djsunkid CA

Member Profile

Visit My Blog »

Real Name: J
Birthdate: April 12th, 1979 (45 years old)
A little about me...
Sifter living in Halifax Vancouver, Canada. Melbourne, Australia. Vancouver again, this time for good! Love for kitties and psytrance. Boo to videos of people getting hurt. Psytrance and Cooking, what!

Member Since: August 1, 2006
Email: djsunkid hotmail
Homepage: http://djsunkid.livejournal.com
Last Power Points used: August 23, 2011
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 2   Get More Power Points Now!

Random Videos from My Personal Queue

Comments to djsunkid

budzos says...

Why don't you find a better quality source instead of complaining in my profile that one of the ten Frantics videos you spammed with today might not get to the front page because I downvoted it? I understand the math behind your point. That's why I downvoted your post. I don't think it's worthy of the front page. I think the anime version of boot to the head is not good either. I don't see the connection or synergy behind overlapping anime and the Frantics. If you think it's worth posting because of the audio, I'd remind you this is VideoSift. I didn't downvote it though because I understand some people like that type of thing and I don't object to it the same way I object to a video that looks like it's from a Real Player demo in 1996.

ShakaUVM says...

In reply to your comment:
I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos