…and this is a 
KKMS is a Twin Cities Christian talk radio station which has long been on my list of disreputable people and organizations peddling lies to the populace. They really pissed me off a while back when they brought me on to debate Geoffrey Simmons, and after I smacked him down hard, they invited him back for an unopposed free hour of lies. No, of course they didn't invite me back for a similar hour of discussion.
They're doing it again.
After that bizarre debate on Monday, KKMS is having Bergman on today to make excuses. I think their invitation to me must have gotten lost in the mail…maybe because they still can't spell my name correctly.
4:00 Hour -"Debate Follow-up: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Science Classes?"
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Professor and Author will tell us what he experienced in his debate last Monday night with P.Z. Meyers, Professor at the University of Minnesota - Morris.
It should be amusingly unreal. Unfortunately, I'm going to be out of touch at that hour — somebody else will have to listen and fill us in on the delusions and lies and distortions that Bergman will spin out.
Comments
Posted by: Shala | November 19, 2009 2:34 PM
How is it that people can get your name wrong so often?
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 19, 2009 2:35 PM
Well, the way it's worded, you can't really tell. The show could just be focused on basic health advice, rather than creationism. I'm guessing that, during the debate, Dr. Bergman experienced some dizzy spells, heart palpitations, cold sweats, and so forth.
If so, then Dr. Bergman may actually be qualified to speak on the topic, for a change.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 19, 2009 2:36 PM
I think half the fun would be to predict the delusions and lies in advance, and then have a drinking game.
I guess I'd like to hear again how the carbon atom is irreducibly complex and implies a designer. And then maybe something about Hitler.
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 19, 2009 2:37 PM
Oh, please, yes. I'd listen myself, but I'm aurally unavailable.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 19, 2009 2:38 PM
What? They're not giving equal time to the evolutionists? I thought they were all about "more information" and considering "criticisms."
Nah, just kidding, I know they're out to teach their dogma only.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Lynna | November 19, 2009 2:41 PM
As for the drinking game proposed by daveau, we could record the number of times Dr. Bergman notes that PZ was condescending, or disrespectful, or how many times PZ hurt Bergman's feelings.
Dr. Bergman's experience includes the fact that atheists do not love him, inconceivable as that may be. Now he has PTSD.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 19, 2009 2:42 PM
Bergman isn't an MD. He teaches in a medical school without the assistance of theory, but that's all we know.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 2:43 PM
How much of this interview will be Bergman going through his credentials again?
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 19, 2009 2:44 PM
I'm starting to think they're doing it deliberately. "Look at how badassed and Real America we are! We don't even spell the dude's name right, hur hur, he can't make us!"
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 19, 2009 2:52 PM
Drinking game of Woo official rules and regulations:
1 (one) shot or long swallow will be taken upon the mention of any of the following:
- "Irreducible complexity"
- Introns / junk DNA
- Oblique references to Richard Dawkins' sexual habits
- The lack of evidence supporting evolution
- The inability of evolution to account for the evolution of males and females of a species at the same time
- That Intelligent Design predicts stuff in biology much better than evolution, without any kinds of specifics
2 (two) shots or long swallows shall be consumed upon any of the following:
- Irreducible Complexity is applied to non-developmental or non-evolutionary objects such as atoms
- The association of atheism / Darwinism with Hitler
- The fact that science can't account for everything, and there are other ways of knowing
- The phrase, "... depends on your worldview!" is uttered
- The assertion is made that atheism will die out, because atheists are not reproducing at the same rate as theists
3 (three) shots or long drinks shall be consumed if:
- The defender of intelligent design breaks down weeping and cries, "He was just so much smarter than me, and he had all these facts."
- At the end of the show, no evidence supporting intelligent design has been provided (alternately, the player may choose to consume this penalty at the start of the show, which may help dull the pain)
Posted by: RickR
|
November 19, 2009 2:54 PM
Arrrrgh. The dishonesty and hypocrisy of "fairness" and "teach both sides". These morons can't help but show their true colors.
How very "christlike".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 2:56 PM
nigel
There needs to be drinks for the "But Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot" scream
Posted by: Eric | November 19, 2009 2:57 PM
You know you're going to call in just like you did last time. :)
Come on... do it for the grins!
Posted by: daveau
|
November 19, 2009 2:59 PM
And there needs to be drinks for Rev's earlier oblique suggestion regarding the mention of degrees and other credentials.
Posted by: eyesoars | November 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Unfortunately, I'm going to be out of touch at that hour
No matter how, you'll never be so far out of touch as Jerry Bergman.
Posted by: Islander | November 19, 2009 3:05 PM
Do what we do best- Pharyngulate.
comments@kkms.com
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 3:05 PM
I'm sure he "teaches the controversy." Maybe we should send Bergman a tee shirt: http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/humors/
Posted by: Greg Peterson | November 19, 2009 3:07 PM
You were "discussed" at some length last night, too, PZ...by what's his name, Berlinksi, Devil's Delusion dude, guy who looked bored and arrogant in "Exposed." I wish I could have called in. The things he was saying had rather simple responses. Of course KKMS listeners are much more interested in feeling justified than they are with confronting facts or thinking critically.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 19, 2009 3:18 PM
@10
Come on! We were looking for a drinking game, not a trip to the hospital and a stomach pump and/or death!
Posted by: Name Withheld out of Fear | November 19, 2009 3:24 PM
The two afternoon drive guys were on Atheists Talk when I was host, and this was after the Simmons debacle. When PZ e-mailed a question, they kind of rolled their eyes when they heard the name, and I had to point out that I consider you a friend. They said "Isn't he a friend to us all." I don't know why we have to keep accommodating people like that.
It's frustrating to play nice with arrogant creeps who are so passive-agressive.
Posted by: Carl | November 19, 2009 3:25 PM
Coincidentally, I came accross your debate with Simmons only last week. As everyone seems to agree, you did quite well, by which I mean you totally obliterated Simmons (so much so that I felt compelled to write about it on my own blog). I knew that the debate had been hosted by a Christian radio station, so I was impressed by the hosts' even-handedness in dealing with the subject. They even mentioned the possibility of having you return in a future program, since time was so short in that initial debate. It's disappointing to learn that since then, they've done exactly the wrong thing, having Simmons back without inviting you.
As for the debate with Bergman, I'm not holding out hope that the promised DVD of it will ever materialize. Has any recording of it surfaced? I'm quite eager to hear it for myself. Surely someone there had a recorder or something...
Posted by: Menyambal | November 19, 2009 3:29 PM
I like how the radio station's web page gives a link to Doctor Bergman's bio, and follows the link with an exclamation mark! I looked at his bio! I read one of his online articles! It was stupid! "Evolutionists say the the dodo bird died out because it was slow and stupid and unfit--but it wasn't, which proves that evolution is wrong!" What!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 3:35 PM
Sorry to say PZ, your ass is grass in this debate. They will mop the floor with you. They're going to leave you whimpering like a schoolgirl who just got cut from the cheerleading squad. As a matter of fact, the shock-and-awe of their tour-de-force will leave you absolutely speechless. So speechless you won't even be able to respond during the debate. These guys are smart you see - they learn from their mistakes!
Posted by: eric | November 19, 2009 3:38 PM
Ugh... I'm listening to Todd Friel on Wretched (indeed) Radio. God damn, is this putz a fucking dunce.
Posted by: Jeff Shell | November 19, 2009 3:53 PM
We would have invited you on the show PZ but you have previously made it clear that you would not come back on our show. I did send you a "heads up" email so you would at least be aware of the discussion and have the opportunity call in to dispute anything you wanted.
Let us know if you would like to be on the show and we can make arrangements.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 19, 2009 4:06 PM
Okay, here are some alternate (simplified) rules for a drinking game:
1 drink when the ID gamepiece presents a logical fallacy. The first person to name the logical fallacy does *not* have to drink.
1 drink when the ID gamepiece fabricates evidence, or misrepresents data or evidence in a way that is favorable to ID. The first person to name the original source of the skewed data does not have to drink.
1 drink when the ID gamepiece attempts to establish themselves as an authority by an exhaustive (and exhausting) laundry-list of accomplishments. An extra drink shall be consumed if any of those accomplishments is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. (If this happens, the game is over and declared a draw on account of hell freezing over.)
1 drink shall be consumed if the ID gamepiece attempts to discredit the epistemology or practice of science in an attempt to allow "alternative" evidence, such as revelation, gut-feelings, or the authority of their cat.
2 drinks shall be consumed if the ID gamepiece attempts to link 20th century atrocities to atheism or evolution.
3 drinks shall be consumed if the ID gamepiece produces a logical, empirically-supported argument against evolution. (An additional 2 drinks shall be consumed if the argument also supports Intelligent Design.) Further, the players shall strut around the room making noises like their favorite animal. If that animal is a squid, they shall move their mouths like beaks and make swishing noises. This ends the game, and is referred to as a HIDSTC ("Huh. I didn't see that coming").
Further rules are forthcoming.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 19, 2009 4:14 PM
A ID drinking game would be great at a "debate". Have the whole first row lined up with drinks and shots, and every time they make a fallacy, the whole row takes another drink. That would be so off-putting to anyone on stage.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 19, 2009 4:19 PM
nigelTheBold-
Are you at work? 'Cause some of us are.
Posted by: tubi
|
November 19, 2009 4:19 PM
"C'mon, Warden, you know she's a bonobo, surely?"
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 19, 2009 4:26 PM
"Work" might be too strong of a word. I am at my place of employment, of course.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 19, 2009 4:29 PM
Clearly.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 19, 2009 4:47 PM
Yeah, ambulances and paramedics coming to revive the front row from acute alcohol poisoning is off-putting to anyone on stage.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 19, 2009 4:48 PM
Jeff Shell
Even assuming that PZ did say that, why not extend an invitation anyway?
Aren't you Christian enough to believe that hearts change?
You just said that you didn't extend an offer because PZ wouldn't accept it, but you extended an opportunity to queue up and be talked to (but not have enough time to have a discussion) in case he would accept it?
And by anything, you probably mean anything until you need to take the next caller, right?
Why can you not helping lying about your intentions so much, liar?
Posted by: middlekk | November 19, 2009 4:49 PM
@18...Berlinski ALWAYS looks "arrogant and bored".
I think he's trademarked it. It's his style, like PZ's bad ties.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 5:08 PM
Hilarious! I just started listening in, and he's complaining about the fact that someone steered the debate away from "Whether Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in the Classroom."
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:09 PM
And off the bat, he's gone stupid:
PZ did not debate on the topic. Pot, meet kettle!
theory vs. fact ugh.
Posted by: Gunter | November 19, 2009 5:10 PM
I'm trying to listen to the show, but once he said "more better" my brain shut off
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:12 PM
OK. Looking for evidence of intelligent life DOES NOT equate to looking for evidence of intelligent design!!
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 5:15 PM
Apparently intelligent design is a new branch of science that looks for evidence of The Creator (without the use of theory or the scientific method). And 15 minutes in, they're off on the "no new information" tangent. I believe this would be the part you would throw your notes over your shoulder, Mr. Myers. I don't think there's going to be a return to the actual topic from here.
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:16 PM
He's trying to refute the evolution adds info. argument PZ made here. He's failing. He's saying the mutations from generation to generation are bad, not good... He's now blaming problems in old age on mutations... The interviewer seems oddly neutral/ almost critical of Dr. Bergman on this topic... commercial break.
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 5:19 PM
So far, pretty standard fundamentalist mentality.
Berlinski is free to make all sorts of empty assertions "There's no evidence for X, and actually there's plenty of evidence against it", and not once does it ever occur to the hosts to ask for even a single example.
Hardly surprising...he's telling them what they want to hear, so there's no emotional incentive to question him.
Posted by: Not that Louis | November 19, 2009 5:20 PM
I am not a scientist, merely a science fan-boy, and I'm spotting the absolute bollocks. Most mutations are neutral, you clown, not harmful. And aging is caused by accumulated mutations? If I'm squirming, I hate to imagine how you guys actually trained in this stuff are faring. Hey, I think this barrel has some fish in it!
Posted by: Gunter | November 19, 2009 5:21 PM
My thoughts exactly David, the argument Bergman is laying out is nothing but pathetic. I'm waiting for them to come out of the break with a PYGMIES + DWARFS is the result of de-evolution, since we only lose information...
This is already hard to listen to.
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Yeah, interviewer asked him what he could say to argue that ID was a legit scientific theory. He took a quick right turn. His best argument for why ID is equivalent to other scientific practices/theories was that scientists are already looking for intelligence - like looking for cave paintings. Hence my outburst above.
Posted by: DaveL
|
November 19, 2009 5:25 PM
Perhaps you could have PZ on at a later date to speak unopposed for the same amount of time being allowed to Bergman?
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:25 PM
And it's vestigal organs time. He continues on with his definition being the traditional one.
And here's the gist of the argument: Oh no! The theory of evolution changed with new evidence coming to light! It must be completely wrong!
Oh wait, that's how science works. Darn it. He fails again.
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 5:26 PM
Vestigial sense of smell? Did he really just say that?
Apparently he's completely unaware of the multiple disabled odorant receptor genes in humans, that just happen to look like the same active genes in other organisms.
And now he uses the phrase "up the evolutionary scale"!
Shit, I could have debated this guy.
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:29 PM
IC is back. Wait for it... mention carbon... come on...
YES!! I win!!
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 5:31 PM
Now he's looking for the missing links in appendix development, and on we merrily go to irreducible atoms (which is somehow complex). I'm very impressed by the moderator; despite his tolerance of the professor's nonsense, he seems to have some critical thinking skills (unfortunately he's very careful where he uses them).
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 5:32 PM
Oh shit...."theory implies speculation" and is used "for things we're not sure about".
Now we can safely conclude that Bergman is a liar.
(And for some reason, I said Berlinski earlier...oops)
Posted by: Not that Louis | November 19, 2009 5:33 PM
The other evening at the debate, he conceded that there was no theory of ID. Now he's saying there are thousands. He does this by blurring the definition of theory. The things you can get away with when you know they won't challenge you on it!
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:35 PM
And theory vs. fact is back. According to him the theory of gravity is a fact and is not equitable to what most of the uses of the word "theory" in science means. "Theory implies speculation" ... he's not concerned with theory.
Wait, now he's saying ID uses evolution theory for ID, like natural selection and adds other stuff, like the theory that all body parts have functions.
Huh. He stated a falsifiable claim. A pretty lame one, but still. There's something for your drinking game.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 19, 2009 5:38 PM
I'll add that when I'm sober. I made the mistake of using Great Lakes Christmas Ale for the game with Bergman. Now I'm a bit... tipsy. Just off what you guys are reporting.
Posted by: jshiv | November 19, 2009 5:38 PM
The commercials burn my ears with stupid.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 5:38 PM
This is great! Thanks for the heads-up, PZed! I thought I'd have nothing to do after our staff meeting before heading home. This is like watching that debate without having to feel sorry in the slightest for Bergman getting his ass handed to him. Oh, who am I kidding, I would have relished that. And I just got a prayer over the radio (I guess that's how they use unsold commercial time).
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 5:38 PM
I'm not able to tune in, but if what I'm reading in the posts is accurate, and I'm not surprised that it is, I just have 3 words to describe the creotard side of the "debate":
Typical. Rampant. Dishonesty.
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:40 PM
Bergmans definition of theory is equal to what real scientists call hypotheses, at best.
Oooh... hello useful caller. Falsifiability... I teach my students this idea. Bergman: it is NOT a concern of science, or at least his style of science. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OK. He's utterly useless.
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 5:41 PM
OMG!!!!!
The way to falsify IDC is to come up with a carbon atom that....isn't a carbon atom?
Gawd, this guy's a moron!
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:45 PM
@ jshiv Yes me too. I found myself being prayed for/with.
And now we're trying to make the fact that caller is atheist be an issue. The point they are missing: atheism (or any religious belief or lack thereof) is not being put forth as a scientific theory so it does not have to be falsifiable.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 5:45 PM
Oh, boy. Caller calls him out, they call him out as an atheist. "What purpose does atheism have?" What business does anyone have teaching atheism in the science classroom? None! That's what! Wait, what were we talking about?
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 5:45 PM
Darren, you kind of started off pretty well, but you screwed up when they asked you if god can be disproven. All you had to answer was, "Nope. I guess god isn't a scientific theory then, is it?"
Posted by: marcus
|
November 19, 2009 5:45 PM
@10 WTF man? That much alcohol could kill you!
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:49 PM
Yeah, Darren, while I feel your pain - he was completely avoiding the question - swearing at him didn't help the argument. Jason's #61 response, in hindsight, would have been much better.
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 5:49 PM
Now Bergmen talks about his brother's former roommate's cousin's ex-brother in law who....this one time...at band camp....found fossils that were in the wrong strata, but knew better than to publish them.
Someone should call in with a similar story about an anonymous person who worked at the Discovery Institute and told them that they all knew ID really was bunk and had no scientific basis, but because it made them a lot of money, they were more than happy to sell it to the Christian rubes.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2009 5:51 PM
I think that the concession that atheism is not falsifiable is wrong.
That's why we keep asking for evidence, right? If there were actual evidence for a personal God, atheism would indeed be falsified.
So atheism is falsifiable, but not yet falsified.
Oh, well.
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:54 PM
Yeah, isn't it CONVENIENT that he had this evidence of the equivalent of rabbit fossils in the cambrian that clearly falsifies evolution, but he didn't publish it so no one can actually go check on it!?!
Posted by: SteveM | November 19, 2009 5:57 PM
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 5:59 PM
Hmm. Even better point, owlmirror (#65).
However, Bergman actually asked what evidence he (the caller) could provide to prove God did not exist. That seems, to me, harder to answer.
Posted by: Jason F. | November 19, 2009 6:01 PM
If the radio hosts are still reading, if your true reason for not inviting Dr. Myers was that you assumed he wouldn't accept, then you committed a pretty obvious tactical error.
It would have been much more shrewd on your part to extend the invitation, and when Dr. Myers declined you could then say on your program that YOU invited him and HE declined. Instead, as it stands you simply did not invite him (yet invited Dr. Bergmen) which does not look good for you.
And of course if Dr. Myers had accepted, then you would have been happy about that.....right?
IOW, you had a win-win scenario and instead chose a path that could only make YOU look bad.
D'oh!!
Posted by: David Estlund | November 19, 2009 6:01 PM
Poor Darren is a perfect example of why this is so difficult. They lie. Sometimes they believe their lies, sometimes they are just liars with an agenda, but either way, calling them out on the lie is so much more complicated than telling it. When I get in a conversation with a creationist, it's really difficult not to say, "What you believe is completely fucking ridiculous," and leave it at that. Since actually kidnapping theists and deprogramming them would be illegal and unethical, we're forced to walk a tightrope of continuous "exit therapy" in which we simply continue to use reason (and science) to debunk the lies over, and over, and over again.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 6:19 PM
Sasha,
No, it's not hard. The evidence that god doesn't exist is exactly the same as the evidence that leprechauns don't exist.
The point is, that's not how skepticism works. Skepticism is the default rational position when determining the veracity of a positive truth claim. Those that claim deities exist are making a positive truth claim about reality. It is up to them to demonstrate why anyone would think their claim is valid (i.e. truthful).
Disproving negative claims does not work. It's not a human thing or a language thing. It's a reality thing.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 19, 2009 6:21 PM
What did you expect? It is Christian Talk radio.
Of course they are scumbags. You knew that going in.
Posted by: Not that Louis | November 19, 2009 6:26 PM
My signal gave out a time or two so I can't positively say he didn't Godwin this time as he did in his closing statement on Monday night. If so, I can't think how he missed it unless it's something he only does when cornered.
Posted by: Sasha | November 19, 2009 6:35 PM
@ lose_the_woo (#71). Wait, there is no evidence that leprechauns don't exist?? I'm crushed!! Clearly, of course, you are right and I agree.
My main point was that, in the context of the argument the caller was trying to make, it did not matter whether or not atheism is falsibilable. No one (that I know of) is arguing that it should be taught in schools as scientific theory.
Posted by: Lowell | November 19, 2009 6:37 PM
I love how they bill it. Bergman's going to "tell us what he experienced" in the debate. Like he was held hostage and tortured or something. Sounds like all he "experienced" was making an ass out of himself. Which I'm sure he's used to.
Posted by: Ray | November 19, 2009 6:38 PM
[ nigelTheBold @30 "Work" might be too strong of a word. I am at my place of employment, of course. ]
Sounds like where I'm "employed".
Cheers & Happy Monkey,
Ray
Posted by: Robert | November 19, 2009 6:39 PM
Lets hold a debate: "Should science be taught in school." If any creationist refuses to show up, we can forever make fun of him for refusing to 'teach the controversy' or whatever it is they say...
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 19, 2009 6:45 PM
#71: your lack of a nuanced understanding of "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" is quite revealing.
Posted by: marcus
|
November 19, 2009 6:46 PM
@64 Damn! I thought it was going to end with a flute in her vagina.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 6:56 PM
Nor can it be. Atheism does not make a positive truth claim about reality. The term is an invention of the theists who presuppose the existence of deities. It's a misuse of language and reason IMO, a game the theists are good at.
Basically, the atheist says that there isn't any evidence for the existence of deities (basically, I'm not interested in quibbling over any nits in that definition). This is a negative claim, i.e. unscientific. It is the theists making the positive claim (i.e. deities exist!) which is a scientific claim, which needs evidence to support its veracity, which they never produce, nor do they show their work.
There is no need to label oneself as atheist any more than there is a need to label oneself atoothfairyist. It's logically unnecessary because it is the default position. But that's the game they like to play with reason, but it flies in the face of all things reasonable and the way every other claim about the existence of something is treated.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 7:03 PM
#78
Most of us hate to be a disappointment, and I do hate to disappoint, however, I'm also an asasqwatchyist.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 19, 2009 7:11 PM
Sasha @ 36: Bergman said PZ didn't debate on the topic. Really!!
It was Bergman who debated (or -more accurately- droned)on anything except the topic. He wasted most of his 20 minutes on his background which was mostly a lament on "nobody likes me but I like science and science proves Darwinism (they never call it evolution) is wrong."
Jason F. @ 47 - Shit, you are right, you could have debated Bergman.
Posted by: Monkeyface News | November 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Man, i watch these super-Christians debate and it's all I can do to pick up the computer and throw it out the window. They're like children caught in a lie. Only, at least children are cute. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Some day 10,000 years from now, if we survive the self imposed Armageddon, humanity will be grateful.
Posted by: BruceH | November 19, 2009 7:48 PM
There's an MP3 recording of the show. I'm not going to listen to it.
Posted by: Peter Zachos | November 19, 2009 8:01 PM
Holy shit. I had to stop listening after Bergman said "a major reason we age is from accumulation of mutations....the whole reason we age is because of mutations... our hearing is not as good, our sight is not as good, our kidneys don't function well..."
Even though that's bogus, he tries to tie it with a false analogy to what he calls "species aging"... that species end up dying out and going extinct because of the deterioration caused by mutations.
It's a reframing of the ridiculous argument of "mutations can only take away information, not add any." It's uninformed, tunnel-visioned, kindergarten-level crap. I'm angry at you, PZ, for even sharing the stage with so uneducated a person.
There's simply no reason to carry on listening. I'd rather floss my cat.
paz
Posted by: Larry
|
November 19, 2009 8:06 PM
Frustrating? Yes.
Biased? You bet.
Worth more than 15 seconds thought? No. The only ones listening to the station are the god-soaked morons who wouldn't believe you if you were the only guest and talked for 2 hours. I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to change these people's so-called minds with truth, logic, and reality. Their neural pathways are fixed forever to believe what they believe, i.e., god done it, the bibble says it and I believe it.
Posted by: kiki | November 19, 2009 8:13 PM
MRT, always quick to pity the fools.
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 19, 2009 8:23 PM
#80 lose_the_woo:
The closest I can think of to a positive truth claim made by a (so-called by theists) "atheist" regarding the non-existence of God would have to come from reading Vic Stenger's webpage, where he describes "God: The Failed Hypothesis". He says he argues that absence of evidence IS INDEED evidence of absence, at least when one expects evidence. Apparently, he argues that one can reasonably expect evidence, given the qualities a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is purported to have.
Damn it. Now I have to start a Vic Stenger section of my library, and I'm too friggin poor.
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 19, 2009 9:26 PM
And, BTW lose_the_woo, that hurt quite a bit when you said you didn't believe in me. Now I know how God must feel.
But you know what? I STILL wouldn't commit you to everlasting torture because of it. That's because I'm a better man than God is.
Whoa. That was a deepity. I've got to think about that one a bit. OK, done.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 19, 2009 9:38 PM
It's too bad I had to miss that lovely mess of lies. I'll listen to the recording once I get back, though.
Isn' t it amazing how easily these guys will lie? To claim that I failed to adress the topic of the debate, though, is a rather extravagant falsehood. It makes me wonder if they won't be 'forgetting' to release the DVD if they're already busy revising history.
Posted by: wrpd | November 19, 2009 9:43 PM
I have not used my sex organs for reproduction for over thirty years. Are they vestigial? Vestigial testicles? Am I a vestigial virgin?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 19, 2009 9:46 PM
#52 Sasha
So, he's a DARWINIST! These yahoos use the term Darwnism as a code-word for "secular humanist, immoral, God hating, atheist" so their followers know to buy their books (like Harlequin Romance tries to get "Love" in every book title). Whenever possible, creotards who use random mutation & natural selection in their CreoID "theories" should be labeled Darwinists - to fry their tiny little synapses.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 19, 2009 9:58 PM
That says it all really. They've got nothing, they know they've got nothing, and they have to maintain it because if it falls then their existential and ethical base falls too. And the last thing we want is nihilists losing the only meaning in their universe...Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 19, 2009 10:03 PM
at least children are cute
No, they aren't. They've got their parents to stick up for them, though.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 19, 2009 10:22 PM
Quite.
Atheism is innately extremely falsifiable. All we need is the deity to show up, do some decent convincing miracles, and that's it, yer done. Once said god-become-man has turned some water into wine and James Randi's signed off, assured us there was no sleight of hand involved, budda bing, budda boom, movin' on.
In fact, this notion that atheism is 'not falsifiable' is a tacit admission of something else altogether, something we've known all along: not that its unfalsifiable, but rather that they know damned well it's never going to be falsified, 'cos they've got squat, they've always had squat, and they know this perfectly well, too, really.
What's interesting about this is how this particular creeping notion has developed. The truth is, setting the bar at a few such miracles, properly vetted, is actually a perfectly reasonable thing to do, considering the history here, and considering the substance of claims made by many religious sects. It sounds a bit demanding, initially, to our modern ears, for a reason I'll get to in a minute, but the truth is this isn't absurd, isn't excessively demanding at all. The modern dodge of quietly distancing yourself from such dramatic claims notwithstanding, conveniently turning all those miraculous claims into allegories and metaphors, now you know you're never going to be able to make good on 'em with modern standards of evidence and alert witnesses with a more involved understanding of psychology and so on aside, that *is* what so many religions have been for millenia: gods that do incredible stuff, create the universe. All-powerful, and so on, so askin' 'em to do somethin' a bit more dramatic than making a few hayseeds embarrass 'emselves with odd sermons on urine, and making a few folk here and there think maybe someone's whispering vague advice to 'em in their sleep, that's really not asking so much...
But of course no one expects that. And it's simple to grasp why. We know from long experience they'll never deliver. And that's all that's really behind those convenient modern edits, making the gods ineffable, indetectable, deistic authors of natural laws and changing the stories of miracles to metaphors, indeed, even the convenient and somewhat older new testament verse and its contemporary interpretation... A simple admission, that one, too, really: don't test the lord thy god. 'Cos let's face it, we know he'll flunk...
And for those who've internalized all that, sure, it seems natural enough to say atheism is 'unfalsifiable', however absurd the claim is, in the larger context. But again: no, not hardly.
Put another way: modern religions benefit in this area from the two-edged blessing many abject failures eventually will come to count as their friend: the blessing of the extremely low expectations they've earned over their career. We know them well enough by now that no one expects much...
(/Sorta like a mechanic we no know from long experience is so hopelessly inept we've given up on ever expecting him actually to fix the car, and now call it close enough when he fails actually to blow the thing to smithereens, along with himself, his garage, anyone waiting for their car in the waiting room, and several city blocks.)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 19, 2009 10:32 PM
Kel, OM writes:
the last thing we want is nihilists losing the only meaning in their universe...
Why? We usually just go for a walk or eat some lunch or - well, I was just now playing Brutal Legend. It's a good way of coping with the meaningless universe.
Posted by: 386sx | November 19, 2009 10:38 PM
The host apparently was still completely ignorant about what ID is. (He seems to think it has big ol' fancy biological doo-dad formulas and stuff.)
And no doubt will remain ignorant after the show. And beyond...
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 19, 2009 11:02 PM
Theistic nihilists of course, the ones who have absolute meaning only for it to be taken away. You know, the madman and such - the murder of the holiest of holies. etc.There's obviously a distinction between those who have invested time and energy into finding meaning in a meaningless universe and those who know better.
Posted by: madbull | November 20, 2009 12:19 AM
If there's no God who adds the e in M'e'yers ?
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2009 12:56 AM
That is genetic entropy. It isn't even ID, it is pure creationism. Not that there is any real difference.
Before the Fall, all genomes were perfect. Thanks to the talking snake, the entire biosphere is running down due to mutations accumulating.
Soon we will all be deformed, weird looking zombies. Lurching off to work, and then going home to feed the zombie cat and the zombie kids. The world will end in a mass zombie death.
This is because god loves us, xianity is a religion of hope and love, and xian theology is very sophisticated. God's plan is for a short run followed by a downhill slide until the zombies are too sick to survive.
Yeah, they have nothing but lies and more lies. Creationism lost in the forum of educated, sane adults a century ago. The incompetent fundie god can't even keep a biosphere running for 6,000 years while any scientist can keep one running for billions of years. Their god is so small.
BTW, still having problems commenting. One of my fixes killed my computer. I had to resurrect it by sacrificing a chordate to Cthulhu. Getting a new one soon anyway.
Posted by: Samantha
|
November 20, 2009 1:58 AM
Has anybody else noticed that it's almost a universal urge for creationists to totally ignore the fact that PZ is actually Dr PZ Myers while promoting the fact that their chosen mouthpiece has a degree that he or she does nothing with other than using it as a reason to argue from authority? It's not like they're even exclusively using Dr for their guy because he's a proper MD and PZ isn't.
It's one thing to be informal on a blog post, but to have professional press releases that deliberately omit one person's title while hyping up the other seems dishonest. Even more interesting is the fact that they won't even say where Bergman's a professor. Presumably it's somewhere that would negate much of the authority they've built up by calling him "Dr" and a professor.
Posted by: Zak | November 20, 2009 2:19 AM
You guys, you keep saying that you can't disprove God, and that there really any way to have evidence against it. This is nonsense.
First, there are logical arguments, that God is a logically impossible/ incoherent concept. For example, God is said to be transcendent of space and time, but also has a mind, and can think. Well, thinking requires temporality. You can't think if you don't exist inside time. These two concepts are mutually exclusive.
There are TONS of arguments along those lines.
As for scientific arguments, the mind is 100% dependent on the brain. We know this for many reasons, one of which is that if we cut the brain in half, it creates to spheres of consciousness.
Now, God is said to be a disembodied mind. However, a mind cannot exist without a brain. God doesn't have a brain, so he can't have a mind. Therefore, he doesn't exist.
Posted by: chrisD | November 20, 2009 3:10 AM
Zak, see, that won't stop them from essentially doing a Gish gallop of all the possible attributes of god just to show you that yes, some type of neutered thing we can refer to as god is possible, despite there being no evidence for it, and you must admit that you cannot positively disprove a thing which is logically possible yet absent of evidence. As Russell so eloquently put it, god is a teapot orbiting the earth.
I don't think that a positive disproof is possible. In order to 100% disprove god then, logically, you would have to attain omniscience, something we'd attribute to god, and then you'd become the god. Then you'd vanish in a puff of smoke as you realized you don't exist.
;)
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 20, 2009 3:24 AM
Wait a minute thing is the onus in providing proof of, or for, a sky fairy does not rest with the doubters, but with the contingent that actually claim a such a sky fairy.
They are the ones that rant and rave and go all 'appy 'clappy gooey and shiny eyed about this fairy story, it is firmly and irrevocably up to them to prove the bilge they spout and which they claim as truth.
Something that not one of them in over 2000 years has managed to do in any undeniable manner...period.
If they had there would not be atheists, tis a quid pro quo and all that.
The premise that it is apparently atheists that have to 'prove' there is no god is just a cynical trick to divert the debate.
Don't let them slither out from under the fact that it is their claim...so they MUST back up THEIR CLAIM, do not let them get away with this smoke and mirrors crap it is a typical xian slight of hand.
Scumbags like these gits Olsen/Bergman amaze me in only one point, how in the name of Beelzebub's knicker gusset, do they ever get a job in the first place, do not their so called employers think it rather incompatible with their duties in education.
(I saw on another thread something about Bergman getting into strife with legal eagle representation and a comment on his web site about being b'twixt 'n' b'tween employment even so...!)
Who in secular education would employ such charlatans anyway?
I do not buy the crap that...'ahh but he is a good teacher' fact is their character in public is exposed as dubious to say the least, simple like so...done and dusted.
they espouse lies and prevarications and present false and erroneous claims over and over again...and they apparently walk...WTF?
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 20, 2009 3:49 AM
#95:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 20, 2009 5:18 AM
NO, no, no. We should stop letting them get away with this "you can't disprove god nonsense". Because they don't believe in god, they believe in "the christian god". A very specific entity.
Posted by: skyblue | November 20, 2009 8:52 AM
I couldn't make it to the debate, had another event to attend. Is there somewhere I can listen to it online?
Thanks
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 20, 2009 10:11 AM
While I'm well aware this is a common objection raised here--aware enough I almost considered a brief nod to it in the previous comment--and this thread is getting a bit stale, and this one's been done to death, methinks--I will point out the following, generally, about this point:
1) Effectively, I consider this effectively to be just yet another manifestation of the epistemologically irreducible hairline baseline of doubt you always have on *any* empirical question, and really, ultimately, not that interesting, for that reason. Yes, theoretically it's just possible a white guy in a beard who pops out of the sky, makes the dead walk, turns yer Evian into Châteauneuf-du-Pape and impregnates several virgins without appearing exactly to touch 'em is actually just a member of some remote, advanced civilization with a weird sense of humour and a few neat gadgets up his sleeve. But once he's demonstrated he could easily enough have created the universe if he'd been in the mood, you are at least at the point where you've got to acknowledge the ancient books aren't necessarily the absolute bunkum they so far (and, in all likelihood, indefinitely will) appear to be anyway. Beyond this, the practical difference between a guy who didn't actually create the universe but could have, and a guy who did*, isn't, for our purposes here, really so critical, by my lights. So, again: yes, atheism is effectively easily refutable, just as much as is any halfway well-defined statement about the world, even though that unavoidable baseline of doubt surrounding empirical observations must necessarily always remain.
2) ... and remember, again, of course, for practical purposes, this is nowhere near the problem we've had so far anyway. Making the dead walk, getting it on immaculately with young Jewish virgins, not so much. Making the vaguely and probably mostly psychosomatically ill feel briefly and incrementally better, that's generally more the level of 'miracle' we've as yet had to consider. Rather on different levels, those.
(*/... And even granting that much, as long as we're speculating wildly about such improbable occurrences, a weirder possibility still occurs to me here: what if he shows up, does all that stuff, *and* then shows you how to do it? We would progress strangely directly to 'Yes, there may be/may have been gods after all, but honestly, it's not that big a deal... anyone with an Acme Flappozoidner 'neath his toga can do most of that stuff now... long as they keep it recharged...')
Posted by: David Estlund | November 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Skyblue, see #84.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 20, 2009 11:01 AM
Interestingly enough, in the US at least, it seems to be geographical based. Extra e is more likely up North, less likely down South.
Posted by: Carl | November 20, 2009 12:28 PM
It sounds like Skyblue was asking for a recording of Myers' debate with Bergman from earlier in the week, and not of yesterday's radio interview with Bergman.
I, too, am interested in such a recording--I share others' skepticism regarding the promised DVD release. Unfortunately, it seems that no such recording has yet surfaced.
Anyone?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 20, 2009 12:42 PM
I guess that makes us all "areleasists".
Posted by: And-U-Say | November 20, 2009 12:54 PM
#106
Thanks you! Never say "I can't disprove your god" until you know what they mean by "their god". Christians make very specific claims about their god and these claims can be tested and found to be either true or false. The caller to the program should not have let them get away with this.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 20, 2009 1:21 PM
In an act of self-torture I am listening to the follow up on KKMS's website.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 20, 2009 1:27 PM
Then of course they run behind the "Jesus is love and wiped the slate clean, luvvy, feely, you can't know everything" goalpost.
But it is fun watching them scurry around like cockroaches looking for something to hide behind.
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 20, 2009 1:27 PM
I admire you, Qwerty. Please post anything of note.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 20, 2009 5:06 PM
I listened to the KKMS follow-up. I was at the debate. The radio talk was just more of Bergman's blubbering. Appendix - not vestigial and mutations don't add information were his basic points.
Again, like the debate, Bergman gave no reasons FOR teaching ID in the classroom. Just gibberish in a feeble attempt to knock down evolutionary theory which he always calls Darwinism.
Carl - Contact the CASH organization to see if they had anyone recording the event. They were also sponsors of it.
Posted by: Zak | November 20, 2009 8:32 PM
ChrisD (103),
That is why you have to ask the theist to define their god first. Heck, omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible. There really is no way out for the theist, with those that type of argument.
Also, the arguments are deductive. If the premises are true, then the conclusion HAS to be true. Likewise, I don't have to be omniscient to show that there are no married bachelors anywhere in the universe.
Posted by: TonyC | November 21, 2009 12:56 AM
If there really is 'Genetic Entropy' and we are steadily getting uglier and more deformed with every generation, then WHY are there Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie???????
Posted by: chrisD | November 21, 2009 2:28 AM
Yeah! And which came first: attractiveness or attraction?! Betcha scientists can't answer that one either!Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
November 21, 2009 5:45 AM
Seriously, this is a violation of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules. How would you like to help KKMS lose their broadcasting license for biased broadcasting? Go to https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/formE!input.action?form_page=2000E and fill out a complaint form. Here's what I sent:
"KKMS had a program at 4:00 PM on 11/19/2009 - "Debate Follow-up: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Science Classes?" where a creationist, Jerry Bergman, gave an unopposed biased commentary on his debate last Monday night with P.Z. Myers, Professor at the University of Minnesota - Morris. Myers is an actual scientist, and showed during the debate how ignorant Bergman was of science and other matters of importance to the community. Subsequently KKMS gave Bergman an extra unopposed hour of time to display more of his dangerous and biased ignorance without rebuttal. In the interest of fairness to the community, KKMS should similarly grant Myers an unopposed hour to express his side of the debate. See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/kkms_always_quick_to_defend_th.php for more details - contact pzmyers@gmail.com for more details."
Always glad to help.
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
November 21, 2009 6:07 AM
Seriously, this is a violation of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules. How would you like to help KKMS lose their broadcasting license for biased broadcasting? Go to https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/formE!input.action?form_page=2000E and fill out a complaint form. Here's what I sent:
"KKMS had a program at 4:00 PM on 11/19/2009 - "Debate Follow-up: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Science Classes?" where a creationist, Jerry Bergman, gave an unopposed biased commentary on his debate last Monday night with P.Z. Myers, Professor at the University of Minnesota - Morris. Myers is an actual scientist, and showed during the debate how ignorant Bergman was of science and other matters of importance to the community. Subsequently KKMS gave Bergman an extra unopposed hour of time to display more of his dangerous and biased ignorance without rebuttal. In the interest of fairness to the community, KKMS should similarly grant Myers an unopposed hour to express his side of the debate. See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/kkms_always_quick_to_defend_th.php for more details - contact pzmyers@gmail.com for more details."
Always glad to help.
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
November 21, 2009 6:13 AM
121 and 122 - sorry about the double posting - I sent the first attempt and took a break - when I came back it looked like my computer (or Seed's computer?) had locked up, like the message hadn't made it, so I tried again.
Posted by: Harry Varty
|
November 21, 2009 8:13 AM
They ending up cutting off the atheist for saying that, not providing an example of what would disprove ID, showed Bergman up for the chalatean he is.
After that Bergman went on to say that there are many exaples where fossils have turned up in the wrong strata, disproving evolution, but researchers are too scared to publish such findings.
Don't you end up in the fiery furnace for telling lies or does it just show that they don't really beleive all this heaven and hell stuff either?
Posted by: Texan Expat in Finland | November 21, 2009 1:23 PM
TonyC #119
There are some who don't find BraNgelina attractive at all.
If we are, in fact, getting uglier, how would we know? If you compare carvings/paintings of "beautiful" people with pictures from "US" magazine, they don't seem very similar.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 21, 2009 1:36 PM
"After that Bergman went on to say that there are many exaples where fossils have turned up in the wrong strata, disproving evolution, but researchers are too scared to publish such findings."
Which Bergman knows because he read about them in...D'OH!
It's always the invisible dragon in the garage with these guys.
Posted by: Jason Febery
|
November 21, 2009 5:09 PM
PZ,
I'm glad you're calling them out on this. There's a difference between commentary and bias, especially if you try to parade your station around as being fair to both sides (and inviting them both to a debate), but then inviting only one of them back to respond to everything that was said during the debate.
--
http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Elmer Fludd | November 21, 2009 8:25 PM
Awww. Is poor wittle PZ upset because he didn't get invited to smack down dat smart aweky Jerwwy Bergman again?
Awww. Dat's just SOOO unfaiwr! Der shud be a weally big law against dat silly fweedom of choice stuff, huh.
You tell 'em PEE ZEE.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 21, 2009 9:08 PM
Zak@102:
I am actually working on a perfect mathematical proof that "God does not exist". NO - I am serious.
Consider:
"With God, all things are possible." Therefore, the well known math equation (included below) whereby 1=2, and in fact, any N is equal to any other N' is easily accomplished by the simple action of dividing by zero. Therefore, all things are equal therefore, God=0
Whereas also "God is the origin of all things" we note that in a Cartesian coordinate system, the Origin is 0, proving the concept shown above. God=origin=zero, therefore, God=0.
The concept of 0 as a placeholder furthers the mathematical proof through the mental need of requiring something where there is nothing. God is therefore nothing.
For those following along:
Step 1: Let a=b.
Step 2: Then a2 = ab,
Step 3: a2 + a2=a2 + ab,
Step 4: 2a2=a2 + ab,
Step 5: 2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab,
Step 6: and 2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab),
Step 8: and cancelling the (a2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2.
QED
You may now tell me how poorly I suck at math.
JC
Posted by: 386sx | November 21, 2009 9:10 PM
Elmer Fluddy-poo, I think the problem was that there was no rebuttal viewpoint (i. e. reality) presented with yer typical creationist canards from yer typical creationist daffy duck. Quack!!
Posted by: Physicist | November 22, 2009 1:23 AM
But the real problem is not that PZ is a coward, it is that he is a liar. That is why why he says he won't debate crackpots before going on to debate crackpots and why he refuses to make an appearance on the "hostile territory" of a secular radio station before appearing on an openly Christian one. ~ Vox Day
I tend to agree with this analysis unless PZ will take up Vox's offer to debate him on the radio.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | November 22, 2009 1:30 AM
Why on earth would PZ want to debate Vox Day - an intellectual lightweight of the worst sort? Nobody takes VD seriously except for VD and his pose from his blog.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 2:07 AM
Why doesn't Vox Day come on here and embarrass PZed on his own turf?
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:14 AM
Maybe because he has been right more often than the experts in many fields in which he neither claims to be an expert nor worries about the expert. Maybe because he has published books on subjects where he challenges the experts. But then again, I would not wish to debate him without a surety and validity of my subject.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:19 AM
Why doesn't Vox Day come on here and embarrass PZed on his own turf?
The better question is why should he when he has his own place to post freely without censorship. PZ has the free reign to reply at his place without the same.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 2:27 AM
Just curious, do you even read this place? Nutter after nutter comes on here and posts their inane shit. You honestly think there's censorship going on here? Have you got evidence, or are you just concocting a persecution fantasy in order to take away from the obvious point that Vox could embarrass PZed on here if he so wishes.Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:28 AM
Sorry, "without" should read "with".
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:35 AM
Just curious, do you even read this place? Nutter after nutter comes on here and posts their inane shit. You honestly think there's censorship going on here? Have you got evidence, or are you just concocting a persecution fantasy in order to take away from the obvious point that Vox could embarrass PZed on here if he so wishes.
The question is not whether PZ would censor, the question is that he can censor. Do you see the difference? Do you not think that PZ would censor him for calling PZ a liar? He might not, but I bet he would.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 2:35 AM
VD has "been right", in the sense that you blindly agree with him despite the simple fact that he's nothing but a big fat denialist?
Denialists are allowed to self-publish all they wish. There is freedom of the press in the USA, after all.
Excellent reasons for PZ to continue to ignore VD. VD can continue to blather his denalism all over his own damned blog all he wishes.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:39 AM
Excellent reasons for PZ to continue to ignore VD. VD can continue to blather his denalism all over his own damned blog all he wishes.
I'm sorry, but again, what is it that Vox Denies?
Posted by: Rorschach | November 22, 2009 2:41 AM
Good thing noone cares about your bets.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:44 AM
Good thing noone cares about your bets.
A better thing is that they don't take them.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 2:44 AM
Another excellent reason for PZ to ignore VD. You keep coming up with them.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 2:49 AM
Owlmirror, You still haven't answered what Vox denies. If you say he denies the experts he does not, he answers them. You should rather say that he defies the experts. He does not deny PZ, he defies him. It is PZ who denies Vox, for he will not answer.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 2:54 AM
Anyone can censor. And if nothing else, it gives Vox Day a good reason to disparage PZed on his blog. The fact is you have no reason to assume that any comment would be censored beyond the fact that it could be censored. Yet you've already put up a post calling PZed a liar, why is that still around? And what do you have to go on for that? Got evidence that this is the case? I'm betting not.Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:02 AM
Yet you've already put up a post calling PZed a liar, why is that still around?
You miss the point, I quoted someone who called him a liar and then said I tend to agree with this unless... That's all, I did not call PZ a liar, but since I have been here before watching, I know he censors. He has yet to censor me though.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 3:05 AM
Pretty much anything and everything he wants to.
Evidence-based science? Denied.
Empirical skepticism? Denied.
Why should I give a denialist such aggrandizement?
Nah, PZ defies VD's whiny attention-seeking behavior.
Why is VD so obsessed with whose blog-dick is bigger, anyway? Is he compensating for something?
Posted by: Rorschach | November 22, 2009 3:09 AM
News to me, but I'm sure you have hard data and proof for that claim.
If not however, maybe I should just call you a bullshitter.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:12 AM
Pretty much anything and everything he wants to.
Evidence-based science? Denied.
Empirical skepticism? Denied.
I read Vox and know this is not true, he does not deny science, yet he may defy their evidence as false. For example the recent release of the AGW/CC by a hacker of their lies. Do you believe that scientist are any different? Do you believe that scientist/experts do not lie?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:16 AM
Why is VD so obsessed with whose blog-dick is bigger, anyway? Is he compensating for something?
I thought that the flaming sword was for that purpose.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:18 AM
News to me, but I'm sure you have hard data and proof for that claim.
If not however, maybe I should just call you a bullshitter.
No I have a historical memory of him publicly censoring someone and telling them why he was. I know what I saw, are you saying you have never seen him do this? If so, you haven't been reading long.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 3:22 AM
In other words, he's a denialist, and you're denying that he's a denialist.
Only a denialist would call evidence-based science "lies".
It's pretty obvious that you and VD do lie. You're lying about the two of you not being denialists, for one.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:26 AM
That's all, I did not call PZ a liar, but since I have been here before watching, I know he censors.
Is he talking about cleaning up after Mabius' shit throwing tantrums?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 3:26 AM
The only time I can remember PZ "censoring" was the medically-insane David Mabus. Have you got examples of posts that were censored, and if so, what was the content that was censored?Come on, since you know he censors, surely you have evidence to back it up.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:26 AM
It's pretty obvious that you and VD do lie. You're lying about the two of you not being denialists, for one.
It is not denial to defy, your understanding of the English language is lacking, therefore it is impossible to communicate with you.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:30 AM
It is not denial to defy, your understanding of the English language is lacking, therefore it is impossible to communicate with you.
Please be so kind as to show we ignorant masses when VD proved that scientists were wrong.
If this were the cases, VD should be causing great changes in how information is interpreted in those fields.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:32 AM
Come on, since you know he censors, surely you have evidence to back it up.
No I cannot even remember what the subject was, but you have already conceded he does censor, it isw only about what you say he censors you conclude that he does not.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:38 AM
No I cannot even remember what the subject was, but you have already conceded he does censor, it isw only about what you say he censors you conclude that he does not.
That was not an admittance that PZ censors. That was a statement that PZ removes the incoherent ravings of a mad man. I have not seen when PZ removed the words of one of VD's sycophants. There is no need to, many of the regulars so enjoy playing with these people.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:38 AM
Please be so kind as to show we ignorant masses when VD proved that scientists were wrong.
All you have to do is read his bog and his columns. He predicted the housing bubble in 2003 when the experts denied it, he predicted last year that the housing prices would drop further than the experts, and was right again. Is Economics a science? If it is not neither is evolution.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 3:43 AM
So because he deletes the posts of someone who is mentally ill who makes the same spam posts over and over claiming he's going to kill atheists and that James Randi owes him a million dollars, you're concluding that PZ is trying to stifle opposition?You're taking the absolute extreme and claiming it to be the norm. Shit, I've deleted Mabus' excrement off my blog before. It doesn't mean I'm trying to silence people who want to call me whatever. The man is insane and he repeatedly posts deluded rants where he threatens others. Do you honestly think that counts as censorship? It's spam.
If all you got is that someone deletes what is essentially spam as censorship, then you have nothing. Again, if Vox wants to embarrass PZ, why can't he do it on here? Hell, why can't he do it on his own blog? Or anywhere for that matter? And why does it have to be PZ? Shouldn't the arguments stand on their own? Or is it about being superior to another as opposed to being right?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:45 AM
All you have to do is read his bog and his columns. He predicted the housing bubble in 2003 when the experts denied it, he predicted last year that the housing prices would drop further than the experts, and was right again. Is Economics a science? If it is not neither is evolution.
Making predictions about economics is not a reason to makes claims about his knowledge in any field of science. Why are you saying that evolution is not a science?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 3:47 AM
Wait, how does that work? Economics is applied sociology, it is not a science in the way biology is. It's like asking, is potato a fruit? If not, neither are apples.Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:48 AM
That was not an admittance that PZ censors. That was a statement that PZ removes the incoherent ravings of a mad man. I have not seen when PZ removed the words of one of VD's sycophants. There is no need to, many of the regulars so enjoy playing with these people.
Yes, now is it a mad man that defies the world, or is it a mad man that denies it? Vox has been called a denier here. Should then Vox be mad?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:50 AM
Kel, I am sure you know about the renowned scientist of the Chicago School. Pure science there with no whiff of politics.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:52 AM
Please read Kel's description of the man that PZ "censored". But, hey, if you want to compare VD to that person; I will not stand in your way.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 3:55 AM
Wait, how does that work? Economics is applied sociology, it is not a science in the way biology is. It's like asking, is potato a fruit? If not, neither are apples.
It works because economics is an applied science, it has charts graphs and equations, yet this does not make it a correct science. Newton was not in error about the things Newton knew, yet one would not argue Newton was not using science because of Einstein.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 3:59 AM
It works because economics is an applied science, it has charts graphs and equations, yet this does not make it a correct science.
Quoted for laughter.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 4:03 AM
I agree that you are a denialist and a liar and that it is impossible to communicate with lying denialists.
Only a pathetic denialist would use a false equivalence that completely inane.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 4:05 AM
Quoted for laughter.
An economist is not wrong about what he measured in the past, he may be wrong about the conclusions, which makes it incorrect. Evolution is not wrong about what it measures in the past, he may be wrong about his conclusions.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 4:07 AM
Only a pathetic denialist would continue to use a false equivalence that completely inane.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 4:07 AM
And the laughter continues.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 22, 2009 4:08 AM
Wait, you think that what differentiates science from non-science is the use of charts, graphs and equations? So, as long as someone uses those things it counts as science?
I have to say that - up until now - you've done remarkably well to hide the effects of your frontal lobotomy. Well, apart from the frantic masturbation every time someone mentions VD's name...
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 4:10 AM
Charts and graphs does science make not. Economics is applied sociology, not a hard science in the way we understand it. That's not what I was arguing at all, it's not about being right or wrong, it's about what area it covers. Economics is nothing like evolutionary theory, you're comparing biology with sociology and saying they are one and the same.This is not to disparage economics, I'm calling out a false equivalence by means of category error. Economics and evolutionary biology are by no means equivalent, and you're making one huge non-sequitor.
The fact of the matter is that Vox Day has a million outlets for writing whatever he wants. Why does he need to debate PZed? Because from this perspective it seems that the goal is to be superior than to be right. Vox could easily embarrass the atheist world if his ideas are valid. He doesn't need PZed for anything more than to stroke his own ego. He could put the arguments up here if he wanted, he could put them on his own blog. He could argue on other blogs. Make websites, his own youtube channel, publish more books, write into science peer review publications. Why isn't he doing those? Why does it have to be a one-on-one with PZed?
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 4:14 AM
And the laughter continues.
Hiding your secret knowledge instead of engaging in a debate with it. Denying economics as a science is a fools game, and if you and others wish to engage in that falsehood, I would expect you could explain why economics is not a science, while all along the world calls economics a science.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 4:21 AM
Why does it have to be a one-on-one with PZed?
Brandishing a flaming sword.
Hello. My name is
Inigo MontoyaVox Day. You killed my father. Prepare to die.Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 4:24 AM
Physicist, both Kel and Owlmirror answered that question. I am just here to point and laugh.
It is for this reason why PZ does not engage in censorship. There is no need to. But I do find enjoyment in this low comedy.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 4:25 AM
...blathers the inane climate denialist and evolution denialist.
LOL. Obvious projection from a denialist is obvious!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 22, 2009 4:26 AM
The Physicist wrote:
A question for you, Physicist*: if you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?
*Some time ago I purchased an industrial strength irony meter; while it wheezed and hissed and sparked a considerable amount upon sensing your misuse of that particular appellation, it did not break. Worth every cent.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 4:29 AM
That's not what I was arguing at all, it's not about being right or wrong, it's about what area it covers. Economics is nothing like evolutionary theory, you're comparing biology with sociology and saying they are one and the same.
This is not to disparage economics, I'm calling out a false equivalence by means of category error. Economics and evolutionary biology are by no means equivalent, and you're making one huge non-sequitor.
Neither is biology like Physics, yet it makes it no less a science. You cannot test evolution, yet I can test gravity. An economist can more test Keynesian economics than an evolutionist can test evolution. For an evolutionist cannot test evolution. I am not saying I do not believe in evolution, because I do not know, and cannot test it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 4:35 AM
The idiotic arguments from ignorance and incredulity of a denialist.
Posted by: The Physicist | November 22, 2009 4:40 AM
The idiotic arguments from ignorance and incredulity of a denialist.
Once more I do not deny evolution, neither do I defy it, I just say I do not know, and you say I am in denial. Goodnight gentlemen.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 4:46 AM
You cannot test evolution, yet I can test gravity. An economist can more test Keynesian economics than an evolutionist can test evolution. For an evolutionist cannot test evolution.
This non scientist knows you are wrong on this. There is Richard Lenski's long term experiment with E Coli. There is Neil Shubin and his group predicting where they would find the fossil of a certain type of animal and finding what is now called Tiktaalik.
And, yes, I am still laughing at you. I cannot help it.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 22, 2009 4:50 AM
Goodnight gentlemen.
Sniff! I feel left out.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 22, 2009 4:51 AM
To paraphrase PZ: 'Your ignorance...is not evidence.' Evolution has been tested, observed, and documented over and over and over again. If you've ever had antibiotics you've experienced tested evolution in practice.
Why am I not surprised to find that an ignorant, intellectually dishonest VD-fluffer* is a misogynist?
*There's probably some redundancy there.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2009 4:53 AM
Who wrote "an evolutionist cannot test evolution"?
You not knowing == Ignorance.
You're in denial about being ignorant and about being a denialist.
Goodnight, goodnight, don't let the fallacies bite.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 22, 2009 5:33 AM
Why won't Vox Day debate Time Cube theorist Gene Ray, or as he prefers to be called "Dr. Gene Ray - Cubic and Wisest Human"?
Dr. Gene Ray - Cubic and Wisest Human has created a website visited literally by millions and has spoken at MIT. His Time Cube theory has been discuss worldwide by many experts in the field of mental health. If he is so obviously wrong then why won't Vox Day prove it to him in a format made for
theatredebate?Nothing will give me more joy than to see Vox Day and Dr. Gene Ray - Cubic and Wisest Human discuss matters as equals on stage for everyone to see.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 22, 2009 5:51 AM
Economics is a failure as a science. The only reason we economists use charts, graphs and equations is to look all sciency but Pox Day's buttboy has determined these things do not make economics "a correct science."
Incidentally, many economists were warning about the housing bubble years ago. It was the subprime mortgage bubble which caught most of us by surprise.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 22, 2009 6:01 AM
Nick Gotelli
PZ Myers
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 6:35 AM
Again, you're making a false equivalence. No surprise really. And you're sure than biologists can't test evolution? Forego predicting what to find in the fossil record and genetic code - don't experiments with bacteria and guppies give a good starting point? Let alone the 15,000 year old experiment with wolves...Posted by: echidna
|
November 22, 2009 6:52 AM
ignorance itself speaks:
" You cannot test evolution, yet I can test gravity...For an evolutionist cannot test evolution."
You don't even know what science is, (equations and stuff, isn't it?), let alone evolution, but you think you can say it can't be tested?
You think you can test gravity, but for crying out loud, I'll bet you have no clue about the theory of gravity, and the pretty huge developments between what Newton understood and what Einstein understood about gravity.
Evolution, as it happens, is far better understood than gravity, which is actually quite mysterious and complex (but nonetheless, real and measurable).
And you proudly display your ignorance, because some religious idiot convinced you that ignorance is bliss, that knowledge is evil, and that you mustn't forget to put money on that collection plate. And of course, a religious person is a far better authority on science than scientists are.....
Idiot.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 22, 2009 7:16 AM
And in other news, Dale Steyn wants to break the partnership.
And the slip cordon might come into play.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 22, 2009 4:27 PM
Shorter Vox: 'Pay attention to meeeee! No, rilly, I'm, like, a totally hawesome debate... type... thing.... guy, and hardly mentally ill at all! Pay attention to meeeeeee!'
... Also, please do not place the word 'analysis' anywhere in the vicinity of Mr. Day's amusingly lame moniker... It's sorta like that matter/anti-matter thing... Wouldn't want ya to break the internet*.
... somewhat more seriously: I imagine there is some measurable number of mental patients in some number of of mental wards 'round the world who probably really do sincerely believe they are Elvis. I don't quite see how it's the responsibility of Dr. Myers personally to visit each and every one of them individually and try to talk them out of this delusion, for, presumably, the benefit of their loved ones' peace of mind... It is regrettable if in Mr. Day's case there doesn't happen to be a local mental health practitioner with the time for this duty, but what can ya do? Apparently, Mr. Day's nation needs to fund such services better.
(Is Mr. Day perhaps resident in some part of the developing world? This can make it difficult, and I do have some sympathy if this is the case... Perhaps we could take up a collection...)
(/*Or just make me sprain an intercostal muscle... Either way.)
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 6:56 PM
I wonder if Vox Day reads what his supporters say, it makes me wonder whether his narcissism wins over not wanting to be associated with such idiots.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 22, 2009 7:14 PM
Considering that the one we just had is - believe it or not - representative of a far higher standard of perception and intellectual honesty than the regulars on Vox's blog, I would say that his narcissism wins over pretty much everything. I mean, the guy has photos of himself with a flaming sword for crying out loud - this does not indicate a healthy mental state.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 22, 2009 7:37 PM
One has to wonder in all that stream-of-consciousness silliness above if perhaps VD and the "Physicist" aren't one and the same.
JC
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 22, 2009 7:50 PM
Aw, I missed "The Physicist"?
Naw, he's not VD, he's a godbot named Gregg.
Hi, Gregg! Debated anybody recently?
How's the plagiarism career going?
Posted by: JackC
|
November 22, 2009 7:56 PM
Thanks Sven. I sure wouldn't know by just reading though. Awful lot of back-patting going on there for it to be some unrelated person ;-)
I'm just peeved that as soon as I present a solid mathematical proof for the non-existence of Dog, a shiny thing shows up.
Just kidding of course.
JC
Posted by: aleph
|
November 22, 2009 9:08 PM
Wait, what?
VD is wicked smaaaht because he predicted the housing bubble "before" anybody else did and that house prices would fall more than "experts" did? As long as the only experts you listen to are Jim Cramer and the Fox News.... ah.
TP, might i suggest a new prophet, nay - spiritual advisor and scientific guru for you to slavishly worship? Goes by the name of Paulson. May just have been even better at the whole property bubble thing, which by your own standards makes him the world's premier scientist.
You, child, are a tool of the most neanderalithic magnitude.
(dumb as a rock, is what i'm saying here)
Sorry for jumping back up to that but the markets have been kicking my ass and I needed a little diversion. Also a mere stockbroker like myself can really comprehend the intricacies of actual science. Which even economists agree economics is not.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 23, 2009 4:34 AM
Oh my god, who on earth did that wanker think he was fooling?
The Physicist? What an insult.
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 24, 2009 7:18 PM
I would pay money to see this