William Dembski: How To Be An Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or not) Part 1

One of the foremost authorities on Intelligent Design, Dr. William Dembski delivers a lecture at the 2008 National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, NC.

To view titles by Dr. William Dembski go to:

http://theapologeticsbookstore.com/search.aspx?find=William+Dembski&log=f...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William Dembski
• evolution
• God
• creation
• religion
• intelligent design
• atheism
• atheist
• truth
• Jesus
• agnosticism
• darwin
• Bible
• Christianity
• science
• apologetics

[dlbattle100]

The flagellum thing has been thoroughly debunked. Examples have been found of structures that use only subsets of the parts, such as poison injectors that some bacteria have, and others. How do I know he's lying? Because he keeps saying the same thing regardless of evidence. He doesn't care about the truth he cares about his agenda. I'm not fundamentally against the idea of God, I'm just against liars.

[94jmcorrea]

creationist fool

[logicCplusplus]

@burnsidebluntslide The effects gravity (F=ma) is well tested and is observable and repeatable on a daily basis. Its quite successful in the engineering realm from software simulations to aerodynamics to much more even though the cause of the existence of gravity (mass to particles) is yet fuzzy. BTW, do you have any support for your position that you can compare gravity and evolution with your head up high?

[burnsidebluntslide]

@logicCplusplus, I love it how you think you are open minded because you don't agree with scientific consensus, I guess you don't believe in the theory of gravity either as you are just so well informed and open minded

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Making every kind of dog from a wolf proves all the information is already there.

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Computers evolve in response to market conditions. The market determines if the next Ipod model will be sold the following year (supply and demand).

To survive isn't a process, its simply a result of a process. NS only works when there is already existing function. Function has to exist before it can become selected. So a question for you: which came first, function or adaptability?

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus ''That doesn't mean it was created by a random process'' NO ONE SAYS IT WAS

. It took top-down intelligence to evolve,''

COMPUTERS WERE BUILT, BREEDING POPULATIONS EVOLVE where preset goals were specified in advance.

EVOLUTION HAS ONLY ONE GOAL, TO SURVIVE.

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

A computer is also based on the forces of nature. The is nothing "unnatural" about a computer, from the physical layer to the software layer.That doesn't mean it was created by a random process. It took top-down intelligence to evolve, where preset goals were specified in advance.The Darwinian algorithm is simply weak for a multitude of reasons which I believe you already know by now, and unless it has preset goals,there is literally no way positive evolution can take place.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Biology is based on the forces of nature just like everything else. Things got more complex through evolution, it's a little late to say the odds are low.

[logicCplusplus]

@gregrutz

Do you deny biology is information based, that it can be quantified, that we can therefore make mathematical deductions with good certainty based on certain processes. Darwinists have failed at determining the probabilistic hurdles of their theory, so ID folks such as Dembski do it for them.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus Yes, and this kind of bullshit alway shows up when a math 'genius' trys to do Biology.

''mostly all logic and math''  Correct again, they have absolutly no evidence to support their crap.

How many times do I have to expose your nonsense?

[logicCplusplus]

@misterzonker2584

ID technically is all logic and math.And no,I disagree that most university professors are smarter, as far as Math is concerned,Dembski is considered a genius, have you read any of his papers?Dembski has also published papers (supporting ID) with some of the top engineers on the planet (Robert J. Marks). But it doesn't stop there, Durston, Abel, Szostak etc..have published in peer-reviewed journals,again mostly all logic and math.So no,I don't see your point.