Who is this guy talking to Ben Stein?There's no substance to what this guy's saying. He's not even able to speak in scientific terms. "Something" and "Nothing" are not terms that scientists would use. How can you claim to have a scientific argument when it's not even scientifically clear what you're saying? Just a lot of cleches.
Nothing as in No-Thing. No single thing being distinguishable from another. No-thing not the lack of anything. Just the lack of matter that is essential to our illusion of life and death.
I am not sure why evolution was tied in so much to this video, or what the creator is trying to show/prove by there ill informed comments.
@glendaweil Hint: Scientists don't distinguish macro-evolution and micro-evolution because there is NO KNOWN BARRIER between the two. When creationists are asked to provide a reason for such a barrier they fall back on "well, I've never seen a _____ turn into a _____." This is empirical evidence that creationists don't understand evolution, nor do they try to.
@zetronman You are the one who does not understand micro givin mllions of years supposidly gives you macro so they are clearly different if it were a Zero sum game which it is not.
@glendaweil What is the barrier that prevents "macro-evolution"? Surely if such a thing existed we would have a name for it and understand it? I've never seen it, but perhaps you should google "observed instances of speciation" which is in effect what scientists consider "macro evolution" (though, you'll probably just tell me that it doesn't count because of some reason). Which is why I will again ask you to tell me the barrier between micro and macro evolution.
@glendaweil Nice try, but you'd have to prove punctuated equilibrium first which is (shocker) a theory that completely accepts evolution as true. Most researchers seem to think phyletic gradualism is more likely. How this can be construed as a limiting factor to macro evolution indicated a lack of even a rudimentary grasp of evolutionary theory. I did see some website where Christians were misapplying the term, so I assume that's where this argument came from?
@glendaweil Genetic homeostasis generally means that micro evolution is not even happening. There will be some diversity in the population; however it can't be considered any sort of evolution because there is no overall change in the species, like there is even with "micro evolution." Again, scientists make no distinction between the two, so when genetic homeostasis is used as a reason for why speciation doesn't occur, the biologist has to scratch their head a bit at that.
@glendaweil Right, it is a distinction creationists make, but it isn't a real distinction because what we observe in what you would call "micro evolution" has no genetic barrier to being "macro evolution"...which again, is why that distinction is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. So I'll ask you again, by what method are mutations limited so that macro evolution or speciation isn't able to occur? Keep in mind, we've observed speciation. So that must also be explained.
@zetronman It is a real distinction macro is used also to decribe ape to man evolution this cannot be proven and never will be so a polar bear maybe evolved into a grizzly bear ok but they still bears you can call that macro all day but that to me is micro evolution on a sideways tangent if you will macro where you define it one way you then use in a broad manner to encompass everything proven or not.
@glendaweil What would it take to prove that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor? Because we can map the genomes and determine when they split based on genome markers. This does not imply a "common designer" because many of the genes we have in common are in non-coding regions of DNA as well as deficiencies, such as being unable to product vitamin C (like most animals can do). The genetic evidence is overwhelming to the point you can only deny it out of ignorance.
@glendaweil There is no other reason that non-coding or broken genes would be passed on. The nested hierarchy made predictions based on morphological similarities that indicated there should be genetic similarities as well; based on the distribution of differences. The genetic data lined up perfectly. If God was the creator, then it makes no sense that things would have the superficial and genetic similarities tied together in this way. So yes, it does mean we are related.
@glendaweil What I'm describing isn't mysterious at all. So, either god is a liar and created the appearance of genetic relation and common descent, or evolution has occurred and common descent as we understand it today is fairly accurate. I think maybe you are not aware of the overwhelming genetic evidence we have to support common descent. But, maybe you should take up theistic evolution. There are plenty of Christians who support evolution based on the evidence. Like William Craig
@glendaweil 2 words, 2 different meanings.... Ok so tell me if it is macro or micro evolution between polar bear and grizzlie, or between Asian Elephant and African Elephant, between a bird and another bird... Because this is evolution, and different species...
You don't understand the limitation of the meaning, micro evolution is used inside the same species, and macro when they cannot reproduce or interbreed...
@MattleSystem It is still a bear still elephants still birds so why should we believe that givin a million years these creatures will not still be bears elephants and birds, not magiclly transfom into a snail or a human or a whale.
@glendaweil The evolution is not magic! God is magic! By the way, the macro evolution is used to separate two species and even if they look like the same, they are different and we can talk about big changes.
This is the speciation. The problem is that you misunderstand the concept and you believe that a fish gave a birth to a frog, then to a bird then to a human which is stupid.
The separation of species leads to separation of genome and can lead to physical transformation.
In your concept of "look like" we can then consider grizzlies and polar bear as bear, birds as birds, fishes as fishes (what ever the form of the different animals). If they are bigger of smaller, they are the same.
So in that case, why would you make a difference between primates and primates...I mean Apes and Humans. They are just a bit more hairy, such as a thona is a bit bigger than a golden fish...
@MattleSystem What an idiotic statment I never said or do I believe a fish gave birth to a frog on the contrary I believe a fish will always produce fish and frogs tadpoles that develpe into oh guess what FROGS so lets despense with the stupidiy.
@glendaweil "these creatures will not still be bears elephants and birds, not magiclly transfom into a snail or a human or a whale." , this is how you interprete Evolution. Yes you did say that! This is your idiotic statement, the creationist statement to disprove Evolution. As I said, you misunderstand the concept, the complete theory?
What about ur look like thesis and my proposition? because if a fish is stll a fish, only one first fish was needed and then Evolution did the rest
Evolution is One Thing. The Big Bang is Another. It is funny to see THESE IDIOTS Talking About (Science?) Poor creationist Are So TERRIFIED of Losing believers!
the scientific community ARE NOT AFRAID of ANYTHING. Creationist are so Deluded that they believe RELIGION is SCIENCE! RELIGION IS NO SCIENCE AT ALL!
You seem to be asking for a lot of stupid transitional fossils. First of, nothing went directly from fish to reptile. It went from fish to amphibian to reptile.
And you want a middle fossil from armadillo to an elephant? Right, how about a fucking kangaroo?
why? his scientific acumen would be weaker than my 5 year old's. he babbles about evolution and the big bang, conflates the teo and clearly has made not the slightest attempt to understand either. he did get paid well to make his vulgar little film though.
his partner here RC Sproul also knows zip about the topic under "discussion" he's the author of the mindnumbingly tedious "the holiness of god". we await the folowup "the purpleness of unicorns". god help them both....
he's very smart. but you dont need to be a genius to laugh at these two ignoramuses talking about subjects they\ve never bothered to learn about. where's the name calling? steins film IS a pack of lies from start to finish- so no name calling there, and spouls book is the most turgid boring tome I've ever seen. my joke follow up pokes fun at the vacuity of his subject matter- no name calling there.
you get the impression these two have never read a single science text. my only point
@saynotodarwin I'll make it simple. I won't threaten ten you with hell, if you are frightened of terror, bu I will explain it to you as simply as I can.
Evilution is implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection. It's inevitable, unavoidable, logically necessary, it's true because of the meaning of the words, it's a priori true.
That ALL emperical evidence supports it, and I do mean ALL, is a bonus, but emperical evidence isn't necessary at all. It violates no laws.
If your definition of nothing matched with "something that we can't see", you should take this into account. it is know since 1905, Energy can create matter! So Big Bang is not something coming from nothing, this is Matter coming from Energy!.
We know how to do the chain reaction in the other way today, we still look for "Creation of matter" from energy. Your god is just a physical data and not a guy in sky!
To creationists out there. Imagine yourself talking to a flat earther. You try to explain the concept of a spherical earth, but they just don't listen. They quote the wisdom of Herodotus, and tell you that a spherical earth is "just a theory". You give them evidence, and they dismiss it outright because a 2500 year old text is obviously more trustworthy than your meagre proof. What would you think of their intelligence? Well, that's what its like talking to you.
No! But what's dull are your comments on the video. For Evolution to be true it would have to violate certain scientific laws, and that is what is being explined by Stein and Sproul in this video. It's a market place of ideas, REMEMBER! When evolution finds its back against the wall its proponents resort to verbal terror tactics!!!!
@theonewayroad01 you asked jonas086 "Hi what natural laws does Evolution violates?"
.
If he ever replies I predict he will cite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which only applies in closed systems - earth is an open system), possibly Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis (which only applies to individual organisms over the span of their lifetime). He will then blab about something from nothing (ignoring the fact that the singularity was everything). Or he'll simply declaim "It's Impossible"!
@jona7068@jona7068 I'll make it simple. I won't threaten ten you with hell, if you are frightened of terror, bu I will explain it to you as simply as I can.
Evilution is implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection. It's inevitable, unavoidable, logically necessary, it's true because of the meaning of the words, it's a priori true.
That ALL emperical evidence supports it, and I do mean ALL, is a bonus, but emperical evidence isn't necessary at all. It violates no laws.
Ben Stein looks like the biggest, fattest, dullest looking human toad I have ever seen. How can a man of such obvious intelligence be so clueless?? It's like he's desperately trying to match up his intellect with his physical appearance.
I have always wondered something: Cant people like Ben Stein read? They make a documentary, without reading and knowing what they are critizing in the first place?`What a moron.
Add up the chances of you existing, and you are an impossibility; only you ARE here! If your dad hadn't got that job...and your mum hadn't beem on THAT bus...etc etc over thousands of past generations! More than 1 in a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 at least! ('Chanceists' love BIG numbers!)
What's the chances of my cat sitting EXACTLY where it is now at THIS very time? (One of billions of positions/times...if HIS mum and HIS dad...etc) 'Chance' is bollocks!!
Ad hominem attacks, like calling those with whom you disagree, whether it's Stein or others, "stupid," "moron," etc doesn't invalidate their points. This is the basic strategy most atheists & others who disagree with Expelled, ID or religion in general, have used as counter arguments. What's exactly wrong with Stein's points? The basic premise of Expelled is that, despite what its proponents say, materialist based science has been unable to answer many of the pertinent questions of our existence
Are you that much of a fool to think that we should know everything about the universe right now? So we don't know how life was formed or how the universe was formed. Does that mean a God did it?
(comment has nothing to do with evolution) actually chance HAS power. you know if you start "asking why" and following the line of actions and reactions you will reach the subatomic level where ALL we have is chance and randomness
I watched the entire 3 videos of this interview. They're not talking about animal evolution most of the time, but the universe and many related topics in general. Your misrepresentation of what they're talking about and putting false words in their mouths is typical childish youtube crap I'm getting tired of seeing. A number of good points were brought up by them that science has no answer for (nor ever will). And "natural selection" is an imperfect system for selecting DNA errors. CHANCE!
when there is a mutation in an animal it can be positive, negitive, or have no effect.
when there is a negitive effect the animal will not live as long, not be able to breed as much, give fewer offspring and slowly fades away, while a positive effect lets the animal live longer, have more offspring.
mutations that have a positive effect are naturaly selected for, it is anything but chance.
Don't tell the so called scienctist that man walled with mammoths for they will be looking out side to see some for they believe everything they are told.
To whom ever made this clip, if you was going to cut down creationism by this here clip. You just made a good film supporting creationism. All the creationism are cheering for you now.
Oh yea, try to get someone else besides R. C. Sproul to try to take him out of context for he is very factual.
What belief system? Neither Atheism or Evolution is a belief system.
The bible is completely accurate?
Well then why does it claim that Pi is a round number, when it´s not.
The earth is flat, when it´s not.
That mud can create humans, when (you guessed it) it doesn`t!
Science as we know it didn't even exist when the Bible was written. It's absurd to expect a document (or a library of documents) to meet standards that it was not intended to meet.
You must be kidding or stupid or both Atheism and Evolution are not belief systems...why don't you read Hitler's Meikampf and become less stupid...and read the history of the soviet union ...Stallin preferably and stop being stupid...think for yourself...
what i dont get is that you can do whatever you want like saying a monkey is 47 million years old and get away with it as evidence for evolution....yet you were using inaccurate way of finding out how it was so old and yet ben stein is so right! we mention that something might not have come out of nothing for a REASON we get thrown out of the comunity.
how sad.....how stupid.....how judgemental...
oh wait....wasnt that something used to discribe creationists?
pretty much evolution is just as likely as if someone smashing a watch into a thousand pieces burying all the pieces, and then a thousand years later someone unburys it and its comse back together on its own, and works. so do you think thats more likely or that there's and all powerful God that creatied you and everything around you
The story goes take a watch and smash it into a thousand pieces and then put it in a bage and shack it for a 1,000 years and it will reassemble it's self.
i would like to see proof that the Mesopotamian civilization began more than 6,000 years ago, because in the encyclopedia of Mesopotamian history that i read, there is no proof these people existed more than 6,000 years ago. but don't listen to historians, the simpsons and family guy know best. and how do you know those paintings are 50000+ years old? by carbon dating? there's no c14 in wall paintings - doesn't matter! the government school system told me so!
call it whatever you want to call it, they all work the same way, it's still flimsy guesswork
i actually didn't watch the video. my brother left the first comment you replied to under my screen name by accident, and i was finishing the conversation for him. as for the "einstein conspiracy", i don't know enough about it to say if it's true or not, but you should never cancel something out just because it's not the kind of thing you're used to hearing of. im just saying to keep an open mind
you can tell yourself i have no clue all you want, ive spent countless mind numbing hours learning about this crap in public schools, but you're the one with vast knowledge of both sides because you often take the time to learn about it, right? don't make me throw up
im a conspiracy nut because i dont automatically disregard something because its something i haven't heard of before? i didn't know einstein, who knows what he did with his free time? i didn't say its true i said keep an open mind
If your knowledge of science doesn't extend beyond public education, then you are likely a scientific illiterate. Grade school curricula are not enough to develop a valid, scientific, opposition to confirmed scientific theory.
That is why there are videos all over youtube exposing the appalling ignorance of Ben Stein. He is a scientific illiterate. Anti-evolutionists are either religious fanatics, scientific illiterates, or some appalling combination of the two. They just don't get it.
they're both faith-based, now stop eating up this pseudo-science propaganda like its a breakfast cereal and start thinking for yourself. i began questioning evolution at the tender age of 13 (and no i was not raised religious) and i haven't looked back.
there is equally good evidence for both of them, its just a mater of how you view the evidence. evolution and creation use the same essential evidence to prove their points because both are using the same planet. you're just too comfortable in your ignorance to think past what the media and government-run schools have been pounding into your head your whole life. but i know how you feel. i was there once
What the hell are you talking about. I learned this stuff in school, not by reading newspapers. There is no such thing as how you view the evidence. If u think that then you don't know what the word evidence means. ID is based on assumpstions, assumptions that can not be tested or verified, or falsified. Evolution is based on empirical data and 150 years of research. Did you know that aeroplanes get designed using evolutionary theory? You really should get an education, and stop ranting bullshit
And they are not both faithbased. Man you just repeat stupid stuff other creationists say. Educate yourself and stop acting as if you know what the hell science is, because you don't. Faith based means based on assumption without evidence. Evolution is not an assumption, and it has been verified so many times, it is the most solid scientific theory we have today.
You say evolution is incorrect. What evidence do you base that claim on? I'll bet you have none. come on now. prove me wrong, lol
you know, i thought about dignifying that with logic, but i can see its not worth it. you have your idea set in stone and you don't even care what the other side says because you don't want to hear it.
It is not my idea you moron. It is the foundational truth of modern science. You think evidence is a matter of opinions, and that everyday people are qualified to judge if scientific theories are valid or not. They are not. The Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence. If you have evidence to disprove evolution, then fine present it. But if you do not, your opinion is useless and ignorant. To put it simply. I trust empirical evidence and 150 years of research over your opinion any day.
If you actually watch the entire video of this interview RC Sproul explains that the word chance is being abused when talking about the origin of the universe and the first living cell, not about the process of evolution!!
These two guys. the totally moronic talking to the completly stupid about something they don't understand.Long live the internet. Religeons illogical and cruel days are numbered.
TheSandreGuy you're one dumb dude. Yes evolution is guided by natural selection BUT that is once it has already started. The roots or the very start of evolution was a chance. You're like a dumb highschooler that thinks he can outsmart everyone...even someone like Ben Stein who has an incredibly vast educational background.
Umm... no. Stein's a lawyer, and obviously doesn't know squat about biological theories. As well... there was no "chance" involved in evolution or abiogenesis. Put the right chemicals together, in the right environment, and it's bound to happen. As... obviously... it did.
Stein isn't just a lawyer. Read his educational background. And right right...slab some mud in there...zap it with some lighting and a cell (more complex than you'd ever imagine) is bound to appear.
I think i said his educational background not his professions. And what ignorance might that be? The facts of your own private world aren't included in this argument . Keep that in mind.
My god are you still in highschool? Evolution is a MUCH to broad of word to claim its a fact. Micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is yet to be seen first hand but its the best explanation we have making it a theory. I'm not giving theories any credit they are great explanations and stepping stones. Many people (such as yourself) make the mistake of thinking a theory is only a guess that doesn't really need to be taken seriously. However...its still a theory.
You're speaking of two completely different things. One in which is happening all the time in our everyday lives and one which could have happened billions of years ago. It doesn't take scientific knowledge to realize this but only common sense. I never once said facts do not exist.
And here the month old argument reopens again. You read one little comment while ignoring the rest of the conversation and add your little doodle in. I'm going to go ahead and call you an idiot just to get it out of the way.
Actually evolution is still a theory because it is unable to be proven by the scientific method. Not saying it's completely illogical, just saying that people shouldn't argue that it is a fact.
Wrong Aspid, Evoution theory IS a fact and will always be a theory. You must first understand what a scientific theory is before you can understand this.
That is correct. Just like the building of a car is based on mechanical theory. They explain thousands of facts we DO KNOW about those theories. Mechanical theory will ALWAYS be a therory. It can always be improved upon and changed. But the underlying premise of mechanical theory is still a fact. Same with ALL scientific theories.
More accurately, what facts make evolution a scientific theory. Just like what facts make medical theory a scientific theory. Remember even if we can cure cancer in every human. medical theory will always remain a theory. Never a fact. ken Miller does a good job of explaining the nature of a scientific theory in science. Ill see if i cans end you the link.. Ill mail you my respons to your question in a message. Thats a very long response
Alright, I think I understand now. When you say evolution is a fact, you are referring to how we're not in the middle ages anymore yes? Things have changed over time. I agree. But what I'm really debating is the idea of common descent by evolution. I agree that man varies in race and in culture over time. But what I don't agree on is that we have descended from fish, to tetrapods, to reptiles, to synapsids, to mammals, to primates, to us. Any comments?
among the tons of evidence, I think that the evidfence from modern genetics is the most obvious and convincing to date. Look at Ken Millers videos on common descent and the evidence of human genome #2. Also look at the the same exact molecular errors we have in our genes as compared to what scientist say are our closest relatives. I think this evidence is quite convincing. Check Kien millers discussion on youtube from brown university. its on of the best discussions on this topic
I agree that our genes are very much like Paninans and Gorillas but that evidence doesn't convince me that we're relatives. It is briliant, but it's still not enough to convince me above other evidence which doesn't work in evolution's favor.
no no, way much more then simply "like" you should really research the human genome project to truly undersatand how powerful the evidence actually is. i wouldnt even bring it up if it was simply a "like issue"
And Abiogenesis is damn close to a fact? Scientists have done many MANY experiments trying to replicate how the first life form came about and failed. It remains unexplained. If you are so bright please describe the step by step process of Abiogenesis.
they just owned themselves out of nothing nothing comes so how did god get here we have no proof god is here but we have proof the universe is here so its obvious the universe came first
I am so sick of hearing creationist say that evolution is chance and abiogenisis is chance, that I am gonna start taking a sludge hammer to them until they figure it out.
Natural selection, although the mutation are random, that fact that good mutation stick around is not. Chemical reactions are absolutely not chance. You would combine sodium chloride and water and end up getting apple juice. WTF
Nice claim you made there pinocchio..... There you go... an example of something coming from nothing right there. No basis, no grounds for saying it. You just jump from nothing to claiming "ALL" the great scientists are Christians.....
maybe you could elaborate on "All the great scientists are Christians." and maybe you could keep the names to today's scientists. i would say ben stein is intelligent in politics but he has clearly shown he doesnt even know the simplest definition to evolution. he is by far the best candidate for promotion against it.
Unbelievable how advanced man is, we have found DNA evidence that man descended from apes in june 2005, yet many of the worlds population still thinks a god did it.
The origin of the Koran is at best sketchy being written many years after muhammad died and you fools believe this?
Most people were so dumb back then even a high school kid knows more today!
Yet you dumbasses are happy to be told how to live by an ancient old man that liked many "wives" and young children,,unbelievable!
Couldn't agree more. I doubt you could sell a documentary to aethiests... pandering to aethiesm. But nothing sells any better than sex and religion.......
Something can come from nothing! It's called: Energy-time uncertainty relation!!!!!
A failure of energy conservaion may be tolerated for a short time provided that the energy deficit multiplied by the time interval is less then the Planck constant divided by 4π, which is about 3.3x10⁻¹⁶ eV s.
They need to some science books before they arguee against it!
I feel dumb. I was under the just a theory still being tested, and that evolution was about the diversity of living things? I never even knew scientists still beleived in Spontaneous Generation considering Louis Pasteur proved it wrong. I must not allow my children to watch "Expelled", as their reality is in the hands of Ben Stein.
"Chance means something when you have no better explaination"... Yes and it is the same with stupid creationists when they say "god did it"...
MattleSystem 5 days ago
Who is this guy talking to Ben Stein?There's no substance to what this guy's saying. He's not even able to speak in scientific terms. "Something" and "Nothing" are not terms that scientists would use. How can you claim to have a scientific argument when it's not even scientifically clear what you're saying? Just a lot of cleches.
UtubeIsRunByScum 4 weeks ago
Ben is a moron
nhbiker1961 3 months ago
Terrific vid ! Ben Stein, his initials say it all.
tightygrone 4 months ago
Nothing as in No-Thing. No single thing being distinguishable from another. No-thing not the lack of anything. Just the lack of matter that is essential to our illusion of life and death.
I am not sure why evolution was tied in so much to this video, or what the creator is trying to show/prove by there ill informed comments.
TCupUK 5 months ago
Good video except for the intrusions, think I will go out and get the movie I agree with most of what they say and think macro evolution is BS.
glendaweil 11 months ago
@glendaweil
Then why did you comment on this video?
TheSandreGuy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. It's pretty obvious if you bothered to read anything about evolution.
globalchaos1984 9 months ago
@glendaweil Hint: Scientists don't distinguish macro-evolution and micro-evolution because there is NO KNOWN BARRIER between the two. When creationists are asked to provide a reason for such a barrier they fall back on "well, I've never seen a _____ turn into a _____." This is empirical evidence that creationists don't understand evolution, nor do they try to.
zetronman 1 week ago
@zetronman You are the one who does not understand micro givin mllions of years supposidly gives you macro so they are clearly different if it were a Zero sum game which it is not.
glendaweil 1 week ago
@glendaweil What is the barrier that prevents "macro-evolution"? Surely if such a thing existed we would have a name for it and understand it? I've never seen it, but perhaps you should google "observed instances of speciation" which is in effect what scientists consider "macro evolution" (though, you'll probably just tell me that it doesn't count because of some reason). Which is why I will again ask you to tell me the barrier between micro and macro evolution.
zetronman 1 week ago
@zetronman genetic homeostasis.
glendaweil 1 week ago
@glendaweil Nice try, but you'd have to prove punctuated equilibrium first which is (shocker) a theory that completely accepts evolution as true. Most researchers seem to think phyletic gradualism is more likely. How this can be construed as a limiting factor to macro evolution indicated a lack of even a rudimentary grasp of evolutionary theory. I did see some website where Christians were misapplying the term, so I assume that's where this argument came from?
zetronman 1 week ago
@zetronman Micro evoltuion not macro.
glendaweil 1 week ago
@glendaweil Genetic homeostasis generally means that micro evolution is not even happening. There will be some diversity in the population; however it can't be considered any sort of evolution because there is no overall change in the species, like there is even with "micro evolution." Again, scientists make no distinction between the two, so when genetic homeostasis is used as a reason for why speciation doesn't occur, the biologist has to scratch their head a bit at that.
zetronman 1 week ago
@zetronman Macro Micro 2 different words 2 different meanings one happens the other does not.
glendaweil 1 week ago
@glendaweil Right, it is a distinction creationists make, but it isn't a real distinction because what we observe in what you would call "micro evolution" has no genetic barrier to being "macro evolution"...which again, is why that distinction is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. So I'll ask you again, by what method are mutations limited so that macro evolution or speciation isn't able to occur? Keep in mind, we've observed speciation. So that must also be explained.
zetronman 1 week ago
@zetronman It is a real distinction macro is used also to decribe ape to man evolution this cannot be proven and never will be so a polar bear maybe evolved into a grizzly bear ok but they still bears you can call that macro all day but that to me is micro evolution on a sideways tangent if you will macro where you define it one way you then use in a broad manner to encompass everything proven or not.
glendaweil 5 days ago
@glendaweil What would it take to prove that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor? Because we can map the genomes and determine when they split based on genome markers. This does not imply a "common designer" because many of the genes we have in common are in non-coding regions of DNA as well as deficiencies, such as being unable to product vitamin C (like most animals can do). The genetic evidence is overwhelming to the point you can only deny it out of ignorance.
zetronman 5 days ago
@zetronman We have alot in common with alot of things does not mean we are there descendants.
glendaweil 4 days ago
@glendaweil There is no other reason that non-coding or broken genes would be passed on. The nested hierarchy made predictions based on morphological similarities that indicated there should be genetic similarities as well; based on the distribution of differences. The genetic data lined up perfectly. If God was the creator, then it makes no sense that things would have the superficial and genetic similarities tied together in this way. So yes, it does mean we are related.
zetronman 4 days ago
@zetronman Man has always tried to understand God he after all works in mysterious ways not surprised your confused.
glendaweil 4 days ago
@glendaweil What I'm describing isn't mysterious at all. So, either god is a liar and created the appearance of genetic relation and common descent, or evolution has occurred and common descent as we understand it today is fairly accurate. I think maybe you are not aware of the overwhelming genetic evidence we have to support common descent. But, maybe you should take up theistic evolution. There are plenty of Christians who support evolution based on the evidence. Like William Craig
zetronman 4 days ago
@zetronman There are alot of misguided people out there I am not one.
glendaweil 3 days ago
@glendaweil If you want to call conceding a point in the face of overwhelming evidence "misguided" then that's on you.
zetronman 3 days ago
@zetronman Overwhelming evidence of micro evolution correct an of course in your world there is no difference Right wink wnk.
glendaweil 1 day ago
@glendaweil 2 words, 2 different meanings.... Ok so tell me if it is macro or micro evolution between polar bear and grizzlie, or between Asian Elephant and African Elephant, between a bird and another bird... Because this is evolution, and different species...
You don't understand the limitation of the meaning, micro evolution is used inside the same species, and macro when they cannot reproduce or interbreed...
MattleSystem 5 days ago
@MattleSystem It is still a bear still elephants still birds so why should we believe that givin a million years these creatures will not still be bears elephants and birds, not magiclly transfom into a snail or a human or a whale.
glendaweil 5 days ago
@glendaweil The evolution is not magic! God is magic! By the way, the macro evolution is used to separate two species and even if they look like the same, they are different and we can talk about big changes.
This is the speciation. The problem is that you misunderstand the concept and you believe that a fish gave a birth to a frog, then to a bird then to a human which is stupid.
The separation of species leads to separation of genome and can lead to physical transformation.
MattleSystem 4 days ago
In your concept of "look like" we can then consider grizzlies and polar bear as bear, birds as birds, fishes as fishes (what ever the form of the different animals). If they are bigger of smaller, they are the same.
So in that case, why would you make a difference between primates and primates...I mean Apes and Humans. They are just a bit more hairy, such as a thona is a bit bigger than a golden fish...
MattleSystem 4 days ago
@MattleSystem What an idiotic statment I never said or do I believe a fish gave birth to a frog on the contrary I believe a fish will always produce fish and frogs tadpoles that develpe into oh guess what FROGS so lets despense with the stupidiy.
glendaweil 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil "these creatures will not still be bears elephants and birds, not magiclly transfom into a snail or a human or a whale." , this is how you interprete Evolution. Yes you did say that! This is your idiotic statement, the creationist statement to disprove Evolution. As I said, you misunderstand the concept, the complete theory?
What about ur look like thesis and my proposition? because if a fish is stll a fish, only one first fish was needed and then Evolution did the rest
MattleSystem 3 days ago
Ben Stein is the greatest comic of all time. He and his side-kick should do tours.
ShaggyShagz13 1 year ago
Evolution is One Thing. The Big Bang is Another. It is funny to see THESE IDIOTS Talking About (Science?) Poor creationist Are So TERRIFIED of Losing believers!
the scientific community ARE NOT AFRAID of ANYTHING. Creationist are so Deluded that they believe RELIGION is SCIENCE! RELIGION IS NO SCIENCE AT ALL!
flightkiller09 1 year ago
@saynotodarwin Betcha I can!
You seem to be asking for a lot of stupid transitional fossils. First of, nothing went directly from fish to reptile. It went from fish to amphibian to reptile.
And you want a middle fossil from armadillo to an elephant? Right, how about a fucking kangaroo?
trecool9992 1 year ago
*Thumbs Up*
XtalQRP 1 year ago
Ben is way smarter than the creator of this video.
k0smon 1 year ago
@k0smon I agree. Ben has a much more vivid imagination.
trecool9992 1 year ago
@k0smon
why? his scientific acumen would be weaker than my 5 year old's. he babbles about evolution and the big bang, conflates the teo and clearly has made not the slightest attempt to understand either. he did get paid well to make his vulgar little film though.
his partner here RC Sproul also knows zip about the topic under "discussion" he's the author of the mindnumbingly tedious "the holiness of god". we await the folowup "the purpleness of unicorns". god help them both....
mcmanustony 8 months ago
@mcmanustony ::: You have one damn smart 5 year old. Must be good breeding. Otherwise, mostly name-calling.
k0smon 8 months ago
@k0smon
he's very smart. but you dont need to be a genius to laugh at these two ignoramuses talking about subjects they\ve never bothered to learn about. where's the name calling? steins film IS a pack of lies from start to finish- so no name calling there, and spouls book is the most turgid boring tome I've ever seen. my joke follow up pokes fun at the vacuity of his subject matter- no name calling there.
you get the impression these two have never read a single science text. my only point
mcmanustony 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saynotodarwin I'll make it simple. I won't threaten ten you with hell, if you are frightened of terror, bu I will explain it to you as simply as I can.
Evilution is implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection. It's inevitable, unavoidable, logically necessary, it's true because of the meaning of the words, it's a priori true.
That ALL emperical evidence supports it, and I do mean ALL, is a bonus, but emperical evidence isn't necessary at all. It violates no laws.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@saynotodarwin I don't know what you teach, but I know it isn't science.
gamesbok 1 year ago
C'mon guys, if you take these idiots seriously, you're buying their product : CONTROVERSY.
That's what they are selling, a perpetuation of discussion. They have nothing left to offer or contribute.
breaneainn 1 year ago
It is not real, its a comedy...
Oshyoga 1 year ago
E=MC²
If your definition of nothing matched with "something that we can't see", you should take this into account. it is know since 1905, Energy can create matter! So Big Bang is not something coming from nothing, this is Matter coming from Energy!.
We know how to do the chain reaction in the other way today, we still look for "Creation of matter" from energy. Your god is just a physical data and not a guy in sky!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
To creationists out there. Imagine yourself talking to a flat earther. You try to explain the concept of a spherical earth, but they just don't listen. They quote the wisdom of Herodotus, and tell you that a spherical earth is "just a theory". You give them evidence, and they dismiss it outright because a 2500 year old text is obviously more trustworthy than your meagre proof. What would you think of their intelligence? Well, that's what its like talking to you.
eurisko67 1 year ago
No! But what's dull are your comments on the video. For Evolution to be true it would have to violate certain scientific laws, and that is what is being explined by Stein and Sproul in this video. It's a market place of ideas, REMEMBER! When evolution finds its back against the wall its proponents resort to verbal terror tactics!!!!
jona7068 1 year ago
@jona7068 Hi what natural laws does Evolution violates? (Genuine question.)
theonewayroad01 1 year ago
@theonewayroad01 you asked jonas086 "Hi what natural laws does Evolution violates?"
.
If he ever replies I predict he will cite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which only applies in closed systems - earth is an open system), possibly Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis (which only applies to individual organisms over the span of their lifetime). He will then blab about something from nothing (ignoring the fact that the singularity was everything). Or he'll simply declaim "It's Impossible"!
Noisegator 1 year ago
@jona7068 @jona7068 I'll make it simple. I won't threaten ten you with hell, if you are frightened of terror, bu I will explain it to you as simply as I can.
Evilution is implicit in the words reproduction, variation and selection. It's inevitable, unavoidable, logically necessary, it's true because of the meaning of the words, it's a priori true.
That ALL emperical evidence supports it, and I do mean ALL, is a bonus, but emperical evidence isn't necessary at all. It violates no laws.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Ben Stein looks like the biggest, fattest, dullest looking human toad I have ever seen. How can a man of such obvious intelligence be so clueless?? It's like he's desperately trying to match up his intellect with his physical appearance.
jerico641 1 year ago
I have always wondered something: Cant people like Ben Stein read? They make a documentary, without reading and knowing what they are critizing in the first place?`What a moron.
Ko252 1 year ago
Of all of the items that have ever been dropped by humans , what are the chances that they would all fall directly towards the centre of the earth?
anotherutterance 1 year ago
Add up the chances of you existing, and you are an impossibility; only you ARE here! If your dad hadn't got that job...and your mum hadn't beem on THAT bus...etc etc over thousands of past generations! More than 1 in a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 at least! ('Chanceists' love BIG numbers!)
What's the chances of my cat sitting EXACTLY where it is now at THIS very time? (One of billions of positions/times...if HIS mum and HIS dad...etc) 'Chance' is bollocks!!
derek24hudson 1 year ago
7 45, he scratches his nose, and check out his eyes, that dumb fuck doesnt believe a word hes saying, also his hands cover up most of his face
pleasmarryme 2 years ago
you got vote boted I see.
Plasmon19 2 years ago
Yeah, a long time ago, but then they got tired and moved on to another video.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
this video could be used in an educational clip called "Logic - How NOT to..."
chestbuster1987 2 years ago
Ad hominem attacks, like calling those with whom you disagree, whether it's Stein or others, "stupid," "moron," etc doesn't invalidate their points. This is the basic strategy most atheists & others who disagree with Expelled, ID or religion in general, have used as counter arguments. What's exactly wrong with Stein's points? The basic premise of Expelled is that, despite what its proponents say, materialist based science has been unable to answer many of the pertinent questions of our existence
ChristianMission 2 years ago
Oh please ChristianMission, like your fellow christians haven´t used ad hominem attacks against atheists like me <,<
Yes, it´s true that I call them morons, but that´s just an insult. NOT an Ad Hominem attack.
Seriously, look up the definition, you cunt.
Do you have any idea just how frustrating it is to have to deal with people you who either are in denial, or dumb as wood.
Now, please grow a spine and actually read a college textbook on evolution so you might learn something.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Are you that much of a fool to think that we should know everything about the universe right now? So we don't know how life was formed or how the universe was formed. Does that mean a God did it?
Whatever, I give up, you're obviously a fool...
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
@ChristianMission So you believe in magic?
gamesbok 1 year ago
they can't believe they wont exist someday.
they are just too precious.
kwiksteen 2 years ago
This guy makes me want to punch babies.
thebromandudes 2 years ago
Creotards are called that for a reason.
thallassocracy 2 years ago
(comment has nothing to do with evolution) actually chance HAS power. you know if you start "asking why" and following the line of actions and reactions you will reach the subatomic level where ALL we have is chance and randomness
l0ll3rc04st3r 2 years ago
I watched the entire 3 videos of this interview. They're not talking about animal evolution most of the time, but the universe and many related topics in general. Your misrepresentation of what they're talking about and putting false words in their mouths is typical childish youtube crap I'm getting tired of seeing. A number of good points were brought up by them that science has no answer for (nor ever will). And "natural selection" is an imperfect system for selecting DNA errors. CHANCE!
Elhardt 2 years ago
....no natural selection is not chance
when there is a mutation in an animal it can be positive, negitive, or have no effect.
when there is a negitive effect the animal will not live as long, not be able to breed as much, give fewer offspring and slowly fades away, while a positive effect lets the animal live longer, have more offspring.
mutations that have a positive effect are naturaly selected for, it is anything but chance.
ttttllll1 2 years ago
Keep up the fight. The morons won't hear, but the wise will.
vomit49894 2 years ago
stupid videio of course....
Turpy7777 2 years ago
Stupid comment of course...
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Don't tell the so called scienctist that man walled with mammoths for they will be looking out side to see some for they believe everything they are told.
To whom ever made this clip, if you was going to cut down creationism by this here clip. You just made a good film supporting creationism. All the creationism are cheering for you now.
Oh yea, try to get someone else besides R. C. Sproul to try to take him out of context for he is very factual.
All i write is with saynotodarwin here
turtle4aire 2 years ago
Damn! Horrible grammar dude!
RC sproul wasn´t taken out of context, but then again you didn´t really watch the video did you?.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
What belief system? Neither Atheism or Evolution is a belief system.
The bible is completely accurate?
Well then why does it claim that Pi is a round number, when it´s not.
The earth is flat, when it´s not.
That mud can create humans, when (you guessed it) it doesn`t!
Science as we know it didn't even exist when the Bible was written. It's absurd to expect a document (or a library of documents) to meet standards that it was not intended to meet.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
You must be kidding or stupid or both Atheism and Evolution are not belief systems...why don't you read Hitler's Meikampf and become less stupid...and read the history of the soviet union ...Stallin preferably and stop being stupid...think for yourself...
Turpy7777 2 years ago
more importantly how did he disprove it? all i see is a bunch of stupid arguments from ignorance
types10000 2 years ago
Yeah, that seems to happen whenever he opens his mouth :P
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
1. He´s jewish... So?
2. How is evolution bigoted?
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
what i dont get is that you can do whatever you want like saying a monkey is 47 million years old and get away with it as evidence for evolution....yet you were using inaccurate way of finding out how it was so old and yet ben stein is so right! we mention that something might not have come out of nothing for a REASON we get thrown out of the comunity.
how sad.....how stupid.....how judgemental...
oh wait....wasnt that something used to discribe creationists?
TheBloodyLam 2 years ago
1. The scientists are NOT just saying something is millions of years old without a good reason.
2. The Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution or Abiogenesis.
3. The Big Bang doesn´t describe how the universe comes from nothing.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
i wasnt talking about the big bang theory
TheBloodyLam 2 years ago
You´re right. You weren´t.
But you thought you were.
Do us all a favor and get an education <_<
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
you people are soooo nice
TheBloodyLam 2 years ago
pretty much evolution is just as likely as if someone smashing a watch into a thousand pieces burying all the pieces, and then a thousand years later someone unburys it and its comse back together on its own, and works. so do you think thats more likely or that there's and all powerful God that creatied you and everything around you
TheBloodyLam 2 years ago
How does that example have anything to do with Evolution? o,O
Please explain.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
The story goes take a watch and smash it into a thousand pieces and then put it in a bage and shack it for a 1,000 years and it will reassemble it's self.
turtle4aire 2 years ago
*Facepalm*
To compare non-living matter to living matter is just childish, dude.
Besides, evolution doesn´t say anything about cells just spontaniously assemble.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
and also the watch isn't capable of reproducing. The whole nothing nothing nothing argument is retarded, is God exempt from the Nothing cycle?
Creationists are morons, plain and simple.
karausu 2 years ago
Yes, and therefor Natural selection isn´t possible for the watch. Making it unable of coming about with evolution.
I can´t believe people like R.C Sproul and Ben Stein exists.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
I quote Thunderfoot. "Why do people laugh at creationists?" Only creationists do not understand why.
falotnek 2 years ago
Creationists need to shut up already. You all have been debunked, disproven and ridiculed so many times now it is becoming a joke.
Creationist = dumb on purpose.
Give it up. Nobody cares what you believe. The world is run by science now. Religion is dead. Thank god, lol
falotnek 2 years ago
"To the poster of this video...YOU ARE A FUCKTARD!!!"
- LOL, nice rebuttal.
LewisPearson 2 years ago
Evolution is entirely faith based.
SamuraiPhalanx 2 years ago
What? So is gravity then?
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
gravity can be observed
SamuraiPhalanx 2 years ago
So can AND have evolution been.
But you will probably claim that "it´s just micro-evolution!"
For the record... There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, except for the timespan.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
thats ridiculous and preposterous.
No one has observed anything before 6000 years and thats a fact. Macro evolution is only as plausible as your imagination makes it out to be.
It is faith alone that upholds macro evolution as it is packaged and sold today.
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
"No one has observed anything before 6000 years and thats a fact."
Bwahahahahahaha!!!! xD
How do you explain the civilisation of mesopotamia, wich began 9000+ years ago?
Or paintings found on walls of caves that are proven to be up to 50000+ years old?
Besides, you have no clue of what the word faith means, if you comparem it to a scientific fact like evolution.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
i would like to see proof that the Mesopotamian civilization began more than 6,000 years ago, because in the encyclopedia of Mesopotamian history that i read, there is no proof these people existed more than 6,000 years ago. but don't listen to historians, the simpsons and family guy know best. and how do you know those paintings are 50000+ years old? by carbon dating? there's no c14 in wall paintings - doesn't matter! the government school system told me so!
CRUMS! CRUMS! YAY!
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
No, they measure that with radiometric dating :)
Are you gonna claim einstein was in on the conspiracy too?
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
call it whatever you want to call it, they all work the same way, it's still flimsy guesswork
i actually didn't watch the video. my brother left the first comment you replied to under my screen name by accident, and i was finishing the conversation for him. as for the "einstein conspiracy", i don't know enough about it to say if it's true or not, but you should never cancel something out just because it's not the kind of thing you're used to hearing of. im just saying to keep an open mind
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
"call it whatever you want to call it, they all work the same way, it's still flimsy guesswork"
Whaaaaat! :O
Ok... You really have no clue.
BTW, I was sarcastic about Einstein, but you just proved you´re just another conspiracy-nut.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
you can tell yourself i have no clue all you want, ive spent countless mind numbing hours learning about this crap in public schools, but you're the one with vast knowledge of both sides because you often take the time to learn about it, right? don't make me throw up
im a conspiracy nut because i dont automatically disregard something because its something i haven't heard of before? i didn't know einstein, who knows what he did with his free time? i didn't say its true i said keep an open mind
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
But your mind isn´t open!
It´s quite clear now since I´ve exchanged this converation with you, that you don´t really now how evolution works, or why it´s scientific.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
If your knowledge of science doesn't extend beyond public education, then you are likely a scientific illiterate. Grade school curricula are not enough to develop a valid, scientific, opposition to confirmed scientific theory.
That is why there are videos all over youtube exposing the appalling ignorance of Ben Stein. He is a scientific illiterate. Anti-evolutionists are either religious fanatics, scientific illiterates, or some appalling combination of the two. They just don't get it.
adkinsjr 2 years ago
No, religion is entirely faith based.
LewisPearson 2 years ago
they're both faith-based, now stop eating up this pseudo-science propaganda like its a breakfast cereal and start thinking for yourself. i began questioning evolution at the tender age of 13 (and no i was not raised religious) and i haven't looked back.
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
actually evolution is based on evidence.
falotnek 2 years ago
there is equally good evidence for both of them, its just a mater of how you view the evidence. evolution and creation use the same essential evidence to prove their points because both are using the same planet. you're just too comfortable in your ignorance to think past what the media and government-run schools have been pounding into your head your whole life. but i know how you feel. i was there once
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about. I learned this stuff in school, not by reading newspapers. There is no such thing as how you view the evidence. If u think that then you don't know what the word evidence means. ID is based on assumpstions, assumptions that can not be tested or verified, or falsified. Evolution is based on empirical data and 150 years of research. Did you know that aeroplanes get designed using evolutionary theory? You really should get an education, and stop ranting bullshit
falotnek 2 years ago
And they are not both faithbased. Man you just repeat stupid stuff other creationists say. Educate yourself and stop acting as if you know what the hell science is, because you don't. Faith based means based on assumption without evidence. Evolution is not an assumption, and it has been verified so many times, it is the most solid scientific theory we have today.
You say evolution is incorrect. What evidence do you base that claim on? I'll bet you have none. come on now. prove me wrong, lol
falotnek 2 years ago
you know, i thought about dignifying that with logic, but i can see its not worth it. you have your idea set in stone and you don't even care what the other side says because you don't want to hear it.
theamazingsamurai 2 years ago
It is not my idea you moron. It is the foundational truth of modern science. You think evidence is a matter of opinions, and that everyday people are qualified to judge if scientific theories are valid or not. They are not. The Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence. If you have evidence to disprove evolution, then fine present it. But if you do not, your opinion is useless and ignorant. To put it simply. I trust empirical evidence and 150 years of research over your opinion any day.
falotnek 2 years ago
you want to hear what i trust? or is my opinion useless too?
TheBloodyLam 2 years ago
If you actually watch the entire video of this interview RC Sproul explains that the word chance is being abused when talking about the origin of the universe and the first living cell, not about the process of evolution!!
chrisjcampbellatlive 2 years ago
And that is better because?..
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Why?
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
these men are intellectually bankrupt
syrett76 2 years ago
These two guys. the totally moronic talking to the completly stupid about something they don't understand.Long live the internet. Religeons illogical and cruel days are numbered.
drServitus 2 years ago
creationist are always good for a laugh...that is why god made them.
z3r0cr3d 2 years ago
I think they should get credit for referring to all the evidence of there own beliefs that make evolution look so passe
SpiritFist 2 years ago
Ben Stein=Good game show host.
Ben Stein=Piss poor rationalist. Believe what you want, evolution is a FACT!
vomit49894 2 years ago
TheSandreGuy you're one dumb dude. Yes evolution is guided by natural selection BUT that is once it has already started. The roots or the very start of evolution was a chance. You're like a dumb highschooler that thinks he can outsmart everyone...even someone like Ben Stein who has an incredibly vast educational background.
Squish888 2 years ago
Umm... no. Stein's a lawyer, and obviously doesn't know squat about biological theories. As well... there was no "chance" involved in evolution or abiogenesis. Put the right chemicals together, in the right environment, and it's bound to happen. As... obviously... it did.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Stein isn't just a lawyer. Read his educational background. And right right...slab some mud in there...zap it with some lighting and a cell (more complex than you'd ever imagine) is bound to appear.
Squish888 2 years ago
Oh... that's right! He's an Economist as well!
BTW... you're showing off your own stupidity, and ignorance of Evolution.
Exmech2 2 years ago
I think i said his educational background not his professions. And what ignorance might that be? The facts of your own private world aren't included in this argument . Keep that in mind.
Squish888 2 years ago
"Put the right chemicals together, in the right environment, and it's bound to happen" i think thats enough ignorance for the both of us. :)
Squish888 2 years ago
Lol! You aren't actually going to try and tell me that magic man and his talking snake did it?
Evolution is fact. Abiogenesis is damned close to fact. Learn something before you speak fool.
Exmech2 2 years ago
My god are you still in highschool? Evolution is a MUCH to broad of word to claim its a fact. Micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is yet to be seen first hand but its the best explanation we have making it a theory. I'm not giving theories any credit they are great explanations and stepping stones. Many people (such as yourself) make the mistake of thinking a theory is only a guess that doesn't really need to be taken seriously. However...its still a theory.
Squish888 2 years ago
In that case Gravity is JUST a theory, but you don´t stop to believe that you are hold on to earth thanks to it, now do you?
Seriously, read about scientific terms before you gush out your idiotic insults -_-
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
You're speaking of two completely different things. One in which is happening all the time in our everyday lives and one which could have happened billions of years ago. It doesn't take scientific knowledge to realize this but only common sense. I never once said facts do not exist.
Squish888 2 years ago
Evolution IS happening all the time.
Small genetic changes in each individual who are born everyday.
But of course since you have bought into the creationism bullcrap, you refer to it as `Micro-evolution´.
When in fact there is only one kind of evolution the biologists are talking about.
TheSandreGuy 2 years ago
Evolution theory is a fact.
Atomic theory is a fact.
Mechanical theory is a fact.
Electrical Theory is a fact. ad infinitum.
Computer theory is a fact.
get it?
SpiritFist 2 years ago
And here the month old argument reopens again. You read one little comment while ignoring the rest of the conversation and add your little doodle in. I'm going to go ahead and call you an idiot just to get it out of the way.
Squish888 2 years ago
Damn Squish, im so sorry for bursting you bubble like that. I didnt have time to read all the previous post. My sincere apologies. Take a Vicadin
SpiritFist 2 years ago
Thank you sir :).
Squish888 2 years ago
Actually evolution is still a theory because it is unable to be proven by the scientific method. Not saying it's completely illogical, just saying that people shouldn't argue that it is a fact.
Aspidosuchus 2 years ago
Wrong Aspid, Evoution theory IS a fact and will always be a theory. You must first understand what a scientific theory is before you can understand this.
SpiritFist 2 years ago
A scientific theory is, by definition, "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural".
Aspidosuchus 2 years ago
That is correct. Just like the building of a car is based on mechanical theory. They explain thousands of facts we DO KNOW about those theories. Mechanical theory will ALWAYS be a therory. It can always be improved upon and changed. But the underlying premise of mechanical theory is still a fact. Same with ALL scientific theories.
SpiritFist 2 years ago
So what facts do we know because from evolution?
Aspidosuchus 2 years ago
More accurately, what facts make evolution a scientific theory. Just like what facts make medical theory a scientific theory. Remember even if we can cure cancer in every human. medical theory will always remain a theory. Never a fact. ken Miller does a good job of explaining the nature of a scientific theory in science. Ill see if i cans end you the link.. Ill mail you my respons to your question in a message. Thats a very long response
SpiritFist 2 years ago
So certain theories will never be facts? Why was there an exception to the theory of gravity, now the law of gravity?
Aspidosuchus 2 years ago
take notice that we are no longer discussing scientific theories from facts, But now theories from .laws. I think we makin progress.
SpiritFist 2 years ago
Alright, I think I understand now. When you say evolution is a fact, you are referring to how we're not in the middle ages anymore yes? Things have changed over time. I agree. But what I'm really debating is the idea of common descent by evolution. I agree that man varies in race and in culture over time. But what I don't agree on is that we have descended from fish, to tetrapods, to reptiles, to synapsids, to mammals, to primates, to us. Any comments?
Aspidosuchus 2 years ago
among the tons of evidence, I think that the evidfence from modern genetics is the most obvious and convincing to date. Look at Ken Millers videos on common descent and the evidence of human genome #2. Also look at the the same exact molecular errors we have in our genes as compared to what scientist say are our closest relatives. I think this evidence is quite convincing. Check Kien millers discussion on youtube from brown university. its on of the best discussions on this topic
SpiritFist 2 years ago
I agree that our genes are very much like Paninans and Gorillas but that evidence doesn't convince me that we're relatives. It is briliant, but it's still not enough to convince me above other evidence which doesn't work in evolution's favor.
Aspidosuchus 2 years ago
no no, way much more then simply "like" you should really research the human genome project to truly undersatand how powerful the evidence actually is. i wouldnt even bring it up if it was simply a "like issue"
SpiritFist 2 years ago
I'd pay good money to see a single shred of this "evidence" that supposedly doesn't work in evolutions favor.
jmthetank 2 years ago
check this site for the reasons that ceratin ideas are labeled laws and other theories ..talkoriginsdotorgslashfaqsslashevolphilslashpredicthtml
SpiritFist 2 years ago
And Abiogenesis is damn close to a fact? Scientists have done many MANY experiments trying to replicate how the first life form came about and failed. It remains unexplained. If you are so bright please describe the step by step process of Abiogenesis.
Squish888 2 years ago
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Exmech2 2 years ago
they just owned themselves out of nothing nothing comes so how did god get here we have no proof god is here but we have proof the universe is here so its obvious the universe came first
uberownagemonkey 3 years ago
I am so sick of hearing creationist say that evolution is chance and abiogenisis is chance, that I am gonna start taking a sludge hammer to them until they figure it out.
Natural selection, although the mutation are random, that fact that good mutation stick around is not. Chemical reactions are absolutely not chance. You would combine sodium chloride and water and end up getting apple juice. WTF
SMSBJM1981 3 years ago
What nonsense. Name 10 of them and how they are rated as the 'best'
MilesB1975 3 years ago
Nice claim you made there pinocchio..... There you go... an example of something coming from nothing right there. No basis, no grounds for saying it. You just jump from nothing to claiming "ALL" the great scientists are Christians.....
mattyabsley 3 years ago
Deluded fairy-tales like God and creation.
jykkeone 3 years ago
maybe you could elaborate on "All the great scientists are Christians." and maybe you could keep the names to today's scientists. i would say ben stein is intelligent in politics but he has clearly shown he doesnt even know the simplest definition to evolution. he is by far the best candidate for promotion against it.
Rebootrevival 3 years ago
Unbelievable how advanced man is, we have found DNA evidence that man descended from apes in june 2005, yet many of the worlds population still thinks a god did it.
The origin of the Koran is at best sketchy being written many years after muhammad died and you fools believe this?
Most people were so dumb back then even a high school kid knows more today!
Yet you dumbasses are happy to be told how to live by an ancient old man that liked many "wives" and young children,,unbelievable!
ISLAM4THICKONES 3 years ago
Best comment of the week :P
TheSandreGuy 3 years ago
These two should be ashamed of themselves. They know these ideas are garbage, they made this film to steal money from ignorant people.
BlackApollo666 3 years ago
Couldn't agree more. I doubt you could sell a documentary to aethiests... pandering to aethiesm. But nothing sells any better than sex and religion.......
mattyabsley 3 years ago
These two are so ignorant!
Something can come from nothing! It's called: Energy-time uncertainty relation!!!!!
A failure of energy conservaion may be tolerated for a short time provided that the energy deficit multiplied by the time interval is less then the Planck constant divided by 4π, which is about 3.3x10⁻¹⁶ eV s.
They need to some science books before they arguee against it!
Andylocksigma 3 years ago
why do people always compare abiogenesis to spontaneous generation?
elea1885 3 years ago
I feel dumb. I was under the just a theory still being tested, and that evolution was about the diversity of living things? I never even knew scientists still beleived in Spontaneous Generation considering Louis Pasteur proved it wrong. I must not allow my children to watch "Expelled", as their reality is in the hands of Ben Stein.
morelltechyahoocom 3 years ago
Evolution ONLY deals with the diversity of life.
Abiogenesis is another theory wich deals with the origin of life.
I could link you to some awsome websites where you can learn more about evolutionairy biology :P
TheSandreGuy 3 years ago
Universities are full of nonsense?!
That little quip was also stated by
L. Ron Hubbard. Aaaaarrrrgh!
4G3NTanon 3 years ago
So you're a coward if you want to learn and become educated....this is the mantra of the Religious Right.
withoutasong 3 years ago
God I hate these 2.....especially R.C. Sprouel.
.....Their babbling fills me with an uncontrollable rage!!
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago
okay, who let the 6-year old access a video editor? Nice touch with the disabled rating...
barkeb30 3 years ago
HAHAHA... 6-year old? I´m 16.
Oh... And The rating-system is disabled because another creationist bastard has a lot of ghost-accounts, and likes to tinker with my ratings.
You would have known that if you would just have read the description.
Don´t Enjoy Pwnage, or what?
TheSandreGuy 3 years ago
six, sixteen, same in this view. have you even seen this movie? i mean people died over the idea of evolution in the holocaust.
if you don't care, then you're not human
neverjanay 3 years ago
The Nazis were christians, and despised Evolution.
The theory of evoution has nothing to do with genicide. What you are thinking of is called Fascism.
Fascism came along long before Darwin. An example is Ancient Rome wich was for a long time Fascist regime.
TheSandreGuy 3 years ago