Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[DavisBJ]

The problem with arguing against evolution is that it is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Our current knowledge of evolution has been altered after each new finding (often claimed by necessity according to finders).

If you think evolution has proven so malleable, then you should have no problem in itemizing 3 concepts central to evolution as Darwin proposed, yet that are no longer part of evolutionary theory. Can you do it?

 

[Yorzhik]

This is one of the goofiest rationales I have ever seen for determining if something is correct. Don’t make the determination based on the merits of the arguments, but on the demeanor of the people arguing. As irascible as Newton was personally, I guess Yorzhik would feel no compunction at rejecting Newton’s Law of Gravity.

There are many ways you can detect who is telling the truth. One of those ways is by seeing that one side knows the arguments from both sides, and the other side believes they are correct without knowing the arguments from both sides.

In fact I even said this. The fact that you ignore the first 4 words I wrote is what shows you cannot have an honest conversation.

 

[Alate_One]

One of the reasons I know I'm right and you are wrong is that I acknowledge evolution's strengths, while you can't even acknowledge even the slightest weakness of evolution.

There aren't any weaknesses in evolutionary theory, at least not the sort you think there are. There are certainly areas where scientific knowledge is less complete and the picture is less clear. Your problem is you want absolute clarity in all areas or else evolution must be *wrong*.

 

[Stripe]

There aren't any weaknesses in evolutionary theory, at least not the sort you think there are. There are certainly areas where scientific knowledge is less complete and the picture is less clear. Your problem is you want absolute clarity in all areas or else evolution must be *wrong*.

Alate! Your chicken needs a cigar.

 

[Yorzhik]

That does not necessitate that it be presented incorrectly, as Enyart elected to do.

Call him on it.

Once again, I am striving to hold an honest conversation

No you aren't. You just got caught again in your last post. And this comment is in response to getting caught prior to that. I can see you are so blind with bias and rage that you don't even realize how wrong you were to say, "You really want Disney to toe the line, never openly venturing into fantasy?"

But if my approach transgresses some arcane personal rule you have, then feel free to walk away.

I understand why you would feel that when I point out wrong/stupid/dishonest things you say they are my arcane personal rules. You certainly don't think saying wrong/stupid/dishonest things are generally a bad.

Your continued focus on trying to spread the blame for Enyart’s false presentation of evolution is noted.

Not quite. As I've repeated, but you'll never acknowledge because you can't have an honest conversation, is that what was said could have been explained by things other than malice. And if you want to know why, you'll have to call Bob. You could very well get an apology out of him. And he'll pay for it, to boot!

At least you have given up any pretense of defending your original assertion that you “find it unlikely he was using Lamarkian arguments”.

Duh... that was in, like, the second post or so that I made. It would have been within a couple of posts after I said I listened to the show. That you bring this up now is another shadow of your inability to have an honest conversation.

But a straightforward admission on your part that Enyart was wrong would show some semblance of integrity on your part, instead of trying to distract the issue by casting blame on Disney and textbooks and teachers.

Lamarckism has such little evidence that I've never say it was correct. And Bob presented Lamarckism, which I haven't denied. Neither was bringing up similar teaching from evolutionists a distraction, but shows your inability to weigh issues properly.

Why is that Lamarkian?

Because throwing spears won't help one gain the the brain function necessary to speak.

Enyart frequently boasts of besting numerous high-profile opponents on his show. But now you say he couldn’t even correctly guide the ideas he was presenting to really young kids from his own church. Come on Yorzhik, you said you listened to the show. This is embarrassing seeing this level of excuses come from you.

I'm not the one making excuses. I'm the one that called the man when I had a disagreement with him. You, OTOH, are using this thread as nothing but one big excuse.

 

[Yorzhik]

Alate! Your chicken needs a cigar.

Mel looks good with a stogie.

 

[Yorzhik]

There aren't any weaknesses in evolutionary theory, at least not the sort you think there are. There are certainly areas where scientific knowledge is less complete and the picture is less clear.

Somehow mutations without natural selection isn't even a weakness? You're delusional.

Your problem is you want absolute clarity in all areas or else evolution must be *wrong*.

I've never asked for 100% complete information, but you should realize that you need to present enough evidence to make your case. That's all I want.

 

[DavisBJ]

There are many ways you can detect who is telling the truth. One of those ways is by seeing that one side knows the arguments from both sides, and the other side believes they are correct without knowing the arguments from both sides.

A while back I met a fellow who definitely did know the arguments from both sides, and chose to support the nonsense side (for selfish reasons). I still say judging people is not a good way to judge their argument.

The fact that you ignore the first 4 words I wrote is what shows you cannot have an honest conversation.

You need a new theme song. Every time my post doesn’t meet your undefined rules you throw out this silly “… cannot have an honest conversation”.

 

[Stripe]

Mel looks good with a stogie.

Yeah, but whoever made Alate's chicken's one needs a good clip around the ear! What, is all they have MSPaint?!

 

[Yorzhik]

A while back I met a fellow who definitely did know the arguments from both sides, and chose to support the nonsense side (for selfish reasons). I still say judging people is not a good way to judge their argument.

You need a new theme song. Every time my post doesn’t meet your undefined rules you throw out this silly “… cannot have an honest conversation”.

Are you socially autistic because you're an atheist? Or are you an atheist because you're social autistic?

What people are saying is consistently glancing off your brain and never quite sinking in.

Obviously, knowing both sides of the argument is one of many methods we humans use, even naturally, to determine who is telling the truth. And it isn't a judging of the person, but of noticing the aptitude a person has with both sides of an argument.

I say we should keep going with this topic because it's kinda fun.

 

[Dr.Watson]

Are you socially autistic because you're an atheist? Or are you an atheist because you're social autistic?

Yorzhik has used this same line on me . After many failed attempts at obfuscation and red herrings, out comes the accusation that onus for the failure to communicate lies with the person not playing games.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

If you think evolution has proven so malleable, then you should have no problem in itemizing 3 concepts central to evolution as Darwin proposed, yet that are no longer part of evolutionary theory. Can you do it?

Lol ... You become so defensive that you've tightly narrowed the scope beyond even what I said.

One easy example was the proposal that evolution happens more often quickly rather than slowly. Another example is the tons of evidence showing how dinosaurs evolved into birds, now discredited. Another example is recapitulation -- also in my 1980s high school texts. Perhaps another example is the following of junk DNA, now increasingly shown not to be junk.

Darwin's proposals --- no? But that's not what I said.

Central to evolution --- at times we are told they are some of the best evidences so how can something be a good price of evidence and suddenly later become not central? That's an evolutionary example of the jello I spoke.

Maybe it would be easier if you lay out how evolution can be falsified in your eyes -- if you wish to maintain it is not jello?

 

[Jukia]

Maybe it would be easier if you lay out how evolution can be falsified in your eyes -- if you wish to maintain it is not jello?

Cambrian bunny.

 

[Stripe]

Yorzhik has used this same line on me . After many failed attempts at obfuscation and red herrings, out comes the accusation that onus for the failure to communicate lies with the person not playing games.

Hi, Watties. Do you know to make an aquifer yet?

 

[Dr.Watson]

Hi, Watties. Do you know to make an aquifer yet?

Are you still that sore about your utter humiliation in that thread (not that you aren't utterly humiliated nearly every time you open your mouth)? Incredulity and intellectual dishonesty have always been your bread and butter. However, it does make, at times, great unintentional humor for every other honest and reasonable person.

 

[Stripe]

...in that thread...

What thread?

 

[Dr.Watson]

What thread?

Take your pick.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Cambrian bunny.

I'm not as good at following bad grammar as I thought I was. Are you meaning that I'd need to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian era strata as a test to falsify evolution? I suppose you imply that if found this would show evolution is not true (or at least common ancestral evolution, the part that most blink at).

Does it have to be a bunny? What if I only pointed to discovered animals from ancient eras that are basically unchanged today? If I'm not totally missing on the meaning of your incomplete statement, this only further shows my point since these relatively unchanged animals have been found and the evolution jello slides along -- I do not see how this resolves them from the accusation.

Please explain.

Edit: by "bad grammar" I only mean an incomplete sentence and I'm not meaning to cast fault at you (as it sounds when I reread) but at myself. Normally I can pick out exactly what someone is meaning from even short blurbs. Sorry if it came off snarky.

 

[Frayed Knot]

I'm not as good at following bad grammar as I thought I was. Are you meaning that I'd need to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian era strata as a test to falsify evolution? I suppose you imply that if found this would show evolution is not true (or at least common ancestral evolution, the part that most blink at).

Jukia is referring to a famous response, allegedly by the biologist JBS Haldane, when asked if he could give an example of something that would falsify the Theory of Evolution, said "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

The idea is that we have a really good understanding of the main points of how things evolved, and the Precambrian was way before the time of mammals. So if actual rabbit fossils were found that were as old as the other Precambrian fossils, that would completely break our ToE.

Does it have to be a bunny?

No, there are myraid ways that the ToE could be falsified. He just gave one famous example.

What if I only pointed to discovered animals from ancient eras that are basically unchanged today?

Not only would that NOT falsify the ToE, it doesn't even address the question! Sometimes I'm baffled at what creationists say - it's not just that their statements aren't right - they're not even wrong. What kind of goofy misunderstanding of the ToE are you working from, that you would think that relatively unchanged forms would be a blow to the ToE?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Jukia is referring to a famous response, allegedly by the biologist JBS Haldane, when asked if he could give an example of something that would falsify the Theory of Evolution, said "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

Ah ha.

And let me take yet another opportunity to apologize for the "bad grammar" quip. I really did just mean that I'm usually better at figuring out what someone means despite incomplete sentences. I did not mean any slight against Jukia.

The idea is that we have a really good understanding of the main points of how things evolved, and the Precambrian was way before the time of mammals. So if actual rabbit fossils were found that were as old as the other Precambrian fossils, that would completely break our ToE.

Oh I think thats an obvious lie. What I mean is that if mammals are found in that strata the headline will merely read "mammals evolved earlier than previously thought". Thus this is not a falsifiable point. It's jello again.

No one, not even creationists would seriously expect headlines denying evolution at that point.

I mean isn't that exactly what happened with Protoavis(sp?). No one is claiming that invalidated ToE, just that we would push back timeframes.

Edit: since I'm a little concerned in light of your recent post, I thought I should come back and point out that I'm neither arguing Protoavis is either a bird or not, but how the ramifications are handled. No one suggests this would invalidate ToE.

This reminds me, in reverse, of how when arguments for Chromosome 2 began evolutionists suddenly began saying there had been previously a problem that evolution was failing falsification because of the difference in chromosome pairs in apes and men. Laughable since none of the evolutionists prior were concerned with the discrepancy.

No, there are myraid ways that the ToE could be falsified. He just gave one famous example.

I'm sort of still waiting for one. Unless you honestly are going to argue that finding a mammal in an ancient era wouldn't just reformulate ToE as I suggest.

Not only would that NOT falsify the ToE, it doesn't even address the question! Sometimes I'm baffled at what creationists say - it's not just that their statements aren't right - they're not even wrong. What kind of goofy misunderstanding of the ToE are you working from, that you would think that relatively unchanged forms would be a blow to the ToE?

Please strain for comprehension. I argued that they were NOT a blow to ToE. I argued that they are NOT a falsifying statement.

Am I to believe that your objections of creationists stem from the same comprehension abilities that somehow believed that I was arguing it was a blow to ToE when I was in fact saying the opposite? Perhaps then you are not the best to judge.

Now --- As to your anger that I answered a different question than was asked -- I ask you to consider if I did not already say I had a hard time understanding what exactly the question was.

How would I know if it addressed the question from just a two word sentence? Only if I was familiar with the reference, which I am not.

Your actions seem dishonest to me. It's not as if you missed where I said I wasn't sure of the question -- you quoted that and clarified. So you were using the availability of circumstances to try to show creationists fail to understand.

That just seems very furtive on the surface of it. Perhaps others have dealt with you this way in the past, but I assure you I will not do so knowingly and I'd like the same courtesy if you can possibly spare it.