Comments | ogda9871: (без темы)

ogda9871

(Untitled)

Nov 20, 2010 21:59

www.pcawebcast.com/2010debate/

Comments 3

wynterdragon November 22 2010, 04:24:18 UTC

First time seeing Dembski debate. Even being a member of the Discovery Institute, I didn't expect him to be quite as slimy as he is during a debate. He immediately ignores the topic of debate, starts off by saying while Hitchens claims to not believe in god due to lack of evidence and that evil happens, then says that isn't really why... he makes the claim that Hitchens really doesn't believe because he believes in evolution. So he ignores the discussion Hitchens just had, ignores the topic of debate, and begins an ad hominem against Hitchens. So he not only claims that it is either evolution or the Christian god (a usual tactic), but that if Hitchens is wrong, then Dembski is right (a nice false dichotomy). So he then tries to tear down Hitchens' beliefs and evolution (failing miserably, in my opinion ( ... )

wynterdragon November 22 2010, 04:24:40 UTC

Dembski's attack on computer mathematical model's was just stupid. Of course you can make a computer simulate anything. The point of doing simulations isn't to have it do something you know it will, but to program in initial conditions and see what happens, since you are ignorant of the outcome. It is a way of extending our predictive abilities from simple hypotheses to complex ones. When you plug in assumptions of the real world, evolution happens. For him to truly not understand this is astounding, and by itself would be enough for the academic world to shun him and his stupidity ( ... )

ogda9871 November 22 2010, 05:24:41 UTC

I only listened to bits and pieces myself. Hitchens is such an eloquent speaker; he makes it look so easy, barely looking at his notes. Dembski, on the other had, seemed like he was filtering through a narrow, myopic script the whole tune. I could only stand listening to him for so long--a bit after I recognized the ad hominen and false dichotomy shit you noticed. If I kept listening I would have a brain hemorrhage. I loved that the moderator--i.e. preacher of the church--had that knowing smirk of manipulative quackery all over his face the whole time, inviting new church members to the "flock" right before the debate.