Pharyngula

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 22, 2010 7:57 AM

Nice summing up on why one shouldn't debate kooks.

Posted by: Zeno | June 22, 2010 8:07 AM

After they lose, they spend all their time yelling "I won!" over and over again. Tiresome, isn't it?

It's a pity, though, that posterity is being denied Bergman's recorded performance. The non-release of the video suggests the possibility that creationists lie. Imagine that!

Posted by: Brother Bill | June 22, 2010 8:22 AM

Two divorces? I thought that the fundamentalist mantra was that "God hates divorce." Does he accept the Genesis account for creation, but rejects the proscription in the same Book regarding divorce? What kind of consistency is that?

Posted by: Lars | June 22, 2010 8:26 AM

Can't hurt? Yes, it can. It can hurt my brain cells pretty badly. My poor, poor brain cells.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2010 8:39 AM

Wasn't there some crackpot geneticist once who put little turbans on turkeys, to see how long it would take before they'd have offspring born with turbans?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Turkey Turbans

Posted by: alysonmiers | June 22, 2010 8:40 AM

Two divorces? I thought that the fundamentalist mantra was that "God hates divorce."

If his wives filed for divorce, then it doesn't really matter what Bob thinks!

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | June 22, 2010 8:49 AM

"I thought that the fundamentalist mantra was that 'God hates divorce.'"

Well, they have a back up mantra: "Christians aren't perfect, just saved." When used Together, they can't lose.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | June 22, 2010 9:02 AM

PZ, by calling the Enyart person a raving looney, you have disrespected a Great British Tadition (which I, being a dumb Yank, only know about through Wikipedia and Blackadder), the Raving Looney Parties.

Take it back, DAMN YOU!

Posted by: abb3w | June 22, 2010 9:07 AM

PZ: And worse, he lied shamelessly about the science, claiming that peacock tails have no influence on female mate choice, when exactly the opposite is true.

To give the devil his due, he may not have been willfully lying. There was a paper not too long back (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.004) suggesting a possible lack of correlation, and thus that Darwin's classic example might have been an error... something which would have been annoying to lazy textbook writers, but which science can take in stride.

However, poking at Google Scholar a bit also turns up (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.021), which gives a meta-analysis suggesting that yes, the balance of the evidence still seems to suggest there is an affirmative correlation (and commends the former regardless). It's possible Bergman had heard about the former paper by Takahashi et alia without having encountered the latter by Loyau et alia -- possibly due to confirmation bias and the tendency to not seek out disconfirming evidence.

Of course, even if he's not willfully lying, he's reprehensibly incompetent and ignorant, but that's an improvement. Ignorance can be corrected, and incompetence can sometimes be trained; with willful lying, however, about the only thing to do is to up the amperage on the Wattz Electronics "Farmer's Best Friend" cattle prod. (And even that may be of only limited help, given the current data on aversion conditioning....)

Posted by: raven | June 22, 2010 9:15 AM

He was divorced, and was later convicted of child abuse for beating a girlfriend's son — he's very big on beating up children.

That is fundie thing. Beating up on your kids. It's in the bible.

They even have instruction manuals on how to beat your kids up. People who have followed them have ended up beating their kids to death.

Some of the cults that are really into this such as the Russian-Ukrainian immigrant fundies on the west coast end up producing wild, poorly socialized adults that are frequently in trouble in the law. The authorities are trying to get them to tone it down but they just keep quoting the bible and claiming persecution.

Enyard is a typical creationist. They are as much crackpots as any Flat Earther or Geocentrist.

Posted by: Shala | June 22, 2010 9:23 AM

I'm not exactly sure why nine degrees is necessarily a bad thing.

I agree, but this is Jerry Bergman. Even if the degrees weren't from a diploma mill, he's still astoundingly stupid.

If someone obtains 9 different degrees I would expect them to have a much higher level of competence than Jerry has.

Posted by: kris.ingstrup | June 22, 2010 9:28 AM

Somehow, I think that if I mentioned that I had a bike with training wheels for a month or so when I was six, Jerry Bergman would try to top me by claiming that he kept his training wheels on his bike for 9 years, and is currently getting it fitted with a new set.

Carrying on the analogy, Bergman might tell you about his 9 different types of training wheels, but at least it's better than Enyart, who based on his complete and utter lack of credentials, would tell you that he never needed training wheels- he can fly! (I'm assuming this was a god-given gift for his dutiful work in beating down his girlfriend's children)

Posted by: John-H | June 22, 2010 9:59 AM

I think you should debate him. If his comment about peacocks is anything to go by his knowledge of evolution is so limited that his arguments will be stuff like "If we come from monkeys how come there are still monkeys" and "I aint never seen no cat give birth to a dog" you could pobably get a childs biology textbook and refute him with it or better yet just give a kid the textbook and have him do the debate it would be more fun and solve the pesky giving creationists credability problem at the same time.

Posted by: Roestigraben | June 22, 2010 10:01 AM

I didn't manage to persuade Bob and I probably didn't convince his listeners either. But I did put the case that Christians, even those who believe the Bible to be inerrant, do not have to be creationists. And I got the chance to explain this to thousands of religious conservatives who would dismiss anything that came from an atheist out of hand. So, if the first step in winning an argument is getting a hearing, then my venture onto Talk Radio must be counted as a success.

From Hannam's article on his "debate" with Enyart - unintentionally proving that there is no point in debating loons like that guy. He must really fancy himself spectacularly successful if he sets his bar so low. And all it took him in return for receiving the generous opportunity to talk to a creationist was to lend credibility to his views and fawn over his intelligence and education both on and off the air. My, what a bargain.

Posted by: Shala | June 22, 2010 10:14 AM

. He advocates for a Constitutional Monarchy under the leadership of a King, and would exclude a Queen from becoming a regnant. In an article published in the Denver Weekly Newspaper Westwood, Enyart says that "it's natural that men lead the household" and that households that are led by women turn out to be an "unhappy household." He also advocates the establishment of a criminal code under the Old Testament as national law which includes the death penalty for offenses such as homosexuality, murder, attempted murder and abortion.

How is it that people like this even get radio talk shows? Shouldn't this guy be getting help from an institution?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 10:26 AM

How is it that people like this even get radio talk shows? Shouldn't this guy be getting help from an institution?

The answer is very easy; there is enough of a listening audience for Bob Enyart to be profitable for the station the employs him.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 22, 2010 10:45 AM

#31

The answer is very easy; there is enough of a listening audience for Bob Enyart to be profitable for the station the employs him.

And I wonder how many that avidly drool when 'bobby' baby spouts this nonsense are aware of his violent impulses towards children...I wonder how many actually care!

Xian morality, at its best ensuring the concept...like their children...is abused properly, particularly by xians.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 22, 2010 10:53 AM

Of course they start by being awed by Jerry Bergman's NINE DEGREES, as if they indicate some great intelligence. Sorry, guys, you've got it backwards. A graduate program is a training program that culminates in the award of a degree — it is not an accomplishment to require multiple education attempts.

I sort of doubt that Jerry Bergman has nine degrees, unless he's counting kindergarten, and elementary, middle, and high school, but PZ shouldn't diss the overeducated and distractible among his faithful readers. I have 4 post-high school degrees, but unfortunately skipped 6th and 12th grades, so including all the earlier "degrees" doesn't bump up the total much. I don't have to become a creationist because of overeducation, right?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 11:00 AM

Sorry, Anubis Bloodsin the third, but I am sure that many are aware of his position on child beatings and approve.

Hell, my father was an atheist but he used the hellfire bullshit (That he was raised with.) to try to keep me in line. (I know, this is just anecdotal BS. It is not just the fundie christians who want to beat their children.)

Posted by: karl.tobias.steel | June 22, 2010 11:13 AM

Enyart had to find a medieval historian to find someone who might think he was scientifically competent.
PZ, long time fan of the blog etc etc, but hoping that you think the sentence works just as well if you drop 'medieval' from it. I'm a medievalist (literature rather than history), and medievalists are just humanities scholars, like any other. Maybe there's more of a tendency of medievalists to be Opus Dei types, sure, but by and large, we're scholars.

Although of course we're no more qualified to judge someone's scientific expertise than you are to judge our work! The sad thing about this freak isn't that he found a medievalist to vouch for him; it's that his guarantor is a humanities scholar (and not in one of the quasi-scientific fields: sorry historians, but you're not scientists), and not even one currently affiliated with any academic institution.

And judging by Hannam's website, he's not even qualified to be a medievalist ...his dissertation covers 1500-1570, making him an early modernist.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 11:18 AM

Mattir, the true point is not the number of degrees one has. It is what one has accomplished with one's education. And people who have true knowledge and can demonstrate it do not need to brag about the number of degrees one has.

Also, I listened to the debate. The last science class I took was an one hundred level biology class in college. And I was cringing at the ignorant statements that Jerry Bergman had to say. None of those nine degrees brought any coherence to his statements.

That debate was a waste of PZ's time. Just like it would be for any competent biology professor.

Posted by: Denis Robert | June 22, 2010 11:27 AM

abb3w: If you read that passage carefully, you'll see that the causing of a miscarriage is not a serious offense (it only warrants a fine), and is certainly not equated with murder, which is explicitly referred to in the last part of the passage.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 22, 2010 11:29 AM

@Janine - Actually I tend to be sort of embarrassed by my level of over education, since I think it says a lot about my level of distractibility in a world that prefers specialists. Plus I'm a high school dropout.

*sobs with face in hands*

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2010 11:40 AM

Although of course we're no more qualified to judge someone's scientific expertise than you are to judge our work!

That's the point.

He could have been talking about a Violinist or an Economist.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 22, 2010 11:57 AM

Don't feel bad, Mattir. I have two undergrads and dropped out of grad school, and have the salary and savings to show for it.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 12:03 PM

Yahoomess, there is enough debates between biologists and creationists recorded, including the PZ Myers and Jerry Bergman debate. Just find those. There is little reason for any biologist to engage with those intellectual bottom feeders. At least not until a creationist comes up with a new argument.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3PAFCGIAu53yG5.dWJf_1HayBvXqrv2nUycX48c-#d5d91 | June 22, 2010 12:13 PM

I thought the Myers-Bergman debate was recorded, but is currently unreleased?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 22, 2010 12:15 PM

You should consider another debate against someone though.

It's like debating with a con man or something.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2010 12:18 PM

I thought the Myers-Bergman debate was recorded, but is currently unreleased?

in PZ's above post

And you know that the hosting organization, the Twin Cities Creation Science Association knew it was bad for one obvious reason: they brought in a a lot of video gear, recorded the whole event, and "promised" (we all know how little a promise means to a Christian) to send me a DVD copy, but for some reason, the DVD has never appeared, and the debate also hasn't appeared on youtube or any other video sites. They are doing a good job of burying it.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3PAFCGIAu53yG5.dWJf_1HayBvXqrv2nUycX48c-#d5d91 | June 22, 2010 12:45 PM

@BDC
Right, that's why I was wondering about that. I would get the DVD of the debate if it was available, but apparently it was buried.

Anyone know of some good recorded debates then? I've already used talkorigins.org, and it's an excellent resource, but for some people, they use the excuse that it's a lot to read, and they're very busy, and then avoid it at all costs. So it'd be nice if there was something that I could then watch with them to avoid that excuse.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 12:57 PM

I am sorry, I got my kooks confused. The debate I remember listening to was the PZ Myers-Geoffrey Simmons debate. I am sorry about the confusion I have caused.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | June 22, 2010 1:55 PM

"Enyart embraced Christian fundamentalism and left the corporate world behind. He converted to Radical christianity at age 16 and was actively involved in evangelizing other teenagers while in high school."

If I'm reading these sentences right, he was in the "corporate world" when he was 16? That's like double asshole points.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 22, 2010 2:08 PM

Raven #66

+ 15 geek points for Aristophanes reference! Yay!

(Unless you were referring to the 80's album by The Lightening Seeds, which would only make you cooler in my estimation).

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 22, 2010 2:45 PM

Following up after raven@19 ...

He was divorced, and was later convicted of child abuse for beating a girlfriend's son — he's very big on beating up children.

That is fundie thing. Beating up on your kids. It's in the bible.

They even have instruction manuals on how to beat your kids up. People who have followed them have ended up beating their kids to death.

Yeah, our friend Bob here is one sick puppy. I have little doubt he'd be first in line to beat a few kids to death if he thought he could get away with it.

In a lovely article titled God and the Death Penalty (by Pastor Bob Enyart) he makes it fairly clear. Let's have a look at the bare URL rather than dress it up all hyperlinky like, shall we?

http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML

Right off the bat it's apparent Bob is not going for a subliminal approach here. (Obsess much Bob?) My favorite bit is within the section called Jesus Supports Capital Punishment. Here's the money shot.

Jesus reaffirmed the capital statutes of God's law. Not only the murderer (Rev. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1:8-9; Rom. 13:4), but even the one who curses a parent must be put to death (Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9) just as God commanded. God's commands to execute the one who strikes or curses a parent are the death penalty statutes that liberal Christians are the most embarrassed over. However, Christ was not at all embarrassed over His Fathers commands. Jesus repeated these commands without caveat or reservation.

Laying aside the commands of God has its consequences. In America, murder has become the number one cause of death among young black males, and suicide is the number three cause of death among all teenagers. There is a death penalty when children disrespect their parents. If Jesus' telling of God's command is ignored, countless children will die terrible deaths at the hands of other children and by their own hands. On the other hand, if God's command were enforced, rather than ridiculed, the shedding of innocent blood would virtually disappear in our land. God's wisdom would save thousands of children. man's wisdom destroys them. (emphasis mine)

You really are one fucked up individual Bob.

Posted by: Jonahdog | June 22, 2010 2:51 PM

For chuckles, and to make you feel better when you sign out, check out Pastor Bob's favorite web site, Theology on Line. The anger, ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity is amazing.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 22, 2010 3:00 PM

I demand that my geekiness be recognized.

tvtropes hears and obeys.

Posted by: bobenyartlive | June 22, 2010 4:11 PM

PZ, since you won't debate him, Bob Enyart has now posted what he's calling his one and only question to you: The PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. It's a sketch of the human eye with the question.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 22, 2010 4:20 PM

The PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. It's a sketch of the human eye with the question.

FFS, not that old chestnut. Again. If human eyes were designed, it was one bad design. All manner of creatures have much, much better eyes than we do. They definitely have much better eyes than I do.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 22, 2010 4:49 PM

I just clicked on the PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge link and it's not about the eye, it's about the sling, the muscle threaded through the trochlea.

No, actually what it is, is a clear demonstration that someone doesn't understand either biology or evolution.

Posted by: woozy | June 22, 2010 5:35 PM

I get the lame retort that if he's so stupid, I should be able to demolish him easily, so I must be afraid to debate him. Jebus, talk about not getting it—

Does any one remember or know the title of a short story by Roald Dahl in which the narrator is interviewing "the greatest chess player in the world"? The story is framed with the pretext of describing how the man became "the greatest chess player in the world". The story is typically Dahl, crime, murder, irony, prison but nothing whatsoever to do with chess untill the prisoner concludes:

"once in prison I took to playing chess by mail correspondence. I played with anyone at first but that became dull so I started to correspond only with champions. After a while they stopped responding to my invitions so I had to conclude the only reason they wouldn't accept would be because the conceded they could not win. I sent an invitation to the world champion figuring that as the champion he'd surely believe he could best me but I recieved no reply. I could only conclude that as the world champion would cede defeat to no-one but the best, that I must therefore be the greatest chess player in the world."

Sound familiar?

Posted by: woozy | June 22, 2010 6:00 PM

I just clicked on the PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge link and it's not about the eye, it's about the sling, the muscle threaded through the trochlea.

No, actually what it is, is a clear demonstration that someone doesn't understand either biology or evolution.

Heh, heh. Granted.

But it's not the ol' "what good is half an eye" argument that we all expect and counter with the ol' "backward nerve to retina" refute. It's a new "irreducibly complex" argument but this time not about bat wings or rotor philangae.

Apparently there is a muscle that threads through a hole-like trochea. I guess the idea being that there is no benefit to a non-threaded muscle so such a thing couldn't evolve.

Hmmph. I'm not a biologist. Aren't there plenty of threaded muscles and bones. Couldn't the trochea have originated as enclosing the muscle and the seperating and "slinging" have occurred later? I mean, shouldn't one of basic questions of evolutiom mechanics be what is the result evolving from? Well, I don't know whether this is "challenging" or not. (Probably not very.) I'd be (mildly) curious to hear an actual biologist explain it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2010 6:10 PM

PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge

Oh you're not going to debate me? Well answer this?

To which I'll respond.

And then you can present a rebuttal.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/rcyLiJAWhNsu5lxFVfUM_lxKLWoR8O5B_S2z#4d41c | June 22, 2010 6:20 PM

I present to you.... "Cain the fawning suck up fan" performing "The Defense of the Fragile Ego!"
Let's listen.....

Here's an idea, Yahoomess: why don't you do it? Two gasbags with zero intelligence nattering at one another. Sounds about your speed.

Posted by: woozy | June 22, 2010 6:21 PM

Hurrumph. Like I said, I'm not a biologist. But the more I study images of the trochlea, the less of a challenge this seems. Couldn't the trochea simply have begun as a membrain covering the muscle. Any mutation on said membrain adhering to the bone, narrowing, or pulling away from they eye itself would allow better focus. Right?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | June 22, 2010 6:26 PM

I present to you.... "Cain the fawning suck up fan" performing "The Defense of the Fragile Ego!" Let's listen.....

all you've presented so far is a serious of Ad Hom attacks with no substance to convince anyone to debate Enyart.

Shiny, Shiny Mirror.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 22, 2010 6:30 PM

Mattir, I'm also distractible - I have 3 degrees and have dropped out of another 4. Subject areas physics, astronomy, sociology, philosophy of science, computer science. None of them were biology; I picked mine up from popular science books and working in bioinformatics for a decade.

I recommend IT and statistics to generalists with a logical bent. You can change subject area very easily without losing skills.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 22, 2010 6:40 PM

Bob Enyart wants me to respect his intelligence

Um...

Er...

If he wants respect for his intelligence, wouldn't it help if he had some?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 22, 2010 6:55 PM

Oh you're not going to debate me?

now all you have to do is insert a topic, post hoc, and you will have automagically won this non-debate!

whee!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 22, 2010 7:57 PM

Sorry, the first sentence in my post #98 should be: "We'll take you on, yahoomess."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 22, 2010 8:04 PM

Yoohoomess, don't disappear. What is your response?

*continues to sharpen talons*

Posted by: MrFire | June 22, 2010 8:15 PM

Messy thiol infested flatulence.

*holds nose*

Posted by: raven | June 22, 2010 8:58 PM

This Pastor Bob kook comes across like a serial killer who hasn't been caught yet.

He seems to obsess over the huge number of murders that xians are no longer allowed to perform. I bet he dreams of the good old days of xianity when sabbath breakers, witches, and heretics could and were killed by the tens of thousands.

There is one minor of many reasons not to debate him. Would you want to be around a wannabe homicidal maniac when he finally snaps?

Xian leaders like him are one reason xianity is on the skids. When xian becomes synonymous with wannabe killer, who wants to be one? Besides Pastor Bob Enyart and his troll followers like Yahoomess.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 22, 2010 9:41 PM

God-is-nowhere:

How long from the time it is buried in the dirt, in calendar years, can organic material remain unpermineralized?

What do you mean by "dirt"? Do you mean soil? What kind of soil? Or do you mean sand, or a riverbed, or a clay bed?

And why are you asking a developmental biologist a question best asked of a geologist?

And what, exactly, would the answer mean?

I concluded that Mr. Myers assumed I was unworthy of his highly intellectual answer merely on the grounds that I may have not ascended to his level of scientific awareness of the natural world.

Or in other words, you're asking a bogus question.

For this very reason it appears his minions are defending his BLOG to opt out of any future debates with so-called ignorant, non-conforming anti-evolutionary types.

Meh. PZ's time is his own, and he can spend exactly as much time as he wants debating whoever he wants -- or not doing so.

PZ's minions are here because ignorant, non-conforming anti-evolutionary types are wrong on the Internet.

Actually, I have a lot of questions about this earth

But you don't actually care about the answers, do you?

but if I'm not drinking the evolution flavored kool-aid,

Your poisoning of the well is noted.

does that also relegate me to the "I'm a waste of PZ's time" crowd?

Yes. Glad you're smart enough to figure that one out.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 22, 2010 10:25 PM

Commenting on the yahoomess @84

What's with this weird obsession among the conspiracy theorists and the creationists about this mythical "honest observer"?

It's like everything is a game or a debate club tournament and it's all about wowing the audience.

No, see in the real world, where we all have to live, what matters is what's true, not what plays best to the crowd. There aren't any "honest observers", there are experiments, data, evidence gathering, theories born out of the whole of the data.

We can educate with this material, we can teach people how to find it themselves, we can point morons in the directions of handy-dandy compilations of information known as textbooks and introductory primers, but the world isn't some game and if you marshall a good enough argument that makes people clap, reality doesn't shift to fit your delusions.

For all the creationists out there, if they were genuinely interested in proving their scientific hypothesis, they would simply have to do the work to show how their hypothesis fits the vast swath of data, information, and experiments that simply wouldn't work if evolution was a fiction.

And if they did, the scientific world would lavish them with praise and love. Proving evolution wrong as a theory? That'd be bigger than the discovery of genetics, there'd be a nobel prize in it for the team that pulled that coup. Fuck, if it was actually true, I'd love to discover it, I'd never have to apply for a lab again in my life.

Sadly, the consensus is in and frankly, whole industries, subdisciplines, and even full fields frankly wouldn't work or be able to do a single function without evolution being well-established and true.

And all of you are stuck trying to "debate" your way to parity, playing to the mythical "honest observer" and hoping if you just find the right mix of bullshit no one but a trained scientist can tell how dumb you are.

It's almost enough to make me believe you are arguing in bad faith.

Nah! Couldn't be that. That'd just be mean.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 22, 2010 11:07 PM

Godbot @106

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but your question actually doesn't pertain to anything. Depending on the soil, bacteria, and oxygen count, putrefecation of remains varies in speeds and the fossilization itself can vary as well. However, this has no bearing on the most common means of dating people and objects (Carbon 14 and the like) nor the validity on the range of dates found so far for both human civilizations (longer than 6000 years) and the history of life (WAY longer than 6000 years).

If you wanted the information to try and deny the validity of current dating technology, you would find it ill-suited to your task. May I recommend studied ignorance, a hard-headed refusal to be educated, and a large amount of body odor. It won't make you less wrong in your daily life, but it will force more people to give up trying to have a conversation with you and thus give you as many "victories" as you would want by "default".

Thank you for trialling our new service. Please stay on the line for a survey so you can report on how helpful you found it to your queries. We here at Derailing Incorporated want to aid all of our intellectually incurious clientele and we want to streamline our service to better service your needs.

*BOOP*

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 11:11 PM

You probably won't debate Bob because you heard his debate with Eugenie Scott! He destroyered her!

Destroyered! He blasted a KISS album at her?

Seriously, did this debate change any of the facts supporting the theory of evolution. Did Bob even talk about the facts or just use vague analogies. The only fear is what you think your "enemies" should have. Scooter, you have not given a reason why PZ, or any biologist, should waste their time wanking with the willfully ignorant.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 22, 2010 11:15 PM

I concluded that Mr. Myers assumed I was unworthy of his highly intellectual answer merely on the grounds that I may have not ascended to his level of scientific awareness of the natural world.

Poe. And obvious. Try harder.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | June 22, 2010 11:23 PM

That's a VERY lame excuse not to debate a christian, just because other christians were a disappointment! You are AFRAID to debate Bob Enyart because he would SMOKE you!

That's all Enyart is, all smoke. So you are right. He has no scientific merit to support creationism. But please if you do, please post it here. Remember though, we can't hold our breaths forever.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 22, 2010 11:39 PM

Ugh...creationists put their fingers so far in their ears they hit brain.

And most of it comes out when they remove their fingers.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 22, 2010 11:52 PM

And most of it comes out when they remove their fingers.

I rather thought they had to put gloves on to avoid freezing their fingers in the vacuum of space.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 22, 2010 11:55 PM

Scooter?

that can't be OUR Scooter, surely?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/on_the_air_shortly.php

I highly suggest this person NOT use the scooter's name in vain.

Posted by: DLC | June 23, 2010 12:59 AM

So basically this God-Soaked abusive personality has found or been fed what he thinks is an argument-winner, and so has tugged on superman's cape in order to show him his fistful of what he hopes is cryptonite but is in reality nothing but green-painted horse cookie. On the other hand, perhaps he was just getting his name posted on a fairly widely-read blog in hopes of attracting more listeners to your mewling idiotic insecure whining and demand-making that you call a radio show.
No, sometimes derision is the proper response.
Sometimes laughing isn't enough, but pointing and laughing is. So, I'll point and laugh.
Sell your car, mortgage your house and maybe then you'll have enough to buy a clue.

Posted by: str1pe | June 23, 2010 3:22 AM

Here's the response to this thread again. :)

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 23, 2010 3:30 AM

Stripe, aren't you a whiny little shitstain.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 23, 2010 3:35 AM

No, sometimes derision is the proper response.

ooh, goody, I haven't posted this all week:

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

-Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: guaranty | June 23, 2010 10:03 AM

PZ claims that he decided to never debate creationists. But when Enyart challenged him, he goes and investigates who Enyart is and what he understands, and then decides to write an excuse for himself in his blog about why he wont debate Enyart. These are the actions of someone who is clearly just afraid.

PZ, your faithful don't need excuses, they will love you anyway. There was no need to expose your insecurity like this.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 23, 2010 10:17 AM

But when Enyart challenged him, he goes and investigates who Enyart is and what he understands, and then decides to write an excuse for himself in his blog about why he wont debate Enyart. These are the actions of someone who is clearly just afraid.

Secondly, if your ideas are scientific, why is the creationist community not submitting papers to journals like Science and Nature? Could it be the folks who would write the papers know the papers would be unscientific bullshit? So, present the evidence for your deity. We need a good laugh.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 23, 2010 10:36 AM

Nerd has a long history of not wanting to talk science even though he's on a science blog.

Posted by: str1pe | June 23, 2010 10:53 AM

Play, Nerd? Oh, no thank you. You don't play. You just hurl invective. :)

Posted by: str1pe | June 23, 2010 10:59 AM

Oh, I don't know about that. I've posted some fairly substantial and well thought through material in my time. :)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 23, 2010 11:07 AM

Oh, I don't know about that. I've posted some fairly substantial and well thought through material in my time.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 23, 2010 11:17 AM

Bob ?

Posted by: Alate_One | June 23, 2010 11:45 AM

Bob does regular segments he calls "Real Science Friday", which I call "Wrong Science Friday". It doesn't take long to figure out how clueless he truly is, just from reading the summaries.

Here's a recent one claiming woolly mammoths couldn't live in ancient Siberia

Here's a post where he repeats and supports erroneous claims about genetic evidence for evolution made by Creation Magazine.

He claimed that because a model for evolution of the ATP synthase utilized a portion of DNA helicase, that the argument was circular because cells can't replicate DNA without the ATP synthase.

Apparently he was unaware that ATP is made in many more ways than chemiosmosis. He claimed his biology background was too old to have known this, to which I pointed out glycolysis has been understood long before he would have been in school. No response or retraction on that or the other obvious falsehoods of course.

As a Christian, I find the actions and arguments of YECs like Bob to be an embarrassment to the faith.

Posted by: str1pe | June 23, 2010 12:05 PM

I think the picture is fairly self-explanatory. :idunno:

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 23, 2010 12:21 PM

I think the picture is fairly self-explanatory. :idunno:

Yes, and the explanation is as I said previously ...

... it's just another bullshit question that creationists like to toss out. Kinda like if I were to ask you for evidence (a picture\painting\drawing taken daily) of every relative you have back to Noah, and failing that I can only conclude that you poofed into being.

Earlier you said ...

Oh, I don't know about that. I've posted some fairly substantial and well thought through material in my time. :)

[Citation Needed]

Again, do you have some sort of positive argument to make ?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 23, 2010 12:32 PM

Again, do you have some sort of positive argument to make ?

Posted by: yesyouneedjesus | June 23, 2010 3:51 PM

I listen to Bob Enyart's radio show, and anyone who does knows Bob would slaughter PZ in a debate. I'm not surprised one bit that PZ turned it down.

Listening to Bob's show, Bob offered to pay PZ to debate and offered to debate PZ on his terms and location.

I wonder if anyone else has ever offered this to PZ? Bob debated Eugenie Scott and Reasons to Believe. Neither to my knowledge has ever even mentioned their respective debates with Bob because of how lopsided it was. (Bob sell's both debates by the way.)

I'm positive that PZ won't respond to the trochlea challenge, an argument that Bob came up with himself.

Looking at the posts here on this site, it's clear how little intelligence there really is. The vocabulary is so elementary with all the name calling and no substance, it reminds me of the 4th grade. This site is no more about science than the evolutionist claims young-earth creationism is.

I'm glad Bob tried to debate PZ and even more glad there will be a record of PZ's denial of the debate and inability to respond to the challenge. Thanks PZ!

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 23, 2010 4:02 PM

Bob sell's both debates by the way.

I'm positive that PZ won't respond to the trochlea challenge,,an argument that Bob came up with himself

with all the name calling and no substance

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 23, 2010 4:13 PM

I'm glad Bob tried to debate PZ and even more glad there will be a record of PZ's denial of the debate and inability to respond to the challenge. Thanks PZ!

Yes! You are so right! PZ not getting involved in a debate with a creationist is an other win for creationism! It also changes all of the millions pieces evidence that goes into supporting theory of evolution.

If Bob Enyart actually could prove evolution to be wrong, he would not have to debate any biologist. He could write a paper that would change the field of biology.

So what is stopping Bob Enyart from doing this. Or would he rather have sycophants crowing bitter nothings? Bob Enyart's inability to release a game changing paper is all that any reasonable person needs.

You are way out of your league here.

Posted by: woozy | June 23, 2010 4:57 PM

PZ claims that he decided to never debate creationists. But when Enyart challenged him, he goes and investigates who Enyart is and what he understands, and then decides to write an excuse for himself in his blog about why he wont debate Enyart. These are the actions of someone who is clearly just afraid.

Huh? How on earth do you figure that? If someone challenges one to a debate it's only common sense to reasearch who the challenger is to decide if its worth one's time to do the debate. Anyone who doesn't research his challenger before accepting is, well, a fool.

PZ has debated creationists in the past and has found it an unworthy experience. I'm not certain as to whether he has made it a blanket policy to never debate creationists again but if he has he has made it clear that although he won't orally debate he will blog and criticize creationists publically. Okay, perhaps you find this "cowardly" or dishonest. Well, maybe maybe not, but what PZ chooses to do with his time is his decission. And his blog *is* public and rebutable.

Actually, I'd like to see PZ debate Enyart too, but considering how Enyart is impervious to hearing any argument and interprets his stonewalling to mean an oppentents lack of evidence (-- you and I could debate whether water is poisonous and I could simply could simplely sit there and claim, "yep, you just don't have any evidence and you aren't convincing me" and claim to have won the debate by his methods; He didn't dehume Eugenie Scott; he just says he did--) I don't blame him. It'd achieve nothing and be frustrating to boot.

Anyway, I just don't see "afraid" as appropriate. If he "lost" (although how can anyone judge such an outcome) he'd be none the worst. Enyart has no influence or credibility to PZs career or reputation. PZ has nothing to lose or to gain so he really has nothing to fear. What's wrong with simply accepting PZ just plain doesn't want to.

======
Anyhoo, how 'bout that Trochlea challenge? Any biologists with free time on their hands want to take a stab at it?

Or, er, *shuffles feet modestly*, want to critique this non-biologist's conjecture in post #89? *blushes and goes offline*

Posted by: woozy | June 23, 2010 5:28 PM

*and comes right back*

and how come (rhetorical) whenever creationists and evolutionists debate its always a debate on evolution? Why isn't it ever a debate on creationism[*]? Why can't we ask Enyart what does he honestly think biologists are doing if evolution is wrong. Why on earth would anyone actually *want* to disprove God if there were evidence he existed. Why would a fossil record and consistantly compatible evidence that whales evolve from land mammals be too flimsy yet the idea of millions of cases of spontaneous generation be acceptable? Or more basically why should a religious document with no consistancy to known biology or geography be an acceptable null hypothesis?

Part of me loves arguing just for the sake of argument and I love trying on radical theories just for the fit. I'd love to watch any debate on conventional evolution vs. any new radical theory. Did homo-sapiens go through an aquatic primate phase during their evolution? Oooh, that sounds intrigueing let's debate that! Junk DNA vs. super complex and needed DNA, yeah cool! Evolution itself vs. some esoteric alternative theory? Hot Damn! But ... wait a minute ... there aren't any esoteric alternative theories... ID? well, okay, maybe we can see if there are any holes in the model of random mutation or inadequacies in natural selection as the driving force of adaption. Well, there aren't and there aren't. That took all of two seconds.

Hmmph, so there aren't any other alternative to evolution... Well then, let's poke at its weaknesses and look back at the null hypothesis. What's the null hypothesis again? There were millions of spontaneous generation six thousand years ago when God did it??? That's not a null hypothesis, you numbskull!!!!!

============
[*] Rhetorical because the answer is because evolutionists have interest in defending evolution but utterly no interest in debunking creationism, while creationists have vast interest in discrediting evolution and only moderate interest in defending creationism.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | June 23, 2010 8:15 PM

Dear Brother yesyoupeedjesus,

Like you, I am a regular listener to Bob Enyart's radio show. Anyone who knows Bob's work, knows that Bob is blessed by God with a healing ministry. Before I started listening to Bob I hadn't had a shit in nine weeks, but PTL, ten minutes of Bob's honeyed tones and my bowels were loosened and I dids't crap a bowl full.

Tell Bob not to waste his time debating evilutionists. Were he to market his tapes as cures for constipation he could make millions. I hope Bob will respond to the laxative challenge, that's if he's not too busy playing with himself.

Looking at your posts here on this site, yesyoureamedjesus, it's clear how little intelligence you really possess. Your thought processes are so elementary with all the praying and no evidence, it reminds me of the 4th grade. This site is no more about stupidity than creationism is about reputable science.

I'm glad Bob tried to debate PZ and even more glad there will be a record of PZ's mockery of the douchebag and disinterest in responding to a liar. Thanks Bob!

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | June 23, 2010 9:00 PM

Yep, it's all theater with these guys. An actual, credentialed university professor should put down whatever he's doing at any given moment should some random kook come at him requesting a dick-measuring contest. Is it any wonder they're so attracted to shallow fairy tales like religion?

Posted by: Usagichan | June 23, 2010 9:33 PM

Nerd,

Almost like they have a character defect to stay ignorant...

Not a character defect I think, more like Pavlovian Conditioning - "Not in the babble..." *Whack* "Bad", "Not in the babble..." *Whack* "Bad".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 23, 2010 9:43 PM

Unfortunately, I don't have a clue...

Posted by: woozy | June 23, 2010 10:59 PM

That starts with not babbling about results, unless you have something concrete to offer.

Um, you were the one who claimed to have 14,500 results without actually indicating which if any actually answered the question.

I recall a search where the real answer was #360 out of 10,000+ hits.

Don't knock the the efficiency of good library skills.

Your meanderings spoiled my effect.

Sorry, but your effect was weak as you did not demonstrably find anything.

Look at Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye—Fossil Evidence, Gavin C. Young. Sadly I was misdirected as to where to look because the assumption that this had anything to do with human evolution. As just about *all* vertibrates have the configuration of the optical dorsal oblique muscle threading through a trocheal connecting to the rectal latus-- (as an information searcher with no formal biology training I think I can rightly claim ignorance to not knowing this initially and only learning it while searching; Enyart, as the challenger, can not claim such ignorance)-- the evolution of the position of the trocheal in human beings is completely dependent on the evolution of the relative position of the cranium to the eyes (which is probably why no-one has ever bother to specifically study the "challenge"). The issue then, is only to find an explanation for the dorsal oblique muscle threading through a trochlea in general regardless of which vertibrate or what position. I imagine to the well-informed biologist this would be a simple matter of opening a textbook to the right picture. But again, novice! (and again Enhart can't claim that excuse) so I had to actually find such in Young's article. (And ther it is in Fig. 4a, right behind the eye just where you'd predict it.)

Posted by: Malcolm | June 24, 2010 2:00 AM

This whole "challenge" thing is just yet another example of creotard arrogance.
They can't explain X, therefore X is inexplicable.
AKA an argument from ignorance.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 2:23 AM

...here's a hint, Bob:

Carbon 14's half life is...?

A: 1 year
B: 5700 years
C: umpteen zillion years.
D: My name is Bob.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 2:42 AM

Atheists love to bring up stuff that's already been covered.

oh?

strangely, "teh challenge" is still on your site, Bob. You linked to it directly in this very thread.

Your knowledge of science is what indeed is at issue here, and that very post clearly indicates you are entirely ignorant.

why would would Einstein debate a 2 year old with severe brain damage?

yes, Bob, that's why nobody wants to debate you.

It's why the title of this thread, in fact, is:

Bob Enyart wants me to respect his intelligence

It's pure sarcasm, because, you see Bob, *whisper mode*...

you don't have any.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 2:52 AM

":)"

why don't you just keep posting smiley faces?

it says more than your words, moron.

Posted by: str1pe | June 24, 2010 3:06 AM

I can keep posting smiley faces if you'd like, Ichthyic. I try to do so for as long as possible while outside, mostly to remind myself to remain civil. :)

If you'd like, you could review the Carbon-14 discussion and make some comments that showed you'd actually listened to and understood the material describing the situation.

That'd be cool. :)

Posted by: str1pe | June 24, 2010 3:10 AM

We've been on the subject of you being a moron since your first post - what's changed? It can't be you - you're demonstrably still a moron.

I beg to differ. :)

You've called numerous other people besides me all sorts of names.

It's almost impressive how very inhospitable this forum is. You must work very hard at it.

Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2010 3:13 AM

str1pe, civil trolling is still trolling.

If you're trying to say there's substance to the creationist claims, then do so by showing us.
What specific claim merits debate?

So far, you're just gibing baselessly.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 3:20 AM

you could review the Carbon-14 discussion

you mean the discussion at your youtube vid, where the very first comment says:

If YECs stop with their yapping for a moment and actually open a peer review paper, they might discover the meaning of what constitute as good science. Jack's refusal to conduct a C14 test was based on good science. However, YEC's continued claim there was "soft" tissue found, represents a failure to even read the peer reviewed papers. No organic material was ever foumd. The material that was found was calcified, which became "soft" after a bath in acid. Learn to read!

like THAT discussion, you mean?

LOL

again, you want us to take you seriously???

ROFLMAO!

Posted by: str1pe | June 24, 2010 3:23 AM

when you can defend suggesting using C14 to date something hundreds of millions of years old, come back and tell us.

Why would I need to defend that suggestion?

Am I required to believe what you believe?

Did you realise this discussion has already been had and it seems settled but for the discomfort the record shows?

:)

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | June 24, 2010 3:27 AM

Why would I need to defend that suggestion?

Because you bother to bring up that dicussion at all. Stop trying to evade the subject, and defend it with scientific evidence.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 3:30 AM

So, Ichthyic, you're going to rely on a discussion about the conversation rather than talk about what really happened?

what are you babbling about?

I know what really happened. It's yourself that appears to be in conflict with reality.

I'm just hoping you will detail it again, here, so we can laugh at you some more.

or, you can just post smiley faces.

both work.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 24, 2010 3:38 AM

Am I required to believe what you believe?

Believe what you want, but what you believe is not going to change the fact that the half-life of C14 is measurable and has been measured. You can ignore it, dismiss it, but the fact will remain independent of your acceptance. All it does is show yourself to be ignorant if you ignore it ;)

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 24, 2010 3:42 AM

*facepalm*

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 3:48 AM

Could you explain what is dumb about testing something for carbon-14?

nothing.

here's your question in a sensible form:

"Could you explain what is dumb about testing something [older than say, 50K years] with carbon-14?"

to which the answer was posted earlier in the little quiz I laid out for you.

no, you can't play gotchya here, asswipe, until you actually spell out what you attempted to do.

so, go on, I know you're just fucking itching to make an even bigger ass of yourself.

tell us how you proved your Trex fossil was mere thousands, not tens of millions, of years old.

c'mon, you're simply not entertaining unless you give us the whole story!

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 3:52 AM

*sigh*

I'll have to check in with our resident retard tomorrow.

maybe by then he will have said something.

or someone could just point him to a collection of smiley face gifs?

Posted by: Weed Monkey | June 24, 2010 4:19 AM

I hate repeating myself, but that's everything it seems to be doing, so:

I see only passive-aggressive fake civility and poorly disguised smugness.
Facts or GTFO.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | June 24, 2010 4:26 AM

pissant wrote:

I beg to differ. :)

How about, instead of begging, you actually demonstrate that you're not a moron - and then I won't have any reason to refer to you as such.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | June 24, 2010 4:44 AM

'Stripe' or ass wipe or whatever the tag, actually displays the creationist trait quite well.

The inability to think is a given, the inability to understand is another little gift and lacking sufficient smarts to conceptualize, unless it involves a juvenile fairy story, is a mandatory.
Because if they succumbed to any reality their gig is up!
They like simple...not capable of hard!
That is why incoherent ravings ding their bell.
They do not want an answer, they already have one, it is a wrong one but that has never slowed them down, actually they just want to appear in front of their own zombies appearing to know.
The slyness of the ignorance defeats the eye!

Knowing nothing is afterall a very xian blessing, it protects the mythology.
It is patently obvious that 'Stripe' has no idea on C14 dating.
Or indeed any other radiometric dating even non-radiometric technique...dendrochronology, thermoluminescence and ice-cores for example
No idea at all otherwise he would not bother posing such a fucking stupid moronic question.

When they ask sensible questions without recourse to buffoonery or in-credulousness then they might get a debate when they grow up a bit...but that is not likely to occur within the halflife of Carbon 14.

Posted by: woozy | June 24, 2010 5:13 AM

Oh fuck.

I just figured out what swipe is getting at with the carbon 14 jazz. He's assuming it is the paleontologist's obligation to prove that the dinosaur isn't under 50,000 years old. If the dinosaur is under 50,000 years old then the test will tell how old it is. If the dinosaur is over 50,000 years old then the test is useless. Thus, according to stripe, the burden of proof is on us to produce a useless test.
And obviously the only reason we wouldn't want to do a test is because we are afraid the result will be useful.

Okay, who wants to tear him a new one. The stupid is simply hurting me too much right now.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 24, 2010 5:23 AM

Okay, who wants to tear him a new one. The stupid is simply hurting me too much right now.

Posted by: woozy | June 24, 2010 5:46 AM

I guess there is something dumb about testing something you know the age of. :chuckle:

There's something very dumb about using dendochronology to test the age of the first single cell-organisms. There's something very dumb about using strata layers to determine my age. There's something very dumb about using county records on microfiche to determine the age of Julius Ceaser. And, yes, there is something very dumb about using Carbon 14 dating on dinosaur fossils.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 24, 2010 6:47 AM

Actually listen to the questions being asked and read the points made and respond with something relevant. :

Atheists also love to change the subject as much as possible.

Could you explain what is dumb about testing something for carbon-14?

Lesson time. With carbon-14, since it is being constantly manufactured due to neutron activation:

1) ¹³C(n,hv)¹⁴C

(2) ¹⁴N(n,¹H)¹⁴C

(3) ¹⁵N(n,²H)¹⁴C

(4) ¹⁶O(n,³He)¹⁴C

(5) ¹⁷O(n,⁴He)¹⁴C

(6) Various heavy nucleotide fission.

Because of radioactive elements in the crustal rocks, and neutrons from solar radiation, even diamonds will test to 70,000 years old, when the rock they are in is much, much older. Simply because a small amount of carbon-14 is constantly being formed. Science and scientists are aware of this, and make allowances for it. Making C-14 irrelevant for anything more than 50,000 years old. Your harping on it shows you to be an intellectual fraud, which we already know.

Can we move on?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2010 7:32 AM

You know who was right afterall? truth machine:

he often does:

My hypothesis to explain someone like Stripe is fetal alcohol syndrome.

can't come any closer than that.

nite.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 24, 2010 9:38 AM

Geez, I come back and str1pe has already lowered itself into outright lies.

str1pe, your first post was something of an outright taunt.

Nobody was ever pretending you were Bob.

After a response to you in which I asked why Bob won't just come here and speak for himself (including an offhanded attempt to address Bob directly) you alluded to being Bob himself by responding to me.

In my next comment to you, this time addressing you as Bob, you didn't bother to correct me in your response leaving the pretending firmly in your lap.

str1pe, this post is an example of how to present a positive argument and providing the required evidence to back one's claims. If that sort of thing interests you at all. I'm unwilling to waste any more of my life on you.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 24, 2010 10:57 AM

My god, you people are too dumb to eat.

a) Carbon Dating is done and proven. We know the limits of it, shut up about it
b) No creationist is "Good" at establishing proof. Proof relies on evidence which they lack. You have multiple fields working against you. Let me propose an opposite view to creationism, Kryptonism. I believe that Superman is a real entity. He lives in a city named Metropolis in the midwest. The reason we think he's fictional is because of Mr. Mzplk toying with him. Soon SUperman will trick him into saying his name backwards and we will be saved
c) debate is a pointless exercise. Rhetoric does not make truth evidence does.
d) is there ANY creationist argument that doesn't boil down to "NYA NYA NYA YOU SUCK WE RULE ROFL!" Seriously how is this different from going "CHICKEN YOUR TOO CHICEK TO DEBATE US WE R TEH GRAPEIST!"
e) Can we make excessively smileys a ban-able offense?
f) Creationism fails since it's built on the batshit insane faulty ground of christianity.

Posted by: Goriller | June 24, 2010 11:33 AM

So PZ, describe roughly how the trochlea might have evolved. We're waiting.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 24, 2010 11:54 AM

Um... I remember debating a "Stripe" here some months ago. A discussion about the appendix, I think. I wonder if this is the same Stripe?

It's a very common name. :)

Stripe is a self-admitted troll. And a moron of course.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 24, 2010 12:12 PM

"So PZ, describe roughly how the trochlea might have evolved. We're waiting."

People are not your fucking personal wikipedia. Look it up.

For your fucking convienance here's someone else who answered the question

"This one is an example of Creationists asking how something originated in a way that presumes that there must once have been species/individuals which were the same as the modern ones in all ways except the one trait they're asking about, such as people in whom there's no muscle making this wacky U-turn. The hope is that, because that presumption is built in to the question but not stated directly, the evolutionist who is being challenged will forget to think of the hidden presumption and fail to bring up the fact that other things were different in the past, too, not just this one trait, so its original development could have been in a quite different context.

The bone in question here is a part of the frontal bone. In humans, that's the forehead, which starts above and mostly in front of the eyes and extends almost straight up from there. But the early tetrapod ancestors didn't have foreheads, and their eyes weren't pointed forward. Their eyes pointed out to the sides (and possibly also upward) rather than forward, and the equivalent of the forehead was behind and between the tops of the orbits and extended back horizontally, forming the top of the cranium, not the front of it. In this image, to see where things were back then, you have to picture the eye rotated "clockwise" in terms of the image's directions, the muscle's insertion point on the eye swung around "left" and "up" (more medial and anterior) with that rotation, and the trochlea "lower" (more posterior). That takes out the U-turn.

Another way to look at it is in this one, in which you have to picture the eye rotating on an axis that's vertical within the picture so the outside, the side nearest you (including points 5 and 11 and the superior rectus's insertion point) goes "left" (back) and the opposite surface of the eye (the inside, one you can't see) goes "right" (forward). That would also move the superior oblique's insertion point farther from you as the viewer of the image (medially) and then "right" (forward), passing "behind" (medial to) the superior rectus's insertion point, while the frontal bone leans over to the "left" (back), taking the trochlea "down and left" (down and back). It's another angle from which to see the same thing: the U-turn is naturally taken out by the changes in the shape of the head as you visualize starting with a human head and making it more like our ancestors'.

Of course, this is the reverse of the actual flow of time. What it really means is that if you start with a flat-headed ancestor that has outward-pointing eyes and no U-turns a few hundred million years ago, then crank its eyes around to point forward and shove the top of its head up and foreward to make a forehead, then superior oblique's insertion point on the eye moves back and out (laterally) while the trochlea holds on to the middle of it on its way up and forward, thus creating a U-turn in what had been a perfectly ordinary linear muscle before.

I think the annulus of Zinn would also have been farther forward back then than it is now, which, if that is the case, would also contribute to the same effect as the annulus migrated back.

It's pretty much the same deal as the biceps brachii being wrapped around from one side of the limb to another because the original orientation of our arms was like pointing our elbows out and back, with the palm inferior and the thumb medial... or the sternocleidomastoid crossing over from front of the chest/neck to the back of the neck/head because both ends were closer together back before we tilted our heads roughly 90° off from the original orientation.

The only question then, since the U-turn issue is solved, is why one of the muscles originating at the annulus of Zinn ever went through a little loop of bone in the first place while the others didn't. Maybe back when this muscle was still mostly in-line but the changes around it were just beginning, a slight adjustment of that muscle's angle of action was selected for while the difference was still incremental. Or maybe they all went through the trochlea originally and the others came out of it but that one didn't make it. Or maybe the trochlea was left over from having served some other purpose originally. But that seems to be a minor trifle to me; I'm thinking the U-turn shape is the issue here, and that's not hard to see coming from an original straighter shape as I described above. In fact, given what we know about the changes in the skull since our earliest tetrapod ancestors, the fact that the superior oblique must have been straighter is pretty much inescapable anyway, because there's no way it could fail to have been straighter when you take the different skull shape back then into account."
found at http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=103731&sid=e342bec764eded1609fc2de1078a9185&start=10

And the shorter answer: A change in skull shape , wrt the positioning of the eyes, can result in trochlea formation because the superior oblique muscle hasn't changed, just the position/orientation of the bone it is attached to.

Yes I know you won't accept that as an answer, but I have to wonder why the fuck you even ask. It's a known aspect of evolution that you work with what you have. In class we called it the tangled hose metaphor, you walk to where you want with a garden hose ignoring what happens behind you. You're not allowed to untangle so every new place you move you have to work around the path you already made and everything you tangled up. This is why we have trochlea vision problems, crappy hips, crappy birth canals, back problems, and inefficient feet. It's why whales have hips and lungs instead of no-hops and gills.

so shorter, SHORTER answer "Shit happens"

A better question would be to creationists a challenge. "Explain the trochlea...why would intentional design have such a flaw?"

Or even easier "explain the tail bone...why would we have the remnants of ancestral tails if we were made as is"?

Even if we don't HAVE an answer to "trochlea" the answer is 'don't know, lets look into it' not 'EVOLUTION IS WRONG'. Fuck don't creationists give the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' You're all fucking morons.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 24, 2010 12:25 PM

Before nuclear fusion was understood we couldn't explain the sun. No known science of the time could account for where the sun's energy came from and fit the available facts. They could have said "magic" or they could have said "we don't know yet." Turns out it wasn't magic. There have not been any gaps in our knowledge that have been discovered later to be magic. No supernatural explanation has ever been more useful than a natural one.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 24, 2010 12:32 PM

LMAO

KGOV is already crowing over "the challenge". There's a snippet on youtube.

Prepare for the "Darwin said to think that the eye evolved is absurd" quotemine lie to be pushed early on (no, I'm completely serious) followed by bald assertions on "the odds", strawmen, etc. Apparently small incremental changes adding up to major change are impossible, anything but small incremental changes, dear LORD anything but small incremental changes each slightly more advantageous to a descendant in tandem with our slowly changing body form. It couldn't possibly be that simple.

*facepalm*

Now all you need a genomic slide show going back into the past for thousand in not millions of generations, documenting the slow ebb of mutations leading to our current eye and body form then they will finally admit ... ahh screw it, who am I kidding. Those goalposts won't ever sit still, ever.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 24, 2010 12:42 PM

Ing - e) Can we make excessively smileys a ban-able offense?

:shocked: What ever would I be able to say then!?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 24, 2010 12:46 PM

I like how Striker didn't address any real points. :)

Not that I'd expect the impotent little boil to do anything useful.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2010 12:50 PM

I disagree though, I think PZ is not a fuckwit, I think he's just afriad.

No, you're a fuckwit who is suffering from an acute lack of reading comprehension and PZ knows there's nothing to be gained from debating the Creationists who invariably resort to dishonest tactics and historical revisionism after the debate is over.

Not only that but deabting Creationists gives them some false credibility by treating them as if their ideas are even close to being on par with real science. They're not.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 24, 2010 12:56 PM

One thing the creotards never explain is why should PZ debate them? What's in it for PZ? Making some idiot look like an idiot? Trying to explain why a creotard's silliness is silly? Explaining reality to someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la la la I can't hear you"?

It's obvious what's in it for Bob Enyart. Even if he loses he'll do the usual creotard thing and lie about it. Besides, he might win the debate. All a debate does is show who's a better debater, it doesn't show who's right or wrong.

No, creotards, PZ's refusal has nothing to do with fear. He doesn't want to stroke some idiot's ego.

Posted by: Alate_One | June 24, 2010 1:02 PM

Okay a few points to clear up for some of you.

A. Str1pe is not Bob, though he is an avid listener (presumably). He's an English teacher that likes to hang out over on Theology Online. He uses dodge, sarcasm and smilies (and hasn't figured out the TOL codes do not work here) rather than anything of substance. Persist with him long enough and he might give you snippets of Walt Brown's hydroplate "theory" (aka disproved hypothesis).

B. As to the stupidity of testing the "soft tissue". The purpose would be to prove the bone ISN'T 65 million years old. And yes said "tissue" contains carbon. Before the rest of you start complaining some more about how stupid it is, its been done with OTHER dinosaur bones and published which contained similar "soft tissue". And the date came out "greater than modern", most likely pointing to recent bacterial biofilms rather than actual ancient dinosaur tissue. Of course that's not what Jack Horner wants to hear . . . and of course Enyart ignored the paper when I pointed it out some time ago.

The problem is, if said "soft tissue" comes up as more than modern or anywhere in between it does NOT prove the fossil itself is that age. And it certainly wouldn't magically prove the earth to be young, evolution overturned or anything else Bob THINKS it will, no matter what the outcome.

Secondly, Bob and his YEC cronies don't believe ANYTHING is over 50,000 years. So why ask for a test they won't accept?

In short it all smacks of dishonesty, which means if there is a debate and Bob gets trashed all over the place (which is highly likely given my experience with him), he'll claim victory no matter what. Proving again that its not really worth "debating" someone that doesn't have a grounding in reality.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2010 1:10 PM

In short it all smacks of dishonesty, which means if there is a debate and Bob gets trashed all over the place (which is highly likely given my experience with him), he'll claim victory no matter what. Proving again that its not really worth "debating" someone that doesn't have a grounding in reality.

Bingo.

And as was stated above, debates do not establish who is correct, it only establishes who is a better debater. That can be accomplished by many rhetorical tricks and dishonest posturing.

Science is not settled on the debate stage.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 24, 2010 1:14 PM

Thanks, Alate_One, for the information.

He uses dodge, sarcasm and smilies (and hasn't figured out the TOL codes do not work here) rather than anything of substance.

We'd noticed that.

Posted by: woozy | June 24, 2010 1:37 PM

KGOV is already crowing over "the challenge". There's a snippet on youtube.

Well, like the sucker I am. I posted my response. However as I doubt very highly that I am so far the first to post anything, I doubt they are actually allowing responses at all.

Rather dirty pool to issue a challenge and not allow responses if you ask me, but since you didn't...

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 24, 2010 1:41 PM

A. Str1pe is not Bob ...

That misconception is str1pe's own doing. While he claimed "someone is pretending I am Bob", it was he himself who alluded to being Bob after a couple of posts I made trying to "reach out to Bob" whilst addressing him (str1pe).

str1pe never bothered correcting me when I began to refer to him as Bob, with a caveat, immediately after that exchange.

I laid all this all out in a post that was linked to the individual posts when str1pe made the "pretending" comment but the post got held up in the spam filter for one too many links. My bad.

HTH

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 24, 2010 1:47 PM

It is perfectly rational to presuppose an idea and then test it for validity.

What is rational is to hypothesize an idea and then test it for validity with use of observable evidence and accurate logic.

This is crucially different from 'presupposing' an idea and then subjecting it to 'testing' by indulging subjective confirmation bias.

That you don't seem to appreciate this foundational difference is an excellent reason to avoid attempting any sort of discussion whatsoever with you.

If you want to discuss the nature of God Jerry Garcia's spacehelmet with me you're going to have to embark on a long journey

and regrettably, I just don't have the time.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 24, 2010 1:59 PM

The smug asshole's brain is but a flame in a vacuum. If nothing is none, it will go out. Quit breathing into it's skull. This is not even a worthy chew toy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 24, 2010 2:10 PM

I am not the man to be arguing with about the two questions raised.

Uh, you're actually wrong there. It is perfectly rational to presuppose an idea and then test it for validity.

You seem to be desperate to have a scientific discussion about the existence of God. I'm simply not interested. God, if He is real, does not want you to add numbers together and decide that He is the answer. He wants your heart and mind to be attuned to Him.

If you want to discuss the nature of God with me you're going to have to embark on a long journey, far from the safety of your little hidey-hole here.

What are the chances of it happening?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 24, 2010 3:25 PM

Ing, that means you have an intellectual honesty that the likes of str1pe cannot understand. For that alone, you are a better human then the smug asshole.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2010 3:42 PM

What would you call someone who debates Creationists?

Someone who debates Creationists.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 24, 2010 3:48 PM

What would you call someone who debates Creationists?

By definition a fuckwit doesn't understand that there is nothing scientific to debate about creationism.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 24, 2010 3:52 PM

Owlmirror, you have just hit the reason why this person does not like the scientific meathod. You should just accept it if a person claims that their heart and mind is attuned.

Thought all I want my heart to do is pump blood.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 24, 2010 3:55 PM

He wants your heart and mind to be attuned to Him.

Is god responsible for cardiac arrhythmia?

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | June 24, 2010 4:12 PM

Big time cop out.

"God, if He is real, does not want you to add numbers together and decide that He is the answer."

So he doesn't want me to use the brain he supposedly gave me. He's off to a bad start.

"He wants your heart and mind to be attuned to Him. "

If God wants my heart and mind so badly, he can directly appeal to them. Stop sending his earthly ambassadors, they're all thoroughly unconvincing.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 24, 2010 4:22 PM

Is god responsible for cardiac arrhythmia?

Posted by: God | June 24, 2010 4:26 PM

So you acknowledge that it's plausible that God is not real

Well, I'm certainly not integer.

Posted by: Satan | June 24, 2010 4:33 PM

Well, I'm certainly not integer.

You always did claim to be complex.

Is god responsible for cardiac arrhythmia?

It depends. Do you mean atheist cardiac arrhythmia, or theist cardiac arrhythmia?

If it's in an atheist, God did it as a punishment for naughty unbelief.

If it's in a proper theist, God puts the responsibility on Me -- I'm testing them, or tempting them to sin, or something like that.

If it's in an agnostic, well, shit happens.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 24, 2010 4:34 PM

So you acknowledge that it's plausible that God is not real

Well, I'm certainly not integer.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 24, 2010 4:38 PM

Kidding, Jadehawk. I am ashamed that I did not think of it first.

Posted by: Satan | June 24, 2010 4:45 PM

Re-read Leviticus 16.

There are two goats mentioned in that chapter.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | June 24, 2010 4:56 PM

For some reason creationist overvalue debates, which focus more on PR techniques than on good reasoning.

My favourite example of a fundie putting too much value in a deabte:

I challenged President Barack Obama to a public debate on abortion, which he lost by not responding. He must have accepted my challenge before March 26, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. Therefore, he lost, I won, abortion is wrong, abortion is evil, abortion must now and immediately be made illegal everywhere in the world....

An over sense of entitlement also seems to be a creationist trait.

Posted by: Satan | June 24, 2010 5:16 PM

Now it's all "metaphor" this and "if He's real" that and "attuned hearts and minds" the other.

Don't mope. There are always those willing to commit slaughter over whether You are one or three, or transubstantiate literally or only symbolically, or sacrificed Yourself to Yourself and raised Yourself or not, or gave a camel-driver a revelation or not, or wished for the camel-driver's nephew to take charge or not.

Really, You're somewhat spoiled for choice, there.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | June 24, 2010 6:17 PM

God & Satan,

You know, you guys get along all fine and dandy till it comes time to sort us all out. Frankly, you guys become a real pair of stiff ones if you know what I mean. Any chance we could put a new spin on that tune ?

I shouldn't expect an answer though I guess. After all it's only me, hairless ape extraordinaire, crown jewel of creation askin' over here.

Posted by: woozy | June 24, 2010 6:54 PM

Nerd: (being correct) Good, solid, physical evidence, not mental masturbation. Where is your conclusive phyiscal evidence for your deity?

Stripe: (being ... well "pious" would be generous. "Outside the discussion of scienintific principal" would be kind. "Utterly irrelevent" would be accurate and nuetral... I'll forgo the many accurate and unkind terms we could use) God, if He is real, does not want you to add numbers together and decide that He is the answer. He wants your heart and mind to be attuned to Him.

See. This is what pisses me off! Belief or non-belief in God, the easter bunny, tooth decay, self-esteem, or my Aunt Hortence's private postcard collection, nor the reasons for one's (non)beliefs has sod all to do with scientific conjecture.
But if one introduces any element into scientific conjecture then said element is immediately (and obligated to be) subject to all scientific scrutiny. If I wish to postulate that all life is derived from tooth decay, then we are obligated to scrutinize the concept, beginning with what the hell does that mean. I no longer have the option to claim tooth decay is outside the realm of science. Similarly if one postulates God created life then God must be subject to scrutiny. The first scrutiny, which is the duty of the postulater, is to determine if there is any rationale, logic, or evidence for the speculation. Then it is fair game to pick through this God thing's teeth look under his toenails, check his stool to determine his diet, etc., to figure out just what it is.
Here are a few things science has determined. The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. All life evolved from single cell life. Thus if we enter the conjecture "God created life" (whatever what such a statement might actually mean) we can conclude He didn't do it 6-10,000 years ago and he didn't do it in their present species form.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 25, 2010 2:07 AM

What would you call someone who debates Creationists?Extremely masochistic.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/vl6kY8sHi4tOaukEZqkqQYlbLszh#9c4d9 | June 25, 2010 12:00 PM

Ing wrote: "The only question then... is why one of the muscles originating at the annulus of Zinn ever went through a little loop of bone in the first place while the others didn't. ...maybe they all went through the trochlea originally and the others came out of it but that one didn't make it."

This reminds me of a sweaty guy changing a tire at the side of the road, and a bypasser asks, "So, ya got a flat tire?" And the guys looks up and says, "No, all of a sudden, the other three just blew right up."

Posted by: woozy | June 25, 2010 12:58 PM

Ing wrote: "The only question then..."

Ing didn't write that. He was was quoting Devlo from the Richard Dawkins forum. I don't think to trochlea is bone but I may have misinterpreted what I read. At any rate, a muscle passing through a trochlea by itself is nothing remarkable (the one in our knees are appearantly very well studied).

Posted by: guaranty | June 25, 2010 1:49 PM

I see Mr. fuckwit decided to run away.

Posted by: woozy | June 25, 2010 2:42 PM

What's next?

"I know you are but what am I?"

"Next"??? Where you been?

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2010 2:55 PM

And he's got a popular: List of Not So Old Things showing quite a few challenges to absurd and deliberate distortions of geology and palaeontology the millions of years of earth history.

Fixed that for you.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2010 3:14 PM

For the last time, PZ is not a fuckwit!

Sure. It's child-abusing creationists who are fuckwits; I thought you were clear on that by now.

But yes he is running away, I agree.

Why shouldn't fuckwits be avoided?

Posted by: woozy | June 25, 2010 6:37 PM

I would never have called you that by the way. Its Nerd who insinuated it.

No, he didn't. He explicitely called you (or possibly implicitely called Enyart) a fuckwit and you merely made a (slightly) clever quip about how gramatically Nerd's invective could be taken to mean PZ himself instead.

Let's analyze Nerd's statement shall we.

Interpretion 1 (gramatically strong, contextially very strong, contentially moderate): Quoted post. Nerd: (adressing the third party audience) "and [the fuckwit]{the author of the quote: that's you} still can't understand [he]{the object of the quote: PZ Myers} has nothing scientific to debate. Just religion versus science. Which science wins each and every time."

Interpretation 2 (gramatically weak, contextially moderate, contentially very strong): Quoted post. "and [the fuckwit]{the subject of the quote: creationists in general implying Enyart} still can't understand [he]{same} has nothing scientific to debate. Just religion versus science. Which science wins each and every time."

Interpretation 3 (gramatically strong, contextially weak, contentially absurdly weak): Quoted post. "and [the fuckwit]{the object of the quote: PZ Myers} still can't understand [he]{same} has nothing scientific to debate. Just religion versus science. Which science wins each and every time."

Nerd almost probably meant 1 (or possibly 2) but contentially #3 is utterly out of the question. But Oh-ho! Ha-ha!!! How droll! (You chortle to yourself) Let's be a smarty and make a joke and pretend we think he meant #3. Ha! Ha! Nerd just called his beloved PZ a fuck wit adopt mock sanctimonous tone "Why, nerd! You think PZ is a fuckwit! My... I would never say such a thing."

Had you done it once and dropped it, I'd have chalked it up and concide the creationist troll managed to a get a barb in.

Or if you had somehow sincerely misread Nerd's comment, I, as the resident soft-touch of our group, would have given you the benefit of the doubt. *Once*. (And I'm way out of the social norm of this group in that regard as that'd take reading comprehension to a new extreme low.)

But you went on to make the same tactic four times, each with more and more mock butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth petulance. You are a twerp.

Posted by: abb3w | June 25, 2010 11:56 PM

Denis Robert: If you read that passage carefully, you'll see that the causing of a miscarriage is not a serious offense (it only warrants a fine)

I'm sorry if the "this is a lesser offense" part of my remarks didn't make that sufficiently obvious. However, there's only so much use to altering my phrasing for the benefit of people who are careless in reading my remarks and who react reflexively. =P

raven It also doesn't refer to someone getting an abortion. It refers to someone accidentally aborting someone elses fetus by physical trauma during a fight.

True-- which is not the same thing, but also not entirely unrelated.

Posted by: woozy | June 26, 2010 1:21 AM

It also doesn't refer to someone getting an abortion. It refers to someone accidentally aborting someone elses fetus by physical trauma during a fight.

I seriously doubt the concept of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy would ever have occured to early Isrealites.

====
So any how, back to the you-tube snippet of the Enyardt challenge....

The vast majority of comments are mine (fleablood) because I'm an irritating nerd with too much time on my hands and an addiction to procrastination but Bob hisself did comment (presumably) in pretty much the manner one would expect. However he did say this which I found peculiar:

And what are you guys going to do, when you meet God who created you, and all the overwhelming evidence against the myth of evolution is presented which had been presented to you? And you rejected God, for a lie? What are you going to do then?

Not a single comment mentioned anything about anyone's belief in god. What a weird assumption that any of us, much less all, "rejected" God for evolution.

I can in all honesty say I have never rejected God for evolution.

====
I think all of us deep down like to watch PZ (and others) pound creationists and have some part of our brains want to say "go on PZ; just answer the stupid challenge and wipe the floor with him".

But I wonder if someone (not a creationist fuckwad, say, a respectable journalist for an upright medium) were to ask to speculate how X might have happened to evolve, what a biologist ought to respond. I think an inaucuous "Well, I don't know that particular adaptation but it'd be reasonable to assume Y" might seem innocent, but I wonder if it isn't a dangerous habit to offer *any* speculation without verification. Is this an ethical concern among professional researchers? I'd love to hear anyone's comments.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/vl6kY8sHi4tOaukEZqkqQYlbLszh#9c4d9 | June 26, 2010 1:44 AM

woozy, I've just filed your comment away on my computer with a reminder to pop up in ten years on June 26th, 2020. We'll see whether another decade of research vindicates your assessment of which group of biologists are discredited, and whether the trend against Eugenie's claims continues to grow, or not. Care to wager?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 26, 2010 2:17 AM

Again, why is a debate so important?

Meanwhile every single reputable scientific journal carries on accumulating paper after paper attesting to the empirical validity of evolution... but fucking Bob Enthart wants a fucking debate!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 26, 2010 2:29 AM

Care to wager?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 26, 2010 3:16 AM

There is the chance that Bob Enyart will be dead in ten years. Could it be possible that the corpse of Bob Enyart would be less of a fuckwit?

no, but if Enyart croaks, he will never be able to prove he wasn't a fuckwit when alive, and of course, that's all that matters.

so, I'll go with eternal fuckwit for 10.00.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 26, 2010 3:20 AM

I wonder if this delusionaut is familiar with one "William Dembski"?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 26, 2010 3:40 AM

Whether there is any junk or not is kind of a moot point. There's apparently very little junk in certain species and lineages while a lot of junk in others. But does it really matter to the question of common descent? The evidence clearly shows a tree pattern of unity and divergence with DNA being but one line of evidence.

As soon as creationists would stop playing Dr Pangloss^[1] and look more to Thomas Kuhn. It doesn't matter if you can justify some idealised notion of perfection, it's not like the only reason Creationism is mocked by scientists is stuff that would be an affront to the sensibilities of anyone who knows anything about design. It's because all the different lines of evidence, everything from palaeontology to biogeography fits in with the evolutionary model.

[1] - From Voltaire's Candide:

"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 26, 2010 4:06 AM

I know that. I want to hear it from them.

btw, I wasn't answering you, but making it clear to any creationist who comes in here that the whole notion of a debate is an absolute farce. They don't seem to be able to draw that inference on their own...

Posted by: bobenyart | February 26, 2011 2:09 PM

Raven wrote that the Bible's death penalty applies to:"a disobedient child... and eathing shell fish." These two are false, the "son" referenced in the text is a rebellious drunkard, not a child, so that's probably a misunderstanding. The shell fish claim I guess is just a pure fabrication. The Raven writes that, "The bible says nothing about abortion" but he should read the Bible or the summary of related passages at AmericanRTL.org/Bible. And regarding his phrase, "the fiction written by some crazies in the bible," would that include it's statements that the sun is a light, not a god, and shouldn't be worshiped, and that the whole world uses a seven-day week because of Genesis 1, and calls the kings of Egypt "pharaoh" because of Scripture, and says that the government authorities should not be above the law, etc. ?