RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (368) < ... 323 324 325 326 327 [328] 329 330 331 332 333 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2162
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,01:09   

David Gerson, George W. Bush's former head speechwriter, has written a devastating article for the current (April 2018) issue of The Atlantic.  

Gerson is an Evangelical, a  graduate of Wheaton College (the Harvard of Evangelicalism) and ar least ten times smarter and better educated than anybody at Uncommon Descent.  His article is titled The Last Temptation and it's subtitled "How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory".  To put it mildly, it's devastating.

"The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

Trump supporters tend to dismiss moral scruples about his behavior as squeamishness over the president’s “style.” But the problem is the distinctly non-Christian substance of his values. Trump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching. His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ. Blessed are the proud. Blessed are the ruthless. Blessed are the shameless. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after fame."

It gets better from there.  You absolutely want to read that article!

Worst of all, from ID and UD's perspective, Gerson traces the present day  moral debasement of Evangelicalism to its century and a half long, thoroughly dishonest rejection of modernism and evolution!

Denyse has a post up about this article, But the Big Cool cannot talk about evolution as if reality mattered, where she quotes David Klinghoffer's ("a good and smart person") "response" to Gerson and then she adds her own absolutely typical "reply":      
Quote
But I wish he and a bunch of other people would get this part of the story right: A Big Cool Person should not know facts.

That would imply that The Big Cool inhabit the same world as the rest of us do. We could have a serious discussion about the strength and weaknesses of current evolution theory.

Admit that and Big Cool is dead.

It always depended on an alternative version of reality.

See also: Why Hollywood is losing ground.


A perfect Denyse-style name-calling non-answer.

I think someday we'll look back on the election of Donald Trump as the day Conservatism and especially conservative religion linked arms and collectively jumped the shark.  Assuming we survive it to look back, anyway.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4882
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,04:58   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 09 2018,09:09)
David Gerson, George W. Bush's former head speechwriter, has written a devastating article for the current (April 2018) issue of The Atlantic.  

Gerson is an Evangelical, a  graduate of Wheaton College (the Harvard of Evangelicalism) and ar least ten times smarter and better educated than anybody at Uncommon Descent.  His article is titled The Last Temptation and it's subtitled "How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory".  To put it mildly, it's devastating.

"The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

Trump supporters tend to dismiss moral scruples about his behavior as squeamishness over the president’s “style.” But the problem is the distinctly non-Christian substance of his values. Trump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching. His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ. Blessed are the proud. Blessed are the ruthless. Blessed are the shameless. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after fame."

It gets better from there.  You absolutely want to read that article!

Worst of all, from ID and UD's perspective, Gerson traces the present day  moral debasement of Evangelicalism to its century and a half long, thoroughly dishonest rejection of modernism and evolution!

Denyse has a post up about this article, But the Big Cool cannot talk about evolution as if reality mattered, where she quotes David Klinghoffer's ("a good and smart person") "response" to Gerson and then she adds her own absolutely typical "reply":            
Quote
But I wish he and a bunch of other people would get this part of the story right: A Big Cool Person should not know facts.

That would imply that The Big Cool inhabit the same world as the rest of us do. We could have a serious discussion about the strength and weaknesses of current evolution theory.

Admit that and Big Cool is dead.

It always depended on an alternative version of reality.

See also: Why Hollywood is losing ground.


A perfect Denyse-style name-calling non-answer.

I think someday we'll look back on the election of Donald Trump as the day Conservatism and especially conservative religion linked arms and collectively jumped the shark.  Assuming we survive it to look back, anyway.

Jumped the shark? Hmmmm..... seems to me more like they were hoping for a Theocracy on the back of a man with clearly proto-facist leanings.  That and he was white, as well unreservedly amoral as themselves.

Thanks for the post it's made my day.

The brown shirts from the Trump Churches will get in a real lather over that. But probably not.... would they even read The Atlantic? Is it even sold south of the Mason-Dixon line?

 
Quote
As the prominent evangelical pastor Tim Keller—who is not a Trump loyalist—recently wrote in The New Yorker, “ ‘Evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite.’ ” So it is little wonder that last year the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, an 87-year-old ministry, dropped the “E word” from its name, becoming the Princeton Christian Fellowship: Too many students had identified the term with conservative political ideology. Indeed, a number of serious evangelicals are distancing themselves from the word for similar reasons.


Barry ambulancechaser will be adding it to his c.v.
Barry evangelicalambulancechaser.

The Money shot.
Quote
....Moreover, in making their case on cultural decay and decline, evangelicals have, in some highly visible cases, chosen the wrong nightmares. Most notable, they made a crucial error in picking evolution as a main point of contention with modernity. “The contest between evolution and Christianity is a duel to the death,” William Jennings Bryan* argued. “If evolution wins … Christianity goes—not suddenly, of course, but gradually, for the two cannot stand together.” Many people of his background believed this. But their resistance was futile, for one incontrovertible reason: Evolution is a fact. It is objectively true based on overwhelming evidence. By denying this, evangelicals made their entire view of reality suspect. They were insisting, in effect, that the Christian faith requires a flight from reason.

This was foolish and unnecessary. There is no meaningful theological difference between creation by divine intervention and creation by natural selection; both are consistent with belief in a purposeful universe, and with serious interpretation of biblical texts. Evangelicals have placed an entirely superfluous stumbling block before their neighbors and children, encouraging every young person who loves science to reject Christianity.


*William Jennings Bryan - Scopes Monkey trial nearly a century ago. One thing about the fundies they have a long memory.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
timothya



Posts: 264
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,05:56   

From Denise O'Leary:

"But I wish he and a bunch of other people would get this part of the story right: A Big Cool Person should not know facts.

That would imply that The Big Cool inhabit the same world as the rest of us do. We could have a serious discussion about the strength and weaknesses of current evolution theory.

Admit that and Big Cool is dead."

What, exactly, is "Big Cool"? Is this a spoof on "Big Pharma" et al? What does this mean?

  
sparc



Posts: 2009
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,06:17   

Quote (timothya @ April 09 2018,05:56)
What does this mean?

It means that you should omit reading anything from Denyse O'leary because trying to make sense of it is indeed brain damaging.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,07:56   

Quote
"But I wish he and a bunch of other people would get this part of the story right: A Big Cool Person should not know facts.


So that's what UD is about, the Big Cool?

I did not know that.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,09:32   

Quote (timothya @ April 09 2018,06:56)
What, exactly, is "Big Cool"? Is this a spoof on "Big Pharma" et al? What does this mean?

No fucking clue.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,09:36   

Checkout this dumbass:

Quote
8
ETApril 9, 2018 at 7:12 am
Bob:
Quote

Technically, of course, the Earth is most definitely not a sphere – it’s wider at the equator.

You couldn’t tell by looking at it from the Moon.

24,902 miles around the equator and 24,860 miles around the prime meridian. And most likely that is only because of its rotational speed. Which means most likely the Earth is a sphere and only its motion takes it out of that configuration.


Ummm....no, it means the rotation makes it oblate.

derp

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 3159
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,09:47   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,09:36)
Checkout this dumbass:

 
Quote
8
ETApril 9, 2018 at 7:12 am
Bob:
 
Quote

Technically, of course, the Earth is most definitely not a sphere – it’s wider at the equator.

You couldn’t tell by looking at it from the Moon.

24,902 miles around the equator and 24,860 miles around the prime meridian. And most likely that is only because of its rotational speed. Which means most likely the Earth is a sphere and only its motion takes it out of that configuration.


Ummm....no, it means the rotation makes it oblate.

derp

ET is Joke Gallien, the world's dumbest YEC.  What else did you expect?   :)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC

  
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,10:05   

"Officer, I wasn't speeding, my car was perfectly still. It just looked like it was speeding because it was moving 80 mph down the road."

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2162
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,11:50   

Timothya:
Quote

What, exactly, is "Big Cool"? Is this a spoof on "Big Pharma" et al? What does this mean?

It means that Denyse has no answer, but she's not going to admit it.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2162
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,12:04   

Quote
There is no meaningful theological difference between creation by divine intervention and creation by natural selection; both are consistent with belief in a purposeful universe, and with serious interpretation of biblical texts. 

This is just Gerson whistling as he walks past the cemetery.  If God didn't create all life in six days around 6000 years ago, then the Bible is wrong.  If the Bible is wrong, that pulls the floor out from under conservative Christianity which replaced the Pope's authority with the inerrant Bible's authority back in Luther's day.  And if the Bible has  no authority, then Barry's objective morality is built on sand.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,12:53   

Quote
 If God didn't create all life in six days around 6000 years ago, then the Bible is wrong.


Well that's Ken Ham's position, but I know several smart christians who'd disagree.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3092
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,12:58   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,10:53)
Quote
 If God didn't create all life in six days around 6000 years ago, then the Bible is wrong.


Well that's Ken Ham's position, but I know several smart christians who'd disagree.

It's not the smart Christians we're up against, Steve.

--------------
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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2162
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,15:44   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,12:53)
 
Quote
 If God didn't create all life in six days around 6000 years ago, then the Bible is wrong.


Well that's Ken Ham's position, but I know several smart christians who'd disagree.

That's the Evangelical Christian's position, though.  You pretty much have to hold to Biblical Inerrancy or you're out of the club.  Just ask Dembski.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,17:22   

If you're putting yourself in Barry's shoes and showing his argument falls apart, okay. If you're making an objectively true argument you have to reboot.

Quote
Just ask Dembski.


Did Dembski ever fully relent to YEC?

   
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,18:36   

Quote
We Cannot, in Principle, “Know” Whether a Machine is Conscious
April 9, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design


And to everyone's surprise, Barry even understands that we can't in principle know this about other humans. Now let's see what kind of powerful, concise insights BatShit has to add to the discussion:

Quote
4
bornagain77April 9, 2018 at 1:32 pm
Despite Bob’s somewhat flippant remark, the argument from personal conscious experience, that Barry highlighted, is particularly devastating to Atheistic presuppositions. And, if atheists were ever honest in their reflections, should cause atheists to seriously reconsider their beliefs.

First off. in establishing this ‘argument from consciousness’ it is important to point out that the concept of “I”, i.e. personhood, simply does not exist in the atheist’s materialistic worldview,
Quote

“that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

8.) The argument from personal existence
1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist.
2. I do exist!
3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
William Lane Craig – Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....CQnmoLQ

“I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.”
Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion
– per youtube video

Eagleton on Baggini on free will
Excerpt: “What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.””
Jerry Coyne
per whyevolutionistrue

Nature, as Defined Today, Cannot Be All There Is – Denyse O’Leary – October 17, 2017
Excerpt: Thus, when we hear that evolution bred a sense of reality out of us (NPR), our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions (Quanta), there is no “I” in “me,” (Sam Harris), our experiences of being and having a body are “‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind” (Aeon),,,,
Jim Carrey summed it up best in a recent interview: “There is no me, there’s just things happening” ,,,
– per ENV

“There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,,
– A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
“consciousness is an illusion”
A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....=22m57s

“(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

Moreover, nobody, especially atheists, has the slightest clue how anything material can ever possibly become conscious and have a personal conscious experience:
Quote

“Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness.”
– Jerry Fodor – Rutgers University philosopher
[2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7.

“Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.”
Sebastian Seung – Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist – “Connectome”:

“Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature.”
Roger Wolcott Sperry – Nobel neurophysiologist
As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian

“We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind.”
– Eugene Wigner – Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries

“Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.”
Nick Herbert – Contemporary physicist

“No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians’ hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.”
– Larry Dossey – Physician and author

And thus, as an atheist, herein lies the problem for you Bob. You tell me that you are a real person, and that your personal subjective opinions on atheism are valid for me to personally accept without question, but, (regardless of the fact that you have no free will under determinism in which to form opinions), exactly how am I to personally know, with complete absolute 100% certainty, that you are not just some type of zombie going through the motions of personhood? i.e. How do I know for certain that you really are having a personal subjective experience?,, Scientifically prove it to me!
Quote

Philosophical Zombies – cartoon
http://existentialcomics.com/comic......c....11

David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....o6VbRoo

You see Bob, I know for 100% fact that I really do exist, but there is no way for you ever to ‘scientifically’ prove to me that you really exist as a real person and that you are not just some type of ‘philosophical zombie’ going through the motions of being a real person!

Such as it is with the atheist’s refusal to ever accept any evidence for the personhood of God.

As Alvin Plantinga pointed out years ago in “God and Other Minds”,,, “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist,,,”
Quote

Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga—he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist—see God and Other Minds, Cornell University Press, repr. 1990.
http://creation.com/atheism....ational

Thus Bob, we can have just as much confidence in the fact that the Mind of God really exists as we have confidence in our belief that the mind’s of other people really exist.

One final remark, it is certainly not the case that we do not have more than enough evidence to conclude that the Mind of God really does exist:,, For example, from quantum mechanics we have,,,
Quote

Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video
https://youtu.be/t5qphmi....hmi8gYE

Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....tZ301j4

“In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.,,, Mind is separate from matter.”
Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]

The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.”
– Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed,, ranking along with Aristotle according to some of Godel’s peers)
– per firstthings


what a deranged idiot.

Edited by stevestory on April 09 2018,19:37

   
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2018,18:40   

You just know every 10 years they mail BatShit77 a 2-page census form, and a week later the FedEx guy shows up with like 5 Banker's Boxes on a dolly.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2172
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,00:46   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2018,23:09)
David Gerson, George W. Bush's former head speechwriter, has written a devastating article for the current (April 2018) issue of The Atlantic.  

Excellent, and very interesting reading.

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

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 4882
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,02:32   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 10 2018,08:46)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2018,23:09)
David Gerson, George W. Bush's former head speechwriter, has written a devastating article for the current (April 2018) issue of The Atlantic.  

Excellent, and very interesting reading.

Indeed. It's clear to me through the quality and  precision of his writing where Bush winged it.

A thoroughly decent person in my books.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2306
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,02:39   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,17:22)
If you're putting yourself in Barry's shoes and showing his argument falls apart, okay. If you're making an objectively true argument you have to reboot.

Quote
Just ask Dembski.


Did Dembski ever fully relent to YEC?

I don't think so. IIRC he made some comment about having to read further, and then high-tailed it to teach in a car park in North Carolina.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2162
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,04:13   

Steve (speaking of Batshit77):  
Quote
What a deranged idiot.

And he's not the only one:  
Quote
 What you leave out is other modalities of communication, namely telepathy. A very large body of research in parapsychology, and many (unusual) everyday experiences, attest to the reality of this paranormal phenomenon.
Same thread, different IDiot

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2162
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,04:24   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,17:22)
Quote
Just ask Dembski.


Did Dembski ever fully relent to YEC?

I don't think he has ever been an actual YEC, but he did grovel enough that the YEC seminary he was employed at let him resign after a face-saving interval instead of canning him on the spot.  

This saved him from having to admit that his religious employer was discriminating against him for his religious beliefs.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,09:29   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 10 2018,05:13)
Steve (speaking of Batshit77):    
Quote
What a deranged idiot.

And he's not the only one:    
Quote
 What you leave out is other modalities of communication, namely telepathy. A very large body of research in parapsychology, and many (unusual) everyday experiences, attest to the reality of this paranormal phenomenon.
Same thread, different IDiot

wow. Doubter:

Quote
If telepathic communication were established between humans and an AI system, this would be confirmation by direct perception of the real existence of self-aware consciousness on the part of the AI system.


"As di bubbe volt gehat beytsim volt zi gevain mayn zaidah."

("And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather.")

   
stevestory



Posts: 11166
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,11:21   

Quote
Law of Conservation of Information vs Darwinism

April 10, 2018 Posted by News under Darwinism, Information, Intelligent Design
1 Comment

From Andrew Jones at ENST:
Quote

One of the most fundamental and useful ideas that has come out of the intelligent design movement is the insight expressed by Bill Dembski as the Law of Conservation of Information. Put simply, the idea is that information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source, analogous to conservation of energy or momentum in physics. It has been used to argue that evolution cannot create information, and I think that is true, so long as you properly understand what we are saying. But a lot of critics have not understood it yet.

It has been critiqued from a number of directions; a suspiciously large number of directions in fact: usually if an idea is wrong there is just one main thing wrong with it, so I am always suspicious when any idea is portrayed as “wrong in every way” or gets attacked in a scattergun way. You should be suspicious, too. More.

Of course the LCI is correct. Otherwise, Boltzmann brains or flowered teacups would be appearing everywhere.

And of course Darwinism isn’t even possible. It is amazing the number of tenures today that depend on proclaiming the opposite. If that does not make you suspicious…

See also: Law of Conservation of Information Part I

and

Law of Conservation of Information Part II


I mean, never mind that the entire Information Theory community completely ignores it, it is a True Law!!!!!11111

linky

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2172
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,11:44   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,10:53)
Quote
 If God didn't create all life in six days around 6000 years ago, then the Bible is wrong.


Well that's Ken Ham's position, but I know several smart christians who'd disagree.

I enjoyed reading the essay in the Atlantic. Thanks for the link.

Regarding the YEC notion being the 'valid' biblical interpretation, the mainstream 20th century theologians prior to the YEC surge in the 1960s and '70s did not read the early chapters of Genesis as materialistic descriptions.

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2955
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,12:59   

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,09:21)
Quote
Law of Conservation of Information vs Darwinism

April 10, 2018 Posted by News under Darwinism, Information, Intelligent Design
1 Comment

From Andrew Jones at ENST:
 
Quote

One of the most fundamental and useful ideas that has come out of the intelligent design movement is the insight expressed by Bill Dembski as the Law of Conservation of Information. Put simply, the idea is that information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source, analogous to conservation of energy or momentum in physics. It has been used to argue that evolution cannot create information, and I think that is true, so long as you properly understand what we are saying. But a lot of critics have not understood it yet.

It has been critiqued from a number of directions; a suspiciously large number of directions in fact: usually if an idea is wrong there is just one main thing wrong with it, so I am always suspicious when any idea is portrayed as “wrong in every way” or gets attacked in a scattergun way. You should be suspicious, too. More.

Of course the LCI is correct. Otherwise, Boltzmann brains or flowered teacups would be appearing everywhere.

And of course Darwinism isn’t even possible. It is amazing the number of tenures today that depend on proclaiming the opposite. If that does not make you suspicious…

See also: Law of Conservation of Information Part I

and

Law of Conservation of Information Part II


I mean, never mind that the entire Information Theory community completely ignores it, it is a True Law!!!!!11111

linky

What the actual...  :-/

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2023
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,15:03   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 09 2018,09:47)
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,09:36)
Checkout this dumbass:

 
Quote
8
ETApril 9, 2018 at 7:12 am
Bob:
 
Quote

Technically, of course, the Earth is most definitely not a sphere – it’s wider at the equator.

You couldn’t tell by looking at it from the Moon.

24,902 miles around the equator and 24,860 miles around the prime meridian. And most likely that is only because of its rotational speed. Which means most likely the Earth is a sphere and only its motion takes it out of that configuration.


Ummm....no, it means the rotation makes it oblate.

derp

ET is Joke Gallien, the world's dumbest YEC.  What else did you expect?   :)

Isn't it obvious that the earth is a prolate spheroid because frequency = wavelength?

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2023
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,15:04   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2018,12:53)
Quote
 If God didn't create all life in six days around 6000 years ago, then the Bible is wrong.


Well that's Ken Ham's position, but I know several smart christians who'd disagree.

I know several smart zebras who would disagree.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1727
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,16:30   

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,09:29)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 10 2018,05:13)
Steve (speaking of Batshit77):    
Quote
What a deranged idiot.

And he's not the only one:    
Quote
 What you leave out is other modalities of communication, namely telepathy. A very large body of research in parapsychology, and many (unusual) everyday experiences, attest to the reality of this paranormal phenomenon.
Same thread, different IDiot

wow. Doubter:

Quote
If telepathic communication were established between humans and an AI system, this would be confirmation by direct perception of the real existence of self-aware consciousness on the part of the AI system.


"As di bubbe volt gehat beytsim volt zi gevain mayn zaidah."

("And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather.")

That reminds me of Dirk Gently being asked to determine whether a cat in a box was alive or dead using telepathy.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1727
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2018,16:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 10 2018,12:59)
Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2018,09:21)
 
Quote
Law of Conservation of Information vs Darwinism

April 10, 2018 Posted by News under Darwinism, Information, Intelligent Design
1 Comment

From Andrew Jones at ENST:
 
Quote

One of the most fundamental and useful ideas that has come out of the intelligent design movement is the insight expressed by Bill Dembski as the Law of Conservation of Information. Put simply, the idea is that information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source, analogous to conservation of energy or momentum in physics. It has been used to argue that evolution cannot create information, and I think that is true, so long as you properly understand what we are saying. But a lot of critics have not understood it yet.

It has been critiqued from a number of directions; a suspiciously large number of directions in fact: usually if an idea is wrong there is just one main thing wrong with it, so I am always suspicious when any idea is portrayed as “wrong in every way” or gets attacked in a scattergun way. You should be suspicious, too. More.

Of course the LCI is correct. Otherwise, Boltzmann brains or flowered teacups would be appearing everywhere.

And of course Darwinism isn’t even possible. It is amazing the number of tenures today that depend on proclaiming the opposite. If that does not make you suspicious…

See also: Law of Conservation of Information Part I

and

Law of Conservation of Information Part II


I mean, never mind that the entire Information Theory community completely ignores it, it is a True Law!!!!!11111

linky

What the actual...  :-/

You have to love the logic of “people say it’s wrong in every way imaginable.  That means it MUST be true!”

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
  11039 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (368) < ... 323 324 325 326 327 [328] 329 330 331 332 333 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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