I like Stein, he is quite factual and non-biased, but as soon as O'Reilly begins talking it turns into extremist crap. And why; out of all the times he gives people the last word; does he always take the last word for himself?
Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.
@lvstudioz That's really a disingenuous thing to say on both Rich Deem's and your own part. Because there has not been a statement from Dawkins that is "he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist" thats bs. He claimsa it is very highly improbable that god doesnt exist and most athiests feel the same way.
@splicedenergy In fact, by definition, ALL atheists think there is no deity. Those who don't believe but don't rule out the existence of a deity are agnostics.
@jimmayl1 That is a misrepresentation of what many atheists believe and what many agnostics believe. Atheism is simply not having a belief in any deities, and there is absolutely nothing in that lack of belief that says that they necessarily rule out the possibility of a god. That is a very "Strong" version of atheism; not all atheism.
"Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
So the point of Ben Stein's movie is to show that creationist within the scientific community suffer discrimination? I don't even need to see the movie to believe that is true. I can't believe they could even reconcile thier science education with the creation story from the Bible. it seems outside the scientific world there is reverse discrimination, people who believe in evolution and thumb their noses at the Bible are considered amoral and without any ethical code.
The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman, President, Institute of Noetic Sciences)
"The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman)"
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
Well, at least Ben Stein spoke calmly and didn't just say "THIS IS TRUTH, EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG" he at least acknowledged that he could be wrong and stated that he has the freedom to express his opinion.
Unlike *ahem* SOMEONE we all know. *coughO'Reillycough*
Now I don't believe in creationism, but I respect Mr. Stein for stating his thoughts respectably and was willing to accept others ideas. I do agree with how people shouldn't be oppressed for their opinions on the matter though.
evo..LOL cute little evos and their religion.... 2:57 pure ownage...evo is just another religion for atheists, its their crutch...requires allot of faith
All religion is all bad all the time everywhere for everyone in the past, in the present and in the future. In order for earth to survive all religion, all "god" concepts must die. You have been warned.Ben stein is pants on head, cookoo crazy in the brain..just another religious zealot supporting the pollution of the human spirit with boogieman science
Look up Sir Fred Hoyle...he coined the phrase, "The Big Bang." After his deeeep studies in Science, he began his lectures with, "He who created..." It's a pretty cool story about Brother Hoyle.
I cant believe that people would actually believe that Human being came from monkeys. & by the way Darwin believed there was a God. If everyone is so much inclined to Darwins belief they would believe in God to. so what the heck are people talking about that there is no God? Darwin the guy who you guys follow believed in God. You can only believe Darwin when he talked about humans evolving from monkeys BUT THEY LEAVE OUT THAT BELIEVED IN GOD
I cant believe that people would actually believe that Human being came from monkeys. & by the way Darwin believed there was a God. If everyone is so much inclined to Darwins belief they would believe in God to. so what the heck are people talking about that there is no God? Darwin the guy who you guys follow believed in God. You can only believe Darwin when he talked about humans evolving from monkeys BUT THEY LEAVE OUT THAT HE BELIEVED IN GOD
I really hope Ben Stein gets hit with a bus. I'm serious somebody run this annoying Jew down! Or give him a fucking book because he has no idea what he's talking about.
Is just has remarakable that somthing was created out of nothing, as to say their is a god. Their is absulte unknowns out their. Have you heard of dark air. 90% of scientiest put this dark air as a place holder for the unknown. 90% is unknown to scientiest with that amount of knowdledge undiscovered why not embrace of a alternate belief (god) makes sense to me.
just throwing this out there from the few comments i read. but it is self defeating to assume that the universe is eternal and has always been or is on a giant loop. Because time could not be for an inifinite number of time would have to pass to reach today. You can't pass through an infinite amount of time. (think about it for a sec) ok thats impossible.
completely agree with mr Stein, throughout the history of science its foundations are based on the interchange and flow of ideas that superimpose each other, so as one theory comes along another one replaces it through means of higher understandind of the subject in mind... that to me is the spirit of science which walks hand by hand with our nature of cynical skepticism and everlasting curiosity.
Why is anyone asking Ben Stein about evolutionary theory? He's an actor. He chooses controversies to place his name and face in the media for his own personal promotion. Then, Fox watchers believe what he says. Amazing. Where does the Fox viewership get their information on the H1N1 virus? Scrubs? These are the TV addicts, taking the word of the first broadcast with catchy music and brightly colored sets that comes along. We're a pathetic nation.
When it comes down to the origin of the universe and everything, it's a debate between:
1. The universe and everything happened by chance and randomness.
2. Universe and Everything was created by a higher power.
3. Universe is, and always has been. Possibility it is just a giant loop that has existed and will exist forever. In my personal opinion, there is no way of saying how everything came to be.
We weren't born with the ability to calculate x^2(x+7), we develop a sense of understanding complex arithmetics in a linear, step-by-step path. Same goes for nature, Darwin's incredible observation of the beaks of finches on the Galapagos or the transistion of simple primates into intelligent, 2-legged homo-sapiens is not only proof of change in genetic material, it is also the proof of flawless design of natural adaption from a higher being.
For all we know, evolution may have been initiated by a higher being, specifically of monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), in order to bring forth man into this world. To claim mammals of intelligence simply appeared in a poof of smoke is just as ridiculous a theory as the supposed "lightning hit a pool of mud". The Old Testament was NOT supposed to be taken literally, especially Genesis. (continued...)
One thing I don't understand about today's society...why is the theory of theistic-evolution not mainstream? Theistic-evolutionists such as I believe strongly in BOTH theories (creationism AND evolution), and that both theories has enough plausible evidence to back up the other.
Must I remind both Creationists and Darwinists that Charles Darwin was a Creationist? And that he theorized the concept of evolution with 'intelligent-design' in mind? (continued in next post...)
the post from Tuvoc310 a couple days ago is awesome and shows you how little you know about what your arguing against, Your oviously talking about the big bang theory.. so to say NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING is true and is proven by science but what you fail to realize is that the big bang theory says that every single atom in the universe was condensed into a single object. an with that said do what we do and learn about what your talking about before you speak
I am aware that everthing in the Universe comes from a single source. I consider that a FACT, and PROOF of God. Interestingly so does Lawrence Krauss noted physicist and Dawkins partner in crime. Lawrence speculates that the universe must have "0" net energy so that the Universe would need "0" to begain and not need a creator. He also states that if there was energy in the beginning of time "We are worried"
Only NOTHING can come from NOTHING. It is therefore necessary that SOMETHING exist from which EVERYTHING is derived. Now this SOMETHING could not come from NOTHING, so SOMETHING must have ALWAYS BEEN. Since no derivative can be greater than its source - THIS SOMETHING must be greater than or equal to EVERTHING.
Why doesn't this force "greater than the universe" need a force greater than itself to exist? Why can't the universe just be eternal rather than the supposed force that created it?
"It is therefore necessary that SOMETHING exist from which EVERYTHING is derived."
What if EVERYTHING is that SOMETHING that has always been.
The Universe is an imperfect machine. The formation of new stars from interstellar gas is proof that the Universe had a beginning. Its parts break down (burned out stars- colapsing galaxies) and that is proof that the whole will eventually fail. There is NO PART of the Un iverse that can be called eternal - yet you would give eternal status to the WHOLE?
@Tuvoc310 There is many ways in which you can see the universe as eternal. The universe doesn't have to be in status quo to be eternal. It can go through cycles, big bang-big cunch-big bang, it can also generate new matter (new big bangs) through quantic fluctuations, it can be created amongst others through dimensional collisions (string theory).
Perpetual motion devices don't work ...for the same reasons this quantic fluctuation theory fails. Every bit of energy, every single wave of light flowing thru the infinite universe would have to stop and return to a central point without energy loss. This defies many laws of physics.
Ok. So an uncreated eternal force created the universe. This means that this force existed for an eternity before the universe was created. But, since an eternity never ends, this would mean that the universe was never created.
An example to illustrate: If I were to give you a banana after an eternity, I would never give it to you. The time before I gave you the banana would never been, thus, I would never come to the point where I give you the banana.
You assume that God is confined within time and subject to it.
Time is a CONSTRUCT like the clock used to monitor its passage. You, me, the Universe and the banana were created within time by a God who is outside of time. This is why he can see the beginning and end of all events. Saying He is eternal is very simplistic, more accurately he is beyond the influence of time but able to influence it (time) at any point.
THANK YOU!!!! lol I heard a similar lecture by Ravi Zacharias. I became a christain because of an intense personal situation in my life, gave it up to Jesus, and it was gone, just like the christians said. But even after being saved I wanted proof to back up my argument. It's one thing to say there is intelligent design, but who is the designer? Which god can we go to? People believe me, after all the research I've done in all fields, my God is the only one that fits the glove.
"People believe me" but you haven't explained why. What research have you done? If you have irrefutable proof would you please share as there seems to be some debate on the matter of the existence of God.
Yesss! Once you make the logical leap to the Theism...you believe in what Ravi Zacharias says, "Intent prior to content." It means everything has meaning. Animals can't understand our creations, nor can we understand God's. Very simple. Remember, the Bible says that Adam became like God, in having great knowledge. The only "plausible" worldview is the Christian worldview, which gives the reason for creation...love. For God to love you, and you to love God. That's what Jesus said.
@Tuvoc310 Time and dimension confine the existence of things. By definition nothing can exist out of space-time. Time does not have an "influence" on things, ironic you talk about simplicity, it's a dimension, I think you don't know what you're talking about, what is simplistic to me is to avoid definition and create an impossible imaginary place to put your God in. You can choose to not post this, but Im telling you explaning imaginary claims with other imaginary claims is very pathetic.
"Time and dimension confine the existence of things. By definition nothing can exist out of space-time."
That’s incorrect...HUMANS confine the existence of things by Time and Dimension because WE can’t comprehend anything outside of it.
"Time does not have an "influence" on things.."
Time is a fundamental quantity in physics ALL CHANGE IN THE UNIVERSE has time as part of the equation. Wow ....If it had no influence on anything we would have no way of knowing it existed.
@Tuvoc310 We are flesh so we are caught in time.GOD is outside and he is Spirit like a whole other dimension outside of time.Quantum mechanics prove that.And that energy witch is proven to be light holds together atoms in youre body.GOD said he is the one who holds together all life he binds it together.Without a constant Energy mass can not hold itself together.And the very energy scientists talk of they have no idea where it comes from.
It is impossible for this world to exist if it is purely physical, because everything that is physical can be devided an infinite amount of times... How can something be built if what is needed to build it needs to be built and so on and so forth for the rest of eternity? There MUST be something that is indivisible, self sustaining, self explanitory, SELF EXISTING for this world to exist, and that is God!
You're basically saying that for the first cause argument to be valid, there must be a first cause. This doesn't demonstrate that there WAS in fact a first cause, it only says that there cannot be an infinite regress.
If you're going to assert that everything requires a cause, then define your solution as not having a cause, then you're saying that God completely defies the rule to begin with.
If you're going to make allowances, then why can't the Universe be infinite?
I could not agree more!!! Question: Does it not seem silly that scientists are willing to believe that "energy can niether be created nor destroyed"....so therefore energy "just is"....But if energy exists (and we know it does), who created it?
How/Why is it possible that energy can "just exist" (with no creator/no possible destroyer), but God can not?
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
the fact that a single celled organism existed and do exist today in mass quantities, proves that God is the architect of the universe. Even a tiny cell is built with such design and complex harmony, it takes 'faith' to believe that it was spun out of thin air. The reason people believe such ridiculous notions about creation is because they are unable to face their own sin and embrace immortality. They are AFRAID.
I think I'm going to throw my hat in the ring. I always thought of ID as being the middle ground between Evolutionist and Creationism. Yes I believe in a higher power, specifically the Christian God. However, I do not think the world was 'created' 4500 years ago. Nothing in science is truth, and I stand by that. Science only presents knowledge claims, claims that are constantly re-worked and improved upon. So to get back on topic, Evolution v. ID...
come on, up until the last few years, anyone who questioned religion was completely shunned and frowned upon. just because people are now figuring out that religion is nothing more than a story for people to feel good about, they are evil? the last 8 yrs of america was ran by some buffoon who made his decisons on his faith.. how fucking scary is that? there is 0 proof that the bible is real. none. religion is corrupt, and the biggest reason for wars. but i guess each unto their own...
Evolution is not really even a theory. Theory has nuts and bolts, a robust explanation of things in subject. Evolution has nothing of that, it just says it happened by accident!? Well that really doesn't explain anyhing, does it? Probable reason for it is that Darwin had no training in biology or microbiology, so he just came up with the most simplistic thing...eureca, it happened! Ahem, yes, but how? By accident! Really scienticif!
Ok, here's the deal: if evolution is wrong, in no way does it prove creationism. (I'm not saying it is, but hypothetically) Just saying "well we don't know, so God must have done it" is not a valid argument. It may well turn out that "God" did it (I highly doubt this however) but until we have evidence to support this claim, it's just as ridiculous as saying Willy Wonka created life in its current form from his magic chocolate facotry.
Applying scientific principles to religion is an inherent fallacy. Creationism/intelligent design is not a science. Darwinism has holes, just as most sciences do. If Creationism is your thing that's fine, but it has no place in science.
The Bible is the truth Everything was created by God its so obvious just go outside and look its obviously created. read the Bible the truth is inside past present and future.
I stand by all my statements concerning The Wedge DOCUMENT however it was not my intent to portray Evolutionists as Nazis or offend anyone. I did intend however to show how false documents can be leaked to hinder an opposing side. It is my personal belief that this is what happened.
In your equation you are assuming that nothing existed in eternity past 0+0=0. This equation refutes an accidental creation because NOTHING can come from NOTHING. It is therefore necessary SOMETHING unknown exist from which EVERTHING known is derived. Now THIS SOMETHING could not come from NOTHING itself, so THIS SOMETHING must have ALWAYS BEEN. Since no result can be greater than its source THIS SOMETHING must be greater than or equal to EVERTHING.
I think it's Nature.People should be able to choose for themselves what they believe/don't believe without being attacked by some with a different view. Science hasn't explained everything and may never but it's working on it and may still solve some of these problems. Seems that people who are religous get livid when someone says that they don't buy creation. I'm not saying the other side never does but in my experience more often the one cursing is religious one... How very christian of them
Ok Baddalbatross42 I understand you are speaking from your experiences but I challenge you to find one curse word written by me in these comments or anywhere on YouTube - in the WORLD for that matter.
No one with an intelligent argument has been deleted, but if all you have are insults and curses I will not allow it to post. This is not an age restricted video so anyone may be reading these things.
As far as "SexyMelon" is concerned I will leave his up as an example of what not to do.
Under information near the upper right hand of the page I state that "intelligent, respectful debate is welcome" turning off ratings does not contradict that. Clicking a star to express your opinion requires no intelligence, and your comments are devoid of any civility or scientific interest. You have contributed nothing to the conversation.
Why are they debating evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with the world's creation. Abiogenesis is a theory on how the world was created, not evolution
Also, there are theories regarding the complexity of the cell which point to evolution. One of the most interesting is the endosymbiotic theory which suggests that mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved from prokaryotic cells that long ago established a symbiotic relationship with larger cells. Both mitochondria and plastids have ring DNA like bacteria. That means our cells have organelles with their own DNA, which happens to be structurally similar to prokaryotic DNA.
The cell is very complicated but that perfect harmony of function screams Intelligent Design not random chance. Thousands of upon thousands of micro machines in a single cell. Each machine with a function, no random parts floating around, nothing in mid evolution waiting to become useful. I know there are similarities in many living systems but they can be (I believe should be) considered evidence for a common creator.
Theres also a logical problem with ID. I know scientists who are Christian and who are Atheist. Evolution does not make a judgement regarding the existence of God. The question is left open by science becuase it hasn't been demonstrated to be falsifiable. ID proponents almost always believe in God in some form or another. They reach the conclusion an intelligence created life and try to make the data fit the conclusion. This begs a lot of questions about the "intelligent agent."
Your right, Evolution doesn't make a judgment regarding God's existence, EvolutionISTS make that judgment. If you say God is not ruled out then ID remains a possibility. A possibility that is rejected at every turn by UNBIASED SCIENTISTS?
"ID proponents almost always believe in God in some form or another."
I agree, if one finds that the evidence points to the existence of a God it is only logical to believe there is a God.
Some of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century were made by men and women who developed a theory and sought data to prove it. Thomas Edison, Marie Curie "Madame Curie" and many others.
A good scientific theory explains facts that have been observed and can be potentially falsified. You observe, formulate a hypothesis, attempt to falsify your hypothesis, make corrections, test some more, and repeat the process pretty much non stop. This is what biology has been doing with evolution for 150 years. That's not how ID proponents have been going about their work. I'll explain more in my next post.
The members of the Discovery Institute teand to be Theists who believe God created everything. Fine. There are some notable evolutionary biologists who were too. If you read the "Wedge Strategy," you'll see what I mean when I say they, the Discovery Institute, pre-concluded that an intelligence put different life forms on earth more or less as they are. The strategy then calls for the building of a research program around this conclusion. More to come in my next post about why this matters.
The "Wedge Strategy" is an urban legend much like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" You just went thru the scientific process in detail just one post ago. Now you've presented an dubiously penned article as proof of impropriety in ID. What happened to the scientific method? How was this article validated as authentic? How do you know it wasn't written by an Evolutionist trying to discredit those annoying ID people? This could have been written by anyone, if it was written at all.
The "Wedge Strategy" for those of you who do not know is a baseless Conspiracy Theory. It sites a master plan to take over the country and turn it into a Theocracy
Author: Unkown
Used by Evolutionists to discredit ID
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a similar artical siteing a Jewish plan for world domination.
For the love of God, you can go on NOVA and read an interview with Phillip E. Johnson where he says he coined the term "Wedge Strategy"! There's also audio on NOVA where he talks about the "Wedge Strategy." Forget about the wedge document. You can read or listen to Johnson mention the strategy. Plus, if you're going to compare the Wedge Document to "The Protocols," which inspired the Nazi movement, I'm done talking to you. I'm tired of being who understand evolution being compared to Nazis.
The Wedge Strategy is the real plan, of ONE MAN, to get ID theory heard and hopefully accepted. The Wedge Document is a sinister perversion of those ideas leaked onto the web
I'm one ID supporter having a discussion with several Evolutionists. I think we all can agree that the rating points for this video will be close to 0. Ratings are only representative of opinions not truth and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
You all will have to find another way of expressing yourself.
You can't falsify the statement, "an intelligent agent created life and the universe." Inferring design is a very subjective use of inductive logic, and isn't testable. What makes evolution testable are the predictions it allows scientists to make about genetics and the fossil record. Interestingly enough, if you read the biology literature, evolution does lead to many correct predictions. (ie: the 2004 discovery of Tiktaalik)
Ben Stein is way off here. ID was designed to appeal to non-scientists. A few social conservatives from the scientific community and a lot of politicians/lawyers with no scientific background basically repackaged creationism to get it into public schools and stem the tide of social changes they don't like and believe are caused by the theory of evolution. It's a social movement disguised as a scientific theory, but if you study any science(s), you know ID doesn't meet the definition of science.
ID has appeal to scientist as well but the moment any scientist questions evolution he's fired, denied tenure and ostracized. This causes others in the scientific community to remain silent about any doubts they may have. I can also make the argument that evolutionist want to keep Intelligent Design out of schools because they want to stem the tide of social changes they don't like and believe are caused by the belief in God.
Well that's better. But magnetic fields don't have a half-life....radioactive isotopes do.
What science says is simple: Don't assume because someone says so without testing over and over and over that it's the truth. You're cherry-picking and jumping to conclusions.
The half-life of a quantity whose value decreases with time is the interval required for the quantity to decay to half of its initial value. The concept originated in describing how long it takes atoms to undergo radioactive decay but also applies in a wide variety of other situations.
So you have no science degree and yet your question the knowledge of years and years of work based on the very fact evolution is objectively true. Ok next time you get sick, lets say with H1N1, dont goto the hospital for help because evolution is fake, just prey to god.
As a typical evolutionist you are holding the untested, unwitnessed, unrepeatable and astronomically improbable event to be TRUE. You also equate evolution to science. Evolutionary theory is a BRANCH of science and has nothing to do with Medical care.
I didn't say Biology I said Evolution. Evolutionary theory is a subset of/ and dependant on Biology, but Biology is valid without Evolutionary theory.
Bacterial cells contain about 5,000 different genes, but only a fraction of them are used at any given time. The difference between being able to cause disease or not cause disease lies in where, when, and what genes in this collection are turned on.
In short there is no genetic change in Pathogens they merly use the genetic abilities they already posses.
I spend time at the beach my skin reacts to the sun and tries to protect it's self, I tan. Did my skin just evolve, NO? I was born with the ability to adjust to my surroundings in various ways. NO NEW ABILITIES HAVE SURFACED ONLY DORMANT - PRE-EXISTING PROCESSES
Where is your Theology degree to deny God? You have no Theology degree and question THOUSANDS of years of Christian records (The bible) and the witness of millions of people. Fact is, neither of us has to have a degree in a field to be well studied in it and we have THE RIGHT TO QUESTION ANYTHING.
Creationism accepts the Naturalistic Axiom that Evolutionists cling to but it also allows for Supernatural explanations were the Naturalistic Axiom breaks down. NO evidence for creationism will be accepted by prominent evolutionists because proof of creation is not the result they want.
Rejection of God produced Evolution; Evolution did not produce Rejection of God. Rejection of God is the purpose, Evolution is only the tool used to justify it.
If the "peers" are hostile to change their "review" will reflect that. We now have a pure Scientific Democracy - Majority Rule - not a Scientific Republic governed by the rules of good scientific practices. Just because the Nazis overwhelmed the Jews it doesnt make the Nazis right. A minority opinion is not necessarily incorrect because its unpopular.
ARRRGH. YES WE WILL ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM! Please, show us some, for the love of your God. I personally promise to convert to Christianity if you can demonstrate a repeatable scientific demonstration of creationism! That's what ALL scientists believe. Truly. We're actually LOOKING FOR TRUTH, not just buying the snake oil because you say so.
I would hope so, but I doubt you can speak for all your peers.
Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has shows that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth.
In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours.
When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years.
The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate.
However, this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place. A FLOOD PEOPLE!
The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins.5 This would have provided several of the key factors need for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.
Although the coalification process has been used in the past to support theories of an aged universe, research done by leading creation scientists reveals that this process actually supports creation teachings of a young Earth
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years.
In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years.
Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10 to the power of 89. 9 The galaxy does not have space to hold so many bodies.
Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state INSTANTANEOUSLY. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.
I think he ran off, with a trail of urine following...
anyway, ben stein is a lawyer/movie maker trying to seem like an expert on science, how does that work?
I would believe evolution... sorry "EVILUTION" more then the bible, there are bones, transitions, dna mutations, etc etc. If you want an example of evolution take a look at viruses and bacteria, the swine flu mutated, alot of bacteria have natural selection in order to adapt to their environment, why do people still listen?
I have some explainations for bacterial adaptation as well as other evidance debuking evolution, Please read thru the comments below. I know it's alot but its worth it.
Research has been done by many scientists to explain creationism. There findings are rejected because they point to a creator. The research is rejected because God is rejected.
You close your mind to possibilities beyond your intellect and respect only what you understand. Like an animal guarding its territory, only what satisfies your needs has relevance anything that conflicts with it must be run from or attacked
OK, you're using your own faults as an argument, that's laughable. The very FOUNDATION of science says we need to keep an open mind to plausible solutions. Not one single itty bitty shred of evidence has been brought by so-called "creationists", that's why you get laughed at by real science. You use pseudoscience and cherry-pick data to get the answer you want to arrive upon. Please leave science to the REAL scientists. Until then, you remain a joke.
A. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
B. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
C. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: "Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic, ... and plausible,a political gladiator, ready for a 'set-to' in any crowd" (Frederick Douglass).
Definition "A" is what Myheadisonwrong means when he says "plausible". But "B" & "C" are more descriptive of the scientific process used by Evolutionists. When he states that there is no evidence for creation it becomes apparent that he has not studied the issue. Very intelligent Scientists from both sides have presented their proof in scientific journals and debates for years. And Neither has been able to prove their theory conclusively.
It all comes down to what you chose to believe. Evolution is a belief system just like religion. Instead of a all powerful all knowing God, Man becomes a god unto himself, deciding what is right and wrong.
I belive in the flying goat that craps cabbages, please teach that in a beginner biology class since we do not know yet objectively thats theres a creator or not.
And you have witnessed the beginning of life from inanimate matter? Life that formed ACCIDENTALY from exactly the right amino acids, possessed the ability to process nutrients and possessed DNA necessary to replicate itself.
You have see all that exists spring from absolutely nothing? According to your logic Evolution should not be taught in schools, because we do not know objectively that this is all an accident.
Science is useful, but it is never true. The truth, on the other hand, is always useful and it is always true (A=A law of identity). The ability to manipulate one's surroundings never provides a basis to define anything, produce an ethical system, nor an epistemology. This is why science can not tell us how one learns, what gravity is, or if I should steal. It is a mere tool, not a source for truth. This is the classic Atheist/agnostic mistake.
"God can do anything he desires to do. He didn't use evolution as a means of creation and he didn't give us green skin and pointed ears because he simply rejected that route."
I find it amazing that you claim to know the mind of god now. That's honestly incredible. If he didn't use evolution, then why did he leave so much evidence lying around that he did? Is he messing with us? Seems a bit deceitful if you ask me.
I don't have to know anyone's mind concerning their endeavors if I can see what they have created. The creation speaks for the intent of the creator. Even those things that you interpret as Evolutionary clues.
Yes, let's all start giving a damn what a former speech writer (for a nearly-impeached President) and former actor (red eyes, anyone?) thinks about a complex scientific theory. Maybe next Billo can invite Keanu Reeves to discuss his problems with quantum mechanics or bring in Dustin Diamond to complain how marginalized the flat-earth community feels.
Maybe a better idea would be to listen to opposing view points. Question them, research them and decide what makes sense. If a security guard told me my car was leaking oil I wouldn't ignore him because he wasn't a mechanic. I'd look under the car.
I wonder how long it takes for some liberal idiot to start complaining about 'separation of church and state'. I mean, we have been hearing this for years even though it is not in the constitution at all. The liberal credo is 'free speech for me but not for thee.' Liberals know that evolution is wrong so that is why they are scared when it is dared to be questioned.
Oh for gods sake (pun) Darwin's theory is 150 years old and is easy to find holes and inaccuracies in it. The scientific knowledge he had didn't even extend to DNA. His basic premise was correct though. If Ben Stein wants to take on Evolution. Take on the most up to date theory that pulls from Chemistry, molecular genetics, paleontology. What's this "Darwinism"? crap. Darwin was the man famous for the theory, but there were others at the time with the similar idea in competition with him.
And with these new ideas in Chemistry, molecular genetics and paleontology the Theory remains a Theory not a Law. It can not be proven as fact, but it is treated as such. A "fact" so undeniable that any contradiction is met with ridicule, scorn and censorship. I believe this attitude isn't for love of Evolution but simply the rejection of God.
I think you've misunderstood what the word Theory means in science.
Theories are stronger than facts. They tie facts together. Gravity is also a theory. Evolution is one of the most well tested and demonstrated principles in science. Modern biology is based on Evolution. The only reason there is resistance to accept it in religious corners as fact ( like gravity ) is it steps on their toes when it comes to explaining origins. Science says nothing about gods, pro or anti.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a TESTABLE model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and CAPABLE OF BEING TESTED through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Perhaps I should of have used the word LAW instead of FACT. However if the "facts" are dubious then the Theory is worthless. What "facts" does your Theory use to support the notion of one creature becoming a completely different one and how was this tested.
Finally science is a search for facts, and theories that explain them. It doesn't and cannot say anything about the supernatural.
It doesn't deny a god or promote one. It may contradict some holy texts, ( 6 day creation, Noah's ark etc ) but to many learned followers that shouldn't matter because it's the teachings and traditions that should be important, not as a literal history. They're are many theistic scientists. Search Ken Miller.
So everything that falls outside of the naturalistic axiom is ignored or the square peg is jammed into the round hole? Disregarding what we don't understand is not good science. However you are correct on one point, science doesn't deny a god or promote one. It is not "science" but some scientist who deny God, and they step outside of good scientific practices to do it.
First of all, an "atheist" is one that claims there is no god. So atheism does in fact deny the existence of a god. Our ScottishAtheist doesn't know his definitions. It is an agnostic that claims one can not know that there is or is not a god. Agnosticism is a milder form of unbelief.
Secondly, modern science is based upon the fallacious "Verification Principle." Which has long been demonstrated to be self-referentially absurd. The principle claims that only that which is sensible can be intelligible, but the principle itself is a proposition, thus it can only be understood, not sensed. Therefore, it must be regarded as unintelligible on its own criteria. lol.
It's a lack of belief. The claim is made by theists, the burden of proof is on them. I see no evidence for gods. I do see plenty of reasons for men to believe in such things. Religion is real, the evidence for gods isn't.
To deny something would be silly, let me see evidence and i'll accept it. I have no feeling on the matter. I call myself athiest because I have a lack of belief. Agnostics have a rather dim view because they claim it will never be known. Soemthing I don't accept either.
I just noticed in an above comment you used a staple of ID the "bacterial flagellum". That and the above comments tell me two things.
1) If something cannot be understood, god did it. Forget research - because god did it.
2) The flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. The parts have uses on their own. To remove a part now is fatal, however this doesn't discount it evolving from pre-existing parts. I don't think you've paid attention to the wealth of research on said machinery.
Saying god did it answers precisely zero. You're still no closer to understanding how it works. Science tries to distill everything down to its most simplest parts. When you can remove the noise you're left with (hopefully) clear and understandable systems. Adding god on actually causes more problems because you're adding complexity and holding your hands up and saying "i can't figure it out - must have been god"
Even Newton pulled god out. Until science later explained what he couldn't
"Saying God did it answers precisely zero." I respectfully disagree, Intelligent Design denotes purpose and knowledge of that purpose gives the answer to everything.
See that's thing. Lets say that there is indeed an intelligent design in DNA for example. Then what? There's a massive leap from that to the identity of said designer. Although ID is a Christian Creationist movement so no guesses who they'd nominate.
The problem is many people are struggling to find purpose in their lives, some say without god there is no purpose. I find that so negative. I can't stand it. I also find it insulting that I get told without god A,B or C my life is worthless.
I like Stein, he is quite factual and non-biased, but as soon as O'Reilly begins talking it turns into extremist crap. And why; out of all the times he gives people the last word; does he always take the last word for himself?
ViperXXXXXXX 2 weeks ago
Darwin....the "pope" of atheism.
microvantastic 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.
-Rich Deem
lvstudioz 1 year ago
@lvstudioz That's really a disingenuous thing to say on both Rich Deem's and your own part. Because there has not been a statement from Dawkins that is "he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist" thats bs. He claimsa it is very highly improbable that god doesnt exist and most athiests feel the same way.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy In fact, by definition, ALL atheists think there is no deity. Those who don't believe but don't rule out the existence of a deity are agnostics.
jimmayl1 1 year ago
@jimmayl1 That is a misrepresentation of what many atheists believe and what many agnostics believe. Atheism is simply not having a belief in any deities, and there is absolutely nothing in that lack of belief that says that they necessarily rule out the possibility of a god. That is a very "Strong" version of atheism; not all atheism.
firegod001 3 weeks ago
They Shouldn't Be Persecuted, THEY SHOULD ALL BE EXTERMINATED.
DARTHMOBIUS 1 year ago
From AbuIbraheemC
FYI
"Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
@theshadowify
No....I never said that. Everything came from HIM.
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
If non-God believing people really believe separation between state and church
than the next time boycott the fact that Government employees get Good Friday (a religious holiday by the way) Off by going to work with out pay.
JWClevelandOH 1 year ago
Ben Stein is right it is totally wrong.
Gehlbach831 1 year ago
So the point of Ben Stein's movie is to show that creationist within the scientific community suffer discrimination? I don't even need to see the movie to believe that is true. I can't believe they could even reconcile thier science education with the creation story from the Bible. it seems outside the scientific world there is reverse discrimination, people who believe in evolution and thumb their noses at the Bible are considered amoral and without any ethical code.
haven7788 1 year ago
Notice how he says that there are holes in the theory of evolution, but doesn't mention what they are.
Strange that isn't it?
It's almost as if he knows that all creationist arguments have already been dealt with.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76
You evidently haven't read the prior posts.
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
@Tuvoc310 I wasn't aware that Bill O'Reilly posted here.
lracuda76 1 year ago
@lracuda76
"..that all creationist arguments have already been dealt with."
You evidently haven't read the prior posts.
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman, President, Institute of Noetic Sciences)
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
@AbuIbraheemC
"The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman)"
Excellent
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
Well, at least Ben Stein spoke calmly and didn't just say "THIS IS TRUTH, EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG" he at least acknowledged that he could be wrong and stated that he has the freedom to express his opinion.
Unlike *ahem* SOMEONE we all know. *coughO'Reillycough*
Now I don't believe in creationism, but I respect Mr. Stein for stating his thoughts respectably and was willing to accept others ideas. I do agree with how people shouldn't be oppressed for their opinions on the matter though.
exazo 1 year ago
evo..LOL cute little evos and their religion.... 2:57 pure ownage...evo is just another religion for atheists, its their crutch...requires allot of faith
infinitemika 1 year ago
there is a great falling away
erichathy222 1 year ago
All religion is all bad all the time everywhere for everyone in the past, in the present and in the future. In order for earth to survive all religion, all "god" concepts must die. You have been warned.Ben stein is pants on head, cookoo crazy in the brain..just another religious zealot supporting the pollution of the human spirit with boogieman science
699backstab 1 year ago
Look up Sir Fred Hoyle...he coined the phrase, "The Big Bang." After his deeeep studies in Science, he began his lectures with, "He who created..." It's a pretty cool story about Brother Hoyle.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@KingBizarre
Ben should still have your respect.
I cant believe that people would actually believe that Human being came from monkeys. & by the way Darwin believed there was a God. If everyone is so much inclined to Darwins belief they would believe in God to. so what the heck are people talking about that there is no God? Darwin the guy who you guys follow believed in God. You can only believe Darwin when he talked about humans evolving from monkeys BUT THEY LEAVE OUT THAT BELIEVED IN GOD
Gbiz100 1 year ago
@KingBizarre
Ben should still have your respect.
I cant believe that people would actually believe that Human being came from monkeys. & by the way Darwin believed there was a God. If everyone is so much inclined to Darwins belief they would believe in God to. so what the heck are people talking about that there is no God? Darwin the guy who you guys follow believed in God. You can only believe Darwin when he talked about humans evolving from monkeys BUT THEY LEAVE OUT THAT HE BELIEVED IN GOD
Gbiz100 1 year ago
I really hope Ben Stein gets hit with a bus. I'm serious somebody run this annoying Jew down! Or give him a fucking book because he has no idea what he's talking about.
oliverdavidanderson 1 year ago
Is just has remarakable that somthing was created out of nothing, as to say their is a god. Their is absulte unknowns out their. Have you heard of dark air. 90% of scientiest put this dark air as a place holder for the unknown. 90% is unknown to scientiest with that amount of knowdledge undiscovered why not embrace of a alternate belief (god) makes sense to me.
txbluecat 1 year ago
FINALLY someone is talking about this....nothing comes from nothing...Darwinism can not be true!
jcstewart106 2 years ago
just throwing this out there from the few comments i read. but it is self defeating to assume that the universe is eternal and has always been or is on a giant loop. Because time could not be for an inifinite number of time would have to pass to reach today. You can't pass through an infinite amount of time. (think about it for a sec) ok thats impossible.
continue the discussion.
continue the debate
iamcentury 2 years ago
completely agree with mr Stein, throughout the history of science its foundations are based on the interchange and flow of ideas that superimpose each other, so as one theory comes along another one replaces it through means of higher understandind of the subject in mind... that to me is the spirit of science which walks hand by hand with our nature of cynical skepticism and everlasting curiosity.
robotech57 2 years ago
Why is anyone asking Ben Stein about evolutionary theory? He's an actor. He chooses controversies to place his name and face in the media for his own personal promotion. Then, Fox watchers believe what he says. Amazing. Where does the Fox viewership get their information on the H1N1 virus? Scrubs? These are the TV addicts, taking the word of the first broadcast with catchy music and brightly colored sets that comes along. We're a pathetic nation.
charadester 2 years ago
Way to go Ben Stein! hahaha the atheists are going crazy over that hahahah!!! I love it!
rocha333 2 years ago
Stein used to have my respect.
KingBizarre 2 years ago
When it comes down to the origin of the universe and everything, it's a debate between:
1. The universe and everything happened by chance and randomness.
2. Universe and Everything was created by a higher power.
3. Universe is, and always has been. Possibility it is just a giant loop that has existed and will exist forever. In my personal opinion, there is no way of saying how everything came to be.
ownage65 2 years ago
(continuation...)
We weren't born with the ability to calculate x^2(x+7), we develop a sense of understanding complex arithmetics in a linear, step-by-step path. Same goes for nature, Darwin's incredible observation of the beaks of finches on the Galapagos or the transistion of simple primates into intelligent, 2-legged homo-sapiens is not only proof of change in genetic material, it is also the proof of flawless design of natural adaption from a higher being.
itsCorsdt 2 years ago
(...continuation)
For all we know, evolution may have been initiated by a higher being, specifically of monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), in order to bring forth man into this world. To claim mammals of intelligence simply appeared in a poof of smoke is just as ridiculous a theory as the supposed "lightning hit a pool of mud". The Old Testament was NOT supposed to be taken literally, especially Genesis. (continued...)
itsCorsdt 2 years ago
One thing I don't understand about today's society...why is the theory of theistic-evolution not mainstream? Theistic-evolutionists such as I believe strongly in BOTH theories (creationism AND evolution), and that both theories has enough plausible evidence to back up the other.
Must I remind both Creationists and Darwinists that Charles Darwin was a Creationist? And that he theorized the concept of evolution with 'intelligent-design' in mind? (continued in next post...)
itsCorsdt 2 years ago
the post from Tuvoc310 a couple days ago is awesome and shows you how little you know about what your arguing against, Your oviously talking about the big bang theory.. so to say NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING is true and is proven by science but what you fail to realize is that the big bang theory says that every single atom in the universe was condensed into a single object. an with that said do what we do and learn about what your talking about before you speak
majikninja07 2 years ago
@majikninja07
I am aware that everthing in the Universe comes from a single source. I consider that a FACT, and PROOF of God. Interestingly so does Lawrence Krauss noted physicist and Dawkins partner in crime. Lawrence speculates that the universe must have "0" net energy so that the Universe would need "0" to begain and not need a creator. He also states that if there was energy in the beginning of time "We are worried"
"an with that said...."
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Who created the creator ???
ericcartman321 2 years ago
Only NOTHING can come from NOTHING. It is therefore necessary that SOMETHING exist from which EVERYTHING is derived. Now this SOMETHING could not come from NOTHING, so SOMETHING must have ALWAYS BEEN. Since no derivative can be greater than its source - THIS SOMETHING must be greater than or equal to EVERTHING.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
An uncreated ETERNAL force greater than the universe is necessary for the existence of the universe.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Why doesn't this force "greater than the universe" need a force greater than itself to exist? Why can't the universe just be eternal rather than the supposed force that created it?
"It is therefore necessary that SOMETHING exist from which EVERYTHING is derived."
What if EVERYTHING is that SOMETHING that has always been.
KingOfCarrotFIowers 2 years ago
@KingOfCarrotFIowers
The Universe is an imperfect machine. The formation of new stars from interstellar gas is proof that the Universe had a beginning. Its parts break down (burned out stars- colapsing galaxies) and that is proof that the whole will eventually fail. There is NO PART of the Un iverse that can be called eternal - yet you would give eternal status to the WHOLE?
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
@Tuvoc310 There is many ways in which you can see the universe as eternal. The universe doesn't have to be in status quo to be eternal. It can go through cycles, big bang-big cunch-big bang, it can also generate new matter (new big bangs) through quantic fluctuations, it can be created amongst others through dimensional collisions (string theory).
2CSST2 1 year ago
@2CSST2
Perpetual motion devices don't work ...for the same reasons this quantic fluctuation theory fails. Every bit of energy, every single wave of light flowing thru the infinite universe would have to stop and return to a central point without energy loss. This defies many laws of physics.
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
@Tuvoc310
Ok. So an uncreated eternal force created the universe. This means that this force existed for an eternity before the universe was created. But, since an eternity never ends, this would mean that the universe was never created.
An example to illustrate: If I were to give you a banana after an eternity, I would never give it to you. The time before I gave you the banana would never been, thus, I would never come to the point where I give you the banana.
Zaiay 2 years ago
@Zaiay
You assume that God is confined within time and subject to it.
Time is a CONSTRUCT like the clock used to monitor its passage. You, me, the Universe and the banana were created within time by a God who is outside of time. This is why he can see the beginning and end of all events. Saying He is eternal is very simplistic, more accurately he is beyond the influence of time but able to influence it (time) at any point.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
THANK YOU!!!! lol I heard a similar lecture by Ravi Zacharias. I became a christain because of an intense personal situation in my life, gave it up to Jesus, and it was gone, just like the christians said. But even after being saved I wanted proof to back up my argument. It's one thing to say there is intelligent design, but who is the designer? Which god can we go to? People believe me, after all the research I've done in all fields, my God is the only one that fits the glove.
mufafa777 2 years ago
"People believe me" but you haven't explained why. What research have you done? If you have irrefutable proof would you please share as there seems to be some debate on the matter of the existence of God.
zombievsrobot 2 years ago
@mufafa777
Yesss! Once you make the logical leap to the Theism...you believe in what Ravi Zacharias says, "Intent prior to content." It means everything has meaning. Animals can't understand our creations, nor can we understand God's. Very simple. Remember, the Bible says that Adam became like God, in having great knowledge. The only "plausible" worldview is the Christian worldview, which gives the reason for creation...love. For God to love you, and you to love God. That's what Jesus said.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@Tuvoc310 Time and dimension confine the existence of things. By definition nothing can exist out of space-time. Time does not have an "influence" on things, ironic you talk about simplicity, it's a dimension, I think you don't know what you're talking about, what is simplistic to me is to avoid definition and create an impossible imaginary place to put your God in. You can choose to not post this, but Im telling you explaning imaginary claims with other imaginary claims is very pathetic.
2CSST2 1 year ago
@2CSST2
#1
"Time and dimension confine the existence of things. By definition nothing can exist out of space-time."
That’s incorrect...HUMANS confine the existence of things by Time and Dimension because WE can’t comprehend anything outside of it.
"Time does not have an "influence" on things.."
Time is a fundamental quantity in physics ALL CHANGE IN THE UNIVERSE has time as part of the equation. Wow ....If it had no influence on anything we would have no way of knowing it existed.
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
@2CSST2
"...what is simplistic to me is to avoid definition and create an impossible imaginary place to put your God in."
Impossible?
Have you even been to the bottom of the ocean on THIS planet...
How can you tell anyone what is possible in other Dimensions.
Tuvoc310 1 year ago
@Tuvoc310 We are flesh so we are caught in time.GOD is outside and he is Spirit like a whole other dimension outside of time.Quantum mechanics prove that.And that energy witch is proven to be light holds together atoms in youre body.GOD said he is the one who holds together all life he binds it together.Without a constant Energy mass can not hold itself together.And the very energy scientists talk of they have no idea where it comes from.
korzon 1 year ago
Nothing created the creator...
It is impossible for this world to exist if it is purely physical, because everything that is physical can be devided an infinite amount of times... How can something be built if what is needed to build it needs to be built and so on and so forth for the rest of eternity? There MUST be something that is indivisible, self sustaining, self explanitory, SELF EXISTING for this world to exist, and that is God!
aveyowyns 2 years ago
Who says it was "built"?
You're basically saying that for the first cause argument to be valid, there must be a first cause. This doesn't demonstrate that there WAS in fact a first cause, it only says that there cannot be an infinite regress.
If you're going to assert that everything requires a cause, then define your solution as not having a cause, then you're saying that God completely defies the rule to begin with.
If you're going to make allowances, then why can't the Universe be infinite?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I could not agree more!!! Question: Does it not seem silly that scientists are willing to believe that "energy can niether be created nor destroyed"....so therefore energy "just is"....But if energy exists (and we know it does), who created it?
How/Why is it possible that energy can "just exist" (with no creator/no possible destroyer), but God can not?
illwisskey 2 years ago
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
GermBritScotsIrish15 2 years ago
Bill doesn't belong on News, he belongs on Televangelist shows
Kroxeldiphibic 2 years ago
the fact that a single celled organism existed and do exist today in mass quantities, proves that God is the architect of the universe. Even a tiny cell is built with such design and complex harmony, it takes 'faith' to believe that it was spun out of thin air. The reason people believe such ridiculous notions about creation is because they are unable to face their own sin and embrace immortality. They are AFRAID.
kemshifarm 2 years ago
I think I'm going to throw my hat in the ring. I always thought of ID as being the middle ground between Evolutionist and Creationism. Yes I believe in a higher power, specifically the Christian God. However, I do not think the world was 'created' 4500 years ago. Nothing in science is truth, and I stand by that. Science only presents knowledge claims, claims that are constantly re-worked and improved upon. So to get back on topic, Evolution v. ID...
kartboy12 2 years ago
come on, up until the last few years, anyone who questioned religion was completely shunned and frowned upon. just because people are now figuring out that religion is nothing more than a story for people to feel good about, they are evil? the last 8 yrs of america was ran by some buffoon who made his decisons on his faith.. how fucking scary is that? there is 0 proof that the bible is real. none. religion is corrupt, and the biggest reason for wars. but i guess each unto their own...
brutusbeefcake35 2 years ago
good thing evolution explains the origin of life...not...idiot
crazedcoltsfan 2 years ago
Evolution is not really even a theory. Theory has nuts and bolts, a robust explanation of things in subject. Evolution has nothing of that, it just says it happened by accident!? Well that really doesn't explain anyhing, does it? Probable reason for it is that Darwin had no training in biology or microbiology, so he just came up with the most simplistic thing...eureca, it happened! Ahem, yes, but how? By accident! Really scienticif!
Istanbulka 2 years ago
Ok, here's the deal: if evolution is wrong, in no way does it prove creationism. (I'm not saying it is, but hypothetically) Just saying "well we don't know, so God must have done it" is not a valid argument. It may well turn out that "God" did it (I highly doubt this however) but until we have evidence to support this claim, it's just as ridiculous as saying Willy Wonka created life in its current form from his magic chocolate facotry.
ISDP1337 2 years ago
Evolution teaches that we're getting bigger, and better, and stronger, and smarter.
But reality seems to show us the OPPOSITE.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Applying scientific principles to religion is an inherent fallacy. Creationism/intelligent design is not a science. Darwinism has holes, just as most sciences do. If Creationism is your thing that's fine, but it has no place in science.
fraukus 2 years ago
What do religious bodies achieve by wanting everyone on the planet to believe that god created the earth? world domination?
88dans 2 years ago
Where are the comments to which you replied?....Oh, you must be one of those creationist....Never mind...delete this too...stay stupid.
covega79 2 years ago
The Bible is the truth Everything was created by God its so obvious just go outside and look its obviously created. read the Bible the truth is inside past present and future.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
There is hard evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for God, except hearsay.
DeathCipris 2 years ago
Incorrect. I would suggest you read some of my earlier postings.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I stand by all my statements concerning The Wedge DOCUMENT however it was not my intent to portray Evolutionists as Nazis or offend anyone. I did intend however to show how false documents can be leaked to hinder an opposing side. It is my personal belief that this is what happened.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
In your equation you are assuming that nothing existed in eternity past 0+0=0. This equation refutes an accidental creation because NOTHING can come from NOTHING. It is therefore necessary SOMETHING unknown exist from which EVERTHING known is derived. Now THIS SOMETHING could not come from NOTHING itself, so THIS SOMETHING must have ALWAYS BEEN. Since no result can be greater than its source THIS SOMETHING must be greater than or equal to EVERTHING.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I think it's Nature.People should be able to choose for themselves what they believe/don't believe without being attacked by some with a different view. Science hasn't explained everything and may never but it's working on it and may still solve some of these problems. Seems that people who are religous get livid when someone says that they don't buy creation. I'm not saying the other side never does but in my experience more often the one cursing is religious one... How very christian of them
baddalbatross42 2 years ago
Ok Baddalbatross42 I understand you are speaking from your experiences but I challenge you to find one curse word written by me in these comments or anywhere on YouTube - in the WORLD for that matter.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
No one with an intelligent argument has been deleted, but if all you have are insults and curses I will not allow it to post. This is not an age restricted video so anyone may be reading these things.
As far as "SexyMelon" is concerned I will leave his up as an example of what not to do.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Under information near the upper right hand of the page I state that "intelligent, respectful debate is welcome" turning off ratings does not contradict that. Clicking a star to express your opinion requires no intelligence, and your comments are devoid of any civility or scientific interest. You have contributed nothing to the conversation.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Why are they debating evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with the world's creation. Abiogenesis is a theory on how the world was created, not evolution
Yeahbutumm 2 years ago
Also, there are theories regarding the complexity of the cell which point to evolution. One of the most interesting is the endosymbiotic theory which suggests that mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved from prokaryotic cells that long ago established a symbiotic relationship with larger cells. Both mitochondria and plastids have ring DNA like bacteria. That means our cells have organelles with their own DNA, which happens to be structurally similar to prokaryotic DNA.
prichard8788 2 years ago
The cell is very complicated but that perfect harmony of function screams Intelligent Design not random chance. Thousands of upon thousands of micro machines in a single cell. Each machine with a function, no random parts floating around, nothing in mid evolution waiting to become useful. I know there are similarities in many living systems but they can be (I believe should be) considered evidence for a common creator.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Theres also a logical problem with ID. I know scientists who are Christian and who are Atheist. Evolution does not make a judgement regarding the existence of God. The question is left open by science becuase it hasn't been demonstrated to be falsifiable. ID proponents almost always believe in God in some form or another. They reach the conclusion an intelligence created life and try to make the data fit the conclusion. This begs a lot of questions about the "intelligent agent."
prichard8788 2 years ago
Your right, Evolution doesn't make a judgment regarding God's existence, EvolutionISTS make that judgment. If you say God is not ruled out then ID remains a possibility. A possibility that is rejected at every turn by UNBIASED SCIENTISTS?
"ID proponents almost always believe in God in some form or another."
I agree, if one finds that the evidence points to the existence of a God it is only logical to believe there is a God.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
"They reach the conclusion an intelligence created life and try to make the data fit the conclusion."
What Scientist has stated THAT as there scientific method? Unless you can provide evidance, that statment is your personal JUDGEMENT.
BUT, lets say you know this to be true and have irrefutable proof.
IT WOULD STILL BE IRRELIVANT.
WHY????
Because the only thing that matters is if the conclusion is TRUE or FALSE.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Some of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century were made by men and women who developed a theory and sought data to prove it. Thomas Edison, Marie Curie "Madame Curie" and many others.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
A good scientific theory explains facts that have been observed and can be potentially falsified. You observe, formulate a hypothesis, attempt to falsify your hypothesis, make corrections, test some more, and repeat the process pretty much non stop. This is what biology has been doing with evolution for 150 years. That's not how ID proponents have been going about their work. I'll explain more in my next post.
prichard8788 2 years ago
So practitioners of good science - evolutionist - are unbiased seekers of the truth and ID theorists are not? Lets go on.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
The members of the Discovery Institute teand to be Theists who believe God created everything. Fine. There are some notable evolutionary biologists who were too. If you read the "Wedge Strategy," you'll see what I mean when I say they, the Discovery Institute, pre-concluded that an intelligence put different life forms on earth more or less as they are. The strategy then calls for the building of a research program around this conclusion. More to come in my next post about why this matters.
prichard8788 2 years ago
The "Wedge Strategy" is an urban legend much like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" You just went thru the scientific process in detail just one post ago. Now you've presented an dubiously penned article as proof of impropriety in ID. What happened to the scientific method? How was this article validated as authentic? How do you know it wasn't written by an Evolutionist trying to discredit those annoying ID people? This could have been written by anyone, if it was written at all.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
correction "Wedge Document"
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
The "Wedge Strategy" for those of you who do not know is a baseless Conspiracy Theory. It sites a master plan to take over the country and turn it into a Theocracy
Author: Unkown
Used by Evolutionists to discredit ID
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a similar artical siteing a Jewish plan for world domination.
Author: Unkown
Used by Nazis to discredit Jews
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
For the love of God, you can go on NOVA and read an interview with Phillip E. Johnson where he says he coined the term "Wedge Strategy"! There's also audio on NOVA where he talks about the "Wedge Strategy." Forget about the wedge document. You can read or listen to Johnson mention the strategy. Plus, if you're going to compare the Wedge Document to "The Protocols," which inspired the Nazi movement, I'm done talking to you. I'm tired of being who understand evolution being compared to Nazis.
prichard8788 2 years ago
Let me clarify this: Prichard and I INCORECTLY called the dubious document "The Wedge STRATEGY" this is incorrect. It is called "The Wedge DOCUMENT"
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
The Wedge Strategy is the real plan, of ONE MAN, to get ID theory heard and hopefully accepted. The Wedge Document is a sinister perversion of those ideas leaked onto the web
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I'm not saying I support this methodology, but I do say it has worked in the past mainly by secular scientist.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
That's pretty cowardly to disable ratings on such a video, you know that?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I'm one ID supporter having a discussion with several Evolutionists. I think we all can agree that the rating points for this video will be close to 0. Ratings are only representative of opinions not truth and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
You all will have to find another way of expressing yourself.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
You can't falsify the statement, "an intelligent agent created life and the universe." Inferring design is a very subjective use of inductive logic, and isn't testable. What makes evolution testable are the predictions it allows scientists to make about genetics and the fossil record. Interestingly enough, if you read the biology literature, evolution does lead to many correct predictions. (ie: the 2004 discovery of Tiktaalik)
prichard8788 2 years ago
How can you PREDICT something that already happened?
Predict
verb (used with object) 1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object) 2. to foretell the future; make a prediction.
Scientific predictions foretell what WILL happen given a specific set of circumstances, not what HAS happened.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Ben Stein is way off here. ID was designed to appeal to non-scientists. A few social conservatives from the scientific community and a lot of politicians/lawyers with no scientific background basically repackaged creationism to get it into public schools and stem the tide of social changes they don't like and believe are caused by the theory of evolution. It's a social movement disguised as a scientific theory, but if you study any science(s), you know ID doesn't meet the definition of science.
prichard8788 2 years ago
ID has appeal to scientist as well but the moment any scientist questions evolution he's fired, denied tenure and ostracized. This causes others in the scientific community to remain silent about any doubts they may have. I can also make the argument that evolutionist want to keep Intelligent Design out of schools because they want to stem the tide of social changes they don't like and believe are caused by the belief in God.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Well that's better. But magnetic fields don't have a half-life....radioactive isotopes do.
What science says is simple: Don't assume because someone says so without testing over and over and over that it's the truth. You're cherry-picking and jumping to conclusions.
myheadisonwrong 2 years ago
The half-life of a quantity whose value decreases with time is the interval required for the quantity to decay to half of its initial value. The concept originated in describing how long it takes atoms to undergo radioactive decay but also applies in a wide variety of other situations.
-Wikpedia
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Ya, like this conversation.
myheadisonwrong 2 years ago
LOL , Now you got it
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
So you have no science degree and yet your question the knowledge of years and years of work based on the very fact evolution is objectively true. Ok next time you get sick, lets say with H1N1, dont goto the hospital for help because evolution is fake, just prey to god.
sclf 2 years ago
As a typical evolutionist you are holding the untested, unwitnessed, unrepeatable and astronomically improbable event to be TRUE. You also equate evolution to science. Evolutionary theory is a BRANCH of science and has nothing to do with Medical care.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I forget your denial is to big to get how medical health research and biology are connected, were done talking.
sclf 2 years ago
I didn't say Biology I said Evolution. Evolutionary theory is a subset of/ and dependant on Biology, but Biology is valid without Evolutionary theory.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Sure it does. Pathogens evolve, we use our knowledge of evolution to develop new treatments to deal with them.
And what improbable event are you referring to?
jjukil 2 years ago
Bacterial cells contain about 5,000 different genes, but only a fraction of them are used at any given time. The difference between being able to cause disease or not cause disease lies in where, when, and what genes in this collection are turned on.
In short there is no genetic change in Pathogens they merly use the genetic abilities they already posses.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Bacteria/viruses don't evolve? That's a big claim there, you'll have to back that one up.
jjukil 2 years ago
I spend time at the beach my skin reacts to the sun and tries to protect it's self, I tan. Did my skin just evolve, NO? I was born with the ability to adjust to my surroundings in various ways. NO NEW ABILITIES HAVE SURFACED ONLY DORMANT - PRE-EXISTING PROCESSES
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Wheres your biology degree to deny evolution.
sclf 2 years ago
Where is your Theology degree to deny God? You have no Theology degree and question THOUSANDS of years of Christian records (The bible) and the witness of millions of people. Fact is, neither of us has to have a degree in a field to be well studied in it and we have THE RIGHT TO QUESTION ANYTHING.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Creationism accepts the Naturalistic Axiom that Evolutionists cling to but it also allows for Supernatural explanations were the Naturalistic Axiom breaks down. NO evidence for creationism will be accepted by prominent evolutionists because proof of creation is not the result they want.
Rejection of God produced Evolution; Evolution did not produce Rejection of God. Rejection of God is the purpose, Evolution is only the tool used to justify it.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Yea its called peer review.
sclf 2 years ago
If the "peers" are hostile to change their "review" will reflect that. We now have a pure Scientific Democracy - Majority Rule - not a Scientific Republic governed by the rules of good scientific practices. Just because the Nazis overwhelmed the Jews it doesnt make the Nazis right. A minority opinion is not necessarily incorrect because its unpopular.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
ARRRGH. YES WE WILL ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM! Please, show us some, for the love of your God. I personally promise to convert to Christianity if you can demonstrate a repeatable scientific demonstration of creationism! That's what ALL scientists believe. Truly. We're actually LOOKING FOR TRUTH, not just buying the snake oil because you say so.
myheadisonwrong 2 years ago
I would hope so, but I doubt you can speak for all your peers.
Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has shows that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Decay Ratios
When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Polystrate Fossils
The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
However, this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place. A FLOOD PEOPLE!
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins.5 This would have provided several of the key factors need for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Although the coalification process has been used in the past to support theories of an aged universe, research done by leading creation scientists reveals that this process actually supports creation teachings of a young Earth
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Population Statistics
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10 to the power of 89. 9 The galaxy does not have space to hold so many bodies.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state INSTANTANEOUSLY. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I have more -Myheadisonwrong- would you like to see the rest?
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
You still there -Myheadisonwrong- I've posted SOME of Evidence for Intelligent Design as you requested.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I think he ran off, with a trail of urine following...
anyway, ben stein is a lawyer/movie maker trying to seem like an expert on science, how does that work?
I would believe evolution... sorry "EVILUTION" more then the bible, there are bones, transitions, dna mutations, etc etc. If you want an example of evolution take a look at viruses and bacteria, the swine flu mutated, alot of bacteria have natural selection in order to adapt to their environment, why do people still listen?
Daclunator 2 years ago
I have some explainations for bacterial adaptation as well as other evidance debuking evolution, Please read thru the comments below. I know it's alot but its worth it.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
At least evolution TRIES to think about the subject rather than being spoon-fed the highly vague message of religious texts.
Bring research to the table like science does. Only then can you truly enter the debate as equals.
myheadisonwrong 2 years ago
"Bring research ..... enter the debate as equals"
Research has been done by many scientists to explain creationism. There findings are rejected because they point to a creator. The research is rejected because God is rejected.
You close your mind to possibilities beyond your intellect and respect only what you understand. Like an animal guarding its territory, only what satisfies your needs has relevance anything that conflicts with it must be run from or attacked
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
OK, you're using your own faults as an argument, that's laughable. The very FOUNDATION of science says we need to keep an open mind to plausible solutions. Not one single itty bitty shred of evidence has been brought by so-called "creationists", that's why you get laughed at by real science. You use pseudoscience and cherry-pick data to get the answer you want to arrive upon. Please leave science to the REAL scientists. Until then, you remain a joke.
myheadisonwrong 2 years ago
"an open mind to plausible solutions"
The Definition of Plausible:
ADJECTIVE:
A. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
B. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
C. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: "Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic, ... and plausible,a political gladiator, ready for a 'set-to' in any crowd" (Frederick Douglass).
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
Definition "A" is what Myheadisonwrong means when he says "plausible". But "B" & "C" are more descriptive of the scientific process used by Evolutionists. When he states that there is no evidence for creation it becomes apparent that he has not studied the issue. Very intelligent Scientists from both sides have presented their proof in scientific journals and debates for years. And Neither has been able to prove their theory conclusively.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
It all comes down to what you chose to believe. Evolution is a belief system just like religion. Instead of a all powerful all knowing God, Man becomes a god unto himself, deciding what is right and wrong.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
I belive in the flying goat that craps cabbages, please teach that in a beginner biology class since we do not know yet objectively thats theres a creator or not.
sclf 2 years ago
And you have witnessed the beginning of life from inanimate matter? Life that formed ACCIDENTALY from exactly the right amino acids, possessed the ability to process nutrients and possessed DNA necessary to replicate itself.
You have see all that exists spring from absolutely nothing? According to your logic Evolution should not be taught in schools, because we do not know objectively that this is all an accident.
Tuvoc310 2 years ago
It is easy to misunderstand science.
Science is useful, but it is never true. The truth, on the other hand, is always useful and it is always true (A=A law of identity). The ability to manipulate one's surroundings never provides a basis to define anything, produce an ethical system, nor an epistemology. This is why science can not tell us how one learns, what gravity is, or if I should steal. It is a mere tool, not a source for truth. This is the classic Atheist/agnostic mistake.
RedBeetle 4 years ago
"God can do anything he desires to do. He didn't use evolution as a means of creation and he didn't give us green skin and pointed ears because he simply rejected that route."
I find it amazing that you claim to know the mind of god now. That's honestly incredible. If he didn't use evolution, then why did he leave so much evidence lying around that he did? Is he messing with us? Seems a bit deceitful if you ask me.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
I don't have to know anyone's mind concerning their endeavors if I can see what they have created. The creation speaks for the intent of the creator. Even those things that you interpret as Evolutionary clues.
God has allowed you the freedom of choice.
There is nothing deceitful about that.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
Please click "View all Comments" to read these comments in context, it may be confusing otherwise.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
Yes, let's all start giving a damn what a former speech writer (for a nearly-impeached President) and former actor (red eyes, anyone?) thinks about a complex scientific theory. Maybe next Billo can invite Keanu Reeves to discuss his problems with quantum mechanics or bring in Dustin Diamond to complain how marginalized the flat-earth community feels.
rushncap 4 years ago
Maybe a better idea would be to listen to opposing view points. Question them, research them and decide what makes sense. If a security guard told me my car was leaking oil I wouldn't ignore him because he wasn't a mechanic. I'd look under the car.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
I wonder how long it takes for some liberal idiot to start complaining about 'separation of church and state'. I mean, we have been hearing this for years even though it is not in the constitution at all. The liberal credo is 'free speech for me but not for thee.' Liberals know that evolution is wrong so that is why they are scared when it is dared to be questioned.
Northgrant 4 years ago
Oh for gods sake (pun) Darwin's theory is 150 years old and is easy to find holes and inaccuracies in it. The scientific knowledge he had didn't even extend to DNA. His basic premise was correct though. If Ben Stein wants to take on Evolution. Take on the most up to date theory that pulls from Chemistry, molecular genetics, paleontology. What's this "Darwinism"? crap. Darwin was the man famous for the theory, but there were others at the time with the similar idea in competition with him.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
And with these new ideas in Chemistry, molecular genetics and paleontology the Theory remains a Theory not a Law. It can not be proven as fact, but it is treated as such. A "fact" so undeniable that any contradiction is met with ridicule, scorn and censorship. I believe this attitude isn't for love of Evolution but simply the rejection of God.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
I think you've misunderstood what the word Theory means in science.
Theories are stronger than facts. They tie facts together. Gravity is also a theory. Evolution is one of the most well tested and demonstrated principles in science. Modern biology is based on Evolution. The only reason there is resistance to accept it in religious corners as fact ( like gravity ) is it steps on their toes when it comes to explaining origins. Science says nothing about gods, pro or anti.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a TESTABLE model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and CAPABLE OF BEING TESTED through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
Perhaps I should of have used the word LAW instead of FACT. However if the "facts" are dubious then the Theory is worthless. What "facts" does your Theory use to support the notion of one creature becoming a completely different one and how was this tested.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
Finally science is a search for facts, and theories that explain them. It doesn't and cannot say anything about the supernatural.
It doesn't deny a god or promote one. It may contradict some holy texts, ( 6 day creation, Noah's ark etc ) but to many learned followers that shouldn't matter because it's the teachings and traditions that should be important, not as a literal history. They're are many theistic scientists. Search Ken Miller.
Cheers.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
So everything that falls outside of the naturalistic axiom is ignored or the square peg is jammed into the round hole? Disregarding what we don't understand is not good science. However you are correct on one point, science doesn't deny a god or promote one. It is not "science" but some scientist who deny God, and they step outside of good scientific practices to do it.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
First of all, an "atheist" is one that claims there is no god. So atheism does in fact deny the existence of a god. Our ScottishAtheist doesn't know his definitions. It is an agnostic that claims one can not know that there is or is not a god. Agnosticism is a milder form of unbelief.
RedBeetle 4 years ago
Secondly, modern science is based upon the fallacious "Verification Principle." Which has long been demonstrated to be self-referentially absurd. The principle claims that only that which is sensible can be intelligible, but the principle itself is a proposition, thus it can only be understood, not sensed. Therefore, it must be regarded as unintelligible on its own criteria. lol.
RedBeetle 4 years ago
Professor RedBeetle, Logic 101.
School is in session!
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
Good catch RedBeetle, I missed that one.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
It's a lack of belief. The claim is made by theists, the burden of proof is on them. I see no evidence for gods. I do see plenty of reasons for men to believe in such things. Religion is real, the evidence for gods isn't.
To deny something would be silly, let me see evidence and i'll accept it. I have no feeling on the matter. I call myself athiest because I have a lack of belief. Agnostics have a rather dim view because they claim it will never be known. Soemthing I don't accept either.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
What "facts" support the spontaneous creation of living matter? Explain how it...
Had the ability to absorb nutrients
Converted food to energy
Distributed energy to needed processes
Had all the right amino acids for construction
Had molecular machines that knew where to place the amino acids
Had complex DNA to provide instructions for maintenance and reproduction.
If these are "facts" how were they tested?
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
But "maybe" it wasn't DNA "maybe" it was self replicating RNA. - The impossible perpetual motion device of Evolutionary Theory.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
I just noticed in an above comment you used a staple of ID the "bacterial flagellum". That and the above comments tell me two things.
1) If something cannot be understood, god did it. Forget research - because god did it.
2) The flagellum isn't irreducibly complex. The parts have uses on their own. To remove a part now is fatal, however this doesn't discount it evolving from pre-existing parts. I don't think you've paid attention to the wealth of research on said machinery.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
Please see my conversation with Fergmasterflex for my response to this.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
Saying god did it answers precisely zero. You're still no closer to understanding how it works. Science tries to distill everything down to its most simplest parts. When you can remove the noise you're left with (hopefully) clear and understandable systems. Adding god on actually causes more problems because you're adding complexity and holding your hands up and saying "i can't figure it out - must have been god"
Even Newton pulled god out. Until science later explained what he couldn't
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
"Saying God did it answers precisely zero." I respectfully disagree, Intelligent Design denotes purpose and knowledge of that purpose gives the answer to everything.
Tuvoc310 4 years ago
See that's thing. Lets say that there is indeed an intelligent design in DNA for example. Then what? There's a massive leap from that to the identity of said designer. Although ID is a Christian Creationist movement so no guesses who they'd nominate.
The problem is many people are struggling to find purpose in their lives, some say without god there is no purpose. I find that so negative. I can't stand it. I also find it insulting that I get told without god A,B or C my life is worthless.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago