Perhaps Islamic creation should be taught too. Would you like that, Bill? Huh, Islamic creation in American science classes? All cards on the table, right Bill?
sorry but most the people on here are for lack of a better word absolutely retarded!!!! guess what people there is no such thing as an exact science. in a hundred years they will have come up with new theories as to how we came to be. science is always changing and a lot of times what we believe is a fact todaygets disproved in a matter of decades. you can call me an idiot all you want but i am gonna stick to faith because even if i am wrong ill die happy as a christian.
Ben stein doesn't know what the hell he is talking about he has turned every argument completely backwards on every point. You don't have to be atheist to know he is dead wrong and purposely misleading.
You cant mention theology in science class is because it is not science. Look at intelligent design. The position is that natural objects are so complex that that an intelligent designer was responsible for them. Complexity does not necessitate design. God must be equal or greater in complexity than the objects he designs. Who designed the complex designer? Another designer? You can see this has no beginning. It also does not prove the existence of god. Oh and nature is not perfect. Sigh So Lame
You cant mention theology in science class is because it is not science. Look at intelligent design. The position is that natural objects are so complex that that an intelligent designer was responsible for them. Complexity does not necessitate design. God must be equal or greater in complexity than the objects he designs. Who designed the complex designer? Another designer? You can see this has no beginning. It also does not prove the existence of god. Oh and nature is not perfect. Sigh Lame.
Ehm they're just stupid. Biology is a scientific subject, supernatural explanations are not scientific and therefore we should keep supernatural explainations out of the biology lessons. Teaching creationism is misinforming children about what science is. Why is that so hard to understand?
The probability that life began on this planet as a result of a lightning strike on a puddle of chemicals is plausible and from that point of the time line Darwin's theory takes over. So....where did the lightning come from? Where did the puddle come from? Where did the atoms and molecules come from? You don't have to believe in religion to be able to really think deeply about those questions especially if you remember to apply the concept of infinite numbers and infinite possibilities.
By some strange coincidence, the ID proponents all happen to be theists. But i'm sure that has nothing to do with anything...
Regardless of ID and its conceptuality, Ben Stein is certainly NOT its PR man. Stein purveys a wanton spin campaign that's nothing short of embarassing. When in doubt- invoke the Nazi's! (Oy Vei) Nothing more than sour grapes here. Then FOX runs with it of course. Ben would rather no one believe anything than having anyone believe in his opponents. For shame...
everyone in the these discussions love to just hate and hurt each other.....ID is a theory that maybe could explain the missing parts of evolution.....the startign point of life being the biggest thing......richard dawkins in this movie doesn't dismiss ID watch the last 10 minutes of the movie.....he doesnt say god did it but some high life froms could have.
if someone goes to school and trains to become a scientist, gets a job doing science and STILL believes in God, they deserve to be fired. We don't need ignorant people creating our future.
ben stein is not an IDiot, he is an economist and he turned a $4M profit on this film by giving a gullible group of people what they want to hear to make them feel comfortable.
You are right just saying it means nothing and that is why the church is failing. However the RATE group and many others have evidence to support a young Earth. I bet someone is going to tell me that it is proven that the Earth is billions of years old. However the dating methods used are based on assumptions and have been proven to provide dates thousands of times older then what is the actual age.
No, no group has given evidence to support a young earth. They try constantly, and fail.
No, the dating methods are not assumptions. People have devoted their lives to these studies.
Its funny that when creationists bring up dating methods and their flaws, they bring up things that the methods are not used for, ergo pointing out a flaw (Which scientists have accounted for).
Its like saying my hammer is flawed because it doesn't paint a wall.
There are assumptions invovled. Any fool could see that. For example we do not know the C12/C14 ratio of thousands of years ago. Therfore any carbon dating is makins an assumption. In fact there should be an equilibrium afterabout 20-30.00 years but we are still not in do not have that. Also the RATE group proved that dating methods can give ages of up to 500,000x greater than the actual age. Live long devotion means nothing to one counter example.
It's been said many times; God always was. He created time, so he is not bound by it like we are. He exists outside of time. It's imposible for us to comprehend that because we are finite beings...God is infinite.
God can look petty only in the mind of a little atheist who considers himself to be God. God will still be God when the athiest has gone away. Furthermore, God encompasses science. Relax and think about it . . . it won't hurtcha.
Has Ben Stein considered that as he ages towards death, he as a human being, considers another level of being, ie. heaven as another (place to go?)........Nothing he says is based on anything we know.
evolution theory was good in the 19 century but were in the 21st now,,,SO WHAT??? go back to believing a 2000yr old book that doesnt prove anything what so ever???? Knob!!!!!
You can say you disagree with out calling me a dick, you ass hole.
I know your arguments will be weak, as is your intellect, but do you think, you can put together a few coherent sentences, explaining your position and why?....... No. I did not think so. Run along troll.
First, I owned this tool 5 months ago and doesn't involve you, so shut up Mr. comment critic. If you were honest you would note who wrote the ad hominem first, Knob!!!!!
Second, I don't care what some punk troll says to me, just make a point in standard English. You failed and I owned you.
Three, "than get butthurt ...dick."
WTF? Are you gay? Listen up homosexual, with your perverted crap, stay in the closet and away from my kids ... Run along punk.
1) I did. write who make the ad hominem first. You called him a tool, he called you a dick back, then you called him an asshole.
2) We've never spoken as far as I know, so you haven't owned me.
3) I never brought up homosexuality. Butthurt is a common phrase, and you read into it what was obviously already on your mind.
4) I'd like to take this time to note that you have insulted me 9 times in that post, and I simply asked you a question, which presumed NOTHING, in my post.
The only thing decent about this video is Ben Stein's humility, which will be useful when he has to eat his words.
I think it's laughable how O'Reilly continually implies that intelligent design is as reasonable a position as deism. It's misleading also to claim Einstein and Darwin "worked within the framework of believing there was a God", as that's either poorly worded, a misunderstanding, or an intentional misrepresentation.
DID I SAY SCIENCE WAS USLESS?!? NO, I DIDNT SAY THAT. U MADE THAT UP. Nobody is trying to answer anything with "God did it", To a beleiver in a highpower, such as myself, that would be kinda a no-brainer, its not gonna help research the physiology of it, BTW where are these people that use this as a scientific answer, Ive never met one, maybe to someone with no intrest in science, thats enough of an answer, but not to me. I want us to know it all, & were not gonna get there by with blinders on.
You want to know why scientists refuse to listen to ID advocates? Maybe because they are tired to have to continually re-refute the centuries old faulty arguments that support the creationist story.
It`s like, they explined it once, twice, thrice... and then they just turn around and stop listening to you.
Acquiring knowledge is a slow and "painful" process of drawing hypoteses, testing them, refuting/revising, then testing again and again for every little thing we come to know about the world around us.
Of course, we could also believe plain bullshit because it`s just easier, but then we`d still be living in caves if we did that.
Oh, well forgive me, I didnt realize u were one of those youtube intellectuals. Please, elighten my humble mind, how did life begin? What caused the space time contium to exist? Just how many transitional forms where there between man & ape? How long was the process? Why has the transition seemingly stopped? How many of your answers are going to begin with "we think..." Prehaps..." or "Possibly..."?
What's this guy talking about? Scientists being denied grants because they wanted to "question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism"? Every single paper you will ever read on evolution is testing the limits and boundaries of evolution! It's been happening for years! And besides, its not like the ID community is short of money - they managed to make a very fancy film and the Discovery Institute doesn't seem to be doing too badly for itself.
free speech has nothing to do with it. this CANNOT be taught in classrooms. if it is, the school day better be lengthened to fit in every other retard's ideas as well
Also, to be fair, we don't have a minor scientific disagreement. I'm arguing for science, you're (poorly) arguing for a theory that has produced no peer-reviewed material and technically is not "science" in any definition of the word. Again, for you to be so hung up on a conversation I had a week ago that has nothing to do with abiogenesis, you're either looking for punishment or troll food
Yes, we are having a minor disagreement. This isn't science vs. whatever debate. These are 2 theories, one with major support, and one with minor support. And you are wrong, ID has had peer-reviewed material. And, what exactlly makes ID not " 'science' in any definition of the word".
Btw, I never your other conversation had anything to to with abiogenesis, I was just correcting something you said.
So really, what "minor" support is there if there isn't actually some any peer-reviewed material? They don't have any support from any scientists with any education within a field related to abiogenesis, and they don't put out their own material. I'd call that "negligible" support.
@ajmmii One weeks worth of peer reviewed material on evolution is far greater than the entire output of peer reviewed material in the entire history of ID. Not all of of the supposed ID material actually supported ID, for example Axe, D. D., 2000 (Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595) and Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004 (Protein Science 13: 2651-2664). The latter was rebutted by M. Lynch in 2005. ID isn't science because it draws a conclusion then finds evidence to support it (wrong way).
@Dominicthebassist Barely anything on ID in specific peer reviewed has been published due to the anti-ID bias from the reviewers. ID concepts only get filtered out when the implications on science in the article are realized.
And your wrong, ID doesn't draw conclusions from the data before looking at the data.
@ajmmii Anti-ID bias? I don't think so. The only thing peer reviewed journals are "biased" towards is good science. And ID isn't good science. In fact the only times fully fledged ID has appeared in peer reviewed material is when the reviewer is biased to ID. The only "hypothesis" ID has is that if you look at the workings of a complex biological organism it concludes that it's "irreducibly complex". ID doesn't attempt to explain how things came about, it is a rather bad argument from ignorance.
@ajmmii It's not anti-ID bias, it's science fiction rejection. And the only thing he's wrong about with regard to conclusions first is you're looking to confuse the ignorant on a subject that most don't understand-including you!
@dwolfcoach Ok then. You think I'm ignorant. Then tell, me, what exactly am I not understanding? What am I missing, or ignoring, in science, that makes my scientific opinions fiction? That's assuming you actually know or understand what my opinion is at all. (Alot of anti-IDers don't know what it is, case in point, many comments people post on these vids on youtube.)
@ajmmii Id is NOT science. The important idea here is that opinions, yours, mine or anyone's for that matter, is totally vacuous. If you want to add to this scientific theory, your work is still ahead of you. You cannot and will not have any impact on adjudicating this concept by misleading the readers of YT. Perform the rigorous scientific work and then publish it for criticism by other biologists. You lose in the courts because this criticism is ABSENT!
@gregrutz Very well then, enlight me. How is ID an argument for God? How is it incompatible with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Where does ID favor God over his noodleness?
@ajmmii My next door neighbor is a desigher, do you think she did it? No. Why? because it takes a god to 'Poof' make a universe 6000 years ago but make it look 14 Billion years old. Right?
And if you could prove a god dun it, how do you know which god did it?
In the mere definition ID cannot be science because science looks for natural explanations to the phisical world. That scientific papers written by supporters of the ID ideology doesn't mean that the papers talk about the ID, they might talk about evolution but none of those mention an Inteligent Designer... If you know of a peer reviewed paper that mentions an inteligent designer let me know...
Tell me, are you going to stand up for ID by noting all of the research supporting it and peer-reviewed articles supporting it, or are you just going to knock abiogenesis without taking on the theory itself, shitting out lame rhetoric instead of offering some real material? Hell, this vid is nothing more than pissy rhetoric. Don't you think it's about time to put up or shut up?
I think ID is rather cute, myself, it doesn't have any research supporting it and obviously hasn't put out any peer-reviewed material, but it still makes money off of saps like you that are willing to watch Ben Stein's documentary and purchase overpriced paperback books by the likes of Michael Behe, William Dembski, and other rejects with little or no education in fields related to abiogenesis because it makes you feel like you're being a critical thinker because you're questioning science.
Has it ever occurred to you that, even if we assume that the way life formed on Earth was the only way it could possibly form, which would be a relatively stupid assumption considering experiments have shown that some organisms can live with different proteins than their usual set, the first replicating polymers could have come from polymers with as few as six proteins in a massive sea filled with such proteins? It didn't need to be a "guided" event; probability is on the side of abiogenesis
I didn't come up with "ignorant design", the dopey elf did. I liked the unguided, randomness being called ignorant design. Makes a nice contrast with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Then you can still kill yourself for being one of Ben Stein's clan. Calling abiogenesis "ignorant design" because it involves "unguided" or what you call "random" events according to Ben Stein is the rough equivalent of attempting to kill yourself because Heath Ledger seemed to think it was the right thing to do at the time.
Apparenlty dissension is punishable by death in your book. Not sure what point your trying to make with the Heath Ledger reference (An obsession with death??)
Also, I noted your thoughts on capitalism, which is incorrect. "Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned and controlled." Capitalism says nothing about breaking the law or stealing.
Well, you're a little slow on the uptake, but I've already gathered that, so I won't make any further comments on the possibility of you killing yourself except to say that it might be the best thing you've ever done with your life.
Again, you seem stupid, so allow me to spell it out for you; communist societies paint capitalistic societies as being wasteful and allowing a rich upper-class to exploit both the lower-class and abuse other nations.
You are a very dark individual to wish death on someone that you have a minor scientific dissagreement on. And seriously, insults?
Anyway, I don't care what remanining communists societies paint capitalism as. Alot of what they said anyway was propaganda to keep their (well off) leader in power.
Whatever you define as good or evil, there is a society that views your definition differently, just as there are many individuals with differing opinions and individuals that act in ways that they define as "good" that you define as "evil."
What I don't understand is why people have to believe that their values are at least a little universal. Everyone acts the way that they learn to act, that's why we have spousal abuse, suicide bombers and congressmen that take bribes.
Murder: Christian, Muslim, and other religious societies over the years have openly taught that the best way to deal with nonbelievers was war, enslavement, and murder. Also, many nations have an execution system, and if you don't agree with that crime being punishable by execution, it's virtually the same thing as murder.
Theft: The basic idea of capitalism is to do whatever is necessary to make your own money. Non-capitalist societies view this system as condoning stealing and corruption.
I disagree that good and evil are subjective. We are hard wired with social mores that lead us to be cooperative animals. Most great apes are. And as such, are relevint to the topic of natural selection.
Murder (without a justification like 'he is stealing all my food for the winter') is "evil" because it is aginst our herd instinct.
So good and evil are constant things all people experience, according to your belief that all people are hard-wired to believe certain things are right or wrong? That's not a particularly strong case you've got there.
To say that different societies value the same basic codes of conduct for how people should treat each other would be a ludicrous statement. Most people live in societies with a real government and a set of established laws that affect all people, and most societies differ in what they punish and what punishment is given. For every belief you have about how humans should cooperate, there are multiple societies that value that belief differently or not at all.
For the record, I realize cntrybrby is playing the fool for fun here, but some people actually believe these arguments and pick them up later, and then the terrorists win.
Relax dude. Stop acting like a paranoid nut. atheists destroy this world more than any other religion can. hitler, stalin, napoleon . . . all atheists.
So if religion is the origin of evil, what is the origin of religion? But you yourself do not actually believe religion IS the origin of evil because you say evil people would do evil things and good people, good things without religion. So then what is the origin of evil. If we are here due to natural selection, murder is not evil but the next step in the evolutionary chain (according to your logic).
Getting back to the creation things, if you want to talk about the beginning of the universe, most, not all, evidence points towards the big bang theory. On a very basic level, this explains the origin of the elements as well as the time-space continuum. Other theories exist, of course, and each have different issues that have not yet been figured out. That being said, none of them are reliant on myths or magic, for which we have no evidence outside of what the believers believe.
Okay, if you had a hundred decks of cards and threw them into the air could you get them to land in perfect suits and in perfect order, perfectly spaced? Ever? What if you did it a million times? A billion times? The answer is no. It wouldn't matter if you spend a thousand lifetimes, stoping only to eat and pee, doing this you would never ever get those cards to fall in precisly correctly, not ever!
Irrelevant analogy based on the assumption that in all the billions of years Earth has been around, at any given point of time, only one set of amino acids were touching anywhere on the planet. A ridiculous argument that has never been used except as a strawman for creationists. Billions upon billions of amino acids existed in Earth's oceans, and several billion years took place between the formation of the oceans and modern times.
How did all those amino acids get there? How did the earth get here? Where did the blob that exploded in the big bang come from? Where did the space it occupied come from? You're not explaining anything.
The theories related to the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on Earth are completely separate and distanced by billions of years. I would never assume that a question about the beginning of life has anything to do with the creation of the elements, and even creation myths distinctly separate these events.
So this life debate starts after the point where the earth and solar system are in place? Is that what you're saying? Okay that's like saying we're going to build a house. We can't calculate the size, type, length of a single structural member without knowing what kind of foundation we're putting it on!! The issues can't be seperate! That's a pitiful excuse for a response. Where did the blob come from? Where did the space come from? Where did the first cell come from?
Of course they're separate. You want to know where the element came along at the same time as where the self-replicating cell came along. Why not have a combined experiment about Jesus healing the blind in relation to Pat Robertson stealing pennies off of a dead person's eyes? Asking for a combination of an origin theory and an abiogenesis theory to explain away religion is the epitome of a creationist strawman, although I doubt you're really a creationist.
People want to ignore the evidence of a creator because if one exists, as I believe he does, then we become accountable to that creator. That means the party's over or we face the consequences... that's all it boils down to. People don't want to be held accountable, they don't want to behave.
Or maybe, now just maybe, maybe people got tired of living according to the morals and values of a bunch of sand people and decided to start looking for real answers that someone did make up. Just a possibility, perhaps something to look into for the Christian folks that aren't having any luck converting the non-believers.
Wait, back up a minute. Where do we get the need for morals in the first place? If we just evolved then isn't it about survival of the fittest? Shouldn't we kill off anyone who's a drain on our economy or a contaminate to our genepool? Where does a sense of right and wrong even come from?
Do you know of any animals that randomly wander around slaughtering their own species? "Survival of the fittest" is in full effect everywhere on Earth, but if every species on Earth decided that the best way to survive would be to kill members of their own species indiscriminately, there wouldn't be much life on Earth. That phrase refers to maintaining the strongest genes from one generation to the next, not a WWF cage match between all individual organisms.
So I guess the moral standard we have now is the ticket? Selfishness is sending our economy down the toilet, we use common phrases like sexual preditor, school shooting, suicide bomber, child pornography......... seems humanity doesn't have a very good system. Perhaps we should go back to the one that works.
The moral standard we have now in the US is a mixture of prehistoric idiocy and the Constitution. I personally think the Constitution handles morality and freedom extremely well. It's the old-timey religion that gave us the incomprehensibly broken prison system, and it's also that system that hands out credibility to shady political figures that wear the cross on their lapels. If the religious had their way, we'd go back to being ruled by "divine right."
But if you want to say that humanity as a whole has a poor system, I agree to the extent that logic would allow. Different societies have different systems.
When we were ruled by the "divine right" people left their doors unlocked, child abduction or molestation was unheard of, cops had nothing to do, selfishness and greed (which are the order of the day now) were bad things and people tried not to exibit them, gangs did not exist, life was about selflessness and hard work. And was all that so terrible?
Essentially using 99% of the population as expendable slave labor was pretty bad. Not to mention the fact that child abduction, molestation, etc. was not an invention of modern times. If a person or group was held in high regard by a ruler, they were essentially above the law. Some of the most depraved child molesters and serial killers were not even heard of until their own personal writings were discovered long after their deaths.
I'm also curious if you're serious about the love of divine right, without really addressing the benefits of the Constitution for an American society. Perhaps you're just having fun.
The ones who wrote our Constitution were Christians. In fact all but about three of the men who signed the Declaration of Independance were devout Christian, so I think Christianity just might have played a role in the development of the Constitution.
Of course it played a role; everyone had their own specific beliefs and designed a Constitution that respected the beliefs of everyone, favoring nor scorning any religion.
And there was no "before" the big bang, if it was indeed the big bang that would lead to the current universe. The space-time continuum didn't exist until the big bang occurred. Time itself is only an invention of man to express the changing universe. To ask what existed "before" the big bang is an impossible question to ask someone else.
although I am not a deeply religious person, I do believe the higher power stuff. And although everything can be explained through science, like the formation of the solar system, big bang, etc, there still has to be a sort of "initiation" to all of this, a sort of commencement. I mean, think of how things were before the big bang; how would the supposed "bang" have started without (for lack of a better word) a 'will' ??
But then again, if you are atheist, there is really nothing to argue about. You just think otherwise, but from your last message I gather your fvery religious no?
I don't get it, whats your position on religion?? I thought you were the one saying that to take stories from the bible as ethical metaphors to apply to your life is blasphemous? Please elaborate, my only point was that amongst common people like ourselves, there is absolutely no need to pit one mode of thought to another, I'd rather associate with people who have a willingness to include alternative ideas in comprehending science/religion.
I didn't say it was "blasphemous," I said it was rigoddamndiculous for a sentient human being to be looking for metaphors in the stories of people thousands of years ago. Religion is propaganda wrapped around fictional stories, nothing more. And if there is some higher power out there, which is unnecessary and deconstructive for science to invest in, it certainly has nothing to do with any religion.
Did it take you three tries to come up with that? I'm not the one reading the stories and opinions of a bunch of sand people and calling them metaphors and allegories designed by God to express his desires for the behavior mankind.
As soon as you start taking the Bible as a metaphor, you might as well strap on the tinfoil hat. The next step is believing that all religions are non-mutually exclusive metaphors for the beginning of life. The final step before death or complete isolation usually relates to "world government" conspiracy theories and Native American folklore.
Point is: Evolution could very well exist in the spectrum of religion, but people can't digest "compromise." PLUS how would any of both institutions make as much money as they do if they even considered the other's claims to be even partially true.
YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!! THIS IS WHY HUMANS MAKE WAR, haha.
These theorems are not mutually exclusive, mainly b/c when you talk about "God," the intellectual criteria is so relative/various. Big Bang does not disprove the existence of God. The notion of Adam and Eve, even to the most stubborn of religious people, is understood as a 'metaphor' for ethics and one's loyalty to God. Don't take it literally, in the end, the bible is supposed to teach you something, not serve as an encyclopedia.
Two opinions? Only two? I love how ID assumes that they are on par with Darwin. What about the great arcesecure which created the universe in a giant sneeze? Should we teach that to kids too?
Remember kids, while Ben Stein and Bill ORLY are shills that have latched onto this issue with the intent of selling it to other people, the real trouble started with the Discovery Institute. Guys like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer started this movement in an attempt to make big profit.
Well, I am not the one to try to teach you religion. I am not a minister, that is not my game. I believe what I believe on faith and that is good enough for me. I also believe in micro-evolution because it has been observed, and while not "scientific law", it is pretty well proven. Creationism to me in not about micro-evolution, it is about original life on earth. So, yes the part where evolution is flawed by your own admission is the place where we disagree.
As for your tangent about the holocaust, apparently it is totally lost on me, because I thought I answered it pretty well, and what does Einstein have to do with Evolution? I have no argument with Einstein. He may have thought about Darwinism, but his big thing was physics. Look, if you don't want a lesson about history from someone just because they believe in the bible, which much in the bible is backed up by secular sources,....(cont)...
...(cont)...then you have already closed your mind, and there is nothing that you would take from me even if I were able to convince God himself to give you the answers on a golden platter. So do whatever you want to do. Hope that works out for you.
That history lesson was answering your question to what I was saying, your just unhappy with it because of the source and the beliefs of that source even though I answered you from a completely secular view. That is a closed mind.
Alright dude, that is actually a much better way to say what I was getting at. "Eugenics is "The self-direction of human evolution", thus not due to natural selection". That is much better than saying that Eugenics defeats natural selection by not helping the sick to live. Well done. To answer your question as to why I mentioned Jews, Gays, and Communists. You mentioned the holocaust Here are the reasons why all these groups were included in the holocaust.....(cont)...
Jews were not part of the master race, and the Jews were in charge of much of the economy in Germany, so they had to be eliminated. The gays were viewed as sick, and perverse, therefore mentally deranged, so they were included in the holocaust. The Communists were viewed the same as the Jews, they were one of the major parties in Germany during the rise of Nazi power, therefore, since they did not hold to Nazi ideals, they were also viewed as mentally defective, so the were included in it too...
All these, plus those who were actually sick, deformed, or retarded all were put in concentration camps as a way of removing them all from the gene pool. Bam! Eugenics in action. You have admitted the holes in your theory dude, so in a like gesture I will admit that there are inconsistencies and contradictions left and right in the bible. We both operate in our own flawed systems. You go your way, I'll go mine. All the best Dude.
I have not only read about Darwin, I have read Darwin. I read Darwin, I thought about what he said, I appreciated what he said. I think he had many valid points and proved the existence of micro-evolution. But there is no way he has come up with to prove to anyone that men came from snot in a pool of water. You may have come from there if you like, but I sure didn't. I'm sure you have heard of the missing link, being such a learned man. The main one is for humans, but there are lots of them.
So, I appreciated what Darwin said, but with plenty of holes in his own story, I will keep my own options open because I just can't stand by the notion that we came from the primordial ooze. And by the way, I didn't say that insults were for the uneducated, just vulgarity. You made that claim yourself. I think insults are hilarious, especially when the target can't even pick up on the fact they are being insulted. Yes, I know you have insulted me, and I'm okay with it because your opinion (cont)
Interesting you should bring that up Random. There are two sides to every coin. We all know and I am sure agree with the notion that the holocaust was a sick, disgusting slaughter. However, the Nazis were avid followers of Darwinism. They used his theories on Eugenics as rational for their crimes. Are you familiar with Eugenics? Probably not, so I will enlighten you. Eugenics is the notion that the sick, deformed, and retarded should not be helped to live because it defeats the rules of..(cont).
...(cont)..natural selection. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing by killing off, Jews, gays, Communists, and the handicapped of society. See, there are two sides to everything. Try again.
Thank you for trying again. Your rants are very entertaining you know that, Johhny. But I stand by what I say, and if you have not noticed, I have not said if I believe in creationism or evolution. So how do you know that I am not fully behind Darwin? I am sure keeping all my options on the table. Because my mind is opened. I am glad that my kids are not going to school in Canada. What do you teach? I'm betting either science or theology. I'm still not impressed my uneducated friend try again.
i'm sure you're kids are much better off in the US public school system.
i'm not trying to change your mind and i could care less whether you're on one side or the other. the fact that you enjoyed the movie speaks volumes. it shows your level of intellect and begs one to infer that you're not well read either. if i'm uneducated then i guess that wouold make you a moron
Wow, you seem really invested in your opinion Johhny. I expect your outburst from the young, seventeen year old, fellow I was talking to before. However, you are the same age as me; you sir are an adult. Have you not learned to express yourself in a meaningful way yet? Cursing is just the defense mechanism of the uneducated. So why don't you tone down your loud-mouthed bluster and try again.
i completely disagree. the use of profanity, while generally the norm for the lower classes and the undereducated, can be extremely helpful in many a situation. this happens to be one of those situations.
if you seriously think that expelled is a good movie, you sir, have the brain of a seven year old.
You have not really destroyed anything young fellow. First, I did not claim one side of the other. how do you know I don't agree with you? The point of that movie...is not that creationism is right. It's about not taking options off the table. As an agnostic, Darwin kept all options on the table, even though he leaned towards science. My point is keep your options open. Have you watched the film, Expelled? It makes you think, and you just have to be a little open minded to appreciate it.
Scientific theory is not a proven law, so Darwin's Theory of Evolution is no more proven than the Theory of Creation. Until one is proven into scientific law they both merit equal attention. That's how science works. The whole point is to not discount any possibility and to eliminate half the debate because it is old fashioned is just plain foolish. Even Darwin would agree with me there. Da
clearly evolution is a fact. do i win ben steins money?
cottagecheeselegs 1 week ago
@cottagecheeselegs Which part is fact?
ajmmii 5 days ago
@ajmmii All of it
najhoant 3 days ago
Perhaps Islamic creation should be taught too. Would you like that, Bill? Huh, Islamic creation in American science classes? All cards on the table, right Bill?
WildcardHatesYou 2 months ago
sorry but most the people on here are for lack of a better word absolutely retarded!!!! guess what people there is no such thing as an exact science. in a hundred years they will have come up with new theories as to how we came to be. science is always changing and a lot of times what we believe is a fact todaygets disproved in a matter of decades. you can call me an idiot all you want but i am gonna stick to faith because even if i am wrong ill die happy as a christian.
Luke73470 3 months ago
Ben stein doesn't know what the hell he is talking about he has turned every argument completely backwards on every point. You don't have to be atheist to know he is dead wrong and purposely misleading.
redrum95432 4 months ago
Stupid atheist liberals
KingDom1496 6 months ago
Darwin wrote. "Origin of Species'' Not Origin of life. Ben is so stupid.
gregrutz 8 months ago
yeah, and science does not try to fill in the gaps
wow, Ben Stein youre really a PRIMITIVE
TheMoe1990 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You cant mention theology in science class is because it is not science. Look at intelligent design. The position is that natural objects are so complex that that an intelligent designer was responsible for them. Complexity does not necessitate design. God must be equal or greater in complexity than the objects he designs. Who designed the complex designer? Another designer? You can see this has no beginning. It also does not prove the existence of god. Oh and nature is not perfect. Sigh So Lame
Nexlevelbassin 9 months ago
You cant mention theology in science class is because it is not science. Look at intelligent design. The position is that natural objects are so complex that that an intelligent designer was responsible for them. Complexity does not necessitate design. God must be equal or greater in complexity than the objects he designs. Who designed the complex designer? Another designer? You can see this has no beginning. It also does not prove the existence of god. Oh and nature is not perfect. Sigh Lame.
Nexlevelbassin 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes you are wrong. Yes you are stupid
MRLfromhell 9 months ago
Ehm they're just stupid. Biology is a scientific subject, supernatural explanations are not scientific and therefore we should keep supernatural explainations out of the biology lessons. Teaching creationism is misinforming children about what science is. Why is that so hard to understand?
dekippiesip 10 months ago
Evolution is not science Either. B******T!!
01221984 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No 'maybe' about it. You are wrong. You are stupid.
Monumentum616 10 months ago
aaarrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!!
pritchardben1982 11 months ago
I just hate them both so much
jose11216 1 year ago
Stein admits he worships the god of the gaps.
marsjacobvolta 1 year ago
The probability that life began on this planet as a result of a lightning strike on a puddle of chemicals is plausible and from that point of the time line Darwin's theory takes over. So....where did the lightning come from? Where did the puddle come from? Where did the atoms and molecules come from? You don't have to believe in religion to be able to really think deeply about those questions especially if you remember to apply the concept of infinite numbers and infinite possibilities.
SPAD58 1 year ago
"you secular pinheads"
zackhf 1 year ago
I like how we just popped out of thin air.
bo0tsy1 1 year ago
why cant these tards ever give the science of this "higher power"?
pistolpete667 1 year ago
O'Reilly and Stein are proof intelligent design does not exist!
unclelight 2 years ago
Wow really funny! typical idiot you can't refute what Ben says he's thought it all out. Your socially & historically brainwashed & ignorant.
DourCynic1 2 years ago
By some strange coincidence, the ID proponents all happen to be theists. But i'm sure that has nothing to do with anything...
Regardless of ID and its conceptuality, Ben Stein is certainly NOT its PR man. Stein purveys a wanton spin campaign that's nothing short of embarassing. When in doubt- invoke the Nazi's! (Oy Vei) Nothing more than sour grapes here. Then FOX runs with it of course. Ben would rather no one believe anything than having anyone believe in his opponents. For shame...
belodeau 2 years ago
everyone in the these discussions love to just hate and hurt each other.....ID is a theory that maybe could explain the missing parts of evolution.....the startign point of life being the biggest thing......richard dawkins in this movie doesn't dismiss ID watch the last 10 minutes of the movie.....he doesnt say god did it but some high life froms could have.
mazdamike25 2 years ago
The problem is that ID is not proposing other possibilities, only a christian God.
JiubLink 2 years ago
Classic "spin campaign" 101:
1) Creationists couldn't keep Darwin out of schools
2) Creationists couldn't get creationism in schools
3) Creationists tried to pass off creationism as "legitimate mode of science" with "ID" theory so as to circumvent the religion component.
4) After "ID" failed miserably, they tried the angle of "teach the controversy."
5) After all else failed, retreated to tactic of claiming the establishment to be "corrupt and beyond having a fair point of view."
belodeau 2 years ago
Bingo
JiubLink 2 years ago
if someone goes to school and trains to become a scientist, gets a job doing science and STILL believes in God, they deserve to be fired. We don't need ignorant people creating our future.
Baddboy187 2 years ago
ben stein is not an IDiot, he is an economist and he turned a $4M profit on this film by giving a gullible group of people what they want to hear to make them feel comfortable.
halocrate 2 years ago
Saying "God did it" solves nothing, it just raises the obvious question of God's origins. How many times does this have to be said?
peterwantspie 2 years ago
You are right just saying it means nothing and that is why the church is failing. However the RATE group and many others have evidence to support a young Earth. I bet someone is going to tell me that it is proven that the Earth is billions of years old. However the dating methods used are based on assumptions and have been proven to provide dates thousands of times older then what is the actual age.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Ok, ill bite.
No, no group has given evidence to support a young earth. They try constantly, and fail.
No, the dating methods are not assumptions. People have devoted their lives to these studies.
Its funny that when creationists bring up dating methods and their flaws, they bring up things that the methods are not used for, ergo pointing out a flaw (Which scientists have accounted for).
Its like saying my hammer is flawed because it doesn't paint a wall.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
There are assumptions invovled. Any fool could see that. For example we do not know the C12/C14 ratio of thousands of years ago. Therfore any carbon dating is makins an assumption. In fact there should be an equilibrium afterabout 20-30.00 years but we are still not in do not have that. Also the RATE group proved that dating methods can give ages of up to 500,000x greater than the actual age. Live long devotion means nothing to one counter example.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
It's been said many times; God always was. He created time, so he is not bound by it like we are. He exists outside of time. It's imposible for us to comprehend that because we are finite beings...God is infinite.
OddTimeMan 2 years ago
God can look petty only in the mind of a little atheist who considers himself to be God. God will still be God when the athiest has gone away. Furthermore, God encompasses science. Relax and think about it . . . it won't hurtcha.
greengringo2003 2 years ago
That's a lovely little thought exercise except for the fact that no atheist since stalin has considered himself to be god.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Has Ben Stein considered that as he ages towards death, he as a human being, considers another level of being, ie. heaven as another (place to go?)........Nothing he says is based on anything we know.
ragusajr 2 years ago
sooo dumb
tempferno 2 years ago 2
evolution theory was good in the 19 century but were in the 21st now,,,SO WHAT??? go back to believing a 2000yr old book that doesnt prove anything what so ever???? Knob!!!!!
Screatus 2 years ago
You assume we know so much more? We don't. Tool!!!!
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
im just replyin to what stein said at the beginning....it makes no sense...dick
Screatus 2 years ago
You can say you disagree with out calling me a dick, you ass hole.
I know your arguments will be weak, as is your intellect, but do you think, you can put together a few coherent sentences, explaining your position and why?....... No. I did not think so. Run along troll.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
GMC. You call him a tool, then get butthurt when he calls you a dick?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
First, I owned this tool 5 months ago and doesn't involve you, so shut up Mr. comment critic. If you were honest you would note who wrote the ad hominem first, Knob!!!!!
Second, I don't care what some punk troll says to me, just make a point in standard English. You failed and I owned you.
Three, "than get butthurt ...dick."
WTF? Are you gay? Listen up homosexual, with your perverted crap, stay in the closet and away from my kids ... Run along punk.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
1) I did. write who make the ad hominem first. You called him a tool, he called you a dick back, then you called him an asshole.
2) We've never spoken as far as I know, so you haven't owned me.
3) I never brought up homosexuality. Butthurt is a common phrase, and you read into it what was obviously already on your mind.
4) I'd like to take this time to note that you have insulted me 9 times in that post, and I simply asked you a question, which presumed NOTHING, in my post.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
The only thing decent about this video is Ben Stein's humility, which will be useful when he has to eat his words.
I think it's laughable how O'Reilly continually implies that intelligent design is as reasonable a position as deism. It's misleading also to claim Einstein and Darwin "worked within the framework of believing there was a God", as that's either poorly worded, a misunderstanding, or an intentional misrepresentation.
andrew1125 2 years ago
DID I SAY SCIENCE WAS USLESS?!? NO, I DIDNT SAY THAT. U MADE THAT UP. Nobody is trying to answer anything with "God did it", To a beleiver in a highpower, such as myself, that would be kinda a no-brainer, its not gonna help research the physiology of it, BTW where are these people that use this as a scientific answer, Ive never met one, maybe to someone with no intrest in science, thats enough of an answer, but not to me. I want us to know it all, & were not gonna get there by with blinders on.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
You want to know why scientists refuse to listen to ID advocates? Maybe because they are tired to have to continually re-refute the centuries old faulty arguments that support the creationist story.
It`s like, they explined it once, twice, thrice... and then they just turn around and stop listening to you.
paolo27th 2 years ago
An explaination doesnt hold much water, if it doesnt answer all questions.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Have you decided that all by yourself?
Acquiring knowledge is a slow and "painful" process of drawing hypoteses, testing them, refuting/revising, then testing again and again for every little thing we come to know about the world around us.
Of course, we could also believe plain bullshit because it`s just easier, but then we`d still be living in caves if we did that.
paolo27th 2 years ago
Oh, well forgive me, I didnt realize u were one of those youtube intellectuals. Please, elighten my humble mind, how did life begin? What caused the space time contium to exist? Just how many transitional forms where there between man & ape? How long was the process? Why has the transition seemingly stopped? How many of your answers are going to begin with "we think..." Prehaps..." or "Possibly..."?
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
What's this guy talking about? Scientists being denied grants because they wanted to "question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism"? Every single paper you will ever read on evolution is testing the limits and boundaries of evolution! It's been happening for years! And besides, its not like the ID community is short of money - they managed to make a very fancy film and the Discovery Institute doesn't seem to be doing too badly for itself.
chrislocate 2 years ago
Ben - Bill. It amazes me that you still harp on about religion.
Peronitom 2 years ago
Oh Bill, you silly lying twat.
croutonfada 2 years ago
free speech has nothing to do with it. this CANNOT be taught in classrooms. if it is, the school day better be lengthened to fit in every other retard's ideas as well
johhny3rubs 2 years ago
It would definitely shorten the science classes, so they've got the youth vote.
ProverbsandPrisons 2 years ago
I've sent an appropriate PM, you can post it if you want, or just respond.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
It doesn't want to let me respond
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Also, to be fair, we don't have a minor scientific disagreement. I'm arguing for science, you're (poorly) arguing for a theory that has produced no peer-reviewed material and technically is not "science" in any definition of the word. Again, for you to be so hung up on a conversation I had a week ago that has nothing to do with abiogenesis, you're either looking for punishment or troll food
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Yes, we are having a minor disagreement. This isn't science vs. whatever debate. These are 2 theories, one with major support, and one with minor support. And you are wrong, ID has had peer-reviewed material. And, what exactlly makes ID not " 'science' in any definition of the word".
Btw, I never your other conversation had anything to to with abiogenesis, I was just correcting something you said.
ajmmii 2 years ago
So really, what "minor" support is there if there isn't actually some any peer-reviewed material? They don't have any support from any scientists with any education within a field related to abiogenesis, and they don't put out their own material. I'd call that "negligible" support.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,"
John A. Davison, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis"
S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,"
etc.
You may refer to the group as "negligible", but the support is still there.
ajmmii 2 years ago
In short, don't pull things off of idnet and tell me they're peer-reviewed, especially not something as laughable as Stephen Meyer's article.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Really? did you just cite SC Meyer?
mrkurt13 2 years ago
@ajmmii One weeks worth of peer reviewed material on evolution is far greater than the entire output of peer reviewed material in the entire history of ID. Not all of of the supposed ID material actually supported ID, for example Axe, D. D., 2000 (Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595) and Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004 (Protein Science 13: 2651-2664). The latter was rebutted by M. Lynch in 2005. ID isn't science because it draws a conclusion then finds evidence to support it (wrong way).
Dominicthebassist 1 year ago
@Dominicthebassist Barely anything on ID in specific peer reviewed has been published due to the anti-ID bias from the reviewers. ID concepts only get filtered out when the implications on science in the article are realized.
And your wrong, ID doesn't draw conclusions from the data before looking at the data.
ajmmii 1 year ago
@ajmmii Anti-ID bias? I don't think so. The only thing peer reviewed journals are "biased" towards is good science. And ID isn't good science. In fact the only times fully fledged ID has appeared in peer reviewed material is when the reviewer is biased to ID. The only "hypothesis" ID has is that if you look at the workings of a complex biological organism it concludes that it's "irreducibly complex". ID doesn't attempt to explain how things came about, it is a rather bad argument from ignorance.
Dominicthebassist 1 year ago
@ajmmii It's not anti-ID bias, it's science fiction rejection. And the only thing he's wrong about with regard to conclusions first is you're looking to confuse the ignorant on a subject that most don't understand-including you!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach Ok then. You think I'm ignorant. Then tell, me, what exactly am I not understanding? What am I missing, or ignoring, in science, that makes my scientific opinions fiction? That's assuming you actually know or understand what my opinion is at all. (Alot of anti-IDers don't know what it is, case in point, many comments people post on these vids on youtube.)
ajmmii 1 year ago
@ajmmii Id is NOT science. The important idea here is that opinions, yours, mine or anyone's for that matter, is totally vacuous. If you want to add to this scientific theory, your work is still ahead of you. You cannot and will not have any impact on adjudicating this concept by misleading the readers of YT. Perform the rigorous scientific work and then publish it for criticism by other biologists. You lose in the courts because this criticism is ABSENT!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@ajmmii First, you don't understand the ID is an argument for God, it is not Science. Science is what scientists do, and they don't do ID.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz Very well then, enlight me. How is ID an argument for God? How is it incompatible with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Where does ID favor God over his noodleness?
ajmmii 8 months ago
@ajmmii My next door neighbor is a desigher, do you think she did it? No. Why? because it takes a god to 'Poof' make a universe 6000 years ago but make it look 14 Billion years old. Right?
And if you could prove a god dun it, how do you know which god did it?
gregrutz 8 months ago
In the mere definition ID cannot be science because science looks for natural explanations to the phisical world. That scientific papers written by supporters of the ID ideology doesn't mean that the papers talk about the ID, they might talk about evolution but none of those mention an Inteligent Designer... If you know of a peer reviewed paper that mentions an inteligent designer let me know...
gustavonarez 2 years ago
Look up the Stephen Meyer article ajmmii posted. That marked a low point for ID as a legitimate scientific theory.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Tell me, are you going to stand up for ID by noting all of the research supporting it and peer-reviewed articles supporting it, or are you just going to knock abiogenesis without taking on the theory itself, shitting out lame rhetoric instead of offering some real material? Hell, this vid is nothing more than pissy rhetoric. Don't you think it's about time to put up or shut up?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I think ID is rather cute, myself, it doesn't have any research supporting it and obviously hasn't put out any peer-reviewed material, but it still makes money off of saps like you that are willing to watch Ben Stein's documentary and purchase overpriced paperback books by the likes of Michael Behe, William Dembski, and other rejects with little or no education in fields related to abiogenesis because it makes you feel like you're being a critical thinker because you're questioning science.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Has it ever occurred to you that, even if we assume that the way life formed on Earth was the only way it could possibly form, which would be a relatively stupid assumption considering experiments have shown that some organisms can live with different proteins than their usual set, the first replicating polymers could have come from polymers with as few as six proteins in a massive sea filled with such proteins? It didn't need to be a "guided" event; probability is on the side of abiogenesis
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
maybe they should call it "ignorant design"
amirite?
dopesmokingelf 2 years ago
So, now the 2 theories are Intelligent Design vs Ignorant Design?
ajmmii 2 years ago
That was pretty awful, you should kill yourself just for coming up with that one.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I didn't come up with "ignorant design", the dopey elf did. I liked the unguided, randomness being called ignorant design. Makes a nice contrast with the theory of Intelligent Design.
ajmmii 2 years ago
Then you can still kill yourself for being one of Ben Stein's clan. Calling abiogenesis "ignorant design" because it involves "unguided" or what you call "random" events according to Ben Stein is the rough equivalent of attempting to kill yourself because Heath Ledger seemed to think it was the right thing to do at the time.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Apparenlty dissension is punishable by death in your book. Not sure what point your trying to make with the Heath Ledger reference (An obsession with death??)
Also, I noted your thoughts on capitalism, which is incorrect. "Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned and controlled." Capitalism says nothing about breaking the law or stealing.
ajmmii 2 years ago
Well, you're a little slow on the uptake, but I've already gathered that, so I won't make any further comments on the possibility of you killing yourself except to say that it might be the best thing you've ever done with your life.
Again, you seem stupid, so allow me to spell it out for you; communist societies paint capitalistic societies as being wasteful and allowing a rich upper-class to exploit both the lower-class and abuse other nations.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
You are a very dark individual to wish death on someone that you have a minor scientific dissagreement on. And seriously, insults?
Anyway, I don't care what remanining communists societies paint capitalism as. Alot of what they said anyway was propaganda to keep their (well off) leader in power.
ajmmii 2 years ago
That is reasonable.
Finn001abd 2 years ago
Whatever you define as good or evil, there is a society that views your definition differently, just as there are many individuals with differing opinions and individuals that act in ways that they define as "good" that you define as "evil."
What I don't understand is why people have to believe that their values are at least a little universal. Everyone acts the way that they learn to act, that's why we have spousal abuse, suicide bombers and congressmen that take bribes.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Name me a society that thinks that murder, and theft is "good"
snowman6427 3 years ago
Murder: Christian, Muslim, and other religious societies over the years have openly taught that the best way to deal with nonbelievers was war, enslavement, and murder. Also, many nations have an execution system, and if you don't agree with that crime being punishable by execution, it's virtually the same thing as murder.
Theft: The basic idea of capitalism is to do whatever is necessary to make your own money. Non-capitalist societies view this system as condoning stealing and corruption.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
I disagree that good and evil are subjective. We are hard wired with social mores that lead us to be cooperative animals. Most great apes are. And as such, are relevint to the topic of natural selection.
Murder (without a justification like 'he is stealing all my food for the winter') is "evil" because it is aginst our herd instinct.
snowman6427 3 years ago
So good and evil are constant things all people experience, according to your belief that all people are hard-wired to believe certain things are right or wrong? That's not a particularly strong case you've got there.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
It's no more strong or weak as the argument that good and bad are subjective.
I look at it in the way Dawkins does...
social memes that help one group survive over another.
snowman6427 3 years ago
To say that different societies value the same basic codes of conduct for how people should treat each other would be a ludicrous statement. Most people live in societies with a real government and a set of established laws that affect all people, and most societies differ in what they punish and what punishment is given. For every belief you have about how humans should cooperate, there are multiple societies that value that belief differently or not at all.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
For the record, I realize cntrybrby is playing the fool for fun here, but some people actually believe these arguments and pick them up later, and then the terrorists win.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
In your own words, "uuuuuuhhhhh "
bubbles2006 3 years ago
These f*cking idiots have influence in our country. Thats the terrifying part.
AHughman08 3 years ago
Relax dude. Stop acting like a paranoid nut. atheists destroy this world more than any other religion can. hitler, stalin, napoleon . . . all atheists.
sphynxalive 3 years ago
uuuuuuhhhhh
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
With out religion eval people will do eval things, and good people, good things.
It takes religion to make good peole do eval things.
snowman6427 3 years ago
So if religion is the origin of evil, what is the origin of religion? But you yourself do not actually believe religion IS the origin of evil because you say evil people would do evil things and good people, good things without religion. So then what is the origin of evil. If we are here due to natural selection, murder is not evil but the next step in the evolutionary chain (according to your logic).
bubbles2006 3 years ago
eval things? lol
panicatthekhk 3 years ago
Getting back to the creation things, if you want to talk about the beginning of the universe, most, not all, evidence points towards the big bang theory. On a very basic level, this explains the origin of the elements as well as the time-space continuum. Other theories exist, of course, and each have different issues that have not yet been figured out. That being said, none of them are reliant on myths or magic, for which we have no evidence outside of what the believers believe.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Okay, if you had a hundred decks of cards and threw them into the air could you get them to land in perfect suits and in perfect order, perfectly spaced? Ever? What if you did it a million times? A billion times? The answer is no. It wouldn't matter if you spend a thousand lifetimes, stoping only to eat and pee, doing this you would never ever get those cards to fall in precisly correctly, not ever!
cntrybrby 3 years ago
Irrelevant analogy based on the assumption that in all the billions of years Earth has been around, at any given point of time, only one set of amino acids were touching anywhere on the planet. A ridiculous argument that has never been used except as a strawman for creationists. Billions upon billions of amino acids existed in Earth's oceans, and several billion years took place between the formation of the oceans and modern times.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
How did all those amino acids get there? How did the earth get here? Where did the blob that exploded in the big bang come from? Where did the space it occupied come from? You're not explaining anything.
cntrybrby 3 years ago
The theories related to the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on Earth are completely separate and distanced by billions of years. I would never assume that a question about the beginning of life has anything to do with the creation of the elements, and even creation myths distinctly separate these events.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
So this life debate starts after the point where the earth and solar system are in place? Is that what you're saying? Okay that's like saying we're going to build a house. We can't calculate the size, type, length of a single structural member without knowing what kind of foundation we're putting it on!! The issues can't be seperate! That's a pitiful excuse for a response. Where did the blob come from? Where did the space come from? Where did the first cell come from?
cntrybrby 3 years ago
Of course they're separate. You want to know where the element came along at the same time as where the self-replicating cell came along. Why not have a combined experiment about Jesus healing the blind in relation to Pat Robertson stealing pennies off of a dead person's eyes? Asking for a combination of an origin theory and an abiogenesis theory to explain away religion is the epitome of a creationist strawman, although I doubt you're really a creationist.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
People want to ignore the evidence of a creator because if one exists, as I believe he does, then we become accountable to that creator. That means the party's over or we face the consequences... that's all it boils down to. People don't want to be held accountable, they don't want to behave.
cntrybrby 3 years ago
Or maybe, now just maybe, maybe people got tired of living according to the morals and values of a bunch of sand people and decided to start looking for real answers that someone did make up. Just a possibility, perhaps something to look into for the Christian folks that aren't having any luck converting the non-believers.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Terribly sorry about that, "did" should be "didn't" just in case someone doesn't imply that.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Wait, back up a minute. Where do we get the need for morals in the first place? If we just evolved then isn't it about survival of the fittest? Shouldn't we kill off anyone who's a drain on our economy or a contaminate to our genepool? Where does a sense of right and wrong even come from?
cntrybrby 3 years ago
Do you know of any animals that randomly wander around slaughtering their own species? "Survival of the fittest" is in full effect everywhere on Earth, but if every species on Earth decided that the best way to survive would be to kill members of their own species indiscriminately, there wouldn't be much life on Earth. That phrase refers to maintaining the strongest genes from one generation to the next, not a WWF cage match between all individual organisms.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
So I guess the moral standard we have now is the ticket? Selfishness is sending our economy down the toilet, we use common phrases like sexual preditor, school shooting, suicide bomber, child pornography......... seems humanity doesn't have a very good system. Perhaps we should go back to the one that works.
cntrybrby 3 years ago
The moral standard we have now in the US is a mixture of prehistoric idiocy and the Constitution. I personally think the Constitution handles morality and freedom extremely well. It's the old-timey religion that gave us the incomprehensibly broken prison system, and it's also that system that hands out credibility to shady political figures that wear the cross on their lapels. If the religious had their way, we'd go back to being ruled by "divine right."
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
But if you want to say that humanity as a whole has a poor system, I agree to the extent that logic would allow. Different societies have different systems.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
When we were ruled by the "divine right" people left their doors unlocked, child abduction or molestation was unheard of, cops had nothing to do, selfishness and greed (which are the order of the day now) were bad things and people tried not to exibit them, gangs did not exist, life was about selflessness and hard work. And was all that so terrible?
cntrybrby 3 years ago
Essentially using 99% of the population as expendable slave labor was pretty bad. Not to mention the fact that child abduction, molestation, etc. was not an invention of modern times. If a person or group was held in high regard by a ruler, they were essentially above the law. Some of the most depraved child molesters and serial killers were not even heard of until their own personal writings were discovered long after their deaths.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
I'm also curious if you're serious about the love of divine right, without really addressing the benefits of the Constitution for an American society. Perhaps you're just having fun.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
The ones who wrote our Constitution were Christians. In fact all but about three of the men who signed the Declaration of Independance were devout Christian, so I think Christianity just might have played a role in the development of the Constitution.
cntrybrby 3 years ago
Of course it played a role; everyone had their own specific beliefs and designed a Constitution that respected the beliefs of everyone, favoring nor scorning any religion.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
must burn you that thoes three that where not devout where George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin.
snowman6427 3 years ago
good points, althought I have my disagreements..
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
And there was no "before" the big bang, if it was indeed the big bang that would lead to the current universe. The space-time continuum didn't exist until the big bang occurred. Time itself is only an invention of man to express the changing universe. To ask what existed "before" the big bang is an impossible question to ask someone else.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
although I am not a deeply religious person, I do believe the higher power stuff. And although everything can be explained through science, like the formation of the solar system, big bang, etc, there still has to be a sort of "initiation" to all of this, a sort of commencement. I mean, think of how things were before the big bang; how would the supposed "bang" have started without (for lack of a better word) a 'will' ??
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
But then again, if you are atheist, there is really nothing to argue about. You just think otherwise, but from your last message I gather your fvery religious no?
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
I don't get it, whats your position on religion?? I thought you were the one saying that to take stories from the bible as ethical metaphors to apply to your life is blasphemous? Please elaborate, my only point was that amongst common people like ourselves, there is absolutely no need to pit one mode of thought to another, I'd rather associate with people who have a willingness to include alternative ideas in comprehending science/religion.
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
I didn't say it was "blasphemous," I said it was rigoddamndiculous for a sentient human being to be looking for metaphors in the stories of people thousands of years ago. Religion is propaganda wrapped around fictional stories, nothing more. And if there is some higher power out there, which is unnecessary and deconstructive for science to invest in, it certainly has nothing to do with any religion.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Hey Tarantino fan, whats the step before taking the Bible as a metaphor? WTF are you babbling about man!?
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
Did it take you three tries to come up with that? I'm not the one reading the stories and opinions of a bunch of sand people and calling them metaphors and allegories designed by God to express his desires for the behavior mankind.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Comment removed
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
Comment removed
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
As soon as you start taking the Bible as a metaphor, you might as well strap on the tinfoil hat. The next step is believing that all religions are non-mutually exclusive metaphors for the beginning of life. The final step before death or complete isolation usually relates to "world government" conspiracy theories and Native American folklore.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Point is: Evolution could very well exist in the spectrum of religion, but people can't digest "compromise." PLUS how would any of both institutions make as much money as they do if they even considered the other's claims to be even partially true.
YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!! THIS IS WHY HUMANS MAKE WAR, haha.
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
These theorems are not mutually exclusive, mainly b/c when you talk about "God," the intellectual criteria is so relative/various. Big Bang does not disprove the existence of God. The notion of Adam and Eve, even to the most stubborn of religious people, is understood as a 'metaphor' for ethics and one's loyalty to God. Don't take it literally, in the end, the bible is supposed to teach you something, not serve as an encyclopedia.
Krushgr00ve 3 years ago
Where are the agnostic voices while we're at it?
shinybear 3 years ago
Shut up, Christian infidel
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Atheist who want to be tolerance do not tolerant they just make fun and try to shut up people who believe in a God.
NarnianQueen89 3 years ago
That is so true. Since when was evolution proven and since when did the whole country believe it? It's not decided.
ryank119 3 years ago
Welcome to 1930. Buy yourself a science book
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
Two opinions? Only two? I love how ID assumes that they are on par with Darwin. What about the great arcesecure which created the universe in a giant sneeze? Should we teach that to kids too?
wpiman 3 years ago
Remember kids, while Ben Stein and Bill ORLY are shills that have latched onto this issue with the intent of selling it to other people, the real trouble started with the Discovery Institute. Guys like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer started this movement in an attempt to make big profit.
ReservoirdogEC 3 years ago
darwinism????? Are they trying to talk about evolution? what are these idiot talking about????
anarchycastro 3 years ago
LOL, this guy is amazing. "Intelligent Design is an effort to fill in some of those gaps [Darwinism]"
how the hell do you plan on doing that, calling up God and asking him how he did it?
dmitrymin 3 years ago
The 2 dumbest guys ever in this show...
Moonie8 3 years ago 3
god isn't real
binladidaden 3 years ago
Well, I am not the one to try to teach you religion. I am not a minister, that is not my game. I believe what I believe on faith and that is good enough for me. I also believe in micro-evolution because it has been observed, and while not "scientific law", it is pretty well proven. Creationism to me in not about micro-evolution, it is about original life on earth. So, yes the part where evolution is flawed by your own admission is the place where we disagree.
corsair982 3 years ago
As for your tangent about the holocaust, apparently it is totally lost on me, because I thought I answered it pretty well, and what does Einstein have to do with Evolution? I have no argument with Einstein. He may have thought about Darwinism, but his big thing was physics. Look, if you don't want a lesson about history from someone just because they believe in the bible, which much in the bible is backed up by secular sources,....(cont)...
corsair982 3 years ago
...(cont)...then you have already closed your mind, and there is nothing that you would take from me even if I were able to convince God himself to give you the answers on a golden platter. So do whatever you want to do. Hope that works out for you.
corsair982 3 years ago
That history lesson was answering your question to what I was saying, your just unhappy with it because of the source and the beliefs of that source even though I answered you from a completely secular view. That is a closed mind.
corsair982 3 years ago
Alright dude, that is actually a much better way to say what I was getting at. "Eugenics is "The self-direction of human evolution", thus not due to natural selection". That is much better than saying that Eugenics defeats natural selection by not helping the sick to live. Well done. To answer your question as to why I mentioned Jews, Gays, and Communists. You mentioned the holocaust Here are the reasons why all these groups were included in the holocaust.....(cont)...
corsair982 3 years ago
Jews were not part of the master race, and the Jews were in charge of much of the economy in Germany, so they had to be eliminated. The gays were viewed as sick, and perverse, therefore mentally deranged, so they were included in the holocaust. The Communists were viewed the same as the Jews, they were one of the major parties in Germany during the rise of Nazi power, therefore, since they did not hold to Nazi ideals, they were also viewed as mentally defective, so the were included in it too...
corsair982 3 years ago
All these, plus those who were actually sick, deformed, or retarded all were put in concentration camps as a way of removing them all from the gene pool. Bam! Eugenics in action. You have admitted the holes in your theory dude, so in a like gesture I will admit that there are inconsistencies and contradictions left and right in the bible. We both operate in our own flawed systems. You go your way, I'll go mine. All the best Dude.
corsair982 3 years ago
I have not only read about Darwin, I have read Darwin. I read Darwin, I thought about what he said, I appreciated what he said. I think he had many valid points and proved the existence of micro-evolution. But there is no way he has come up with to prove to anyone that men came from snot in a pool of water. You may have come from there if you like, but I sure didn't. I'm sure you have heard of the missing link, being such a learned man. The main one is for humans, but there are lots of them.
corsair982 3 years ago
So, I appreciated what Darwin said, but with plenty of holes in his own story, I will keep my own options open because I just can't stand by the notion that we came from the primordial ooze. And by the way, I didn't say that insults were for the uneducated, just vulgarity. You made that claim yourself. I think insults are hilarious, especially when the target can't even pick up on the fact they are being insulted. Yes, I know you have insulted me, and I'm okay with it because your opinion (cont)
corsair982 3 years ago
(Cont)...does not matter to me. So, keep you options open and have a nice day.
corsair982 3 years ago
Interesting you should bring that up Random. There are two sides to every coin. We all know and I am sure agree with the notion that the holocaust was a sick, disgusting slaughter. However, the Nazis were avid followers of Darwinism. They used his theories on Eugenics as rational for their crimes. Are you familiar with Eugenics? Probably not, so I will enlighten you. Eugenics is the notion that the sick, deformed, and retarded should not be helped to live because it defeats the rules of..(cont).
corsair982 3 years ago
...(cont)..natural selection. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing by killing off, Jews, gays, Communists, and the handicapped of society. See, there are two sides to everything. Try again.
corsair982 3 years ago
Thank you for trying again. Your rants are very entertaining you know that, Johhny. But I stand by what I say, and if you have not noticed, I have not said if I believe in creationism or evolution. So how do you know that I am not fully behind Darwin? I am sure keeping all my options on the table. Because my mind is opened. I am glad that my kids are not going to school in Canada. What do you teach? I'm betting either science or theology. I'm still not impressed my uneducated friend try again.
corsair982 3 years ago
i'm sure you're kids are much better off in the US public school system.
i'm not trying to change your mind and i could care less whether you're on one side or the other. the fact that you enjoyed the movie speaks volumes. it shows your level of intellect and begs one to infer that you're not well read either. if i'm uneducated then i guess that wouold make you a moron
johhny3rubs 3 years ago 3
Wow, you seem really invested in your opinion Johhny. I expect your outburst from the young, seventeen year old, fellow I was talking to before. However, you are the same age as me; you sir are an adult. Have you not learned to express yourself in a meaningful way yet? Cursing is just the defense mechanism of the uneducated. So why don't you tone down your loud-mouthed bluster and try again.
corsair982 3 years ago
i completely disagree. the use of profanity, while generally the norm for the lower classes and the undereducated, can be extremely helpful in many a situation. this happens to be one of those situations.
if you seriously think that expelled is a good movie, you sir, have the brain of a seven year old.
johhny3rubs 3 years ago
You have not really destroyed anything young fellow. First, I did not claim one side of the other. how do you know I don't agree with you? The point of that movie...is not that creationism is right. It's about not taking options off the table. As an agnostic, Darwin kept all options on the table, even though he leaned towards science. My point is keep your options open. Have you watched the film, Expelled? It makes you think, and you just have to be a little open minded to appreciate it.
corsair982 3 years ago
Scientific theory is not a proven law, so Darwin's Theory of Evolution is no more proven than the Theory of Creation. Until one is proven into scientific law they both merit equal attention. That's how science works. The whole point is to not discount any possibility and to eliminate half the debate because it is old fashioned is just plain foolish. Even Darwin would agree with me there. Da