Arrington Effectively Banned at The Skeptical Zone (and Then Reinstated)

_{Barry Arrington

November 26, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It seems like every day one of the denizens of The Skeptical Zone whines about what they perceive to be heavy handed moderation tactics here at UD. They say no one is ever banned at The Skeptical Zone and everyone is free to say whatever they like. I decided to test that and signed up to comment at The Skeptical Zone. All of my comments – every single one of them – were deleted. They effectively banned me after my very first attempt to post there. Here is what KN said to justify the deletion:

I am more than willing to be a bully in order to prevent a bully from taking over a space that I enjoy using for philosophical discussions. I’m not claiming any moral high ground here — I’ll leave that to Lizzie — but rather a “my boat ain’t the rutting town hall” approach. Any one here have a problem with that? Good. I didn’t think so.

I’ll let that speak for itself. I also assume that will be the end of the “everyone is so much freer to speak at The Skeptical Zone” blithering.

UPDATE: As the comments below show, Neil Rickert dug my comments out of the trash and re-posted them. First he pretended they had been “just moved” and were always visible. (See comment 1) When that subterfuge was no longer tenable he fessed up and admitted they had been trashed and retrieved.

SECOND UPDATE: Elizabeth Liddle has given me posting privileges at TSZ. I will contemplate on whether to use them.

Comments

@bornagain
The title said ‘indicate’ not ‘proved’, I took the strongest(...)
I didn't say anything about proof. You said: Study indicated A Fact of the matter is: Study indicated A or B or C or D
The preceding study simply makes no sense unless atheists harbor an actual belief that God is really real and not a figment of their imagination.
I'm objecting to your reporting of the study. I don't want to argue about whether the explanations make sense to you.
Moreover it is now found that humans are ‘born believers’
YES, that's what I think, too. I guess atheists lost the belief.JWTruthInLove_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

related notes: Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html It is interesting to note that there is a very strong tradition in philosophy that holds that the most concrete thing that a person can know about reality is the fact that they are indeed conscious: "Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body." http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf "Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am.' My bet is that God replied, 'I am, therefore think.'" Art Battson - Access Research Group 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-is-more-rational Belief in God is a Properly Basic Belief (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Alvin-Plantinga-/1261 Solipsist Humor from Plantinga ,,,At a recent Lecture I attended by Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, he warmed up the crowd with a few solipsist jokes.,,, FYI, solipsism is the rather odd idea that there is only one individual in the universe and that you are it. Everyone else is just a figment of your imagination. 1. British philosopher Bertrand Russell was a solipsist for a time (why does that not surprise me?), and he once received a letter from a woman who found his arguments very convincing. Well, I suppose it’s not so hard to convince a figment of your imagination that your arguments are brilliant. Anyway, the woman commented in her letter that his description of solipsism made a lot of sense and that, “I’m surprised there aren't more of us.” 2. Plantinga also told of an accomplished academic who was a well-known solipsist (I forget the guys name). And Plantinga thought it would be fun to meet a real life solipsist, so he went to visit him. He was treated fairly well considering he was only figment. I mean, it’s not a given that a solipsist would feel the need to be polite to his imaginary friends. After a brief conversation, Plantinga left and on the way out one of the man’s assistants said, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.” http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/05/13/solipsist-humor-from-plantinga/ All this plays out at the cutting edge of science: Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.htmlbornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

JWTruthInLove, I'm not twisting anything. The title said 'indicate' not 'proved', I took the strongest, 'most provocative' conclusion as true! You omitted that fact! But not to quibble with the whole 'he said, she said' bit, but, unlike you, I actually do have other lines of corroborating evidence that strongly line up with 'the most provocative' conclusion of the study. The conclusion that atheists are in a state of denial and that they actually do have a deep seeded belief in God. For instance I have this study:
When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011 Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god
The preceding study simply makes no sense unless atheists harbor an actual belief that God is really real and not a figment of their imagination. Moreover it is now found that humans are 'born believers',,,
Children are born believers in God, academic claims - 24 Nov 2008 "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html Out of the mouths of babes - Do children believe (in God) because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise - Justin Barrett - 2008 Excerpt: • Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty. • Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency. • Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one. • Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections. • Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief
Thus when I say that atheists are in a state of denial of an deeply embedded belief in God, I am not just whistling Dixie, because there actually is much corroborating evidence backing up my claim. But JW, why would you, as Theist who supposedly believes that we were made in God's image so as to have a loving relationship with God, even contest this fact? Do you are do you not believe that we were created to have a relationship with almighty God? Verse and Music:
Psalm 139: 14 I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. Blind Faith-Can't Find My Way Home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSm6x2fIZI
supplemental note:
The Atheist's Dilemma - Jordan Monge - 4/4/2013 I tried to face down an overwhelming body of evidence, as well as the living God. Excerpt: And he did something else: He prodded me on how inconsistent I was as an atheist who nonetheless believed in right and wrong as objective, universal categories. Defenseless, I decided to take a seminar on meta-ethics. After all, atheists had been developing ethical systems for 200-some years. In what I now see as providential, my atheist professor assigned a paper by C. S. Lewis that resolved the Euthyphro dilemma, declaring, "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." Joseph also pushed me on the origins of the universe. I had always believed in the Big Bang. But I was blissfully unaware that the man who first proposed it, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic priest. And I'd happily ignored the rabbit trail of a problem of what caused the Big Bang, and what caused that cause, and so on. By Valentine's Day, I began to believe in God. There was no intellectual shame in being a deist, after all, as I joined the respectable ranks of Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. I wouldn't stay a deist for long. A Catholic friend gave me J. Budziszewski's book Ask Me Anything, which included the Christian teaching that "love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person." This theme—of love as sacrifice for true good—struck me. The Cross no longer seemed a grotesque symbol of divine sadism, but a remarkable act of love. And Christianity began to look less strangely mythical and more cosmically beautiful.,,, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/atheists-dilemma.html
bornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Please don't twist. They offered different explanations (you omit this fact!) in their conclusion! Yet you pick the one you like and proclaim, that this is what the research indicated. Clearly you don't care for an objective analysis of papers.JWTruthInLove_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

JW, it is interesting that you stated,,, "This is not the conclusion of the researchers." Yet clearly it was one of their conclusions, in fact it was the first 'most provocative' conclusion: the first possibility is the most provocative. In line with Bering’s (2006, 2010) argument, atheism may lack cognitive depth in that atheists’ explicit beliefs may differ from the implicit reactions that exist outside of conscious awareness. They give caveats for why, but alas the data is what it is, i.e. "they dare God they sweat!" and even they say: or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural.” JW you claim: "I like truth." Then why did you say: "This is not the conclusion of the researchers." When clearly it was one of the possible conclusions they offered and thus is still very much on the table as a possible conclusion (and I would hold strongly so).,,, it seems you more than a bit disingenuous in you proclamation.bornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

@bornagain77: Please read the general discussion section. The researchers have offered several explanations. For instance, the one you cite (with a different emphasis):
“it seems strange that atheists would change their behavior unless they have some emotional reactions to reminders of God or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural.”
More:
"Considered together, the results imply that while atheists' and religious individuals' beliefs about God and explicit attitudes towards God statements are different, they become equally emotionally aroused when daring God to do unpleasant things. These results extend earlier results by demonstrating that atheists' explicit beliefs not only conflict with their behavior, but also with their affective reactions. There at least four potential explanations for these findings. Because emotion and cognition strongly interact and jointly contribute to behaviour (e.g., Pessoa, 2008), the first possibility is the most provocative. In line with Bering's (2006, 2010) argument, atheism may lack cognitive depth in that atheists' explicit beliefs may differ from the implicit reactions that exist outside of conscious awareness. However, atheists may have found using the word God stressful also because others, possibly their friends and family, do take God seriously and believe in his ability to affect the world. Third, although the participants did not rate the idea of God as the reason for the unpleasantness of the statements, appealing to God may nevertheless have been absurd or aversive to atheists, leading to a dissonance-related affect. Fourth, it is possible that although atheists did not currently believe in God, they may have been influenced by their own previous beliefs. Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2006) surveyed American atheists and found that 71 - 76% of them had once believed in God. On the basis of the present data, it is not possible to determine which explanation is more satisfactory. Besides supplementing the present findings by a larger sample of participants, it would be useful in future to include implicit measures of belief in God and to get information about atheists' ideological history (e.g., how long they have been atheists and how passionately they deal with atheism). Also, it would be important to include a measure of socially desirable responding to determine how much the participants are worried about how they'll be perceived by others rather than worried about whether God can actually affect their lives."
@bornagain:
Of course I expected atheists to deny the clear cut implications of the preceding study but a theist???
I like truth. What about you?JWTruthInLove_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

JWTruthInLove you ask:
The paper is open access. Please read it.
Okie Doke:
"it seems strange that atheists would change their behavior unless they have some emotional reactions to reminders of God or even an implicit belief in the efficacy of the supernatural." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2013.771991#.UpeuwuL4Lms
Do you want me to cite the whole paper? There are several more quotes that say pretty much the same thing! :) Of course I expected atheists to deny the clear cut implications of the preceding study but a theist??? But then again it seems you have a fairly eccentric view of Christianity as is evident from how you twisted Romans to your own personal interpretation.bornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

News wrote: Shattabanana
What is a Shattabanana? I googled it, no hits.scordova_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

WJM, While I would never invite the mad or criminal into my home (UD), it doesn’t cost me anything, nor does it risk anything, to visit their ward (TSZ) and do what I can towards their mental rehabilitation Thanks for the insight,I had previously wondered what kind of moral code could be derived from " it is evil to torture children for pleasure" ,velikovskys_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (...)
This is not the conclusion of the researchers. The paper is open access. Please read it. Romans 1:20 - 1:* is talking about atheists and idol-worshippers
They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Clearly here God is talking about Trinitarians!JWTruthInLove_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

As to the 'atheists get sweaty' study, Atheists get sweaty when daring God – November 2015 http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2013/11/atheists-get-sweaty-when-daring-god.html?m=1 Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (despite what they say to the contrary just as Bible says in Romans1:20)! – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA that study humorously reminds me of this verse: James 2:19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.bornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: ,,, Although Atheist's actions are clearly insane to the rest of us, exactly why should using knowledge as a "completely subjective power tool" be wrong in their Atheistic worldview where both truth and morality are completely subjective and the overriding virtue behind it all is that 'might makes right'? They are merely, much like Hitler, living consistently within their stated worldview. Of related interest, There are actually studies that show that people who claim they do not believe in a soul are a little bit more anti-social than the majority of people in America who do believe in a soul:
Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s
I believe the main root cause for this tendency towards psychopathic mental illness that is inherent in atheists is 'denialism' (not being honest with oneself). In fact, studies have now indicated that deep down Atheists do seem to know that God is really real:
Atheists get sweaty when daring God - November 2015 http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2013/11/atheists-get-sweaty-when-daring-god.html?m=1 Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (despite what they say to the contrary just as Bible says in Romans1:20)! – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Children are born believers in God, academic claims - 24 Nov 2008 "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
music:
4-Him - Can't Get Past The Evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiRQxEOWdDw
bornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

A chilling excerpt from BA77's link:
Then I read the review from which the New Yorker piece got its "science," which was actually written by a grad student at Berkeley. Now I have to say that Berkeley is, in fact, one of my fields of expertise, and I know exactly how Berkeley grad students go about their "work." Somehow Berkeley selects the crazies and the militants who show the most promise and then teaches them that knowledge is a completely subjective power tool which should be manipulated by those on an ideological crusade to undermine authority. I'm not kidding. I went to Berkeley. That's what we did.
This may explain a lot about not only the ID debate, so much more, like using climate alarmism to generate wealth redistribution. If "scientists" are being taught that "knowledge" is essentially a powerful form of rhetoric, one can imagine what students in other fields are being taught, especially journalism, where I suppose "the truth" is also a completely subjective power tool to advance ideological goals.William J Murray_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Unintended Consequences: How Hostile Responses to Darwin's Doubt Turned a Thoughtful Reader Against Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin November 26, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/unintended_cons079591.htmlbornagain77_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Why in the world is ‘Posting at The Skeptical Zone’ even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it?
While I would never invite the mad or criminal into my home (UD), it doesn't cost me anything, nor does it risk anything, to visit their ward (TSZ) and do what I can towards their mental rehabilitation.William J Murray_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Neil, your attempt to spin this is truly pathetic. Really, have you no shame?
Let me try this again. It occurred to me, overnight, that perhaps Barry thought I was making some accusation. I apologize if my wording gave that impression. The point of my first comment in this thread, was to point out that the assertion of the post was mistaken. But I should have added that I take that to be an honest mistake. Barry very likely was looking at TSZ at the time that his posts became invisible. And it is possible that he did not recheck before posting this thread. Or if he did recheck, he might not have noticed that comments had been moved to sandbox.Neil Rickert_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Good on you coldcoffee. I would have thought many IDists would like to comment on TSZ for the same reasons I like commenting here. If you confine yourself to an environment where most people have the same worldview then you will get daily support for your views. On UD it takes many forms from Denyse's gossip to VJ's megaposts; but it all comes through a Christian, right-wing filter (there are others commenting but they are overwhelmed by IDists). This can be emotionally satisfying, even necessary - we all need people to appreciate our contribution and it is nice to have others confirm you are right - but it doesn't motivate and challenge you intellectually.Mark Frank_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

I just joined The Skeptical Zone to get a feel of discussions going on there. I think UD and TSZ have a symbiotic relationship :-)coldcoffee_{November 28, 2013
November
11
Nov
28
28
2013
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

nullasullus, Quite seriously, population geneticists (like Felsenstein) and a few paleontologists (like Raup and Gould) and OOL researchers (like Morowitz) are somewhat held in awe and admiration in certain creationists circles. We may disagree with them, but they teach us many things. Many of the creationist thinkers came from secular schools and they had to have had a certain admiration for some (not all) aspects of the culture they were in. Felsenstein criticized something I wrote. That was about the first time I ever saw him on the internet. As far as Olegt, I think you are aware I view his as someone I can learn physics from, and he has taken time to answer highly technical questions. Here are some examples: 1. comments on the propriety separating configurational and thermal entropy (relevant to Bradley, Thaxton, Olsen's book) 2. comments to behavior of differential equations in certain contexts like the racemization rate constant of amino acids 3. errors in Gentry's conception of General Relativity 4. help in analysis of Laithwaite's claims, and mechanics of spinning tops 5. corrections to one of my calculations in counting microstates (I missed a factorial term) 6. corrections in my understanding of the Liouville Theorem 7. discussions about Maxwell's daemon and renewable energy 8. discussions about the theory of stochastic electrodynamics there are a few others. Remember, I matriculated through secular training, and to some extent I had to enjoy what I learned there. Recall Kurt Wise studied under Gould. For that to happen, a creationist has to find something worth learning in such an environment. I found a few things at TSZ worth learning, but perhaps things no one else cares about (like the above list). I did post a discussion that involved the Poisson distribution. They pounced on it but didn't uncover the one weakness that Joe Coder eventually found (a weakness that is Eyre-Walker Keightley's paper to this day). I did have one pointed disagreement with Elizabeth over natural selection, but it helped inspire a series of posts at UD which improved my line of argumentation. The lesson Mike Elzinga prepared on entropy was worth studying. I don't argue with the physicists about ID or philosophical issues. You might wonder why don't I just go to school? Well, I did, but sometimes I have questions outside the class topic. That said, I do have ID friendly contacts in the physics and astronomy community: Russ Humphreys, Don DeYoung, Danny Faulkner, John Hartnett, and a few others, but some of those relationships are somewhat recent in terms of the level of communication. As I developed relationships with them, I've been at TSZ less and less. Happy Thanksgiving. Nice to hear from you.scordova_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Some of you might want to read Lizzie's post about this. Remember she, along with many of the other regulars at TSZ, is banned from UD so she cannot post here. All the time she was posting here she never wrote anything approaching the sheer rudeness of Barry's very first comment (in fact I can't remember her posting a personal comment at all). She was banned for offering arguments that Barry didn't like. Barry's posts, which were essentially a personal attack, were deleted for less than an hour which was against TSZ policy, they are now restored and he has authoring privileges. If he uses them I hope he will show one tenth of the politeness and willingness to take opposing viewpoints seriously that Lizzie has consistently shown.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Sal,
We have opportunity to interact with world-class Darwinists like Joe Felsenstein.
Bluntly: so? What has that gained you? What insights have they offered of value? If you refuted them on a key point, would they admit it? Would the world even notice it? Sharp physicists? Same deal. I interacted with olegt for years over at Telic Thoughts. What use was it? Here's the important point, Sal: when it comes to intelligent design, these guys only have so much intellectual input they can offer. When it comes to non-ID questions, like God's existence, consciousness, materialism and more? The 'world-class Darwinist and physicist' is a layman, period. That last one is key: on many of the questions of importance, they are simply laymen. And, considering a chunk of them were tossed out of here for not even being able to affirm the law of non-contradiction, they're sub-par laymen at that. Mung,
1.) I can actually author posts at TSZ.
Your list could be just as easily implemented in all kinds of other venues. Start your own blog if you wish, for that matter. Why, of all places, there? I suppose you have your reasons.nullasalus_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

I don't know what a "lickspittle" is, but it doesn't sound very nice. Seriously, how would you guys feel if I came to visit your blog and announced my entrance like Barry did (as quoted @20 above). It seems like a very rude way to enter a stranger's house to me. And decidedly unchristian. Definitely not something you would say if you were interested in a conversation. Almost seems like death by cop. It's a pity KN obliged but you will see from the conversation over there that it was a much regretted and criticised decision. It would be great to see that kind of openness and fair mindedness here. KF, do you have anything to say about Barry's language?5for_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Barb:
This is their blurb: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” It’s a quote from Oliver Cromwell. He included it in a letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland.
All of those self-appointed skeptics have a beef with Christianity. So in the guise of advancing science, they think it's their duty to criticise non-scientists, astrologers, psychics, new agers and especially Christians. They use science as a weapon against their imagined enemies. The problem with that is that science progresses only through self-criticism. The moment science is changed into a fortress to be defended at all costs against "barbarians", it becomes a farce and degenerates from intellectual incest. That's when Thomas Kuhn comes in and hits them real hard between the eyes with a paradigm shift. Real soon now.Mapou_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Speaking of TSZ's Joe Felsenstein, Matzke through a fit when I offered my tribute to Joe: https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/the-fine-work-of-joe-felsenstein-and-m-wilson-sayres/scordova_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

And all along I thought that Joe Felsenstein was just a crackpot. :-D
Nevertheless world class. He coined the phrase "Muller's ratchet", and Muller's ratchet has been quite an inspiration for the works of John Sanford and Walter ReMine and a host of others at the Cornell conference. Felsenstein wrote the "textbook" of phylogeny that taught Nick Matzke and WD400 and generations of other Darwinists in graduate school how to force fit data to preconceived ideas about phylogeny. Felsenstien is Darwinist par excellence.scordova_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

And all along I thought that Joe Felsenstein was just a crackpot. :-DMapou_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Why in the world is ‘Posting at The Skeptical Zone’ even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it?
We have opportunity to interact with world-class Darwinists like Joe Felsenstein. There are some sharp physicists there too.scordova_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

nullasalus:
Why in the world is ‘Posting at The Skeptical Zone’ even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it?
1.) I can actually author posts at TSZ. 2.) To correct the lies and misrepresentations about ID which frequently appear there. 3.) Salvador can't get away with deleting and modifying my posts there like he does here.Mung_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson:
I thought KN was an interesting and worthy debater her at UD, and that some mutual learning and respect resulted. I am sorry to see that it did not work both ways.
Am I the only one who can recall KN's stated reasons for leaving UD? Imagine my surprise at finding he'd subsequently taken up residence at TSZ.Mung_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Barry, don't you just love how they purport to be open minded over there? It should be called "The Selectively Skeptical Zone."Mung_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply