RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,11:19   

Keep in mind those guys do not play by the same set of rules that science plays by.  If you read the sunday school course materials Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you'll note things like not letting logic get in the way of Christian truths and other nonsense.

And not long ago when it appeared Dembski and Ken Miller might debate, Dembski said something to the effect of he did not have to stoop to Ken Miller's "pathetic" level of detail regarding his ID theories.  He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

Logic and reason are the IDists biggest enemies so their assault on those who use logic and reason as a means of understanding and sorting fact from fiction is predictable.  

It is still astonishing to observe though.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4527
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,16:06   

Quote

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.


This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.

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

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,16:54   

Quote
Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."


right. remember what i said about deliberate silliness?

I'm sure WD40 thinks that spiralling his blog into the garbage can this way is just too funny.

that way he can claim anything said on UD was more meant as, dare I even say it: Street Theatre.

pretty obvious ploy if you ask me.

WD40 has said some pretty disturbing things that even the DI would want covered up on that site.

this seems a deliberate strategy intended to "trvialize" his own blog.

I'd bet money on it.

WD40's "Street Theatre" always reminds me of the Jon Lovitz skit on Saturday Night Live where he played "Master Thespian".

The parallels work on so many levels.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,07:57   

check it out
Quote
#

blah blah blah

Jack - since I’m banned on Panda’s Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda’s Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds

Comment by Jack Krebs — January 20, 2006 @ 7:06 am


Okay, so now it's not even what you say on other discussion boards, it's the fact that you even post on them, which gets you censored.

I've still got last week of January in the Dead Pool of DaveScot's tenure.

btw, I wonder what motivated Jack to jump into that pig pen.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,08:36   

Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,08:42   

Last week, any evidence of online ID crimespeak, regardless of where you might commit it,  would get you banned from Demsbki's smile-a-while-a-creationist blog.

And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?

Good lord man this is so_freaking_funny.   Dembski is the cult leader of a bunch of mindless automatons.  How cool is that?  

Side note, should the Disco go ahead and commit themselves to the specified religion they are in fact promoting and simply call it Christian Scientology?

After all, they are blending Christianity with Science Fiction.  Does this not make them Christian Scientologists?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,08:43   

Quote
Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.


indeed;

i keep going back to the time that Pat Robertson ran for President...

and got way too many votes for comfort.

I've seen too much for my comfort zone over the last 20 years, that's for sure.

  
Savagemutt



Posts: 18
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:14   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.


Just for accuracy's sake, "Crankiest" is just a category on Crank.net. It means JADs site is among the crankiest of antievolution sites.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:25   

:06-->
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2006,22:06)
Quote

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.


This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4527
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:34   

Quote

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?


Sorry to be unclear, but yes, you've got it.

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

    
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,10:45   

Thanks Wesley.  That is nuttier than all get out.  

Pure Dembski for ya.  What a "scientist" he is.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,11:51   

Quote
And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?
I think it's only those who are official contributors.

I say Dembski leaves DaveScot in charge until he says something terribly offensive to some group of people. I'd take a wild guess and say that Dembski just doens't care what DaveScot or anyone else says on his blog anymore.

Has anyone seen what John Davison was posting? Oh my GAWD it is amusing. I know he's old and losing his mind, but he is just off the wall batty.
Quote
Karl Popper just confused things with all this falsifiable nonsense. Hypotheses are either verifiable or not. I regard Intelligent Design as verified simply because there is no other coneiveable alternative. The elimination of alternatives is a perfectly sound means of scientific inquiry. It has been employed in every aspect of scientific discovery and led to the downfall of the Ether, the Phlogiston and very soon Chance, the cornerstone and the Achilles heel of Darwinian mysticism.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689#comment-21155

    
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,12:49   

DaveScots Reign of IDiocy may come to a hidden end. Or Dembski might demand he censor in a quieter way. Right now it's looking like the primary purpose of the blog is to publicly ban people from posting there.

   
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,13:12   

Quote
#

Sorry Steve.

If I can’t comment on Panda’s Thumb you can’t comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds

Comment by Steve Reuland — January 20, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
From the relentless trainwreck known as Uncommon Pissant.

   
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,13:19   

The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb, he banned, in principle, more people in one day than the Panda's Thumb crew has banned in 2 years.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,13:48   

Quote
The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb

Nope. That would be a *principle*, and we know he doesn't have much concept of those things. I'm quite sure he'll ban people based on arbitrary, unpredictable case-by-case preference. Kind of like interpreting scripture: If it ain't capricious, it's meaningless.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,14:06   

I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,14:33   

stevestory:

Quote
I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.

Where? I haven't seen this announcement. I think you are making this up.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,15:00   

Are you kidding me?

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,15:59   

stevestory:

No, why would I kid you?

What DaveScot SAID was "You (fill in the blank. Jack Krebs?) have posted on PT, PT banned me, therefore you can't post here."

But this is a rationalization for banning JACK KREBS. Nothing more, nothing less. This most emphatically does NOT apply to anyone who has ever posted on PT, it applies to Jack Krebs, because DaveScot doesn't wish to deal with Jack. Do you seriously think that DaveScot would ban GhostOfPaley, or Larry Farfaroutman, or David Heddle, or ANY of the periodic creationists, just because they post to Panda's Thumb?

You have to realize that DaveScot *ignores* anything that smacks of integrity. His "reasons" for doing ANYTHING are because he bleeping well feels like it at the time, and nothing else. He is ruled by emotion and mood. Tomorrow Jack Krebs may try again, and DaveScot may very well permit this.

And when he's not in the mood, his excuses are completely ad hoc. Every day is a new day to a goose. These people are NOT RATIONAL.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2006,20:47   

Oh... Flint: No, you've got it wrong.

He banned Steve Reuland with the same reason, word-for-word. He's removed the posts, but it was something like "As I am not allowed to post at Pandas Thumb, Pandas Thumb contributors are not allowed to post here." With that definition, he's only referring to contributors with administrative powers on the site. Jack Krebs and Steve Reuland, but also Wesley Elsberry, PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Pim Van Meurs, and everyone else for sure. Not automatically people who comment on the site. Basically, his reasoning of "I'm banned at PT, so you're banned here" only applies to those people. He'll come up with different reasons to ban Pandas Thumb commenters.

In the end, you're technically right. If he likes what a PT contributor is posting, he'll let it stay. He's practicing some sort of swiss cheese fascism. Heck, the guy banned Josh Bozeman. Josh isn't nearly as aggressive as DaveScot, but he's just as dishonest/misled.

    
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,02:46   

Anyway, back to reality. DaveScot just put a big pile of JAD garbage on UncommonPissant

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/692#more-692

Insane Money Quote:
Quote
So it would seem that we still do not have a working theory of evolution.


Love it.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,03:23   

JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,04:00   

You're wasting your breath if you comment over there. They ban more people before breakfast, than most sites do all year.

But if you must, DaveScot's been aggressively maintaining that ID and religion are totally separate, so you might ask something like, "What did Philip Johnson mean when he said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."?

   
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,04:13   

man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog

Quote
Intelligent Design advocates would do well to separate themselves more completely from religious fundamentalism. I have managed and others can too.

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
Albert Einstein

Comment by John Davison — January 21, 2006 @ 6:49 am

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,09:01   

Quote
JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.


hmm, I seem to recall having REALLY pissed him off one day in attempting to pursue what happened to him in the 80's that changed his publications from scientific to crank crap.  If you look at his CV, there is a clear schism that happened in 1984 (IIRC), and shortly thereafter he was banned from teaching at UV, and started attempting to publish his crankier stuff.  

Something definetly happened to him then; mild schizophrenia maybe?

in any case, he really freaks when you start asking him about it.  I mean REALLY.

it was in the thread PT created specifically for him, but that was a long time ago.  

If anybody can remember the month, it is likely in the archives somewhere.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,09:10   

Quote
man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog


lol.

ask yourself:

why did WD40 let the axeman (DS) run free on his blog to begin with?

c'mon!

do you REALLY think 'ol WD40 has just lost his mind?

hardly.

he's just having some fun spinning his blog into the trash can, while trivializing it at the same time.

if you make a joke out of months and months of posts that contradict the party line, you have a nice bolt hole to escape some rather sticky questions.

many times, PT commenters and even contributors have refered to UD in order to show how dishonest WD40 is, how many times he has directly contradicted the DI party line, as well as the random drivel he has posted there over the years.

Dembski shut down his blog.... then lo and behold, all of a sudden he comes back and lets the lunatics run it.

It shouldn't take much thought to figure out he wants to spin his entire blog as just so much "Street Theatre".

Every time somebody here on PT points out the ridiculousness of DS or JAD or Slaveador over on UD, WD40 knows he is accomplishing his goal, and is laughing all the way.

Debmski can't be happy with JAD???

exactly the opposite.

prove me wrong.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,09:43   

I was thinking of making some kind of pithy comment about uncommon dissent, but somehow couldnt work up the emotion.  

I like the way Dave Scot is turning into an expert on ID; I think it would be interesting if he could participate in the next court case related to ID, whenever that will be.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,10:37   

Quote
it would be interesting if [DaveScot] could participate in the next court case related to ID,
As long as we're scripting our best-case-scenario fantasy, let's cast Casey Luskin as lawyer for ID.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,13:17   

I actually had a short correspondence with Casey Luskin. I wanted some quotes from him on ID for an assignment. He seems to be a genuinely nice guy who just happens to be caught up in ID. I wish him well... as opposed to DaveScot, who is the only person I have ever corresponded with (on the internet and in real life) whom I would not feel sorry for if he were to happen into a great personal tragedy.

    
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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