How to Defend Intelligent Design Like a Boss

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

Very good, thanks

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

Darn they got another one.

[@brandonmacey964]

@@Shoerandomcanoe 😂 darn those ID proponents

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Make Intelligence great again!!!

[@Loading....99.99]

How irrational do you have to be to believe the source of our intelligence could have come from a source that is non intelligent.

[@chrispark2698]

Intelligent Design is so obvious at this point, it's become irrational to deny it.

[@danreach]

You're right. If you don't like God just say you think it's a simulation. Still intelligent design...

[@bobdalton2062]

The genetic code and its functioning is such a complex code that we still have only understood a tiny tiny fraction of it. It is a code, all scientists agree it controls the operation of a cell as well as ability to repair and reproduce. This code cannot come to exist by randomness. If we ever see a code a fraction as complex as DNA from a radio signal from space everyone would be jumping up and down saying we found extraterrestrial intelligent life.

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

You could store someone genetic code on a 3GB flash drive. We do this all the time. DNA is only made up of 4 nucleotides it’s not impossibly complex. The human genome has been fully mapped. You are just wrong.

[@polystrate1]

@@Shoerandomcanoe DNA is the most complex code ever. It is compressed as well, which is amazing

[@KenJackson_US]

It always surprises me when someone tries to make an argument supposedly about science by referencing a court decision on school curriculum in some podunk village (Dover, PA) by a non-scientist politically-appointed judge. It's a blatant appeal to authority instead of to science. It was a political charade. If the judge had ruled against some other science, would editors have rushed to update their books? Would scientists have obediently updated their research? No, they'd just laugh it off as they should. Do you realize that a key piece of evidence in that school curriculum case was a typo in a textbook? That's hardly scientific evidence.

[@Andrew_McDiarmid]

Good points! Thanks for weighing in...

[@cptrikester2671]

Absolutely. The legal system is NOT about the truth system.

[@steaveg]

These videos would be more useful and get way more views if we could see the pictures he’s referring to.

[@Henri-y8t]

Yo Shoe, I realy dont need you to defend My self Punk Philippe 😎

[@tomesplin4130]

I accept that the fossil record details the evolution of species over long periods of time. However I do not accept that this was a random, unguided process. There is purpose and incredible design even in the simplest cell. The level of complexity and design in a living being is absolutely stupendous. There is an amazing intelligence demonstrated far beyond our comprehension…

[@asphilosophyusa]

@tomesplin4130 except the fossil record doesn't show that. It shows organisms that have gone extinct. Nothing more. Any supposed "evolutionary lineage" or such connection is only based on the imaginations of whoever is drawing the imaginay lines between the organisms in question.

[@James-ns3zi]

Intelligent design is everywhere. Try creating a set of eyes or a set of ears on your own and see what happens.

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

Light sensors exist and so do microphones…I’m genuinely curious how long you thought about that argument before posting it. Maybe half a second?

[@polystrate1]

@@Shoerandomcanoe and how do those come to exist?

[@timstanley8201]

Some people were already given them, ... They just need to figure out how to use them 😜

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Here's a question for intelligent design. Why do human males have mammary glands? And nipples? In fact, most male mammals have mammary glands. What is the intelligent part of that?

[@sabhishek9289]

"What is the intelligent part of that?" I don't know. There might be some scientists right now who may have a good theory about this whom I am not aware of. But to say that this falsifies intelligent design is absurd and it is an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is nothing compared to observable biological phenomena such as ageing and sexual reproduction that directly contradicts and falsifies evolution as an explanation of natural history. Keep in mind that I acknowledge that microevolution is an observable biological process. I'm saying that it cannot be used as an explanation of natural history. There are no solutions to any of these problems from the peer review literature for decades and even some for well over a hundred years: Evolutionary Ageing paradox The expensive problem of sexual reproduction The waiting time problem Pervasive Gene Loss in all life forms etc.

[@djsarg7451]

Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error. The theory of general relativity: the universe began at a “singularity” (Big Bang) where all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at an infinitely small point and expanded outward from there. Space-time Theorems recognizes the union of space and time. General relativity has been proven to be true. The universe has mass, and the universe is expanding. Thus the universe had a singularity/Big Bang/beginning. The Bible is the only Holly Book to tell us the universe is expanding. Jer. 51:15 as it is the Word of God. Only Holly Book to say the universe had a beginning. Only Holly Book to say the Time had a beginning (2 Timothy 1:9). The Bible, a old book, got it all correct ! Proof it is God’s Word.

[@strangeradios]

This lecture is just a smattering of incredibly weak arguments and false equivalencies.

[@Johnny-mz9ot]

And, more of weak neo-Darwinist assertions...

[@Shoerandomcanoe]

It’s good to challenge your audience but defending intelligent design is impossible.

[@chrispark2698]

Seriously, it makes way more sense that all life came from non-living chemicals which spontaneously self-assembled into precisely engineered, information-rich, irreducibly complex systems, despite all the evidence we have suggesting this not possible.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Is it like pornography, you only know it when you see it? Or beauty? Is it purely inferential?

[@bobdalton2062]

Wow, who can refute the logic of your comment? Locktite logic you demonstrated

[@James-ns3zi]

Tell us why? I guarantee you do not have a legitimate answer.

[@michaeld9682]

Intelligent design is more plausible today than it ever was