Re: Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Intelligent Design

I strongly recommend watching, if you haven't already, the video to which this is a response. It'll make a lot more sense.

This is basically just a run through of counter points from an atheist perspective, to the pro-creation and anti-evolution propaganda spouted by Bill and Ben alike. (The flowerpot men, I just noticed)

This is my first real YT video, just me, the camera and a few notes, so don't be too harsh. I apologise for the sloppy ending, I had to trim a little to get it under 100Mb.

Bill O'Reilly Ben Stein Creationism atheism junk science news garden eden noah's ark evolution

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Bill
• O'Reilly
• Ben
• Stein
• Creationism
• atheism
• junk
• science
• news
• garden
• eden
• noah's
• ark
• evolution

[oreolvrsshane1987]

i dont know why anyone would take creationism seriously i mean this was written when people believed the world was flat

[Puabond]

Very well articulated good sir.

[Rocknroll8777]

I don't know why anyone would take evolution seriously, i mean this was created by man in the 1800's...

[starfannumberone]

Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in evolution, but he thins that Jesus led the way. Thats what he told Richard Dawkins the 2nd time (I believe) he appeared on his show.

[lracuda76]

@DarkBunnyLord I forgive you for not guessing what wasn’t said and for jumping to conclusions :)

[DarkBunnyLord]

@lracuda76 Well see that I can agree with, because that's fact. It was the more broad sweep of your statement that I disagreed with.

Forgive me for not guessing what was not said, simply put there are a lot of people on here that are actually stupid enough to think evolution is merely a theory and not a proven process (given I'll admit it being the origin of life is a theory, but the fact that it occurs is not).

[lracuda76]

@DarkBunnyLord I was obviously refering to the most recent comon ancestor (MRCA).

[DarkBunnyLord]

@lracuda76 It was this sentence:

"the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape" that I disagreed with. Because, technically speaking, all of the ancestors before the split would have been a "common ancestor" so to speak, some of them far enough back not an ape.

[lracuda76]

@DarkBunnyLord My first post

"You say that man didn't evolve from apes but a common ancestor.

That's not really true, the common ancestor of modern apes and humans would still have been classed as an ape, just not a modern ape."

I didn't mention going further back, If you did then of course at some point they would stop being apes.

I think we're on the same page now.

[DarkBunnyLord]

@lracuda76 Your original statement was that they didn't evolve from something that wasn't an ape (which is wrong). You didn't say what they both split from (when the distinctive line was split) that this was an ape (which is correct).

Further back from that split was, at one point, not an ape.

[lracuda76]

@DarkBunnyLord Sorry but that has nothing at all to do with what I've been saying.

I have simply said that the most recent ancestor of humans and chimps alone was an ape, you dissagree but haven't addressed it.