I view them as intellectual terrorists, so maybe he does have a point. If I crap on a piece of paper, and turn it in to Nature, it's still better than what creationists/intelligent design idiots have done to date. There has been nothing but smoke and mirrors with these douchebags, they are the most intellectually dishonest assholes around.
Hahaha- "has nothing to say about how life originated, how the governing forces in the universe [...] originated." That right there demonstrates how utterly ignorant Ben Stein is of evolution- it has nothing to say about those because it is NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS THEM. *facepalm*
Weither you believe in creation or evolution, who gives a shit what ben zionist jewboy stein believes!! Why would a Christian nation pay any attention to a jesus hating jew who wants to increase your taxes to increase funding to the military? If you can't accept the Son, how can you honestly honor the Father?
@roughcutone2 Wow...Unabashed antisemitism probably won't help your ethos or your argument. I think Ben Stein is an idiot too, but you must realize how ridiculous it looks to the rest of us when Christians bash Jews or Muslims, especially if you just sink to name calling. A majority of people don't believe Jesus was the son of God, so it's also a little silly to say something like "If you can't accept the Son, how can you honestly honor the Father?"
@Ko252 Fairly sure I said " I've seen his film, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Ben Stein is a fucking idiot" Not, "I thought he was a genius until I saw his film" my trolly little moronic friend. That's as close to drawing you a picture as youtube affords me princess.
@niemanickurwa I could say that without watching the movie. It is Ben the stoned, for GODs sake. That you even had to watch the movie to understand this, says a lot a about you.
It's too bad that evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are such crappy communicators. Religious fanaticism is no more frightening than scientific arrogance. We'll find out in the end whether there's an afterlife, whether it's fun to be anti-matter or why we came back as a roll of toilet paper.
"Derrrrr... Evolution has nothing to say about gravity or thermodynamics... Derrrrr" Jesus, what a fuck head. How can he say bullshit like this and be taken seriously?!? I've seen repeat this shit many times. It has to stop. What a fuckin idiot. I hope Ben Stein gets cancer and AIDS. That would be so great.
Ben Stein has an IQ 140. An IQ of 140 is considered genius. He may seem like a moron to you but that's just because dullards (stupid people) can't grasp the meaning of the words of a genius. As far as evolution goes, Ben is exactly correct. Micro Evolution has been shown in a lab. It happens. Macro evolution is scientifically worthless. The idea that someone or something created this world is the most intelligent theory one can hold. You don't know this because a stupid person can't know this.
There's something to be said for geniuses being regarded as idiots. See if your IQ is 85 and you speak with someone who has an IQ of 185, you will only understand 85/185 of the depth of his mind. If he's speaking about metaphysics or philosophy, it would sound like nonsense to you and people who speak nonsense are idiots. Therefore, if you're an idiot, everyone smarter than you will appear to be a bigger idiot because you're stupid enough for two. Stupid people can't understand this, either.
The way you guys talk here is so ignorant. IQ is often an incredibly arbitrary way of determining intelligence in a person. Someone could score poorly in a test and know more about metaphysics or philosophy because I don't know...HE STUDIED THOSE TOPICS. Jesus. Throwing around these big words, you geniuses are pretty ignorant.
My iq is 132 and my brothers is 155. Since my brother and I now that intelligent design is not science then Ben Stein must be wrong since his iq is 140 and his logic is completely flawed. IQ only measures a certain type of intelligence. I have seen many people with high IQ's that can't change a tire on a car.
Also look at how many times Ben Stein has been wrong about Peter Schiff on the Economy. I guess Peter Schiff's IQ must be above 140. Ben Stein had to apologize to Peter Schiff in the news.
Having a high IQ does'nt immune a person from belief patterns, superstion, wishful thinking, etc. Also, sometimes intelligence is domain specific; some people have a propensity for understanding human behavior, other do not, etc. The ability to change a car tire or make delicous french toast is not indicative of intelligence or lack thereof. It's irrelevant in regard to rational thinking.
If you're taught how to make french toast or change a car tire it's easy. If you've never done it...
Again, I agree but on this issue Ben is correct. We have creators. This I've always known or at least it always seemed much more plausible than bacteria suddenly and inexplicably evolving into complex organisms due to some, as of yet unknown, form of magic. All you have to do is look at a banana tree. Was a banana tree an accident too? Just so happened that a million accidents happened which benefit life.
I'm confident that my understanding of macro evolution theory is likely more complete then yours. However none of this matters because I don't care what your opinion is about anything.
Not everything is competitive, as we've been molded to think so, but if you insist on thinking shallowly in terms of a competition, do so if you must.
On a MORE important note, I suggest you watch Zeitgeist: Addendum for the most important video of your lifetime, whether you recognize it aa such or not.
You can have a high IQ and a very good education but still wish and believe for things to be true based on your indoctrination and your family influence.
I agree with your first statement. I do not agree with your second statement. Science tries to be rational and without bias but as history clearly demonstrates it often fails on both counts. In addition there are political and monetary pressures which absolutely effect science.
Well let me be CLEAR.....Professional, peer-reviewed science recognized by the National Academy of Science....not the evangelical backed and politically pushed social policy utilizing pseudoscience, aka intelligent design, aka, creationism.
Of course politics has tampered and attempts to corrupt science. Institutions such as the Discovery Insititute and Templeton foundation are RELIGOUSLY funded. That's why creationism ignorance is being taught in some schools.
Ben Stein is an idiot and knuckle-dragging neanderthal. Why would anyone be surprised that this fool is a republican. The only thing that surprises me is that he is NOT sucking Henry Paulson's and John McCain's cocks.
Gee, this guy acts as if he was there when "God" made everything. He has no evidence for his crap at all. Then he brings up Einstein in defense of his crap, but Einstein was a known Atheist.
Intelligent Design should be discussed when they bring evidence for it. Science has it's evidence, so bring yours.
Einstein was NOT a known Atheist. He said many people would consider him an atheist. He said he did not believe in the childlike personal God of the bible who rewards and punishes people. He certainly never implied that he does not believe in a creator.
Are dictated social policy has a hidden implication that if you don't believe in god, you're not going to get far in the public political arena. With that said, you can see why Einstein played with his words. Similarly, you can also see why even though 90 something % of scientist who don't believe in a god don't go around proclaiming it publicly.
Einstein made , and published many statements about God and religion. he did not shy away from the issue. In fact he corrected the publics perceptions of his believes a number of times in his life. He made it perfectly clear that he did not believe in a child like personal God. He also made it clear that he was not an atheist and finally at the end of his life, he made it perfectly clear that he wonders just liek the rest of us.
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
Refer to my posting above in regard to Einstein. Synthesize the information utilizing psychology, sociology, politics, and how they all interact in regard to religion and the status quo.
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)
Evolution isn't the only thing that discredits creationism/intelligent design. I think its funny that its always the chosen argument while there are many other flaws. I'm not denying that it is possible to have an intelligent design... however, there could be aliens, fairies, and all sorts of other things floating around that we don't know about, but until we teach it in our schools lets get some kind of evidence and logic behind it....
That Richard M. Sternberg thinks his shameless croneyism and shady, unethical corruption of the peer review process is "giving the topic of Intelligent Design some modicum of credibility" is flat out laughable. Only the most gullible and ignorant of audiences could swallow that one. Unfortunately it appears that's just the audience they got.
I cannot believe he is still allowed to speak. Free speech yeah, but but but AHHHHHHHHHH someone shoot him in the face!! (I don't mind being sued when you do, take it as encouragement).
How it's done Greg, is the statement one would make is not entirely false...by itself.
If I were to walk into a room, coming in from outside where it had been pouring rain and said, "Fine weather we are having."
Though my intent is sarcasm, it is not a false statement...by itself...for to some rain would be fine weather.
Now, if instead I say, "It's raining cats and dogs." I have made a false statement, it cannot be the truth on it's own, because it cannot rain cats and dogs.
By the way, everyone please read the column by Olivia Judson in today's NY Times (7/16/2008). It's amazing to read a description of what evolutionary biology is really all about.
stein is such a smart guy. yet when he talks about republicanism he turns into a mindless neocon robot that must fall in line with his "party" too bad he isn't more a more independent thinker.
i'm talking about the fact that he automatically supports john mccain even tho he has nothing in common with ben steins values. he could support a libertarian candidate or a constitution party but no.. he he hard core republican to such a degree that he will vote for someone he doesn't believe in.
look around in you tube explaining abiogenesis by DonExodus2.
just make sure you do have a million dollars with you. if you dont really have a million dollars dont say so, you will just degrade yourself to the level of intellectual dishonesty your fellow creationist are so proficient in doing.
I have a new goal for myself. It's never to respond to people who clearly don't have the slightest logical ability. I could respond to this guy, and bang my head against the fallacious arguments for days. But I know already it's a waste of time, so why start? Where does he get it should be easy to recreate life? That's such a retarded, specious question. It took the universe billions of years, and we've only been investigating it for maybe 100.
But more importantly, it has nothing to do with the question at hand. I just started law school recently, so I had to take the LSAT, which is a logic exam. One of these people, almost by definition, would score in about the 4th percentile of logical ability.
What's funny is that what you call sarcasm doesn't even make sense--you're doing it backwards. Sarcasm is when you say something that's not true, like if I said, "you sure are smart"--that would be sarcastic, because I obviously don't mean it. You don't seem to understand how sarcasm works at all--look at the "sarcastic" things you've said: "never would have guessed," meaning of course you knew it was humor. But you're trying to say the opposite. Which was my point--humor requires intelligence.
Sarcasm is stating the opposite of intended meaning. So when I said, "Never would of guessed."...it is sarcasm.
Regarding humor, I would say...GOOD humor...requires intelligence. Not just any humor, there are many people who think they are funny and are not...right Greg?
See, now if I say "You sure are smart", I'm just lying which is different from sarcasm...comprende?
Two things, first that's exactly what I said. Second, exactly, I know what you said, and that's why you don't seem to understand how it works: you said, "never would have guessed" meaning you _did_ guess because it _was_ funny. You're trying to be sarcastic by saying what you mean to say.
Yes, of course, when I said humor, I meant "good humor." We agree about that. When I said you are demonstrating my point, I meant good humor.
No Greg, wrong again, that's not exactly what you said...
You said, and I quote, "sarcasm is when you say something that is not true."
That is not entirely accurate, as that is what is known as a lie Greg, not sarcasm.
Now, as to the SEPARATE issue of humor, I'm glad you agree that it must be good in order to denote some level of higher intelligence, yet to be sure, a good comedian doesn't have to have an IQ of 180 or higher. Correct?
You said: "stating the opposite of intended meaning."
I said: "saying something that is not true."
If you can explain how those two things are different, I'd be glad to listen. Specifically, if you say the opposite of intended meeting, how can you do that and state something that is true at the same time?
The only thing I can think is that you are pretending that "intended meaning" somehow doesn't hold "truth" in the way you are quibbling with me here.
I'm not "pretending" anything, your statement that "saying something that is not true" is the definition of sarcasm, is what is untrue.
Your statement itself, is a clear example of a statement that is untrue and NOT opposite in meaning, it is just false. It is an untrue statement, but cannot by definition be sarcastic.
Someone states something that is untrue, they have either lied or stated something they THOUGHT to be true while being false nonetheless. Some call that ignorance.
I asked you a direct question: how is "saying something that is not true" different from "saying the opposite of intended meaning." I can't see how those are other than two different ways of saying the same thing. While you repeated your definition of lying, which isn't wrong as far as it goes, you have not answered my question. How is "stating the opposite of intended meaning" different than saying something that is not true?
Likewise, I request you give me an example of sarcasm that does not entail saying something that is not true. "Boy are you dumb"--that is not sarcastic, because it's true. You cannot have true and sarcastic in the same sentence.
So, back to my question: how is "saying something that is not true" different from "stating the opposite of intended meaning"?
And, . . . we're done. Your comments have devolved (ha!) into incomprehensible babble. Time to stop.
PS. (I am still interested in hearing how one can say something that is both sarcastic and true--an explanation or an example would be fine. Other than that, I won't be responding again. Feel free to explain one more time how I'm "ignorant" because I refuse to discuss which dictionary meaning of "argument" your arguments did not fit under.)
You lost me now bud, I never said, "you're ignorant because you refuse to discuss which dictionary meaning of the word "argument" my arguments did not fit under."
I've never even addressed that, so I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.
The only dictionary definition I've been talking about all along is the same one...the defintion of sarcasm.
Well, earlier you accused me of saying something that I know not to be true. If this is your version of an honest argument, you are a liar in every sense of the word.
Secondly, as to humor, this is more of the difficulty you have with logic. I didn't say that humor must be good to denote some level of higher intelligence. I'm sorry you can't distinguish between subtleties of meaning, but you've demonstrated many times that you can't; so I'm not going to try to explain why you are wrong.
As I said, almost every post you make demonstrates some flaw of logic.
A statement does not imply its inverse or converse. It does imply its contrapositive.
By the way, I think maybe you meant something different than what you said, is why I disagreed with it above. You said "humor must be good to denote intelligence." "Humor must be good to denote" is really twisted around to be a statement about different kinds of humor.
But I think you didn't mean it to be a statement about different kinds of humor. The simpler: "good humor 'denotes' [another bad choice of words] intelligence." That is what I said.
You twist things around so much it's a full time job untangling them. We aren't talking about good vs. bad humor. We aren't talking about _making_ humor at all. We're talking about the ability to _recognize_ humor. I think that is your main confusion.
By the way, reading something different in what someone said is actually exactly the pattern of argument you use in ID as well. It's one thing to take what a person says to its logical conclusion. But what you do is make logically invalid leaps. You do it repeatedly (almost every comment). This conversation about humor is illustrative of why talking to you about ID is pointless--because your arguments aren't honest. Or if honest, then you don't have the logical capacity to hold a conversation.
Again Greg, I'm not quite sure why you don't get this, but...pssssst, I haven't argued about ID here. So why you would type that again after I pointed it out to you the first time, is now making me start to wonder about your grasp.
Why hehehe...if I were a smart man I would be tempted to think you're writing that nonsense in some kind of vain attempt to discredit me Greg, but I'm sure you're far above that and it's just my imagination.
I apologize for not lending any weight to your bullshit prevarications. I know you have told me twice that you are not arguing. Your mode of argument is clear. You parse something in a defensible but facially untrue way then harp on the distinction rather than the topic at hand. It's completely dishonest. Look at any one of your messages, everyone of them is both an argument and argumentative.
I'm having an honest conversation with you, I'm not engaging you in your obviously dishonest splitting of hairs (well, I am about sarcasm, but not about argument). You can _say_ you're not arguing all you want, all anyone has to do is scroll up to see otherwise.
It's a very effective way of arguing with dumber people, but again, I'm not even going to debate with you about whether you "argued" with me about ID--...
Two things demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty behind your insistence you're not arguing:
1) it's beside the point. It doesn't matter if you're "arguing" or not, you're only disputing the label I put on your comment, not anything meaningful.
2) Your "definition" is some ridiculous parse that bears no relation to common sense (or probably even the truth)--look at how you defend your definition of "sarcasm."
This mode of argument is intellectually dishonest.
This message demonstrates exactly what I'm saying. (It's equally dishonest, and is precisely my point. I'm sure the dictionary has 5 different definitions of "argument"--you've picked one--the one that doesn't describe what you do--to argue that you aren't arguing. It is intellectually dishonest. And again, you're arguing over a definition, not something substantive. Even if my use of the word doesn't match yours, it's not relevant to anything. 1) and 2). Intellectually dishonest.)
Have you seen those Geico caveman ads? To quote the caveman on the news talk show when asked to respond to something equally non-sensical to your last comment here, "yeah, I have something to say. Uh, what?"
What makes it _especially_ intellectually dishonest is that you are using the fact that I refuse to acknowledge your claims that are so facially, empirically untrue, as evidence that I am not intelligent! I'm not discrediting you. Every time you make one of these arguments that parses some definition in a spurious way, you are discrediting yourself.
It's a defense mechanism, and a fairly clever one, but it is transparent to anyone of average intelligence.
By the way, while I'm here, let me give you a mini-lesson on logic. Your evidence for the difference between "good" humor and simple humor is inapposite. Whether people _think_ they are funny is irrelevant to whether they are and whether intelligence is required--good or not.
(Just taking the opportunity to point out a minor example of the flaws in your thinking that lead to such drastic beliefs in other areas.)
Oh, while I'm here, the amazing thing about "intelligent design" "believers" is how OBVIOUSLY not true it is. Child birth, for instance, is the most dangerous, ridiculously badly designed system one could possibly imagine.
"Moronic design"--that I might by into.
Eyes are another example--why do we have veins IN FRONT OF the retina?! It is almost blasphemous to suggest that God was so stupid as to actually DESIGN the world the way it is.
There is not a single word in this response that bore the least relationship to what I just said. Your message here illustrates exactly what I said to begin with, that you're so incapable of forming syllogisms, identifying cause and effect, any of the most basic logical skills, that responding to this would be a complete waste of time. Anything else you have to say on the topic, just apply this message; I won't type it again.
You stated intelligent design is "moronic design" ie...chidbirth and eyes. Then say, it's so stupid that it would be blasphemous to say God would design things like that.
The point I made was there could be more reason for it than you know, but I doubt you have searched. You have looked to science and are satisfied and satisfied count yourself wise.
What you're saying is interesting because it points out such an obvious flaw in intelligent design. What you say is exactly the problem, and when I do exactly the same thing then it becomes clear to you.
What makes YOU think the world is "intelligently" designed? You're doing exactly what you accuse me of, applying your own sense what's impressive to conclude it must be intelligent. But that's no kind of evidence, to say it "must" have been designed because it's too amazing not to have been.
So yes, thank you for that, you're precisely right, it is exactly why the "look around you--wow!" argument is no kind of argument at all. It doesn't prove or even imply anything.
I also like your suggestion that there might be a reason for difficult childbirth . . . in other words an EVOLUTIONARY reason, right? Of course that's what you meant, and of course you're exactly right.
It's meant as a suggestion, it wasn't stated as an answer, but to give direction.
And no, it's not what I meant about there being a reason, you know that, but feign ignorance, as you've been doing all along, but I'm aware of it, so find it amusing.
Lastly this is of course why your "side" avoids logic, because as soon as you get baited into actually trying to make reasonable arguments, it's too easy to knock down. I expect you'll go back to your nonsensical comments now. But if you would care to continue a _reasonable_ conversation, I am happy to.
(As for lawyering, remember I told you I wasn't going to talk to you logically--these are the first comments where I have.)
I haven't taken the bait, now have I, though you've tried. All I've done was suggest you seek. If you truly believe there can be no other possible explanation, no other possible reason...one that would answer the very questions or should I say statements you've made with the greatest of ease...then don't.
But you wish for me to just come out with it, I should just make it easy and explain.
What Stein is addressing is how evolutionists will not hear those with questions about the many holes in evolutionism. While it certainly exists on a micro level, as he pointed out, no one has winessed the formation of a new species. Why? The theory of evolution should have us witnessing this commonly...and yet...
The movie he made is about the first amendment and how creationists are being shut out, cast out, fired and ridiculed all over the US.
almost evry thing he said had nothing to do with evolution like gravaty ond elctromagnatisim thay did not have anything to do with it then he had the nerv to talk about neandathols
Intelligent design is dangerous to religion. These people come up with examples of things that could not have evolved via natural selection as their support. But then scientists examine those examples, and they find the fosil evidence or the DNA evidence or other empirical evidence to explain them. The idea (we cannot call it a theory in any meaningful sense) starts to crumble. Just believe in a creator if you want, but use your brains and realize that we evolved. The evidence is there.
I hate when people equate someone's belief in a creator means that their political leanings are toward right wing conservative republicans. Fuck Bush and fuck the neoconservative Republicans and the neoliberal Democrats.
I think what Ben Stein says is very credible. He is an extremely intelligent man I dare say more so than any man posting on here including this one. By the way Obama sucks, so does McCain and Hillary.
Ben Stein is a smart guy, but he's not a biologist. He's a political and financial wiz. And an actor. Why should he be considered an authority on the subject? This is about people wanted to find evidence of a creator, to find some tenable middleground between evolution and creation. It's dangerous ground for religion to tread on.
Well couldn't the samething be said of evolutionists, that's it's dangerous ground to tread on. I think it can neither be proven or disproved, it's up to the individual to believe what they want to believe.
From what I understand, Ben Stein is Jewish and I know they have their God. But he seems to be referencing to God in that very traditional Christian right-wing sense. That, amongst other things, makes me believe this man is starting to lose his mind.
You do realize that the Christian God and the Jewish God are one in the same, don't you? The Old Testament of the Bible makes up the Jewish holy book, the Torah!
Really, they're one in the same? Then why are there two separate religions if they were truly "one in the same"? I don't side with either religion (or any religion). If what you say is completely true then it just confirms that organized religion is entirely twisted and crap. That's the reason that I don't read as much into it as you, my friend. Anyway, my issue was that Ben Stein sounded like a typical "Bush Republican" when referring to God.
In just about every interview so far Stein has inexplicably gone off on a nutty tangent about Darwin failing to explain gravity. What's amazing is not a single interviewer has questioned the idiocy of such a statement.
Evolution only explains small changes in an organism. Just as we are approaching the time when we can tamper with dna, so could have earlier life forms helped "create" us. That is your intelligent design, oh descendant of rock slime.
We see the fosil evidence and DNA evidence that shows a evolutionary link between birds and lizzards. Archaeopteryx -- wiki that shit! That's not a small change in an organism. We see vestigial hip bones in whales and other evidence they they evolved from animals that once walked on land. Not a small change.
acrchaeopteryx is just a bird their are birds with claws and teeth today to, and the vestigil hip bone in wales is part of their sexual organs, their is no fossil or dna evidence that shows a evolutionary link between birds and lizards, and archaeopteryx is a hoax anyways they just bury anyone that admits it gets harrased, fired, or threatened
so basicly even if it is real its just a bird and has been proven as such by multiple scientists ,and if not its a hoax ,either way not an evolutionary link
>"...so could have earlier life forms helped "create" us. That is your intelligent design, oh descendant of rock slime."
No, that's "Directed panspermia". It would mean life originated and evolved on another planet before Earth and was eventually spread here by creatures capable of space travel.
Intelligent Design is the failed pseudoscience concocted by the Discovery Institute to replace creationism as a means to circumvent the separation clause after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.
Feeding the military is feeding fascistness. Denying that 9-11 was an insiode job and also denying that point of view to be heard is fascism. Voting for bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, and being silent about hedge funds is fascism and being silent about oil prices is fascism. Allowing bad mortgages to bundled with other stocks is fascism. Ben Stein is basically an ignorant fascist and doesn't even know he is one!
you lost me at 911 was an inside job... you say shit like that and you immediately lose credibility. The real conspiracies are illegal wars, and they kill far far more many people than 911 did. And bad mortgages. And the federal reserve. Focus on those things that you can change now.
Interestingly enough the Mayans Calander is based on 7 days and 6 nights. These are not 24 hour periods. All their advanced knowledge was "given" to them. Their end/beginning are also looking to be near the same time. 2012 for the Mayans and up to 2018 based on a biblical generation from the time Isreal becomes a country. Words from Jesus.
I tried to go to his movie, but was turned away. Apparently no intelligence is allowed in the movie theater to view this film, the theaters had to keep refunding tickets to those who have it. On the upside, this is the first movie whose title gives explicit instructions for proper viewing enjoyment. Maybe this idea will prove revolutionary.
Using the death of millions of Jews in the death camps to support his hideous ideas is beyond repulsive and deeply insulting to the many distinguished Jewish scientists around the world
No, Ben Stein is a moron who hasn't a clue about what he is talking about. He's just another pseudointellectual religious nutjob who wants to push their religion into places where it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong in science classes, it doesn't belong in public schools, and it doesn't belong in our government.
You have to extra extra stupid to believe in "Micro" evolution yet not "Macro" Evolution. THERE THE SAME THING? What exactly is the biological process that stops all these small chances resulting in speciation?
the problem is that these crazy motherfukers use valid terminologies in invalid manners to confuse people. Microevolution and Macroevolution are both processes in the study of Evolution; one cannot exist without existence of the other. you don't say microevolution happens and then stops cause it reached a barrier. it's bullshit it's preposterous and theyll never get it right cause crazy is crazy and selfish and ignorant and stupid and....
The theory of evolution is not scientific nor has it undergone a scientific method. It is a hypothetical idea and has not progressed beyond that stage since Darwin.
No, you're wrong because you're wrong. You are wrong because you are not in possession of the facts. You are not in possession of the facts because you follow whatever morons like Ben Stein tell you. Typical of followers of any religion. Try doing a little research.
Your response is typical of people who support this movie. I just wish one of you would put up an argument that is worthy of debate. Just once.
Yeah, because science is accurate, except for when it isn't. Scientific "fact" changes all the time. That is why evolution is a theory, that is why the big bang is a theory. Because a week, month, or years from now they can be proven wrong. You people take science on faith, yet you mock people who believe in god? Hypocrites. You guys think science explains everything have more blind faith than religious people. At least religious people put thier faith in a god and not man(who is often wrong).
This may take a few follow ups but I think it's worth the time to set you straight on a few things.
Science changes all the time because it is constantly improving itself. The Scientific Method has built-in error correction. If a theory doesn't fit all the observed facts, then a new theory will usually take its place. Facts are observations. The number of observations that confirm that evolution happened is immense. There are no observations that disprove evolution. Evolution is a fact.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is not a fact. What proves evolution? We have the same number of fingers as a monkey so we must have come from them? Dogs have tails, lizards have tails. Wow, I see where you are going with this. So what did the Platapus evolve from? Evolution isn't a fact, otherwise it wouldn't be called the THEORY of Evolution. I do believe in evolution, but I don't have blind faith in it, certainly not enough to call it "fact". Look up theory in the dictionary. It basically means a GUESS!
In science there is nothing higher than a theory. Gravity is a theory. Atomic theory and germ theory are "just theories." In science a theory is a model that you use to make accurate predictions and actually trumps mere facts, that only tell what has happened, not what will happen as a theory does.
"So what did the platypus evolve from?"
A more primitive repto-mammal. The bill is actually only like a bird's in appearance, not structure/function.
"we need to tax the rich, and give it to the... military." lol! didn't expect that one.
aimulroony 2 months ago
I view them as intellectual terrorists, so maybe he does have a point. If I crap on a piece of paper, and turn it in to Nature, it's still better than what creationists/intelligent design idiots have done to date. There has been nothing but smoke and mirrors with these douchebags, they are the most intellectually dishonest assholes around.
brmadman4455 8 months ago
Hahaha- "has nothing to say about how life originated, how the governing forces in the universe [...] originated." That right there demonstrates how utterly ignorant Ben Stein is of evolution- it has nothing to say about those because it is NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS THEM. *facepalm*
LeonhardEuler1 10 months ago 2
What the hell does physics have to do with evolution?
Still no empiric evidence for an intelligent designer. And BTW, who designed the designer?
fuzzyone99 1 year ago
Weither you believe in creation or evolution, who gives a shit what ben zionist jewboy stein believes!! Why would a Christian nation pay any attention to a jesus hating jew who wants to increase your taxes to increase funding to the military? If you can't accept the Son, how can you honestly honor the Father?
roughcutone2 2 years ago
exactly
also this rat calls antisemite to anyone calling his boring pathetic bluff
check stein vs ron paul
this lying snake is a joke
and snakes are going down.
bananito2 2 years ago
@roughcutone2 Wow...Unabashed antisemitism probably won't help your ethos or your argument. I think Ben Stein is an idiot too, but you must realize how ridiculous it looks to the rest of us when Christians bash Jews or Muslims, especially if you just sink to name calling. A majority of people don't believe Jesus was the son of God, so it's also a little silly to say something like "If you can't accept the Son, how can you honestly honor the Father?"
Best,
BR
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
Creationism= It's complicated, we don't have the complete story, so therefore god did it, end of story.
Flailwielder 2 years ago
I've seen his film, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Ben Stein is a fucking idiot lol
niemanickurwa 3 years ago 7
Did you need a movie to say that?
Ko252 2 years ago
Comment removed
niemanickurwa 1 year ago
@Ko252 Did you need me to draw you a picture?
niemanickurwa 1 year ago
@niemanickurwa No, but is quite amuzing that you need a movie to understand that "Ben is stone" is a retard
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 Fairly sure I said " I've seen his film, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Ben Stein is a fucking idiot" Not, "I thought he was a genius until I saw his film" my trolly little moronic friend. That's as close to drawing you a picture as youtube affords me princess.
niemanickurwa 1 year ago
@niemanickurwa I could say that without watching the movie. It is Ben the stoned, for GODs sake. That you even had to watch the movie to understand this, says a lot a about you.
Ko252 1 year ago
watch Ken Miller videos on the debunking of ID aka creationism.
Facts in the face of politics and its marriage to religion and social control, prevails.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
It's too bad that evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are such crappy communicators. Religious fanaticism is no more frightening than scientific arrogance. We'll find out in the end whether there's an afterlife, whether it's fun to be anti-matter or why we came back as a roll of toilet paper.
tentwo70 3 years ago
"Derrrrr... Evolution has nothing to say about gravity or thermodynamics... Derrrrr" Jesus, what a fuck head. How can he say bullshit like this and be taken seriously?!? I've seen repeat this shit many times. It has to stop. What a fuckin idiot. I hope Ben Stein gets cancer and AIDS. That would be so great.
GayFatRetard 3 years ago
Ok, if ben stein is such a frwakin' genius then why hasn't he gotten the Nobel price yet for overturning the theory of evolution?
he's just another bible thumper.
genius my ass.
zmart4ever 3 years ago
ben stein is a moron. Just look at him.
zmart4ever 3 years ago
Ben Stein has an IQ 140. An IQ of 140 is considered genius. He may seem like a moron to you but that's just because dullards (stupid people) can't grasp the meaning of the words of a genius. As far as evolution goes, Ben is exactly correct. Micro Evolution has been shown in a lab. It happens. Macro evolution is scientifically worthless. The idea that someone or something created this world is the most intelligent theory one can hold. You don't know this because a stupid person can't know this.
Watthiman 3 years ago
There's something to be said for geniuses being regarded as idiots. See if your IQ is 85 and you speak with someone who has an IQ of 185, you will only understand 85/185 of the depth of his mind. If he's speaking about metaphysics or philosophy, it would sound like nonsense to you and people who speak nonsense are idiots. Therefore, if you're an idiot, everyone smarter than you will appear to be a bigger idiot because you're stupid enough for two. Stupid people can't understand this, either.
YouBelongToUs 3 years ago
This is correct. A person with an IQ of 85 can't by definition, understand a person with an IQ of 160, if he could, he would'nt have an IQ of 85.
Watthiman 3 years ago
This is not correct. This is bullshit.
Do you guys actually know what IQ stands for?
The way you guys talk here is so ignorant. IQ is often an incredibly arbitrary way of determining intelligence in a person. Someone could score poorly in a test and know more about metaphysics or philosophy because I don't know...HE STUDIED THOSE TOPICS. Jesus. Throwing around these big words, you geniuses are pretty ignorant.
grogilator 2 years ago
My iq is 132 and my brothers is 155. Since my brother and I now that intelligent design is not science then Ben Stein must be wrong since his iq is 140 and his logic is completely flawed. IQ only measures a certain type of intelligence. I have seen many people with high IQ's that can't change a tire on a car.
Also look at how many times Ben Stein has been wrong about Peter Schiff on the Economy. I guess Peter Schiff's IQ must be above 140. Ben Stein had to apologize to Peter Schiff in the news.
fssrk1 3 years ago
Having a high IQ does'nt immune a person from belief patterns, superstion, wishful thinking, etc. Also, sometimes intelligence is domain specific; some people have a propensity for understanding human behavior, other do not, etc. The ability to change a car tire or make delicous french toast is not indicative of intelligence or lack thereof. It's irrelevant in regard to rational thinking.
If you're taught how to make french toast or change a car tire it's easy. If you've never done it...
blaziermissy 3 years ago
Again, I agree but on this issue Ben is correct. We have creators. This I've always known or at least it always seemed much more plausible than bacteria suddenly and inexplicably evolving into complex organisms due to some, as of yet unknown, form of magic. All you have to do is look at a banana tree. Was a banana tree an accident too? Just so happened that a million accidents happened which benefit life.
Watthiman 3 years ago
oh wow. I can see why you people believe what you believe.
Try Science 101 evolution 101 natural selection for dummies and then expand your studies.
Simple to complex, much like life could originate.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
I'm confident that my understanding of macro evolution theory is likely more complete then yours. However none of this matters because I don't care what your opinion is about anything.
Watthiman 3 years ago
Not everything is competitive, as we've been molded to think so, but if you insist on thinking shallowly in terms of a competition, do so if you must.
On a MORE important note, I suggest you watch Zeitgeist: Addendum for the most important video of your lifetime, whether you recognize it aa such or not.
UNITED we can have the world we all deserve.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
You can have a high IQ and a very good education but still wish and believe for things to be true based on your indoctrination and your family influence.
SCIENCE is rational, without the bias.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
I agree with your first statement. I do not agree with your second statement. Science tries to be rational and without bias but as history clearly demonstrates it often fails on both counts. In addition there are political and monetary pressures which absolutely effect science.
Watthiman 3 years ago
Well let me be CLEAR.....Professional, peer-reviewed science recognized by the National Academy of Science....not the evangelical backed and politically pushed social policy utilizing pseudoscience, aka intelligent design, aka, creationism.
Of course politics has tampered and attempts to corrupt science. Institutions such as the Discovery Insititute and Templeton foundation are RELIGOUSLY funded. That's why creationism ignorance is being taught in some schools.
Of course politics
blaziermissy 3 years ago
i gurantee that ben stein is more intelligent than any of you people talking shit.
kylebakersanangelo 3 years ago
benstein said that subprime is contained.
u are a fucking douche.
rosewood223 3 years ago
Ben Stein is an idiot and knuckle-dragging neanderthal. Why would anyone be surprised that this fool is a republican. The only thing that surprises me is that he is NOT sucking Henry Paulson's and John McCain's cocks.
CloanLabs 3 years ago
Gee, this guy acts as if he was there when "God" made everything. He has no evidence for his crap at all. Then he brings up Einstein in defense of his crap, but Einstein was a known Atheist.
Intelligent Design should be discussed when they bring evidence for it. Science has it's evidence, so bring yours.
zmart4ever 3 years ago
evidence is everything around you buddy
bjmathe 3 years ago
Einstein was NOT a known Atheist. He said many people would consider him an atheist. He said he did not believe in the childlike personal God of the bible who rewards and punishes people. He certainly never implied that he does not believe in a creator.
Watthiman 3 years ago
Are dictated social policy has a hidden implication that if you don't believe in god, you're not going to get far in the public political arena. With that said, you can see why Einstein played with his words. Similarly, you can also see why even though 90 something % of scientist who don't believe in a god don't go around proclaiming it publicly.
The status quo has lead in its ass.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
Einstein made , and published many statements about God and religion. he did not shy away from the issue. In fact he corrected the publics perceptions of his believes a number of times in his life. He made it perfectly clear that he did not believe in a child like personal God. He also made it clear that he was not an atheist and finally at the end of his life, he made it perfectly clear that he wonders just liek the rest of us.
Watthiman 3 years ago
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
Watthiman 3 years ago
Refer to my posting above in regard to Einstein. Synthesize the information utilizing psychology, sociology, politics, and how they all interact in regard to religion and the status quo.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)
Watthiman 3 years ago
Just becaue we don't know EXACTLY how life came about doesn't mean the answer is GOD.
zmart4ever 3 years ago
Ben Stein makes me freakin' sick
zmart4ever 3 years ago
BEN STEIN IS A RACKIST- fuck him
Doggnuttsb4u 3 years ago
well said itlookslikejello.
BubbaGump332 3 years ago
At the end of the day - who cares, really?
There are more pressing issues in the world of REALITY.
We can wax theoretic until the cows come home. Will it change any of the current problems the world is now facing?
A total waste of time and energy, IMO.
boskinator 3 years ago
Evolution isn't the only thing that discredits creationism/intelligent design. I think its funny that its always the chosen argument while there are many other flaws. I'm not denying that it is possible to have an intelligent design... however, there could be aliens, fairies, and all sorts of other things floating around that we don't know about, but until we teach it in our schools lets get some kind of evidence and logic behind it....
itlookslikejello 3 years ago
That Richard M. Sternberg thinks his shameless croneyism and shady, unethical corruption of the peer review process is "giving the topic of Intelligent Design some modicum of credibility" is flat out laughable. Only the most gullible and ignorant of audiences could swallow that one. Unfortunately it appears that's just the audience they got.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
yup. prople like 2 b jedi mind trikd. its easier than thinkng
truthislifeis 3 years ago
I cannot believe he is still allowed to speak. Free speech yeah, but but but AHHHHHHHHHH someone shoot him in the face!! (I don't mind being sued when you do, take it as encouragement).
ThePowerFunt 3 years ago
There's a new idiot in town...
FuckUSAEmpire 3 years ago
How it's done Greg, is the statement one would make is not entirely false...by itself.
If I were to walk into a room, coming in from outside where it had been pouring rain and said, "Fine weather we are having."
Though my intent is sarcasm, it is not a false statement...by itself...for to some rain would be fine weather.
Now, if instead I say, "It's raining cats and dogs." I have made a false statement, it cannot be the truth on it's own, because it cannot rain cats and dogs.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
By the way, everyone please read the column by Olivia Judson in today's NY Times (7/16/2008). It's amazing to read a description of what evolutionary biology is really all about.
greg5566 3 years ago
Ben Stein is an idiot and a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.
greg5566 3 years ago
It's high time someone talks about what happens if you are a scientist and discuss/believe in ID. EXPELLED PRODUCERS RULE!
nikirunstheshow 3 years ago
stein is such a smart guy. yet when he talks about republicanism he turns into a mindless neocon robot that must fall in line with his "party" too bad he isn't more a more independent thinker.
kindkayne 3 years ago
Neocon? Have you been listening? His views are almost polar OPPOSITE of what the neocons believe.
Neocons = big government, big spending, corporate monopolies, replacing the middle class, etc.
espada9 3 years ago
i'm talking about the fact that he automatically supports john mccain even tho he has nothing in common with ben steins values. he could support a libertarian candidate or a constitution party but no.. he he hard core republican to such a degree that he will vote for someone he doesn't believe in.
kindkayne 3 years ago
There is no "ist" in evolution. Call them scientists, plz.
Nobody is kicked out if he is religeous? If you are irrational and invent stupid things you might not be taken too serious as a scientist.
barium111 3 years ago
Ask an evolutionist how life first formed...
You will get no anwer.
What happened? Lightning hit sterile water and voila?
Recreate life in a lab, should be easy no?
You have ALL things needed why can't you do it?
I'll give one million dollars to the first person that can repeatedly create even a single cell...from nothing.
Evolutionists love to put down creationists, well...all I ask is you do a simple thing, should be easy for such highly "intelligent" people yes?
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago 2
give it , at most , fifteen years and you'll probably be out a million bucks
SHFUTS 3 years ago
So you're saying in fifteen years scientists will be able to create life from a sterile environment...
OK, I'm a patient man.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago 2
Asking an evolutionist how life is formed...
you are not paying attention
look around in you tube explaining abiogenesis by DonExodus2.
just make sure you do have a million dollars with you. if you dont really have a million dollars dont say so, you will just degrade yourself to the level of intellectual dishonesty your fellow creationist are so proficient in doing.
emancoy 3 years ago
Suggest you watch the video reply to make it easier for you to understand.
emancoy 3 years ago
I have done it many times. Just ask my babymamas.
greg5566 3 years ago
I have a new goal for myself. It's never to respond to people who clearly don't have the slightest logical ability. I could respond to this guy, and bang my head against the fallacious arguments for days. But I know already it's a waste of time, so why start? Where does he get it should be easy to recreate life? That's such a retarded, specious question. It took the universe billions of years, and we've only been investigating it for maybe 100.
greg5566 3 years ago
But more importantly, it has nothing to do with the question at hand. I just started law school recently, so I had to take the LSAT, which is a logic exam. One of these people, almost by definition, would score in about the 4th percentile of logical ability.
greg5566 3 years ago
The people in that fourth percentile would probably say things like, "Just ask my babymamas."
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
No, humor takes intelligence--the inverse of which you've just proven.
greg5566 3 years ago
So that was humor, thanks for the clarification.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
No problem--I didn't really expect you would be able to recognize it. That comment was more for other readers of these comments. Glad to help.
greg5566 3 years ago
Now I'll clarify mine. That was sarcasm, but I really didn't expect you to recognize it.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
You missed it again. I was making fun of you by pretending you were serious. But you've come a long way in a very short time! I'm impressed.
greg5566 3 years ago
Never would of guessed.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
Right, I know, that's why I told you, same as last time.
greg5566 3 years ago
And same as last time...that was sarcasm.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
What's funny is that what you call sarcasm doesn't even make sense--you're doing it backwards. Sarcasm is when you say something that's not true, like if I said, "you sure are smart"--that would be sarcastic, because I obviously don't mean it. You don't seem to understand how sarcasm works at all--look at the "sarcastic" things you've said: "never would have guessed," meaning of course you knew it was humor. But you're trying to say the opposite. Which was my point--humor requires intelligence.
greg5566 3 years ago
Wrong Greg.
Sarcasm is stating the opposite of intended meaning. So when I said, "Never would of guessed."...it is sarcasm.
Regarding humor, I would say...GOOD humor...requires intelligence. Not just any humor, there are many people who think they are funny and are not...right Greg?
See, now if I say "You sure are smart", I'm just lying which is different from sarcasm...comprende?
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
Two things, first that's exactly what I said. Second, exactly, I know what you said, and that's why you don't seem to understand how it works: you said, "never would have guessed" meaning you _did_ guess because it _was_ funny. You're trying to be sarcastic by saying what you mean to say.
Yes, of course, when I said humor, I meant "good humor." We agree about that. When I said you are demonstrating my point, I meant good humor.
greg5566 3 years ago
No Greg, wrong again, that's not exactly what you said...
You said, and I quote, "sarcasm is when you say something that is not true."
That is not entirely accurate, as that is what is known as a lie Greg, not sarcasm.
Now, as to the SEPARATE issue of humor, I'm glad you agree that it must be good in order to denote some level of higher intelligence, yet to be sure, a good comedian doesn't have to have an IQ of 180 or higher. Correct?
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
You said: "stating the opposite of intended meaning."
I said: "saying something that is not true."
If you can explain how those two things are different, I'd be glad to listen. Specifically, if you say the opposite of intended meeting, how can you do that and state something that is true at the same time?
The only thing I can think is that you are pretending that "intended meaning" somehow doesn't hold "truth" in the way you are quibbling with me here.
...
greg5566 3 years ago
I'm not "pretending" anything, your statement that "saying something that is not true" is the definition of sarcasm, is what is untrue.
Your statement itself, is a clear example of a statement that is untrue and NOT opposite in meaning, it is just false. It is an untrue statement, but cannot by definition be sarcastic.
Someone states something that is untrue, they have either lied or stated something they THOUGHT to be true while being false nonetheless. Some call that ignorance.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
I asked you a direct question: how is "saying something that is not true" different from "saying the opposite of intended meaning." I can't see how those are other than two different ways of saying the same thing. While you repeated your definition of lying, which isn't wrong as far as it goes, you have not answered my question. How is "stating the opposite of intended meaning" different than saying something that is not true?
greg5566 3 years ago
Likewise, I request you give me an example of sarcasm that does not entail saying something that is not true. "Boy are you dumb"--that is not sarcastic, because it's true. You cannot have true and sarcastic in the same sentence.
So, back to my question: how is "saying something that is not true" different from "stating the opposite of intended meaning"?
greg5566 3 years ago
Wrong Greg, think real hard, it can be done.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
And, . . . we're done. Your comments have devolved (ha!) into incomprehensible babble. Time to stop.
PS. (I am still interested in hearing how one can say something that is both sarcastic and true--an explanation or an example would be fine. Other than that, I won't be responding again. Feel free to explain one more time how I'm "ignorant" because I refuse to discuss which dictionary meaning of "argument" your arguments did not fit under.)
greg5566 3 years ago
You lost me now bud, I never said, "you're ignorant because you refuse to discuss which dictionary meaning of the word "argument" my arguments did not fit under."
I've never even addressed that, so I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.
The only dictionary definition I've been talking about all along is the same one...the defintion of sarcasm.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
Well, earlier you accused me of saying something that I know not to be true. If this is your version of an honest argument, you are a liar in every sense of the word.
Secondly, as to humor, this is more of the difficulty you have with logic. I didn't say that humor must be good to denote some level of higher intelligence. I'm sorry you can't distinguish between subtleties of meaning, but you've demonstrated many times that you can't; so I'm not going to try to explain why you are wrong.
greg5566 3 years ago
The only thing I've accused you of is not stating correctly the meaning of sarcasm.
I have given the evidence of your quoted words, "sarcasm is when you say something that is not true."
That is what you typed, that is apparently what you believe, it is false, yet you call me a liar now.
Interesting.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
As to the second part of your post, you said, "I didn't say that humor must be good to denote some level of higher intelligence."
ok my bad, I thought when you said, "Yes, of course, when I said humor, I meant "good humor." We agree about that."
When you said that, I thought you agreed that only good humor would denote higher intelligence.
I take it then you believe that humor that isn't funny denotes higher intelligence as well???
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
As I said, almost every post you make demonstrates some flaw of logic.
A statement does not imply its inverse or converse. It does imply its contrapositive.
By the way, I think maybe you meant something different than what you said, is why I disagreed with it above. You said "humor must be good to denote intelligence." "Humor must be good to denote" is really twisted around to be a statement about different kinds of humor.
greg5566 3 years ago
But I think you didn't mean it to be a statement about different kinds of humor. The simpler: "good humor 'denotes' [another bad choice of words] intelligence." That is what I said.
You twist things around so much it's a full time job untangling them. We aren't talking about good vs. bad humor. We aren't talking about _making_ humor at all. We're talking about the ability to _recognize_ humor. I think that is your main confusion.
greg5566 3 years ago
By the way, reading something different in what someone said is actually exactly the pattern of argument you use in ID as well. It's one thing to take what a person says to its logical conclusion. But what you do is make logically invalid leaps. You do it repeatedly (almost every comment). This conversation about humor is illustrative of why talking to you about ID is pointless--because your arguments aren't honest. Or if honest, then you don't have the logical capacity to hold a conversation.
greg5566 3 years ago
Again Greg, I'm not quite sure why you don't get this, but...pssssst, I haven't argued about ID here. So why you would type that again after I pointed it out to you the first time, is now making me start to wonder about your grasp.
Why hehehe...if I were a smart man I would be tempted to think you're writing that nonsense in some kind of vain attempt to discredit me Greg, but I'm sure you're far above that and it's just my imagination.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
I apologize for not lending any weight to your bullshit prevarications. I know you have told me twice that you are not arguing. Your mode of argument is clear. You parse something in a defensible but facially untrue way then harp on the distinction rather than the topic at hand. It's completely dishonest. Look at any one of your messages, everyone of them is both an argument and argumentative.
greg5566 3 years ago
I'm having an honest conversation with you, I'm not engaging you in your obviously dishonest splitting of hairs (well, I am about sarcasm, but not about argument). You can _say_ you're not arguing all you want, all anyone has to do is scroll up to see otherwise.
It's a very effective way of arguing with dumber people, but again, I'm not even going to debate with you about whether you "argued" with me about ID--...
greg5566 3 years ago
Two things demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty behind your insistence you're not arguing:
1) it's beside the point. It doesn't matter if you're "arguing" or not, you're only disputing the label I put on your comment, not anything meaningful.
2) Your "definition" is some ridiculous parse that bears no relation to common sense (or probably even the truth)--look at how you defend your definition of "sarcasm."
This mode of argument is intellectually dishonest.
greg5566 3 years ago
1)It does matter, because you keep stating I have, when I have not, but yet you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
2)My "definition" is straight from the dictionary.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
This message demonstrates exactly what I'm saying. (It's equally dishonest, and is precisely my point. I'm sure the dictionary has 5 different definitions of "argument"--you've picked one--the one that doesn't describe what you do--to argue that you aren't arguing. It is intellectually dishonest. And again, you're arguing over a definition, not something substantive. Even if my use of the word doesn't match yours, it's not relevant to anything. 1) and 2). Intellectually dishonest.)
greg5566 3 years ago
It was the defintion of the word sarcasm, not the word "argument"...lol
Due try and keep up Greg, and I disagree, it is relative to intelligence.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
Have you seen those Geico caveman ads? To quote the caveman on the news talk show when asked to respond to something equally non-sensical to your last comment here, "yeah, I have something to say. Uh, what?"
greg5566 3 years ago
What makes it _especially_ intellectually dishonest is that you are using the fact that I refuse to acknowledge your claims that are so facially, empirically untrue, as evidence that I am not intelligent! I'm not discrediting you. Every time you make one of these arguments that parses some definition in a spurious way, you are discrediting yourself.
It's a defense mechanism, and a fairly clever one, but it is transparent to anyone of average intelligence.
greg5566 3 years ago
By the way, while I'm here, let me give you a mini-lesson on logic. Your evidence for the difference between "good" humor and simple humor is inapposite. Whether people _think_ they are funny is irrelevant to whether they are and whether intelligence is required--good or not.
(Just taking the opportunity to point out a minor example of the flaws in your thinking that lead to such drastic beliefs in other areas.)
greg5566 3 years ago
Oh, while I'm here, the amazing thing about "intelligent design" "believers" is how OBVIOUSLY not true it is. Child birth, for instance, is the most dangerous, ridiculously badly designed system one could possibly imagine.
"Moronic design"--that I might by into.
Eyes are another example--why do we have veins IN FRONT OF the retina?! It is almost blasphemous to suggest that God was so stupid as to actually DESIGN the world the way it is.
greg5566 3 years ago
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Ever think the answer to those questions may have eluded you?
Did you search high and low or do you expect to find answers from those already biased?
You sure the earth was originally meant for man?
Be careful of taking an account of self and counting same exceedingly wise.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
There is not a single word in this response that bore the least relationship to what I just said. Your message here illustrates exactly what I said to begin with, that you're so incapable of forming syllogisms, identifying cause and effect, any of the most basic logical skills, that responding to this would be a complete waste of time. Anything else you have to say on the topic, just apply this message; I won't type it again.
greg5566 3 years ago
You stated intelligent design is "moronic design" ie...chidbirth and eyes. Then say, it's so stupid that it would be blasphemous to say God would design things like that.
The point I made was there could be more reason for it than you know, but I doubt you have searched. You have looked to science and are satisfied and satisfied count yourself wise.
It is obviously...directly related.
I hope you fare better at law...than this.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
What you're saying is interesting because it points out such an obvious flaw in intelligent design. What you say is exactly the problem, and when I do exactly the same thing then it becomes clear to you.
What makes YOU think the world is "intelligently" designed? You're doing exactly what you accuse me of, applying your own sense what's impressive to conclude it must be intelligent. But that's no kind of evidence, to say it "must" have been designed because it's too amazing not to have been.
greg5566 3 years ago
So yes, thank you for that, you're precisely right, it is exactly why the "look around you--wow!" argument is no kind of argument at all. It doesn't prove or even imply anything.
I also like your suggestion that there might be a reason for difficult childbirth . . . in other words an EVOLUTIONARY reason, right? Of course that's what you meant, and of course you're exactly right.
. . .
greg5566 3 years ago
It's not meant to be an "argument"
It's meant as a suggestion, it wasn't stated as an answer, but to give direction.
And no, it's not what I meant about there being a reason, you know that, but feign ignorance, as you've been doing all along, but I'm aware of it, so find it amusing.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
Lastly this is of course why your "side" avoids logic, because as soon as you get baited into actually trying to make reasonable arguments, it's too easy to knock down. I expect you'll go back to your nonsensical comments now. But if you would care to continue a _reasonable_ conversation, I am happy to.
(As for lawyering, remember I told you I wasn't going to talk to you logically--these are the first comments where I have.)
greg5566 3 years ago
In my comments, where have I avoided logic>?
I haven't taken the bait, now have I, though you've tried. All I've done was suggest you seek. If you truly believe there can be no other possible explanation, no other possible reason...one that would answer the very questions or should I say statements you've made with the greatest of ease...then don't.
But you wish for me to just come out with it, I should just make it easy and explain.
Not I...
Seek.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
What Stein is addressing is how evolutionists will not hear those with questions about the many holes in evolutionism. While it certainly exists on a micro level, as he pointed out, no one has winessed the formation of a new species. Why? The theory of evolution should have us witnessing this commonly...and yet...
The movie he made is about the first amendment and how creationists are being shut out, cast out, fired and ridiculed all over the US.
FzSBLACKMAGICK 3 years ago
Those who believe in a God are weak of mind.
greatbeyond801 3 years ago
This is stupidity
God is Who He is and Created what He created when His word said that He did it
The carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of God...
brokenwithpower 3 years ago
ben stein is an idiot in everything except making the money
my45ze 3 years ago
Who designed the Designers?
renorich66 3 years ago
who desgined the idea that life came from nothing.
daming209 3 years ago
almost evry thing he said had nothing to do with evolution like gravaty ond elctromagnatisim thay did not have anything to do with it then he had the nerv to talk about neandathols
sorry about my spelling
slim2277 3 years ago
Intelligent design is dangerous to religion. These people come up with examples of things that could not have evolved via natural selection as their support. But then scientists examine those examples, and they find the fosil evidence or the DNA evidence or other empirical evidence to explain them. The idea (we cannot call it a theory in any meaningful sense) starts to crumble. Just believe in a creator if you want, but use your brains and realize that we evolved. The evidence is there.
levity76 3 years ago
Tax more? And he's a Republican? Give the money to "worthy" causes? Regulate human behavior?
A Republican? What a Joke.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
I hate when people equate someone's belief in a creator means that their political leanings are toward right wing conservative republicans. Fuck Bush and fuck the neoconservative Republicans and the neoliberal Democrats.
warrior350es 3 years ago
I think what Ben Stein says is very credible. He is an extremely intelligent man I dare say more so than any man posting on here including this one. By the way Obama sucks, so does McCain and Hillary.
warrior350es 3 years ago
Ben Stein is a smart guy, but he's not a biologist. He's a political and financial wiz. And an actor. Why should he be considered an authority on the subject? This is about people wanted to find evidence of a creator, to find some tenable middleground between evolution and creation. It's dangerous ground for religion to tread on.
levity76 3 years ago
Well couldn't the samething be said of evolutionists, that's it's dangerous ground to tread on. I think it can neither be proven or disproved, it's up to the individual to believe what they want to believe.
warrior350es 3 years ago
From what I understand, Ben Stein is Jewish and I know they have their God. But he seems to be referencing to God in that very traditional Christian right-wing sense. That, amongst other things, makes me believe this man is starting to lose his mind.
mrcjfuzznut 3 years ago
You do realize that the Christian God and the Jewish God are one in the same, don't you? The Old Testament of the Bible makes up the Jewish holy book, the Torah!
michieman0 3 years ago 2
Lets not forget that Paganism was before it all. From paganism, came Christianity.
TwistedSister19 3 years ago
Really, they're one in the same? Then why are there two separate religions if they were truly "one in the same"? I don't side with either religion (or any religion). If what you say is completely true then it just confirms that organized religion is entirely twisted and crap. That's the reason that I don't read as much into it as you, my friend. Anyway, my issue was that Ben Stein sounded like a typical "Bush Republican" when referring to God.
mrcjfuzznut 3 years ago
The answer to your quesiton is this: It's all mythology.
levity76 3 years ago
In just about every interview so far Stein has inexplicably gone off on a nutty tangent about Darwin failing to explain gravity. What's amazing is not a single interviewer has questioned the idiocy of such a statement.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
Evolution only explains small changes in an organism. Just as we are approaching the time when we can tamper with dna, so could have earlier life forms helped "create" us. That is your intelligent design, oh descendant of rock slime.
kangalanatolian 3 years ago
We see the fosil evidence and DNA evidence that shows a evolutionary link between birds and lizzards. Archaeopteryx -- wiki that shit! That's not a small change in an organism. We see vestigial hip bones in whales and other evidence they they evolved from animals that once walked on land. Not a small change.
levity76 3 years ago
acrchaeopteryx is just a bird their are birds with claws and teeth today to, and the vestigil hip bone in wales is part of their sexual organs, their is no fossil or dna evidence that shows a evolutionary link between birds and lizards, and archaeopteryx is a hoax anyways they just bury anyone that admits it gets harrased, fired, or threatened
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
so basicly even if it is real its just a bird and has been proven as such by multiple scientists ,and if not its a hoax ,either way not an evolutionary link
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
>"...so could have earlier life forms helped "create" us. That is your intelligent design, oh descendant of rock slime."
No, that's "Directed panspermia". It would mean life originated and evolved on another planet before Earth and was eventually spread here by creatures capable of space travel.
Intelligent Design is the failed pseudoscience concocted by the Discovery Institute to replace creationism as a means to circumvent the separation clause after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.
methinxaweezil 3 years ago
Ben Stein is not smart-he is fooling himself.
Feeding the military is feeding fascistness. Denying that 9-11 was an insiode job and also denying that point of view to be heard is fascism. Voting for bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, and being silent about hedge funds is fascism and being silent about oil prices is fascism. Allowing bad mortgages to bundled with other stocks is fascism. Ben Stein is basically an ignorant fascist and doesn't even know he is one!
kjack5 3 years ago
you lost me at 911 was an inside job... you say shit like that and you immediately lose credibility. The real conspiracies are illegal wars, and they kill far far more many people than 911 did. And bad mortgages. And the federal reserve. Focus on those things that you can change now.
levity76 3 years ago
Interestingly enough the Mayans Calander is based on 7 days and 6 nights. These are not 24 hour periods. All their advanced knowledge was "given" to them. Their end/beginning are also looking to be near the same time. 2012 for the Mayans and up to 2018 based on a biblical generation from the time Isreal becomes a country. Words from Jesus.
RickTJustice 3 years ago
Evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Evolution does not explain gravity.
Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life. Ben Stein is dead wrong in that subject.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
I tried to go to his movie, but was turned away. Apparently no intelligence is allowed in the movie theater to view this film, the theaters had to keep refunding tickets to those who have it. On the upside, this is the first movie whose title gives explicit instructions for proper viewing enjoyment. Maybe this idea will prove revolutionary.
theadamhall 3 years ago
Using the death of millions of Jews in the death camps to support his hideous ideas is beyond repulsive and deeply insulting to the many distinguished Jewish scientists around the world
elfinbones 3 years ago 4
the 6 days thing could be disputed forever because humans just don't know.. god didn't give you time to measure him with anyway.
listen2radiohead 3 years ago
Is Ben Stein drunk? (perhaps he had a stroke or was lobotomized) Regardless, he's an ignorant fucktard.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 3
Ben isnt gonna vote Ron Paul? he must not be that smart....
tibbz82 3 years ago 2
Ben Stein is a very smart guy. He brings up a lot of very good points.
Ericjpomeroy 3 years ago
No, Ben Stein is a moron who hasn't a clue about what he is talking about. He's just another pseudointellectual religious nutjob who wants to push their religion into places where it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong in science classes, it doesn't belong in public schools, and it doesn't belong in our government.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 3
Lets Tax Ben Stein! If he has problem with that... tough.
kswiatlo 3 years ago 2
You have to extra extra stupid to believe in "Micro" evolution yet not "Macro" Evolution. THERE THE SAME THING? What exactly is the biological process that stops all these small chances resulting in speciation?
bgyuk 3 years ago
the problem is that these crazy motherfukers use valid terminologies in invalid manners to confuse people. Microevolution and Macroevolution are both processes in the study of Evolution; one cannot exist without existence of the other. you don't say microevolution happens and then stops cause it reached a barrier. it's bullshit it's preposterous and theyll never get it right cause crazy is crazy and selfish and ignorant and stupid and....
Somatostatin 3 years ago
The theory of evolution is not scientific nor has it undergone a scientific method. It is a hypothetical idea and has not progressed beyond that stage since Darwin.
sbjork 3 years ago
AHAHAH oh dear.
bgyuk 3 years ago 3
selfishness and ignorance
that;s your answer you delusional pipsqueak!
Somatostatin 3 years ago
That's utter nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 2
Yeah, I am sure your an authority on everything and if I disagree with you I must be wrong. Douche.
Ericjpomeroy 3 years ago
No, you're wrong because you're wrong. You are wrong because you are not in possession of the facts. You are not in possession of the facts because you follow whatever morons like Ben Stein tell you. Typical of followers of any religion. Try doing a little research.
Your response is typical of people who support this movie. I just wish one of you would put up an argument that is worthy of debate. Just once.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago
Yeah, because science is accurate, except for when it isn't. Scientific "fact" changes all the time. That is why evolution is a theory, that is why the big bang is a theory. Because a week, month, or years from now they can be proven wrong. You people take science on faith, yet you mock people who believe in god? Hypocrites. You guys think science explains everything have more blind faith than religious people. At least religious people put thier faith in a god and not man(who is often wrong).
Ericjpomeroy 3 years ago
This may take a few follow ups but I think it's worth the time to set you straight on a few things.
Science changes all the time because it is constantly improving itself. The Scientific Method has built-in error correction. If a theory doesn't fit all the observed facts, then a new theory will usually take its place. Facts are observations. The number of observations that confirm that evolution happened is immense. There are no observations that disprove evolution. Evolution is a fact.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is not a fact. What proves evolution? We have the same number of fingers as a monkey so we must have come from them? Dogs have tails, lizards have tails. Wow, I see where you are going with this. So what did the Platapus evolve from? Evolution isn't a fact, otherwise it wouldn't be called the THEORY of Evolution. I do believe in evolution, but I don't have blind faith in it, certainly not enough to call it "fact". Look up theory in the dictionary. It basically means a GUESS!
Ericjpomeroy 3 years ago
I'm done with you. You're hopeless.
DaveGrossmanSoloBass 3 years ago 4
hahaha who's hopeless
listen2radiohead 3 years ago
"Otherwise it wouldn't be called the THEORY..."
In science there is nothing higher than a theory. Gravity is a theory. Atomic theory and germ theory are "just theories." In science a theory is a model that you use to make accurate predictions and actually trumps mere facts, that only tell what has happened, not what will happen as a theory does.
"So what did the platypus evolve from?"
A more primitive repto-mammal. The bill is actually only like a bird's in appearance, not structure/function.
ride4ruin 3 years ago
Evidence for evolution:
1. Retroviral and junk DNA that conforms to the branching tree pattern predicted by evolutionary theory.
2. The fossil record, which has many instances of doing the same thing.
3. Observed instances of speciation, a full list can be easily found via google. One example is Culex Pipiens giving rise to Culex Molestus.
4. Logical inevitability in the presence of mutation and selective pressure.
And the list goes on, visit Talkorigins for a more exhaustive list.
ride4ruin 3 years ago