Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[Yorzhik]

Bob is perfectly capable of reading my post without me reading it to him.

Bob is so rarely on TOL that I always act as if he never is.

Under the characterization of what I said being "a good point", you are admitting that Bob:

1 – Uses fiction on a par with Disney, but unlike Disney, Bob portrays it as science.​

Disney portrayed it as science just as much as Bob, if not more-so. Not only that, but you admit it's found in textbooks even today.

2 – Is anything but cordial to some callers who challenge him on air

Sure, some callers don't get cordial treatment. The vast majority do.

3 – Intentionally presented a blatant mockery of evolution to kids in his studio.

"Blatant mockery" is far too strong a phrase for something public school teachers, every one a hard core evolutionist, teach from textbooks even today.

I suspect your caving in on this is because it is less painful to let the issue fade than try to defend what Bob did. I would hope that your allegiance to “right” is not subservient to your friendship with Bob, but I don’t see that happening.

Na, I'd dump Bob in a NY minute if it came down to 'right' or Bob. Do 'ya hear that Bob? Are 'ya scared?

But you seem to think any of the slightest questionable material amounts to cardinal sin. You must be friendless.

In other words, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. My "good point" comment was about the ultimate point of your post: why didn't Bob give the consensus view after giving the view he was taught? The answer may be "time" or "interest" or something else I haven't thought of. He might even say he was completely wrong and was sorry for presenting what he did. The reason I'm not engaging in this conversation anymore is because I gave my answers, and to go forward you'll have to ask Bob. He'll even pay for the call.

 

[DavisBJ]

Disney portrayed it as science just as much as Bob, if not more-so.

Come on Yorzhik. You really think “Fantasia” is presented as science?

Not only that, but you admit it's found in textbooks even today.

But not good ones.

"Blatant mockery" is far too strong a phrase for something public school teachers, every one a hard core evolutionist, teach from textbooks even today.

The label “blatant mockery” is warranted when the teacher if fully aware that what they are teaching is sewage, as Bob did.

But you seem to think any of the slightest questionable material amounts to cardinal sin.

Lamarkism predated Darwin, and never established itself as a viable explanation for evolution. In contrast, Darwin’s ideas did, and as a result Darwin has long been one of the specific targets of attack by Fundamentalists. I need only to watch the visceral hatred Enyart and company have for Darwinism to know that they do view it as a cardinal sin.

The reason I'm not engaging in this conversation anymore is because I gave my answers, and to go forward you'll have to ask Bob.

Like I said, often the best way to handle a losing situation is to minimize the damage by just walking away from it. I understand.

There are a number of things Bob has said about science in which he is wrong, ignorance on his part is not a credible excuse, since I can point to a number of threads where Bob himself participated for a while. In those he chose to do as you do, to offer an anemic response and then abandon the thread as the best of a bunch of bad options.

 

[Jukia]

In other words, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. My "good point" comment was about the ultimate point of your post: why didn't Bob give the consensus view after giving the view he was taught? The answer may be "time" or "interest" or something else I haven't thought of. He might even say he was completely wrong and was sorry for presenting what he did. The reason I'm not engaging in this conversation anymore is because I gave my answers, and to go forward you'll have to ask Bob. He'll even pay for the call.

Pastor Bob LIED to children. Why would anyone want to waste the time to talk to him?

Why did he not give the consensus view, i.e. be truthful. Let him tell us. My vote is that it interferes with his ability to use fear to continue to have people agree with him. A position that most religious leaders take, no matter the denomination.

 

[Stripe]

...the consensus view, i.e. ...truth

Atheists love to present popularity as if it is the truth.

 

[DavisBJ]

I'd dump Bob in a NY minute if it came down to 'right' or Bob. Do 'ya hear that Bob?

I see your words, but they are belied by evidence within this forum. Of all the threads pointing out errors in Bob’s science, how many were initiated by you or other Fundamentalists? Is it that the whole group of you don’t care enough to listen to his shows? Or do you give him a free pass to engage in distibuting falsehoods? In these threads discussing science, how many of the fundamentalists have dared to actually stand in opposition to Bob, and how many have instead tried to defend his errors?

 

[Jukia]

I see your words, but they are belied by evidence within this forum. Of all the threads pointing out errors in Bob’s science, how many were initiated by you or other Fundamentalists? Is it that the whole group of you don’t care enough to listen to his shows? Or do you give him a free pass to engage in distibuting falsehoods? In these threads discussing science, how many of the fundamentalists have dared to actually stand in opposition to Bob, and how many have instead tried to defend his errors?

For the answer to your question, just take a peek at Stripe's post just above yours.

Or the one just below this one.

 

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

:mock: Atheists.

 

[Yorzhik]

Come on Yorzhik. You really think “Fantasia” is presented as science?

No. Their show on evolution was.

But not good ones.

Right. The fact remains it is still taught today even in public education. Thus it isn't blatant mockery, but it would be worth asking him about.

The label “blatant mockery” is warranted when the teacher if fully aware that what they are teaching is sewage, as Bob did.

The public education textbooks and Disney have no excuse either.

Lamarkism predated Darwin, and never established itself as a viable explanation for evolution. In contrast, Darwin’s ideas did, and as a result Darwin has long been one of the specific targets of attack by Fundamentalists. I need only to watch the visceral hatred Enyart and company have for Darwinism to know that they do view it as a cardinal sin.

So. That doesn't make mentioning Larmarckism a cardinal sin does it?

Like I said, often the best way to handle a losing situation is to minimize the damage by just walking away from it. I understand.

Or it could be that there is nothing more to be said. To carry this topic forward, you should call Bob. Although going to the source is something evolutionists have learned to avoid, I guess you can keep talking to me.

There are a number of things Bob has said about science in which he is wrong, ignorance on his part is not a credible excuse, since I can point to a number of threads where Bob himself participated for a while. In those he chose to do as you do, to offer an anemic response and then abandon the thread as the best of a bunch of bad options.

One of those things is the frozen Mammoths. I talked directly to him and told him he was wrong. That's the difference between you and me; I'm a man and will be good enough to point out when even a friend is wrong. You, OTOH, would prefer to avoid the source.

 

[Yorzhik]

I see your words, but they are belied by evidence within this forum. Of all the threads pointing out errors in Bob’s science, how many were initiated by you or other Fundamentalists?

I went to Bob directly, both on air and off. And when the subject comes up on TOL I air my disagreement publicly. The only reason you couldn't go to Bob directly is because of reasons other than you wanting the truth.

Is it that the whole group of you don’t care enough to listen to his shows?

I've listened to most of them. Time doesn't allow me to listen to all of them. It's becoming part of my kid's schooling to listen to Bob Enyart Live, and also all the materials he sells that I can get.

Or do you give him a free pass to engage in distibuting falsehoods?

The facts established already show you to be wrong about this. But I'll bet you keep repeating it because going all the way to the truth would be too hard for you.

In these threads discussing science, how many of the fundamentalists have dared to actually stand in opposition to Bob, and how many have instead tried to defend his errors?

I know of at least 2 that disagreed with Bob on TOL in science threads. One Eyed Jack and me. I'm sure there are others. But then again, you already know that.

 

[Jukia]

Yorzhik: Whether you agree or disagree with Pastor Bob does not absolve him of lieing to children about science.
Pastor Bob is simply wrong and being dishonest.

 

[Stripe]

You know Jukia is upset when his spelling goes out the window. :chuckle:

 

[Jukia]

You know Jukia is upset when his spelling goes out the window. :chuckle:

And we know you never get upset with any of Pastor Bob's lies.

 

[Stripe]

And we know you never get upset with any of Pastor Bob's lies.

:chuckle:

:mock: Jukia.

 

[DavisBJ]

Their show on evolution was.

I have no recollection of such a show on evolution from Disney.

The fact remains it is still taught today even in public education. Thus it isn't blatant mockery

Since you seem to have missed what I said before, the mockery is when the teacher knows what they are presenting is wrong.

The public education textbooks and Disney have no excuse either.

Disney – I await you to show they have seriously tried to teach about evolution. As to the textbooks, I challenge that a generic charge of Lamarckism being the norm in public textbooks is even close to truthful. I have more than a dozen books on evolution, all available to the public, and none of them do so. I do appreciate your admission that Reverend Enyart did present a mockery of evolution.

That doesn't make mentioning Lamarckism a cardinal sin does it?

Not at all. The sin is when Enyart leaves impressionable kids with the idea that Lamarkism is what evolution teaches.

Or it could be that there is nothing more to be said. To carry this topic forward, you should call Bob. Although going to the source is something evolutionists have learned to avoid, I guess you can keep talking to me.

Very few issues in science have been determined by debate. It has proved far more effective to have ideas presented in print so they can undergo careful and sometimes extended evaluation by both critics and supporters. Why would you want these issues moved to an entertainment medium like Bob’s shows?

One of those things is the frozen Mammoths. I talked directly to him and told him he was wrong. That's the difference between you and me; I'm a man

I can assure you, I am not so insecure in my masculinity that I have to publicly declare it. Maybe you need to be on an episode of Dr. Phil?

… and will be good enough to point out when even a friend is wrong. You, OTOH, would prefer to avoid the source.

I have challenged those on my side of the fence when I disagreed. The “source” (aka Enyart) has a demonstrated history of trying to avoid those threads where he is shown to be wrong.

I went to Bob directly, both on air and off.

I wasn’t aware that you had been a guest on one of his radio shows. Which one?

And when the subject comes up on TOL I air my disagreement publicly. The only reason you couldn't go to Bob directly is because of reasons other than you wanting the truth.

The “truth” is better identified in a discussion than in a radio debate.

I've listened to most of them. Time doesn't allow me to listen to all of them.

Good, now in how many threads were you the one who initially took issue with Bob on some science claim he made?

It's becoming part of my kid's schooling to listen to Bob Enyart Live, and also all the materials he sells that I can get.

Have you explained to your kid that Bob’s presentation of Lamarckism was not what evolution believes?

The facts established already show you to be wrong about this. But I'll bet you keep repeating it because going all the way to the truth would be too hard for you.

Have you already retreated back into denial about Bob misrepresenting how evolution works?

I know of at least 2 that disagreed with Bob on TOL in science threads. One Eyed Jack and me. I'm sure there are others. But then again, you already know that.

I already acknowledged your opposing Bob on Io. I don’t recall (in spite of your accusation to the contrary) of OEJ opposing Bob.

I do need to reiterate my thanks to you for the several times you have confirmed Bob’s perfidy on how he teaches evolution to kids.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have no recollection of such a show on evolution from Disney.

Oh, now I get your comment about Fantasia. They did have a segment about evolution in that one.

They did another one that was serious about evolution. Well, as serious as one can be in a children's cartoon.

Since you seem to have missed what I said before, the mockery is when the teacher knows what they are presenting is wrong.

And neither Disney nor public school teachers have an excuse.

Disney – I await you to show they have seriously tried to teach about evolution.

I'm going from memory.

As to the textbooks, I challenge that a generic charge of Lamarckism being the norm in public textbooks is even close to truthful.

It isn't the norm. I never said it was.

I have more than a dozen books on evolution, all available to the public, and none of them do so. I do appreciate your admission that Reverend Enyart did present a mockery of evolution.

I only admitted that there are modern sources that use Lamarck's method without claiming his name. Here's a title from Nature: "From spears to speech: Could throwing spears have laid the foundations for language acquisition?"

The point is that mentioning this topic in the way Bob did is not a cardinal sin.

Not at all. The sin is when Enyart leaves impressionable kids with the idea that Lamarkism is what evolution teaches.

When you have about 30 minutes in a live show, you don't always get to explain the things you like the way you like to. You should call Bob and, with this thorough exercise on the subject you've been doing in this thread, get an apology out of him.

Very few issues in science have been determined by debate.

Both are a good idea. Quit making excuses.

It has proved far more effective to have ideas presented in print so they can undergo careful and sometimes extended evaluation by both critics and supporters. Why would you want these issues moved to an entertainment medium like Bob’s shows?

Ask Fool, he did pretty well.

I can assure you, I am not so insecure in my masculinity that I have to publicly declare it. Maybe you need to be on an episode of Dr. Phil?

Nice deflection. It still takes a man to face up to his fears and call the show.

I have challenged those on my side of the fence when I disagreed. The “source” (aka Enyart) has a demonstrated history of trying to avoid those threads where he is shown to be wrong.

Then force him onto the subject. It's not like he can afford dead air.

I wasn’t aware that you had been a guest on one of his radio shows. Which one?

I disagreed with him on drug legalization, copyrights, and I think one other thing I can't recall right now. I only call when I disagree, but I have no idea when the shows were or their titles.

The “truth” is better identified in a discussion than in a radio debate.

Sure, but you take what you can get.

Hey, you just defeated your whole premise. Or is truth identified on radio when there isn't a disagreement currently airing?

Yikes, that question immediately above I think is at the edge of your ability to read carefully. Before you answer it, would you like me to clarify?

Good, now in how many threads were you the one who initially took issue with Bob on some science claim he made?

You've got to be kidding. Disagreeing only counts in the certain way you want it to.

Have you explained to your kid that Bob’s presentation of Lamarckism was not what evolution believes?

They haven't listened to that show, but they actually do know that Larmarck is discredited. However, since the evidence isn't totally against the Larmarckian idea, it isn't wise throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is still a great deal more data needed to understand the anomalies that seem to tip the hat to Larmarck.

Have you already retreated back into denial about Bob misrepresenting how evolution works?

I've been consistent since we started in this thread.

I already acknowledged your opposing Bob on Io. I don’t recall (in spite of your accusation to the contrary) of OEJ opposing Bob.

Thanks! That was the other topic I called the show about to disagree with Bob. OEJ disagrees with Bob on time dilation if I recall correctly. Is that right OEJ?

I do need to reiterate my thanks to you for the several times you have confirmed Bob’s perfidy on how he teaches evolution to kids.

If you say so...

 

[Jukia]

When you have about 30 minutes in a live show, you don't always get to explain the things you like the way you like to. ...

How do you think Pastor Bob would explain things if he had more time? Honestly? Not likely.

 

[Stripe]

How do you think Pastor Bob would explain things if he had more time? Honestly? Not likely.

Why don't you call him up and ask him?

 

[Jukia]

Why don't you call him up and ask him?

Because we all know that he takes his science from the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

Because we all know that he takes his science from the Bible.

And you get yours from a Christmas cracker.

 

[Jukia]

And you get yours from a Christmas cracker.

Uh, no, but if I did it would probably be more accurate and up to date than Pastor Bob's source.