Evolution ist STRENG VERBOTEN for people with an Alien in their brain, that requires them to reduce [their] G-D to a magic master of witchcraft who would snip his finger "IT BE" - and behold, brethren : IT WAS.
@AtheistBasher Everyone can grasp that the so called history of evolution is all about simple species becoming more and more complex. Thus this must be an inner law of evolution. Fucking retards nevertheless say : NO, no... evolution has no destination. All these morons should be burnt on a stake like it was done 400 years before. The charge for insulting logic.
@AtheistBasher Complexity has NOTHING to do with it. SOMETIMES organisms become more complex, SOMETIMES they become simpler, and most of the time they just change their configuration with no real increase or decrease in complexity.
You don't know the FIRST thing about the theory you're arrogantly speaking against.
@AtheistBasher Sorry but evolution is NOT all about simple species becoming more complex and no scientist has ever suggested that evolution has a destination. As far as the desire to burn people on a stage, you kind of sound like a bunch of famous guys that are commonly known as the Talaban. Thank you for your time.
It’s not the case - You make me laugh - Quite the opposite. Dawkins evolutionistic ideas, for instance, that seem to have a purpose, a goal. Even Darwin’s, though he wouldn’t admit it. I’m skeptic. I believe very little.
@wilbillil No, but the Christian intellectuals who are truly worthy of the name are engaged in a search for truth, just like any of their nontheistic counterparts. ID creationists are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress scientific fact because they don't like what they regard as the religious implications of these facts. This cannot be an intellectual endeavor by any definition of the term.
I think the theory of evolution is very plausible. But what bugs me about it is that some people tries to “sell” it as a scientific theory, for whatever reasons they may have. Come on! You have to be as ignorant as religious people to call this theory scientific. If you overlook the gaps and deem as true so many bridging guesses you are as gullible as the religious believers. The only difference is that you believe another unproven hypothesis. Please stop tainting science name.
@duubamg Please outline these "gaps" and "bridging guesses", and show that they're uniquely problematic for evolution's status as a scientific theory.
@Nullifidian As you must know there are plenty of criticisms against the Theory. Too long to enumerate. Many are weak but some deserve attention. To overcome these the bridges over the gaps pop up. The final conclusion always depends on your standard for certainty. Mine is very high, for important issues, close to Hume’s. You can always bet but when you low your standard too much you may end up accepting just too much. What's science standard?
@duubamg Then just pick the one criticism that tells most strongly against evolution's status as a scientific theory, and then we can discuss it. When I encounter the claim that there are "criticisms" of evolution, the people who present them always have an ideological ax to grind, and they always know very little about evolution. I would like specifics so I can see this is not one of those times. As for science's standard for certainty, nothing is held out with dogmatic certainty in science.
@Nullifidian The co-option argument against the irreducibly complex theory is far fetched. Calling Behe’s objection “religiously motivated” won’t solve this objective problem! To scientifically refute irreducibly complex theory it is necessary to document a whole process (the natural phenomenon is not to blame if man has not time or organization to do so ) or else we can only refute it in theoretical grounds not observational, therefore, not scientific.
@duubamg See "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499, way back in 1918! This concept has been in evolution for DECADES before Behe came up with it.
@shanedk I’m not desperate man. As I said I think evolution is verisimilar. I am not religious. I just happen to have a true independent mind. About the excuse? Yes, it may be an excuse for a perceived flaw. How old a you? 15?
@duubamg No, if you were an independent thinker you'd acknowledge the FACT that evolution PREDICTED irreducibly complex systems, and therefore they IN NO WAY call it into question!
@duubamg Behe has not demonstrated a problem, merely asserted its existence. These two things are not the same, and why it is not necessary for me to "refute it". This is also why a purely theoretical refutation of an entirely hypothetical "problem" is acceptable. It's also worth pointing out that Behe's argument rests on a first order logical fallacy. Designers create irreducibly complex objects, so when we see an irreducibly complex object we know it was created by a designer. That's like...
arguing that "Rain makes things wet, so when we see something wet it must have been raining." As for the claim that cooption is improbable, it's the basis of the evolution of the citric acid cycle. Cf Menelez-Hevia E, et al. (1996) "The Puzzle of the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle". J. Mol. Evol. 43: 293-303.
It's also worth pointing out that it took less than two weeks for you to find evolution "very plausible", whereas now it's "mere conjecture". Lying about your opinions doesn't make you look good.
@Nullifidian Your reasoning line is absolutely flawed. It has nothing to do with this logic pattern. NOW I SEE WHO REALLY KNOWS LITTLE ABOUT EVOLUTION. Mere conjecture is the co-option argument AND NOT AND NOT AND NOT evolution theory!! Can’t you understand a simple text?
@duubamg Liar. You called cooption "far fetched" (without any good reason), but you stated in an entirely *different* message "Social and political power of evolutionism is bigger than that of creationism yet both are mere conjectures." So yes, I can understand a simple text, even better than you can, apparently. But if I had to try to distract from my inconsistencies, I'd probably blame other people for reading my posts accurately. Luckily, I avoid that by not misrepresenting my ideas to others
@Nullifidian I ‘m not a liar. Any good reason for disbelieving cooption? u must be kidding. I can’t believe you buy it, dogma believer. Again, can’t you understand a simple text? How old are you? 18? CONTEXT : text with text. Is it so difficult? I do not have much time to carefully analyze all these comments. When I used the world “conjectures” the context means non-scientific. OF COURSE evolutionism is a FAR BETTER explanation than creationism, in my opinion. Are u suggesting I mean otherwise?
@duubamg If you lie about what is plainly there to be read, then yes you're a liar. And yes, I'm suggesting that you do mean otherwise. I suggest that you're a shill for ID who doesn't want to admit and defend his anti-scientific preconceptions, so you think that you can get out of it by pretending to be an open-minded seeker after truth. But every argument you make comes straight out of the ID creationist playbook. We've seen it all before, so take off your mask and get comfortable.
@Nullifidian " Behe has not demonstrated a problem" Who say so? You? Saying isn’t enough. Demonstrate it. Document an entire process of co-option. That’s my standard for certainty. That means I am not as gullible as you are. You believe easier. BELIEVER.
@duubamg You've got it the wrong way round. Behe claiming there's a problem isn't enough. I gave several reasons to reject Behe's argument: it's founded on a fallacy, there is no evidence for "IC" as a real property and allegedly "IC" biochemical systems like the citric acid cycle are perfectly evolvable. I gave you a reference to an article you can easily access online (I checked). It isn't my job to be your biology tutor. If you won't look at what's provided, then there's nothing else to do.
Respond to this video... It’s understandable that people are afraid to challenge the status of evolution theory because it is traditional. It’s a sin to go against your tribe’s long held beliefs. The sinner is banned and laughed at. If you defy it you may lose in many ways. It’s very easy to go with the majority and to agree with the ‘authorities’. But it is not always correct. Social and political power of evolutionism is bigger than that of creationism yet both are mere conjectures.
@duubamg So I was right. You do have an ideological ax to grind and you don't understand anything about evolution--as you showed clearly when you claimed that evolution is "mere conjecture". As for responding to *this* video, I agree with it: "Expelled" was a crock of shit, a propaganda piece masquerading as an exposé. The filmmakers behind it didn't understand anything about evolution either, and they were willing to lie to bolster their points. Further info can be found at Expelled Exposed.
@Nullifidian Faced with your anger and impoliteness I realize that the opposite may be the case. You don’t seem to have an open mind. Evolution is your religion. Sorry, I offended your god.
@duubamg I've read both Behe's books, and there is literally no content. "Darwin's Black Box", since we're talking about IC, is nothing more than a cavalcade of out-of-date cites, many quote-mined, and most of them popular books or magazines. There is nothing in DBB about protein evolution worth knowing. It is simply contrived to give the appearance of science without any substance. Behe persistently ignores contrary research, mechanisms of evolution, and what he doesn't ignore he misrepresents.
@Nullifidian I do not intend to defend Behe by any means. But ad hominem arguments won’t make the problem go away. Face it. The solution given to it isn’t scientific in the sense physics is. Anything less than the certainty of physics is not enough for me. Maybe you are one of those guys who call ‘social sciences’ ‘scientific’. LOL.
@duubamg There is no more certainty in physics than there is in any other field of scientific inquiry. So basically you are someone who knows nothing about the practice of science or the content of biology critiquing how actual biologists go about their work. When you call established facts like the existence of cooption in protein evolution speculative, without ever demonstrating why you think that (or any knowledge of biology generally), you demonstrate how specious your objections are.
@Nullifidian wow! You're beyond help! Are you really sober? I really don't know why I engaged in such nonsense discussions with people like you... To end our discussion I will let you with one of Nietzsche's aphorisms (I hope you understand the context, this time) "THERE ARE NO FACTS, JUST INTERPRETATIONS."
@duubamg Yeah, I know I'm beyond being "helped" to misunderstand evolutionary biology and being "helped" to ignore the mechanisms of protein evolution. Alas, my degree in biochemistry and cell biology, and my graduate work in cell signaling has already made Behe's "contribution" to the field look sophomoric and boring. Nor am I impressed when people without a background in science talk about the "certainty of physics" as if the sine qua non of science is endlessly discussing what we already know
Nietzsche wasn't a scientist. He was also rather fucked up.
Facts do exist. There are things we know beyond any reasonable doubt. Of course, you doubt them because you're clearly not a reasonable person.
I suspect your reading level isn't above that of a fourth grade level, as you implied that Nullifidian was drunk when he was merely using appropriate scientific vernacular. You were forced to use the same ad hominem attacks you (falsely) accused him of using.
@duubamg There is no problem to make go away, except the problem of a propagandistic movement that attempts to misrepresent the status of evolutionary theory in order to score points for religious obscurantism. There is a reason that Behe never addressed known mechanisms of protein evolution, misrepresented natural selection as the stepwise addition of adaptive modifications to a preordained end, and didn't address how genetic drift can move a population across a valley to a higher fitness peak.
"It’s a sin to go against your tribe’s long held beliefs. "
Maybe in your retarded circles, but not in science. The past century of scientific discovery proves that; nothing is truly sacred. It's just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All of Behe's "examples" of irreducible complexity have been shown to be reducible. This was proven both in the scientific literature and in a court of law. Behe is merely a liar with an agenda.
@TheZooCrew How do you KNOW my circles are retards? The same way you KNOW about evolution? See how you have JUMPED to a conclusion? Massive scientific literature and court? Think again. If someone had an agenda was it only Behe? And if this “asserted” problem were really nonsense would you have lost your religion the way you did? Tell me, dogma believer. Face a real skeptic for a change. Men believe what they want to believe.
So your point of this video is to show that Ben Stein was overexaggerating , which evolutionists do anyways. But the point is still there that there isnt freedom to learn in public schools. Public schools ban Christianity ,and whether you believe it or not people do get fired for even slightly supporting Christianity. I had a teacher who said "bless you" to a student that sneezed. The student complained because he was an atheist. That teacher got severly warned. She didnt even teach science.
EVERY theory has some kind of problems with it! That's why every time something new is discovered the new findings are added to the existing ones and the theory is either disproved, modified, or made stronger! Nothing in science is 100% for that reason... and it's a good thing they aren't, because otherwise there would be no room for improvement!
But scientists embrace change because that's how we learn, while creationists use it to try to knock down everything they disagree with!!!
@Spetsop Well you said that it was fact.Also your just listening to the evolutionists rather than Creationists.Creationists are scientists.And considering that creationism was around before and for longer than evolutionism I would say that all evolutionist do is try to knock creationism which doesnt have as many faults as evolution does.Also a huge amount of bigger evolutionists get a lot of money for teaching ad following evolution rather than going to whats true.Creationists risk their careers
Flat Earth theory and Geocentric Model were here before we discovered that Earth in indeed a sphere and that we orbit the Sun and not the other way around! Why did this happen? Because new discoveries were made, change was embraced and we now know the truth. These are hard, cold facts that you just cannot dispute, and STILL there are people that believe in Geocentric model!!! Evolution is a much harder concept to understand, that's why creationism is still around!
I've listened to creationists too, I actually like watching the creationists videos on youtube, it's entertaining! Been watching them for at least 4 years now, and it's the damn arguments every time... even though there are countless other videos that rip these "creationist arguments" to shreds, they STILL show up!
"creationism which doesnt have as many faults as evolution does"... you're kidding right? Just the mere idea of EVERYTHING being created as we see it now is RIDICULOUS!
They get grants and they are allowed to teach evolution BECAUSE it is true! Like I said before, "new findings are added to the existing ones and the theory is either disproved, modified, or made stronger!"... there is absolutely NOTHING that creation "theory" can offer that will make it true!
@Spetsop Go do some research not using a middle man. They get money for doing lectures and teaching evolution. This doesnt mean its right. If anything it would make more easy to say that its corrupted. Creationists risk their careers to prove Creationism. Also if you want to get into the debate of evolution fine. In Darwins book "the origins of man" he claims that its impossible (paraphrasing) in the steps of evolution for the species evolving to die and then come back evolved. ----continued
They get money for doing lectures and teaching astronomy too (must be a conspiracy against astrology), and also medicine (must be a conspiracy against magic potions). Creationists risk their careers because they can't supply evidence for creationism! ANY professor would jeopardize their career if they keep on trying to do research for something that cannot be tested! What experiments and tests can you run to gather data in support of your creationism theory?!
@Eliot8989 That must be some paraphrasing, but I agree, it is impossible for a species to die and come back. I might be biased though. One of the kids in my biology class says that he would like equal time to show zombie theory and if scientists are correct they shouldn't be afraid of letting High School kids decide if it is possible to raise the dead.
@Eliot8989 Darwin never wrote a book called "The Origins of Man". At best, you are conflating "On the Origins of Species" and "The Descent of Man", and at worst you're just making it up as you go along. The quote about it being "impossible in the steps of evolution for the species evolving to die and then come back evolved" lends plausibility to the latter scenario, because this quote makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with anything Darwin ever thought or believed.
@Spetsop -The Moarch butterfly does exactly that. Inside its crysilas it releases enzymes that melts its body into liquid.For a while there is just liquid inside it.Then the liquid forms into its butterfly body.
Also to you and shanedk you say that there are so many ways Creationism is ripped apart and thats it. But the truth is that you are blind veal! You only listen to what you want to hear.Listen to real Creationism before you think that you know Creationism.Frank Turek ,Ande Mcntoush etc
@Eliot8989 "The Moarch butterfly does exactly that."
NO butterfly or moth does ANYTHING RESEMBLING dying in the cocoon. It's just a transformation from a larval or pupal stage to an adult. More organisms do that than not. Go ask an entomologist.
"The Moarch butterfly does exactly that. Inside its crysilas it releases enzymes that melts its body into liquid.For a while there is just liquid inside it.Then the liquid forms into its butterfly body." I want to read more about this, so far, I haven't been able to find anything that proves your statement (that for a while there is just liquid inside of the chrysalis).
Because creationists have the same damn arguments, and they repeat them over and over again, only using different words to make it look like they just came up with them recently! Frank Turek uses the same arguments that William Lane Craig for example!
@Eliot8989 The word is "chrysalis", and that is *NOT* how butterfly development occurs. It sounds like whatever source you're using has confused butterfly development with those spiders that wrap their victims in silk and inject digestive enzymes, then drink the contents. Needless to say, this is a completely different process. Your ignorance of something as well-characterized as butterfly metamorphosis does not reflect well on your sources. In any case, I have read and listened to creationists.
@Nullifidian In fact, if you dissect a caterpillar you'll see wing disks which are the body parts from which the wings grow. The basic body plan for the butterfly is there from the start.
I think most creationists get most of their information from the "make shit up" method.
@Nullifidian Ok thanks for enlightening me on my obvious spelling mistake. Also what sources are YOU using because my sources are from scientists. Not scientists over the internet but in person. maybe you should listen to people who specificly study that.
@Eliot8989 I do listen to people who specifically study development, which is why I know what you're saying is untrue. Your source is simply wrong, albeit repeating a persistent myth that goes back to the 19th century, before anything was very well understood of holometabolous development. However, it should be easy to see why the claim is false. The function of digestive enzymes is to speed the breaking down of proteins. If all the proteins were broken down into their constituent amino acids...
[cont] ...then it would be impossible for any further development to occur. It would also eat through the pupa case, which is just animal protein like any other. Most of the juvenile body is actually destroyed by apoptosis, a mechanism unknown in the 19th C., leaving a series of imaginal discs ("imago" being the adult). The cells of the discs divide rapidly at characteristic times, elongate forming a tubular epithelium, and then each region develops according to regulatory and signaling genes.
That's about as simple an explanation as I can make in a Youtube comment, so I recommend a book like "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll or "The Art of Genes" by Enrico Coen (but if you keep on looking into developmental biology, keep in mind that Coen doesn't attach technical terms to his metaphors, so you'll have to make the associations between the metaphor and the thing being described yourself). Or you can check out an old edition of Scott Gilbert's Developmental Biology online.
@Eliot8989 ""-The Moarch butterfly does exactly that. Inside its crysilas it releases enzymes that melts its body into liquid.For a while there is just liquid inside it.Then the liquid forms into its butterfly body.""
Absolutly incorrect.. Is this an indication of your research ? Is this why you think evolution is crap ?? Because you dont understand it ?
Is this why you beleive in creationalism ? Because "some designer"" did it. simple !
@shanedk Do you know where he got the evidence to say that Ben Stein is lying? And that statement is completly untrue. Most Creationists became Creatinists by following the truth of science rather than following the paycheck of the theory of Evolution.
Good, ban Christianity and all other religions from public schools! There are other places for that, like... CHURCHES!!! What if you had scientists going into every church demanding that scientific literature be read and analyzed along side the Bible every Sunday?
Don't forget there are also classes on world religions too!
Wait a second God did create the world in 6 days and on the 7th day wacked it hard so he could sleep the rest of the day. Why do you think he created Adam and Eve? He likes porn and thought, gay porn? Maybe, and he tried that with the first one called Steve, but then he thought anal sex can be done with a woman too AND you get a bonus hole. So he turned Steve into Eve and yet strangely sodomy laws don't largely effect heterosexual couples though many have anal sex. God likes anal sex & Santorum
i do agree with your video. But ive seen your arguments with creationists here in the comments, and you act like a jerk. You get all angry and defensive just because people dont agree with your video. If they have watched your video, yet they still reject evolution, then its better that you just ignore them. No amount of arguing, bashing and bad language is gonna convince them that evolution is true.
Its up to the creationist to decide whether the facts of evolution are true, or not.
your "version" is no better than stein's version. your understanding of genetics and evolution rivals that of a child. "stuff tuk uh long thyme....see....an then it wuz komplex an awl". Pffft. When will people understand the REAL lie is there LACK of education, while being handed diplomas at various levels as "proof" how "smart" you are? You have been duped.
@shanedk spoken like a dumbass who has no fact to back her position and so makes a vague statement. Run along now dummy. don't annoy me with your puerile attempts to "sound smart" or "adult".
@kenfo0 I noticed you didn't actually state one fact. Typical creationist, don't make an argument and then keep asking for one more fact every time your world view is demolished. That is why creationism isn't just wrong. It is inherently dishonest.
@johnrainrules you didn't "notice" anything, you dunce. Nowhere did I type anything that expresses what my beiiefs are, outside the factual statement "evolutionary theory is incomplete". You are an imbecile. You proved my point that you simply belong to a similar but different "religion" where in dogma is "truth". What a pathetic display of anti-intellectualism, you jackass. Don't spam me again....you have nothing to say, and make up your "facts" as you go.
@kenfo0 Like I care what some moron who "beiiefs" the world if flat thanks to his religious text.
Also by bitching about science while putting exactly no arguments or facts forth yourself you are the definition of anti-intellectual. You don't actually have any "beiiefs" of your own or anything to say. You only throw bitch fits because it is that time of the month and you realize that if everything wasn't simply a matter of opinion then someone who is as stupid as you is at a huge disadvantage.
@Grahamaan27 This is how HONEST people react to LIARS. If you were an honest person, you'd understand that. But you're NOT an honest person--you're a creationist.
dont you realize that online commenting at places like youtube, there is no shame or respect, making the community full of arrogant ignorant assholes.
I can't find any of the subtitle's information from any credible sources. (I ignored the account at the beginning of the prof not being presured, you're ignorant to think that, here you are wishing they would have done more, hypocrite) The origin of life is only 1 (yet the biggest) falacy Darwinism teaches. Consciousness isn't even touched. I wish Expelled could have been 3 hours longer to have gone into gaps (more like chasms) that evolution and the religion of Darwinism CAN'T PROVE!
@pirateturns360 Darwin said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the origin of life, and the origin of life IS NOT IN ANY WAY part of the theory of evolution. If you'd actually bothered to READ the subtitles, you'd know that!
Yep, I'm gonna listen to the unknown person who wrote these subtitles... Instead of listening to the well respected scientists and educators who have devoted their lives to studying these processes! I'm with the believers, no matter what "name" their God has. They are quite simply less full of themselves and more enjoyable to be around.
@cholmes800 The well-respected scientists and educators are what I used as the SOURCE for these subtitles. These "believers" are just LYING, and the subtitles prove it. But go ahead, stick your head in the sand and prevent the input of any facts that may challenge your pathetic world-view...
@shanedk No, your INTERPRETATION of what they said is what the subtitles are based upon. Seriously, your friends must think you're a hoot! I bet you can count all of them on one hand while you type crap with the other..
The truth of the matter is that all of the lies in "Expelled" can be exposed with a simple Google search. The Sternberg bullshit, Caroline Crocker's prolific career despite her whining, Behe's incredibly dishonest testimony at Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005, and Gonzalez's history of grant acceptance are all freely available information. Stein deliberately suppresses these facts and attempts to make these frauds into martyrs.
In addition, basing the integrity of facts on the "authority" of the person that promotes them is a logical fallacy known as an argument from authority. If Stephen Hawking said that the atomic mass of hydrogen was greater than that of uranium, it doesn't matter that he's one of the most astute physicists on the planet...that statement is still plain wrong.
@cholmes800 Stop wasting your breath. This is an extremist, closed minded, oppressive, follower of the religion of Darwin. He's a fanatic. If he was a Christian, he'd be behind a pulpit in the deep south under a white tent pounding his fist, waving a Bible, wearing a suit with the jacket off and sleeves rolled up, and wiping sweat from his forehead with his hanky yelling at the congregation "ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!!". He's that kind of person.
@shanedk Most of them are not liars...just uneducated, closed-minded, or dumb...or a combination. They actually believe the sh*t that they say...trust me. I know it's depressing.
@pirateturns360 I agree completely... We can all feel safe knowing that big Shane has figured out everything for us! And where has he been, you ask? Fighting world hunger in Somalia? Working on a cure for cancer at some prestigious university lab? Nope. Right here on YouTube the whole dang time. Giddyup!
What well-respected scientists and educators in "Expelled" are actually honest?
PZ Myers and Dawkins, that's who. Did you catch the part where Dawkins is cut off mid-sentence when giving a valid answer to a question? Or did you hear about PZ Myers being told to leave an advance screening he was invited to attend by the film producers? Did you know that this was because Mathis and Stein LIED to Myers and Dawkins about the purpose of the film?
@shanedk LOL uhm no they aren't. Unless I went blind, or they became invisible and can't see them, they aren't there. I watched the entire vid.
Here is what I see. Subtitles aka white words at the bottom of the screen.
Btw, I'm not a creationist. I'm just skeptical of everything until facts are given that is it true. And to make sure this is true, there has to be sources. Weblinks to credible sites, and peer reviewed books/magazines also count as sources. But I don't see them in your vid.
@14sJakeB190 So, you missed the bit at the beginning citing ExpelledExposedDOTcom. You missed all the other website references running throughout the subtitles. You missed direct references to Origin of Species and Descent of Man.
"Here is what I see. Subtitles aka white words at the bottom of the screen."
@shanedk No I don't see anywhere in the beginning citing ExpelledExposed . com I guess I went blind then. The others aren't citing a specific source
The following is an example of a properly cited source:
Commenting on the history of climate change, Kennedy notes, "We have known since the early 1900s that global temperatures between 90,000 and 10,000 years ago underwent sudden dramatic shifts."12
12. Don Kennedy, "New Climate News," Science, volume 290 (November 10, 2000), 1091.
@shanedk17:41??? This vid is only a little over 4 minutes... Wait wait wait.... Hahahaha, are you talking about the entire movie download? Because that would explain a lot. Haha, okay disregard what I was saying because I was talking about this particular clip.
This seems to some of the damage control. I see in the US some states are going to look into protecting people from this type of bigotry. This makes atheism look bad and how they try to portray theists. Good let people see what can happen to you no matter what can happen to you if you seek some different types of conclusions. I thought science allowed diversity? Peer review would be the mark to measure this by. Objectivity would be great for this process if it was not worldview linked.
@ergatis1001 The problem is, the ID people refuse to submit their ideas for peer-review. All this blathering about "diversity" and "free thought" is a front; they're trying to do an end-run around the scientific method and get their delusions directly into the textbooks!
In the subtitles I go into how you CAN get a new idea accepted by science and in the textbooks, no fucking with school boards necessary. I even give an example!
I'm an atheist until I see convincing evidence of the existence of a theistic god. Many studies on prayer have been done . Overall, they have shown it to have no real effect. Google
heart patient prayer study
to see the results of one such study. The results of such studies show why hospitals hire real doctors and surgeons instead of faith healers.
@TheZooCrew trolls put down peoples beliefs because of their own world views with no respect to the person they are talking to (calling names and such). You would fall into such a category. I hav not said any insults or put down anyones beliefs, i hav just expressed my own.
Yo shane, I downloaded the subtitle file and watched the whole damn thing. I'm impressed. I kind of want to submit this version to the university for public screening.
2:01 "cells were free to mutate however they wanted"? According to darwinists, all of this happened by chance, and cells cant just do whatever they want. How can mutation change the single celled organisms into multiple celled organisms? I think darwinists also believe sea life evolved before land life. Well why would a sea organism evolve lungs? According to natural selection, the ones who didnt evolve lungs wouldve been wiped out. What wouldve caused the ones without lungs to be wiped out?
@hillaryhater3 Then watch Neil Shubin's lecture "Great Transitions in Evolution." He goes into the development of lungs in tetrapods and what his discovery Tiktaalik tells us about it--including the development of lungs.
@hillaryhater3 Nothing "forced" them to. It was an adaptation that was advantageous. In the case of Tiktaalik, it was an ambush predator, pretty much like alligators and crocodiles are. It lived in the deltas, and fed on insects on the surface of the water near the shores. They can also come in handy when you're a pond creature and your pond dries up, and you need to breathe air long enough to get to another pond, like mudskippers do.
@shanedk yes well they didnt choose to get the adaptation, all of it happened by chance. Completely random. The mutation, the situation that caused all of the ones without lungs to die, all by chance (very small amount of chance, too). Sounds very far fetched to me.
I love how they go on and on about 'information', without stating what this 'information' actually is.
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis Or even showing that they know what "information" means in a scientific context.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk My point exactly!
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@shanedk It's the same as their attack on the straw-man argument of 'kinds'. What kinds?
thomaseshuis 1 month ago
@thomaseshuis Getting a creationist to definitively specify what "kind" means is like trying to give a cat a bath.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Did you see VFX on the Magic Sandwich Show trying to make out what a 'kind' was?
BeBoBli 3 weeks ago
Evolution ist STRENG VERBOTEN for people with an Alien in their brain, that requires them to reduce [their] G-D to a magic master of witchcraft who would snip his finger "IT BE" - and behold, brethren : IT WAS.
kleenex3000 1 month ago
Expelledable is blocked as a sockpuppet of AtheistBasher.
shanedk 2 months ago
AtheistBasher has been blocked for anti-semitism.
shanedk 2 months ago
@AtheistBasher Everyone can grasp that the so called history of evolution is all about simple species becoming more and more complex. Thus this must be an inner law of evolution. Fucking retards nevertheless say : NO, no... evolution has no destination. All these morons should be burnt on a stake like it was done 400 years before. The charge for insulting logic.
AtheistBasher 2 months ago
@AtheistBasher Complexity has NOTHING to do with it. SOMETIMES organisms become more complex, SOMETIMES they become simpler, and most of the time they just change their configuration with no real increase or decrease in complexity.
You don't know the FIRST thing about the theory you're arrogantly speaking against.
shanedk 2 months ago
@AtheistBasher Sorry but evolution is NOT all about simple species becoming more complex and no scientist has ever suggested that evolution has a destination. As far as the desire to burn people on a stage, you kind of sound like a bunch of famous guys that are commonly known as the Talaban. Thank you for your time.
thybigballs 1 month ago
AtheistBasher, false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was removed. First warning.
shanedk 2 months ago
The reasons for the dismissals are examined??? Do you believe them to write: "You are dismissed because you believe in ID?
What a fucking moron has made this video?
AtheistBasher 2 months ago
@AtheistBasher Yes, paranoia is always more reliable than a paper trail...
shanedk 2 months ago
At 2:46 That so called Dr. Giertych claims: "...natural selection, reduses genetic information.."
WHAT ? This is just the most braindead statement I've heard from a 'doctor'.
Would'nt that mean, the humans would 'devolve' in just a few generations ?
BelieveNoGod 2 months ago
If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again!
magos2k6 3 months ago
It’s not the case - You make me laugh - Quite the opposite. Dawkins evolutionistic ideas, for instance, that seem to have a purpose, a goal. Even Darwin’s, though he wouldn’t admit it. I’m skeptic. I believe very little.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg "Dawkins evolutionistic ideas, for instance, that seem to have a purpose, a goal."
BULLSHIT. He's made it VERY CLEAR that they don't.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk He made it clear, so it is a fact? Dumbhead.
AtheistBasher 2 months ago
@AtheistBasher It's been CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED. Why don't you crack open a BASIC biology textbook before saying the next ignorant thing?
shanedk 2 months ago
Are Atheists the only intellectuals?
With no intelligent design Knowledge.
wilbillil 3 months ago
@wilbillil No, but the Christian intellectuals who are truly worthy of the name are engaged in a search for truth, just like any of their nontheistic counterparts. ID creationists are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress scientific fact because they don't like what they regard as the religious implications of these facts. This cannot be an intellectual endeavor by any definition of the term.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
I think the theory of evolution is very plausible. But what bugs me about it is that some people tries to “sell” it as a scientific theory, for whatever reasons they may have. Come on! You have to be as ignorant as religious people to call this theory scientific. If you overlook the gaps and deem as true so many bridging guesses you are as gullible as the religious believers. The only difference is that you believe another unproven hypothesis. Please stop tainting science name.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg Please outline these "gaps" and "bridging guesses", and show that they're uniquely problematic for evolution's status as a scientific theory.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian As you must know there are plenty of criticisms against the Theory. Too long to enumerate. Many are weak but some deserve attention. To overcome these the bridges over the gaps pop up. The final conclusion always depends on your standard for certainty. Mine is very high, for important issues, close to Hume’s. You can always bet but when you low your standard too much you may end up accepting just too much. What's science standard?
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg "As you must know there are plenty of criticisms against the Theory."
None of them valid, though.
shanedk 3 months ago
@duubamg Then just pick the one criticism that tells most strongly against evolution's status as a scientific theory, and then we can discuss it. When I encounter the claim that there are "criticisms" of evolution, the people who present them always have an ideological ax to grind, and they always know very little about evolution. I would like specifics so I can see this is not one of those times. As for science's standard for certainty, nothing is held out with dogmatic certainty in science.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian The co-option argument against the irreducibly complex theory is far fetched. Calling Behe’s objection “religiously motivated” won’t solve this objective problem! To scientifically refute irreducibly complex theory it is necessary to document a whole process (the natural phenomenon is not to blame if man has not time or organization to do so ) or else we can only refute it in theoretical grounds not observational, therefore, not scientific.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg See "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499, way back in 1918! This concept has been in evolution for DECADES before Behe came up with it.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk So what? That doesn't make it go away, does it?
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg Doesn't make what go away? The fact that evolution PREDICTS what your long-discredited source says debunks it???
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk No. It doesn't. Have you heard about excuses?
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg A prediction DECADES before the fact is excuses???
You're desperate now.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk I’m not desperate man. As I said I think evolution is verisimilar. I am not religious. I just happen to have a true independent mind. About the excuse? Yes, it may be an excuse for a perceived flaw. How old a you? 15?
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg No, if you were an independent thinker you'd acknowledge the FACT that evolution PREDICTED irreducibly complex systems, and therefore they IN NO WAY call it into question!
Nice ad hominem, though.
shanedk 3 months ago
@duubamg Behe has not demonstrated a problem, merely asserted its existence. These two things are not the same, and why it is not necessary for me to "refute it". This is also why a purely theoretical refutation of an entirely hypothetical "problem" is acceptable. It's also worth pointing out that Behe's argument rests on a first order logical fallacy. Designers create irreducibly complex objects, so when we see an irreducibly complex object we know it was created by a designer. That's like...
Nullifidian 3 months ago
arguing that "Rain makes things wet, so when we see something wet it must have been raining." As for the claim that cooption is improbable, it's the basis of the evolution of the citric acid cycle. Cf Menelez-Hevia E, et al. (1996) "The Puzzle of the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle". J. Mol. Evol. 43: 293-303.
It's also worth pointing out that it took less than two weeks for you to find evolution "very plausible", whereas now it's "mere conjecture". Lying about your opinions doesn't make you look good.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian Your reasoning line is absolutely flawed. It has nothing to do with this logic pattern. NOW I SEE WHO REALLY KNOWS LITTLE ABOUT EVOLUTION. Mere conjecture is the co-option argument AND NOT AND NOT AND NOT evolution theory!! Can’t you understand a simple text?
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg Liar. You called cooption "far fetched" (without any good reason), but you stated in an entirely *different* message "Social and political power of evolutionism is bigger than that of creationism yet both are mere conjectures." So yes, I can understand a simple text, even better than you can, apparently. But if I had to try to distract from my inconsistencies, I'd probably blame other people for reading my posts accurately. Luckily, I avoid that by not misrepresenting my ideas to others
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian I ‘m not a liar. Any good reason for disbelieving cooption? u must be kidding. I can’t believe you buy it, dogma believer. Again, can’t you understand a simple text? How old are you? 18? CONTEXT : text with text. Is it so difficult? I do not have much time to carefully analyze all these comments. When I used the world “conjectures” the context means non-scientific. OF COURSE evolutionism is a FAR BETTER explanation than creationism, in my opinion. Are u suggesting I mean otherwise?
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg If you lie about what is plainly there to be read, then yes you're a liar. And yes, I'm suggesting that you do mean otherwise. I suggest that you're a shill for ID who doesn't want to admit and defend his anti-scientific preconceptions, so you think that you can get out of it by pretending to be an open-minded seeker after truth. But every argument you make comes straight out of the ID creationist playbook. We've seen it all before, so take off your mask and get comfortable.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian I called you impolite because I confused your comments with that of TheZooCrew. Sorry for that.
duubamg 3 months ago
@Nullifidian " Behe has not demonstrated a problem" Who say so? You? Saying isn’t enough. Demonstrate it. Document an entire process of co-option. That’s my standard for certainty. That means I am not as gullible as you are. You believe easier. BELIEVER.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg You've got it the wrong way round. Behe claiming there's a problem isn't enough. I gave several reasons to reject Behe's argument: it's founded on a fallacy, there is no evidence for "IC" as a real property and allegedly "IC" biochemical systems like the citric acid cycle are perfectly evolvable. I gave you a reference to an article you can easily access online (I checked). It isn't my job to be your biology tutor. If you won't look at what's provided, then there's nothing else to do.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
Respond to this video... It’s understandable that people are afraid to challenge the status of evolution theory because it is traditional. It’s a sin to go against your tribe’s long held beliefs. The sinner is banned and laughed at. If you defy it you may lose in many ways. It’s very easy to go with the majority and to agree with the ‘authorities’. But it is not always correct. Social and political power of evolutionism is bigger than that of creationism yet both are mere conjectures.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg So I was right. You do have an ideological ax to grind and you don't understand anything about evolution--as you showed clearly when you claimed that evolution is "mere conjecture". As for responding to *this* video, I agree with it: "Expelled" was a crock of shit, a propaganda piece masquerading as an exposé. The filmmakers behind it didn't understand anything about evolution either, and they were willing to lie to bolster their points. Further info can be found at Expelled Exposed.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian Faced with your anger and impoliteness I realize that the opposite may be the case. You don’t seem to have an open mind. Evolution is your religion. Sorry, I offended your god.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg I've read both Behe's books, and there is literally no content. "Darwin's Black Box", since we're talking about IC, is nothing more than a cavalcade of out-of-date cites, many quote-mined, and most of them popular books or magazines. There is nothing in DBB about protein evolution worth knowing. It is simply contrived to give the appearance of science without any substance. Behe persistently ignores contrary research, mechanisms of evolution, and what he doesn't ignore he misrepresents.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian I do not intend to defend Behe by any means. But ad hominem arguments won’t make the problem go away. Face it. The solution given to it isn’t scientific in the sense physics is. Anything less than the certainty of physics is not enough for me. Maybe you are one of those guys who call ‘social sciences’ ‘scientific’. LOL.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg There is no more certainty in physics than there is in any other field of scientific inquiry. So basically you are someone who knows nothing about the practice of science or the content of biology critiquing how actual biologists go about their work. When you call established facts like the existence of cooption in protein evolution speculative, without ever demonstrating why you think that (or any knowledge of biology generally), you demonstrate how specious your objections are.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian wow! You're beyond help! Are you really sober? I really don't know why I engaged in such nonsense discussions with people like you... To end our discussion I will let you with one of Nietzsche's aphorisms (I hope you understand the context, this time) "THERE ARE NO FACTS, JUST INTERPRETATIONS."
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg Yeah, I know I'm beyond being "helped" to misunderstand evolutionary biology and being "helped" to ignore the mechanisms of protein evolution. Alas, my degree in biochemistry and cell biology, and my graduate work in cell signaling has already made Behe's "contribution" to the field look sophomoric and boring. Nor am I impressed when people without a background in science talk about the "certainty of physics" as if the sine qua non of science is endlessly discussing what we already know
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@duubamg
Nietzsche wasn't a scientist. He was also rather fucked up.
Facts do exist. There are things we know beyond any reasonable doubt. Of course, you doubt them because you're clearly not a reasonable person.
I suspect your reading level isn't above that of a fourth grade level, as you implied that Nullifidian was drunk when he was merely using appropriate scientific vernacular. You were forced to use the same ad hominem attacks you (falsely) accused him of using.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@duubamg There is no problem to make go away, except the problem of a propagandistic movement that attempts to misrepresent the status of evolutionary theory in order to score points for religious obscurantism. There is a reason that Behe never addressed known mechanisms of protein evolution, misrepresented natural selection as the stepwise addition of adaptive modifications to a preordained end, and didn't address how genetic drift can move a population across a valley to a higher fitness peak.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@duubamg
"It’s a sin to go against your tribe’s long held beliefs. "
Maybe in your retarded circles, but not in science. The past century of scientific discovery proves that; nothing is truly sacred. It's just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All of Behe's "examples" of irreducible complexity have been shown to be reducible. This was proven both in the scientific literature and in a court of law. Behe is merely a liar with an agenda.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew How do you KNOW my circles are retards? The same way you KNOW about evolution? See how you have JUMPED to a conclusion? Massive scientific literature and court? Think again. If someone had an agenda was it only Behe? And if this “asserted” problem were really nonsense would you have lost your religion the way you did? Tell me, dogma believer. Face a real skeptic for a change. Men believe what they want to believe.
duubamg 3 months ago
@duubamg
"If someone had an agenda was it only Behe?"
The entire ID movement has an agenda pushed by religious dogma.
"And if this “asserted” problem were really nonsense would you have lost your religion the way you did?"
What? Non sequitur. Are you actually illiterate?
"Face a real skeptic for a change. "
Religious dogma like creationism is not conducive to skepticism.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
Show me your proof. All I see are quotations saying things, but show no place to find this information.
deathtoallpoets 3 months ago
@deathtoallpoets The sources are given throughout the subtitles.
shanedk 3 months ago
@deathtoallpoets LOL so you need "proof" for the debunkers of "Expelled" but you require none for your god? LOL.
BlameRepublicans 3 months ago
Comment removed
deathtoallpoets 3 months ago
Such bs
FlashmoreGash 3 months ago
So the whole basis of intelligent design is that its all so complex that there just has to be a designer. Yet they have no proof of this designer.
What a bunch of dills
podoau 3 months ago
So your point of this video is to show that Ben Stein was overexaggerating , which evolutionists do anyways. But the point is still there that there isnt freedom to learn in public schools. Public schools ban Christianity ,and whether you believe it or not people do get fired for even slightly supporting Christianity. I had a teacher who said "bless you" to a student that sneezed. The student complained because he was an atheist. That teacher got severly warned. She didnt even teach science.
Eliot8989 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 "which evolutionists do anyways"
NO THEY DO NOT. BIOLOGISTS (as they're REALLY called) go with the FACTS. Evolution IS A FACT. DEAL with it.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Actually its a theory that has some major problems
Eliot8989 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 It can't be a theory without being a fact as well.
Tell us: just what are some of these "major problems?"
shanedk 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
EVERY theory has some kind of problems with it! That's why every time something new is discovered the new findings are added to the existing ones and the theory is either disproved, modified, or made stronger! Nothing in science is 100% for that reason... and it's a good thing they aren't, because otherwise there would be no room for improvement!
But scientists embrace change because that's how we learn, while creationists use it to try to knock down everything they disagree with!!!
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Spetsop Well you said that it was fact.Also your just listening to the evolutionists rather than Creationists.Creationists are scientists.And considering that creationism was around before and for longer than evolutionism I would say that all evolutionist do is try to knock creationism which doesnt have as many faults as evolution does.Also a huge amount of bigger evolutionists get a lot of money for teaching ad following evolution rather than going to whats true.Creationists risk their careers
Eliot8989 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 "Creationists are scientists."
Reference to peer-reviewed biology papers or it didn't happen.
"And considering that creationism was around before and for longer than evolutionism"
Argument from antiquity. Paganism was around before and for longer than Christianity. So what?
"Also a huge amount of bigger evolutionists get a lot of money for teaching ad following evolution rather than going to whats true."
Cite the statistics or STFU.
shanedk 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
Flat Earth theory and Geocentric Model were here before we discovered that Earth in indeed a sphere and that we orbit the Sun and not the other way around! Why did this happen? Because new discoveries were made, change was embraced and we now know the truth. These are hard, cold facts that you just cannot dispute, and STILL there are people that believe in Geocentric model!!! Evolution is a much harder concept to understand, that's why creationism is still around!
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
I've listened to creationists too, I actually like watching the creationists videos on youtube, it's entertaining! Been watching them for at least 4 years now, and it's the damn arguments every time... even though there are countless other videos that rip these "creationist arguments" to shreds, they STILL show up!
"creationism which doesnt have as many faults as evolution does"... you're kidding right? Just the mere idea of EVERYTHING being created as we see it now is RIDICULOUS!
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Spetsop "Been watching them for at least 4 years now, and it's the damn arguments every time..."
It's been over 20 years for me, and it's still all the same nothing new at all.
shanedk 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
They get grants and they are allowed to teach evolution BECAUSE it is true! Like I said before, "new findings are added to the existing ones and the theory is either disproved, modified, or made stronger!"... there is absolutely NOTHING that creation "theory" can offer that will make it true!
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Spetsop Go do some research not using a middle man. They get money for doing lectures and teaching evolution. This doesnt mean its right. If anything it would make more easy to say that its corrupted. Creationists risk their careers to prove Creationism. Also if you want to get into the debate of evolution fine. In Darwins book "the origins of man" he claims that its impossible (paraphrasing) in the steps of evolution for the species evolving to die and then come back evolved. ----continued
Eliot8989 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 "In Darwins book "the origins of man""
There is no such book by Darwin.
shanedk 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
They get money for doing lectures and teaching astronomy too (must be a conspiracy against astrology), and also medicine (must be a conspiracy against magic potions). Creationists risk their careers because they can't supply evidence for creationism! ANY professor would jeopardize their career if they keep on trying to do research for something that cannot be tested! What experiments and tests can you run to gather data in support of your creationism theory?!
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 That must be some paraphrasing, but I agree, it is impossible for a species to die and come back. I might be biased though. One of the kids in my biology class says that he would like equal time to show zombie theory and if scientists are correct they shouldn't be afraid of letting High School kids decide if it is possible to raise the dead.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 Darwin never wrote a book called "The Origins of Man". At best, you are conflating "On the Origins of Species" and "The Descent of Man", and at worst you're just making it up as you go along. The quote about it being "impossible in the steps of evolution for the species evolving to die and then come back evolved" lends plausibility to the latter scenario, because this quote makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with anything Darwin ever thought or believed.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 "" They get money for doing lectures and teaching evolution. This doesnt mean its right ""
No it doesnt, but all the supporting evidence does.
"" Creationists risk their careers to prove Creationism ""
That doesnt make it correct. It just makes them a bit silly
podoau 3 months ago
@Spetsop -The Moarch butterfly does exactly that. Inside its crysilas it releases enzymes that melts its body into liquid.For a while there is just liquid inside it.Then the liquid forms into its butterfly body.
Also to you and shanedk you say that there are so many ways Creationism is ripped apart and thats it. But the truth is that you are blind veal! You only listen to what you want to hear.Listen to real Creationism before you think that you know Creationism.Frank Turek ,Ande Mcntoush etc
Eliot8989 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 "The Moarch butterfly does exactly that."
NO butterfly or moth does ANYTHING RESEMBLING dying in the cocoon. It's just a transformation from a larval or pupal stage to an adult. More organisms do that than not. Go ask an entomologist.
shanedk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eliot8989
"The Moarch butterfly does exactly that. Inside its crysilas it releases enzymes that melts its body into liquid.For a while there is just liquid inside it.Then the liquid forms into its butterfly body." I want to read more about this, so far, I haven't been able to find anything that proves your statement (that for a while there is just liquid inside of the chrysalis).
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
Because creationists have the same damn arguments, and they repeat them over and over again, only using different words to make it look like they just came up with them recently! Frank Turek uses the same arguments that William Lane Craig for example!
Spetsop 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 The word is "chrysalis", and that is *NOT* how butterfly development occurs. It sounds like whatever source you're using has confused butterfly development with those spiders that wrap their victims in silk and inject digestive enzymes, then drink the contents. Needless to say, this is a completely different process. Your ignorance of something as well-characterized as butterfly metamorphosis does not reflect well on your sources. In any case, I have read and listened to creationists.
Nullifidian 4 months ago
@Nullifidian In fact, if you dissect a caterpillar you'll see wing disks which are the body parts from which the wings grow. The basic body plan for the butterfly is there from the start.
I think most creationists get most of their information from the "make shit up" method.
shanedk 4 months ago
@Nullifidian Ok thanks for enlightening me on my obvious spelling mistake. Also what sources are YOU using because my sources are from scientists. Not scientists over the internet but in person. maybe you should listen to people who specificly study that.
Eliot8989 3 months ago
@Eliot8989 "Not scientists over the internet but in person."
In other words, unverifiable anecdote and argument from authority.
The peer-reviewed literature shows otherwise.
shanedk 3 months ago
@Eliot8989 I do listen to people who specifically study development, which is why I know what you're saying is untrue. Your source is simply wrong, albeit repeating a persistent myth that goes back to the 19th century, before anything was very well understood of holometabolous development. However, it should be easy to see why the claim is false. The function of digestive enzymes is to speed the breaking down of proteins. If all the proteins were broken down into their constituent amino acids...
Nullifidian 3 months ago
[cont] ...then it would be impossible for any further development to occur. It would also eat through the pupa case, which is just animal protein like any other. Most of the juvenile body is actually destroyed by apoptosis, a mechanism unknown in the 19th C., leaving a series of imaginal discs ("imago" being the adult). The cells of the discs divide rapidly at characteristic times, elongate forming a tubular epithelium, and then each region develops according to regulatory and signaling genes.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
That's about as simple an explanation as I can make in a Youtube comment, so I recommend a book like "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll or "The Art of Genes" by Enrico Coen (but if you keep on looking into developmental biology, keep in mind that Coen doesn't attach technical terms to his metaphors, so you'll have to make the associations between the metaphor and the thing being described yourself). Or you can check out an old edition of Scott Gilbert's Developmental Biology online.
Nullifidian 3 months ago
@Nullifidian I second the recommendation for Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@Eliot8989 ""-The Moarch butterfly does exactly that. Inside its crysilas it releases enzymes that melts its body into liquid.For a while there is just liquid inside it.Then the liquid forms into its butterfly body.""
Absolutly incorrect.. Is this an indication of your research ? Is this why you think evolution is crap ?? Because you dont understand it ?
Is this why you beleive in creationalism ? Because "some designer"" did it. simple !
I ignored your ""Örigins of man"" mistake
podoau 3 months ago
@Eliot8989 "".And considering that creationism was around before and for longer than evolutionism ""
So ? Blood letting was around before antibiotics.
""creationism which doesnt have as many faults as evolution does ""
Only because facts that dont support creationalism magically disappear when talking to a creationalist
"" evolutionists get a lot of money for teaching ad following evolution""
So physics is incorrect because people get paid to teach it ?
podoau 3 months ago
@Eliot8989 Oh, and the point of the subtitles is to show that he's LYING. Which ALL creationists do anyways!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Do you know where he got the evidence to say that Ben Stein is lying? And that statement is completly untrue. Most Creationists became Creatinists by following the truth of science rather than following the paycheck of the theory of Evolution.
Eliot8989 4 months ago
@Eliot8989 I researched and verified every single fact myself. HE IS LYING.
I've been debating creationists for over 20 years, and I have yet to run into ONE that didn't resort to lying to support it.
shanedk 4 months ago
@Eliot8989
Good, ban Christianity and all other religions from public schools! There are other places for that, like... CHURCHES!!! What if you had scientists going into every church demanding that scientific literature be read and analyzed along side the Bible every Sunday?
Don't forget there are also classes on world religions too!
Spetsop 4 months ago
Sorry.. I had to come back.
After watching the first few seconds I had to go and listen to some blues rock.
Weraisethenerdyflag 4 months ago
Wait a second God did create the world in 6 days and on the 7th day wacked it hard so he could sleep the rest of the day. Why do you think he created Adam and Eve? He likes porn and thought, gay porn? Maybe, and he tried that with the first one called Steve, but then he thought anal sex can be done with a woman too AND you get a bonus hole. So he turned Steve into Eve and yet strangely sodomy laws don't largely effect heterosexual couples though many have anal sex. God likes anal sex & Santorum
Foreshadow44 4 months ago
@Foreshadow44 THAT is BRILLIANT! THAT analysis needs to be in the bible!
= AND you get a bonus hole =
ROFL!
mphello 4 months ago
Lol, facts do not fit the theory change the facts :p
TCupUK 4 months ago
i do agree with your video. But ive seen your arguments with creationists here in the comments, and you act like a jerk. You get all angry and defensive just because people dont agree with your video. If they have watched your video, yet they still reject evolution, then its better that you just ignore them. No amount of arguing, bashing and bad language is gonna convince them that evolution is true.
Its up to the creationist to decide whether the facts of evolution are true, or not.
bluemime86 4 months ago
yeah expelled a really bad whatever it would be called i don't want to give it the credit of being called a documentary.
comicreaper 5 months ago
your "version" is no better than stein's version. your understanding of genetics and evolution rivals that of a child. "stuff tuk uh long thyme....see....an then it wuz komplex an awl". Pffft. When will people understand the REAL lie is there LACK of education, while being handed diplomas at various levels as "proof" how "smart" you are? You have been duped.
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 Spoken like someone who hasn't actually READ the subtitles.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk spoken like a dumbass who has no fact to back her position and so makes a vague statement. Run along now dummy. don't annoy me with your puerile attempts to "sound smart" or "adult".
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 I noticed you didn't actually state one fact. Typical creationist, don't make an argument and then keep asking for one more fact every time your world view is demolished. That is why creationism isn't just wrong. It is inherently dishonest.
johnrainrules 5 months ago
@johnrainrules you didn't "notice" anything, you dunce. Nowhere did I type anything that expresses what my beiiefs are, outside the factual statement "evolutionary theory is incomplete". You are an imbecile. You proved my point that you simply belong to a similar but different "religion" where in dogma is "truth". What a pathetic display of anti-intellectualism, you jackass. Don't spam me again....you have nothing to say, and make up your "facts" as you go.
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 Like I care what some moron who "beiiefs" the world if flat thanks to his religious text.
Also by bitching about science while putting exactly no arguments or facts forth yourself you are the definition of anti-intellectual. You don't actually have any "beiiefs" of your own or anything to say. You only throw bitch fits because it is that time of the month and you realize that if everything wasn't simply a matter of opinion then someone who is as stupid as you is at a huge disadvantage.
johnrainrules 5 months ago
@shanedk
spoken like someone who hasn't read anything BUT the subtitles.
Grahamaan27 5 months ago
@Grahamaan27 WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Do you have ANY idea how much research went into writing the subtitles?
No, you're just a sad little delusional fucktard who's immediately going to dismiss any facts that shatter your pathetic world-view.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
woah now, calm down... your mommy might put you in time out!
:) this is fun.
so personal, all from one little comment. you should take a nap, get your head on straight.
Grahamaan27 5 months ago
@Grahamaan27 This is how HONEST people react to LIARS. If you were an honest person, you'd understand that. But you're NOT an honest person--you're a creationist.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
huh?
dont you realize that online commenting at places like youtube, there is no shame or respect, making the community full of arrogant ignorant assholes.
Im just taking advantage of it.
Grahamaan27 5 months ago
@Grahamaan27 "making the community full of arrogant ignorant assholes."
Yes, and you're one of them.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
duh, im trying to prove a point
Grahamaan27 5 months ago
@Grahamaan27 Sorry, but the only point you're successfully getting across is that you're an asshole.
shanedk 5 months ago
I can't find any of the subtitle's information from any credible sources. (I ignored the account at the beginning of the prof not being presured, you're ignorant to think that, here you are wishing they would have done more, hypocrite) The origin of life is only 1 (yet the biggest) falacy Darwinism teaches. Consciousness isn't even touched. I wish Expelled could have been 3 hours longer to have gone into gaps (more like chasms) that evolution and the religion of Darwinism CAN'T PROVE!
pirateturns360 5 months ago
@pirateturns360 Darwin said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the origin of life, and the origin of life IS NOT IN ANY WAY part of the theory of evolution. If you'd actually bothered to READ the subtitles, you'd know that!
So, one more creationist LIAR.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
The fervor with which you are attacking those who disagree with you rivals that of the worst fundamentalists...you shame us...
SV800runner 5 months ago
Yep, I'm gonna listen to the unknown person who wrote these subtitles... Instead of listening to the well respected scientists and educators who have devoted their lives to studying these processes! I'm with the believers, no matter what "name" their God has. They are quite simply less full of themselves and more enjoyable to be around.
cholmes800 6 months ago
@cholmes800 The well-respected scientists and educators are what I used as the SOURCE for these subtitles. These "believers" are just LYING, and the subtitles prove it. But go ahead, stick your head in the sand and prevent the input of any facts that may challenge your pathetic world-view...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk No, your INTERPRETATION of what they said is what the subtitles are based upon. Seriously, your friends must think you're a hoot! I bet you can count all of them on one hand while you type crap with the other..
cholmes800 5 months ago
@cholmes800 Can you debunk the information in the subtitles or not?
shanedk 5 months ago
@cholmes800
The truth of the matter is that all of the lies in "Expelled" can be exposed with a simple Google search. The Sternberg bullshit, Caroline Crocker's prolific career despite her whining, Behe's incredibly dishonest testimony at Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005, and Gonzalez's history of grant acceptance are all freely available information. Stein deliberately suppresses these facts and attempts to make these frauds into martyrs.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@cholmes800
In addition, basing the integrity of facts on the "authority" of the person that promotes them is a logical fallacy known as an argument from authority. If Stephen Hawking said that the atomic mass of hydrogen was greater than that of uranium, it doesn't matter that he's one of the most astute physicists on the planet...that statement is still plain wrong.
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@cholmes800 Stop wasting your breath. This is an extremist, closed minded, oppressive, follower of the religion of Darwin. He's a fanatic. If he was a Christian, he'd be behind a pulpit in the deep south under a white tent pounding his fist, waving a Bible, wearing a suit with the jacket off and sleeves rolled up, and wiping sweat from his forehead with his hanky yelling at the congregation "ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!!". He's that kind of person.
pirateturns360 5 months ago
@pirateturns360 You mean, unlike you, who CLAIMED to have read my subtitles and criticized them, when it was clear you didn't read them at all???
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Most of them are not liars...just uneducated, closed-minded, or dumb...or a combination. They actually believe the sh*t that they say...trust me. I know it's depressing.
navid500 5 months ago
@pirateturns360 I agree completely... We can all feel safe knowing that big Shane has figured out everything for us! And where has he been, you ask? Fighting world hunger in Somalia? Working on a cure for cancer at some prestigious university lab? Nope. Right here on YouTube the whole dang time. Giddyup!
cholmes800 5 months ago
@cholmes800
What well-respected scientists and educators in "Expelled" are actually honest?
PZ Myers and Dawkins, that's who. Did you catch the part where Dawkins is cut off mid-sentence when giving a valid answer to a question? Or did you hear about PZ Myers being told to leave an advance screening he was invited to attend by the film producers? Did you know that this was because Mathis and Stein LIED to Myers and Dawkins about the purpose of the film?
TheZooCrew 5 months ago
@TheZooCrew He would have been aware of these things if he'd read the subtitles.
shanedk 5 months ago
Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...
razorlikeblue 6 months ago
I can just hear Lisa Kudrow (as FRIENDS' Phoebe Buffay) saying, "Yes, but who PUT the evolution there, and WHY? :-/?"
mythmanjay 6 months ago
This is the stupidest movie ever made. Good work.
fthispodcast 6 months ago
Prove it.
14sJakeB190 6 months ago
@14sJakeB190 Evidence with sources is in the subtitles.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I don't see sources. I just see subtitles.
14sJakeB190 6 months ago
@14sJakeB190 The sources ARE IN THE SUBTITLES! I just told you!
You fucking lying creationists...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk LOL uhm no they aren't. Unless I went blind, or they became invisible and can't see them, they aren't there. I watched the entire vid.
Here is what I see. Subtitles aka white words at the bottom of the screen.
Btw, I'm not a creationist. I'm just skeptical of everything until facts are given that is it true. And to make sure this is true, there has to be sources. Weblinks to credible sites, and peer reviewed books/magazines also count as sources. But I don't see them in your vid.
14sJakeB190 6 months ago
@14sJakeB190 So, you missed the bit at the beginning citing ExpelledExposedDOTcom. You missed all the other website references running throughout the subtitles. You missed direct references to Origin of Species and Descent of Man.
"Here is what I see. Subtitles aka white words at the bottom of the screen."
Yeah, it helps if you READ them...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk No I don't see anywhere in the beginning citing ExpelledExposed . com I guess I went blind then. The others aren't citing a specific source
The following is an example of a properly cited source:
Commenting on the history of climate change, Kennedy notes, "We have known since the early 1900s that global temperatures between 90,000 and 10,000 years ago underwent sudden dramatic shifts."12
12. Don Kennedy, "New Climate News," Science, volume 290 (November 10, 2000), 1091.
14sJakeB190 6 months ago
@14sJakeB190 "No I don't see anywhere in the beginning citing ExpelledExposed . com"
It starts at 1:11.490.
Another example is a citation at 17:41.345: "PZ Myers, Pharyngula blog, 21 March 2008"
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk 17:41??? This vid is only a little over 4 minutes... Wait wait wait.... Hahahaha, are you talking about the entire movie download? Because that would explain a lot. Haha, okay disregard what I was saying because I was talking about this particular clip.
14sJakeB190 6 months ago
@14sJakeB190 In that case, download the subtitles and check it out.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@lordnimr0d nah im good. there's a bunch of lessons in the bible not to be taken literally
hillaryhater3 6 months ago
This seems to some of the damage control. I see in the US some states are going to look into protecting people from this type of bigotry. This makes atheism look bad and how they try to portray theists. Good let people see what can happen to you no matter what can happen to you if you seek some different types of conclusions. I thought science allowed diversity? Peer review would be the mark to measure this by. Objectivity would be great for this process if it was not worldview linked.
ergatis1001 6 months ago
@ergatis1001 The problem is, the ID people refuse to submit their ideas for peer-review. All this blathering about "diversity" and "free thought" is a front; they're trying to do an end-run around the scientific method and get their delusions directly into the textbooks!
In the subtitles I go into how you CAN get a new idea accepted by science and in the textbooks, no fucking with school boards necessary. I even give an example!
shanedk 6 months ago
Thumbs up on this video. It's good to see a different perspective.
phlewis86 6 months ago
I'm an atheist until I see convincing evidence of the existence of a theistic god. Many studies on prayer have been done . Overall, they have shown it to have no real effect. Google
heart patient prayer study
to see the results of one such study. The results of such studies show why hospitals hire real doctors and surgeons instead of faith healers.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
Expelled = Makes me SICK. Ugh.
ZachRose88 7 months ago
Shane, hillaryhater is just an illiterate troll who likes hurling insults. You'd be fully justified if you blocked him.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew trolls put down peoples beliefs because of their own world views with no respect to the person they are talking to (calling names and such). You would fall into such a category. I hav not said any insults or put down anyones beliefs, i hav just expressed my own.
hillaryhater3 7 months ago
Yo shane, I downloaded the subtitle file and watched the whole damn thing. I'm impressed. I kind of want to submit this version to the university for public screening.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
An Orthodox Jew working the agenda of the Christian Right and the Evangelists. Wtf is up with that? Fuck you Ben Stein!
KJRUSS0 7 months ago
@KJRUSS0 hey there Kyle >:]
ThatsMrFrank 7 months ago
@ThatsMrFrank Oh, sup!
KJRUSS0 7 months ago
An Orthodox Jew working the agenda of the Christian Right and the Evangelists. Wtf is up with that?
KJRUSS0 7 months ago
2:01 "cells were free to mutate however they wanted"? According to darwinists, all of this happened by chance, and cells cant just do whatever they want. How can mutation change the single celled organisms into multiple celled organisms? I think darwinists also believe sea life evolved before land life. Well why would a sea organism evolve lungs? According to natural selection, the ones who didnt evolve lungs wouldve been wiped out. What wouldve caused the ones without lungs to be wiped out?
hillaryhater3 7 months ago
@hillaryhater3 "How can mutation change the single celled organisms into multiple celled organisms?"
CDK007 has a great video on exactly that. This has been OBSERVED TO HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE. Apparently it's not even that difficult!
"Well why would a sea organism evolve lungs?"
Ask a lungfish.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk hey bro im being serious on the lung thing. So, WHY? You cant just tell me to look at a "lungfish" to explain WHY it happened.
hillaryhater3 7 months ago
@hillaryhater3 Then watch Neil Shubin's lecture "Great Transitions in Evolution." He goes into the development of lungs in tetrapods and what his discovery Tiktaalik tells us about it--including the development of lungs.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk good for him....but why would they ever need lungs? what forced their species to develop lungs?
hillaryhater3 7 months ago
@hillaryhater3 Nothing "forced" them to. It was an adaptation that was advantageous. In the case of Tiktaalik, it was an ambush predator, pretty much like alligators and crocodiles are. It lived in the deltas, and fed on insects on the surface of the water near the shores. They can also come in handy when you're a pond creature and your pond dries up, and you need to breathe air long enough to get to another pond, like mudskippers do.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk yes well they didnt choose to get the adaptation, all of it happened by chance. Completely random. The mutation, the situation that caused all of the ones without lungs to die, all by chance (very small amount of chance, too). Sounds very far fetched to me.
hillaryhater3 7 months ago
@hillaryhater3 The universe is under no obligation to conform to your extremely limited imagination.
How do you explain the amazing success of genetic algorithms?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk "limited imagination"? im being a realist. And saying life is the way it is right now because of chance doesnt float my boat.
hillaryhater3 7 months ago
@hillaryhater3 ""limited imagination"? im being a realist."
No, you're not, because reality shows you to be wrong.
Most people who say they're a "realist" are just looking for a way to justify their private prejudices.
shanedk 7 months ago