"5 minutes of arguments for existence of a creator god and 10 minutes of arguments for its benevolence" turned out to be 15 minutes of whining about how Hitchens and the whole academia are unfair to him and stupid.
I get the impression of desperation in Dembski's words.... I get the feeling that he doesn't really believe his own words, but is sadly in a position of not knowing what else to do... the education system has deserted him: without hanging on to this Discovery Institution garbage.... he'd have nothing to do.
He is right about that though. There is more proof of Jesus than there is of a large majority of historical figures. The only accounts we have of Socrates are Plato's accounts of him.
i mean... who do they give doctorates to, these days, if I, who finished only high school, and refused to study at university, can (and feel irresistible urge to) debunk his every sentence?
"what would tell us that the signals come from intelligent beings and not a random noise"
that they would be a non-pattern. series of prime numbers. it's a perfect non-pattern as in, there are no natural relations between them except that they belong into the same group which is defined by having no natural relations with any other (whole) numbers. a succesion of numbers that is highly improbable to occur naturally because it forms no pattern, but the numbers all belong to one cathegory.
omg... "patterns that are best explained as a products of intelligence"? does this guy know ANYTHING? patterns are never best explained as a products of intelligence. it requires no intelligence at all for patterns to emerge, on the other hand, it requires intelligence to create paternless structure - it is several (math) powers harder to create, and several powers less probable to emerge on its own. go to ted dot com and search for "beautiful math behind ugliest music", RIGHT NOW, derpsky!
I'm not an engineer and i do understand what's going on in the cell, to the detail of how actually molecules are mechanically assembled according to dna (or rna, to be more precise ;)) and how these molecules are assembled into various structures and organelles in the cell.
like this if you hate how christians assume that something is incomprehensible for "average people" just because they can't grasp it (mainly because they've never actually tried).
demsky flamsky...exits...what a moron deeply seriously stupidly i lost my self...
im not seriously educated but what the heck is this moron talking about..
hitchens i understand deeply..
kraparsky is constantly trying to dish hitchens??/ he cant win with arcuments..so he tryes to diss him>? whats that all about..this isnt a rap battle kadamsky..go lay a egg
I like the fact that he uses the movie "Contact" as more or less a documentary to support his theory. The movie contact I believe you'll find in the science fiction section.
oh the old "eyes are complex therefor god" argument - dembski is as pathetic the 'ancient aliens guy'.
all he does is throw ugly ad hominum like a child and use the usual creationist quote mines / false logic i would expect a grown person to drop see through. if any good point is to be made in favor in the creations camp, he has shown non of it.
bleh, Dembski's entire statement is one continuous ad hominem attack against Hitchens, with some fleeting hit-and-run smears against various other authors thrown in.
None of this makes a positive case for theism, let alone Christian theism. If we believe Dembski, Hitchens is wrong, but that does nothing to substantiate Dembski's case.
I hope the children watching this debate have some concept of rhetoric or argument and understand this giant flaw in Dembski's case (that he doesn't have one).
Atheism is not the belief that something can be responsible for the creation of the Universe. The Human mind just can not grasp the concept yet or at all. Science is still very young and it would be ignorant to believe we know everything, on the contrary, we are now understanding how much we don't know about what we don't know. get it...
Hitchens vs Dembski - Epic Rap Battles of History.
On a more serious note. Hitchens talks sense and needs little, if any, help from notes. Dembski tries to criticise Hitchens with little evidence and ruins his own argument in the process. I know who I'm with. Thank Evolution for Hitchens!
Dembski sounds passionless... as if he is just parroting words without believing them. Could it be true that Dembski doesn't believe his own rhetoric?
At 3:57 he basically torches his own theory that a cell is mathematically impossible to form.Being that is why he is even relevant,why didn't just walk off the stage?
By the way, the reason no engineer has ever managed to create technology that is on par with that of cells, is because evolution has had a couple of billion years to work on it :D
What is this 'atheism demands' nonsense?! It's not a political movement or religious movement, it's just people who don't believe in something that they have no reason to even theoretically consider. I'm a very happy Hindu for reasons I see as my own and can't imagine imposing on anyone. I can't help but admire someone who adheres to the necessity of belief through experience. Proof helps, I guess. Nevertheless, atheism 'demands' nothing.
It's of course imperative and interesting to listen to Dembski's argument in this, but I just couldn't wait for him to sit down and for Christopher to start speaking again - It's like music to my ears.
The Cambrian explosion was due to the fact that prior to this time organisms lacked bones and other features which fossilize easily. This doesn't mean organisms suddenly appeared, their predecessors simply were less good at leaving traces of their existence. Dumbski makes it sound as though it occurred in an afternoon. it actually occurred over the course of 70-80 million years. Which is an afternoon in evolutionary time (æons to us). Dumbski's ignorance and lack of perspicacity astounds me.
I can't believe this guy went straight for all the most overdone and cliche'd argument, Hitch must have been shaking his head and groaning the whole time.
To briefly condense and paraphrase Dembski's intellectual argument: Christopher Hitchens is a meany atheist poopy head and nobody should listen to him.
I wouldn't care that Dembski just reads from notes the entire time, if what he read was at all intellectual, relevant, or substantive. Unfortunately for him, his case is fundamentally worthless.
I find it hard to believe Hitchens could beat any scientist in a debate. He must have resorted to insulting religion or some other crap as usual. Hitchens is not informed in the relevant science and he always says he would defer to more informed scientists.
What do you mean "He must have"? Didn't you watch it? Or did you just swing by, leave a comment and make a swift escape? Hitchens doesn't even speak in this clip, so I hope you have at least watched the other parts.
What the hell is Dembski talking about. Hes just keeps trying to disprove and degrade hitchens as oppose to trying to prove the existence of god. And stop reading straight from your notes, have you ever done an oral presentation? awful.
"My career went down the toilet and I can no longer get a job in the mainstream academic world." That should be a big red flag to anyone who takes this guy seriously.
Dembski is embarrassingly weak. I am SO HAPPY that they invited 7th-graders to see this. I wish that I could have been exposed to something like this when I was in 7th grade.
Wow, does Demski have any thoughts of his own which he can express without reading them from a page? His side thus far is little more than making comments and then justifying them by naming a book which backs up the point without actually offering any information during the speech. Not only does this fail in the format of a debate, it is intolerably boring.
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. There are atheists who don't believe that evolution is true, and that they don't know the process behind their own existence or of that of our species. What a retard. It just so happens without the pressures of religion, you can see evolution is backed heavily with evidence.
Dembski's argument is so ignorant that i could begin to explain how he is so wrong without having to write several 500 character comments, he fails to go through the evolution of the eye whatsoever and just takes the eye for what it is at this moment in time, and ignores the millions of years of evolution it has been through to get to this point.
Not trying to sound biased, but Dembski is putting me to sleep. He rambles on and jumps from topic to topic I can't tell what he's trying to get at. Then he starts blabbing about the work he's done...what the hell????
I find the lack of intelligence and flawed logic really grating. Its so obvious they were indoctrinated as a child and have lapped it up ever since. By adulthood they are completly brainwashed and totally useless to society.
Atheism is the most sensible position to take because it's based on heavily scrutinised scientific evidence and obsersation. As a species....science is the best thing we have. Its also the ONLY thing we have.
He just says the same argument, from ignorance, witch has been disproved hundreds of times (the argument from complexity) and complains of why they don´t support his religious doctrine. You know why science doesn´t support him? it doesn´t support him, because when we see a rock, we don´t see a giant invisible hand molding it in whatever shape it is.
my biggest problem with trying to prove religious faith with science is the fact when there's a lack of evidence a scientist would say "we have no evidence, so we can have no idea how this happened." while a religious person will say "we have no evidence, thus it must be the work of god." which is a a very weak comment at best. which Dembski actually claimed in this talk, i have difficulty understanding this lack of logic in such a subject.
The definition of H.I.T.C.H.E.N.S. is: Hitchens Is The Champion; He Ends Nonsensical Stupidity. And because his name is part of the definition of him, it is a perfect, infinite circle. Very fitting for the god he is.
Did anyone know that my Mac is atheistic? It is, because it doesn't require God to make it work. Darwinian evolution cannot be described as atheistic simply because it does not invoke God to make it work.
If theism states that God designed us, He must have done so benevolently, could Dembski care to explain to me the benevolent origins of river blindness and bone cancer in children.
Did anyone note the flaw in Dembski's argument video 3 that states Atheism requires Evolution and Darwinism to support the existence of Humanity on the planet? Dawkins, specifically quoted, and Hitchens presumably accept the very improbable possibility that humanity was seeded on the planet by an alternative life form. Dawkins rejects this notion as statistically improbable, but NOTE, this does not require Darwinistic evolution to be true on Earth, but does require it to explain the seeders.
@colinb890 Are you being serious? You have the burden of proof. You have made the claim that a god exists, therefore you have the burden of proof. We Atheists just dont believe your claim because we havent seen ANY reliable evidence or heard a decent argument in favor of gods existence. and allegedly refuted WLC? you clearly havent researched this one bit, as i predicted. Unless you are willing to make a genuine argument instead of pointing at other apologists this conversation is over.
@colinb890 First off, i dont think you are in the right mind to mention brainwashing when clearly you are a victim of that, and really? do you think im going to spend time looking at every argument that WLC has made just to refute them and you to ignore the fact i have done so. instead i'd say this, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! Matt Dillahunty has refuted many of his arguments, Aronra has done others. but i know you wont do this as you're in your little theist bubble. have fun.
At least Dempski is now using the words devine creation instead of I.D. all the time. Notice how Hitchens talks to the audience and Dempski reads prepared notes.
Dembski's talk is one of the most deplorable examples of scientific inaccuracy, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and misunderstanding that I have ever seen or heard. And I've seen William Lane Craig debate 'the plausibility of Intelligent Design' so that's saying something.
Is this guy shitting me? That is exactly what science is. How the hell would science work if it were not cumulative? If it were not cumulative why is one of the most important parts of scientific inquiry a review of previous literature? In literally all fields of science this is one of the first steps a person takes before any serious undertaking.
@smitlan0616 It's not named after Jesus either. B.C.E. is "Before the Common Era." Anno Domini is for the uneducated and Braveheart fans. Thankfully, though slowly, we're filtering the Jesus out of the landscape of knowledge, as "he" is a direct contradiction to the nature of the content.
"If you are an atheist [evolution] is your only option" Uh, duh? I mean, it's not that atheism has science as a requirement, but if you want an evidence based methodology, science is the way to go.
"If you are an atheist [evolution] is your only option" Uh, duh? I mean, it's not that atheism has science as a requirement, but if you want an evidence based methodology, science is the way to go.
@colinb890 Non-belief is the starting point for ANY claim. That's why I suggested you start as an atheist then jump to theism if you find proper evidence. As to the rest of your argument, you're assuming way too much. For example; what if the cause was not concious? If something unconscious created the Universe, it had no volition because it had no volition to give. Your statement that creation requires volition is simply wrong. Also; be agnostic to aliens, do not base an argument on them :P
@colinb890 Non-belief is the starting point for ANY claim. That's why I suggested you start as an atheist then jump to theism if you find proper evidence. As to the rest of your argument, you're assuming way too much. For example; what if the cause was not concious? If something unconscious created the Universe, it had no volition because it had no volition to give. Your statement that creation requires volition is simply wrong. Also; be agnostic to aliens, do not base an argument on them :P
@colinb890 Ahhh, the prime mover argument, first put forward by Thomas Aquainas. Tell me...if this prime mover is god, how do you jump to "god" being conscious, all-powerful etc? A cause is not a god. The cause could be something in the Quanta (as some physicists have speculated). You have a confirmation bias. If you're truly in search of the truth, I suggest you start from atheism and find the holes in these paltry arguments. That's why I argue with theists, btw :P I wanna be proved wrong.
"..is contrarian sillyness. [moves on]" What? I'm sorry, sir, you can't just assert someone's wrong and then not state WHY. This is going to be a long 10 videos....
"To say god created then left would be pointless and portray this god as being arbitrary, or whimsical. "
and yet, to say anything else is to make an argument from pure ignorance. It is possible an intelligent creator is responsible but there is no evidence to support the assertion, we have no knowledge of anything outside our universe after all.
I will agree that Hitchens lost his debate with Craig, but only on a point-scoring basis... whether or not Craig was right or not was never in question. No theist can present a sound argument for their beliefs using logic, reason and evidence, and that most certainly goes for Craig as well. Sadly there is no good argument for theism... deism is much more reasonable but is ultimately pointless.
@colinb890 "I love watching an atheists eyes well up with tears as their world view becomes shattered, and they are left dis-illusioned with their bankrupt world view" - Excellent use of projection. Does that then make you a masochist?
@colinb890 "I love watching an atheists eyes well up with tears as their world view becomes shattered, and they are left dis-illusioned with their bankrupt world view" - Excellent use of projection. Does that then make you a masochist?
@colinb890 Hahahaha! Craig has never shredded Hitchens. Craig is an obvious liar and a terrible person. He's everything that is wrong with his evil superstition.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an entire book on the Pre Camrbrian explosion called Wonderful life. He also explained it in terms of evolution. Dembski is just being disingenuous.
Absolute dick. Doesn't even know anything about what he is talking about, as he has read every word from notes. Hitchens however... no notes at all and also makes sense.
So, a guy who lauds Demski for his work condemns him later and Dembski's response is "He's just got an idealogoy." Perhaps your work is nonsensical and silly. Maybe you're wrong. Has that crossed your mind? Are people not hiring you because of an idealology or are they not hiring you because you demonstrate that you're a twit? It seems Dembski cannot face the reality that his work is flawed and silly and it reflects poorly on him.
This debate is a very strange one indeed, Dembski isn't debating Hitchens, Dembski is debating out of context. Hitchens introduction is very straight forward and makes very few or close to none references to evolution. Every well reputed evolutionary biologist could refute all of Dembskis false claims with elegant scientific arguments. But this, evidently, isn't Hitchens field. If Dembski, as he appearantly does, wants to argue these matters, he should debate Richard Dawkins instead of Hitchens.
@merykwalker I totally agree with you, my point was merely that Dembski isn't debating Hitchens in this case. Dawkins would surely crush Dembski's quasi arguments in no time.
I think it's hilarious that Dembski lists a bunch of things claiming science doesn't know the answer. He just disregards scientific study and tells people "They don't even know how the EYE works! lmao. Praise Jesus", when the evolution of the eye isn't even that hard to understand.
Amazing how so many people who believe in a god think that those who believe in aliens are crazy! It seems to me that choosing to believe in something that can't be proved or disproved like a god or aliens is a cop out for ego centric people with lazy minds who seem frightened of the unknowable, an example of the unknowable being - "what happens after our bodies die?"
Dembski is such a cunt. In one context he says evolution is obviously true but that God, or aliens, might guide it, (intelligent design) the next moment he says "the evidence for evolution is so underwhelming." What a dishonest, disingenuous prick douche.
Hitchen's arguments are not sophisticated when you peel away the British accent and wit. Mostly he has a kind of "fannish" following, but his ideas and philosophy are not good arguments against God.
@jubal66 what an ignorant quote, we didn't know where the sun went at night or that the world was flat but guess what your not dumb enough to beleive that God makes the sun go away or that the world is flat anymore,thanks to Science . To say God did something because Science can;t prove it is just stupid and so are you, and so is Dr. Dumbski
Demski's opening argument is the single worst presentation that I've ever heard on this subject. I can't even begin to decide which of his statements to dissect first. Literally every other sentence is incorrect or misleading in some way. I haven't yet figured out if he is intentionally being dishonest or if he's really that ignorant.
I hate it when there's a debate and one of the debaters argument is simply attempting to disenfranchise their opponent instead of simply making their point. I like Hitchens because his arguments are independent of whoever his opponent, but focus more on the topic itself.
I have a game we all can play. How many logical fallacies does Dembski make? For every one you detect, take a sip of beer. The major fallacies Dembski engages in is "Begging the Question" or circular reasoning for his own content and "strawman argument" in his treatment of Hitchen's, Darwin's or scientific content in general.
How Abosurd - A man (dembski) that claims to be a scientist - says there is no evidence for evolution - wow. he is not a scientist - he is a preacher. plan and simp
"5 minutes of arguments for existence of a creator god and 10 minutes of arguments for its benevolence" turned out to be 15 minutes of whining about how Hitchens and the whole academia are unfair to him and stupid.
27182818284590452354 1 day ago
I get the impression of desperation in Dembski's words.... I get the feeling that he doesn't really believe his own words, but is sadly in a position of not knowing what else to do... the education system has deserted him: without hanging on to this Discovery Institution garbage.... he'd have nothing to do.
hawkinscraig05 4 days ago
He is right about that though. There is more proof of Jesus than there is of a large majority of historical figures. The only accounts we have of Socrates are Plato's accounts of him.
12Ominous 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They should have got someone better. Craig or Lennox are good apologists.
12Ominous 5 days ago
Comment removed
12Ominous 5 days ago
Chemical evolution? What is that?
Ilicium 1 week ago
i mean... who do they give doctorates to, these days, if I, who finished only high school, and refused to study at university, can (and feel irresistible urge to) debunk his every sentence?
MidnightSt 1 week ago in playlist Hitchens Dembski Debate Nov 2010
"what would tell us that the signals come from intelligent beings and not a random noise"
that they would be a non-pattern. series of prime numbers. it's a perfect non-pattern as in, there are no natural relations between them except that they belong into the same group which is defined by having no natural relations with any other (whole) numbers. a succesion of numbers that is highly improbable to occur naturally because it forms no pattern, but the numbers all belong to one cathegory.
MidnightSt 1 week ago in playlist Hitchens Dembski Debate Nov 2010
omg... "patterns that are best explained as a products of intelligence"? does this guy know ANYTHING? patterns are never best explained as a products of intelligence. it requires no intelligence at all for patterns to emerge, on the other hand, it requires intelligence to create paternless structure - it is several (math) powers harder to create, and several powers less probable to emerge on its own. go to ted dot com and search for "beautiful math behind ugliest music", RIGHT NOW, derpsky!
MidnightSt 1 week ago in playlist Hitchens Dembski Debate Nov 2010
I'm not an engineer and i do understand what's going on in the cell, to the detail of how actually molecules are mechanically assembled according to dna (or rna, to be more precise ;)) and how these molecules are assembled into various structures and organelles in the cell.
like this if you hate how christians assume that something is incomprehensible for "average people" just because they can't grasp it (mainly because they've never actually tried).
MidnightSt 1 week ago in playlist Hitchens Dembski Debate Nov 2010 2
demsky flamsky...exits...what a moron deeply seriously stupidly i lost my self...
im not seriously educated but what the heck is this moron talking about..
hitchens i understand deeply..
kraparsky is constantly trying to dish hitchens??/ he cant win with arcuments..so he tryes to diss him>? whats that all about..this isnt a rap battle kadamsky..go lay a egg
opiated666 1 week ago in playlist Meer video's van PrestonwoodCowards
cant he say something that hassent been written down ?
opiated666 1 week ago in playlist Meer video's van PrestonwoodCowards
I like the fact that he uses the movie "Contact" as more or less a documentary to support his theory. The movie contact I believe you'll find in the science fiction section.
Brengmathew 1 week ago
and for the love of god: "science is not an accumulative enterprise"
i am utterly speechless.
JaJDoo 2 weeks ago
oh the old "eyes are complex therefor god" argument - dembski is as pathetic the 'ancient aliens guy'.
all he does is throw ugly ad hominum like a child and use the usual creationist quote mines / false logic i would expect a grown person to drop see through. if any good point is to be made in favor in the creations camp, he has shown non of it.
JaJDoo 2 weeks ago
Anyone else want to seriously punch Demsky in the mouth? :P
KamasutraButterfly 4 weeks ago
bleh, Dembski's entire statement is one continuous ad hominem attack against Hitchens, with some fleeting hit-and-run smears against various other authors thrown in.
None of this makes a positive case for theism, let alone Christian theism. If we believe Dembski, Hitchens is wrong, but that does nothing to substantiate Dembski's case.
I hope the children watching this debate have some concept of rhetoric or argument and understand this giant flaw in Dembski's case (that he doesn't have one).
jjjooommm222 1 month ago 2
what is with the tone of Dr Dembski...? Do religious have to speak in that tone to win a debate??
Tracy8509 1 month ago
"Ideology infects this debate." You said it!
naimamusique 1 month ago
Hilarious of Dembski to mention Carl Sagan's contact.... Sagan spent a large percentage of his life arguing against this garbage.
hawkinscraig05 1 month ago
If you want to prove to children that Intelligent Design is nonsense.... send them to this video. Dembski makes one cringe with embarrassment.
hawkinscraig05 1 month ago
"Mathematical models can be used to prove anything, in which case they prove nothing"
Similarly,
God can be used to prove anything. Need I continue?
Zotoaster 1 month ago
Atheism is not the belief that something can be responsible for the creation of the Universe. The Human mind just can not grasp the concept yet or at all. Science is still very young and it would be ignorant to believe we know everything, on the contrary, we are now understanding how much we don't know about what we don't know. get it...
TubularTNT 1 month ago
Dembski FORCED the limits of ignorance in this debate.
crimsoncrazyable 1 month ago
Hitchens vs Dembski - Epic Rap Battles of History.
On a more serious note. Hitchens talks sense and needs little, if any, help from notes. Dembski tries to criticise Hitchens with little evidence and ruins his own argument in the process. I know who I'm with. Thank Evolution for Hitchens!
austinjames666 1 month ago
dumbski=SNORE.
jjoutlaw82 1 month ago
In Dembski's bizarre world, Darwinism and atheism are synonyms.
hawkinscraig05 1 month ago 2
Dembski sounds passionless... as if he is just parroting words without believing them. Could it be true that Dembski doesn't believe his own rhetoric?
hawkinscraig05 1 month ago
I don't know whether to "dislike" this video because Dembski sucks so bad, or "like" this video because Dembski sucks so bad.
roboticarmspress 1 month ago
At 3:57 he basically torches his own theory that a cell is mathematically impossible to form.Being that is why he is even relevant,why didn't just walk off the stage?
yourfullofsheite 2 months ago
9:20 he's effectively saying go watch some youtube coz my argument is a load of boring shit!
IIRocKnRoLLaII 2 months ago
By the way, the reason no engineer has ever managed to create technology that is on par with that of cells, is because evolution has had a couple of billion years to work on it :D
DrVoldemort 2 months ago
I cannot understand why anyone refutes evolution anymore.
DrVoldemort 2 months ago
It's really boring watching/listening to someone read out loud.
vidigod 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Wait, Junk DNA regulates gene expression?
All of it doesn't! Only a few sequences do! There's still a lot of Junk DNA that does absolutely nothing!
mavriksfan11 2 months ago
Wow, when he started talking about the eyes I thought "what is the fucking relevance of this point?".
Well, the rest of his speech was the same anyway
therunningtap 2 months ago
When is Dembski going to stop talking?
spudder456 2 months ago
I hate how he talks like he thinks he's so clever and smug. It makes me want to scratch his eyes out.
raichutoyou 2 months ago
He's got a point: You should watch Contact. But know that Sagan was not a believer.
ReX342 2 months ago
@ReX342 Not true, he was agnostic
spudder456 2 months ago
What is this 'atheism demands' nonsense?! It's not a political movement or religious movement, it's just people who don't believe in something that they have no reason to even theoretically consider. I'm a very happy Hindu for reasons I see as my own and can't imagine imposing on anyone. I can't help but admire someone who adheres to the necessity of belief through experience. Proof helps, I guess. Nevertheless, atheism 'demands' nothing.
ntr10me 2 months ago 3
It's of course imperative and interesting to listen to Dembski's argument in this, but I just couldn't wait for him to sit down and for Christopher to start speaking again - It's like music to my ears.
HarryCrowder1 2 months ago
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE
benhamin91 2 months ago 6
The Cambrian explosion was due to the fact that prior to this time organisms lacked bones and other features which fossilize easily. This doesn't mean organisms suddenly appeared, their predecessors simply were less good at leaving traces of their existence. Dumbski makes it sound as though it occurred in an afternoon. it actually occurred over the course of 70-80 million years. Which is an afternoon in evolutionary time (æons to us). Dumbski's ignorance and lack of perspicacity astounds me.
Lolyusomadbro 2 months ago in playlist More videos from PrestonwoodCowards 4
"To say ... that Jesus is 'not a historical figure' is contrary and silliness."
OK. Got some evidence that he was, in fact, a historical figure? The burden of proof is on you, guy. And the Bible doesn't count.
LuckilyHeDied 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 4
"His atheism demands a materialistic form of evolution..."
Um, no, it doesn't. Atheism and the scientific theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. Nice try, though.
LuckilyHeDied 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 3
Ah the inverted retina... This guy isn't seriously trying to use this to make a case for intelligent design?!
What! blood supply? For all anyone would know, both the nerves and blood vessels should be behind the photoreceptors!
Glial cells are like fiber-optic plates used for low distortion image transfer?! With MINIMAL, NOT ZERO, distortion and LOW, NOT NO, loss.
Oh your god Dumbski!!!
He then states that the inverted retina ascribes a new function to the glial cells. WTF!!! He must be a troll!
shade9592 2 months ago 2
I can't believe this guy went straight for all the most overdone and cliche'd argument, Hitch must have been shaking his head and groaning the whole time.
TheFounderUtopia 2 months ago 3
such a huge lack of self confidence, poor guy
63M1N1 2 months ago
utter nonsense
SEEANDPEA 2 months ago
Ugh, this "Dumbski" gives no original arguments. Everything he says has been shot down multiple times.
WolfgangBrozart 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"...while I drone on here...", understatement of the millenia.
chicagonative17 2 months ago
I wonder if any students of the Christian Academy *face-palmed* while Dembski opened his mouth.
chicagonative17 2 months ago
Here is what atheists have to adhere to:
Lack of belief in a deity.
NOTHING.
ELSE.
IS.
MANDATORY.
TitaniumTicTac 2 months ago 4
To briefly condense and paraphrase Dembski's intellectual argument: Christopher Hitchens is a meany atheist poopy head and nobody should listen to him.
ಠ_ಠ
teezhay 2 months ago in playlist hitchslapped 2
I wouldn't care that Dembski just reads from notes the entire time, if what he read was at all intellectual, relevant, or substantive. Unfortunately for him, his case is fundamentally worthless.
teezhay 2 months ago in playlist hitchslapped
I'm now convinced Dembski is an undercover Russian agent, sent to retardize Americans.
Fusengammu 3 months ago
I find it hard to believe Hitchens could beat any scientist in a debate. He must have resorted to insulting religion or some other crap as usual. Hitchens is not informed in the relevant science and he always says he would defer to more informed scientists.
semitope 3 months ago
@semitope
What do you mean "He must have"? Didn't you watch it? Or did you just swing by, leave a comment and make a swift escape? Hitchens doesn't even speak in this clip, so I hope you have at least watched the other parts.
trekgeek1 3 months ago
LOL...Dumbski I guess thinks he disproved evolution.
Reip187 3 months ago
What the hell is Dembski talking about. Hes just keeps trying to disprove and degrade hitchens as oppose to trying to prove the existence of god. And stop reading straight from your notes, have you ever done an oral presentation? awful.
JaredJMyers 3 months ago
Did he just use the movie Contact to support his arguments? lol
clovis86 3 months ago
See 13:03 for the bit where Dembski says he can no longer get a job and the audience applauding is muted. (There's a thump sound.)
lazycackle 3 months ago
9:27, yes, your droning on.
MJ4coheed 3 months ago
The Craig vs Hitchens debate was far more entertaining than this in my opinion.
blondetrumpetboy 3 months ago
I think I just evolved during his opening speech.
dirtleg27 3 months ago
"My career went down the toilet and I can no longer get a job in the mainstream academic world." That should be a big red flag to anyone who takes this guy seriously.
RyuHadokenMaster 3 months ago 54
@RyuHadokenMaster You seem to be missing the whole point of the statement and the debate.
Dembski said that he was getting very positive reviews, however once he applied it into science is when people began disrespecting him.
Probably because much like you they did not give him a chance.
SyrJirk 1 month ago
oh my...... why did they let this retard try and take on hitchens.
trikstarik 3 months ago 3
Dembski is embarrassingly weak. I am SO HAPPY that they invited 7th-graders to see this. I wish that I could have been exposed to something like this when I was in 7th grade.
NickInDetroit 3 months ago 40
Wow, does Demski have any thoughts of his own which he can express without reading them from a page? His side thus far is little more than making comments and then justifying them by naming a book which backs up the point without actually offering any information during the speech. Not only does this fail in the format of a debate, it is intolerably boring.
kwagmirewagner 3 months ago 2
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. There are atheists who don't believe that evolution is true, and that they don't know the process behind their own existence or of that of our species. What a retard. It just so happens without the pressures of religion, you can see evolution is backed heavily with evidence.
1992jamo 3 months ago
Thanks for the upload(s). This segment is just silly. "Dr." Dembski is a buffoon...
SirHardcoreMusic 3 months ago
Dembski's argument is so ignorant that i could begin to explain how he is so wrong without having to write several 500 character comments, he fails to go through the evolution of the eye whatsoever and just takes the eye for what it is at this moment in time, and ignores the millions of years of evolution it has been through to get to this point.
grantburrell 4 months ago
Not trying to sound biased, but Dembski is putting me to sleep. He rambles on and jumps from topic to topic I can't tell what he's trying to get at. Then he starts blabbing about the work he's done...what the hell????
neoyokokurama25 4 months ago
Honestly, religious folk like this send me nuts.
I find the lack of intelligence and flawed logic really grating. Its so obvious they were indoctrinated as a child and have lapped it up ever since. By adulthood they are completly brainwashed and totally useless to society.
Atheism is the most sensible position to take because it's based on heavily scrutinised scientific evidence and obsersation. As a species....science is the best thing we have. Its also the ONLY thing we have.
DIGITALSCREAMS 4 months ago
He just says the same argument, from ignorance, witch has been disproved hundreds of times (the argument from complexity) and complains of why they don´t support his religious doctrine. You know why science doesn´t support him? it doesn´t support him, because when we see a rock, we don´t see a giant invisible hand molding it in whatever shape it is.
Psity 4 months ago
Demsky made my irony meter explode
johnalton22 4 months ago
my biggest problem with trying to prove religious faith with science is the fact when there's a lack of evidence a scientist would say "we have no evidence, so we can have no idea how this happened." while a religious person will say "we have no evidence, thus it must be the work of god." which is a a very weak comment at best. which Dembski actually claimed in this talk, i have difficulty understanding this lack of logic in such a subject.
Devoti 4 months ago
Contact was a boring and shitty movie.
Kn1gHtMaRe00 4 months ago
Jesus is not a historical figure.... Nothing recorded of him on his own time. It was all created by Paul - 50!!!! years later!!! :)
But there was gilgamesh, herakles, etc... with almost the exact same story!
MrPapempo 4 months ago
@colinb890 I don't believe in fairy tales, so I can't prove that they exist!
You can replace "god" ine every argument you make with "magic fairy" and it's not going to make a difference..... Because they are both imaginary!
MrPapempo 4 months ago
The definition of H.I.T.C.H.E.N.S. is: Hitchens Is The Champion; He Ends Nonsensical Stupidity. And because his name is part of the definition of him, it is a perfect, infinite circle. Very fitting for the god he is.
whauffend 4 months ago
he said there was proof that jesus existed then moves on? i NEVER heard of those evidence so PLZ tell me what they are!
ErgoProxy12345 4 months ago
The Christian drones on and reads from a script. At least he is candid enough to admit he cant get a mainstream job.
Why can't Christians send someone more intelligent to debate?
Klash92 4 months ago 2
@Klash92 I wasn't aware that Christians had any intelligent debaters.
HKOverlord117 4 months ago
Did anyone know that my Mac is atheistic? It is, because it doesn't require God to make it work. Darwinian evolution cannot be described as atheistic simply because it does not invoke God to make it work.
If theism states that God designed us, He must have done so benevolently, could Dembski care to explain to me the benevolent origins of river blindness and bone cancer in children.
ardendogma 4 months ago
Reading from a script... FAIL.
OwensTV 4 months ago 2
Did anyone note the flaw in Dembski's argument video 3 that states Atheism requires Evolution and Darwinism to support the existence of Humanity on the planet? Dawkins, specifically quoted, and Hitchens presumably accept the very improbable possibility that humanity was seeded on the planet by an alternative life form. Dawkins rejects this notion as statistically improbable, but NOTE, this does not require Darwinistic evolution to be true on Earth, but does require it to explain the seeders.
hansenchristopherj 4 months ago
@colinb890 Are you being serious? You have the burden of proof. You have made the claim that a god exists, therefore you have the burden of proof. We Atheists just dont believe your claim because we havent seen ANY reliable evidence or heard a decent argument in favor of gods existence. and allegedly refuted WLC? you clearly havent researched this one bit, as i predicted. Unless you are willing to make a genuine argument instead of pointing at other apologists this conversation is over.
AtheistAutopsy 4 months ago
@colinb890 First off, i dont think you are in the right mind to mention brainwashing when clearly you are a victim of that, and really? do you think im going to spend time looking at every argument that WLC has made just to refute them and you to ignore the fact i have done so. instead i'd say this, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! Matt Dillahunty has refuted many of his arguments, Aronra has done others. but i know you wont do this as you're in your little theist bubble. have fun.
AtheistAutopsy 4 months ago
@colinb890 William lane craig is a terrible debater, his arguments have been refuted many times and he misrepresents every 'fact' he sources.
AtheistAutopsy 4 months ago
Hitchens tried to state his views at a level the high school and younger audience could understand. Dembski was giving a college lecture.
mvanroy 4 months ago in playlist Hitchens-Dembski Debate Nov 2010
Comment removed
mafiotzi 4 months ago
At least Dempski is now using the words devine creation instead of I.D. all the time. Notice how Hitchens talks to the audience and Dempski reads prepared notes.
momentofsciencetx 5 months ago 2
I think I've found a cure for insomnia...
kjafla 5 months ago 2
Cool!... both of them are using Nature to discredit one another..
ytany84 5 months ago
If you agree with Dr. Dembski that ID is not re branded creationism, check out Eugenie Scott's lecture, showing that it is exactly that.
Chemical evolution proved Abiogenesis. DR. Szostak
kelbykross1 5 months ago
Comment removed
kelbykross1 5 months ago
Comment removed
kelbykross1 5 months ago
Wow. This guy thinks he's funny. He laughs at his own jokes, but he can't even get a friendly audience to laugh.
evanakm 5 months ago
Jesus really is not an historical figure. It is so sad all those Christians adore an imaginary friend
ericjhemp 5 months ago
Dembski's talk is one of the most deplorable examples of scientific inaccuracy, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and misunderstanding that I have ever seen or heard. And I've seen William Lane Craig debate 'the plausibility of Intelligent Design' so that's saying something.
willmore302 5 months ago
so, so much bull shit
zooryanzoo123 5 months ago in playlist More videos from PrestonwoodCowards
"Science is not a cumulative enterprise."
Is this guy shitting me? That is exactly what science is. How the hell would science work if it were not cumulative? If it were not cumulative why is one of the most important parts of scientific inquiry a review of previous literature? In literally all fields of science this is one of the first steps a person takes before any serious undertaking.
MrJturner 5 months ago
Jesus Wins btw , time doesn't seem to be named after Darwin. >.<
smitlan0616 5 months ago
@smitlan0616 It's not named after Jesus either. B.C.E. is "Before the Common Era." Anno Domini is for the uneducated and Braveheart fans. Thankfully, though slowly, we're filtering the Jesus out of the landscape of knowledge, as "he" is a direct contradiction to the nature of the content.
Ematched 5 months ago
In a debate about god, dembski talks about hitchens. It's an easy mistake to make....
morningstomper123 5 months ago
This guy is stupid. I couldn't debate him because of facepalm spasms
jrlmenezes1 5 months ago
lmao "bring up your PDAS and look up youtubes"
dantemagnum 5 months ago in playlist Hitchens-Dembski Debate Nov 2010
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you are an atheist [evolution] is your only option" Uh, duh? I mean, it's not that atheism has science as a requirement, but if you want an evidence based methodology, science is the way to go.
nintfjr 5 months ago
"If you are an atheist [evolution] is your only option" Uh, duh? I mean, it's not that atheism has science as a requirement, but if you want an evidence based methodology, science is the way to go.
nintfjr 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890 Non-belief is the starting point for ANY claim. That's why I suggested you start as an atheist then jump to theism if you find proper evidence. As to the rest of your argument, you're assuming way too much. For example; what if the cause was not concious? If something unconscious created the Universe, it had no volition because it had no volition to give. Your statement that creation requires volition is simply wrong. Also; be agnostic to aliens, do not base an argument on them :P
Darthmas2242 5 months ago
@colinb890 Non-belief is the starting point for ANY claim. That's why I suggested you start as an atheist then jump to theism if you find proper evidence. As to the rest of your argument, you're assuming way too much. For example; what if the cause was not concious? If something unconscious created the Universe, it had no volition because it had no volition to give. Your statement that creation requires volition is simply wrong. Also; be agnostic to aliens, do not base an argument on them :P
Darthmas2242 5 months ago
@colinb890 Ahhh, the prime mover argument, first put forward by Thomas Aquainas. Tell me...if this prime mover is god, how do you jump to "god" being conscious, all-powerful etc? A cause is not a god. The cause could be something in the Quanta (as some physicists have speculated). You have a confirmation bias. If you're truly in search of the truth, I suggest you start from atheism and find the holes in these paltry arguments. That's why I argue with theists, btw :P I wanna be proved wrong.
Darthmas2242 5 months ago
"..is contrarian sillyness. [moves on]" What? I'm sorry, sir, you can't just assert someone's wrong and then not state WHY. This is going to be a long 10 videos....
JustAnotherHumanist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"To say god created then left would be pointless and portray this god as being arbitrary, or whimsical. "
and yet, to say anything else is to make an argument from pure ignorance. It is possible an intelligent creator is responsible but there is no evidence to support the assertion, we have no knowledge of anything outside our universe after all.
TheTexanCanadian 5 months ago
@colinb890
I will agree that Hitchens lost his debate with Craig, but only on a point-scoring basis... whether or not Craig was right or not was never in question. No theist can present a sound argument for their beliefs using logic, reason and evidence, and that most certainly goes for Craig as well. Sadly there is no good argument for theism... deism is much more reasonable but is ultimately pointless.
TheTexanCanadian 5 months ago
@colinb890 "I love watching an atheists eyes well up with tears as their world view becomes shattered, and they are left dis-illusioned with their bankrupt world view" - Excellent use of projection. Does that then make you a masochist?
TheLuckySaGe 5 months ago
@colinb890 "I love watching an atheists eyes well up with tears as their world view becomes shattered, and they are left dis-illusioned with their bankrupt world view" - Excellent use of projection. Does that then make you a masochist?
TheLuckySaGe 5 months ago
the way dembski presents his argument is like a below average 5th grader. And this guy is grown up! WTF
TheLuckySaGe 5 months ago
@colinb890 Hahahaha! Craig has never shredded Hitchens. Craig is an obvious liar and a terrible person. He's everything that is wrong with his evil superstition.
odge99 5 months ago 2
Is Dembski saying that because religious belief is ambiguous it is therefore more likely?
chilled99 5 months ago
@colinb890
very funny. made my day
Cromwell523 5 months ago
Can't believe Dembski's still trying to pretend ID isn't really Creationism after the 'Of Pandas and People' debacle during the Dover trial.
(Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 2004-2005)
MrBillyconcarne 5 months ago
yawn!
benaberry 5 months ago
Who comes to a debate and reads off a paper verbatim? Apparently intellectually weak creationists.
CrimsonFlameRTR 5 months ago
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an entire book on the Pre Camrbrian explosion called Wonderful life. He also explained it in terms of evolution. Dembski is just being disingenuous.
zapkvr 5 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1
if you mute this audio, open up a new tab, and play an inconvenient truth, it sounds more interesting.
MrMrPWN 5 months ago
Dembski = unemployable nut job!!!
SissingPyd 5 months ago
4:30 Dembski: 'I know what you're all thinking.'
—Was anyone ever more out of touch with what his audience was thinking.
TheraminTrees 5 months ago 10
He just decides to go off on a rant on how he's supposedly been treated unfairly in the scientific community?
Great speaker.
SlaughterMeister 5 months ago 4
13:04 - 13:15 hahahhahahahha way to defend yourself.
Zlibservacratican 5 months ago
Your designer created a man from dust and his wife out of his rib bone. how innovative
espakor 5 months ago
*a wild Dembski appears*
Hitchens - I choose you!
Hitch-Hitch!
*Dembski uses intelligent design gobblygook*
*Dembski misses*
Hitchens - Use educated intelligence and scientific evidence!
*It's super effective*
*Dembski has fainted*
theVIIStar 5 months ago 30
Absolute dick. Doesn't even know anything about what he is talking about, as he has read every word from notes. Hitchens however... no notes at all and also makes sense.
MrStevieNicholl 5 months ago
This guy is horrendously boring. I wanna kill myself already.
theenglishteacher33 5 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 God didn't hire him.
FlawlessCock 5 months ago
14:46, do yourself a favor.
torontoBluejays87 5 months ago
So, a guy who lauds Demski for his work condemns him later and Dembski's response is "He's just got an idealogoy." Perhaps your work is nonsensical and silly. Maybe you're wrong. Has that crossed your mind? Are people not hiring you because of an idealology or are they not hiring you because you demonstrate that you're a twit? It seems Dembski cannot face the reality that his work is flawed and silly and it reflects poorly on him.
Rundvelt 5 months ago 2
@AstronomyGuru1 He committed the ultimate debate-floor sin: reading verbatim.
jemidai 5 months ago
This debate is a very strange one indeed, Dembski isn't debating Hitchens, Dembski is debating out of context. Hitchens introduction is very straight forward and makes very few or close to none references to evolution. Every well reputed evolutionary biologist could refute all of Dembskis false claims with elegant scientific arguments. But this, evidently, isn't Hitchens field. If Dembski, as he appearantly does, wants to argue these matters, he should debate Richard Dawkins instead of Hitchens.
HCrss 5 months ago
@HCrss Dembski isn't quite qualified to debate Richard Dawkins.
merykwalker 5 months ago
@merykwalker I totally agree with you, my point was merely that Dembski isn't debating Hitchens in this case. Dawkins would surely crush Dembski's quasi arguments in no time.
HCrss 5 months ago
@merykwalker "Dembski isn't quite qualified to debate Richard Dawkins" From appearences he's not ready for Hitch either
davidsfriend01 5 months ago 3
@davidsfriend01 Touche
merykwalker 5 months ago
I think it's hilarious that Dembski lists a bunch of things claiming science doesn't know the answer. He just disregards scientific study and tells people "They don't even know how the EYE works! lmao. Praise Jesus", when the evolution of the eye isn't even that hard to understand.
OshiSeven 5 months ago in playlist Hitchens-Dembski Debate Nov 2010
Amazing how so many people who believe in a god think that those who believe in aliens are crazy! It seems to me that choosing to believe in something that can't be proved or disproved like a god or aliens is a cop out for ego centric people with lazy minds who seem frightened of the unknowable, an example of the unknowable being - "what happens after our bodies die?"
Shnu2 5 months ago
I wonder what the molecular structure of god is.
MrNellie2200 5 months ago
Dembski is such a cunt. In one context he says evolution is obviously true but that God, or aliens, might guide it, (intelligent design) the next moment he says "the evidence for evolution is so underwhelming." What a dishonest, disingenuous prick douche.
ScottBrown666 5 months ago
"PDA"? Really?
nstohler 5 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 he is not a speaker. he is a reader!
ak031995 6 months ago
Hitchen's arguments are not sophisticated when you peel away the British accent and wit. Mostly he has a kind of "fannish" following, but his ideas and philosophy are not good arguments against God.
guitarpolygamist 6 months ago
Dembski, you clearly don't know your shit, because you don't fully believe it to be true.
It's easy to remember what happened; it's difficult to remember a lie.
Try memorising your lies, they'll come across better.
RationalTheism 6 months ago
@jubal66 what an ignorant quote, we didn't know where the sun went at night or that the world was flat but guess what your not dumb enough to beleive that God makes the sun go away or that the world is flat anymore,thanks to Science . To say God did something because Science can;t prove it is just stupid and so are you, and so is Dr. Dumbski
Biglzwerth1983 6 months ago
Demski's opening argument is the single worst presentation that I've ever heard on this subject. I can't even begin to decide which of his statements to dissect first. Literally every other sentence is incorrect or misleading in some way. I haven't yet figured out if he is intentionally being dishonest or if he's really that ignorant.
wow
legionmantis 6 months ago 3
@legionmantis Both, like every preacher!
Torchmark 6 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 You always know it's a boring rebuttal when you start reading the comments while whoever is speaking...
ohhkellee 6 months ago
@ohhkellee Agreed.
writersblock26 6 months ago
I hate it when there's a debate and one of the debaters argument is simply attempting to disenfranchise their opponent instead of simply making their point. I like Hitchens because his arguments are independent of whoever his opponent, but focus more on the topic itself.
TrEvADiZasTA 6 months ago
@TrEvADiZasTA I completely agree. Hitchens rarely quotes anyone he debates. His arguments stand on their own.
ohhkellee 6 months ago
Allow me to summarize: science doesn't have the answer to all our questions. Therefore, God did it. Thanks, Dembski.
jubal66 6 months ago 57
@jubal66 Science does have answers to questions that matter like evolution.
Science doesn't disprove GOD is real.But it shows us we didn't need one.Your claim of God doing it is a empty claim.
TrexGrimStud 5 months ago
@TrexGrimStud I think you need to turn your sarcasm detector on.
jubal66 5 months ago
I have a game we all can play. How many logical fallacies does Dembski make? For every one you detect, take a sip of beer. The major fallacies Dembski engages in is "Begging the Question" or circular reasoning for his own content and "strawman argument" in his treatment of Hitchen's, Darwin's or scientific content in general.
billwendt 6 months ago
@billwendt I got wasted by part 3.
KitaTheLittleKat 6 months ago 2
dembski seems to be trying real hard to sell us his book. I guess that's religion works
yggof123 6 months ago
How Abosurd - A man (dembski) that claims to be a scientist - says there is no evidence for evolution - wow. he is not a scientist - he is a preacher. plan and simp