I just watched this film and it completely shocked me. There isn't a single argument made against evolution, only the untested idea that it's all too complicated to have begun on it's own (and actual evidence of the contrary is completely ignored). It even goes as far as to blame "Darwinism" for the holocaust. Err.. Hello! Selective breeding predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. What a disgusting piece of propaganda!
@Rockstar2be That is not what Dawkins said. There is no proof. The only "evidence" creationists claim is the fact that modern science fails to explain every minute detail of the universe, more explicitly its orgins. But that is just like using god to explain disease or natural disasters, which people did...when they were still totally ignorant.
@moneymakerps When I was in H.S. we learned that Darwin explained that single celled organism evolved into a human via multiple intermediate stages. However, in Darwin's time, they had no idea nor knowledge about genes. For this reason, nearly all of Darwin's theory breaks down, but let's assume for the moment Darwin guessed with 100% accuracy without the use of modern molecular biology or computers. Where are all the bones of failed evolutionary development of animals??
Premise Media, who own the rights to the movie Expelled, have gone bankrupt (due to backing badly-made and biased movies like this) and are being auctioned off on Tuesday June 28. Atheist group Panda's Thumb are collecting donations so we atheists can buy the rights to the uncut version of this movie an finally show it without DMCAs so all can see how badly Stein distorted the facts.
We cannot prove the nonexistence of God but the burden of proof or even evidence remains on the creationist who believe something with no evidence to back it up.
@batistaker123 ...and we would welcome you, of course. The average British person--indeed most Europeans--just listen open-mouthed when we hear this sort of thing. We just cannot believe that this superstitious nonsense is actually presented as a rival to the scientific consensus to schoolchildren. They will grow up at best resentful of their 'education' and at worst corrupted by it, unable to think scientifically.
@ianchard Funny how Creationists ask for proof of evolution while they themselves don't have proof of God. Evolutionists have at least compelling evidence for evolution while creationists spew lies and tell us we will burn in hell for disbelief no matter how good we have been..
@retepskie It is immaterial whether evolution offers you hope or not. There is a difference between *wanting* something to be true, and it actually *being* true. Closing your eyes to the truth because you don't like it is intellectually dishonest.
Ben does the same thing in this movie that Michel Moore does in his movies. He has interviews with people that get heavily edited to present the view he wants. It's a dirty trick and done because he can't find people who support his rather retarded views outside of Christian colleges and apparently Fox News.
Ben stein is a economist, and has a law degree. These are the extent of his qualifications. He is not a biologist, a palentologist, or an astronomer. He has absolutly no reason to put his claims about ID up there with the peer reviewed, published, and heavily experimented upon views of actual academics in those fields. Nor should he edit his interviews and quote mine to present his twisted version of reality.
@Grendelwasright haha shut the fuck up, everyone knows hes not a biologist, thats why he does interviews with them and astronomers in the movie, or else the whole movie would be about him talking. Get your facts straight then make a stupid comment like that behind your computer like all the other faggets on here
@Grendelwasright@Grendelwasright. You are correct about Mr. Stein's education, however, many of those who were interviewed by Mr. Stein ( pro and con) were well-credentialed in their particular fields of expertise. You do not need to have a science degree to comment on the merits of Darwinian theory. In fact, many of the great scientific minds of the past were themselves Bible believers. Making allegiance to the ToE the litmus test for merit, scientific or otherwise is not appropriate.
Those are all "theories" so if we teach science, shouldn't we just be teaching all the theories in an unbiased manner that these are all possible reasons for us being here and let the students think for themselves? I don't see any harm in teaching intelligent design as one of the theories, cause... they're all theories
@MonFeRay Actually there is a difference between a scientific theory ( which means it has been tested, and will change if new evidence comes up ) and the theories created with a non-scientific method.
@Yanman88 that's true, and there are more than just one scientific theory.
I see it more on a teacher's view than a scientist's cause I'm in education. My feedback on the video was that we are teaching one view or one scientific theory as 100% fact when it is still being tested. A theory is a theory whether it is scientific or not. If I'm an educator I should be allowed to talk about the intelligent design theory just as much as evolution because they're both scientific theories.
@MonFeRay Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, sorry to disappoint you. You use something supernatural ( a god ) to explain something. Science does not use the supernatural, because it would become "natural" then.
@Yanman88 actually it is. What it is NOT is a religious theory. The intelligent design theory is not always associated with religion. Religious people do happen to embrace that theory, but the theory itself is not always associated with religion, some non-religious people follow that theory as well. I have a friend who does.
@MonFeRay ID is indeed a theory. However, it is a theory with no supporting evidence that isn't in some way based on scripture, hand-waving or falsehood. It is no more supportable than the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, has an overwhelming weight of evidence behind it. As an educator, you must do the right thing by your students and tell them this. Just because you might see two theories doesn't make them equally likely.
@batistaker123 I'd hardly even consider it a hypothesis because hypotheses must be testable and make falsifiable predictions. It just seems like speculation to me.
@fehlbarkeit Hey, if someone came up to you and said life on earth has origins in another planet outside our galaxy? Would this be a Theory of Evolution of extra-terrestrial material?
@automatewithkorn No, because I don't see how that idea fits the definition of a scientific theory, though it's interesting speculation. A scientific theory is a coherent explanation of related natural phenomena and makes testable, falsifiable predictions that are confirmed by experiment and observation. Also, just so you're aware, biological evolution is simply the fact that populations change over successive generations. The origin of life is a separate matter from the evolution of life.
@fehlbarkeit Please watch the video again and pay close attention to answers Richard gives. Richard says Darwin's theory is on proliferation of species not the creation of organic cell from inorganic elements. Dawkings actually says life came from another planet because he admits that Microbiology's understanding of chance of accidental single celled organism is 1 over 10 to the 40,000th power, compared to odds of being hit by lightning over an 80-year lifespan are one in 3000.
@automatewithkorn How big is 10 to the 40,000th power compared to 3000? Simple exponential notation explains as follows: 3000 = 3 x 10^3. How many zeros would you expect from 10^40,000? Answer: 1 followed 40,000 zero. Now calculate the reciprocal. 1/3000 = .003. What is 1/10^40000 = ? dot followed by 39,999 zeroes and 1. It's a jaw-dropping tiny number!!
@MonFeRay and that is how we know you have no understanding about what the scientific method is and what a scientific theory is. In other words, shush and let the smart ones do the talking.
@MonFeRay Creationist Hypothosis, and Intelligent Design Hypothesis. A scientific theory actual needs evidence to back it up which evolution has. The rest shouldn't be taught without evidence....
ID summed up: I can't think of how X could have formed naturally, therefore no one ever will which proves God did it.
Even if no one could figure out things you can't, posing "God" as an explanation doesn't answer anything. Substitute "God" with "Blah" and it makes the same amount of sense.
There is the exact same amount of evidence that God did it as there is that Blah did it - zilch.
I created the entire universe 5 seconds ago and implanted past memories to make it seem old. Prove me wrong.
Try this.If you never heard one word about creation nor evolution..You come accross a civilation that dates back 4,000 to 6,000 years ago..they have thousand of painting of Dinosaurs into rocks and walls,they carve them into their buildings,the have clay mooldings of exact replicas and Trinkets made of several deffrent kinds of Dino's..Do you use logic and 1. say the must have had a museum to study them or 2.must have seen them alive to know what they look like making 3. they walked with Dino's.
1) Noah's Ark as the National Monument in Turkey - where the heck do you find that? Creationists are still unsuccessfully searching for remnants of Noah's Ark.
2) Dinosaur with blood cells - Yeah, I saw that too. It was 68 million years old.
3) Examine the drawings in the Hava Supai Canyon again. That's not an accurate picture of a dinosaur at all.
@Nickcloudy im not sure who your listening to..But the scientist said..its impossible for the dino with skin and bloodcells etc to last a millions years..they cannot explain it and are trying to figure it out..but make no mistake..they said its not possible ..and the drawing,goes much further ,clay mouldings,rock scuplures,thousands of drwings,aroind the planet in ever culture that date 4,000 years old..you have alot to try an figure out.Common sense says dino's walked with man,like or not.
"Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years" - that's what the article said. I won't quote them word for word, but they also said that while flesh and blood cells slowly disappear over time, bones become fossilized. The blood cells, according to the article, were found within its leg bone (which was broken and dipped in acid).
@Nickcloudy you can use false info,as you have done here..no facts to back it up..But i say toss all religion out and look at the facts..and you would have to say without a doubt..we were created,we Have a Father cause no way could we start from nothing.Look at the planet around us,supposedly much older that earth and have ice,They have no life.Rock dirt and water,will not be able to think of life..
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
I respect those of you who's profession, is into the sciences of creation, and how we got here, but I am proud to say that there is practical proof, of creationism, being true, and there is rather obvious missing details and facts, in the theory of evolution, and other scientific, theory's on how the universe, began and creation or whatever. It makes me sad to see that even me a high school student, who is below average, can easily find real practical feasible, truth of creationism.
@Issacson144 You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
@Issacson144 You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
@Issacson144 'rather obvious missing details' Please do tell what are these details, as someone who has studied evolution I have yet to see them. 'practical proof, of creationism,' what proof? I have never seen anyone show any actual proof to creationism, and the people that have tried were quickly shot down, because their proof was wholly made up.
If there were any evidence for creationism or against evolution, we'd have heard something by now. The creationism vs science debate was over long ago. Ask a scientist.
and of course you'd receive a biased response from the scientist. Here's better advice. Do some research on your own. Explore logic and see how information compares. Dont assume and dont side with the crowd. Discover truth. Evaluate both sides.
Unfortunately people on both sides of the argument are unwilling to do this.
the bible preaches circular logic, and to fully understand evolution you have to posses
vast amounts of empirical evidence and critical thinking skills, something that only the top percent of people are lucky enough to have... So people on both sides are blindly following something that they don't truly understand.
@Rockstar2be intelligent design and logic dont go together. sometimes its just about faith and logic cant do any good. im just kind of sick of people thinking other people are stupid because they disagree. even if a person is athiest the bible is still a good thing to go by. it just tells people to be better and to do the right thing. and sure the movie makes all of the scienctific explinations for life look crazy but intelligent design is also somewhat far fectched. i still manage to beieve.
if god didn't want us to learn than he wouldn't have give'n us the tools to learn with or so much to learn about!!! I believe in God and I believe that the univers is trillions of year old!!!!!
@Rockstar2be Can you prove that there is, objectively?
Can I prove that there isn't, objectively?
NO! because we perceive reality subjectively, meaning that we are completely incapable of perceiving anything's truth-value ( if there is such a thing ).
in my opinion a deistic, non conscious "creator" is probably how to universe began, but claiming to know something like that objectively is intellectual suicide.
@Rockstar2be chemical evolution is pure bullshit,and lies in 1953 miller experiments..failed horribly..but the evolutionist claim this is still possible!!!!!...and .was lightning only found in one particular spot on the planet?
Or was the primoridial soup prime for life in only one area of the planet? If every time lightning hit in the soup & new life formed then none of it would be related or evolved. These idiots are saying a fertile egg that grows is proof of evolving! Unbelievable.
@5tonyvvvv~~ As you are a complete thimblebrain with no science background, don't understand chemistry, don't understand physics and have no clue about abiogenesis or evolution, posting anything is a bit more than ridiculous. Biblical creation requires that relativity is false, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will tell you otherwise...as relativity is true, biblical creation must be false.
@pontecanis and so are u...these are all questions..how did life change and come about?..your just and angry old bitter asshole.and u dont want to see intelligent design..And if these 1 cell animals were replicating themselves asexually where did the sexes come from what was the need?
@5tonyvvvv Thank you for proving my point!! As ID is false, it cannot be seen...not unlike the Monty Python skit...any time anyone claims ID exists, it can be exploded!Go back to school and study Mitosis and Meiosis...sexual reproduction is the best example of an evolution mechanism as you can find...
@pontecanis ive taken all the same classes u have asshole,,iam guessing,your a teacher? or professor with a real bad fuckin attitude,and huge stick up your ass..ok how are we getting to sexual reproduction??..your jumping steppes for single celled organisms
@5tonyvvvv~~" ive taken all the same classes u have" Not by a long shot! You would know absolutely all sorts of things you have indicated no awareness of here and elsewhere. ID--disproven in court, exposed by Phillip Johnson himself as a hoax intended to circumvent the US Constitution...Go back to school and study Mitosis and Meiosis--your answer is there, since you obviously don't know...
@CxwarrenxD There is one more part to the argument. Since I don't know, I don't believe. Nobody knows, and since there is no one who can provide any evidence, I cannot honestly believe it.
@Rockstar2be Dawkins has never said anything of the sort. He has said that there is no way to disprove the existence of a deity. He has also said that there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity. That's not the same thing as being unable to say that there is no proof -- in fact it is the opposite.
@belodeau thats Comical..people know how corrupt and decieving our Gov. is 85% of the population has no trust in Gov. to give us the truth,they dumb down our schools and hide everything from us..And when it come's to Evolution ..those who hate God will lap up every word and scientist collecting a check to keep decieving the world..Noahs Ark,is a national monument in Turkey and has been known about for a very long time,Dinosaurs being found today fully skinned with bloodcells,and we just ignore .
@BudPeters44 You really need to think about this accusation a weeeee bit harder. If anyone was actually hiding and preventing this so called god evidence, you'd think that it would have to convince them and would not hide it from anyone, because of fear of god's wrath. But since your strawman is that easily figured out, it is then the concern that you aren't a competent thinker
@splicedenergy think things over huh ??/ lol..i did ,i thought about them for atleast 30 years..Untill i slowed down enough to really care about what im being taught from gov. Hollywood,Schools etc..Once you start asking questions..You get to the truth..i used to believe in Aliens,UFO's,eveolution and that the Bible was a government hand book..Thank God i did not die being stuck on Stupid.Nothing they teach us to believe Outside the Bible make's any sense at all,Once you care to learn the truth
@splicedenergy lol,one of us have..All that wisdom..trapped inside of an person who has never even read the Bible,But believe's in everything the Bible warns us of..So you Deny the message,and the Messanger...and that leave's you AntiChristian cause you are clueless in what you believe..No matter how you look at it,You either believe and follow Jesus Christ,or you take the warnings and Rebel against God..Hey you only have to wait for the second you die to be corrected huh.Peace
@BudPeters44 There is a seperate bs holy book for each hemisphere. There are still tribes and aborigines that still live primitive, they dont have books, they know nothing of religeon, so you think they're going to hell too right?
quite busy on the comment posting i see... im arguing that abiogenesis is as likely as intelligent design... i have no religious affiliation nor do i overdose on scientific theories, but until there is a def answer how can all possibilities be ruled out. what ben stein argues and what i am trying to convey seems to get lost in translation; it is not the theory of evolution vs intelligent design, it is the freedom of inquiry that is being attacked. the debate needs to include all arguments
Intelligent Design requires the supernatural to be true (As Dawkins said, even if life on Earth was intelligently designed, it'd designer would've had to evolve naturally.), whereas there's absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is an entirely natural process. Not a process that we understand as well as evolution, but a natural process, all the same. Making it a lot more likely than ID.
good point, however id doesnt nec mean supernatural, just not natural..dawkins himself readily admits that the designer could be simply alien, or a higher evolved life form we have yet to discover.. but until either is proven to be definitively true or untrue how can we rule either out as a legit possibility.
Dawkins admits that even if life was seeded on Earth from another planet, by an alien race, that alien race would've had to've evolved, naturally.
Though, the chances of that are very unlikely.
Abiogenesis is a far more reasonable means for life to've originated, and far, far more likely. There are several models already that explain how life could've easily began through simple chemical reactions.
Ultimately, Ben Stein's a lawyer, not a biologist.
When every single professional biologist, and every single peer-reviewed paper strongly agrees with evolution, an lowly lawyer (A professional liar) goes against ~150 years of research, peer reviewed papers, and the entire scientific community, his words hold absolutely no weight whatsoever.
Dawkins himself agreed in the possablity in ID in this film (i just watched it) one of his scenerios is consistant with mine ,Pansperma (we humans were seeded here) although he does not say humans so he may have meant the original single cell . either way, it is a ID theory just not the "god" version . Ben Stein did an excellant job here
yes i relize that .unfortunatly for Dawkins that makes zero sense . its a never ending riddle of "who created those other beings then?"scenerio . it is clear Dawkins has a hard-on for western religions mostly,that is clear from the film
"...one of his scenerios is consistant with mine ,Pansperma (we humans were seeded here) although he does not say humans so he may have meant the original single cell . either way, it is a ID theory..."
crabtrap, in no way does pansperma tie to creationism. Pansperma theorizes how life may have arrived on earth, not how life began. Without evolution this theory becomes rather comical with all the individual lifeforms coming down from the sky :P
Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. It simple discusses how life changes over time. That's like saying Geology doesn't tell us why 2+2=4. It simply is unrelated and cannot be held accountable for things outside its field of study.
well intellegent design is the same way . atheist alway default to the "old man on a throne" vision of intelligent design ,that is not related either . a person altemetly has faith in a creator or a scientist ,maybe both but it IS faith (please don't start with the peer review nonesense which has been proven corrupt 100's of times)
great questions brought to light by ben stein.. biggest one for me... "how can evolution explain the beginning of life?" it cannot. it fails to explain where that single celled amoeba we all came from originated. where did that come from? what caused that? what, or better yet, who designed that? darwin has no theory for that.
The Theory of Evolution isn't MEANT to explain the beginning of life. It explains the biodiversity of life on Earth. It explains why there are so many different species.
For example, germ theory doesn't explain the beginning of germs, or the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of gravity. They're not supposed to.
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life, but that's more chemistry than biology. Evolution is only supposed to explain the diversity of life, not it's origin.
the book is "origin of species" so th "origin seems rather important . if what you say is true though,all avenues should beexplored to find out where the original "spark" came from and why . it's kind of poor science to worry about the root after i guess at it's effects .
It's the "Origin of SPECIES" not the "Origin of LIFE".
The Theory of Evolution explains the biodiversity of life, it explains speciation, it explains genetic mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, extinction. It doesn't, nor should it, explain the origin of life. Which it does PERFECTLY.
Haven't seen this movie yet but I do know that Jesus created the universe and everything in it including all of us. Then he came to earth to see his creation and what did we do? Kill him. Shows how stupid mankind is.
Watched this last night on Showtime. If nothign else Stein makes an airtight case that some in the academic and scientific communities are engaged in blacklisting. And the stuff on how Darwin's theories have inspired eugenics and genocide is pretty horrifying. I highly recommend this film.
expelled is a good propaganda peace but is horribly dishonest. the producers lied to people they interview about the subject of the film, stole footage from Harvard without permission, claimed someone was fired for publishing an ID paper but failed to mention that they had cheated to get the paper published and that was why they where fired. Oh and don't forget the butchering of quotes from Darwin, stooping so low as to remove signal words like don't or completely change the meaning of a word.
i agree with "Eye2EyeIIIV" the documentary is fine it seems people are saying the documentary is bad because the don't want to let the idea of a divine creator get it's foot in the door of science, therefore it isn't tolerated or given a chance
quote Dr Scott todd, an immunologist at Kanas State University "even if all the data point to a intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic "
Peer review and repeat experimentation applies to ANY theory so fuck off fundie arseholes,you have your chance but can't and don't take it because you've got no science just bronze age mind stultifying desert bullshit.
Yeah if it was so right then why did it get such bad reviews? Stien argued that evolution didn't explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe! OF Course it doesn't! It only describes the origin of SPECIES!! So STEIN should learn about somehthing before he attempts to make a film about it!
when someone insist there flying turtle is the creater of the universe, or to say people are born rotten and evil and need saving from thier jewish zombie jesus is stupid and deserves no respect....if you have stupid believes, expect to made fun of.
hands down one of the worst movies of all time. ben stein thinks "darwinism" should explain gravity, origin of life, and other things when darwin only meant to explain origin of species not life. very very bad film
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
............... its not even worth debating, Creationist make evolutionists look sad in debates each time. It's not the evolutionists fault, the creationist is right and the evolutionist is wrong. It isn't even worth debating.
darwins theory of evolution has been under rigorous testing for 150 years, esspecially when DNA was discovered, which would really put evolution to the test, because if evolution was true, then DNA would have to verify it by seeing a connection bewteen species that matched the tree of life as proposed by darwin... and what do you know, it did.
Creationists have never produced a scientific theory of any kind to support their claims, which makes it tempting to belive there is none.
Agreed. And you cannot believe in micro-evolution without macro-evolution because macro-evolution is only micro-evolution + time. There is no difference in the mechanics.
guys evolution happens all around us. Diseases like swine flu evolved so it could jump species. Its also why diseases are becoming more and more immune to antibiotics.
Right. I think somewhere I heard Richard Dawikins say that when we are threatened by e.g. a disease and we need science to save ourselves, everyone asks how it mutates, if the mutations are even more dangerous etc. and no one would say: "Well, I think, it's designed to kill us."
I think that shows that these creationists actually know that they're wrong but they don't want creationism to be wrong.
uhm? not sure if you where being sarcastic, but swine flu is an evolved species of regular flu... and evolution by natural selection is the full name of the theory (scientific theory that is, which means its a collection of well proven fact, not a philosophical theory) and hardly opposes evolution, since it is evolution...
Apparently the creationists thinks this 'documentary' (I use that term very lightly) has Atheists shaking in their boots. Really? This awful excuse for film-making?
Its interesting how neo con lap dogs like to portray themselves as rebels. I mean by their standards John McCain was a maverick and Sean Hannity is televisions James Dean...sheesh join reality guys.
See the funny thing is, people are actually being expelled from the scientific community; those people who make unsupported assertions without any evidence to substantiate their claims. So Stein is kind of right. ha ha ha.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
I just watched this film and it completely shocked me. There isn't a single argument made against evolution, only the untested idea that it's all too complicated to have begun on it's own (and actual evidence of the contrary is completely ignored). It even goes as far as to blame "Darwinism" for the holocaust. Err.. Hello! Selective breeding predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. What a disgusting piece of propaganda!
Floortjahh 1 week ago
Stupid liberals
KingDom1496 4 months ago
I am really hurt
I am just another copy of you, and i don't want you to be wrong.
religion is the only part of you which i do-not want and could never be proud of.
LukeSchoen 5 months ago
@Rockstar2be That is not what Dawkins said. There is no proof. The only "evidence" creationists claim is the fact that modern science fails to explain every minute detail of the universe, more explicitly its orgins. But that is just like using god to explain disease or natural disasters, which people did...when they were still totally ignorant.
moneymakerps 6 months ago
@moneymakerps But Dawkins has proof that life came from another planet?
automatewithkorn 2 weeks ago
@automatewithkorn He never said that. Stop misconstruing his ideas.
fehlbarkeit 2 weeks ago
@moneymakerps When I was in H.S. we learned that Darwin explained that single celled organism evolved into a human via multiple intermediate stages. However, in Darwin's time, they had no idea nor knowledge about genes. For this reason, nearly all of Darwin's theory breaks down, but let's assume for the moment Darwin guessed with 100% accuracy without the use of modern molecular biology or computers. Where are all the bones of failed evolutionary development of animals??
automatewithkorn 2 weeks ago
Great video.
1billion1deaths1 6 months ago
Rotten Tomato ratings for this crap is 9% lol
HORRORTV1 7 months ago 2
Premise Media, who own the rights to the movie Expelled, have gone bankrupt (due to backing badly-made and biased movies like this) and are being auctioned off on Tuesday June 28. Atheist group Panda's Thumb are collecting donations so we atheists can buy the rights to the uncut version of this movie an finally show it without DMCAs so all can see how badly Stein distorted the facts.
astrophonix 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how many lies are told in this film?
MrChristainchris 7 months ago
We cannot prove the nonexistence of God but the burden of proof or even evidence remains on the creationist who believe something with no evidence to back it up.
batistaker123 7 months ago
I think I'm going to move to a less theocratic country maybe the UK...
batistaker123 7 months ago
@batistaker123 ...and we would welcome you, of course. The average British person--indeed most Europeans--just listen open-mouthed when we hear this sort of thing. We just cannot believe that this superstitious nonsense is actually presented as a rival to the scientific consensus to schoolchildren. They will grow up at best resentful of their 'education' and at worst corrupted by it, unable to think scientifically.
ianchard 7 months ago
@ianchard Funny how Creationists ask for proof of evolution while they themselves don't have proof of God. Evolutionists have at least compelling evidence for evolution while creationists spew lies and tell us we will burn in hell for disbelief no matter how good we have been..
batistaker123 7 months ago
Most retarded thing i ever saw, only in USA
matbenja 7 months ago
God is the joke that only Atheists get.
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Christ Is God
1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
Ex: “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
It's right do your assignment about Christianity, Bible, Science and Darwinism.
Ask what these things can offer you.
This one truth I know if you believe evolution it offers you "don't worry... if you're dead, you're dead" their is no hope!
retepskie 10 months ago
@retepskie It is immaterial whether evolution offers you hope or not. There is a difference between *wanting* something to be true, and it actually *being* true. Closing your eyes to the truth because you don't like it is intellectually dishonest.
ianchard 7 months ago
When it says "no intelligence aloud" it really means it.
conman2317 11 months ago
@YutubeIsForDumbfucks
Ben does the same thing in this movie that Michel Moore does in his movies. He has interviews with people that get heavily edited to present the view he wants. It's a dirty trick and done because he can't find people who support his rather retarded views outside of Christian colleges and apparently Fox News.
Grendelwasright 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The man is a buffoon and should be treated as such.
Grendelwasright 11 months ago
Ben stein is a economist, and has a law degree. These are the extent of his qualifications. He is not a biologist, a palentologist, or an astronomer. He has absolutly no reason to put his claims about ID up there with the peer reviewed, published, and heavily experimented upon views of actual academics in those fields. Nor should he edit his interviews and quote mine to present his twisted version of reality.
Grendelwasright 11 months ago
@Grendelwasright haha shut the fuck up, everyone knows hes not a biologist, thats why he does interviews with them and astronomers in the movie, or else the whole movie would be about him talking. Get your facts straight then make a stupid comment like that behind your computer like all the other faggets on here
YutubeIsForDumbfucks 11 months ago
@Grendelwasright @Grendelwasright. You are correct about Mr. Stein's education, however, many of those who were interviewed by Mr. Stein ( pro and con) were well-credentialed in their particular fields of expertise. You do not need to have a science degree to comment on the merits of Darwinian theory. In fact, many of the great scientific minds of the past were themselves Bible believers. Making allegiance to the ToE the litmus test for merit, scientific or otherwise is not appropriate.
steverrow 11 months ago
We don't know exactly how life started on earth, therefore GOD.
That is the entire argument for creation science and all related BS.
ma049 1 year ago
Evolution theory
Intelligent Design theory
Creationist theory
Those are all "theories" so if we teach science, shouldn't we just be teaching all the theories in an unbiased manner that these are all possible reasons for us being here and let the students think for themselves? I don't see any harm in teaching intelligent design as one of the theories, cause... they're all theories
MonFeRay 1 year ago
@MonFeRay Actually there is a difference between a scientific theory ( which means it has been tested, and will change if new evidence comes up ) and the theories created with a non-scientific method.
Yanman88 1 year ago
@Yanman88 that's true, and there are more than just one scientific theory.
I see it more on a teacher's view than a scientist's cause I'm in education. My feedback on the video was that we are teaching one view or one scientific theory as 100% fact when it is still being tested. A theory is a theory whether it is scientific or not. If I'm an educator I should be allowed to talk about the intelligent design theory just as much as evolution because they're both scientific theories.
MonFeRay 10 months ago
@MonFeRay Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, sorry to disappoint you. You use something supernatural ( a god ) to explain something. Science does not use the supernatural, because it would become "natural" then.
Yanman88 10 months ago
@Yanman88 actually it is. What it is NOT is a religious theory. The intelligent design theory is not always associated with religion. Religious people do happen to embrace that theory, but the theory itself is not always associated with religion, some non-religious people follow that theory as well. I have a friend who does.
And what do you mean by disappoint me?
MonFeRay 10 months ago
@MonFeRay ID is indeed a theory. However, it is a theory with no supporting evidence that isn't in some way based on scripture, hand-waving or falsehood. It is no more supportable than the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, has an overwhelming weight of evidence behind it. As an educator, you must do the right thing by your students and tell them this. Just because you might see two theories doesn't make them equally likely.
ianchard 7 months ago
@ianchard A theory requires evidence Intelligent Design is not a theory it is a Hypothesis.
batistaker123 7 months ago
@batistaker123 I'd hardly even consider it a hypothesis because hypotheses must be testable and make falsifiable predictions. It just seems like speculation to me.
fehlbarkeit 3 weeks ago
@fehlbarkeit Hey, if someone came up to you and said life on earth has origins in another planet outside our galaxy? Would this be a Theory of Evolution of extra-terrestrial material?
automatewithkorn 2 weeks ago
@automatewithkorn No, because I don't see how that idea fits the definition of a scientific theory, though it's interesting speculation. A scientific theory is a coherent explanation of related natural phenomena and makes testable, falsifiable predictions that are confirmed by experiment and observation. Also, just so you're aware, biological evolution is simply the fact that populations change over successive generations. The origin of life is a separate matter from the evolution of life.
fehlbarkeit 2 weeks ago
@fehlbarkeit Please watch the video again and pay close attention to answers Richard gives. Richard says Darwin's theory is on proliferation of species not the creation of organic cell from inorganic elements. Dawkings actually says life came from another planet because he admits that Microbiology's understanding of chance of accidental single celled organism is 1 over 10 to the 40,000th power, compared to odds of being hit by lightning over an 80-year lifespan are one in 3000.
automatewithkorn 2 weeks ago
@automatewithkorn How big is 10 to the 40,000th power compared to 3000? Simple exponential notation explains as follows: 3000 = 3 x 10^3. How many zeros would you expect from 10^40,000? Answer: 1 followed 40,000 zero. Now calculate the reciprocal. 1/3000 = .003. What is 1/10^40000 = ? dot followed by 39,999 zeroes and 1. It's a jaw-dropping tiny number!!
automatewithkorn 2 weeks ago
@MonFeRay and that is how we know you have no understanding about what the scientific method is and what a scientific theory is. In other words, shush and let the smart ones do the talking.
spr65 1 year ago
@MonFeRay Creationist Hypothosis, and Intelligent Design Hypothesis. A scientific theory actual needs evidence to back it up which evolution has. The rest shouldn't be taught without evidence....
batistaker123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pretty good movie, good movie for wasting your time. find it at Free Movie Zone . n e t
usmanov02 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This was a really good movie. I enjoyed every minute of it...watch now at Free Movie Zone . n e t
turkken21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You must be crazy not watch this movie for full...find it at Free Movie Zone . n e t
gunomun88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unbelievable movie,great act and storyline. Lucky me can watch it online at Free Movie Zone . n e t
qertuneg21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great cast and crew, awesome movie, plenty of action, keep me on the edge 5/5 watch now at Free Movie Zone . n e t
rovenjul56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really loved this film, great act,nice story...keep the spirit...5/5 for me as I watched it at Free Movie Zone . n e t
ntnina52 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is not that easy to say this movie is good, but is worth of watch as I watched it fr33 at Free Movie Zone . n e t
wikaw34 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good storyline, lot of lesson learned...find it for fr33 at Free Movie Zone . n e t
ishaks42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its all up to you guys, but I believe this movie is awesome. Find it here at Free Movie Zone . n e t
ishaks42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The actor is really great. I know they are good in act. Watch the full movie at Free Movie Zone . n e t
vanarista33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stay at home watch this movie and feel love it. Watch it for fr33 at Free Movie Zone . n e t
jojoal001 1 year ago
New ideas, lol
Cab0cl0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Before you say anything about this trailer, better you watch it at Free Movie Zone . n e t
muizadin02 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unusual movie..I really liked the story and act..4/5 for me as I watched it at Free Movie Zone . n e t
ikolev4 1 year ago
lol idiots!
seppomuppit 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
ID summed up: I can't think of how X could have formed naturally, therefore no one ever will which proves God did it.
Even if no one could figure out things you can't, posing "God" as an explanation doesn't answer anything. Substitute "God" with "Blah" and it makes the same amount of sense.
There is the exact same amount of evidence that God did it as there is that Blah did it - zilch.
I created the entire universe 5 seconds ago and implanted past memories to make it seem old. Prove me wrong.
politicsthatmatter 1 year ago
@politicsthatmatter You're wrong son, I mad the universe, thats where I keep all my stuff
viletree 1 year ago
Reminds me of the book "how to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic"
props on the trailer, making people feel rebellious by renouncing evolution is sheer genius, really playing into the teenage market.
jizzfish 1 year ago
no intelligence allowed, this guy wants to be stupid???
fairyheli2 1 year ago
this video is so incredibly fitting, his arguments are 'bad' and he looks like an idiot.
daemonowner 1 year ago
Try this.If you never heard one word about creation nor evolution..You come accross a civilation that dates back 4,000 to 6,000 years ago..they have thousand of painting of Dinosaurs into rocks and walls,they carve them into their buildings,the have clay mooldings of exact replicas and Trinkets made of several deffrent kinds of Dino's..Do you use logic and 1. say the must have had a museum to study them or 2.must have seen them alive to know what they look like making 3. they walked with Dino's.
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44
1) Noah's Ark as the National Monument in Turkey - where the heck do you find that? Creationists are still unsuccessfully searching for remnants of Noah's Ark.
2) Dinosaur with blood cells - Yeah, I saw that too. It was 68 million years old.
3) Examine the drawings in the Hava Supai Canyon again. That's not an accurate picture of a dinosaur at all.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
@Nickcloudy im not sure who your listening to..But the scientist said..its impossible for the dino with skin and bloodcells etc to last a millions years..they cannot explain it and are trying to figure it out..but make no mistake..they said its not possible ..and the drawing,goes much further ,clay mouldings,rock scuplures,thousands of drwings,aroind the planet in ever culture that date 4,000 years old..you have alot to try an figure out.Common sense says dino's walked with man,like or not.
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44
"Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years" - that's what the article said. I won't quote them word for word, but they also said that while flesh and blood cells slowly disappear over time, bones become fossilized. The blood cells, according to the article, were found within its leg bone (which was broken and dipped in acid).
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
@BudPeters44
"..its impossible for the dino with skin and bloodcells etc to last a millions years..they cannot explain it and are trying to figure it out."
You;re correct. And if you'd actually read the article, you'd know that they didn't find skin or blood cells. Seriously, read the article again.
"nd the drawing,goes much further ,clay mouldings,rock scuplures,thousands of drwings,aroind the planet in ever culture that date 4,000 years old."
Except those darn 17,000 year old cities.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@Nickcloudy you can use false info,as you have done here..no facts to back it up..But i say toss all religion out and look at the facts..and you would have to say without a doubt..we were created,we Have a Father cause no way could we start from nothing.Look at the planet around us,supposedly much older that earth and have ice,They have no life.Rock dirt and water,will not be able to think of life..
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44
False information? Are you on crack? I've barely said anything; let alone information not claimed by scientists.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
This movie is a lie dipped in bullshit.
Noisegator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them, Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
Issacson144 1 year ago
You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
Issacson144 1 year ago
I respect those of you who's profession, is into the sciences of creation, and how we got here, but I am proud to say that there is practical proof, of creationism, being true, and there is rather obvious missing details and facts, in the theory of evolution, and other scientific, theory's on how the universe, began and creation or whatever. It makes me sad to see that even me a high school student, who is below average, can easily find real practical feasible, truth of creationism.
Issacson144 1 year ago
@Issacson144 You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
Issacson144 1 year ago
@Issacson144 You can try and uphold an argument, but im sure in due time, you will be rather disappointed in the end of all this. Don't underestimate me, im know for sure that im more than able, to hold my end of things, and for your beliefs of Science to fail. (and if you stop and think about it for a bit, you might find that Evolution, is just as religious, as Creationism is only without it being provable.
Issacson144 1 year ago
@Issacson144 'rather obvious missing details' Please do tell what are these details, as someone who has studied evolution I have yet to see them. 'practical proof, of creationism,' what proof? I have never seen anyone show any actual proof to creationism, and the people that have tried were quickly shot down, because their proof was wholly made up.
NotDuncan 1 year ago
lol sorta funny looking. the two sorta people I dislike the most duking it out. A pompuss asshole creationist and a pompouss asshole evolutionist.
I'm an evolutionist BTW. An agnostic one
MythicDude 1 year ago
ben stein should know better
pistolpete667 1 year ago
If there were any evidence for creationism or against evolution, we'd have heard something by now. The creationism vs science debate was over long ago. Ask a scientist.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
and of course you'd receive a biased response from the scientist. Here's better advice. Do some research on your own. Explore logic and see how information compares. Dont assume and dont side with the crowd. Discover truth. Evaluate both sides.
Rockstar2be 1 year ago 23
Yes, I am a scientist, I have looked at both sides, I don't assume, and I have discovered science is right and creationism wrong.
Keep in mind that every time it's been science vs religion, science has been right every time.
Open your mind, you'll be glad you did.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be
Unfortunately people on both sides of the argument are unwilling to do this.
the bible preaches circular logic, and to fully understand evolution you have to posses
vast amounts of empirical evidence and critical thinking skills, something that only the top percent of people are lucky enough to have... So people on both sides are blindly following something that they don't truly understand.
jizzfish 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be intelligent design and logic dont go together. sometimes its just about faith and logic cant do any good. im just kind of sick of people thinking other people are stupid because they disagree. even if a person is athiest the bible is still a good thing to go by. it just tells people to be better and to do the right thing. and sure the movie makes all of the scienctific explinations for life look crazy but intelligent design is also somewhat far fectched. i still manage to beieve.
ma2jh 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be
but there's no logic in creationism
THEBULLANGUEROCK 7 months ago
if god didn't want us to learn than he wouldn't have give'n us the tools to learn with or so much to learn about!!! I believe in God and I believe that the univers is trillions of year old!!!!!
lukeplunkett5 1 year ago
The quote at the beginning is right! There is no evidence for any god, so before you have any, He is not relevant in science.
MrJohnthedoe 1 year ago
Did you watch expelled? Because even dawkins cant say there is no proof of an intelligent designer.
Rockstar2be 1 year ago 15
@Rockstar2be Can you prove that there is, objectively?
Can I prove that there isn't, objectively?
NO! because we perceive reality subjectively, meaning that we are completely incapable of perceiving anything's truth-value ( if there is such a thing ).
in my opinion a deistic, non conscious "creator" is probably how to universe began, but claiming to know something like that objectively is intellectual suicide.
jizzfish 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be chemical evolution is pure bullshit,and lies in 1953 miller experiments..failed horribly..but the evolutionist claim this is still possible!!!!!...and .was lightning only found in one particular spot on the planet?
Or was the primoridial soup prime for life in only one area of the planet? If every time lightning hit in the soup & new life formed then none of it would be related or evolved. These idiots are saying a fertile egg that grows is proof of evolving! Unbelievable.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv~~ As you are a complete thimblebrain with no science background, don't understand chemistry, don't understand physics and have no clue about abiogenesis or evolution, posting anything is a bit more than ridiculous. Biblical creation requires that relativity is false, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will tell you otherwise...as relativity is true, biblical creation must be false.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis and so are u...these are all questions..how did life change and come about?..your just and angry old bitter asshole.and u dont want to see intelligent design..And if these 1 cell animals were replicating themselves asexually where did the sexes come from what was the need?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Thank you for proving my point!! As ID is false, it cannot be seen...not unlike the Monty Python skit...any time anyone claims ID exists, it can be exploded!Go back to school and study Mitosis and Meiosis...sexual reproduction is the best example of an evolution mechanism as you can find...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis ive taken all the same classes u have asshole,,iam guessing,your a teacher? or professor with a real bad fuckin attitude,and huge stick up your ass..ok how are we getting to sexual reproduction??..your jumping steppes for single celled organisms
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv~~" ive taken all the same classes u have" Not by a long shot! You would know absolutely all sorts of things you have indicated no awareness of here and elsewhere. ID--disproven in court, exposed by Phillip Johnson himself as a hoax intended to circumvent the US Constitution...Go back to school and study Mitosis and Meiosis--your answer is there, since you obviously don't know...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be Dawkins can't say that there's no proof that pink unicorns dance around the rings of Saturn either.
Abena20 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be the whole argument behind atheisim is that we dont know if there is a god...but we are saying that you dont know either.
CxwarrenxD 1 year ago
@CxwarrenxD There is one more part to the argument. Since I don't know, I don't believe. Nobody knows, and since there is no one who can provide any evidence, I cannot honestly believe it.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rockstar2be
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be o yes he can!!!
Mladiatheist 1 year ago
@Rockstar2be And you can't say there is proof of a creator...
batistaker123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rockstar2be Dawkins has never said anything of the sort. He has said that there is no way to disprove the existence of a deity. He has also said that there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity. That's not the same thing as being unable to say that there is no proof -- in fact it is the opposite.
ianchard 7 months ago
This tells us that Politics is above science and religion. LOL
Hi zealots!
cloudscreamer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Classic "spin campaign" 101:
1) Creationists couldn't keep Darwin out of schools
2) Creationists couldn't get creationism in schools
3) Creationists tried to pass off creationism as "legitimate mode of science" with "ID" theory so as to circumvent the religion component.
4) After "ID" failed miserably, they tried the angle of "teach the controversy."
5) After all else failed, retreated to tactic of claiming the establishment to be "corrupt and beyond having a fair point of view."
belodeau 2 years ago
@belodeau thats Comical..people know how corrupt and decieving our Gov. is 85% of the population has no trust in Gov. to give us the truth,they dumb down our schools and hide everything from us..And when it come's to Evolution ..those who hate God will lap up every word and scientist collecting a check to keep decieving the world..Noahs Ark,is a national monument in Turkey and has been known about for a very long time,Dinosaurs being found today fully skinned with bloodcells,and we just ignore .
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 You really need to think about this accusation a weeeee bit harder. If anyone was actually hiding and preventing this so called god evidence, you'd think that it would have to convince them and would not hide it from anyone, because of fear of god's wrath. But since your strawman is that easily figured out, it is then the concern that you aren't a competent thinker
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy think things over huh ??/ lol..i did ,i thought about them for atleast 30 years..Untill i slowed down enough to really care about what im being taught from gov. Hollywood,Schools etc..Once you start asking questions..You get to the truth..i used to believe in Aliens,UFO's,eveolution and that the Bible was a government hand book..Thank God i did not die being stuck on Stupid.Nothing they teach us to believe Outside the Bible make's any sense at all,Once you care to learn the truth
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 Yup, I concur, you are being contolled by memes.You know not of what you speak, you cant control it. You've in a sense lost your mind
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy lol,one of us have..All that wisdom..trapped inside of an person who has never even read the Bible,But believe's in everything the Bible warns us of..So you Deny the message,and the Messanger...and that leave's you AntiChristian cause you are clueless in what you believe..No matter how you look at it,You either believe and follow Jesus Christ,or you take the warnings and Rebel against God..Hey you only have to wait for the second you die to be corrected huh.Peace
BudPeters44 1 year ago
@BudPeters44 There is a seperate bs holy book for each hemisphere. There are still tribes and aborigines that still live primitive, they dont have books, they know nothing of religeon, so you think they're going to hell too right?
splicedenergy 1 year ago
quite busy on the comment posting i see... im arguing that abiogenesis is as likely as intelligent design... i have no religious affiliation nor do i overdose on scientific theories, but until there is a def answer how can all possibilities be ruled out. what ben stein argues and what i am trying to convey seems to get lost in translation; it is not the theory of evolution vs intelligent design, it is the freedom of inquiry that is being attacked. the debate needs to include all arguments
dbfro1 2 years ago
Actually, I'd say it's far, far more likely.
Intelligent Design requires the supernatural to be true (As Dawkins said, even if life on Earth was intelligently designed, it'd designer would've had to evolve naturally.), whereas there's absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is an entirely natural process. Not a process that we understand as well as evolution, but a natural process, all the same. Making it a lot more likely than ID.
Vehementi 2 years ago
good point, however id doesnt nec mean supernatural, just not natural..dawkins himself readily admits that the designer could be simply alien, or a higher evolved life form we have yet to discover.. but until either is proven to be definitively true or untrue how can we rule either out as a legit possibility.
dbfro1 2 years ago
Dawkins admits that even if life was seeded on Earth from another planet, by an alien race, that alien race would've had to've evolved, naturally.
Though, the chances of that are very unlikely.
Abiogenesis is a far more reasonable means for life to've originated, and far, far more likely. There are several models already that explain how life could've easily began through simple chemical reactions.
/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Vehementi 2 years ago
Ultimately, Ben Stein's a lawyer, not a biologist.
When every single professional biologist, and every single peer-reviewed paper strongly agrees with evolution, an lowly lawyer (A professional liar) goes against ~150 years of research, peer reviewed papers, and the entire scientific community, his words hold absolutely no weight whatsoever.
Vehementi 2 years ago
Dawkins himself agreed in the possablity in ID in this film (i just watched it) one of his scenerios is consistant with mine ,Pansperma (we humans were seeded here) although he does not say humans so he may have meant the original single cell . either way, it is a ID theory just not the "god" version . Ben Stein did an excellant job here
crabtrap 2 years ago
Dawkins was saying that IF life on Earth was designed, then it HAD to've been done by life that evolved, first.
Vehementi 2 years ago
yes i relize that .unfortunatly for Dawkins that makes zero sense . its a never ending riddle of "who created those other beings then?"scenerio . it is clear Dawkins has a hard-on for western religions mostly,that is clear from the film
crabtrap 2 years ago
"...one of his scenerios is consistant with mine ,Pansperma (we humans were seeded here) although he does not say humans so he may have meant the original single cell . either way, it is a ID theory..."
crabtrap, in no way does pansperma tie to creationism. Pansperma theorizes how life may have arrived on earth, not how life began. Without evolution this theory becomes rather comical with all the individual lifeforms coming down from the sky :P
sleepyriggles 2 years ago
@sleepyriggles i guess i was unclear . evolution has yet to explain humans . evolution theory is atleast partially correct
but has HUGE gaps such as the does not have any theory as to why any life (single cell) was zapped into existance . that is a big whole
crabtrap 2 years ago
@crabtrap
Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. It simple discusses how life changes over time. That's like saying Geology doesn't tell us why 2+2=4. It simply is unrelated and cannot be held accountable for things outside its field of study.
crimsontearz24 1 year ago
well intellegent design is the same way . atheist alway default to the "old man on a throne" vision of intelligent design ,that is not related either . a person altemetly has faith in a creator or a scientist ,maybe both but it IS faith (please don't start with the peer review nonesense which has been proven corrupt 100's of times)
crabtrap 1 year ago
if you want to teach the controversy start by teaching alternative creation myths in Sunday school. just keep fairy tales out of science eduction.
eventh0zi0n 2 years ago
deal! as long as you keep teaching evolution myths(darwin based) with out public funding
crabtrap 2 years ago
great questions brought to light by ben stein.. biggest one for me... "how can evolution explain the beginning of life?" it cannot. it fails to explain where that single celled amoeba we all came from originated. where did that come from? what caused that? what, or better yet, who designed that? darwin has no theory for that.
dbfro1 2 years ago
The Theory of Evolution isn't MEANT to explain the beginning of life. It explains the biodiversity of life on Earth. It explains why there are so many different species.
For example, germ theory doesn't explain the beginning of germs, or the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of gravity. They're not supposed to.
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life, but that's more chemistry than biology. Evolution is only supposed to explain the diversity of life, not it's origin.
Vehementi 2 years ago
Remember, the initial paper, published by Darwin was called "The Origin of Species..." not the " The Origin of Life...".
Vehementi 2 years ago
the book is "origin of species" so th "origin seems rather important . if what you say is true though,all avenues should beexplored to find out where the original "spark" came from and why . it's kind of poor science to worry about the root after i guess at it's effects .
crabtrap 2 years ago
It's the "Origin of SPECIES" not the "Origin of LIFE".
The Theory of Evolution explains the biodiversity of life, it explains speciation, it explains genetic mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, extinction. It doesn't, nor should it, explain the origin of life. Which it does PERFECTLY.
Vehementi 2 years ago
It explains the biodiversity...etc, perfectly*
Vehementi 2 years ago
Haven't seen this movie yet but I do know that Jesus created the universe and everything in it including all of us. Then he came to earth to see his creation and what did we do? Kill him. Shows how stupid mankind is.
cooldarren 2 years ago
Watched this last night on Showtime. If nothign else Stein makes an airtight case that some in the academic and scientific communities are engaged in blacklisting. And the stuff on how Darwin's theories have inspired eugenics and genocide is pretty horrifying. I highly recommend this film.
gorillamummy 2 years ago
@ gorilla-agreed!!
liberatedvialove 2 years ago
Every school has it's retard, and that would be Ben Stein...lol.
animation3dfx 2 years ago
Movie author just song Thief and Yoko Ono owned him in court.
Dumb religionists heh.
voiceofdeaths 2 years ago
babababa bad to the bone bababab
funrizwan 2 years ago
expelled is a good propaganda peace but is horribly dishonest. the producers lied to people they interview about the subject of the film, stole footage from Harvard without permission, claimed someone was fired for publishing an ID paper but failed to mention that they had cheated to get the paper published and that was why they where fired. Oh and don't forget the butchering of quotes from Darwin, stooping so low as to remove signal words like don't or completely change the meaning of a word.
canpinter 2 years ago
Thanks for deleting my critical comments! Great censorship at work here.
shadowblade9876 2 years ago
i agree with "Eye2EyeIIIV" the documentary is fine it seems people are saying the documentary is bad because the don't want to let the idea of a divine creator get it's foot in the door of science, therefore it isn't tolerated or given a chance
quote Dr Scott todd, an immunologist at Kanas State University "even if all the data point to a intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic "
meanman1992 2 years ago
Dr Scott is full of shit then isnt he?
a typical fucking creationist LIAR.
PEER REVIEW you wankers,PEER REVIEW!
Peer review and repeat experimentation applies to ANY theory so fuck off fundie arseholes,you have your chance but can't and don't take it because you've got no science just bronze age mind stultifying desert bullshit.
Burn all apologetics,scum of the earth.
Rockster969 2 years ago
Oh wow, what a rebel for sticking to the strict guidelines of the Bible.
Fool.
leof999 2 years ago
Yeah if it was so right then why did it get such bad reviews? Stien argued that evolution didn't explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe! OF Course it doesn't! It only describes the origin of SPECIES!! So STEIN should learn about somehthing before he attempts to make a film about it!
Dozerthedj 2 years ago
i havn't seen this but if he said it doesn't explain the origins of life and it doesn't what is wrong with that
meanman1992 2 years ago
no i think dozer means that stein was using this as a reason to which evoluion is faulty, because it doesnt explain these things.
a7xbeacon 2 years ago
ax7beacon got the point.
Dozerthedj 2 years ago
because he is lying, evolution explains the diversity of life better than anything a intelligent design advocate can
John555552006 2 years ago
no it doesnt, whats a better explanation than magic?
birdiejoehoaks 2 years ago
People CLAIM that this documentary is "boring" or "lying".
C'mon! The documentary tries to be reasonable right on EVERYTHING!
I just don't undertsand why this present world considers what is good, "evil", and what is evil, "good".
It all boils down to PRIDE. 'Oh, no. That can't be true, cause I know I'm right.'
The Bible repeatedly mentions God's RESENTMENT of pride, and "humbling ourselves." "Come now, let us REASON together."
This documentary is quite a "REASONABLE" one. ;)
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
I am not a Christian but I really love what you said here, and it was correct, Peace..........
Ckordobah 2 years ago
when someone insist there flying turtle is the creater of the universe, or to say people are born rotten and evil and need saving from thier jewish zombie jesus is stupid and deserves no respect....if you have stupid believes, expect to made fun of.
hellasow 2 years ago
hands down one of the worst movies of all time. ben stein thinks "darwinism" should explain gravity, origin of life, and other things when darwin only meant to explain origin of species not life. very very bad film
Dozerthedj 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins should watch this!
watch?v=BKmdIdQg3Ks
:D
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Great 1 creationists that allows comments
drako551 2 years ago
watch?v=3X8aifay678
VolkColopatrion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
............... its not even worth debating, Creationist make evolutionists look sad in debates each time. It's not the evolutionists fault, the creationist is right and the evolutionist is wrong. It isn't even worth debating.
iceman70028 2 years ago
LOL
Xellith 2 years ago
darwins theory of evolution has been under rigorous testing for 150 years, esspecially when DNA was discovered, which would really put evolution to the test, because if evolution was true, then DNA would have to verify it by seeing a connection bewteen species that matched the tree of life as proposed by darwin... and what do you know, it did.
Creationists have never produced a scientific theory of any kind to support their claims, which makes it tempting to belive there is none.
codexdelux 2 years ago 3
Dawkins is very disrespectfull to people who have different views ! ):
ctCHRISTIANnz 2 years ago
Being respectful is not conceding to the opposing proposition as religion demands submission before further conversation can take place.
No. Being respectful is being honest and upright and not say things in order to keep a cozy atmosphere of agreement regardless of the context.
Richard Dawkins does just that. I can only respect a respectful man.
tubeficator 2 years ago
Agreed. And you cannot believe in micro-evolution without macro-evolution because macro-evolution is only micro-evolution + time. There is no difference in the mechanics.
cobrompton 2 years ago
guys evolution happens all around us. Diseases like swine flu evolved so it could jump species. Its also why diseases are becoming more and more immune to antibiotics.
sunset261 2 years ago
Right. I think somewhere I heard Richard Dawikins say that when we are threatened by e.g. a disease and we need science to save ourselves, everyone asks how it mutates, if the mutations are even more dangerous etc. and no one would say: "Well, I think, it's designed to kill us."
I think that shows that these creationists actually know that they're wrong but they don't want creationism to be wrong.
Lukas4C756B6173 2 years ago 3
Swine flu is still swine flu, no evolution there. That is called natural selection which opposes evolution.
iceman70028 2 years ago
Natural selection doesn't oppose evolution, dumbass, it goes hand-in-hand with it and speeds it up.
madskillz1o1 2 years ago 3
uhm? not sure if you where being sarcastic, but swine flu is an evolved species of regular flu... and evolution by natural selection is the full name of the theory (scientific theory that is, which means its a collection of well proven fact, not a philosophical theory) and hardly opposes evolution, since it is evolution...
codexdelux 2 years ago
Apparently the creationists thinks this 'documentary' (I use that term very lightly) has Atheists shaking in their boots. Really? This awful excuse for film-making?
welldunneav 2 years ago
Its interesting how neo con lap dogs like to portray themselves as rebels. I mean by their standards John McCain was a maverick and Sean Hannity is televisions James Dean...sheesh join reality guys.
Whipitonmyjim1234 2 years ago
See the funny thing is, people are actually being expelled from the scientific community; those people who make unsupported assertions without any evidence to substantiate their claims. So Stein is kind of right. ha ha ha.
DesertFox111 2 years ago 4
the irony being, "no intelligence allowed" is exactly the way i would describe Expelled. Its like they knew...
birdiejoehoaks 2 years ago 4
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
- Charles Darwin
Monica15N 2 years ago