Dawkin's is a zealot his views are based on dogma not science its a world view his trying to defend he does not want any theory which makes room for a designer. Demanding that the foundation has to be without any possibility of a creator is not scientific at all science has to be open to any possibility its where the evidence takes us. ID is under attack because its opens a door to the possibility of a creator and thats blasphemy to hard line darwinist atheists.
The propaganda in this film is laughably transparent. David Berlenski is making stuff up. What an idiot......don't care if he taught at all those universities..
life is essentially based on the slightly incorrect replication of information, a process naturally taking place in the world of crystals. crystals may have served as a replication platform for the first organic molecules. it's actually a great theory if you think about it.
of course it sounds stupid the way its presented in this "documentiation".
Do aliens exist?...maybe so. Most likely yes, but their probably a product of nothing Evolutionary but fallen angels who slept with earth woman and produced the "Nephilem" seed. And their technology is probably superhuman/supernatural. And that's why sometimes it's scientific or supernatural, unexplained all together. But no the "aliens" did not "Make the world". God did.
Check out Richard Dawkin's christmas lectures at the Royal Institute in London for a better explanation of the "random" formation of life and evolutionary change. This video intentionally makes it look preposterous.
what ppl fail to understand is the simple concept of life, which is just consciousness really, without it there is no concept, consciousness comes from out brain, our brain is simply made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of base elements. there's nothing special about it really. simply because one can not grasp this simple concept or cannot fathom how it life could have started does not mean some being created it.
@FenixLites oh how i love when ppl use the word impossible instead of improbable. Have you heard of murphy's law? many ppl use it for bad situations, but really it simply means anything that can possibly happen will at some point in the infinity of time. What makes you think the earth is the only petri dish out in the universe? can you even fathom how many start there are? well there are even more planets than that. if someone can be struck by lighting or win the lottery why is ist so farfetched
i think it's really funny he ridiculed aliens when that would actually help their argument of intelligent design, this is how you know it's about religion and NOT about intelligent design.
@FenixLites Even accepting the alien theory does not solve the issue. Were the aliens a result of evolution, or intelligent design? The idea of intelligent design just suggests that things aren't as random as the theory of evolution suggests. I do belief in creation by God, however, some ID scientists do not. They see things as being way too complex for some random act, and way too many unanswered questions to just accept evolution as many have.
@LeeRLang actually as soon as it poses anything in it's own words it becomes a source, iv'e never seen a wikipedia entry that is one massive block quote ;). this next one is towards the video, actually although they did not create life, they did make simple proteins out of literally base elements, we don't know whether these and other factors over millions or billions of years can create life, but then again you don't know it can't. and it's definitely more plausible.
@FenixLites The fact is we may never know how abiogenesis came about. We can't assume that it didn't happen however, as that wouldn't make any physical sense. It would make sense if something supernatural was involved, but we can't assume supernatural entities exist or else literally anything that your creative imagination can create is as probable as anything else that is unknown.
@MinisterJJohnson "How does evolution provide evidence for intelligent humans?"
Try googling "evolution of the human intelligence"
click on first wikipedia article
People feel as if they are so informed to make "intelligent" statements against "Evolution"
oh the ignorance, oh the irony.
Why do you feel like your informed enough to make statements about evolution when you can't answer a question that only a single click on google could answer.
@MinisterJJohnson I for one would love to hear any evidence you have to support ID. Keep in mind that evidence to support a theory is not just claims that another theory has gaps. Evidence should include testible facts. Please post some, Minister.
@tjobv Atheists represent! We need state atheism! Enforced Atheism. Let the rivers flow with the blood of many millions, without which state atheism has never occured!!!! viva REVOLUTION, RELIGION IS CHILD ABuSE
He was simply describing a possible origin for the first independent self-replicating molecular structures that would be subject to the force of natural selection. Crystals are useful in this sense because they have a repeating structure that replicates itself in the presence of the necessary resources.
The nature of crystals is often grossly misrepresented by new-age baloney mongers and proponents of alternative medicine. Geologically and chemically, they are very interesting.
to everyone here: your not changing ANYONES opinions if you haven't noticed already (though i admit many of you have very good arguments). So lets calm down.
Dawkins is a fool; Evolution is NOT a fact. It is merely a theory. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution. Where are all your "Human ancestors?" They have all been proven as frauds. There is not one single creature that has been found in the process of evolving. (I.E. a half ape/half human, etc...) Oh, and please don't say, the process happens too slowly/takes millions of years to see. That is such BS. Give me REAL evidence.
@owlman166 You obviously don't understand the fundamentals of evolution. Evolution doesn't suggest that there would be any such half ape/half human, rather a long line of common ancestors where small subtle changes take place over generations.
And you say you want the human ancestry, well here's a few for you to look up: Australopithecus africanus, Homo Erectus, Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus boisei, and these are just a few.
@LeeRLang actually many evolutionist still believe in the apeman theory. some i've talked to! and common ancestory means u came from it. so if u share a common ancestory with apes u evolved from apes. sad that ppl dont know this stuff. all the info is out there.
@nikitty020 I never said there aren't people who don't believe in "the apeman theory", but "the apeman theory" simply isn't compatible with the standard theory of evolution. A common ancestor is the closest species that one species and another share through evolutionary history. So you're wrong...
@LeeRLang So what your saying is that the frog did turn into a prince, it's just took very long periods of time. You see...... the frog didn't turn into a prince quickly, oh no, that would be a miracle. and it would!...but no, no, it took slow gradual changes over time for the frog to turn into a prince. Nope sorry Evolution is still just a fairy tale for grown ups. Long ago and far away is what makes it believable. It sure SOUNDS like science, and I gotta give 'em that.
Real evidence? are you suggesting there is ANY REAL EVIDENCE to the ID theory? God is ALL about FAITH. Faith is believing in something there is NO evidence of. That is the least likely theory as far as evidence goes.
Stein: "how can there be a theory of life without a theory about how life began"
Simple, for the same reason that a gravitation theory (by Newton or Eistein) does not require an explanation of the origin of gravity. This may be later added by another theory.
@jappud: LOL All of these "transition species" are complete organisms whose qualities are entirely developed. Also there should be MANY more (a majority) fossils that qualify. Many of the "Human ancestors" have in fact been shown to be frauds. These people have been fooled because a theory developed right after the Victorian era was the only one with answers at the time that they could give (albeit loose) evidence for. However as science has advanced this theory (at least macro evol) fails..
@jappud I call any attempt to stop open investigation and discussion from taking place as being subversive and censorial, it has nothing to do with Alchemy, which science has proven to be false, it has to do with free discussion and open teaching, which scientists should not seek to suppress. Why are scientists afraid of open discussion about intelligent design?
If ID were false, as alchemy has proven to be, why not expose it, (as I am their hypocracy) rather than suppress discussion?
None of us were there in the begining to see how or why life began.To those who believe in evolution what is the point of attacking religion with something you cant prove without being biased. To those who believe in God , religion is about faith and spirituality , science is not.
@jappud "the historical evidence"you speak of are you referring to the carbon 14 age test? that meassures up to 50,000years? and yet for some reason the theory of evolution talks about millions and millions and millions of years in which slime became rats became humans ( in super slow manner of course).Im not mocking your belief but thats pretty much what the theory states. With no clear evidence of why and how these events ocurred. I dont agree with the theory but I respect your belief andyou
@jappud If the belief is based on evidence its not a belief its just a fact of life. Its like saying u believe that rocks exist , u dont believe in them , u KNOW for a fact they are true or that they are real. Saying that the scientific community supports the theory of evolution is irrelevant , because that doesnt mean they are right for example up until the classical period the scientific community and society believed the world was flat that doesnt mean they were right.
@jappud A theory is a belief with a scientific base.If it werent we woulnt be arguing about who is right or wrong. Evolution is a belief. why do u think there is a constant battle between evolutionist and creationist(religious people)beliefs. They have to be in the same plane to be able to argue.
@MinisterJJohnson first of all i never said it should be illegal, nice straw man. Second of all, because the science in this movie is non existent, he is simply attacking the scientific community as a whole and eventually leading to the outrageous and downright false accusation that Evolution was inspiration for the holocaust.
@jappud: I would call the lack of transition species, many interdependencies found in cell structures and tendency for mutation to very rarely be beneficial, reducing the chances of successful evolution, even during several billions of years to effectively nothing, a problem for evolution. To teach a broken theory dogmatically would (is) be insane.
@jappud Gravity is a FACT ppl arent called Newtonians because its not a belief and Darwins THEORY on the other hand is.Same way people who believe in the creation are called Creationists.
@MinisterJJohnson its hard to say, this movie doesnt even fucking define intelligent design or make any arguments for why it should be included in the scientific community. So it leads me to believe that this is just an attack on Darwin and science.
@MinisterJJohnson So far, Ben Stein hasn't offered ANY shred of evidence for Intelligent Design, because the beauty of Intelligent Design is that you don't have to test it or demonstrate it in any way, because that's just the way it is, it was meant or fated to be that way, which the same logic that (for lack of an apt word) substantiates religious creationism.
You don't want God to exist regardless of any evidence case or argument no matter what you would not except because you like the idea of there being no God to judge you and hold you accountable for your life don't admit it to me but in your heart you know this is true.
David Berlinski may be credentials are one thing but he's a moron.
There is a video on Utube where he tries to describe the changes a cow would have to undergo to become a whale - Which is utter nonsense.
So far, this film has not said a single thing to support intelligent design other than - All he has done is try to lambast evolution and non ID forms of life origins. I'm still watching - but so far, Stein has said absolutely NOTHING.
@autobahn101driversed You don't want God to exist regardless of any evidence case or argument no matter what you would not except because you like the idea of there being no God to judge you and hold you accountable for your life don't admit it to me but in your heart you know this is true.
@MarionWeller What is so insane about it? Amazing that so many people who haven't actually studied it and have no real understanding of it claim it's "insane" because it goes against the teachings of their 3000 year old church.
@trippinlikegod I actually did study it, that is why i can fully appreciate its insanity. Of course it is easier for you to assume that i just have "no real understanding".
@MarionWeller So you have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology? I have to assume you mean by studying it you watched some YouTube videos and hung around AnswersInGenesis? Please detail the lengths of your collegiate study, I'm interested to know.
@MarionWeller So you have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology? I have to assume you mean by studying it you watched some YouTube videos and hung around AnswersInGenesis? Please detail the lengths of your collegiate study, I'm interested to know.
@trippinlikegod There you are assuming again!!! Do you also assume no one except you does any serious research?
For my part, i wrote my biology exam in college (in Germany, different system than in the US) about evolution. I think that does surpass "watching some youtube-videos". So how about? Having a Ph.D in evolutionary biology?
@MarionWeller You wrote your biology exam in college? Wow, so you took an entry level biology class and wrote a paper about an established scientific theory. I'm far from impressed. If you studied evolutionary biology (not just introductory biology) and your mind was not able to process the information it is the fault of your professors or yourself not the theory. Unless you've got a better solution to the very real occurrence of change over time you are just poisoning the well.
@trippinlikegod My Masters degree is in a related field I will simply say that, it's completely irrelevant though as I am not the one going against an established science claiming I know something they do not. If you intend to attack evolutionary biology I would expect you to be schooled and versed in the science you are attacking, otherwise your opinion is only that. A baseless uninformed opinion containing nothing but hot air.
@trippinlikegod Wow, your masters degree is in a "related field". That is impressing. Wondering what that could be. I have a masters degree as well and using your imagination i could probably also call it "related".
Since you are not naming the field i at least have some basis to make that assumption.
And no, it was not a paper i wrote in an entry level biology class, it was my final exam. As i said different system.
@trippinlikegod -2- And no, i do not intend to attack evolution. For all i am concerned you may believe whatever makes you happy - no matter how insane it is. I was just voicing my own opinion, that was all.
@andy4226uk what kind of intellegnt disign is not a type of creationism how ever the defference is that creatoinists like me believe in an all knowing all seeing God how ever ID is the theroy that we were created by aliens or some prehuman civilization that arose on earth before us and sence we have no records dateing to the biggining of life so there will always be the question whale we should have open debate we should nto say im wright your all wrong unless you build a time machine
@sixwingproductions I know Creationists are stupid, but surely you must know how to use punctuation. Well, looking at you, apparently not...
I *think* what you're saying is that because we can't travel back in time, we don't know what happened therefore God did it.
Funnily enough, this isnt how science works, science admits that it doesnt know everything about the origins of the universe, and they are trying very hard to find these things out!
@andy4226uk no one im bad at english srry about that. and 2 i am saying we can not go back intime to prove how life came into being. there for we will never truly know and there will always be a contreverandisy . and being an open minded creationist dose not make me stupid. i am open to being wrong and so should you. other wise you are not a credible person cuas you see what you whant to see. oh and if they admit they could be wrong then stop teaching it as fact
@sixwingproductions There is something called EVIDENCE. From evidence (e.g. redshift, background radiation, we know the kind of event that must have happened. Science will take us closer to the truth, unlike creationism.
@andy4226uk how about this im not a human and the backround radiation is from a universle creation wave we prebared when we found our universe was doomed and we defend you to this day
@ 8:37 Ben Stein asks a question in reference to the origin of life... "So the rules of science say we will consider any possibility except one that is guided?" Answer: "exactly!" My question is why? Why is science so afraid to explore ID?
on the backs of crystals?? hahahahahahahahahahahaha give me a break, for all their purported intelligence these atheistic scientists are even more insane that creation scientists... but they are too proud to see it. What a joke.
It's clear he still hasn't understood what evolution is, or what Darwins theory was. I like how he attacks Darwin, Oh he sees does he, the guy wrote a book called the origin of species so he wrote about what created man did he? Well he proposed a mechanism that after years of research has collected a massive amount of evidence. Evolution is a fact, the mechanism by which this happened, is the closest thing we have to the truth.
we don't know what a species is?? are you kidding. This is literally Gcse knowledge. A species is a set of animals which can breed and produce fertile offspring. And also i love it how it's edited to put dawkins in a dark room, grrrr scary atheist, it's all dark.
how do you know that your text book definition of a species is the true meaning of a species. If you follow up on science you will know that it could be wrong and some theories and be dismissed as no longer true.
Ben finds it so hard to believe the crystal hypothesis (far-fetched as it may be) but the ID-supporters never explain how the designer came to be either. Why are we supposed to believe that IT is omnipresent and perpetual?
dawkins saying people who dont believe in evolution are "stupid" and "ignorant" i have the feeling dawkins couldnt even change a flat on his car or broken washer on a tap his practical life skills apper to be completely absent
@dionstrezlecki This isn't about labor. It's about intelligence. He never said he was a good worker. You're accusing someone of something they didn't even preach about. Baseless.
I think this stubbornness of scientists has evolved due to collision of scientists like Galileo with Christians. And as a reaction they dont want christianity back.
Christianity shouldnt have had spread itself for 1. it was not supposed to be as it was only for the lost tribes of 'jews' and 2. The so called christianity doesnt even know what its talking about; they are teaching stuff of whose origin they dont even really know.
The answer is Islam. Purely authentic. No conflict with science.
well atleast till the teacher of Quran himself. i.e. Muhammad. The Quran is unchanged, word for word, full stop or a comma i.e. to its minutest of details. Search for yourself. The rest if it is indeed a word of God or not is a separate and yet purely proper question.
@highonpaint umm... wah... Everywhere you turn in our country christianity is forced down your throat. From the government to the holidays (which are usually based on paganism) its everywhere. I think the conspiracy or whatever about ID being taboo is a little weird because its forced everywhere else. But i do agree that teaching ID is unnecessary but not necessarily harmful. Darwinism doesn't explain how life began, either does ID because no one knows. Why cant we leave it at that for now.
Why can't people just say... "WE DON'T KNOW" no one knows exactly how life started... but does it matter enough... to make up stories that you claim to be true... just saying GOD did it ... is not a scientific answer and takes a huge amount of faith to accept. Thats fine if you believe that but to tell others that you are correct without doubt is just childish.
@Stevil3113 Did you ever stop to wonder why science is so desperate to get rid of this theory? To dismiss it as "stupidity" is one thing, but to forbid its mention can be nothing less than the result of immense trepidation. In high school, I spent an entire month on Greek Mythology, another month on Chinese Mythology, and several months on the writings of Plato and Aristotle. How much time was spent on histories of Christianity? None. This is about more than Science, my friend. Open your eyes.
@HighOnPaint They are desperate to get rid of it because it poisons the well. It spreads disinformation, it restricts scientific pursuit, it dumbs down the very intelligence of the human species. There is no forbidding of it's mention but like all stupid statements it will be met with criticism on the highest level.
4:30 into part 4 and I'm still waiting to see any direct counterarguments to evolution - so far only specious appeals to authority and generalized claims that evolution isn't specific enough.
I can't stand these analogies used to disprove the probability of evolution. (The slot machines used in this video). Take a glass, fill it with sand, and throw it on a table. How many times do you think you'd have to throw that glass of sand to get each grain of sand exactly where it was the first time you threw it? Some might say it's impossible. But you were able to do it the first time. And if you look at the universe, how many planets are void of life? I'm pretty sure that speaks for itself.
Plain and simple: no one knows the origins of life (yet?). But gotta respect Darwin for seeing and connecting what he saw. Evolution is a fact, but the origin of species is unknown, and that too is a fact.
3:23 After being told only a few seconds ago that Darwin's theory doesn't deal with the origins of life, Stein refers to "a typical Darwinian explanation for how life originated." A crafty move to arrive at the conclusion that evolution means lightning striking a mud puddle.
There is actually a lot of debate among evolutionary biologists. Not that any IDer has ever heard any of those debates. Or cares. They are simply not scientists because if they were, they would have been listened to. If you want to question darwinism, study biology first and learn some intelligent arguments.
@94jmcorrea electromagnetic chemicals in lightning are part of an evolving living planet ,,and if that made the life from hitting mud...like u say where is the proof?
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse,
@marcusantonio91 Why is it shit thats what you evolutionists come back with so I figured why not join in with the ignorant comments. If you truely knew science and what it was really all about then you would know evolution is nothing but a NEW AGE RELIGION FOR ATHIEISTS
@marcusantonio91 You can't be a person of the christian faith and believe in evolution. If you don't me watch part 10 of this film where RICHARD DAWKINS the world famous evolutionist says if one believes in evolution HE CAN'T BE A CHRISTIAN and if one believes in God he can't support evolution. Watch it all the way through then get back with me.
@marcusantonio91 What is a load of crap? The statment where you can believe in evolution and God? I'm sorry pal but those two don't go together and never will. Evolution is not science but a new age religion for those who deny God exists. Its really that simple!!!
@thebig1 evolution a new age religion? well at least no one has been killed in the name of evolution. no one has blown themselves up on a train in the name of darwin, no one has flown planes into buildings in praise of natural selection. and then you have the crusades and the persecution of the jews in the armenian genocide, persecution of homosexuals, women, blacks, in the name of religion. I am agnostic/deist and believe in evolution. what gives you the right t tell me I can't believe both
@marcusantonio91 Hitler and Stalin used the principles of evolution and eugenics to clarify and furthure there belief that certain races and peoples be killed. Perhaps if you studied history abit more you would understand that hitler had christians, Jews, Gypses, Homosexuals all killed because they didn't his blonde hair and blue eyes mold. Next time before you say something you should research it furthure.
@thebig1 I knew you'd use hitler as an argument, Hitler was actually christian, and if you did some research you'd find that out, he believed jesus was a fighter against jews, stalin did not persecute people in the name of evolution. he did it because he was power hungry and paranoid.
@marcusantonio91 HITLER WAS EVIL and like some people do TWISTED CHRISTIANITY TO SUIT HIS INTENDED GOAL. Why it is that some people don't see and call evil by its name is beyond me. Also Jesus was a Jew and spoke many times about the nmeed for his people THE JEWS to return to a relationship with him. Also why do you act so surprised that I would use Hitler and Stalin? Both were evil and both had a worldview that did not included undesirables. Evolution and eugenics played a part in that!!!
@thebig1 I never denied hitler was evil, what he did was the most evil crime in human history I do not debate that. I know jesus was a jew, I was baptised and confirmed as a child. Stalin was not concerned with master race. his paranoia and greed for power were the reasons for his purges. which were done in the name of communism. or rather histwisted view of communism.
@marcusantonio91 Wether it be communism, socialism, liberalism, or fascism they all are left leaning worldviews and all of these isms have held by all the evils that have destroyed human life over the past 100 plus years. Whether you like it or not Evolution and eugenics plays a part in all of these isms. Look at the Democrats today KILL BABIES but let murders and pedefiles go free, Stand side by side with the Muslims but call the Jews evil. History always repeats itself my friend. Wake up!!!
@thebig1 Facism is actually far right wing and abortion is never a black and white issue. if in a stable couple the wife gets pregnant then abortion should not be allowed, but if it was say a teenage girl who was raped and she couldn't support the child then it's her choice. And democratsdo not let murderers and pedophiles go free how the hell do you judge that.
@marcusantonio91 Facism is report as right wing but infact its leftwing. And yes abortion is a black and white issue. Think about it like this even if a girl is raped and gets pregnant is it the baby's fault? The answer is no so WHY MURDER IT? On every other instance that a baby would be concieved from ITS A RESPONSABILITY ISSUE and if you toi dumb to wear a condom and it the girl is to stupid to keep her pants on again it there fault not the baby. See my point BLACK AND WHITE NO GREY!!!!
@thebig1 so it's the girls fault for allowing herself to be raped is it. she cant support the child she has no money, what kind of life is that for a child but then you'd bitch because she'd be on welfare which you don't like because anyone on welfare is a freeloader
@marcusantonio91 No its not her fault thats she was raped. It is her her fault if she allows a doctor however to MURDER her baby. Also have you ever heard of the option ADOPTION? Yeah its that practice where you hand over your rights as a parent to another couple who can't have a child of there own. Seriously dude anyway you try and twist this barbaric practive I have a reasonable comeback response. ABORTION IS MURDER IF THE CHILD IS HEALTHY AND CAN SURVIVE ON ITS OWN!!!! MURDER!!!!
@thebig1 let me get this straight you'd force a girl whos gone through the trauma of being brutally sexually assaulted give birth to the child of her attacker, that poor girl has to live with those thoughts for the rest of her life, because of that she may never want to have a child again. Imagine what the adoptive parents would say to the child, "your dad was a rapist" if he asks about his real dad, I would say abortion is ok for incest but you'd probably argue that it is wrong for that too
@marcusantonio91 Is it that child's fault he was put their? The answer is no. Its better to have the child and let someone who wants a child have the child. Two wrongs don't make a right. Do you say what I'm saying?
@thebig1 let me get this straight, if you had a teenage daughter and her uncle raped her, you would force her to keep the baby, that is horrific, the feutus at a few weeks old cannot think or feel, while there must be a limit on what age the baby should be aborted, it is horrible to force a girl to keep a baby and give birth to a baby that was the result of being raped
@marcusantonio91 I wouldn't force her to keep it at all. She would have the child and let another family adopt the baby. You really need to get this straight. You and people like you believe you should abort a baby at any stage and thats not what a nation of moral good people do. By the way their is alot of evidence that backs up our side of the argument that says when women abort there child they are 50% more likley to have deep depression and suicidle thoughts. It hurts both parties!!!
@marcusantonio91 You need to be careful of how you use the term evolution, as it is a very slippery word. Are you speaking of Darwinism, or a gradual change over time? Save for some ignorant few, nobody disputes evolution in the idea of a gradual change over time. Darwinism, however, has several gaping holes in its doctrine. Also, for every evidence based argument FOR darwinism, there is an equally evidence based argument for ID.Frankly, only a fool would trust Darwinism alone to explain life.
And another: Franklin M. Harold (Emeritus Professor of biochemistry at Colorado State University) wrote,
“ … we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Many more out there in sciencedom!
Heres a quote for you from a prominent evolutionist: “‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened’, says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee …
richard dawkins had sex with mrs garrison and did not realize that mrs garrison was a man even after the surgery. he also could not answer "what if he was wrong". so he is not intelligent enough for my standpoint to label him as anything more than the atheist god
Stein and his interviewers are so busy talking about freedom of inquiry that they forget to talk about what intelligent design theorists are actually arguing - i.e. complete shite. All challenging theories and counterevidence is ESSENTIAL to science, however when the standard of evidence is so low, and the quality of the reasoning is so weak, as it is in Intelligent Design, then the challenge is not a serious one. The issue is not the challenge itself, but its quality
Ben Stein should make a documentary about consciousness that disproves materialism/physicalism that most scientists uphold. Consciousness points to an intelligent designer as well.
This is more than a little dishonest. It is very dishonest to the point of being funny. Why would any educated person not mention abiogenesis. This is an outright propaganda piece by the red-eye Vizine man. This is so sad.
@Destroe1 I was wondering the same thing. Then I saw the crystals spin and I've been getting more and more angry ever since. Its clear the Stein spun the crystals comment and latched onto the spin cycle throughout the rest of this piece. I hate these idiots. He has done this for money from the pulpit.
@VeritasTruthEmet I'm glad to hear that all is not lost. We need to wake up. If atheist are saying anything and I'm not an atheist they are saying be conscious of reality. It's one thing to believe in something but it's another when it has you saying totaly rediculous things in defence of it. If being religious means giving up critical thinking then I'll pass.
@Destroe1 I agree with you completely. If religious people did not have a tendency to distort reality then I would not have a tendency to distrust religion. It is only the astonishing power of the mind to fossilize in the presence of any sufficiently dogmatic religion that scares me. One thing in this movie is not untrue: The study of science and evolution does tend to seriously discredit the genesis narrative. That's just my opinion though.
one word to high improbability. i spit out a cherrystone. i spit it 1, 12345678901234567890123456789 metres far. the probability to spit it 1,12345678901234567890123456789 metres far was very, very low. yet it just happened.
@RossoBianco1895 If this is how you think, I feel sorry for you. This line of reasoning is the most illogical set of statements I have ever heard. In any case, its retroactive circular reasoning. You just made up the probability, and said this after you spit out a cherry stone. The probability was actually 100% that you would spit out a cherry stone, and how far it went was determined by a varitey of factors too numerous to caculate. In any case, you didn't caculate them. Ben's right peace!!
@GutsBrandedSwordsman i first intended to give you a reasonable answer, but after reading your profile, i'd rather give you the advice to consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
It is well put-together... but the problem is that it's also dishonest.
The great dishonesty of Intelligent Design lies in the fact that it wants to be taught in public schools without going through the rigorous process that every single real scientific theory has to survive: convincing peer through independent research and publishing in peer-reviewed literature.
as Dawkins and many other biologists have said over and over again. intelligent design is just a regress. at some point there will have to be some form of gradual change from something simple to something more complex. its the old chestnut of who designed the designer? at some point some phenomena like evolution if not evolution must have occurred. so intelligent design does not hold any ground in the long term. x
to a functional cell that took literally billions of years. It makes sense then that we cannot do the entire process from raw N O C and H to functional organisms in a lab within any reasonable time frame. saying cells just popped out of goo is a rude simplistic backhanded bias way of truly explaining the origin of life. Yes, we don't know 100% of the details, but there is plenty of evidence to support it without any reasonable doubt. ID has no empirical evidence just hunches based on faith.
they are all missing the point. There is grey area between life and non-life. Before there were functional cells, there were nucleotides. These are just macromolecules comprised of simple monomers each comprised of mostly N, O, C and H. When these monomers stack together they form functional nucleotides. Over BILLIONS of years there came about functional RNA that was able to stamp itself into a duplicate RNA by free floating nucleic acids.(this can be done in a lab) there's a long path
If none of you noticed, a little wiki on Francis Crick will tell you that even though he suggested the idea of Panspermia, he was firmly against Young Earth Creationism and joined a group of other Nobel Laureate's saying : "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
Yes, he was firmly for Evolution.
This is probably the worst 'documentary' I've or any rational human being could ever come across.
Dawkin's is a zealot his views are based on dogma not science its a world view his trying to defend he does not want any theory which makes room for a designer. Demanding that the foundation has to be without any possibility of a creator is not scientific at all science has to be open to any possibility its where the evidence takes us. ID is under attack because its opens a door to the possibility of a creator and thats blasphemy to hard line darwinist atheists.
lv4ev5 1 month ago
The propaganda in this film is laughably transparent. David Berlenski is making stuff up. What an idiot......don't care if he taught at all those universities..
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
Darwin was a brilliant foot. Please feel free to join him in Hell.
ClyneDDW 3 months ago
@ClyneDDW Sweet! Sounds like a fuckin party!
firebirdthecody 2 months ago
life is essentially based on the slightly incorrect replication of information, a process naturally taking place in the world of crystals. crystals may have served as a replication platform for the first organic molecules. it's actually a great theory if you think about it.
of course it sounds stupid the way its presented in this "documentiation".
berndtzl1234 4 months ago
Do aliens exist?...maybe so. Most likely yes, but their probably a product of nothing Evolutionary but fallen angels who slept with earth woman and produced the "Nephilem" seed. And their technology is probably superhuman/supernatural. And that's why sometimes it's scientific or supernatural, unexplained all together. But no the "aliens" did not "Make the world". God did.
TheoFluxH111 5 months ago
Misunderstanding science in spectacular spades...
SpaceVulcan 5 months ago
All I learned from this is fuck how it all began let's just all get along for a the sake of humanity.
erikrulez17 5 months ago
Check out Richard Dawkin's christmas lectures at the Royal Institute in London for a better explanation of the "random" formation of life and evolutionary change. This video intentionally makes it look preposterous.
mythsnlore 5 months ago
"Crystals? Aliens? I thought we were talking about science, not science fiction." Classic.
1948Gregoire 6 months ago
he make a good ponit
gothicsoul100 6 months ago
LOL!!! these videos wont completely upload! I wonder why???????
xsandsnowx 6 months ago
what ppl fail to understand is the simple concept of life, which is just consciousness really, without it there is no concept, consciousness comes from out brain, our brain is simply made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of base elements. there's nothing special about it really. simply because one can not grasp this simple concept or cannot fathom how it life could have started does not mean some being created it.
FenixLites 6 months ago
@FenixLites oh how i love when ppl use the word impossible instead of improbable. Have you heard of murphy's law? many ppl use it for bad situations, but really it simply means anything that can possibly happen will at some point in the infinity of time. What makes you think the earth is the only petri dish out in the universe? can you even fathom how many start there are? well there are even more planets than that. if someone can be struck by lighting or win the lottery why is ist so farfetched
FenixLites 6 months ago
i think it's really funny he ridiculed aliens when that would actually help their argument of intelligent design, this is how you know it's about religion and NOT about intelligent design.
FenixLites 6 months ago
@FenixLites Even accepting the alien theory does not solve the issue. Were the aliens a result of evolution, or intelligent design? The idea of intelligent design just suggests that things aren't as random as the theory of evolution suggests. I do belief in creation by God, however, some ID scientists do not. They see things as being way too complex for some random act, and way too many unanswered questions to just accept evolution as many have.
jpatsenior 6 months ago
6:28 - creationist cartoon for retards
XMisanthropyPureX 7 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson Wikipedia is a collection of sources, not a source itself. Look at the bottom of the wikipedia page if you don't believe me.
Respect is earned, not given
LeeRLang 7 months ago
@LeeRLang actually as soon as it poses anything in it's own words it becomes a source, iv'e never seen a wikipedia entry that is one massive block quote ;). this next one is towards the video, actually although they did not create life, they did make simple proteins out of literally base elements, we don't know whether these and other factors over millions or billions of years can create life, but then again you don't know it can't. and it's definitely more plausible.
FenixLites 6 months ago
@FenixLites The fact is we may never know how abiogenesis came about. We can't assume that it didn't happen however, as that wouldn't make any physical sense. It would make sense if something supernatural was involved, but we can't assume supernatural entities exist or else literally anything that your creative imagination can create is as probable as anything else that is unknown.
LeeRLang 6 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson "How does evolution provide evidence for intelligent humans?"
Try googling "evolution of the human intelligence"
click on first wikipedia article
People feel as if they are so informed to make "intelligent" statements against "Evolution"
oh the ignorance, oh the irony.
Why do you feel like your informed enough to make statements about evolution when you can't answer a question that only a single click on google could answer.
sir... Your ignorance is disgusting
LeeRLang 7 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson I for one would love to hear any evidence you have to support ID. Keep in mind that evidence to support a theory is not just claims that another theory has gaps. Evidence should include testible facts. Please post some, Minister.
mcbrida 8 months ago
Dawkins is amazingly ignorant
TwolfStud 8 months ago
On the backs of crystals he said............... i think i rather believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster....
tjobv 8 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjobv Atheists represent! We need state atheism! Enforced Atheism. Let the rivers flow with the blood of many millions, without which state atheism has never occured!!!! viva REVOLUTION, RELIGION IS CHILD ABuSE
fashklash 6 months ago
@tjobv
He was simply describing a possible origin for the first independent self-replicating molecular structures that would be subject to the force of natural selection. Crystals are useful in this sense because they have a repeating structure that replicates itself in the presence of the necessary resources.
The nature of crystals is often grossly misrepresented by new-age baloney mongers and proponents of alternative medicine. Geologically and chemically, they are very interesting.
MrWinderlich 4 months ago
7:02
since when did proteins come in an "order"? proteins are just proteins. they don't come in any sort of numbered, specific sequence.
33LB 8 months ago
to everyone here: your not changing ANYONES opinions if you haven't noticed already (though i admit many of you have very good arguments). So lets calm down.
stabbed12 8 months ago
Dawkins is a fool; Evolution is NOT a fact. It is merely a theory. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution. Where are all your "Human ancestors?" They have all been proven as frauds. There is not one single creature that has been found in the process of evolving. (I.E. a half ape/half human, etc...) Oh, and please don't say, the process happens too slowly/takes millions of years to see. That is such BS. Give me REAL evidence.
owlman166 8 months ago
@owlman166 You obviously don't understand the fundamentals of evolution. Evolution doesn't suggest that there would be any such half ape/half human, rather a long line of common ancestors where small subtle changes take place over generations.
And you say you want the human ancestry, well here's a few for you to look up: Australopithecus africanus, Homo Erectus, Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus boisei, and these are just a few.
LeeRLang 8 months ago 3
@LeeRLang actually many evolutionist still believe in the apeman theory. some i've talked to! and common ancestory means u came from it. so if u share a common ancestory with apes u evolved from apes. sad that ppl dont know this stuff. all the info is out there.
nikitty020 7 months ago
@nikitty020 I never said there aren't people who don't believe in "the apeman theory", but "the apeman theory" simply isn't compatible with the standard theory of evolution. A common ancestor is the closest species that one species and another share through evolutionary history. So you're wrong...
LeeRLang 7 months ago
@LeeRLang evolution mutation theories are strickly for fundings , not FACT
1billion1deaths1 7 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 You're right. That's why we don't have to make a new vaccine every year for mutations in viruses...
LeeRLang 7 months ago
@LeeRLang 0 dude hahah nobody takes vaccine shots every year..just your dumb ass..go get cancer.
1billion1deaths1 7 months ago
@1billion1deaths1 ok troll...
LeeRLang 7 months ago
@LeeRLang im jk..do watever u want.
1billion1deaths1 7 months ago
@LeeRLang So what your saying is that the frog did turn into a prince, it's just took very long periods of time. You see...... the frog didn't turn into a prince quickly, oh no, that would be a miracle. and it would!...but no, no, it took slow gradual changes over time for the frog to turn into a prince. Nope sorry Evolution is still just a fairy tale for grown ups. Long ago and far away is what makes it believable. It sure SOUNDS like science, and I gotta give 'em that.
TheoFluxH111 5 months ago
@owlman166
Real evidence? are you suggesting there is ANY REAL EVIDENCE to the ID theory? God is ALL about FAITH. Faith is believing in something there is NO evidence of. That is the least likely theory as far as evidence goes.
glynis442 8 months ago
@owlman166 trollin'!
33LB 8 months ago
@owlman166 Amen man!
TwolfStud 8 months ago
Stein: "how can there be a theory of life without a theory about how life began"
Simple, for the same reason that a gravitation theory (by Newton or Eistein) does not require an explanation of the origin of gravity. This may be later added by another theory.
TAO462 8 months ago
@jappud: LOL All of these "transition species" are complete organisms whose qualities are entirely developed. Also there should be MANY more (a majority) fossils that qualify. Many of the "Human ancestors" have in fact been shown to be frauds. These people have been fooled because a theory developed right after the Victorian era was the only one with answers at the time that they could give (albeit loose) evidence for. However as science has advanced this theory (at least macro evol) fails..
gnomesrule19 9 months ago
@jappud I call any attempt to stop open investigation and discussion from taking place as being subversive and censorial, it has nothing to do with Alchemy, which science has proven to be false, it has to do with free discussion and open teaching, which scientists should not seek to suppress. Why are scientists afraid of open discussion about intelligent design?
If ID were false, as alchemy has proven to be, why not expose it, (as I am their hypocracy) rather than suppress discussion?
aguasilver 9 months ago
None of us were there in the begining to see how or why life began.To those who believe in evolution what is the point of attacking religion with something you cant prove without being biased. To those who believe in God , religion is about faith and spirituality , science is not.
armordiego 9 months ago
@jappud "the historical evidence"you speak of are you referring to the carbon 14 age test? that meassures up to 50,000years? and yet for some reason the theory of evolution talks about millions and millions and millions of years in which slime became rats became humans ( in super slow manner of course).Im not mocking your belief but thats pretty much what the theory states. With no clear evidence of why and how these events ocurred. I dont agree with the theory but I respect your belief andyou
armordiego 9 months ago
@jappud If the belief is based on evidence its not a belief its just a fact of life. Its like saying u believe that rocks exist , u dont believe in them , u KNOW for a fact they are true or that they are real. Saying that the scientific community supports the theory of evolution is irrelevant , because that doesnt mean they are right for example up until the classical period the scientific community and society believed the world was flat that doesnt mean they were right.
armordiego 9 months ago
@jappud A theory is a belief with a scientific base.If it werent we woulnt be arguing about who is right or wrong. Evolution is a belief. why do u think there is a constant battle between evolutionist and creationist(religious people)beliefs. They have to be in the same plane to be able to argue.
armordiego 9 months ago
If ID is so bad, then allowing the debate to be held in public at all levels would lead to it's discrediting in the public eye.
Only those who know they are wrong are so afraid of ID debate that they will use coercion to stop it occurring.
Free speech and discovery never harmed anyone, censorship and persecution does.
aguasilver 9 months ago
@marcusantonio91 then your Catholic friend doesn't know anything about the Book of Genesis.
CloverfieldMonster95 9 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson plenty of arguments can be made in one film. A good documentary can make a coherent well thought out argument, this one does not.
MjXllcommando 10 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson first of all i never said it should be illegal, nice straw man. Second of all, because the science in this movie is non existent, he is simply attacking the scientific community as a whole and eventually leading to the outrageous and downright false accusation that Evolution was inspiration for the holocaust.
MjXllcommando 10 months ago
@jappud: I would call the lack of transition species, many interdependencies found in cell structures and tendency for mutation to very rarely be beneficial, reducing the chances of successful evolution, even during several billions of years to effectively nothing, a problem for evolution. To teach a broken theory dogmatically would (is) be insane.
gnomesrule19 10 months ago
A fellow creationist tells him that Darwinism doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis and Ben Stein totally ignores him...
mymatryoshka 10 months ago
Darwin's theory is close enough to fact that it can be called fact.
mymatryoshka 10 months ago
@jappud Gravity is a FACT ppl arent called Newtonians because its not a belief and Darwins THEORY on the other hand is.Same way people who believe in the creation are called Creationists.
armordiego 10 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson its hard to say, this movie doesnt even fucking define intelligent design or make any arguments for why it should be included in the scientific community. So it leads me to believe that this is just an attack on Darwin and science.
MjXllcommando 11 months ago
@MinisterJJohnson So far, Ben Stein hasn't offered ANY shred of evidence for Intelligent Design, because the beauty of Intelligent Design is that you don't have to test it or demonstrate it in any way, because that's just the way it is, it was meant or fated to be that way, which the same logic that (for lack of an apt word) substantiates religious creationism.
TaimaDjinn 11 months ago
You don't want God to exist regardless of any evidence case or argument no matter what you would not except because you like the idea of there being no God to judge you and hold you accountable for your life don't admit it to me but in your heart you know this is true.
soufmpls 11 months ago
Re: Hypocrisy of ID people - you don't get the point of Stein's work. And you do not get ID either.
Unbelievable - 'unless they are insane . . . or ignorant'! Wake up.
malangthon 11 months ago
David Berlinski may be credentials are one thing but he's a moron.
There is a video on Utube where he tries to describe the changes a cow would have to undergo to become a whale - Which is utter nonsense.
So far, this film has not said a single thing to support intelligent design other than - All he has done is try to lambast evolution and non ID forms of life origins. I'm still watching - but so far, Stein has said absolutely NOTHING.
sromag 11 months ago
Those who don't believe in evolution are ignorant - God does not exist! That is a serious claim by someone who claims to be educated.
autobahn101driversed 1 year ago
@autobahn101driversed You don't want God to exist regardless of any evidence case or argument no matter what you would not except because you like the idea of there being no God to judge you and hold you accountable for your life don't admit it to me but in your heart you know this is true.
soufmpls 11 months ago
evolution theory is just totally insane. amazing that so many people believe in it
MarionWeller 1 year ago
@MarionWeller What is so insane about it? Amazing that so many people who haven't actually studied it and have no real understanding of it claim it's "insane" because it goes against the teachings of their 3000 year old church.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod I actually did study it, that is why i can fully appreciate its insanity. Of course it is easier for you to assume that i just have "no real understanding".
MarionWeller 1 year ago
@MarionWeller So you have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology? I have to assume you mean by studying it you watched some YouTube videos and hung around AnswersInGenesis? Please detail the lengths of your collegiate study, I'm interested to know.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@MarionWeller So you have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology? I have to assume you mean by studying it you watched some YouTube videos and hung around AnswersInGenesis? Please detail the lengths of your collegiate study, I'm interested to know.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod There you are assuming again!!! Do you also assume no one except you does any serious research?
For my part, i wrote my biology exam in college (in Germany, different system than in the US) about evolution. I think that does surpass "watching some youtube-videos". So how about? Having a Ph.D in evolutionary biology?
MarionWeller 1 year ago
@MarionWeller You wrote your biology exam in college? Wow, so you took an entry level biology class and wrote a paper about an established scientific theory. I'm far from impressed. If you studied evolutionary biology (not just introductory biology) and your mind was not able to process the information it is the fault of your professors or yourself not the theory. Unless you've got a better solution to the very real occurrence of change over time you are just poisoning the well.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod My Masters degree is in a related field I will simply say that, it's completely irrelevant though as I am not the one going against an established science claiming I know something they do not. If you intend to attack evolutionary biology I would expect you to be schooled and versed in the science you are attacking, otherwise your opinion is only that. A baseless uninformed opinion containing nothing but hot air.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod Wow, your masters degree is in a "related field". That is impressing. Wondering what that could be. I have a masters degree as well and using your imagination i could probably also call it "related".
Since you are not naming the field i at least have some basis to make that assumption.
And no, it was not a paper i wrote in an entry level biology class, it was my final exam. As i said different system.
MarionWeller 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod -2- And no, i do not intend to attack evolution. For all i am concerned you may believe whatever makes you happy - no matter how insane it is. I was just voicing my own opinion, that was all.
MarionWeller 1 year ago
I love the hypocrisy of these ID people:
They say that ID is NOT religious and could involve some kind of other designer.
Then they say that the idea of aliens creating life is stupid not scientific. 8:12
Therefore ID IS Creationism, contrary to part 1 of this propaganda film!
andy4226uk 1 year ago
@andy4226uk what kind of intellegnt disign is not a type of creationism how ever the defference is that creatoinists like me believe in an all knowing all seeing God how ever ID is the theroy that we were created by aliens or some prehuman civilization that arose on earth before us and sence we have no records dateing to the biggining of life so there will always be the question whale we should have open debate we should nto say im wright your all wrong unless you build a time machine
sixwingproductions 1 year ago
@sixwingproductions I know Creationists are stupid, but surely you must know how to use punctuation. Well, looking at you, apparently not...
I *think* what you're saying is that because we can't travel back in time, we don't know what happened therefore God did it.
Funnily enough, this isnt how science works, science admits that it doesnt know everything about the origins of the universe, and they are trying very hard to find these things out!
andy4226uk 1 year ago
@andy4226uk no one im bad at english srry about that. and 2 i am saying we can not go back intime to prove how life came into being. there for we will never truly know and there will always be a contreverandisy . and being an open minded creationist dose not make me stupid. i am open to being wrong and so should you. other wise you are not a credible person cuas you see what you whant to see. oh and if they admit they could be wrong then stop teaching it as fact
sixwingproductions 1 year ago
@sixwingproductions There is something called EVIDENCE. From evidence (e.g. redshift, background radiation, we know the kind of event that must have happened. Science will take us closer to the truth, unlike creationism.
andy4226uk 1 year ago
@andy4226uk how about this im not a human and the backround radiation is from a universle creation wave we prebared when we found our universe was doomed and we defend you to this day
sixwingproductions 1 year ago
@ 8:37 Ben Stein asks a question in reference to the origin of life... "So the rules of science say we will consider any possibility except one that is guided?" Answer: "exactly!" My question is why? Why is science so afraid to explore ID?
Peanut3381 1 year ago
@Peanut3381 Because no one wants to believe that we are accountable to a creator once we die
cmnesnah 1 year ago
on the backs of crystals?? hahahahahahahahahahahaha give me a break, for all their purported intelligence these atheistic scientists are even more insane that creation scientists... but they are too proud to see it. What a joke.
shamvara 1 year ago
It's clear he still hasn't understood what evolution is, or what Darwins theory was. I like how he attacks Darwin, Oh he sees does he, the guy wrote a book called the origin of species so he wrote about what created man did he? Well he proposed a mechanism that after years of research has collected a massive amount of evidence. Evolution is a fact, the mechanism by which this happened, is the closest thing we have to the truth.
tisuisse 1 year ago
What happened to the naked jew with a boner when he ran into a wall?
He broke his nose.
questionauthoritah 1 year ago
we don't know what a species is?? are you kidding. This is literally Gcse knowledge. A species is a set of animals which can breed and produce fertile offspring. And also i love it how it's edited to put dawkins in a dark room, grrrr scary atheist, it's all dark.
chazmundoful 1 year ago
@chazmundoful
how do you know that your text book definition of a species is the true meaning of a species. If you follow up on science you will know that it could be wrong and some theories and be dismissed as no longer true.
origbabyface 1 year ago
DAWKINSSSS!! :D
jackbliss 1 year ago
Ben finds it so hard to believe the crystal hypothesis (far-fetched as it may be) but the ID-supporters never explain how the designer came to be either. Why are we supposed to believe that IT is omnipresent and perpetual?
colerichards6969 1 year ago
My Crystal Ball!!! 4:52
cmnesnah 1 year ago
Comment removed
cmnesnah 1 year ago
dawkins saying people who dont believe in evolution are "stupid" and "ignorant" i have the feeling dawkins couldnt even change a flat on his car or broken washer on a tap his practical life skills apper to be completely absent
dionstrezlecki 1 year ago
@dionstrezlecki This isn't about labor. It's about intelligence. He never said he was a good worker. You're accusing someone of something they didn't even preach about. Baseless.
ForrestJ88 1 year ago
I think this stubbornness of scientists has evolved due to collision of scientists like Galileo with Christians. And as a reaction they dont want christianity back.
Christianity shouldnt have had spread itself for 1. it was not supposed to be as it was only for the lost tribes of 'jews' and 2. The so called christianity doesnt even know what its talking about; they are teaching stuff of whose origin they dont even really know.
The answer is Islam. Purely authentic. No conflict with science.
adnanahmad23 1 year ago
@adnanahmad23
re authentic;
well atleast till the teacher of Quran himself. i.e. Muhammad. The Quran is unchanged, word for word, full stop or a comma i.e. to its minutest of details. Search for yourself. The rest if it is indeed a word of God or not is a separate and yet purely proper question.
Atleast Do read a Quran for yourself.
adnanahmad23 1 year ago
@highonpaint umm... wah... Everywhere you turn in our country christianity is forced down your throat. From the government to the holidays (which are usually based on paganism) its everywhere. I think the conspiracy or whatever about ID being taboo is a little weird because its forced everywhere else. But i do agree that teaching ID is unnecessary but not necessarily harmful. Darwinism doesn't explain how life began, either does ID because no one knows. Why cant we leave it at that for now.
Stevil3113 1 year ago
Why can't people just say... "WE DON'T KNOW" no one knows exactly how life started... but does it matter enough... to make up stories that you claim to be true... just saying GOD did it ... is not a scientific answer and takes a huge amount of faith to accept. Thats fine if you believe that but to tell others that you are correct without doubt is just childish.
Stevil3113 1 year ago
Comment removed
HighOnPaint 1 year ago
@Stevil3113 Did you ever stop to wonder why science is so desperate to get rid of this theory? To dismiss it as "stupidity" is one thing, but to forbid its mention can be nothing less than the result of immense trepidation. In high school, I spent an entire month on Greek Mythology, another month on Chinese Mythology, and several months on the writings of Plato and Aristotle. How much time was spent on histories of Christianity? None. This is about more than Science, my friend. Open your eyes.
HighOnPaint 1 year ago
@HighOnPaint They are desperate to get rid of it because it poisons the well. It spreads disinformation, it restricts scientific pursuit, it dumbs down the very intelligence of the human species. There is no forbidding of it's mention but like all stupid statements it will be met with criticism on the highest level.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
Why would Dawkins even permit to be interviewed by idiot Stein?
Yay248 1 year ago
Comment removed
255ad 1 year ago
4:30 into part 4 and I'm still waiting to see any direct counterarguments to evolution - so far only specious appeals to authority and generalized claims that evolution isn't specific enough.
gorobar001 1 year ago
I can't stand these analogies used to disprove the probability of evolution. (The slot machines used in this video). Take a glass, fill it with sand, and throw it on a table. How many times do you think you'd have to throw that glass of sand to get each grain of sand exactly where it was the first time you threw it? Some might say it's impossible. But you were able to do it the first time. And if you look at the universe, how many planets are void of life? I'm pretty sure that speaks for itself.
TheMedievalNerd 1 year ago
Plain and simple: no one knows the origins of life (yet?). But gotta respect Darwin for seeing and connecting what he saw. Evolution is a fact, but the origin of species is unknown, and that too is a fact.
Love, a religous person.
alwaystvxq08 1 year ago
3:23 After being told only a few seconds ago that Darwin's theory doesn't deal with the origins of life, Stein refers to "a typical Darwinian explanation for how life originated." A crafty move to arrive at the conclusion that evolution means lightning striking a mud puddle.
philnoll 1 year ago
Ben Stein is so unintelligent. Or has that been said before?
uriituw 1 year ago
this film isn't presenting evidence. it's just presenting soundbytes from everyone. why?
stefanmuth 1 year ago
@stefanmuth Isnt that what evolutionist scientist do among themselves? The answer is yes. Evolution is a manmade religion plain and simple.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 christianity/islam/judaism/hinduism are also man made religions
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
There is actually a lot of debate among evolutionary biologists. Not that any IDer has ever heard any of those debates. Or cares. They are simply not scientists because if they were, they would have been listened to. If you want to question darwinism, study biology first and learn some intelligent arguments.
gerandomiseerd 1 year ago
oh my god... the origin of life is very improbable! that must mean that god did it!
94jmcorrea 1 year ago
@94jmcorrea electromagnetic chemicals in lightning are part of an evolving living planet ,,and if that made the life from hitting mud...like u say where is the proof?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse,
ChrisnStarry 1 year ago 2
I love it.
DVDV28 1 year ago
I'm not an atheist but creationism is a load of shit
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 wake up, this documetary is not even about creationism.
fellowservant34 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Your a load of shit!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 that's a shit comback, evolution has overwhelming evidence in it's favor
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Why is it shit thats what you evolutionists come back with so I figured why not join in with the ignorant comments. If you truely knew science and what it was really all about then you would know evolution is nothing but a NEW AGE RELIGION FOR ATHIEISTS
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 I AM NOT AN ATHEIST NOT EVERY PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST, MY FRIEND IS A CATHOLIC AND BELEIVES IN IT,
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 You can't be a person of the christian faith and believe in evolution. If you don't me watch part 10 of this film where RICHARD DAWKINS the world famous evolutionist says if one believes in evolution HE CAN'T BE A CHRISTIAN and if one believes in God he can't support evolution. Watch it all the way through then get back with me.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 i'm sorry but that is a collosal load of crap, what richard dawkins says is not all truth
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 What is a load of crap? The statment where you can believe in evolution and God? I'm sorry pal but those two don't go together and never will. Evolution is not science but a new age religion for those who deny God exists. Its really that simple!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 evolution a new age religion? well at least no one has been killed in the name of evolution. no one has blown themselves up on a train in the name of darwin, no one has flown planes into buildings in praise of natural selection. and then you have the crusades and the persecution of the jews in the armenian genocide, persecution of homosexuals, women, blacks, in the name of religion. I am agnostic/deist and believe in evolution. what gives you the right t tell me I can't believe both
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Hitler and Stalin used the principles of evolution and eugenics to clarify and furthure there belief that certain races and peoples be killed. Perhaps if you studied history abit more you would understand that hitler had christians, Jews, Gypses, Homosexuals all killed because they didn't his blonde hair and blue eyes mold. Next time before you say something you should research it furthure.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 I knew you'd use hitler as an argument, Hitler was actually christian, and if you did some research you'd find that out, he believed jesus was a fighter against jews, stalin did not persecute people in the name of evolution. he did it because he was power hungry and paranoid.
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 HITLER WAS EVIL and like some people do TWISTED CHRISTIANITY TO SUIT HIS INTENDED GOAL. Why it is that some people don't see and call evil by its name is beyond me. Also Jesus was a Jew and spoke many times about the nmeed for his people THE JEWS to return to a relationship with him. Also why do you act so surprised that I would use Hitler and Stalin? Both were evil and both had a worldview that did not included undesirables. Evolution and eugenics played a part in that!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 I never denied hitler was evil, what he did was the most evil crime in human history I do not debate that. I know jesus was a jew, I was baptised and confirmed as a child. Stalin was not concerned with master race. his paranoia and greed for power were the reasons for his purges. which were done in the name of communism. or rather histwisted view of communism.
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Wether it be communism, socialism, liberalism, or fascism they all are left leaning worldviews and all of these isms have held by all the evils that have destroyed human life over the past 100 plus years. Whether you like it or not Evolution and eugenics plays a part in all of these isms. Look at the Democrats today KILL BABIES but let murders and pedefiles go free, Stand side by side with the Muslims but call the Jews evil. History always repeats itself my friend. Wake up!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Facism is actually far right wing and abortion is never a black and white issue. if in a stable couple the wife gets pregnant then abortion should not be allowed, but if it was say a teenage girl who was raped and she couldn't support the child then it's her choice. And democratsdo not let murderers and pedophiles go free how the hell do you judge that.
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Facism is report as right wing but infact its leftwing. And yes abortion is a black and white issue. Think about it like this even if a girl is raped and gets pregnant is it the baby's fault? The answer is no so WHY MURDER IT? On every other instance that a baby would be concieved from ITS A RESPONSABILITY ISSUE and if you toi dumb to wear a condom and it the girl is to stupid to keep her pants on again it there fault not the baby. See my point BLACK AND WHITE NO GREY!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 so it's the girls fault for allowing herself to be raped is it. she cant support the child she has no money, what kind of life is that for a child but then you'd bitch because she'd be on welfare which you don't like because anyone on welfare is a freeloader
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 No its not her fault thats she was raped. It is her her fault if she allows a doctor however to MURDER her baby. Also have you ever heard of the option ADOPTION? Yeah its that practice where you hand over your rights as a parent to another couple who can't have a child of there own. Seriously dude anyway you try and twist this barbaric practive I have a reasonable comeback response. ABORTION IS MURDER IF THE CHILD IS HEALTHY AND CAN SURVIVE ON ITS OWN!!!! MURDER!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
Comment removed
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@thebig1 let me get this straight you'd force a girl whos gone through the trauma of being brutally sexually assaulted give birth to the child of her attacker, that poor girl has to live with those thoughts for the rest of her life, because of that she may never want to have a child again. Imagine what the adoptive parents would say to the child, "your dad was a rapist" if he asks about his real dad, I would say abortion is ok for incest but you'd probably argue that it is wrong for that too
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Is it that child's fault he was put their? The answer is no. Its better to have the child and let someone who wants a child have the child. Two wrongs don't make a right. Do you say what I'm saying?
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 let me get this straight, if you had a teenage daughter and her uncle raped her, you would force her to keep the baby, that is horrific, the feutus at a few weeks old cannot think or feel, while there must be a limit on what age the baby should be aborted, it is horrible to force a girl to keep a baby and give birth to a baby that was the result of being raped
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 I wouldn't force her to keep it at all. She would have the child and let another family adopt the baby. You really need to get this straight. You and people like you believe you should abort a baby at any stage and thats not what a nation of moral good people do. By the way their is alot of evidence that backs up our side of the argument that says when women abort there child they are 50% more likley to have deep depression and suicidle thoughts. It hurts both parties!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 good point
DeJay14 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 You need to be careful of how you use the term evolution, as it is a very slippery word. Are you speaking of Darwinism, or a gradual change over time? Save for some ignorant few, nobody disputes evolution in the idea of a gradual change over time. Darwinism, however, has several gaping holes in its doctrine. Also, for every evidence based argument FOR darwinism, there is an equally evidence based argument for ID.Frankly, only a fool would trust Darwinism alone to explain life.
fyrestarter89 1 year ago
@fyrestarter89 yes I mean gradual change change over time. but i would say i'm also spiritualist
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
And another: Franklin M. Harold (Emeritus Professor of biochemistry at Colorado State University) wrote,
“ … we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Many more out there in sciencedom!
sandrajoylees 1 year ago
Heres a quote for you from a prominent evolutionist: “‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened’, says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee …
sandrajoylees 1 year ago
richard dawkins had sex with mrs garrison and did not realize that mrs garrison was a man even after the surgery. he also could not answer "what if he was wrong". so he is not intelligent enough for my standpoint to label him as anything more than the atheist god
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
darwin was a retard anyways, even i could cook up some better crap than him.
TheNorgood 1 year ago
Stein and his interviewers are so busy talking about freedom of inquiry that they forget to talk about what intelligent design theorists are actually arguing - i.e. complete shite. All challenging theories and counterevidence is ESSENTIAL to science, however when the standard of evidence is so low, and the quality of the reasoning is so weak, as it is in Intelligent Design, then the challenge is not a serious one. The issue is not the challenge itself, but its quality
Mister0Alexi 1 year ago
Ben Stein should make a documentary about consciousness that disproves materialism/physicalism that most scientists uphold. Consciousness points to an intelligent designer as well.
vizion24 1 year ago
This is more than a little dishonest. It is very dishonest to the point of being funny. Why would any educated person not mention abiogenesis. This is an outright propaganda piece by the red-eye Vizine man. This is so sad.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
Big Bang comes from the Jesuits...
GutsBrandedSwordsman 1 year ago
We don't know what a species is? Was he serious?
Destroe1 1 year ago
@Destroe1 I was wondering the same thing. Then I saw the crystals spin and I've been getting more and more angry ever since. Its clear the Stein spun the crystals comment and latched onto the spin cycle throughout the rest of this piece. I hate these idiots. He has done this for money from the pulpit.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
@VeritasTruthEmet I'm glad to hear that all is not lost. We need to wake up. If atheist are saying anything and I'm not an atheist they are saying be conscious of reality. It's one thing to believe in something but it's another when it has you saying totaly rediculous things in defence of it. If being religious means giving up critical thinking then I'll pass.
Destroe1 1 year ago
@Destroe1 I agree with you completely. If religious people did not have a tendency to distort reality then I would not have a tendency to distrust religion. It is only the astonishing power of the mind to fossilize in the presence of any sufficiently dogmatic religion that scares me. One thing in this movie is not untrue: The study of science and evolution does tend to seriously discredit the genesis narrative. That's just my opinion though.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
one word to high improbability. i spit out a cherrystone. i spit it 1, 12345678901234567890123456789 metres far. the probability to spit it 1,12345678901234567890123456789 metres far was very, very low. yet it just happened.
RossoBianco1895 1 year ago
@RossoBianco1895 If this is how you think, I feel sorry for you. This line of reasoning is the most illogical set of statements I have ever heard. In any case, its retroactive circular reasoning. You just made up the probability, and said this after you spit out a cherry stone. The probability was actually 100% that you would spit out a cherry stone, and how far it went was determined by a varitey of factors too numerous to caculate. In any case, you didn't caculate them. Ben's right peace!!
GutsBrandedSwordsman 1 year ago
@GutsBrandedSwordsman i first intended to give you a reasonable answer, but after reading your profile, i'd rather give you the advice to consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
RossoBianco1895 1 year ago
This well-put-together documentary actually makes you think. ;)
ps: 54 people missed the "like" button
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV if it was still on the * system it would have like a 2.5 out of 5
summerfunteam 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
It is well put-together... but the problem is that it's also dishonest.
The great dishonesty of Intelligent Design lies in the fact that it wants to be taught in public schools without going through the rigorous process that every single real scientific theory has to survive: convincing peer through independent research and publishing in peer-reviewed literature.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Comment removed
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
as Dawkins and many other biologists have said over and over again. intelligent design is just a regress. at some point there will have to be some form of gradual change from something simple to something more complex. its the old chestnut of who designed the designer? at some point some phenomena like evolution if not evolution must have occurred. so intelligent design does not hold any ground in the long term. x
kalo555 1 year ago
to a functional cell that took literally billions of years. It makes sense then that we cannot do the entire process from raw N O C and H to functional organisms in a lab within any reasonable time frame. saying cells just popped out of goo is a rude simplistic backhanded bias way of truly explaining the origin of life. Yes, we don't know 100% of the details, but there is plenty of evidence to support it without any reasonable doubt. ID has no empirical evidence just hunches based on faith.
KIINZEY 1 year ago
they are all missing the point. There is grey area between life and non-life. Before there were functional cells, there were nucleotides. These are just macromolecules comprised of simple monomers each comprised of mostly N, O, C and H. When these monomers stack together they form functional nucleotides. Over BILLIONS of years there came about functional RNA that was able to stamp itself into a duplicate RNA by free floating nucleic acids.(this can be done in a lab) there's a long path
cont
KIINZEY 1 year ago
If none of you noticed, a little wiki on Francis Crick will tell you that even though he suggested the idea of Panspermia, he was firmly against Young Earth Creationism and joined a group of other Nobel Laureate's saying : "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
Yes, he was firmly for Evolution.
This is probably the worst 'documentary' I've or any rational human being could ever come across.
Arshaq13 1 year ago
Comment removed
Savyn333 1 year ago