RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:44   

Paging Louis!  Paging Louis!

Bring a mop and bucket.  Hissy fit on Aisle 5!

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:46   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,14:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met. Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution? Frankly, if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldnít †have much faith in God, would I. Oh my goodness, I said several words that are no-nos, didnít I. Well, letís all have a little faith in something, shall we. After all, it is both faith in God and faith in oneís fellow human beings that allow science and Christianity to stand together, right? I mean, does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common? You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general. Yet, I have no desire to belittle or ridicule many of your posts. I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense? Could it be that my Creator and Redeemer leads me to truly wonder why so much venom must be spewed in one personís direction, simply because of dislike.

OK, so after all of that rambling, what is the real issue, huh? Is it Christianity, is it organized religion in general Ė what? I mean, if youíre going to have fun verbally tearing someone apart, get down to the real issues. Actually, if you are honest about your feelings, I could bring them to Dr. Dembskiís attention, and we could actually sit down and discuss them one by one. Hey, maybe we could design a forum aimed just at me, as well. Iím relatively old, so I really do not care what you think, other than your belief in Jesus. If, for example, you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk. Otherwise, I try to be a good steward of my time, so thank you for the opportunity to speak. God bless you all.

I don't know who you are, and I don't care what you believe. But if you think Dembski is "an honest man", you're ignoring a vast amount of evidence from his behavior that says otherwise.

I disparage his beliefs because his stated goal is to foist them on society at large, masked as good science. In this he is nothing more than a charlatan.

And if you're interested in why people belittle each other's views, you might want to ask the nominally adult Dembski about the "Judge Jones School of Law (flatulence edition)" as well as his DISGRACEFUL siccing of the FBI on Eric Pianka. There is no absolute code of morality with this man: he will do whatever is expedient to further his parochial and sectarian views.

I'm angry at Dembski and his followers because you are ALL, that I have seen, either sneering hypocrites or liars (or both). And because science to you people is nothing more than another weapon in your culture wars.

And by the way, "science and Christianity" do NOT "stand together". Christianity (and Islam, for that matter) are wholly opposed to science and rationality. The fact that you think otherwise is testament to your sheltered experience, or to your unwillingness to look beyond the end of your nose.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:48   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)

Quote (cdanner]It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met.[/quote]I've never met Charles Manson either.  After reading the good Dr.Dr.'s writing @ essentially that if he finds data that goes against his religious beliefs, he ignores that data as to him, "obviously it's wrong".[quote=cdanner)
Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution?
As almost all the creationists I've met so far are cowards, there are few to talk to about creationism.  Are you different?  Would you like to present evidence FOR Creation?  If so, you've find a group here that would love to discuss it with you.  Now, if you run into "obstinate people" when trying to get your point across, hey, that is science.  If you've ever read the sniping between Gould and I forget the other "evolutionist" over "Punctuated Equilibrium", and these two were/are convinced that "Evolution is a fact", you'll see what I mean.
Quote (cdanner]Frankly @ if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldnít  have much faith in God, would I.[/quote)
Your faith is no concern of anyone's unless it's your Dogma that gets in the way of evidence and facts.[quote=cdanner]Oh my goodness, I said several words that are no-nos, didnít I.
Nope.  Why what did you think are no-nos?  God?  Which one?  Faith?  I have faith I will make it to Friday without killing anyone.  Yeah, we know those words.
Quote (cdanner]Well @ letís all have a little faith in something, shall we.[/quote)
I do.  It usually concerns how good the Bass is going to taste, and I ain't talking fish.[quote=cdanner]After all, it is both faith in God and faith in oneís fellow human beings that allow science and Christianity to stand together, right?
Nope.  Science has nothing to say about Christianity.  Also, which version of Christianity are you talking about  Roman Catholicism, Amish, Mainline Protestant (which sect?), etc are you talking about?
Quote (cdanner]I mean @ does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common?[/quote)
Nope.  I would like to read how you think it does.[quote=cdanner]You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.
Not at all.  I don't care which god, goddess or gods you follow.  When you say for certainty that your god is "the real one" and that your book of antiquity describing the supposed actions of bronze aged shepherds and that is scientific, I mock you.  After all, do you take the Vedic seriously?  What about the Q'ran?  No to both?  Any other holy book do you think is correct?  If not, why should we take your god and holy book seriously
Quote (cdanner]Yet @ I have no desire to belittle or ridicule many of your posts.[/quote)
Please do.  If you find stupidity in mine, let me know!  Granted I may not see it that way but if your argument is good and sound, I will listen to you.  Please note:  "Good and sound does not mean 'My god said so' cause if your god can talk to you, it can certainly talk to me.[quote=cdanner]I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense?
Sounds like love or infatuation, not science.
Quote (cdanner]Could it be that my Creator and Redeemer leads me to truly wonder why so much venom must be spewed in one personís direction @ simply because of dislike.[/quote)
I don't dislike him because of anything other than he speaks what he wants to say is the truth and closes his eyes to everything else.  I my book, that's a willing lie.[quote=cdanner]OK, so after all of that rambling, what is the real issue, huh?
Quote (cdanner]Is it Christianity @ is it organized religion in general Ė what?[/quote)
It is not any religion, it is literalism and the mental gymnastics needed by "those who believe in the literal word" to maintain there delusion.  OBTW, it is not just Literal Chrisitians.  Hell, it ain't even about Christianity.  I don't hate Christians, my wife is one.  My mom and sister still try to get me to go back to church.  Why would I want to hate Christians?[quote=cdanner]I mean, if youíre going to have fun verbally tearing someone apart, get down to the real issues.
Love to but Dr. Dr. does not like to debate.  He does not like to have things used against him later.  He makes broad pronouncements and he says, "There, that is what I mean".  Many times it is ambigous, like his so called EF, that it doesn't make any sense but he doesn't come out to chat.  When he does, it is so heavily moderated as to make it worthless.  He's a coward who can't come out to a neutral area.  He has to control the venue so he can get rid of the parts that make him look foolish.
Quote (cdanner]Actually @ if you are honest about your feelings, I could bring them to Dr. Dembskiís attention, and we could actually sit down and discuss them one by one.[/quote)
I think he's invited here.  What a better way to defend your faith than going to the "belly of the beast".  No moderation, what is written is written and everyone can see it?  Perhaps Dr. Dr. could be just exposed to "real scientists" and not rabble like myself.  Then he can give his "thesis" a real test.[quote=cdanner]Hey, maybe we could design a forum aimed just at me, as well.
You're on one.  Just ask any question.  You may not like the answer but if you're open and honest, you'll be treated with respect.
Quote (cdanner]Iím relatively old @ so I really do not care what you think, other than your belief in Jesus.[/quote)
No belief in Jesus.  I don't care what you think Jesus is or was.  Most likely a composite of many holy men that wandered the area over 2000 years ago.[quote=cdanner]If, for example, you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk.
I'm doing that now.  The bal's in your court.
Quote (cdanner]Otherwise @ I try to be a good steward of my time, so thank you for the opportunity to speak.[/quote)
Nobody is stopping you.[quote=cdanner]God bless you all.
Allah Akbar or May Cthulhu eat you first to save you from madness.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:51   

Crap.

Can I get an edit feature?

I'll be a good boy.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:52   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,14:55)
You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.

If you had actually read the posts in this thread, you would know this statement is false. It's a straw man.

Many of those who have raised serious objections to Dembski's work (and ID in general) profess to be Christians. That includes some of the people dragging Dembski over the coals in this very thread.

Certainly there are some here who consider religion †to be an irrational, misguided pursuit, but this is not the basis of specific objections to ID. The objection is based on the fact that IDs proponents claim ID is science, when it in fact does not meet the accepted definitions of science, and appears to be a rather transparent attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of a particular religious dogma as science and impose it on the educational system.

Yes, there is a lot of snark and mockery in this thread. Do you know why ? It's because creationists generally do exactly what you've done in the above post. Namely, you fail to address the actual arguments.

If you believe your old earth creationist view is justified by evidence, we can certainly start a thread to discuss this (or better yet, you should publish your arguments in the appropriate scientific journals!) OTOH, if you just take it on faith, that is your right, but please don't expect those who do not share your particular faith to take it seriously, and do expect us to object loudly if you attempt to pass those beliefs off as science.

  
snorkild



Posts: 31
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:55   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
an honest man such as Dr. Dembski

Have you been reading the posts in this thread?

Dembski's actions before the Dover trial doesn't strike me as typical for "an honest man".

--------------
wimp

  
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:01   

And, unfortunately, my previous statement is proven by the tone of the first response. First of all, can you step back and objectively read what you wrote in your last post? Have you personally experienced these things that drive you to despise Christians, or does your information come from NBC News. I am not a very learned person, but I do know that name calling and having to belittle a person simply because they believe in something different does not accomplish a think. Actually, it goes the opposite direction. As well, as a science enthusiast, it would probably be best if you did not generalize and compartmentalize people into categories that they may not belong. Science thrives on explicit evidence, so if you talk about science, it would be better to stay out of generalizations. Thanks for the reply. Gotta go read!

  
snorkild



Posts: 31
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:03   

Is cdanner one of the disciples from UD?

Is the course requirement #4 fulfilled if he produces 10 posts of bitching and moaning, or is some minimum of factual content expected?

--------------
wimp

  
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:11   

FrankH, I respect your answers. Now that is a response that was honest and up front. I respect you for your direct answers. I certainly do not believe the things that you believe, but I think you have a faith, which is something we might have in common. As well, I do not have the time to respond to every statement you have, but let's talk creationism over the next couple of weeks. I don't have much science background, but I can express my own beliefs (as you did) up front. Thanks for your responses.

  
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:14   

Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,18:03)
Is cdanner one of the disciples from UD?

Is the course requirement #4 fulfilled if he produces 10 posts of bitching and moaning, or is some minimum of factual content expected?

I have already filled my requirements, so I can moan all I want. Want to talk about creation? Also, the vast majority of the posts I scanned have not factual information, so I'm just trying to fit in. BTW what is your definition of "factual?"

  
JohnW



Posts: 2248
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:14   

Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,15:55)
 
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
an honest man such as Dr. Dembski

Have you been reading the posts in this thread?

Dembski's actions before the Dover trial doesn't strike me as typical for "an honest man".

OK, I'm over the spluttering fit now (perhaps you could ask Dr Dr D about the Templeton Foundation book advance, Mr or Ms Danner).

But it reaally doesn't matter whether he is honest. †As JLT said on page 3 of this thread:
 
Quote
If his criticism of evolutionary theory were legitimate, he could be a total asshole, incompetent, and promoting his criticism for the wrong reasons, that still wouldnít make his criticism less valid.
So, the question really is whether Dembskiís (or Beheís, or Meyerís, or whoever) criticism is valid.
You clearly believe so:
 
Quote
Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?

Scientists donít.

Intelligent-design creationism is a long, long way from even having anything scientifically legitimate to bring to the table. †"Someone with unknown abilities did unknown things at unknown times for unknown reasons"? †Any suggestions as to how we could falsify that? †

And for all his bluster on the subject, Dembski's CSI reduces to a binary quantity:
1=Looks designed to Dembski;
0=Does not look designed to Dembski.
He's never even presented a coherent methodology which goes beyond this, let alone actually estimate CSI for an organism, a known designed object, or, well anything at all.

ID isn't even bad science. †It's non-science.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:27   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,18:14)
Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,18:03)
Is cdanner one of the disciples from UD?

Is the course requirement #4 fulfilled if he produces 10 posts of bitching and moaning, or is some minimum of factual content expected?
I have already filled my requirements, so I can moan all I want. Want to talk about creation? Also, the vast majority of the posts I scanned have not factual information, so I'm just trying to fit in. BTW what is your definition of "factual?"

If you find me direct and hopefully honest, that's a start.

Factual mean evidence.  I, for one, am interested to see what you have as evidence FOR creation.  Even if you do find evidence for creation, which creation story does it support?  Remember, there are many creation stories.

Remember, if evolution is wrong tomorrow, not that I'd care really, that would not mean creation is correct.  What is the reasoning behind it?  As someone who is smarter than I stated, "If you are looking for 'Mr. Brown' and you see two men walking, if the first guy is not 'Mr. Brown', it doesn't mean the second guy is 'Mr. Brown' either."

So if you want to promote creationism, great!  Remember, the guys who brought us an ancient Earth, Evolution, etc were Creationists as that was the only book in Europe with a narrative of how things began.

Those are the guys who saw the evidence and realized the Earth's history was not how the bible presented it.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1486
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:28   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,18:01)
Have you personally experienced these things that drive you to despise Christians, or does your information come from NBC News.

We don't despise Christians. †We despise dishonest immature jackasses who bastardize and misrepresent science in order to push their political agenda. †In Dembski's case, the particular flavor of religion he is pushing is irrelevant.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:30   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met.

It is hardly trashing someone to observe that they haven't returned to a conversation that they started but exited rapidly. †Why does that observation bother you so?
Quote

Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution?

We are not discussing anything, because we are waiting for bjray (or perhaps you, since you are here) to bring up a criticism of evolution so that the professional scientists here can discuss the science with you. †Are you prepared to do that now?
Quote
I mean, does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common? You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general. Yet, I have no desire to belittle or ridicule many of your posts. I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense? Could it be that my Creator and Redeemer leads me to truly wonder why so much venom must be spewed in one personís direction, simply because of dislike.

What makes you think everyone here disagrees with Christianity? †Why do you assume that there aren't Christians among the participants here? †As far as Dembski's honesty, we'll come to that
Quote
Actually, if you are honest about your feelings, I could bring them to Dr. Dembskiís attention, and we could actually sit down and discuss them one by one.

Well, I'd tell you to bring this entire blog or this other entire blog that are documenting grave errors in his recent IEEE papers to his attention. Except, of course, all these errors have been communicated to him already. So, maybe you could just ask him when he will be publishing the corrections. Or perhaps you could ask him about this incident (be careful, there is naughty language there).
Quote

Hey, maybe we could design a forum aimed just at me, as well.

Umm,. this is a forum. Do you actually have anything you want to discuss rather than our supposed incivility. Oh. speaking of incivility, you might want to look here for demonstrations of incivility.
Quote
Iím relatively old, so I really do not care what you think, other than your belief in Jesus.

Why would you care about my beliefs. †What does it have to do with any discussion of science?
Quote
If, for example, you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk.

Do you have a science question or argument to present, or are you just hear to cast aspersions? †Seriously, show us what you got.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:37   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:11)
I don't have much science background, but I can express my own beliefs...

I think this is pretty clear, and it describes perfectly what we're up against: people who don't understand something, but want their beliefs about it to be taken seriously.

Your earlier questions:
 
Quote
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

and
Quote
The problem that I am trying to describe is the lack of evidence in simple life, in which molecular biology has shown the design of a cell is the same for basically all living systems on earth. The roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins, and amino acids are identical, as well. Wouldn't one see some kind of evolutionary sequence within any structure that might evidence evolution. I mean, there has been no change (and no proof) in genetic communication within a cell for over 2 billion years. Again, I am asking, wouldn't there be evidence of evolutionary change in this process alone? Thank you for the answers.


betray a complete and total ignorance of biology. Not to belittle your life experiences, but the questions literally make no sense, and it's hard to believe that the person who asked them has taken even a single high school biology course. "Genetic communication"? "The roles of the RNA, DNA, proteins and amino acids are identical..."? What?!

Now this is fine, of course. There's no reason why you or anyone else should learn about biology unless it interests you.

But don't feign an interest that you clearly don't have. To do so is fundamentally dishonest. And especially don't post here pretending to be interested in biology while lecturing us about honesty.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,18:52   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 24 2010,17:46)
And if you're interested in why people belittle each other's views, you might want to ask the nominally adult Dembski about the "Judge Jones School of Law (flatulence edition)" as well as his DISGRACEFUL siccing of the FBI on Eric Pianka. There is no absolute code of morality with this man: he will do whatever is expedient to further his parochial and sectarian views.

Oh, let us not forget the time Dembski decided he was done wrong and published the names, addresses and phone numbers (many, if not most of them, unlisted) of the Baylor Board of Regents at Uncommon Descent
† †
Quote
Christianity (and Islam, for that matter) are wholly opposed to science and rationality.

Actually, that is not true. †Many of the best evolution advocates are Christian. Ken Miller, for one. †Our own Wes, for another.

Added in Edit: I went back and looked at the thread here at the time Dembski published the address and phone numbers of the Baylor Board of Regents.  Most of the phone numbers were publicly available. My comment above was incorrect.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,19:12   

Does CDanner think we responded to bj in order to turn him against Christianity?  Since most of our posts were about dr dr d as pond scum, does that mean that cd thinks the dr should be worshipped?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,20:06   

cdanner:

Quote

You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.


Swing and a miss.

ETA:

I wondered why my irony meter was now a crispy critter...

cdanner:

Quote

As well, as a science enthusiast, it would probably be best if you did not generalize and compartmentalize people into categories that they may not belong.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 25 2010,09:02

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,21:37   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,17:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met.

cdanner,

I have never met Dr. Dembski personally, but my one encounter with him on his own forum showed me he is not interested in free and open discussion.

You will not get such treatment here. †If you are interested in talking science, there are many here who will be happy to discuss it with you.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10179
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,22:01   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,17:36)
...presents some marvelous theories on original sin and a kairological reading of Genesis 1-3.

Emphasis mine. We use theory in the scientific sense here. Perhaps you mean conjecture? (to use the kindest work I can).

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3044
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,23:55   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met. Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution?

Well, it seems to me that the majority of creationists have no problem trashing and quote-mining a man they have never met, namely the one who wrote Origin of Species. It seems to be how they discuss and display their [mis]understanding of creation and evolution.

 
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
Oh my goodness, I said several words that are no-nos, didnít I.

Not yet. :)

 
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.

I have often said, Dembski is most honest when he is talking about Christianity, and most dishonest when he claims to talk about science.

 
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
OK, so after all of that rambling, what is the real issue, huh? Is it Christianity, is it organized religion in general Ė what?

The real issue is that preconceived ideas, deceptive tactics, and authoritarian conclusions do not belong in science and should not be called science. Neither should one assume one's conclusion, then try to shove it down schoolchildren's throats in an effort to bypass the scientific method and peer review, just because this conclusion cannot stand up to either.

That's all.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,01:05   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 24 2010,16:52)
† †  
Quote
Christianity (and Islam, for that matter) are wholly opposed to science and rationality.

Actually, that is not true. †Many of the best evolution advocates are Christian. Ken Miller, for one. †Our own Wes, for another.

Yeah, you're right. There are plenty of better scientists and science advocates than I am who are indeed religious. I retract that statement and apologize to my religious colleagues.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,02:49   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met. Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution?
No. This is how we mock ignorant people who pretend to knowledge that they do not possess, and present thinly-veiled religious dogma in the guise of empirical science. It's also how we mock deceitful weasels who damn well should recognize that the garbage they spew bloody well is garbage. For instance, it is utterly routine for you Creationists to claim "if evolution is true, why don't we see thus-and-so, huh? Huh?" -- and the 'thus-and-so' which is presented as supportive of evolution, is actually something which would refute evolution if it ever were actually observed.
 
Quote
Frankly, if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldnít have much faith in God, would I.
Perhaps not. What of it? I, for one, have never tried to dissuade any Christians from believing in God. I do urge Creationists to learn about what evolution really is, because in bloody near all cases, the 'evolution' you Creationists criticize is a weirdly distorted caricature of the genuine article... but surely that sort of thing shouldn't count as an attempt to drive you away from God, should it? Seeing as how Christ wants His followers to be truth-seekers and all, I mean.
Quote
...does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common?
Mr. Dembski is not an honest man. Rather, he is a deceitful weasel who has betrayed the trust you have placed in him. Mr. Dembski is the very model of what the Bible refers to as a "false witness", and if the Bible is right about the post mortem fate God has in store for people who break the Ninth Commandment, he is a (literally) damned liar who will spend all Eternity burning in a lake of fire. His behavior is despicable, and said behavior makes a mockery of the Faith which he pretends to, and which you may well hold.
Quote
You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.
Rubbish, cdanner. I couldn't care less about Mr. Dembski's beliefs; rather, it's his piss-poor 'science' and his commensurately lousy ethics which I disparage.
Quote
If... you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk.
Okay; how about we discuss Complex Specified Information (CSI for short)? I can't say I'm intimately familiar with the entire corpus of Mr. Dembski's work on CSI, but what I have seen has engendered more confusion in my mind than comprehension. Since you're one of Mr. Dembski's students, maybe you can help clear up my confusion by answering some questions.
Is CSI something which every Designed object/entity possesses, or is it something which only some Designed objects/entities possess?
Is CSI a strictly binary thing, which an object/entity either does possess or else does not possess, or is it a measurable quality of which different objects/entities can possess differing amounts?
As I understand it, the "Specified" part of CSI means that one must know the Specification of an object/entity before one can conclude that said object/entity possesses CSI. How does one determine the Specification of an object/entity when one has no knowledge whatsoever of said object's/entity's Designer?
In particular: What is the Specification of the bacterial flagellum, and how was it determined that that, rather than anything else, actually is the single Specification of the bacterial flagellum?
Given an object/entity which has more than one Specification, how do the 'extra' Specifications affect the object's/entity's CSI?
How much CSI does Beethoven's Ninth Symphony have?
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has been performed by many orchestras. Does each such performance have the same amount of CSI? If different performances have different amounts of CSI, how do you measure the amount of CSI in each performance?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,06:02   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,21:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met. Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution? Frankly, if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldnít †have much faith in God, would I. Oh my goodness, I said several words that are no-nos, didnít I. Well, letís all have a little faith in something, shall we. After all, it is both faith in God and faith in oneís fellow human beings that allow science and Christianity to stand together, right? I mean, does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common? You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general. Yet, I have no desire to belittle or ridicule many of your posts. I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense? Could it be that my Creator and Redeemer leads me to truly wonder why so much venom must be spewed in one personís direction, simply because of dislike.

OK, so after all of that rambling, what is the real issue, huh? Is it Christianity, is it organized religion in general Ė what? I mean, if youíre going to have fun verbally tearing someone apart, get down to the real issues. Actually, if you are honest about your feelings, I could bring them to Dr. Dembskiís attention, and we could actually sit down and discuss them one by one. Hey, maybe we could design a forum aimed just at me, as well. Iím relatively old, so I really do not care what you think, other than your belief in Jesus. If, for example, you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk. Otherwise, I try to be a good steward of my time, so thank you for the opportunity to speak. God bless you all.

CDanner,

Perhaps instead of having hissy fits over tone and naughty things that people have said* you could answer the substantial questions I and others have asked. Tak' th' high road, laddie....or something similarly Scottish.

Some questions are here. And you'll see that I at least sympathise with the predicament of a Dembski student here.

If you truly believe that people here are incapable or unwilling to discuss the subject sensibly then simply ignore us. However, one thing I will say is this isn't about religion for anyone but the creationists (of which Dembski is one). Don't think you'll fool anyone with claims that whatever species of creationism you advocate is scientific (unless, of course, you have some data...which would be nice). And please, don't insult anyone's intelligence by trying to claim some equivalence of faith, because you'd be very wrong, and the replies are often blunt.

Other than that, enjoy!

Oh one last thing, "god bless you all"?  Could you <i>be</i> more passive-aggressive? Anyway, interesting. Which god? There seem to be several that humans have claimed existed over time, which one would you like to bless us? How will we know when he/she/it has blessed us? I'm sorry but your beatitude is far too vague. Please be more specific in your blessings in future.

Louis

* Tone trolling/concern trolling is really pathetic. If your biggest worry is whether or not someone is mean to you then your issue isn't with the science, the evidence, the facts, it's with having your nosie put out of joint. Now your nosie might need to be kept in joint, but, and I hate to say this, time and again I have seen the self same comments you have made used as a dishonest ploy to distract from the argument at hand. You've made what, half a dozen or so posts here? No one knows you, no one knows what you think or who you are. You've come in and straight away started chucking a tantrum over tone and making comments about religion (which let's be blunt is minimally relevant at best). What do you think that looks like, since you are so concerned about tone, to someone familiar with Creationists and Their Wily Ways?**

**References a very good Billy Connelly joke which, if you are lucky, I will mangle for you one day.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,06:04   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 24 2010,22:44)
Paging Louis! †Paging Louis!

Bring a mop and bucket. †Hissy fit on Aisle 5!

Hissy fits: it's all they got. Until of course it isn't. However, I'm still waiting on that last bit.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,08:09   

It does seem that cjdanner has nothing in the quiver but concern trolling and that old-time favorite, claiming to be persecuted.

I await his (they probably don't let females take those upper-level philosophy classes at Billy's Bible School and Bullshit Emporium) excursion into something more substantive, like science.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,08:27   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense?

Perhaps you should get a job at an airport, and look into the eyes of potential travelers. As you are so good at determining truthiness from a simple look in the eyes you'll be perfect for the task of spotting terrorists.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,09:04   

My, my, the rhetoric is facinating! As I have been placed in so many categories, let's begin with my "hissy." There is no malice, just observations. As far as "tone trolling" being pathetic, that is your opinion and it is not the tone that is facinating, but the unwillingness to understand another's point of view. I grant you that not all are so closed-minded, and frankly, Dr. Dembski is not closed-minded either, especially after reading his latest work. However, everyone comes to the table with preconceptions, whether you believe those come from some evolutionary extension, or from experiences from your relationship with God, and all should be able to express themselves concerning their beliefs without being "people like you."

I certainly do not mind being called "ignorant" for I probably am deficient in many areas (and I surely have been called worse). But I suppose we all have plusses and minuses that God has given us. See there, that is a statement of what I believe, but it does not require that you believe it. Perhaps it would make things easier, but I guess if I believed or felt or understood (whatever you want to call it) as you do, then it would be easier, as well. Anyway, Dr. Dembski does not seem to think in binary, and he even includes evolutionary possiblilities in his latest book. I only see what I see, and apply that to my presuppositions. Some of you might consider other options out there in this great universe that might not conform to you own preconceived notions. The Talmud states, "You do not see the world as it is. You see it as you are." I think that applys in all situations. And, believe it or not, in some form or fashion, we are all works in progress. Thanks for allowing the ramble. I appreciate the kindness in many of your replys.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,09:08   

cdanner:

Quote

Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense?


I've had various opportunities to hear Dembski speak and even to look into his eyes. And I think I understand his arguments just fine; I just happen to disagree with him. Moreover, I can express my disagreement such that we could discuss that, if you think Dembski's ideas on "design inferences" have merit.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,09:16   

Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 25 2010,09:04)
it is not the tone that is facinating, but the unwillingness to understand another's point of view.

There is no "unwillingness to understand". There is a genuine and justified reluctance to hear the same old pseudo-scientific arguments trotted out again and again. Creationism lost, on a scientific front, in the 19th century. Unless you have new scientific data or insights (and so far it appears that you don't), don't pretend that there is an "unwillingness to understand". I'm willing to consider, and understand new data or arguments. Got any?
 
Quote
I grant you that not all are so closed-minded, and frankly, Dr. Dembski is not closed-minded either, especially after reading his latest work. However, everyone comes to the table with preconceptions, whether you believe those come from some evolutionary extension, or from experiences from your relationship with God, and all should be able to express themselves concerning their beliefs without being "people like you."

Leaving aside the question of Dembski's "openness" in light of the censorious attitudes evident at his blog, it can't be said often enough that this is not a question of belief. Scientists don't "believe" in evolutionary theory. They accept the evidence, but all of us would be perfectly willing to consider alternative explanations on the basis of evidence. I doubt that you would be able to do that, so quit confusing your belief with the perspective of science vis-a-vis evolutionary theory.

Stop yammering about beliefs, Dembski, and all of that, and start discussing science. If you can do that, you'd be surprised at what you might learn here, and it might even rattle your preconceptions. But as long as you stick with this personal monologue, you will get mocked by the folks who are pretty certain you don't have any science to back up your beliefs.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (15) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]