That Dubious Dutko


Some months ago, I was on Bob Dutko’s young-earth creationism radio show.  He tried to argue that if any non-avian dinosaurs were ever discovered, that would somehow disprove evolution.  He doesn’t know how it would disprove evolution.  I think he thinks that evolution is just a story, like his own belief system is, and that the story has to be ‘just so’ the same way his own story has to be. 

Like so many of his ilk, he tried to cite weird and often laughable anomolies -misunderstood and misrepresented- as if these could or would count as evidence that non-avian dinosaurs once co-existed with men. 

When he presented his stegosaurus in a Cambodian temple, I pointed out that stegosaurs didn’t have hooves, external ears, or whispy little tails, and that he couldn’t tell dinosaurs apart from barnyard animals, because he was actually looking at a pig.

The temple “pig-o-saurus” at Angkor Wat

He told me I was fooling myself.  But he gears immediately swapped evidence and said he didn’t need that or the fraudulent Ica stones either.  He had many other examples he could cite.  So I challenged him:

You give me one single example that you will announce on the air that can be scientifically verified to be authentic and be a human -pre-Columbian- human representation of a dinosaur. 

Are you ready for what he came up with?

I can give you over thirty of them right now. I could give you over thirty of them. Let me give you, oh just one or two. For example, in the Arizona Historical Society, ancient swords were excavated near Tucson Arizona, they were excavated in 1924. The swords are referred by the way on page 331 of the book, Lost Cities of North and Central America, you can look it up for yourself, they have various artwork designs carved into them. One sword has an exact brachiosaurus carved into it. If you look at this, you can show it to anybody, it looks exactly like it came out of a Jurassic Park movie. The Arizona Historical Society owns the sword. You can look at that picture of the brachiosaur There is nothing ambiguous about it at all. You can’t say, “Oh the ears aren’t right”, nothing along those lines. That’s one of example of thirty of them I could give you right now. I would encourage you to look that up.

a lead sword showing Dino Flintstone with a forked tongue.

Dutko should never encourage anyone to look into his claims.  What we saw was just too funny.  He’s referring to a collection of home-made sword replicas made out of lead.  That’s right, lead (Pb).  Not steel or bronze or iron, but something that would be utterly useless as a sword.  On one of these fireplace decorations is an image of what was either meant to be a very fat monitor lizard, or a dinosaur drawn back when people thought dinosaurs were lizards.  Note the forked tongue.  This trait only occurs in monitor lizards and snakes which are their closest cousins.  Lizards are on the wrong side of the reptile family tree from dinosaurs, who would not have had forked tongues. 

But it gets funnier than that because of all those other markings which can’t be read in this image.  Apparently that is writing, and what it says belies the fraud.  The next quote is from the Encylopedia of Dubious Archaeology by Kenneth L. Feder:

Tucson Artifacts

It was difficult to explain how artifacts with a depiction of a dinosaur and Latin and Hebrew writing, perhaps dating to 800, came to be cached in an early twentieth-century lime kiln located just outside Tucson. But this was clarified, sort of, once all the writing had been translated. It appeared that the writing on the artifacts told the story of an ostensible ROman-Jewish colony in Arizona, dating from 775 to 900.
When experts in Latin, Roman history and archaeology, and Southwest prehistory examined the Tucson artifacts, they declared them to be complete nonsense-not just fakes, but bad ones at that. When a University of Arizona professor and highly respected Latin scholar, Dr. Frank Fowler, pored over teh inscriptions, he discovered, taken together, the writing made no sense. The inscriptions did not represent a comprehensive or comprehensible message, but were instead a jumble of largely nonsensicle and disconnected, discontinuous phrases. But the argument for fakery seems to have been cinched when Fowler discovered that all of the individual Latin phrases inscribed on the artifacts had been lifted verbatim from three Latin textbooks -Harkness’s Latin Grammar, the Latin Grammar of Allen and Greenough, and Rouf’s Standard Dictionary of Facts. The earliest publication date for any of these works was 1864, which is rather more recent than the dates inscribed on them. Fowler went on to state that, when whoever inscribed the Latin on the Tucson artifacts attempted to in any way change the phrasing from what appeared in those publications -to change the tense, for example -he or she betrayed the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of Latin. As a result of Fowler’s analysis, it is clear that none of the artifacts can date to before 1864, and therefore none of them date to the purported period for the Roman-colony they mention.
Byron Cummings, director of the Arizona State Museum, was an eyewitness to the removal of at least one of the artifacts. He stated that the artifact in question was embedded in an already existing hole -that it had, in other words, been planted in a hole in the sand and gravel which had then been only imperfectly tamped down around. Cummings included his testimony in a report he presented to the University of Arizona, which at the time was considering purchasing the Tucson artifacts for a substantial sum of money. Geologist James Quinlan maintains that ti would not have been difficult to have planted the artifacts in the gravel and suggests that the artifacts were placed there afer the lime kiln was abandoned.
The Tucson artifacts are another example of attempts made to connect an anceint Old World culture to America long before the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Like so many of the others, the Tucson artifacts are frauds.

Further Reading
For a thorough and extemely well-written debunking of the Tucson artifacts, see the article published in 2009 in the Journal of the Southwest titled *Romans in Tucson.

I am now looking for the more detailed article. 

Seriously Dutko?  I asked you for one example on which you would stake your reputation, and this was it?  Do you see why I say that creationists have no credibility whatsoever?

Comments

  1. moarscienceplz says

    He’s referring to a collection of home-made sword replicas made out of lead. That’s right, lead (Pb). Not steel or bronze or iron, but something that would be utterly useless as a sword.

    HA! Shows what little you know, Aron. Everybody knows “the pen is mightier that the sword”. And a pencil is like a pen. And a pencil has a lead. So, a lead sword is mightier than all other swords! QED!!!!111!!11!!

  2. moarscienceplz says

    I always love how cute these YEC’s are when they try to argue dinos were contemporaneous with people. Dinosaurs have been found pretty much everywhere there are sedimentary deposits of the right age. So the Earth must have been teeming with them. If people had actually been around at the time, the Bible would be chock full of prayers to deliver us from those darned monsters that keep stepping on houses and eating the kids.

    • Mike de Fleuriot says

      Remember that this was pre-fall and all the dino’s where plant eaters, so the kids were safe.

      • says

        I love how one single carving from one single temple, which may resemble a stegosaurus if you squint, is brought up time and again by YECs. And yet not a single (legitimate) cave painting of one has ever been found. Have you ever seen cave paintings? Hundreds upon hundreds of horses, auroxes, and other prey animals, and not one single dinosaur. If there had been plant-eating giant dinosaurs perambulating about the planet in the “pre-fall” days, we’d be as inundated with cave paintings of them as we are of those ancient ungulates. Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

      • moarscienceplz says

        OK fine, the kids weren’t going to be eaten. They just slowly starved to death because all them Stegosaurs and Apatosaurs ate all the crops out of the fields.

  3. says

    Ah yes, of course a lead sword replica with nonsensical writing about a middle age Roman-Jewish colony in Arizona that shows an innacurate depiction of a dinosaur and can only be traced to Civil War era America is clearly the best proof for this kind of thing.

    After all, you can’t expect an all powerful being to make it really obvious with, say, a fossil of a t-rex that died choking down a human. Or just opening up that firmament around the earth to poke his head in and go, “Hey guys, yeah, they lived at the same time. T-rexes were originally coconut eaters.”

    Nope, the best way to counter mountains of scientific evidence is with a thimbleful of obscure fake artifacts or misrepresentations.

  4. John Kruger says

    Practically speaking, you just can’t disprove evolution. The evidence is in and the science has ruled. You would have the same difficulty disproving gravity or ohms law. The only thing that is going to overturn evolution is a greater, all encompassing theory that explains all the older evidence in addition to new phenomena. Even if the sword was legitimate, it would only call for a refinement of specific mechanisms of evolutionary theory, it is far too powerfully predictive a theory to be discarded with a single artifact, or even 30 artifacts. Never mind that not even one is legitimate, his case is doomed from the outset.

  5. says

    One of the central problems I see with all the alleged dinosaur art: They tend to assume our ancestors had no imagination. Leaves me to wonder what’ll happen if a Creationist from the distant future stumbles on a D&D Monster Manual.

  6. says

    You sure do focus alot of time making objections to Young Earth Creationists and ‘fundy’ arguments…

    Ever care to look at the works from Theist philosophers in academia such Alex Pruss, Nicholas Wolterstroff, Tim Mcgrew, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Peter Van Inwagen, John Hare, John Lennox, Robert Maydole, Edward Feser, Robert Adams, Glenn A Peoples, Eleanore Stump and Brian Leftow?

    It just always seems like you never go for the more ‘scholarly’ arguments out there from people who have posted in peer-reviewed philosophy journals, don’t you hold to the principle of charity?

    Or have you just never heard of these Theists?

    • manhattanmc says

      cornelll

      What part of ‘Ra’s field of expertise is biology’ is so difficult for you and Dutko to understand?

      Only a few of the names you list are unfamiliar, the rest have been on the PRATT list for a long time.
      You’re welcome to bring their best arguments here, however, and watch what happens to them.

      • says

        @Manhattan

        Oh that’s right, he is a biologist so that means he automatically can’t look at anything beyond his field, my, my it’s too bad biologists who have MUCH, MUCH more credentials such as Richard Dawkins ‘AT LEAST” attempt to go after the arguments from some of the philosophers I’ve posted up above.

        So maybe Aronra can learn someone who is higher above him

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw

        Now, I love your confidence, now I want to see what happens to this. I’ll start with something simple, I’m sure with your knowledge you can easily show why this argument fails:

        Let ‘~’ abbreviate ‘it is not the case that’.

        Let ‘◊’ abbreviate ‘it is possible that’.

        Let ‘□’ abbreviate ‘it is necessary that’ (or ‘~◊~’).

        Let ‘N’ abbreviate ‘there is a Necessary Being’.

        The deduction now proceeds as follows:

        1. ◊ N.
        2. So: ◊□ N. (by definition of ‘N’)
        3. So: □◊□ N. (by the necessity of possibility)
        4. So: ~◊~◊~◊~ N. (by substituting ‘~◊~’ for ‘□’)
        5. So: ~◊□◊~ N. (by substituting ‘□’ for the middle ‘~◊~’)
        6. So: ~◊◊~ N. (because □A implies A)
        7. So: ~◊~ N. (because ◊◊A implies ◊A)
        8. So: □ N. (by substituting ‘□’ for ‘~◊~’)

        ◊◊A implies ◊A:

        1. ◊◊A.
        2. So: ◊□◊A. (by the necessity of possibility)
        3. So: ◊~◊~◊A. (by substituting ‘~◊~’ for ‘□’)
        4. So: ◊~◊~◊~~A. (because A implies ~~A)
        5. So: ◊~◊□~A. (by substituting ‘□’ for ‘~◊~’)
        6. So: ~◊□~A. (because ◊~◊A implies ~◊A)
        7. So: ~◊~◊~~A. (by substituting ‘~◊~’ for ‘□’)
        8. So: ~◊~◊A. (because ~~A implies A)
        9. So: □◊A. (by substituting ‘□’ for ‘~◊~’)
        10. So: ◊A. (because □P implies P)

        ◊~◊A implies ~◊A:

        1. If ◊A, then □◊A. (by the necessity of possibility)
        2. So: if ~□◊A, then ~◊A. (by modus tollens)
        3. So: if ~~◊~◊A, then ~◊A. (by substituting ‘~◊~’ for ‘□’)
        4. So: if ◊~◊A, then ~◊A. (because ~~P implies P)”

        Please refute

        thank you

        • John Kruger says

          Hoping everyone would be intimidated by the tedious symbology and you could win by authority? You never bothered to assign A, but I think I can guess. Atheism, right? What the heck is “it is possible that it is possible A” supposed to mean? Use english or expect no response to your contrived word salad.

          Immediately asserting a necessary being dooms the argument to to begging the question.
          Defining something as having a property of existence (or necessary) does not make it relevant to the real world.
          You will never be able to ‘”math” a god into existence. You must show empirical evidence that demonstrates your concept is more than just your imaginings.

          I suppose your “proof” is not entirely refuted, but only because it is completely incoherent.

          • says

            @John Kruger

            “Defining something as having a property of existence (or necessary) does not make it relevant to the real world.”

            It seems you totally dismiss what is called analtyic truths, so I take you don’t think “all triangles have 3 sides’?

            “Hoping everyone would be intimidated by the tedious symbology and you could win by authority?”

            Not at all, though your guilty conscience has exposed itself

            “You never bothered to assign A, but I think I can guess. Atheism, right? What the heck is “it is possible that it is possible A” supposed to mean? Use english or expect no response to your contrived word salad.”

            What the heck does it mean? I thought Mr know it all up above knew all the Theistic arguments and could refute all of them? Also I am using english, obviously you responded to me and stated this:

            “Defining something as having a property of existence (or necessary) does not make it relevant to the real world.”

            obviously you understood that point, so thank you for your inconsistency

            On the one hand I’m not speaking english, but on the other hand I am speaking english.

          • John Kruger says

            Your axioms I could understand, they were more or less complete sentences. You lose me when you have a statement that repeats “it is not the case that it is possible” four times. You are using English words to convey tedious nonsense. Was I right about what A means, or is that unimportant in your cut and paste argument from authority?

            As for triangles, they have 3 sides by definition. Triangles also have sides with no thickness, can you show me one of those? Just because a line can be defined to have infinite length does not mean there is anything that actually exists with infinite length. Sure, you can find things that behave in line or triangle like fashion, but just because it can be defined does not make it real. I can define something to be a magic dragon, but my definition has no effect on whether it actually exists or not. If not, you will have to show me where to find an infinite line. If you are just talking about concepts, I will gladly agree that god is only a concept.

        • manhattanmc says

          Sigh.

          There are a good number of philosophers who are atheists as you surely must be aware. Philosophical arguments would better be addressed to any of them. Ra spends time refuting YECs (who tend to be largely fundies) because that’s his field. It’s not a difficult concept.
          There are many cosmologists who are atheists. Dutko, it must be presumed by design, tried to steer the debate away from biology where he was going to get his ass kicked toward cosmology which Ra specifically stated he didn’t feel qualified to discuss in depth.
          And spare me the straw man. I never implied in any sense that Ra has no capabilities beyond his field. And I love your redundant superlative cap lock affirmations BTW.
          So VERY, VERY convincing. LOL

          I love your confidence that your heroes have irrefutable arguments, but what you offered is silly games.

          I got as far as premise #3 in your first course.
          “it is necessary that it is possible that is necessary that there is a necessary being”.

          Is this your own formulation?

          I asked for the best arguments for ‘god’ from any of the philosophers you listed and got this? Seriously?

          You are full of shit.

          • Rick Pikul says

            He’s trying to pull a symbolic logic version of an old ‘proof’ that 1=2 that relies on using bafflegab to hide a divide by 0.

            In his case he tries to equate “it’s possible that it is not possible for X to be true,” and “it’s not possible for X to be true.” His attempt to ‘prove’ the sub-lemma has something similar, equating “it is not necessary for X to be true,” with “X is not true.”

          • says

            @manhattan

            “There are a good number of philosophers who are atheists as you surely must be aware.”

            Well I think that part of my awareness would have been settled given the fact that I named over 10 atheist philosophers in my comment below. I even stated how I had a good number of scholarly works by them.

            “Philosophical arguments would better be addressed to any of them. Ra spends time refuting YECs (who tend to be largely fundies) because that’s his field. It’s not a difficult concept.”

            At the reason rally this wasn’t the case, AronRa became a historian and spoke of how Christianity ripped off of other religions. He also claims to be a Lutheran scholar, though he got a ‘rude awakening’ here in this criticism against him.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFr1ErvmDY

            Aronra also tries to play philosopher here, and comes out looking like the layman that he is:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q40i4x-Z9jc

            “So perhaps you should ‘re-think’ your stance here regarding Aronra, or you can continue to be ignorant and stay within your ‘comfort’ zone. Your choice

            There are many cosmologists who are atheists. Dutko, it must be presumed by design, tried to steer the debate away from biology where he was going to get his ass kicked toward cosmology which Ra specifically stated he didn’t feel qualified to discuss in depth.”

            We aren’t talking cosmology and I’m not impressed by ad-populum remarks, so please stick to the subject.

            “And spare me the straw man. I never implied in any sense that Ra has no capabilities beyond his field. And I love your redundant superlative cap lock affirmations BTW.”

            It appears you have a tough time ‘biting the bullet’

            This is what you said before:

            “What part of ‘Ra’s field of expertise is biology’ is so difficult for you”

            To a remark of mine in which I stated:

            “You sure do focus alot of time making objections to Young Earth Creationists and ‘fundy’ arguments…

            Ever care to look at the works from Theist philosophers in academia such Alex Pruss, Nicholas Wolterstroff, Tim Mcgrew, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Peter Van Inwagen, John Hare, John Lennox, Robert Maydole, Edward Feser, Robert Adams, Glenn A Peoples, Eleanore Stump and Brian Leftow?

            It just always seems like you never go for the more ‘scholarly’ arguments out there from people who have posted in peer-reviewed philosophy journals, don’t you hold to the principle of charity?”

            Why oh why would you say, ‘herp derp, RA has an expertise in biology’ to my request of having him look at ‘works’ from philosophers? Well this is why I brought up Dawkins, who is a far greater biologist than Aronra, and since Dawkins has debated ‘philosophers’ in the past and ENGAGED in their works, I see no reason on why Aron cannot do the same.

            “I got as far as premise #3 in your first course.
            “it is necessary that it is possible that is necessary that there is a necessary being”.

            Is this your own formulation?

            I asked for the best arguments for ‘god’ from any of the philosophers you listed and got this? Seriously?”

            Funny, I see no objection here just rambling. Complaints don’t equal arguments, if you have a reason for why one of the premises are wrong, I’d like to see why. Though it doesn’t look like you want to engage as you end with this intellectually rigorous statement:

            “You are full of shit”

            Wow! How do I come back from this? Such rationality! I think I’ll just start saying ‘Naturedidit’, Ima free-thinker now’ and pretend I’m smart, just like you!

            Anyways you failed to refute the argument, so I guess we have another closer Theist on our hands here, good luck in your quest for ‘truth’ Manhattan! I’m glad we had such as great chat

          • says

            @Rick P

            Well it seems my last comment to manhattan is awaiting moderation, hopefully this won’t occur to Rick

            Rick says “He’s trying to pull a symbolic logic version of an old ‘proof’ that 1=2 that relies on using bafflegab to hide a divide by 0.

            In his case he tries to equate “it’s possible that it is not possible for X to be true,” and “it’s not possible for X to be true.” His attempt to ‘prove’ the sub-lemma has something similar, equating “it is not necessary for X to be true,” with “X is not true.”

            ??? Well I’m using a deductive argument, So you need to deny a premise

            This also makes use of what is called ‘Modal Logic” in symbolic form, there is no dividing by 0 involved here, but thanks for ‘at least’ trying to engage on the argument.

            Too bad we can’t say the same for manhattan :(

          • manhattanmc says

            Sorry-after you say ‘“it is necessary that it is possible that it is necessary that there is a necessary being by the necessity of possibility” and “it is not the case that it is possible that it is not the case that it is possible that it is not the case that it is possible that there is a necessary being” (it would seem merely in order to make what appears to be a completely arbitrary substitution) you don’t deserve to have your ‘argument’ taken seriously. I have to concur with the ‘bafflegab’ judgement.

            If any of the arguments of the philosophers on your list had a single argument worth spit it would be common knowledge in the atheist community. but maybe we’ve missed something so again, bring it.
            Until then:

            http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-plantingas-ontological-argument.html
            http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/12/16/plantingas-ontological-argument-take-three/
            http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/why-plantinga-s-modal-ontological-argument-fails-t21042-60.html

            Most christers are fundies and are not at all concerned with the convoluted proofs of a ‘philosopher’s god’.
            And it’s not the college professors who are infiltrating government and making law and policy based on their superstitions. Ra’s efforts are well spent, IMO.

            If you had a BS in Philosophy you would have said so, Mr. Know it all, so I must conclude your degree is in something else, no?

        • manhattanmc says

          Plug ‘swahili speaking frogs’, ‘arboreal octopi’ or bigfoot into your ‘deductive argument in place of ‘necessary being’ and tell me if you still think it’s a valid construction, genius.
          Philosophy divorced from the detectable is wankery and sophistry.
          You fail completely.

          And Dawkins refuses to debate creationists, bozo boy. why shouldn’t Ra fill that niche?

          I repeat-
          you are full of shit.

          • says

            @manhattan

            Funny how I’m not using Plantinga’s form of argument as I’m using a modified version, so this just shows how you don’t have any clue on what I’m talking about, and why oh why would you list John Loftus who isn’t a philosopher by no means as an authority LOL

            “If any of the arguments of the philosophers on your list had a single argument worth spit it would be common knowledge in the atheist community”

            Right, Just like those YEC’s who know about evolution right? Just like all those 9/11 truthers who took the time to look at the objections to their horrific arguments, right? Do you understand why this statement of yours fails or do I have to seriously dissect it for you?

            anways it appears you are trying a parody here as an objection to the form of the OA that I’m using

            @John K
            As for triangles, they have 3 sides by definition. Triangles also have sides with no thickness, can you show me one of those?”

            Very good, now you are understanding the difference between something that is metaphysically necessary and something that entails a logical contradiction. Also thank you for conceding to the point of analytical truths, though that’s not where I was going.

            So we will continue to discuss this here as I’m not going to post between 2 pages:

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013/01/21/constant-attacks-on-education/

        • manhattanmc says

          “Funny how I’m not using Plantinga’s form of argument as I’m using a modified version, so this just shows how you don’t have any clue on what I’m talking about, and why oh why would you list John Loftus who isn’t a philosopher by no means as an authority LOL”

          Wow-you are really slow. I plucked Plantinga from your list of ‘sophistemicated’ christer philosophers because he was the biggest name on the list.
          And the article is on Loftus’ blog but it isn’t by Loftus.
          Anything else you’d like to say to embarrass yourself further?

          {“If any of the arguments of the philosophers on your list had a single argument worth spit it would be common knowledge in the atheist community”}

          “Right, Just like those YEC’s who know about evolution right?”

          WUT? False analogy, fool. Or do you really think atheists are as deluded as YECs?

          “Just like all those 9/11 truthers who took the time to look at the objections to their horrific arguments, right?”

          Yup, you do have more to say to embarrass yourself. What a surprise. Not.
          Clumsy ad hominem, jack ass. ‘Derp derpity derp you’re just as stupid as 9/11 truthers, so there nanny nanny boo boo’.

          “Do you understand why this statement of yours fails or do I have to seriously dissect it for you?”

          Yea, ‘dissect’ it ass wipe. And then we can both pretend that if any argument they had were successful you wouldn’t have used it instead of the thread bare borrowed crap argument you posted.

          “…anways it appears you are trying a parody here as an objection to the form of the OA that I’m using.”

          My ‘parody’ is a common and hoary refutation of the ontological argument.
          If you weren’t a complete n00b you would have recognized that immediately.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers

    • M, Supreme Anarch of the Queer Illuminati says

      That’ll be right after you demonstrate to us that you have a thorough understanding of the major works of ten or twelve of the more prominent atheist and agnostic philosophers of the last hundred years or so.

      That was me being sarcastic, by the way. None of us really expect you to accept that form of the Courtier’s Reply — but then again, none of us are going to respond to your version except with some form of dismissal.

      • says

        M Supreme

        Assumptions with no support will always come back to bite you! Here is why:

        you say “that’ll be right after you demonstrate to us that you have a thorough understanding of the major works of ten or twelve of the more prominent atheist and agnostic philosophers of the last hundred years or so.”

        Since I’ve taken college courses on the subject, I actually do understand the works of Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Fredrick Nietzsche, Shelly Kagan, Paul Kurtz, Thomas Nagel, J.L Mackie, Graham Oppy, William Rowe, Stephen Law and Peter Millican

        Oh boy that’s 11, so I guess your assumptions fails. I actually have books by about half of those philosophers and the reason being so is because, I feel it’s important to see THE BEST at what the other side has to offer. I don’t know if you go by this, but I hold tightly to the Principle of Charity. So you can dismiss and handwave all you want, but I’ll stick with an HONEST quest for truth.

        http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

        ^Perhaps you can learn something

        ty

      • says

        Now M Supreme which philosopher would you like to talk about?

        I could also throw in David Hume, Micheal Ruse, A.J Ayer, and Karl Popper if you want…

        I love and respect all these guys, because when they confront an interlocutor they don’t take on the ‘weak’ arguments and stay in their ‘comfort zone’ with fundies.

        Oh and I have Hume’s classic “AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING’ here right now, what aspect would you like to discuss regarding epistemology?

        Or perhaps we can go with Karl Popper’s “Logic of scientific discovery’?

        I absolutely love your presuppositions by the way:

        ‘Cornell is a Theist, so he probably doesn’t read enough atheists’

        Free-think on my friend! Pure brilliance!

          • says

            Oh this?

            “That was me being sarcastic, by the way. None of us really expect you to accept that form of the Courtier’s Reply — but then again, none of us are going to respond to your version except with some form of dismissal.”

            Well I don’t know what you are missing bud, but I addressed this part:

            “none of us are going to respond to your version except with some form of dismissal”

            Key phrase: *except with some form of dismisal*

            My key response:

            Principle Of Charity <— against outright dismissals

            See quote below

            " In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive from before subjecting the view to evaluation (source).

            The principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation"

            http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/the-principle-of-charity.php

            So about that claim that I was missing something… xD

          • manhattanmc says

            And why am I not surprised you don’t understand the difference between a demonstration and a bare assertion?
            I also note that you ‘took college courses’ and neglect to mention whether you received a degree. Curious that, no?

          • Rumtopf says

            Psst, was referring to the part about The Courtier’s Reply. It’s also funny that M.Supreme assumed you’d grok that, I’m sure most people reading did, but you responded to their first paragraph as if it were serious. I just thought the missing of the point was funny, carry on with whatever you’re trying to do :B

          • says

            @Rumtopf

            “Psst, was referring to the part about The Courtier’s Reply. It’s also funny that M.Supreme assumed you’d grok that, I’m sure most people reading did, but you responded to their first paragraph as if it were serious. I just thought the missing of the point was funny, carry on with whatever you’re trying to do :B”

            Well I was demonstrating how I used the ‘principle of charity’ whilst looking at claims from Non-Theists, (those Non-Theist philosophers I named up above) so you can carry on with whatever you’re trying to do as well, though I think you should at least take note of the ‘gist’ of what I’m saying here.

            Hint: Principle of Charity

            ^You never mentioned this at all in either post, so I’m going to take it as you either don’t understand my ‘intent’ or you are trying to evade what I’m trying to get across.

            I mean I only linked it (Principle of charity) twice!

            @Manhattan

            “And why am I not surprised you don’t understand the difference between a demonstration and a bare assertion?
            I also note that you ‘took college courses’ and neglect to mention whether you received a degree. Curious that, no?”

            Funny how we have another person here (he likes caps) IGNORING the point I made about the principle of charity. Notice how I was DEMONSTRATING the fact that I hold to this and I think EVERYONE should follow. The ‘GIST’ of my point pertains to the principle of charity, and twice now I have not seen a response addressing what’s wrong with the principle of charity.

            Yes, I received a bachelors degree in a SUNY school, I plan on going back when my finances are settled. Anything else?

            Well that’s enough with this thread, I see AronRa is continuing on with going after ‘fundies’ in his newest post so you can all join me there.

            ty

        • manhattanmc says

          {“There are a good number of philosophers who are atheists as you surely must be aware.”}

          “Well I think that part of my awareness would have been settled given the fact that I named over 10 atheist philosophers in my comment below. I even stated how I had a good number of scholarly works by them.”

          We weren’t discussing your ‘awareness’ (such as it is). We were discussing why Aron Ra doesn’t engage with arguments from your ‘sophistemicated’ christian philosophers.

          {“Philosophical arguments would better be addressed to any of them. Ra spends time refuting YECs (who tend to be largely fundies) because that’s his field. It’s not a difficult concept.”}

          “At the reason rally this wasn’t the case, AronRa became a historian and spoke of how Christianity ripped off of other religions. He also claims to be a Lutheran scholar, though he got a ‘rude awakening’ here in this criticism against him.”

          Sorry-that christianity borrowed extensively from other religions isn’t open to debate. it is after all, a schism of judaism and one need not be a historian to point that fact out.
          I beg to differ on the question of whether Ra got a ‘rude awakening re: Luther. Luther clearly believed sickness could be caused by ‘demons.
          And where did Ra claim to be either a historian or a lutheran scholar? I must have missed it or you are once again erecting straw men.

          “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFr1ErvmDY”

          Been there-done that. Cartesian can’t even pronounce Ra’s name correctly and Ra responded, extensively and more than adequately, here:

          http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2012/11/19/lutheran-citations/

          {{“…Here is the link to his Free Thought Blog response to my video where he argues that the person making the citation [himself] does not have the burden of proof in providing a citation for the supposed quotation!! ” Cartesian

          Then he provides a link that is to Ra’s blog and not to a specific post. Shameful.
          If you can provide a citation of Ra saying anything even vaguely resembling what Cartesian asserts please do so.

          Cartesian also shoots himself in the foot with his citation of LW 54: 53, 360 which says the devil ‘uses’ nature to cause maladies.

          “Aronra also tries to play philosopher here, and comes out looking like the layman that he is:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q40i4x-Z9jc

          Oh please. What part of ‘I don’t care about philosophy, I really don’t” do you need explained?
          Philosophy, aside from the mental exercise it can provide, is about as useful as tits on a bull and it’s not a philosophical argument to point that out. Sorry.

          “So perhaps you should ‘re-think’ your stance here regarding Aronra, or you can continue to be ignorant and stay within your ‘comfort’ zone. Your choice”

          Hahahahaha-perhaps you should rethink your stance on CartesianDualist….oops….I mean CartesianDeist….er ahem…theist or continue to indulge in confirmation bias in your own ‘comfort zone. LOL

          {“There are many cosmologists who are atheists. Dutko, it must be presumed by design, tried to steer the debate away from biology where he was going to get his ass kicked toward cosmology which Ra specifically stated he didn’t feel qualified to discuss in depth.”}

          “We aren’t talking cosmology and I’m not impressed by ad-populum remarks, so please stick to the subject.”

          What is the title of this post, genius? You are the one who is off topic, not me.
          And suggesting you have philosophical arguments with philosophers may be argumentum ad verecundiam but it isn’t argumentum ad populum. You better get your money back for those college courses you took.

          {“And spare me the straw man. I never implied in any sense that Ra has no capabilities beyond his field. And I love your redundant superlative cap lock affirmations BTW.”}

          “It appears you have a tough time ‘biting the bullet’
          This is what you said before:
          {“What part of ‘Ra’s field of expertise is biology’ is so difficult for you”}
          To a remark of mine in which I stated:
          “You sure do focus alot of time making objections to Young Earth Creationists and ‘fundy’ arguments…
          Ever care to look at the works from Theist philosophers in academia such Alex Pruss, Nicholas Wolterstroff, Tim Mcgrew, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Peter Van Inwagen, John Hare, John Lennox, Robert Maydole, Edward Feser, Robert Adams, Glenn A Peoples, Eleanore Stump and Brian Leftow?

          It just always seems like you never go for the more ‘scholarly’ arguments out there from people who have posted in peer-reviewed philosophy journals, don’t you hold to the principle of charity?”

          Why oh why would you say, ‘herp derp, RA has an expertise in biology’ to my request of having him look at ‘works’ from philosophers?”

          Because, moron, we are on the comment board for a post entitled ‘That dubious Dutko’.
          Dutko who is a YEC and a fundie. Dutko who wanted Ra to pontificate on cosmology and philosophy when Ra steadfastly refuse to do so.
          Damn, are you really this slow?

          “Well this is why I brought up Dawkins, who is a far greater biologist than Aronra, and since Dawkins has debated ‘philosophers’ in the past and ENGAGED in their works, I see no reason on why Aron cannot do the same.”

          Uhm, yea, because Ra and Dawkins should do the same things because, uhm…derp derp derpa derp…..why?
          It’s his choice and again what part of ‘I really don’t care about philosophy’ do you need explained?
          And I love that ‘Dawkins is higher than Ra’ assertion. Completely irrelevant but very amusing.

          {“I got as far as premise #3 in your first course.
          “it is necessary that it is possible that is necessary that there is a necessary being”.
          Is this your own formulation?
          I asked for the best arguments for ‘god’ from any of the philosophers you listed and got this? Seriously?”}

          “Funny, I see no objection here just rambling. Complaints don’t equal arguments, if you have a reason for why one of the premises are wrong, I’d like to see why.”

          You really need it explained? Why is it necessary? It is only so for you to make this lame argument. You don’t get to engage in petitio principii and get taken seriously.

          “Though it doesn’t look like you want to engage as you end with this intellectually rigorous statement:
          “You are full of shit”
          Wow! How do I come back from this? Such rationality! I think I’ll just start saying ‘Naturedidit’, Ima free-thinker now’ and pretend I’m smart, just like you!”

          Dude, you have embarrassed yourself here repeatedly and now you pretend to take a gratuitous insult as an attempt at intellectual rigor. Childish.

          We are finished here.

          “Anyways you failed to refute the argument, so I guess we have another closer [sic] Theist on our hands here, good luck in your quest for ‘truth’ Manhattan! I’m glad we had such as great chat.

          Anyways, since you failed to make an actual argument, instead engaging in word salad symbol scrambling and refused to say whether it is even your own formulation we must assume that you have no unanswered arguments nor do your listed christian philosophers.
          I’m gonna start saying ‘gawd is necessary by definition….wheeeeee…I’m a christian philosopher now…I can pretend I understand symbolic logic when I cut and paste just like you’. LOTFL

          Have a nice life and an even nicer afterlife, fool.

        • manhattanmc says

          “… I have not seen a response addressing what’s wrong with the principle of charity. ”

          Are you sure you would recognize such a response if it were posted? After all you only have those few undergrad college courses under your belt. LOL

          Sorry-not going to allow the fundies to hide their arguments under the skirts of your ivory tower philosopher’s god, ‘timeless apologist’ (your dogmatism gives you away LOL). Let the YEC/fundies present their best arguments and we will respond directly to them. Your philosopher’s arguments are not their arguments. In fact, you are barely the same species.

    • Kevin Tysick says

      Did I read that correctly? Did you just say ‘peer reviewed philosophy journals? You think philosophy can be determined as factual as long as it is ‘peer reviewed’? What world are you living in?

  7. says

    It is perfect time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you some interesting things or tips. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I want to read even more things about it!

  8. says

    Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

  9. says

    I together with my pals came reading the best guidelines located on your website then the sudden I had a terrible feeling I had not thanked the blog owner for those tips. These young boys are already absolutely happy to read all of them and now have certainly been tapping into those things. Appreciate your really being quite thoughtful and also for choosing some superb tips millions of individuals are really desperate to be informed on. My personal honest regret for not expressing appreciation to earlier.

  10. says

    Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is magnificent blog. A fantastic read. I will definitely be back.

  11. says

    Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  12. says

    Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just too fantastic. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it wise. I can’t wait to read much more from you. This is actually a tremendous web site.

  13. says

    Thanks for your entire efforts on this website. My niece takes pleasure in setting aside time for internet research and it is easy to understand why. Almost all notice all relating to the compelling manner you provide vital tricks on this blog and as well encourage contribution from website visitors about this area of interest plus our child is without question becoming educated a whole lot. Have fun with the remaining portion of the new year. Your doing a terrific job.

  14. says

    I wish to express some appreciation to the writer just for rescuing me from this particular trouble. After researching through the world wide web and finding methods which were not pleasant, I was thinking my entire life was over. Existing minus the solutions to the problems you’ve solved all through the short article is a critical case, as well as those which may have in a wrong way damaged my career if I had not discovered your web site. Your own competence and kindness in playing with a lot of stuff was priceless. I am not sure what I would have done if I hadn’t discovered such a step like this. I can at this point look ahead to my future. Thanks for your time very much for the skilled and sensible help. I will not be reluctant to recommend the website to any person who would like guidance about this issue.

  15. says

    Just desire to say your article is as amazing. The clarity in your post is just spectacular and I can assume you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the rewarding work.

  16. says

    David, you don’t receive copies on the previous letters. As the letters go forward that number may very well be in the hundreds. But if there’s a particular letter send us an email and maybe we can figure something out.