Ro 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
d3st88 your so called science has nothing to back it up with. After Cambria it was only zealots with a cult like passion that clings to evolution despite the scientific proof against. Closed minds like yours can learn nothing. The so called science types were a few thousand years off on the round Earth theory. Round Earth was discussed in Genesis.
Like myself being an atheist, I couldn't help notice that I too like Mr. Dawkins would rather wait on someone than someone 'waiting on me' and always try to be punctual and live ethical life WITHOUT "religion"!
No editing was necessary to make Stein look like a smug idiot. Nor was any required for the moronic creationists who are this movie's sole audience and can't tell that Stein's whole argument is bullshit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution has no factual basis whatsoever. Darwin himself said if there was no discovery of many transitional fossils his theory is invalid. Evolution relies on others agreeing with Darwin, not proving a thing. Life from lifelessness by accident is moronic. Everything from nothing, big band, is moronic.
the "Big Bang" is not part of Evolution. Evolution is the process of change in inherited traits over time. The "Big Bang is part of Cosmology which is the study of space. get your facts strait
@WOLFNBEAST I my facts are straight.. Without cosmic evolution you do not have primordial ooze another impossibility according to science, life coming from lifelessness. Go back to school and get your propaganda straight.
@d3st88 one is based upon the other honey. Neither have been proven as fact. My original point was also how ridiculous they both are. Sorry if your science does not back up your nonscience.
You are either a troll or retarded or some fundie, but I'd say at least 2 guesses are correct. I'd suggest you to go read some books, or science journals or something, but I'm sure you can't be bothered. To call evolution a nonscience takes a lot of wishful thinking, emotional and intellectual retardation. You ridicule the notion of something created of nothing, but where did your he-man in the sky come from? From nothing? You are pissing on your own boots, dummy.
"You ridicule the notion of something created of nothing, but where did your he-man in the sky come from? From nothing?"
Yes exactly. I make fun of the fact you so called science types blast creation because of this and it is far more likely that the universe was created from nothing by something. There is also quantum projection that destroys the anti creation argument. You are the one making yourself look the fool. Evolution is wishful thinking.
@d3st88 right back at you, how does matter come from nothing? You are the one that is lacking logic. Something had to create something if there was nothing. There is also the facts proven by quantum projection. You are the one who needs to open their mind. Many scientists have stated that science came to a screeching halt when the theory of Evolution was "accepted" as fact. Sorry again to blow your little mind. Your clinging to a dead science is sad. At least try to be scientific.
@d3st88 I also like the way Evolutionists are in such denial when it comes to Cambria. I also stated something created something. I never said that there was nothing prior to creation. That is left for the pseudo scientific.
Who says sentience, mind or whatever is a 'thing'? Can it be measured or physically detected? The answer is that it can't, it's existence can only be inferred.
i feel like taking those nikes ben stein wears and tying them around his neck...ben if u r reading this...u are an absolute moron in regards to your comments made in the documetary....granted that science should b open to other theories..but the theory of evolution is backed by mountains of proof and data....in order for you to refute that, you have to examine that data and conclude otherwise which you cleary havent....so dude....go get a BRAIN...
joyindian....you didn't watch the movie did you ;) If you did you would know that the scientists who argued FOR intelligent design also generally accepted the theory of evolution. The debate was over the ORIGIN, not the means, by which life began and evolved. I disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett on some issues, but I respect them for their willingness to accept the opposite view as a valid argument. I just wish some of their "followers" would show the same respect.
No scientist makes anywhere near this type of argument for evolution. You're simply setting up a straw-man argument because you have nothing valid with which to counter evolutionary theory. Or, perhaps, you simply are too feeble-minded to understand science. That's okay. You just keep reading that one book of myths. Society will do better without your involvement.
What? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The theory of evolution does not incorporate coincidence. Please get informed on the subject as you clearly miss the point. Except for that, honda is a brand. it has factories. you can actually see the factories and they exist. there is obvious proof, that honda exists. so as you maybe can see, this comparision is more than flawed.
lol Ben Stein is such a dummy, just watch "Why people laugh at creationists part 23". Don't forget Ben Stein is an attorney, winning arguments through deception and slim talk, no matter what is dishonest or true. Dawkins is a scientist in search of truth. In this discussion Stein just ends it with a continuation of the same infinitely regressing line of questions, explaining absolutely nothing, such as, "well then what happened before that?" demonstrating how clueless he is to science.
We didn't find WMDs but we did find the remains of Calutrons which are for enriching uranium. Oh yeah and about the only use of that stuff is atomic weaponry.
sad,atheist have no common sense-it is laughable that anyone would not see that someone is a liar if they say they gave an answer to a question different than they would depending on whom was asking and for what magazine or movie-mr dawkins you should answer the same why every time if you are honest-you can see old clips of Ronald Reagan where he gives same answer over the years as compared to Bill Clinton where he may give a different answer even a week later-reagan was honest-clinton a liar
Ronald Reagan? The model of honestly and integrity right? After he died the FBI released documents of him being a Hollywood informant for the HUAC. He secretly outed many directors and actors while publicly denouncing the HUAC. Find another hero because Ronald Reagan was no saint.
Atheists have no common sense? Let's weigh that up:
1) My life based upon a book written 2,000 years ago, a book which is based on Egyptian mythology & other stories. Possibly even a book which says "A God created the WHOLE universe in 7 days, including all life".
or
2) Evidence collected from natural observation using credible scientific techniques, ones that are designed to test ageing, DNA, etc.
perhaps you should use common sense and not believe in things tantamount to the Father Xmas.
funny how you would use DNA example it was DNA that proved the charts of cromagnon evolving from neanderthal was wrong in 2003-for 60 years,charts were removed from textbook-same chart that evolutionist went to court to force into science as fact when opposition said it shouldnt be in there cause it was false--a lie-forced in by liars like you-your science once said sound barrier couldnt be broken,cells were simple,using maggots was "christian foolish science"(now its common to clean wounds)
These are known things-you dont discredit me "with name your sources"-like you saying show me sources that abe lincoln is dead,custer died at little big horn,bin ladin blew up towers-all true things but time consuming to give sources-no secret science once said sound barrier couldnt be broken,darwin stated that cells were simple,no atheist I have debated has ever denied that and using maggots to clean wounds was considered crazy and primative and was compared as "christian foolish science"
I laugh, even trying to give examples you have failed. Theres no direct link between Bin laden and the twin towers. Do you know how many times this has been asked in the counsil and they could find NO direct link. That's why the mission in iraq wasn't a combat mission until 2003.
you are not just a dumb atheist but dumb on politics as well-it was combat in 2003 cause he gave sadam a chance to sted dwon and obey UN-he did neither
Yes but that should still be a peace keeping mission, and from the UN not the US. The US should not police other countries and be bullies. Also, if i'm so wrong than show me the link between bin laden and 9/11. By the way, the video tape didn't suffice and that was the only evidence they could provide to use it to go into iraq. Mainly because bin laden worked for the CIA...
tapes of bin ladin after 911 where he admits attacks-we did not need 911 to attack sadam-firing on our planes broke the cease fire-bet you think we should not have gone in first gulf war-I was there,saw brutality of sadam-including stuffing kids mouthes with the rations we gave then-cowards killed kills and then hid from us-if you saw that and have a decent bone in your body,you would have no problem with 2nd gulf war
First of all, that's between the country to settle, you idiot! If i was shoving things in peoples mouthes right now should we expect Russia to come in and kill us all? NO. You have been fed this propaganda just like in WWI and WWII that makes you hate the "enemy". It's mainly about oil. That's the countries civil business, then if it's out of hand the UN comes in.
saying tapes are irrelevant is just dumb-its more than the tapes-captured belongings,computers of dead hi-jackers showed the plan,masterminds,etc-not about oil-war is the worst thing for oil-in modern warfare,the united staes no loger keeps any "spoils of war"-like the democrats said right after the statue fell-"you cant break things and leave"-ironic that the democrats demanded we stay in iraq,yet attacked bush for staying-ww1 and ww2-you are cracked-there is no ww3
LOL, your so right wing it's scary. You can't control people you asshole. They don't want you in the country that's why they attacked in the first place. And you have failed to show.
Also, you say the reason were in Iraq is sadam. You idiot, read the reports. It was "WMDs."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us that not only did Iraq have these weapons but he knew exactly where they were.
sadam allowed bin ladin's men to train in iraq,he supported suicide bombers-like saying there was no link between hiler's germany and japan in ww2-common sense man-also who cares if there was a link,sadam used chemical weapons on the kurds,invaded 2 of his neighbors-he had to be dealt with-thank you mr bush for finishing what we started-sadly,obama will probably cause my son or grandkids to have to go there again
It's true Atheism is the most irrational world view. It reduces to a simple hatred of God & man, common bigotry. There is nothing scientific or intellectual about Dawkins and his UFO theories. He's a lunatic who thinks aliens made us.
guess dawkins was also tricked into his answer-what you mean is that if dawkins knew he was being interviewed for this movie,he would haved lied-you must be a democrat
If you were a mechanic and some people interviewed you for a film they say was called "Macho Mechanics", then they started asking you questions about homosexuality and homosexual mechanics and the movie comes out and now it's title has changes slightly to "Homoerotic Mechanics" and then on your "edited" interview you come out sounding like you are gay and you appear on the cover "Butt Pirate Weekly" as gay man of the year. Would you be a little angry?
no,cause I would answer the same way to questions no matter whom was asking-what dawkins was saying is he would have not given an honest answer(probably would not have even done the interview) if he knew what it was for-sounds like a democrat politician that whats questions before had and will only do interview if soft questions are asked(thats why democrats refused to have presidential debate on fox news,afriad they would be asked hard questions)
It does not matter how you answer the questions. The movie makers control the editing and they will make you sound like whoever they want. If they take a quote you make out of context you loose total control and there is nothing you can do about it.
Man you've got democrats completely figured out. I don't know why your not out on the streets praying to cardboard cutouts of George W Bush and burning effigy's of Barak Obama. What are you waiting for GO GO GO!!!
I can't believe they tricked Dawkins into doing an interview for such a horrible movie by completely lying about what the movie would be about. I guess if your a creationist and all the evidence is against you, you have to tell some falsehoods to get your point across.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I've heard this argument repeatedly - athiest gets caught with a flimsy argument, cries foul and says they were duped.
What does it say about the intellectual honesty of this revered professor that "stupid" Ben Stein can paint him into a corner with half his brain tied behind his back?
@lonerook860 did you see the movie? Dawkins was all over the place. Life on our planet could have come from aliens, could have had a designer, then couldn't have, etc. He was really vague.
If you see it with an open mind it DOES show that nobody can prove anything about the origin of life at this time.
hahahahaha. Actually, he quote mines Dawkins (not surprisingly), and blabs about how Richard adheres to the idea that aliens must have ceded life here on earth.
I hear every major news paper has said its very bad. So keep your jew fag fairy tails. I want the truth not that crap.
Its all so worth researching the making of that jewish crap, i know where they got the name expelled from, as they expelled people from the 1st showing of the film as they knew it was going to be pulled to bits. FUCK BEN STEIN HE IS A JEW CUNT, SEND HIM TO GERMANY IN THE 1940'S, PLEASE I BEG YOU IF NOT THAT SOME ONE POINT A GUN AT THIS LOSER AND DO WHAT MUST BE DONE. BANG BANG
its so interesting when people say "Evolution is a Fact" like its a mantra. The more you say it the more it must be true. I don't enjoy how a lot of my Christian brothers are being crude to Ahiests and I apologize on there behalf. I dont get a lot of space so i have to be brief ( i never come on here and post) 1) peer reviews assume people have no bias to the content. why would an evolutionist doubt an evolutionist? I dont have space to keep going. Please try and open to the idea of humility.
Please stop talking nonsense on the name humility!
Evolution per se is a fact (as gradual change), and yes it has been observed, even you must have seen it on your daily life.
Now! How you go about EXPLAINING evolution are called THEORIES, in this case the THEORY of natural selection which explains how evolution works on the natural world without the aid of a mind or creator.
So please, for the sake of debate, criticize the theory and not the fact, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant.
I've been trying to find a site or something to watch this movie but i can't.I can't buy it either because i will not find it in my country.Watch it...i've seen the trailer and it's extremly good:D.God bless!
trueorigin website: In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.
would that not be because evolution takes place over thousands of years and man has only had the knowledge of this and the means to picture/film ourselves in the last 100-150 years? i realise that sentence was woefully put together, but you see my point.
Evolution has never been proven to take place at all. It is still an unproven theory, and there are many contradictory evidences. Look at the Cambrian explosion. All those fully developed animals showing up at precisely the same time - which Darwin himself agreed could well mean that the evidence was against him.
The way you formulate yourself makes me belief you dont have ah a clear understanding of what the theory of natural selection is all about. There is no such thing as a one instance of speciation, the same way there are no crocoducks (tm Cameron) in the fossil record. By such claims you only prove your ignorance which becomes a constantly amusement for us who give a damm about knowledge and truth.
Ok Kiddo! Im going to wear my silk gloves as you are only a misguided kid, but kid none the less.
First: Lets have one thing clear, one thing is evolution as a fact (as gradual change) and another is the theories behind that try to explain evolution. So in this case natural selection is a theory that explains evolution. If you dont see the difference go an ask your science teacher in school to explain it for you again.
Second: The fact that you think that because a the theory evolution by natural selection is still unproven shows to me you have a completely lack of understanding of the scientific method, let me expelled to you in clear words, no scientific theory as never ever been proven 100%, no such thing in science. If you dont know why this is so, go ask again your science teacher or even better read a book about it.
Third: The Cambrian explosion (wow big words there for a little fella like you) the only controversy here among evolutionary biologist WAS between punctual and non-punctual evolution, as far as I know there isnt such controversy anymore, anyways controversy was only used to spice up the debate, but it wasnt even that. And it is truly dishonest of you to use it as argument against the theory of natural selection, as well your suggestion that there is any evidence against it.
Even Darwin suggested that the Cambrian explosion could possibly be used to make the case that his theory was invalid. That fact that you don't recognize this makes you irrelevant to the conversation.
You see the difference here is, that I, like the majority with certain understanding of what the theory of natural selection is all about, understand and know why Darwin saw the Cambrian explosion as a potential problem, which it isnt really. There is such a thing called, scientific honesty, it is when you send a scientific paper to peer review you highlight the potential problems the theory could encounter and how to falsify it, and you should know this unless you are creationist of course.
did you like the bit where stein and the producers lied to those awful scientists to get them to appear . gotta love that!
you are a gullible fool.
that is the result of dishonest editing- and it not the position of dawkins. stein knows this, maybe you should try doing some reading without the blinkers.
Yes, I LOVED the bit where the poor widdle victim scientists were LIED to, DECEIVED, and HEARTBROKEN that they couldn't have prepared better propaganda to deal with the fact that their words are different based upon who they think the audience is.
you are a liar and a prick of huge proportions. one would have though having your lies and stupidity exposed in your last sanctimonious episode you'd know better but do carry on- post more of your drivel and I'll point out the truth,
meanwhile try getting yourself some moral integrity. the smell of bullshit off you is awful
a little child- no, a grown up lying arsehole I'm afraid. lets here some more bullshit from the clown who despite repeatedly having the FACTS pointed out still cliams Dawkins and Myers gatecrashed the film, myers caused a disturbance and Dawkins behaved "boorishly" by..gasp...giving his full name to security.
Yes because lying to people is a Christian virtue isnt it? I think its awesome you approve of lying, makes it easier for me to point out the hypocrisy.
why would you be purposefully deceptive saying, "simpler organisms or pseudo-life that were merely at the end of a string of stochastic chemical reactions" when the truth is only amino acids have formed? maybe you didn't know amino acid is in no way life of any kind. perhaps you know of another experiment that produced life. please share the world would like to know if you created life i'm sure.
the fact is that we don't know how the first cell formed. there is no precell. even the most primitive cell known is within a few percent of every other cell. no evolution at all. even the small difference is in the programming of the dna. the mechanism for reading and building are exactly the same. we are within a few switches in programming from being a banana
Could you elaborate on that? Meaning, what can you add to the conversation concerning microbiology that shows GrandGuignologist to be uneducated? Or were you just trying to be helpful?
actually study math and science you will start to understand the kernel of evolution...and find that it really does make sense.
"even the small difference is in the programming of the dna... building are exactly the same."
in most forms of life the process is the same. however, the data contained is different. "we are within a few switches in programming from being a banana"
not really. sure bananas and humans both utilized DNA...the gene count and data is much different.
then you should know stochastic chemical reactions have never been shown to make anything more complex than amino acids. which could in no way be considered an organism, or life of even the simpleist kind. in most forms of life the process is the same. however, the data contained is different. thats what i said. except you forgot to mention the percentage. .6% between man and chimp. i think about 5 or 6 maybe for bananas. that of course means billions of base pairs, but still only a few pct.
If I am ever mega-rich I want to buy the UNEDITED full version of that discussion between Stein and Dawkins. So I can show the world just how much Creationism pales in comparison to science and how underhanded Stein was in this film.
GodoftheGeeks, there's an article somewhere on Dawkins' website where he describes exactly how this interview, and the others that Stein used in this stupid movie. He wasn't even told that the movie was about creationism! You should go search for it.
How come when people need some one to defend faith they always go to a Fundamentalist who argue against science, use's fear base tactics, believe you have to join there religion or something bad will happen, trash's atheism, trash's other religions, bash's gays and lies about there claims? Why cant we ever hear a more liberal or moderate voice of Faith like John Shelby Spong or Kenneth Millar instead of Ben? (I thought he was Jewish)Why dose it always have to be the religious right?
Ben Stein is a coward who pretexted Dawkins to get the interview. He told the pro-evolution/truth people that they were making a movie called "Crossroads" and hid their true intentions. Who's afraid of the truth?
Why is it that on every blasted video about an atheist or a theist, the whole argument about which is right starts again? Can't there just be one video for everyone to duke it out? It's just funny, really. There's always a big fight going on under everything I click on about Richard Dawkins.
The fact that we are here at all proves intelligent does exist in the cosmos. to think we were the first or even close to the first would be short sighted at best. there are more galaxies than we can number. the number of planets is such a staggering number in so many varieties at least trillions of them would have had conditions right for life to flourish way before we could have even been a new star. how old then must the oldest of them be.
Berlinski and Stein are both right wing hacks with no scientific background, but they are good at BS, since Stein was a Republican speech writer. Dawkins, however, is a real scientists so I am inclined to take his word over some right wing Jewish Hollywood hack and the stupid Xtians he panders to.
According to nearly everyone - Stein is a humble question asker - and Dawkins has the hugely inflated ego. Every time he speaks its in authoritarian tones, like the time he attacks a man because of his religious belief right here on U-tube.
I see. And if he didn't publicly promote his work, and in particular his book "The God Delusion", then it would still reach as many people? Dawkins doesn't need the money, or the fame. He makes appearances in films like this is because there are still so many people out there who irrationally believe in God, and he wants to present them with his own(brilliant) arguments against the existence of God.
Dawkins doesn't just deny God. He wrote a stunningly intelligent book outlining WHY people should deny God. It wasn't a case of "believing in God is stupid, end of story", it was "believing in God is illogical, for all these reasons...". So, no, I don't think what Dawkins did and continues to do is at all is easy. If you read "The God Delusion" you'd probably agree with me.
hows about this one. complex things are improbable bc of their complexity. using god to explain ne complexity creates a bigger problem, bc god must be at least as complex, and therefore as improbable, as what you r using him to explain
Well no where does evolution say we "accidentally happened". That is one of the major mis-conceptions of evolutionary theory. It's basically a "straw man" argument. It's pretty ironic that you use "closed minded" in the same sentence, because you are the one setting up a disingenuous statement.
Complexity is no indication of design... well, let me put it in a better way... The design we observe is no indication of an intelligent designer.
This appearance of specific design is due to the mechanism of natural selection which over time will select for the better adapted group. Usually that means having the best tools available to survive. If you make no reference to the countless years it took, and believe things just poofed to be, then of course they would need to be designed.
But this isn't what we see in the fossil record and countless other methods of testing the complexity. We see lots of junk, a lot of throwbacks to a precursor (vestigial organs) and things that are too complicated to have been done by anything remotely intelligent, such as when it takes more energy to accomplish something than a more efficient alternative.
Where's the showdown? This is just Dawkins sitting at a table and Stein being chauffeured to the site. The only words spoken in this clip are "Hello, Mr. Dawkins, I'm Ben Stein." A waste of 40 seconds.
Only voted Brittan's most recognized intellectual having double the votes as the runner up. I believe you are one of the following: trying to start a flame war from your ignorance, or you actually believe what you say because you have not read any of his books, listened to any of his lectures, or know that he has more intelligence than probably any two random persons combined.
you are the only person that can put yourself on a guilt trip, it's basic to human psychology. if we are all related through reproduction and natural selection, there is no genetic fallacy by your own evolutionary logic, you are just as at fault for what happened in the past a s what happens now...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins has been exposed as the bigoted fraud that he is by the movie Expelled. He'll never again be taken seriously by anyone outside of his obedient flock of sheep.
if that's so, it's only because it takes more effort to understand modern biology in any respectable degree than it does to swallow the intellectually lazy soundbites generated by the devotees of a mythological worldview 300 years past it's expiration date.
and as for obedient flocks of sheep...
...how many bleat along behind enraptured pastors, eager to do "god's bidding" and avoid the ultimate spiritual disciplinary action from their janus-faced, by turns loving and damning, imaginary god?
And you think we asked for it by doing what? eating an apple? literally? are you serious?
Why put a talking snake in there anyway? And punish it by making it slither in the dirt? It already did that!!!!! That's why it is called a snake! how is that punishment for a snake.
The story of so ridiculous I can't take it. And the most scary thing is that people like you believe it LITERALLY.
It wasn't an apple....it was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil....innocense lost......the temptation from Satan to Eve was "you will be as gods".....we make horrible gods......are you sure it slithered in the dirt??...I thought you believed in evolution???? LOL
This is irrelevant, but is stein wearing tennis shoes with a suit?
feisal70 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ro 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
GodsSeer 1 year ago
d3st88 your so called science has nothing to back it up with. After Cambria it was only zealots with a cult like passion that clings to evolution despite the scientific proof against. Closed minds like yours can learn nothing. The so called science types were a few thousand years off on the round Earth theory. Round Earth was discussed in Genesis.
NewGenerationMA 1 year ago
Like myself being an atheist, I couldn't help notice that I too like Mr. Dawkins would rather wait on someone than someone 'waiting on me' and always try to be punctual and live ethical life WITHOUT "religion"!
RemixedVideoDJ 1 year ago
Comment removed
psychtrane 1 year ago
Movie is crappy propaganda
coolboy1178 2 years ago 4
I sometimes think that editing is just as powerful a god to those who can't think around it.
robi2000 2 years ago 2
I've been told by an atheist that the interview was not edited to make Stein look better or Dawkins worse.
ivlfounder 2 years ago
@ivlfounder
No editing was necessary to make Stein look like a smug idiot. Nor was any required for the moronic creationists who are this movie's sole audience and can't tell that Stein's whole argument is bullshit.
psychtrane 1 year ago
@psychtrane
I disagree with Stein on a number of topics but he did a good job of showing up Dawkins in this interview.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
Ben blows dog dick
plasterosu 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution has no factual basis whatsoever. Darwin himself said if there was no discovery of many transitional fossils his theory is invalid. Evolution relies on others agreeing with Darwin, not proving a thing. Life from lifelessness by accident is moronic. Everything from nothing, big band, is moronic.
NewGenerationMA 2 years ago
you are so wrong, wait your joking, no wait, your just very very wrong.
plasterosu 2 years ago
@NewGenerationMA
evolution does not explain the origin of life or the big bang or everything from nothing
it explains evolution, how organisms evolve
i hope you were just trying to be funny
pwnstoohard 2 years ago 3
The big bang is absolutely part of Evolution. You don't even know your own science.
NewGenerationMA 2 years ago
Comment removed
WOLFNBEAST 1 year ago
@NewGenerationMA
the "Big Bang" is not part of Evolution. Evolution is the process of change in inherited traits over time. The "Big Bang is part of Cosmology which is the study of space. get your facts strait
WOLFNBEAST 1 year ago
@WOLFNBEAST I my facts are straight.. Without cosmic evolution you do not have primordial ooze another impossibility according to science, life coming from lifelessness. Go back to school and get your propaganda straight.
NewGenerationMA 1 year ago
@NewGenerationMA
There's a difference between biological evolution and cosmical evolution. These two are two different things, honey.
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88 one is based upon the other honey. Neither have been proven as fact. My original point was also how ridiculous they both are. Sorry if your science does not back up your nonscience.
NewGenerationMA 1 year ago
@NewGenerationMA
You are either a troll or retarded or some fundie, but I'd say at least 2 guesses are correct. I'd suggest you to go read some books, or science journals or something, but I'm sure you can't be bothered. To call evolution a nonscience takes a lot of wishful thinking, emotional and intellectual retardation. You ridicule the notion of something created of nothing, but where did your he-man in the sky come from? From nothing? You are pissing on your own boots, dummy.
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88 dipshit, let's look at what you wrote.
"You ridicule the notion of something created of nothing, but where did your he-man in the sky come from? From nothing?"
Yes exactly. I make fun of the fact you so called science types blast creation because of this and it is far more likely that the universe was created from nothing by something. There is also quantum projection that destroys the anti creation argument. You are the one making yourself look the fool. Evolution is wishful thinking.
NewGenerationMA 1 year ago
@NewGenerationMA
You just can't see the error in your logics, can you?
"it is far more likely that the universe was created from nothing by something."
If there was he-man in the clouds then there was something, now, who created he-man?
d3st88 1 year ago
@d3st88 right back at you, how does matter come from nothing? You are the one that is lacking logic. Something had to create something if there was nothing. There is also the facts proven by quantum projection. You are the one who needs to open their mind. Many scientists have stated that science came to a screeching halt when the theory of Evolution was "accepted" as fact. Sorry again to blow your little mind. Your clinging to a dead science is sad. At least try to be scientific.
NewGenerationMA 1 year ago
@d3st88 I also like the way Evolutionists are in such denial when it comes to Cambria. I also stated something created something. I never said that there was nothing prior to creation. That is left for the pseudo scientific.
NewGenerationMA 1 year ago
@d3st88
Who says sentience, mind or whatever is a 'thing'? Can it be measured or physically detected? The answer is that it can't, it's existence can only be inferred.
gerontodon 10 months ago
i feel like taking those nikes ben stein wears and tying them around his neck...ben if u r reading this...u are an absolute moron in regards to your comments made in the documetary....granted that science should b open to other theories..but the theory of evolution is backed by mountains of proof and data....in order for you to refute that, you have to examine that data and conclude otherwise which you cleary havent....so dude....go get a BRAIN...
joyindian 2 years ago
joyindian....you didn't watch the movie did you ;) If you did you would know that the scientists who argued FOR intelligent design also generally accepted the theory of evolution. The debate was over the ORIGIN, not the means, by which life began and evolved. I disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett on some issues, but I respect them for their willingness to accept the opposite view as a valid argument. I just wish some of their "followers" would show the same respect.
asdf52535 2 years ago
Its difficult to show respect for people who believe others are going to burn in hell forever for simply not believing in their "god"
Potandthekettle 2 years ago 4
Ben you are a loser.
sematic1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What's easier to believe? Honda manufactured the civic, or a bomb came out of nowhere and voila! You have a civic?
thrutch599 2 years ago
Uh, yep. Honda makes civics. Not bombs.
What does that have to do with evolution?
NotQuiteGobShite 2 years ago 5
No scientist makes anywhere near this type of argument for evolution. You're simply setting up a straw-man argument because you have nothing valid with which to counter evolutionary theory. Or, perhaps, you simply are too feeble-minded to understand science. That's okay. You just keep reading that one book of myths. Society will do better without your involvement.
4pt6billion 2 years ago 3
What? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The theory of evolution does not incorporate coincidence. Please get informed on the subject as you clearly miss the point. Except for that, honda is a brand. it has factories. you can actually see the factories and they exist. there is obvious proof, that honda exists. so as you maybe can see, this comparision is more than flawed.
DhalsimHibiki 2 years ago
lol Ben Stein is such a dummy, just watch "Why people laugh at creationists part 23". Don't forget Ben Stein is an attorney, winning arguments through deception and slim talk, no matter what is dishonest or true. Dawkins is a scientist in search of truth. In this discussion Stein just ends it with a continuation of the same infinitely regressing line of questions, explaining absolutely nothing, such as, "well then what happened before that?" demonstrating how clueless he is to science.
booste30 2 years ago 2
We didn't find WMDs but we did find the remains of Calutrons which are for enriching uranium. Oh yeah and about the only use of that stuff is atomic weaponry.
tekproxy 3 years ago
"but we did find the remains of Calutrons which are for enriching uranium."
You mean "Cauldrons"? Like a big ass pot you put stew in?
Can I have a source for this please?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Ben Stein loves propaganda.
jacobromu 3 years ago 2
sad,atheist have no common sense-it is laughable that anyone would not see that someone is a liar if they say they gave an answer to a question different than they would depending on whom was asking and for what magazine or movie-mr dawkins you should answer the same why every time if you are honest-you can see old clips of Ronald Reagan where he gives same answer over the years as compared to Bill Clinton where he may give a different answer even a week later-reagan was honest-clinton a liar
playsetman 3 years ago
Ronald Reagan? The model of honestly and integrity right? After he died the FBI released documents of him being a Hollywood informant for the HUAC. He secretly outed many directors and actors while publicly denouncing the HUAC. Find another hero because Ronald Reagan was no saint.
madzyzome 3 years ago
Atheists have no common sense? Let's weigh that up:
1) My life based upon a book written 2,000 years ago, a book which is based on Egyptian mythology & other stories. Possibly even a book which says "A God created the WHOLE universe in 7 days, including all life".
or
2) Evidence collected from natural observation using credible scientific techniques, ones that are designed to test ageing, DNA, etc.
perhaps you should use common sense and not believe in things tantamount to the Father Xmas.
WillSKB88 3 years ago
funny how you would use DNA example it was DNA that proved the charts of cromagnon evolving from neanderthal was wrong in 2003-for 60 years,charts were removed from textbook-same chart that evolutionist went to court to force into science as fact when opposition said it shouldnt be in there cause it was false--a lie-forced in by liars like you-your science once said sound barrier couldnt be broken,cells were simple,using maggots was "christian foolish science"(now its common to clean wounds)
playsetman 3 years ago
Playsetman, state your sources for the following comments you made:
"Science once said sound barrier couldn't be broken"
"Cells were simple"
"Using maggots was 'Christian foolish science'"
loppol123 3 years ago
These are known things-you dont discredit me "with name your sources"-like you saying show me sources that abe lincoln is dead,custer died at little big horn,bin ladin blew up towers-all true things but time consuming to give sources-no secret science once said sound barrier couldnt be broken,darwin stated that cells were simple,no atheist I have debated has ever denied that and using maggots to clean wounds was considered crazy and primative and was compared as "christian foolish science"
playsetman 3 years ago
I laugh, even trying to give examples you have failed. Theres no direct link between Bin laden and the twin towers. Do you know how many times this has been asked in the counsil and they could find NO direct link. That's why the mission in iraq wasn't a combat mission until 2003.
xwaffles54 3 years ago
you are not just a dumb atheist but dumb on politics as well-it was combat in 2003 cause he gave sadam a chance to sted dwon and obey UN-he did neither
playsetman 3 years ago
Yes but that should still be a peace keeping mission, and from the UN not the US. The US should not police other countries and be bullies. Also, if i'm so wrong than show me the link between bin laden and 9/11. By the way, the video tape didn't suffice and that was the only evidence they could provide to use it to go into iraq. Mainly because bin laden worked for the CIA...
xwaffles54 3 years ago
tapes of bin ladin after 911 where he admits attacks-we did not need 911 to attack sadam-firing on our planes broke the cease fire-bet you think we should not have gone in first gulf war-I was there,saw brutality of sadam-including stuffing kids mouthes with the rations we gave then-cowards killed kills and then hid from us-if you saw that and have a decent bone in your body,you would have no problem with 2nd gulf war
playsetman 3 years ago
First of all, that's between the country to settle, you idiot! If i was shoving things in peoples mouthes right now should we expect Russia to come in and kill us all? NO. You have been fed this propaganda just like in WWI and WWII that makes you hate the "enemy". It's mainly about oil. That's the countries civil business, then if it's out of hand the UN comes in.
xwaffles54 3 years ago
I also said, the tapes are irrelevant you idiot!
If you knew ANYTHING about foreign policy and the constitution. You would know that WWIII is illegal and should not have started.
xwaffles54 3 years ago
saying tapes are irrelevant is just dumb-its more than the tapes-captured belongings,computers of dead hi-jackers showed the plan,masterminds,etc-not about oil-war is the worst thing for oil-in modern warfare,the united staes no loger keeps any "spoils of war"-like the democrats said right after the statue fell-"you cant break things and leave"-ironic that the democrats demanded we stay in iraq,yet attacked bush for staying-ww1 and ww2-you are cracked-there is no ww3
playsetman 3 years ago
LOL, your so right wing it's scary. You can't control people you asshole. They don't want you in the country that's why they attacked in the first place. And you have failed to show.
Also, you say the reason were in Iraq is sadam. You idiot, read the reports. It was "WMDs."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us that not only did Iraq have these weapons but he knew exactly where they were.
Get your facts straight.
xwaffles54 3 years ago
And quit saying that there was any link between Iraq-Al-quada-Binladen. The 9/11 commision could find none.
xwaffles54 3 years ago
sadam allowed bin ladin's men to train in iraq,he supported suicide bombers-like saying there was no link between hiler's germany and japan in ww2-common sense man-also who cares if there was a link,sadam used chemical weapons on the kurds,invaded 2 of his neighbors-he had to be dealt with-thank you mr bush for finishing what we started-sadly,obama will probably cause my son or grandkids to have to go there again
playsetman 3 years ago
It's true Atheism is the most irrational world view. It reduces to a simple hatred of God & man, common bigotry. There is nothing scientific or intellectual about Dawkins and his UFO theories. He's a lunatic who thinks aliens made us.
karlmahlmann 3 years ago
very true,at last an intelligent comment on this vid besides my own
playsetman 3 years ago
guess dawkins was also tricked into his answer-what you mean is that if dawkins knew he was being interviewed for this movie,he would haved lied-you must be a democrat
playsetman 3 years ago
If you were a mechanic and some people interviewed you for a film they say was called "Macho Mechanics", then they started asking you questions about homosexuality and homosexual mechanics and the movie comes out and now it's title has changes slightly to "Homoerotic Mechanics" and then on your "edited" interview you come out sounding like you are gay and you appear on the cover "Butt Pirate Weekly" as gay man of the year. Would you be a little angry?
madzyzome 3 years ago
no,cause I would answer the same way to questions no matter whom was asking-what dawkins was saying is he would have not given an honest answer(probably would not have even done the interview) if he knew what it was for-sounds like a democrat politician that whats questions before had and will only do interview if soft questions are asked(thats why democrats refused to have presidential debate on fox news,afriad they would be asked hard questions)
playsetman 3 years ago
It does not matter how you answer the questions. The movie makers control the editing and they will make you sound like whoever they want. If they take a quote you make out of context you loose total control and there is nothing you can do about it.
Man you've got democrats completely figured out. I don't know why your not out on the streets praying to cardboard cutouts of George W Bush and burning effigy's of Barak Obama. What are you waiting for GO GO GO!!!
madzyzome 3 years ago
You can't give an intelligent answer to idiotic questions.
internetaccount122 3 years ago 3
I can't believe they tricked Dawkins into doing an interview for such a horrible movie by completely lying about what the movie would be about. I guess if your a creationist and all the evidence is against you, you have to tell some falsehoods to get your point across.
Norgano 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've heard this argument repeatedly - athiest gets caught with a flimsy argument, cries foul and says they were duped.
What does it say about the intellectual honesty of this revered professor that "stupid" Ben Stein can paint him into a corner with half his brain tied behind his back?
JTTCOLO 3 years ago
Its isn't difficult to be duped into interviews with Creationists, we've seen it happen before.
Plus if Dawkins had turned the interview down he would have be made out to be a coward unable to take part through fear of failure.
He went on expecting a serious debate and discussion, that's not what he got.
chimaerashowcase 3 years ago 3
Dude, Stein's WHOLE brain is tied behind his back, at all times.
curriejean 3 years ago
*shivers* horrible movie. Dawkins vs Stein is like Einstein versus the school retard.
lonerook860 3 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins has nothing on Einstein!!!
cornerstone111 3 years ago
Shrug, there are some that would claim that Einstein was a savant. Dawkins definitely isn't one.
ddrddrddrddr 3 years ago
dawkins alive einstein dead thats ghotta be something
Zombiefisting 3 years ago
Ummmm, just perhaps a different start and stop point on the timeline?
Best/worst argument supporting Dawkins yet!
LOL
JTTCOLO 3 years ago
@lonerook860 did you see the movie? Dawkins was all over the place. Life on our planet could have come from aliens, could have had a designer, then couldn't have, etc. He was really vague.
If you see it with an open mind it DOES show that nobody can prove anything about the origin of life at this time.
Freenetnow 1 year ago
@lonerook860 how dare you make fun of Dawkins like that
GuruJudge21 1 year ago
Aaaannnnnnd... Stein won because of the ominous music and tense editing?
FuzzyDuck 3 years ago
hahahahaha. Actually, he quote mines Dawkins (not surprisingly), and blabs about how Richard adheres to the idea that aliens must have ceded life here on earth.
It's all quite ridiculous.
Politicimo 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hear every major news paper has said its very bad. So keep your jew fag fairy tails. I want the truth not that crap.
Its all so worth researching the making of that jewish crap, i know where they got the name expelled from, as they expelled people from the 1st showing of the film as they knew it was going to be pulled to bits. FUCK BEN STEIN HE IS A JEW CUNT, SEND HIM TO GERMANY IN THE 1940'S, PLEASE I BEG YOU IF NOT THAT SOME ONE POINT A GUN AT THIS LOSER AND DO WHAT MUST BE DONE. BANG BANG
TeslaSagan 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its so interesting when people say "Evolution is a Fact" like its a mantra. The more you say it the more it must be true. I don't enjoy how a lot of my Christian brothers are being crude to Ahiests and I apologize on there behalf. I dont get a lot of space so i have to be brief ( i never come on here and post) 1) peer reviews assume people have no bias to the content. why would an evolutionist doubt an evolutionist? I dont have space to keep going. Please try and open to the idea of humility.
bikerboyjord 3 years ago
Please stop talking nonsense on the name humility!
Evolution per se is a fact (as gradual change), and yes it has been observed, even you must have seen it on your daily life.
Now! How you go about EXPLAINING evolution are called THEORIES, in this case the THEORY of natural selection which explains how evolution works on the natural world without the aid of a mind or creator.
So please, for the sake of debate, criticize the theory and not the fact, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant.
magua73 3 years ago 7
Wow, bikerboyjord, you should really go to school. How can you walk through life purposely being so stupid?
BMWmotorrad14 3 years ago
What an interesting clip I sure hope the rest of the movie is so exciting!!!
alanshemper 3 years ago
I've been trying to find a site or something to watch this movie but i can't.I can't buy it either because i will not find it in my country.Watch it...i've seen the trailer and it's extremly good:D.God bless!
Valandil00 3 years ago
trueorigin website: In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.
alittlechild 3 years ago
would that not be because evolution takes place over thousands of years and man has only had the knowledge of this and the means to picture/film ourselves in the last 100-150 years? i realise that sentence was woefully put together, but you see my point.
daflood 3 years ago
Evolution has never been proven to take place at all. It is still an unproven theory, and there are many contradictory evidences. Look at the Cambrian explosion. All those fully developed animals showing up at precisely the same time - which Darwin himself agreed could well mean that the evidence was against him.
alittlechild 3 years ago
So it was magic?
simonandtheghost 3 years ago
Evolutionary processes have been observed. They have been measured and recorded.
Argonnosi 3 years ago
name one instance of speciation.
SDS4BO 3 years ago
SDS4BO said "name one instance of speciation"
The way you formulate yourself makes me belief you dont have ah a clear understanding of what the theory of natural selection is all about. There is no such thing as a one instance of speciation, the same way there are no crocoducks (tm Cameron) in the fossil record. By such claims you only prove your ignorance which becomes a constantly amusement for us who give a damm about knowledge and truth.
magua73 3 years ago 3
Ok Kiddo! Im going to wear my silk gloves as you are only a misguided kid, but kid none the less.
First: Lets have one thing clear, one thing is evolution as a fact (as gradual change) and another is the theories behind that try to explain evolution. So in this case natural selection is a theory that explains evolution. If you dont see the difference go an ask your science teacher in school to explain it for you again.
magua73 3 years ago
Second: The fact that you think that because a the theory evolution by natural selection is still unproven shows to me you have a completely lack of understanding of the scientific method, let me expelled to you in clear words, no scientific theory as never ever been proven 100%, no such thing in science. If you dont know why this is so, go ask again your science teacher or even better read a book about it.
magua73 3 years ago
Third: The Cambrian explosion (wow big words there for a little fella like you) the only controversy here among evolutionary biologist WAS between punctual and non-punctual evolution, as far as I know there isnt such controversy anymore, anyways controversy was only used to spice up the debate, but it wasnt even that. And it is truly dishonest of you to use it as argument against the theory of natural selection, as well your suggestion that there is any evidence against it.
magua73 3 years ago
Even Darwin suggested that the Cambrian explosion could possibly be used to make the case that his theory was invalid. That fact that you don't recognize this makes you irrelevant to the conversation.
SDS4BO 3 years ago
You see the difference here is, that I, like the majority with certain understanding of what the theory of natural selection is all about, understand and know why Darwin saw the Cambrian explosion as a potential problem, which it isnt really. There is such a thing called, scientific honesty, it is when you send a scientific paper to peer review you highlight the potential problems the theory could encounter and how to falsify it, and you should know this unless you are creationist of course.
magua73 3 years ago
Evolution has been proven.
You want proof you can actualy find proof in dna. And that was proof enough to make it a fact
Chill197 3 years ago 2
your logic is not
SDS4BO 3 years ago
please explain
Chill197 3 years ago
Thats becuase the "recorded" interview was edited, if you did your homework you would know that its a fake...
connore99 3 years ago
you end the clip there...cocktease!
jioff033 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can anyone still be so arrogant and irrational as to believe creationism when the overwhelming mountain of evidence points us towards evolution?
pulsfordp 3 years ago 4
time is to an athiest what Jesus is to christians a savior
kushisaac 3 years ago
I'm sure you're working up to a coherent point. let me know if you ever get there.
McMonster65 3 years ago 3
Couple differences,I can measure time.
If I put money in the bank, and add time, I have more money. If I put money in the bank, and add Jesus, I the have same amount of money.
stevekap8 3 years ago
thanks for making my point for me.
kushisaac 3 years ago
test
McMonster65 3 years ago
the best part is when dawkins says we could see a "signature" of intelligence.....meaning of course, EVIDENCE of it!
gotta love it!
he admits he believes in ID, and that ID is evidence based. so long as its aliens froms nebulon 5.
I felt laughed in the movie theater, but should have cheered!
condorito29 3 years ago
did you like the bit where stein and the producers lied to those awful scientists to get them to appear . gotta love that!
you are a gullible fool.
that is the result of dishonest editing- and it not the position of dawkins. stein knows this, maybe you should try doing some reading without the blinkers.
McMonster65 3 years ago 3
yeah Dawkins never mentioned anything about design or alien beings. common guys.
kushisaac 3 years ago
Yes, I LOVED the bit where the poor widdle victim scientists were LIED to, DECEIVED, and HEARTBROKEN that they couldn't have prepared better propaganda to deal with the fact that their words are different based upon who they think the audience is.
ROFL
alittlechild 3 years ago
you are a liar and a prick of huge proportions. one would have though having your lies and stupidity exposed in your last sanctimonious episode you'd know better but do carry on- post more of your drivel and I'll point out the truth,
meanwhile try getting yourself some moral integrity. the smell of bullshit off you is awful
McMonster65 3 years ago
a little child- no, a grown up lying arsehole I'm afraid. lets here some more bullshit from the clown who despite repeatedly having the FACTS pointed out still cliams Dawkins and Myers gatecrashed the film, myers caused a disturbance and Dawkins behaved "boorishly" by..gasp...giving his full name to security.
get off the floor you lying prick.
McMonster65 3 years ago
Yes because lying to people is a Christian virtue isnt it? I think its awesome you approve of lying, makes it easier for me to point out the hypocrisy.
manchester26m 3 years ago
ben hates america
capelipl 3 years ago 3
Ben Stein molests little boys and dogs.
monorail666 3 years ago 3
i seen it
cyacoub86 3 years ago
why would you be purposefully deceptive saying, "simpler organisms or pseudo-life that were merely at the end of a string of stochastic chemical reactions" when the truth is only amino acids have formed? maybe you didn't know amino acid is in no way life of any kind. perhaps you know of another experiment that produced life. please share the world would like to know if you created life i'm sure.
GrandGuignologist 3 years ago
the fact is that we don't know how the first cell formed. there is no precell. even the most primitive cell known is within a few percent of every other cell. no evolution at all. even the small difference is in the programming of the dna. the mechanism for reading and building are exactly the same. we are within a few switches in programming from being a banana
GrandGuignologist 3 years ago
study some microbiology
doverdx 3 years ago
Could you elaborate on that? Meaning, what can you add to the conversation concerning microbiology that shows GrandGuignologist to be uneducated? Or were you just trying to be helpful?
Scarface1034 3 years ago
"the fact is that we don't know how the first cell formed."
first cell? like on earth or in the universe.. cuz scientists have a pretty good idea of how organelles happen to aggregate.
"there is no precell."
yes there is. simpler organisms or pseudo-life that were merely at the end of a string of stochastic chemical reactions.
"even the most primitive cell known is within a few percent of every other cell."
this sentence/notion is not even worthy of debate.
"no evolution at all."
if you...
doverdx 3 years ago
actually study math and science you will start to understand the kernel of evolution...and find that it really does make sense.
"even the small difference is in the programming of the dna... building are exactly the same."
in most forms of life the process is the same. however, the data contained is different. "we are within a few switches in programming from being a banana"
not really. sure bananas and humans both utilized DNA...the gene count and data is much different.
doverdx 3 years ago
Are you a microbiologist?
Scarface1034 3 years ago
I'm a scientist/engineer who actually has a passion for what he does.
doverdx 3 years ago
I have no doubt that you have a passion for your job. In fact I, too, am studying to become an engineer. What kind of engineering do you do?
Scarface1034 3 years ago
then you should know stochastic chemical reactions have never been shown to make anything more complex than amino acids. which could in no way be considered an organism, or life of even the simpleist kind. in most forms of life the process is the same. however, the data contained is different. thats what i said. except you forgot to mention the percentage. .6% between man and chimp. i think about 5 or 6 maybe for bananas. that of course means billions of base pairs, but still only a few pct.
GrandGuignologist 3 years ago
Yeah, too bad the experiment that you speak of is only 30 years old...perhaps that is why only amino acids have come from it.
Run that experiment for a few billion years and you'll have good odds that you'll get something more complex.
Infallible.
doverdx 3 years ago
(and no one has run that experiment for extended periods of time)
doverdx 3 years ago
?????????????????
humanist7117 3 years ago
If I am ever mega-rich I want to buy the UNEDITED full version of that discussion between Stein and Dawkins. So I can show the world just how much Creationism pales in comparison to science and how underhanded Stein was in this film.
GodoftheGeeks 3 years ago
GodoftheGeeks, there's an article somewhere on Dawkins' website where he describes exactly how this interview, and the others that Stein used in this stupid movie. He wasn't even told that the movie was about creationism! You should go search for it.
KaminaGurren 3 years ago 3
um so i hear its not going to dvd or any video form at all.
neverjanay 3 years ago
Stein is an immoral idiot.
rkzenrage 3 years ago 4
How come when people need some one to defend faith they always go to a Fundamentalist who argue against science, use's fear base tactics, believe you have to join there religion or something bad will happen, trash's atheism, trash's other religions, bash's gays and lies about there claims? Why cant we ever hear a more liberal or moderate voice of Faith like John Shelby Spong or Kenneth Millar instead of Ben? (I thought he was Jewish)Why dose it always have to be the religious right?
TheLastKing4 3 years ago
Ben Stein is a coward who pretexted Dawkins to get the interview. He told the pro-evolution/truth people that they were making a movie called "Crossroads" and hid their true intentions. Who's afraid of the truth?
MEpianist 3 years ago 7
Why is it that on every blasted video about an atheist or a theist, the whole argument about which is right starts again? Can't there just be one video for everyone to duke it out? It's just funny, really. There's always a big fight going on under everything I click on about Richard Dawkins.
PuppetMuffin 3 years ago 2
The fact that we are here at all proves intelligent does exist in the cosmos. to think we were the first or even close to the first would be short sighted at best. there are more galaxies than we can number. the number of planets is such a staggering number in so many varieties at least trillions of them would have had conditions right for life to flourish way before we could have even been a new star. how old then must the oldest of them be.
GrandGuignologist 3 years ago
How is it proved? You believe it, so therefore it's true? Does your ass get tired from talking so much?
joesadick 3 years ago 3
Berlinski and Stein are both right wing hacks with no scientific background, but they are good at BS, since Stein was a Republican speech writer. Dawkins, however, is a real scientists so I am inclined to take his word over some right wing Jewish Hollywood hack and the stupid Xtians he panders to.
jakefree24 3 years ago
Actually Stein is a member of the intelligentsia.
It's rather obvious if you take the time to read his bio.
bodiezoffa 3 years ago
According to nearly everyone - Stein is a humble question asker - and Dawkins has the hugely inflated ego. Every time he speaks its in authoritarian tones, like the time he attacks a man because of his religious belief right here on U-tube.
alittlechild 3 years ago
And he is still pretending that he didnt know what this was really about.
The truth is Dawkins can't stop himself. He is a media whore. He loves the camera more than science.
Carl Sagan, he is not.
bodiezoffa 3 years ago
I see. And if he didn't publicly promote his work, and in particular his book "The God Delusion", then it would still reach as many people? Dawkins doesn't need the money, or the fame. He makes appearances in films like this is because there are still so many people out there who irrationally believe in God, and he wants to present them with his own(brilliant) arguments against the existence of God.
padraic2001eire 3 years ago
What is so brilliant about denying God? Isnt it easy?
Dawkins the benevolent faith breaker? funny
There is nothing impressive about acknowledging there is no evidence for God, god, or gods. duh
bodiezoffa 3 years ago
Dawkins doesn't just deny God. He wrote a stunningly intelligent book outlining WHY people should deny God. It wasn't a case of "believing in God is stupid, end of story", it was "believing in God is illogical, for all these reasons...". So, no, I don't think what Dawkins did and continues to do is at all is easy. If you read "The God Delusion" you'd probably agree with me.
padraic2001eire 3 years ago
OK, I'm game.
Give me some logical argument, found in Dawkin's book that would persuade me not to believe in God-one found in Dawkins book, of course.
One that I have never heard before.
bodiezoffa 3 years ago
hows about this one. complex things are improbable bc of their complexity. using god to explain ne complexity creates a bigger problem, bc god must be at least as complex, and therefore as improbable, as what you r using him to explain
raveryyyy 3 years ago
People might take you more seriously if you typed properly.
OfTheWillows 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
common u have to be very close minded to say we accidently happened you must thing low of yourself cammon you know how conplex you are
aliemama2 3 years ago
Well no where does evolution say we "accidentally happened". That is one of the major mis-conceptions of evolutionary theory. It's basically a "straw man" argument. It's pretty ironic that you use "closed minded" in the same sentence, because you are the one setting up a disingenuous statement.
dudekyle13x 3 years ago 2
Complexity is no indication of design... well, let me put it in a better way... The design we observe is no indication of an intelligent designer.
This appearance of specific design is due to the mechanism of natural selection which over time will select for the better adapted group. Usually that means having the best tools available to survive. If you make no reference to the countless years it took, and believe things just poofed to be, then of course they would need to be designed.
OfTheWillows 3 years ago
But this isn't what we see in the fossil record and countless other methods of testing the complexity. We see lots of junk, a lot of throwbacks to a precursor (vestigial organs) and things that are too complicated to have been done by anything remotely intelligent, such as when it takes more energy to accomplish something than a more efficient alternative.
OfTheWillows 3 years ago
The best example of this I've ever heard is the optic nerve penetrating the retina.
devourerofbabies 3 years ago
Where's the showdown? This is just Dawkins sitting at a table and Stein being chauffeured to the site. The only words spoken in this clip are "Hello, Mr. Dawkins, I'm Ben Stein." A waste of 40 seconds.
RobinLion 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins,what a useless unintelligent goof.
Dougcomet 3 years ago
That has to be one of the most unintelligent statments I've read on youtube. Your clearly an idiot.
120casst 3 years ago 2
"Dawkins,what a useless unintelligent goof."
Only voted Brittan's most recognized intellectual having double the votes as the runner up. I believe you are one of the following: trying to start a flame war from your ignorance, or you actually believe what you say because you have not read any of his books, listened to any of his lectures, or know that he has more intelligence than probably any two random persons combined.
D34dH053 3 years ago 10
"or know that he has more intelligence than probably any two random persons combined."
I would put Berlinski up against him any day,
and that's without an English accent.
bodiezoffa 3 years ago
I would put Dr. Tyson up against him as well.
bodiezoffa 3 years ago
Lol. Dawkins may be many things but unintelligent he is not. If you want to see unintelligence go talk to your local creationist.
Leones44 3 years ago
It's funny that Stein is such a slouch that he was late to a meeting he set up for his own propaganda piece. What a complete douche bag.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago 6
"the fall of our world is our fault"
By using the word "our" you are presenting a false argument called the genetic fallacy.
What did a child do to deserve punishment from God's pathogens?
How is it MY fault that the world was corrupted by our ancestors.
Is it "our fault" that sometime in the past humans committed all kinds of crimes.? I had nothing to do with it! Quit guilt trippin.
When you get to heaven God will tell you he created all life with ...natural selection ;)
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
you are the only person that can put yourself on a guilt trip, it's basic to human psychology. if we are all related through reproduction and natural selection, there is no genetic fallacy by your own evolutionary logic, you are just as at fault for what happened in the past a s what happens now...
cruelfate45 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins has been exposed as the bigoted fraud that he is by the movie Expelled. He'll never again be taken seriously by anyone outside of his obedient flock of sheep.
TheJaredJammer 3 years ago
if that's so, it's only because it takes more effort to understand modern biology in any respectable degree than it does to swallow the intellectually lazy soundbites generated by the devotees of a mythological worldview 300 years past it's expiration date.
and as for obedient flocks of sheep...
...how many bleat along behind enraptured pastors, eager to do "god's bidding" and avoid the ultimate spiritual disciplinary action from their janus-faced, by turns loving and damning, imaginary god?
poopfeet 3 years ago 9
And you think we asked for it by doing what? eating an apple? literally? are you serious?
Why put a talking snake in there anyway? And punish it by making it slither in the dirt? It already did that!!!!! That's why it is called a snake! how is that punishment for a snake.
The story of so ridiculous I can't take it. And the most scary thing is that people like you believe it LITERALLY.
alienmoonbase 3 years ago 2
It wasn't an apple....it was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil....innocense lost......the temptation from Satan to Eve was "you will be as gods".....we make horrible gods......are you sure it slithered in the dirt??...I thought you believed in evolution???? LOL
eeritated 3 years ago