I’d at least appreciate a cite to his weed dealer. That must be some powerful stuff.
I think we must accept and appreciate that @Eddie honestly does not understand our response to that Denton lecture, and sincerely believes it was a good lecture that made some solid scholarly points. And we should assess all his other opinions on ID with that in mind.
1 Like
No, not at all like that. I presume that was a facetious insult. Correct?
The kinder assumption is that he’s been pranking us, since it’s now obvious that no adult with an education and a working set of neurons could possibly take Denton seriously. Is the kinder assumption accurate, though?
1 Like
Evidently not the Paul Nelson of Discovery Institute fame, who occasionally posts here.
Welcome to PS @Paul_Nelson1 
1 Like
This is the most important message to you.
The general argument style here from the anti ID and creation groups is not being well received. I have seen better adherence to civil argument standards on political forums.
As is so often the case, I don’t know what you intended to convey there.
1 Like
Exactly
1 Like
Since I haven’t listened to it, why would I believe anything about it? I’ve read the original books from which these popular presentations are taken. Why would I want to listen to a popularized version that is likely to be more casual and less rigorous? If people have objections to Denton’s books I will listen to them. But for that conversation to take place, people have to read them. And anyway, it belongs under another topic. Bye again.
So I suppose it is just possible that the DI endorsed video is not an accurate representation of Denton’s books. Perhaps there was a part at the very end where he burst out laughing and said “You creationist rubes will believe anything, won’t you? I’ve been BS’ing you dorks all along!” and this was cut due to time constraints.
Or perhaps he had a neurologically fascinating stroke that left him with the ability to speak coherent sentences, but whose content was the most inane, garbage possible, just for the duration of the lecture, and then he got better.
Best I can do, Eddie. Have you any other suggestions? Of should we take it that the lecture is a faithfully accurate, though somewhat simplified, explication of the content of his book?
I wonder if Time Cube guy ever wrote a book. Maybe the website just gave the wrong impression.
The argument style here (including you) is not well received outside the evolutionist tent. The ID and creation scholars are not on the forum any longer because of this. The arguments used here often contain;
-personal insults and ad hominem attacks
-mis representation of opponents arguments
-not seeking understanding of others positions
I think @Paul_Nelson1 made this pretty clear in his post.
He was doing the form a favor and you showed no sign of humility or understanding of his point.
Yes, I think that’s the thesis here.
I find myself thinking: I have several splendid treatises on my shelves. I was just re-reading parts of Thomas Kemp’s Origin and Evolution of Mammals, a masterful work, last night. If Kemp were asked to give a 45-minute talk to an audience unacquainted with the deeper aspects of this work – to a high school biology class, perhaps – in which he sought to summarize some of the principal points in it, I wonder what it would be like.
Somehow I have the feeling that Kemp, in summarizing his own excellent survey of the field of synapsid evolution, would produce a really nice, if unfortunately brief, 45-minute talk. I would be amazed if it turned out that, when Kemp is asked to do this, he produces a rambling 45-minute parade of horrible reasoning, fallacious thinking and wild speculation, peppered with religious attributions of the evolution of the synapsids to some great ghost.
But perhaps that’s just it. The work itself is genius, and the oral summary of that work, by its own author, is a raging, hot-mess disaster. Sure. I’m sure that sort of thing happens all the time.
2 Likes
As a U of T professor, you’re well paid, so don’t be a cheapskate; spring for a copy of his book and find out.
To me the ultimate proof of Time Cube is the way it turns out that Time Cube is so compatible with human life. What a coincidence! Someone should tell Denton.
2 Likes
Still don’t get it, do you?
Denton’s lecture was ATROCIOUS I would have expected no worse from Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. Or the Time Cube Guy, for that matter.
Cost is not the issue. Why on earth should I spend a moment of my time reading a book by such an obvious numbskull?
3 Likes
I think the principal appeal is its value not as science, but as hillbilly poetry. For me, though, a bit of Shelley translated into hillbilly (Hey, thar, blithe spirit! Y’ain’t no bird!) does the trick without involving pseudoscience.
1 Like
That’s unfortunate, of course. But you (personally) make it very hard to be civil when you, after years of discussion, fail to understand the simplest things. It’s also difficult to respond with reasoned argument to incoherent statements.
2 Likes
Bill,
DI and other similar institutions have said incredibly disgusting things about “evolutionists” and go beyond ad hominem. They do not retract these even when asked. As for the behaviour of scholars and proponents, simple mining of the forums here leave you with the fact that this was not one-sided.
Talking about misrepresentation of arguments and complaining is pure hypocrisy when you visit the relevant main sites of ID/YEC organizations.
I messaged Paul Nelson about his colleagues’ brutal hit piece (How Replacing Biological Sex with Gender Identity Harms Children | American Center for Transforming Education). No response, clear hate language, and misrepresentation and falsehood.
How is this humility?
4 Likes
What evidence? Please cite this evidence you claim exists–NOT what anyone says about it.
2 Likes