RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,14:42   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2010,12:33)
Of course, information is never actually defined by anyone arguing against evolution.

Au contraire.  It's defined as "the property of life which proves that goddidit".

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,15:10   
Another thing they never seem to clarify is exactly how "Goddidit" is supposed to conflict with evolution theory in the first place. "Goddidit" assigns responsibility to an agency; it doesn't describe mechanisms, locations, time tables, etc. Evolution theory does describe those details, but doesn't assign responsibility. Claiming they conflict means making additional assumptions that don't actually follow logically from the basic assumptions.
  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,15:11   
[quote=midwifetoad,Mar. 19 2010,14:33]
Quote
Of course, information is never actually defined by anyone arguing against evolution.


Ironically, that may well be my problem as well. Not that I'm a creationist.

Perhaps I should say that i don't really understand the definition of information in anything but a casual way. That may well be the root cause of my conceptual vacuum right there!  :D

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis
  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,15:15   
Quote
definition of information in anything but a casual way

The casual meaning of "information" is simply "useful data". But using that definition requires assuming an agency to which that data is useful.
  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,16:27   
[quote=Robin,Mar. 19 2010,15:11]
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2010,14:33)

 
Quote
Of course, information is never actually defined by anyone arguing against evolution.


Ironically, that may well be my problem as well. Not that I'm a creationist.

Perhaps I should say that i don't really understand the definition of information in anything but a casual way. That may well be the root cause of my conceptual vacuum right there!  :D

The best stuff I've read about information is from Douglas Hofstadter

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

Recommended  ;)

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,22:03   
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12)
Also, to OgreMkV:

Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?

Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

Hmmm... Consider the following:

The website he pretty much created (uncommon descent) to 'develop' his ideas of ID and show that they are calid is one of the most heavily moderated 'forums' that I've ever seen.

This forum (antievolution.org) has something like 15,000 posts worth of comments that have been moderated into non-existence, deleted, and users deleted for any argument or presentation of facts.  I've read through about 600 PAGES of posts where the people here are copying their comments and can show that their comments (generally speaking respectful and questioning) are deleted, while people who are not respectful or rational (in my opinion) are allowed to post freely and even turned in moderators for that forum (uncommon descent).

The prevailing evidence is that Dembski DOES NOT allow dissension in the ranks and those that disagree with him are removed with prejudice.  In fact, it can be shown, in several places, that posts regarding a particular point have been deleted, then the author of that posts says something to the order of "Where are all the counter arguments?  I must be right."

So please forgive me if I think that Dembski would lie, cheat or steal to promote a religious belief... it's only because I've seen the evidence.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,22:10   
BTW: Has anyone mentioned that right here on this very forum... science has done what Dembski et al cannot?

That is using their preferred method, determine which of strings is random and which is designed.

Several science types here did it and scored about an 80% success rate.  No IDer even bothered to try.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,22:55   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2010,23:03)
     
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12)
Also, to OgreMkV:

Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?

Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

Hmmm... Consider the following:

The website he pretty much created (uncommon descent) to 'develop' his ideas of ID and show that they are calid is one of the most heavily moderated 'forums' that I've ever seen.

This forum (antievolution.org) has something like 15,000 posts worth of comments that have been moderated into non-existence, deleted, and users deleted for any argument or presentation of facts.  I've read through about 600 PAGES of posts where the people here are copying their comments and can show that their comments (generally speaking respectful and questioning) are deleted, while people who are not respectful or rational (in my opinion) are allowed to post freely and even turned in moderators for that forum (uncommon descent).

The prevailing evidence is that Dembski DOES NOT allow dissension in the ranks and those that disagree with him are removed with prejudice.  In fact, it can be shown, in several places, that posts regarding a particular point have been deleted, then the author of that posts says something to the order of "Where are all the counter arguments?  I must be right."

So please forgive me if I think that Dembski would lie, cheat or steal to promote a religious belief... it's only because I've seen the evidence.

Ogre, strange for me to be saying this, but I think you're overstating this a bit, at least vis your numbers. Also, Dembski no longer has control of UD. Since his departure moderation has become, if anything, more hypocritical and underhanded. At least DaveTard was straightforward - even exhibitionistic - about his moderation decisions. Clive is a furtive coward.

That said, bjray be sure to check out the Blogczar thread, and see the sorry spectacle for yourself.

I posted at UD briefly as Reciprocating_Bill, for many months as Diffaxial, and for a month or two as Voice Coil. Search UD for those names, read their comments, and see if you can detect the reason for my being banned thrice.

[edit for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,03:16   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2010,22:10)
BTW: Has anyone mentioned that right here on this very forum... science has done what Dembski et al cannot?

That is using their preferred method, determine which of strings is random and which is designed.

Several science types here did it and scored about an 80% success rate.  No IDer even bothered to try.

I should clarify that the methods applied to successfully distinguish random from non-random strings here were not anything like Dembski's "design inference". Louis used Benford's Law, that the distribution of results yielding numbers tends to be biased towards strings beginning with smaller numbers. I used "Specified Anti-Information" (SAI), which applies non-probabilistic algorithmic information theory, which is a great contrast to Dembski's method with its unrealistic intrinsic probability estimation as a necessary component of the process. And each of the applied successful methods may have a "success rate" that is not necessarily 80%; that was just about the distribution of people who entered an opinion on which string was which, and not everyone used the same method. I mention this because I've used SAI before on similar tasks, and so far it has given me accurate results.

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



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,10:06   
It seems to me the whole basis for the rejection of science they don't agree with is based on a literal reading of the Bible.

If the person still says that there is no difference between the two versions of Genesis, ignore them and move on.

Unless you like running into a brick wall.

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



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,10:23   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2010,04:16)
..."Specified Anti-Information" (SAI)...

SWAG ?
  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,11:29   
Of course, running into brick walls is one way to support one's concussion!
  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,13:19   
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 20 2010,11:29)
Of course, running into brick walls is one way to support one's concussion!

Ah, it's easier to keep your mind closed when it doesn't work well?

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



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,13:52   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2010,22:55)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2010,23:03)
     
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12)
Also, to OgreMkV:

Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?

Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

Hmmm... Consider the following:

The website he pretty much created (uncommon descent) to 'develop' his ideas of ID and show that they are calid is one of the most heavily moderated 'forums' that I've ever seen.

This forum (antievolution.org) has something like 15,000 posts worth of comments that have been moderated into non-existence, deleted, and users deleted for any argument or presentation of facts.  I've read through about 600 PAGES of posts where the people here are copying their comments and can show that their comments (generally speaking respectful and questioning) are deleted, while people who are not respectful or rational (in my opinion) are allowed to post freely and even turned in moderators for that forum (uncommon descent).

The prevailing evidence is that Dembski DOES NOT allow dissension in the ranks and those that disagree with him are removed with prejudice.  In fact, it can be shown, in several places, that posts regarding a particular point have been deleted, then the author of that posts says something to the order of "Where are all the counter arguments?  I must be right."

So please forgive me if I think that Dembski would lie, cheat or steal to promote a religious belief... it's only because I've seen the evidence.

Ogre, strange for me to be saying this, but I think you're overstating this a bit, at least vis your numbers. Also, Dembski no longer has control of UD. Since his departure moderation has become, if anything, more hypocritical and underhanded. At least DaveTard was straightforward - even exhibitionistic - about his moderation decisions. Clive is a furtive coward.

That said, bjray be sure to check out the Blogczar thread, and see the sorry spectacle for yourself.

I posted at UD briefly as Reciprocating_Bill, for many months as Diffaxial, and for a month or two as Voice Coil. Search UD for those names, read their comments, and see if you can detect the reason for my being banned thrice.

[edit for clarity]

Bill... OK, I'll agree that I may have overstated things... a little.

However, there are three full threads of these comments... and I've never seen Dembski in any forum that wasn't under his control or did not allow comments.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
   
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,18:24   
I disagree, I think that Dembski used to be much more severe. Most of the socks here would have disappeared after one or two comments.
  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,18:39   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 20 2010,18:24)
I disagree, I think that Dembski used to be much more severe. Most of the socks here would have disappeared after one or two comments.

It probably depends on the sock...

I have made comments to Dembski posts as D-rat (my first puppet) and "Mr. Bible Code" never caught on that D-rat spelled backward is tard.   D-rat's common descendents, puppets G Larson, Hugh Jass and Jack Inhoffe also commented on Dembski threads without being banned.  Of course my favorite puppets all loved ID, Jesus Christ, and were effusive in expressing Dr. Dr. D love, so that may have something to do with it as well.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11
  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,19:22   
In the case of puppets, it may also depend on whether there are strings attached... :O
  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,19:48   
Quote
I disagree, I think that Dembski used to be much more severe. Most of the socks here would have disappeared after one or two comments.


I must have had at least a dozen socks at UD since 200(6?) up until very recently.  None of those lasted more than ~10 posts (and then only by acting carefully or naive) and at least half never had their first post make it through 'moderation'.
  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,22:07   
I've had both experiences during the "new" regime.

I first returned as Reciprocating_Bill in response to BarryA's newly announced "open" moderation policy. I politely pressed a single point and, although I conformed scrupulously to their new policy, was banned in that very thread. That was really my intention, as I knew that the moderation policy was horseshit, one to which they would be unable to conform. Indeed, when Clive was challenged he cited a rationale for banning Reciprocating_Bill that directly contradicted the new policy - e.g. my "disrepectful" posting here.

Diffaxial lasted something like eight months and many, many posts, sliding in an out of moderation, and he pressed his points as well as he knew how - generally politely but with sharp elbows. His banning was ridiculously arbitrary, of course, obviously in response to my having disassembled StephenB and reassembled him inside out, all his greasy parts showing.

Am I there now?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,22:41   
I was "pre-banned" when UD was first opened.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
   
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2010,06:40   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 19 2010,14:12)
Hi Rossum,

I liked your link.

I don't suppose Dembski or any other big name ID proponent offered a rebuttal to this did they?

I have never seen any rebuttal offered, which does not mean that there isn't one out there somewhere that I have not seen yet.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.
  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,00:00   
Got to keep this near the top of the page to be sure that our new friend will be able to post his/her most excellent ID proofs, and spoofs.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,21:47   
ID proofs? But for somebody to prove it, it would have to actually say something, first. ;)
  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,22:31   
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 22 2010,19:47)
ID proofs? But for somebody to prove it, it would have to actually say something, first. ;)

Ya mean that "gawddidit" isn't a theory?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2010,22:51   
Not until somebody clarifies to what the pronoun "it" refers, and then gets agreement to the proposed definition. ;)
  
snorkild



Posts: 32
Joined: Sep. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,13:12   
Methinks mr. Ray weasel'd away.

:(

--------------
wimp
  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,15:01   
Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,13:12)
Methinks mr. Ray weasel'd away.

:(

I was thinking the same thing.  chicken shit.
  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,15:20   
Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,13:12)
Methinks mr. Ray weasel'd away.

:(

Now, he may just be brushing up on his C.S. Lewis before he comes back.



--------------
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!)
  
cdanner



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010
(Permalink) Posted: 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? Frankly, if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldn’t  have much faith in God, would I. Oh my goodness, I said several words that are no-nos, didn’t I. Well, let’s all have a little faith in something, shall we. After all, it is both faith in God and faith in one’s 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 person’s 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 – what? I mean, if you’re 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. Dembski’s 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. I’m 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



Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 2010
(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,17:36   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 18 2010,20:04)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

That is three in a freakin' row.  First cdanner, then daevans, and now bjray.  WTH, don't these creationists have any cojones?

And why would I be on your list, sir. Would you like to talk about creationism. Are you young-earth or old-earth? Frankly, I think I am an old-earth creationist, and Dr. Dembski has a new book that might interest you. Are you a fan of Dr. Dembski? Well, this book, "End of Christianity," (not what you think), presents some marvelous theories on original sin and a kairological reading of Genesis 1-3. It is fantastic, but it is hard to grasp in some areas, such as his "infinite dialectic" andn the notion of the intentional-semantic logic of God. Facinating, though. :)
  
  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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