PZ Myers Vs Jerry Bergman (enhanced audio - full debate)

Here is the full debate, minus the introduction.
The audio has been aligned as best I could do it; additionally, the sound quality has been improved for clarity in most places.
If you can do better with it, by all means have at it.

This is a brutal raking over the coals of batshit crazy know-nothing "Dr" Jerry "Some Village Is Missing Its Idiot" Bergman by the inimitable Professor PZ Myers. Please enjoy the experience of watching PZ Myers ever so gently shove the bullshit Bergman spews right back up his ass whence it came.

This video is uploaded per request of PZ Myers; please see scienceblogs.com/pharyingula for information on it.

A special thanks to user Therationalizer for his help in getting this project done. So, go to his channel and blame him:
www.youtube.com/user/therationalizer

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• pz
• myers
• debates
• and
• kicks
• bat
• shit
• crazy
• jerry
• bergman
• bergman's
• sad
• pathetic
• douchebag
• ass
• funny
• thing
• is
• that
• carbon
• irreducibly
• complex
• intelligent
• design
• fucking
• fails

[integralmath]

@IDScience you are again demonstrating a perfect ignorance of what constitutes philosophy. Further, you are demonstrating a nearly perfect ignorance of science, and archaeology. We're done here; I don't have time to teach you a remedial course in, well, grade school.

[IDScience]

@integralmath "we can identify within certain error bounds the designers of the pyramids. "

You would have no way what so ever to verify the identity of the designer of the pyramids. The only thing that could be accurately verified would be the minimal intelligence level needed to build them.

The identity of the designer would be subjective philosophy

[integralmath]

@IDScience you're an idiot. You simply may not claim simultaneously that your god interacts and is therefore testable and that he's not testable. As it happens, we can identify within certain error bounds the designers of the pyramids.

[IDScience]

@integralmath "if you claim you have indirect evidence.. then you've ceded that a god in principle isn't anathema to science. Indeed, you've admitted, explicitly that such a god is within the realm of science"

No because the person of God can't be empirically proven, a superior intelligence can be proven. Science has no business identifying the designer of life because it is impossible to verify, just as it would be impossible to verify the identify of the designer of the pyramids

[integralmath]

@IDScience if you claim you have indirect evidence of his/hers/its interference, then you've ceded that a god in principle isn't anathema to science. Indeed, you've admitted, explicitly, that such a god is within the realm of science, thus mooting your earlier non-objections. Moving on from there, you have no such evidence; you have an assertion and nothing more. There is nothing whatever to the proposition than a constant is necessarily in want of a constant maker.

[IDScience]

@integralmath "So, again, you're free to posit a god that doesn't interact'

I have indirect evidence he does interact. The phenomenal complexity and machine like qualities of the cell. the intrinsic value placed in a DNA sequence. The artistic beauty of the world. And the fine tuning of the frozen constants all point to a grand designer.

Just as if we found many rows of perfect stone pyramids on mars we can deduce a designer did interact with mars at one point in time

[integralmath]

@IDScience science doesn't disagree with me. As I said, anything that interacts with the physical world leaves behind signs of influence. So, if your god interacts, that's by definition in the realm of science to investigate. So, again, you're free to posit a god that doesn't interact, but that's indistinguishable from non-existent. Your being obtuse on this straightforward proposition does no work to improve your vacuous claim.

[IDScience]

@integralmath

“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”

(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)

[IDScience]

@integralmath

"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Lewontin, Richard

[IDScience]

@integralmath

“[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may." Ruse, Michael The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA.,