Atheists and Christians are just as bad , they both are are absolutely certain about something for which they have no evidence. And it's funny how Darwin has become the Messiah of the atheist community.
Just the trailer itself is horribly misleading about evolution. How life began isn't even a question evolutionary theory is supposed to answer, evolutionary theory is about the development of life after it began. If he wanted to know how it began he should have done a documentary on abiogenesis.
If you think this movie has anything to do with religion at all then you obviously haven't watched it. If you haven't watched this film you can't really talk about it. If you had watched it you would realize that your comments are just what he is talking about, attacking anyone who mentions intelligent design.
for man to say there is no higher power/intelligent designer is to say we are not intelligent. we might as well rip intelligent from our vocabulary/dictationary. whose all with me for that?! no one huh? didn't think so.
i saw this documentary. its very important and it just makes logical sense. most men don't want to acknowledge that we were created by an intelligent designer/higher power because if he did acknowledge it then man would know that hes accountable for the things he does against his fellow man. with that truth there would be no discriminations, no rapes, no murders and no wars. only peace on Earth. essentially the 'evolution propoganda' is the work of the devil to separate man from his creator,GOD.
Is this film trying to make scientists look like they have ultimate answers? because any true scientist knows that ultimate meaning is something that in this day and age, science can't touch. That's not the point of science. How the f**k are we suppose to consider an intelligent designer in academia if it's nowhere to be found? Don't tell me nature is evidence, because it doesn't present an intelligent designer.
@ash0ppingcart yes nature is most definitely evidence of an intelligent designer. one example, nature has an order: there is a winter, a summer, a spring and a fall.
Because the planet formed in a way where plant life had to evolve to accommodate different weather-you can't say there is a god because plants grow and die and reproduce-if anything humans are the one's who give meaning to the separation of what we call seasons. Also, many places in the world only have one season. Your logic is immensely moronic. You can only prove there is a god if god shows up, you can;t say "oh this flower is pretty so that means god planned it".
What evolved first? The bee or the flower? How did flowers survive without the pollination of the bees and how did the bees survive without the nectar?
The flower. You assume that bees are the only way that flowers are pollinated, but many insects, past and present, pollinate flowering plants. Earliest flower fossil ~125mya. Earliest 'bee' (it's transitional in appearance) ~100mya. From fossils the answer is flowers and the same from from logic.
He keeps trying to attack evolution, yet always asking about the origins of life. I know Ben Stein is an idiot. They are not the same thing at all. He makes this same mistake over and over, not only in the movie, but in his TV interviews. Not to mention, "I.D" is supposed to ask if something "intelligent" Helped creat all things. Yet, they always say "God". This was previously shot down by the courts, thats called creationism.
It never fails to amaze me how much like early primates Creationists act. There is a reason no intelligence allowed is in the title, because if you have any intelligence, you will see many problems with this movie.
Plus, if you dig a little bit, you find out that these guys got sued for illegally using footage and music because they refuse to use legal routes. After that, have the people they interview that lost their jobs did so for reasons not talked about in the video.
For which thing? The song, the medical video clip? There is no way they will win the case over the medical clip once that case goes, because they took out the audio on the clip that described what is going on and replaced it with Ben saying that it is just too complex.
This movie is a disgrace, and it is only profiteering off of the ignorance of religious extremism. Ben is the same as Gore profiteering off of a movement stupid people will buy into and he just knows he can make money from.
There was no case over the 'medical' clip. They created this clip themselves, so why would they need permission. The lawsuit was from Yoko Ono regarding the use of the song 'Imagine', and the producers won the case.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. The medical animation was done by a university for a class, not this movie. The animation was taken by the movie producers without permission.
I believe you are refering the 'Inner Life of the Cell' clip created by Harvard. The producers paid a professional to create a new animation that is more accurate than the Harvard one (based on current knowledge of cellular processes). Any similarities between the Expelled animation and the Harvard one are due to the fact that both animations depict many of the same processes.
@cameraguy1968 Dawkins doesn't think that we were designed by aliens. He believes that life began and evolved here on Earth, because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this view.
I know. Let all the evolutionsts who believe that they came from monkeys, believe that they came from monkeys. After all, they never hesitate to make monkeys out of themselves.
We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor with other primates. Over billions of years and pure fucking chance we became homo sapien. But I'll let you continue to believe in magic, because you're an insignificant person and all you have to hold onto before you die is the thought of your imaginary god.
@cameraguy1968 Imagine if it turns out that you're right about an invisible, magical sky wizard, but you picked the wrong one? Odds are against you choosing the right wizard.
If creationists want to be taken serious they would have to cut off this "bible word by word"-guys. Because if you actually believe you got kicked out of a garden because of a lying snake and that the human kind is the product of incest (According to the bible there are a few instances where incest was necessary to allow humans to exist further) than you shouldn't be surprised if you are seen as a nut.
there's a quote somewhere in the bible (I'm not sure where but I know it exists) that basically says not to take the bible literally. Also is it just me or is it that Creationists selectively use bible quotes?
According to The Church, the bible is not a science book, nor has it ever been considered as one. Scientists ought not teach theology and theogians ought not teach science.
So riddle me this: WHY are Christians pushing so hard to get Creationism taught in schools, if it is not a scientific explanation? Why should scientists be forced into teaching theology?
They created the basic elements for live in a laboratory. From there it is only a small step to live. There is a mountain of evidence leading to the evolution and on the other hand there is belief.
And in defense of the teacher: If I explain the same stuff to a guy over and over again then I will get pissed at some point.
I was planning on being a scientist for a long time and I researched evolutionary biology and astronomy mostly. A community of scientists, professors, school board members, judges, etc, that hate religion really does exist. Me personally I do believe in evolutionary biology but I no longer have the hatred for religious people that I used to have. I'm a former member of this science cult if you can call it that. They need to practice what they preach and not silence opposing views.
Atleast these nutjobs could be more useful and direct their propoganda campaign of religion replaced by science at Islam. Chrsitianity is no longer the religion or group of people that you need to fear. Christianity has by and large reformed. Islam on ther other hand is like the way Christianity was 500+ years ago during the times of Galileo. If anyone needs to be brainwashed by these "intellectuals" agenda it's the extremely fanatical Muslims.
really? It wasn't a Muslim who kicked in my best friends door and shot him for wearing "too much black clothing". It was a Christian. Muslims in America aren't trying to destroy science education.
He actualy WAS a Christian, OfTheShire. He was one that had courage to his convictions. He read his Bible and followed what it says to do to people who don't believe.
His 'Bible' must be a twisted version, because in Romans 2:1 it says judgement is not ours. For someone to just take matters into their own hands, and go off shooting unbelievers, is just wrong. The Bible doesn't say to do that.
And you are missing the parts where jesus said to take up the sword, to sell their robe if they had to in order to get a sword. You are cherry picking out the part also where Jesus commanded that the non-believers be given a chance to convert, but to put a mill stone around their necks and drown them if they continue to disbelieve.
The scientific world in the US is not threatend by Islam but by bible-thumbing christians. Of course the number of radicals among christians is very small but they have a lot of influence.
Actually modern christianity tends to be more like it was in the 4-8th centuries, very apologetic, intellectual and reflective. I am not speaking of creationism, but of Christianity in general. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have produced great philosophers, theologians and other modern great intellectuals and patrons of the liberal arts.
I haven't even seen this movie, but from what I hear and read about it (and from various trailers) I can see it is nothing but dogmatic propaganda trying to sympathise with theists to get others to support them; but all this is is ad hominem arguing from the awkward and dronic Ben Stein.
Evolution as a theory itself doesn't entail a theory of the beginning, since that's not what the theory (it's a theory and a fact as well to add) contends. That's what abiogenesis does, as said below :)
its called a non-life to life. it was spontaneous generation then to abiogenesis. then now they called it biopeosis something so that students dont know that they're advocating the same principle!
Yeah! ID is the new hip thing with the kids these days! Who needs Evilution! Science and logic is so old school now! The Bible, God and blind faith is the rave today! Get lost Richard Dawkins, you're an old man with satanic ideas! "Sarcasm"
Great movie. The whole fanaticism of the atheist evolution propagandists and the ad-hominem unsubstantiated attacks by Mr Richard Dawkins, prove they lack arguments. Something cannot come from Nothing. That is very true and logical. There an Unmoved Mover, as Aristotle said. And yes, Sacred Scripture is true, although fundamentalist Evangelical interpretation of Genesis may be too one-sided too, on the earth's anciennity, micro-evolution, extinction etc.
bhaywa1, do you even know about the book "Pandas and People"? Did you see the graph Miller had that showed they simply went through the book and replaced Creation with Intelligent Design after a Federal Court decision??
Did you even know/hear about the Wedge Strategy from the Discovery Institute?
These are the kinds of things people will know when they examine your project over ID. If you fail to address them you will look ignorant.
THAT is why I tell you to argue the points from Miller.
If you really are working on a project to try and defend your faith in Intelligent Design, you have to catch up to the times. Saying the Dover Trial didn't destroy or cripple ID in any way is just ignorant, and your project will be utterly ignored.
If you show you cant even match current events, your "project" will be useless.
It never fails. Find a potentially reasonable Theist and they will always disappoint you when it comes to their turn to "put up or shut up".
Every single time, since I first started with these internet debates, not a single one of you has ever been willing to put the same effort in research and truth seeking as anyone who doesn't believe in your Sky Daddy is willing to.
I've not had time or inclination to study either one much at all. Since the resulting stories around both are apparently based on admitted forgeries or deceit, why bother? The one seems to have been stealing from people to perform masses he could not, and did not even intend to do. And the other was hoping to become crowned king of France it seems, or at least make a name for himself as heir to the throne. Both were based on fraud it seems. ...like Lucy, the Nebraska man, and Piltdown man. :-)
"The one seems to have been stealing from people to perform masses he could not, and did not even intend to do."
Well I'm glad to see your opinion is completely wrong. As you admitted, if you had studied the subject you would have a clue.
As for the "other" you are talking about... I dont have any idea where you got that from. The priest and the chateau are one in the same event in history... not two.
Who said that was my opinion? Everything I know of that was from articles written by other people (ever seen wikipedia for instance???). Since you seem to think it's so important to know about these things then why don't YOU enlighten me... Or is this just another attempt to puff yourself up and try and make someone look bad? You're doing a fine job, except you're the one with mud on your face. Didn't mommy ever teach you that when making others look bad you really make yourself look bad?
I see. Scientific information doubles every 12 years. General information doubles every 2 1/2 years. So how ignorant are you? Can you keep up with everything? And did I say I was good at debating? More importantly, does winning an argument change the facts? What foolishness! The facts about our existence are true no matter if you or I win a debate on them or not. Besides, in your mind, our existence is a huge mistake anyway. Is that why are you're angry that people disagree with you? Curious...
"That's fine, I'm content to stay in the future with the truth..."
But you arn't in the future, kid. Your sitting in the dark ages worshiping old mysticisms.
By the way, your comments on cadebrown5's channel are interesting. You obviously didn't watch or listen to the Ken Miller lecture, thats obvious.
It will be interesting to see your wiki page. Believing you have something to offer to the ID vs Evo debate is really amusing, and simply betrays your ignorance.
"if your mind is open you may just be surprised..."
Do you honestly think I havn't done any work on my own?
Do you think I'm just sitting here and ranting on without any kind of work/reading/research into this subject???
Present what you wish, but you will have to do alot of work to make it stand out to the numerous works of biased opinion. Make it fair and examine all sides, otherwise it will be ignored.
How many works that you use to prove your faith in evolution are unbiased? Hmmm??? Be honest...
If you're truly honest you know that if a person has any history in a subject at all it is impossible to be truly unbiased. Which is why it's imperative to examine all evidence with an open mind.
So, if the evidence and logic point to a Creator, will you automatically and rudely discount it? Or will you accept the evidence and open your mind to the possibility that Someone chose to create you?
"How many works that you use to prove your faith in evolution are unbiased? Hmmm??? Be honest..."
Quite a few. Do you count leaving religion and other fairy tales alone completely as unbiased? If not, then you consider forcing your fairy tales on others unbiased?
"Which is why it's imperative to examine all evidence with an open mind. "
Now, with understanding that science seeks truth, what do you think will count as evidence towards that truth?
Religious ceremony? They do nothing but produce feelings. Visions? Usually explainable in terms of psychology or simple physics. A religious text? There is no truth in origins there.
What, then, counts as evidence? Bones? Rock formations? Glacial layers? Sea bed rocks with magnetic alignments? ...if you know what it is and how to interpret it, sure.
So here you sit, bhaywa1, probably still organizing your thoughts for a project I doubt you will seriously finish.
What things are you going to include to try and prove your point in defending Intelligent Design?
Rocks and bones, or visions and warm fuzzy feelings? Are you going to seek interviews or quote mine? Are you going to list references or make it all opinion?
You have alot of work to do, far more than you may yet realize.
"if your mind is open you may just be surprised..."
Honestly, dont you realize that if you can prove the existence of a god it would be the first step to uniting the world in a new age of peace?
What you have to realize is the level of validation for that proof is something no one has ever even come close to getting ahold of. Why? Well thats obvious, and a long topic for another talk.
I'm going to ask you, bhaywa1, is YOUR mind open to being fair and going to where the actual evidence leads you, no matter what?
Will you actually post your findings against ID if it should come out that way? Are you going to be fair and impartial, or just offer another willfully ignorant piece of propaganda with little or no truth behind it?
If you want to call Him God, that's fine. But I'm not trying to prove God exists. Only to show that He's MUCH more likely. The evidence is certainly much stronger than the level of legitimate validation that has been given for evolution. But that hasn't stopped those who have faith in blind luck and improbable suppositions.
Evolution's foundation is riddled with assumptions that cannot be proven. And teaching as fact such biased speculation is not science. It's hypocritical and unscientific.
"The evidence is certainly much stronger than the level of legitimate validation that has been given for evolution"
Thats an invalid use of the word "evidence". Evidence is not a vision, warm fuzzy feelings, or an old book everyone knows has been rewritten at least in part over the centuries.
Do you even know what evidence applies to debates like these???
"Evolution's foundation is riddled with assumptions that cannot be proven. And teaching as fact such biased speculation is not science. It's hypocritical and unscientific."
First of all, no its not.
Second, what is your alternative? Fairy tales??!? HA!! What, Magic Man is better somehow? Thats MORE scientific??!? HAHAHAHA!!!
Come on now. This is the part where you guys ALWAYS fail. You call evolution "unscientific" but then you try to turn around and use RELIGION!!
"I don't shrink away from the debate. I actually enjoy it because I know I can learn something from everyone, even those who hold a different opinion than I do, and my opinion may change as I follow the evidence."
Good. Dont let me down kid, watch the 2 hour Ken Miller post-Dover trial lecture. Watch all three featured playlists on my channel.
If you are still a Creationist at the end of it, feel free to PM me why, and cite specifics. I'll add it to my project.
Guess I've just never seen someone so insecure in their own position that they regressed to calling names and smearing so quickly. Don't worry, I will post the URL here so you can check it out. And though I haven't watched the movie on your channel yet, I will. See, I don't shrink away from the debate. I actually enjoy it because I know I can learn something from everyone, even those who hold a different opinion than I do, and my opinion may change as I follow the evidence.
wow. that's scientific isn't it. kinda proves Ben's point once more. It will be interesting to see your response in a few years when the theory of evolution has slithered back down the drain to the ooze that it was pulled up from. It's a faulty, failed, and dying theory. Just as the notion that the world was flat, or that we're the center of the universe. I seem to remember hearing that those who "knew better" persecuted those who discovered or said otherwise then also.
"Just as the notion that the world was flat, or that we're the center of the universe"
Exactly-science disproved those, but until it did, they were perfectly reasonable conclusions.
If you can actually think about it, the world does look flat. How would a culture 4000 years old know any better? Oh right, they develop their science and continue to question everything and eventually find the truth.
"...the world does look flat. How would a culture 4000 years old know any better?"
Many ancient civilizations did know that the world was round, that it was traveling around the sun, etc. But perhaps we can't count them since they believed in religion also.
I have a question for you, just slightly off subject: how do you, personally, explain the literally hundreds of apparently man-made metal objects like bowls, cups, tools, etc., found in coal beds?
"Many ancient civilizations did know that the world was round, that it was traveling around the sun, etc. "
Prove it. Which ones are you talking about? What methods did they use to validate that opinion?
And no, it is only until recently that having no real religion was unusual. Didn't you know that? So no, religion doesn't negate a conclusion automatically. Its all about how one arrives at those conclusions that prove validity.
Actually I just have things to do that are more important than showing the truth to those who are purposefully ignorant of the facts and who prove their insecurity by resorting to condescension and petty name calling against anyone who holds a different belief, including those with valid and damning evidence against the flagrant denial of common sense that you put your faith in. Your precious video will see a response from me in due time, after I've researched the facts.
Someone suggested a couple of days ago that you should make sure you know what you're talking about before making claims. I've already replied to you about the farce of a video you had me watch. And as I told you earlier, I'll reply with a detailed and logical rebuttal once I've had the time to do it properly. I know what (and who) I'm facing, have nothing to be afraid of.
What do you imagine me to be frightened of? I've heard that people see in others what they refuse to see in themselves.
hmmm...sounds familiar. oh ya! that's exactly what i said i was going to do isn't it?
so let me ask you this: are you going to give me time to actually do that? or are you going to start calling me names and accusing me of lying in a couple of days because i haven't finished yet?
just asking, cause that's the pattern you've displayed so far.
"so let me ask you this: are you going to give me time to actually do that?"
Now that you've found a way to make it interesting to you so that you would actually do something rather than make wild claims, sure. Take as long as you need.
I'm simply not going to bet on you actually getting it done based on your attitude.
If you are going to be talking about ID, be prepared to get questions on all major points the Discovery Institute brought up at the trial, and how they were all destroyed: clotting, and Irreducible Complexity for example.
Why did major DI staff not show up to the Dover trial? What about the Wedge document? Etc etc. I really hope you can prove you know what research is.
ID was not destroyed in the Dover trial. The arguments against clotting and irreducibly complexity, for example, were illogical and foolish, and i will be happy to give logical answers to those rediculous arguments. But as i've mentioned before, winning an argument does not change the facts or the truth.
I find it curious, however, that you insist i answer EVERY point that Miller gives in his video, but you conveniently refuse to answer some of the questions i've posed to you. Why not???
Yes it was, kid. The Discovery Institute proposed their claims and tried to validate their idea of Intelligent Design. Real scientists shows the fools how their ideas were not valid and how the real science debunked their claims supporting their push to put religion in schools.
You lied, either out of willful ignorance or arrogance. I told you to debate what Ken Miller said because his points destroyed the DI fools in the trial.
I guess, like all the rest, I have to make the point that the outcome of the trial doesn't matter.
Thats exactly why I point people to the Ken Miller lecture. Its what happened during the trial that matters.
You obviously missed the times when Miller goes over the points the fools that showed up to defend the Discovery Institutes religious push of Intelligent Design tried to use in its defense.
"but you conveniently refuse to answer some of the questions i've posed to you. Why not???"
I'm ignoring your questions and leaving this argument alone, like you wanted, so you could finish your wiki or whatever it is you are going to be doing.
Why are you wasting time comeing back here?? Are you giving up already? Why did you ignore my questions on fairness regarding your project??
"And as I told you earlier, I'll reply with a detailed and logical rebuttal once I've had the time to do it properly. I know what (and who) I'm facing, have nothing to be afraid of."
Good, then I'll enjoy watching you repeat dead arguments and fallacies in the name of your Magic Man in the Clouds. You claim to live in the future?? HA!!
I dont suppose this logical rebuttal will have any kind of evidence to actually support your conclusions? It better.
"It will be interesting to see your response in a few years when the theory of evolution has slithered back down the drain to the ooze that it was pulled up from"
Funny that you and Stein mock what Evolution doesn't even deal with when you yourselves believe that our race started with a dust man and rib woman.
Evolution doesn't say anything about life until it was already here.
Also, when you are done watching Ken Millers 2 hour lecture, if you still believe in your fairy tales, go on to that channel and post "There is no proof for macroevolution", I would love to see that too.
That's cool... I've bookmarked your site. But keep in mind it usually takes me a while to do my research because I don't simply post a quick response. I actually examine the evidence instead of making quick claims.
"I actually examine the evidence instead of making quick claims."
I doubt that. I think you might well examine things, but you certainly dont take them to heart and really consider them. I believe you simply ignore what you dont like and then claim to have "examined" it.
Its hard to take people like you seriously. After all, you believe the world was created 6000 years ago and we are a product of a dust man and rib women practicing in-breeding for thousands of years.
ThatOneQ: you've provided quite a basis for a web site I am developing. I'm not going to write another book because there are plenty out there already that effectively discredit significant and fundamental points to the theory of evolution. But your dialog shows clearly what Ben is describing in his movie. Ignorance is one thing. Honest and direct questions/research is good and healthy. Blatant and intentional propagation of ignorance is a crime. The truth hurts, huh? To bad you can't take it.
"I'm not going to write another book because there are plenty out there already that effectively discredit significant and fundamental points to the theory of evolution"
Oh, you think a Creationist hand book has actually stood any kind of scientific test??
HAHAHA!!!!
Now THAT was funny again! You should be a stand up comedian!
"Blatant and intentional propagation of ignorance is a crime"
Thats why this movie is failing on a global scale.
LOL You are quite entertaining. I'm normally on the observing side of these arguments, so it's interesting to watch someone try to put words in my mouth, and get quite hot around the collar in the process. I find your posts to be quite entertaining and It's good to see I'm also striking a chord or two. It helps prove a point I didn't even set out to prove...but one Ben made clear in the movie. I'm amused, not angry (that seems to be you). Nor am I confused or unsure of myself. Try again.
You claim you have knowledge, you claim you have intelligence, you claim you've done "meticulous research". How does it feel to lie in every post you make?
You obviously havn't done much of any research. Your points are old and dead.
True research examines points on all sides, not just from your Creationist web sites.
You know. I thought perhaps we could have some good "rational" discussion here. I have not lied once. And I have carefully considered the evidence from all sides (even beyond the two we've been discussing)...something you apparently choose not to do. You claim I lie, yet give no proof. You claim the evidence that disproves your theory is lies, again without any proof or discussion. You are, as you claim creationists are, an arrogant and hypocritical child, troubled by the truth and lashing out.
"And I have carefully considered the evidence from all sides"
Blatant lie. You havn't done any real research, nor have you even stayed current with modern science.
Dont lie to my face, kid.
"You claim I lie, yet give no proof"
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You dont have anything but your faith, and that isn't evidence. You have less than nothing: opinion.
I dont need proof to talk to Creationists like you. YOu wouldn't look at it anyway.
I told you exactly where to find it: the Ken Miller 2 hour lecture and all three of my playlists.
ESPECIALLY examine the 24 some playlist "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series by Thunderf00t. Look at that one first, like I've said, you will get an education.
Your proof is in those playlists. Go get learned, hillbilly.
I have watched the "why people laugh at creationists" and found IT to be laughable. Yes, there are some wacky and screwed up creationists just as there are some wacky and screwed up evolutionists, ID folk, etc. But are we talking about facts or the people? Personally, I'm talking about the facts. I'll argue facts with anyone, something you seem afraid to do. Like Ben said, just mention ID and you're off on a rant attacking the person's credibility, honesty, etc.
Yes, laughter and ridicule is one form of dealing with things that people are too embarrassed to address. Another way is to get angry (as Dr. Dawkins has apparently done). Are you afraid to examine the evidence? Are you afraid of where it will take you?
When you examine the actual evidence (instead of automatically assuming it [either side] is false, as you have apparently done), you might just change your mind about a few things.
You have no evidence for proving ID isn't religion, nor for anything supported in the movie.
You dont look around do you? There are many interviews with Meyers later on that destroy some of the points. Its great to watch... but you havn't seen them now have you? Too comfortable in your lies?
no evidence? really? I've seen lots of it! and ya, I've spent a lot of time examining it, and both sides of the debate. from the evidence I've studied there is more evidence supporting intelligent design than random chance. if you're at all educated then you know that the functions and "design" of even the simplest living cell is thousands of times more complex than the most intricate pocket watch we've managed to create. yet I'm to believe that we all began by chance in some primordial soup???
This movie IS a failure, and not only that but it is hastening the awareness and demise of the Creationist propaganda known as "Intelligent Design".
ID was destroyed in the Dover trial. "That is an answer from authority fallacy" -WRONG. It doesn't matter what the verdict is. What matters is how soundly every single point the Discovery Institute brought up was annihilated by actual science.
Watch the 2 hour Ken Miller lecture featured in my channel. Please, educate yourself. Embarrassing.
Yes, Ken Miller is quite embarrassing isn't he. I will feel sorry for people like him when they eventually bend the knee to the Truth. Besides, a trial can't destroy the truth. Some day the facts will be made perfectly clear for all to see, and I can't wait for that day. But of course I don't have anything to be scared of. After all, if I'm wrong and you're right, we'll all just be dead anyway. You have a lot more to lose than I do it seems, because your pride is all that you have. How sad...
That's called sarcasm. Get it? You use it a lot so I figured you'd recognize it.
So, what exactly was it you're referring to that happened during the trial? I'm at a loss to figure out what specifically you're referring to. After all, I haven't evolved to the point that I can read minds yet. (more sarcasm, just in case you missed it)
Hmm. Who fell for what? My point is that, since there is no solid, provable evidence for either theory, we're left with only circumstantial evidence. and there is absolutely no reason why they should not both be taught. there is evidence that could possibly support either theory. and ID (without calling the designer "God) is no more "religion" than Evolution. Even Dawkins suggests that "someone" could have planted life here. and you're still without ANY evidence of macroevolutionary process.
The "trash" big boy is in trying to make evidence fit a theory instead of following the evidence to where it actually leads. This is something that modern "science", in it's attempt to validate a well postulated but fatally flawed theory, simply does not do. I have seen time after time where actual evidence is covered up or "tainted" to try to make it fit the evolution model. Examples? "Missing links" like Lucy. Irrespective of this movie, the evidence is clear for anyone man enough to face it.
because i support ID i'm a theist? your logic sucks old man. typical, unfortunately. I could point you to a few atheists who believe in ID but you wouldn't care.
and, to put my cards on the table, I am a confirmed creationist, based on the evidence. i would be a fool not to be (and, like you, ignore the facts to try to justify my choice). fortunately, after years of meticulous research, many honest scientists are choosing to stand up for the truth rather than protect lies they've discovered.
"I could point you to a few atheists who believe in ID but you wouldn't care."
Oh please do! I would love to hear how people who dont believe gods exist would turn around and say that evolution isn't possible and attribute our existence to an "intelligent designer".
"I am a confirmed creationist, based on the evidence"
Then you havn't been looking hard enough.
"fortunately, after years of meticulous research, many honest scientists are choosing to stand up for the truth rather than protect lies they've discovered."
What, in dust men and rib women? You just lied to my face there, kid.
There COULD be an intelligent designer? Yes. And it could be Satan. Why not Satan, christians? Why not, oh, I don't know..... The Flying Spageti Monster?
Paranormal phenomena has no place on science studies!
Darwinism was created without scientific process. And yes there is evidence to support intelligent design. The problem with main stream science is that they disregard it without considering any evidence.
Do not be stupid. Science is to question and challenge our perception of our surroundings, not to silence plausible ideas.
Atheists and Christians are just as bad , they both are are absolutely certain about something for which they have no evidence. And it's funny how Darwin has become the Messiah of the atheist community.
cameraguy1968 5 months ago
Just the trailer itself is horribly misleading about evolution. How life began isn't even a question evolutionary theory is supposed to answer, evolutionary theory is about the development of life after it began. If he wanted to know how it began he should have done a documentary on abiogenesis.
Jayoung1000 7 months ago 2
Why is the class scene at the beginning supporting Creationism?
ImJustFelix 8 months ago
Now quit arguing and watch the movie!
STLMIncorporated 9 months ago
If you think this movie has anything to do with religion at all then you obviously haven't watched it. If you haven't watched this film you can't really talk about it. If you had watched it you would realize that your comments are just what he is talking about, attacking anyone who mentions intelligent design.
STLMIncorporated 9 months ago
for man to say there is no higher power/intelligent designer is to say we are not intelligent. we might as well rip intelligent from our vocabulary/dictationary. whose all with me for that?! no one huh? didn't think so.
twin22NC 1 year ago
i saw this documentary. its very important and it just makes logical sense. most men don't want to acknowledge that we were created by an intelligent designer/higher power because if he did acknowledge it then man would know that hes accountable for the things he does against his fellow man. with that truth there would be no discriminations, no rapes, no murders and no wars. only peace on Earth. essentially the 'evolution propoganda' is the work of the devil to separate man from his creator,GOD.
twin22NC 1 year ago
@twin22NC
You're a fucking moron.
OhMistahJay 10 months ago
Something I've wanted to know for a long time. Does anyone know what the song is in this trailer?
DKWtube 1 year ago
Is this film trying to make scientists look like they have ultimate answers? because any true scientist knows that ultimate meaning is something that in this day and age, science can't touch. That's not the point of science. How the f**k are we suppose to consider an intelligent designer in academia if it's nowhere to be found? Don't tell me nature is evidence, because it doesn't present an intelligent designer.
ash0ppingcart 1 year ago 2
@ash0ppingcart yes nature is most definitely evidence of an intelligent designer. one example, nature has an order: there is a winter, a summer, a spring and a fall.
twin22NC 1 year ago
@twin22NC
Because the planet formed in a way where plant life had to evolve to accommodate different weather-you can't say there is a god because plants grow and die and reproduce-if anything humans are the one's who give meaning to the separation of what we call seasons. Also, many places in the world only have one season. Your logic is immensely moronic. You can only prove there is a god if god shows up, you can;t say "oh this flower is pretty so that means god planned it".
OhMistahJay 10 months ago
What evolved first? The bee or the flower? How did flowers survive without the pollination of the bees and how did the bees survive without the nectar?
ajnastarheart 2 years ago
Comment removed
Anonamouse7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ajnastarheart
The flower. You assume that bees are the only way that flowers are pollinated, but many insects, past and present, pollinate flowering plants. Earliest flower fossil ~125mya. Earliest 'bee' (it's transitional in appearance) ~100mya. From fossils the answer is flowers and the same from from logic.
Anonamouse7 2 years ago
@ajnastarheart
Go read a science book and find out!
OhMistahJay 10 months ago
@OhMistahJay which one exactly? Have you read all of them?
ajnastarheart 10 months ago
looks interesting
bbworms 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins should watch this!
watch?v=BKmdIdQg3Ks
:D
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
he probably did, he participated in it -.-
wildlifedefender 2 years ago
He keeps trying to attack evolution, yet always asking about the origins of life. I know Ben Stein is an idiot. They are not the same thing at all. He makes this same mistake over and over, not only in the movie, but in his TV interviews. Not to mention, "I.D" is supposed to ask if something "intelligent" Helped creat all things. Yet, they always say "God". This was previously shot down by the courts, thats called creationism.
Madjacker08 2 years ago
It never fails to amaze me how much like early primates Creationists act. There is a reason no intelligence allowed is in the title, because if you have any intelligence, you will see many problems with this movie.
Plus, if you dig a little bit, you find out that these guys got sued for illegally using footage and music because they refuse to use legal routes. After that, have the people they interview that lost their jobs did so for reasons not talked about in the video.
nidodson 3 years ago 8
You do realize they actually won the fair use case, right?
ajmmii 2 years ago
For which thing? The song, the medical video clip? There is no way they will win the case over the medical clip once that case goes, because they took out the audio on the clip that described what is going on and replaced it with Ben saying that it is just too complex.
This movie is a disgrace, and it is only profiteering off of the ignorance of religious extremism. Ben is the same as Gore profiteering off of a movement stupid people will buy into and he just knows he can make money from.
nidodson 2 years ago 3
I assume your referring to the CGI case with XVIVO. XVIVO later withdrew stating there is no infringement in the sequence Premise made.
ajmmii 2 years ago
There was no case over the 'medical' clip. They created this clip themselves, so why would they need permission. The lawsuit was from Yoko Ono regarding the use of the song 'Imagine', and the producers won the case.
bwatsonbrown 2 years ago
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. The medical animation was done by a university for a class, not this movie. The animation was taken by the movie producers without permission.
nidodson 2 years ago
I believe you are refering the 'Inner Life of the Cell' clip created by Harvard. The producers paid a professional to create a new animation that is more accurate than the Harvard one (based on current knowledge of cellular processes). Any similarities between the Expelled animation and the Harvard one are due to the fact that both animations depict many of the same processes.
bwatsonbrown 2 years ago
@nidodson So you agree with Dawkins that we were designed by an alien species and put on this planet?
cameraguy1968 5 months ago
@nidodson So you agree with Dawkins that we were designed by an alien species and put on this planet?
cameraguy1968 5 months ago
@cameraguy1968 Dawkins doesn't think that we were designed by aliens. He believes that life began and evolved here on Earth, because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this view.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
Haha, documentary?! ... is that so? :P
ErikeRKK 3 years ago
I know. Let all the evolutionsts who believe that they came from monkeys, believe that they came from monkeys. After all, they never hesitate to make monkeys out of themselves.
emmylousings 3 years ago
@emmylousings
We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor with other primates. Over billions of years and pure fucking chance we became homo sapien. But I'll let you continue to believe in magic, because you're an insignificant person and all you have to hold onto before you die is the thought of your imaginary god.
OhMistahJay 10 months ago
@OhMistahJay Imagine if it turns out you're wrong...
cameraguy1968 5 months ago
@cameraguy1968 Imagine if it turns out that you're right about an invisible, magical sky wizard, but you picked the wrong one? Odds are against you choosing the right wizard.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
If creationists want to be taken serious they would have to cut off this "bible word by word"-guys. Because if you actually believe you got kicked out of a garden because of a lying snake and that the human kind is the product of incest (According to the bible there are a few instances where incest was necessary to allow humans to exist further) than you shouldn't be surprised if you are seen as a nut.
wittyvegan 3 years ago
there's a quote somewhere in the bible (I'm not sure where but I know it exists) that basically says not to take the bible literally. Also is it just me or is it that Creationists selectively use bible quotes?
ConfusedTacos 3 years ago
Who doesn't? ;-)
wittyvegan 3 years ago 5
VEDIC evolution is the best. funny how people create the false dilema of darwinism vs christianity.
Playitalready 3 years ago
rather than argue first hear it out on my channel vids
Playitalready 3 years ago
There is no such quote.
Mishpat91 3 years ago
According to The Church, the bible is not a science book, nor has it ever been considered as one. Scientists ought not teach theology and theogians ought not teach science.
ilovethechurch 3 years ago
So riddle me this: WHY are Christians pushing so hard to get Creationism taught in schools, if it is not a scientific explanation? Why should scientists be forced into teaching theology?
TheAlmightyWario 2 years ago
There is no such verse.
bwatsonbrown 2 years ago
They created the basic elements for live in a laboratory. From there it is only a small step to live. There is a mountain of evidence leading to the evolution and on the other hand there is belief.
And in defense of the teacher: If I explain the same stuff to a guy over and over again then I will get pissed at some point.
wittyvegan 3 years ago
I was planning on being a scientist for a long time and I researched evolutionary biology and astronomy mostly. A community of scientists, professors, school board members, judges, etc, that hate religion really does exist. Me personally I do believe in evolutionary biology but I no longer have the hatred for religious people that I used to have. I'm a former member of this science cult if you can call it that. They need to practice what they preach and not silence opposing views.
christmanpunch 3 years ago
Atleast these nutjobs could be more useful and direct their propoganda campaign of religion replaced by science at Islam. Chrsitianity is no longer the religion or group of people that you need to fear. Christianity has by and large reformed. Islam on ther other hand is like the way Christianity was 500+ years ago during the times of Galileo. If anyone needs to be brainwashed by these "intellectuals" agenda it's the extremely fanatical Muslims.
christmanpunch 3 years ago
really? It wasn't a Muslim who kicked in my best friends door and shot him for wearing "too much black clothing". It was a Christian. Muslims in America aren't trying to destroy science education.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
I'm really sorry for your friend, but if somebody shot him for that reason, he wasn't actually a Christian.
OfTheShire 3 years ago
But he is a tool for the Christian Right...
withoutasong 3 years ago
He actualy WAS a Christian, OfTheShire. He was one that had courage to his convictions. He read his Bible and followed what it says to do to people who don't believe.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
His 'Bible' must be a twisted version, because in Romans 2:1 it says judgement is not ours. For someone to just take matters into their own hands, and go off shooting unbelievers, is just wrong. The Bible doesn't say to do that.
OfTheShire 3 years ago 2
And you are missing the parts where jesus said to take up the sword, to sell their robe if they had to in order to get a sword. You are cherry picking out the part also where Jesus commanded that the non-believers be given a chance to convert, but to put a mill stone around their necks and drown them if they continue to disbelieve.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
If you don't mind, could you tell me just where it says that? I don't remember ever reading something like that.
OfTheShire 3 years ago
Jesus said that? Where? Jeesus!
ajnastarheart 2 years ago
The scientific world in the US is not threatend by Islam but by bible-thumbing christians. Of course the number of radicals among christians is very small but they have a lot of influence.
wittyvegan 3 years ago
Actually modern christianity tends to be more like it was in the 4-8th centuries, very apologetic, intellectual and reflective. I am not speaking of creationism, but of Christianity in general. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have produced great philosophers, theologians and other modern great intellectuals and patrons of the liberal arts.
Por0 3 years ago 3
Liar.
sciencedoggy 3 years ago
I haven't even seen this movie, but from what I hear and read about it (and from various trailers) I can see it is nothing but dogmatic propaganda trying to sympathise with theists to get others to support them; but all this is is ad hominem arguing from the awkward and dronic Ben Stein.
Evolution as a theory itself doesn't entail a theory of the beginning, since that's not what the theory (it's a theory and a fact as well to add) contends. That's what abiogenesis does, as said below :)
SamCocknose 3 years ago
off course evolution doesn't explain the beginning of life, thats the theory of abiogenesis. ben stein is ghey.
Oliphantes 3 years ago
its called a non-life to life. it was spontaneous generation then to abiogenesis. then now they called it biopeosis something so that students dont know that they're advocating the same principle!
gearzone2611 3 years ago
off course evolution doesn't explain the beginning of life. thats the theory of abiogenesis.
Oliphantes 3 years ago
Absolute crap. Period.
learningtoflinch 3 years ago
Amen!
GodoftheGeeks 3 years ago
Yeah! ID is the new hip thing with the kids these days! Who needs Evilution! Science and logic is so old school now! The Bible, God and blind faith is the rave today! Get lost Richard Dawkins, you're an old man with satanic ideas! "Sarcasm"
TheLastKing4 3 years ago 2
Great movie. The whole fanaticism of the atheist evolution propagandists and the ad-hominem unsubstantiated attacks by Mr Richard Dawkins, prove they lack arguments. Something cannot come from Nothing. That is very true and logical. There an Unmoved Mover, as Aristotle said. And yes, Sacred Scripture is true, although fundamentalist Evangelical interpretation of Genesis may be too one-sided too, on the earth's anciennity, micro-evolution, extinction etc.
IustitiaPax 3 years ago
"prove they lack arguments"
It would if that was accurate.
"Something cannot come from Nothing"
You believe in magic, so it works as long as you say "God" did it? Laughable.
"And yes, Sacred Scripture is true"
You'll have to prove it.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
bhaywa1, do you even know about the book "Pandas and People"? Did you see the graph Miller had that showed they simply went through the book and replaced Creation with Intelligent Design after a Federal Court decision??
Did you even know/hear about the Wedge Strategy from the Discovery Institute?
These are the kinds of things people will know when they examine your project over ID. If you fail to address them you will look ignorant.
THAT is why I tell you to argue the points from Miller.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
If you really are working on a project to try and defend your faith in Intelligent Design, you have to catch up to the times. Saying the Dover Trial didn't destroy or cripple ID in any way is just ignorant, and your project will be utterly ignored.
If you show you cant even match current events, your "project" will be useless.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
It never fails. Find a potentially reasonable Theist and they will always disappoint you when it comes to their turn to "put up or shut up".
Every single time, since I first started with these internet debates, not a single one of you has ever been willing to put the same effort in research and truth seeking as anyone who doesn't believe in your Sky Daddy is willing to.
What an expected embarrassment you are.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Ah, here we are.
First off, watch Thunderf00t's "Why People Laugh at Creationists" number 22,23,24 for Stein's propaganda movie related vids.
Now, for your "What do you think" question:
What do you make of Priest Abbe Beranger Sauniere and the Rennes Le Chateau?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
I've not had time or inclination to study either one much at all. Since the resulting stories around both are apparently based on admitted forgeries or deceit, why bother? The one seems to have been stealing from people to perform masses he could not, and did not even intend to do. And the other was hoping to become crowned king of France it seems, or at least make a name for himself as heir to the throne. Both were based on fraud it seems. ...like Lucy, the Nebraska man, and Piltdown man. :-)
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"The one seems to have been stealing from people to perform masses he could not, and did not even intend to do."
Well I'm glad to see your opinion is completely wrong. As you admitted, if you had studied the subject you would have a clue.
As for the "other" you are talking about... I dont have any idea where you got that from. The priest and the chateau are one in the same event in history... not two.
Wow, did you ever fail.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Who said that was my opinion? Everything I know of that was from articles written by other people (ever seen wikipedia for instance???). Since you seem to think it's so important to know about these things then why don't YOU enlighten me... Or is this just another attempt to puff yourself up and try and make someone look bad? You're doing a fine job, except you're the one with mud on your face. Didn't mommy ever teach you that when making others look bad you really make yourself look bad?
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I've not had time or inclination to study either one much at all."
This is why you look ignorant, Creationist.
As you have the time to pose questions but answer none in the same level of detail you expect from me, I wont entertain anything you present.
This is why people laugh at Creationists, kid.
You are an utter, and complete debate failure.
"Oh, uh.. well, I dont have time... yeah"
Uh huh, whatever. I will be waiting for you to keep your word on the other vids though.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
I see. Scientific information doubles every 12 years. General information doubles every 2 1/2 years. So how ignorant are you? Can you keep up with everything? And did I say I was good at debating? More importantly, does winning an argument change the facts? What foolishness! The facts about our existence are true no matter if you or I win a debate on them or not. Besides, in your mind, our existence is a huge mistake anyway. Is that why are you're angry that people disagree with you? Curious...
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I see. Scientific information doubles every 12 years. General information doubles every 2 1/2 years. So how ignorant are you?"
Far less so than you. You havn't gotten out of 2000 year old mysticisms, so how embarrassingly ignorant does that make you?
"Can you keep up with everything? "
You have yet to reach the modern century.
Wake up kid.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
That's fine, I'm content to stay in the future with the truth...
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"That's fine, I'm content to stay in the future with the truth..."
But you arn't in the future, kid. Your sitting in the dark ages worshiping old mysticisms.
By the way, your comments on cadebrown5's channel are interesting. You obviously didn't watch or listen to the Ken Miller lecture, thats obvious.
It will be interesting to see your wiki page. Believing you have something to offer to the ID vs Evo debate is really amusing, and simply betrays your ignorance.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
if your mind is open you may just be surprised...
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"if your mind is open you may just be surprised..."
Do you honestly think I havn't done any work on my own?
Do you think I'm just sitting here and ranting on without any kind of work/reading/research into this subject???
Present what you wish, but you will have to do alot of work to make it stand out to the numerous works of biased opinion. Make it fair and examine all sides, otherwise it will be ignored.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
How many works that you use to prove your faith in evolution are unbiased? Hmmm??? Be honest...
If you're truly honest you know that if a person has any history in a subject at all it is impossible to be truly unbiased. Which is why it's imperative to examine all evidence with an open mind.
So, if the evidence and logic point to a Creator, will you automatically and rudely discount it? Or will you accept the evidence and open your mind to the possibility that Someone chose to create you?
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"How many works that you use to prove your faith in evolution are unbiased? Hmmm??? Be honest..."
Quite a few. Do you count leaving religion and other fairy tales alone completely as unbiased? If not, then you consider forcing your fairy tales on others unbiased?
"Which is why it's imperative to examine all evidence with an open mind. "
EXACTLY.
Thats why these projects take a while to do.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"So, if the evidence and logic point to a Creator, will you automatically and rudely discount it?"
You would have to provide some rather amazing evidence, you do realize that, dont you?
"Or will you accept the evidence and open your mind to the possibility that Someone chose to create you?"
Do you really understand that a true scientist will always have an open mind? They want to be proven wrong because that leads to the truth.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that most everyone in the scientific community wants a little thing called truth.
Can you possibly understand what finally knowing the real truth would mean to the entire world? Can you imagine that glorious day?
It really doesn't matter what the truth is, so long as we find it.
Do you understand that?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Now, with understanding that science seeks truth, what do you think will count as evidence towards that truth?
Religious ceremony? They do nothing but produce feelings. Visions? Usually explainable in terms of psychology or simple physics. A religious text? There is no truth in origins there.
What, then, counts as evidence? Bones? Rock formations? Glacial layers? Sea bed rocks with magnetic alignments? ...if you know what it is and how to interpret it, sure.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
So here you sit, bhaywa1, probably still organizing your thoughts for a project I doubt you will seriously finish.
What things are you going to include to try and prove your point in defending Intelligent Design?
Rocks and bones, or visions and warm fuzzy feelings? Are you going to seek interviews or quote mine? Are you going to list references or make it all opinion?
You have alot of work to do, far more than you may yet realize.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"if your mind is open you may just be surprised..."
Honestly, dont you realize that if you can prove the existence of a god it would be the first step to uniting the world in a new age of peace?
What you have to realize is the level of validation for that proof is something no one has ever even come close to getting ahold of. Why? Well thats obvious, and a long topic for another talk.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
I'm going to ask you, bhaywa1, is YOUR mind open to being fair and going to where the actual evidence leads you, no matter what?
Will you actually post your findings against ID if it should come out that way? Are you going to be fair and impartial, or just offer another willfully ignorant piece of propaganda with little or no truth behind it?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
If you want to call Him God, that's fine. But I'm not trying to prove God exists. Only to show that He's MUCH more likely. The evidence is certainly much stronger than the level of legitimate validation that has been given for evolution. But that hasn't stopped those who have faith in blind luck and improbable suppositions.
Evolution's foundation is riddled with assumptions that cannot be proven. And teaching as fact such biased speculation is not science. It's hypocritical and unscientific.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"If you want to call Him God, that's fine. But I'm not trying to prove God exists."
Damn kid, come on. You are trying to defend your support of Intelligent Design. God comes after that, if at all.
Please try to keep up with the debate.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"The evidence is certainly much stronger than the level of legitimate validation that has been given for evolution"
Thats an invalid use of the word "evidence". Evidence is not a vision, warm fuzzy feelings, or an old book everyone knows has been rewritten at least in part over the centuries.
Do you even know what evidence applies to debates like these???
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"Evolution's foundation is riddled with assumptions that cannot be proven. And teaching as fact such biased speculation is not science. It's hypocritical and unscientific."
First of all, no its not.
Second, what is your alternative? Fairy tales??!? HA!! What, Magic Man is better somehow? Thats MORE scientific??!? HAHAHAHA!!!
Come on now. This is the part where you guys ALWAYS fail. You call evolution "unscientific" but then you try to turn around and use RELIGION!!
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
I'll leave you to it kid.
Many Theists have promised to examine some vids and PM me back with responses. All of them have lied.
I dont believe you will keep your word either, but feel free to be the first and show you can keep your word... after you have watched them.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"I don't shrink away from the debate. I actually enjoy it because I know I can learn something from everyone, even those who hold a different opinion than I do, and my opinion may change as I follow the evidence."
Good. Dont let me down kid, watch the 2 hour Ken Miller post-Dover trial lecture. Watch all three featured playlists on my channel.
If you are still a Creationist at the end of it, feel free to PM me why, and cite specifics. I'll add it to my project.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Guess I've just never seen someone so insecure in their own position that they regressed to calling names and smearing so quickly. Don't worry, I will post the URL here so you can check it out. And though I haven't watched the movie on your channel yet, I will. See, I don't shrink away from the debate. I actually enjoy it because I know I can learn something from everyone, even those who hold a different opinion than I do, and my opinion may change as I follow the evidence.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Guess I've just never seen someone so insecure in their own position that they regressed to calling names and smearing so quickly."
Insecure? No, I'm not going to waste my time beating around the bush.
Creationists arn't worthy of any level of respect. You believe in thousands of years of fairy tales... you deserve mockery, nothing less.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
wow. that's scientific isn't it. kinda proves Ben's point once more. It will be interesting to see your response in a few years when the theory of evolution has slithered back down the drain to the ooze that it was pulled up from. It's a faulty, failed, and dying theory. Just as the notion that the world was flat, or that we're the center of the universe. I seem to remember hearing that those who "knew better" persecuted those who discovered or said otherwise then also.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Just as the notion that the world was flat, or that we're the center of the universe"
Exactly-science disproved those, but until it did, they were perfectly reasonable conclusions.
If you can actually think about it, the world does look flat. How would a culture 4000 years old know any better? Oh right, they develop their science and continue to question everything and eventually find the truth.
Science finds truth, not religion.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Lost ability to post briefly...
"...the world does look flat. How would a culture 4000 years old know any better?"
Many ancient civilizations did know that the world was round, that it was traveling around the sun, etc. But perhaps we can't count them since they believed in religion also.
I have a question for you, just slightly off subject: how do you, personally, explain the literally hundreds of apparently man-made metal objects like bowls, cups, tools, etc., found in coal beds?
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"how do you, personally, explain the literally hundreds of apparently man-made metal objects like bowls, cups, tools, etc., found in coal beds?"
PM me a link to anand I'll do something I doubt youhave practiced much: research and examine the subject from every source I can find.
Since we are playing the "what do you think" game, I'll have something for you later too.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"Many ancient civilizations did know that the world was round, that it was traveling around the sun, etc. "
Prove it. Which ones are you talking about? What methods did they use to validate that opinion?
And no, it is only until recently that having no real religion was unusual. Didn't you know that? So no, religion doesn't negate a conclusion automatically. Its all about how one arrives at those conclusions that prove validity.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Just as I thought, Bhaywa1, you lied to me.
You couldn't keep your word about getting back to me on those vids.
Way to fail. You met my expectations of every other internet Creationist child out there.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Actually I just have things to do that are more important than showing the truth to those who are purposefully ignorant of the facts and who prove their insecurity by resorting to condescension and petty name calling against anyone who holds a different belief, including those with valid and damning evidence against the flagrant denial of common sense that you put your faith in. Your precious video will see a response from me in due time, after I've researched the facts.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Actually I just have things to do that are more important..."
Please, cry more, will you kid? You said you would and just like everyone else, you lied because your feelings were hurt.
You fail.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
You're really embarrassing yourself...
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"including those with valid and damning evidence against the flagrant denial of common sense"
You have no evidence of a Magical Man creating the Dust Man and Rib Woman.
Big and tough words for a small, frightened Creationist.
Come now, if you think you have evidence, prove it.
You wont examine anything of mine because you dont have the time. This excuse just shows you dont have anything to offer, just your opinions.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Someone suggested a couple of days ago that you should make sure you know what you're talking about before making claims. I've already replied to you about the farce of a video you had me watch. And as I told you earlier, I'll reply with a detailed and logical rebuttal once I've had the time to do it properly. I know what (and who) I'm facing, have nothing to be afraid of.
What do you imagine me to be frightened of? I've heard that people see in others what they refuse to see in themselves.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I've already replied to you about the farce of a video you had me watch."
Then refute every point he made.
Making up a lie to get out of actually watching it just makes you look even more like a fanatic.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
hmmm...sounds familiar. oh ya! that's exactly what i said i was going to do isn't it?
so let me ask you this: are you going to give me time to actually do that? or are you going to start calling me names and accusing me of lying in a couple of days because i haven't finished yet?
just asking, cause that's the pattern you've displayed so far.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"so let me ask you this: are you going to give me time to actually do that?"
Now that you've found a way to make it interesting to you so that you would actually do something rather than make wild claims, sure. Take as long as you need.
I'm simply not going to bet on you actually getting it done based on your attitude.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"so let me ask you this: are you going to give me time to actually do that? "
Also, why oh why do you fools think I dont want to hear your version of "prof" and "evidence"??
That is EXACTLY what I've been waiting for.
It really is frustrating when you guys simply dont get that.
Of course I'll be here when you get that done, I'll be continuing my own project in the mean time.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Now, bhaywa1, for your site:
If you are going to be talking about ID, be prepared to get questions on all major points the Discovery Institute brought up at the trial, and how they were all destroyed: clotting, and Irreducible Complexity for example.
Why did major DI staff not show up to the Dover trial? What about the Wedge document? Etc etc. I really hope you can prove you know what research is.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
ID was not destroyed in the Dover trial. The arguments against clotting and irreducibly complexity, for example, were illogical and foolish, and i will be happy to give logical answers to those rediculous arguments. But as i've mentioned before, winning an argument does not change the facts or the truth.
I find it curious, however, that you insist i answer EVERY point that Miller gives in his video, but you conveniently refuse to answer some of the questions i've posed to you. Why not???
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"ID was not destroyed in the Dover trial. "
Yes it was, kid. The Discovery Institute proposed their claims and tried to validate their idea of Intelligent Design. Real scientists shows the fools how their ideas were not valid and how the real science debunked their claims supporting their push to put religion in schools.
You lied, either out of willful ignorance or arrogance. I told you to debate what Ken Miller said because his points destroyed the DI fools in the trial.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
I guess, like all the rest, I have to make the point that the outcome of the trial doesn't matter.
Thats exactly why I point people to the Ken Miller lecture. Its what happened during the trial that matters.
You obviously missed the times when Miller goes over the points the fools that showed up to defend the Discovery Institutes religious push of Intelligent Design tried to use in its defense.
Did you miss it or just ignore it?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"but you conveniently refuse to answer some of the questions i've posed to you. Why not???"
I'm ignoring your questions and leaving this argument alone, like you wanted, so you could finish your wiki or whatever it is you are going to be doing.
Why are you wasting time comeing back here?? Are you giving up already? Why did you ignore my questions on fairness regarding your project??
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"And as I told you earlier, I'll reply with a detailed and logical rebuttal once I've had the time to do it properly. I know what (and who) I'm facing, have nothing to be afraid of."
Good, then I'll enjoy watching you repeat dead arguments and fallacies in the name of your Magic Man in the Clouds. You claim to live in the future?? HA!!
I dont suppose this logical rebuttal will have any kind of evidence to actually support your conclusions? It better.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"It will be interesting to see your response in a few years when the theory of evolution has slithered back down the drain to the ooze that it was pulled up from"
Funny that you and Stein mock what Evolution doesn't even deal with when you yourselves believe that our race started with a dust man and rib woman.
Evolution doesn't say anything about life until it was already here.
Awesome job proving yourself to be a hypocrite.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Also, when you are done watching Ken Millers 2 hour lecture, if you still believe in your fairy tales, go on to that channel and post "There is no proof for macroevolution", I would love to see that too.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"And though I haven't watched the movie on your channel yet, I will."
Thats what they all say. They have all lied.
Like hundreds before you, I invite you to send me a PM with your response after you are done watching it.
I have yet to receive even one, even with stating that I wouldn't bother to debate their opinion if they didn't want to be argued.
So, I will await your PM response to the lecture bhaywa1, if you can actually keep your word and watch it.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
That's cool... I've bookmarked your site. But keep in mind it usually takes me a while to do my research because I don't simply post a quick response. I actually examine the evidence instead of making quick claims.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I actually examine the evidence instead of making quick claims."
I doubt that. I think you might well examine things, but you certainly dont take them to heart and really consider them. I believe you simply ignore what you dont like and then claim to have "examined" it.
Its hard to take people like you seriously. After all, you believe the world was created 6000 years ago and we are a product of a dust man and rib women practicing in-breeding for thousands of years.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
ThatOneQ: you've provided quite a basis for a web site I am developing. I'm not going to write another book because there are plenty out there already that effectively discredit significant and fundamental points to the theory of evolution. But your dialog shows clearly what Ben is describing in his movie. Ignorance is one thing. Honest and direct questions/research is good and healthy. Blatant and intentional propagation of ignorance is a crime. The truth hurts, huh? To bad you can't take it.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I'm not going to write another book because there are plenty out there already that effectively discredit significant and fundamental points to the theory of evolution"
Oh, you think a Creationist hand book has actually stood any kind of scientific test??
HAHAHA!!!!
Now THAT was funny again! You should be a stand up comedian!
"Blatant and intentional propagation of ignorance is a crime"
Thats why this movie is failing on a global scale.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Kid,you really must be one of the most ignorant and deceitful people around, next to Stein and the producers of this propaganda movie.
You need to watch the full 2 hour lecture by Ken Miller. I know you havn't, but you say you prize intelligence and research. Have at it kid.
Also, examine the three playlists I have featured in my channel, they will address much of your ignorance.
You are a true intellectual embarrassment. Please, educate yourself.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
See, kid? You just proved you are actually arguing for religion, not science.
"I'll watch you burn, sinner!!"
Thats what you just said.
What a pathetic, sad little child you are. Angry and confused, lost in your fairy tales.
Yes, thats all ID is, a platform for religion. And you just proved it.
You are a joke, kid. Try educating yourself, wont you?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Oh, and if you think you can debate any of what Ken Miller said, go to the 2 hour lecture channel and start posting. I would love to see that, kid.
Come on, prove you have a clue, Theist.
I dare you.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
LOL You are quite entertaining. I'm normally on the observing side of these arguments, so it's interesting to watch someone try to put words in my mouth, and get quite hot around the collar in the process. I find your posts to be quite entertaining and It's good to see I'm also striking a chord or two. It helps prove a point I didn't even set out to prove...but one Ben made clear in the movie. I'm amused, not angry (that seems to be you). Nor am I confused or unsure of myself. Try again.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"You are quite entertaining"
As you are, silly Creationist!
You claim you have knowledge, you claim you have intelligence, you claim you've done "meticulous research". How does it feel to lie in every post you make?
You obviously havn't done much of any research. Your points are old and dead.
True research examines points on all sides, not just from your Creationist web sites.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
You know. I thought perhaps we could have some good "rational" discussion here. I have not lied once. And I have carefully considered the evidence from all sides (even beyond the two we've been discussing)...something you apparently choose not to do. You claim I lie, yet give no proof. You claim the evidence that disproves your theory is lies, again without any proof or discussion. You are, as you claim creationists are, an arrogant and hypocritical child, troubled by the truth and lashing out.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"You know. I thought perhaps we could have some good "rational" discussion here"
Rational discussion, coming from a Creationist?? HAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!
Oh THAT was funny, kid!! Please, tell me another one!
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"And I have carefully considered the evidence from all sides"
Blatant lie. You havn't done any real research, nor have you even stayed current with modern science.
Dont lie to my face, kid.
"You claim I lie, yet give no proof"
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You dont have anything but your faith, and that isn't evidence. You have less than nothing: opinion.
I dont need proof to talk to Creationists like you. YOu wouldn't look at it anyway.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"again without any proof or discussion"
Stop lying to my face, kid.
I told you exactly where to find it: the Ken Miller 2 hour lecture and all three of my playlists.
ESPECIALLY examine the 24 some playlist "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series by Thunderf00t. Look at that one first, like I've said, you will get an education.
Your proof is in those playlists. Go get learned, hillbilly.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
I have watched the "why people laugh at creationists" and found IT to be laughable. Yes, there are some wacky and screwed up creationists just as there are some wacky and screwed up evolutionists, ID folk, etc. But are we talking about facts or the people? Personally, I'm talking about the facts. I'll argue facts with anyone, something you seem afraid to do. Like Ben said, just mention ID and you're off on a rant attacking the person's credibility, honesty, etc.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I have watched the "why people laugh at creationists" and found IT to be laughable"
You claim you have watched all 24 and found it to be laughable? What is? The people Thunderf00t is destroying or his arguments?
Explain yourself.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"You are, as you claim creationists are, an arrogant and hypocritical child, troubled by the truth and lashing out."
Truth? A Creationist speaking of truth against science? Oh thats rich!!
You are the hypocrite for claiming to have done research and being fair when you admit to being a Creationist.
Way to fail, kid.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Its not a documentary, its propaganda. Every step they took was full of lies and deceit.
What a failure of a "movie" too. The audience I was with couldn't stop laughing at their pathetic tactics.
This movie is a joke.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Yes, laughter and ridicule is one form of dealing with things that people are too embarrassed to address. Another way is to get angry (as Dr. Dawkins has apparently done). Are you afraid to examine the evidence? Are you afraid of where it will take you?
When you examine the actual evidence (instead of automatically assuming it [either side] is false, as you have apparently done), you might just change your mind about a few things.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Are you afraid to examine the evidence?"
You have no evidence for proving ID isn't religion, nor for anything supported in the movie.
You dont look around do you? There are many interviews with Meyers later on that destroy some of the points. Its great to watch... but you havn't seen them now have you? Too comfortable in your lies?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
no evidence? really? I've seen lots of it! and ya, I've spent a lot of time examining it, and both sides of the debate. from the evidence I've studied there is more evidence supporting intelligent design than random chance. if you're at all educated then you know that the functions and "design" of even the simplest living cell is thousands of times more complex than the most intricate pocket watch we've managed to create. yet I'm to believe that we all began by chance in some primordial soup???
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"from the evidence I've studied there is more evidence supporting intelligent design than random chance"
Well there is some obvious fallacy and bias. Its not "random chance", first of all.
You fail, kid.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"When you examine the actual evidence (instead of automatically assuming"
And here is where you fail. You are guilty of the assumptions, little boy.
Check my channel and go to the Intelligent Design playlist.
Why dont you educate yourself with the truth about the lies in this movie?
Silly, silly Creationist trash.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
This movie IS a failure, and not only that but it is hastening the awareness and demise of the Creationist propaganda known as "Intelligent Design".
ID was destroyed in the Dover trial. "That is an answer from authority fallacy" -WRONG. It doesn't matter what the verdict is. What matters is how soundly every single point the Discovery Institute brought up was annihilated by actual science.
Watch the 2 hour Ken Miller lecture featured in my channel. Please, educate yourself. Embarrassing.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Yes, Ken Miller is quite embarrassing isn't he. I will feel sorry for people like him when they eventually bend the knee to the Truth. Besides, a trial can't destroy the truth. Some day the facts will be made perfectly clear for all to see, and I can't wait for that day. But of course I don't have anything to be scared of. After all, if I'm wrong and you're right, we'll all just be dead anyway. You have a lot more to lose than I do it seems, because your pride is all that you have. How sad...
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Yes, Ken Miller is quite embarrassing isn't he."
Explain yourself, kid.
"a trial can't destroy the truth."
Yup, you fell for it, fool.
The outcome doesn't matter. Didn't you read what I said, kid? Its what happened during the trial that matters.
Wow, you really are willfully ignorant arn't you? I bet your mind just glossed over that part in my last comment, didn't it?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
That's called sarcasm. Get it? You use it a lot so I figured you'd recognize it.
So, what exactly was it you're referring to that happened during the trial? I'm at a loss to figure out what specifically you're referring to. After all, I haven't evolved to the point that I can read minds yet. (more sarcasm, just in case you missed it)
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"So, what exactly was it you're referring to that happened during the trial?"
Research it and find out kid, I dont hold Creationists hands through it anymore.
If you cant do the work, you arn't worth the time.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"Some day the facts will be made perfectly clear for all to see, and I can't wait for that day."
Ohhhh passive aggressive threats hinting at sadistic tendencies. You are a piece of work, just like the rest of you foolish Creationists.
"After all, if I'm wrong and you're right, we'll all just be dead anyway. ...your pride is all that you have"
Talk about pride, you think you are chosen of your Sky Daddy. See? Religion. You couldn't help bring it up right? I thought this was about ID? HA
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Hmm. Who fell for what? My point is that, since there is no solid, provable evidence for either theory, we're left with only circumstantial evidence. and there is absolutely no reason why they should not both be taught. there is evidence that could possibly support either theory. and ID (without calling the designer "God) is no more "religion" than Evolution. Even Dawkins suggests that "someone" could have planted life here. and you're still without ANY evidence of macroevolutionary process.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"Hmm. Who fell for what? "
I guess I was right for the second time, you apparently dont read my comments.
I'm not going to repeat myself, go back and read it... then think, real hard.
"My point is that, since there is no solid, provable evidence for either theory"
A lie out of ignorance is still a lie.
"and ID (without calling the designer "God) is no more "religion" than Evolution"
Blatant lie, and a great example of pure intellectual dishonesty.
ID is religion, no doubt.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"Even Dawkins suggests that "someone" could have planted life here."
Guess what-he was talking about extra-terrestrials.
And guess what again? They would of had to grow and evolve as well. Nothing supernatural about that. You are putting words into HIS mouth now.
"and you're still without ANY evidence of macroevolutionary process."
You are a Creationist, why would I care what you think you know about proof? You are obviously wrong, if you admit it or not.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
The "trash" big boy is in trying to make evidence fit a theory instead of following the evidence to where it actually leads. This is something that modern "science", in it's attempt to validate a well postulated but fatally flawed theory, simply does not do. I have seen time after time where actual evidence is covered up or "tainted" to try to make it fit the evolution model. Examples? "Missing links" like Lucy. Irrespective of this movie, the evidence is clear for anyone man enough to face it.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"from the evidence I've studied there is more evidence supporting intelligent design than random chance"
Exactly what Theists do. You support ID, you are a Theist.
You arn't interested in fact. You arn't interested in honesty.
You are a Creationist trying to pass your crap off as science.
Tell me, did you even research what happened in the Dover trial?
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
because i support ID i'm a theist? your logic sucks old man. typical, unfortunately. I could point you to a few atheists who believe in ID but you wouldn't care.
and, to put my cards on the table, I am a confirmed creationist, based on the evidence. i would be a fool not to be (and, like you, ignore the facts to try to justify my choice). fortunately, after years of meticulous research, many honest scientists are choosing to stand up for the truth rather than protect lies they've discovered.
bhaywa1 3 years ago
"I could point you to a few atheists who believe in ID but you wouldn't care."
Oh please do! I would love to hear how people who dont believe gods exist would turn around and say that evolution isn't possible and attribute our existence to an "intelligent designer".
Talk about a failure of logic!
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"I am a confirmed creationist, based on the evidence"
Then you havn't been looking hard enough.
"fortunately, after years of meticulous research, many honest scientists are choosing to stand up for the truth rather than protect lies they've discovered."
What, in dust men and rib women? You just lied to my face there, kid.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
You two should get a room....
ajnastarheart 2 years ago
How has it been proved? It's a theory.
One that has not been repeated, or is supported by the fossil record.
So how has it been proved?
breakfastisready 3 years ago
There COULD be an intelligent designer? Yes. And it could be Satan. Why not Satan, christians? Why not, oh, I don't know..... The Flying Spageti Monster?
Paranormal phenomena has no place on science studies!
rockandrorro 3 years ago
one word: retard.
Maybe do some research before trying to sound smart.
Moviemanev 3 years ago
They would rather just parrot variations of what Dawkins says.... that way they don't have to think.
BTW - did you see the movie rock?
The interview with Dawkins alone is worth the price of admission! It's hilarious.
Did you see the movie?
breakfastisready 3 years ago
Darwinism was created without scientific process. And yes there is evidence to support intelligent design. The problem with main stream science is that they disregard it without considering any evidence.
Do not be stupid. Science is to question and challenge our perception of our surroundings, not to silence plausible ideas.
kageb0shl 3 years ago