Art Bell

[sorefinger]

I appreciated Art's respect for Jon's views.  But the professor came out the villain, in my opinion, because he was rude, disrespectful, and a condescending buffoon.  The professor had all the ammunition in the world, his knowledge, public opinion on his side, and logic, yet he resorted to schoolyard bully tactics, behaving very much like a scorned woman in divorce proceedings, pouting, shouting, and acting impetuously by constantly threatening to leave the field. I thought it was a subtle smackdown for the professor when Art finally gave him an open to leave, but then he didn't, staying longer to drone on and on some more with his condescending personality, which, in my opinion, has bases with some sort of digestive disease, as is the case of one of my family members, brought on by a diet of convenience and processed foods, none of which provide enough nutrients to behave normally.  Also, people I know who are on meds act like this.  The professor had an opportunity to steal the show yet he pissed it all away.  I just don't like people who use their position of strength to bully victims, behaving like bureaucratic, egomaniacs.  I side with the victims every time, no matter how wrong they might be.

[SredniVashtar]

I appreciated Art's respect for Jon's views.  But the professor came out the villain, in my opinion, because he was rude, disrespectful, and a condescending buffoon.  The professor had all the ammunition in the world, his knowledge, public opinion on his side, and logic, yet he resorted to schoolyard bully tactics, behaving very much like a scorned woman in divorce proceedings, pouting, shouting, and acting impetuously by constantly threatening to leave the field. I thought it was a subtle smackdown for the professor when Art finally gave him an open to leave, but then he didn't, staying longer to drone on and on some more with his condescending personality, which, in my opinion, has bases with some sort of digestive disease, as is the case of one of my family members, brought on by a diet of convenience and processed foods, none of which provide enough nutrients to behave normally.  Also, people I know who are on meds act like this.  The professor had an opportunity to steal the show yet he pissed it all away.  I just don't like people who use their position of strength to bully victims, behaving like bureaucratic, egomaniacs.  I side with the victims every time, no matter how wrong they might be.

This is making me very anxious to hear the show. It is very hard to stay calm when arguing with someone whose knowledge base originates from Fairyland. It sounds very much like the debates Dawkins has with creationists, where their views are so odd and out there that it is hard to take them seriously or form a coherent argument.

[AppealPlay]

Actually, I thought the opposite.  I feel like the professor was much more composed that he should have been.  He has much more patience than I do.

[chefist]

This is making me very anxious to hear the show. It is very hard to stay calm when arguing with someone whose knowledge base originates from Fairyland. It sounds very much like the debates Dawkins has with creationists, where their views are so odd and out there that it is hard to take them seriously or form a coherent argument.

I thought it was an excellent show! Finally a scientist that would not let a mythologist filibuster all night long! He was the perfect guest to take on a flat earther, and even got into the moon landing hoax too!

[3OctaveFart]

I thought the professor was remarkably patient with such a schmuck.

Reasoning with this guy was like administering medicine to the dead, as Tom Paine once put it.

It wasn't good radio but that's open to interpretation.

[SredniVashtar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

This woman has to be among the most annoying people on the planet.

[aldousburbank]

I appreciated Art's respect for Jon's views.  But the professor came out the villain, in my opinion, because he was rude, disrespectful, and a condescending buffoon.  The professor had all the ammunition in the world, his knowledge, public opinion on his side, and logic, yet he resorted to schoolyard bully tactics, behaving very much like a scorned woman in divorce proceedings, pouting, shouting, and acting impetuously by constantly threatening to leave the field. I thought it was a subtle smackdown for the professor when Art finally gave him an open to leave, but then he didn't, staying longer to drone on and on some more with his condescending personality, which, in my opinion, has bases with some sort of digestive disease, as is the case of one of my family members, brought on by a diet of convenience and processed foods, none of which provide enough nutrients to behave normally.  Also, people I know who are on meds act like this.  The professor had an opportunity to steal the show yet he pissed it all away.  I just don't like people who use their position of strength to bully victims, behaving like bureaucratic, egomaniacs.  I side with the victims every time, no matter how wrong they might be.

Agreed.

[Robert]

But I don't think I could've done better than the prof.  The flat earther wouldn't stay on any topic long enough to explain it, so if you didn't interrupt him, he'd just ramble.  So it was a choice between sounding rude & just letting him talk forever about things very remote from any point he wanted to make.

1st it was Art interrupting to get off the moon-expeditions-were-fake topic, at which point my impulse was, "Gee, Art's picked up a bad habit from Noory, deflecting a guest from an interesting topic."  But within minutes I realized that was the guest's m.o., and that he wouldn't've pursued it far enough to explain it before digressing into something else.

[Skunk Ape]

This is making me very anxious to hear the show. It is very hard to stay calm when arguing with someone whose knowledge base originates from Fairyland. It sounds very much like the debates Dawkins has with creationists, where their views are so odd and out there that it is hard to take them seriously or form a coherent argument.

I'm listening to it now and it's so cringeworthy great!

Jon is like the world of Facebook, where everyone posts Onion articles thinking they're true and will not take seriously the snopes article saying otherwise.

I want to yell at him while sitting here at the office. It's great. Outstanding even.

[pyewacket]

This is making me very anxious to hear the show. It is very hard to stay calm when arguing with someone whose knowledge base originates from Fairyland. It sounds very much like the debates Dawkins has with creationists, where their views are so odd and out there that it is hard to take them seriously or form a coherent argument.

I don't think you'll be disappointed. I can't see how anyone would characterize the professor as the bad guy; he was the voice of reason. You could hear the strain in his voice and I believe that was due to his dedication to science and education. His students would probably have a good laugh at this show.

Yes, you could make the comparison to Dawkins debates, but you could also throw in a bit of Monty Pythonesque "Dead Parrot" or "Argument Clinic" into the mix.

"John" came off as phony and rude. He could do for science what JC does for religion.

[Jessicas Place]

As usual Art, Radio Magic❗️ LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF LAST NIGHT'S SHOW! Wish it could have continued for another 3 hours.  Both guests rocked.  And open lines!!! Amazing!

[sorefinger]

This is making me very anxious to hear the show. It is very hard to stay calm when arguing with someone whose knowledge base originates from Fairyland. It sounds very much like the debates Dawkins has with creationists, where their views are so odd and out there that it is hard to take them seriously or form a coherent argument.

Not so fast.  Stephen C. Meyer sure smacked down Dawkins.
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
By Stephen C. Meyer
BTW, Stephen C. Meyer would make a great guest for MiTD.

[SredniVashtar]

Not so fast.  Stephen C. Meyer sure smacked down Dawkins.
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
By Stephen C. Meyer
BTW, Stephen C. Meyer would make a great guest for MiTD.

Possibly, but that sort of stuff reeks of confirmation bias. Someone like Dawkins is looking for answers, while guys like that think they already know and are trying to convince the rest of us.

Oh, it just happens that my research proves what I always believed in the first place. Just fancy!

[CornyCrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

This woman has to be among the most annoying people on the planet.

Wow, she's such a two-faced jerk.  How dare she call Dawkins closed-minded!  The way she smiles and moves her head like a sweet little girl, then has such venom coming from her mouth.  A great representation for her faith - NOT. 

[sorefinger]

Possibly, but that sort of stuff reeks of confirmation bias. Someone like Dawkins is looking for answers, while guys like that think they already know and are trying to convince the rest of us.

Oh, it just happens that my research proves what I always believed in the first place. Just fancy!

Sure, there's conformational bias. But there is one hell of a lot more denial bias, by a long shot.

Man looks at the face of Mt. Rushmore and sees the hand of intelligent design, yet when man looks at the face of a newborn baby, sees no hand at all.

[SredniVashtar]

Wow, she's such a two-faced jerk.  How dare she call Dawkins closed-minded!  The way she smiles and moves her head like a sweet little girl, then has such venom coming from her mouth.  A great representation for her faith - NOT.

I think her main argument against evolution was that it was a  nasty idea that made people feel bad. She knows all about evolution, of course, and has spent all her life wandering about museums trying to find answers but it's just so much bullshit. Dawkins must be made of iron to stay in front of that sort of dementia.

[CornyCrow]

Sure, there's conformational bias. But there is one hell of a lot more denial bias, by a long shot.

Man looks at the face of Mt. Rushmore and sees the hand of intelligent design, yet when man looks at the face of a newborn baby, sees no hand at all.

I think Mr. Rushmore was much more spiritually inspiring before we defaced it.  I look at a baby and have no idea whether that kid will end up being a credit to the world or a human horror show, and I'll bet you have no idea as well.   

[SredniVashtar]

Sure, there's conformational bias. But there is one hell of a lot more denial bias, by a long shot.

Man looks at the face of Mt. Rushmore and sees the hand of intelligent design, yet when man looks at the face of a newborn baby, sees no hand at all.

Okay then, let's pursue your argument to its logical conclusion. You have to credit God with children born blind, or without limbs, or Downs, or any other crippling deformity you care to mention. Where is the intelligence there?

There is an inherent tendency (which you have shown here) to grasp at the simplest possible answer to a complicated question. That's why religion is so popular, it is designed to appeal to illiterate peasants who struggle with difficult concepts.

[CornyCrow]

I think her main argument against evolution was that it was a  nasty idea that made people feel bad. She knows all about evolution, of course, and has spent all her life wandering about museums trying to find answers but it's just so much bullshit. Dawkins must be made of iron to stay in front of that sort of dementia.

There are some religionists who are sincerely looking for answers, but then there are these characters who seem so disingenuous.  She's one and Hucklebee also is.  They lie and insult with these big smiles on their faces - people with whom a psychologist might have interesting sessions.

[boxman]

I appreciated Art's respect for Jon's views.  But the professor came out the villain, in my opinion, because he was rude, disrespectful, and a condescending buffoon.  The professor had all the ammunition in the world, his knowledge, public opinion on his side, and logic, yet he resorted to schoolyard bully tactics, behaving very much like a scorned woman in divorce proceedings, pouting, shouting, and acting impetuously by constantly threatening to leave the field. I thought it was a subtle smackdown for the professor when Art finally gave him an open to leave, but then he didn't, staying longer to drone on and on some more with his condescending personality, which, in my opinion, has bases with some sort of digestive disease, as is the case of one of my family members, brought on by a diet of convenience and processed foods, none of which provide enough nutrients to behave normally.  Also, people I know who are on meds act like this.  The professor had an opportunity to steal the show yet he pissed it all away.  I just don't like people who use their position of strength to bully victims, behaving like bureaucratic, egomaniacs.  I side with the victims every time, no matter how wrong they might be.

Did we even listen to the same show?? For what the professor was going through, i thought he was extremely calm and patient.
Jon on the other hand acted childish and constantly kept insulting him and made fun of him. And the reason he stayed on longer was because Jon again went on a rant that the professor had to respond to. It was obvious the professor was frustrated with having to "deabte" a brickwall, but he was in no ways disrespectful like Jon was.

[The General]

I appreciated Art's respect for Jon's views.  But the professor came out the villain, in my opinion, because he was rude, disrespectful, and a condescending buffoon.  The professor had all the ammunition in the world, his knowledge, public opinion on his side, and logic, yet he resorted to schoolyard bully tactics, behaving very much like a scorned woman in divorce proceedings, pouting, shouting, and acting impetuously by constantly threatening to leave the field. I thought it was a subtle smackdown for the professor when Art finally gave him an open to leave, but then he didn't, staying longer to drone on and on some more with his condescending personality, which, in my opinion, has bases with some sort of digestive disease, as is the case of one of my family members, brought on by a diet of convenience and processed foods, none of which provide enough nutrients to behave normally.  Also, people I know who are on meds act like this.  The professor had an opportunity to steal the show yet he pissed it all away.  I just don't like people who use their position of strength to bully victims, behaving like bureaucratic, egomaniacs.  I side with the victims every time, no matter how wrong they might be.

Strange, I heard quite the opposite. 
The professor was incredibly polite, understanding, and patient. 
Jon the Flat Earther came across as snarky and immature.

[SredniVashtar]

There are some religionists who are sincerely looking for answers,

I'm not sure about that. They can come across as good guys sometimes but too often you get to a point where you realise that they are all just as brainwashed as the rest of them. They are perfectly entitled to believe what they like, and I won't try and persuade them otherwise, but when they start playing game and try to hoodwink people, then they should get criticized for it.

[sorefinger]

Okay then, let's pursue your argument to its logical conclusion. You have to credit God with children born blind, or without limbs, or Downs, or any other crippling deformity you care to mention. Where is the intelligence there?

There is an inherent tendency (which you have shown here) to grasp at the simplest possible answer to a complicated question. That's why religion is so popular, it is designed to appeal to illiterate peasants who struggle with difficult concepts.

You are resorting to conformational bias to confirm that I am a creationist. I'm neither. But I examine both sides of the issue, finding good arguments with each.

Have you actually read "Signature in the Cell?  Or are you just commenting from a confirmational bias?

[CornyCrow]

I'm not sure about that. They can come across as good guys sometimes but too often you get to a point where you realise that they are all just as brainwashed as the rest of them. They are perfectly entitled to believe what they like, and I won't try and persuade them otherwise, but when they start playing game and try to hoodwink people, then they should get criticized for it.

Well, we are probably starting from different points here  I think there are unexplained things that seem to point to some sort of spiritual dimension.  I think sometimes people might turn to religion to explain such things and end up swallowing a lot of dogma in the process - but some do not.  Many people do not follow their church's teachings or buy into them wholly.  The ones who do, though, get a lot of publicity because they think they have answers.  Yes, certainly, the thing that I object to is when they start trying to influence the greater society with their fairytales.

[CornyCrow]

You are resorting to conformational bias to confirm that I am a creationist. I'm neither. But I examine both sides of the issue, finding good arguments with each.

Have you actually read "Signature in the Cell?  Or are you just commenting from a confirmational bias?

Sure, we can and must live with indecision.  We, hopefully, will NEVER know all the answers.  We should always have new things to explore, new horizons.   

[SredniVashtar]

You are resorting to conformational bias to confirm that I am a creationist. I'm neither. But I examine both sides of the issue, finding good arguments with each.

Have you actually read "Signature in the Cell?  Or are you just commenting from a confirmational bias?

I don't care what you are, I just made a point that you are choosing to ignore. Intelligence goes either way here - it's not all cute gurgling babies, it's also cancer and Alzheimers.

You can't have good arguments about this question on either side, it is either right or wrong. If you don't have the confidence to engage in an argument then don't start one. People who claim to be open-minded about this issue are usually disingenuous in my experience.

[sorefinger]

I'm not sure about that. They can come across as good guys sometimes but too often you get to a point where you realise that they are all just as brainwashed as the rest of them. They are perfectly entitled to believe what they like, and I won't try and persuade them otherwise, but when they start playing game and try to hoodwink people, then they should get criticized for it.

Who is to say that evolutionists are not hoodwinking people?  If aliens land on earth tomorrow and prove they are the authors of DNA, then evolutionist deserve criticism. This is a hypothetical, so, no cringing!

If evolution is the only explanation, then surely bacteria would have evolved to survive in honey, certainly after a million years or so by now.  There are thousands of other brick walls that evolution cannot pierce.

[aldousburbank]

If evolution is the only explanation, then surely bacteria would have evolved to survive in honey, certainly after a million years or so by now.  There are thousands of other brick walls that evolution cannot pierce.

Oh wow

[sorefinger]

I don't care what you are, I just made a point that you are choosing to ignore. Intelligence goes either way here - it's not all cute gurgling babies, it's also cancer and Alzheimers.

You can't have good arguments about this question on either side, it is either right or wrong. If you don't have the confidence to engage in an argument then don't start one. People who claim to be open-minded about this issue are usually disingenuous in my experience.

Your teeth are beginning to show, indicating that your beliefs are being threatened.

[CornyCrow]

Your teeth are beginning to show, indicating that your beliefs are being threatened.

The thing is, science is open minded.  As facts change, scientific theory will change to conform to facts.  Religion does not do this.  It tries to pick facts that support their religion, which does not change.