Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover: Part 2

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
54,752
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 22, 2009

So our initial video to the Discovery Institute got two replies within the last week.
The first came by way of the DI fellow William Dembskis blog, uncommon descent
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pz-myers-throws-down-a-gaun...

Who actually addressed their response to the well known science blog of PZ Myers of Pharyngula (recommended)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/


the second came directly from DI Staff Casey Luskin.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/does_any_critic_out_there_unde.html#fn1
Casey has just earn himself the spotlight in WDPLAC part 30.

This video deals mostly with the first reply, that deemed that a designer couldnt possibly left signs of a gene with a non-evolutionary origin. Yup thats right, apparently the intelligent designer is only capable of producing genes that are utterly indistinguishable from those produced by evolutionary processes. Hmmm.

Anyway, the reply then rolls off into a straw-maned quote-mine of a BASIC Evolution vs Creationism textbook- yeah, I know exactly what you are thinking what a peculiar way to defend intelligent design
Eventually it boils down to the staple of creationism, -same genes, same designer.
This argument has been hammered many times with things like pseudo genes. What sort of designer makes genes, then switches them off etc etc etc.
Eventually the quote-mined-straw-man of the creationists gets the only reply that its worthy of.

  • likes, 648 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • "Discovery Institute" a truly repugnant, disingenuous (word was invented for this organisation), cynical, dishonest group of charlatans who serve no conceivable purpose other than push the political agenda of their shady benefactors. If there ever was a more dark, conspiritorial and dangerous group it is this unpleasant manifestation of superstitious nuts. Third rate academics and scientists prostituting their inferior credentials for mammon.

  • @dragondoubt

    Who said life sprung up easily? It had a about billion years to arise in an earth-sized test tube. This is still discounting other planets with similar conditions where life didn't turn up, which also belong in the equation. A lab and a test tube are nothing compared to this, and the fact that we've thus far been unable to reproduce it in some decades or so proves exactly nothing.

    To see how far we've progressed, check out Craig Venter: watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo

see all

All Comments (1,514)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • No need to the worry the jury they'll probably take care of themselves.The Discovery Intstitute is just a pathetic group of half ass wanna be scientists who couldn't make it in the real scientific community.They have no Honor ..no Dignity and can only lie to and decieve other Creationists ...anyone that gives credence to anything they say is chump and an idiot.They are just plain SAD.

  • Thes vidio iz fule ov lize

  • @Flash02021990

    "somehow your theory of evolution becomes the law of science"

    Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you even know what that is?

    And seriously, stop denying reality (reality is what is around us, what is observable, testable. Your fictional character is not part of it until you present conclusive evidence that it exist.

    I know thinking is not the strong points of deity believers, but perhaps you should try it.

  • @Atharkas How can you assure 100 percent that reality is what you consider to be reality ? I know that knowledge can be limited for many cases. Yet, you assure that your decoding of limited information is superior and somehow your theory of evolution becomes the law of science. You do this by affirming that your bias gathering of facts is somehow truth. I think i will reserve patience. Please watch the video i favored...then respond with questions that are not just to contradict and show stupid.

  • @Flash02021990

    Actually, "creation" defies logic and facts. Why the arrogance? Do you hate reality that much?

  • thunder foot you deny facts and logic...why the arrogance...do you hate the idea od creation that much.

  • @TheBeardedMan01

    "This leads the chance hypothesis hard to swallow down, and illogical."

    Evolution is not a random process.

  • @TheBeardedMan01

    "Okay if they are so wrong please show me how"

    There is no such thing as specified complex information in biology.

  • @KyuubiNaruto1337XD

    I am not a christian for one (not that you accused me of one). And I recommend reading Stephen C. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell". That will answer your question.

  • @MomoTheBellyDancer

    Okay if they are so wrong please show me how, rather, than a statement that they are wrong.

View all Comments »
Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more