Dembski: God's asshole
Pip R. Lagenta
"For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
Read about Dembski answering hard questions at the blog:
<http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/09/dembski-affair-part-2-students-have.html>
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Bobby Bryant
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@comcast.net> writes:
> From the blog:
> "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
> questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
> about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
> their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
>
> Read about Dembski answering hard questions at the blog:
> <http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/09/dembski-affair-part-2-students-have.html>
Priceless. Everyone should read that link. (Though the writer needs
an editor.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
bi...@juno.com
> "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
> questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
> about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
> their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
As usual, this demonstrates that you folks treat evolution as a faith-
system. Only because you treat evolution as a religion-substitute, can
you derive so much "fun" from such poor behavior.
If you were merely treating evolution as science only, it would not be
"fun" to harrass Dembski, the infidel heretic. It would just be
embarrassing. (It IS embarrassing, although you don't seem to realize
how foolish you look and are).
If you were treating evolution as science only, you would calmly
discuss the theory with Dembski. You would produce evidence to refute
him (calmly), and what is more.... you would actually try to disprove
evolution yourselves. You see, that is what scientists do.... they try
to disprove dominant theories, even theories as holy as evolution.
The fact that you don't, and that you think it is "fun" to harrass
Dembski, demonstrates that FOR YOU evolution is not science, but is a
religion-substitute.
Thanks for playing, you lose.
Evolution: the faith-based religion-substitute that masquerades as
science.
Bobby Bryant
bi...@juno.com writes:
>> From the blog:
>> "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
>> questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
>> about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
>> their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
>
> As usual, this demonstrates that you folks treat evolution as a faith-
> system. Only because you treat evolution as a religion-substitute, can
> you derive so much "fun" from such poor behavior.
If there happens to be some logic to your reasoning, you need to spell
it out for us.
> If you were merely treating evolution as science only, it would not
> be "fun" to harrass Dembski, the infidel heretic.
This has nothing to do with science or religion. It's just the usual
human schadenfreude at seeing a pompous ass getting his due.
Remember, this is the self-proclaimed Isaac Newton of Information Theory
we're talking about.
> It would just be embarrassing. (It IS embarrassing, although you
> don't seem to realize how foolish you look and are).
>
> If you were treating evolution as science only, you would calmly
> discuss the theory with Dembski.
Sounds like what the undergraduates described in the article did.
And calmly required him to answer their questions, which is where
the problems started for him.
Guess he was counting on the usual audience packed with religious
zealots. (And you have to wonder why a religious organization was
sponsoring this "scientist"s visit anyway.)
> You would produce evidence to refute him (calmly), and what is
> more.... you would actually try to disprove evolution
> yourselves. You see, that is what scientists do.... they try to
> disprove dominant theories, even theories as holy as evolution.
Perhaps you are unaware that scientists were generating theories of
evolution as early as two hundred years ago. Some of them have not
withstood scrutiny.
> The fact that you don't, and that you think it is "fun" to harrass
> Dembski, demonstrates that FOR YOU evolution is not science, but is a
> religion-substitute.
>
> Thanks for playing, you lose.
>
> Evolution: the faith-based religion-substitute that masquerades as
> science.
Now look who's being a pompous ass.
Pip R. Lagenta
I am sorry that you have become upset that your pet con-man was
laughed at. I feel your pain.
If Dembski had some facts on his side, then he would not be so easy to
mock.
Better luck next time. But please, don't go away angry...
Arkalen
BIMMS ! I spent three bloody hours looking for papers about
investigating speciation events, when are you going to answer them ?
And all the other people who did the same ?
Or was the "I'll stay here to answer people for a while" thing just
true until we totally destroyed your position ? And it's not like we
even did that, a REAL creationists had enough material to quibble,
deny the evidence and answer selected sentences while snipping the
rest of the post for DAYS.
bi...@juno.com
> BIMMS ! I spent three bloody hours looking for papers about
> investigating speciation events, when are you going to answer them ?
> And all the other people who did the same ?
> Or was the "I'll stay here to answer people for a while" thing just
> true until we totally destroyed your position ? And it's not like we
> even did that, a REAL creationists had enough material to quibble,
> deny the evidence and answer selected sentences while snipping the
> rest of the post for DAYS.
Don't worry, I've been on vacation this week. I am still going to go
look at that thread.
I just got back today. I'm still planning on checking that thread
every so often.
A.Carlson
>> From the blog:
>> "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
>> questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
>> about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
>> their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
>
>As usual, this demonstrates that you folks treat evolution as a faith-
>system. Only because you treat evolution as a religion-substitute, can
>you derive so much "fun" from such poor behavior.
So what's wrong with exposing am arrogant liar such as Dembski for the
fraud that he is? I seriously doubt that an honest Creationist (if
there even is one out there) would elicit such responses as Dembski
got.
>If you were merely treating evolution as science only, it would not be
>"fun" to harrass Dembski, the infidel heretic.
It isn't that he doesn't accept the ToE (descent through modification
and common descent) that leads to such treatment of your garden
variety fundamnmentalist Creationist but the fact that they arrogantly
insist that they are right and the vast majority of scientists are
wrong despite the fact that the evidence is overwhelmingly against
them. IOW, it isn't about him being an 'infidel' or 'heretic', it's
about him being an arrogant pathologic liar.
>It would just be
>embarrassing. (It IS embarrassing, although you don't seem to realize
>how foolish you look and are).
Look foolish to who? The legitimate scientists in the audience? I
don't think so! Dembski, like so many other Creationists, have a long
and sordid history of looking foolish.
>If you were treating evolution as science only, you would calmly
>discuss the theory with Dembski.
Been there, tried that, it doesn't work! Their religion is so deeply
engrained that they are either unwilling or unable to hold an honest
conversation and stick to the facts. As the blog indicated, they are
far more likely to employ subterfuge and misdirection to avoid dealing
with the issues themselves.
Just because you're too ignorant yourself to see through his ruse
doesn't mean others are equally ignorant as well.
>You would produce evidence to refute
>him (calmly), and what is more.... you would actually try to disprove
>evolution yourselves.
Again, been there - done that! In fact the ToE turns out to be a very
robust and almost universally accepted Theory (among *legitimate*
scientists) because of it.
>You see, that is what scientists do.... they try
>to disprove dominant theories, even theories as holy as evolution.
And what makes you think that this isn't being done? Because
Dembski's baseless arguments aren't being taken seriously? Also,
there is a world of a difference between *trying* to disprove dominant
theories and actually doing it. To say that Dembski hasn't even come
close is putting it mildly.
>The fact that you don't, and that you think it is "fun" to harrass
>Dembski, demonstrates that FOR YOU evolution is not science, but is a
>religion-substitute.
IOW, you're nothing more than a typical lying (or extremely ignorant)
Creationist.
>Thanks for playing, you lose.
You're not even playing on the same field.
>Evolution: the faith-based religion-substitute that masquerades as
>science.
95% of scientists clearly disagree with you. At least 10,000
theologians do as well.
Why is it that the more educated a person is, the more likely it is
that they accept evolution as fact and conversely, the less educated a
person is, the more likely it is that they accept Creationism as fact?
Which camp do you fall into?
richardal...@googlemail.com
I posted a list of two hundred a while back.
He ignored my post, of course, and then reappeared asserting that none
of the papers which he hadn't bothered to read attempted to falsify
speciation events.
There's the intellectual beauty of creationism (which includes ID, of
course): you can dismiss the content of papers you are not even aware
of as flawed.
It's so much simpler than science.
RF
Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com writes
wrote "Not this time. I'm going to try to keep coming back and reading
this thread for quite awhile. In fact, I think this thread will be my
main activity for awhile, to help me stay focused and see if there is
actually any legit evidence for evolution." - and then going on vacation
and not coming back until the thread had died?
Aren't you embarrassed about starting that thread knowing that you
weren't going to be around to participate? - or was that an unplanned
vacation?
--
alias Ernest Major
wf3h
>
> If you were treating evolution as science only, you would calmly
> discuss the theory with Dembski.
uh, why? what's the point of discussing science with a religious
fanatic who wants to replace science with religion?
You would produce evidence to refute
> him (calmly),
it's been done. few things are more immune to logic than religious
fanaticism. your islamist brothers kill themselves over 72 imagined
virgins.
>
> Evolution: the faith-based religion-substitute that masquerades as
> science.
as opposed to creationism which is a train ride to the 14th century.
VoiceOfReason
bi...@juno.com wrote:
> > From the blog:
> > "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
> > questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
> > about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
> > their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
>
> As usual, this demonstrates that you folks treat evolution as a faith-
> system. Only because you treat evolution as a religion-substitute, can
> you derive so much "fun" from such poor behavior.
I don't blame the students for gleefully exposing a liar and a con
artist. They gave him the rope, and he hung himself.
Ron O
> In article <9qr3f39g7719294aq8poa26nvcfljsb...@4ax.com>,
> "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatw...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > From the blog:
> > "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
> > questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
> > about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
> > their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
>
> > Read about Dembski answering hard questions at the blog:
>
> Priceless. Everyone should read that link. (Though the writer needs
> an editor.)
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
I would like to see a transcript.
"Dembski finally stated that he did not accept that humans evolved
from another species."
The next step would be that he comes out and admits that he is YEC.
He seems to be OEC, but he used to mouth agreement with common descent
too.
Creationists should feel betrayed by these clowns. They lied to them
about the science of ID, and they ran a dishonest bait and switch scam
on anyone stupid enough to fall for the ID scam. What is the new scam
that Dembski and his cohorts are running, and why can't ID be
mentioned in the new scam?
Dembski is one of the ID perps that is now pushing the "teach the
controversy" replacement scam. He can't deny that he can't even
mention ID as part of the controversy. It is part of the new scam to
not state why they are obfuscating. They still ramble on about ID,
but the only guys that believe the junk have to be pathetically out of
whack. If the ID junk is so great, why can't they even mention it in
the new scam? If ID isn't part of the controversy, what is the
controversy? Why are they only using ID as smoke to make it look like
there might be something that the creationists still want to teach?
The church groups that sponsor these kinds of events, have to have a
problem dealing with reality. Someone should have asked what Dembski
got paid for his appearance, and who was stupid enough to suggest
paying him for it.
Ron Okimoto
Lee Oswald Ving
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> If you were merely treating evolution as science only,
If Dembski treated ID as science, he wouldn't be speaking to church groups.
"It did not start out well. The fellow who took out the ad offered to
apologize (he didnt know about the Dover Transcript)-- but he did get a
good jab in, pointing out that several people in the audience had published
more papers than the entire ID community in 10 years."
Chris Thompson
@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
Well well well, like some benthic anaerobe from a dystrophic pond, bimms
surfaces once again and belches forth a cloud of foul-aspected gas.
I called you a fraud before, and I do it again now. Not only that, it's
obvious that you're a premeditated fraud.
Chris
Richard Clayton
> > From the blog:
> > "For god knows what reason, Trinity Baptists let people just ask
> > questions. I don't know whether they didn't talk to their colleagues
> > about filtering questions, or they just KNEW Jesus was going to be on
> > their side, but the Q&A was good old fashioned FUN!"
>
> As usual, this demonstrates that you folks treat evolution as a faith-
> system. Only because you treat evolution as a religion-substitute, can
> you derive so much "fun" from such poor behavior.
Most people love to see arrogant jerks get their comeuppance. It has
nothing to do with religion.
> If you were merely treating evolution as science only, it would not be
> "fun" to harrass Dembski, the infidel heretic. It would just be
> embarrassing. (It IS embarrassing, although you don't seem to realize
> how foolish you look and are).
>
> If you were treating evolution as science only, you would calmly
> discuss the theory with Dembski. You would produce evidence to refute
> him (calmly), and what is more.... you would actually try to disprove
> evolution yourselves. You see, that is what scientists do.... they try
> to disprove dominant theories, even theories as holy as evolution.
Theory? There is no theory of ID and there never has been. You are
ignorant or a liar for implying that there is. (And I know which way
I'd bet.) But do feel free to prove me wrong. All you have to do is
provide that scientific theory of ID. Feel free to post it below, I've
been asking to see it for years:
Calm rebuttals have been offered. Evidence has been produced (calmly).
But Dembski doesn't care. Why isn't he publishing scientific papers to
support ID? Why doesn't he even tell anybody what the theory of ID IS?
If he continues to act like a dishonest clown, why shouldn't we laugh
at him?
> The fact that you don't, and that you think it is "fun" to harrass
> Dembski, demonstrates that FOR YOU evolution is not science, but is a
> religion-substitute.
I think it's fun to harass perpetual motion machine enthusiasts, too.
Does that make thermodynamics a religion-substitute?
> Thanks for playing, you lose.
>
> Evolution: the faith-based religion-substitute that masquerades as
> science.
False assumptions lead to false conclusions.
Ferrous Patella
> an honest Creationist (if
> there even is one out there)
I forget who came up with the phrase "Honest/Creationist/Scientist, pick
any two."
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Ferrous Patella
>
>>Thanks for playing, you lose.
>
> You're not even playing on the same field.
Again, I forget who said something like, "Creationists are like
chimpanzees who think they are winning a game of bridge when they eat the
cards."
bi...@juno.com
> Aren't you embarrassed about promising to participate in a thread - you
> wrote "Not this time. I'm going to try to keep coming back and reading
> this thread for quite awhile. In fact, I think this thread will be my
> main activity for awhile, to help me stay focused and see if there is
> actually any legit evidence for evolution." - and then going on vacation
> and not coming back until the thread had died?
The thread hasn't "died." I'm planning on keeping it alive, kind of
like a chez what every month.
You see, that is why I called it a "running tally."
Geez, can't a guy go on vacation once in awhile?
>
> Aren't you embarrassed about starting that thread knowing that you
> weren't going to be around to participate? - or was that an unplanned
> vacation?
I don't see why I can't take a few days off.
But that thread is going to be very labor intensive for me, since I
have to read all the papers you folks link to. So it is no simple
matter to take care of it. Nevertheless, I am still committed to
adding up all the speciation falsification attempts in a running
tally, assuming that you guys actually have some.
Robert Carnegie
He thought the judge was sympathetic. Creationists do, oddly often.
Stuart
You needn't read all of them. After the first two or three
you should start writing your retraction.
Stuart
Bobby Bryant
>> have to read all the papers you folks link to. So it is no simple
>> matter to take care of it. Nevertheless, I am still committed to
>> adding up all the speciation falsification attempts in a running
>> tally, assuming that you guys actually have some.
>
> You needn't read all of them. After the first two or three
> you should start writing your retraction.
LoL.