ID vs. AI FACT CHECK 2/2

I created these two videos to FACT CHECK my own "Intelligent Design vs. Alien Intervention" video — something that you will never see the Discovery Institute do with their propaganda. As a satirical work, the video contains a bit humor, a little sarcasm, and plenty of overstatements and exaggerations (which are rooted in fact). So if you want to know the seriousness behind the comedy, check out these two videos!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Intelligent alien design
• intelligent design
• the discovery institute
• creationism
• pseudoscience
• pseudoarchaeology
• beyondthefirmament
• beyond the firmament
• gordon j. glover
• gordon glover
• evolution
• darwinism
• charles darwin
• science
• academic freedom
• expelle
• d stargate
• teach the controversy
• strengths and weaknesses
• biologic institute
• great pyramids of giza
• stonehenge

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[GorbixElite01]

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

[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]

No its random.

sowwie

[ProudToBLoud]

Your whole argument depends on darwin of the gaps.