ID vs. AI FACT CHECK 2/2

[LogosApologia]

Actually Dr Hugh Ross at reasons org has a tesatble scientific creation model that represents reality much better than Darwinism.

[glovergj]

He thinks he does, and he has apparently convinced you, but he failed to convince the scientific community. This includes the many Christian biologists who have seriously considered his model. For instance, if you watch #11-12 of my series on Christian Education, you will see that his model fails to explain this data.

[GorbixElite01]

let us know what happens in peer review,until then its just conjecturer.

[ProudToBLoud]

yeah Im trying to have a polite dialogue with you, I am not trying to win a debate which on youtube is foolish, the reason I am challenging you is because I strongly disagree with you but I am not calling you names.

[glovergj]

I actually another video series that deals with these issues in a serious and factual way, rather than a satirical way. If you want to have a more fruitful dialogue, why dont you watch some of those (evolution starts at #10) and comment there.

[ProudToBLoud]

Thats why I say that it is intelligent design that these Biologists are conducting, they might put the spin on it just to keep the scientific community happy that is darwinism or naturalistic evolution but that is just the spin, it is actually intelligent design because random evolutionary happenstance is not science and is not testable no matter how much spin you put on it, they are doing ID but appealing to darwinism that is all.

[ProudToBLoud]

Randomness" as a theory of biological diversity is not merely bad science, it's a wholesale avoidance of scientific inquiry.

It leads to theories and terms like 'Junk DNA.' (An October 2004 article in Scientific American described the Junk DNA hypothesis as "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.") There is no junk in DNA, and to assume there is just eliminates the possibility of making new, important discoveries.

[glovergj]

Stop cutting and pasting. I get it. Your entire argument hangs on junk DNA. Do you even realize that the vast majority of non-encoding regions are still Junk? How did they get there? Why do all primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene with the exact same point mutation? Is the by design? Or did we all inherit the same junk Gene from a common ancestor? Why is human Chromosome #2 two fused chimp chromosomes? By deisgn? Almost nothing in genetics make sense in terms of ID.

[ProudToBLoud]

Your whole argument depends on darwin of the gaps.

[ProudToBLoud]

It doesn't produce a testable hypothesis. It doesn't give anyone the ability to reproduce what happened in the past.

Whenever randomness is said to be an explanation of any particular process, then that explanation by definition can never be reproduced or tested. It only evades the question and ties the powerful hands of science behind its back.

[glovergj]

What does this have to do with evolution?

[neoaeonian]

Randomness causes change, most of which is bad. But there are so many creatures and so much change that sometimes the changes are good.

Natural selection and exponential growth cause those good ones to multiply faster, hence the long-term improvement trend.

We aren't used to thinking of the billions and billions of creatures from which a rare good accident occurs, nor of the power of exponential growth over several generations.

Double a dollar just 30 times and .you're a billionaire.

[ProudToBLoud]

Chance or accident as a proposed origin of anything defies observation, identification, description and experimental investigation. So "Randomness" per se not only doesn't explain how anything operates, it is categorically not even an explanation.

[glovergj]

Evolution isn't random. It's complex, like the weather. But still governed by laws.

And with God even the roll of the dice is providential so randomness is only a human definition.

[ProudToBLoud]

No its random.

sowwie

[ProudToBLoud]

so it is responsible for the research and discoveries that we have today, and again it was id proponents who predicted function in dna and also it was people who believed in design that believed the organs in the body had important functions.

[ProudToBLoud]

"Yet, such a thing is impossible to do apart from a physical sentient being. "

ahhhhh anything outside of a physical sentient being is limited by your imagination but even so who say's that the being is not a physical sentient being anyway, id does not concern itself with that as it is irrelevant to whether something is designed or not.

[glovergj]

It IS entirely relavent. To say something is design is TRIVIAL. Science is concerned with formational history. How did something come to be? To look a dead body with a knife sticking out the chest and say, "it was a murder" (he was killed by design) is useless information. You have to show via ordinary cause-and-effect how/who/when, etc...

ID doesn't do this. They just say, "design" and walk away.

SCIENCE KILLER!!!!

[ProudToBLoud]

results= funding nope, going along with the consensus and not rocking the boat= funding.

barabra mclintock got results she didnt even get published for 32 years and had to do it informally because she was not part of the consensus with her views.

[glovergj]

Now I know you're an idiot. Show me one Nobel prize that was handed out to somebody who just went along with the establishment? Every scientists dreams of coming up with something new that causes a revolution in science.

Sometime it take time. The Big Bang theory took 60 years before it was considered the scientific consensus. Look how long it takes new drugs to get approved. It's not a perfect system: sometimes it takes too long, and sometimes garbage gets through...

[ProudToBLoud]

"Now I know you're an idiot"

psychological projection

"It's not a perfect system"

well duh and you called me the idiot lol

[IDtaksovr]

ProudToBLoud

These Darwinists turn real nasty when you corner them with harsh reality.

[glovergj]

No, we just get tired of answering the same stupid objections over and over again. But still, that is no excuse. I shouldn't have called PTB an idiot. Sorry.

[glovergj]

I shouldn't have called you an idiot. Sorry.

[IDtaksovr]

glovergj

"how has it been show to work better than common descent?"

ID is consistent with the idea of common descent. It's just that they treat it as a testable hypothesis, rather than a philosophical necessity.

As such, ID proponents are far more open to questioning long standing Darwinian dogmas, such as Darwins bifurcating tree of life.

[glovergj]

No problem there. The tree of life does have problems when it comes to single-cellular life because of gene flow. But I don't see how this has anything to do with design.

I don't have any problem with design (Romans 1), I just don't think it is a substitute for sound science. Design is not the answer to the question, it is the question! The answer has to explain how a design becomes reality. Evolution is the only material paradigm that currently does this.

[ProudToBLoud]

You posit evolution did it but then that leads to infinite regression because we have to ask how did the process start and then what caused the process that started the process etc etc

we must have infinite regression eh!

[ProudToBLoud]

So to say that any improvement in the human condition nada just shows your ignorance, it is you that is going against the peer review that you appealed to before and against the findings of the scientific community,LOL

[glovergj]

??? Just answer the question. What has ID led to? What research has been conducted using the design inference and how has it been show to work better than common descent?

[ProudToBLoud]

I already showed you what id has lead to but you ignored my post, it was belief in a creator for the universe and life that brought science into being in the first place, that is a form of intelligent design though id is not contingent on theism, theism is a form of id, and that form of id is what lead to modern science

[glovergj]

But even a stupid athiest who believes only the laws in nature can make tangible discoveries. You don't need to understand why the world is intelligible, you just have to presuppose it. As you have already pointed out, this is natural outworking of theism. But as long as you start with this premis, you can do science.

ID requires divine intervention, which works contrary to the idea that the universe is intelligible. Another reason why, no matter how True Romans 1 it's not science.

[IDtaksovr]

glovergj

Darwinists take anything and everything that provides evidence for "evolution", and then monopolize it as evidence for their theory of mutation and selection. We now have a choice of possibilities.

Now, that may not be to the liking of those who revel in the current Darwinian monopoly, have positions, reputations and financial interests to defend, and carry a pathological hatred of traditional religion, but challenges to the scientific orthodoxy are good for the advance of science.

[glovergj]

Mutation + natural selection is not the only mechanism that drives evolutionary change.

We can agree that challenges to the scientific orthodoxy are good for science. But you can't beat something with nothing, even if that something is flawed.

Evolution might not have all the answers, but it provides a material framework that makes testable prediction that can be verifed via experiementation. ID doens't do this. If it could, then you would see ID researchers reinterpreting the data.

[ProudToBLoud]

Scientists have always been motivated by a belief that these causes could be discovered. In fact science itself was born from a philosophical worldview that believed (for mostly theological reasons) that the universe was governed by an unchanging, predictable, discoverable set of laws.

[glovergj]

Agree again. I have a video about that as well.

[ProudToBLoud]

The entire enterprise of scientific inquiry has always been the assumption and discovery of underlying order. NOT disorder! From Copernicus, Galileo and Newton right up to the present day, science has always succeeded by assuming in advance that there are specific undiscovered causes for the behavior of the physical world.

[glovergj]

I agree. I have a whole video about that. So what's your point?

[IDtaksovr]

OBSERVATION: Cellular machines appear to be intelligently designed.

QUESTION: Could they be produced in successive slight modifications / mutations?

HYPOTHESIS: If they are designed rather than evolved via an undirected process, they may be irreducibly complex.

EXPERIMENT: Gene knockouts confirm that all of the 30 to 50 proteins involved in bacteral flagella are necessary, or the flagellum either doesn't work, or doesn't even get built.

TRY TO PUBLISH: get EXPELLED, insulted, fired...

[glovergj]

REASON: premature. First try to identify a material mechanism that can explain the mountains of positive data, then perhaps somebody will listen to you. You can't replace something with nothing. Something with problems and limitations is better than nothing. Look at physics. A flawed theory of gravity, relativity and quantum mechanics is better than nothing. Until a GUT comes along that works better than these, that's what we use. You can't just say the the FSM makes it all work!

[ProudToBLoud]

"You can't just say the the FSM makes it all work!"

Exactly and that is why id does not concern itself with the identity of the creator, you are starting to learn what id is, well done.

[glovergj]

Yeah, I get it. Don't say who the designer is because something that specific might get falsified. Or if we say it is a deity we might be violating the establishment clause, or whatever.

But to taken seriously, you need a mechanism of assembly. To say that something is designed and stop there is worthless. But in order to test a mechanism of assembly, you have to have some idea of the nature of who or what did the assembly. Since ID doesn't do this, it can't be science.

[ProudToBLoud]

he does not need to answer who created the creator of this artifact, likewise if you were on another planet and you came across some machinery that you had never seen before on earth, and you said to your friend this looks designed, it would be an absurd suggestion to reject that by your friend saying aha but who designed the being that designed this machinery, your objection about infinite regression is a red herring it is a fallacy and thus it is rejected.

[glovergj]

If I asked you about the material history of and artifact and the only answer you could come up with is "design" -- you are being trivial at best, if not worthless.

Design can't answer anything about the material history of an object. Only science can do that. To answer that question, you need data, you need models -- you need to be able to show how a design was made manifest in the material world. If you can't do this, then you are not doing science.

Ergo: ID is not science.

[glovergj]

You don't understand the infinite regression argument.

To say that something is designed is trivial. Science is only interested in how things came to be. Design is teleological in nature. So if design is your answer to how something came to be, then the burden is on you to demonstrate a material mechanism by which a mental image can be made manifest. Yet, such a thing is impossible to do apart from a physical sentient being. This leads to an infinite regress of unanswerable questions.

[ProudToBLoud]

"You don't understand the infinite regression argument. "

proof by assertion thus rejected.

"To say that something is designed is trivial"

trivial to whom?

[ProudToBLoud]

"If you can't do this, then you are not doing science."

according to whom?

Ergo: ID is not science

again according to whom?

[ProudToBLoud]

"Again, all you get is an infinite regress of unanswerable qeustions. "

You do not get infinite regress it is only because in your hypocrisy that you get an infinite regress, you do not need an explanation for the explantion to say something is the best explanation for something, you can get infinte regress with or without a creator but scientists do not do it because it is absurd, if an archeologist finds an artifact and suggets it had a creator, cont:

[ProudToBLoud]

(John S. Mattick quoted in W. Wayt Gibbs, The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk, Scientific American (November, 2003).)

The largely refuted junk-DNA mindset was born and bred out of the neo-Darwinian paradigm, and if some rogue Darwinian (and non-Darwinian) biologists had the courage to study function for junk-DNA thats great, but it was not because of the neo-Darwinian paradigm but rather in spite of it.

[glovergj]

Wrong. It was borne out of the false view that DNA must be encoded before it can be useful. This has nothing to with evolution, this has to with genetics. And it doesn't change the usefulness of evolution. The entire science of molecular genetics would not make any sense apart from common descent.

[ProudToBLoud]

John mattick in scientific american: I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century, Mattick says. The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.

[ProudToBLoud]

How much clearer could it be? This 2003 article acknowledges that "the term junk DNA for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA" and further notes that those biologists who did study function for "junk-DNA" faced "the risk of being ridiculed." (emphases added) In science, where reputation is so important, it's much easier to shift one's research focus to where the money, the momentum, and the praise flow freely — not where research is "repelled" and "ridiculed."

[ProudToBLoud]

Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure."

(Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All," Science, Vol. 300(5623): (May 23, 2003).)

[ProudToBLoud]

"Although catchy, the term junk DNA for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories.

[ProudToBLoud]

I would say alot of the papers are probably id papers with a darwinian spin after all scientists must make sure they get continued funding eh!

[glovergj]

Results = funding.

People generally don't like to waste money (current administration not-withstanding).

If ID actually contributed to the scientific body of knowledge, then perhaps they could compete for research dollars.

So far... Nothing. Behe testified under oath in Dover that there was no Data to support ID. Funny how he changes his tune when faced with the threat of perjury!

[ProudToBLoud]

It was your darwin of the gaps that lead to the assumption that organs had no function in the first place and then what do you do you pass off conjecture about vestigial organs as science, no it is not, go back to the past bring me somebody with an appendix with its so called original function, bring me a transition then we you can call your conjecture science.

[glovergj]

Is this your only example of evolutionary thinking causing the conventional thinking to "get it wrong"? You keep going back to this.

In typical creationist fashion, you are basically ignoring the littany of sucessess of evolution to single out the one or two things where Darwin was wrong. Well, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. In fact, the cover of New Scientist recently had a headline, "Darwin was Wrong". The theory of evolution, however, has stood the test of time.

[ProudToBLoud]

However the pressupositions of science do not sit well on the worldview of the atheist, that reason came from non reason, that intelligence arose from non intelligence, that the laws of nature ie: the uniformity of nature(order) and the cosmological fine tuning all arose out of an accidental chance process, to assume order from disorder, intelligence from non intelligence, rationality from non rationality, is absurd, you cannot justify sense perception without question begging.

[glovergj]

Yes, I've read VanTill and Bahnsen and Frame et all. All of my Bahnsen books are personally autographed as he was a friend of the family. No argument there, brother.

[ProudToBLoud]

"The design inference is garbage. It answers no questions and solves no problems. "

to the contrary the design influence allows furhter investigation to see how things are designed and function and solve those problems for example the function of organs in the body and strands of dna, it is the darwin of the gaps and randomness that is unscientific and holds back science.

[glovergj]

Oh brother. Let's see: the amount of research and peer-reviewed papers from an evolutionary framework is staggering. What has ID contributed: ZILCH!!!

The Discovery Institute opened and funded its "Biologic Institute" lab in 2005. Output: nothing. It took 3 years to get their website up. Several universities have biology departments and creationist policies---Biola, Liberty, Bob Jones. Their research putput in ID---zero. (cont...)

[glovergj]

(cont...) Michael Behe has tenure at Lehigh, and 40 reviewed papers. Tital output of papares on ID: nada. William Dembski started a jouirnal (PCSID) expressly for papers on ID; no discrimination there.. And no articles at all for 4 years. Dembski and Robert Marks recently published a paper in an IEEE Transactions that they claim places limits on evolution. (Of course, this is still not evidence FOR design. But they did get the paper published.)

(note: I borrorwed the previous two comments)

[ProudToBLoud]

Peer review is nothing more than an appeal to authority, good science gets rejected from peer review while bad science goes in, barbra mclintlock was denied for 32 years because of the dogmatic attitude of the scientific community, she had to publish informally and was right, did tesla have a paper published nope, and to reject something as non scientific and then say where is your peer review is absurd, peer review being the arbiter of truth is ridiculous and a desperate appeal.

[glovergj]

Ok, forget peer review. Show me one invention that is a result of the design inference? Any cures for disease? Any improvement to the human condition?

Nada.

Good old common descent, however, has a rather long resume regarding tangible advances.

[ProudToBLoud]

Scientists use intelligence to find cures to diseases, they use design for new technology and new medicines they do by intelligent testing, none of this comes about by random chance, as for any improvement to the human condition, your word nada just shows your ignorance, those who believe in design at the religious level that they have a creator and follow accordingly, well they have better physical mental emotional and psychological health, the scientific studies show this.

[ProudToBLoud]

"Science is self-correcting. Creationism is no"

ahhhhhhhhh the strawman id is creationism, anyone skeptical of evolutionary processes believes the earth was created in so many days etc etc blah blah blah

are you saying that no true scientist would believe in id?

that is a no true scotsman fallacy.

[glovergj]

ID = creationism. There is no way around it. Once you invoke design in the absense of an intelligent agent who has the physical presence to execute his will, you are no longer on scientific ground. Again, all you get is an infinite regress of unanswerable qeustions.

This is no different than the view that aliens seeded the earth with first life, and who seeded their planet? etc.. etc..

The design inference is garbage. It answers no questions and solves no problems.

[ProudToBLoud]

"Again, all you get is an infinite regress of unanswerable qeustions. "

You will always get an infinite regress if you ask for an explanation for an explanation, that would hold back science if you always had to give an explanation for an explanation, so then you should quit engaging in this fallacy.

[ProudToBLoud]

When you engage in such conjecture and then talk about what is science and what cannot be tested is not science you discredit yourself with your inconsistency.

[glovergj]

And yet, you are here on my channel. Don't you have better things to do?

[ProudToBLoud]

The latest discoveries of the appendix show that it is absurd to even think of the appendix as being vestigial even in the sense of how the revised definition of vestigial means, but it is darwin of the gaps that is the science stopper, if you want to even now argue for it as just being a vestige then that is not science that is pure conjecture, unless you can go into the past and find somebody who had a diferent function and then another where the function changed but that's not science.

[ProudToBLoud]

As for id, no no, it was id proponets that predicted function and not the darwinists that we have just seen which is admitted too, even dawkins the high priest of atheism made that faulty prediction.

as for vestigial organs, you miss the point, the point was to its original definition not the revised definition of vestigial, do you think people would remove healthy organs if they thought there was a secondary function?, lol

[glovergj]

Again, science is constantly being revised as new data destroys old paradigms. But common descent has so far stood the test of time. ID offers nothing but an infinite regress of unanswerable questions. How does a spiritual being mediate his prescence in the physical world without a body? And if God can arrange proteins from carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen by fiat, why did he have to wait 9 billions for stars to forge it naturally? Why not just create it all in 6 days? Why the pretense of science?

[ProudToBLoud]

The largely refuted junk-DNA mindset was born and bred out of the neo-Darwinian paradigm, and if some rogue Darwinian (and non-Darwinian) biologists had the courage to study function for junk-DNA thats great, but it was not because of the neo-Darwinian paradigm but rather in spite of it.

[ProudToBLoud]

particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology. (John S. Mattick quoted in W. Wayt Gibbs, The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk, Scientific American (November, 2003).)

[ProudToBLoud]

I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century, Mattick says. The failure to recognize the full implications of this—

[glovergj]

Science if full of these stories. How many time does conventional wisdom give way to new paradigms? you still haven't show me how this suggests ID is works better than evolution.

[ProudToBLoud]

In fact, even some of the evolutionary biologists who risked "ridicule" to seek function for junk-DNA have lamented how their paradigm has stifled research into junk-DNA. Also in 2003, John Mattick, an evolutionist biologist who is a standout because of his research seeking function for junk-DNA, stated in Scientific American the following striking comment:

[ProudToBLoud]

How much clearer could it be? This 2003 article acknowledges that "the term junk DNA for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA" and further notes that those biologists who did study function for "junk-DNA" faced "the risk of being ridiculed."  In science, where reputation is so important, it's much easier to shift one's research focus to where the money, the momentum, and the praise flow freely — not where research is "repelled" and "ridiculed.

[glovergj]

Again, this has nothing to do with design. In several cases, these genes clearly have evolutionary precursor and are adapted from pseudogenes, which are vestiges of evolution. Even vestigial organs can retain some function. None of this suggest that ID is somehow superior to real science.

[ProudToBLoud]

"Even vestigial organs can retain some function"

Yes the original definition of vestigial was no function when this was found to be faulty the excuse was that science is updating itself and that they had a function before and now they have a new function, but this is not science this is pure conjecture, like i said, you go back into the past bring me somebody who had an appendix with a different function then bring me a transition into the secondary function, cont:

[ProudToBLoud]

Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure."

(Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All," Science, Vol. 300(5623): (May 23, 2003)."

[glovergj]

I'm familiar with the story. This is just good science. It has nothing to do with ID. The researchers who did this work are in the evolution camp, not the creationsit camp.

[ProudToBLoud]

"The researchers who did this work are in the evolution camp"

they did this in spite of the predictions of dogmatic darwinism not because of it, because of dogmatic darwinism this was done quietly on the side but if these prejudices of dogmatic darwinism were put aside these breakthroughs could have happened sooner.

[glovergj]

Wrong. Darwinism predicts that vestigal structure can have novel function. This is also true for pseudogenes, but the conventional thinking at the time was that only encoding DNA was important. It was not known that a non-encoding section of DNA could do anything. This has NOTHING TO DO with Darwinism. This is just good old fashioned groupthink. Don't believe the DI spin. These scienitists were rewarded for their perserverance.

[ProudToBLoud]

"Although catchy, the term junk DNA for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. cont:

[ProudToBLoud]

Randomness" as a theory of biological diversity is not merely bad science, it's a wholesale avoidance of scientific inquiry. It leads to theories and terms like 'Junk DNA.' (An October 2004 article in Scientific American described the Junk DNA hypothesis as "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.") There is no junk in DNA, and to assume there is just eliminates the possibility of making new, important discoveries.

[glovergj]

Science is self-correcting. Creationism is not. But most pseudogenes are junk. The problem with the JDNA hypothesis was that it grouped all non-encoding sections together. But there are different varieties that originate through different mechanism and, yes, some of these were discovered by evolutionary scientists to have novel function. ID contributed nothing to this discovery. It was evolutionary science all the way. If you had actually read the SciAm article, you would know this.

[ProudToBLoud]

It was the darwin of the gaps that lead to people having healthy organs removed because they were thought to have no function, those whom believe that they were created did not assume such things but it was the darwinian dogmatism again that was the science stopper again, cont:

[glovergj]

Ok then. Cite a single discovery that came about through the paradigm of ID? You can't, because there are none!

Take the phenomena of taste. The traditional understanding of taste was based on design, but when it was discovered that there was no way such a mechanism could have evolved in a step-by-step fashion, another theory was proposed. When the two were tested, the evolutionary theory was found to be superior and led to several significant discoveries that were published.

[ProudToBLoud]

"Stop drinking the ID Kool-Aid and think for yourself! ID doesn't solve any problems of a scientific nature"

Wrong, it was Id advocates that argued that strands of dna that were labelled junk would have a function while the darwinist paradigm held these findings back, in fact any research by evolutionary biologists had to be done in secret for fear of ridicule and did so in spite of darwinian predictions not because of it, it was dogmatic darwinism that was the science stopper.

[glovergj]

Sorry, but it was the scientists who discovered that some non-encoding regions of DNA have regulatory functions. But most pseudogenes do not, and are simply left-overs from evolution. Evolution explains not only the molecular vestiges, but also the fact that they can be co-opted to perform novel functions. You are simply reguritating the DI spin. ID has discovered nothing. Like Newtons "intelligent force" that maintains planetary stability, ID is a science killer. It alwasy has been.

[ProudToBLoud]

The origins of science came from men who believed that god created them with a rational intelligent mind and that he made a universe that was intelligently made and thus understandable, it was these pressupositions from men of god mostly christian that gave rise to modern science and that is compatible with cosmological id, your ignorance on how science came into being shows just how absurd the statement id is a science killer really is,

[glovergj]

I'm fully aware of the rich Christian history of science. The modern creationists don't hold a candle to men like Newton, Faraday, etc...

But even Newton reached a dead end when he assumed that the stability of planetary orbits was due to design. Unfortunately, LaPlace found a material mechanism using Newton's own calculus.

Another example of Dead-end design.

[LogosApologia]

Completely fallacious argument ... ID is just common sense. Infer design when the evidence leads to design. It makes no claim as to who or even how the design occurred. ID proponents have rightly made it a legal issue because of the blatant censorship and outright persecution of scientists and scholars that dare to question the liberal naturalistic bias of the modern university secular magisterium.

[glovergj]

Stop drinking the ID Kool-Aid and think for yourself! ID doesn't solve any problems of a scientific nature. It's an entire philosophy based on the worship of scientific ignorance. The only evidince it can cite is gaps and missing links. No different than paleo-contact.

The history of science is one of replacing supernatural explanations with natural, testable ones. Never has a natrual explanation been replaced by a supernatural one. Why? Because science can't do that. Think about it!

[LogosApologia]

Your own video refutes your argument. ID is a design inference - the designer could be aliens or God. What it opposes is chance. You seem to think that the "chance of the gaps" is more scientific than design - when known scientific laws like entropy and biogenesis clearly refute the idea.

Science has necessarily hit the brick wall where a supernatural explanation is necessary. Time itself had a beginning. What happened that made the big bang is by definition supernatural.

[glovergj]

The chances of humans figuring out how to do something that we have overlook is greater than the chances that aliens came to earth and left no other evidence except for these large stone structures.

Supernatural events can be true (miracles, creation events, etc...), but they can't be scientific. Scinece requires a testable model that includes ordinary causality and material causation.

[NeoPsiTom]

This is good. I don't feel so alone now. =)

[stango141]

I agree with you that junk science shouldn't be taught. There is a lot of junk that has been taught that has been proven false in biology classes. Biology should stick to anatomy and leave all the theories to college. We should teach math, physics, computer science, and reading. All that other stuff doesn't belong in public schools. If the kids want to learn about it, they can go to the library and get a book.

[glovergj]

So now I'm curious: what has been proven false that they are still teaching in biology class?

[adamredwine]

I agree that we should avoid teaching anyone things that have been proven false. In fact, we should probably stick to teaching them only the most well supported sets of precepts used to explain natural phenomena (<--- the definition of a theory). I'm perfectly content to rest assured that evolution is one of the best supported such sets of precepts amongst the various branches of science.

[callingheyzeus]

Computer $576. Video editing software $129.99. 26 PBJ sandwiches and 4 gallons of tea $11. Bottle of aspirin from being hunched over the computer for hours making videos $3. Fact checking your own video... Priceless. There are a few other people I would like to see fact check themselves. At any rate it was a good mental exercise and very enjoyable.

[glovergj]

Thanks! I don't usually do satire, so I'm slightly uncomfortable using hyperbole and overstating the facts. This little excersice helps me sleep at night.

[methinxaweezil]

"I'm slightly uncomfortable using hyperbole and overstating the facts"

...unlike most other people. : )

Excellent satire and nice bonus fact check. You never know who is going to "get it" and who isn't. And your satire voiceover may be the best I've heard on YouTube.