@filmunkie998 the fact that you think cells dividing is incest means this conversation is over. if that is the level of your education then i'm wasting my time with you. i'm not replying to any more of your ridiculous statements. this is a typical problem in these conversations, people arguing against evolution when they clearly don't even understand the basic's. go waste someone elses time.
@lordscully I don't understand the basics, so why not tell me instead of insulting me? oh wait, you seem rather biased and prejudiced, so I don't think I'd want to learn anything from you anyways. Besides, I didn't say that; I said that eventually according to natural selection eventually there would only be stronger more fit genes as the weaker unsuited ones are weeded out, well through marriage and other actions wouldn't eventually the same genes go back to extended family, which is incest?
@filmjunkie998 Oh now I get it, it's a conspiracy among the worlds scientist's. this has NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with religious mumbo jumbo. ben stein is either stupid or dishonest, how else can you explain his criticism of darwin for not having anything to say about the origins of the universe? he was a naturalist, not a cosmologist. that's like telling your friend not to use a particular plumber because he didn't know anything about re-wiring your house.
@filmjunkie998 Oh now I get it, it's a conspiracy among the worlds scientist's. this has NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with religious mumbo jumbo. ben stein is either stupid or dishonest, how else can you explain his criticism of darwin for not having anything to say about the origins of the universe? he was a naturalist, not a cosmologist. that's like telling your friend not to use a particular plumber because he didn't know anything about re-wiring your house.
@lordscully no it's not, it's just the top 10% of the population telling everyone else where to go. That's how it's always worked isn't it? why did you actually think that would change if religion went away? THE GUY IS JEWISH! Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust. IT IS MADNESS. IF it is true all of life on this planet came from one cell? that is incest to the extreme. Darwins writings directly address the question though, and it is simply wrong.
@filmjunkie998 Furthermore if natural selection were true, then why are there More cases of genetic disorders now than there were even ten years ago? If natural selection were true, then wouldn't all of the genes naturally eventually coincide? Ben Stein clearly removed himself of the religious aspect of the question. He didn't like it because he had obvious personal questions about it, don't twist the facts, this is about a scientific theory.
@filmjunkie998 "Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust."
Hitler's beliefs have no bearing on the validity of evolution. But ignoring that for the moment, Hitler was terribly misinformed about evolution and hadn't properly understood. Hitler was influenced by the basic principle of eugenics; however, the implementation of his eugenic ideology was extreme and blatantly infringed upon the rights of others, especially the Jews. Darwin is irrelevant.
@filmjunkie998 "Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust."
Hitler's beliefs have no bearing on the validity of evolution. But ignoring that for the moment, Hitler was terribly misinformed about evolution and hadn't properly understood. Hitler was influenced by the basic principle of eugenics; however, the implementation of his eugenic ideology was extreme and blatantly infringed upon the rights of others, especially the Jews. Darwin is irrelevant.
@filmjunkie998 "Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust."
Hitler's beliefs have no bearing on the validity of evolution. But ignoring that for the moment, Hitler was terribly misinformed about evolution and hadn't properly understood. Hitler was influenced by the basic principle of eugenics; however, the implementation of his eugenic ideology was extreme and blatantly infringed upon the rights of others, especially the Jews. Darwin is irrelevant.
@filmjunkie998 "IF it is true all of life on this planet came from one cell? that is incest to the extreme."
Uhm, it's not incest. Would you call the asexual reproduction of plants and bacteria that exist today incest? Certainly not, because thats not what incest actually means. We understand how nucleotides, fatty acids, and the natural formation of RNA which has the potential to be the precursor to DNA because it is still susceptible to mutations and a form of natural selection. It is viable.
where did the universe come from? there is not enough evidence to determine the answer to that question. that's the only honest answer. just because scientists have not discovered the answer yet does not mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever fairytale most appeals to you. religious people claim they know the answer. so what evidence can you produce to support that claim? because the bible says so? you'll have to do much better than that. it's easy to make baseless claims.
@lordscully this isn't dealing with religious people, if you actually watch his video (which is on youtube), then he clearly only deals with science until he is forced by scientists not to. This isn't about religion, this is about a very promising theory that is being suppressed. It's easy to create an 'us them' atmosphere, and you are doing that. Tell big brother I said hi.
Stop the insanity of Nazi Germany in the 30's! Allow all arguements to be heard instead of only the propaganda of the left/Marxists who love Stallin and worship Mau.
@HIMYNAMEISEVAN prove it by allowing those supporting the theory to figure it out themselves. LET THE SCIENCE SPEAK FOR ITSELF, if Intelligent design is not true, then it will be proven false when studied. SO LET IT BE STUDIED. It is? oh, well then follow the money and see how much.....nil.
@filmjunkie998 "if intelligent design is not true, then it will be proven false when studied. SO LET IT BE STUDIED"
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not science. It is a complete argument from ignorance as well. They assert that particular biological systems cannot evolve, so they posit a magic man in the sky for an explanation. This is not a dychotomy, it is not evolution or intelligent design, if evolution were proven wrong, it wouldn't prove intelligent design.
@buttface112211 I'm open to both sides, but the fact is that Darin himself said that if Evolution WAS true, then there would be literally TONS of transitional fossils in the Earth, but to this day not one has been found. Darwin also said that if TONS upon TONS of transitional fossils were not found, then Evolution would be utterly false. Also, keep in mind that Darwin formed his theory when humans had never even had a close up view of a cell. We just knew that cells existed, that's it.
@BashYouLongtime There are tons of transitional fossils, you have bought into the garbage that creationists are feeding you. This is a short list of transitions between a few different phyla: transitionalfossils[dot]com. Just because you haven't looked for them, doesn't mean they aren't there. There are a dozen species with hundreds of fossils for hominid evolution alone. Darwins knowledge of the cell, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.
@buttface112211 No there is not. Ok, how old are those fossils then, please tell me? Because there are no transitional fossils. It's not irrelevent because you can't make a great theory when you have never seen the ingrediants to what you're make the theory about. Essentially, let me say that ice cream is the dominant food, and that ice cubes must have come from it, but without even knowing the makeup of the ice cream, I am bound to make a false theory. Evolution needs re-working, A LOT.
@BashYouLongtime The website tells you how old those fossils are, you obviously didn't even look. Not to mention, if you really wanted to know if the website is accurate, you could track down the original peer-reviewed articles that present the discoveries. I want you to describe the process of evolution by natural selection and the importance of mutations. If you cannot provide an accurate description, then you have some research to do.
@buttface112211 4.4 Millions years ago, yep, okay. False. Why can we cut into dinosour bones that were supposedly extinct millions of years ago, and we find traces of living blood vessels and blood cells? By scientific law, there is NO WAY those cells could have existed that long, but they did. The other thing is, that if they were transitional, how come fish like Tiktaalik still exist today? When those types of fish should be extinct? Evolution is very flawed, and is self-contradictory.TY
@BashYouLongtime "Why can we cut into dinosour bones that were supposedly extinct millions of years ago, and we find traces of living blood vessels and blood cells?"
Another creationist misrepresentation of the actual discovery. Surviving organic molecules were discovered, not living blood vessels and blood cell. Get your facts from legitimate sources. Kent Hovind is not a legitimate source, neither is Ray Comfort, the Discovery Institute, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham, or Lee Strobel.
@buttface112211 Traces of living blood, traces, not actualy living blood. Learn not to be so literal. The fact that you're stooping down to attacking simple errors of 'speech' (typing, for your sake) in this case really must mean something here, oh, precisely-you are wrong. You want to call out my sourcing? Yet you link to me to an unofficial site that has no backing or approval from scientists worldwide? That site could be made by ANYONE. I admire your hypocrisy and hope I attain it, too.
@BashYouLongtime You can fact check it at talkorigins[dot]org which is an official website, I only linked that particular website because it lists some transitional fossils, it is basic information that can easily be verified. Talkorigins[dot]org is run by accreditted scientists and provides a bibliography on every page, transitionalfossils[dot]com did the same. Cut the bullshit. Amoebas never began to want to grow legs, nor did they ever grow legs. Was that a serious question?
@buttface112211 Either way, you still tried to dodge the question. If you think dinosours are millions and millions of years extinct, and the fossils that have been found in modern day, PLEASE tell me then (in scientific reasoning) WHY those molecules have even been found? When Evolutionists try to make accomodations within a current theory just to try and rebut the fact that the molecules were found, and it absolutely throw them for a whirl-then you have a serious issue. So please, answer.
@BashYouLongtime If you aren't going to address the issues I raised, why should answer your questions? I asked you to establish the criteria by which a fossils can be determined transitional, and to describe the process of natural selection and mutations. You dodged those requests, and yet you called me a hypocrite?
@BashYouLongtime "how come fish like Tiktaalik still exist today? When those types of fish should be extinct?"
You don't understand evolution. Species can live during the same time as their predecessors. If they are well adapted they can survive for a significant amount of time, but if their population is split, one branch may adapt to a different environment. This is basic biology, take a 10th grade biology class. Research something before assuming it is "flawed".
I just provided a list, establish the criteria by which a fossils can be determined transitional. There is only one definition, and these fossils meet that definition. Your ice cream analogy fails because you start with an axiomatically false premise and reach a non sequitur. Your ice cream to ice cube hypothesis was just that, and not a theory as evolution is. You don't understand what science is.
@buttface112211 You provided a list, but you have no proof that they are transitional. You clearly do not understand science if you believe that those are animals that modern day animals have evolved from. When did evolution start? How did amoebas ever begin to want to grow legs, or become fish, or any other animal? Evolution is false as is. Anyone of whom can think for themselves understands that the dates alone from Evolution prove itself wrong. You sir will always be wrong. Good day.
@buttface112211 Oh, right, take 10th grade biology because every single state in the U.S. has it established as law that any textbook cannot teach anything but evolution, and MUST include evolution, because if it DOESN'T, then the text book cannot be approved and will never be put into the state education system because that automatically makes everything false within that book. Or wait, they just don't want the truth to leak out. You understanding is very poor, I may add.
@BashYouLongtime My understanding is poor? You are the one erecting a giant conspiracy theory to support your bullshit, and my understanding is poor? Every accreditted biologist in the world accepts evolution as the best explanation for biodiversity, and you present arguments conjured by a convicted fraud who purchased a P.hD for $30 at non-accreditted Patriot Bible University; yet my understanding is poor?
@buttface112211 Your questions are void until you can answer my original question. Really? ALL accredited biologists, that have been restrained under the same government oppression of evolution for all these years? Yes your understanding is poor. Until you can tell me the hard facts of why those traces of T-Rex life still existed, you're completely and utterly wrong. Absolutely wrong, and will always remain to be. Answer before asking, thanks.
@BashYouLongtime You are appealing to a conspiracy, have I been brainwashed? Should I wear a tin foil helmet at all times to prevent the government from further brainwashing? Should I get information from convicted frauds with fake credentials to avoid further brainwashing? Should I get information from the .015% of biologists who are shunned by the 99.985%? Was 9/11 an inside job?
"Answer before asking, thanks."
I asked my questions an hour ago, and you didn't answer.
I don't answer questions that are useless, thanks. Answer my question. Way to try and sway the topic though, much appreciated. You've failed, as I've said a few times before.
@BashYouLongtime The answer to your question is answered within 2 mins of research but evidently you are too intellectually lazy. And keep in mind that this discovery is not definitive because it may have been contaminated. Read an article on a scientific website and it provides an explanation. You can also read her publications regarding the discovery which answer the same questions, I am not a scientist, and I won't attempt to relay the information.
@BashYouLongtime My questions were not "useless", there is a specific reason why I asked them. Is it useless for me to request criteria by which a fossils can be deemed transitional when discussing the prevalence of transitional fossils? I asked you to describe the process of evolution and mutations so I can guage your understanding of evolution, because as of now, your comments indicate otherwise. You say I've failed, yet you described evolution as acting with intent.
@buttface112211 LOLOLOL. WOW, these are the most bullshit filled sources I've ever seen. I'm very sorry you've lived your life in a falsehood, and btw, Nat Geo ONLY supports evolution, no wonder you'd link me there-hahaha.
@BashYouLongtime Nat Geo is a science organization, why would they support anything but science? Every legitimate science organization supports evolution, there is a reason why, and it isn't your conspiracy bullshit. These sources are bullshit because they aren't the discovery institute or AiG which are run by theologians with no scientific background? Get fuckin real. The talkorigins link inserts a - in "dinosaur" after being copied/pasted which has to be deleted.
@BashYouLongtime Your analogy is like saying atomic theory is wrong because subatomic particles were not discovered until after the theory was already hypothesized; as if they couldn't formulate a theory without understanding the internal components of those atoms. The functions of cells were known, just as the functions of subatomic particles were known. If you are going to present an analogy, check it's applicability first, your analogy was utterly fallacious.
@BashYouLongtime Your analogy is like saying atomic theory is wrong because subatomic particles were not discovered until after the theory was already hypothesized; as if they couldn't formulate a theory without understanding the internal components of those atoms. The functions of cells were known, just as the functions of subatomic particles were known. If you are going to present an analogy, check it's applicability first, your analogy was utterly fallacious.
@filmjunkie998 Michael Behe, the one that started this bullshit with the bacterial flagellum, was given dozens of articles regarding the evolution of the particular biological systems he asserted were irreducibly complex that he arbitrarily dismissed as "not good enough" in the Dover trial in 2005. All of this was exposed. Even the text book, "Of Pandas and People" was copied from another book but they changed the words "God" or "Creator" to "Designer". ID is completely dishonest.
This is the most un-intellectual conversation I've ever heard. He keeps saying that the cell is so complicated and that there must have been a designer. But who designed the even MORE complex designer? How does he not ask this question?
@ImagenNoReligion Then he could just simply ask, well then, who designed the designer's designer? It could go on, but the fact is, the idea of any deity is one that is and always has been, and was never created himself. In perspective of that, any deity is supposed to be so beyond humans that we cannot understand their coming to being, because they are...the deity. Ya know? But cool Q.
@TheBereangirl No thats not what I meant. Nothing does not exist. In "nothing" there is always something. It is been demonstrated in quantum physics. There are always virtual particles spontaneously appears in pairs, and almost instantly annihilating each other do the attraction of quantum gravity. This phenomena has been observed, and it has been measured to represent 90% of an atom's mass, which is stunning and changed the way we looked at the universe. That is what I mean by nothing.
We know there has always been something, but science doesnt cover what that something was. Science says that something came FROM nothing. So in essence, the big bang was not the beginning and science is back at square one?
Virtual particles? Not physically existing? Virtual particles can in no way fill in the blank of "nothing". if "virtual" particles are the vindication of "nothing no longer existing" thats an oxymoron. How can virtual particles consume space?
@guitarbyous It is not an oxymoron, the scientific definition of "virtual" is different than its everyday use. It is a term used to describe interactions between elementary particles. The particles are small and only appear for a very short amount of time, but we have technology to measure the particles. I'm no scientist, but I assume it is similar to the Large Hadron Collider which can determine an elementary particles' energy and mass at the moment of impact.
@buttface112211 When we speak of the big bang in essence we are speaking of the beginning of everything. And in science they teach that the explosition was spontaneous. Isnt it just convienient that out of nowhere "virtual" particles are found and is now vindiction for cancelling out the Law of inertia totally contradicting the big bang theory? It all sounds rhetorical. Besides, are we now saying elementary particles are responsible for the random explostion responsible for the universe?
@buttface112211 oooooooh....sorry. I've tried to read Brian Green's books a long while back; they made my brain hurt, but in a good way =) This just doesn't make sense, virtual particles spontaniously appearing & then annihilating each other, wouldn't that leave you w/ nothing? How do these particles spontaniously appear in the first place?- How are they able to actually observe this phenomenon place in real time as it is happening? - just amazing, & too fantastic to believe.
@TheBereangirl It is not from any book that I am aware of, there are television shows on the science channel and history channel like, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, The Universe, How the Universe Works, one of them spends time on this topic. However, there is a video on youtube that explains it as well + more, unfortunately it is a little over one hour long, and if you don't have the patience to read a book, you won't have the patience to watch the video. /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
@buttface112211 the law of conservation of matter clearly states that nothing can be created nor destroyed. How then according to this law (not theory, Law) of science would the big bang occur? please explain that for me
The question is circular. Where did "the Designer" come from? Was it designed? In turn who designed "the Designer?"
This is nonsense.
Just because you cannot explain how life began, that is no reason to attribute the beginning to a "Designer", whose existence in turn you cannot explain!
@DocZom Indeed the answer is circular. But, in this case it is a point in favour of the answer. The answer to is their a God who designed us" is an emphatic yes since: We can design, therefore whoever made us can design since we could not have designed ourselves to design or even understand that we are capable of design.
Ben has a passion that investigates the obvious. There is a hatred of science by the academic blinded who will not open their minds to intelligent design and a reality check, They are the faithful of chaos and randomness who dismiss the laws that govern our universe. The freedom of inquiry is dismissed by those that have faith in thier religion of athesim,
...but @FiverBeyond... all that is being taught in schools is evolution....like its fact.... creationism, whether you believe it to be fact or not, should also be taught as it too is on option- reason- to why we are here.
...but FiverBeyond... all that is being taught in schools is evolution....like its fact.... creationism, whether you believe it to be fact or not, should also be taught as it too is on option- reason- to why we are here.
So, if the powers that be arranged to shun, discredit and 'expel' these scientists for their view on creationism, why hasn't anyone come down on Ben Stein for bringing it all to light?
Stein, I love your acting work, but you are either ignorant or dishonest on this point. Neo-darwinism is constantly being challenged and revised. Open inquiry into both the origin of life and the origin of the universe are entirely available. However, when a handful of relgiously motivated Ph.D.s rename Creationism as "Intelligent Design" and then try to suggest that "Freedom of Speech" means "Teach our theory in public schools,"... that's just being disingenuous.
After months of being on YT, listening to all the applause for Dawkins and Hitchens and all the vilifing of people like Ben Stein, I have come to the understanding, based on the replies of my comments that no less than 80% of these so-called Atheist Free-Thinking Intellectuals are nothing more than Gays who are upset with religion.
Ben Stein is a LYING stack of shit! During pre-production, *he* went to several scientists, saying that the production company was making a film about something entirely different. This guy is a cretin, and has no scientific training whatsoever. Fucking creationist prick!
These kinds of discussions are always very illuminating.
Two chap's who pretty much agree, and keep bumming each other up, and bolstering each others claims, with no kind of questioning.
HA HA HA!!!
Typical.
And Stein's appeal to "common sense" is absolutely idiotic. Common sense would have us believe we live on a stationary flat earth. That's the reason scientific enquiry and experimentation is NEEDED.
there is a closing of the minds of acidemics to this topic due to there not being a single shred of evidence of inteligent designe. I.T. is complete bull crap and your too effin stupid to figure it out. Belief is not evedence.
@truthinstyle Interesting statement, especially since Intelligent Design was brought to life only recently, declared as science, to fight against science.
@truthinstyle That´s simply not true. Science is open to new ideas by definition. It always comes down to a creator, a supernatural beeing, therefor it lacks the "how" component.
ID does not try to explain observed fact, rather it takes a fix standpoint based on theistic claims and tries to wrap the reality into it, labeling the result as science. The goal of ID is not to explain something, rather it´s to come up with a theory that is compatible with those theistic believes.
@MecaveliMk If today's science community is open to new ideas as you say, why is there "accepted science" taught as fact? Theories based on evolution are always building new ways to make one theory the only plausible explanation for the infinite sophistication of both the inner and outer universe. Your arguement against ID is perfectly suited to evolutionists.
@truthinstyle The "accepted science" you talk about are those theories and teaching that have the highest level of agreement among the science community. ID isn´t one of them for a reason - it´s not based on evidence and facts but on supernatural teachings, therefor requires faith and rejects critical thinking.
Your statement about the infinite sophistication inner and outer universe perfectly shows that your motivations to stick to ID arn´t scientific ones.
@MecaveliMk And to destroy other thought when "agreement" is reached is an age old tactic. Once it was used by the Church. Now it is used by the the secular humanists, a religions also. Your narrow view is typical but understandable as you defend your "religion".
@truthinstyle Three of the main characteristics of a religion are dogmas, believe in supernatural beeings and a afterlife. Most religions also claim to know the absolut truth and expects blind faith. Neither science in general nor humanism has any of those characterisics. You´re free to believe what ever you want, but stop calling it science.
@truthinstyle To the "narrow view" statement - think about it that way; My motivation is to learn and extend my knowledge, like every reasonable and open minded person. I´m not limited by dogmas or a "absolut truth". People with (strong) religious believes simply can´t do that, because their view is limited by their holy stories. They´re ask to blindly believe, no matter what. If something contradicts their believe, they come up with excuses - or some pseude science like ID.
@MecaveliMk People in science at this time have very strong beliefs and seem very limited to their view. Blindy believing is a lot like the science we seem to be hearing from lately. And they also blindly disbelieve.
@truthinstyle I can only refer to myself, talking about "the science" is quite pointless. I don´t blindly disbelieve - actualy i try to study things i defend or attack, everything else would be blind indeed.
As for ID - my conclusion is what i already wrote earlier on, the whole "We don´t know - so it must´ve been a creator" just doesn´t work for me. Each monotheistic religion claiming it´s their god that done it doesn´t help either.
@truthinstyle I´m not saying that. The reason why i don´t believe "god has done it" is that it stops one from trying to understand anything, since the statement can be used for everything - therefor, if you rely on it, you don´t care to seek for knowledge. Why would you? You already "know" it was god.
@MecaveliMk Only one God exists though we have multiple names we call Him and multiple descriptions. Consider for one second the example of the four blind men describing an elephant.
One says, holding a leg, "this is a large tree". Another, "its a large snake", holding the trunk. "It's a small snake", says the one holding the tail. The one holding the ears thinks its the leaves of a big rubber plant. All would be wrong yet the truth of the elephant's existance is obvious to those with sight.
@MecaveliMk In The Holy Bible God tells us to PROVE His way, not just blindly believe it. True followers of God not only believe His words but put them into practice in order to prove that God's way really works best for us. It is absolute truth and we may choose to ignore it. On the other hand, it probably will not go well with us if we ignore The Creator's wisdom, Don't you think He might know more about His creation than the creation can possibly know about itself.
But even with all that moral reinforcement, our minds can easily overpower it and make us at least fantasize about it and sometimes even do it, which indicates that we have been programmed with it, but feel guilty because of the conditions we were raised at. Just like alot of other stuff we feel guilty about because its something we have been brought up with, like not lying or decieving people, even though using deception for personal gain is a huge sign of intelligence and part of our evolution
Evolutionists say that Ben Stein is an idiot, a liar, that his movie was extremely dishonest. Is that true? I'm trying to find one response from the creationist camp that can refute all these attacks on this movie & on Ben. Anyone out there who has the info. & can show my friend that Ben's movie actually is telling the truth? I hope so.
The forces that govern our universe in its current state were essentially merged together prior to the big bang...so of course Sagan 'didn't want to go there.' That's a field of research for scientists, not two guys talking about it over a cup of coffee, too much is currently unknown.
The freaking arrogance or your atheistic foolishness, makes my stomach sick. Do your research. Heres a little secret for you. The fossil record is a stumbling block for evolution. It doesnt back it up. They have no tranistion species. Its lacking. And you wouldnt debate them because your close minded, like most atheists. God could show himself to you and you would still deny him
That is not a little secret. It is an outright lie. The fossil record clearly shows transitional species. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are the closed minded one.
Case in point: If God showed himself to me in undeniable splendour... I would not deny him.
Science presents you with irrefutable facts, yet you deny it because you are blinkered by religion.
@caughtupintheair My lies? What the hell am I supposed to be lying about? If there was a god, you would think it would be a pretty good move to show himself so that rational people could believe too. So why hasn't he done that? Hmm.. I'm thinking it's because the concept of a personal god is imaginary.
You are presented with a whole wealth of scientific studies, any of which you could check yourself if (this is a big if) you were intelligent enough. You deny fact and then claim that people who don't believe in your imaginary friend (who has no evidence whatsover) are close minded. You're an ignorant fool.
nice key, ie heard the same memorized speach from 100 ppl. im open minded thanks. i look @ both sides. peronally i beelive there is evidence for both sides. but theres the theory of evolution of natural selection is like a mathematical equation with one variable.
@gordonculp That would be a negative. I.D. Signals a designer. Unless of course you are suggesting some sort of space travellers billions of years ago.
that would be oppinionated. 100%. evolution doesn't account for the beginning of life but the process of variation. we are so complex, billions of years is an easy excuse for our intelligence, the idea that we even think a god cou'ld have created us extends the possibilty.
@gordonculp how ? if you want to avoid recursion the designer/creator must be a supernatural entity , that is to say a God . Something outside this universe.
@PCC9 Well, think of this... Macro evolution is not based on observation. It is a philosophy based on a supposed history. You can't measure a philosophy or history scientifically. It is based on faith because we can't see it happening. We have no problem with survival of the fittest or natural selection. However, in all of Darwin's observations, finches were still finches and dogs were still dogs.
That's the worst defense of evolution I've ever heard.
A scientific theory is a supposition, it is not fact. Evolution cannot be observed, that is a fact. Since it cannot be observed, it is essentially an idea that extrapolates all of its data from interpretations.
If you need to understand that any further, just ask Al Gore. He has mastered uninspiring extrapolation.
It's not a defense of evolution, it's an observation of what a scientific theory is. These are very technical terms, science, unlike religion and "intelligent design (creationism)" it's set extremely high bars as to what a "fact" is. It's just a technicality, evolution isn't really "fact" per se, but it is real.
Evolution is implicit in the terms reproduction, variation and selection. It's true for logical reasons, from the meaning of the words. That ALL emperical evidence supports evolution is a bonus, but it isn't necessary.
cool bud then how to you explain DNA code? did that come about through the Nobody x nothing= everything formula you ignorant fools like to forget about?
You should read Behe's critiques of Lenski's studies. They're losing information, not gaining it. While some of their mutations are beneficial, entropy is winning out. Furthermore, there have been no changes in body plan whatsoever, as is the case with all known life, even life that has been in an "arms race" for millions of years. Nothing that extrapolates into macroevoluion, i.e. an explanation for the diversity of species.
what the fuck is this, in science (or any class room) you are more than allowed to question anything and every thing no matter how stupid it may seem. There would be no science without people questioning things (ie. space and such).
If there is any information, Knowledge, there has to be a information giver. In order to read a book, the book has to be written first. The probability of an enzyme coming together by chance is 1X10^40000. This number is greater then the number of atoms in the UNIVERSE. Please tell me how needs more faith, creationists or evolutionist.
How very Dawkins of you. Keep following your scientific demagogues, they lead you into the same kind of faith required in ID. The suppositions people like you make about willful ignorance and such, it's tired. Your elitist viewpoints that keep hoodwinking people into believing somehow evolutionists are intellectually superior would be laughable if they weren't so disturbing. Typical adverbs and adjectives in your rebuttals appear intelligent, but you fall short of making any real statement.
The idea that "Evolutionists" are the intelligencia is not undone by the existence of (ironically) intelligent IDiots. However it is supported by the fact that evolution is the theory with evidence.
In a court case do you believe the prosecution which provides evidence, or the prosecution that tells you the suspect looks like he might be a criminal?
I would hope, and expect, you'd follow the argument of the former, and it would indeed be the reasoned and reasonable choice.
So why is it, when the evidence challenges your religion instead of a man's liberty or freedom, you revert to the tactics of the second prosecution? The one that peddles ignorance and fear to reinforce its standpoint?
That's an act of desperate, stubborn, futile rebellion. That's an act of stupidity. That's why "Evolutionists" are considered the intellectual elite.
All Christians should own a copy of expelled. Ben has done more than anyone to further creation, intelligent design and exposing those that would keep us in the dark. Just buy a copy
While any combination of physical constants is equally unlikely, having ones that all line up for a specific purpose is about like finding a bunch of blocks on a table stacked on top of each other. This is just as unlikely as any other combination of blocks, but it is specific in that all of the blocks stand in the same spot.
Minor variations in the foundational constants of physics (gravity, the strong nuclear force, the properties of carbon, the speed of light) would make intelligent life impossible as far as the scientists I have read believe. The idea that all of the known properties of the universe are all within the narrow range to make intelligent life possible cries out to me that this could not have been coincidence but must have been intentional by some force or being.
Stein is so right when he compares the socialism of Obama to Nazi Germany.
truthinstyle 1 week ago
@StrykeForceXBow im guessing your a muslim?
moomooomoo96 1 month ago
A " very good " show for ignorant people !
StrykeForceXBow 3 months ago
@filmunkie998 the fact that you think cells dividing is incest means this conversation is over. if that is the level of your education then i'm wasting my time with you. i'm not replying to any more of your ridiculous statements. this is a typical problem in these conversations, people arguing against evolution when they clearly don't even understand the basic's. go waste someone elses time.
lordscully 4 months ago
@lordscully I don't understand the basics, so why not tell me instead of insulting me? oh wait, you seem rather biased and prejudiced, so I don't think I'd want to learn anything from you anyways. Besides, I didn't say that; I said that eventually according to natural selection eventually there would only be stronger more fit genes as the weaker unsuited ones are weeded out, well through marriage and other actions wouldn't eventually the same genes go back to extended family, which is incest?
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filmjunkie998 Oh now I get it, it's a conspiracy among the worlds scientist's. this has NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with religious mumbo jumbo. ben stein is either stupid or dishonest, how else can you explain his criticism of darwin for not having anything to say about the origins of the universe? he was a naturalist, not a cosmologist. that's like telling your friend not to use a particular plumber because he didn't know anything about re-wiring your house.
lordscully 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 Oh now I get it, it's a conspiracy among the worlds scientist's. this has NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with religious mumbo jumbo. ben stein is either stupid or dishonest, how else can you explain his criticism of darwin for not having anything to say about the origins of the universe? he was a naturalist, not a cosmologist. that's like telling your friend not to use a particular plumber because he didn't know anything about re-wiring your house.
lordscully 4 months ago
@lordscully no it's not, it's just the top 10% of the population telling everyone else where to go. That's how it's always worked isn't it? why did you actually think that would change if religion went away? THE GUY IS JEWISH! Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust. IT IS MADNESS. IF it is true all of life on this planet came from one cell? that is incest to the extreme. Darwins writings directly address the question though, and it is simply wrong.
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 Furthermore if natural selection were true, then why are there More cases of genetic disorders now than there were even ten years ago? If natural selection were true, then wouldn't all of the genes naturally eventually coincide? Ben Stein clearly removed himself of the religious aspect of the question. He didn't like it because he had obvious personal questions about it, don't twist the facts, this is about a scientific theory.
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 "Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust."
Hitler's beliefs have no bearing on the validity of evolution. But ignoring that for the moment, Hitler was terribly misinformed about evolution and hadn't properly understood. Hitler was influenced by the basic principle of eugenics; however, the implementation of his eugenic ideology was extreme and blatantly infringed upon the rights of others, especially the Jews. Darwin is irrelevant.
buttface112211 4 months ago
@buttface112211
Only ignorant people believe in holocaust.
The real holocaust is produced by jews in Palestine.
The jews have stolen the land of Palestinian people to create the state of israel.
StrykeForceXBow 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filmjunkie998 "Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust."
Hitler's beliefs have no bearing on the validity of evolution. But ignoring that for the moment, Hitler was terribly misinformed about evolution and hadn't properly understood. Hitler was influenced by the basic principle of eugenics; however, the implementation of his eugenic ideology was extreme and blatantly infringed upon the rights of others, especially the Jews. Darwin is irrelevant.
buttface112211 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filmjunkie998 "Hitler clearly had a belief in Darwins "theories" when he started the holocaust."
Hitler's beliefs have no bearing on the validity of evolution. But ignoring that for the moment, Hitler was terribly misinformed about evolution and hadn't properly understood. Hitler was influenced by the basic principle of eugenics; however, the implementation of his eugenic ideology was extreme and blatantly infringed upon the rights of others, especially the Jews. Darwin is irrelevant.
buttface112211 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 "IF it is true all of life on this planet came from one cell? that is incest to the extreme."
Uhm, it's not incest. Would you call the asexual reproduction of plants and bacteria that exist today incest? Certainly not, because thats not what incest actually means. We understand how nucleotides, fatty acids, and the natural formation of RNA which has the potential to be the precursor to DNA because it is still susceptible to mutations and a form of natural selection. It is viable.
buttface112211 4 months ago
where did the universe come from? there is not enough evidence to determine the answer to that question. that's the only honest answer. just because scientists have not discovered the answer yet does not mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever fairytale most appeals to you. religious people claim they know the answer. so what evidence can you produce to support that claim? because the bible says so? you'll have to do much better than that. it's easy to make baseless claims.
lordscully 4 months ago
@lordscully this isn't dealing with religious people, if you actually watch his video (which is on youtube), then he clearly only deals with science until he is forced by scientists not to. This isn't about religion, this is about a very promising theory that is being suppressed. It's easy to create an 'us them' atmosphere, and you are doing that. Tell big brother I said hi.
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
Stop the insanity of Nazi Germany in the 30's! Allow all arguements to be heard instead of only the propaganda of the left/Marxists who love Stallin and worship Mau.
truthinstyle 7 months ago
Science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
HIMYNAMEISEVAN 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheIntellegentdesign 8 months ago
@TheIntellegentdesign no it's not.
HIMYNAMEISEVAN 8 months ago
@HIMYNAMEISEVAN prove it by allowing those supporting the theory to figure it out themselves. LET THE SCIENCE SPEAK FOR ITSELF, if Intelligent design is not true, then it will be proven false when studied. SO LET IT BE STUDIED. It is? oh, well then follow the money and see how much.....nil.
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 How would you test for intelligent design?
HIMYNAMEISEVAN 4 months ago
@HIMYNAMEISEVAN better than some, at least I support freedom. Really that puts me above several billion people at once.
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 "if intelligent design is not true, then it will be proven false when studied. SO LET IT BE STUDIED"
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, by definition, it is not science. It is a complete argument from ignorance as well. They assert that particular biological systems cannot evolve, so they posit a magic man in the sky for an explanation. This is not a dychotomy, it is not evolution or intelligent design, if evolution were proven wrong, it wouldn't prove intelligent design.
buttface112211 4 months ago
@buttface112211 I'm open to both sides, but the fact is that Darin himself said that if Evolution WAS true, then there would be literally TONS of transitional fossils in the Earth, but to this day not one has been found. Darwin also said that if TONS upon TONS of transitional fossils were not found, then Evolution would be utterly false. Also, keep in mind that Darwin formed his theory when humans had never even had a close up view of a cell. We just knew that cells existed, that's it.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime There are tons of transitional fossils, you have bought into the garbage that creationists are feeding you. This is a short list of transitions between a few different phyla: transitionalfossils[dot]com. Just because you haven't looked for them, doesn't mean they aren't there. There are a dozen species with hundreds of fossils for hominid evolution alone. Darwins knowledge of the cell, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 No there is not. Ok, how old are those fossils then, please tell me? Because there are no transitional fossils. It's not irrelevent because you can't make a great theory when you have never seen the ingrediants to what you're make the theory about. Essentially, let me say that ice cream is the dominant food, and that ice cubes must have come from it, but without even knowing the makeup of the ice cream, I am bound to make a false theory. Evolution needs re-working, A LOT.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime The website tells you how old those fossils are, you obviously didn't even look. Not to mention, if you really wanted to know if the website is accurate, you could track down the original peer-reviewed articles that present the discoveries. I want you to describe the process of evolution by natural selection and the importance of mutations. If you cannot provide an accurate description, then you have some research to do.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 4.4 Millions years ago, yep, okay. False. Why can we cut into dinosour bones that were supposedly extinct millions of years ago, and we find traces of living blood vessels and blood cells? By scientific law, there is NO WAY those cells could have existed that long, but they did. The other thing is, that if they were transitional, how come fish like Tiktaalik still exist today? When those types of fish should be extinct? Evolution is very flawed, and is self-contradictory.TY
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime "Why can we cut into dinosour bones that were supposedly extinct millions of years ago, and we find traces of living blood vessels and blood cells?"
Another creationist misrepresentation of the actual discovery. Surviving organic molecules were discovered, not living blood vessels and blood cell. Get your facts from legitimate sources. Kent Hovind is not a legitimate source, neither is Ray Comfort, the Discovery Institute, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham, or Lee Strobel.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Traces of living blood, traces, not actualy living blood. Learn not to be so literal. The fact that you're stooping down to attacking simple errors of 'speech' (typing, for your sake) in this case really must mean something here, oh, precisely-you are wrong. You want to call out my sourcing? Yet you link to me to an unofficial site that has no backing or approval from scientists worldwide? That site could be made by ANYONE. I admire your hypocrisy and hope I attain it, too.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime You can fact check it at talkorigins[dot]org which is an official website, I only linked that particular website because it lists some transitional fossils, it is basic information that can easily be verified. Talkorigins[dot]org is run by accreditted scientists and provides a bibliography on every page, transitionalfossils[dot]com did the same. Cut the bullshit. Amoebas never began to want to grow legs, nor did they ever grow legs. Was that a serious question?
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Either way, you still tried to dodge the question. If you think dinosours are millions and millions of years extinct, and the fossils that have been found in modern day, PLEASE tell me then (in scientific reasoning) WHY those molecules have even been found? When Evolutionists try to make accomodations within a current theory just to try and rebut the fact that the molecules were found, and it absolutely throw them for a whirl-then you have a serious issue. So please, answer.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime If you aren't going to address the issues I raised, why should answer your questions? I asked you to establish the criteria by which a fossils can be determined transitional, and to describe the process of natural selection and mutations. You dodged those requests, and yet you called me a hypocrite?
buttface112211 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime "how come fish like Tiktaalik still exist today? When those types of fish should be extinct?"
You don't understand evolution. Species can live during the same time as their predecessors. If they are well adapted they can survive for a significant amount of time, but if their population is split, one branch may adapt to a different environment. This is basic biology, take a 10th grade biology class. Research something before assuming it is "flawed".
buttface112211 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime "Because there are no transitional fossils."
I just provided a list, establish the criteria by which a fossils can be determined transitional. There is only one definition, and these fossils meet that definition. Your ice cream analogy fails because you start with an axiomatically false premise and reach a non sequitur. Your ice cream to ice cube hypothesis was just that, and not a theory as evolution is. You don't understand what science is.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 You provided a list, but you have no proof that they are transitional. You clearly do not understand science if you believe that those are animals that modern day animals have evolved from. When did evolution start? How did amoebas ever begin to want to grow legs, or become fish, or any other animal? Evolution is false as is. Anyone of whom can think for themselves understands that the dates alone from Evolution prove itself wrong. You sir will always be wrong. Good day.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Oh, right, take 10th grade biology because every single state in the U.S. has it established as law that any textbook cannot teach anything but evolution, and MUST include evolution, because if it DOESN'T, then the text book cannot be approved and will never be put into the state education system because that automatically makes everything false within that book. Or wait, they just don't want the truth to leak out. You understanding is very poor, I may add.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime My understanding is poor? You are the one erecting a giant conspiracy theory to support your bullshit, and my understanding is poor? Every accreditted biologist in the world accepts evolution as the best explanation for biodiversity, and you present arguments conjured by a convicted fraud who purchased a P.hD for $30 at non-accreditted Patriot Bible University; yet my understanding is poor?
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 RIGHT, sorry, *YOUR. Please, do excuse my error by all means...
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Your questions are void until you can answer my original question. Really? ALL accredited biologists, that have been restrained under the same government oppression of evolution for all these years? Yes your understanding is poor. Until you can tell me the hard facts of why those traces of T-Rex life still existed, you're completely and utterly wrong. Absolutely wrong, and will always remain to be. Answer before asking, thanks.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime You are appealing to a conspiracy, have I been brainwashed? Should I wear a tin foil helmet at all times to prevent the government from further brainwashing? Should I get information from convicted frauds with fake credentials to avoid further brainwashing? Should I get information from the .015% of biologists who are shunned by the 99.985%? Was 9/11 an inside job?
"Answer before asking, thanks."
I asked my questions an hour ago, and you didn't answer.
buttface112211 1 week ago
I don't answer questions that are useless, thanks. Answer my question. Way to try and sway the topic though, much appreciated. You've failed, as I've said a few times before.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime The answer to your question is answered within 2 mins of research but evidently you are too intellectually lazy. And keep in mind that this discovery is not definitive because it may have been contaminated. Read an article on a scientific website and it provides an explanation. You can also read her publications regarding the discovery which answer the same questions, I am not a scientist, and I won't attempt to relay the information.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Yes, please make up more. I win.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime My questions were not "useless", there is a specific reason why I asked them. Is it useless for me to request criteria by which a fossils can be deemed transitional when discussing the prevalence of transitional fossils? I asked you to describe the process of evolution and mutations so I can guage your understanding of evolution, because as of now, your comments indicate otherwise. You say I've failed, yet you described evolution as acting with intent.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Keep digging a hole for losing.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime Make up more?
smithsonianmag[dot]com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
sciencedaily[dot]com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
talkorigins[dot]org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
talkorigins[dot]org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
nationalgeographic[dot]com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html
sciencemag[dot]org/content/307/5717/1952.abstract
And the list goes on, get informed. You're a troll.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 LOLOLOL. WOW, these are the most bullshit filled sources I've ever seen. I'm very sorry you've lived your life in a falsehood, and btw, Nat Geo ONLY supports evolution, no wonder you'd link me there-hahaha.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime Nat Geo is a science organization, why would they support anything but science? Every legitimate science organization supports evolution, there is a reason why, and it isn't your conspiracy bullshit. These sources are bullshit because they aren't the discovery institute or AiG which are run by theologians with no scientific background? Get fuckin real. The talkorigins link inserts a - in "dinosaur" after being copied/pasted which has to be deleted.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@buttface112211 No man, you get fuckin' real.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@buttface112211 Not Found
The requested URL /faqs/dinosÂaur/blood.html was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Guess Evolution doesn't exit.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
@BashYouLongtime Your analogy is like saying atomic theory is wrong because subatomic particles were not discovered until after the theory was already hypothesized; as if they couldn't formulate a theory without understanding the internal components of those atoms. The functions of cells were known, just as the functions of subatomic particles were known. If you are going to present an analogy, check it's applicability first, your analogy was utterly fallacious.
buttface112211 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BashYouLongtime Your analogy is like saying atomic theory is wrong because subatomic particles were not discovered until after the theory was already hypothesized; as if they couldn't formulate a theory without understanding the internal components of those atoms. The functions of cells were known, just as the functions of subatomic particles were known. If you are going to present an analogy, check it's applicability first, your analogy was utterly fallacious.
buttface112211 1 week ago
@filmjunkie998 Michael Behe, the one that started this bullshit with the bacterial flagellum, was given dozens of articles regarding the evolution of the particular biological systems he asserted were irreducibly complex that he arbitrarily dismissed as "not good enough" in the Dover trial in 2005. All of this was exposed. Even the text book, "Of Pandas and People" was copied from another book but they changed the words "God" or "Creator" to "Designer". ID is completely dishonest.
buttface112211 4 months ago
@HIMYNAMEISEVAN then why not let it prove itself so?
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@HIMYNAMEISEVAN then why not let it prove itself so?
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HIMYNAMEISEVAN then why not let it prove itself so?
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
This is the most un-intellectual conversation I've ever heard. He keeps saying that the cell is so complicated and that there must have been a designer. But who designed the even MORE complex designer? How does he not ask this question?
ImagenNoReligion 8 months ago
@ImagenNoReligion Then he could just simply ask, well then, who designed the designer's designer? It could go on, but the fact is, the idea of any deity is one that is and always has been, and was never created himself. In perspective of that, any deity is supposed to be so beyond humans that we cannot understand their coming to being, because they are...the deity. Ya know? But cool Q.
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
These two guys should read a book, there is not such thing as "nothing" anymore, "nothing" has been demonstrably shown to be inexistent.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211 I think that is what R.C. Sproul meant when he quoted the axiom , "out of nothing, nothing comes" =)
TheBereangirl 8 months ago
@TheBereangirl No thats not what I meant. Nothing does not exist. In "nothing" there is always something. It is been demonstrated in quantum physics. There are always virtual particles spontaneously appears in pairs, and almost instantly annihilating each other do the attraction of quantum gravity. This phenomena has been observed, and it has been measured to represent 90% of an atom's mass, which is stunning and changed the way we looked at the universe. That is what I mean by nothing.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211
We know there has always been something, but science doesnt cover what that something was. Science says that something came FROM nothing. So in essence, the big bang was not the beginning and science is back at square one?
guitarbyous 8 months ago
@buttface112211
Virtual particles? Not physically existing? Virtual particles can in no way fill in the blank of "nothing". if "virtual" particles are the vindication of "nothing no longer existing" thats an oxymoron. How can virtual particles consume space?
guitarbyous 8 months ago
@guitarbyous It is not an oxymoron, the scientific definition of "virtual" is different than its everyday use. It is a term used to describe interactions between elementary particles. The particles are small and only appear for a very short amount of time, but we have technology to measure the particles. I'm no scientist, but I assume it is similar to the Large Hadron Collider which can determine an elementary particles' energy and mass at the moment of impact.
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211 When we speak of the big bang in essence we are speaking of the beginning of everything. And in science they teach that the explosition was spontaneous. Isnt it just convienient that out of nowhere "virtual" particles are found and is now vindiction for cancelling out the Law of inertia totally contradicting the big bang theory? It all sounds rhetorical. Besides, are we now saying elementary particles are responsible for the random explostion responsible for the universe?
guitarbyous 8 months ago
@buttface112211
When we weight the two beliefs , the big bang theory consist of more magic that ANY belief on the planet!
guitarbyous 8 months ago
@buttface112211 oooooooh....sorry. I've tried to read Brian Green's books a long while back; they made my brain hurt, but in a good way =) This just doesn't make sense, virtual particles spontaniously appearing & then annihilating each other, wouldn't that leave you w/ nothing? How do these particles spontaniously appear in the first place?- How are they able to actually observe this phenomenon place in real time as it is happening? - just amazing, & too fantastic to believe.
TheBereangirl 8 months ago
@TheBereangirl It is not from any book that I am aware of, there are television shows on the science channel and history channel like, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, The Universe, How the Universe Works, one of them spends time on this topic. However, there is a video on youtube that explains it as well + more, unfortunately it is a little over one hour long, and if you don't have the patience to read a book, you won't have the patience to watch the video. /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
buttface112211 8 months ago
@buttface112211 the law of conservation of matter clearly states that nothing can be created nor destroyed. How then according to this law (not theory, Law) of science would the big bang occur? please explain that for me
filmjunkie998 4 months ago
@filmjunkie998 The total energy content of the Universe is 0. /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
buttface112211 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filmjunkie998 The total energy content of the Universe is 0. /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
buttface112211 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filmjunkie998 The total energy content of the Universe is 0. /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
buttface112211 4 months ago
@buttface112211 Nonexistent* And no shit, "nothing" would be nonexistant because it is NOTHING. :D
BashYouLongtime 1 week ago
Michael Moore's garbage has been taken to task by this thoughtful and brilliantly honest expose of the hate of truth.
truthinstyle 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" this is in the American Constitution.
Why are we then being forced to learn the RELIGION of naturalism (atheism)
69upinu 9 months ago
I grow weary of the God didscussion (not to say that I am not open to conversation) so I will say this: I believe in God and I love Ben's sneaks.
KrfNYC2 10 months ago
This film is nothing more than bold biased fictional propaganda. Mr stein Goebbels would be proud
MrMarsracer 10 months ago
@MrMarsracer and evolutionist materials are not ?? LOL
heightboosting 10 months ago
The question is circular. Where did "the Designer" come from? Was it designed? In turn who designed "the Designer?"
This is nonsense.
Just because you cannot explain how life began, that is no reason to attribute the beginning to a "Designer", whose existence in turn you cannot explain!
DocZom 1 year ago
@DocZom Indeed the answer is circular. But, in this case it is a point in favour of the answer. The answer to is their a God who designed us" is an emphatic yes since: We can design, therefore whoever made us can design since we could not have designed ourselves to design or even understand that we are capable of design.
Jedi2Bones 1 year ago
@Jedi2Bones Such simple logic - yet too deep and spiritual for those who choose blindness.
truthinstyle 11 months ago
Ben has a passion that investigates the obvious. There is a hatred of science by the academic blinded who will not open their minds to intelligent design and a reality check, They are the faithful of chaos and randomness who dismiss the laws that govern our universe. The freedom of inquiry is dismissed by those that have faith in thier religion of athesim,
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle Doesn't the "religion" of "atheism" make all atheists "oxymorons". lol
Jedi2Bones 1 year ago
@Jedi2Bones true and insightful...
truthinstyle 1 year ago
...but @FiverBeyond... all that is being taught in schools is evolution....like its fact.... creationism, whether you believe it to be fact or not, should also be taught as it too is on option- reason- to why we are here.
MoustacheHeat 1 year ago
...but FiverBeyond... all that is being taught in schools is evolution....like its fact.... creationism, whether you believe it to be fact or not, should also be taught as it too is on option- reason- to why we are here.
MoustacheHeat 1 year ago
So, if the powers that be arranged to shun, discredit and 'expel' these scientists for their view on creationism, why hasn't anyone come down on Ben Stein for bringing it all to light?
USA999983 1 year ago
Stein, I love your acting work, but you are either ignorant or dishonest on this point. Neo-darwinism is constantly being challenged and revised. Open inquiry into both the origin of life and the origin of the universe are entirely available. However, when a handful of relgiously motivated Ph.D.s rename Creationism as "Intelligent Design" and then try to suggest that "Freedom of Speech" means "Teach our theory in public schools,"... that's just being disingenuous.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago 2
After months of being on YT, listening to all the applause for Dawkins and Hitchens and all the vilifing of people like Ben Stein, I have come to the understanding, based on the replies of my comments that no less than 80% of these so-called Atheist Free-Thinking Intellectuals are nothing more than Gays who are upset with religion.
53dumey 1 year ago
God bless you both for taking the heat and personal abuse that this kind of conversation will attract.
sunshineuk1965 1 year ago
Ben Stein is a LYING stack of shit! During pre-production, *he* went to several scientists, saying that the production company was making a film about something entirely different. This guy is a cretin, and has no scientific training whatsoever. Fucking creationist prick!
TeenTwinkTween 1 year ago
These kinds of discussions are always very illuminating.
Two chap's who pretty much agree, and keep bumming each other up, and bolstering each others claims, with no kind of questioning.
HA HA HA!!!
Typical.
And Stein's appeal to "common sense" is absolutely idiotic. Common sense would have us believe we live on a stationary flat earth. That's the reason scientific enquiry and experimentation is NEEDED.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
in a few hundred years every one will luachg att this idiot
lordofdoom233 1 year ago
If you really think theres a man in the sky,keeping score something is wrong with you
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
@SvendsenAtheist Assumption, assumption...assumption
mariuspieter 1 year ago
In the immortal words of Billy Preston;
"Nothin' from nothin' means nothin'........."
rubbersole79 1 year ago
there is a closing of the minds of acidemics to this topic due to there not being a single shred of evidence of inteligent designe. I.T. is complete bull crap and your too effin stupid to figure it out. Belief is not evedence.
slaughtersaults 1 year ago
@slaughtersaults
/watch?v=-eGpWW6scsg
joshthelegodude 1 year ago
Intelligent Design is the only explanation. It is so true, the evolutionist fight it like their very lives depended upon it,
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle Interesting statement, especially since Intelligent Design was brought to life only recently, declared as science, to fight against science.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk It is science to those who are open to all possibilities.
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle That´s simply not true. Science is open to new ideas by definition. It always comes down to a creator, a supernatural beeing, therefor it lacks the "how" component.
ID does not try to explain observed fact, rather it takes a fix standpoint based on theistic claims and tries to wrap the reality into it, labeling the result as science. The goal of ID is not to explain something, rather it´s to come up with a theory that is compatible with those theistic believes.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk If today's science community is open to new ideas as you say, why is there "accepted science" taught as fact? Theories based on evolution are always building new ways to make one theory the only plausible explanation for the infinite sophistication of both the inner and outer universe. Your arguement against ID is perfectly suited to evolutionists.
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle The "accepted science" you talk about are those theories and teaching that have the highest level of agreement among the science community. ID isn´t one of them for a reason - it´s not based on evidence and facts but on supernatural teachings, therefor requires faith and rejects critical thinking.
Your statement about the infinite sophistication inner and outer universe perfectly shows that your motivations to stick to ID arn´t scientific ones.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk And to destroy other thought when "agreement" is reached is an age old tactic. Once it was used by the Church. Now it is used by the the secular humanists, a religions also. Your narrow view is typical but understandable as you defend your "religion".
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle Three of the main characteristics of a religion are dogmas, believe in supernatural beeings and a afterlife. Most religions also claim to know the absolut truth and expects blind faith. Neither science in general nor humanism has any of those characterisics. You´re free to believe what ever you want, but stop calling it science.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@truthinstyle To the "narrow view" statement - think about it that way; My motivation is to learn and extend my knowledge, like every reasonable and open minded person. I´m not limited by dogmas or a "absolut truth". People with (strong) religious believes simply can´t do that, because their view is limited by their holy stories. They´re ask to blindly believe, no matter what. If something contradicts their believe, they come up with excuses - or some pseude science like ID.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk People in science at this time have very strong beliefs and seem very limited to their view. Blindy believing is a lot like the science we seem to be hearing from lately. And they also blindly disbelieve.
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle I can only refer to myself, talking about "the science" is quite pointless. I don´t blindly disbelieve - actualy i try to study things i defend or attack, everything else would be blind indeed.
As for ID - my conclusion is what i already wrote earlier on, the whole "We don´t know - so it must´ve been a creator" just doesn´t work for me. Each monotheistic religion claiming it´s their god that done it doesn´t help either.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk To say, "We don't know - it's incredibly comples - but it can't be God." doesn't work for me.
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@truthinstyle I´m not saying that. The reason why i don´t believe "god has done it" is that it stops one from trying to understand anything, since the statement can be used for everything - therefor, if you rely on it, you don´t care to seek for knowledge. Why would you? You already "know" it was god.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@truthinstyle (...) "Can´t be god" and "don´t believe it was god" are 2 different things.
MecaveliMk 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk Really? Both seem narrow and rigid.
truthinstyle 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk Only one God exists though we have multiple names we call Him and multiple descriptions. Consider for one second the example of the four blind men describing an elephant.
One says, holding a leg, "this is a large tree". Another, "its a large snake", holding the trunk. "It's a small snake", says the one holding the tail. The one holding the ears thinks its the leaves of a big rubber plant. All would be wrong yet the truth of the elephant's existance is obvious to those with sight.
Jedi2Bones 1 year ago
@MecaveliMk In The Holy Bible God tells us to PROVE His way, not just blindly believe it. True followers of God not only believe His words but put them into practice in order to prove that God's way really works best for us. It is absolute truth and we may choose to ignore it. On the other hand, it probably will not go well with us if we ignore The Creator's wisdom, Don't you think He might know more about His creation than the creation can possibly know about itself.
Jedi2Bones 1 year ago 2
But even with all that moral reinforcement, our minds can easily overpower it and make us at least fantasize about it and sometimes even do it, which indicates that we have been programmed with it, but feel guilty because of the conditions we were raised at. Just like alot of other stuff we feel guilty about because its something we have been brought up with, like not lying or decieving people, even though using deception for personal gain is a huge sign of intelligence and part of our evolution
LcDog316 1 year ago
please tell me he isn't still doing the sneakers with suits look. for christ sake, he's a grown man. doesn't he own a proper pair of shoes?
DittoDeadhead 1 year ago
Comment removed
truthinstyle 1 year ago
both these guys are unbelievably ignorant on the subject of evolution
maximilianrios 1 year ago
Evolutionists say that Ben Stein is an idiot, a liar, that his movie was extremely dishonest. Is that true? I'm trying to find one response from the creationist camp that can refute all these attacks on this movie & on Ben. Anyone out there who has the info. & can show my friend that Ben's movie actually is telling the truth? I hope so.
Lightmane321 1 year ago
Wow Ben Stein is really ballsy for making a movie about something he knows about.
rgaud8 1 year ago
What does he mean before the big bang?
The forces that govern our universe in its current state were essentially merged together prior to the big bang...so of course Sagan 'didn't want to go there.' That's a field of research for scientists, not two guys talking about it over a cup of coffee, too much is currently unknown.
Joseph565112 1 year ago
The smirking smugness of these two deluded dinosaurs makes my stomach turn.
This is a fine fireside chat between two fossils who deny the fossil record.
Not worth debating. Go find a real critique of Exposed and do it there.
entwood 2 years ago
The freaking arrogance or your atheistic foolishness, makes my stomach sick. Do your research. Heres a little secret for you. The fossil record is a stumbling block for evolution. It doesnt back it up. They have no tranistion species. Its lacking. And you wouldnt debate them because your close minded, like most atheists. God could show himself to you and you would still deny him
tervin777 2 years ago
That is not a little secret. It is an outright lie. The fossil record clearly shows transitional species. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are the closed minded one.
Case in point: If God showed himself to me in undeniable splendour... I would not deny him.
Science presents you with irrefutable facts, yet you deny it because you are blinkered by religion.
entwood 2 years ago 2
@entwood why should he show himself to you, he has left you to believe your lies.
caughtupintheair 1 year ago
@caughtupintheair My lies? What the hell am I supposed to be lying about? If there was a god, you would think it would be a pretty good move to show himself so that rational people could believe too. So why hasn't he done that? Hmm.. I'm thinking it's because the concept of a personal god is imaginary.
entwood 1 year ago
You are presented with a whole wealth of scientific studies, any of which you could check yourself if (this is a big if) you were intelligent enough. You deny fact and then claim that people who don't believe in your imaginary friend (who has no evidence whatsover) are close minded. You're an ignorant fool.
Key3812 2 years ago
nice key, ie heard the same memorized speach from 100 ppl. im open minded thanks. i look @ both sides. peronally i beelive there is evidence for both sides. but theres the theory of evolution of natural selection is like a mathematical equation with one variable.
gordonculp 2 years ago
Great interview.
V1RU5ex3 2 years ago
How do you test religion. That is the basis of all scientific theory.
boneshelley 2 years ago
intelligent design can exist without religion.
gordonculp 2 years ago
@gordonculp That would be a negative. I.D. Signals a designer. Unless of course you are suggesting some sort of space travellers billions of years ago.
boneshelley 2 years ago
that would be oppinionated. 100%. evolution doesn't account for the beginning of life but the process of variation. we are so complex, billions of years is an easy excuse for our intelligence, the idea that we even think a god cou'ld have created us extends the possibilty.
gordonculp 2 years ago
@gordonculp You are absolutely correct! "extends the possibilty" NOT the certainty.
boneshelley 2 years ago
@gordonculp how ? if you want to avoid recursion the designer/creator must be a supernatural entity , that is to say a God . Something outside this universe.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
i like how he says intelligent design is a hypothesis and not a theory....
BaneOfFreeSpeech 2 years ago
where does laws come from? Where does verb conjugation come from?
IBMCs2009 2 years ago
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!
shredder2088 2 years ago
Actually it isn't. Don't degrade evolution like that.
PCC9 2 years ago
@PCC9 Well, think of this... Macro evolution is not based on observation. It is a philosophy based on a supposed history. You can't measure a philosophy or history scientifically. It is based on faith because we can't see it happening. We have no problem with survival of the fittest or natural selection. However, in all of Darwin's observations, finches were still finches and dogs were still dogs.
jcsandberg 2 years ago
Here let's use some logic.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is fact (if you don't believe me, look up the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory).
Therefore, evolution is real.
Calling evolution a "philosophy" or a "faith-based system" is degrading to life and the clues it's left behind.
If not, why have you a tailbone?
PCC9 2 years ago
That's the worst defense of evolution I've ever heard.
A scientific theory is a supposition, it is not fact. Evolution cannot be observed, that is a fact. Since it cannot be observed, it is essentially an idea that extrapolates all of its data from interpretations.
If you need to understand that any further, just ask Al Gore. He has mastered uninspiring extrapolation.
satch1979 2 years ago
It's not a defense of evolution, it's an observation of what a scientific theory is. These are very technical terms, science, unlike religion and "intelligent design (creationism)" it's set extremely high bars as to what a "fact" is. It's just a technicality, evolution isn't really "fact" per se, but it is real.
And why do you have a tailbone?
PCC9 2 years ago
Evolution is implicit in the terms reproduction, variation and selection. It's true for logical reasons, from the meaning of the words. That ALL emperical evidence supports evolution is a bonus, but it isn't necessary.
gamesbok 2 years ago
cool bud then how to you explain DNA code? did that come about through the Nobody x nothing= everything formula you ignorant fools like to forget about?
shaneunderwood 2 years ago
Evolution has been observed, look up Lenski's bacterial studies or Belayev with his foxes
Key3812 2 years ago
You should read Behe's critiques of Lenski's studies. They're losing information, not gaining it. While some of their mutations are beneficial, entropy is winning out. Furthermore, there have been no changes in body plan whatsoever, as is the case with all known life, even life that has been in an "arms race" for millions of years. Nothing that extrapolates into macroevoluion, i.e. an explanation for the diversity of species.
namordecai 2 years ago
than i guess a chiwawa and a doberman mate its evolution?
gordonculp 2 years ago
@shredder2088
I think you'll find it's a Theory. You said so yourself "Theory of Evolution".
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
what the fuck is this, in science (or any class room) you are more than allowed to question anything and every thing no matter how stupid it may seem. There would be no science without people questioning things (ie. space and such).
mosniper831 2 years ago
If there is any information, Knowledge, there has to be a information giver. In order to read a book, the book has to be written first. The probability of an enzyme coming together by chance is 1X10^40000. This number is greater then the number of atoms in the UNIVERSE. Please tell me how needs more faith, creationists or evolutionist.
flory100 2 years ago
neither of these guys understand the concept of designoid... ugh.
schwixol 2 years ago
Sooo many fallacies I don't have time to refute them all!
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
Yeah right. Just admit that you're intimidated.
hoppercap 2 years ago
Intimidated!?
You must be kidding, Stein's propaganda has been shown to be scientifically illiterate and utterly dishonest.
The only thing I'm intimidated by is the willing ignorance of people to beleive this shameless misinformation.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
How very Dawkins of you. Keep following your scientific demagogues, they lead you into the same kind of faith required in ID. The suppositions people like you make about willful ignorance and such, it's tired. Your elitist viewpoints that keep hoodwinking people into believing somehow evolutionists are intellectually superior would be laughable if they weren't so disturbing. Typical adverbs and adjectives in your rebuttals appear intelligent, but you fall short of making any real statement.
satch1979 2 years ago
@satch1979
The idea that "Evolutionists" are the intelligencia is not undone by the existence of (ironically) intelligent IDiots. However it is supported by the fact that evolution is the theory with evidence.
In a court case do you believe the prosecution which provides evidence, or the prosecution that tells you the suspect looks like he might be a criminal?
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
I would hope, and expect, you'd follow the argument of the former, and it would indeed be the reasoned and reasonable choice.
So why is it, when the evidence challenges your religion instead of a man's liberty or freedom, you revert to the tactics of the second prosecution? The one that peddles ignorance and fear to reinforce its standpoint?
That's an act of desperate, stubborn, futile rebellion. That's an act of stupidity. That's why "Evolutionists" are considered the intellectual elite.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
Adolf Hitler had faith in God!
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.
"- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936
revtyson 2 years ago
All Christians should own a copy of expelled. Ben has done more than anyone to further creation, intelligent design and exposing those that would keep us in the dark. Just buy a copy
davidgran1967 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some think our eyes are the only way we can see God.
Some think our ears are the only way we can hear God.
Some think our hands are the only way we can touch God.
If my eyes lost their sight, my hearing would increase.
If my ears could not hear, my smell would increase.
When we become less dependent on our physical senses, room for our spiritual sense and awareness can increase.
lnahi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some things are impossible to prove with words and maths...
My thoughts are invisible, but they are real.
My God is invisible, but he is real.
This Bible verse changed my life forever... Seek me with all your heart (not your brain) and there I will meet you
Let me know if God leaves you standing. Ive never met anyone so far.
lnahi 2 years ago
Comment removed
lnahi 2 years ago
Comment removed
lnahi 2 years ago
While any combination of physical constants is equally unlikely, having ones that all line up for a specific purpose is about like finding a bunch of blocks on a table stacked on top of each other. This is just as unlikely as any other combination of blocks, but it is specific in that all of the blocks stand in the same spot.
smitty0521 2 years ago
Minor variations in the foundational constants of physics (gravity, the strong nuclear force, the properties of carbon, the speed of light) would make intelligent life impossible as far as the scientists I have read believe. The idea that all of the known properties of the universe are all within the narrow range to make intelligent life possible cries out to me that this could not have been coincidence but must have been intentional by some force or being.
smitty0521 2 years ago
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness&