If so many people think God wrote a book IMHO it becomes relevant to study it at least superficially just so you can co-exist and communicate with all these people.

The stories in the book are mostly not history but the book itself and how it came to be certainly is.

Seriously if God is omnipotent and knows everything this book of his shows a strong sense of humor rather than much intelligent design. Like having bits and pieces garbled by running them back and forward through ancient humanoid versions of modern day OCR, machine translation and political censorship.

I love the Septuaginta bit (not in this video) where mythically 70ish scholars were secluded for 70ish days and each came up with his own Greek translation and they were all mythically identical. Where in reality the translation took decades, was a team effort that garbled the texts to appease current rulers and added whole new books.

Yes, but you're talking about the religious people in the outside band with no antibiotic. They are mutating their philosophy into Intelligent Evolution in order to move into band 2. Therefore God intelligently designed evolution.

If band 1 with no antibiotic is Intelligent Design and band 2 is Intelligent Evolution, is band 3 Intelligent Abiogensis? God must be in the middle somewhere hiding in 1000x antibiotic land.

Evolution, Bitches!

Take your banana-proof of intelligent design and shove it.... well, where 'God' apparently 'designed' it to go (after all, it is curved for easier self-penetration).

Proof that if intelligent design is real, god sure is an asshole

Yeah, I don't know who to blame for this.

Anti-information became a strategy during the early years of the global warming "debate, " which I believe also coincided with "debate" about teaching evolution in public schools in the early 2000s. In both "debates" you had groups of people (climate change deniers/intelligent design) spouting off supposed "facts" that supported their positions, some of which were made up bullshit and others which actual facts but used to draw the wrong conclusions (i.e. logical fallacies). These guys, I'm pretty sure, were drawing their cues from the 9/11 truther conspiracy theory movement, which used similar tactics to try to convince people 9/11 was an inside job.

The Internet DID in fact allow these groups a higher level of coordination in distributing misinformation than previous times. But at the end of the day, we can only blame the uneducated people who read this stuff and accepted it as fact rather than actually try to fact-check anything. They helped create the climate that allows politicians now to blatantly lie and either hope they get away with it or shrug it off when they're called on it.

Didn't watch the video, but did skim the comments... Christ...

First off, moving to Canada and any other decent first world nation be it New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Iceland, Netherlands, Canada etc... not as easy as just packing up and moving. You need a very narrow set of skills to move to those countries. We looked into all this countries, and all of their entry requirements exceeded what we had to offer them. People always say if you don't like it leave, but that ignores several facts. It isn't we don't like it, we just think it can be improved, change isn't bad. Humanity isn't bad. Caring for those less fortunate isn't bad. Guaranteeing everyone a minimum level of affordable health care isn't bad. Working to insure that all workers get a living wage (the way we used to have before the employers/owners started getting greedy and redistributing more wealth to themselves), isn't a bad goal, in fact it's a very good thing. The famed clip from the Newsroom's first episode when he goes on about how America isn't great anymore but it used to be...

Of course the whole concept of American exceptionalism, or any nation exceptionalism is flawed. We are all humans on this planet. Being American doesn't make you superior to somebody born in China or Mexico, Ethiopia, Syria or anywhere else. Location of birth is an accident of timing... and if it is divine intervention by God that placed you here instead of Ethiopia where you may have starved to death with an inflated malnourished belly despite all your prayers, then God is an ass and not worth serving. So if he's not an ass, then it is pure accident that you are here and not there. To think oneself superior and better than somebody in another nation because of their location of birth, and the religion that comes with that location, is insanity. And I draw that all ways. The Muslims who despise Christianity for not being the true faith, and Christians who despise Islam for not being the true faith. You are your faith by accident of birth, be it location and/or parentage etc... all of which is getting away from the point. Which is simply that to say that Chinese worker doesn't deserve a job manufacturing something that you think you should be building is asinine and not respectful of their humanity and a complete lack of any sort of empathy. Christ, I have Aspergers and I have more empathy in my farts than the entire Tea Party Christian Right.

Yes we need to respect the individual, but "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"... and that quote is in context and not just a cherry pick sample. If it benefits just one and damages the many, then it is not a good thing. Most every faith in the world has some variation of the Golden Rule, to treat others the way you want others (not that specific person, but people as a general whole) to treat you. Christianity's Christ went further and said the greatest commandment was love, to show love to one another. Greed and selfishness is not love. Collectivism has many faults as well, but it isn't tyranny, and is certainly better for society as a whole in the long run than unrestrained greed motivated individualism. Like Pink Floyd's song, On the Turning Away, says, we are all "just a world we all must share". We can't turn away from the coldness inside towards others. We need to lift all of humanity up. Perhaps showing the Muslims love instead of hate and bigotry would convince them that perhaps Christianity isn't the enemy, that perhaps it is the answer, but showing them hate, and bigotry... and denying refugees trying to flee a horrible civil war is bigotry and hatred, and the fact that a rather disturbingly large percentage of the right can't see that isn't bigotry and hatred is scary beyond measure. I again find it amazing that people could lack that much empathy without a neurological disorder.

To invade others, tell them how to live their lives, to force democracy on them if they aren't ready, to insult them and belittle their faith, and all that isn't world building. It isn't reaching out with empathy. It's hate. It's bigotry and as noted by artician, it's what helps drive people to fly into buildings. They know that they know that their faith is the right one, and the lack of empathy to see that people of the Muslim faith have just as much faith in their religion as Christians have in theirs, that they have the same amount of knowledge and comfort from god that they are the correct faith, is what drives extremism.

And oh my god the guns. Guns would have saved the Jews. American mainland can't be invaded because too many people own guns... ask the Branch Davidians how well having not only military grade weapons but also training on how to use them worked for them against a slightly militarized police force, let alone an actual military. Yes, it would be incredibly hard, and resistance would probably eventually wear any invading force down the way the Taliban wore the Soviets down, or the Viet Cong did against the US Military might. So perhaps that can be counted as a victory, but would be long fought. Look, I support gun ownership. All I really call for is 1) allowing the CDC get back to it's job of collecting the data and finding out what's really going on with gun violence, and 2) closing the gun show loophole unless the CDC's investigation shows that it has zero effect, 3) you have to have a legal ID to own a gun and can't be on the no fly list, 4) the existing background checks kept the same, but also add a drug test, the right wants drug tests for welfare, then we should be testing for gun owenrship too. (I see little reason for "assault weapons" but aside from perhaps having perhaps a slightly better background check, I don't know if a ban yet needs to be called for, but I'm in the middle here.) Once we have have better data points from the CDC then we can really tackle the issue of gun violence. Yes, it will take years to get those answers, but I find it insane that the Republicans refuse to allow the investigation to go on, which says to me that they are afraid of what the data will show.

Unless you are nearly a pure Native American, then you are a refugee to the US.

The primary problem here and around the world is poverty and lack of proper education. This drives people to crime and extremism in religion which makes them susceptible to acting out terrorist acts, be it in the name of Allah (as is the public perceived norm) or Christ (ala the Planed Parenthood terrorist attack, the 2011 Norway attacks, etc). We need to address the growing income and wealth gaps. The way to doing that isn't by giving those at the top even more tax breaks and losing regulations (which is funny thing to complain about, too many regulations here in the US, meanwhile the same people complain about the low quality Chinese goods that aren't safe due to low regulations and poor labor conditions etc). We need to push education, and proper STEM programs, not deflated science trying to force Creationism in via so called "Intelligent Design" or "teaching the controversy" stick to the actual science. Don't object to the "new math" if it's teaching better fundamentals of understanding what the numbers are actually doing even if it doesn't teach the shortcuts we were taught... and lots of the stuff people complain about is just the fact we don't skip right to the shortcut that works. Yes, it works, but it helps if they better understand the underlying fundamentals of the numbers and the actual math. Again, change isn't a bad thing, to object just because you don't understand or don't like it compared to the simplified shortcut we all learned doesn't make it bad. Reading also needs pushed, and understanding of logical fallacies and logical and faulty thinking.

I believe that a post scarcity world is impossible due to the nature of humanity. There are far too many greedy people that will never want the world to get to that point. However, that should be the noble goal. Post scarcity society has many issues, but perhaps by the time we actually got there we'd be able to solve them.

TLDR: Basically it all comes down to empathy. To view everything as the others view it. I get the fear and panic and all that the right has, and not just because I once upon a time was a right wing evangelical Christian who called those who received food stamps lazy bums, who said that Democrats and the liberals just wanted to keep the poor trapped so they would always need help. Yes, I was there and that helps, but I can still empathize with them without that past. I've never been a Muslim raised in a nation dominated by Islam, but I can still empathize with the way they see what the US is doing to them, the way they have to see people like Donald Trump and the scary amount of Americans that support him. It's easy to see why some are driven to extremism. I can empathize with that Mexican who just wants a better life and knows that Mexico can't give it to him so he has to risk it all to try and immigrate to the US. I can empathize with the Chinese worker who has been given an opportunity to build something, to escape the poverty... for while perhaps still poverty, less poverty than before, and I'm thankful that I got that opportunity, and I'm sorry that somebody in the US doesn't get to do it, but I'm a human too. Empathy. Learn it. It can be learned, neurological disorder or not.

Those watches all look intelligently designed, though some by a blind watchmaker. Seriously, how do you tell the time on that piece of wrist fetish gear at 2:00?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&redirect=no

Newtboy, I know that I am wearing glasses. The problem is that you don't think you're wearing any. I see everything through the lens of the word of God, you see it through the lens of humanistic naturalism. We both have what is called a worldview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Your worldview is grounded on your belief in certain axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

A belief such as the scientific method being the best way to understand the natural world is an axiom. The problem with that belief is that you cannot prove that using the scientific method. It isn't a self-evident truth, it is based on unprovable assumptions. That is the fundamental issue which creates what is called the problem of induction which "calls into question..all empirical claims made by the scientific method"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

If you don't think you have a worldview, or don't know what the axioms of your worldview are, then I am sorry to break this to you but you sir are the one walking around completely blind. You believe your filter is wide when it is actually very narrow.

It's easy to think that you're getting a good overall picture when actually you have simply selected sources of information which agree with your underlying assumptions about what you already believe. You are then simply living in an echo chamber.

You also forget that I used to be an agnostic and I understand that point of view. It's not my failure to understand the atheist and the agnostic, it is that I understand them all too well. I rejected that point of view when I found out there was a God. When you find out there is a God your entire worldview will shatter and fall into itsy bitsy little pieces, and you'll marvel that could be so ignorant as to miss the complete obvious:

Which is that It's completely obvious that the Universe was created and is maintained by an all powerful Creator, it isn't something anyone has to strain to look for. The majesty of Gods creation is constantly surrounding us, and our very existence at this moment is proof positive of that fact.

The theory of Intelligent Design looks for design features in the "code" of the Universe. For a good overview for the application of Intelligent Design to many other fields of science, check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM&list=PLC805D4953D9DEC66

Shiny,
Yes, intelligent design is a valid theory, but 'Intelligent Design' is not. You know the difference, right?
So far, the only evidence I've ever seen or heard about of 'intelligent design' in biology is in the manipulated biology we humans have designed.
Intelligent design applies to anything WE design, it is not inherent to either chemistry or astrophysics themselves, nor is it a term used in either field.
No, it's not possible to completely DISPROVE the hypothesis, but you must look for it through religion colored glasses to see even the most tenuous evidence of it, without that filter, it's not visible anywhere. It's also not possible for you to prove that golden monkeys don't fly from my anus when you aren't looking, but masquerade perfectly as turds when looked at directly, but you would not believe me if I said that's what happens, even if I had a book that said so, right?
The laws of physics are not "finely tuned" (already implying an 'unseen hand') to allow for life, it's more like life evolved to exist in the conditions present. There's no 'fine tuning' going on, life that couldn't exist in the conditions found doesn't exist, life that could may or may not.

Because you start from a point of "god exists and designed all" and search for things that even loosely fit that hypothesis by looking through religion tinted glasses, you find it. Because I don't have that filter to see the universe through, and do not accept 'unknown mystery' or coincidence as proof of 'god' and/or his hand, they will always be invisible and indeed un-necessary and so not believed in by me, just like my brothers invisible friend.


As I've said many a time, if god exists, he's certainly going to amazingly great lengths to remain unknown, unseen, unfelt, unheard, and un-needed by me and billions of others, and misunderstood by even more.

Because unbelievable hypothesis require indisputable proof, you must know it's impossible for YOU to convince me. Even if 'god' popped into my living room and took me on a sightseeing tour of the universe, I would still say "he" could be an advanced alien, not a deity, and require proof of divinity rather than technology or simple advanced knowledge or ability. If "He" is omnipotent, he knows that, understands that, and only 'he' is capable of proving that, or even knowing how it might be proven....but has failed to do so to date one tiny whit. I'll wait for him to pop in and prove it to me. Until then, thanks kindly for your 'soul saving' effort just the same, but it's never going to succeed. I do appreciate it's done with good intentions...but you do know what they say about good intentions, don't you?

@ChaosEngine @newtboy

If the Universe was in fact programmed, it was intelligently designed. Therefore, intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. Intelligent design is not simply limited to biology, but it is applied (obviously) to practically every scientific discipline, from chemistry to astrophysics. The natural laws are studied, in much the same way as the cosmic rays are being studied, to detect design features.

So, if you believe that DNA was created as a result of a general condition of the laws of the Universe and was not specifically planned, that does nothing to disprove intelligent design. We can simply look at how the laws are finely tuned to allow for life, or if you think that is the result of the general condition of the laws of the multiverse, then we can look at their fine tuning, and so on.

What you still fail to grasp, although it's been repeated ad nauseam, is no one talked about an AI, it was simply in the article about genetic algorithms, which show clearly that no creator or intelligent design is required for solutions, only a working evolutionary process applied to the problem.
You're stuck on AI, which was simply one (but far from the only) place you find genetic algorithms used.
Only YOU are talking about AI, no one else. You grabbed onto it, not understanding what was being said to you, and you continue to do the same, wheather willfully or out of confusion I can't say.

Many things are intelligently designed by creators...for instance, some bird and ant nests (proving 'intelligent design' does not require what we would call 'intelligence'). The universe does not appear to be one of those things, but I grant there is about a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance it is, not 0%, just no facts or data yet point to intelligent design in anything we've discovered about the real universe and it's laws. OK?

I might call you stupid because you can't (or willingly won't, I'm unsure) understand a simple, repeatedly repeated point, that we aren't talking about AI, we're talking about genetic algorithms. I did not call you stupid yet....but I'm tempted.
You just can't get it...come on man, get it....please....just get it.
Do you like fish sticks?

What both of you seem completely unable to grasp is that to have the AI, you have to have a creator. Not a deity, but you have to have something create the AI. The point you are arguing is that there is no such thing as a creator because that would mean that there is 'something' intelligent that can create things.

As far as my intelligence vs yours, I never claimed to be smarter than you. But it is clear to me that both of you will utterly refuse any possibility of intelligent design simply because it goes against your convictions.

The fact is you can complain, call me stupid, refuse to accept anything that counters your opinions, or any other number of methods to make yourselves feel better. I'm personally done with both of you because it seems clear that any time someone posts a video with one of your trigger subjects, you knee-jerk into posting whatever you can to try to prove them wrong whether they are or not.

The fact remains, to even have something to do your algorithms you must have something create it. You can disseminate and try to muddle the picture, but that is the basic fact. An AI doesn't create it self from thin air, whether you want it to or not.

You don't understand genetic algorithms and you don't understand what intelligent design is, so I'm really not bothered explaining it to you.... again.

You specifically are discussing an artificial intelligence. Why is it artificial? BECAUSE SOMEONE FUCKING CREATED IT. It didn't manifest on it's own or it would be a natural intelligence. So, if I create an AI to create an algorithm, then by default the algorithm is the root product of an intelligent designer.

BTW, your shitty example of a plane design does not even take into account your own example. If it did, it would be a programmer creating an AI to design a plane of some type. The programmer would no longer have input, but he would be the creator of the system that did.

So you can toss out all the fucking examples and insults you like, but you and your little tag along friend are dead wrong.

Oh christ... do I really have to explain this?

@shinyblurry said "...that means it was intelligently designed."

I was specifically refuting that argument.

"intelligent design" means that something was designed on purpose by a designer, i.e. I want a plane, so I sit down and design the aerodynamics, propulsion, control surfaces, etc so that at the end, I have a means to fly from A to B. If the plane doesn't fly, as a designer, I need to work on it until it does.

A genetic algorithm is not "intelligently designed". The system itself creates the end product, often with no fixed goal or purpose. The designer does not have an input.

So, it's entirely possible that the universe is a computer simulation where a fixed set of constraints were set up at compile time and then left to run.

No specific end goal or purpose, merely to see emergent behaviours, which actually gels pretty well with what we know about the formation of the universe and life.

If you'd like to learn more, I recommend reading Artifical Life by Steven Levy as a good primer on the subject.

On the other hand, if you just want to make snide remarks, I suggest you stick to a topic you actually have a fucking clue about.