Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 23)

This video is copyright free for educational purposes.
Feel free to mirror these videos with or without accreditation.

For other videos of this genre check out

http://www.youtube.com/user/ExpelledExposed
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
http://www.youtube.com/user/BonoboBill
http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCur...
http://www.youtube.com/user/netwriter


Part of a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. In each case the creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science.

In this episode Ben Stein is again taken to task over his mindless spin doctoring (not dissimilar to his 'universities are fortresses of nonsense' line), his inability to distinguish science from free speech, his inability to distinguish science from fantasy, and his ignorance of why supernatural is intrinsically not a part of science.

But most of all because Stein seems blissfully unaware that Darwin has his place in history because he was the first to propose the Theory of Evolution. Stein seems to think that all fields are science were started by Darwin and are subject to 'Darwinism', abiogenesis, thermodynamics, physics, astronomy, the big bang, 'inorganic matter becoming organic life' (chemistry?) and so on.

Put simply this man made a documentary on evolution, without actually knowing what evolution is. Oh yes, that does mean that stein more than qualifies for another episode of 'Why do people laugh at creationists?'

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ben
• stein
• expelled
• evolution
• science
• Atheism
• amazing
• crazy
• creationism
• God
• Dawkins
• Religion
• Christ
• funny
• stupid

[VUTFC]

7:55 - 9:00

All you really have to watch.

[cole3454657]

@slaskzor HA HA!!! no such thing as darwinism? go back to basic biology

[slaskzor]

@MrSmutnaMezatka

How can I rely on a theory that does not describe something that it is not even trying to desribe? it's pretty damn easy, if you READ through the theory, if you READ even my comment you would not have made your comment, because it simply does not make sense.

And I dont have "faith". there is also no such thing as "Darwinism"

Please read up before you try to discuss matters like these again, it would save both you and the one discussing with you alot of grief

[slaskzor]

@MrSmutnaMezatka

a lie? to state that Evolution theory does not explain the origin of life and the universe is a lie?

maybe you should READ the theories you discuss, I see you have made a comment on ALOT of the people who have commented in this thread, which must have been alot of work, however you have not spent a few minutes reading up on what you are actually discussing?

[GrandmasterBBC]

@MrSmutnaMezatka I suppose you could use the word "faith" in reference to my embracing evolution as fact. If one used that word in relation to being confident in the truth of all the scientific reasearch and evidence assembled for proof of evolution, then yes, I have "faith" that evolution is a fact. This is not, of course, the relegious definition which is a belief system is based on the faith without the slightest bit of proof. Do you see the distinction here?

[snoopyd80]

@MrSmutnaMezatka (Part 2) I'm trying to make sense of your second point- but I'm guessing you're saying time could be invented? Again, evolution says nothing about time or an invention of something. We have no way of realistically analyzing that and we need to stay within the context of what can be observed.

[snoopyd80]

@MrSmutnaMezatka First, you need to understand that the Big Bang theory does not say something came from nothing and the Big Bang and evolution are not really connected in any way. I can see this has been pointed out to you before on this comment board, but have chosen to ignore that fact. Second, the theory has nothing to do with "dirt". There would need to be gases, extremely dense matter/anti-matter, and eventually dust clouds that form planets. Dirt comes long, long after.

[MrSmutnaMezatka]

@snoopyd80

part 2:

And have you even entertained a thought with an idea that a God could actually create TIME, but isnt affected by it? He could just be standing outside of it, or next to it, like Casio stays outside their watches - creator of a watch, but not affected by it or time it measures. :-)

U see, against theory of evolution speaks the very existence of so-called geological column. Do u know what year it was "invented"? Do you know real assumptions behind half-life dating?

[TheZooCrew]

@MrSmutnaMezatka

It's a little sad that you apply such an intense level of scrutiny to actual scientific theories (or, more appropriately, your pathetic straw men of these theories), yet swallow the lies of Michael Cremo without question and make assertions without corroboration willy-nilly.

This awkward double standard is not uncommon among creationists. It's a hallmark of the fundamental sophistry behind the whole thing.

[MrSmutnaMezatka]

@snoopyd80

Well, as I kinda agree with you, let me answer your Q first, hoping you realise that a real discussion is answering Qs from both sides? :-)

So, by "dirt" I really meant "nothing", since it was NOTHING - they claim - that the Universe came from. Only AFTER the initial event of Big Bang (?) there was - they claim - a DIRT. That dirt later clustered, evolved and so on. So, it was a shortcut that I used with that DIRT, ok now? tbc...