Gorton Summer Series 2007

[Tervinger]

The so called "Discovery Institute" - Home of liars, charlatans, hypocrites, and bigots.



[DRXY1]

fail



[MethodicalMadness]

Miserable FAIL

[EcrossH]

Discovery Institute does nothing but bear false witness against others (lie). The only thing they "discover" is how to stick their fingers in their ears so they don't hear the monolithic, monumental mountain of facts, data, and evidence backing up evolutionary science. Or, perhaps, they "discover" that if they shout and market their mythical beliefs at the top of their lungs, that somehow good science is covered up.

[Pushtrak]

I wonder if the Discovery Institute can discover honesty.

[ThinkingBetter]

The Discovery Institute is a disgrace for the USA.

[DanceInYourRoom]

Interesting comment. I was on the fence since I was raised a Methodist and I really saw no conflict between my faith and science. And then I heard about DI. An organization that genuinely seeks for a scientific explanation for merit in the bible is amazing. And then came Kitzmiller v Dover. Disillusioned, I read Dawkins and then Hitchens, and now I hold no belief in a supernatural being. I actually have DI to thank. As much as they misinform, their misinformation should be open to the public.

[buckfushes]

I'm curious to know what the "discovery" institute has actually discovered.

I'd like to see you guys discover the science of evolution one of these days.

[TheForthcoming1]

God Bless you guys! And William Dembski and Sean McDowell rock!

[balamanti2]

Discovery Institute killed Atheism ,

they are mass murderers Killing all Atheists ideas

Atheism - REST in Peace

[bobbybenjamin]

FAIL

[JesusGotPwnd]

Putos

[Surathan]

Epic Fail.

Go fuck yourselves.

[glassbrain]

Wait... how many millions did the Discovery Institute spend on research into intelligent design? And still nothing to show that stands up to any sort of scrutiny? :(

[caffeine4671]

Failvideo. 1 star'd.

[MilitantScience]

Discovery Institute - liars who break the law by filling false DMCA claims.

CENSORSHIP IS NOT A VALID FORM OF ARGUMENT.

[Ozzyman200]

If there were any decent evidence for creationism or against science, someone would have presented it by now.

[Samael994]

Pwned by q-dragon!

[gorilla199uncensored]

DI its a criminal offence to file false DMCA claim!

Im looking forward to you being trialed for this open and shut case!

[gorilla199uncensored]

Got to love how their video on "Academic freedom" has the ratings and comments dissabled like most of their videos, this one must have got away by accident!

[Chemicalogic]

The Disinformation Institute. Fighting the good fight against science and rationality, so you don't have to worry your pretty little head about it.

[cheesothegreat]

Way to go DI...are you going to make further propaganda videos about how you didn't file FALSE DMCA's. You are the lowest of the low....

[EcrossH]

Discovery Institute = censoring liars. All of creationist/intelligent design arguments have already been debunked countless times over the last century, and you guys STILL keep using the same arguments... only continually disguised under different names. I though christians were raised to be honest and to not bear false witness... that's exactly the opposite of your intent. How about you go after geology or cartography, since the bible CLEARLY states that the earth has "ends" and sits on pillars

[JeremyMilne]

you guys are manipulative dicks.

[ALEXHOPPE75]

I agree :)

[Theophage]

False DMCA claiming liars. How pathetic.

[matmicmj]

book free download 50 pgs , How God Created the Universe , see video for info .,.,.,added bonus gravitational singularity.,.,.,thxz.,.,.

[gorilla199uncensored]

Behe tells the truth (Some times)

He says ID is in thesame class as astrology! LOL

This is the best they have! LOL

[JRBendixen]

Utter crap

[yottaparsec]

HA HA HA HA HA!

[bugabuse]

Creationists are fucking retarded

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Discovery Institue didnt even both to try and defend ID in the Dover trial!

Why because they knew they had no evidence!

[GOPpersona]

"Discovery Institue didnt even both to try and defend ID in the Dover trial!"

So I guess they disowned Behe prior to Dover.

"Why because they knew they had no evidence!"

No because they didn't like the fact that the school board was mandating ID.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Behe went on his own accord the other DI IDiots didnt go.

IT was interesting what Behe had to say about ID at the trial tho.

So you are keen for astrology, to be taught in schools aswell as ID? Behe should be infavour of that too.

"No because they didn't like the fact that the school board was mandating ID. "

the fundamentalist DI didnt like its fundamentalist rubbish being taught, well thats a new one. LOL

[GOPpersona]

"So you are keen for astrology, to be taught in schools aswell as ID? Behe should be infavour of that too."

Did Behe say he wanted astrology taught in the classroom?

"the fundamentalist DI didnt like its fundamentalist rubbish being taught, well thats a new one. LOL"

I guess most ID critics don't specialize in law, but if you don't know what it means for something to be mandated, then go look it up.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"Did Behe say he wanted astrology taught in the classroom?"

He wants ID taught which for it to become science, would also make astrology science! Witch craft, voodoo etc etc etc would all be science!

[GOPpersona]

"He wants ID taught which for it to become science, would also make astrology science! Witch craft, voodoo etc etc etc would all be science!"

How would that be the case?

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"He wants ID taught which for it to become science, would also make astrology science! Witch craft, voodoo etc etc etc would all be science!"

How would that be the case?

Thats because they have the same evidence/proof and are as crediable as ID.

Dont shoot the messenger.

Its the fundamentalist christian Behe who said it!

[Qizx2]

Funny but wrong. Please enlighten yourselves.

[vdizhoor]

I liked Senator Gordon. This is sad.

[GOPpersona]

Hope this happens again in '08.

BTW the Discovery institute has to do with a lot more then just ID. That issue falls entirely onto the center for science and culture, a division of the discovery institute.

[danieljpost]

The Discovery Institute is a bunch of cowards. I just saw the 50 second video denouncing the documentary by PBS (Propaganda Broadcasting System??) covering the Dover trial. They accuse PBS of not giving fair and balanced coverage?

Not fair and balanced? PBS?!?!

The DI idiots disabled comments on that video. Anyone wonder why? It's because they made an indefensible claim and don't want to be schooled by comments on their own video.

Whatever, DI. The trial showed who you really are.

[danielgolfspar5]

If I had a website about turtles, and a bunch of fervent, angry turtle-haters dominated the comment postings, I might be inclined to disable the comment posting feature. Likewise, it becomes apparent that evangelical atheists dominate YouTube.

[danieljpost]

It's not that I hate the DI, it's just that their research has produced nothing.

Science is real. How can I prove it to you?

You're using a tool built from millions of complex components invented by science RIGHT NOW.

Chances are good that you're alive today partly due to modern medical science, which relies on modern biology, which has a real foundation in real science. That would be evolution.

DI has nothing. ID never will.

[danieljpost]

The anti-DI crowd is so vocal because the DI itself is.

And their message is dead wrong, and potentially dangerous-- to intentionally work to give legitimate science a bad name is a BAD THING.

Sometimes one is forced to shout in another's face when they will not listen, and are trying to tell lies to our children.

[danielgolfspar5]

Heh, ironically I'm using a computer that is not as complex as a biological entity, and you say it took invention. A computer can't replicate itself, but I am alive today because biological entities can reproduce. Believing life could form accidentally is not science, but belief. I welcome you to bestow any knowledge of how life first began onto the rest of us, because so far no atheists can figure it out. Atheism should not be confused with science, but should be recognized as a religion.

[danieljpost]

In what way does your argument make the Discovery Institute look less stupid?

The research has been, and continues to be done. Evolution is supported by all the evidence.

Abiogenesis, you're right, is not well understood. You'll find that any biologist will acknowledge that we don't have enough established research on that topic-- molecular biology is an intricate field. This does not make it an article of faith among atheists.

But I assure you that DI does nothing to improve our understanding.

[danielgolfspar5]

I find it interesting that understanding abiogenesis has actually gone backwards since the time of Darwin. Darwin, like a 4 year old looking at a space shuttle and believing he could construct one out of aluminum foil, didn't know how complex they were. As we learn more and more about the complexities of biological function, Darwinism bends further and further backward. It's only a matter of time before the back breaks.

[danielgolfspar5]

*-regarding the abiogenesis of single celled organisms

[danieljpost]

Complexity does not make molecular biology an invalid science.

It makes it an interesting one.

None of this discredits modern evolutionary theory. DI genuinely has it wrong.

[danielgolfspar5]

Molecular biology is a fantastic science, however believing unprovable things about the origin of biological systems is based on belief, and that is why atheism is a faith based religion.

[danieljpost]

Since when is atheism based on abiogenesis?

I thought it was based on not believing that we should all be subservient to a tyrannical sky-man who watches us fuck, and his priests.

[danielgolfspar5]

Abiogenesis is just one of the many unscientific, unprovable beliefs that atheists hold. I also would thank you for showing the true motives behind your reasons for attacking intelligent design, since it becomes apparent that you don't do so on scientific merit, but it seems you simply dislike God and seek to defend your own religion against potential opposing philosophies. I suspect this is true for most of ID's opponents.

[danieljpost]

I dislike someone ... whom I don't believe exists? Have you ever thought about this argument?

By the way, haven't you heard? Intelligent Design isn't about religion/god. DI keeps beating that drum so they can try to get past that little Constitution problem.

Oh, and they're still wrong.

Intelligent Design IS a testable hypothesis, and therefore scientifically valid

But it doesn't stand up against the tests

That's why it is discredited

That's why it is not science

That's why we don't teach ID.

[GOPpersona]

"By the way, haven't you heard? Intelligent Design isn't about religion/god. DI keeps beating that drum so they can try to get past that little Constitution problem."

Right, ID focuses exclusively on the aspects around us that are best explained by an intelligent cause, not on hypothesizing what the guiding intelligence was.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Right, ID focuses exclusively on the aspects around us that are best explained by an intelligent cause, not on hypothesizing what the guiding intelligence was.

Gee its just a coincidence, its all the people who support Id are fundamentalist Christians! WOW what a coincidence!

[GOPpersona]

"not on hypothesizing what the guiding intelligence was."

Precisely. What the guiding force is has no more relevance to ID then abiogenesis does to evolution.

"Gee its just a coincidence, its all the people who support Id are fundamentalist Christians! WOW what a coincidence!"

Completely false, some are also jewish, muslim, and also agnostic.

This is nothing more then adhominem guilt by association.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"Completely false, some are also jewish, muslim, and also agnostic."

Extremely small amount the majority are fudnamentalists!

"guilt by association"

Ok if you say fundamentalist are guilty that fines. So whats your religion?

[Poisinn]

You fail to mention that the majority of ID supporters are people who support Biblical inerrancy. ID was born out of the belief that the Bible is to be taken literal on all accounts, therefor challenging the scientific community supporting abiogenesis, the big bang theory, and evolution. Of course, ID is now trying vigorously to separate themselves from the Bible so they stand at least a 1% chance of being recognized as science.

[bteeuwen]

no but information does, so does chance, to assertain a possibility you can make the consider probabilistic value of it happening,

ill give you one example

one protein moluce of 100 amino acids (typical is about 300 so im being genergous)

the probability of of a peptide bond when joining is roughly 10^30,

the probably of a distinct mirror image of itself (which is required) again 10^30

therefore will say roughly 10^60 for both to occur,

do the math! and open your eyes!

[danieljpost]

It took invention for the computer to be developed, yeah.

And it took less than 200 years (on the order of tens of thousands of man-years worth of research and development) for our computers to do what they're generally used for: reliably replicate, operate on, and communicate information at high speed.

The "intelligent designer" has been working for billions of years, and my urethra runs through my prostate gland.

Huh.

[GOPpersona]

"The "intelligent designer" has been working for billions of years, and my urethra runs through my prostate gland."

Could you give me an idea of what a better design would be? And can you prove it's the result of actual poor design and not nature?

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"nd can you prove it's the result of actual poor design and not nature?"

Do you support Id or not?

BTW ID is NOT a theory, its not weven a hyposis. Its a belief! like believing in an imaginary god!

[GOPpersona]

"Do you support Id or not?"

Most definitely yes.

"BTW ID is NOT a theory, its not weven a hyposis. Its a belief! like believing in an imaginary god!"

Why not? Is there a claim in particular that it makes that you feel is baseless?

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"Why not?"

Thats because they dont meet the definitions of even hyposis, let alone, fact and definately not theory!

Is there a claim in particular that it makes that you feel is baseless?

[GOPpersona]

"Thats because they dont meet the definitions of even hyposis, let alone, fact and definately not theory!"

Define those for me.

"Is there a claim in particular that it makes that you feel is baseless?"

Not at all.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"Define those for me."

If you would like to educate yourself, try google or even wikipedia

replying to quote of yourself?

[ares213]

Has the Discovery Institute ever taken the Raelian theory of ID into consideration?

[particle409]

Creationism, your cheap tuxedo is coming apart...

[danieljpost]

Yes, where is the published, peer-reviewed research supporting their hypothesis is better than all the science that contradicts it? NOWHERE. It doesn't exist. It never will. Because their hypothesis is indefensible. Intelligent Design will never be accepted as valid science.

[GOPpersona]

Would you like to join a little discussion that is going on for the vid "unlocking the mystery of life?" I would like you're opinion on some of the comments I made there.