Lutheran Citations »« MotorCops for kids toy run

No saved recording of the Bob Dutko debate

In my debate with Bob Dutko, he criticized me for not debating the existence of God -which was my choice of topics from the selection he gave.  I wish we had been able to talk about that, but instead he wasted most of that hour burning and re-building his strawman of my position while ignoring every correction.   There is a heckuva lot that should have been said, and I guess I was naive in imagining that there could have been any serious discussion of that topic on the level I wanted.

It has been my experience that whenever creationists claim to have evidence supporting their position, they invariably don’t, and the absolute best they can do is to complain about imagined inconsistencies in REAL science.  Apart from citations of misquoted abstracts, misunderstood and misrepresented, all they can do is jump to fallacious assertions or fraudulent forgeries.  Beyond that, they’ve got nothing, and I’m sure that will be the case with Dutko too.

For example, I challenged him to produce evidence indicating his otherwise unwarranted assumptions.  He said he had that, but what he failed to produce it.  Instead he gave a number of citations which he said would reveal unfossilized hadrosaur bones in one case, and another was a cache of swords allegedly bearing a precisely detailed perfectly flawless rendering of a sauropod dinosaur.   I don’t remember the other claims he made at that time.  Nor did I copy them down then.  My intention was to pull the recording and review the articles he cited.  But I just got confirmation that there will be no link to any archived recording of my debate with Bob Dutko.  So how do we hold these people accountable?

I already know for certain there were never any unfossilized hadrosaur bones, and I said so at that time, but I don’t remember the paper he named that he said would support him.  I never heard the bit about the flawless sauropod renderings on swords either.  What oriface did he extract that from?

One that I was already immediately familiar with was the pigosaurus in the Cambodian temple at Angkor Wat Cambodia.

You will notice that this highly ornate column has decorative petal patterns adorning practically everything, including the animal in the central circle.  As you look more closely, you will have to notice that the animal in question is definitely a mammal.  Some think it might be a cow or a rhino, but personally I think it’s supposed to be a pig.  Whatever it is, it apparently has either horns like a cow or the ears of a pig, and the sort of diminished dangling tail one would expect to find on any modern animal with hooves.

However Bob Dutko insists that this is stegosaurus.  Dispite the fact that a stegosaur would have a tiny head and a long tail with a double row of spikes on it, and disproportionately long back legs with long clawed toes, and this doesn’t match any part of that body plan    This is obviously a modern ungulate mammal super-imposed onto the same petal pattern as everything else in this temple.  Apparently Dutko can’t tell dinosaurs apart from barnyard animals, yet he accused me of ‘fooling myself’ when I can’t fool myself into believe this is something it doesn’t resemble and isn’t what it obviously is.

If all his arguments and all his evidence is really this weak, then it’s no wonder he won’t keep an archive of his shows and has no way to accept correction on any point.  His need to believe far outweighs any desire to understand.

Comments

  1. Kevin K says

    Or to translate for Aron: Lizards don’t have external ears.

    Nor penises or testicles, either. So, the description of behemoth in the babble is obviously a mammal.

  2. Stevarious, Public Health Problem says

    Oh come on, stop fooling yourselves. It’s obviously a dragon! The fact that you’ve tricked yourself into believing that it’s anything but the obvious proves that your minds have been corrupted by Lolth, Spider Queen of the Underdark.

  3. T says

    I suspect that the lack of recordings is a re-occurring problem; you should get something like Audio-Hijacker (for mac) to avoid it. I’m sure there’s a PC version around too.

  4. shash says

    Angkor Wat? I wonder if our friend here knows that Angkor is 12th century CE, not BCE…

    Even by YEC standards, dinosaurs during the time of the Crusades is a little bit far-fetched, don’t you think?

  5. Psychopomp Gecko says

    Does it ever get so frustrating you can’t take it any more?

    I mean, they don’t have anything new. Nothing. If you listen to them talk for 20 minutes, you probably know most of the arguments apologetics use, and if you do just the littlest bit of research you can tell they’re wrong. Some of the arguments you can blame on stupidity or ignorance, but there’s quite a few (Eric Hovind’s idiotic statement about why men have nipples for example) that just show that the person is lying. They have to be, because outside of needing electroshock and a lot of drugs, nobody could possibly believe that who knew anything at all about it.

    But they just do not give it up.

    One of the most ironic (in at least one of the uses of the word, though not guaranteed to be the original) things about debates like this is that the atheists are clearly the ones with the patience of a saint.

  6. Kilian Hekhuis says

    “I already know for certain there were never any unfossilized hadrosaur bones” – but there were! About 70 million years ago, there were plenty of them!

        • Psychopomp Gecko says

          It’s called tree-fitty, not three dollars and fifter cents.

          For your improper use of a South Park meme, you are to be fined tree-fitty, to be paid in person right now.

          • N. Nescio says

            I’ll get right on that, “Psychopomp Gecko”…if that IS your real name.

            Only the goddamn Loch Ness monstah would demand tree fitty.

  7. onychophora says

    I thought it was weird that he kept coming back to the “something from nothing” assertion in reference to the ‘big bang’ expansion.

    • Raymond says

      So right, I know, DudCruditko manages to repeat that phrase endlessly while refusing to accept Aron’s multiple corrections of Crudko’s misrepresentation of Aron’s real position, but I think it was on purpose to monopolise the time and still be able to say he had a scientist on his fucked up show.
      There’s another creationist bloviator site that plays on the PBS Show Science Friday, calling itself the Real science Friday(Bob Enyart host), and Lawrence Krauss and the 3 youtube videos of Krauss speaking with Enyart about science clearly was not represented truthfully on the website’s write up of the discussion, they are notoriously dishonest, disengenuous and lie their asses off.
      I am not 100% certain, but it is doubtful that either Crudko or the host of Real science, Enyart have even read Krauss’s book, called “A Universe from Nothing,”(or if they did it was done with complete bias against Krauss’s position)cuz’ if they had they’d realise how wrong they were…OR NOT. These creaturds just use time in seconds to assert their dreck, which real scientists or serious minded folks must then spend hours researching sources and then telling of the evidence for why the Creaturds are wrong, but not just wrong, but completely and utterly wrong, a point made by potholer54 mentioned in one of his youtube videos, as to the tactics of these shithead creaTURDs, as they somehow know that most people will not look into their assertions as folks like AronRa, potholer54, Thunderf00t, and others will, to find out the truth.

  8. says

    The sad thing I see: Even if our guesses of pig, rhino, or whatever are wrong, it doesn’t prove that the crafters saw a living stegosaurus. I’d be more inclined to speculate that they invented a mythical creature that coincidentally resembles a stegosaurus or that they stumbled on a stegosaurus fossil and pieced together it general form.

    When it comes to stuff like this, Creationists have an alarming tendency to think ancient people had no imaginations and only recorded literal truth.

    • codemonkey says

      Indeed. Confirmation bias anyone? What if they described in full detail a stegosaurus. What if. Would we thus conclude that they saw one? Hell no. Sheer coincidence is more likely. Lots and lots of things happen all the time, and thus incredibly rare things happen all the time. You need to bother to even attempt a halfway decent statistical analysis before you can conclude anything. Otherwise it’s anecdotal and confirmation bias.

  9. timberwoof says

    How many little carvings of fantastic animals are there at Angkor Wat? And I’m supposed to believe that [i]one[/i] of them depicts a dinosaur? It seems to me that in any menagerie of imagined creatures, some of them might coincidentally look like a dinosaur. That’s not evidence; it’s wishful thinking.

    • Raymond says

      I just figured out what it is, it’s a creaturdsaurus, and I don’t know how atheist scientists can fail so miserably as to be unable to include the creature in its taxonomy that is an obvious example of god’s perfect and holey creation.

  10. Shaun Clarke says

    What if its a map?

    Just looks like an animal but its actually a picture of what they thought they lived in, like a map.

  11. jakc says

    It wouldn’t matter if it was a stegosaur. Sure, it’s wildly unlikely that the descendent of a stegosaur would still look like a stegosaur 150 million years later, but discovering that a lineage has survived longer than expected is not a disproof of evolution. Bunnies in the Precambrian would be that disproof. Stegosaurs at Angkor Wat would just be cool. Of course, I understand that in the heat of a debate, you’re more apt to point out that the “evidence” is nonsense.

  12. Didaktylos says

    It’s a bit like that infamous Mayan (?) tomb relief that the “Ancient Astronaut” brigade used to say was of a spaceman operating the controls of a rocket …

  13. says

    People expect the carver who carved the fantastic creature at the very bottom of the first picture to do a journalistic depiction of whatever is in that central picture?
    Look at the other carvings, they’re all kind of “wtf is that?”