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

_{Clive Hayden

August 8, 2009

Culture, Intelligent Design, Off Topic}

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

KF, I have never used your name, or reported you to the authorities. Other people have used your name, which appeared on your 'always linked' with no note to the effect that you find your name offensive or its use to be a violation of privacy. No one related to this site has reported you to the authorities as far as I am aware. This all appears to be an elaborate fantasy based on your sense of humour failure in relation to the satirising of WD's own antics. Your attempt to connect me to some imagined campaign to slander you is simply disgraceful. You evidently believe that you are 'without sin' because you so love to cast stones.BillB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

BillB: 1] Your behaviour has manifestly been uncivil and disrespectful, including providing enabling behaviour to those who HAVE slandered and/or threatened to or carried out thought police tactics; as is plain from my context above. [Sb is right that context is a definite problem for many of the objectors we see here at UD.] 2] I have not been disrespectful to people, but have been challenging to ideas, and have consistently addre4ssed them on the merits, with abundant evidence, as say my always linked will easily substantiate. In short, you have now indulged in yet another selectively hyperskeptical tactic, the turnabout accusation. 3] As the above linked rules on moderation state and/or imply, automatic posting is a privilege that is conditional on proving oneself trustworthy. 4] Losing that privilege for cause -- as has happened in all too many cases, especially on the Darwinist side -- is not uncivil behaviour on t6he part of those tasked to keep the discussion civil and on target, despite your turnabout false accusation just now. 5] nor, is requesting that he rule be clearly and explicitly [re-]stated and enforced in light of current developments. (These include abuse of my name and other information, in the further context of a threatened or actually carried out false reporting of the undersigned as a security threat to be put on watch lists, and the yet further context of an unresolved case of slander and profiting from slander by Mr Brown. _________ I hold no power at UD, so as a concerned contributor to discussion who has been abused as just outlined, I have suggested a clarification to the rules, which I believe is eminently defensible in the face of what you and your ilk have done. And in closing: again, you have adequate handles to address me without using my personal name [which is made accessible for responsible use at an external site], adn those who have sought to use my name to get me in trouble with international policing agencies or just to threaten such HAVE committed slander. Willful enabling behaviour that then provides a handy ink-cloud to cover the withdrawal of slanderers or worse at speed, is utterly uncivil conduct. G'day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

KF, As I suspected and your post at 203 demonstrates, this self generated outrage is simply a rather pathetic attempt to persuade Clive to ban all the people on this website who disagree with you. You consistently show a lack of respect, both for individual viewpoints that are different than your own, and for scientific evidence and process, so why are you surprised when people treat you the same way? Referring to you by your own name, the one which you use on your own website, which you link to and which you base your GEM of TKI on is NOT SLANDER nor is it UNCIVIL. Please show some respect for the English language and for others on this site; Stop throwing mud around. Shame on you.
showed that BB has slandered WD.
No I didn't, that's slander, I expect your apology.BillB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

PPS: Clive, I should probably underscore that the issue is -- per Alinski's rules of subversion -- among other things the disorganisation of civility-protecting policies at UD, in order to help remake UD in the image of the Darwinista objectors [any serious pro-ID post will be swarmed under by a cloud of Darwinista shut-up rhetoric objections, without regard to limits of decency]. And, of course, if you fail to do as they want, they will forever object that you are a hypocrite -- another Alinski tactic. But,the above thread abundantly vindicates the reason for the resolute defense of civility, including through reasonable disciplinary measures.kairosfocus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

PS: Cogency? [Yes, as that is the reason for the Weak Argument Correctives.]kairosfocus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Clive: An observation: basic civility and respect have shown their central importance to having a reasonable conversation on a blog, over the past day or so. A suggestion: insistent incivlity and disrespect should be considered undermining and distractive offenses agains the purpose of the blog. And, it is a plain violation of the trust implied by granting automatic posting privileges. [That is, it should be underscored that automatic posting is a privilege earned a preserved by showing trustworthiness through civility and cogency.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

BB: You are simply joining in the enabling behaviour -- for multiple layers of slander. Now, basic broutghtupcy 101: it is a basic standard of civility to respect others and their reasonable expectations or requests. You have disregarded this, and seem to think that adding to the cloud of smoke from burning strawmen soaked in ad hominems is a contribution to he progress of the thread. Let us compare the "balance" of "offenses" here:
B Brown; Slander and seeking to profit from it. TME: threatening or actually carrying out a false threat report to the US Department of Homeland Security, including violation of privacy in so doing. [FYI, compare the principle of a modest door and a lock on it: not "everything-proof" against invasion, but a barrier that is crossed only by demonstrating MENS REA. (That is one function of a handle; as you and your ilk have now demonstrated to all onlookers beyond reasonable doubt. Shouldn't you be proud?)] KF: maintaining a link to a web site with accountability information on contributions made on important but controversial matters. Also -- showed that BB has slandered WD. DS & BillB: Jumping up and down and cheering on the violation of privacy.
In short, it is plain that all you have succeeded in doing is revealing your own MENS REA. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

DS: You have again failed to recognise that there is a vast difference between having accessible information which can be taken for responsible use, and trumpeting personal information in a context of blatant abuse and malicious intent. In short, your just above post shows utter disrespect and uncivil behaviour. Perhaps it has not crossed your mind that the immediate context for the stunt you just pulled -- obviously hoping to silence me through personally harmful attack [i guess, among other things I can expect a spam wave . . . ] -- is one in which (i) TME has stated 24 hours ago or so, that he was going to report me as a security threat to the Homeland Security Dept of the US, and (ii) a bit later, he claimed to report on a part of the conversation in making that thought-police accusation? In short, you have only succeeded in indulging in further violation of my privacy -- breaking a basic rule of respect -- and showing your own MENS REA through enabling behaviour for false accusation. And, that is certainly a major part of "outing" behaviour. Moreover, this is all in the further context that the original and main issue in this thread is that Mr Barrett Brown has slandered Wm Dembski in a recent column at HuffPo. Worse, that is in the yet further context of a book that seems to be premised on the same false accusations. That is, Mr Brown has sought to PROFIT by slandering people. And, now, what do we see, once that is laid out? 1 --> Having been confronted on the false accusations and refuted on them, we have seen no substantial or serious response, 2 --> Only proxies showing up here and dragging red herrings across the track of the truth, and led out to ad hominem- soaked strawmen ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. 3 --> In short, we see ever more signs of MENS REA at work. 4 --> All, precisely trending to the damage of civility and the delicate liberties that it protects. (Which is exactly the point that triggered TME's thought police tactics.) 5 --> Or, do we need to explicitly cite the Saul Alinski rules and tactics that are at work on this?
'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' . . . . "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." . . . . Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
FYI, Mr Alinski was a communist agitator seeking to overthrow democratic civilisation by eating the heart out of its culture and undermining the legitimacy of key institutions. Then, out of the resulting chaos, the revolutionaries would seize power. To what likely end, 100 million ghosts from the past century can all too vividly tell us. Shame on you! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

Doomsday Smith: GEM of TKI's 'issues' with his own name might not be his fault, it could be this: Auto-Nomatophobia That said, he has certainly made almost no effort to conceal his identity so his hysterical complaints about invasions of privacy are just more clouds of burning oil-of-pomposity. BB of IMBillB_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Gordon: you haven't been "outed" by Mr. English. Your name has been known for a good long while now, having first appeared (as far as I know) on this blog over a year ago. You complained and requested moderator intervention. DaveScot granted that request, only to rescind the banning that resulted a few hours later:
DaveScot 08/04/2008 9:18 pm Sorry Sparc. You’re back. KairosFocus: Stop complaining about people using your real name here. You link to your website constantly and your real name appears on it. Fix it yourself one way or the other but don’t expect us to waste our time on it anymore.
So, as many onlookers have surely noted well, your name is just about the worst-kept secret ever. All one need do is take you up on one of those always-offered invitations to consult your "always linked" and then visit your homepage via another link you kindly provide at the bottom. Lo and behold, one sees a title:
The Kairos Focus
and finds out that:
This web page was created by Gordon Mullings
and then, after following one more link, learns that this Gordon guy is part of something called "The Kairos Initiative". Well, golly gee! Whoever could this Kairosfocus person who's always signing his posts on UD with "GEM of TKI" be? Hardly a mystery for the ages (and that's without even bothering to take into account the various biographical details, like your island-of-residence, that you regularly volunteer here, typically apropos of nothing). And, as a quick Google search with the terms "gordon", "mullings" and "materialism" reveals, you posted under your own name at various blogs back in 2005 and 2006. There's no mistaking that inimitable style, including posts with links to what looks like an earlier iteration of that which is "always linked", catchphrases like "selective hyperskepticism", "onlookers" and "functionally specified, complex information", and even one signed "GEM"! So, the only one to blame for your "violated" privacy here is you: you have outed yourself Gordon E. Mullings of The Kairos Initiative.Doomsday Smith_{August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Participants and observers: A footnote or two: 1] Handles and mens rea vs dismissal of "whining" The recent exchange above occasioned by TME's attempt to justify his misbehaviour by reference to "whining" has shown a further excellent reason to use a handle rather than a personal name: just as a modest lock on an equally modest door plainly cannot block a determined break-in but do prove forced entry towards mens rea, the violation of privacy involved in "outing" someone [as was done above] proves malicious intent. (And, notice how the "magic" of mentality and the linked issue of empirically grounded inference to design on evidence are is deeply embedded in the routine and vital concerns of justice. [This is of course also closely connected tot he central issue at stake in this blog and in the wider debate over design as a legitimate, empirically detectable feature of the real world, per reliable signs.]) 2] The issue in the main Now, too, the initial issue in this blog is quite serious indeed, as SB has just summarised: Mr Barrett Brown has demonstrably slanderously and falsely accused Dr Dembski of "lying," in the context of an insinuation that Dr Dembski is doing so to conceal a hidden tyrannical theocratic agenda, in a recent blog post at HuffPo. Above, culminating in a step by step demonstration based on citations form the Touchstone article of 1999 in 104-5 and aptly summarised by SB in 146, it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that this is a slanderous false accusation. (And, since we see other moderated persons -- where, the above exercise in thought police tactics by TME shows why that is sometimes necessary -- being released well within a day, it is clear that BB has problems addressing the issue on the merits.) Worse, it seems that Mr Brown has long sustained and sought to profit from such slanders, having published a book that gives far and wide sustained circulation to easily proved false accusations. A book that is still advertised on the Internet, even after it has been pointed out -- and demonstrated -- to the author, e.g. above, that he is slandering and falsely accusing people. That too, we need to take very seriously indeed, and think through what the rising prevalence of such mischief means for our civlisation. 3] Distractors/red herrings and other enabling behaviour: When such serious matters are on the table as the above, to insist on relatively minor side issues is distractive to the point of being a red herring. Moreover, when such side issues are insisted on in the teeth of long since being cogently answered, it raises quesitons as to whrter the matters are being raised for their own sake or because they are providing a handy ink cloud behind which a squid in trouble can withdraw at speed. Worse, such is in effect in support of the plainly utterly indefensible. That is, it plainly constitutes enabling behaviour for uncivil conduct; which is corrupting the vital public square of our civilisation. ______________ Let us draw the sobering lessons we need to from what has transpired before our eyes over the past few days, and then let us arise and defend not merely civility but what it protects: our civlisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Winston, It is true that sometimes there can be no amount of evidence that can force one to reconsider their thoughts. Its a personal choice one has to make. There are no physical bonds that cause any nucleotide in DNA to either precede or follow any other nucleotide in DNA. (Replication has nothing to do with it). Sit down with an actual printout of a DNA sequence, and perhaps you'll understand what is at issue. As a side note, you might carefully consider why so many biologists, mathematicians, and theorists are trying to understand the origin of the code (the source of why one nucleotide follows another). I have a feeling if it ever gets out that all they needed to do is read UD. well... :)Upright BiPed_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

I wrote a little while ago (#194) that "The great majority of “blue collar” folks I meet with are far more likely to be attuned / interested in good old-fashioned creationism than intelligent design." And I just found this: "An Aug. 5-7 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to rate whether each of the three theories were definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false. Fifty-eight percent said creationism was definitely or probably true, but a majority, 55%, also said evolution was definitely or probably true. One in three Americans believe the evolution explanation is false. Fewer believe intelligent design is true, likely because a significant proportion of the public is unfamiliar with the term (28%, while an additional 9% did not have an opinion).”PaulBurnett_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

----T M English: "Second, when Baylor removed Bob Mark’s pages for the Evolutionary Informatics Lab from its server, I protested on the Web and in private correspondence with Baylor administrators and regents. I also joined the EIL as an affiliate for a time. My feeling was that others had stood up for me, and that it was my turn to stand up for someone. Furthermore, I believe that it is most important to support free expression of the ideas that you find most objectionable." I didn't know that. Under the circumstances, I will happily remove your name from my roster of happy Darwinists who cheered when Professor Marks was expelled. As a glorious exception to the rule, you do not deserve to be charged for positions that you do not hold, even if most of your colleagues did celebrate the event that you allude to. That is why I was offended by Barrett Browns comments about William Dembski, which were clearly misguided, as I made clear at 146. On the matter of "outing" kairosfocus, it was, in my judgment, the combination of the disclosure and its association with the "Homeland Security" [and the uncomplimentary characterizations] that went over the line. As I pointed out earlier, the Department of Homeland Security is not a politically neutral organization, and I have no idea how seriously they go after their ideological adversaries, but I do know for a fact that they have them in their sights. Meanwhile, your moderation probably will not last very long. Clive Hayden does not treat his adversaries the way the academy treat us, so you will likely be back in business before you know it.StephenB_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

"Rude" (#181) wrote: "...when I meet up with blue collar relatives or friends I haven’t seen in a while I generally find that they are attuned to ID, interested, even so much as to be familiar with some of the lit." The great majority of "blue collar" folks I meet with are far more likely to be attuned / interested in good old-fashioned creationism than intelligent design. And those that have heard of intelligent design seem to think it is significantly similar to (if not the same as) creationism. So are your blue collar relatives / friends attuned / interested / familiar with creationism as well as with intelligent design? And how well do they know the difference?PaulBurnett_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB (#187) wrote: "Inasmuch as Barrett Brown reports that he has been held up in moderation, I retract my comments indicating that he is not willing to defend his remarks." Don't forget, there are two (or more?) tiers of participation here. Some of us are delayed in the moderation queue for hours or days, and some of our comments don't see the light of day at all.PaulBurnett_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

T M English,
Come on, Clive, take me out of moderation.
No.Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

---T M English: "I assure you, I deplore the million-person watch list, breast-groping searches, and sundry related symptoms of a citizenry that prefers the illusion of risk elimination to the ideal of personal freedom." You value personal freedom do you? How is it, then, that you don't value a blogger's freedom to decide when he will use a psuedonym and when he will not? Is it your personal philosophy that an individual should not have the privilege of setting personal boundaries in his correspondences and to decide when and under what circumstances those boundaries can be permeated? If so, I would be interested in knowing more about the moral framework that informs those kinds of convictions.StephenB_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Come on, Clive, take me out of moderation. Not since I was a child have I told anyone to "shut up." Look over my past comments, and you'll see that it's not at all my style. I was relating Dave Springer's response to kairosfocus' repeated complaints about violation of his privacy. I generally do not tease people here, but KF was making such an easy target of himself that I got carried away. It truly is very easy to pull his chain. I apologize for working him into a tizz. As someone who has investigated what Bob Marks calls evolutionary informatics for 15 years, who reads the technical papers of Dembski and Marks carefully, and who responds to them thoughtfully, I'd like to keep posting here under my own name.T M English_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

R0b,
Tom, it’s all fun and games until someone gets yanked out of bed in the middle of the night and grilled by an agent named Callahan who has dog breath and won’t let them lawyer up because all of their so-called rights went out the window the moment they became a suspected terrorist and they’re just lucky he doesn’t have his Cheney-approved waterboard handy. I hope you’re happy.
I flew on airliners shortly after 9/11 without an iota of trepidation, and I will continue to joke. It makes me much happier than I would be if I joined the masses who have forgotten entirely, "Give me liberty, or give me death," and who plead instead, "Take my liberty; just don't let me die." As it happens, a former student -- an Army captain in uniform -- once approached when I was at the ticket counter in an airport, and made some silly joke about me. Of course, I was detained. The captain was terribly embarrassed, but I didn't hold it against him. I assure you, I deplore the million-person watch list, breast-groping searches, and sundry related symptoms of a citizenry that prefers the illusion of risk elimination to the ideal of personal freedom.T M English_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Darwinists tend not to understand liberty, which is why they often abuse it to the extent that they have it, as did T M English when he “outed” his adversary. Not one Darwinist here, for example, has ever lamented the loss of freedoms exposed in the movie “Expelled.”
This is polymorphously ironic. First, I was expelled, along with Charles Foster Johnson, from Mississippi College, which deemed itself the "sister institution of Baylor," after writing about insane gender discrimination at the school.* Our fellow students organized a press conference, to be held at the on-campus chapel, and the administration foolishly banned the event. So the students crossed the street and held the conference on the steps leading up to the sanctuary of the First Baptist Church of Clinton. The expulsion got weekend newspaper coverage throughout the state, and radio coverage in the Jackson area for a day. Faculty members joined in the protest, and the administration backed down. A couple years later, however, the president of the school, Lewis Nobles,** vetoed the English department's decision to employ me as a graduate teaching assistant. Second, when Baylor removed Bob Mark's pages for the Evolutionary Informatics Lab from its server, I protested on the Web and in private correspondence with Baylor administrators and regents. I also joined the EIL as an affiliate for a time. My feeling was that others had stood up for me, and that it was my turn to stand up for someone. Furthermore, I believe that it is most important to support free expression of the ideas that you find most objectionable. (Some of you may recognize my allusion to a court decision on flag burning.) Third, you are complaining about my exercise of free speech. When someone signs his comments with his initials, refers all "onlookers" to his off-site writings, and divulges both his nationality and country of residence, he has retained no privacy to weigh in the balance against my freedom of expression. *[Mississippi College required female, and not male, students to be in their dormitories at certain hours. The oldest dorm had fire escapes, and the administration nailed shut the windows opening on them to keep women from violating hours. It took an order from the city fire marshal to get the school to remove the nails. Mississippi College was also contesting a federal-court injunction to release its pay records. When the administration finally complied, it came to light that the salaries of female faculty members were about 80% of those of their male counterparts. It was common to hear in those days the interpretation of "help meet" as "second income," along with the conclusion that women need not earn as much as men for their contributions to the Christian mission of the institution.] **[Lewis Nobles became (in)famous when he was convicted for embezzling $3 million from the school. He was even the butt of a joke in a Leno monologue.]T M English_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Inasmuch as Barrett Brown reports that he has been held up in moderation, I retract my comments indicating that he is not willing to defend his remarks.StephenB_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Megan states: I said donkey, not mule; learn the difference. in response to this video of a mule talking: Francis Imparting Some Intelligence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X4N1lDfxXk So talking mules are part of a rational universe for you but talking donkeys are not?bornagain77_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Since the Darwinists have derailed the thread with discussions about talking donkeys and rationalizations about violating kairosfocus's privacy, I hasten to remind everyone that Barrett Brown still stands refuted and exposed @146 for dishonestly referring to Dembski as a liar.StephenB_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

*StephenB ---MeganC *Well, I consider a talking donkey in that context to be a miraculous event, inasmuch as God is reported to “open the donkey’s mouth,” which is symbolic, of course, for providing it with the extraordinary gift of speech.” ----MeganC: “So it’s a synbolic miracle by God that made the donkey look like it was talking?” No, it’s a symbolic account of a real miracle. You are not doing well with your analysis inasmuch as the phrase “extraordinary gift of speech” connotes a real event. ----“How do you rationally recognize a miracle? And can you give a working example?” You rationally recognize a miracle by understanding that the God who created and sustains the laws of nature, also has the power to bypass those laws at any time. The universe is rational because God made it that way. Rational universes don’t just appear out of the blue, regardless of what your Darwinist friends tell you. A working example of a miracle would be a miraculous healing that cannot be explained by medical doctors. Another example would be Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Another example would be Jesus raising himself from the dead-----all real events that have occurred in time space history and verified by eyewitness testimony. Of course, your talking donkey would also qualify as a working example, which causes me to wonder why you would raise a question to which you have already been provided an answer. *By the way, if the universe wasn’t rational, and, if you didn’t sense that it was, in spite of your protests, you would not be scandalized by a talking donkey, since there would be no reason for being scandalized. On the contrary, it is because you think that talking donkeys violate the rational order of the world that you raised the issue.” ---- “More ideas for Clive’s script, great!” You are still not doing very well with your analysis as you obviously did not understand my point. Try again. *At the same time, it is clear that you reject in principle the possibility that miracles could occur in any context. Yet, plenty of people in the New Testament observed miracles, and eyewitness testimony constitutes good evidence. So, if you think miracles are “absurd,” that is only because your ideology prompts you to reject them apriori.” ----“There’s a documentary film series I think you would enjoy, it’s called: Harry Potter.” A more intelligent response would have been this: “Sure, I reject miracles, because science has declared them to be impossible.” Or, “You cannot justify miracles and you violate the principles of rationality by accepting the possibility. It would have been incorrect, of course, but it would have been more thoughtful. As it is, no one knows whether you are trying to lampoon me or whether you are tacitly declaring your own skepticism. Again, humor is effective only when it follows sound analysis.StephenB_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

What's all this donkey business? You talking about Balaam's ass? If so where's your imagination? Can't you imagine aliens of a superior technology---say a technology that could have created life and the ass and man in the first place---intervening to give the ass a boost? As Arthur C Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."Rude_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, I said donkey, not mule; learn the difference.MeganC_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Way up in 17 Gil Dodgen says, “My wife’s cousin is an extraordinarily bright and talented engineer …” Unlike Gil I come from a blue collar background and none of my extended family has ever expressed any credulity Darwinwise. Why would that be? I’d certainly never claim that any of my tribe are as bright as Gil’s wife’s cousin, so why should they be wiser in regard to this particular subject? Let me suggest that it’s a matter of indoctrination and “expertism”. One’s professors need never have defended Darwin, never have openly professed him in class, and yet the bright college student soon learns that all the bright folks are believers, and if he wants to belong to the smart crowd he doesn’t question. He may become highly skilled or knowledgible in a particular field and consequently respect his teachers and fellow practitioners, and such respect and trust tends to cross over to experts in other fields. Heresy is a much more serious matter among the priesthood or intelligentsia than it is among the commoners. A commoner can question authority and who really cares? It’s when the priests begin to question that the magisterium feels threatened. And so I have to say that when I meet up with blue collar relatives or friends I haven’t seen in a while I generally find that they are attuned to ID, interested, even so much as to be familiar with some of the lit.Rude_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

MeganC, Having a serious discussion can be exasperating enough at times, but providing amusement for you is a waste of energy.ScottAndrews_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Megan: Talking Donkey? Francis Imparting Some Intelligence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X4N1lDfxXkbornagain77_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply