Very informative, I had no idea that Nazi racism and cleansing camps derived from Darwinism, although I have heard about the racist aspects of the Darwin theory before, it even makes very much sense. They actually did have merit behind their belief of a superior race because they where making it happen based on this theory.
There are many "Holes" in the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION"...and It is a theory... There is no proof that GOD doesn't exist..... Breeding between species doesn't happen.. If evolution is true "WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITION SPECIES?" Wouldn't you expect to see Cat-dogs, canary-Snakes... There really aren't any and you would expect to see them everywhere if Evolution were true !! Something isn't right... Usually those that believe in GOD are good Moral People... The Atheists are not.. just their posts
@jimeckland ""WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITION SPECIES?" Wouldn't you expect to see Cat-dogs, canary-Snakes... There really aren't any and you would expect to see them everywhere "
So this is the transitional fossils you want to see. Okay you know what?
Either you are a complete ignorant illiterate idiot or you are trying to troll this thread. But since, as a fact, you mange to type something with your keyboard I will assume you posse some degree of intelligence and assume the latter.
@jomen112 ... Name a few transition species...there has to be some since Evolution is on-going... You can't give a "Civil-Answer"...and I'm the problem??? Am I calling you names? Is this the best you can do?
Dr Provine is incorrect in my world ... but the paradox is that it is exactly what he will experience ... DMT will give you whatever experience you expect ... until you become aware of the truth ... blessings and best wishes to him ♥ღ
It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia "articles" about ID are deliberately written to discredit Discovery Institute and ID, they violate their Neutral point of view policy. Well, there is no such thing as neutrality on Wikipedia anyway, because it can be edited by anyone.
@jomen112 Wikipedia is ran by majority rule, it can be accessed by anyone, and there is no quality control. "Might is right" is the editorial principle of Wikipedia. Although it is often edited by honest people, rule of majority with agenda prevails.I admit that I was exaggerating, because some articles are neutral, however these are rare.
@MrPsychedelia101 However, you also wrote "It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia "articles" about ID are deliberately written to discredit Discovery Institute and ID,"
And the reason they are written in such way is because ID as an idea is pure intellectual trash. It is discredited because of the ideas it represents not because of a majority vote which you tried to imply with guilt by association.
Stein: "When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you".
Stein admits that he is against science. Disappointing, I used to like him.
@bluemoonrising26 Scientists don't really care about finding evidence for God. I've had 5 atheists so far tell me that it wouldn't matter if there WAS evidence for God they still wouldn't believe. Do you honestly believe if a guy spends 30 years of his life trying to explain the universe and then discovers evidence for God ( or ID ) that he will run out and announce to the world "yahoo,all of science is wrong" ???
@OptimalElement "God is supernatural. Science only deals with meterialistic world. Therefore it seeks natural explanations towards variouse phenomena. "
Yes&No. The problem science deals with is the excluded 3rd; unless there can be show there exists no other alternative (natural) explanations their are no reason to assume a super natural cause. However it does not exclude a supernatural cause per se but has difficulties to show a supernatural cause can be the only explanation.
@tnmusicman1 "I've had 5 atheists so far tell me that it wouldn't matter if there WAS evidence for God they still wouldn't believe."
You claim to know 5 atheist saying this. Are you with this trying to imply all atheist are intellectual dishonest? I am an atheist and all atheist, unlike self-assure smug theist, I know would accept scientific evidence as factual. And I really don't see why "all science" would be wrong if it did discovered a deity. Care to explain why you think so?
On second thought, it seams to me you are confused about what science is and stands for. Science as a method to seek and discover knowledge. Science is not a world view - science compliments world views. It can be used by theist and atheist alike to deepen and enrich our knowledge of reality. One can choice to discard the scientific method to seek knowledge in preference of others methods but historical evidence of it successes tells that this would be foolish to do.
@jomen112 yep,im just confused. BTW,did i say "all atheists"? Once again,in true atheistic style,you try to put words in my mouth or twist what i said. If you are truly logical you would know I was talking about science discovering proof of ID. Nothing else. I was not talking about science on the whole. BTW,the number of atheists that wouldnt believe even if there was proof has grown quite a bit since then.
@tnmusicman1 "[can science] discovers evidence for God ( or ID )"
Do you understand how hard this task is for science? It can be done by science but it is an extremely hard task, even the hardest task their ever will be, for science to prove this. Why? Well, to start with, it first has to rule out every single possible natural explanation and that will not be easy to do because our knowledge about the universe is, and probably will remain, limited so we cannot make such assertions.
@jomen112 I dont think science will ever prove it because you cant find natural evidence for a supernatural being. It hasent happened yet and i dont think it ever could as there is no method. However,in true smug theist fashion i shall conclude,it COULD happen!!
Great documentary. It sure opens your eyes to the problem of "select" science. It's a notion I thought existed and this documentary further illuminated that it is indeed a reality. Who would have thought science would close the door on potential evidence, not because of religion, but by the mere THOUGHT of ID being a real posibility,which would link science to the real possibility that God exists.
@tnmusicman1 well put...I disagree it is not because of religion, who or what is/was the intelligent designer ??? Historically religion has blocked all forms of science, astrology, etc. The fear is not proving the possibility of God, but disproving organized religions VERSION of God. I can see how a scientist would not want to disprove their own beliefs.
When public education and mass media does not allow alternative views on origin of life, that is hallmark of propaganda. Emphasizing religious beliefs and financial interests of Discovery Institute is just a red herring that has nothing to do with the evidence for ID itself. Their religious beliefs and financial interests are not the topic here.
@MrPsychedelia101 "When public education and mass media does not allow alternative views on origin of life, that is hallmark of propaganda."
I take it you also believe when public education etc tells the earth is round and does not allow alternative, like flat earth theories, to be taken serious that is also propaganda?
"evidence for ID itself."
There is NO evidence for ID, ID doesnt have a scientific theory. Its purpose is to complain but not to provide an alternative.
if a Muslim (or any other religion) mentioned something it would be a drop in the bucket but no where Christians, we don't have the american rights like everyone else. we don't get the bill o rights. oh that's why, because its boring, great argument atheists ima go cry because that fact is so convincing amazing proof. Oh, wait atheism is boring, haha what now.
In the bible when the covenant was made the Jews could obey God and be a blessed nation or they could not and be a cursed religion. well you know how well the Jews obeyed and look at how they have been treated. Christianity has been a branch of Judaism because were the religious "Jews" that believe that God already came not is going to come. so technically we are Jews (Christians). and look how we are being treated. so atheists look at me now, im living the prophecy.
The origin of life from scientific perspective is uknown yet, no one came (yet) with scientific terms of how life started , that don't mean other explanation of religion correct . WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW
Muslim here, and I believe this video is very educational and tremendously interesting, but that Dawkins guy, very defensive against religions in general, is it wise to lead a conversation fueled by hate against a certain group of people that claimed to unite under a certain banner?
@moriasatan hello i am a christian and i must say i agree the attack on the IDEA of an intelligent designer has become an attack on religion and the people who adhere to religious views and not only the christian but also muslim such as urself i find it comical almost to hear them refer to "religious" people as stupid after all in the case of the muslim society many of the greatest medical discoveries were discovered by muslim drs. how can they be considered idiots? just a thought
Christians, Muslims, and Judaism introduced great minds with a very interesting philosophy, even Hinduism and Buddhism including Taoism gave birth to the greatest of minds which unraveled our worlds enigma, even Plato believed in a creator and the after life...Im also certain there are Atheists that assisted in cracking many complex paradox...So why stand against a believe, and why expect others respect for your believe if you clearly show no respect to our believes...
@moriasatan Ones religius beliefs does not in any way invalidate their discoveries as long as they have the evidence to back em up.
But the fact is that the movie Expelled is full of errors, missunderstandings and even outright lies and as such only serves to ruin any credibility of those who holds the same beliefs as its maker.
@Sweddude would you care to itemize the purported errors??.. I find this documentary very comprehensible and convincing unless you point out to me the errors and assess them
@lermy727 "Dawkins and other scientists can revert to invoking aliens as a way of explaining how life began on earth." They dont say aliens as in men in spaceships etc they mean none earth bacteria , like the organic compounds found in meteorites , organic compounds are pretty much any molecule including carbon. If dawkins did say that superior intelligent alien spacemen made dna and sent it to earth he would indeed be talking crazy and be passing the issue on, like "god done it" .
@D0W666 I appreceiate condescention because it really shows the height of your argument. Did you watch the documentary? You call yourselves freethinkers and turn around to domesticate thought. BLACK LISTED FOR JUST MENTIONING INTELLIGENT DESIGN. So the scientist that said thinking from an intelligent design perspective helped them in their discoveries are wrong? This documentary has exposed athist as what they claim to hate... A DOGMA! HAHAHA!
Darwin said that he received inspiration from Thomas Malthus, and funny enough Francis Galton who invented eugenics was Darwin's cousin. Not to mention the possible accusations that the Darwin-Hedgewood family was inbred and had a history of mental illness. But because of SaxeCoburgGotha royal support, Galton and Darwin's theories rose on up. I've even heard that Darwinism was invented to keep us stupefied from knowing our true past
@dudewherescar1 dito, thanks! "Darwin said that he received inspiration from Thomas Malthus, and funny enough Francis Galton who invented eugenics was Darwin's cousin. Not to mention the possible accusations that the Darwin-Hedgewood family was inbred and had a history of mental illness. But because of SaxeCoburgGotha royal support, Galton and Darwin's theories rose on up. I've even heard that Darwinism was invented to keep us stupefied from knowing our true past"
@dudewherescar1 None of that matters, what Darwin himself felt about his idea has nothing to do with the verified and proven fact that, all life (yes all) is related and has been fermenting for billions of years, DNA alone proves this as an indisputable, testable fact that sciences from many fields have also confirmed. Darwin didn't even live to see his hypothesis confirmed, in his day it was a new unproven idea.
@zarrotechgeek yes I did. And the theory is not unproven. The theory of evolution only covers EVOLUTION. It does not cover the origin of life, the origin of the universe, or the origins of creation. It only covers the evolutionary process. It's the gobbletygook that you people are reading into the theory and promoting to push your own agenda of mixing religion back into the schools. Creationism is NOT SCIENTIFIC. It is religion.
Darwin was alright, he was able to make a decision "Nothing more worse than not being able to make an decision whether right or wrong decision "Out of mistakes we learn and truly then evolve"; ... But, sorry Darwin `he was wrong` and he even said so himself -- No Problem Darwin, thank you. True Human original presence is due to Creation , that is the correct answer ! Peace & Love `73` (Oderint dum Metuant).
@MrDaveArt Buddhists "believe" in reincarnation. Perhaps nobody mentioned a subject of Microbiology. People often say they were Cleopetra or royalty in prior life. If their claims are true, then purely from the logical reasoning point of view Cleopetra must have lived the same life million lives conservatively speaking. Then the earth must be at least 50 years (life expectancy of Cleopetra) X million lives = 50 millions years old. At least. Right? Conservatively speaking of course.
@GrimPurpleFilth : I doubt anyone who believes in God is annoyed at Professor Dawkins. Most Christians simply pity his outlook, and yes, strangely enough, a supreme Creator WOULD take authority over so called "facts". Which are disproved by far more reliable data from other parts of the scientific world - try physics for example.
@MsEternallyBlessed You don't have to believe in God or Gold to be annoyed by Dick. His reasoning is shallow and artificial. Suggesting that extraterrestrial planted life on earth could be an indication of what he thinks of American public. Do you know why Richard will never debate a Muslim cleric? Muslims will give him a new meaning to "Expelled."
@StairC. Yes. Rermarkably accurate for a peoples who had NO way of scientfically devining for example that the planet they lived on was spherical in shape! Or that it was suspended in space.... The rest of the points in your post are conjecture, the Biblical account of the flood has not been disproved by modern science for example.
I would say the best part of the video is the comment Richard Dawkins makes towards the end. Dick says life could have deposited by an extraterrestrial. If I were Ben, I would have asked, "What created extraterrestrial? Dick might have said, "another extraordinary terrestrial??" Then I would have said, "Go on.." Dick would continue with, "superextraordinary terrestrial??" "Go on.." "superduperextraordinary terrestrial??" "Go on.." "grandsuperdupurextraordinary terrestrial??" "Go on.." "hugegran
@automatewithkorn Okay, for starters, Professor Dawkins does not go by the name Dick. At least show some respect and call him by his full name, or just Dawkins. It's not like we go around calling Moses "Mo," or Jesus "J-Man." Second, are you daft? All you have done is try to use extremely shallow scare tactics through scientific terms and rhetorical fallacies. We get it, your annoyed, that does not mean suddenly what you believe takes authority over actual facts.
@GrimPurpleFilth Anyone who gives any inkling of creditability to extraterrestrial causing life on earth does not deserve any respect. No offense to UFO enthusiasts. His foundation is a joke. I will share Richard's comments to high school kids. Let's see what they think. Perhaps he lied on his resume at the Oxford, just like the FEMA director. I am appalled by Dick's thought process. How scientific is his UFO theory??
@automatewithkorn Oh yes, clearly you're right. Someone humoring the hypothetical concept of extraterrestrial life is clearly mad. Esspecially compared to people who believe in a talking snake, burning bush, man who lived in a giant fish and man who managed to get a pair of every living animal on the earth and pack them into ONE BOAT. But clearly Dawkin's thought process is the crazy one. Right.
@automatewithkorn What Richard said and meant was - that if life on earth was spawned by planting seed from some advanced extraterrestrial civilization - then that implies that that extraterrestrial civilization must have been created in a similar fashion - and so on going back to the time the universe was created. The first one must have been therefore random - bacteria and evolve etc. You cannot say stars or planets have intelligent designer.
@Spandex08 I think you misunderstood my posts. I stand in awe of logic and this logic presents very convincing argument that faith in God defines you. Without faith, a person cannot do his/her routine in daily life. For example, when a person takes a sip of water from any container, that person is taking a leap of faith that the water does not contain poison or any materials that could harm his body. Unless you have a water test kit testing every drop you will not be able to drink.
@automatewithkorn I only replied to only 1of your comments - and now you are saying something different. Faith ? "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" - really ? faith ? - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ? - why would you believe in god ? - no reason at all?
@Spandex08 People often use words without thinking it through. For example, when a person says I believe or do not believe in something, what they are actually saying is I absolutely and wholeheartedly without any possibility of being wrong even if it was in the past, present or the future about of what believe or not believe. There is no difference between a person saying I love this vs. I love this like a fanatic of all time. This is why a 3-second debate lasts for years.
@automatewithkorn "Without faith, a person cannot do his/her routine in daily life. For example, when a person takes a sip of water from any container, that person is taking a leap of faith that the water does not contain poison or any materials that could harm his body. Unless you have a water test kit testing every drop you will not be able to drink."
Life is to short to re-validate everything every time. We make uniformity assumptions that isn't faith as it can be tested.
@enuff761 I agree because I grew up in Jewish neighborhood where high schools in my district and others near celebrate Jewish holidays and USA holidays. But I have not seen any Jew take pro-creation position in any ID debate. Ben Stein is a only on Jewish person who does. I have had many Jewish friends growing up and they told me they are instructed by their families to steer clear away from ID discussion because nothing can be gained from it. This is why Jews are God's chosen people.
I am sick of people saying hitler was a "darwinest"the only time he ever talked about darwin was to discredit him as hitler was the start of ID mein kampf shows hitler said diversity had limits in kind the emergence of new species is impossible ,ID use that today they may even have got it from hitler.volume one chapter 11 mein kampf read it for yourself.
@GrimPurpleFilth No person told me to believe in God. My faith is based on my experiences and my knowledge of the Bible and God's character, similar to many other people that I know. I don't need to "preach" to you to affirm either of these facts. Just as well, since such efforts would be misplaced. Howeverany parts of the Bible are being proved remarkably scientifically accurate for a book originally written by people with no scientific knowledge - so faith can include knowledge!
@Stairc The book of Genesis explains that the flood happened which is a actual recorded event in ancient history.there is evidence of the flood- 1 ) Fossils on mountain tops...
@tgillspy2 So, you think that because a religion mentions a flood - and that there were indeed floods in the past (though nowhere near what the bible describes) that this is evidence of the bible's perfection, infallibility and inspired divinity?
Shall I quote other myths from other religions that also mention floods?
@tgillspy2 i did and it did nothing for me. I guess its not as 'indisputable' as you thought, lol
So explain how a book with no author is evidence for a world-wide flood that supposedly occurred several thousands of years ago, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence? All the evidence points to plate tectonics and millions of years
@QuantumChance No evidence? Hmm, what was that about fossils on mountain tops? And you expect me to believe that "fable" book 'On the Origin of Species'? And there are authors of the Bible. Many authors. All these transcripts were found. It wasn't just some drugged up psycho who thought this up. There are several amounts of proof that your carbon dating was proved from the time. Look at a picture of the cell structure. Atom? Tell me that was random. I havn't had a good laugh like that yet today.
@QuantumChance Science gets better over time. For example, the knowledge of a single cell organism at Darwin's time was considered today as barbarous. Perhaps in about 100 years, what we "believe" as theory will be nonsense. But any Law of something is exempt. Science is good at one thing: placing limits on deniability.
@automatewithkorn Without a divine order, science is dead. Theories are dead. Laws are dead. When you go with randomness, science has no base, and thus it topples. When you have intelligence in it, it has a basis, and can thus thrive. Why does science and theology have to be separate. Im going to college to study both theology AND science. Uh-oh.
@QuantumChance Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift in 1915, evolution nutcases explained away how earth started with one land mass because they had to fabricate starting point for anything. By the QuantumChance, Charles Darwin died April 19, 1882. How did dead Darwin point this out???????? Are you from a Pink Floyd The Wall generation: "We don't need no education..." Ask yourself this: Who made first electric guitar?" Perhaps Pink Floyd was making metaphorically stating ....
@tgillspy2 Fossils on mountain tops...? how does that prove a flood? do you know where the mountains were millions of years ago?... under the ocean or on flat land, then earthquakes jutted land up... this is basic geology dude... instead of saying the floods are indisputable because they are in a book, why don't you try reading one basic geology book. fossils on mountain tops... my -nonexistent- god... epic fail dude. I love how you stopped after numbering your only argument "1)"
@the88mph Logically thinking the fossil issue, if creation is an accident, then paleontologists should be able to provide fossil record of any animal with billions if not trillions of distinctive permutation of any skeleton connected any part of their bodies. However, paleontologists already know this reasoning and to this day they have not discovered a single fossil that supports accidental creation. Logically thinking!!
@the88mph Please brush up on science class. Plate Tectonics is only a theory, not a law. Have you heard of Law of Entropy. Please read a book on it and humor me on how 1 over 10 to the ~40,000th power can happen in nature??
@alexanderkundrat Look yourself in the mirror and what do you C? Randomness? Hoyle's statement
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving were about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
@automatewithkorn I would like to add to Hoyle's Fallacy. For the moment let's put aside evolution/creation debate and let's try to answer these questions?
What is unintelligent design? What is semi-intelligent design? What is stupid design? What is anti-stupid design? What is fully automated stupid design? What is anti-design? What is fully automated anti-design? What is not a design? What is a accidental design? What is coincidental design? What is "We don't need no education.." design?
@automatewithkorn What is unintelligent design? By entering "define unintelligent" in Google search, you get "un·in·tel·li·gent/ˌəninˈteləjənt/ Adjective: Having or showing a low level of intelligence: "a good-natured but unintelligent boy"
Thus, unintelligent design can be defined as design having or showing a low level of intelligence. But this not infer stupidity. According to Wiki on I.Q., low number is below 100. How much is hard to guess, but unintelligent design could be an oxymoron.
@automatewithkorn What is semi-intelligent design? I am willing to accept (SID) = 0.5 * (ID) or ID = 2*SID. Let ID = 120 (IQ), then SID = 120 / 2 = 60. But this does not necessarily mean SID > UID (UnIntelligent Design) because UID can be different scalar value for different people with different bias with different personal backgrounds with different academic studies. In short, (cdr(cdr(cdr(car ID) Sigma bias) Sigma personal background) academic discipline). One thing is clear: UID >< SID.
@automatewithkorn What is StuPid Design? Let's start with definition. What is stupid? Adjective: Lacking intelligence or common sense. SPD worse than ND (No Design). Think of this as a surgical tool with stupid design. When used in OR (Operating Room), using this tool would place patient at serious jeopardy. The surgeon may lose his license as a result. Is StuPid Design possible? Yes, nature has randomness and accidental possibilities. Then is Nature stupid? No, I don't think so.
@automatewithkorn What is Anti-StuPid Design? Anti is a Greek root that means not. ASPD = SPD *-1 = -SPD. But ASPD is not smart design. It is same as ND or No Design.
@automatewithkorn by saying a scientific theory is only a "theory" clearly hasn't brushed up on science themselves in a while. i love you idiots think the word theory is somehow in favor of it not being true... is it that you think theoretical and hypothetical are the same word or something? scientific theories are repeatedly tested, solidly founded, and they yield repeatable results no matter who does the test.
@MsEternallyBlessed Nonetheless, the reason you believe in God is because of the culture that surrounds you. The Bible is the holy book closest to you, so it is the one that you relate to. If you were raised somewhere the Bible was absent from, you would never even think to believe in it, but you clearly cannot fathom that concept. And by the way, there is no science in scripture. Even the Priest of the Vatican observatory will tell you that.
@MsEternallyBlessed Remarkably scientifically accurate? You mean like the flood, the genesis account, its projected age of the earth, methods for how to breed animals for traits... With so many mistakes that huge, why should we take anything it says seriously?
Good Job Ben Stein! Unfortunately, there are many people afraid of God, and what God means to them, or the threat of His existence! They will go to extreme lengths to try to disprove Him. Their pride and ego will not let them submit their "Will" to anyone..which is ironic considering Darwinism's overall premise...
@klaanderson3 How can you be afraid of something you don't think exists? Are you afraid of evil robot unicorns?
We aren't afraid of god. We just think that things require evidence before they can be taught in a science class, and that things in a science class should be able to stand the scrutiny of the Scientific Method.
Let's make a deal. We'll teach creationism in science classes when you start teaching evolution at your church, unbiased and by expert scientists. ;)
Nazi Germany is not the example to use for Darwinian influence. The best example is the Soviet Union. Furthermore, regardless of what Bill Maher and many others believe, it is the absence of God that led to the most murderous regimes in all recorded history. Marxist communist ideology, which practically worships Darwinian Theory, has sprouted the greatest mass murderers of all time. No religion even comes close to the bloody fetes of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.
@shortist2003 I would love for you to give any proof at all of atheism directly leading to the actions of a murderous dictator; then attempt to reconcile that proof with the fact that there is no logical line to be drawn from a neutral stance of non-belief to murder.
I won't actually expect a response though. Anyone foolish enough to directly ascribe the actions of dictators to Darwin, or toss around terms like 'Darwinian Theory', isn't exactly a person to expect legitimate evidence from.
Atheist aren't in favor of embracing any form of totalitarianism on dogmatic grounds but rather for a society which includes objective critical thinking. Whether they be religious or not all skeptics are mostly against irrational forms of Dogma which all those clearly demonstrated. And I'm sorry but many genocides, wars, and discrimination have also been done in the name of religion especially Christianity so I fail to see how you rationalize those opinions.
i don't get why it is so hard for you to understand that just because humans exist and cell phones exist, it doesn't put a shred of evidence in favor of god, it just doesn't. complex things do not always need a creator, the sun is doing pretty fine as an elemental forgery all by itself without a god or anything interfering.
@the88mph I am not claiming that design proves the existence of God.I personally believe that Existence of God can only be inffered from the bible.You are right, complex things don't always need a creator(e.g snowflakes).But here I am referring to a functional complexity.Unlike snowflakes, living cells are working molecular machines.
@GrimPurpleFilth@the88mph It would not make sense to say that modern technology was designed, and then to say that humans who have created it came into existence purely by chance.However, you sad that that evolution is not spontaneous, then it it directed, by what or should I say who?
@MrPsychedelia101 As I stated before, just because you do not have an answer to something, it does not mean you should make up stories to fill that gap. The Bible does no count as fact, not a single one of the people who "wrote" the Bible ever even saw Jesus, and that is assuming Jesus even existed. Your preaching to us really is not to argue our beliefs, but to try and solidify doubts you have in your own.
@MrPsychedelia101 Sorry, I'd love to continue this, but quite frankly our debate is not worth giving Ben Steins propaganda video more and more hits each time I visit. Now, all your beliefs aside, if you seriously agree with this video, I'm sorry.
@GrimPurpleFilth ...I sense the fear in you, that quite possibly, people might watch this video and come to the conclusion that there just might be a Creator, God, Intelligent Being that Designed everything! The human body is evidence enough of intelligent design...It takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than God!
@klaanderson3 It takes much less faith to not believe in God. What it does take, is more effort. My mind does not accept the concept of God, or any other supernatural being, but I'm damn proud of it. You only believe what you do because someone told you to. If you were raised in the ancient Greece you would believe in Zeus, in the Middle East, Mohammed. Knowledge takes more effort than belief, but knowledge is true and rationalized. You only preach to me in hopes of affirming your own beliefs.
@MrPsychedelia101 As well, your argument for ID will always rely on the Bible, a story book that has been written, changed, edited, and rearranged by men, and men alone. In no way can that stand up against facts, pure facts that are tried, tested and true. Oh, and for someone who wants to appear so skilled in rhetoric, you sure make many fallacy's of your own. Nice try with the Richard Dawkin's bit though.
@GrimPurpleFilth You sad it yourself, rhetoric's are one thing and logical arguments are another.I am not a skilled debater, otherwise I would have refuted your arguments from the start.
Also, every possible objection against credibility of the bible that skeptics could have muster, Christian apologists have already answered.
@MrPsychedelia101 No, they have rationalized them, I believe it still says in the bible that a bunch of kids making fun of a bald kid were then mauled by a bear to death, I don't think I have seen one apologist try to touch that one with a 10 foot pole. What? does god not want us making fun of bald people?... no matter what an apologist says, they are always just reinterpreting gods word anyway, which I think the old testament god would be pretty angry about anyway. if he existed that is.
@the88mph "Natural selection" is just another term for coincidence.It is either designed or it came in to existence accidentally.There is no false dilemma here.
I didn't say that evolution is a religion in a classic sense, e.g miracles and praying, this is a straw man fallacy.Evolution is belief system and has a philosophical components of religion such as meaning and and origin of life.Word "religion" comes from the word "league", which is a group of people with common interests.Scientific community is a group of people with common interests, their theories are belief systems and "worship" would constitute deep respect for leading figures in science.
@MrPsychedelia101 No Evolution does not have a model for how life started, it merely explains the mechanisms involved in eventual speciation. to go back to the original base of the word religion doesn't help your argument either, because now by your criteria make the NHL into a religion with several factions. your premises are fallacious. thus your conclusion is not sound.
and evolution is not a belief system, its a statement of a hypothesis backed by literal mountains of evidence.
@the88mph and stop trying to use logic illogically, its driving a logic and philosophy student crazy!!!!! You wanna try logic, How about your last comment, Weak argument from analogy, it is a fallacy.
@the88mph Scientific theories, being evidence-based are belief systems because after all, you do believe in them.But evolution is not scientific theory because spontaneous emergence of life has never been observed in laboratory experiments.
@MrPsychedelia101 Evolution is legitimate scientific theory! Spontaneous emergence of life is not observed because evolution is not spontaneous! But we have observed evolution for what it is, a process that takes millions of years and guess what? It is true! There is evidence for it, go to any good museum and you can see it, it's incredible! You can use all the fancy jargon you want, it does not mean you have a rational or legitimate argument.
@GrimPurpleFilth@the88mph Richard Dawkings described evolutionary processes as a Blind Watchmaker.But, seriously...can a blind watchmaker, engineer, or architect make anything?Random processes therefore cannot account for meaningful complexity and functional organization of living organisms, just like they cannot account for complexity and functional organization of cars, cellphones, computers, and so on.
@MrPsychedelia101 I have already told you that Evolution does not account for the beginning of life, then you go on and continue to mow over the valid point i made. you know a bunch of big words... but do you know what the theory of evolution by natural selection even entails?.... it sounds like you have a tenuous grasp at best as to what it even is...
@MrPsychedelia101 you are foolish to compare science and religion. evolution has evidence, religion relies solely on faith. intelligent design is merely a mask for creationism, there are no facts to back it up.
@Vroom246 There is plenty of evidence for Bible and ID, one just have to look.You can go to official website of Discovery Institute and download peer-reviewed publications that support Intelligent design in PDF format.Also, blind faith is by no means a Biblical definition of faith.
@MrPsychedelia101 the Discovery Institute? that isn't a credible source. they are heavily Christianity-biased. and how can faith not be blind? faith by it's definition relies on believing without any evidence. there is no credible evidence for design. evolution by natural selection explains it so beautifully, we may not know how we all got here yet, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a great sky daddy, and even if there is some sort of being, it wouldn't be the Christian God.
@Vroom246 Yeah he tried sending me that discovery institute shit too in a PM, the discovery institute is a horrible rotten cancer on this world and is in now way a "credible source"
Evolution is not a legitimate, scientifically proven theory, because abiogenesis has never been observed in laboratory.Your argument that bible is a fiction because it is written by ancient's, and that it is based on their primitive attempt to explain the world, commits ad hominem and genetic fallacy.As for evidence for bible, I suggest you visit christian apologetic websites.
Very informative, I had no idea that Nazi racism and cleansing camps derived from Darwinism, although I have heard about the racist aspects of the Darwin theory before, it even makes very much sense. They actually did have merit behind their belief of a superior race because they where making it happen based on this theory.
Hunt77 1 day ago
There are many "Holes" in the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION"...and It is a theory... There is no proof that GOD doesn't exist..... Breeding between species doesn't happen.. If evolution is true "WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITION SPECIES?" Wouldn't you expect to see Cat-dogs, canary-Snakes... There really aren't any and you would expect to see them everywhere if Evolution were true !! Something isn't right... Usually those that believe in GOD are good Moral People... The Atheists are not.. just their posts
jimeckland 1 day ago
@jimeckland ""WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITION SPECIES?" Wouldn't you expect to see Cat-dogs, canary-Snakes... There really aren't any and you would expect to see them everywhere "
So this is the transitional fossils you want to see. Okay you know what?
Either you are a complete ignorant illiterate idiot or you are trying to troll this thread. But since, as a fact, you mange to type something with your keyboard I will assume you posse some degree of intelligence and assume the latter.
jomen112 1 day ago
@jomen112 ... Name a few transition species...there has to be some since Evolution is on-going... You can't give a "Civil-Answer"...and I'm the problem??? Am I calling you names? Is this the best you can do?
jimeckland 22 hours ago
Comment removed
jomen112 1 day ago
Comment removed
jomen112 1 day ago
" i dont see how you can't get from simple, to more and more complex to more and more complex...".... ever heard of entropy...
runeman180 1 week ago
@runeman180 You obviously haven't...
SuperShiningSun 6 days ago
Dr Provine is incorrect in my world ... but the paradox is that it is exactly what he will experience ... DMT will give you whatever experience you expect ... until you become aware of the truth ... blessings and best wishes to him ♥ღ
Jeneration52 1 week ago
want to further expand your mind? search this here on youtube: Dan Winter - The Galactic History of DNA (HD) Part One - 8
Jeneration52 1 week ago
I bought this movie and am so glad I did!!!
JasonForMayor 1 week ago
It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia "articles" about ID are deliberately written to discredit Discovery Institute and ID, they violate their Neutral point of view policy. Well, there is no such thing as neutrality on Wikipedia anyway, because it can be edited by anyone.
MrPsychedelia101 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@MrPsychedelia101 "there is no such thing as neutrality on Wikipedia anyway, because it can be edited by anyone."
Like to contradict yourself do you?
jomen112 2 weeks ago
@jomen112 Wikipedia is ran by majority rule, it can be accessed by anyone, and there is no quality control. "Might is right" is the editorial principle of Wikipedia. Although it is often edited by honest people, rule of majority with agenda prevails.I admit that I was exaggerating, because some articles are neutral, however these are rare.
MrPsychedelia101 2 weeks ago
@MrPsychedelia101 Okay, I see how you reason now. I withdraw my claim that you are contradicting yourself.
jomen112 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPsychedelia101 However, you also wrote "It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia "articles" about ID are deliberately written to discredit Discovery Institute and ID,"
And the reason they are written in such way is because ID as an idea is pure intellectual trash. It is discredited because of the ideas it represents not because of a majority vote which you tried to imply with guilt by association.
jomen112 1 day ago
Stein: "When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you".
Stein admits that he is against science. Disappointing, I used to like him.
bigfilmhat 2 weeks ago
@OptimalElement I couldn't agree with you more.
tnmusicman1 2 weeks ago
@bluemoonrising26 Scientists don't really care about finding evidence for God. I've had 5 atheists so far tell me that it wouldn't matter if there WAS evidence for God they still wouldn't believe. Do you honestly believe if a guy spends 30 years of his life trying to explain the universe and then discovers evidence for God ( or ID ) that he will run out and announce to the world "yahoo,all of science is wrong" ???
tnmusicman1 2 weeks ago
@tnmusicman1
God is supernatural. Science only deals with meterialistic world. Therefore it seeks natural explanations towards variouse phenomena.
OptimalElement 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OptimalElement "God is supernatural. Science only deals with meterialistic world. Therefore it seeks natural explanations towards variouse phenomena. "
Yes&No. The problem science deals with is the excluded 3rd; unless there can be show there exists no other alternative (natural) explanations their are no reason to assume a super natural cause. However it does not exclude a supernatural cause per se but has difficulties to show a supernatural cause can be the only explanation.
jomen112 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnmusicman1 "I've had 5 atheists so far tell me that it wouldn't matter if there WAS evidence for God they still wouldn't believe."
You claim to know 5 atheist saying this. Are you with this trying to imply all atheist are intellectual dishonest? I am an atheist and all atheist, unlike self-assure smug theist, I know would accept scientific evidence as factual. And I really don't see why "all science" would be wrong if it did discovered a deity. Care to explain why you think so?
jomen112 1 day ago
@tnmusicman1
On second thought, it seams to me you are confused about what science is and stands for. Science as a method to seek and discover knowledge. Science is not a world view - science compliments world views. It can be used by theist and atheist alike to deepen and enrich our knowledge of reality. One can choice to discard the scientific method to seek knowledge in preference of others methods but historical evidence of it successes tells that this would be foolish to do.
jomen112 1 day ago
@jomen112 yep,im just confused. BTW,did i say "all atheists"? Once again,in true atheistic style,you try to put words in my mouth or twist what i said. If you are truly logical you would know I was talking about science discovering proof of ID. Nothing else. I was not talking about science on the whole. BTW,the number of atheists that wouldnt believe even if there was proof has grown quite a bit since then.
tnmusicman1 1 day ago
@tnmusicman1 "[can science] discovers evidence for God ( or ID )"
Do you understand how hard this task is for science? It can be done by science but it is an extremely hard task, even the hardest task their ever will be, for science to prove this. Why? Well, to start with, it first has to rule out every single possible natural explanation and that will not be easy to do because our knowledge about the universe is, and probably will remain, limited so we cannot make such assertions.
jomen112 1 day ago
@jomen112 I dont think science will ever prove it because you cant find natural evidence for a supernatural being. It hasent happened yet and i dont think it ever could as there is no method. However,in true smug theist fashion i shall conclude,it COULD happen!!
tnmusicman1 1 day ago
Great documentary. It sure opens your eyes to the problem of "select" science. It's a notion I thought existed and this documentary further illuminated that it is indeed a reality. Who would have thought science would close the door on potential evidence, not because of religion, but by the mere THOUGHT of ID being a real posibility,which would link science to the real possibility that God exists.
tnmusicman1 3 weeks ago
@tnmusicman1
Don't be such a fool.
bluemoonrising26 2 weeks ago
@tnmusicman1 well put...I disagree it is not because of religion, who or what is/was the intelligent designer ??? Historically religion has blocked all forms of science, astrology, etc. The fear is not proving the possibility of God, but disproving organized religions VERSION of God. I can see how a scientist would not want to disprove their own beliefs.
poohORpoe 2 weeks ago
When public education and mass media does not allow alternative views on origin of life, that is hallmark of propaganda. Emphasizing religious beliefs and financial interests of Discovery Institute is just a red herring that has nothing to do with the evidence for ID itself. Their religious beliefs and financial interests are not the topic here.
MrPsychedelia101 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPsychedelia101 "When public education and mass media does not allow alternative views on origin of life, that is hallmark of propaganda."
I take it you also believe when public education etc tells the earth is round and does not allow alternative, like flat earth theories, to be taken serious that is also propaganda?
"evidence for ID itself."
There is NO evidence for ID, ID doesnt have a scientific theory. Its purpose is to complain but not to provide an alternative.
jomen112 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like the hypocrisy in this movie.
''If they are so afraid, why don't they let us teach about our version of the origin of life?''
And the idea to let other religions explain it too goes way over their head as they think their awnser is the only one that's important.
I am happy ''Intelligent'' design got killed in court.
9454791 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
9454791 4 weeks ago
all comments are directed toward haters not everyone.
sirrichy5 1 month ago
read my comments backward it posted weird
sirrichy5 1 month ago
if a Muslim (or any other religion) mentioned something it would be a drop in the bucket but no where Christians, we don't have the american rights like everyone else. we don't get the bill o rights. oh that's why, because its boring, great argument atheists ima go cry because that fact is so convincing amazing proof. Oh, wait atheism is boring, haha what now.
sirrichy5 1 month ago 2
In the bible when the covenant was made the Jews could obey God and be a blessed nation or they could not and be a cursed religion. well you know how well the Jews obeyed and look at how they have been treated. Christianity has been a branch of Judaism because were the religious "Jews" that believe that God already came not is going to come. so technically we are Jews (Christians). and look how we are being treated. so atheists look at me now, im living the prophecy.
sirrichy5 1 month ago
The origin of life from scientific perspective is uknown yet, no one came (yet) with scientific terms of how life started , that don't mean other explanation of religion correct . WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW
Mol7hedhum 1 month ago
I am atheist, and not on the camp of ID , but I am against to censor any idea
Mol7hedhum 1 month ago
Muslim here, and I believe this video is very educational and tremendously interesting, but that Dawkins guy, very defensive against religions in general, is it wise to lead a conversation fueled by hate against a certain group of people that claimed to unite under a certain banner?
moriasatan 1 month ago
@moriasatan hello i am a christian and i must say i agree the attack on the IDEA of an intelligent designer has become an attack on religion and the people who adhere to religious views and not only the christian but also muslim such as urself i find it comical almost to hear them refer to "religious" people as stupid after all in the case of the muslim society many of the greatest medical discoveries were discovered by muslim drs. how can they be considered idiots? just a thought
LU71flames 1 month ago
@LU71flames
Christians, Muslims, and Judaism introduced great minds with a very interesting philosophy, even Hinduism and Buddhism including Taoism gave birth to the greatest of minds which unraveled our worlds enigma, even Plato believed in a creator and the after life...Im also certain there are Atheists that assisted in cracking many complex paradox...So why stand against a believe, and why expect others respect for your believe if you clearly show no respect to our believes...
moriasatan 1 month ago
@moriasatan Ones religius beliefs does not in any way invalidate their discoveries as long as they have the evidence to back em up.
But the fact is that the movie Expelled is full of errors, missunderstandings and even outright lies and as such only serves to ruin any credibility of those who holds the same beliefs as its maker.
Sweddude 3 weeks ago in playlist Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
@Sweddude would you care to itemize the purported errors??.. I find this documentary very comprehensible and convincing unless you point out to me the errors and assess them
peyupsgurl 2 weeks ago
@peyupsgurl How about a complete and utter lack of knowledge about what evolution is?
Or how about edditing out parts of one of darwins book and claim he was making nazi-propaganda?
Sweddude 2 weeks ago
@lermy727 "Dawkins and other scientists can revert to invoking aliens as a way of explaining how life began on earth." They dont say aliens as in men in spaceships etc they mean none earth bacteria , like the organic compounds found in meteorites , organic compounds are pretty much any molecule including carbon. If dawkins did say that superior intelligent alien spacemen made dna and sent it to earth he would indeed be talking crazy and be passing the issue on, like "god done it" .
irtehpwn09 1 month ago
@irtehpwn09 You need to check out the work of Lloyd Pye, and look into the Starchild skull he is the 'caretaker' of.
Its on YouTube. Go to the Starchild DNA update 2010 or words to that effect.
How important is the truth to you?
D0W666 1 month ago
This shows how truly closed minded the "free-thinkers" are.
truth2350 1 month ago
@truth2350 thats a bit of a rash generalization is it not?
Why are all black guys fast at running?
They got good practice gettin chased from the 5-O... and thats while holding a television or X-Box.
See? The above statement, although humourous to some, isn't factually correct, and makes as much sense as you nugget of wisdom.
Bawbag, take cake.
D0W666 1 month ago
@D0W666 I appreceiate condescention because it really shows the height of your argument. Did you watch the documentary? You call yourselves freethinkers and turn around to domesticate thought. BLACK LISTED FOR JUST MENTIONING INTELLIGENT DESIGN. So the scientist that said thinking from an intelligent design perspective helped them in their discoveries are wrong? This documentary has exposed athist as what they claim to hate... A DOGMA! HAHAHA!
truth2350 2 weeks ago
Darwin said that he received inspiration from Thomas Malthus, and funny enough Francis Galton who invented eugenics was Darwin's cousin. Not to mention the possible accusations that the Darwin-Hedgewood family was inbred and had a history of mental illness. But because of SaxeCoburgGotha royal support, Galton and Darwin's theories rose on up. I've even heard that Darwinism was invented to keep us stupefied from knowing our true past
dudewherescar1 1 month ago
@dudewherescar1 dito, thanks! "Darwin said that he received inspiration from Thomas Malthus, and funny enough Francis Galton who invented eugenics was Darwin's cousin. Not to mention the possible accusations that the Darwin-Hedgewood family was inbred and had a history of mental illness. But because of SaxeCoburgGotha royal support, Galton and Darwin's theories rose on up. I've even heard that Darwinism was invented to keep us stupefied from knowing our true past"
MrDaveArt 1 month ago
@dudewherescar1 I heard the same thing about religion...
happycamperable 4 weeks ago
@dudewherescar1
LMAO!
bluemoonrising26 3 weeks ago
@dudewherescar1 None of that matters, what Darwin himself felt about his idea has nothing to do with the verified and proven fact that, all life (yes all) is related and has been fermenting for billions of years, DNA alone proves this as an indisputable, testable fact that sciences from many fields have also confirmed. Darwin didn't even live to see his hypothesis confirmed, in his day it was a new unproven idea.
ReignbowSmite 2 weeks ago
@ciuacoatl You didn't even watch the movie did you? Also I think you mean scientific evidence with religious belief, as theory is just as unproved.
zarrotechgeek 1 month ago
@zarrotechgeek yes I did. And the theory is not unproven. The theory of evolution only covers EVOLUTION. It does not cover the origin of life, the origin of the universe, or the origins of creation. It only covers the evolutionary process. It's the gobbletygook that you people are reading into the theory and promoting to push your own agenda of mixing religion back into the schools. Creationism is NOT SCIENTIFIC. It is religion.
ciuacoatl 1 month ago
excellent interviews:
Darwin was alright, he was able to make a decision "Nothing more worse than not being able to make an decision whether right or wrong decision "Out of mistakes we learn and truly then evolve"; ... But, sorry Darwin `he was wrong` and he even said so himself -- No Problem Darwin, thank you. True Human original presence is due to Creation , that is the correct answer ! Peace & Love `73` (Oderint dum Metuant).
Chaplain1083 1 month ago
Comment removed
finxoner 1 month ago
@finxoner AMEN, the science of Gods and Buddha is truly something to be worshiped.
MrDaveArt 1 month ago
@MrDaveArt Buddhists "believe" in reincarnation. Perhaps nobody mentioned a subject of Microbiology. People often say they were Cleopetra or royalty in prior life. If their claims are true, then purely from the logical reasoning point of view Cleopetra must have lived the same life million lives conservatively speaking. Then the earth must be at least 50 years (life expectancy of Cleopetra) X million lives = 50 millions years old. At least. Right? Conservatively speaking of course.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@GrimPurpleFilth : I doubt anyone who believes in God is annoyed at Professor Dawkins. Most Christians simply pity his outlook, and yes, strangely enough, a supreme Creator WOULD take authority over so called "facts". Which are disproved by far more reliable data from other parts of the scientific world - try physics for example.
MsEternallyBlessed 1 month ago
@MsEternallyBlessed You don't have to believe in God or Gold to be annoyed by Dick. His reasoning is shallow and artificial. Suggesting that extraterrestrial planted life on earth could be an indication of what he thinks of American public. Do you know why Richard will never debate a Muslim cleric? Muslims will give him a new meaning to "Expelled."
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@StairC. Yes. Rermarkably accurate for a peoples who had NO way of scientfically devining for example that the planet they lived on was spherical in shape! Or that it was suspended in space.... The rest of the points in your post are conjecture, the Biblical account of the flood has not been disproved by modern science for example.
MsEternallyBlessed 1 month ago
I would say the best part of the video is the comment Richard Dawkins makes towards the end. Dick says life could have deposited by an extraterrestrial. If I were Ben, I would have asked, "What created extraterrestrial? Dick might have said, "another extraordinary terrestrial??" Then I would have said, "Go on.." Dick would continue with, "superextraordinary terrestrial??" "Go on.." "superduperextraordinary terrestrial??" "Go on.." "grandsuperdupurextraordinary terrestrial??" "Go on.." "hugegran
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn Okay, for starters, Professor Dawkins does not go by the name Dick. At least show some respect and call him by his full name, or just Dawkins. It's not like we go around calling Moses "Mo," or Jesus "J-Man." Second, are you daft? All you have done is try to use extremely shallow scare tactics through scientific terms and rhetorical fallacies. We get it, your annoyed, that does not mean suddenly what you believe takes authority over actual facts.
GrimPurpleFilth 1 month ago
@GrimPurpleFilth Anyone who gives any inkling of creditability to extraterrestrial causing life on earth does not deserve any respect. No offense to UFO enthusiasts. His foundation is a joke. I will share Richard's comments to high school kids. Let's see what they think. Perhaps he lied on his resume at the Oxford, just like the FEMA director. I am appalled by Dick's thought process. How scientific is his UFO theory??
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn Oh yes, clearly you're right. Someone humoring the hypothetical concept of extraterrestrial life is clearly mad. Esspecially compared to people who believe in a talking snake, burning bush, man who lived in a giant fish and man who managed to get a pair of every living animal on the earth and pack them into ONE BOAT. But clearly Dawkin's thought process is the crazy one. Right.
GrimPurpleFilth 1 month ago
@GrimPurpleFilth Did you know that Darwin is a believer in Intelligent Design when he wrote Origin of Species?
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn That's funny, I don't remember ever mentioning Darwin in any of my arguments. But nice attempt at changing the topic.
GrimPurpleFilth 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn What Richard said and meant was - that if life on earth was spawned by planting seed from some advanced extraterrestrial civilization - then that implies that that extraterrestrial civilization must have been created in a similar fashion - and so on going back to the time the universe was created. The first one must have been therefore random - bacteria and evolve etc. You cannot say stars or planets have intelligent designer.
Spandex08 1 month ago
@Spandex08 I think you misunderstood my posts. I stand in awe of logic and this logic presents very convincing argument that faith in God defines you. Without faith, a person cannot do his/her routine in daily life. For example, when a person takes a sip of water from any container, that person is taking a leap of faith that the water does not contain poison or any materials that could harm his body. Unless you have a water test kit testing every drop you will not be able to drink.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn I only replied to only 1of your comments - and now you are saying something different. Faith ? "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" - really ? faith ? - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ? - why would you believe in god ? - no reason at all?
Spandex08 1 month ago
@Spandex08 People often use words without thinking it through. For example, when a person says I believe or do not believe in something, what they are actually saying is I absolutely and wholeheartedly without any possibility of being wrong even if it was in the past, present or the future about of what believe or not believe. There is no difference between a person saying I love this vs. I love this like a fanatic of all time. This is why a 3-second debate lasts for years.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@automatewithkorn "Without faith, a person cannot do his/her routine in daily life. For example, when a person takes a sip of water from any container, that person is taking a leap of faith that the water does not contain poison or any materials that could harm his body. Unless you have a water test kit testing every drop you will not be able to drink."
Life is to short to re-validate everything every time. We make uniformity assumptions that isn't faith as it can be tested.
jomen112 1 day ago
Fantastic documentary. I really hope this opens peoples minds about the ID movement, and also brings to light the misconceptions of ID.
enuff761 1 month ago
@enuff761 I agree because I grew up in Jewish neighborhood where high schools in my district and others near celebrate Jewish holidays and USA holidays. But I have not seen any Jew take pro-creation position in any ID debate. Ben Stein is a only on Jewish person who does. I have had many Jewish friends growing up and they told me they are instructed by their families to steer clear away from ID discussion because nothing can be gained from it. This is why Jews are God's chosen people.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
Scientists should NEVER use or utter a "believe" in any part of their statement!!!
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
I got soul, but im not a soulja!
metathias 1 month ago
People lose their job for just mentioning intelligent design. Atheism is a dogma.
truth2350 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am sick of people saying hitler was a "darwinest"the only time he ever talked about darwin was to discredit him as hitler was the start of ID mein kampf shows hitler said diversity had limits in kind the emergence of new species is impossible ,ID use that today they may even have got it from hitler.volume one chapter 11 mein kampf read it for yourself.
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
at 52 he said court cases don't decide anything WTF law means nothing to him but made up nonscience does
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
@GrimPurpleFilth No person told me to believe in God. My faith is based on my experiences and my knowledge of the Bible and God's character, similar to many other people that I know. I don't need to "preach" to you to affirm either of these facts. Just as well, since such efforts would be misplaced. Howeverany parts of the Bible are being proved remarkably scientifically accurate for a book originally written by people with no scientific knowledge - so faith can include knowledge!
MsEternallyBlessed 1 month ago
Atheism is utter foolishness. it is time for them to trade darwin for Romans 1 KJV.......
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 Funny, and here I thought believing in things that don't have evidence was foolishness. Well, learn something new every day. ;)
Stairc 1 month ago
Comment removed
tgillspy2 1 month ago
Comment removed
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@Stairc Psalm 51 KJV
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 I've read it. Nice stuff. Now what evidence is there to believe it's true and all the other religions aren't?
Stairc 1 month ago
@Stairc The book of Genesis explains that the flood happened which is a actual recorded event in ancient history.there is evidence of the flood- 1 ) Fossils on mountain tops...
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 So, you think that because a religion mentions a flood - and that there were indeed floods in the past (though nowhere near what the bible describes) that this is evidence of the bible's perfection, infallibility and inspired divinity?
Shall I quote other myths from other religions that also mention floods?
Stairc 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 Fossils on mountaintops can be explained by plate tectonic theory, Darwin himself pointed this out
QuantumChance 1 month ago
@QuantumChance Sorry dude the flood explains exactly what happened.It is indisputable......
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 Indisputable? What exactly happened that the flood explains exactly?
Trolololol much?
QuantumChance 1 month ago
@QuantumChance Read the biblical account of it........
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 you don't expect me to believe that fable book do you?
Why don't you read the scientific account of it. . .
QuantumChance 1 month ago
@QuantumChance Jeremiah chapter 31 KJV.Read it.....
tgillspy2 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 i did and it did nothing for me. I guess its not as 'indisputable' as you thought, lol
So explain how a book with no author is evidence for a world-wide flood that supposedly occurred several thousands of years ago, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence? All the evidence points to plate tectonics and millions of years
QuantumChance 1 month ago
@QuantumChance No evidence? Hmm, what was that about fossils on mountain tops? And you expect me to believe that "fable" book 'On the Origin of Species'? And there are authors of the Bible. Many authors. All these transcripts were found. It wasn't just some drugged up psycho who thought this up. There are several amounts of proof that your carbon dating was proved from the time. Look at a picture of the cell structure. Atom? Tell me that was random. I havn't had a good laugh like that yet today.
Youngwiseman1 1 month ago
@QuantumChance Science gets better over time. For example, the knowledge of a single cell organism at Darwin's time was considered today as barbarous. Perhaps in about 100 years, what we "believe" as theory will be nonsense. But any Law of something is exempt. Science is good at one thing: placing limits on deniability.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn Without a divine order, science is dead. Theories are dead. Laws are dead. When you go with randomness, science has no base, and thus it topples. When you have intelligence in it, it has a basis, and can thus thrive. Why does science and theology have to be separate. Im going to college to study both theology AND science. Uh-oh.
Youngwiseman1 1 month ago
@Youngwiseman1 That makes sense. Pursuing both fields seems logical. Please consider this question. Where did Cain's wife come from?
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@QuantumChance Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift in 1915, evolution nutcases explained away how earth started with one land mass because they had to fabricate starting point for anything. By the QuantumChance, Charles Darwin died April 19, 1882. How did dead Darwin point this out???????? Are you from a Pink Floyd The Wall generation: "We don't need no education..." Ask yourself this: Who made first electric guitar?" Perhaps Pink Floyd was making metaphorically stating ....
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@tgillspy2 Fossils on mountain tops...? how does that prove a flood? do you know where the mountains were millions of years ago?... under the ocean or on flat land, then earthquakes jutted land up... this is basic geology dude... instead of saying the floods are indisputable because they are in a book, why don't you try reading one basic geology book. fossils on mountain tops... my -nonexistent- god... epic fail dude. I love how you stopped after numbering your only argument "1)"
the88mph 1 month ago
@the88mph Logically thinking the fossil issue, if creation is an accident, then paleontologists should be able to provide fossil record of any animal with billions if not trillions of distinctive permutation of any skeleton connected any part of their bodies. However, paleontologists already know this reasoning and to this day they have not discovered a single fossil that supports accidental creation. Logically thinking!!
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@the88mph Please brush up on science class. Plate Tectonics is only a theory, not a law. Have you heard of Law of Entropy. Please read a book on it and humor me on how 1 over 10 to the ~40,000th power can happen in nature??
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn lol, brush up on the meanig of "theory" and "law" in science....
alexanderkundrat 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn also, it's not the "Law of Entropy", it's called 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... just to ask, what are the other 3?
alexanderkundrat 1 month ago
@alexanderkundrat Look yourself in the mirror and what do you C? Randomness? Hoyle's statement
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving were about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn I would like to add to Hoyle's Fallacy. For the moment let's put aside evolution/creation debate and let's try to answer these questions?
What is unintelligent design? What is semi-intelligent design? What is stupid design? What is anti-stupid design? What is fully automated stupid design? What is anti-design? What is fully automated anti-design? What is not a design? What is a accidental design? What is coincidental design? What is "We don't need no education.." design?
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn What is unintelligent design? By entering "define unintelligent" in Google search, you get "un·in·tel·li·gent/ˌəninˈteləjənt/ Adjective: Having or showing a low level of intelligence: "a good-natured but unintelligent boy"
Thus, unintelligent design can be defined as design having or showing a low level of intelligence. But this not infer stupidity. According to Wiki on I.Q., low number is below 100. How much is hard to guess, but unintelligent design could be an oxymoron.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn What is semi-intelligent design? I am willing to accept (SID) = 0.5 * (ID) or ID = 2*SID. Let ID = 120 (IQ), then SID = 120 / 2 = 60. But this does not necessarily mean SID > UID (UnIntelligent Design) because UID can be different scalar value for different people with different bias with different personal backgrounds with different academic studies. In short, (cdr(cdr(cdr(car ID) Sigma bias) Sigma personal background) academic discipline). One thing is clear: UID >< SID.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn What is StuPid Design? Let's start with definition. What is stupid? Adjective: Lacking intelligence or common sense. SPD worse than ND (No Design). Think of this as a surgical tool with stupid design. When used in OR (Operating Room), using this tool would place patient at serious jeopardy. The surgeon may lose his license as a result. Is StuPid Design possible? Yes, nature has randomness and accidental possibilities. Then is Nature stupid? No, I don't think so.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn What is Anti-StuPid Design? Anti is a Greek root that means not. ASPD = SPD *-1 = -SPD. But ASPD is not smart design. It is same as ND or No Design.
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@automatewithkorn by saying a scientific theory is only a "theory" clearly hasn't brushed up on science themselves in a while. i love you idiots think the word theory is somehow in favor of it not being true... is it that you think theoretical and hypothetical are the same word or something? scientific theories are repeatedly tested, solidly founded, and they yield repeatable results no matter who does the test.
the88mph 1 month ago
@the88mph What was your major in post-graduate study??
automatewithkorn 1 month ago
@MsEternallyBlessed Nonetheless, the reason you believe in God is because of the culture that surrounds you. The Bible is the holy book closest to you, so it is the one that you relate to. If you were raised somewhere the Bible was absent from, you would never even think to believe in it, but you clearly cannot fathom that concept. And by the way, there is no science in scripture. Even the Priest of the Vatican observatory will tell you that.
GrimPurpleFilth 1 month ago
@MsEternallyBlessed Remarkably scientifically accurate? You mean like the flood, the genesis account, its projected age of the earth, methods for how to breed animals for traits... With so many mistakes that huge, why should we take anything it says seriously?
Stairc 1 month ago
Good Job Ben Stein! Unfortunately, there are many people afraid of God, and what God means to them, or the threat of His existence! They will go to extreme lengths to try to disprove Him. Their pride and ego will not let them submit their "Will" to anyone..which is ironic considering Darwinism's overall premise...
klaanderson3 1 month ago
@klaanderson3 How can you be afraid of something you don't think exists? Are you afraid of evil robot unicorns?
We aren't afraid of god. We just think that things require evidence before they can be taught in a science class, and that things in a science class should be able to stand the scrutiny of the Scientific Method.
Let's make a deal. We'll teach creationism in science classes when you start teaching evolution at your church, unbiased and by expert scientists. ;)
Stairc 1 month ago
Comment removed
KeiserSoze16 1 month ago
Nazi Germany is not the example to use for Darwinian influence. The best example is the Soviet Union. Furthermore, regardless of what Bill Maher and many others believe, it is the absence of God that led to the most murderous regimes in all recorded history. Marxist communist ideology, which practically worships Darwinian Theory, has sprouted the greatest mass murderers of all time. No religion even comes close to the bloody fetes of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.
shortist2003 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shortist2003
Please visit expelled exposed (type it into google)
maybe it will open your eyes....
zawada13131313 2 months ago
@shortist2003 I would love for you to give any proof at all of atheism directly leading to the actions of a murderous dictator; then attempt to reconcile that proof with the fact that there is no logical line to be drawn from a neutral stance of non-belief to murder.
I won't actually expect a response though. Anyone foolish enough to directly ascribe the actions of dictators to Darwin, or toss around terms like 'Darwinian Theory', isn't exactly a person to expect legitimate evidence from.
KOICrowz 2 months ago
@shortist2003
Atheist aren't in favor of embracing any form of totalitarianism on dogmatic grounds but rather for a society which includes objective critical thinking. Whether they be religious or not all skeptics are mostly against irrational forms of Dogma which all those clearly demonstrated. And I'm sorry but many genocides, wars, and discrimination have also been done in the name of religion especially Christianity so I fail to see how you rationalize those opinions.
thejack1212 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
i don't get why it is so hard for you to understand that just because humans exist and cell phones exist, it doesn't put a shred of evidence in favor of god, it just doesn't. complex things do not always need a creator, the sun is doing pretty fine as an elemental forgery all by itself without a god or anything interfering.
the88mph 2 months ago
@the88mph Forge**
the88mph 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@the88mph I am not claiming that design proves the existence of God.I personally believe that Existence of God can only be inffered from the bible.You are right, complex things don't always need a creator(e.g snowflakes).But here I am referring to a functional complexity.Unlike snowflakes, living cells are working molecular machines.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@GrimPurpleFilth @the88mph It would not make sense to say that modern technology was designed, and then to say that humans who have created it came into existence purely by chance.However, you sad that that evolution is not spontaneous, then it it directed, by what or should I say who?
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 As I stated before, just because you do not have an answer to something, it does not mean you should make up stories to fill that gap. The Bible does no count as fact, not a single one of the people who "wrote" the Bible ever even saw Jesus, and that is assuming Jesus even existed. Your preaching to us really is not to argue our beliefs, but to try and solidify doubts you have in your own.
GrimPurpleFilth 2 months ago
@GrimPurpleFilth For the existence of jesus, you can find two videos that deal with that topic on my channel.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 Sorry, I'd love to continue this, but quite frankly our debate is not worth giving Ben Steins propaganda video more and more hits each time I visit. Now, all your beliefs aside, if you seriously agree with this video, I'm sorry.
GrimPurpleFilth 1 month ago
@GrimPurpleFilth ...I sense the fear in you, that quite possibly, people might watch this video and come to the conclusion that there just might be a Creator, God, Intelligent Being that Designed everything! The human body is evidence enough of intelligent design...It takes more faith to believe in Darwinism than God!
klaanderson3 1 month ago
@klaanderson3 It takes much less faith to not believe in God. What it does take, is more effort. My mind does not accept the concept of God, or any other supernatural being, but I'm damn proud of it. You only believe what you do because someone told you to. If you were raised in the ancient Greece you would believe in Zeus, in the Middle East, Mohammed. Knowledge takes more effort than belief, but knowledge is true and rationalized. You only preach to me in hopes of affirming your own beliefs.
GrimPurpleFilth 1 month ago
@MrPsychedelia101 As well, your argument for ID will always rely on the Bible, a story book that has been written, changed, edited, and rearranged by men, and men alone. In no way can that stand up against facts, pure facts that are tried, tested and true. Oh, and for someone who wants to appear so skilled in rhetoric, you sure make many fallacy's of your own. Nice try with the Richard Dawkin's bit though.
GrimPurpleFilth 2 months ago
@GrimPurpleFilth You sad it yourself, rhetoric's are one thing and logical arguments are another.I am not a skilled debater, otherwise I would have refuted your arguments from the start.
Also, every possible objection against credibility of the bible that skeptics could have muster, Christian apologists have already answered.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 No, they have rationalized them, I believe it still says in the bible that a bunch of kids making fun of a bald kid were then mauled by a bear to death, I don't think I have seen one apologist try to touch that one with a 10 foot pole. What? does god not want us making fun of bald people?... no matter what an apologist says, they are always just reinterpreting gods word anyway, which I think the old testament god would be pretty angry about anyway. if he existed that is.
the88mph 2 months ago
@the88mph Actually they have and you would have see that, if you have taken time to visit christian apologetic websites.
After all, the hallmark of good research and scholarship is willingnes to consider other peoples opinion and fairly examine all sides of debate.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 agreed, you are boring and predicable, later dude.
the88mph 1 month ago
@MrPsychedelia101 Evolution is directed by natural selection... dude stop trying its getting sad... it really is.
the88mph 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@the88mph "Natural selection" is just another term for coincidence.It is either designed or it came in to existence accidentally.There is no false dilemma here.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 Okay so you DO have NO idea what natural selection entails. so here are the requirements for natural selection to take place:
1. Reproduction- Entities must reproduce to form a new generation
2. Heredity- The offspring must tend to resemble their parents roughly
3.Variation in characteristics of said population
4.Variation in the fitness of organisms associated with these characteristics
ALL PRESENT IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM! nothing to do with "Coincidence"...
the88mph 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
Ben Stein sounds exactly like John Goodman.
hypernation2007 2 months ago
I didn't say that evolution is a religion in a classic sense, e.g miracles and praying, this is a straw man fallacy.Evolution is belief system and has a philosophical components of religion such as meaning and and origin of life.Word "religion" comes from the word "league", which is a group of people with common interests.Scientific community is a group of people with common interests, their theories are belief systems and "worship" would constitute deep respect for leading figures in science.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 No Evolution does not have a model for how life started, it merely explains the mechanisms involved in eventual speciation. to go back to the original base of the word religion doesn't help your argument either, because now by your criteria make the NHL into a religion with several factions. your premises are fallacious. thus your conclusion is not sound.
and evolution is not a belief system, its a statement of a hypothesis backed by literal mountains of evidence.
the88mph 2 months ago
@the88mph and stop trying to use logic illogically, its driving a logic and philosophy student crazy!!!!! You wanna try logic, How about your last comment, Weak argument from analogy, it is a fallacy.
the88mph 2 months ago
@the88mph Scientific theories, being evidence-based are belief systems because after all, you do believe in them.But evolution is not scientific theory because spontaneous emergence of life has never been observed in laboratory experiments.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 Evolution is legitimate scientific theory! Spontaneous emergence of life is not observed because evolution is not spontaneous! But we have observed evolution for what it is, a process that takes millions of years and guess what? It is true! There is evidence for it, go to any good museum and you can see it, it's incredible! You can use all the fancy jargon you want, it does not mean you have a rational or legitimate argument.
GrimPurpleFilth 2 months ago
@GrimPurpleFilth @the88mph Richard Dawkings described evolutionary processes as a Blind Watchmaker.But, seriously...can a blind watchmaker, engineer, or architect make anything?Random processes therefore cannot account for meaningful complexity and functional organization of living organisms, just like they cannot account for complexity and functional organization of cars, cellphones, computers, and so on.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 I have already told you that Evolution does not account for the beginning of life, then you go on and continue to mow over the valid point i made. you know a bunch of big words... but do you know what the theory of evolution by natural selection even entails?.... it sounds like you have a tenuous grasp at best as to what it even is...
the88mph 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 you are foolish to compare science and religion. evolution has evidence, religion relies solely on faith. intelligent design is merely a mask for creationism, there are no facts to back it up.
Vroom246 2 months ago
@Vroom246 There is plenty of evidence for Bible and ID, one just have to look.You can go to official website of Discovery Institute and download peer-reviewed publications that support Intelligent design in PDF format.Also, blind faith is by no means a Biblical definition of faith.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 the Discovery Institute? that isn't a credible source. they are heavily Christianity-biased. and how can faith not be blind? faith by it's definition relies on believing without any evidence. there is no credible evidence for design. evolution by natural selection explains it so beautifully, we may not know how we all got here yet, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a great sky daddy, and even if there is some sort of being, it wouldn't be the Christian God.
Vroom246 2 months ago
@Vroom246 Yeah he tried sending me that discovery institute shit too in a PM, the discovery institute is a horrible rotten cancer on this world and is in now way a "credible source"
the88mph 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@the88mph
Please visit expelled exposed (type it into google)
zawada13131313 2 months ago
Evolution is not a legitimate, scientifically proven theory, because abiogenesis has never been observed in laboratory.Your argument that bible is a fiction because it is written by ancient's, and that it is based on their primitive attempt to explain the world, commits ad hominem and genetic fallacy.As for evidence for bible, I suggest you visit christian apologetic websites.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago