I don't the person who made this video, so I don't know what you're alluding too in your comment. My best guess is that you're a fan of Ben and his christian cult propaganda film "expelled," and that's why you don't like the vid or the uploader?
@SheerHeartAttack74 He reads ALOT and he is actually VERY intelligent, which makes this all the more perplexingm but he is a hardcore republican, republicanism can turn the smartest minds into jelly
I down-thumbed this video because Stein's statements within don't justify calling him retarded. I agree with what he said. I think biologists would also agree (with an exception for referring to evolution as Darwinism) because it doesn't explain any of that. Yes, the expectation that it should is unreasonable and ignorant, but also absent from this video.
@m6wg4bxw so you think unrelated things should prove each other? So you honestly think the inhabitants of a planets behavior creates gravity and planetary heat? Cause that's what he just said and what you JUST agreed with. I shall quote Mrs. Garrison in saying "RETARD ALERT!!!"
@killyoufor20 I tried to express what I think about the video using the words I posted. How you arrived at what you assert I think is mysterious to me. I watched the video again, listening specifically for Stein’s assertion that “the inhabitants of a planets behavior creates gravity and planetary heat.” If it, or something similar is there, I didn’t catch it. Would you mind providing a time reference for me?
@m6wg4bxw Its not complicated, claiming that evolution docent explain gravity is saying gravity is somehow effected by Evolution. Not really that hard to grasp unless you are brain dead. You might as well ask why plate tectonics docent explain Nuclear fission or the physics of a black hole, they are completely unrelated, as is thermodynamics, gravity, and Evolution. If you cant follow me then dont agree with something you dont understand
@killyoufor20 I think you misread or misunderstood my first post. If this matters enough to you to review it, I suggest you pay close attention to the last sentence.
@m6wg4bxw Have you watched Expelled? Stein's statements in this video is likely leading to his conclusion that the theory of evolution is inadequate and therefore should not be taken seriously to explain the origin of life. He essentially wants to convince the audience that the theory of evolution should be dismissed to pave way for creationism. He wished to belittle evolution with red herrings.
@paramount8000 I haven’t seen Expelled, though I am aware of Stein’s tactics and opposition to the theory of evolution. Whatever his conclusions, they weren’t quoted in this video.
If you think this is the only topic Ben is absurdly ignorant of, think again. I just watched him on CNN bashing all of occupy wall st. movement. He said " the 99% are working, not rallying". Really Ben?, then why isn't the unemployment rate 0%.
Oh SHIT! I just had a prostate exam recently, and now AbsolutesMayVary informs me that that may cause me to turn gay! DAMN! I KNEW I should have done a Peter Griffin on the urologist.
You guys clearly didn't see the whole segment!!! The premise to his statement was relative to life in its entirety, and how it is being used to prop itself up to becoming a foundational belief system, as it pertains to other fields of study.
My face would hit the palm of my hand every five-minutes if I had a conversation with this guy. This guy probably glanced through The God Delusion, watched some TV, and went to work.
i'm gonna stick my oar in aswell. i think religion is bull cause none of the holy books have anything to say about string theory. take that ben stein!
Ben Stein gets too much credit for being "a genius" just because he was a beast at answering questions about pop culture on Jeopardy. But maybe Jeopardy should do all their questions about science and pit him against an amateur like myself, let's how smart this dumbass sounds then. ;)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone mock religion constantly. How fucked up do you have to be think they would have a problem with someone not being religious?
No, Ben Stein is an attention whore. It's just that such a large percentage of humanity is retarded that if you combine a modicum of talent with an appeal to the retarded opinions that many people hold, then you get begged to make tv appearances and give speeches and make movies. Try it yourself. Write a book on creationism and watch it sell like hotcakes. The money would be better off in your hands than creationists anyways.
@spacesergeant101 When it comes to money.... leave it to the jews lol . He's probably an Atheist pretending to be a creationist ,haha. you know these scheming jews are really smart.. they benefitted from the gullible, willful ignorant christians to become their cannonfodders and now they're picking their pockets.... chosen ones pffft.. Ben Stein is the ultimate TROLL
your video is pathetic. it is a logical fallacy in which you take what someone says and simply declare "thatz dumm". You then added an immature clip to the end. Speaks volumes about your (lack of) intellect.
@DawnOfTheDead991 no, dummy. i did watch it. it was amateurish and weak, like a michael moore "documentary". You're vid is pathetic as well. I need no "context". It is childish and weak of it's own accord.
I am amazed! I always thought Stein was intelligent! He's a moron. He just knows a lot of facts - he obviously can't synthesize any of it to come up with a viable explanation for what is.
Though the video was original and I liked it, I think he meant that the theory of evolution through natural selection does not explain the origin of the first single cell organism. But I don't understand what he wanted to say by mentioning other fields like physics and thermodynamics, but then again this clip might be somewhat taken out of context :P Good old excentric Ben
And yet, even physics have to be divided into different parts. There are thermodynamics, classical and quantum mechanics, laser physics, high energy physics, string theorists, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists and so on....
Ben Stein, you FOOL! You clearly have proven that your knowledge of science and the scientific method is less than a fifth grader. Science is not a whole but many different parts adding up together, and then still dividing into sections. Life science focuses on evolution, genetics, anatomy, etc. etc. Physics study the laws of nature and the four fundamental forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) And then there are computer science and so on....
But... but it's.... why would you even think....... oh my god my head is splitting trying to figure out how he came to this clusterfuck of a conclusion about evolution.
"Darwinism", aka evolutionary biology, doesn't even try to explain thermodynamics. The theory of gravity (classical mechanics?) doesn't explain thermodynamics, either. Does that mean it is faulty as well? Thermodynamics doesn't explain string theory. I guess it's a load of bunk, too. Germ theory doesn't explain wave theory. So modern medicine is all wrong. And so forth, and so on.
you see cell theory cannot be true because it barley explaines anything ... it dosn't explaine why water freezes, why my laptop turns on or why night follows day.
jeeze these people who believe that we are made up of cells are just so closed minded to the truth and have no true sence of morality.
@XtremeGoose Cute. You are so fanatic about your (un)religious views that you got my objection totally out of context and concluded that I'm a deist and more so a Stein apolegetic.
Keep up the good work reinforcing our "angsty and rebellious athiests" stereotypes, kid.
@brakzorak..jesus never doubted whether God existed! You have successfully proven that you like other atheist only spread the lies you hear, without taking the time to research for themselves!...You must also have Gods spirit in order to comprehend the scriptures fully...this also is written and proven true by atheist and pagans all day everyday..."My God why hast thou forsaken me?" A moment of doubt in the midst of pain, yet He later said "into thy hands I commit my spirit"...
for all you evolutionists if there was a life threatening meteor 65 million years how is it that we evolved from apes. By science to completely kill off the dinosaurs the whole world would have to have been covered by debris meaning no light at all creating freezing conditions. Meaning no life can survive.
@CoolerKing37 do the math for it. all major life was extinguished on earth after the meteor hit earth ask any scientist. for Apes to evolve it would have taken longer to evolve into place. With that being said there are to many flaws in Darwinism. You say we evolved from apes. then explain why we do DNA and genetic testing on mice and rats.
@CoolerKing37 you dont watch discovery do ya. watch How the Earth Was Made they say it on there if you dont believe me. And for a impact of that size all major life on earth would be extinguished since the sun coulod not penetrate the dust. On top of that they also say that there was a highly active volcano going off at the same time. Ill believe science over you. And for your attempt to demean me get a life and stop being a troll behind a keyboard.
@CoolerKing37 Know what when you find out the truth talk to me maybe ill talk back. Till you grow some manners just don't talk. You don't deserve anything more from me. Stop trying to be big behind a keyboard. Its a pathetic attempt at control when truth is hard to hide that Darwinism is flawed.
@noah2711 Please point out to me a flaw in evolutionary theory. By flaw, I mean something which is demonstrably false. Bare in mind that the existence of unknowns is not a flaw. No theory incorperates unknowns because a theory is an explanation of known facts. If we were to throw out evolution tomorrow and start from scratch on a new theory. The facts would still be there and would demand explanation.
@TacticalHub The only thing i cant understand is that all major life was extinguished during the meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs. why did it take less time to evolve apes than it did the first multi cell organisms. Looking at the math it should have taken longer for life to return. The sun was blocked out plus there was a major eruption that was going on all life that dependent on the sun would have died including most single cell organisms. that where i see the flaw in evolution.
@noah2711 Not all life was destroyed in the mass extinction 65 million years ago. The fossil record still shows that mammals, sea life and some dinosaurs survived. And what math are we looking at when saying that it should take more time to evolve an ape from a burrowing mammal than a single cell from inorganic matter? In fact most data points to the fact that more complex animals have the genetic diversity to evolve quicker and there are simple animals are unable to evolve quickly.
@noah2711 So in short. You are making an argument from ignorance. I dont understand this, therefore it must be untrue. Well, lets say that burrowing mammals evolved into neolithic man in the space of around 65 million years. (Which the fossil record shows) Does that suggest that evolution is false? When we see fossils going from simplicity to complexity over time, what other explanation is there?
@TacticalHub First of all I'm not ignorant i happen to believe science over you when they say all major life was extinguished due to a meteor and volcanic activity at that time. I understand evolution been studying it on my own and finding flaws with in its doctrine. Darwin says we evolved from apes yet why is it we do genetic testing on mice and rats over apes?
@noah2711 I didn't say you were ignorant, just that you were making an "Argument from ignorance" which is a type of logical fallacy. It is when your position is that because you don't understand something it must be untrue. And we do genetic testing and a variety of other tests on apes. But it is more a question of cost and ethics. It is cheaper and less cruel to test on mice and only 25% of mice genes have no homolog in our DNA so it is very apt to use them. We can grow human organs in them!!
@noah2711 You also gave away a vital clue as to your position with the word "Doctrine". Evolutionary theory is not a "Doctrine". It explains observations and facts within biology and if that is a doctrine then the "Blue sky theory" is a doctrine. Also, why do you creationists go back to Darwin? He is the founder of the theory but biology has moved on massively since then. Darwin did not know about DNA!! That is like basing out understanding of atomic theory on Democritus of ancient greece.
@TacticalHub When you can stop bashing me when I'm just bring some thing that has bothered me about evolution. That's the problem with evolutionists they always put down anything that threatens evolution when i could be a legitimate question. First of all i don't believe god created humans but i do believe ET life did have a hand in the creation of humans.
@noah2711 "evolutionists" only bash people who question evolution from the standpoint that any hole in knowledge is grounds for falsification. That life changes over time is the basic premise of evolution and that is an undeniable fact. Biologists gain knowledge all the time about the mechanism and processes of how this occurs and yet there are of course unknowns. But, the every bit of evidence points to change over time and to deny it is willingly ignorant to the extreme.
@noah2711 As for the E.T thing. This is an offshoot of the Panspermia theory. It postulates that the organic materials for life could have come from outer space. This hypothesis was put forward before we had an understanding of how organic materials form from non-organic materials. Which was thought to be impossible to occur on earth given its modern atmosphere. Some people have speculated on Extra-terrestrial design, but such a view is not backed by observation. Its Science fiction.
didnt say due to freezing temps plants need light to survive if no light for years plants die and will certainly bring the fall of a species due to its reliance on the plant. Thats what happened to the dinosaurs plants died after the meteor strike then went the herbavoires then followed by the carnivors and then the small bugs after that and so on. alls im trying to say is where do apes come into play in supposed human evolution. When our DNA is more like that of a mouse and rat
There are a large number of plants that do not depend on sunlight, and that live fine with dappled sunlight. Not all plant life would have died. Also, we're closer to chimps than to small rodents.
Ben Stein should be locked up in an insane asylum - what happened to this guy? Has he been sniffing gasoline? He couldn't actually believe what he is saying (because he'd have to be a moron to believe it) more likely he is a shill for some organization that pays him to spread lies and misinformation in the public domain. In my opinion, knowingly spreading misinformation for personal gain should be punishable by jail time - it's an affront to truth and reason and an abuse of power.
@knowwaie What does being liberal have to do with believeing in evolution? Hahahahaha Really? A "liberal psychosis"? What is that psuedo psychology? LMFAO XD Your "assessment" made me laugh. lol & we believe in logic not because of when scientists publish papers but based off of learning and research not just from new papers but also from forums of learning and debating. & I CAN think for myself thank youz very much. lol. Next time don't drag politics in where it does not belong. You r crazy. XP
That's right. Liberalism is a psychosis. Or as a wise man once said, Liberalism is a mental disorder. It is classic solipsism. You believe that reality is subjective and relative.
To you, the word logic has no meaning. As a relative term it means only popular opinion of available information. Do you believe there is a real objective, though, external logic which we did not invent? Of course not. There is no external reality or absolute. All reality exists only inside our minds. Isn't that so?
@knowwaie Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Not all liberals share the same views. Some may be against a certain bill or law while another is for it. Ever heard of the term moderate? lol Logic does have a meaning to me. Logic is NOT popular opinion to me. It is reasoning and being skeptical SO that I get to the REAL facts. What I mean by this is I DON'T take things at face value. I am ALWAYS questioning. You can't make assumptions about what I think about logic without asking first. lol
@VanessaSills You'll string an assortment of contradictory views together just because they "feel" right to you. That itself is the liberal mentality. Whatever you want to believe is true. Is that correct? You're only strengthening my point with every response.
@smithistheownage Oh, believe me, the liberal theist is actually the worst.
What i was talking about is how people today will call themselves "moderates" or "centerests" and combine two opposing views that contradict each other. It was liberalism or subejctivism that made this possible.
The core of liberalism is the belief that people are generally good. Subjectivism is the idea that whatever we want to believe is true since no absolute truth exists.
Nope. Reality is absolute. That's pretty key in liberalism. If reality were subjective, who would give a shit if conservatives endorse harmful policies?
No. The point is to recognize that /models/ of reality are subjective, and that it's important to test those models to figure out which ones are accurate, and which ones are decidedly not. For example, evolution has been /well/ tested over the last 150 years and passed, while religion, in general, is bunk.
It's much worse than that. You're proving it with out current president. You complained about the war, now Obama is bombing Libya. At least the conservatives are honest. Liberals lie about it.
150 years is a drop in the ocean compared to the supposed billions of years.
If you test a model based on the model then it will always remain. In the same way that you morons cried that we couldn't land on the moon because there would be too much dust on the surface. You changed reality, not the model.
"In the same way that you morons cried that we couldn't land on the moon"
What? Where did that come from?
"now Obama is bombing Libya"
Who's lying about that? Obama's /clearly/ in the wrong concerning Libya, both morally and legally. What, precisely is your point? Are we meant to be worshiping our politicians and pundits like conservatives do?
By the way, i would also like to point out your ignorance. You morons completely screwed up the language. Now no one knows what these words mean any more. Liberalism is a philosophy. Democracy is the policy.
Conservative or liberal <philosophical
Republican or democrat < political
Capitalism or socialism < economic
You morons today get these words all mixed up until there is no 'real' meaning to them. This is the result of the liberal mentality.
Hah, why do you bother? First of all, it doesn't even remotely say this. Your interpretation is either parroted in ignorance or your own perversion. Secondly, you'll have more difficulty explaining why evolutionary processes would result in such a writing. An atheist has no ground for saying anything about the subject. Wouldn't such a writing demonstrate that rape was actually acceptable natural behavior from an evolutionary prospective... You're thoughtless moron. Get your head on straight.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
You can go look for yourself instead quoting from opposing web sites that added the word. There is no translation that uses the word rape.
If you looked for yourself there is a specific word used for 'force' in the original language. Chazaq. This word is not used in that verse. Though, just 3 verses previous the word is used. Explain.
There is no case for saying this verse is talking about rape. The best you could say is that virgin woman could not resist. There is evidence for neither.
I actually went to Bible Gateway.com, which states that the verse I mentioned above is the NIV's translation. The God's Word translation also features the word "rape" in this verse. I understand that the NIV translation is very popular and is recognized as being true to the original Hebrew. Did you know that 100% of all rapes occur because the woman could not resist? Regardless, a woman shouldn't have to marry someone just because she got boinked.
Blueletterbible. org. Click on the box labeled "C" near the verse then click on the strong's numbers.
If it really had said what you think, i would be fully prepared to defend it. In such a closed community there was probably little cause for resistance. It wasn't as if they had strangers lurking around as we do today. There are hundreds of variables here.
One thing we can say for sure is that you are only attacking out of blind hated without taking the times and contexts into consideration.
You're right, rape was probably invented in the early 1900s and people have sex solely because they live in the same area. How is pulling a verse from the Bible attacking it? I only commented because you attacked everyone whom regards evolutionary theory as factual. It's funny that a "perfect" book needs defending at all, but good luck trying to justify a woman marrying her rapist though. And while you're at it, you might as well try to explain Judas dying twice.
Of course it has to be defended. I could offer you a perfect apple. You may not like apples.
That's right, men were allowed to rape their foreign servants. But it wouldn't be rape since this person was sold by the foreign nations for that very purpose. To be a servant and obey their masters.
You really want to talk about this?
Or would you rather talk about how this behavior couldn't possibly be wrong since it could only be the result of natural processes? Why is prostitution "wrong"?
That would make perfection relative. You just justified rape with slavery. I can't express how immoral I think you are. I don't see how rape is natural and I really don't care if it or any other action is or not. That factor doesn't mean I should or shouldn't perform an action. However, I'm sure you have a problem with homosexuality, but that's natural. I don't believe prostitution is "wrong" and I don't see why others believe it is.
Oh of course there is nothing wrong with prostitution, as long as it is not your own daughter.. Or your mother.
God knows a woman has a right to choose, and God blessed us males with the freedom to enjoy it. Why are you complaining?.. Or is it because you're angry that you're not able to get a woman? The reason i cited Freud is because i think you have rape on your mind and you're seeing it everywhere. Maybe your mother was a prostitute from one of our foreign nations.
I know every woman and man has the right to choose who they have sex with. I don't, nor should I, have any say in what my mother or daughter does sexually. Women actually enjoy sex as well. I hear women even serve purposes other than providing children, cleaning, and cooking. Some say they should be regarded as equal to men. I have a girlfriend and that's even not relevant. Pardon me, I was merely staying on subject. Maybe she was; I don't care. What's wrong with my world view again?
Secondly, you're forgetting that there was a law against 'fornication', not just over woman, but men as well.
There are literally hundreds of reasons and evidences to show that this is not talking about rape. The people who claim this are only being annoyingly obtuse.
Not to mention, if it was true that this verse was talking about rape, and there is no God, then you have an even bigger difficulty with the fact that rape was acceptable to 'evolving' humans. That means that rape was natural no?
I don't recall any laws that require the execution of males that are found not to be virgins. Thanks for the reminding of the misogyny in the Bible. I don't think that would necessarily disprove the existence of God, but thanks for trying to help me out regardless. In not following your logic in the last two sentences, as they are conclusions that lack a single premise. How is rape acceptable/natural and why is rape being natural even relevant?
By the way, we've just demonstrated how the Jews treated their woman. You said it yourself. Woman were required to be virgins. They weren't raising them to be prostitutes as other counties were.
You have a very skewed perspective of the world. Freud might have something to say to this.
"Jews" are not a country. Not every non-Jewish woman was raised to be a prostitute. I hope you're not trying to say that killing women, and only women, for acting on their sexual urges is somehow more moral than allowing prostitution to be practiced. Freudian ideas are considered mostly outdated.
If you're serious and want to learn then i'll show you. I've made it abundantly clear that i know full well what it says. I'm trying to discuss it with you and you're throwing accusations.
Now, there is something else you're not taking into consideration. The reason for these laws that required female virginity was intended to preserve the Jewish race for the messiah, which, according to the book would be "the seed of a woman".
Alright, I'll give it a shot. You're religion is mostly derived from stories imagined up by primitive slave-owning Jews in an attempt to understand the world, achieve control/order, and to provide a sense of comfort. The reason for these laws is likely because primitive men, being physical stronger, were in control and probably had a huge problem with sloppy seconds. How would sex taint a race? You still haven't touched on the multiple deaths of Judas.
Judas can die a third time. What difference would it make?
Primitive slave owning Jews who evolved from apes. They had already evolved to the point where they were able to verbally communicate. They had language, math and of course, law.
Then there were the foreign nations who were, the same in these respects, but they raised their people to be servants. This was how they survived. By selling their own people to neighboring countries.
In order for a book to contain only truth, it cannot contain contradictions. Two different accounts of a person's death constitutes as a contradiction. This contraction appears in the Bible; therefore the Bible doesn't contain only truth and is not infallible. Slavery might have helped some countries economically, but that doesn't mean it was necessary of justifiable. Natural selection effects DNA. They evolved from the ancestors of apes and thus came human constructs, such as slavery.
You're getting ahead of yourself. We've haven't gotten to the subject of infallibility. Right now we're asking whether what was said in the more 'controversial' parts of the book are justifiable. In the end that is the real offense among atheists, as followers of Dawkin's methods.
And what does DNA not effect in biology? Other than that this is only basic physics and chemistry. Were they chemically predispositions to these behaviors? Or did some physical law force them to adapt in this way?
You asked; I answered. They're justifiable with slavery apparently. I don't even know what you're addressing. The study of physics has NOTHING to do with rape. Please make your point.
The study of physics?..I didn't say physiology. Do you even know what you're talking about?
I've made my point and proved it already. How do you not understand that these behaviors could only have natural causes according to your perspective? You mentioned homosexuality. I'm sure you were going to say people are naturally born homosexual. If that is true, then it's true about everything. Some people were born with intense sexual desires. You were born stupid, etc.
Do you? Physiology is not the study of physics, jackass. You don't know anything about either subjects. Let's say rape IS natural; that DOESN'T mean it's fine to rape someone (unless they're a slave). Actually, what you said isn't true. I have a choice in what actions I take. I don't have a choice in whom I'm attracted to. Babies come fresh out of the womb dying to get laid? I guess I was pretty stupid when I was born. Excuse me for not doing more reading as a fetus.
When i was 18 i was no where near as stupid. It's scary how fast intelligence is declining.
"I have a choice in what actions I take. I don't have a choice in whom I'm attracted to. Babies come fresh out of the womb dying to get laid?"
By this reasoning you're claiming that babies are born homosexual?
I'm not even arguing with this. I do believe that some people are a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. They probably descend from one of those perverse nations. Are you getting this yet?
That was my response to a statement you made. "Some people are born with intense sexual desires." You're such a homophobic racist that you actually believe people are gay because their ancestors came from a country you don't like? You win. I was so stupid. People rape each other because of gravity, rape is fine as long as it's a slave, and God isn't just some sky wizard that makes people feel better about their lives. This was so constructive!
*alluding TO.
klesks8686 1 week ago
LOL, almost too funny to be true, what an idiot.
klesks8686 2 weeks ago
@klesks8686
Yet still not as dumb as the person who made this video.
ivlfounder 1 week ago
@ivlfounder
I don't the person who made this video, so I don't know what you're alluding too in your comment. My best guess is that you're a fan of Ben and his christian cult propaganda film "expelled," and that's why you don't like the vid or the uploader?
klesks8686 1 week ago
@klesks8686
Yes well the maker of this video failed to get the obvious point of the duo that recorded the "retard alert" audio made.
ivlfounder 1 week ago
How can someone be opposed to the theory of evolution?! xD WTF is going on in the US?!
DKDamilos 3 weeks ago
thank you lord that you r holy book expalins us how physcs thermondynamics and gravity works.
and thank you again that 99,99% of all humans on earth are more inteligent than ben stein
FidelKastrat 1 month ago
@SheerHeartAttack74 He reads ALOT and he is actually VERY intelligent, which makes this all the more perplexingm but he is a hardcore republican, republicanism can turn the smartest minds into jelly
killyoufor20 1 month ago
I down-thumbed this video because Stein's statements within don't justify calling him retarded. I agree with what he said. I think biologists would also agree (with an exception for referring to evolution as Darwinism) because it doesn't explain any of that. Yes, the expectation that it should is unreasonable and ignorant, but also absent from this video.
m6wg4bxw 1 month ago
@m6wg4bxw so you think unrelated things should prove each other? So you honestly think the inhabitants of a planets behavior creates gravity and planetary heat? Cause that's what he just said and what you JUST agreed with. I shall quote Mrs. Garrison in saying "RETARD ALERT!!!"
killyoufor20 1 month ago
@killyoufor20 I tried to express what I think about the video using the words I posted. How you arrived at what you assert I think is mysterious to me. I watched the video again, listening specifically for Stein’s assertion that “the inhabitants of a planets behavior creates gravity and planetary heat.” If it, or something similar is there, I didn’t catch it. Would you mind providing a time reference for me?
m6wg4bxw 1 month ago
@m6wg4bxw Its not complicated, claiming that evolution docent explain gravity is saying gravity is somehow effected by Evolution. Not really that hard to grasp unless you are brain dead. You might as well ask why plate tectonics docent explain Nuclear fission or the physics of a black hole, they are completely unrelated, as is thermodynamics, gravity, and Evolution. If you cant follow me then dont agree with something you dont understand
killyoufor20 1 month ago
@killyoufor20 I think you misread or misunderstood my first post. If this matters enough to you to review it, I suggest you pay close attention to the last sentence.
m6wg4bxw 1 month ago
@m6wg4bxw Have you watched Expelled? Stein's statements in this video is likely leading to his conclusion that the theory of evolution is inadequate and therefore should not be taken seriously to explain the origin of life. He essentially wants to convince the audience that the theory of evolution should be dismissed to pave way for creationism. He wished to belittle evolution with red herrings.
paramount8000 1 month ago
@paramount8000 I haven’t seen Expelled, though I am aware of Stein’s tactics and opposition to the theory of evolution. Whatever his conclusions, they weren’t quoted in this video.
m6wg4bxw 1 month ago
Stupid fuck. I used to like him, especially from Fuelers' day off movie, but after this...i'm going to celebrate when he dies.
Casshyr 1 month ago
If you think this is the only topic Ben is absurdly ignorant of, think again. I just watched him on CNN bashing all of occupy wall st. movement. He said " the 99% are working, not rallying". Really Ben?, then why isn't the unemployment rate 0%.
newbeats4 1 month ago
stein is such a infuriating asshole
Olivia85211 1 month ago
I think Ben Stein is an economist. He should stick to that
drewnut 1 month ago
maybe he was getting to what DOES explain all those things..but who knows..i know im not gonna look for the whole interview so who cares
kaaylo1 1 month ago
Oh SHIT! I just had a prostate exam recently, and now AbsolutesMayVary informs me that that may cause me to turn gay! DAMN! I KNEW I should have done a Peter Griffin on the urologist.
(grin) (JUST KIDDING!!)
mphello 2 months ago
@mphello
According to the wise sage only known as knowwaie, you are.
AbsolutesMayVary 2 months ago
You guys clearly didn't see the whole segment!!! The premise to his statement was relative to life in its entirety, and how it is being used to prop itself up to becoming a foundational belief system, as it pertains to other fields of study.
rmaynard626 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My face would hit the palm of my hand every five-minutes if I had a conversation with this guy. This guy probably glanced through The God Delusion, watched some TV, and went to work.
Weraisethenerdyflag 2 months ago
Comment removed
Weraisethenerdyflag 2 months ago
Darwinism doesn't explian how I can get pussy tonite too.
I am pissed!
creaturebotman 3 months ago
i'm gonna stick my oar in aswell. i think religion is bull cause none of the holy books have anything to say about string theory. take that ben stein!
lordscully 3 months ago
Ben Stein gets too much credit for being "a genius" just because he was a beast at answering questions about pop culture on Jeopardy. But maybe Jeopardy should do all their questions about science and pit him against an amateur like myself, let's how smart this dumbass sounds then. ;)
KJRUSS0 3 months ago
We need a stronger word than retard for him, his intelligence is way lower than that.
77Totems 3 months ago
LOLOLOLOLOL
EliteDoomer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@absolutesmayvary...I'm sorry but I haven't been keeping up. What point are u trying to make?
detroitthebaptist 3 months ago
It's amazing how many faith haters don't get that the scene from south park mocks them.
ivlfounder 4 months ago
@ivlfounder
Trey Parker and Matt Stone mock religion constantly. How fucked up do you have to be think they would have a problem with someone not being religious?
AbsolutesMayVary 3 months ago
@AbsolutesMayVary
There's a difference between not being religious and being a faith hater.
ivlfounder 3 months ago
@ivlfounder
Well I think they would both qualify as the latter.
AbsolutesMayVary 3 months ago
@AbsolutesMayVary
The describe themselves as loving religion.
I reccomend you watch both halves of Go God Go.
ivlfounder 3 months ago
@ivlfounder
They lampoon atheists as well, so what? They still mock religion and find it ridiculous.
AbsolutesMayVary 3 months ago
@AbsolutesMayVary
They're on record as loving religion.
Though I'm of the opinion they both hate scientology and don't consider it a religion.
ivlfounder 3 months ago
@ivlfounder
Eh, some of the followers are just as sincere as the typical Christian. I think that counts.
AbsolutesMayVary 3 months ago
@AbsolutesMayVary
The followers maybe but the episode the parker and stone did about scientology implies they think they leaders are in it for the money alone.
ivlfounder 3 months ago
@ivlfounder
An argument can be made that every religious leader is in it for the money. They are also pretty harsh with Mormonism.
AbsolutesMayVary 3 months ago
@AbsolutesMayVary
Since some have died either without a penny to their name or for their faith I suspect that's impossible.
They do seem to have a love hate relationship with mormons though.
I recall when the show first started hearing a rumor that they Parker and Stone actually were former mormons.
ivlfounder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's amazing how many faith haters don't get that the scene from south park mocks them.
ivlfounder 4 months ago
It's amazing how many faith haters don't get that the scene from south park mocks them.
ivlfounder 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's amazing how many faith haters don't get that the scene from south park mocks them.
ivlfounder 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's amazing how many faith haters don't get that the scene from south park mocks them.
ivlfounder 4 months ago
It's amazing how many faith haters don't get that the scene from south park mocks them.
ivlfounder 4 months ago
@TheHadeed1 @RexFuJesus @JanzJankeyWhoopWhoop @JesusElSaviorRex @ElRexeristo <------------------ All The Same TROLL
mechanicmike69 4 months ago
New game Show: Win Ben Stein's Short Bus
muttgooch 4 months ago
Ben Stein is a blithering, pandering child. He should be ashamed of his profound ignorance.
CarlSagan6 4 months ago
@knowwaie actually the bible is very demeaning of women...
Naxer84 4 months ago
No, Ben Stein is an attention whore. It's just that such a large percentage of humanity is retarded that if you combine a modicum of talent with an appeal to the retarded opinions that many people hold, then you get begged to make tv appearances and give speeches and make movies. Try it yourself. Write a book on creationism and watch it sell like hotcakes. The money would be better off in your hands than creationists anyways.
spacesergeant101 4 months ago
@spacesergeant101 When it comes to money.... leave it to the jews lol . He's probably an Atheist pretending to be a creationist ,haha. you know these scheming jews are really smart.. they benefitted from the gullible, willful ignorant christians to become their cannonfodders and now they're picking their pockets.... chosen ones pffft.. Ben Stein is the ultimate TROLL
balbahut0g 4 months ago
Without context, I can't agree or disagree.
axelasdf 4 months ago
Hey, Ben the Retard ---- where in the Bible does it explain gravity and relativity ??
Hunkola 5 months ago
God never explained any of those things either...
PAROHO9 5 months ago 3
Actually Stein can be quite intelligent at times, but when he goes off on this pandering to the fundies routine, he looks like a retard.
DawnOfTheDead991 5 months ago
your video is pathetic. it is a logical fallacy in which you take what someone says and simply declare "thatz dumm". You then added an immature clip to the end. Speaks volumes about your (lack of) intellect.
kenfo0 5 months ago
@kenfo0 Because if you had watched his crock of shit movie Expelled, you'd have some background and context for it.
DawnOfTheDead991 5 months ago
@DawnOfTheDead991 no, dummy. i did watch it. it was amateurish and weak, like a michael moore "documentary". You're vid is pathetic as well. I need no "context". It is childish and weak of it's own accord.
kenfo0 5 months ago
Darwin forgot to explain how ice-cream is made.
Strange ...
tellnet 5 months ago
@tellnet ikr :/
THEFREAK4498 5 months ago
LOL, ONE M0:00RE TIME!
bluepikachuu 5 months ago 2
This made my day, Thank you so much.
stratocaster1986able 5 months ago
We belive in Richard Dawkins any way...
MrGarrisonClub 6 months ago
A Jew trying to deceive people? No way !
BusinessEdgeRadio 6 months ago
I am amazed! I always thought Stein was intelligent! He's a moron. He just knows a lot of facts - he obviously can't synthesize any of it to come up with a viable explanation for what is.
mlcollins10 6 months ago 2
@mlcollins10
Excellent comment! (sorry about it being 3 months later)
This has always been my gripe with idiots who know a lot of random facts.
mphello 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol what an idiot...
MisterRedstone 6 months ago
They are different sciences, LOL
MonkeySpecs301 6 months ago 2
Gravity doesn't explain how life evolved, so what's the point? Isaac Newton was such an idiot
chainedtotheworld 6 months ago 41
53 people are retarded
Dayoldsushy 6 months ago 2
Ben Stein maybe you need some of those eye drops so you can see better.
fucksalt97 6 months ago
This guy is on American TV, that, I'm afraid, says something terrible about the American media and sadly the American people.
scotty 6 months ago
the best thing this guy evr did was say. . : "Beuller", "Beuller" "Beuller"
theeturnone 6 months ago
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Putting the South Park clip in... PURE GENIUS :D
aaronfawcett9911 6 months ago 2
This can't be real.
MrLoStBeAr 6 months ago
It doesn't explain why Nicholas Cage is such a crap actor either.
RonBurgundy161 6 months ago
What a fucking idiot!
acoughman 6 months ago
Though the video was original and I liked it, I think he meant that the theory of evolution through natural selection does not explain the origin of the first single cell organism. But I don't understand what he wanted to say by mentioning other fields like physics and thermodynamics, but then again this clip might be somewhat taken out of context :P Good old excentric Ben
sirLEVITSKY 6 months ago
And yet, even physics have to be divided into different parts. There are thermodynamics, classical and quantum mechanics, laser physics, high energy physics, string theorists, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists and so on....
HORRORTV1 6 months ago
Ben Stein, you FOOL! You clearly have proven that your knowledge of science and the scientific method is less than a fifth grader. Science is not a whole but many different parts adding up together, and then still dividing into sections. Life science focuses on evolution, genetics, anatomy, etc. etc. Physics study the laws of nature and the four fundamental forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) And then there are computer science and so on....
HORRORTV1 6 months ago
But... but it's.... why would you even think....... oh my god my head is splitting trying to figure out how he came to this clusterfuck of a conclusion about evolution.
elsparx 6 months ago
"Darwinism", aka evolutionary biology, doesn't even try to explain thermodynamics. The theory of gravity (classical mechanics?) doesn't explain thermodynamics, either. Does that mean it is faulty as well? Thermodynamics doesn't explain string theory. I guess it's a load of bunk, too. Germ theory doesn't explain wave theory. So modern medicine is all wrong. And so forth, and so on.
pyrobryan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It doesn't explain how come food that goes in your mouth comes out as shit from your ass either; however it does explain how the process originated.
ale646 7 months ago
Comment removed
ale646 7 months ago
you see cell theory cannot be true because it barley explaines anything ... it dosn't explaine why water freezes, why my laptop turns on or why night follows day.
jeeze these people who believe that we are made up of cells are just so closed minded to the truth and have no true sence of morality.
Mystro1989 7 months ago
@XtremeGoose Cute. You are so fanatic about your (un)religious views that you got my objection totally out of context and concluded that I'm a deist and more so a Stein apolegetic.
Keep up the good work reinforcing our "angsty and rebellious athiests" stereotypes, kid.
DINDRAGON 7 months ago
It staggers me that this guy could create an entire movie length feature on the subject and still not even know what evolution even means.
luker4459 7 months ago
Checkmate, darwinists!
jaejara 7 months ago
@brakzorak..jesus never doubted whether God existed! You have successfully proven that you like other atheist only spread the lies you hear, without taking the time to research for themselves!...You must also have Gods spirit in order to comprehend the scriptures fully...this also is written and proven true by atheist and pagans all day everyday..."My God why hast thou forsaken me?" A moment of doubt in the midst of pain, yet He later said "into thy hands I commit my spirit"...
detroitthebaptist 7 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
Jesus MADE a fucking scourge and chased people out of a temple. Jesus said "the". Do you see my point?
AbsolutesMayVary 3 months ago
Monkeys evolved into humans over millions of years? Impossible, monkey's don't live millions of years, got nothing on that evolution.
vonkreger 7 months ago
@vonkreger not sure what to say about your comment? Are you joking or just saying something stupid?
MrJIMMY3009 7 months ago
@MrJIMMY3009 Quoting a christian kid who was debating me on evolution. That statement ended the debate.
vonkreger 7 months ago
@vonkreger lmao... i'm not sure if you're the first to say that, but it's fucking hilarious
brakzorak86 7 months ago
@vonkreger
Satire, right?
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Ben stein can't explain how the universe began therefor anything he says on any subject is incorrect.....
yunged 7 months ago
Wow.
That the maker of this video would use that south park clip to mock those who believe in God makes me suspect he's dumber than Stein.
And yes that's very very dumb.
ivlfounder 8 months ago
exceptional ignorance
ottoshmidt 8 months ago
i didn't get how is that related to retard alert?
Retarded video!
hernes111 8 months ago
Ben Stein sure has milked a Ferris Bueller cameo he did 25 years ago...
CoolerKing37 8 months ago
What is Stein's agenda? I mean he's Jewish, well-educated....and I thought a rational person. WTF is up with supporting Intelligent Design?
SuperOxideDimutase 8 months ago
Retard alert,retard alert..
toooo funny...
Lakeguy1234 8 months ago
for all you evolutionists if there was a life threatening meteor 65 million years how is it that we evolved from apes. By science to completely kill off the dinosaurs the whole world would have to have been covered by debris meaning no light at all creating freezing conditions. Meaning no life can survive.
noah2711 9 months ago
@noah2711 There's so much wrong with what you said, but I'll simplify it into not all organisms went extinct.
CoolerKing37 8 months ago
@CoolerKing37 do the math for it. all major life was extinguished on earth after the meteor hit earth ask any scientist. for Apes to evolve it would have taken longer to evolve into place. With that being said there are to many flaws in Darwinism. You say we evolved from apes. then explain why we do DNA and genetic testing on mice and rats.
noah2711 8 months ago
@noah2711 "all major life was extinguished on earth after the meteor hit earth ask any scientist" wrong, stupid.
CoolerKing37 8 months ago
@CoolerKing37 you dont watch discovery do ya. watch How the Earth Was Made they say it on there if you dont believe me. And for a impact of that size all major life on earth would be extinguished since the sun coulod not penetrate the dust. On top of that they also say that there was a highly active volcano going off at the same time. Ill believe science over you. And for your attempt to demean me get a life and stop being a troll behind a keyboard.
noah2711 8 months ago
@noah2711 If you were watching the Discovery Channel there'd be no way you would be this dumb.
CoolerKing37 8 months ago
@CoolerKing37 Know what when you find out the truth talk to me maybe ill talk back. Till you grow some manners just don't talk. You don't deserve anything more from me. Stop trying to be big behind a keyboard. Its a pathetic attempt at control when truth is hard to hide that Darwinism is flawed.
noah2711 8 months ago
@noah2711 You're mom's uterus is flawed.
CoolerKing37 8 months ago
@noah2711 Please point out to me a flaw in evolutionary theory. By flaw, I mean something which is demonstrably false. Bare in mind that the existence of unknowns is not a flaw. No theory incorperates unknowns because a theory is an explanation of known facts. If we were to throw out evolution tomorrow and start from scratch on a new theory. The facts would still be there and would demand explanation.
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@TacticalHub The only thing i cant understand is that all major life was extinguished during the meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs. why did it take less time to evolve apes than it did the first multi cell organisms. Looking at the math it should have taken longer for life to return. The sun was blocked out plus there was a major eruption that was going on all life that dependent on the sun would have died including most single cell organisms. that where i see the flaw in evolution.
noah2711 7 months ago
@noah2711 Not all life was destroyed in the mass extinction 65 million years ago. The fossil record still shows that mammals, sea life and some dinosaurs survived. And what math are we looking at when saying that it should take more time to evolve an ape from a burrowing mammal than a single cell from inorganic matter? In fact most data points to the fact that more complex animals have the genetic diversity to evolve quicker and there are simple animals are unable to evolve quickly.
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@noah2711 So in short. You are making an argument from ignorance. I dont understand this, therefore it must be untrue. Well, lets say that burrowing mammals evolved into neolithic man in the space of around 65 million years. (Which the fossil record shows) Does that suggest that evolution is false? When we see fossils going from simplicity to complexity over time, what other explanation is there?
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@TacticalHub First of all I'm not ignorant i happen to believe science over you when they say all major life was extinguished due to a meteor and volcanic activity at that time. I understand evolution been studying it on my own and finding flaws with in its doctrine. Darwin says we evolved from apes yet why is it we do genetic testing on mice and rats over apes?
noah2711 7 months ago
@noah2711 I didn't say you were ignorant, just that you were making an "Argument from ignorance" which is a type of logical fallacy. It is when your position is that because you don't understand something it must be untrue. And we do genetic testing and a variety of other tests on apes. But it is more a question of cost and ethics. It is cheaper and less cruel to test on mice and only 25% of mice genes have no homolog in our DNA so it is very apt to use them. We can grow human organs in them!!
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@noah2711 You also gave away a vital clue as to your position with the word "Doctrine". Evolutionary theory is not a "Doctrine". It explains observations and facts within biology and if that is a doctrine then the "Blue sky theory" is a doctrine. Also, why do you creationists go back to Darwin? He is the founder of the theory but biology has moved on massively since then. Darwin did not know about DNA!! That is like basing out understanding of atomic theory on Democritus of ancient greece.
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@TacticalHub When you can stop bashing me when I'm just bring some thing that has bothered me about evolution. That's the problem with evolutionists they always put down anything that threatens evolution when i could be a legitimate question. First of all i don't believe god created humans but i do believe ET life did have a hand in the creation of humans.
noah2711 7 months ago
@noah2711 "evolutionists" only bash people who question evolution from the standpoint that any hole in knowledge is grounds for falsification. That life changes over time is the basic premise of evolution and that is an undeniable fact. Biologists gain knowledge all the time about the mechanism and processes of how this occurs and yet there are of course unknowns. But, the every bit of evidence points to change over time and to deny it is willingly ignorant to the extreme.
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@noah2711 As for the E.T thing. This is an offshoot of the Panspermia theory. It postulates that the organic materials for life could have come from outer space. This hypothesis was put forward before we had an understanding of how organic materials form from non-organic materials. Which was thought to be impossible to occur on earth given its modern atmosphere. Some people have speculated on Extra-terrestrial design, but such a view is not backed by observation. Its Science fiction.
TacticalHub 7 months ago
@noah2711
lol
89Djm 7 months ago
@noah2711
Funny. How does anything live in Alaska? In Ushuaia? Those aren't freezing conditions?
Fordi 6 months ago
@Fordi
didnt say due to freezing temps plants need light to survive if no light for years plants die and will certainly bring the fall of a species due to its reliance on the plant. Thats what happened to the dinosaurs plants died after the meteor strike then went the herbavoires then followed by the carnivors and then the small bugs after that and so on. alls im trying to say is where do apes come into play in supposed human evolution. When our DNA is more like that of a mouse and rat
noah2711 6 months ago
@noah2711
There are a large number of plants that do not depend on sunlight, and that live fine with dappled sunlight. Not all plant life would have died. Also, we're closer to chimps than to small rodents.
Fordi 6 months ago
Because the law of gravity doesn't explain how life came to be, gravity can't possibly be real!
jessiessica 9 months ago
If evolution is true, then why is pokemon a devise used by Satan?
UhOhRetardAlert 9 months ago
haha i watched this at least 10 times
catulus13 9 months ago
that's great
RaggedM88 9 months ago
Evolution explains evolution you friggin dumbass
JuiceBoxheero 9 months ago 29
Ben Stein should be locked up in an insane asylum - what happened to this guy? Has he been sniffing gasoline? He couldn't actually believe what he is saying (because he'd have to be a moron to believe it) more likely he is a shill for some organization that pays him to spread lies and misinformation in the public domain. In my opinion, knowingly spreading misinformation for personal gain should be punishable by jail time - it's an affront to truth and reason and an abuse of power.
playingdablues 9 months ago 11
It does explain why Ben Stein is a devolved monkey.
TheOzomahtli 9 months ago 4
It's not Ben stein who's retarded, it's you.
You're defending the liberal psychosis that thinks logic doesn't exist until until the majority of scientists of approve it.
You morons don't know how to think for yourself.
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie What does being liberal have to do with believeing in evolution? Hahahahaha Really? A "liberal psychosis"? What is that psuedo psychology? LMFAO XD Your "assessment" made me laugh. lol & we believe in logic not because of when scientists publish papers but based off of learning and research not just from new papers but also from forums of learning and debating. & I CAN think for myself thank youz very much. lol. Next time don't drag politics in where it does not belong. You r crazy. XP
VanessaSills 9 months ago
That's right. Liberalism is a psychosis. Or as a wise man once said, Liberalism is a mental disorder. It is classic solipsism. You believe that reality is subjective and relative.
To you, the word logic has no meaning. As a relative term it means only popular opinion of available information. Do you believe there is a real objective, though, external logic which we did not invent? Of course not. There is no external reality or absolute. All reality exists only inside our minds. Isn't that so?
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Not all liberals share the same views. Some may be against a certain bill or law while another is for it. Ever heard of the term moderate? lol Logic does have a meaning to me. Logic is NOT popular opinion to me. It is reasoning and being skeptical SO that I get to the REAL facts. What I mean by this is I DON'T take things at face value. I am ALWAYS questioning. You can't make assumptions about what I think about logic without asking first. lol
VanessaSills 9 months ago
@VanessaSills You'll string an assortment of contradictory views together just because they "feel" right to you. That itself is the liberal mentality. Whatever you want to believe is true. Is that correct? You're only strengthening my point with every response.
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie dude it's not that serious. Take a prozac. lol XD
VanessaSills 9 months ago
@knowwaie
"You'll string an assortment of contradictory views together just because they "feel" right to you."
You just described a theists mentality, not a liberal mentality. :D.
smithistheownage 9 months ago
@smithistheownage Oh, believe me, the liberal theist is actually the worst.
What i was talking about is how people today will call themselves "moderates" or "centerests" and combine two opposing views that contradict each other. It was liberalism or subejctivism that made this possible.
The core of liberalism is the belief that people are generally good. Subjectivism is the idea that whatever we want to believe is true since no absolute truth exists.
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie
Nope. Reality is absolute. That's pretty key in liberalism. If reality were subjective, who would give a shit if conservatives endorse harmful policies?
No. The point is to recognize that /models/ of reality are subjective, and that it's important to test those models to figure out which ones are accurate, and which ones are decidedly not. For example, evolution has been /well/ tested over the last 150 years and passed, while religion, in general, is bunk.
Fordi 6 months ago
It's much worse than that. You're proving it with out current president. You complained about the war, now Obama is bombing Libya. At least the conservatives are honest. Liberals lie about it.
150 years is a drop in the ocean compared to the supposed billions of years.
If you test a model based on the model then it will always remain. In the same way that you morons cried that we couldn't land on the moon because there would be too much dust on the surface. You changed reality, not the model.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie
"In the same way that you morons cried that we couldn't land on the moon"
What? Where did that come from?
"now Obama is bombing Libya"
Who's lying about that? Obama's /clearly/ in the wrong concerning Libya, both morally and legally. What, precisely is your point? Are we meant to be worshiping our politicians and pundits like conservatives do?
Fordi 6 months ago
By the way, i would also like to point out your ignorance. You morons completely screwed up the language. Now no one knows what these words mean any more. Liberalism is a philosophy. Democracy is the policy.
Conservative or liberal <philosophical
Republican or democrat < political
Capitalism or socialism < economic
You morons today get these words all mixed up until there is no 'real' meaning to them. This is the result of the liberal mentality.
knowwaie 9 months ago
@knowwaie No that's called a simple mix up of words. *dies of laughter*
VanessaSills 9 months ago
@knowwaie Since George Bush mixed his words up I guess that's the result of the conservative mentality. LMFAO XD
VanessaSills 9 months ago
@knowwaie
Says the guy that unquestionably follows the writings of men that state a rape is made right by the victim being forced to marry her rapist.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Hah, why do you bother? First of all, it doesn't even remotely say this. Your interpretation is either parroted in ignorance or your own perversion. Secondly, you'll have more difficulty explaining why evolutionary processes would result in such a writing. An atheist has no ground for saying anything about the subject. Wouldn't such a writing demonstrate that rape was actually acceptable natural behavior from an evolutionary prospective... You're thoughtless moron. Get your head on straight.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
I guess I'm just looking into that too much?
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
You can go look for yourself instead quoting from opposing web sites that added the word. There is no translation that uses the word rape.
If you looked for yourself there is a specific word used for 'force' in the original language. Chazaq. This word is not used in that verse. Though, just 3 verses previous the word is used. Explain.
There is no case for saying this verse is talking about rape. The best you could say is that virgin woman could not resist. There is evidence for neither.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
I actually went to Bible Gateway.com, which states that the verse I mentioned above is the NIV's translation. The God's Word translation also features the word "rape" in this verse. I understand that the NIV translation is very popular and is recognized as being true to the original Hebrew. Did you know that 100% of all rapes occur because the woman could not resist? Regardless, a woman shouldn't have to marry someone just because she got boinked.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Blueletterbible. org. Click on the box labeled "C" near the verse then click on the strong's numbers.
If it really had said what you think, i would be fully prepared to defend it. In such a closed community there was probably little cause for resistance. It wasn't as if they had strangers lurking around as we do today. There are hundreds of variables here.
One thing we can say for sure is that you are only attacking out of blind hated without taking the times and contexts into consideration.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
You're right, rape was probably invented in the early 1900s and people have sex solely because they live in the same area. How is pulling a verse from the Bible attacking it? I only commented because you attacked everyone whom regards evolutionary theory as factual. It's funny that a "perfect" book needs defending at all, but good luck trying to justify a woman marrying her rapist though. And while you're at it, you might as well try to explain Judas dying twice.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Of course it has to be defended. I could offer you a perfect apple. You may not like apples.
That's right, men were allowed to rape their foreign servants. But it wouldn't be rape since this person was sold by the foreign nations for that very purpose. To be a servant and obey their masters.
You really want to talk about this?
Or would you rather talk about how this behavior couldn't possibly be wrong since it could only be the result of natural processes? Why is prostitution "wrong"?
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
That would make perfection relative. You just justified rape with slavery. I can't express how immoral I think you are. I don't see how rape is natural and I really don't care if it or any other action is or not. That factor doesn't mean I should or shouldn't perform an action. However, I'm sure you have a problem with homosexuality, but that's natural. I don't believe prostitution is "wrong" and I don't see why others believe it is.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Oh of course there is nothing wrong with prostitution, as long as it is not your own daughter.. Or your mother.
God knows a woman has a right to choose, and God blessed us males with the freedom to enjoy it. Why are you complaining?.. Or is it because you're angry that you're not able to get a woman? The reason i cited Freud is because i think you have rape on your mind and you're seeing it everywhere. Maybe your mother was a prostitute from one of our foreign nations.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
I know every woman and man has the right to choose who they have sex with. I don't, nor should I, have any say in what my mother or daughter does sexually. Women actually enjoy sex as well. I hear women even serve purposes other than providing children, cleaning, and cooking. Some say they should be regarded as equal to men. I have a girlfriend and that's even not relevant. Pardon me, I was merely staying on subject. Maybe she was; I don't care. What's wrong with my world view again?
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Secondly, you're forgetting that there was a law against 'fornication', not just over woman, but men as well.
There are literally hundreds of reasons and evidences to show that this is not talking about rape. The people who claim this are only being annoyingly obtuse.
Not to mention, if it was true that this verse was talking about rape, and there is no God, then you have an even bigger difficulty with the fact that rape was acceptable to 'evolving' humans. That means that rape was natural no?
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
I don't recall any laws that require the execution of males that are found not to be virgins. Thanks for the reminding of the misogyny in the Bible. I don't think that would necessarily disprove the existence of God, but thanks for trying to help me out regardless. In not following your logic in the last two sentences, as they are conclusions that lack a single premise. How is rape acceptable/natural and why is rape being natural even relevant?
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
By the way, we've just demonstrated how the Jews treated their woman. You said it yourself. Woman were required to be virgins. They weren't raising them to be prostitutes as other counties were.
You have a very skewed perspective of the world. Freud might have something to say to this.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
"Jews" are not a country. Not every non-Jewish woman was raised to be a prostitute. I hope you're not trying to say that killing women, and only women, for acting on their sexual urges is somehow more moral than allowing prostitution to be practiced. Freudian ideas are considered mostly outdated.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
If you're serious and want to learn then i'll show you. I've made it abundantly clear that i know full well what it says. I'm trying to discuss it with you and you're throwing accusations.
Now, there is something else you're not taking into consideration. The reason for these laws that required female virginity was intended to preserve the Jewish race for the messiah, which, according to the book would be "the seed of a woman".
If you're going to attack it. Call it what it is.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
Alright, I'll give it a shot. You're religion is mostly derived from stories imagined up by primitive slave-owning Jews in an attempt to understand the world, achieve control/order, and to provide a sense of comfort. The reason for these laws is likely because primitive men, being physical stronger, were in control and probably had a huge problem with sloppy seconds. How would sex taint a race? You still haven't touched on the multiple deaths of Judas.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
Judas can die a third time. What difference would it make?
Primitive slave owning Jews who evolved from apes. They had already evolved to the point where they were able to verbally communicate. They had language, math and of course, law.
Then there were the foreign nations who were, the same in these respects, but they raised their people to be servants. This was how they survived. By selling their own people to neighboring countries.
All through natural selection.
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
In order for a book to contain only truth, it cannot contain contradictions. Two different accounts of a person's death constitutes as a contradiction. This contraction appears in the Bible; therefore the Bible doesn't contain only truth and is not infallible. Slavery might have helped some countries economically, but that doesn't mean it was necessary of justifiable. Natural selection effects DNA. They evolved from the ancestors of apes and thus came human constructs, such as slavery.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
You're getting ahead of yourself. We've haven't gotten to the subject of infallibility. Right now we're asking whether what was said in the more 'controversial' parts of the book are justifiable. In the end that is the real offense among atheists, as followers of Dawkin's methods.
And what does DNA not effect in biology? Other than that this is only basic physics and chemistry. Were they chemically predispositions to these behaviors? Or did some physical law force them to adapt in this way?
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
You asked; I answered. They're justifiable with slavery apparently. I don't even know what you're addressing. The study of physics has NOTHING to do with rape. Please make your point.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
The study of physics?..I didn't say physiology. Do you even know what you're talking about?
I've made my point and proved it already. How do you not understand that these behaviors could only have natural causes according to your perspective? You mentioned homosexuality. I'm sure you were going to say people are naturally born homosexual. If that is true, then it's true about everything. Some people were born with intense sexual desires. You were born stupid, etc.
Why can't you think?
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
Do you? Physiology is not the study of physics, jackass. You don't know anything about either subjects. Let's say rape IS natural; that DOESN'T mean it's fine to rape someone (unless they're a slave). Actually, what you said isn't true. I have a choice in what actions I take. I don't have a choice in whom I'm attracted to. Babies come fresh out of the womb dying to get laid? I guess I was pretty stupid when I was born. Excuse me for not doing more reading as a fetus.
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago
When i was 18 i was no where near as stupid. It's scary how fast intelligence is declining.
"I have a choice in what actions I take. I don't have a choice in whom I'm attracted to. Babies come fresh out of the womb dying to get laid?"
By this reasoning you're claiming that babies are born homosexual?
I'm not even arguing with this. I do believe that some people are a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. They probably descend from one of those perverse nations. Are you getting this yet?
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie
That was my response to a statement you made. "Some people are born with intense sexual desires." You're such a homophobic racist that you actually believe people are gay because their ancestors came from a country you don't like? You win. I was so stupid. People rape each other because of gravity, rape is fine as long as it's a slave, and God isn't just some sky wizard that makes people feel better about their lives. This was so constructive!
AbsolutesMayVary 7 months ago