My favourite laughs at creationists (1/2)

[jerico641]

I used to believe that Ben Stein was intelligent...

[jerico641]

Yeah, I wish creationists would stop wasting time about how old a theory is (or for that matter, how long "In God We Trust" has been on our money); the age of something has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong. Look at the bible; it's thousands of years old, and obviously a product of it's time, but that makes no difference to the validity of it's contents (or the non-validity of them).

[winmine0327]

learn some editing skills

[TheCrimsonification]

Ben Stein is a fucking pitstain. Darwin's theory of Evolution is not supposed to explain thermal dynamics, gravity, the Big Bang, physics, or Invisible Pink Unicorns. He should have filmed his "Bueller ...Bueller...anyone?..." scene, then died....WAIT! He should have let all those people Win Ben Stein's Money, then died.

[ProMajtas]

so yeah kids we did came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.

[MrNintoku]

9:39 Oh lord Pat Robertson. You know its shit when your talking to him.

[MrNintoku]

5:55 Its called the Butterfly dumbshit. Look it evolves a few times before becoming a butterfly all in a matter of a few weeks.

[MobileThinker]

@MrNintoku actually, the changes a caterpillar goes through is called metamorphosis, basically it means grand(or large) morphological change. it is like how pokemon progress lol.

[MrNintoku]

@MobileThinker

So humans didnt go through evolution they went through many minute metamorphosis's.

[MobileThinker]

@MrNintoku no, humans went though evolution, as did all other animals, but a caterpillar turning into a butterfly isn't evolution.

[MrNintoku]

@MobileThinker

I wasn't being serious with that last comment.

[MrNintoku]

4:00 Stein appeared on FOX. Enough said.

[rpmazzella]

I used to think Ben Stien was a "Brilliant Man". I am sorry to say I was wrong. He need to understand critical thinking.

[MrWagman11]

Ben Stein has become a sad, sad man.

[alphaenemy]

These two are absolute gold. Thank you for the mirror!

[theenglishteacher33]

"NOPE - blahblahblah - NOPE - blahblahblah - NOPE - blahblahblah - NOPE - blahblahblah - IDIOT - blahblahblah - IDIOT - blahblahblah - IDIOT - blahblahblah - IDIOT !!!" Quite an interesting video and funny as well. Thank you for making it.

[JungleJargon]

The limited information in the genome accounts for the diversity of life.

Mutations do not accumulate, they just make dogs look funny.

[JungleJargon]

LOL!

You just compared Isaac Newton to Darwin!

Newton was a real scientist.

watch?v=lEledPONpkQ

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon wtf do you consider a "real" scientist?

[lewisner]

2.07 the crazy looking Goth girl behind Stein.

[MrJekyllDrHyde1]

Pythagoras theorem does not explain gravity, the origin of universe, physics etc .. so it must be wrong

[xynth101088]

Damn i really wish i could pop the pimple that is Ben stein. He just pisses me off. Everytime he talks, because every time he talks it's either a skewed or half truth, or he is talking down to someone he thinks he is smarter than.

[EverydayRevival]

The documentary isn't about the theory of evolution so much as it is about the Neo-Darwinist/Naturalistic worldview, and the monopoly they have on academia, blacklisting people that even suggest the possibility of intelligent design.

[iliveon]

@EverydayRevival And how about you go tell Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project (international effort) who throuroughly understands evolution and even has a book on it, WHO IS A CHRISTIAN, that evolution is wrong.

You will feel stupider than you don't realize you are to us now

[EverydayRevival]

@iliveon "stupider" ?

[iliveon]

@EverydayRevival More stupid haha, nice one. Too bad my point stands. Go read his book, "The Language of God" - Francis Collins, head of the human genome project

[sighrd]

@EverydayRevival Oh please! The reason the scientific community takes a dim view of intelligent design has nothing to do with their views. The history of science is full of people that have gone up against main stream thought and using the scientific method and standing up to peer review, have overturned it. And they are celebrated. So why does the scientific community take a dim view of ID? 1: The movement is academically dishonest.. They don't submit anything to the peer review process (cntd)

[sighrd]

@EverydayRevival choosing instead to resort to bogus court cases and appeals to sympathetic people in positions of authority. Instead of submitting their work to authorities in their field to examine before publishing in a scientific journal, the publish books in university press (which aren't peer reviewed) and get peddled to the scientific illiterate. Those scientists who read their work find gaping holes and deliberate deceptions. William Dembski's explanation as to why he won't publish (cntd

[sighrd]

@EverydayRevival in peer reviewed journals is "I make more money from books"! A sleazy answer if I ever heard one. 2: ID is academically lazy. When a scientist comes across an unknown phenomenon, they keep running tests until they find an explanation that is provable. With an ID way of thinking, you can just say "god did it" and what could be a perfectly mundane explanation goes undiscovered leaving scientific inquiry in a unmovable rut, with no new discoveries and no improvement to our (cntd)

[sighrd]

@EverydayRevival way of life. When you consider that Biology is the cornerstone of modern medicine, this is frightening. Think this is a bit alarmist? Compare the technology and scientific understanding we have today and compare it to what we had in 1987. The change is staggering. That is how long ID has been around and it has not made one discovery, not one new revelation! The closest they have come was Micheal Behe submitting a critique using an argument that has been around since (cntd)

[sighrd]

@EverydayRevival Charles Darwin's time applied to microbiology. This really is a poor record for something claiming to be a "scientific theory". This is why the scientific community takes such a dim view of Intelligent design.

[ciaochowbella]

Saying that Darwinism can't explain the origin of life, the origin of gravity, the origin of the universe, etc. and doesn't explain anything is like saying, "My doctor can't rebuild my transmission or fix my toilet or repair my computer or settle my legal issues! My doctor can't do ANYTHING!"

Could we PLEASE take Ben Stein out back of YouTube and beat him with a wet squirrel until the head pops off?

[uriituw]

Ben Stein is the dumbest person to have ever been on TV.

[salmagnum]

Lol, Newton was a creationist :)

[jmcgurk01]

Stein is a dick.

[colerichards6969]

TFoot"s laugh at 2:06 is priceless!

[salmagnum]

@colerichards6969 Hehe, I agree!

[thefusilier1000]

All christians are liars... either to themselves or others.

[JungleJargon]

@thefusilier1000 Tell me where 60 million cubic miles of sediments came to cover all life forms on earth without having a flood.

Tell my why those sediments are not in the oceans after billions of years of erosion.

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon do even understand what you are trying to deny? sediment isn't just deposited all at once, it takes thousands of years for even a few inches of sedimentary layers. essentially what happens is, soil and other substances are carried by erosive forces and dropped off while in movement. after they are deposited, it settles, erosion never stops, but some erosive forces are stronger than others. if the average wind speed at a coast line is 12 mph and water erosion is stronger, water wins

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon (cont.) when two forces meet, the stronger always overcomes the weaker. so if the erosive force depositing the sediment is a stronger force than the force opposing then the first force would win. your question is like asking, if gravity is so strong, why hasn't the moon crashed into the earth, or the earth into the sun. i suggest you understand the opposition before making such ignorant comments.

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon also, a global flood would have made it impossible for life to exist on earth at this time...the world would still be covered in water.

[JungleJargon]

@MobileThinker The pressure of the water that settled in the oceans opened up the ocean floors and formed ocean plates that are now pressing against the continents from all sided pushing up the mountains.

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon please tell me you are joking and you don't actually believe that... if that were to happen, not only would the core of the earth shift greatly, most likely destroying the magnetic field and shifting the global climate, but if that was even possible, it would require that the expand, plus the majority of that water would evaporate causing even more global climate change, causing massive floods and storms. that idea has so many flaws...

[JungleJargon]

@MobileThinker The plates continue to be formed to this day putting pressure on the continents from every side. That is how the plates work. There is a lot of that kind of activity on the ocean floor. We can see the evidence of the aftermath of the flood on the ocean floors which consist of newly formed crust. This all happened as the flood waters receeded and continues to happen to this day resulting in the pushing up of all of our great mountain chains around the world.

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon one question to destroy that idea...how does water create land?

[JungleJargon]

@MobileThinker You didn't even read what I said. The water settled down into the deeper parts and the bottom split open forming new ocean plates that pressed against land areas that were pushed up out of the water.

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon the way you phrased it in your last comment made it seem like you thought the tectonic movements of the plates was the result of the global flood. however, there are still HUGE problems with a global flood, from where the water is now, to the complete and total decimation of sea life. we cannot forget the complete destruction of land life as well...or how it is humans survived the flood, or any other animal for that matter...oh, don't forget the environmental issues too...

[JungleJargon]

@MobileThinker The ocean plates do press against the continental plates from all sides. That is the force that is pushing up the mountains to this day.

The water is in the deep oceans that did not exist before the flood. Both deep oceans and high mountains did not exist before the flood.

All life on land was destroyed and much of the sea life was destroyed as well.

The environment before the flood sustained human life for hundreds of years.

That hydroponic Creation was completely destroyed.

[MobileThinker]

@JungleJargon are you high right now?

[JungleJargon]

@MobileThinker Water would come up from the ground at night to water the plants.

I am telling you what historical records from before the flood say.

The whole earth was completely destroyed by water.

I just checked a map of major quakes on record and they are all where the Pacific Ocean plates meet land areas. You can check it out for yourself on CNN's website right now.

That is because the force of the Pacific Ocean plates are so much greater.

Why would I lie?

[TheCrimsonification]

@MobileThinker I know this reply is 3 months overdue, but BWAHAHAHAHA!! I can't believe you actually entertained JungleJargon for as long as you did. I wonder where he got a hold of "historical records from before the flood." You could almost taste his brainfarts as you read his stupidity.

[MobileThinker]

@TheCrimsonification lol...it was actually kind of fun. like a brainteaser exercise or something. lol

[TheCrimsonification]

@MobileThinker I do kind of the same thing with religious trolls, well trolls of any kind, but mostly religious ones. My approach is more of an insult based attack. I'm sick of trying to be rational with them. Now mockery and utter contempt is my means for playing with Theists. Hail Sauce, full of Beef. R'Amen.

[MobileThinker]

@TheCrimsonification that is normally how i react, but i was wanting to do some mental exercise...so at least i did something productive, if only for me. lol

[jerico641]

@thefusilier1000

Or both...

[squash124]

9:05 actually made me rofl, Tf00t is a legend :D

[GuhYeahRight]

Wow and I thought Ben Stein wasn't a prick.

[OtherGonzo]

@GuhYeahRight Ben Stein can be summed up easily, as a biologist he is a very good economist.

[blucas6]

@OtherGonzo Ben stein is just a dumb jew. I say put him in an oven.

[marcosfenrir]

@blucas6 WTF man... shame on you.

[luccaskunk]

Two can play that chronological snobbery thing. The Bible was a brilliant book written from between 3000 to 2000 years ago. But Darwin wrote his book only 150 some years ago.

[tctheunbeliever]

@luccaskunk I'd hardly call it brilliant. It's dull, repetitive, self-contradictory, bigoted, demonstrably false factually in dozens of places, repetitive, badly-written, and repetitive. It even manages to be repetitive and self-contradictory at the same time! There are a few good ideas in it, but nothing original, and nothing more profound than "Let's all be nice to each other for a change." And that doesn't even come until the last part.

[DarwinAwardsInc]

@tctheunbeliever LOL! That's quite a nice description imo :P

[tctheunbeliever]

@tctheunbeliever TY. I'll give credit to Douglas Adams for "Let's all be nice to each other for a change."

[MrRedthief]

@luccaskunk The bible is a mess. No one can read it and make sense of it unless they take things out of context.

[masala505]

@MrRedthief Furthermore, if you leave the bible in context, thus a 2000 year old context, it makes perfect sense. It reflects how ignorant, gillible, and superstitious people where at that time in the middle east.

[MrRedthief]

@masala505 I agree with you. To me the bible reads like what someone as crazy as the pastor Fred Phelps would have wrote.

Watch on youtube his son Nate talking about growing up in the Phelps home. It shows what a monster Fred Phelps is. This is the kind of people who wrote the bible.

[MobileThinker]

@MrRedthief those are the kind of people who have always written myths and legends. the only difference is the bible is the flavor of the month in your lifetime and area...

[JungleJargon]

@MrRedthief You just need a teacher who knows everything the Bible says.

[MobileThinker]

@MrRedthief if you get high, it sometimes makes sense...

[Kr0n1k4Lyfe]

You people want me to think that something before the universe even began started to have power greater than we can ever imagine and you put a name on it. Nature and Evolution when you know damn fucking well that there was a God that did it. Don't be fucking stupid. Damn.

[tctheunbeliever]

@Kr0n1k4Lyfe

"You people want me to think...." I don't give a shit what you think.

"something before the universe even began" Um, no. That's your claim.

"started to have power greater than we can ever imagine" Huh?

"Nature and Evolution" Why capitalize? Nature includes a lot more than evolution. Then of course there's physics, cosmology, chemistry, etc.

"Don't be fucking stupid." Funny, that's what I was gonna say.

Show the evidence (real evidence, that is) and we'll believe.

[FailtalityOrDie]

@tctheunbeliever

The problem is these idiots have been spoon fed these lies since birth, its hard for them to accept that a "loving god" cant be a "just god". They cant prove god, but we have varied evidence towards creation. Its like Tf00t said... They need to learn something before making arguments, and they just cant seem to do that. They don't want to accept a fact because their religious agenda tells them not to... We cant change most of them sadly, they wont.

[tctheunbeliever]

@FailtalityOrDie Yeah, I just instinctively hate to leave BS unanswered. Or maybe I have too much time on my hands.

[FailtalityOrDie]

@tctheunbeliever

Meant to say that w have evidence against creation, but i think you got that. And i feel the same way, but we aren't the only ones with too much time on our hands, and at least we try to get them to think rationally.

[AnarchoSyndicalistt]

wow just shows how idiotic ben stein is.  Lol and hes in a church we want science not belief in the tooth fairy. Sorry but truth is better then fiction.

[EntinludeX]

you keep arguing for ONE deity as if you could argue with evidence there were not 10. How are there 10 deities and not one? I can only imagine as no demonsterable evidence has been presented for ANY.

Seriously I just finished having a FAR more intellectually honest conversation with a Mormon. you're just running yourself in circles.

[theGroveMan]

These videos should be available at Amazon. They need to be distributed to people every where.

[korcare4life]

My friend, you are my new hero! I feel joyful that there are actually intelligent people out there. Thank you so so so much 4 this.

[Skindoggiedog]

This guy is standing up there in front of the world, saying the most idiotically ignorant things about a topic he has only the most rudimentary knowledge of, and a whole raft of misconceptions about.

Who are the people who are listening to this guy ... and thinking he's some kind of authority on evolution? This is pure madness. I just can't believe that this is even possible ... What the hell is going on in schools that this becomes possible?

I'm awestruck.

[dotoree]

@Skindoggiedog If you want someone who is a specialist in the field, search youtube for "Genesis conflict" Dr. Veith, a former virulent atheist, who did personal research and investigated the evidence for evolution and found it fraudulent and often false and became a creationist based on the evidence of science. Watch a bunch of his videos...and as for schools...when creation was taught..we were the best in the world...now we're WAY down the list since only evolution propaganda is allowed.

[badtrunk456]

@dotoree Dr. Veith? That guy is so full of shit, if you gave him an enema, you could bury him in a match box..So, you take your "evidence" from seventh day adventists?

yaaaa....

When you play with your jesus action figures, do you get a little turned on? Just a little?

[dotoree]

@badtrunk456 I take evidence from any source (including sometimes atheists) when it's TESTABLE and primary source evidence that can be checked out..and Adventists are one of the best sources. NIH, Blue Zones, National Geographic all confirm that they live 10+ years LONGER than the average due to following biblical health science. My grandpa is 102 and still going strong. Bible science and just 4 Christian scientsts have saved over a billion lives.

[badtrunk456]

@dotoree I massively fail? Soo fucking funny...So your grandfathers old age proves the efficacy of adventism? wow....Fail indeed...

[dotoree]

@badtrunk456 Are you not able to read? Studies of up to 100,000 Adventists over 30 years compared to others, plus 300+ other peer reviewed studies by all sorts of secular researchers are the foundation of that statement. My grandpa was ONLY a personal example of massive studies by NIH, Blue Zones, National Geographic and others. Google buettner "How to live to 100+" for the bluezones research. Google Adventist health study, go to 1st link and click: Peer-reviewed Publications about Adventists

[dotoree]

@badtrunk456 Challenge: The major unique thing that Darwin proposed that differed from prior creation science was that speciation could go WAY WAY beyond the family level to astoundingly even the kingdom level. The problem is finding directly testable evidence for it,you know,like the scientific method demands for anything that wants to be considered scientific? So,show me many observable evidences of speciation going way past the family level (use even insects). I'll concede immediately ;).

[badtrunk456]

Those of us who understand the factuality of evolution, have no need of showing these idiots how, why or that it occurred....It's a matter of natural selection...There children will, or will not be taught the way the world actually works...If they are taught that Jesus will come back from heaven to save them/burn us, then they are less likely to be successful, therefor giving our children an evolutionary advantage..

This is now my position, I'm sick of explaining.

I draw pictures of the prophet

[dotoree]

@badtrunk456 I'm sick of explaining scientific history to atheists who are mostly ignorant about it. Evolution is at BEST a hypothesis. It has no directly testable evidence from science&many falsifications. Newsflash:

Creation scientists published ideas on natural selection LONG before Darwin's book. He plagiarized them & his contemporaries criticized him for this. Creationist NS=speciation from species to family.

Darwinism=speciation from family to kingdom levels, but has never been observed.

[badtrunk456]

@dotoree I promise you don't have to explain scientific history, method, current understanding, or anything else to me.

Your assertion that evolution is, "a hypothesis(at best)", explains all I need to know about your ignorance.I will not debate with you,(because it's pointless), and I will not try o explain anything to you either.You either grasp what has been shown to be true, or you do not.

Go pray to your impotent god and please, please try not to propagate.

I draw pictures of the prophet



[dotoree]

@badtrunk456 Sorry, but evolution has not been shown to be true in any scientific way. I've been asking atheists for evidence of this for 20 years and they've all failed. They use ideas that creation scientists pioneered LONG before Darwin such as natural selection support evolution. They simply do not since no testable cases of evolution exist beyond creation science levels. Homology is a massive fail for evolution. Denton proves this in detail.

[Skindoggiedog]

@dotoree - What is the number one, most compelling single reason you believe demonstrates evolution as false?

[dotoree]

@Skindoggiedog It's hard to choose one, but

1) it would probably be that Darwin's actual claim that differs from prior creation science, ie. his claim that speciation can go WAY WAY past the family level and even past the kingdom level, has not a shred of observable or directly testable evidence and in the history of science many hypothesis like that have proven false with time.

2) Evolutionists say homology is their best evidence, but it completely fails if you look beyond the surface.

[dotoree]

@dotoree 3) Another big one would be that we have never seen any life form evolve a new organ or any major new structure that it didn't have before (such as a heart, lung, leg, arm, kidney, etc.). A corrolary to this is that we should have billions of not trillions of fossils with partially formed new organs and all sorts of organs that don't work. We just don't see that.

4) Google darwinspredictions and read through the site for some of many ways evolution has been falsified.

[Clown7916]

@dotoree Maybe that's becasue it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to fossil a soft structure such as an organ.

[dotoree]

@Clown7916 it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to fossil a soft structure such as an organ.

-

They are far more difficult to find, true, but we do have quite a number of them ranging from food fossilized in the mouths of animals while eating to soft tissue and cell structure in dinosaurs. See this link as an example:

watch?v=qG5B7x_uDlE

This is something that evolution has no way to explain..blood cells just don't last 70 million years.

[dotoree]

@Skindoggiedog a few more details on homology “structures as obviously homologous as the vertebrate alimentary canal are formed from quite different embryological sites in different vertebrate classes. The alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity in the sharks, from the floor in the lamprey, from roof&floor in frogs,&from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, in birds and reptiles.” This would not happen if evolution were correct.

[Skindoggiedog]

@dotoree - "This would not happen if evolution were correct"

Well, what should happen in your example if evolution were correct?

[dotoree]

@Skindoggiedog Sorry for late response, very busy. The hypothesis of evolution regarding homology is that homological structures developed in our ancestors in certain ways and these same processes were passed along to us and are responsible for similar morphology in subsequent descendants. The problem is that in MANY cases, homological structures actually develop from radically different locations and processes which directly conflicts with the Darwinian hypothesis.

[Skindoggiedog]

@dotoree - So how do you think they came about?

[dotoree]

@Skindoggiedog Interesting question. Bible science says that humans and dinos lived together and we have quite a lot of evidence of that even though evolutionists suppress it and try to ban it. Here are a couple:

watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs

watch?v=UfIKk4ceVvs

There are also a number of historical sources describing fights or hunts with dinosaurs in quite a bit of detail. There is also some evidence (still questionable) that maybe a few dinosaurs are surviving these days, esp. in the sea.

[separatethread]

@dotoree Evolution has never been "falsified". If you had evidence to the contrary, you would not be spewing pseudoscience on the YouTube comments page. If you truly believe there is "evidence" of the coexistence of dinosaurs and human beings, you simply don't understand the definition of the word "evidence".

Confident ignorance is still just ignorance, doto.

[dotoree]

@separatethread Yes, it HAS and even leading evolutionists admit that many aspects of it have been falsified. The only reason I'm here on youtube is because I have very limited time...but soon I hope that will change and I can go expose atheism on it's #1 sites as the nearly 100% faith based worldview that it literally is.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who doesn't know what evidence is and is not being open minded.

[separatethread]

@dotoree No, the reason your talking about it on YouTube, is because thats where fruit loops like you go to talk about fairies and goblins and Bigfoot and God and all of you other delusional fantasies.

I did not say anything about "aspects" of evolution. I said EVOLUTION. As in the whole theory. Obviously, since Darwin first published the theory, "aspects" of it have been revised (as new evidence emerges). Its core tenets, however, are solid, whether you like it or not.

[separatethread]

As for "atheism" being "faith based", maybe you need a dictionary.

Just as "bald" is not a hair color, atheism is not "faith based".

Just because YOU cannot logically support the existence of your imaginary friend, doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE is delusional.

Maybe if you had some actual EVIDENCE for your magical sky-daddy, then people would stop laughing at you.

BTW, I am open minded. I'm just not SO open minded that my brain falls out.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree LMAO WTF is BIBLESCIENCE?

Is that like KORAN SCIENCE?

a few dinosaurs are surviving these days?

Where, Fred Flontstone? With the dragons?

UNLEASH THE KRAKEN!

Hahaha.

[dotoree]

Because Adventists (one of the few Christian groups to actually follow Bible health principles), live so much longer than others (my grandpa as well is 102+ and still going strong), the National Cancer Institute is currently funding a new study on ~100,000 Adventists. You can find it by googling "Adventist Health Studies" and go to either the Loma Linda link or the wikipedia link. This is just one of NUMEROUS areas where the Bible pioneered science, saved millions of dollars and lives.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree Of course.. all OTHER Christians aren't doing it wrong. One sect out of 33,820 denominations global Christianity has the "REAL" science ignoring all the controbutions to human knowledge the other cultures and their 3,000 other deities added. Gotta love the Babolonians for inventing the number ZERO and the Egyptians for inventing black ink and sails. :( No lies have ever been saved because computers need the number zero or because someone wrote down something in black ink? Hmmm...

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX Straw manning people isn't intelligent. Neither is apriori bias. I never said all other Christians are doing everything wrong or all other religions and neither did I say no one else has made important contributions. You are not doing good science...you are making irrational assumptions about someone you know NOTHING about. Others have some valuable insights, but in this area of health, I don't know of any group on the planet closer to the Bible (inform me if you know of one).

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree Oooooh finally some actual philosophy!! Aprioi "bias"?

No, no no. It's not a bias, it's simply a fact that empirical evidence trumps experience every time. Experiences which cannot be verified or falsified empirically are merely opinions, not facts. As in delusions and hallucinations.

It is not irrational to conclude the at a being for which there is nothing empirical is a myth.

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX It is not irrational to conclude the at a being for which there is nothing empirical is a myth.

-

Sigh...you believe propaganda like most atheists that has nothing to do with reality. There are many emperical proofs of God and the proofs for God are FAR FAR more scientific than the proofs for any other worldview. Atheism is about the most faith based view on the panet...more mythical and faith based than even most false religions.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree no you believe in indoctrination and brainwashing like most theists. Reality is demonstrably evident. there is NO empirical evidence for any supernatural claim at all. Put your evidence where your mouth is.

PS: Atheism is a wholly faithless proposition.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree you're the one assuming something you know nothing about and have no evidence for exists. that's how mythology works.

positive god claims are not good science, because they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. like all myths they are null-hypothesis

I could easily say I know of no group closer to (Insert any religions scripture), . How "close the group" is has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the claims made by that group.

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX EVERYONE uses some assumptions. Even science rests on some assumptions that we can't prove. But, I'm not resting on assumptions at all. I recognize that I like EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET INCLUDING YOU, use some assumptions. But that faith rests on tons of empirical and fully testable. Your assumptions do not rest on anything testable. They rest on speculation and extrapolation, which has never been solid science.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree And assumptions which cannot be VERIFIED EMPIRICALLY are opinions like all supernatural deity claims.

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX Excluding God from science is gigantic bias, esp. when it was religious people who pioneered the modern scientific method, most of it's branches and EVEN the freedom that you have to not believe in religion. The null hypothesis is true of all religions and is ALSO true of atheism.

How close a group is to it's standard is absolutely crucial for several reasons, just like how close a scientist is to the scientific method is crucial.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree No moreso than excluding the 3,000 other deity myths.

No, the freedom I have to reject religion does not come from religion or gods.

Atheism isn't a hypothesis. It's not a truth claim. It's a rejection of a null hypothesis.

Atheism only exists BECAUSE theism is a null hypothesis! duh.

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX ROFL. You are brilliant at apriori fallacies...I've hardly shared a grain of the 1000s of pages of evidence I have..and you are jumping to zeus sized conclusions. Newsflash, I'm preparing a presentation for a professional conference, writing a booklet, have family, teaching at 2 schools, getting ready to teach new classes at my university and planning a church campaign...a stranger on youtube addicted to logical fallacies is not exactly my biggest priority.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree Not if the standard ( religious texts) are built entirely on NULL HYPOTHESIS

[dotoree]

they have failed to present any testable evidence for what they claimed. So, they diluted the meaning of atheism into some impotent, nonscientific, "I lack belief." Fine. I lack belief in atheism. Guess I'm right because I said the magic words, "lack belief". Sheesh. Use your mind instead of wasting it.

5) Sorry, the freedom you have came from Roger Williams, Ann Hutchinson, etc. Without protestants like them, you would be in jail for thinking the way you do. Wake up from your ignorance.

[dotoree]

This is a fundamental foundation of science and I will never let you get away with claiming to be rational while you present zero evidence..that is a certifiably insane position. Science and rationality follow the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE and they do not assume any default as fact. Those who do that are using apriori bias as a foundation and are irrational.

4) Atheism has for millenia made specific claims, that require abiogenesis or something like it. Contemporary atheists are cowards since

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX Briefly 1) There are millions of hypothesis in science,but we can test them to see which ones have better evidence. The same is true of deities, religions, etc. Google harvardhouse for some examples.

2) HELLO! The null hypothesis is a HYPOTHESIS&if anyone is not apriori biased easily confirms the Bible and it's claims and falsifies atheism. It's absolute lunacy or intentional deceit to say there's no evidence for God.

3) ALL worldviews MUST present evidence.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree I accept THEORIES in science, not HYPOTHESIS.

A null hypothesis cannot be verified or falsified, it is worthless speculation.

There is no evidence for ANY deity. Not for ONE deity, not for 10. Not a single shred of demonstrable verifiable falsifiable evidence. Deities just ain't science.

Atheism isn't a WORLDIVEW. It's a rejection of THEISM as a valid worldview because it is a NULLHYPOTHESIS without ANY valid EVIDENCE.

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX There is no evidence for ANY deity.

-

Sorry,but you live in a fantasy land with a foundation of apriori assumptions. You are not engaging in any sort of scientific process right now. You are doing solely dogma. Atheism IS a worldview...but worldview or not, ALL views if they want to be considered rational MUST provide testable evidence. Neither atheism nor evolution have provided that for their claims. There is far far more evidence for God than there is for atheism or evolution.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree No, you live in a fantasy land where there is a single supernatural demonstrable fact and biology as we know it is a fraud. No, atheism is not a worldview is is a rejection of theistic claims which fail to meet their burdon of evidence. Again shut me up and show some evidence for 1 deity over 10 deities, I welcome it. Put your evidence where your mouth is.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree Aggain you seem to suffer from some sort of cognative dissonance where you fail to realize EVIDENCE and FAITH are antithetical concepts.

If you had EVIDENCE for any deity you dont' need FAITH for any deity because you have EVIDENCE.

Evidence is when faith is not.

Faith is when evidence is not.

The concepts are ANTITHETICAL.

[pokenei]

@dotoree by god do you mean jesus? by far far more evidence do you mean the bible? i'd bet your answer is yes. enough said.

[EntinludeX]

@pokenei OBVIOUSLY there's a TEAM of deities working in conjunction to produce a single universe, right brother? Where do they get this "Bible/Jesus" nonsense? Everyone knows the gods are just aliens masquerading as deities to steal our stargate technology. :D

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX Your ignorance is deplorable, but not your fault. You're the victim of massive propaganda and intentional censorship of crucial information from public education. The fact is that Bible health science gives those who follow it 10+ years extra life. This is reported by National Geographic, Blue zones and other secular research foundations. Google buettner "how to live to 100+" ~11:30+.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree No you're the victim of massive indoctrination and your ignorance is deplorable. you're the one with the talking donkey myth. Not me.

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX Yes, there are a few things in the Bible that require faith. But the maybe 20% faith that is needed to be a Christian rests on ~80% evidence that is fully testable by science and history and has billions of confirmations. In contrast, atheism (I'm not sure if you're an atheist, but probably), requires literally billions of faith steps based on not one iota of observable evidence. This is true whether you're talking about the origin of matter, abiogenesis or Darwinism.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree A few??? 20%???? lol. Lets start with page one verse one and it build sup from there with every historical and scientific inaccuracy and unconformable claim. I mean the CRUX issue here is one which rests entirely, 100% on faith.

FAITH itself AT ALL is a poor means for decision making in the first place. "The emperors New clothes" for example.

no, atheism is a wholly faithless position.

Cosmology, BioChemistry, and Biology are science and rest and are rejected on the weight ofEVIDENCE

[dotoree]

@EntinludeX Sorry, but atheism is a 100% faith based belief since it has not one single evidence at all that life can originate without intelligence and for a number of other reasons as well. You probably don't even know that Darwin plagiarized and stole the concept of natural selection and others from creationists who published the idea LONG before him in science journals. Until atheism provides testable proof of abiogenesis AND evolution past the family boundary it is ~100% faith.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree Nope I'm faithless. Atheism isn't a belief it s a rejection of a null hypothesis.

It doens't require evidence because evidence is always on claims of EXISTANCE not NONTEXISTANCE nor does atheism make claims abotu the origins of life.

you're confusing atheism with science.

[EntinludeX]

@dotoree Atheism has NOTHING to do with ABIOGENESIS.

you're confusing a rejection of the null-hypothesis of theism with biochemistry.

Atheism is nullified when a single shred of demonstrable evidence is presented for theism. It has NOTHING to do with biochemistry.

[Rx529529]

people like Stien just annoy you just by talking about something he doesnt know dont you want to punch him :P

[chansetwo]

Religion makes people stupid.

[BillKiernan]

why do all of thunderfoots videos take forever to load on my computer?

[Scyllah]

Five stars, this was actually a brilliant video. Thanks.

[akkikr]

WTF he expects mutaions to account for gravity.... That is as idiotic as it gets you can't even give excuse that you were taken out of context. I think he was interviewing kent hovind because i can't think of anyone who has gone to even high school to say that evolution explains gravity, thermodynamics etc. only hovind makes such comical claims.

[awb17a]

LOL = you dare to criticise people for being Academically dishonest - evolutionists saying that always puts a smile on my face.

[braydenbeautiful]

Well, the second law of thermodynamics has to be understood if one were to study the flow of energy through trophic levels -- which play a key role in evolution.

However, you're right; by and large, Thermodynamics and evolution are fairly separate.

[BillKiernan]

wow ben stein suddenly cares about "imperialism"

[jannikmt]

all hail the pixies

[layhao]

Well done! Good to see we dont let these idiots get away with it!

[SinnFein4ever]

LOL AT 9:06!

X)

[Jacobsenacc]

If it's a documentry made by christians and creationists, shouldn't they be named "Mockumentries" since the only thing they do is mock themselves.

[slicksterdave]

haha.

Yeah; I love the internet for these reasons... you get to actually challenge or point out flawed reasoning in appalling tv broadcasts or "self-appointed" genius.

"Idiot" - Well placed :)

[anmathur]

good work mate.....this ought to shut em up!

[dangerouslytalented]

The Origin of the Species is a "relic of the 19th Century"?

The bible is a relic of the early 1st century. But far less reliable.

[collin2187]

you are saying that these have nothing to do with eachother, that is only pat truth they are 2 different things of course, but he has to realize that darwinism is to be coupled with other sciences. i commend the person who made this video....i.e good job

[drpeterbluer]

if you say evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ( that's not what the populace believes ) how do you explain the existence of life ?

[collin2187]

the person talking said thats the big bang theory, of course they tie in together but they are 2 different things

[Skymt]

You are mixing subjects.

1. Where did matter come from? Astrophysics study the big bang.

2. How did matter form into life? Chemists study abiogenesis (sometimes called chemical evolution).

3. Why is the divergence of life so great? Biologists study evolution.