Expelled is an atrocious movie that ignores mountains of scientific evidence but PZ Meyers is still a stupid twat who thinks stealing a communion wafer is the bee's knees.
I stand behind you in the sense of what you guys are for lack of a better word "preaching". But please use less profanities, it doesn't really help the case to call them shitheads as an example. You'll just push the median of the hard core theist and anti-theist on to the theist side. I remember when I myself was in the process of losing my theist beliefs i watched Religulous by Bill Maher and it set me a few steps back.
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
@5tonyvvvv: Homochirality is not a problem for Evolution you twit. Hey Tony, it's me. Yeah I still got all of your "oh so christian" emails. If anything Chirality would be an issue for Abiogenesis. Yeah, I know, many Cretinists can't tell the difference between the two disciplines but they are not the same. The problem is that in space, where we find amino acids in abundance polarizing radiation, of which solar radiation is about 1/6, destroys on of the handed acids. I forget if it is the, cont
@5tonyvvvv: Part 2 - left or the right ones but one is selected. As they comets formed and froze long before the Earth was done accreting, those "dirty snowballs" not only gave Earth a great deal of water but seeded the specific handed amino acids that we are. Heck, even on the Earth, without an Ozone layer (it came much, much later) Polarizing Radiation would have had an effect on the handedness of the amino acids.
With so much of one kind of handed amino acids raining down, the other, cont.
@5tonyvvvv: Part 3 - of handed amino acid didn't have a chance. The simple self-replacting molecules that was a precursor of life would remove available "food" as the amino acids with the handedness we see today would have won out.
OBTW, another hint: get you head out and learn. There's nothing in you buy-bull about science.
Anyone who asks, on a YouTube comment board, for an explanation of Evolution DOESN'T GET IT. It's not a sound bite, unfortunately, it's not as simple as "God did it!" It's a scientific construct, the evidence for which can't be explained in a sentence. You can get a graduate degree in the subject - that should tell you you may have to read up in order to understand it.
I keep asking where is the "mountains of evidence" for evolution, and keep being told "read up on it".
We teach it to our kids a a "fact", yet you have to hunt to find the evidence. I have hunted and finally found the National Academy of sciences Evidence for evolution. My conclusion is that the EVIDENCE IS VERY WEAK INDEED.
To call it a fact is BAD SCIENCE.
Macro evolution is religion disguised as science - its accepted on faith.
Also "Have we observed non living thing matter becoming living" Not only are evolution and abiogenesis two different theories. But guess what? YES IT HAS! Like I wrote before.
A test in a lab was done and it proved without a shadow of a doubt that life from non life is possible. You can point out that the test also produced lethal gas, but that's irrelevant because the test proves for a fact that life can come from non life, and the head master of this test was a fundie. Your ignorance!!!!!
I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo so so so so very fucking SICK to death of ignorant, and will fully taking pride in your own ignorance fundies. You strawman what evolution actually is, you can't even get BASIC 3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade science correct, or basic fucking science vocabulary, yet I am the one who is "wrong, and misguided." and so forth. You have made NOTHING but logical fallacies. You act as though logical fallacies are fucking oxygen so you have to suck more and more.
A movie won't make money unless people want to pay to see it. It is blatently obvious this movie was just made to feed into millions of peoples ignorance and make money from them. No single person can be that stupid to make claims that darwin had anything to say on gravity, thermodynamics, origin of life or any other subject Stein comes up with. He take the piss out of society and he makes mockery of even religious peoples intellect. He makes himself look like a fool in the process.
Yes, darwinian evolution is certainly one of the ideas that the nazis perverted and used to justify their atrocities, along with Catholicism and the philosophies of Nietzche.
Using that connection to say that there's something inherently evil about evolutionary theory is no more valid than saying that men with moustaches are automatically evil, as proven by Hitler's choice in facial hair.
I can't wait to see this movie!! I missed it in theaters... but hey thank GOD it's on DVD now! We are going to show it in groups! Oh and I would love to see the debate mentioned as well. How about Dawkins and Myers vs Geisler and Turek! AWESOME!
I'd like to see those two against the idiot Kent Hovind... Damn he's so full of him self I wonder if someone is able to convince him... I dislike his saying: "Well I think I've won the discusion, and I've won it cause I'm right"... LOL
And you know why science can't explain the super natural?
The core of Science is that there are no super natural things, only things that follow the laws. Asking them to explain super natural things is.. well... very very stupid, and it shows that you have no idea what science is about.
When [simple minded] humans don't understand things, they simply say it must be some supernatural force. For example, people used to think that sickness was caused from demon possession. Of course now we know its bacteria and viruses that cause sickness. All through history people have ignorantly explained things as supernatural and then are later proven to be wrong with objective observation.
Science is the result of drawing conclusions from observational facts, not the presumption of a god.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no proof that there is no God, and in fact, the historical record shows that men have SEEN God, face to face. Science is great at explaining the natural events - but has zero ability to explain the supernatural.
You can ignore the evidence if you like. You can't refute it.
Visit a mental hospital and you can meet people who "see" and talk to all sorts of imaginary figures. Just because someone is delusional doesn't mean whatever they conjure up in their head is real. All your "evidence" can and has been refuted. On the contrary, you guys who spit at science cant bring anything to the table except a big black book and some god-driven ignorance.
A story from somebody that claims to have seen god, even if they believe it themselves, is not actually evidence in any convincing sense of the word.
I can understand that you believe such stories, but you should also admit that you could be wrong. And also that there is really no good reason other than how you feel.
I admit that as an atheist I admit that I could be wrong, but it does not seem likely.
A trivia show called win Ben Stein's money. You had to beat Ben in a question shootout. Not many won. The only science is what we observe, and what we observe is bringing forth after it's kind. Until we observe other wise, that is the reality of it. You don't need a degree to figure it out, you just have to unwash your brain long enough to see what evolutionists have been doing. Putting fourth assumtions as fact and ignoring observation. To mock Ben for knowing this is wrong. Noone knowsthetruth
Hmm, seems to me some very intelligent people had trouble winning Ben's money. Maybe you should not be so sure of yourself, as to make comments not consistant with the facts.
Look, no one is saying Stein is an idiot...well, ok...I'm guessing a lot of people are, but I'm certainly not. Ben Stein is a very smart guy...unfortunately he's also delusional when it comes to religion. And, because of his strong religious view, he feels justified in spreading falsehoods. I'm not saying the Ben is stupid, I'm saying he's a liar. He's too intelligent to play the ignorance card the way he has been...he has no excuse for not knowing how evolution by natural selection works.
No, I don't believe he is delusional about science, that's letting him off easy. I'm firmly of the opinion that he is deliberately falsifying things in order to undermine science. I'm relatively certain he understands the science, he's just misrepresenting it. I can forgive a person their mental disorders and their stupidity...but a person who spreads blatant lies about such important things deserves no plea of insanity to mitigate. He is a liar, and should be treated as such.
« I'm relatively certain he understands the science, he's just misrepresenting it. »
I understand why you're saying this: it would be difficult to imagine someone actually being *that* ignorant.
I'd like to counter with the following: it would be even harder to imagine somebody so stupid as to think a performance like that would actually fool anybody. Therefore I claim he really is that ignorant.
Oh, no...I'm well aware that there are people that ignorant. I just don't think Stein is one of them. And I agree that anyone who knows anything about science should be able to see his performance for what it is, but this movie wasn't made for the critical viewer (obviously), it was made to preach to the choir. Seriously, look at the media outlets he went on to promote this, this movie was tailored to sound like science and firm the support of the religion by making it sound legitimate.
Which would lead to the conclusion that Stein and the makers of this movie must believe "the choir" to be a bunch of incridibly dimwitted and ignorant dumb fucks.
Then why is it that there are people praising this nonsense, rather than sueing Stein and his bunch for deadly insult?
The choir who believe this shit actually are incredibly ignorant. I wouldn't say that all of them are -dumb-, but they're sure as hell listening to shitty information that panders to their shitty ideas.
An economist making this film to begin with is ridiculous. so I think as a response Dawkins or Hitchens should do a documentary on "How to fix the American economy"
If I were Ben Stein I would have done the 10 minutes of research on fucking google to find out that Hitler was a Catholic, and was motivated by Religion. Before I made a film declaring he was an Atheist, and did it for Darwinian reasons.
Did you know that Einstein made serious, even profound mistakes? Forget religion, Einstein made glaring scientific mistakes. He's not a prophet. Even if he did believe in god (which clearly wasn't the case) it doesn't make god real.
Gotta love that. Evolution leads to atheism, which leads to nazis and holocausts, yet you see Ben Stein spraypainting over a nazi symbol, which reads "god with us" (in case you could not figure: Gott is the german word for god). Indeed, all intelligence expelled here...
That's photoshopped lol. It's a joke because the main contributor to the Holocaust was the rooted anti-semitism in Germany from Christianity not "Darwinism."
Thanks for sharing this. I hope we do not have to suffer creationists/ID in the UK. From what I have heard from people in the US, the stupid film is limping along after shooting itself in the foot.
Tell me about it. Anytime I let my guard down and begin to believe that I've seen the greatest levels of stupidity mankind has to offer, someone new comes along to break the record. To quote Einstein (paraphrased), "Two things are infinite: The universe and the human capacity for stupidity... although I'm not completely certain about the universe". Pretty much sums it up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ahhhh...so insecure.
They said it themselves: they tried to fill the screenings with atheists so that people with open minds (I forget exactly how they phrased it, but that's the general idea) couldn't go see the film and be receptive.
"Completely conciliatory crowd" I think is what they called it. :P
Insecure? Are you thick? I think the insecure ones are the Message Board Nazis and the Flagging Campaigners hailing from the Creationist side of teh border.
my response to theot58. Stop straw-manning and maybe I would answer. So...stop with strawman arguments and I will reply. Because I have ZERO respect for dishonesty and a committed act of 16/9 commandment; hypocrite.
@jay666KJ Now for some fun. Design. kanine feces, with a imprint. A complex imprint can be seen with in the feces. Now does a imprint in feces prove design? According to...logic, that is not circular, no. According to circular design means designer. Yes....sorry, but its circular, if you applied it to anything else it would sound retarded to you.
I laugh at the complex design argument. Its destroyed to death by multiple people. It was even refuted in a court of law. Also, evolution is a religion? Fuck Darwin, Fuck Dawkins, Fuck every atheist on youtube, fuck harris, fuck hitchens, fuck Ken Miller, fuck every biologist on the planet. Okay....now please, say fuck yahweh/god/Yeshua/jesus/Johova??? What a religious person cant say fuck you to their messiah/deity/hero???
and I will say it twice. FUCK DARWIN! FUCK DAWKINS! FUCK SCIENCE! FUCK EVOLUTION!
I demand you a religious person to say fuck the bible, fuck jesus, fuck the trinity, fuck the 10 commandments, fuck moses, fuck mary, etc. The fact is evolution is not a religion, but you are that is why you cant say fuck jesus, fuck Yahweh, and we can say fuck darwin, fuck dawkins, etc.
"please explain how non living things "evolved" into living things with the ability to reproduce etc." Perfect example of a strawman. All I said was we proved life from non life is possible. Also "how non living things "evolved" into living things " No, life from non life occurred. Totally different then non life evolved into life. Total strawman. I will not debate or talk to anyone who distorts my arguments.
Plus I dont want to debate you, specially since someone else [birdie] ripped you apart and you never responded. Plus you project your dogma and fake science onto REAL science, and scientist who arent dogmatic, and you dont care what so ever if genetics disagrees with you, and was used in a court of law, and is peer reviewed and the test was completely objective, and not based on ANY BIAS and was a test to see if its true or not, and if it passes its true. You dont care, so i dont care about you
Your bullying response is typical of that I have been receiving from Evolutionists.
It reaffirms my view that Evolution is low in scientific substance so it needs to compensate by bullying tactics to intimidate the honest seeker.
Silly arguments that "all scientists" believe it and referring to court cases etc. does nothing to substantiate the weak scientific foundations of macro evolution.
Jesus loves you inspite of your sin. Please consider
@theot58 Please consider? You are the last person to EVER convince me of your view. I will NEVER EVER, and I repeat NEVER EVER will deny yes DENY evidence. Never EVER so you keep straw-manning and projecting. As I said, a commenter responded to you, refuted you, and you come after me instead. I will ignore you now. You dishonest little hypocrite..
I think any intelligent viewer of this comment section will agree you are dishonest, and will not respond when your refuted.
Creationism is undoudedly religious and cannot be proven.
Macro evolution is also religious since it has not been observed. We simply observe micro evolution (adaptation) and extrapolate it out billions of units to arrive at Macro evolution. This is a belief, it is NOT OBSERVABLE SCIENCE
I would expect much greater variations in the living world than we currently see. Humans in all parts of the world are basically the same. If Macro evolution was true I would expect to see some with 3 eyes, some with 4 legs, some with feathers, some with scales.
I would also expect to see countless transitional fossils.
I would also expect to see information spontenously self generating.
I DO NOT SEE ANY OF THESE.
It takes less faith to believe God than macro evolution.
@theot58 - Things such as 3 eyes or any odd number of anything isn't very likely within evolution, simply put symmetry works better. Wanting people with feathers or scales to prove evolution is idiotic. If, say, everyone in India had feathers they wouldn't be humans (humans are mammals so must have hair).
On your second point, how many would you define as "countless"? We have THOUSANDS of fossils and, by definition, EVERY ONE of them is a transitional fossil.
Dear Jdragon213. Your response to the lack of significant variations in humans is not convincing to me. It is an absurd suggestion to conclude that all the different races have evolved simultaneously. If macro evolution is true I would expect much greater variation.
Your second assertion about transitional forms is even more absurd as the fossil record strongly contracts the macro evolution theory.
Evolutionists have been very "creative" in interpreting the fossil record. .
actually there is a variation within the human genus that is quite widespread, but not of the type you expect - by the way, your expectations are fetched from sci-fi movies and fairytales, try reading anatomy instead to get some real expectations.
See bloodtypes, see skincolour, see metabolism, see hair color, eye color, take a biology class if you want to know about the variations in the human genus... and try not to bring X-men styled expectations if you want to engage in science ;)
what kind of observation? Do you even understand what macro evolution is? If a micro evolution is true, which it is, then so is macro evolution, its about time scale.
Did you know that a wolf and a weiner dog have the exact same genetic code. Quite different in appearence, but the same species. The actual information doesnt change. If you look into it more, you will see that when there is a change in genetic info, its the loss of info which causes changes.
Your question here is the problem. I would not expect to make any kind of observation if macro evolution were true, because it's not. I would not expect random mutation to cause more and more complex life systems with more and more highly organized, genetic information. Write a 10 page paper on anything, then begin to substitute letters and words in the body of your paper with random letters and words. Will the quality of your paper improve. Answer: no. You know it. I know it.
"I would not expect to make any kind of observation if macro evolution were true, because it's not."
Oh, Okay, that explains quite a bit. It's not true. I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken.
"Write a 10 page paper on anything..."
False analogy. Papers are not organisms which are subject to genetic variation and natural selection. What you've set up here has no semblance to evolution whatsoever.
On your first point, thats right I could not explain what I would observe IF macro evo were true because, the whole idea is ridiculous. On your second point, no its not a false analogy. Genetic code, at its heart, is information. Blue prints if you will. Replacing random words simulates genetic variation and mutation. If you want to mimic natural selection, then if a random replacement of letters makes the paper different, it doesnt even have to be better, keep it. It still wont work.
Uh...jailer....evolution is not "random". This is an arrgument I've seen again and again. I'm not sure if you are getting this fed to you or are just making it up as you go along but environment DRIVES evolution so it is not random.
Uh Capt. . . . when a mutation occurs, it is random. What you are proposing is that after that random mutation occurs, it is some how advantageous and therefore, is prospers. However, like I said, the initial mutation is random. The environment can't DRIVE an organism to have an advantageous mutation. Mutations are random.
You're playing semantics. The point is that your "replace a letter" analogy is so incredibly wrong it's pathetc. A 10 page paper is a lifeless, inanimate object with no more ability to randomly mutate than a rock. I'm still trying to figure out how you can consider evolution, macro, micro or otherwise "ridiculous" when it has been proven time and again.
I disagree, but I do find it amusing that you suggest the lifeless, inanimate nature of a 10 page paper makes it impossible to mutate when the whole principle of evolution is that life sprang from lifeless, inanimate matter. On your last comment, microevolution occurs when already present genetic information is lost or suppressed. This is wholly different than new information arising from random mutations of the genetic code.
Abiogenesis the the hypothesis that life arose from inanimate matter whereas evolution is the slow change of a population over successive generations.
So you are either creating a straw man or are utterly ignorant. The 10 page paper cannot mutate because, as was said previously, it is inanimate. That is the point I was making and the one you clearly did not comprehend.
Ohhh I got it now. So, lifeless, inanimate matter goes poof and becomes a living thing and Then evolution occurs. I got it now. Dude, you should be carefull calling others ignorant while spouting this garbage.
Just to summarize, you are saying that nothing inanimate can mutate but it can go from inanimate to living by itself. Sounds like some solid groung you are standing on. Fact of the matter is the genetic code is very similiar to a book or 10 page paper. It is literally language
Nothing goes "poof" except for your IQ when you are tasked with something as simple as tying shoelaces.
See, you're assuming we went from inanimate matter right to humans. You utterly and intentionally ignore the millineia needed.
Now, yes, the Miller/Urey experiements were flawed but I'm pretty sure that if we could replicate the exact same conditions present eons ago we could get some amino acids to spring forth and once you've got amino acids baby you've got life.
Okay, first off dude, if we are going to debate this, then you need to stop name calling. Just relax. If I'me wrong, then your right. If I'me right, there's a God who loves you. Its a win win for you.
Here's the deal. Whenever offspring are produced roughly half the genetic code is passed on to the offspring from each parent. This would be similiar to copying half of a book. Due to entropy, mutations or mistakes will occur in the code. Lets say 10 mutations occur.
@jailer345 no retard, even if you prove evolution wrong, you will still not have proved that a god exists, even if you prove a god exists, you still need to prove that its loving, you have plenty of work ahead of you.
The problem is no one has ever found a beneficial mutation, but for the sake of argument lets say 1 of the 10 is beneficial. Well then the offspring would inherit one "good" mutation or mistake and 9 bad mutations or mistakes. Do you see how the code will continue to disintegrate in time. Its like a copy of a copy of a copy. Organisms arent getting better but worse.
No one has ever found a beneficial mutation? So the mutation of collecting all light sensitive cells in a single place which eventually grew into eye stalks which eventually grew into eyeballs capable of detecting movement and color differentiation is not beneficial?
Man, you really are as stupid as a fucking brick.
Asshat, you do realize that "bad" mutations do not spread because they are not reproduced. That's a little think we like to call "natural selection."
The more you speak, the more you exhibit your lack of understanding. You describing the theoretic steps in which vision supposedly came to be does not demonstrate a beneficial mutation. A beneficial mutation which adds info has never been demonstated. On your 2nd point, when your mommy has MS and then you have a higher chance of getting it, its because you might inherit the mutation. Thats a little wink called hereditary disease. Your last point really suprised me. It really was foolish.
I love it when morons like you claim I have no understanding. you've created this fictional position that mutations ADD info but that simply is not true. There are no new genes, only new combinations.
As for your incredibly fucking stupid MS example, people with MS would not have survived in the "natural" world because they would not be able to evade predators hence they would be removed from the gene pool (something I wish you would do to yourself right now).
@patrickledford420 No. It. Is. Not. No mutation, in all of recorded history, has added or created new genetic material. Why is this so freaking hard to comprehend? A new format of the genome code sequence is not new material. All MS or any other random mutation does is distribute the current material in a new sequence. This does not constitute new material. There is no "add in". Stop saying that. You are wrong. The vales are not new material, just a new redistribution of existing genetic code.
@captwasabi i understand that it does not truly add "information" but it causes the organism to have something that was not there before, so it is an add in "information" in the way that creationist say never happens, for ex: everyone has brown hair and then someone is born with the mutation that causes blonde hair, it is an add in "information". the problem is that DNA is not a language as creationists claim it is
@patrickledford420 You admit that a mutation does not add any new information and then you go right ahead and try to weasel in that it "sort of does but not really". Can't have it both ways. Either hop in bed with the creationists or speak the truth. Choice is yours.
@captwasabi i am speaking the truth. i mean that it adds more traits so it is technically new information but it is not information such as the words im typing, im saying that its not between two intelligent organisms (in this case, you and me) but its simply a chemical process that causes new traits
@patrickledford420 You're playing semantics. It's like trying to claim that Einstein's Theory of Relativity added new numbers when all it did was provide us a new way in which to interpret the physical world in which we live.
@captwasabi i know its semantics and i am not trying to play with words on purpose but its hard to explain what i mean in words. yes, it is just a different arrangment of the DNA but blonde hair is a new trait so it is a new possible trait. i agree with you but i can't explain it that well
@patrickledford420 A new trait is the perfect way to explain it as a trait is not information but a skill or other structure built upon existing materials. Think of it as a stack of bricks and some mortar. With those materials you could build a house, fire pit or a bench. The new creations all have specific traits and functions however none of them add any new use to the bricks themselves.
@jailer345 NO, it is not literally language, geez i thought you tard would stop using that worn out argument, pathetic. look up abiogenesis, it is not "inanimate matter goes poof and becomes a living thing ", it is a step by step process that is not complete but is a good hypothesis. evolution happens AFTER, yes AFTER not before but AFTER life gets here, evolution is a fact, the theory is the MASSIVE body of knowlege that we have describing evolution in detail.
this is pretty funny, ID has taken on the wrong science first. Evolution is not to meant to explain the origin of life, only the change of life over time. The study about the origins of life falls under the science of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is a recent invention to avoid a thorny evolutionary issue. The text books have taught that from out of a mixture of basic chemical lightning triggered the creation of a living cell.
Evolution does not explain how information/design comes without a designer, that is its core problem. How can complexity and order from simplicity and disorder?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Interesting how evolutionists (or specifically, anti-creationists) have to use so many four-letter words to describe their "logical, reasonable, and non-emotional facts" for how evolution is far superior. You really won me over!
"Interesting how evolutionists (or specifically, anti-creationists) have to use so many four-letter words to describe their "logical, reasonable, and non-emotional facts""
You're the ones who invented "hell" and "damn." ;)
I think Einsteinism is the most dangerous ideology the world has ever known. The Soviets hated Darwinian evolution (look up Lysenkoism) but Nazis, communists and miscellaneous evil ideologies require a fundamental understanding of the physics of gravity. So Einsteinism leads to people dropping bombs. How fucking stupid is that?
do some research before comment? Einsteinism is not and idelology. your comment is so absurd.. Evolusionism: people who accept the scientific THEORY of biological evolution by natural selection or genetic drift.. BUT, the Theory itself is referred to as "evolutionism" by CREATIONISTS. This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is similar to other "isms", rather than a scientific theory. If you don't like phisics never fly on an airplane etc, and please, never learn anything...
I didn't understand a word of that. My comment on "Einsteinism" was meant to be a, somewhat facetious, attack on the meaningless term "evolutionism".
I was mocking all idiots who blame the holocaust on the discovery of evolution. That is just as absurd as saying that understanding gravity leads to people dropping bombs.
No worries. It's hard to distinguish between facetious and sarcastic attacks on caustic nonsense like Expelled and the idiotic comments made by supporters of the meaningless hate propoganda.
Just another note.. Richard Dawkins in Expelled admitted that no one knows how evolution started.. He said one theory is aliens, which is obviously ID. And then we have to figure out how the aliens came to be, and its just one giant cycle. We can't figure out how the aliens 'evolution' started, so something had to create them.. and so on and so forth.
EvoBiologist: Although I do believe that ID can be quantified, and in fact that the evidence better supports ID then 'evolution', that is not the point being discussed. The question is: Is the fact that many in the scientific community don't believe in evolution reason enough to ban it from being discussed and taught as a theory?
Its obvious that scientists don't have all the answers to explain how evolution started, so why can't there be debate about that?
"Its obvious that scientists don't have all the answers to explain how evolution started"
Well, to know that we have to know how it all started. And we don't. Just because we don't, doesn't mean the only explenation is God. And to your "It's a fact that many in the scientific community doesnt' believe in Evoliton." That's false. 99.98% Believe in evolution, and 70% believe in God.
Isn't it facinating how a scientist is so willing to tell us what faith is, but is put off if someone who has faith dares to talk about how it might apply to science.
Hypocricy...
Remember it's ok to exlude people of faith from events, publications, even jobs.
And don't forget, profanity is a great way to win an intellectual argument.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Scientific dorks who just like to cuss, and be gay. You dumb people consider your thing as fact when it is just a theory. WATCH EXPELLED, ITS BETTER THAN THESE SHITHEADS SAY!
The "idiocy" I saw in the film was the last interview, when the darwin guy was saying that "life could not have been created by "god"...infatically stated "COULD NOT HAVE BEEN STARTED BY ANY GOD". But then went on to say that it could have been started by some beings from outer space....
Science... WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE!!!! You're all to busy trying to distort the evidence to backup your thery that your not following the evidence to the real answer.
so... the brain as well as prety much everything a cell for instance is much more complicated that Darwin ever dreamed. darwin was very smart yes. But he did not know as much as we do today. He would not have come to the same conclusion now as he did back then if he had the knowlege we now have. And he even began to question his own thery after a while.
100 years ago, your argument would be "look at the human brain! We humans can master mathematics, and no machine can calculate faster than us. Look at the calculating-Table, look at the abacus! We are far more complex". Today you can't say that. Computers pwn us on math.
Sooner or later, computers will do much more that a sleeping human brain. then you'll have to come up with another argument. that's why I say: So?
its 10% on rotten tomatoes! an achievement in and of itself! :D
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Now that is odd... it was 9% a few months ago. Interesting...
micometer 1 week ago
Apparently, nobody expects the british exquisition!
weberbeat 5 months ago 2
And that, my friends, is christian hypocrisy at its finest.
mikefromwa 5 months ago 3
Expelled is an atrocious movie that ignores mountains of scientific evidence but PZ Meyers is still a stupid twat who thinks stealing a communion wafer is the bee's knees.
Mesarphelous 10 months ago
I stand behind you in the sense of what you guys are for lack of a better word "preaching". But please use less profanities, it doesn't really help the case to call them shitheads as an example. You'll just push the median of the hard core theist and anti-theist on to the theist side. I remember when I myself was in the process of losing my theist beliefs i watched Religulous by Bill Maher and it set me a few steps back.
T3lli 11 months ago
Is that Matt Dillahunty I am hearing?
KaroKoenich 1 year ago
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv: Homochirality is not a problem for Evolution you twit. Hey Tony, it's me. Yeah I still got all of your "oh so christian" emails. If anything Chirality would be an issue for Abiogenesis. Yeah, I know, many Cretinists can't tell the difference between the two disciplines but they are not the same. The problem is that in space, where we find amino acids in abundance polarizing radiation, of which solar radiation is about 1/6, destroys on of the handed acids. I forget if it is the, cont
sol3a1 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv: Part 2 - left or the right ones but one is selected. As they comets formed and froze long before the Earth was done accreting, those "dirty snowballs" not only gave Earth a great deal of water but seeded the specific handed amino acids that we are. Heck, even on the Earth, without an Ozone layer (it came much, much later) Polarizing Radiation would have had an effect on the handedness of the amino acids.
With so much of one kind of handed amino acids raining down, the other, cont.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv: Part 3 - of handed amino acid didn't have a chance. The simple self-replacting molecules that was a precursor of life would remove available "food" as the amino acids with the handedness we see today would have won out.
OBTW, another hint: get you head out and learn. There's nothing in you buy-bull about science.
You're welcome.
sol3a1 1 year ago
Be honest and use the actual title of Darwin's book.
edidpro 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Anyone who asks, on a YouTube comment board, for an explanation of Evolution DOESN'T GET IT. It's not a sound bite, unfortunately, it's not as simple as "God did it!" It's a scientific construct, the evidence for which can't be explained in a sentence. You can get a graduate degree in the subject - that should tell you you may have to read up in order to understand it.
pinkcrickets11 2 years ago 15
This is sound like bull to me.
I keep asking where is the "mountains of evidence" for evolution, and keep being told "read up on it".
We teach it to our kids a a "fact", yet you have to hunt to find the evidence. I have hunted and finally found the National Academy of sciences Evidence for evolution. My conclusion is that the EVIDENCE IS VERY WEAK INDEED.
To call it a fact is BAD SCIENCE.
Macro evolution is religion disguised as science - its accepted on faith.
theot58 2 years ago
@pinkcrickets11
1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
Ex: “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
I am continuously amazed at the tactics Christians use to silence critics of their faith.
Dusty341 2 years ago 18
creationist asshats, that made me laugh xD
ahh brilliant
X360Bob 2 years ago 2
lol countinuosly, was I drunk?
Dusty341 2 years ago
@Dusty341 I'm even more amazed that they still continue to believe after obviously seeing plenty of big holes in it.
Nick7690 1 year ago
Also "Have we observed non living thing matter becoming living" Not only are evolution and abiogenesis two different theories. But guess what? YES IT HAS! Like I wrote before.
A test in a lab was done and it proved without a shadow of a doubt that life from non life is possible. You can point out that the test also produced lethal gas, but that's irrelevant because the test proves for a fact that life can come from non life, and the head master of this test was a fundie. Your ignorance!!!!!
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo so so so so very fucking SICK to death of ignorant, and will fully taking pride in your own ignorance fundies. You strawman what evolution actually is, you can't even get BASIC 3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade science correct, or basic fucking science vocabulary, yet I am the one who is "wrong, and misguided." and so forth. You have made NOTHING but logical fallacies. You act as though logical fallacies are fucking oxygen so you have to suck more and more.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I used to like Stein, until this movie came out- Now he's just another creationist fanatic.
leppy111 2 years ago
I get the feeling that Expelled is a 21`st Century version of Reefer Madness.
AlanCFA 2 years ago
A movie won't make money unless people want to pay to see it. It is blatently obvious this movie was just made to feed into millions of peoples ignorance and make money from them. No single person can be that stupid to make claims that darwin had anything to say on gravity, thermodynamics, origin of life or any other subject Stein comes up with. He take the piss out of society and he makes mockery of even religious peoples intellect. He makes himself look like a fool in the process.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
I used to respect Ben Stein. Now I don't That's about it for this dumbass movie.
zippydebrain 2 years ago 2
i got to see this movie :)
FusionNinjin 3 years ago 2
when ever i have 2 hours to waste, i'll download it.
lianghaochen 3 years ago
Brace yourself. I was reviewing the movie, and rage forced me to walk out when we got to the evolution=nazism bullshit.
StridentLobster 3 years ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwinian evolution was definitely a supporting philosophy to Nazism. They wanted to weed out the weak and useless creatures.
I don't understand your problem
theot58 2 years ago
Yes, darwinian evolution is certainly one of the ideas that the nazis perverted and used to justify their atrocities, along with Catholicism and the philosophies of Nietzche.
Using that connection to say that there's something inherently evil about evolutionary theory is no more valid than saying that men with moustaches are automatically evil, as proven by Hitler's choice in facial hair.
StridentLobster 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
garhitiet 2 years ago
Comment removed
garhitiet 2 years ago
I can't wait to see this movie!! I missed it in theaters... but hey thank GOD it's on DVD now! We are going to show it in groups! Oh and I would love to see the debate mentioned as well. How about Dawkins and Myers vs Geisler and Turek! AWESOME!
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
You know what I want to see:
Dawkins & Myers vs. Stein & someone else
In a debate. I think it would be beyond interesting
Roaddogg666 3 years ago
I'd like to see those two against the idiot Kent Hovind... Damn he's so full of him self I wonder if someone is able to convince him... I dislike his saying: "Well I think I've won the discusion, and I've won it cause I'm right"... LOL
nomineZERO 3 years ago
I've seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster, face to meatball.
That MUST mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.
See what I did there? There is no proof that there is a god.
Ever heard of the burden of proof alittlechild?
Looking at your comment you probably don't.
Go google it.
WoodoMagic 3 years ago 7
And you know why science can't explain the super natural?
The core of Science is that there are no super natural things, only things that follow the laws. Asking them to explain super natural things is.. well... very very stupid, and it shows that you have no idea what science is about.
Please come with REAL arguments. Thanks. :)
WoodoMagic 3 years ago
When [simple minded] humans don't understand things, they simply say it must be some supernatural force. For example, people used to think that sickness was caused from demon possession. Of course now we know its bacteria and viruses that cause sickness. All through history people have ignorantly explained things as supernatural and then are later proven to be wrong with objective observation.
Science is the result of drawing conclusions from observational facts, not the presumption of a god.
scottklarr 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok science does not exist no evidence for it try that you atheist fruit.
happygamer007 3 years ago
LOL! thats the first time ive been called an "Atheist fruit"
Thanks for at least bringing some originality haha
scottklarr 3 years ago 4
I am sorry the truth bothers you but deal with it..
btiggy420 3 years ago
there is no god, so no debate needed..how silly.
btiggy420 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no proof that there is no God, and in fact, the historical record shows that men have SEEN God, face to face. Science is great at explaining the natural events - but has zero ability to explain the supernatural.
You can ignore the evidence if you like. You can't refute it.
alittlechild 3 years ago
There is no proof that there is no proof that there is no proof of god!
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago 3
there is no proof that there are no such things as Ewoks.
Oh hey, Darth Vader is my personal hair comber... disprove that!
Oh, you can't, right... so if you can't, it must be true, right?
I've also come face to face with a two headed Toby Macquire... so that means, that Toby macquire either has two heads, or a two headed twin.
It must be true, since I said I've seen it!
RIGHT?!
Gibsonites 3 years ago 4
Visit a mental hospital and you can meet people who "see" and talk to all sorts of imaginary figures. Just because someone is delusional doesn't mean whatever they conjure up in their head is real. All your "evidence" can and has been refuted. On the contrary, you guys who spit at science cant bring anything to the table except a big black book and some god-driven ignorance.
scottklarr 3 years ago 7
Evidence is empirical.
That means that anybody can test it themselves.
A story from somebody that claims to have seen god, even if they believe it themselves, is not actually evidence in any convincing sense of the word.
I can understand that you believe such stories, but you should also admit that you could be wrong. And also that there is really no good reason other than how you feel.
I admit that as an atheist I admit that I could be wrong, but it does not seem likely.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago 3
Eeeh what evidence?
Please show me this evidence!!
Orin00r 3 years ago
A trivia show called win Ben Stein's money. You had to beat Ben in a question shootout. Not many won. The only science is what we observe, and what we observe is bringing forth after it's kind. Until we observe other wise, that is the reality of it. You don't need a degree to figure it out, you just have to unwash your brain long enough to see what evolutionists have been doing. Putting fourth assumtions as fact and ignoring observation. To mock Ben for knowing this is wrong. Noone knowsthetruth
mwwolf62 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you call these people in the video intelligent? Gees, keep smoking it fellas.
mwwolf62 3 years ago
Pretty much anyone compared to Ben Stein is a genious.
sumfamousperson17 3 years ago
Hmm, seems to me some very intelligent people had trouble winning Ben's money. Maybe you should not be so sure of yourself, as to make comments not consistant with the facts.
mwwolf62 3 years ago
Winning Ben's money?
sumfamousperson17 3 years ago
Look, no one is saying Stein is an idiot...well, ok...I'm guessing a lot of people are, but I'm certainly not. Ben Stein is a very smart guy...unfortunately he's also delusional when it comes to religion. And, because of his strong religious view, he feels justified in spreading falsehoods. I'm not saying the Ben is stupid, I'm saying he's a liar. He's too intelligent to play the ignorance card the way he has been...he has no excuse for not knowing how evolution by natural selection works.
HentaiGuy42 3 years ago 4
« unfortunately he's also delusional when it comes to religion »
Or science.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago 2
No, I don't believe he is delusional about science, that's letting him off easy. I'm firmly of the opinion that he is deliberately falsifying things in order to undermine science. I'm relatively certain he understands the science, he's just misrepresenting it. I can forgive a person their mental disorders and their stupidity...but a person who spreads blatant lies about such important things deserves no plea of insanity to mitigate. He is a liar, and should be treated as such.
HentaiGuy42 3 years ago 6
« I'm relatively certain he understands the science, he's just misrepresenting it. »
I understand why you're saying this: it would be difficult to imagine someone actually being *that* ignorant.
I'd like to counter with the following: it would be even harder to imagine somebody so stupid as to think a performance like that would actually fool anybody. Therefore I claim he really is that ignorant.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago 2
Oh, no...I'm well aware that there are people that ignorant. I just don't think Stein is one of them. And I agree that anyone who knows anything about science should be able to see his performance for what it is, but this movie wasn't made for the critical viewer (obviously), it was made to preach to the choir. Seriously, look at the media outlets he went on to promote this, this movie was tailored to sound like science and firm the support of the religion by making it sound legitimate.
HentaiGuy42 3 years ago
« it was made to preach to the choir »
Which would lead to the conclusion that Stein and the makers of this movie must believe "the choir" to be a bunch of incridibly dimwitted and ignorant dumb fucks.
Then why is it that there are people praising this nonsense, rather than sueing Stein and his bunch for deadly insult?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
The choir who believe this shit actually are incredibly ignorant. I wouldn't say that all of them are -dumb-, but they're sure as hell listening to shitty information that panders to their shitty ideas.
StridentLobster 2 years ago 2
He's smart, but not when it concerns science. Of that, he's extremely willfully ignorant.
Shadyhunter04 3 years ago 3
He's not that great with economics, either.
StridentLobster 2 years ago
tell us about your contributions to peer reviewed scholarship.
jerk.
McMonster65 3 years ago
1:20
Body building and rock climbing are sorta incompatible.
devourerofbabies 3 years ago
An economist making this film to begin with is ridiculous. so I think as a response Dawkins or Hitchens should do a documentary on "How to fix the American economy"
If I were Ben Stein I would have done the 10 minutes of research on fucking google to find out that Hitler was a Catholic, and was motivated by Religion. Before I made a film declaring he was an Atheist, and did it for Darwinian reasons.
snugsaltynutz 3 years ago
A 15 minute research on google can disproove the entire movie,which is pathetic.
morais691alexandre 3 years ago 24
Can't see expelled here in New Zealand. Which is a bummer coz I could do with a laugh. Wondering when they are going to release it. Any ideas?
Miserenz 3 years ago
It should be out on DVD in october.
comradepinko 3 years ago
to someone downthere... einstein also said before he died, "the world is far too complex to have not been created."
morgasm4000 3 years ago
and what makes you think that he means a giant skydaddy is what made it
TheChristianAtheist 3 years ago
i dont remember saying i think a um, "giant skydaddy" made it,im guessing you made that up?
morgasm4000 3 years ago
well giant skydaddy is the usual suspect when it comes to what they actually mean by intelligent design. giant sky daddy did it
TheChristianAtheist 3 years ago
Quote miner!
MutantBamHammer 3 years ago
Did you know that Einstein made serious, even profound mistakes? Forget religion, Einstein made glaring scientific mistakes. He's not a prophet. Even if he did believe in god (which clearly wasn't the case) it doesn't make god real.
bishop8000 3 years ago
Gotta love that. Evolution leads to atheism, which leads to nazis and holocausts, yet you see Ben Stein spraypainting over a nazi symbol, which reads "god with us" (in case you could not figure: Gott is the german word for god). Indeed, all intelligence expelled here...
onyxbits 3 years ago
That's photoshopped lol. It's a joke because the main contributor to the Holocaust was the rooted anti-semitism in Germany from Christianity not "Darwinism."
Drekoguk 3 years ago
Thanks for sharing this. I hope we do not have to suffer creationists/ID in the UK. From what I have heard from people in the US, the stupid film is limping along after shooting itself in the foot.
Aydosh1991 3 years ago
Great stuff. Thanks for posting.
maxxewell 3 years ago 2
It suprises me sometimes how stupid people can be...
FaithsFreedom 3 years ago 2
Tell me about it. Anytime I let my guard down and begin to believe that I've seen the greatest levels of stupidity mankind has to offer, someone new comes along to break the record. To quote Einstein (paraphrased), "Two things are infinite: The universe and the human capacity for stupidity... although I'm not completely certain about the universe". Pretty much sums it up.
tuotierugif 3 years ago 2
ya rly
wurstl2 3 years ago
Why would atheist want to see this movie? We should be encouraging education exposure. Expelled is a attack on education in general, and not science.
The logic used for Intelligent Design is absolutely subjective and not objective. This is the reason that it is not science.
All of the arguments used by Intelligent Design proponents are misrepresentation of facts in biology, geology, mathematics, and other disciplines.
Anyways, thank for the discussion.
omiteru 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ahhhh...so insecure.
They said it themselves: they tried to fill the screenings with atheists so that people with open minds (I forget exactly how they phrased it, but that's the general idea) couldn't go see the film and be receptive.
"Completely conciliatory crowd" I think is what they called it. :P
KarpentersKidsBAND 3 years ago
Insecure? Are you thick? I think the insecure ones are the Message Board Nazis and the Flagging Campaigners hailing from the Creationist side of teh border.
JohannGasmask 3 years ago 7
Science for dummies:
Can be tested = science
can't be tested = not science
Can Creationism/ID be tested? Nooooooooo
Easy like this!
shelelda 3 years ago 6
Can Evolution be tested - NO
Have we observed non living thing matter becoming living - NO
Have we observed one species changing to another -- NO
Evolution is not science - it is a philosophy or religion.
Calling Evolution "fact" is poor science
theot58 2 years ago
"Can Evolution be tested "
YES! How many ways do you want me to point out? DNA, in fact DNA proves the link between us and apes.
"Have we observed non living thing matter becoming living " Abiogensis, subtraction isnt division.
"Have we observed one species changing to another" Correct, we see a species slowly change, develop, adapt and breed. Stop straw manning evolution.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Can you please explain to me how DNA proves that man "evolved" from the apes?
Can you also please explain how non living things "evolved" into living things with the ability to reproduce etc.
Can you please explain how we arrive at complex design without a designer.
Please give real answers and not a jumble of unintelligible scientific sounding words.
Thanks
theot58 2 years ago
@theot58
my response to theot58. Stop straw-manning and maybe I would answer. So...stop with strawman arguments and I will reply. Because I have ZERO respect for dishonesty and a committed act of 16/9 commandment; hypocrite.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
@jay666KJ Now for some fun. Design. kanine feces, with a imprint. A complex imprint can be seen with in the feces. Now does a imprint in feces prove design? According to...logic, that is not circular, no. According to circular design means designer. Yes....sorry, but its circular, if you applied it to anything else it would sound retarded to you.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I laugh at the complex design argument. Its destroyed to death by multiple people. It was even refuted in a court of law. Also, evolution is a religion? Fuck Darwin, Fuck Dawkins, Fuck every atheist on youtube, fuck harris, fuck hitchens, fuck Ken Miller, fuck every biologist on the planet. Okay....now please, say fuck yahweh/god/Yeshua/jesus/Johova??? What a religious person cant say fuck you to their messiah/deity/hero???
jay666KJ 2 years ago
and I will say it twice. FUCK DARWIN! FUCK DAWKINS! FUCK SCIENCE! FUCK EVOLUTION!
I demand you a religious person to say fuck the bible, fuck jesus, fuck the trinity, fuck the 10 commandments, fuck moses, fuck mary, etc. The fact is evolution is not a religion, but you are that is why you cant say fuck jesus, fuck Yahweh, and we can say fuck darwin, fuck dawkins, etc.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
What is your major malfunction.?
What are you getting upset about?
Are you asserting that they are not valid questions? Please explain
theot58 2 years ago
@theot58 I aint upset.
Will you say fuck you to your deity now? Please?
After all since evolution is a religion, and i said fuck Darwin, fuck Dawkins, etc. You as a religious person should be perfectly fine with
sayin fuck jesus, fuck the bible.
"Are you asserting that they are not valid questions?" Your perfect at using words to your advantage, I am stating, not asserting.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
"please explain how non living things "evolved" into living things with the ability to reproduce etc." Perfect example of a strawman. All I said was we proved life from non life is possible. Also "how non living things "evolved" into living things " No, life from non life occurred. Totally different then non life evolved into life. Total strawman. I will not debate or talk to anyone who distorts my arguments.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Plus I dont want to debate you, specially since someone else [birdie] ripped you apart and you never responded. Plus you project your dogma and fake science onto REAL science, and scientist who arent dogmatic, and you dont care what so ever if genetics disagrees with you, and was used in a court of law, and is peer reviewed and the test was completely objective, and not based on ANY BIAS and was a test to see if its true or not, and if it passes its true. You dont care, so i dont care about you
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Dear jay666KJ
Your bullying response is typical of that I have been receiving from Evolutionists.
It reaffirms my view that Evolution is low in scientific substance so it needs to compensate by bullying tactics to intimidate the honest seeker.
Silly arguments that "all scientists" believe it and referring to court cases etc. does nothing to substantiate the weak scientific foundations of macro evolution.
Jesus loves you inspite of your sin. Please consider
theot58 2 years ago
@theot58 Please consider? You are the last person to EVER convince me of your view. I will NEVER EVER, and I repeat NEVER EVER will deny yes DENY evidence. Never EVER so you keep straw-manning and projecting. As I said, a commenter responded to you, refuted you, and you come after me instead. I will ignore you now. You dishonest little hypocrite..
I think any intelligent viewer of this comment section will agree you are dishonest, and will not respond when your refuted.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Can macro evolution be tested? NO
Creationism is undoudedly religious and cannot be proven.
Macro evolution is also religious since it has not been observed. We simply observe micro evolution (adaptation) and extrapolate it out billions of units to arrive at Macro evolution. This is a belief, it is NOT OBSERVABLE SCIENCE
theot58 2 years ago
There are more ways to learn about something than controlled experiment.
You find a dead person. Was it an accident or was it murder? How do you test it?
Can Murder be tested? NO.
Then how do you know if it's murder or not? By your argument, Murder is a religious belief.
Establishing a false equivocation does nothing to substantiate you position, and is not a valid substitute for a cogent argument.
Enlighten me; what kind of observation would you expect if "macro evolution" were true?
ReasonDefender 2 years ago
I would expect much greater variations in the living world than we currently see. Humans in all parts of the world are basically the same. If Macro evolution was true I would expect to see some with 3 eyes, some with 4 legs, some with feathers, some with scales.
I would also expect to see countless transitional fossils.
I would also expect to see information spontenously self generating.
I DO NOT SEE ANY OF THESE.
It takes less faith to believe God than macro evolution.
theot58 2 years ago
@theot58 - Things such as 3 eyes or any odd number of anything isn't very likely within evolution, simply put symmetry works better. Wanting people with feathers or scales to prove evolution is idiotic. If, say, everyone in India had feathers they wouldn't be humans (humans are mammals so must have hair).
On your second point, how many would you define as "countless"? We have THOUSANDS of fossils and, by definition, EVERY ONE of them is a transitional fossil.
Jdragon213 2 years ago
Dear Jdragon213. Your response to the lack of significant variations in humans is not convincing to me. It is an absurd suggestion to conclude that all the different races have evolved simultaneously. If macro evolution is true I would expect much greater variation.
Your second assertion about transitional forms is even more absurd as the fossil record strongly contracts the macro evolution theory.
Evolutionists have been very "creative" in interpreting the fossil record. .
theot58 2 years ago
actually there is a variation within the human genus that is quite widespread, but not of the type you expect - by the way, your expectations are fetched from sci-fi movies and fairytales, try reading anatomy instead to get some real expectations.
See bloodtypes, see skincolour, see metabolism, see hair color, eye color, take a biology class if you want to know about the variations in the human genus... and try not to bring X-men styled expectations if you want to engage in science ;)
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
what kind of observation? Do you even understand what macro evolution is? If a micro evolution is true, which it is, then so is macro evolution, its about time scale.
guyfromdubai 2 years ago
@guyfromdubai
Yes, I understand what macro evolution is, and I accept that it occurs.
I was responding to theot58. I was asking him what kind of observations (evidence) would he require in order to accept evolution.
Don't shoot. I'm on your side.
ReasonDefender 2 years ago
Did you know that a wolf and a weiner dog have the exact same genetic code. Quite different in appearence, but the same species. The actual information doesnt change. If you look into it more, you will see that when there is a change in genetic info, its the loss of info which causes changes.
jailer345 1 year ago
Your question here is the problem. I would not expect to make any kind of observation if macro evolution were true, because it's not. I would not expect random mutation to cause more and more complex life systems with more and more highly organized, genetic information. Write a 10 page paper on anything, then begin to substitute letters and words in the body of your paper with random letters and words. Will the quality of your paper improve. Answer: no. You know it. I know it.
jailer345 1 year ago
@jailer345
"I would not expect to make any kind of observation if macro evolution were true, because it's not."
Oh, Okay, that explains quite a bit. It's not true. I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken.
"Write a 10 page paper on anything..."
False analogy. Papers are not organisms which are subject to genetic variation and natural selection. What you've set up here has no semblance to evolution whatsoever.
"You know it. I know it."
You think you know it, I know you don't.
ReasonDefender 1 year ago
On your first point, thats right I could not explain what I would observe IF macro evo were true because, the whole idea is ridiculous. On your second point, no its not a false analogy. Genetic code, at its heart, is information. Blue prints if you will. Replacing random words simulates genetic variation and mutation. If you want to mimic natural selection, then if a random replacement of letters makes the paper different, it doesnt even have to be better, keep it. It still wont work.
jailer345 1 year ago
Uh...jailer....evolution is not "random". This is an arrgument I've seen again and again. I'm not sure if you are getting this fed to you or are just making it up as you go along but environment DRIVES evolution so it is not random.
captwasabi 1 year ago
Uh Capt. . . . when a mutation occurs, it is random. What you are proposing is that after that random mutation occurs, it is some how advantageous and therefore, is prospers. However, like I said, the initial mutation is random. The environment can't DRIVE an organism to have an advantageous mutation. Mutations are random.
jailer345 1 year ago
You're playing semantics. The point is that your "replace a letter" analogy is so incredibly wrong it's pathetc. A 10 page paper is a lifeless, inanimate object with no more ability to randomly mutate than a rock. I'm still trying to figure out how you can consider evolution, macro, micro or otherwise "ridiculous" when it has been proven time and again.
captwasabi 1 year ago
I disagree, but I do find it amusing that you suggest the lifeless, inanimate nature of a 10 page paper makes it impossible to mutate when the whole principle of evolution is that life sprang from lifeless, inanimate matter. On your last comment, microevolution occurs when already present genetic information is lost or suppressed. This is wholly different than new information arising from random mutations of the genetic code.
jailer345 1 year ago
Wow. You are realy ignorant.
Abiogenesis the the hypothesis that life arose from inanimate matter whereas evolution is the slow change of a population over successive generations.
So you are either creating a straw man or are utterly ignorant. The 10 page paper cannot mutate because, as was said previously, it is inanimate. That is the point I was making and the one you clearly did not comprehend.
Nothing inanimate can mutate.
captwasabi 1 year ago
Ohhh I got it now. So, lifeless, inanimate matter goes poof and becomes a living thing and Then evolution occurs. I got it now. Dude, you should be carefull calling others ignorant while spouting this garbage.
Just to summarize, you are saying that nothing inanimate can mutate but it can go from inanimate to living by itself. Sounds like some solid groung you are standing on. Fact of the matter is the genetic code is very similiar to a book or 10 page paper. It is literally language
jailer345 1 year ago
Nothing goes "poof" except for your IQ when you are tasked with something as simple as tying shoelaces.
See, you're assuming we went from inanimate matter right to humans. You utterly and intentionally ignore the millineia needed.
Now, yes, the Miller/Urey experiements were flawed but I'm pretty sure that if we could replicate the exact same conditions present eons ago we could get some amino acids to spring forth and once you've got amino acids baby you've got life.
captwasabi 1 year ago
Lastly, genetic matter is no more similar to a book or anything containing information than you are similar to someone capable of rational thought.
Genetic code is alive. Maybe not "Hey, how you doin'?" alive but it's a live. A book is just that, a fucking book.
A book can't decide to randomly change the location of pages or the letters on those pages.
DNA can, and does, change at random.
You're a fucking moron pretending to be smart. You have no clue what you are talking about.
captwasabi 1 year ago
Okay, first off dude, if we are going to debate this, then you need to stop name calling. Just relax. If I'me wrong, then your right. If I'me right, there's a God who loves you. Its a win win for you.
Here's the deal. Whenever offspring are produced roughly half the genetic code is passed on to the offspring from each parent. This would be similiar to copying half of a book. Due to entropy, mutations or mistakes will occur in the code. Lets say 10 mutations occur.
jailer345 1 year ago
@jailer345 no retard, even if you prove evolution wrong, you will still not have proved that a god exists, even if you prove a god exists, you still need to prove that its loving, you have plenty of work ahead of you.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
The problem is no one has ever found a beneficial mutation, but for the sake of argument lets say 1 of the 10 is beneficial. Well then the offspring would inherit one "good" mutation or mistake and 9 bad mutations or mistakes. Do you see how the code will continue to disintegrate in time. Its like a copy of a copy of a copy. Organisms arent getting better but worse.
jailer345 1 year ago
No one has ever found a beneficial mutation? So the mutation of collecting all light sensitive cells in a single place which eventually grew into eye stalks which eventually grew into eyeballs capable of detecting movement and color differentiation is not beneficial?
Man, you really are as stupid as a fucking brick.
Asshat, you do realize that "bad" mutations do not spread because they are not reproduced. That's a little think we like to call "natural selection."
captwasabi 1 year ago
The more you speak, the more you exhibit your lack of understanding. You describing the theoretic steps in which vision supposedly came to be does not demonstrate a beneficial mutation. A beneficial mutation which adds info has never been demonstated. On your 2nd point, when your mommy has MS and then you have a higher chance of getting it, its because you might inherit the mutation. Thats a little wink called hereditary disease. Your last point really suprised me. It really was foolish.
jailer345 1 year ago
I love it when morons like you claim I have no understanding. you've created this fictional position that mutations ADD info but that simply is not true. There are no new genes, only new combinations.
As for your incredibly fucking stupid MS example, people with MS would not have survived in the "natural" world because they would not be able to evade predators hence they would be removed from the gene pool (something I wish you would do to yourself right now).
captwasabi 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
@captwasabi MS is still an add in info, like the valves in italian wall lizards.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 No. It. Is. Not. No mutation, in all of recorded history, has added or created new genetic material. Why is this so freaking hard to comprehend? A new format of the genome code sequence is not new material. All MS or any other random mutation does is distribute the current material in a new sequence. This does not constitute new material. There is no "add in". Stop saying that. You are wrong. The vales are not new material, just a new redistribution of existing genetic code.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi i understand that it does not truly add "information" but it causes the organism to have something that was not there before, so it is an add in "information" in the way that creationist say never happens, for ex: everyone has brown hair and then someone is born with the mutation that causes blonde hair, it is an add in "information". the problem is that DNA is not a language as creationists claim it is
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 You admit that a mutation does not add any new information and then you go right ahead and try to weasel in that it "sort of does but not really". Can't have it both ways. Either hop in bed with the creationists or speak the truth. Choice is yours.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi i am speaking the truth. i mean that it adds more traits so it is technically new information but it is not information such as the words im typing, im saying that its not between two intelligent organisms (in this case, you and me) but its simply a chemical process that causes new traits
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 You're playing semantics. It's like trying to claim that Einstein's Theory of Relativity added new numbers when all it did was provide us a new way in which to interpret the physical world in which we live.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@captwasabi i know its semantics and i am not trying to play with words on purpose but its hard to explain what i mean in words. yes, it is just a different arrangment of the DNA but blonde hair is a new trait so it is a new possible trait. i agree with you but i can't explain it that well
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 A new trait is the perfect way to explain it as a trait is not information but a skill or other structure built upon existing materials. Think of it as a stack of bricks and some mortar. With those materials you could build a house, fire pit or a bench. The new creations all have specific traits and functions however none of them add any new use to the bricks themselves.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@jailer345 really? new info had never been observed? italian wall lizards, eat it bitch ;p
patrickledford420 1 year ago
By the way, a 2008 review of the Miller-Urey experiment found over 20 organic amino acid compounds.
I would love to hear you explain that away.
captwasabi 1 year ago
@jailer345 NO, it is not literally language, geez i thought you tard would stop using that worn out argument, pathetic. look up abiogenesis, it is not "inanimate matter goes poof and becomes a living thing ", it is a step by step process that is not complete but is a good hypothesis. evolution happens AFTER, yes AFTER not before but AFTER life gets here, evolution is a fact, the theory is the MASSIVE body of knowlege that we have describing evolution in detail.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
this is pretty funny, ID has taken on the wrong science first. Evolution is not to meant to explain the origin of life, only the change of life over time. The study about the origins of life falls under the science of abiogenesis.
halfman33 3 years ago 2
Abiogenesis is a recent invention to avoid a thorny evolutionary issue. The text books have taught that from out of a mixture of basic chemical lightning triggered the creation of a living cell.
Evolution does not explain how information/design comes without a designer, that is its core problem. How can complexity and order from simplicity and disorder?
theot58 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting how evolutionists (or specifically, anti-creationists) have to use so many four-letter words to describe their "logical, reasonable, and non-emotional facts" for how evolution is far superior. You really won me over!
johnoliverclark 3 years ago
Here is a five letter one.
MORON (you!)
Salmo77 3 years ago 4
Thanks for proving my point, you tool.
johnoliverclark 3 years ago
"Interesting how evolutionists (or specifically, anti-creationists) have to use so many four-letter words to describe their "logical, reasonable, and non-emotional facts""
You're the ones who invented "hell" and "damn." ;)
EndCredulity 3 years ago 4
Oh, my Darwin...It's so much better than using an old book as a scientific source.
shelelda 3 years ago
I think Einsteinism is the most dangerous ideology the world has ever known. The Soviets hated Darwinian evolution (look up Lysenkoism) but Nazis, communists and miscellaneous evil ideologies require a fundamental understanding of the physics of gravity. So Einsteinism leads to people dropping bombs. How fucking stupid is that?
BTW what the fuck is "evolutionism"?
thricebannedatheist 3 years ago
Haven't you heard? All those who believe in gravity are Gravitists or Newtonists ;)
Kayin79 3 years ago 4
I think Einsteinism is far more evil than Newtonism.
thricebannedatheist 3 years ago
do some research before comment? Einsteinism is not and idelology. your comment is so absurd.. Evolusionism: people who accept the scientific THEORY of biological evolution by natural selection or genetic drift.. BUT, the Theory itself is referred to as "evolutionism" by CREATIONISTS. This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is similar to other "isms", rather than a scientific theory. If you don't like phisics never fly on an airplane etc, and please, never learn anything...
Athrek 3 years ago 3
I didn't understand a word of that. My comment on "Einsteinism" was meant to be a, somewhat facetious, attack on the meaningless term "evolutionism".
I was mocking all idiots who blame the holocaust on the discovery of evolution. That is just as absurd as saying that understanding gravity leads to people dropping bombs.
thricebannedatheist 3 years ago 4
then I misunderstood it. apologies.
Athrek 3 years ago
No worries. It's hard to distinguish between facetious and sarcastic attacks on caustic nonsense like Expelled and the idiotic comments made by supporters of the meaningless hate propoganda.
thricebannedatheist 3 years ago
:) yep, sometimes, specially if english is not you mother tongue (wich is my case, I try, I give my best shot) ^_^ :))
Athrek 3 years ago
Just another note.. Richard Dawkins in Expelled admitted that no one knows how evolution started.. He said one theory is aliens, which is obviously ID. And then we have to figure out how the aliens came to be, and its just one giant cycle. We can't figure out how the aliens 'evolution' started, so something had to create them.. and so on and so forth.
HackerDragon 3 years ago
"He said one theory is aliens, which is obviously ID."
ID is saying that "Life did not Evolve". So how is dropping single celled organisms on earth ID?
Trastlol 3 years ago
EvoBiologist: Although I do believe that ID can be quantified, and in fact that the evidence better supports ID then 'evolution', that is not the point being discussed. The question is: Is the fact that many in the scientific community don't believe in evolution reason enough to ban it from being discussed and taught as a theory?
Its obvious that scientists don't have all the answers to explain how evolution started, so why can't there be debate about that?
HackerDragon 3 years ago
"Although I do believe that ID can be quantified, and in fact that the evidence better supports ID then 'evolution',"
That only shows your ignorance of Evolution.
Trastlol 3 years ago
"Its obvious that scientists don't have all the answers to explain how evolution started"
Well, to know that we have to know how it all started. And we don't. Just because we don't, doesn't mean the only explenation is God. And to your "It's a fact that many in the scientific community doesnt' believe in Evoliton." That's false. 99.98% Believe in evolution, and 70% believe in God.
Trastlol 3 years ago
Isn't it facinating how a scientist is so willing to tell us what faith is, but is put off if someone who has faith dares to talk about how it might apply to science.
Hypocricy...
Remember it's ok to exlude people of faith from events, publications, even jobs.
And don't forget, profanity is a great way to win an intellectual argument.
GBS990 3 years ago
GBS990 - What is the probability of a designer enacting a particular design?
How can ID accuse evolution of being improbable if it's claim can't even be quantified?
EvoBiologist 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Scientific dorks who just like to cuss, and be gay. You dumb people consider your thing as fact when it is just a theory. WATCH EXPELLED, ITS BETTER THAN THESE SHITHEADS SAY!
ninjagaiden1214 3 years ago
Christians are the army of Satan.
ratdogger 3 years ago
How the HELL could you say that? Christians are the army of GOD! GOD! How can you believe in Satan but not GOD!!!
Petirep 3 years ago
The "idiocy" I saw in the film was the last interview, when the darwin guy was saying that "life could not have been created by "god"...infatically stated "COULD NOT HAVE BEEN STARTED BY ANY GOD". But then went on to say that it could have been started by some beings from outer space....
Some scientist! LOL @ all of you!
HEYBUDD 3 years ago
Yeah, us "Darwin guys" wouldn't expect people like you to understand elementary science anyway.
Ellesime89 3 years ago 3
Science... WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE!!!! You're all to busy trying to distort the evidence to backup your thery that your not following the evidence to the real answer.
"Don't let these liers win 'HEYBUD'!!"
Petirep 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The human brain. Might that have required design? Think about it! All computers put together in the world couldn't do what you do when your sleeping!
bitsandpeace 3 years ago
So?
rockandrorro 3 years ago
so... the brain as well as prety much everything a cell for instance is much more complicated that Darwin ever dreamed. darwin was very smart yes. But he did not know as much as we do today. He would not have come to the same conclusion now as he did back then if he had the knowlege we now have. And he even began to question his own thery after a while.
Petirep 3 years ago
100 years ago, your argument would be "look at the human brain! We humans can master mathematics, and no machine can calculate faster than us. Look at the calculating-Table, look at the abacus! We are far more complex". Today you can't say that. Computers pwn us on math.
Sooner or later, computers will do much more that a sleeping human brain. then you'll have to come up with another argument. that's why I say: So?
rockandrorro 3 years ago
The human brain. Might that have required design? Think about it! All computer put together couldn't do what you do when your sleeping!
bitsandpeace 3 years ago