Darwinism applies to animals, not humanbeings. Scientists do not want to see what lies between man and evoluation of bacterial species & microbs is utterly foolish. Different bacterial species is God's way of helping man clean up the mess of gas pollution, with cynobacteria cleans up oil and gas spills. This treasures of bacteria to clean up behind what scientists fail to beleive in God who keeps this poor planet alive with microbs. Scientists only care about their resumes, not true wisdom.
@TheMessanjah None, because evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Also there aren't any Darwinists, there are those who understand the science and those who don't.
@hellavadeal Of course not. There can be no creation without a God. So? Are there Christians who accept evolution? Yeah a fuck ton! Evolution and atheism aren't the same. Just because you made a fake science that relies on your religion being true, doesn't mean that evolution relies on religion not being true. Things that oppose each other aren't dichotomous mirror images. You Creationists are a pathetic bunch who don't even understand your adversary position. Bunch of dumbasses.
@hellavadeal According to YOUR literal interpretation of the Bible which exists almost exclusively in the US and in Islamic countries. Thank God in Europe we don't have to deal with you reality deniers. By the way if YOUR literal interpretation is at odds with well-established science, it's wrong. Science can't tell you if God exists or not, but you can bet that any claim that contradicts is wrong and not the other way around. Who are you to say how God decides to make life?
@yourtubesteak I think it beautifully sums up people whose stance is at odds with the science which benefits them on a day to day basis. You don't need to understand science to benefit from it and that is tragically exemplified by Creationists. They benefit from nature while denying it's true form. I'd like to see how well they'd fare if the products of all the biological research of the last 150 years was suddenly suspended for them.
@TheMessanjah They can't. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Offspring would have to be born with ADDITIONAL DNA for evolution to happen. This has NEVER been observed. It's no coincidence that there are no so called transition fossils in the fossil record.
@yourtubesteak "Offspring would have to be born with ADDITIONAL DNA for evolution to happen. This has NEVER been observed"
never heard of down syndrome? insertion mutations? polyploidy? trisomy 18, trisomy 13. no, you've not heard much but you just KNOW that it's never been observed.
"no so called transition fossils"- why are you content to sit in a steaming pile of your own dung chanting creationist lies? you have so much to learn,
"random genetic mutation,environmental considerations-lacks any mathematical rigor, what else is there to say?"
I could destroy this point but I doubt you would listen. If you ever debated someone like me before they would have pointed out the problem with this conclusion and the fact that you are still using it means you just didn't listen or care what there answer was.
Look you don't care what is true, not yet anyways. I might debate you but I already know the end game, done it before.
Simple information science tells shows us that evolution is laughably unscientific. The issue is not science vs religion; it's science vs the pseudoscience of evolution. Suck lemons 13rugger2;Fire is not an electric phenomenon, but badly insulated electric cables can easily start a fire,at which point you make the best of the situation and throw as many liberal newspapers with Bill Maher's condom-over-the-head antics,and various DVD's featuring Penn and Teller in with the conflagration.
@fashklash You understand that not one major university on planet earth supports any other theory for the diversity of life then the theory of evolution? You also understand that if we were to debate the subject I will bet you 1000$ You probably don't even know what the theory of evolutions actually is.
You are a moron and that is clear, there any evidence that evolution is pseudoscience. It is as concrete as the theory of gravity.
@thesparitan I understand that highly respected scientists within many universities do question philosophical materialism and that the materialist orthodoxy(which is really an atheist orthodoxy)is too puritanical to question whether everything in our present cosmology came by chance. You're a chump if you've never questioned the orthodoxy yourself.Understand evolution?Natural Selection, random genetic mutation,environmental considerations-lacks any mathematical rigor, what else is there to say?
@fashklash "too puritanical to question whether everything in our present cosmology came by chance."
So typical you know nothing about science, or logic for that matter. Truth be told I actually gave up on debating you people, you are to far gone. You cannot accept even the most basic facts about the universe, why would you listen to me.
Its sad but I am used to it by now so I am not effected by your stupid as I once was because I know there is nothing I can say to enlighten you.
@thesparitan Oh well get on with it then oh super-enlightened one. So we're all dopes because chance is the only orthodoxy allowed and be aren't buying it? And don't hit me with that "Natural selection does not operate by the laws of chance" because it IS largely stochastic, and secondly, there's a lot more to explain than just biological evolution. You people just happily skip a whole bunch of cosmological steps but Science doesn't work like that. Have a nice day :)
@fashklash Orthodoxy, there has never been one study, one peer reviewed paper to show anything structurally wrong with the theory of evolution in history.
Wow are you saying that biological evolution has anything to do with astronomy? LOL sorry moron they are separate ideas. Cosmological steps? What does cosmological anything have to do with the theory of evolution? Please tell
I hope you dont say what I think you are going to say, remember I done this many times.
The answer is quite simple and its a matter of circular reasoning on the part of materialists.If we begin with the premise that reality is atheistic,then in principle,we can only allow unguided materialist explanations to figure in research.Only "chance"is permissible in explaining how the present universe came about.This means that only hypotheses which concur with the idea that everything in our universe came by chance are peer reviewed or politically correct.
@thesparitan Wait man, you can't leave us now? You must grace us with your sagely wisdom if we are to ever evolve into atheistic beings. You see our genes are all deranged and garbled. We need you to help us see through these non-materialist delusions. If we get the wrong genes, if we're born intellectually inferior, is that really our fault?
@fashklash Your to ignorant to debate, and I can't teach you what evolution is and debate you at the same time. Like I said you are just to uninformed to even debate with. Just end the dialog now, I told you I was done.
We are all screwed up with our concept of time. There is no time it's just a human concept ignored by nature. Gravity is real as is light and energy but time?? Not really anything.
@siziam Well actually, it's not exactly nonexistent, as it is connect. Time is the same thing as space in a sense, basically something that allows movement, but a lot more complicated. From a relativistic point of view, Time (and Space) become very real, and very confusing ^^
Social Darwinism, is not a war against "religion" per se,' but a war against moral conscience & accountability. Predicated upon the economic theories of British born Thomas Malthus, Social Darwinism serves as a pretext for war, what is euphemistically portrayed as "positive" eugenics & genocide. Social Darwinism is an elitist political ideology posturing as science. Rather than "evolutionary," Social Darwinism is devolutionary, & a fraud of colassal proportions. See "Henry George" for insight.
We tolerate your bronze age religion fuckhead. That is why there are religious schools all around North America, that is why religious organizations don't pay a single cent of tax. It is you that goes door to door to impose your primitive beliefs onto us, all the while saying scientists are conspiring against religion.
What has science brought us? EVERYTHING, without science, you wouldn't be able to read this passage. What has religion brought us? NOTHING.
Social Darwinism is a State Religion posturing as science. If it hadn't been for the Creationist views of many of our past philosophers & intellectuals we would still be living in the dark ages.
@JayChouFanatic Here is another monkey that writes down what it has in its nut, (some call it brain)... the f word. Sure you primitive monkey, the belief in GOD is from old. Back then humans knew that an explosion creates a mess and not order and beauty as we have on earth! If you would only have the brain to accept that these men have more wisdom and higher IQ, they also have the courage to speak out and willing to pay the price thus showing what primates like you do not have - character!
@flyfastnhigh13 Are you saying that religious people are the ones that are speaking out? Religion has been the dominant belief for pretty much most of the existence of human kind. god was made up to explain, at the time, the unexplainable which we can now explain using science. Take fire for example, when back whenever fire was considered to be magic and that is why your god uses fire in hell to punish sinners and non-believers like myself and other more intelligent primates.
@flyfastnhigh13 We now know that fire is a chemical reaction which must contain an oxidizing gas, a source of fuel, and an energy source to ignite the fuel. eg: when wood is heated to a certain temp the cellulose in the wood begins to break down making gasses which when heated even more forces them to bind with molecules in the wood breaking them free creating smoke, these molecules are then quickly drawn by electromagnetic forces to bind with oxygen, this reaction happens almost instantaneously
@flyfastnhigh13 In this whole process the atoms release excess energy in the form of light which is a result of the atoms returning to their lowest energy state. Fire is an electric phenomenon. Burning is the oxidization of a substance (BTW rust is a very slow burning process) and in order for there to be oxidation there needs to be atoms but when we die and go to "hell" we do not take our atoms with us therefore we will not burn. Guess the bible was wrong as usual.
Yes, all that accumulated evidence is SOOOOOO evil. You know, we should replace it with the good theory of ID, even though we have no actual evidence to support it.
Seriously, Stein, crawl under a rock already. You do realize most moderate theists accept evolution right?
The Problem that is addressed is not creation Vs. Evolution, nor is it who is smarter. It is about the purely targeted blacklisting and expulsion of those who express an Intelligent Design viewpoint. If I.D. is so totally wrong, or inaccurate, why not allow it to make a fool of itself in the laboratory? They wont, and that begs some questions. Those questions are adked in this film.
ID doesn't have any way to make a fool of itself in the laboratory because it's not a testable hypothesis nor does it make any definite predictions.
ID proponents can proclaim their beliefs all they want, but they shouldn't expect to get scientific funding or valuable time in a scientific classroom with their hokum.
I disagree, and so would many of the people who are in the field of science ACTUALLY doing the research. The problem is, the minute they may find information that even vaguely expresses anything except the repetitive dogma of Darwinism, they are immediately shut down. The problem isn't whether ID can be researched due to it's elusive seeming nature, it can be. The Atom was pretty Elusive for a Long long time. But now it's not.
The problem really lies in ID cannot be researched because those who are in power over the laboratories and researching universities will squelch and stomp out any and all attempts at ID research.
Of course they "squelch" and "stomp out" any and all attempts at "research" into a topic that is ultimately untestable, undemonstrable, unobservable, and does not make any valid predictions. Tell me please, what would Intelligent Design actually accomplish for science? Can you give even one example in history where a supernatural explanation was more beneficial than a purely natural one?
Actually, the real problem is that they're doing science wrong. In science, you try to find a conclusion that is supported by the facts. Creationists, on the other hand, are trying to pick and choose the facts to match their preconceived conclusion. They are thus bound to fail, because that's not how science works.
@YanisJanis The opposite of Up is down as much the opposite of Darwin is Religion. So is it to promote "God"? You seem to be correct, but the point I got out of it and I'm now it total agreement with is: If you want to believe in Darwin you will not be chastised or pardon the pun 'crucified'. In all fairness, all views should be treated equal. You don't get fired for believing man was a monkey. Which now that I think about it is not backed by true science so, IT IS A RELIGION!! Go figure.
NO! All claims should be EVALUATED equally and those that are vacuous should be discarded. That is what science does. You clearly don't know much about evolution if you think its a religion and not backed by science. Evolution has ENORMOUS amounts of evidence, ID has NONE. If ID got some evidence it would be taken seriously.
Should astrology be taught in schools along with astronomy? How about the stork theory or reproduction? Flat earth?
Good point! Now can you point me to some NEW un-reputed evidence? Because to my understanding the introduction of DNA poked holes in the monkey/bang theory. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem believing you and other may have come from a monkey. I just chose not to believe that religion. (No insult intended).
To your second part, NO I don't think that any of it should be taught in school, ID or Evolution.
we didn't come from monkeys humans and monkeys both have a common ancestor. And again you clearly don't know much about evolution. DNA evidence alone proves evolutions validity. DNA could easily have disproved it but it only reinforced it enourmously. Retrovirus' are rare events which show up in the DNA and they create a family tree just like fossils and homology and geographical distributions do. Each gene has can be compared between species and the differences also support the same family tree
I agree I don't know as much about evolution, and it's clear you don't know anything about Religion in it's pure form. I guess that it called a myopic view. I Still say it's a religion because You are getting just as heated as people do in a religious debate :-) Yea I know u going to use the "I hate ignorance" line but it's the same crap at the end of the day.
Last question; If evolution is a fact, why is it still called a theory?
I'm not getting bent out of shape I'm sharing what I know. And I never said you can't believe what you want. That a core belief of mine that we all have the right to believe anything we want.
Being confident and presenting facts is FAR different than repeating assertions as religions do. What is a "pure" religion? Who decides? it's abritrary, it's the "no true scotsman" fallicy. Any other religious person could make the same claim towards you with equal validity (which is none).
So my passion towards reality suddenly makes anything I know a religion?!? So gravity is a religion too?
In science theory is the highest title. Theories account for observed facts and make accurate predictions, as evolution does. Theory in common english does NOT mean what it does in science. Gravity is "just" a theory too. Only in pure math do you get laws.
In science a hypothesis is more like what theory, in common (non scientific) usage, means
If Gravity is a fact, why is it still called a theory? If electromagnetism is a fact, why is it still called a theory? Why don't scientists just admit that we actually fall because of an intelligent pusher? Or that electromagnetism is actually caused by God?
This is the problem with arguing about something you know nothing about. It might surprise you to know that many atheists actually know a great deal about religion; a lot of us were raised Christian ;)
The Theory of Evolution explains HOW evolution happens; there is no question THAT it happens, and that much is fact. If you have a theory that explains how evolution happens more accurately than Darwin did, feel free to inform the world; you will likely win a Nobel Prize if you are correct.
To put it more succinctly, "we are apes and so are monkeys, but we are not monkeys." Or a simple family tree analogy, since the tree of life is nothing more than an insanely enormous family tree: my cousins and I have a common ancestor, but aside from marriages of questionable legality, I will never belong to the same family as my cousins or vice versa.
And AGAIN it's not a religion. If you find a camprian bunny in the fossil record that would disprove evolution and the science community would discard it. Religion is based on dogma and authority, science (like evolution) is built on facts, evidence and logic. NOTHING ELSE!
The same science that made your computer, your medicine etc... discovered evolution. It's illogical to accept the former and ignore the later simply because you don't want to.
Oh and PS I really just messing with you because you are getting all bend out of shape like religious people do. Like I said, I have no problem with you believing what you want. Just don't sell that junk to me.
Quite the contrary, DNA is very good evidence that life had a common ancestor, and the more they study it the more evidence they find in favor of this idea. Creationists and ID proponents, on the other hand, have no way of explaining why animals have similar roots, except to say that GODDIDIT which is really no explanation at all.
...My favorite was the cartoon depiction of R. Dawkins in a casino attempting to show by analogy how the incredibly rare slot-machine jackpot would have to be won 250 times in a row to simulate the odds of electro-chemical interaction 'accidentally' aligning the necessary proteins for life to "pop" into existence.
...Sounds impressive until you consider that you have millions of chances every day for roughly 2 Billion years.
learn to present things honestly AND in full if you desire respect.
It was an embarrassing testimonial to the many verbal "tricks", out-of-context strategic mentions, and common-place avoidance techniques used by religious people everywhere to attempt to convince someone (themselves?) that the "intelligent design" (aka god) concept is a valid consideration.
...Full of childish outtakes, misunderstandings about scientific theories & concepts, this film will delight those who NEED to lie to themselves to get through the day.
I have no problem of people questioning Darwin, but the way religion has been directly linked to any alternative theory makes me doubtfull of this film. This material has only one motive and it is to promote religion. Im not against that, but it raises a question why. Is this government using fannatic religion as a distraction from worldly problems and explonations? Under a disguise as an righteous message this advertisment is PROPOGANDA.Didnotseeanyotherreligiousreferencebut Chrstnsm&Judaism.
Expelled not only is a scientific fraudulent movie, it is a scam to the core. He claims it and ID have nothing to do with religion, yet he talks about god constantly as well as deliberately aimed & screened it at fundy retard churches.. A smart Jew jerking off dumb rednecks is the way I'd sum up this movie.
@MongoloidBabyUSA I believe it is not and was not intended to be a scientific movie. It is a social commentary by Ben Stein who has been commenting on American society for several decades.
Darwinism is a secular state religion posturing as science. True, religion has often acted in ways which have defamed the Genesis account of creation, but this does not negate the science of creation.
@MongoloidBabyUSA you do think like a monkey you know?! Religion is not in the same boat with GOD, too bad your primitive brain cannot grasp it. If you would only have the brain to realize this man does know what he is saying... you could be a human, too bad monkey!
wrong! you have to really investigate and analize the character of God as a whole in context, not just picking verses here and there. why God kills and saves? why he slays and put together? why he gives and takes? you intellectuals can discern this. and you will never find that God created sin since he is not a source of sin. you are not even sure of his genre!!! he is the great i am now that ben stein changed his mind suddenly he is an ignorant according to you. hipocrits!!!
Funny thing is a lot of people turned against Science after WW ll for all the horrible weapons and pollution it helped create. But the assholes who admire Stein's dreck & take ID trash seriously have no problem with H Bombs or germ warfare, greedily suck up all the technology they can, but cry like the cunts they are about Evolution
Another irony, is that Stein later claims that ID has nothing to do with religion yet he babbles about religion all through the movie.
Of course, because while ID may not depend on a specific religion to be a theory, a lot of religion supports it. It's in the same camp, even if it doesn't need to be.
@GuitarGuy22221 Correction, he said it was a possibility. and a rather unlikely one, called Panspermia. Look into the context of that. Even if there were aliens, it wouldn't change that evolution happened, which is something God would contradict. We have evidence that evolution happened, so that's not even up for debate. Ben Stein has blatantly made false claims within context, while Dawkins never has.. You clearly didn't get what Dawkins was trying to say, did you?
I not surprised that this dumb comment was liked by many idiots who dont understand science is. In the last one hundred years over 95% of all humans and animals (even plants) that have been destroyed were killed using instruments of science. Be it a gun, chemical weapon, chain saw. (all of them are scientific inventions)
This is not what Ben Stein meant, but it is a technically accurate statement.
@karamarouge That's beyond stupid! You accept science as truth, whether you like it or not, you just choose to ignore certain parts of it because they contradict your religion. THAT is what you label as science. A guy cutting down a tree doesn't mean science is evil. That's asinine. And incorrect! May I ask what FOOL told you that? Though I suppose it depends on how you define "destroyed". Anyway, please don't make comments like this, ever. No one here wnats to hear them or believes you.
@weirddudeonice I think you are the stupid man!!!! I didnt say science is evil, that is a conclusion you arrived at because once again you are the stupid buffoon.
But why would i be surprised that you would come up with such stupidity, that is what atheists do to advance their nonsensical beliefs. Constantly lie and put words in people's mouths.
@karamarouge Hehe, massive hypocrite, I didn't say YOU are stupid, I said THAT was stupid. You're insulting me as an argument because you have none, and that's a little sad. You certainly implied that science was evil, I believe that's what the point of that entire comment was. You're very stereotypical, and that's an ignorant behavior.
I said you are stupid because that is the only correct description of your mental abilities. There is no hypocrisy in speaking the truth. you sir are stupid
@karamarouge Yuh huh, that's great. Now you seem to have proven me correct. You're insulting me in place of an argument because you have none, and that's simply pathetic. You're still insanely stereotypical, you should fix that. Aside from the fact that I'm an atheist, you know nothing about me at all and shouldn't be commenting on my mental abilities. If you're going to say that being an atheist makes me stupid, you're just dumb. No other word for it. Please try to present an actual argument
@karamarouge Okay, let me make this simple for you. When all two people do is say the other person is stupid, the argument goes no where and nothing is accomplished. To make progress, you say why you're correct and defend your reasons against the other person, or if you're hellbent on insulting my intelligence, you can argue why I'm stupid. At the moment you're just making a damn fool of yourself and bitching at someone who doesn't care.
@karamarouge This is the last response i'm going to give you, because you can't seem to understand anything I'm saying. The "case" may be closed for you, but no one else here thinks you're correct, sorry. If you want to bitch pointlessly, I suggest you find a video where everyone else does. Most videos that involve Atheism Vs. Christianity are for people who know how to argue, so you clearly don't belong here. And if you post another comment saying I'm stupid, just imagine me saying "nuh-uh!".
@karamarouge Are you like 6 years old. Does your mom know you got on the computer. "Your stupid, your just a bid stupid head meany" This is the intellectual sum of your argument against weirdudeonice.
You seem to be ashamed that you are not as smart as us and lash out. Look we atheist are just better then you, get used to it.
It's ironic that Ben uses Gallileo as one of his examples of a "time of free speech"!!
The premise that God is "loving" is problematic too, especially when you study the character of the nature He/She/It apparently created.
If God is the creator of all, then he/she/it is the creator of evil as well as good. A neutral, indifferent God would then be more likely than a loving one. And one that actively watches sentient creatures suffer and doesn't act is either impotent or malicious.
Good point, but you forgot that the bible addresses that very issue. He gave free will to his creation, because freedom of choice that results in serving him satisfies God, not just creating mindless loving servants. The angels were created for that reason, and that is their sole responsibility.
This is a typical problem with arguments like this...they don't have the entire fact behind their point, and therefore fall flat on their face. It clearly proves this in the Bible.
I think you miss the point on the free will issue, with all due respect. One can have free will to choose what one does, yes. What one does NOT have is the free will to choose (or at least complete control over) what others may do to them.
Thus for a God to have the power to act and prevent evil happening (to those who do not choose it e.g. Child Abuse) and yet not intervene indicates callous indifference at best and malevolence at worst.
The biblical account of Job illustrates this best.
I hope science isn't as weak as this argument, because it crumbled under its own microscope.
Your anaylsis is incorrect, frankly because as you mentioned, free will dictates ones own will, and not anothers, therefore, that proves the theory that God created all with free will, since he does allow people to carry on in evil, based on your example.
You further proved the point that God allows humans to make their own choices.
So this God of yours just stands by and watches (for example) children getting abused and does nothing. And yet has the power to stop it. If He is unwilling to stop the evil, and yet is able, what does that make him? That was my point. Free will is good and dandy, but if you can prevent evil , isn't that a more rational choice. Wouldn't that also make people be more aware of the choices they made and be more inclined to make non-evil choices, knowing that God might indeed intervene?
But he has made people aware. The entire bible is filled with accounts and commands about how to treat others and what is right or wrong. People are very aware of evil, but they don't value the life of another human, instead choosing to satisfy only their lusts.
You're trying to say that its Gods fault we are full of problems, and he should have made us incapable of reasoning. I doubt many people would agree with you.
A poorly written story book filled with improbable stories of people doing grossly immoral things is hardly a good way to make someone aware of evil or the value of the lives of others.
Nothing proves that he didn't. You cannot simply assume that since we have proven a form of evolution to the extent of our knowledge and understanding, that free will is also a development of that, can you?
This argument always gets old...just because you can't prove something isn't correct, doesn't mean everything else isn't as well.
Furthermore, you are free to have any opinion regarding the bible...just as the rest of us are free to have our own opinions about evolution.
Free will isn't the ability to do whatever you wish without consequence. That is the common problem people have when making arguments against it.
Free will is the right and ability to make a choice that may have varied outcomes, without direct intervention to restrain that individual from completing their actions.
Everyone has free will, unless they are restrained. Furthermore, one could assume that free thoughts are essentially free will, and those are impossible to smother.
Stein clearly doesn't understand the theory of Evolution. Lightning striking a mud puddle? Random chance? Accidents?! I find it very difficult to take any of his claims seriously when he doesn't even know what he is arguing against.
You misunderstanding even the word 'theory'. In science a theory is something that is backed up by FACTS. All the evidence points to evolution to explain the variety of life on this planet.
this what theory means . a set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning, which offers an explanation of how something works or why something happens, but has not been completely proved. And notice the last sentence.
Read any book on evolutionary theory before you try and state what you THINK evolution is though! Try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a start. Or simply watch any video from AronRa on the subject [watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY].
Asking to see a "half evolved species" clearly shows your complete misunderstanding of the subject.
You cannot have free will over your own choices but also what others do to you, because then they would not have free will. Its very basic, the argument of Job doesn't matvch at all, as Job had choices to turn from God and theoretically stop satans wrath, but he chose to stay within his beliefs and was later rewarded for it.
Job's children were murdered by Satan, on God's permission. What choice did they have in the matter then? Where was their free will? If one views children as possessions, then replacing them with more as reward might be gratifying, but surely we are far more evolved than that, hmm?
Satan has a will as well. His will is to win souls for his cause. If God is not one to impose his divine will on others, how should we expect that others will follow? Rather, that shows that humanity now has the mentality of satan, to pursue their own lusts regardless of the cost that another must pay.
Free will = the ability to perform actions or thoughts that give regard only to that specific individual's wants or needs without direct intervention to prevent the action from occurring.
We can all choose to do whatever we wish.
Free will =/= doing whatever you want without consequence.
Sure it's vague. Haven't you learned that trying to make a specific definition of something given set circumstances is a horrible idea?
Life is relative. You ask for proof of something that may not be proven - as it escapes our ability to check. Can you check if you have free will? C'mon now, use your head. You can't prove or disprove if you do or not, because you have no idea if someone is controlling you, and not letting you know about it.
Just as science requires a certain amount of faith and reliability, so does any other aspect of life.
Sure, we may think we know how gravity works, but there is nothing to say that suddenly it won't change. You can speculate and use all of our knowledge to say it won't...but do you really KNOW? Of course not. We cannot predict the future.
So, accepting faith in science is ok, but not in religion? This I don't understand.
Science requires faith? Bullshit. Science is based on forming testable hypotheses backed up by evidence and observation. That seems pretty faithless to me. Science also runs on doubt, which is the polar opposite of faith. Every piece of science is also being constantly assaulted with attempts to test and improve through falsification.
"we think we know, but what if it changes?"
Science is about probability, not possibility. If there is no reason to believe, then there is no reason to believe.
I can easily prove I have free will. I have the ability to choose to reply to your message or not.
However, the only way to prove that I would not have any free will would be if some pre-determined force were establishing my actions prior to me knowing them, and therefore would acknowledge a higher power being in control.
So, if that is the case, then I am being lied to, I don't have free will, but regardless I couldn't do anything about it.
Wrong. You CAN'T prove that you have free will. There is no scientific or philosophical proof that humans are not deterministic machines, and the "feeling" that I have free will is only that - a feeling. It isn't borne out by scientific inquiry.
Determinism in no way implies a higher being. Some rules are inherent, and if the universe were (hypothetically speaking) deterministic, it would be most likely that the rules of the universe are inherent ones, not created.
There's //no such thing// as a half-evolved species because //all// species are //constantly// evolving. Asking for a "half-evolved species" is like asking a parent to show something "halfway" between themselves and their child in order to prove that their child is descended from them.
There's no possible way that not only the miracle of human beings, created or evolved would be duplicated by yet again another miracle that ALL "currently evolving" humans are evolving at exactly the same rate and possess the same characteristics that each other have.
Clearly we don't. Which would then lead someone to make the reasonable assumption that group 'X' of our society is somehow less evolved.
Not just mentally. Physically. Are we really going to specify this? Hitler much?
Evolution isn't a ladder. There isn't a "more, therefore better" or even a better or worse. Natural selection doesn't work that way. It's all about how well an organism can duplicate itself by surviving in its environment.
Don't try to somehow meld biological evolution by natural selection with the artificial selection of the eugenics movement.
That evolution happens is a fact; the theory of evolution explains HOW it happens, but nobody questions THAT it happens. Similarly, the theory of gravity explains HOW gravity happens, so while you are free to provide a more accurate explanation of how gravity works (as Einstein did), it is foolish and ignorant to try to argue that gravity (or evolution) do not happen.
Macro-evolution is a spin word; evolution is evolution, and macro evolution is micro evolution over longer time periods.
How can something evolve only a certain percentage of beings that came from the same matter at different rates with different outcomes, but all with virtually identical DNA?
Statistically, sure it would happen, but the odds are completely outrageous. Plus, that doesn't address how we are all essentially evolved to the same point, yet there isn't anything in between. So, it stopped?
First of all, evolution only happens to living things. If it wasn't alive, it didn't evolve. Second, genetically speaking we have pretty good reason to believe that all life came from a common ancestor. Your question seems to be about abiogenesis, not evolution. Two different things.
What do you mean by "we are all essentially evolved to the same point?" That doesn't really make any sense in the light of how natural selection works, perhaps you could rephrase it? Evolution never "stops."
@ajlepisto because of different environments organisms evolved differently as they spread over the earth,its that simple.
No,evolution has not stopped.Organisms that are in ecological niches where they are very successful need not evolve further,take sharks or crocodiles who have changed little over time compared to us.
I love it when creationists/ID proponents say that their inability to comprehend a scientific theory is reasonable grounds for not accepting it.
"I just don't UNDERSTAND this! And of course, I am the most intelligent person in the world, therefore if I can't understand it, it must be WRRROOONNNGGG!"
Haha, lighting in a mud puddle. I love that he doesn't even understand the basic principles of the theories he is fighting against. NOBODY thinks life got started this way. I suggest the author gets an education then joins the argument.
Will you go to Heaven? Heres a test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen, or used God's name in vain? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemer. The Bible warns that if you're guilty you will end up in Hell. God sent His Son to die on the cross for all sinners. Then He rose from the dead & defeated death. Please, Trust in Jesus & repent (turn from sin). God will grant everlasting life. Then read your Bible daily & obey it.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it , you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.
Christianity is doomed unless it can come to grips with the realities which man now posses. Religion has given up searching for the truth of existence. Whereas Science is constantly striving for the truth of existence. No one will wake up tomorrow and give up Evolution. It is a scientific fact.
The whole field of Biology is based on Evolution.
While Charles Darwin was not aware of DNA, the discovery of DNA confirmed Evolution was correct.
@BrightlyEvolving And you know for sure the Universe/Heaven is 13.5billion years old? that earth is 4.5 billion years old? Where's the undeniable proof? Or do you just believe EVERYTHING science throws at you?
@JCojocaru ............... Did you ever get through Middle School? And why is billions of years old in quotation marks? Are you implying we're not actually saying that?
@weirddudeonice nah, just implying you guys believe a complete joke without evidence but don't even attempt to seek the truth of God. You know he exists, but you fight with Satan against it.
@JCojocaru Wow. Seriously though, have you been through Middle School? If you have, then you should understand radiometric dating. Don't try to tell me I know your religion is correct but that I refuse to accept it, you look like an obnoxious douche. One, you don't know that, and two, I can just as easily say that you know there is no god, and you're just in the religion because it's comforting to you. That isn't even a argument, it's just asinine.
@thesparitan Difference between you and I: I seek the truth and I'm not afraid to give up my life for something that is real. You: You're just selfish and won't even attempt to prove the "facts" you state.
So it is a movie where Ben Stein plays a retard?
BTCforlife 2 months ago
Darwinism applies to animals, not humanbeings. Scientists do not want to see what lies between man and evoluation of bacterial species & microbs is utterly foolish. Different bacterial species is God's way of helping man clean up the mess of gas pollution, with cynobacteria cleans up oil and gas spills. This treasures of bacteria to clean up behind what scientists fail to beleive in God who keeps this poor planet alive with microbs. Scientists only care about their resumes, not true wisdom.
saintsdancenrome 3 months ago
Answer me smart ppl, what proof and evidence can "darwinists"
offer me that "atheistic teachings" are accurate and correct ???
TheMessanjah 6 months ago
@TheMessanjah None, because evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Also there aren't any Darwinists, there are those who understand the science and those who don't.
Skydromakk 5 months ago
@Skydromakk look up Darwinist and see there are Darwinists. Are there any atheists that believe in creation?
Before commenting like this, know what you are talking about. Diversion from facts is a sad ploy of someone that has no case to stand on.
hellavadeal 4 months ago
@hellavadeal Of course not. There can be no creation without a God. So? Are there Christians who accept evolution? Yeah a fuck ton! Evolution and atheism aren't the same. Just because you made a fake science that relies on your religion being true, doesn't mean that evolution relies on religion not being true. Things that oppose each other aren't dichotomous mirror images. You Creationists are a pathetic bunch who don't even understand your adversary position. Bunch of dumbasses.
Skydromakk 4 months ago
@Skydromakk Evolution from single cell to scientist is in opposition to what is in the Christian Bible.
Each after their own kind.
hellavadeal 4 months ago
@hellavadeal According to YOUR literal interpretation of the Bible which exists almost exclusively in the US and in Islamic countries. Thank God in Europe we don't have to deal with you reality deniers. By the way if YOUR literal interpretation is at odds with well-established science, it's wrong. Science can't tell you if God exists or not, but you can bet that any claim that contradicts is wrong and not the other way around. Who are you to say how God decides to make life?
Skydromakk 4 months ago
@Skydromakk Reality deniers? HA HA. That's good. Clueless and doesn't know it.
yourtubesteak 3 months ago
@yourtubesteak I think it beautifully sums up people whose stance is at odds with the science which benefits them on a day to day basis. You don't need to understand science to benefit from it and that is tragically exemplified by Creationists. They benefit from nature while denying it's true form. I'd like to see how well they'd fare if the products of all the biological research of the last 150 years was suddenly suspended for them.
Skydromakk 3 months ago
@TheMessanjah They can't. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Offspring would have to be born with ADDITIONAL DNA for evolution to happen. This has NEVER been observed. It's no coincidence that there are no so called transition fossils in the fossil record.
yourtubesteak 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourtubesteak "Offspring would have to be born with ADDITIONAL DNA for evolution to happen. This has NEVER been observed"
never heard of down syndrome? insertion mutations? polyploidy? trisomy 18, trisomy 13. no, you've not heard much but you just KNOW that it's never been observed.
"no so called transition fossils"- why are you content to sit in a steaming pile of your own dung chanting creationist lies? you have so much to learn,
mcmanustony 1 month ago
"Why are we here?
PLASTIC! ....ASSHOLES!"
George Carlin
DarkLady1313 8 months ago
@thesparitan Thanks, I appreciate that, and yes, I agree.
weirddudeonice 8 months ago
"random genetic mutation,environmental considerations-lacks any mathematical rigor, what else is there to say?"
I could destroy this point but I doubt you would listen. If you ever debated someone like me before they would have pointed out the problem with this conclusion and the fact that you are still using it means you just didn't listen or care what there answer was.
Look you don't care what is true, not yet anyways. I might debate you but I already know the end game, done it before.
thesparitan 8 months ago
Simple information science tells shows us that evolution is laughably unscientific. The issue is not science vs religion; it's science vs the pseudoscience of evolution. Suck lemons 13rugger2;Fire is not an electric phenomenon, but badly insulated electric cables can easily start a fire,at which point you make the best of the situation and throw as many liberal newspapers with Bill Maher's condom-over-the-head antics,and various DVD's featuring Penn and Teller in with the conflagration.
fashklash 8 months ago
@fashklash You understand that not one major university on planet earth supports any other theory for the diversity of life then the theory of evolution? You also understand that if we were to debate the subject I will bet you 1000$ You probably don't even know what the theory of evolutions actually is.
You are a moron and that is clear, there any evidence that evolution is pseudoscience. It is as concrete as the theory of gravity.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan I understand that highly respected scientists within many universities do question philosophical materialism and that the materialist orthodoxy(which is really an atheist orthodoxy)is too puritanical to question whether everything in our present cosmology came by chance. You're a chump if you've never questioned the orthodoxy yourself.Understand evolution?Natural Selection, random genetic mutation,environmental considerations-lacks any mathematical rigor, what else is there to say?
fashklash 8 months ago
@fashklash "too puritanical to question whether everything in our present cosmology came by chance."
So typical you know nothing about science, or logic for that matter. Truth be told I actually gave up on debating you people, you are to far gone. You cannot accept even the most basic facts about the universe, why would you listen to me.
Its sad but I am used to it by now so I am not effected by your stupid as I once was because I know there is nothing I can say to enlighten you.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan Oh well get on with it then oh super-enlightened one. So we're all dopes because chance is the only orthodoxy allowed and be aren't buying it? And don't hit me with that "Natural selection does not operate by the laws of chance" because it IS largely stochastic, and secondly, there's a lot more to explain than just biological evolution. You people just happily skip a whole bunch of cosmological steps but Science doesn't work like that. Have a nice day :)
fashklash 8 months ago
@fashklash Orthodoxy, there has never been one study, one peer reviewed paper to show anything structurally wrong with the theory of evolution in history.
Wow are you saying that biological evolution has anything to do with astronomy? LOL sorry moron they are separate ideas. Cosmological steps? What does cosmological anything have to do with the theory of evolution? Please tell
I hope you dont say what I think you are going to say, remember I done this many times.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan ? You people just like to have the last say. Nothing I've said bears any relevance to your rendering of it.
fashklash 8 months ago
The answer is quite simple and its a matter of circular reasoning on the part of materialists.If we begin with the premise that reality is atheistic,then in principle,we can only allow unguided materialist explanations to figure in research.Only "chance"is permissible in explaining how the present universe came about.This means that only hypotheses which concur with the idea that everything in our universe came by chance are peer reviewed or politically correct.
fashklash 8 months ago
@fashklash Whatever.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan Wait man, you can't leave us now? You must grace us with your sagely wisdom if we are to ever evolve into atheistic beings. You see our genes are all deranged and garbled. We need you to help us see through these non-materialist delusions. If we get the wrong genes, if we're born intellectually inferior, is that really our fault?
fashklash 8 months ago
@fashklash Your to ignorant to debate, and I can't teach you what evolution is and debate you at the same time. Like I said you are just to uninformed to even debate with. Just end the dialog now, I told you I was done.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan Hey, be happy man!
fashklash 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
We are all screwed up with our concept of time. There is no time it's just a human concept ignored by nature. Gravity is real as is light and energy but time?? Not really anything.
siziam 1 year ago
@siziam Well actually, it's not exactly nonexistent, as it is connect. Time is the same thing as space in a sense, basically something that allows movement, but a lot more complicated. From a relativistic point of view, Time (and Space) become very real, and very confusing ^^
Gerstein1 1 year ago
Social Darwinism, is not a war against "religion" per se,' but a war against moral conscience & accountability. Predicated upon the economic theories of British born Thomas Malthus, Social Darwinism serves as a pretext for war, what is euphemistically portrayed as "positive" eugenics & genocide. Social Darwinism is an elitist political ideology posturing as science. Rather than "evolutionary," Social Darwinism is devolutionary, & a fraud of colassal proportions. See "Henry George" for insight.
Elazar40 1 year ago
We tolerate your bronze age religion fuckhead. That is why there are religious schools all around North America, that is why religious organizations don't pay a single cent of tax. It is you that goes door to door to impose your primitive beliefs onto us, all the while saying scientists are conspiring against religion.
What has science brought us? EVERYTHING, without science, you wouldn't be able to read this passage. What has religion brought us? NOTHING.
JayChouFanatic 1 year ago
@JayChouFanatic: You act like science is a contradiction to religioius belief. Why? And, do you tell me that some men know 100% of what exist ?
larsiemannen 1 year ago
@JayChouFanatic but evolution isn't real science. when does dna gain more information? I'm sure even dawkins doesn't really believe in evolution
mykeeeet24 1 year ago
Social Darwinism is a State Religion posturing as science. If it hadn't been for the Creationist views of many of our past philosophers & intellectuals we would still be living in the dark ages.
Elazar40 1 year ago
@JayChouFanatic Here is another monkey that writes down what it has in its nut, (some call it brain)... the f word. Sure you primitive monkey, the belief in GOD is from old. Back then humans knew that an explosion creates a mess and not order and beauty as we have on earth! If you would only have the brain to accept that these men have more wisdom and higher IQ, they also have the courage to speak out and willing to pay the price thus showing what primates like you do not have - character!
flyfastnhigh13 9 months ago
@flyfastnhigh13 Are you saying that religious people are the ones that are speaking out? Religion has been the dominant belief for pretty much most of the existence of human kind. god was made up to explain, at the time, the unexplainable which we can now explain using science. Take fire for example, when back whenever fire was considered to be magic and that is why your god uses fire in hell to punish sinners and non-believers like myself and other more intelligent primates.
13rugger2 9 months ago
Comment removed
13rugger2 9 months ago
@flyfastnhigh13 We now know that fire is a chemical reaction which must contain an oxidizing gas, a source of fuel, and an energy source to ignite the fuel. eg: when wood is heated to a certain temp the cellulose in the wood begins to break down making gasses which when heated even more forces them to bind with molecules in the wood breaking them free creating smoke, these molecules are then quickly drawn by electromagnetic forces to bind with oxygen, this reaction happens almost instantaneously
13rugger2 9 months ago
@flyfastnhigh13 In this whole process the atoms release excess energy in the form of light which is a result of the atoms returning to their lowest energy state. Fire is an electric phenomenon. Burning is the oxidization of a substance (BTW rust is a very slow burning process) and in order for there to be oxidation there needs to be atoms but when we die and go to "hell" we do not take our atoms with us therefore we will not burn. Guess the bible was wrong as usual.
13rugger2 9 months ago
Reading the comments to this video I think Stein is right. Questioning the orthodoxy it would seem is heresy.
mhearstify 1 year ago
5:55 they cut Dawkins mid sentence. Quote mining isn't it?
forlornfoghorn 1 year ago 2
Will anyone be left to fight this battle?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
MournEternally 1 year ago
Yes, all that accumulated evidence is SOOOOOO evil. You know, we should replace it with the good theory of ID, even though we have no actual evidence to support it.
Seriously, Stein, crawl under a rock already. You do realize most moderate theists accept evolution right?
TomDarkwulf 1 year ago
Welcome to Areopagus!
Thistlesifter220 1 year ago
God. Ben Stein is an absolute fraud and crook - it's that simple!
PatRibsey 1 year ago
Does Ben Stein even know what Evolution is? He doesn't appear to.
Nessolfte 1 year ago
No, and I don't think he cares!
PatRibsey 1 year ago
"The freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads."
That's a joke. ID proponents don't try to follow the evidence to its conclusion, they try to make the evidence fit their preconceived conclusion.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
The Problem that is addressed is not creation Vs. Evolution, nor is it who is smarter. It is about the purely targeted blacklisting and expulsion of those who express an Intelligent Design viewpoint. If I.D. is so totally wrong, or inaccurate, why not allow it to make a fool of itself in the laboratory? They wont, and that begs some questions. Those questions are adked in this film.
DeepFryinDon 2 years ago
ID doesn't have any way to make a fool of itself in the laboratory because it's not a testable hypothesis nor does it make any definite predictions.
ID proponents can proclaim their beliefs all they want, but they shouldn't expect to get scientific funding or valuable time in a scientific classroom with their hokum.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
I disagree, and so would many of the people who are in the field of science ACTUALLY doing the research. The problem is, the minute they may find information that even vaguely expresses anything except the repetitive dogma of Darwinism, they are immediately shut down. The problem isn't whether ID can be researched due to it's elusive seeming nature, it can be. The Atom was pretty Elusive for a Long long time. But now it's not.
DeepFryinDon 2 years ago
The problem really lies in ID cannot be researched because those who are in power over the laboratories and researching universities will squelch and stomp out any and all attempts at ID research.
DeepFryinDon 2 years ago
Of course they "squelch" and "stomp out" any and all attempts at "research" into a topic that is ultimately untestable, undemonstrable, unobservable, and does not make any valid predictions. Tell me please, what would Intelligent Design actually accomplish for science? Can you give even one example in history where a supernatural explanation was more beneficial than a purely natural one?
notthecheatr 2 years ago
Actually, the real problem is that they're doing science wrong. In science, you try to find a conclusion that is supported by the facts. Creationists, on the other hand, are trying to pick and choose the facts to match their preconceived conclusion. They are thus bound to fail, because that's not how science works.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
what experiment?
dlandon2000 2 years ago
@YanisJanis The opposite of Up is down as much the opposite of Darwin is Religion. So is it to promote "God"? You seem to be correct, but the point I got out of it and I'm now it total agreement with is: If you want to believe in Darwin you will not be chastised or pardon the pun 'crucified'. In all fairness, all views should be treated equal. You don't get fired for believing man was a monkey. Which now that I think about it is not backed by true science so, IT IS A RELIGION!! Go figure.
wdblogic 2 years ago
"all views should be treated equal"
NO! All claims should be EVALUATED equally and those that are vacuous should be discarded. That is what science does. You clearly don't know much about evolution if you think its a religion and not backed by science. Evolution has ENORMOUS amounts of evidence, ID has NONE. If ID got some evidence it would be taken seriously.
Should astrology be taught in schools along with astronomy? How about the stork theory or reproduction? Flat earth?
dlandon2000 2 years ago
Good point! Now can you point me to some NEW un-reputed evidence? Because to my understanding the introduction of DNA poked holes in the monkey/bang theory. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem believing you and other may have come from a monkey. I just chose not to believe that religion. (No insult intended).
To your second part, NO I don't think that any of it should be taught in school, ID or Evolution.
wdblogic 2 years ago
we didn't come from monkeys humans and monkeys both have a common ancestor. And again you clearly don't know much about evolution. DNA evidence alone proves evolutions validity. DNA could easily have disproved it but it only reinforced it enourmously. Retrovirus' are rare events which show up in the DNA and they create a family tree just like fossils and homology and geographical distributions do. Each gene has can be compared between species and the differences also support the same family tree
dlandon2000 2 years ago
I agree I don't know as much about evolution, and it's clear you don't know anything about Religion in it's pure form. I guess that it called a myopic view. I Still say it's a religion because You are getting just as heated as people do in a religious debate :-) Yea I know u going to use the "I hate ignorance" line but it's the same crap at the end of the day.
Last question; If evolution is a fact, why is it still called a theory?
wdblogic 2 years ago
I'm not getting bent out of shape I'm sharing what I know. And I never said you can't believe what you want. That a core belief of mine that we all have the right to believe anything we want.
Being confident and presenting facts is FAR different than repeating assertions as religions do. What is a "pure" religion? Who decides? it's abritrary, it's the "no true scotsman" fallicy. Any other religious person could make the same claim towards you with equal validity (which is none).
dlandon2000 2 years ago
So my passion towards reality suddenly makes anything I know a religion?!? So gravity is a religion too?
In science theory is the highest title. Theories account for observed facts and make accurate predictions, as evolution does. Theory in common english does NOT mean what it does in science. Gravity is "just" a theory too. Only in pure math do you get laws.
In science a hypothesis is more like what theory, in common (non scientific) usage, means
dlandon2000 2 years ago
If Gravity is a fact, why is it still called a theory? If electromagnetism is a fact, why is it still called a theory? Why don't scientists just admit that we actually fall because of an intelligent pusher? Or that electromagnetism is actually caused by God?
Superstition has no place in science.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
This is the problem with arguing about something you know nothing about. It might surprise you to know that many atheists actually know a great deal about religion; a lot of us were raised Christian ;)
The Theory of Evolution explains HOW evolution happens; there is no question THAT it happens, and that much is fact. If you have a theory that explains how evolution happens more accurately than Darwin did, feel free to inform the world; you will likely win a Nobel Prize if you are correct.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
I do believe we have a common ancestor btw.
wdblogic 2 years ago
To put it more succinctly, "we are apes and so are monkeys, but we are not monkeys." Or a simple family tree analogy, since the tree of life is nothing more than an insanely enormous family tree: my cousins and I have a common ancestor, but aside from marriages of questionable legality, I will never belong to the same family as my cousins or vice versa.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
What evidence do you think has been refuted?!? There are four big areas of evidence
Geographical distribution of animals (living and fossils) match perfectly with evolutionary predictions
Homology, the comparson of animal features (human hand and bat wings) show common ancestry with modification.
Fossil evidence, thousands of transitionals in found in increasing complexity (no mammels in the cambrien, no dinasours in the current layer)
DNA evidence as I already talked about.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
And AGAIN it's not a religion. If you find a camprian bunny in the fossil record that would disprove evolution and the science community would discard it. Religion is based on dogma and authority, science (like evolution) is built on facts, evidence and logic. NOTHING ELSE!
The same science that made your computer, your medicine etc... discovered evolution. It's illogical to accept the former and ignore the later simply because you don't want to.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
Oh and PS I really just messing with you because you are getting all bend out of shape like religious people do. Like I said, I have no problem with you believing what you want. Just don't sell that junk to me.
wdblogic 2 years ago
Quite the contrary, DNA is very good evidence that life had a common ancestor, and the more they study it the more evidence they find in favor of this idea. Creationists and ID proponents, on the other hand, have no way of explaining why animals have similar roots, except to say that GODDIDIT which is really no explanation at all.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
...My favorite was the cartoon depiction of R. Dawkins in a casino attempting to show by analogy how the incredibly rare slot-machine jackpot would have to be won 250 times in a row to simulate the odds of electro-chemical interaction 'accidentally' aligning the necessary proteins for life to "pop" into existence.
...Sounds impressive until you consider that you have millions of chances every day for roughly 2 Billion years.
learn to present things honestly AND in full if you desire respect.
DrSebby 2 years ago
Ok, I actually watched this movie...
It was an embarrassing testimonial to the many verbal "tricks", out-of-context strategic mentions, and common-place avoidance techniques used by religious people everywhere to attempt to convince someone (themselves?) that the "intelligent design" (aka god) concept is a valid consideration.
...Full of childish outtakes, misunderstandings about scientific theories & concepts, this film will delight those who NEED to lie to themselves to get through the day.
DrSebby 2 years ago
i stopped watching the vid as ive seen do not question authority biggest LOL in the world. thats what the church wants you to do.
Ruchsacksepp 2 years ago
I have no problem of people questioning Darwin, but the way religion has been directly linked to any alternative theory makes me doubtfull of this film. This material has only one motive and it is to promote religion. Im not against that, but it raises a question why. Is this government using fannatic religion as a distraction from worldly problems and explonations? Under a disguise as an righteous message this advertisment is PROPOGANDA.Didnotseeanyotherreligiousreferencebut Chrstnsm&Judaism.
YanisJanis 2 years ago
Expelled not only is a scientific fraudulent movie, it is a scam to the core. He claims it and ID have nothing to do with religion, yet he talks about god constantly as well as deliberately aimed & screened it at fundy retard churches.. A smart Jew jerking off dumb rednecks is the way I'd sum up this movie.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago 15
@MongoloidBabyUSA I believe it is not and was not intended to be a scientific movie. It is a social commentary by Ben Stein who has been commenting on American society for several decades.
mhearstify 1 year ago
Darwinism is a secular state religion posturing as science. True, religion has often acted in ways which have defamed the Genesis account of creation, but this does not negate the science of creation.
Elazar40 1 year ago
@MongoloidBabyUSA Yeah your intelligent.
GuitarGuy22221 1 year ago
@MongoloidBabyUSA you do think like a monkey you know?! Religion is not in the same boat with GOD, too bad your primitive brain cannot grasp it. If you would only have the brain to realize this man does know what he is saying... you could be a human, too bad monkey!
flyfastnhigh13 9 months ago
man this is such an-adulterated crap.
op5072 2 years ago
wrong! you have to really investigate and analize the character of God as a whole in context, not just picking verses here and there. why God kills and saves? why he slays and put together? why he gives and takes? you intellectuals can discern this. and you will never find that God created sin since he is not a source of sin. you are not even sure of his genre!!! he is the great i am now that ben stein changed his mind suddenly he is an ignorant according to you. hipocrits!!!
discipulo123 2 years ago
WTF? Galileo is an example of someone benefitting from the right to free speech??? Nobody caught that in post-production???
jodiebug1 2 years ago
Ben Stein has previously stated that "science leads to killing people." He never retracted the claim either.
Trusting Ben Stein to give you an accurate presentation of the facts is like asking a thief to hold your wallet.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago 11
Funny thing is a lot of people turned against Science after WW ll for all the horrible weapons and pollution it helped create. But the assholes who admire Stein's dreck & take ID trash seriously have no problem with H Bombs or germ warfare, greedily suck up all the technology they can, but cry like the cunts they are about Evolution
Another irony, is that Stein later claims that ID has nothing to do with religion yet he babbles about religion all through the movie.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
Of course, because while ID may not depend on a specific religion to be a theory, a lot of religion supports it. It's in the same camp, even if it doesn't need to be.
Is that not easy to comprehend?
ajlepisto 2 years ago
@thisnameisuniq Yeah, and Dawkins thinks we were put here by aliens. So who should we pick?
GuitarGuy22221 1 year ago
@GuitarGuy22221 Correction, he said it was a possibility. and a rather unlikely one, called Panspermia. Look into the context of that. Even if there were aliens, it wouldn't change that evolution happened, which is something God would contradict. We have evidence that evolution happened, so that's not even up for debate. Ben Stein has blatantly made false claims within context, while Dawkins never has.. You clearly didn't get what Dawkins was trying to say, did you?
Gerstein1 1 year ago
@thisnameisuniq
I not surprised that this dumb comment was liked by many idiots who dont understand science is. In the last one hundred years over 95% of all humans and animals (even plants) that have been destroyed were killed using instruments of science. Be it a gun, chemical weapon, chain saw. (all of them are scientific inventions)
This is not what Ben Stein meant, but it is a technically accurate statement.
karamarouge 1 year ago
@karamarouge That's beyond stupid! You accept science as truth, whether you like it or not, you just choose to ignore certain parts of it because they contradict your religion. THAT is what you label as science. A guy cutting down a tree doesn't mean science is evil. That's asinine. And incorrect! May I ask what FOOL told you that? Though I suppose it depends on how you define "destroyed". Anyway, please don't make comments like this, ever. No one here wnats to hear them or believes you.
weirddudeonice 11 months ago
@weirddudeonice I think you are the stupid man!!!! I didnt say science is evil, that is a conclusion you arrived at because once again you are the stupid buffoon.
But why would i be surprised that you would come up with such stupidity, that is what atheists do to advance their nonsensical beliefs. Constantly lie and put words in people's mouths.
karamarouge 11 months ago
@karamarouge Hehe, massive hypocrite, I didn't say YOU are stupid, I said THAT was stupid. You're insulting me as an argument because you have none, and that's a little sad. You certainly implied that science was evil, I believe that's what the point of that entire comment was. You're very stereotypical, and that's an ignorant behavior.
weirddudeonice 11 months ago
@weirddudeonice
I said you are stupid because that is the only correct description of your mental abilities. There is no hypocrisy in speaking the truth. you sir are stupid
karamarouge 10 months ago
next time.
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
@karamarouge Yuh huh, that's great. Now you seem to have proven me correct. You're insulting me in place of an argument because you have none, and that's simply pathetic. You're still insanely stereotypical, you should fix that. Aside from the fact that I'm an atheist, you know nothing about me at all and shouldn't be commenting on my mental abilities. If you're going to say that being an atheist makes me stupid, you're just dumb. No other word for it. Please try to present an actual argument
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
@weirddudeonice
There is simply no argument here! To me it is as simple as water is wet, you are stupid. There is no argument to be made out of that..
Simple statement of fact.
karamarouge 10 months ago
@karamarouge Okay, let me make this simple for you. When all two people do is say the other person is stupid, the argument goes no where and nothing is accomplished. To make progress, you say why you're correct and defend your reasons against the other person, or if you're hellbent on insulting my intelligence, you can argue why I'm stupid. At the moment you're just making a damn fool of yourself and bitching at someone who doesn't care.
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
@weirddudeonice
water is wet, you are stupid. CAse closed.
karamarouge 10 months ago
@karamarouge This is the last response i'm going to give you, because you can't seem to understand anything I'm saying. The "case" may be closed for you, but no one else here thinks you're correct, sorry. If you want to bitch pointlessly, I suggest you find a video where everyone else does. Most videos that involve Atheism Vs. Christianity are for people who know how to argue, so you clearly don't belong here. And if you post another comment saying I'm stupid, just imagine me saying "nuh-uh!".
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weirddudeonice Like I told you before, you are stupid. It is clear from your arguments. Any one can see it.
I am not going to waste my time arguing that water is wet. I am not going to waste my time arguing that you are stupid.
It is obvious. If you werent stupid by now you would have made corrections to the original dumb statements you made.
But because you are truly stupid you are incapable of scrolling back and correcting your stupid statements.
Its is that sime. You sir are stupid
karamarouge 10 months ago
@karamarouge Are you like 6 years old. Does your mom know you got on the computer. "Your stupid, your just a bid stupid head meany" This is the intellectual sum of your argument against weirdudeonice.
You seem to be ashamed that you are not as smart as us and lash out. Look we atheist are just better then you, get used to it.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@weirddudeonice Karamaouge is a complete asshole, good work on the debate. I think he was just scared you were making to much sense.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thisnameisuniq And may i ask what your beliefs are on God?
frogX5 11 months ago
It's ironic that Ben uses Gallileo as one of his examples of a "time of free speech"!!
The premise that God is "loving" is problematic too, especially when you study the character of the nature He/She/It apparently created.
If God is the creator of all, then he/she/it is the creator of evil as well as good. A neutral, indifferent God would then be more likely than a loving one. And one that actively watches sentient creatures suffer and doesn't act is either impotent or malicious.
OriMeissa 2 years ago
Good point, but you forgot that the bible addresses that very issue. He gave free will to his creation, because freedom of choice that results in serving him satisfies God, not just creating mindless loving servants. The angels were created for that reason, and that is their sole responsibility.
This is a typical problem with arguments like this...they don't have the entire fact behind their point, and therefore fall flat on their face. It clearly proves this in the Bible.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
I think you miss the point on the free will issue, with all due respect. One can have free will to choose what one does, yes. What one does NOT have is the free will to choose (or at least complete control over) what others may do to them.
Thus for a God to have the power to act and prevent evil happening (to those who do not choose it e.g. Child Abuse) and yet not intervene indicates callous indifference at best and malevolence at worst.
The biblical account of Job illustrates this best.
OriMeissa 2 years ago
I hope science isn't as weak as this argument, because it crumbled under its own microscope.
Your anaylsis is incorrect, frankly because as you mentioned, free will dictates ones own will, and not anothers, therefore, that proves the theory that God created all with free will, since he does allow people to carry on in evil, based on your example.
You further proved the point that God allows humans to make their own choices.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
So this God of yours just stands by and watches (for example) children getting abused and does nothing. And yet has the power to stop it. If He is unwilling to stop the evil, and yet is able, what does that make him? That was my point. Free will is good and dandy, but if you can prevent evil , isn't that a more rational choice. Wouldn't that also make people be more aware of the choices they made and be more inclined to make non-evil choices, knowing that God might indeed intervene?
OriMeissa 2 years ago
But he has made people aware. The entire bible is filled with accounts and commands about how to treat others and what is right or wrong. People are very aware of evil, but they don't value the life of another human, instead choosing to satisfy only their lusts.
You're trying to say that its Gods fault we are full of problems, and he should have made us incapable of reasoning. I doubt many people would agree with you.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
A poorly written story book filled with improbable stories of people doing grossly immoral things is hardly a good way to make someone aware of evil or the value of the lives of others.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
Nothing proves the "theory" that God created all with free will.
You need to define what free will is, come up with a testable hypothesis, and test it.
It turns out that this has already been done, and with surprising results - free will is not really as free as you might think it is ;)
notthecheatr 2 years ago
Nothing proves that he didn't. You cannot simply assume that since we have proven a form of evolution to the extent of our knowledge and understanding, that free will is also a development of that, can you?
This argument always gets old...just because you can't prove something isn't correct, doesn't mean everything else isn't as well.
Furthermore, you are free to have any opinion regarding the bible...just as the rest of us are free to have our own opinions about evolution.
2 way streets.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Free will isn't the ability to do whatever you wish without consequence. That is the common problem people have when making arguments against it.
Free will is the right and ability to make a choice that may have varied outcomes, without direct intervention to restrain that individual from completing their actions.
Everyone has free will, unless they are restrained. Furthermore, one could assume that free thoughts are essentially free will, and those are impossible to smother.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Ferris Bueller's Day Off is still Ben Stein's best fictional work.
Greafgriet 2 years ago
Stein clearly doesn't understand the theory of Evolution. Lightning striking a mud puddle? Random chance? Accidents?! I find it very difficult to take any of his claims seriously when he doesn't even know what he is arguing against.
PikminDS 2 years ago
that's what i was thinking.If you think life came from mud and lightning, you may want to do some REAL research on evolution.
RockSmithStudio 2 years ago
Macro-evolution has never been proven. We must be willing to admit that evolution is not a law, but a theory.
AndyIrida 2 years ago
You misunderstanding even the word 'theory'. In science a theory is something that is backed up by FACTS. All the evidence points to evolution to explain the variety of life on this planet.
lozmoss 2 years ago
this what theory means . a set of ideas, based on evidence and careful reasoning, which offers an explanation of how something works or why something happens, but has not been completely proved. And notice the last sentence.
animielover2010 2 years ago
Yet they fail to recreate or even find a current example of their facts being proven.
Show me a half evolved species that is developing into it's own species that is not related, and I will change my mind.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Read any book on evolutionary theory before you try and state what you THINK evolution is though! Try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a start. Or simply watch any video from AronRa on the subject [watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY].
Asking to see a "half evolved species" clearly shows your complete misunderstanding of the subject.
Read, study....then criticise!! Please!!
OriMeissa 2 years ago
You cannot have free will over your own choices but also what others do to you, because then they would not have free will. Its very basic, the argument of Job doesn't matvch at all, as Job had choices to turn from God and theoretically stop satans wrath, but he chose to stay within his beliefs and was later rewarded for it.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Job's children were murdered by Satan, on God's permission. What choice did they have in the matter then? Where was their free will? If one views children as possessions, then replacing them with more as reward might be gratifying, but surely we are far more evolved than that, hmm?
OriMeissa 2 years ago
Satan has a will as well. His will is to win souls for his cause. If God is not one to impose his divine will on others, how should we expect that others will follow? Rather, that shows that humanity now has the mentality of satan, to pursue their own lusts regardless of the cost that another must pay.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Define free will. Please give evidence that exists, outside of your subjective point of view. Can you prove that you have free will?
notthecheatr 2 years ago
I already defined this.
Free will = the ability to perform actions or thoughts that give regard only to that specific individual's wants or needs without direct intervention to prevent the action from occurring.
We can all choose to do whatever we wish.
Free will =/= doing whatever you want without consequence.
A common misconception.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
It's a pretty vague definition, and you have yet to prove it.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
Sure it's vague. Haven't you learned that trying to make a specific definition of something given set circumstances is a horrible idea?
Life is relative. You ask for proof of something that may not be proven - as it escapes our ability to check. Can you check if you have free will? C'mon now, use your head. You can't prove or disprove if you do or not, because you have no idea if someone is controlling you, and not letting you know about it.
Hence, faith. In whatever you want to believe.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Just as science requires a certain amount of faith and reliability, so does any other aspect of life.
Sure, we may think we know how gravity works, but there is nothing to say that suddenly it won't change. You can speculate and use all of our knowledge to say it won't...but do you really KNOW? Of course not. We cannot predict the future.
So, accepting faith in science is ok, but not in religion? This I don't understand.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Science requires faith? Bullshit. Science is based on forming testable hypotheses backed up by evidence and observation. That seems pretty faithless to me. Science also runs on doubt, which is the polar opposite of faith. Every piece of science is also being constantly assaulted with attempts to test and improve through falsification.
"we think we know, but what if it changes?"
Science is about probability, not possibility. If there is no reason to believe, then there is no reason to believe.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
I can easily prove I have free will. I have the ability to choose to reply to your message or not.
However, the only way to prove that I would not have any free will would be if some pre-determined force were establishing my actions prior to me knowing them, and therefore would acknowledge a higher power being in control.
So, if that is the case, then I am being lied to, I don't have free will, but regardless I couldn't do anything about it.
You pick which alternative you want to believe.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
Wrong. You CAN'T prove that you have free will. There is no scientific or philosophical proof that humans are not deterministic machines, and the "feeling" that I have free will is only that - a feeling. It isn't borne out by scientific inquiry.
Determinism in no way implies a higher being. Some rules are inherent, and if the universe were (hypothetically speaking) deterministic, it would be most likely that the rules of the universe are inherent ones, not created.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
There's //no such thing// as a half-evolved species because //all// species are //constantly// evolving. Asking for a "half-evolved species" is like asking a parent to show something "halfway" between themselves and their child in order to prove that their child is descended from them.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
Okay.
Based on that theory then, we should have many individuals that are somewhere between defined stages of development. So find me them!
Who on this planet is still evolving the loss of hair from an ape? What species of human is more, or less evolved than the other?
Hm. Yeah, that theory never flies.
ajlepisto 2 years ago
There's no possible way that not only the miracle of human beings, created or evolved would be duplicated by yet again another miracle that ALL "currently evolving" humans are evolving at exactly the same rate and possess the same characteristics that each other have.
Clearly we don't. Which would then lead someone to make the reasonable assumption that group 'X' of our society is somehow less evolved.
Not just mentally. Physically. Are we really going to specify this? Hitler much?
ajlepisto 2 years ago
@ajlepisto
Evolution isn't a ladder. There isn't a "more, therefore better" or even a better or worse. Natural selection doesn't work that way. It's all about how well an organism can duplicate itself by surviving in its environment.
Don't try to somehow meld biological evolution by natural selection with the artificial selection of the eugenics movement.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
That evolution happens is a fact; the theory of evolution explains HOW it happens, but nobody questions THAT it happens. Similarly, the theory of gravity explains HOW gravity happens, so while you are free to provide a more accurate explanation of how gravity works (as Einstein did), it is foolish and ignorant to try to argue that gravity (or evolution) do not happen.
Macro-evolution is a spin word; evolution is evolution, and macro evolution is micro evolution over longer time periods.
notthecheatr 2 years ago
How can something evolve only a certain percentage of beings that came from the same matter at different rates with different outcomes, but all with virtually identical DNA?
Statistically, sure it would happen, but the odds are completely outrageous. Plus, that doesn't address how we are all essentially evolved to the same point, yet there isn't anything in between. So, it stopped?
ajlepisto 2 years ago
First of all, evolution only happens to living things. If it wasn't alive, it didn't evolve. Second, genetically speaking we have pretty good reason to believe that all life came from a common ancestor. Your question seems to be about abiogenesis, not evolution. Two different things.
What do you mean by "we are all essentially evolved to the same point?" That doesn't really make any sense in the light of how natural selection works, perhaps you could rephrase it? Evolution never "stops."
notthecheatr 2 years ago
Nothing you said made any sanse to me, could you please repeat so that stupid people like me could understand? thank you!
xxxrrrxxxrrr 1 year ago
@ajlepisto because of different environments organisms evolved differently as they spread over the earth,its that simple.
No,evolution has not stopped.Organisms that are in ecological niches where they are very successful need not evolve further,take sharks or crocodiles who have changed little over time compared to us.
Rockster969 1 year ago
I love it when creationists/ID proponents say that their inability to comprehend a scientific theory is reasonable grounds for not accepting it.
"I just don't UNDERSTAND this! And of course, I am the most intelligent person in the world, therefore if I can't understand it, it must be WRRROOONNNGGG!"
chrislocate 2 years ago
Haha, lighting in a mud puddle. I love that he doesn't even understand the basic principles of the theories he is fighting against. NOBODY thinks life got started this way. I suggest the author gets an education then joins the argument.
rix181088 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will you go to Heaven? Heres a test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen, or used God's name in vain? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemer. The Bible warns that if you're guilty you will end up in Hell. God sent His Son to die on the cross for all sinners. Then He rose from the dead & defeated death. Please, Trust in Jesus & repent (turn from sin). God will grant everlasting life. Then read your Bible daily & obey it.
saltyTRUTHseeker 2 years ago
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it , you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.
BrightlyEvolving 2 years ago 5
Traditions, Culture, Religion not these...You need a Saviour...Our Lord Jesus Christ :)
usarod02 2 years ago
WOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go GO!
TheBloodyLam 2 years ago
agreed
durandel3 2 years ago
Right on
DevJL 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity is doomed unless it can come to grips with the realities which man now posses. Religion has given up searching for the truth of existence. Whereas Science is constantly striving for the truth of existence. No one will wake up tomorrow and give up Evolution. It is a scientific fact.
The whole field of Biology is based on Evolution.
While Charles Darwin was not aware of DNA, the discovery of DNA confirmed Evolution was correct.
Whether you like it or not.... humans are apes!
BrightlyEvolving 2 years ago 4
Ok, prove it. Show me YOU have the knowledge to back it up.
Lvin4Him 2 years ago
In Scripture All elements made together
In Big Bang Elements beyond hydrogen and helium formed after millions of years.
In Scripture Earth formed before stars
In Big Bang Earth formed long after stars
In Scripture Plants formed before the sun
In Big Bang Plants evolved after the sun
In Scripture Sun formed on the fourth day
In Big Bang Sun formed before the earth
In Scripture Sun, moon, and stars formed
In Big Bang Sun formed from older stars together.
BrightlyEvolving 2 years ago 4
"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth"
The Universe or Heaven is 13.5 billion years old.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
What was God doing for the 9 billion years between Heaven and Earth?
It's very difficult to continue reading the Bible when the very first sentence of the book makes one question its logic.
BrightlyEvolving 2 years ago 13
@BrightlyEvolving And you know for sure the Universe/Heaven is 13.5billion years old? that earth is 4.5 billion years old? Where's the undeniable proof? Or do you just believe EVERYTHING science throws at you?
JCojocaru 1 year ago
Once again, time is irrelevent to a timeless Creator. It is man who is bound by time.
Elazar40 1 year ago
@Elazar40 Before you believe there is no God, prove to yourself the universe is "billions of years old"
JCojocaru 1 year ago
@JCojocaru ............... Did you ever get through Middle School? And why is billions of years old in quotation marks? Are you implying we're not actually saying that?
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
@weirddudeonice nah, just implying you guys believe a complete joke without evidence but don't even attempt to seek the truth of God. You know he exists, but you fight with Satan against it.
JCojocaru 10 months ago
@JCojocaru Wow. Seriously though, have you been through Middle School? If you have, then you should understand radiometric dating. Don't try to tell me I know your religion is correct but that I refuse to accept it, you look like an obnoxious douche. One, you don't know that, and two, I can just as easily say that you know there is no god, and you're just in the religion because it's comforting to you. That isn't even a argument, it's just asinine.
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
@JCojocaru So did you take your pills yet? Mental help is need, please get some.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan Difference between you and I: I seek the truth and I'm not afraid to give up my life for something that is real. You: You're just selfish and won't even attempt to prove the "facts" you state.
JCojocaru 8 months ago
@JCojocaru Ok whatever. Just keep your insanity to yourself because I don't want to hear it.
thesparitan 8 months ago
@thesparitan Insanity is believing things with literally no evidence, not even personal. So yes, by all means keep your insanity t