 is an ape.
This would mean apes are just a small piece of part 2 (one of the many branches) which isn't an ape.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord My point was that the common ancestor would have had a lot in common with modern apes in how it looked and lived. Enough so that if it was alive today it would be classed as just another species of ape.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 A lot in common certainly, but classified I don't believe it would be. There are specific genetic requirements that would be used to classify something as an ape. You go far enough back in this ancestry and at some point those genetics are going to be different enough not to meet that qualification.
Again it's simply that everything belonged to one classification, and then as it split into tree's more sub-categories are added to define the branches but not their root.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Not so, if all apes were descended from the human/chimp ancestor then maybe, but they're not and so any genetic similarities shared by all apes the human/chimp ancestor would also possess.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 Uh, yes they are. Apes of all sorts are related to the same species at some point. Some have branched farther than others, one can speculate this is from groups traveling to different regions where different creatures or environments meant survival of different things, or perhaps certain traits where shared across multiple species as these traits became exceptionally adpet to the environment (such as underground creatures tending to have poor eyesight as it's not necessary).
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord All apes aren't descended from the human/chimp ancestor, gorillas, orangutans, etc split off earlier. Yes all apes share a common ancestor, but humans, chimps and bonobos share a later one that the others don't.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 That's like stating that if two people had the same great grandfather they didn't come from the same genetic acnestory pool.
You're still linked, that was the point. If we call came from one tree that kept branching, the link would start at the furthest roots.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Agreed they are linked, but your first post stated that the common ancestor of humans and chimps wasn't an ape even though the other apes had branched off at an earlier point.
My point is that if there is something genetic that makes an ape an ape then it predates the chimp/human ancestor and goes back to the common ancestor of all apes.
The chimp/human ancestor being a descendant of the ancestor of all apes would possess the ape DNA required for the classification.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 If we go far enough back my statement is still true, I don't see how you're getting this confused.
The branch may not have occured at the same point, but go back and back and back and you're going to have a common ancestor that's nothing like what exists now.
Also no, it might not. DNA changes with evolution via mutations or simply through exposure to certain elements, food, etc through out time meaning it's DNA might look nothing like it's ancestors. We can backtrack this change.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord No confusion here, at least not on my side:)
Your first statement was that the human/chimp ancestor wasn't genetically an ape, that is the point I am arguing.
If there is ape DNA then the ancestor of all apes had it, otherwise each species of ape would have had to have evolved it independantly.
The only way the human/chimp ancestor wouldn't have it is if it mutated into something else and then changed back so that bonobos and chimps could still be considered apes.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 You are getting confused because you seem to be stuck on this one branch and that things don't change completely over time.
How to put it, let's say you start getting one part of you replaced at a time, eventually all your parts are replaced and nothing you where is left but you where still you.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Sorry but that has nothing at all to do with what I've been saying.
I have simply said that the most recent ancestor of humans and chimps alone was an ape, you dissagree but haven't addressed it.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 Your original statement was that they didn't evolve from something that wasn't an ape (which is wrong). You didn't say what they both split from (when the distinctive line was split) that this was an ape (which is correct).
Further back from that split was, at one point, not an ape.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord My first post
"You say that man didn't evolve from apes but a common ancestor.
That's not really true, the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape, just not a modern ape."
I mentioned nothing about going further back. Of course if you go back far enough then they wouldn't be apes.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord My first post
"You say that man didn't evolve from apes but a common ancestor.
That's not really true, the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape, just not a modern ape."
I didn't mention going further back, If you did then of course at some point they would stop being apes.
I think we're on the same page now.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 It was this sentence:
"the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape" that I disagreed with. Because, technically speaking, all of the ancestors before the split would have been a "common ancestor" so to speak, some of them far enough back not an ape.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord I was obviously refering to the most recent comon ancestor (MRCA).
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 Well see that I can agree with, because that's fact. It was the more broad sweep of your statement that I disagreed with.
Forgive me for not guessing what was not said, simply put there are a lot of people on here that are actually stupid enough to think evolution is merely a theory and not a proven process (given I'll admit it being the origin of life is a theory, but the fact that it occurs is not).
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord I forgive you for not guessing what wasn’t said and for jumping to conclusions :)
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76 (cont) We're getting a bit away from the topic here though. Exactly what evolved when is completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the process is proven, not a fact. We see genetic changes, these changes through natural selection can shift a species traits, and over the process of millions of years (again far less so for bacteria / viruses) this can create species far different than their ancestors.
Now the origin of life however is another matter entirely, that is theory.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@thkaal1 Your missing the point "generally scientist who secretly are i.d. proponents are religious so they seperate as they should their faith and their work. so like i said God in their minds supercedes the scientific method itself. this kinda bullshit banter practiced by ignorant weak minded indivisuals is the cause for all the misconseptions on I.D.
steviewonder417 1 year ago
@steviewonder417 your only playing into the "us ant them mentality" that we find in academia today. we paint outswpoken indivisuals who practice their rights as free americans as lunatics and valuless idiots who refuse to yieldin their values. hmmm kinda sounds like every athiest i know.
steviewonder417 1 year ago
@steviewonder417 Bro your an idiot stop
shandcunt 1 year ago
@steviewonder417 JOURNALISM IS DEAD! PUGILISM REPLACES IT! LONG LIVE KING O'REILLY!
steviewonder417 1 year ago
@steviewonder417 Your an idiot
shandcunt 1 year ago
@steviewonder417 Bro your an idiot
shandcunt 1 year ago
Get a hair cut and it will be easier for me to listen to you. Also, just wait until puberty and your voice will deepen naturally. There's no need to throw your best baritone at us.
oeyamatsuna78 1 year ago
And to Joe Clark I very interested in discussing some of these matters. Like yourself I will entertain any man or woman who disagrees or agrees with my views. People like us are not afraid of opposing views. so with that said i wish to discuss ssome of our views in an open and honest discussion. So respond to this comment with a link or something so we can "Get All the card on the academic table." Thanks!
steviewonder417 1 year ago
Also, countless ID proponents throughout history and even today are legitimate practicing scientist. These indivisuals do not necessarily disagree with todays commonly held theories on origins, evolution etc.. they simply are opinionated persons like the rest of us, in their minds GOD supercedes any arbitrary understanding you could gain in this world.
steviewonder417 1 year ago
(In response to third statement)Okay I understand the common misconseption that ID proponents wish to "to fill in the wholes" of evolution using god as filler. let it be known that most religious/spiritual indivisuals understand and study evolution as they are made to in todays education system. most do not disagree with the basis of evolution but the simple fact evolution falls short. no matter how many leaps in progress theorist make it will never explain the one ques. that matters in life.
steviewonder417 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REPENT and turn from sin...for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand
eat and drink the FLESH and BLOOD of JESUS...
be washed in the BLOOD of the LAMB
let the BLOOD of JESUS
cleanse you from sin
Repent for the Kingdom of GOD is near
hustlandflow21 1 year ago
Nottingham rocks, been there, loved it, wanna visit again, especially the Games Workshop HQ.
mornmeril 1 year ago
good vid. those two are idiots!!
xamot27 2 years ago
way to go man, :)
JBeneforti 2 years ago
Can anyone prove without a doubt that God exists, if not then what are you trying to prove? Where is your evidence?
blinking801 2 years ago
Can you prove vampires don't exist?
rddaos 2 years ago
If you answer my question first I will answer yours.
blinking801 2 years ago
You are a very strange student. . .not entirely wrong in parts, entirely in others, and just misunderstanding the other side's viewpoint. but nice try
LivesoninHeadPhones 2 years ago
I already had this discussion with another youtuber - I am not sayng it is a legitimate science, I'm saying some people have beliefs, that they acknowledge as "beliefs" and not scientific fact. This includes people you would consider legitimate scientists, who follow the scientific process. A person's belief does not make them incapable of learning or contributing to science. At the same time, no believer in ID should claim it as a science that follows the scientific method.
dmower397 2 years ago
I think it's funny that every rebuttal seems to ignore the fact that Stein is saying that scientists are persecuting their PEERS, not the average religious citizen. There are legitimate, intelligent and well-researched scientists whose research reinforces their belief in intelligent design. Not "magic", but intelligence behind the state of existence. If evidence were discovered otherwise, they would adopt it. It's equally ignorant to assume that everyone who believes in ID is an ignoramus.
dmower397 2 years ago
Can you really be saying what your saying???
Persecuting their peers??
Can you be serious??
Why would you imagine they are doing that, just becuase they don't like them, or their face doesn't fit?
If they come up with anything worthwhile, then they will be free to publish, and be reviewed, until then they will be seen as the cranks they are.
Why do you think that they are as we speak, trying to get their own, university, qualification, and review system up and running?
They don't qualify.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Yes, I can be saying it. There are plenty of "believer" scientists out there who contribute to scientific discovery through the scientific method who do NOT have the agenda to prove ID. They acknowledge ID as an opinion, not as a scientifically proven fact. I'm talking about the ridiculous notion that being a scientist automatically precludes a belief in God. I agree, I don't anticipate any scientific papers on God anytime soon, but I repeat, a belief in God does not make someone an ignoramus.
dmower397 2 years ago
I notice you again cite plenty of believer scientists. Yet fail to give a single name.
Im sorry but Im not aware of a single respected scientist who holds the view ID is reasonable, let alone proved.
If they are scientists, and ID as you yourself state is not a scientifically proven fact, could you remind me again why they are being persecuted by their peers? Cont.---
martiangrundy 2 years ago
(cont) With that I thank you for your discussion and civility. I can't guarantee I'll be sparing the time to post more on this, but I appreciate the opportunity to chat either way.
dmower397 2 years ago
---Cont.
Im not sure I understand your last bit, you call the notion that being a scientist automatically precludes a belief in God, ridiculous. (Something I didnt actually say, BTW). Then agree with it.
Granted ignoramus may be a little strong, (for ID, not strong enough). How about intellectually dishonest?? Or an expert at mental decompartmentalisation??
I do agree totally though I don't anticipate any scientific papers on God anytime soon either.
You dont believe in ID do you???
martiangrundy 2 years ago
You've missed the point of my comment and evidently are not reading it with the intent to understand what I'm saying. You are obviously more interested in discrediting any opinion that does not mesh with your own opinion. And I emphasize "opinion".
I'll be straight forward. I believe that the universe is intelligently designed. I don't know how that process occurred, but I don't believe that it is in conflict with science to say so. I'll explain why through a couple of questions (continued)
dmower397 2 years ago
--cont
1. As we become more informed and understand science better, we attempt to harness and design our own applications for science. One of the great goals of science is to explain things intelligently. And then do what??? Design things. That's a simplistic way of putting it, but think about it. We are intelligent designers ourselves. Who are we to assume that if we can do it, someone else hasn't already done it, on a grand scale? Surely you can admit this is a possibility.
dmower397 2 years ago
Yes ID is a POSSIBILITY, but so is the idea that maybe an advanced alien took a crap and the universe came out of its but hole
rddaos 2 years ago
Wow, thanks for that. I'd say the probability that you came from an alien's butthole is about 100 percent.
dmower397 2 years ago
Then it's approximately 100% more likely that I came from a butt hole than intelligent design will ever be taken seriously as a science.
rddaos 2 years ago
We all did...
8DX 2 years ago
That's what Scientoligists pretty much are told to believe, that aliens stopped on planet earth and took a shit and that's where L. Ron Hubbard their prophet and immortal father of humanity came from.
roodeey 1 year ago
@roodeey
It's more likely that the universe was created by aliens taking a shit than it was created by an "intelligent designer"
rddaos 1 year ago
2. (More of a statement than a question). Some (not all) scientists fail to notice how willing they are to informally express their own opinions, speculations and ideas. No offense intended but I see some of your comments in this category. I can't ask you to prove everything you say Your response would be (as mine has been), general. There are some answers where science is equally forced to say "we can't prove it, but we hope to be able to some day", just as believers in ID are forced to say.
dmower397 2 years ago
It's Two ignorant oldish blokes, bumming each other up,and agreeing, those silly atheists are nuts.
They haven't a clue, absolutely they can hold an oppinion, and express it. (it only illustrates the profound level of ignorance).
But when it comes to tax payers money, paying to teach this guff to kids allong side real science? NO NO NO!
why not Alchemy, or Astrolology?
It's ridiculous, as is the claim theyre being persecuted.
But really, we can't expect much more from those two ignorami.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
actually alchemy or astrology may have more to it than that bunk
bashia 2 years ago
Can't argue with your points. Your hair, and refusal to pop some antihistamines before filming your video well....
rddaos 2 years ago
HEY, FUCKHEADS! YOUR COMMENTS DO NOT GIVE VALIDITY TO DARWINISM/EVOLUTIONISM/SOLIPSISM Lurkmoar, assfags
ZotDudot7 2 years ago
i dont know why anyone would take creationism seriously i mean this was written when people believed the world was flat
oreolvrsshane1987 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are still in the darwinian dark ages, get educated to the new world, anyone who actually does look at the evidence realizes rather quickly that it is dogma and the propositions are funny, put me on the dumb creationist and i d side....you will be the laughing stock of history, as will anyone who supports that laughable old theory, hypothesis ,you think you are on the right side, beware of obvious foolishness, you are the past........
darkfox77 2 years ago
"you are still in the darwinian dark ages, get educated to the new world, anyone who actually does look at the evidence realizes rather quickly that it is dogma and the propositions are funny.."
Ok the only person who could make this claim is one who is COMPLETELY uneducated.
Evidence does not equal dogma, this is where most religious nuts get it wrong.
Dogma such as the Abrahamic religions or any other religion based on faith and not evidence is Santa for adults.
averylbrooks 2 years ago
Excellent post,hackman2k3
mrsthursday 2 years ago
Very well articulated good sir.
Puabond 2 years ago 2
Its simple, Stein should have clearly defined what a scientific theory is and does... Which is, explains something in naturalistic terms, predicts things, is repeatable, and is able to be studied... Now, this is not iron clad or anything but... All Stein did was claim oppression, and how Natural selection cant explain the first replicator... He in now way showed how it was science.... Creationists, who dont care much for rational thought, probably fell for his smoke and mirrors...
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
I guess you have it all figured out huh?Your beloved science is so superior to any other belief system.
Thats right I called it like it is.Science is a belief system relying on postulates or unprovable "given truths" as the basis for theories.
Religeon and science are two sides of the same coin-man's search to understand truth.
Your problem is that you labor under the misconception that you fully understand religeon and science.
Criterionx9 2 years ago
That is true. Religion is the dark under side of science. Religion has produced some of the most heinous crimes in all of history. All in the name of God. Science is even used for these wars against other's beliefs. If religion was abolished then there wouldn't be terrorists that believe they'll get into heaven by killing Americans. See how it works. Science woluld then be used for the good of mankind. Religion corrupts plain and simple.
crimsonph34r 2 years ago
Plain and simple?Sorry to say this but i fear you suffer front he same malady too many scientists suffer-myopia-.Human beings need to believe something to function.If a scientist didn't believe he would obtain useful information from an experiment he wouldn't do it.
A lust for power/autority corrupts.Some religions promote this kind of lust and seek to oppress the world.Not all religion is this way.
Short version=people could be corrupted quite easily w/out religion.
Criterionx9 2 years ago
I suppose but I don't think I've ever heard of a scientist killing another scientist just because he didn't believe in his theory. That's where I was going with it. Killing in the name of God and then believing it to be righteous that's true corruption.
crimsonph34r 2 years ago
I will tell you what is wrong with evolution.1- first law of thrmodynmcs2-second law of thrmodynmcs and the law of biogenesis Let's just see how smart you are? Religon is something man came up with, becuse he thinks he knows something.God created this with a knowledge far greaer then our own, religon says, " Ok God we know how you did it, will take it from here! leave us alone, becuse we are "smart"
That is why we go to war "Becuse I am God Damned! Right, Write, rite wright. ?
buckbeak1965 2 years ago
Ok, let me tell you what's wrong with Creationism. 1) It proves nothing. 2) Who is God and why did he do it in the first place? 3) Why can't man look for answers? 4) Because man looks for answers to impossible questions automatcally makes him 'stupid'. 5) Why did 'God' leave the world alone after that? 6) The idiots are those that give up the search for answers and accept words without evidence.
That sums it up. Answer those and then we'll talk.
crimsonph34r 2 years ago
So instead ... Some invisible character created the whooole universe in seven days six thousand years ago ...
According to *contemporary scientific research* and not some *archaic book*, that's just not possible. Fossils collaberate.
Bone discoveries, language acquisition and change, climatology, astronomy, astrology, *evolution*, anything and everything to do with scientific discovery and *repeating* research to obtain the same result collaborates with this.
amanda13val 2 years ago
Good vid!
curea229 3 years ago
Great job!! Nothing more need be said... except I think O'Reilly is a common sense guy. I find myself in agreement with him on most subjects... this is not one of them.
bobbgoyette 3 years ago
intelligent design is not creationism, but yes they give definitive answers which is in opposition to the scientific process. science as doctrine is different than the scientific process.
thecellarlife 3 years ago
Judge Jones says it's creationism in the dover trail. And almost everybody can see that it IS creationism!
generaldust 3 years ago
It's not. Intelligent design does not say the world was created in 6 days and that Adam and Eve existed. It does not state any religious ideologies. It does not deny the big bang or any theories of the universe, it states that its a possibility that the makeup of life, down to the genetic level could have an intelligence behind it. Now, I don't agree with that, but some people would like to see god in nature. The scientific method is what's important anyway.
thecellarlife 3 years ago
first ID is against scientific prinziples and it wouldn't stand a chance in peer-review. the big bang theorie wtf has that to do with anything we talking about?
and second it IS crationism acording to a judge. who would you believe more? some random guy on you tube or a judge?
generaldust 3 years ago
I don't believe anyone more than myself if I've done the proper research. A judge is on the side of keeping ID out of science classrooms, which I agree with. I'm simply saying that ID is NOT creationism. Creationism is based on biblical stories relating to the creation of the world/life. Science explains, to the best of their knowledge, through the scientific method, how life could have begun. They admit they don't have all the answers, but that is why science is good, and not static like ID.
thecellarlife 3 years ago
We agree that ID is a problem because it gives answers where there are no clear answers involved. But the idea of intelligent design is not new, nor does it have anything to do with a biblical god, it only suggests that there may be a working intelligence behind the genetics of life. Darwin's theory has it's own problems, but he himself admits that it is incomplete. As for the big bang, that is physics, which explains the elemental table and the existence of matter, so it is relevant here.
thecellarlife 3 years ago
ID is a problem because it claims to be science! Thats the whole point. the big banh has nothing to do with genetics of life therefore it's not relevant in this disussion
generaldust 3 years ago
Like I said, the judge did not want ID in classrooms because it is not based on any scientific method. It is a theory. ID does not claim to be science. It is a suggestion that certain gaps in science could be filled by the idea of an intelligence behind them. WE AGREE that this is simply another rationalization to explain what we do not know. So it shouldn't be in classrooms. But it is still not creationism. Creationism is based on Genesis.
The big bang is relevant because ID agree with it.
thecellarlife 3 years ago
True, "Intelligent Design" is often erroneously conflated with Creationism, but as has been alluded: today, it's Intelligent Design; tomorrow, Creationism because the US is a "Christian Nation," after all. It's all just very sketchy, like a way of opening the door for Creationism.
I'll leave alone the logic, or lack thereof behind it to say that ID is at best redundant. If most people subscribe to a religion anyway, why does the "but God did it" clause need to be added to the science?
sonisisuper 3 years ago
if you would have done your research better you would know that the judge decided against ID in the sience classroom because it is a new atempt to establish creationism in the sience class. pls type in judge jones or dover trail in google or youtube. So may can we agree that it is not so uterly wrong to think it's the same?
generaldust 3 years ago
You are confusing Christianity and intelligent design. Ben is not talking about Christianity. Some of your argumets contain strawmans and are making generalizations. There are Christians that study science in depth and in fact many of the great people in American history were some kind of deist, so your argument about those who believe in God as not studying what is there. I do however thank you for your courteousness.
Micmumc 3 years ago
You're putting me to sleep dude, I agree with what you have to say, but your presentation leaves something to be desired.
BunnaySango 3 years ago
U are so dumb, u dont know shit and u act sooo smart....
alexdunklebron 3 years ago
hes smarter than u at least :D
randomdude28 3 years ago
Oh yeah and the most of gay guys ive met just love complimenting each others hair and they are usually the ones with the short gay hair. Besides if you are that unconfident with your sexuality to have to point out on other their lack of emphatizing or to identify with u Supressed Christian lol another rant that like saying im a supressed white single straight man
adanrom 3 years ago
Intellignet design is a elementary theory that explains nothing and that wishes to expplain nothiong using a sky dady as a scap goat therfore it will not have any grants because it is not a study and is uncapable of producing results. Being subjected to peer review it does not stand up and lives on as privat orgs lol motivated by ppl like stein a ranting jew who is deproffesionalising documentaries and science to a kool aid drinking audience by the way majored jesus bible frauds
adanrom 3 years ago
My suggestion: I can't hear you so I say that you should let your feminine side out and just speak like how you normally do, even if it's with a high pitched, girly-man voice.
You already have the earrings and long hair to match, and I think a high voice would totally match your persona! Keep up the good work (gurly-)'man'!
suppressedChristian 3 years ago
Fuck off. You can't refute anything he said so you resort to petty name-calling. Come back when you grow up.
StewieSwan 3 years ago
My guess: You're fully man (male) with a normally girly speaking voice who is trying to suppress that with a low, deep, and very soft (as in not loud enough) 'man'-like voice. Unfortunately, I had a very hard time hearing you to be honest.
suppressedChristian 3 years ago
Simple question. Are you guy, girl, or T-sexual?
suppressedChristian 3 years ago
oh, and i believe in god heh, yet science is still "permitted" to exist in my world lol... silly people and their need to separate things!
youyou2btoo 3 years ago
omg this guy is brilliant. this vid makes me subscribe... you actually know what things are! i love youtube.
youyou2btoo 3 years ago
I am believer in Intelligent Design, but I also know that Eolution is possible. But all that means is that GOD CREATED EVOLUTION..Duh
Hackman I thought you were a girl with a heavy voice. You're creepy...
R00308543 3 years ago
Oh dear! ID is 'study of the physical world' or intelligence 'all on its own'? Do you realise just how ridiculaous both those comments are?
Suppression of free speech? haha! What the ID'ers and Creationists are saying here is that those nasty scientists won't listen to us - even if we produce fallacious, non-scientific piffle designed to support scripture. Because they demand that we comply with scientific process - we're gonna claim denial of free speech.
Exercise some common sense!
veritasodivmparit 3 years ago
First of all let me remind, or inform you that ID is not a direct referral to God. It is the study of the physical world, and understanding that it works with a great amount of intelligence wether it stems from a Designer, or if its just intelligence all on it's own. For instance we can see that the human cell has tremendous complexity. There is nothing wrong with realizing that their appears to be intelligence within the workings of the cell.
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
I think you are coming from the few point that if we allow intelligent design to be studied then we might as well just roll out the scrolls, and start teaching the Bible. This is absurd. For in that case it would be logically equivalent to say that science has the bias of teaching us anti-religion. I don't believe that is the agenda of true science. Wether or not Ben Stein has got all of his facts straight, the point of the movie is about not suppressing freedom of speech, or inquiry. Thanks
DiminishedStudios 3 years ago
I agree, but it seems just a little bit spun, ID as far as I know, and that isnt much, has no empirical validation nor has published any works in scientific literature, of course if suppression were going on it wouldn't, but I have to think that if it had any theoretical basis, yah know facts and models and predictions and falsifiability (certain claims have been falsified) then I think it would be mentioned seriously in the sci community.
scienceminded 3 years ago
Fantastic points although I think what you missed about the First Amendment part was Government Schools firing teachers for discusing ID. I agree it's not even remotely a scientific theory/hypothesis etc. But, when a Government sponsored entity punishes a citizen for saying something that's a violation of the 1st amendment... how to fix? get rid of Government Schools :).
Otherwise, bravo!
mrhumpty 3 years ago
It's rare that I come back to reply to comments, but I think this is an important point.
Teachers that espouse ID are not fired because they are voicing their opinions, but because they are not doing their job as laid out in their contracts.
There is nothing unlawful about firing an employee who is not doing their job.
(This is my new account, by the way)
~Joe
SunscorchX 3 years ago
Good points
weedipikia 3 years ago
@clintsequipment
who do you mean by "the highest IQ's ever recorded"? If for example you are talking about einstein: no he didn't. but plz tell me who else youre talking about. would be interesting.
smellyuglydork 3 years ago
PS: Rude? How about people employed by my tax dollars refusing to hear both sides? Thats not rude thats criminal. Evolution is a STATE ENFORCED RELIGION. Niether theory is falsifiable. Who is closed minded? It is the Christian that looks at the picture and says, "There might be something more".
clintsequipment 3 years ago
this is the third millenium, we have no need to believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more. we are a product of three billion years of evolution. get over it.
chris
chrisbuxton1958 3 years ago
Suggesting there are two sides to this debate is like suggesting the scientific community is split on the shape of the Earth; round or flat. That's clearly nonsense, and whatever you believe Evolution is FACT. It is not a "state enforced religion" as it has no god, and is specified by the world-wide scientific community, not the state. It has also been subject to many revisions as new evidence has come to light (this is called science), and is not a rigid dogma as creationism is.
Mctaffity1 3 years ago
Evolution was and is taught as a theory - it is only a fact in your mind. I always am amazed at how many evolutionists have never carefully read the Bible like 2peter3:5-7 where a primordial extinction is mentioned specifically and complementary to Genesis 1:2.I say take a good look at 2peter and create a hypothesis and see if the earth was destroyed by a flood of material from a dwarf galaxy or cloud of thick material like hydrogen or water. Dogma may be right and this too should be considered
Masonictoaster9 3 years ago
Question: How did life begin?
Question: If Evolutionists are so sure they are right, what are they afraid of?
Question: Where is the best example of the famous geologic Column?
Explain Job 40 and 41
Explain why some of the highest IQ's ever recorded agree that their must be a designer to the Universe.
So glad I found someone smart enough to answer the really tough questions.
clintsequipment 3 years ago
jstuttgart, right on. I told my family not to waste time getting news info from FOX because of Bill RLY.
forumlurkr 3 years ago
Brilliant video, won't bother pointing out all the stuff since most have already been said here before me by others but yeah, good job.
mcSnoski 3 years ago
I love how they say evolution doesnt explain life yet they quote religion or superstition to explain it which is worse!
CCPnoob 3 years ago
Very good points. My view is very similar to yours regarding Ben.
I always struggle to work out which God we should be attributing life and universe to. Theres the Sun, the roman gods, the greek gods, buddha, allah, christian god, the spirits etc, aliens etc.
If we did teach creationism as a scientific theory then we would have to cover all the religions to ensure we don't descriminate
eonuk 3 years ago
Jinnjigg and this ugly queer are both cunts
jaguarjaws999 3 years ago
The timer is a beautiful idea, completely guaranteeing that you'll never get on FOX.
TheMonthlyDaily 3 years ago
Bill and Ben are both equally retarded. They should have a retarded Mortal Kombat to the death.
JinnJigg 3 years ago
I like how all the people posting below who disagree are all assholes about it.
Unfriendlytoast2 3 years ago
Very well put...I'd buy you a pint if I were on that side of the pond.
1n354a 3 years ago
Nice job. Totally agree. Fairytales like creationism (the old term for intelligent design)should stay in the fiction section of the library.
Hellcat040369 3 years ago
Spot on, couldn't have said anything better. Its amasing how Fox 'News' allows totally opinionated journalism, where is the neutrality. Bill O'reilly needs to take a leaf out of the books of people like Larry King and Andersen Cooper. Even Lou Dobbs was more accommodating to Christopher Hitchens than any of the Fox republican propaganda machine.
jstuttgart 3 years ago
I love that scientists openly admit that they don't have all of the answers. It shows humility and BRAVERY. They devote their adult life to trying to answer questions, trying to find truths (and to be able to PROVE them through the scientific method.) They don't expect people to believe what they say through faith). That is noble.
Much more so than Bill O'Reilly calling them "secular pinheads".
I like your video and I hope you post more.
Katfeet2607 3 years ago 4
Get your facts straight you idiot. ID is different from creationism. SO if you are going to make an argument I strongly suggest that you work out what you are going to argue before you argue. ID does explain something. ID says that an overall creator put pieces in place to make the universe work in a way so that things aren't completely crazy. Besides if you don't think that ID (not creationism)has any scientific background then you shouldn't be afriad that be talk.
Sirdusty12 3 years ago
Also, Darwin said that Evolution really had no scientific basis before he died. Not only that ID has no Biblical basis. You are an idiot. "I have a stuck up voice and I know exactly what I am talking about becuase I am an intelligent kid who has been going to college for years and they taught me what scientists have been studying for centuries in a matter of years and I completely understand it." Wake up to the world man, besides have you even seen the movie?
Sirdusty12 3 years ago
careful.
Darwin did not recant evolution on his death bed. that is a myth. These false claims lose credibility for us creationist.
discipletube2 3 years ago 3
Not according to the authors of "Pandas and People" it's not.
devourerofbabies 3 years ago
this is funny. also they should give this guy a cough drop. also he should cut his hair. and then i might try and listen to what he's trying to convince me is true, though is false, and yah
1freakforjah 3 years ago
the same amount? in your dreams, unless you are finding them at Liberty U
PlanetoftheAtheists 3 years ago
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
Let's start with Australopithecus :)
Some evolutionists have shifted their thinking as to whether any australopithecines are human ancestors.
Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard Uni) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) observed: 'The australopithecines are..peculiarly specialized apes'.
Today, many authorities dismiss the Taung Skull (Australopithecus africanus) as simply that of a young ape, which shares interesting, but irrelevant, features with man.
alstoq 3 years ago
Raymond Dart found 'a. africanus' in 1924.
When Dart visited London, and was invited to address the Zoological Society, he later admitted, 'I realized the inadequacy of my material' while facing an unresponsive audience.
Note that the fossil was about 6yrs old. Younger chimps and gorillas are well known to have more human looking skulls then their adult form.
alstoq 3 years ago
Detailed studies over the years on australopithecines show that these have been markedly overhyped as potential 'ancestors'. Even the belief that they walked upright has taken a severe blow from CAT scans of the bones housing the organ of balance, from the discovery of knuckle-walking wrist anatomy, and other anatomical features of tree-dwelling primates.
alstoq 3 years ago
Given that Australopithecus is not clearly a transitional species this means that the other ones before it are pretty much dud as well as they mostly show features close between chimps and austopithecines (re: sahelanthropus ..)
alstoq 3 years ago
Direct answer, or close relative of an ancestor, the still shed considerable light on human ancestry.
Also, provide the full context of that quote.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
So the theory that australopithicus were upright has been debunked. So ... what makes it transitional then. Mmmm ... not much. And I haven't even started on Homo habilis. Homo habilis looks almost exactly the same as an austropithecines. From ((D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987) )) - This fossil stands about 3 foot tool and its postcranial skeleton is exactly the same as 'Lucy' who was supposed to be 2 million years younger.
alstoq 3 years ago
All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy."
alstoq 3 years ago
First of all
Australopithecines have NOT been debunked. They are as diverse a group as modern apes! The Australopithicus Robustus has been shown to be a concurrent species with the Gracile Austrolapithecines, which there is good evidence to show fall somewhere along the line to the current apes.
Homo Habilis, like Homo Eragaster, and Homo Erectus are not 100% clear either way, but there is good evidence that either they are a direct ancestor, or if not, then a concurrent relative.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
They certainly existed. What I meant by debunked is that they are not a transitional fossil. They are just an extinct species of chimpanzee / ape. It has been long argued that their upright status gave them the ability to be considered a 'transitional fossil'. But unfortunately it is quite clear that virtually all of the evidence other then their knee joints suggests that were at least 'knuckle walking'.
alstoq 3 years ago
Let's talk Lucy (A. afarensis): Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp's, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy had very long fingers with a decided curve to them, as apes possess for tree-swinging activities. It is believed a. afarensis possessed long toes with a curvature that also suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy's upright-turned shoulder enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile.
alstoq 3 years ago
So in summary Australopithecines.
Walk like an ape
Look like a chimpanzee
Built like a chimpanzee
.... and you expect me to believe they are a transitional fossil?
alstoq 3 years ago
Yes I do expect you to believe that!
You are asking for transitional fossils, OBVIOUSLY it will have features like a primitive ape if it is somewhere on the continuum between primitive ape and Hominid.
That is after all what I'm (and every biologist) arguing isn't it?
Afrensis resembles a Chimp, but it isn't a Chimp. When you take a look at all of the fossils I've listed, you see a definate progression.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
Sorry but not every biologist believes in evolution. .... where is the progression in australopithecines .... where, where, where???
Not in height, not is skull size, not in locomotion.
Surely you have some sort of evidence!!!
alstoq 3 years ago
BTW I'm no biologist ... although studied it at Uni. I even believed what I was taught in regard to evolution until I realised the whole thing was flawed. It can't be proven on the laboratory table, under the ground, or even theoretically.
alstoq 3 years ago
Every Biologist that didn't get their degree from a "Christian Science" university does.
Skull Size started to increase with Lucy (A. Afrensis) who departed from earlier apes with 400cc skulls, increasing it to 450cc (A. Africanus is 500cc), this trend continues with the human hominid line.
Height also increases steadily.
Locomotion? The fossils go from tree dwellering knuckle walkers to erect bipedals!
Also, there are other tells, like size Sexual Dimorphism decreasing to modern level
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
Height increases steadily?
There are homo habilis fossils 3 feet tall and homo erectus fossils that are 6 feet tall.
Locomotion:
Tree dreelling knuckle walkers (australopithicines / homo habilis - 3 feet tall - <500cc brains) to upright walking (homo erectus - 6 feet tall, etc)
Its a huge jump (in size, cranial size, and postcranial skeleton). There is no gradual increase as you have casually suggested (without evidence).
alstoq 3 years ago
Homo Habilis stood 5 feet tall actually. I don't know where you are getting this 3 foot garbage from.
Again, Habiilis was not a tree dweller, it's hand bones are halfway between primitive ape and human. Its thumbs and fingertips are nearly indistinguishable from modern man, but it's fingers curve. This suggests a terrestrial semi-knuckle-walker. It's not far from there to standing
Again, at this time there were multiple concurrent groups.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
Six concurrent hominid groups existed at this time. This is consistant with a branching hierarchy.
There is no D'oh. There is evidence of evolution. One group splitting off as different individuals are better suited for different niches. Over time, allele frequencies change, and Bingo! that's evolution.
Again, I ask you, if not evolution, then what?
Unless you are willing to answer that, I believe this discussion is over.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
'Three foot garbage'
5 D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987).
The fossil is an adult female that stands about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of "Lucy,". Furthermore, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis.
alstoq 3 years ago
Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees.
alstoq 3 years ago
So there is a progression from homo habilis to homo erectus. Its a bit unfortunate they have been found in the same strata....
"In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said."
.... unlikely .... indeed. :)
alstoq 3 years ago
And what does that prove? It's called a BRANCHING HEIRARCHY. Look it up, all species start off existing concurrently with their ancestors, then they either die off (an unsuccessful branch [like Neanderthals], or they outlive them [Like us])
Seriously, stop making things up.
How about you tell me then, if not evolution, then what? What possible evidence can you show for Creationism? or "intelligent design?"
Honestly, are you suggesting that modern biology is based on an oversight?
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
Its actually quite easy to deceive a lot of people at once with the right propaganda machine. A lot of Americans used to believe there were WMD in Iraq.
alstoq 3 years ago
Unfortunately it seemed to branch at the time when homo habilis was first believed to evolve (strata) and there is strong evidence from Leakey they have even found fossils remarkably similar to modern man in that same strata. DOH!
alstoq 3 years ago
Well, I don't know where your comment went on the 1987 study of Homo Habilis, but quoting a 21 year old study? really? You don't think it might be a tad out of date?
I'm done arguing with you. You lie, mislead and just make stuff up. I strongly suggest taking a course in evolutionary biology, or even reading a book on one, because believe it or not, it IS worth it to study outside the bible.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
Unfortunately evidence 21 years ago is still evidence whether you like it or not. You haven't given me one bit of evidence only comments that are unsubstantiated.
Exactly what have I made up? I have backed everything up with solid evidence (I can even name the fossils for you if you wish). It is you that have not produced ANY evidence.
alstoq 3 years ago
Homo habilis
Dik-dik Hominid - 3 foot 5 inches
... and your evidence is????
You'll be lucky to find any homo habilis fossils within the last 20 years except I think KMN-ER 1470.
alstoq 3 years ago
And even then there are people who don't put KMN-ER 1470 in the h. habilis class
alstoq 3 years ago
Of course you are done arguing with me. You can't back your comments up with evidence and when I do you just claim it is old evidence. Just because Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity in the early 1900's doesn't make it any less valid. That's the trouble with evolutionists ... you pick and choose your evidence and discard the fossils that don't fit into your 'evolutionary plan'.
alstoq 3 years ago
To which are you refering?
Gracile Australopithicines? or Homo Habilis?
If your talking about the Graciles, then you must have some sort of PhD in Biology and are using Youtube as a forum to release your shocking and iconoclastic findings. Otherwise, you're making it up.
If you're talking about Habilis, then sure, however, it shows the transition from ape to Hominid nicely. So, in the end it is still useful, especially when people argue that we did not arrise from primitive apes.
AvroLancaster 3 years ago
I'll get to Homo Habilis .... the most dodgy of all in time.
alstoq 3 years ago
In regard to quote context: I couldn't find the complete passage but I do know that he did say that his fossil did the following:
could appreciate colour and weight;
knew the significance of sound;
was on the way to articulate speech;
walked upright, with hands free to become manipulative organs.
So this may be the context - as his baby skull did not allow him to come to any of these conclusions
alstoq 3 years ago
Who is the common ancestor between ape an man then? Please provide the scientific name so that we may no longer be confused on the matter. What's that? You can't?
Organic and chemical evolution attempt to account for the origin of life. Please educate yourself
Evolutionists say get back with us, we don't know yet? So what do they start with the conclusion and work their way backwards?
owensphil 3 years ago
Go owensphil .... of course there is no ancestor ... it got lost!! :)
Just as the Cambrian layer demonstrates both vertebrates and invertebrates (no intermediates). Just as there are no transitional fossils between dinos and birds (archaeopteryx ain't no transitional fossil). Simple to Complex without intelligence is an unintelligent theory.
alstoq 3 years ago
Piss off suck boy. In USA there is no hate speech. You would confront me personally a maximum of 1 time you cocksucking buttslave.
SaudiCleric 3 years ago
A scientific theory is what it is. It is a best guess as to what might have or could ocurr. Why are you being such a bastard?
yourembryo 3 years ago
Good video.
NotExactlyAnAngel 3 years ago
Brilliant! You are brilliant, man! I laud you greatly for your genuine understanding of the evolutionary theory!
plankton4202 3 years ago
Being "a plus in most peoples eyes" Has nothing to do with. Whether Evolution or for that matter Gravity are popular, have no effect on there validity. For the record Stein repeatedly shows a total lack understanding of evolution. On one show he was complaining that evolution couldn't explain gravity WTF. The mans an idiot
davapod 3 years ago