Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now.  Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments
kairosfocus, #265
PS: Camanintx, the second paper you link is predicated on distracting from the fact of organised, specific, digital code based algorithmic functionality in the cell, and the challenge of initially getting TO that baseline: notice how it simply assumes initially functioning entities and speaks of their increasing complexity [thereby ALSO ducking the precise distinction being drawn by Abel et al by the way . . . ].
Which has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Saying that the origin of life is a problem for the TOE is akin to saying economic theory is wrong because it cannot explain how the first coin was minted.
There is no base in science for a credible, empirically well warrnted path from a lightning struck warm litte pond with micro or milli molar concentrations of a few amino acids etc, and the observed cell.
Arguing that abiogenesis is false because it has not been proven true is a logical fallacy.
We do know that intelligent designers routinely produce such digital, functional information and the systems that execute it; thus ther inference that such are a credible candidate for life and biodiversity at bodyplan level is empirically grounded.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of these intelligently designed functional information systems exhibited any of the properties of life?camanintx
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Stephen: Why not post the response here that Mr Brown re3fused to carry, then give it in an expanded form that would say what you want to, more fully. GEM of TKI PS: How sadly reminiscent this all is of Rom 2:1: >> 2Therefore2 you are without excuse,3 whoever you are,4 when you judge someone else.5 For on whatever grounds6 you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. [NET Bible]>> Let us pray that there will be some waking up and repentance, turning from the pattern so exposed.kairosfocus
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Also, be advised that Barrett Brown now refuses to print my refutation of his unsatisfactory response to my original comments on the Huffington Post. So, to review, he [a] refused to face scrutiny here, [b] covered that fact by inviting me to engage him there, and [c] allowed me to print one comment at that location, and then [d] censored my follow up comments. Thus, he now publically claims to have answered all my refutations without allowing me the response which would make clear that he did no such thing.StephenB
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
Onlookers: As you will know from following the thread, the main focus -- despite several side-trails (which have sometimes served as -- one hopes and posits -- inadvertent enabling behaviour) -- is the demonstrable [cf 104 - 5, 146 esp.] slandering of the design movement and especially Mr Dembski by Mr Barrett Brown, as an unfortunately typical representative of an increasingly dangerous pattern of uncivil conduct on matters of public importance. He has now indicated that he is moving on to the next topic, thusly:
I've got a new piece up at [XXXXXXXXXXX], this time attacking Charles Krauthammer instead of the intelligent design yahoos.
In short, he is insistent on slander, having last said of Dr Demsbki: >> William Dembski is a degenerate hypocrite who reported an enemy to the government and alleged improper conduct on the part of a judge without first checking to see if the judge had actually done anything improper . . . >> (Of course, adn as discussed above, in fact Mr Pianka's gleeful proclamations of the death of 90% of the human race in the context of the declarations of Mr Holdren etc and the presence of the ELF terrorists -- as pointed out above, put a different light on his assertions. Similarly, Judge Jones plainly indulged himself in improper and abusive judicial activism, which has been pointed out right from the outset and has been abundantly demonstrated by the exposed fact of the copycat ruling on ID based on the ACLU's distortions and misrepresentations of even basic facts. All this has been shown above. Worse, this very thread illustrates a case of threat or fact of thought police attack on the undersigned, for pointing out where the uncivil conduct that Mr Brown and acolytes exhibit trends. Not to mention, it turns out that for all the screaming of censorship and unfairness in moderation at UD, the policy in the thread at HuffPo is manifestly so biased that UD is the manifestly better forum.) The term "yahoos" plainly shows that Mr Brown is utterly unrepentant of his slander for profit, and that the evidently indulges the new atheist myth that those who object to their attitudes and arguments are thereby shown to be "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." Given the track record of where such contempt-filled, hostility justifying bigotry can end, we should take warning. And, act in our own defense, before it is too late GEM of TKI PS: Camanintx, the second paper you link is predicated on distracting from the fact of organised, specific, digital code based algorithmic functionality in the cell, and the challenge of initially getting TO that baseline: notice how it simply assumes initially functioning entities and speaks of their increasing complexity [thereby ALSO ducking the precise distinction being drawn by Abel et al by the way . . . ]. There is no base in science for a credible, empirically well warrnted path from a lightning struck warm litte pond with micro or milli molar concentrations of a few amino acids etc, and the observed cell. And, to there4after originate novel body plans in a way that is embryologically credible, what Schuzenberger called "typographical mistakes" in the 1966 Wistar consultation are even less credible: in short, this has been ont he table at the top level for over 40 years, but simply brushed aside by those who dominate the relevant realms of institutional science and science education. We do know that intelligent designers routinely produce such digital, functional information and the systems that execute it; thus ther inference that such are a credible candidate for life and biodiversity at bodyplan level is empirically grounded. In short, the problem is not hill-climbing once we are on a beach-head of function but to get to islands of fuctionality in the sea of possible configurations of the relevant entities. It is question-begging to implicitly assume that almost any confuiguration will function in the required sense. Shapiro's stricture is apt: ______________ >> The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck. >> _______________ See the problem? [And see what Mr brown et al are distracting from through their haste to red herrings and ad hominem-soaked strawmen? Do you also see why we have reason to be concerned in light to the want of serious concern over manifest injustice on the part of those who turned up above to raise points in this thread from the evolutionary materialist [and fellow travellers] side?]kairosfocus
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Uptight BiPed, #262
CarmaninTx Read this paper, calculate what you think the authors have wrong, and we’ll talk again. (pay particular attention to the phrase “volitional agency”) http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=1208958
I think Abel and Trevors have created a definition of functional complexity which suits their purpose but doesn't necessarily correspond to biological systems. Christopher Adami presents a definition more suited to biological genomes and shows how natural selection is capable of explaining it. Sequence Complexity in Darwinian Evolutioncamanintx
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
lamarck, #261
That’s fine but how does this apply to evolution? There’s no mechanism put forth to build a cake randomly. Time constraints and entropy and vestigial-ness are the main issues.
It's all about intent. Intelligent Design claims that life is too complex to have evolved therefore something must have designed it to be the way it is. If you say that the designer didn't have any particular intent when creating life, then you are admitting that random chance and unguided forces are adequate to explain it. As soon as you say that the designer intended to create life as it is, you've attempted to describe a property of the creator and gone much further than the Theory of Evolution ever does.camanintx
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
CarmaninTx Read this paper, calculate what you think the authors have wrong, and we'll talk again. (pay particular attention to the phrase "volitional agency") http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958Upright BiPed
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
camanintx, "If I mix ingredients together to make a cake following a recipe, then I can say that the cake was intelligently designed. But if I add ingredients based on how they affect the overall taste, without any thought of what the end product might be, I may get the same results but intelligence is no longer required." That's fine but how does this apply to evolution? There's no mechanism put forth to build a cake randomly. Time constraints and entropy and vestigial-ness are the main issues.lamarck
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Uptight BiPed, #259
No offense, but this dance isn’t going to last long is it?
Only as long as you keep providing ambiguous answers.
Because an act of volition is the only force operating in nature that has the unique “causal adequacy” to create the effect observed in DNA.
What is this effect observed in DNA that you think requires an act of volition?camanintx
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
carmanintx, No offense, but this dance isn't going to last long is it? - - - - - - - - Does DNA exist? Yes Does DNA contain any such artifact of design? Yes How so? Well for one thing, because there are no physio-chemical properties that cause it to exists the way it does. Why does that mean it is an artifact of design? Because an act of volition is the only force operating in nature that has the unique "causal adequacy" to create the effect observed in DNA. How do you know we wont figure something else out? No one has a crystal ball, but we already know the physical properties and chemical bonds at work within DNA. There isn’t an origins researcher alive that is studying mystery force x. ID isn’t based on what we don’t know, but what we already know to be true. Well, that doesn’t mean you can go off and say it might be designed then. Why?Upright BiPed
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
lamarck, #255
camanintx, Could you elaborate or restate this in a different way? Don’t follow you completely. For instance: “Now, if you’re saying that the designer need not be aware of the outcome of it’s design, you are going to have a hard time arguing against evolution, since natural selection fits this bill rather nicely.” Natural design is very codified at this point. But what’s the designer not being aware mean?
Just because something appears designed doesn't mean that the designer knew what the result would be before hand. If I mix ingredients together to make a cake following a recipe, then I can say that the cake was intelligently designed. But if I add ingredients based on how they affect the overall taste, without any thought of what the end product might be, I may get the same results but intelligence is no longer required.camanintx
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, #254
Yes, its called an “artifact”
Would you care to provide any evidence that this "artifact" exists and is what causes life to exist?camanintx
August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Footnotes: 1] HuffPo has nothing new of consequence this morning that revises the force of the above. Just another ill-informed ditto-head ad hominem, building on Mr Brown's attempted rebuttal to SB by reiterating already corrected fallacies and falsehoods in an artificially maintained echo-chamber. 2] It is especially sad to see how those who so stridently champion themselves as such exponents of liberty and fairness, show themselves to have clay feet. But hen, that is true of us all. Let us acknowledge the fact of moral fallen-ness and then let us all seek to repent and grow towards the right, encouraging one another in that path. 3] In the Post Shannon thread, there are some interesting issues on Monsieur Schutzenberger's functional complexity. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
camanintx, Could you elaborate or restate this in a different way? Don't follow you completely. For instance: "Now, if you’re saying that the designer need not be aware of the outcome of it’s design, you are going to have a hard time arguing against evolution, since natural selection fits this bill rather nicely." Natural design is very codified at this point. But what's the designer not being aware mean?lamarck
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
CarmaninTx, Yes, its called an "artifact"Upright BiPed
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, #252
Ignoring for the moment that your comment is incoherent, you might be interested to know that "what we know of biological systems" is that they have a non-physical/chemical component that causes them to exist.
Would that "non-physical/chemical component" have a name?camanintx
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Carmanintx,
The theory is called Intelligent Design, isn’t it? This must be referring to design guided by an intelligent agent, because the other definition of intelligent doesn’t quite fit with what we know about biological systems.
Ignoring for the moment that your comment is incoherent, you might be interested to know that "what we know of biological systems" is that they have a non-physical/chemical component that causes them to exist.Upright BiPed
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Another fine example of Barrett Browns fear, hate and loathing over at Protein Wisdom... Barret Brown channeling Libertarian when not listening to John Rogers channeling energy spirits Notice how others pet the little child in Barrett? He needs love, he just doesn't know it. Scared little puppy dog, poor thing. Evil theorcrats lurk his halls at night, singing Holy, holy holy. We'll need to send a John Rogers exorcism child of light expert over immediately to his rescue, or inform his boss he needs a vacation at the Light of Perpetual Re-Calibration.DATCG
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Typical far left hypocrisy. 1) Smear campaign and character assination with deception, ridicule and lies, lotsa name-calling, jeering and juvenile rants 2) Hypocrisy - doing the exact same thing in which they claim is wrong 3) Still thinking they're on higher ground with better morals even if they are nothing more than random mutations selected gradually over long periods of time. But, I'll say it again. This is good news, take it as all joy, for in their childish attempts they reveal their emotional fears. Its as if they keep looking under their beds for the big bad boogie monstor after picking their nose. Dembski, Behe, UD, Expelled, ID, the flailing and wailing of failed Darwniist propaganda has them running away in fear from genuine conversations about science. Instead, the minions are sent in resorting to low-brow snort humor, low hanging fruit of comedic stand-ins. Oh look, I can stick my tongue out at you... blaaaa blaaaa. Bet you can't be so rude. Double dog dare ya. Desparate for attention or to stop the inevitable truth from unfolding, or both, they stoop back down as their cave-dwelling ancestors and pick up mud - splat - haha, they say. Look what I did in a childish voice. Snicker, snicker as a Beavis. Yep, thats science Barrett.DATCG
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
lamarck, #143
camanintx, You’re talking about positing a designer, then describing properties of one, it’s two different things.
The theory is called Intelligent Design, isn't it? This must be referring to design guided by an intelligent agent, because the other definition of intelligent doesn't quite fit with what we know about biological systems. Now, if you're saying that the designer need not be aware of the outcome of it's design, you are going to have a hard time arguing against evolution, since natural selection fits this bill rather nicely.camanintx
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
UB: As in disappear AFTER appearing? Or, simply failing to obtain "approval" by the HuffPo moderators [censors]? Rich! In either case this underscores that UD is the better forum for discussing the issues seriously. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
I have tried repeatedly to post on Mr Browns 'lil forum and have had 4 rather tame postings simply disappear. All my posts that did make it through took until the next day to clear. And as StevenB points out, its rather difficult to cover the requisite ground with a mere 250 words. I notice that Mr Brown's attack was a mere 2791 words, so I suppose limiting StephenB to 250 is close to a fair fight.Upright BiPed
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
SB: H'mm . . . Why does that HuffPo policy of trusted/untrusted commenters [and given the level over there, what makes for "trust"?], with the latter having to wait a bit before posting sound familiar? In other words, plainly, Mr Brown's complaints -- and underlying insinuations over "censorship" and "theocratic tyranny" (we can read between the lines Mr Brown) -- in one of his updates that he had to wait a whole 3 - 4 hours for his comments to appear here are disingenuous, even puerile and two-faced. How sadly typical. And, it is plain that if a serious forum were required, to address the matter substantially on the merits, this one is it. So, refusal to engage civilly in a relatively level playing-field is itself a further evidence that Mr brown knows or strongly suspects that he does not have a good case on the merits. And, remember, that from 4 to 104 - 5 and your masterful summary at 146 above, the issue is slander by demonstrably falsely accusing Dr Dembski of lying in the pursuit of a hidden theocratic agenda. Slander that has been published in a book, i.e presumably slander for profit. And certainly, slander that has given the "authority" of being a published and praised author. Sad, ever so sad; but utterly revealing. Somewhere out here Alinski's ghost is laughing -- as is another, club footed ghost of an Agit-prop minister who learned well from the Communist propaganda tactics. Do we understand what we are thoughtlessly doing to our civlisation, in the face of a time of mortal danger? Do we care? If things continue on this track, our grandchildren will -- for good reason -- curse us for self-destructive fools. GEM of TKI PS: Some may wonder at the historical allusions above. They are grounded in Mr Brown's onward misbehaviour, in his current "reply" to SB in the HuffPo comments. Excerpting:
you and his other allies continue to hide from the documented accounts of Dembski's fascist behavior in trying to get Professor Pianka investigated as a potential terrorist by reporting him to the Department of Homeland Security, as well as his demonstrably false accusation against Judge Jones.
1 --> There is a live case of serious, malicious threat or fact of thought police reporting to the US Homeland Security Department connected to this thread, Mr Brown. As the victim, I note that it was by one of YOUR allies, so the "fascist" shoe looks to be on the other foot here. [Rest assured, I will continue to follow up the case as one who makes such a threat -- regardless of claiming that it was only in jest -- is doing something that is very, very dangerous. And, a precise manifestation of exactly where the incivility of the now routine pattern of anti-ID slanders and the like point.] 2 --> The above citation is also a double cross-complaint, intended to deflect attention from your demonstrated false and slanderous accusation against WmAD of "lying" (to advance a hidden theocratic tyrannical FASCIST agenda), which contrary to your implication you have NOT cogently "already addressed . . . several times, both here and at Dembski's blog." 3 --> As anyone scrolling up here or looking at the linked will see [esp. by comparing your remarks with 104 - 5, 146 in this thread . . . onlookers, observe who is giving glittering generalities and vague dismissals, and who is giving specifics with onward direct evidence], you have simply reiterated slanders and distractions in the teeth of demonstration of falsity and misrepresentation. 4 --> On the subject of radical environmentalists as demonstrable threats against our safety and security, we do not need to point to fringe groups and gleeful announcements of those drooling over 90% of the human population dying off [i.e. Pianka's incitements -- remember the openly terrorist "guerilla warfare" group, Earth Liberation Front, Mr Brown? As in: "the collective name for anonymous and autonomous individuals or covert cells who, according to the ELF Press Office, use "economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment" . . . . It is now an international movement with attacks reported in 17 countries"]; all we have to do is point to the track record of Mr John Holdren and his colleagues, who have definitely promoted genocide. In short, the real locus of "fascism" -- YOU introduced the term, not me -- today is credibly a lot closer to the current global halls of power than Dr Dembski.
[FYI, onlookers: Fascism -- contrary to Gramsci's and Stalin's myth -- is an ideology of the LEFT: it is a statist, society- control ideology that is attached to the demagogic personality cult of el maximum above-the-law Nietzsche-an superman leader as political messiah in time of "unprecedented" crisis; with some sort of millenarian myth of the mass identity and "eschatological hope" [i.e. it is of course a species of spirit of antiChrist-driven Christian heresy: the kingdom of man, not God] to pull "the people . . . the people" into line with the partyline. (And with thought police lurking, you had better know what he line is!) Behind closed doors, of course, back-room deals are being made meanwhile with other key powers, whether local cartels or power groups or other states confronting the same enemies of the moment. Cf Orwell's 1984 for excellent -- and all too prophetic -- satire on it.]
5 --> When it comes to Judge Jones, you will know from my current intervention on DATCG having gone over the top, that I do not hold truck with uncivil conduct on any side. DATCG heeded correction and has put up some sterling comments, comments that are highly valuable -- and which you and your ilk would do well to heed. 6 --> That said, it it is equally demonstrable to the above that Judge Jones ran a kangaroo court in Dover, and that his decision insofar as it addressed ID as science, ignored cogent and factually well founded evidence in open court and associated submissions, and instead was demonstrably based 90+% on blindly copying Ms Forrest et al's slanders and gross errors of fact. 7 --> The same slanders and errors you are currently echoing and seeking to distract attention from by dragging in distractive red herrings, leading them over to ad hominem soaked strawmen and igniting hem to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. Including the well known Fascist-style agitprop tactic of the turnspeech (he hit BACK first) accusation. One of the most notable cases was the already alluded to Fascist Agit-prop minister of the 1930's & 40's accusing Churchill and the British of of Big lies, through a Big Lie. 8 --> So, please, for the sake of our civlisation, heed the above corrections, Mr Brown.kairosfocus
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
----"kairosfocus: "PS: SB, is there a 24 hr wait over there for a post to appear? Or, is that just for the first one? (If so, it puts a very different colour on the complaints by Mr BB there that he had to wait a few hours for comments to appear here." As I tried to post early this morning, a message appeared informing me that there would be a 24 hour wait [for those who have not established a trust relationship]. Also, I learned that my user name had already been taken. Accepting that condition and changing my user name to LouisB, I then sent several messages only to have each one rejected on the grounds that it was too wordy. It was then that I learned that I would only be allowed 250 words. Since I was already there, I decided to use the space available to provide an abbreviated [and I do mean abbreviated] response to Barrett Brown's outrageous assault on William Dembski. Just to give you an idea of how unreasonable that is, consider that the length of this message explaining my initiation and my intent consists of 205 words, so I don’t think I was given much of an opportunity to do the necessary remedial education for Darwinists. It isn’t easy to explain the relationship between information theory and the “Logos theory” of the Gospel in a drive-by message to an audience who is unfamiliar both with the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion, as almost all Darwinists are.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
DATCG: Thanks. We need to model a basically sober, civil, respectful tone, even when we do indulge in gentle ribbing, or need to use satire or the like to get through to the otherwise hard-hearted or jaded and neglectful of duty to truth and the right. Your summary of life in the age of teenage rebellion that never grows up, is all too grimly accurate. (And deeply reminiscent of Rom 1.) I took a gander across at HuffPo, and while I admire SB and UB for their serious responses, the general tone simply exemplifies what Rom 1 warned of, and what Alinski taught; which last has now evidently seeped into the culture at large through the counsels and doctrines of his disciples -- who plainly do not have any good intent for our civilisation and especially its Judaeo-Christian foundations. (I see as well that SB's response at HuffPo seems to be at the top of the page for now at least. And, that for now those who were so strident here in the past few days are conspicuous by absence.) The results of such puerility and uncivil conduct, if unchecked, are predictably utterly destructive; as we saw from the above smears and attempt to play at thought police. As to the hate and verbal sewage [especially when one's back is turned], it sadly reflects the scriptural principle that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Sadly so, and pregnant with the things warned against in Rom 2:6 - 8. In the end, the utter emptiness, hostility and moral decrepitude of the life lived in rebellion against God are some of the strongest signs that something is very wrong with such a life. One for prayer, and for the call to repentance and reformation. GEM of TKI PS: SB, is there a 24 hr wait over there for a post to appear? Or, is that just for the first one? (If so, it puts a very different colour on the complaints by Mr BB there that he had to wait a few hours for comments to appear here.)kairosfocus
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
StephenB, It is something I know of quite well. I was once a blind, unskeptical person on the far left like "comedians" for quite sometime in my youth. My past is littered with friends on the far left who lent their minds to all kinds of cultist beliefs and superstitions from astrology to tarot cards and even channeling buffoons. Many would participate in such lunacy, then turn around and cuss out any other religious person for their beliefs. I was a participant at times in the buffoonery of leftist mocking and ridicule. I was not brought up in a tender world. If some dimwit attacked you, you quickly put him in his place. The abrasiveness of some of my responses(in particular to mockers like the HuffPo variety) is a direct result of my youthful experience in far left peer groups who always mocked christians mostly behind their backs with disgusting remarks especially about the girls. Notice how this has carried over into the political arena today? Rags like Huffpo, do not teach people how to think or appropriate discussion and exchange. Instead, they teach mocking, scoffing and hatred. If KF is upset with me, he'd be furious if he knew what actually is stated about him, Dembski and others between these leftist cult followers and atheist. Every once in awhile we get taste. Their hatred and rage slips out. I know the mind very well of people like this comedian and those like Franken. They're quite small-minded and narrow thinking people. He is in reality a truly insecure person. His attacks on people like Dembski are not for some higher truth, but based upon his own inadequate and unhappy life. People like this grow very bitter in adulthood and turn to mocking others, especially those they believe themselve to be superior to. They have their own churches. They just exist at rave parties or standup improve where insulting a christian is like singing a hymn. Angry comedians are a dime a dozen, or comedians who claim to be of the enlightened, reasoned, rational "brites" of society are nothing but adult class clowns who never grew up mentally or emotionally. They've typically never read any opposing literature. Having accepted the indoctrination, they cling to it for comfort food among consensus thinkers. In our society today because there are so many confused and lost people, hurting, afraid to look at their own lives, they latch onto the comedian or talking heads who vents and raves in mocking absurdities against "perceived" enemies of faux "liberalism." Corporations like GE feed the frenzy with Smear Meisters like Olberman. This is just another smear, albeit a lame one, not of very good quality. I do not doubt that Brown "feels" he is the one carrying the banner of rationalism. But in truth, he is simply regurgitating old falshoods. A few weeks behind the scenes with these people shows how petty, scared, superstitious, filled with rage and anger their lives truly are. And especially how manipulative their leaders are. Can you imagine a media boss forcing you to go to a "spiritual" light training course? Their lives are certainly not based upon anything rational, but usually based on some conspiracy of fear. They currently own the schools, universities, and media. But they fear ID? LOL. No, what they fear is open and honest debate without the mocking, scoffing and derision so common place in leftist media today. They do not seek a truly liberal debate, as that would be a discussion on facts, known and unknown and an exposure of the shamwow media in America today. So, they poison the well and attempt to damage the character of their adversaries instead of actually taking on the problematic issues of their beliefs. They worship at their own worldly alters with their own high priest. Many are just to blind to see their false idols. It is their blind hypocrisy and arrogance that makes them such bold mockers and scoffers. Many of these people are the most irrational you'll meet on earth and spew the most vile hatred, lies and deception about you if you oppose their views. Many on the left today, having been spoonfed this garbage all their lives from TV, print and schools as children are ignorant of the insipid nature of the beast they follow. The dull-headed, non-creative harping ways of a mocker at happy hour and in-crowd parties grow boring quick if one is not inebriated with a tequila shot or whatever liquid tranquilizer most depend upon to stay happy in mockers paradise. They cast aspersions, false accusations, outright lies at times, defamatory remarks, etc., upon pretentious grounds of superior morality built upon atheist dogma, a few tokes off a joint, a few snorts of cocaine and the navel gazing dance floor of alcohol submission to their gods. They seek fame and fortune, only to find alcohol, drugs, sex and bitterness in their own hearts. Instead of removing the bitterness, they knee-jerk react to attacking those they fear. So, from party to party darling... drink to drink darling, from light show to light show they retread the red carpet of insecurity begging for the spotlight for some semblance of adoration and "love" from their fans. The hollywood lifestyle is anything but rational, informed or free of idol worship. The Huffpo is just an outgrowth of the fetid lifestyles and narcissistic people who show up in the valley searching for fame and fortune. Most end up writing for rags like HuffPo for free or worse off in life. The allure of the rich, famous and cool crowd is an allure of madness. GK Chesterton summed it up nicely in your quote. And true to form, the hollywood crowd believes in anything from John Rogers Dual-Personality cults to "balancing polarity" through meditative rituals of repetitive mantras or the sheer lunacy of swin-flu snakeoil sales as seen on Huffpo. The most irrational place on this earth is the milieu of leftover echtoplasm that "ghostbusters" never cleaned up in hollywood. And for a stupified, blind comedian to plead ration from such a cesspool of failed thought is I must say, laughable to me.DATCG
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
---Gaz: "Not really – eyewitness testimony is not usually “good” evidence, it’s notoriously unreliable." ----"I was once one of three independent witnesses to a street crime, and whilst we all reported the overall impression of the event much the same (and within about twenty minuts of its end) the details – description of the perpetrator, duration of the event –were remarkably different. That is quite usual." Again, you are struggling with "context." Did anyone in your group question the "existence" or the "reality" of the event. Of course not. The issue is not did all witnesses agree on the details of Christ rasing Lazarus from the dead; the issue is this: Did they all see it happen. The answer is yes. Eyewitness testimony in the Gospel accounts differ just as significantly as in other cases. Ironically, many skeptics discount the reports BECAUSE of the diversity. Get it. One groups says the Gospels are unreliable history because they are too diverse. Another group claims that the Gospels are unreliable because the apostles huddled together and made up a unified story. Even at that, the issue goes much, much deeper. On the one hand, you can have the eyewitness testimony of one person at a moment in time, which can indeed be unreliable [in some cases] and quite reliable in other cases depending on the context. On the other hand, the Gospel account provides eyewitness testimony of hundreds, maybe thousands of testimonials that draw on similar experiences day after day, week after week, and year after year. Further, you have corroborating evidence from hundreds of others on the other side of that testimony that were in a position to refute those reports if they were not accurate. Among those who reported Christ's miracles, the most reliable of them all were his enemies, pharisaic bureaucrats, who didn't want them to happen, were sorry that that they happened, and, just for good measure, tried to explain them away. No one responds that way to events that didn't happen.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
DATCG @239: Very interesting. "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes in anything." G. K. Chesterton.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
For anyone who cares, I finally found a user name that the Huffington Post would accept [LouisB]. I did my best given the fact that these alleged advocates of free speech would allow me only 250 words to counter Barrett Brown's multi-page screed. [24 hour delay] We now know what Barrett Brown means when he avoids the UD wesite and stumps for a "more reliable venue." His message is this: Give your adversary about one-tenth of the space to correct your errors, a convenient restriction by the way, since it generally takes a lot more space to correct mental confusion that it does to express it. Let it also be said that Upright Biped and Lee Bowman did splendidly at that site and utilized their space restrictions wisely and effectively. Still, it seems evident that UD's format, which allows reasonable expression and adaquate space, is far more conducive to getting at the bottom of things, which is why Barrett Brown wants no part of it.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
From an article in Gawker...
"Arianna Huffington for many years sought to downplay the extent of her involvement in the Movement For Spiritual Inner Awareness(MSIA), a cult ex-members described as sexually and financially exploitive in a series of Los Angeles Times exposés in the 1980s and 1990s. During her then-husband's 1994 U.S. Senate run, the Greek-born socialite claimed movement founder John-Roger (pictured with her at a 2004 book party, left) was a mere friend, and pictures of him holding her daughter were ordered withheld from the group's newspaper, the editor later said. But the Huffington Post editor-in-chief is an ordained "Minister Of Light" in the group and once described John-Roger to Interview as her "way-shower." "What about the role she has fashioned for her cult in HuffPo staff development?" "Late last year, former staffers say, Huffington directed two Huffington Post employees to attend an Insight Seminar in Westlake Village, California. Though technically distinct from MSIA, Insight shares a founder, John-Roger, and a "Spiritual Director," John Morton (right) with the group. This sharing of staff goes back at least 20 years, when the LA Times reported Insight was rife with MSIA "volunteers" and obtained emails showing John-Roger was calling the shots. A former top-ranked church minister told the paper Insight was used to draw new recruits into MSIA." "One of the staff members made to attend the event was HuffPo's New York-based Living section editor, Anya Strzemien (left), according to two insiders. Strzemien did not respond to an email seeking comment, but Huffington Post is said to have paid the bill for her flight and multi-day stay in California, and by all accounts the trip occurred at Arianna's behest. Said one tipster: "It was kind of a joke in the office, like 'is she going to be brainwashed by the creepy cult.'" It is not clear if Strzemien was attending for personal development, to "cover" the event for HuffPo or both." The other staffer was apparently an unnamed Los Angeles-based scheduler struggling to serve Huffington, an erratic and sometimes brutal presence over staffers who work out of her Brentwood mansion. It was made clear to this person, one source said, that attending the conference was necessary to keep her job. Huffington asked the staffer to think about how important her job was to her, then suggested the seminar as a way to refocus — a neat way of making the event mandatory without being explicit and perhaps running afoul of laws governing religion in the workplace, the source said. After struggling with the decision for a week, and supposedly making a fruitless plea to HR in New York, the scheduler ended up attending, only to leave the company a month or two later." "Tithing, or giving a percentage of one's monthly income to MSIA, is also recommended. Because of its tax-exempt status as a church, MSIA is not required to make public its financial records, but by all indications people contribute money freely — in some cases in large lump sums." "One devotee happily told the newspaper about handing over a check to the group for $500,000, without even knowing how it would be used." "But it is all but impossible to read the LA Times' three exhaustive articles on MSIA, dating to 1988 and 1994, without coming to the conclusion that the movement is, in fact, a scary cult, and among the last organizations Huffington should be calling on to prepare HuffPo to keep growing as the economy, and soon politics, cools down." "John-Roger is depicted as a paranoid leader who secretly wires each room in Insight headquarters with a microphone connected to his office, who taps the phones, and who warns that his critics "had been infected by a powerful and contagious negative force known as the Red Monk," a spirit of whom members were terrified. He removed "negative entities" in a popular "exorcism-like" ceremony known as the "Super II's," organized hours-long "Prana Awareness Trainings" involving "repeatedly answering a simple question," and organized followers into a complex hierarchy, including a Melchizedek Priesthood and an inner, elite circle of attractive young male ministers known as "the Guys." "The LA Times said one of these favored sons was among at least three close John-Rogers associates who said they had sex with him "as an important spiritual favor:" In July of 1977, John-Roger put [Victor] Toso on staff, and he joined the rarefied ranks of "the guys." But things didn't go smoothly. "He kept telling me I didn't have what it took to be on staff," Toso said. Finally John-Roger told him that he would have to move from the hillside estate to the movement's Purple Rose Ashram of the New Age in downtown Los Angeles, he said. Toso says that he dropped to his knees and sobbed, begging John-Roger to tell him how he might become a better servant of the Traveler. "It dawned on me what I had to do," he said. To stay on staff, Toso said he knew he would have to engage in sexual relations with John-Roger. "I decided to make the Faustian pact," he said. "And, indeed, I was admitted into the brotherhood."But the pact didn't sit well with Toso, even as he found his life with the Traveler vastly improved. And one day "I walked in on another staff member having sex with J-R. I had been naive enough to believe I was the only one," Toso said. In last year's interview, John-Roger denied he had sexual relations with Toso or any other staff member. Toso said he was later "defrocked" in front of other church members and stripped of his wallet, credit cards, watch, ring and airline tickets, and had to write a "dishonest" letter to get them back. Other former members, named in the series, testify to brainwashing and other forms of manipulation. "My God, I was manipulated and used," former MSIA newspaper editor Victoria Marine told the newspaper. In the articles, John-Roger denies having sex with or brainwashing his followers. Whatever his flaws, and whatever it is that has drawn so many to look to him almost as a messiah over the past 38 years, a "Mystic Traveler" to be physically envisioned while chanting and to be paid for "polarity balancings," "John-" Roger Hinkins shares with Arianna Huffington a reputation for having two faces, one of seductive, overpowering charm and the other for a nasty temper. Wrote the LA Times: Two [former staffers], Toso and Wesley Whitmore, recall thinking that in contrast to his public behavior, John-Roger in private was often angry, vindictive and bizarre, occasionally shouting that he was under attack from negative forces. But their devotion to John-Roger kept them from addressing these issues, they said. And so it is with Arianna and her badly battered staff. She could hardly have picked a more appropriate guru.
HuffPo, all the news that is produced by a follower of the cult messiah "John Roger" It is very sick and twisted stuff, but I doubt Mr. Brown ever turns his rage and self-righteous attacks against his boss and "Minister of Light" or her cult messiah dual peronality freak - John Rogers. Frankly, this is all very sad stuff. The abuse by "John Rogers" of his staff for sexual favors and the gullible antics of Huffington forcing staffers to participate in Insight against their will. I feel sorry for all these people caught up in this sad mans insanity and the Huffpo leaders lost following of it. The article is well worth reading to know who is behind the news at HuffPo, about the hypocrisy of its owner and their "writers" and the utter hypocrisy of the atheist who write articles from time to time at her sight. Do these atheist attack Ms Huffington's beliefs as much as they sling mud against ID? Doubtful, very doubtful.DATCG
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 10

Leave a Reply