Episode CCLVII: I wonder if this is what the Endless Thread looks like to outsiders? »« Mary’s Monday Metazoan: Beetle TRIUMPHANT!

Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy

We’ve got another chittering weasel of a creationist raving in the comments, a fellow going by the name YesYouNeedJesus. He’s also sending me email.

PZ, I first heard about you on Bob Enyart’s radio show about the fact that you turned down an offer to debate Bob. I must say that my first impression of you is that you are smarter than most evolutionists. Smarter because the evolutionists that debate Bob get absolutely destroyed every time. Every evolutionist that I spoke to who was at the debate between Bob Enyart and Reasons to Believe willfully admitted that their side (evolution) lost. Bob’s debate with Eugenie Scott was just flat-out epic and is still my all-time favorite science debate. Of course they all made the mistake of debating Bob and you did not. You are smart, I’ll give you that. I think they made the mistake of underestimating Bob because he’s just a radio talk show host. Personally I think that Walt Brown is the greatest scientist of our day, but after Walt Brown, Bob is one of the most brilliant scientific minds I’ve ever listened to. I believe that the evolutionist’s new tactic is to avoid debating creationists because the arguments are just becoming impossible to refute. While that’s quite the tactical strategy and may work for a short time, it is encouraging to see the creation movement grow like a wildfire. And I do believe it’s just a short amount of time before we see evolution become the next ‘spontaneous generation’ and become obsolete. Don’t forget that if you dared question spontaneous generation, you were labeled as anti-science. Good luck to you. -Will

You read that, and apart from the creationist crazy, you get the impression that this guy is just someone with no ties to Enyart (other than his deep and abiding passionate love for him) who listened to the radio show, found out about these evilutionists, and ran over here to see what was up.

This is not the case. His name is Will Duffy, something revealed in the first few minutes of the video below, and he’s Bob Enyart’s producer.

You know, this kind of thing really bugs me. Why do you have to lie and mislead and conceal on the little, trivial things? Why hide the fact that you have a vested interest in Enyart’s show, and are actually deeply involved in the program? I see that, and right away, I know I’m dealing with a shameless liar for Jesus.

And then, of course, there’s the raving insanity. Walt Brown and Bob Enyart are the greatest scientists of the day? Someone alert the NAS and the Nobel Foundation!

Here’s the video. It’s a year old, and it’s a surprise to me (which goes to show how impressed I am with this Enyart freak). I dismissed a request to debate this kook — I’d just come off a debate with his loony pal, Jerry Bergman — and so he issued a challenge that I hadn’t even noticed until now.

He’s asking me to explain the origin of the superior oblique muscle, one of the extra-ocular muscles, which has a tendon that travels through a pulley-like strap called a trochlea. This muscle abducts and depresses the eye; try to look at your nose, and that’s one of the muscles responsible for pulling the eyeball in that direction. Enyart thinks the muscle would have been useless without the trochlear pulley, which is silly: the muscle could have had a different attachment in the orbit, or in the absence of the trochlea could have swiveled the eye upwards, or most likely of all, the suite of extra-ocular muscles and that little loop of tendon all co-evolved. We are well-integrated wholes, you know, and we didn’t evolve one toe at a time — nature selected for functionality as a complete organism.

OK, but Enyart has challenged me to explain how this feature evolved. I have an answer. It’s easy.

I don’t know.

I don’t see any obvious obstacle to an arrangement of muscles evolving, but I don’t know the details of this particular set. And there’s actually a very good reason for that.

This is a case where you have to step back from the creationist and look at the big picture. Don’t get bogged down in the details. Take a look at the whole context of the question.

We don’t know exactly how this evolved because all living vertebrates, with the exception of the lamprey, have the same arrangement of extra-ocular muscles. This is a primitive and very highly conserved condition, with no extant intermediates. We’ve seen the arrangement of these muscles in 400 million year old placoderm fossils, and they’re the same; these muscles probably evolved 450 million or more years ago, and we have no record of any intermediate state. So I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

But that’s where we have to look at the big picture: Bob Enyart, a raving loon and young earth creationist who thinks the whole planet is less than 10,000 years old, is asking me to recount the details of an event that occurred almost half a billion years ago. I should think it’s enough to shatter his position and show that he’s wrong to simply note that however it evolved, it happened in animals 75,000 times older than he claims the planet is. Has he even noticed this little problem with his question?

I don’t think “one of the most brilliant minds” has.

Further, another of Will Duffy’s rants here has made a strange demand. Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner identified some peculiar soft tissue deep in a T. rex bone, which Schweitzer claims is preserved collagen or fragments of blood vessels. This has been disputed, and some claim it’s scraps of a bacterial biofilm. But the main thing is that an unusual and difficult to identify material was found in a Cretaceous bone.

Will Duffy wants it carbon-dated. The fossil has already been dated; it’s over 70 million years old. Carbon dating is only good up to a maximum age of about 50,000 years. He wants to hold a yardstick up against a mile-long object and ask how long it is. This makes no sense at all.

Bob Enyart called Jack Horner and offered him $20,000 to measure the C14 in the T. rex specimen. You can tell Horner is both stunned and amused at the stupidity of the request.

The age of the specimen is not in question, and even if it were, carbon dating is so absurdly inappropriate and useless that only an ignorant clown would ask to do it: it doesn’t matter what number would come out of the measurement, it would be spurious, irrelevant, and uninterpretable…except that, because C14 does have an upper bound of 50,000 years, whatever number reported would be less than that, which is exactly what the creationists are trusting would happen. They’d love to hold that yardstick up against the mile long object and triumphantly announce that it’s only 36 inches long.

“Brilliant mind,” hah. That’s not a brain, it’s a dingleberry with pretensions.

(Also on FtB)


I had to add one more thing that I found hilarious. If you look at his challenge, one of his points is this:

the mutations do not even occur in these structures themselves [the muscles and connective tissue] but in thousands of rungs of the DNA ladder.

Yeah, right. The man doesn’t have a clue.

Comments

  1. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    He even went so far as to cite the paper:

    Here’s your citation.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019445

    The paper actually used carbon 14 dating to check for recent bacterial activity, and got a date of 25,600 years ago. They also got reaction to a bacterial PCR test. So there was some recent surface contamination that affected the carbon date, otherwise, it, like diamonds and coal, would come in at 70,000 years old. He doesn’t understand the science, and that everything is as expected.

  2. says

    More and more they’re going for organs and organelles that evolved extremely long ago, like the flagellum or this eye thing. Convenient for them, because there aren’t fossils that show how it evolved and genetic evidence isn’t especially valuable either.

    Hey idiots, how come our rods use cilia as part of the eye? What possible reason would a “designer” have to use something that was originally for cellular propulsion? Why is everything in life made up from unlikely parts–you know, as evolution predicts, and as design doesn’t, tending rather to the opposite?

    So they explain nothing, particularly the aspects of life that evolution predicts. And we’re supposed to explain everything, because, you know, they’re stupid ignorant morons who don’t give a damn about explanation.

    Why does the heart develop from a tube, then develop chambers, in a manner highly consistent with evolution? You don’t know, you don’t care, you just hate that people who do know and care have a good explanation that defies your religious prejudices.

    Glen Davidson

  3. says

    In the comments he did seem like an especially noisome and vile little varmint, repeating idiotic drivel like it was gold and, of course, ignoring every answer that pointed out his stupidity.

    That he’s a shill for another a-hole would seem to explain it. Even to pretend to learn, when Walt Brown and idiot Bob are the greatest scientists alive, would detract from the execrable lies that they wish to sell.

    Certainly Duffy’s extreme stupidity gives us no reason to deal further with him than anyone has to do.

    Glen Davidson

  4. fasteddie9318 says

    Maybe Will can help me out with a question I’ve always had. If the eye was intelligently designed by an all-powerful, all-knowing deity, why do I need corrective lenses to see more than 6 inches in front of my face? Is it because of my sins?

  5. says

    Every evolutionist that I spoke to who was at the debate between Bob Enyart and Reasons to Believe willfully admitted that their side (evolution) lost.

    Reasons to Believe is not an organization that defends evolution. It is, rather, a peculiar amalgam of religiosity and semi-science, eager to demonstrate (they think) that religion and science go hand in hand. Hardly. I heard Fazale Rana interviewed on Catholic Radio and his position seems to be “punctuated creationism.” They may not be young earth creationists at Reasons to Believe, but they’re not really evolutionists either.

  6. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    it’s a dingleberry with pretensions.

    You, sir, win one internets.

    I’d noticed Duffy kept bringing up Enyart’s name. He bragged about how Enyart had won a debate with Eugenie Scott. My thoughts were:

    ● All a debate does is show who’s a better debater. It has nothing to do with which side is closer to reality.

    ● I’ve listened to several debates between creationists and normal people. It doesn’t matter who actually won the debate, the creationists will always claim victory. It’s part of the Liars for Jebus™ schtick that creationists like to pull.

    If Enyart wants to debate, let him come here. The Pharyngula commentariat will be happy to take him on. He can even do the Gish Gallop, indulge in logical fallacies, and lie about creationism. We haven’t had a good chew toy in a while. Maybe Enyart will become one of the master debaters like Facilis or Pilty.

  7. says

    Every evolutionist that I spoke to who was at the debate between Bob Enyart and Reasons to Believe willfully admitted that their side (evolution) lost.

    Assuming that’s true, and it could be, that’s exactly why honest people don’t engage in wallowing in the filth of creationists. 20 lies a minute from ignorant fucks who don’t give a damn about the truth, and no one can pretend to answer the copious lies of a Will Duffy.

    A shit geyser isn’t to be tackled by intelligent scientists.

    Glen Davidson

  8. hockeybob says

    Debating a creationist would be as useless as debating Michelle Bachmann. Actually, they’re one and the same, and equally as ignorant, so it’s pointless.

  9. Menyambal says

    I like how the vid quotes Darwin as saying the eye is impossible. What do they think Darwin was doing for the next forty years, and all us rabid followers of him are doing now? When the man supposedly has an obvious insight that puts himself out of business, do these bozos think he’d keep on mucking ahead, and none of us would notice? The cognitive dissonance is strong in these jokers, and the projection profound. (For those new in town, Darwin said it seems absurd, then showed how it wasn’t.)

    I have trouble seeing how the trochlea can even get started in an embryo–nevertheless, it does grow. I bet if it was examined in fetal development, some insight would be given to its evolution.

  10. ACN says

    Personally I think that Walt Brown is the greatest scientist of our day, but after Walt Brown, Bob is one of the most brilliant scientific minds I’ve ever listened to.

    Whoa. He can’t POSSIBLY believe this, for realzies. Right?

    RIGHT????

  11. ChasCPeterson says

    The immune system!!!
    The bacterial flagellum!!!
    The trochlea of the superior oblique!!!

    WATERLOO ATHIESTS!!!

  12. Sally Strange, OM says

    It’s funny when they try to use science to show that faith is true.

    I guess faith is just not enough anymore, even for faithists.

  13. Loqi says

    Oh yeah? If we came from monkeys, then why are there monkeys smarter than Bob Enyart? Take that, evolutionists!

  14. Insightful Ape says

    If this guys explanation for the superior oblique muscle is that it is created by his god, then this god thing is a pretty crappy engineer. Not only couldn’t he come up with anything better in 400 million years, but worse, the innervation of this muscle is through the trochlear nerve, which is the only cranial nerve that crosses after emerging, and has the longest intracranial course. As a result, it has the highest rate of palsy in head injuries, causing awful diplopias.
    Is this really the best your god can do?
    And one more thing: if creationism is spreading like brush fire as you claim why does it have to hide behind dishonest pseudonyms like “intelligent design” and “strengths and weaknesses”?

  15. russellseitz says

    While biologists believe simian intelligence represents millions of years of evolution, the Bachman-Perry debate suggests Young Earth Creationists may be right instead.

    As the sort of lemur-on–marmoset rhetorical violence seen in Orlando last week cannot represent more than a few hundred generations of intellectual evolution, the debate must leave the faithful wondering if Creationist divines have padded the Begats to stretch the age of the Earth back as far as 4004 BC.

  16. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I wish just once that these creationist master-debaters would put their science where their mouths are and show us how they are refuting the science, using science, instead of how they can stand on a stage and poke non-existent holes in theories with slick rhetorical tricks and babble filibustering.

    Not holding my breath.

  17. says

    Bob Enyart, a raving loon and young earth creationist who thinks the whole planet is less than 10,000 years old

    Actually the stupid is even worse. These tards think the entire universe, billions of galaxies, was magically created out of nothing less than 10,000 years ago. Almost half of Idiot America believes this.

  18. Brownian says

    If Enyart wants to debate, let him come here. The Pharyngula commentariat will be happy to take him on.

    But other Christians have complained that they’re at an unfair disadvantage here on Pharyngula: we use profanity with aplomb, and their only weapon is God’s own truth.

  19. raven says

    Re comment #1:

    “He (Bob Enyart) was convicted for misdemeanor child abuse in 1994 after beating his …”

    All you need to know.

    google captures:

    Fox & Friends ‘ latest extremist guest and convicted child abuser …mediamatters.org/blog/201008300051Cached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Aug 30, 2010 – BOB ENYART (COLORADO RIGHT TO LIFE): This fails because it’s … Enyart who, in 1999, was convicted of misdemeanor child abuse for …

    ►Bob Enyart – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_EnyartCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Bob Enyart is an American talk radio host, author, and pastor of Denver Bible Church. … He was convicted for misdemeanor child abuse in 1994 after beating his …
    Let Me Go On and On!: Child Abuse X-Posewww.debrapasquella.com/2007/05/child-abuse-x-pose.htmlCached

    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    May 28, 2007 – As I researched a bit on the web about Dani’s pastor, Bob Enyart, as … Enyart was convicted in 1995 of misdemeanor child abuse resulting in …

  20. raven says

    Will Duffy’s rant reads like the product of a mentally ill mind. It’s nearly incoherent.

    While that’s quite the tactical strategy and may work for a short time, it is encouraging to see the creation movement grow like a wildfire.

    It’s not. This is just a lie. Even most xians worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution. Creationism is a cult belief of xian death cults based mainly in the south central USA.

    BTW, creationism isn’t spreading like wildfire. US xianity is dying, killed by the fundies. Last year 1.5 million people dropped off the membership lists.

    And I do believe it’s just a short amount of time before we see evolution become the next ‘spontaneous generation’ and become obsolete

    Another lie and a delusion. Creationism lost in the main venue that matters a century ago. Educated adults not crippled by toxic fundie religion. 99% of all biologists accept evolution in the USA. It is higher in Europe. The few who don’t freely admit that they are religious fanatics in one cult or another.

    YouNeedJesus has his own problems. He needs a major personality repair and a cerebral cortex upgrade.

  21. YesYouNeedJesus says

    PZ, I would like to clear the record. I am NOT Bob Enyart’s producer. I was for 5 years, but have not been part of his radio show for over a year now. Before I was his producer, I was just an avid fan of his show for years.

    And as I said, I first heard about you on his show when you turned down an offer to debate him. I was not lying and I would appreciate an apology.

    I’m also a bit concerned that you do not want to be scientific. Carbon dating original biological material is a normal thing to do. Do you expect me to care what you “assume” the age of the bone is or trust scientific tests?

    Apparently, the speed of light may have just been broken. “WAIT A MINUTE!” says PZ Myers. “You can’t break the speed of light. So even considering the evidence and doing scientific testing makes no sense at all! You must be a crazy creationist loon to even think of doing such a thing!” No PZ, that’s what science does. That’s how science progresses.

    NEWSFLASH – http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019445

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur are “ignorant clowns.” I prefer to call them scientists. The peer-reviewed article explains how they ruled out modern contamination and that it is indeed original biological material.

    Since the soft-tissue T-Rex was found, soft-tissue from an 80-million year old Hadrosaur, a 150-million year old archaeopteryx and the above mentioned Mosasaur have been found. This is not a one time thing.

    I believe in my heart that you fear debating Bob Enyart, and I admit, I could be wrong. But anyone that watches his debate with Eugenie Scott (that he has promoted and sold for 13 years and Eugenie has never mentioned) would have second thoughts before debating an intelligent creationist. (Which do exist!)

  22. Gregory Greenwood says

    Wait a minute, so YesYouNeedJesus lied? Or at a minimum, deliberately omitted a rather important fact about his vested interest in Enyart’s babble? Surely not! Isn’t there a whole thing in the xian faith about not beariing false witness?

    Oh, right, lying for jebus doesn’t count…

    “Brilliant mind,” hah. That’s not a brain, it’s a dingleberry with pretensions.

    I love it.

  23. ichthyic says

    Will Duffy’s rant reads like the product of a mentally ill mind. It’s nearly incoherent.

    I was leaning towards entirely incoherent myself.

  24. raven says

    Never heard of Bob Enyart. For good reasons.

    He apparently is some far right wing nutcase with a violence problem. He doesn’t like James Dobson and Dobson’s Focus on Hating Everybody organization. Which says something, Dobson is as vaguely humanoid a toad as you can find anywhere.

    I suspect YouNeedJesus will crawl back under his rock soon enough. It can be traumatic for those kinds when they (rarely) encounter normal people. Yeah, YNJ, not everyone in the USA is a toad.

    wikipedia:

    Enyart is also known for his views on homosexuality and abortion. Enyart pickets the homes of doctors performing abortions resulting in one Colorado town banning such protests in residential areas.[3] Enyart also angered families of AIDS vicims when he read the men’s obituaries on his television show calling the deceased “sodomite”s.[4] Enyart has also led residential protests against executives of a company which provided construction services for Planned Parenthood offices leading to similar neighbor complaints.[5] Most recently Enyart has criticised presidential candidates who do not share his view on abortion.[6] Enyart is a proponent of corporal punishment of children saying that their “hearts are lifted” by spanking.[7] He was convicted for misdemeanor child abuse in 1994 after beating his girlfriend’s child with a belt so hard that the beating broke the skin.[8][9]

    A series of late night phone calls by Enyart to the general manager of the Kenosha, Wisconsin station which carried his program but publicly disagreed with Enyart’s views prompted Senator Russ Feingold to call for a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigation to see if any laws had been broken by the talk show host.[10]

    In June 2009, Bob Enyart was convicted of criminal trespass following a protest at Focus on the Family.[11]

  25. Dan says

    I especially like that he thinks Reasons to Believe is an ‘evolutionist’ outfit. They are strict creationists of the old earth variety! So one crazy creationist who denies all of modern science outdebated a slightly less crazy creationist who denies almost all of biology and that somehow was a loss for evolution? OK then Will.

  26. ichthyic says

    I was for 5 years

    *headdesk*

    I was not lying and I would appreciate an apology.

    read for comprehension: Information deliberately omitted is also a form of lying.

    you.

    lied.

    you are a liar.

    lies and the lying liars who tell them, that’s you.

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur

    again, you are lying.

    they did NOT “carbon date” a mosasaur. Nowhere in that paper do they use c14 dating to establish the age of the mosasaur, as it IS NOT POSSIBLE. Moreover, since it has been explained to you repeatedly WHY that is not possible, this now makes you a well-confirmed liar.

    The only question that remains, now that we have established that you are both a liar and willfully ignorant, is…

    why?

    why do you choose to lie, Duffster?

    My guess is that someone is paying you to do so, or that you are indirectly earning cash by trying to goad people into debating morons like yourself and Enyart?

    please, it’s the only thing that you could POSSIBLY offer that would be of any interest to anyone here.

    why do you insist on lying? What do you hope to gain by it? It seems a rather risky strategy to me, especially considering how easy it is to use it to ruin your credibility.

    and bro, you have no credibility here any more, so… tell us why you do it; you have nothing left to lose.

  27. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I believe in my heart that you fear debating Bob Enyart, and I admit, I could be wrong.

    Debates prove nothing, science is not done or settled using rhetorical tricks and Gish Galloping over your opponent on a stage. Show the science.

    There’s nothing to gain from debating liars and carnival barkers like your buddy. They do not do it honestly nor do they bring anything other than their blustery filibustering.

  28. says

    I debated Bob Enyart on his show. I told him in advance that I wasn’t an expert on evolution and he promised not to get into that subject, but he did anyway. I did my best and I think I made some good points. My goal in discussing evolution was to re-direct his audience to reputable websites. But it has occurred to me that he might not even have an audience.
    -Staks

  29. pelamun says

    YesYouNeedJesus,

    even if you are no longer his producer, the fact that you were for five years is an important fact that you should have disclosed when you were peddling Bob Enyart’s views on science on this site. That was more than a little disingenuous on your part..

  30. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    One year, Bob Enyart fathered all of the children in a moderately sized village in Uganda without ever leaving Colorado. I also have it on good authority that he survived an encounter with a great white shark using nothing more than his bare hands and knowledge of Krav Maga. Bob Enyart finished a 72 ounce steak in less than eighteen minutes. And also a baked potato.

    So, like, no wonder PZ is scared shitless to debate him.

  31. raven says

    Will Duffy is a christian terrorist or at least a christian terrorism supporter.

    Google turned up some not too surprising info. One commenter called him a pyschopath.

    Hey YYNJ, are a you a psychopath? Do you support assassinating MD’s and cheer when one of your co-cultists murders one? Are Scott Roeder and Eric Rudolph your heroes?

    Sounds a lot like the people I end up reporting to the FBI.

    coloradopol.com commenter:

    Will Duffy is crazy.
    He’s an Alan Keyes for President supporter. No, I’m not kidding.
    He’s also the psychopath in charge of this harrassment. Here’s how to get in touch with him:

    Colorado Families Against Planned Parenthood
    Will Duffy
    303-495-3438
    FamiliesAgainstPP@gmail.com
    I’m sure he’d love to hear from you.

  32. says

    I was not lying and I would appreciate an apology.

    read for comprehension: Information deliberately omitted is also a form of lying.

    you.

    lied.

    you are a liar.

    Yes, but inveterate liars like himself tend to feel especially wounded when they sort of told a truth in the midst of their lying and end up being slightly misunderstood. Well gee, it was kind of the truth this once, and he wasn’t believed, and, sob, woe is he.

    Hey idiot boy Will, the punishment for lying, at the least, is not being believed the few times when you found yourself telling the truth. Suck it up, dishonest dumbass.

    Glen Davidson

  33. ichthyic says

    it has occurred to me that he might not even have an audience

    IOW, we are indeed wasting our time here, arguing with pretentious dingleberries.

    yeah, think I probably have something more productive to do, like hanging towels out to dry in the sun or something.

    I doubt I’ll even get an answer to the simple question of why the Duffster, and all creationists, seem to enjoy lying so much.

    My guess is that they really have no alternative.

  34. says

    YesYouNeedJesus,
    Did you even bother to read the OP? Carbon dating is completely inappropriate for dating objects older than 50,000 years. The reason to carbon date the soft stuff recovered from the Dino skeletons is only to establish if the soft stuff is younger than that age. if it is, then you know that it is something that grew on the fossil long after it was deposited. Carbon dating is entirely inappropriate for dating the fossil itself, the fossil it too old. The C14 is all long gone. There are other isotopes that we can use.

    Is that so hard to understand? Young (<50,000 years old) goo does not mean young fossil. Old goo will have (virtually) no C14. Old stuff needs different isotope methods (pro tip, we have those).

    As for the speed of light, I will personally put up $200 that the result from that experiment will not stand up to further experimentation. This is a bet, YYNJ. Do you accept?

    (no one link to the xkcd, k?)

  35. raven says

    Will Duffy is an extremist and a kook. He is an activist affiliated with Colorado Right To Life, a bunch of crazies that even other christofascists don’t like.

    His big accomplishment was harassing a construction firm building a family planning clinic.

    wikipedia Colorado RTL:

    Positions
    Colorado Right to Life does not believe that an abortion should be permitted under any circumstances, including rape or incest, and this has resulted in disagreement between CRTL and other pro-life organizations like the National Right to Life Committee. CRTL has appealed to these groups not to support exceptions to the prohibition of abortion and not to advocate parental involvement legislation. CRTL maintains that any law under which an abortion would be allowed condones the procedure and is therefore unacceptable.

    Because CRTL advocates the standard of a right to life “from fertilization to natural death”, it also opposes euthanasia, arguing that the deliberate taking of one innocent life undermines the value of life as a whole.

    CRTL objects to embryonic stem cell research, suggesting that research conducted on adult stem cells and cord blood is preferable, as neither relies upon the destruction of human embryos.

    CRTL is on record as opposing Susan G. Komen for the Cure because the foundation does not recognize the abortion – breast cancer hypothesis and because they donate money to Planned Parenthood. Along with former Komen Foundation medical analyst Eve Silver, who is now a pro-life activist, CRTL met with the Komen board in September 2006 to discuss the abortion-breast cancer issue.[12]

  36. Samuel says

    I believe in my heart that you fear debating Bob Enyart, and I admit, I could be wrong. But anyone that watches his debate with Eugenie Scott (that he has promoted and sold for 13 years and Eugenie has never mentioned) would have second thoughts before debating an intelligent creationist. (Which do exist!)

    Among the qualities embodied by PZ Myers, fear of creationists is not one of them. His refusal to debate the man comes from a different place.

    Debates are not part of the scientific process because they are just so much theater. What a debate reveals about its participants is not how correct or accurate their positions are, but how good they are at convincing people of them. An argument need not be based on truth to be convincing.

    For a reputable scientist and educator like PZ Myers to engage a creationist in a debate, it elevates the idiocy of the creationist position to a standing much higher than it deserves. Debating a creationist is much like playing chess with a pigeon. They kick over all the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock to claim victory.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Eugenie Scott lost a debate with a creationist. She’s a nice lady and a great ambassador for science, but she doesn’t strike me as someone who is able to do well in the atmosphere of dishonesty and theatrics emanated by a clever creationist in a debate.

    Debates are held for the benefit of the layman, not the scientific community. It reveals the sinister goal of creationists that they prefer to discuss their crazy ideas in a forum of people who are easily duped, instead of the rigorous and no-nonsense forum of peer-reviewed science. None of us here care how many debates your little friend has “won”. What we care about are how many papers he’s had published in peer-reviewed journals, and how often they are cited in other works.

  37. Gregory Greenwood says

    YesYouNeedJesus @ 23;

    And as I said, I first heard about you on his show when you turned down an offer to debate him. I was not lying and I would appreciate an apology.

    Would you like a Leica Rangefinder to go with that?

    At the minimum, you omitted a highly pertinent fact with the knowledge that this would skew the discussion. That kind of calculated equivocacy is morally equivilant to lying.

    Perhaps you should listen again to the second of the videos (from your own former employer) in PZ’s post where Jack Horner goes over this. Or re-read PZ’s post. Or go back to any of the numerous comments that have covered this ground.Carbon dating has an upper limit of roughly 50,000 years. Attempting to date something far older, like a fossil that is millions of years old, will lead to a false result. As far as I know (I am sure that my fellow Pharyngulites will correct any error I make here) this limitation is related to the half-life of the carbon 14 isotope. Radio carbon dating is simply not capable of measuring the kinds of time periods that need to be dealt with when dating fossils. That is why the process dates coal and diamonds as only being 50,000 years old – a time frame too short for these carbon allomorphs to form.

    Apparently, the speed of light may have just been broken. “WAIT A MINUTE!” says PZ Myers. “You can’t break the speed of light. So even considering the evidence and doing scientific testing makes no sense at all! You must be a crazy creationist loon to even think of doing such a thing!” No PZ, that’s what science does. That’s how science progresses.

    Firstly, the results indicating that some sub-atomic particles can travel faster than the speed of light have not been verified yet. Secondly, the idea that the speed of light is the universal constant, while important to the standard model of physics, is in no way an unshakeable dogma. In science, all conclusions are tentative and liable to change in the light of new, scientifically credible evidence. Thirdly, your analagy is poor. The Cern LHC that developed these results is applying rigorous techniques of high energy particle physics, by comparison your claims about carbon dating of fossils is a category error. As PZ notes above, it is like trying to use a yard stick to measure an object that is a mile in length.

    All that we know about carbon isotopes and their application in dating techniques indicates that any results would be misleading. I want to believe that creationists such as yourself are simply being too obtuse to realise this fact, but the usefulness of the limitations of carbon dating in propogating your young Earth creed makes me suspect that you understand very well the limitations of the technology, and are simply cynically seeking to use it to prop up your unevidenced religious convictions…

    … And so we are right back at lying again.

  38. Big Brother Ogvorbis: I am Watching says

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur are “ignorant clowns.” I prefer to call them scientists.

    No, I’d go with ignorant clowns. There are other dating methods, using longer-lived isotopes, which can date from the Mesozoic, but C14 ain’tone of them. And any ‘scientist’ who is not an ignorant clown knows that.

    Why do you keep lying? You lie about C14 dating of Cretacious fossiliferous material. You lie about your relationship with the asshat you are butt-trumpeting out the whazoo. What, it’s okay to lie as long as you are defending your mental illness religion?

  39. ichthyic says

    you know, I think I would add, since it’s likely where duffster got so confused, that the authors of that paper he cited do use C14…

    NOT TO DATE THE BONE SAMPLES, but to reject the idea that the organic residues inside the bone samples ARE RECENT.

    IOW, Duffster, they did it to try and reject the idea that the organic residue was from a recent contamination event.

    again, and for the fucking last time, you can’t use c14 to date something that is millions of years old. At best, it was used in this case to try and support the idea that the organic residue was older than 50K years.

    and, what’s really funny there, duffster?

    it didn’t even DO THAT.

    from the conclusion on the c14 result test on the organic residue:

    …most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone

    oops.

    so, not only did you lie about using c14 to age the mosasaur, and it’s obvious that you didn’t comprehend what they really did use it for, you didn’t even grasp that the c14 part of the test they ran DID NOT SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTION, and they even said so, right in the fucking paper.

    so, in summary, Will Duffy is:

    a willfully ignorant pretentious liar.

    If I actually wanted to debate someone like yourself, this would be all I would need to focus on.

    I’d say any normal, sane person would learn a lesson about posting scientific studies they don’t come close to understanding as “evidence” for their positions, but then you aren’t normal or sane, so I’m betting you will keep using it.

  40. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Some more little known facts about Bob Enyart:

    Bob Enyart speaks 11 languages fluently, and once bested Pope John Paul II in a debate about the strategic role of Krakow during WWII, all in ecclesiastic Latin. The College of Cardinals was so blown away that they made him an honorary member. To this day, Bob Enyart doesn’t ever pay for a drink on Vatican City.

    Bob Enyart has coached Barack Obama on his golf-swing and smile.

    In one crazy night of Texas Hold’em, Bob Enyart won and lost the deed to the Bellagio–twice!
    Bob Enyart led the first paleontological dig to recover a mososaur.

    Bob Enyart is the only person known to have regrown an amputated limb.

    Bob Enyart is the leading authority on the literature and times of Cotton Mather (east of the Rocky Mountains, anyway). He has translated the letters of Mather into 11 languages (see above), and has recorded audiobooks of each translation.

    Bob Enyart performed the voice-over for Jackie Chan in the original English release of Drunken Master.

    After consuming two Scotch Bonnets, Bob Enyart went an hour without taking a drink of water. During this hour he lost 1/3 of his body weight in sweat and completed the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle.

    Bob Enyart knocked out Suge Knight with a single punch following a dispute about the best way to prepare a salmon.

  41. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur are “ignorant clowns.” I prefer to call them scientists. The peer-reviewed article explains how they ruled out modern contamination and that it is indeed original biological material.

    Nope, it had recent bacterial contamination, which was acknowledged. Which is why they did carbon dating to ensure that their samples were old. The dating did find some recent contamination. Apparently you cite an article you don’t fully understand. But then, that is expected from liars and bullshitters of the creationist persuasion. You are just another liar for Jebus. It’s like you can’t tell the truth, or acknowledge your inane errors.

  42. amphiox says

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur

    This has been explained to you many times already, and yet you still use this silly, worthless argument.

    Typical godbot intellectual dishonesty.

    Frankly, what they did was not carbon dating at all. They just used that term because it’s the common term known for the method, and it is important in science to use terms that are universally accepted so that other scientists can easily replicate their results.

    But the use of C14 in this context has nothing to do with “dating”. The goal is to rule out contamination from modern organisms, critically important since fossils are typically not handled in a sterile manner, and may pass through many hands from recovery in the field to when it reaches that particular scientist’s bench.

  43. ichthyic says

    Some more little known facts about Bob Enyart:

    I know someone with the initials CN that is gonna be pissed you are using his internet mythology inappropriately…

  44. amphiox says

    To further belabor the point: C14 dating is a methodology. An experimental procedure, so named because the first and most widespread use is for dating relatively recent objects in the age range of thousands to tens of thousands of years.

    One of the clever things about science is that methods can often be adapted for other uses. And in this instance, the method was adapted as a screen for organic contamination.

    Of course, even if you take that result at face value, that’s still almost five times older than the bible says the entire universe is, and thus utterly falsifies pretty much ALL versions of young-earth creationism.

    Since you’re the one who graciously provided the citation, YYNJ buddy, I presume you accept and believe it’s conclusions. So you’ll be recanting creationism now, won’t you?

  45. amphiox says

    Since the soft-tissue T-Rex was found, soft-tissue from an 80-million year old Hadrosaur, a 150-million year old archaeopteryx and the above mentioned Mosasaur have been found. This is not a one time thing.

    So what? There’s nothing that says that soft tissue can’t be preserved for millions of years, given the right set of preservation circumstances.

    (And if any animal protein stands a chance of surviving millions of years, collagen actually is among the very best candidates, as it is one of the most durable of all animal proteins, not to mention one of the most common by weight)

    The one thing that ALL of those examples share, of course, is that the age of the original fossils from which the putative soft tissue has been isolated, is not in doubt, and has been corroborated by multiple lines of evidence.

  46. ichthyic says

    I really do think Duffy is indeed one of those idiots we predicted would notice the results of the CERN data suggesting faster than light particle speed, and claim that this means all of science is open to debate.

    It’s the same attitude he attaches to the organic dino tissue paper.

    it’s a shocking revelation of willful ignorance and denial.

    Now the only question is:

    outlier, or just the extreme end of the axis?

    I’m betting he will be a solid data point and others will follow, though I wish it were not so.

  47. otrame says

    What abortion-breast cancer connection? There is at least one variety of breast cancer that is much more common in women who have never breast-fed, but I don’t think that is what we are talking about, is it?

  48. raven says

    Will Duffy’s hobby is harassing normal people. Read it yourself below.

    I’m done here. A fundie xian toad crawling out from under his rock is at the end of the day, just another ugly toad.

    AS PZ pointed out in the original post, US xianity has a large and darkly ugly side to it. They are here with YYNJ.

    from Diana Hsieh
    h ttp://blog.seculargovernment.us/2008/08/dirty-tricks.shtml

    A group called the Collaborators Project, led by 25-year-old Will Duffy of Lakewood, set up camp almost daily outside the chain-link-fenced construction site. But even that activity wasn’t considered out of the ordinary. It was the group’s extension of its consternation to those actually building the facility that seemed to write a new chapter in the pro-life playbook.

    Duffy declared it his personal mission to make a “national example” of the Weitz Corporation, which was the lead contractor for the $6.3 million Stapleton center. His Collaborators Project spent weekends and holidays, including Thanksgiving, Super Bowl Sunday, and the Fourth of July, on the sidewalks and streets outside the homes of Weitz’s corporate executives. Collaborators Project volunteers toted bullhorns, video cameras, and graphic signs. A “truth truck” (borrowed from a national anti-abortion group) plastered with pictures of aborted fetuses and the words “Weitz Co. takes blood money to build abortion mills” patrolled the executives’ suburban neighborhoods. Duffy publicized the names, phone numbers and addresses of company officials via Web postings and YouTube videos.

  49. windthrow says

    NEWSFLASH – http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019445

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur are “ignorant clowns.” I prefer to call them scientists. The peer-reviewed article explains how they ruled out modern contamination and that it is indeed original biological material.

    ok…well after nearly a year it was this that forced me to make my first comment here. I am no biologist but it didn’t take long to find this part of the referenced article:

    Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone

    So help me Will…what am I missing? What is your point about that article?

  50. ichthyic says

    His big accomplishment was harassing a construction firm building a family planning clinic.

    marvelous.

    was this before, after, or during his tenure as manager for Enyart?

    I’d get at least a chuckle out of all this if Enyart fired Duffy for being “too strident” or somesuch.

  51. Big Brother Ogvorbis: I am Watching says

    What abortion-breast cancer connection?

    A man that I know has bought fully into the ‘abortion-is-worse-than-the-holocaust’ bullshit. He is also convinced that, if a woman has an abortion, she is ten thousand percent more likely to get breast cancer. He has actually stated that it is easy to spot the women who have ‘murdered their babies': they are the ones with breast cancer. Which must have made it very uncomfortable when his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer (ah, but she is the one-in-a-thousand who get breast cancer without visiting an abortionist). That is the bullshit linkage the group has glommed on to.

  52. raven says

    What abortion-breast cancer connection?

    There isn’t one. This is just one of a number of lies xian kooks made up to scare women seeking abortions.

  53. ichthyic says

    I’m also a bit concerned that you do not want to be scientific.

    hmm.

    doesn’t want to be scientific, you say?

    must be why he got the PhD in it then, and teaches several classes in it at the local university, and writes a blog about science issues, and is currently writing a grant application and…

    yeah he must really hate science.

    *rolleyes*

    fuckwit.

  54. ichthyic says

    if a woman has an abortion, she is ten thousand percent more likely to get breast cancer

    absolute BS of course, but I wonder how they react to the news that modern IUDs reduce the chance of cervical cancer significantly?

    something tells me they wouldn’t like that data.

  55. Big Brother Ogvorbis: I am Watching says

    absolute BS of course, but I wonder how they react to the news that modern IUDs reduce the chance of cervical cancer significantly?

    Not sure, but I suspect his reaction would be the same reaction he has to anything that disagrees with his worldview: he (literally!) waves his hand and says, “That’s just propoganda by the abortionists/liberals/democrats/evolutionists/fill-in-the-blank-ists. God knows the Truth* and reveals it to the Faithful.”

    * He has the same ability as Miss Susan (Daughter (Granddaughter?) of Death) of managing to capitalize letters while talking.

  56. ichthyic says

    yeah, next time some forced-pregnancy nutter spouts off about abortion and breast cancer, give them this to chew on, since the vast majority of them hate birth control of any kind:

    The epidemiologic study of nearly 20,000 women found that women who used IUDs had a 45% reduced risk for cervical cancer, compared with never users.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/749595

  57. Big Brother Ogvorbis: I am Watching says

    ichthyic:

    I’m pringting out that article. I suspect it will have the same impact of a marshmallow slamming into face-hardened armour, but tilting at windmills has been a hobby of mine for years.

  58. raven says

    Another lie of Will Duffy’s forced birther-female slavery crowd.

    Abortion causes mental health problems. It doesn’t.

    What does cause mental health problems at higher rates is actually giving birth. Makes sense. An abortion is over and done with. A baby is a huge responsibility that hangs around forever.

    Article Comments Abortion Doesn’t Cause Mental Illness
    January 29th, 2011 by Peggy Polaneczky, M.D. in Opinion, Research

    Here’s yet another study showing that abortion does NOT lead to future psychiatric problems. From The New York Times:

    The New England Journal of Medicine has taken on one of the pillar arguments in the abortion debate, asking whether having the procedure increases a woman’s risk of mental-health problems and concluding that it doesn’t. In fact, researchers found, having a baby brings a far higher risk.

    The study, by Danish scientists (and financed in part by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which supports research on abortion rights), is the most extensive of its kind to date. It studied 365,550 Danish women who had an abortion or gave birth for the first time between 1995 and 2007. Of those, 84,620 terminated their pregnancies and 280,930 gave birth. continues

  59. Big Brother Ogvorbis: I am Watching says

    Raven:

    Oh, but those are Danish women. ‘Mercun wimmenz are far too fragile to be able to cope so the study can be waved away as propaganda.

    Shit. I’ve gotten cynical. How’e that happen?

  60. raven says

    Oh, but those are Danish women

    Danish women are people too.

    They do these studies in Denmark because it is a small country with a centralized data base of statistics. It wouldn’t quite be possible elsewhere.

    Look at the numbers. 365,550 women. A whole lot. It’s hard to do studies with that sample size.

  61. starstuff91 says

    I like how YesYouNeedJesus and other creationists (read: idiots) like him don’t give a shit about scientists or the scientific method until a scientist says something that they can use (read: manipulate) to support their batshit insane ideas.

    I also like how he just pops in to defend himself and rant a bit before running off without responding to anyone’s criticisms.

    I honestly can’t be bothered to be angry at these idiots anymore. I just laugh at them and their beliefs now.

  62. Big Brother Ogvorbis: I am Watching says

    Danish women are people too.

    They do these studies in Denmark because it is a small country with a centralized data base of statistics. It wouldn’t quite be possible elsewhere.

    Look at the numbers. 365,550 women. A whole lot. It’s hard to do studies with that sample size.

    I know that. I was sarcastically failing at parroting how a believer would dismiss findings such as those. I did not intend to dismiss Danish women. Honest. I was being sarcastic (and failing). The guy that I know with the cancer-abortion obsession would use a similar argument to show why it would be invalid in God’s Country(TM)(Sarcasm)! and can thus be dismissed.

  63. Abelard says

    YesYouNeedJesus said:

    I guess these scientists that carbon dated a 70-million year old Mosasaur are “ignorant clowns.” I prefer to call them scientists. The peer-reviewed article explains how they ruled out modern contamination and that it is indeed original biological material.

    Seriously, all you needed to do was read the paper to discover that they used c14 techniques to remove absorbed carbonates and humic acids; and for the main analyses they used immunofluorescent spectroscopy, infrared micospectroscopy and mass spectrometry. Let me make it clear so even an idiot like you can understand. They used c14 techniques to identify carbonate contamination so it could be removed in the final analysis.

    The only ignorant clown is you, Mr. Duffy.

    As might be expected from religious idiots, the cretinists have latched onto the recent discoveries of fossilized amino acids as “proof” that the millions of years old dating of dinosaur bones is erroneous. They habitually butcher the work of Schweitzer in order to make some grandiose claim about gawd or design, or back up some crank filled diatribe against “mainstream” scientists and evilution. It’s sickening.

  64. raven says

    I know that. I was sarcastically failing at parroting how a believer would dismiss findings such as those.

    I knew that. Any information that doesn’t fit under their rocks gets tossed immediately.

    There are other studies that showed the same thing.

    This one has more credibility because the sample size is very large.

  65. axewaquestion says

    I’d just like to say that the scientific smackdowns in this thread have made a crappy night considerably better. I love this place.

  66. tushcloots says

    Sept. 23:Science News – Particles Appear to Travel Faster Than Light: OPERA Experiment Reports Anomaly in Flight Time of Neutrinos – researchers skeptical of own results “Needs replication”

    Sept. 24: Creationists cackle over proof Einstein is wrong

    Sept. 25: Creationists start rumor about Einstein deathbed confession, his final words – “Relativity is wrong, I made it up”

    Sept. 2014: Science News – Source of Error Found: OPERA Experiment Results Due to blah blah…

    Sept. 2015+: Creationist Textbooks Teach “Science can’t be trusted, even Einstein was proved wrong! And just like the weasel Darwin, he confessed that his Relativity theory was just a joke.

    Sept. 2015+: PZ’s minions repeatedly correct fundies that claim the above shit. Over and over and….

    Sept. 2037: Creationist Textbooks Teach “Science can’t be trusted, even Einstein was proved wrong! And just like the weasel Darwin, he confessed that his Relativity theory was just a joke.

    Sept. 2038: Science News – Ancient Document Dated ~1500 BCE Authenticity Confirmed. Scholars Verify Last Page out of Moses’ Diary as Deathbed Last Words: Confesses He Wrote Bible as Joke

  67. ichthyic says

    Confesses He Wrote Bible as Joke

    heh.

    although, if it were true, it would make me want to resurrect the fucker just so I can kill him again. Slowly and painfully.

  68. ichthyic says

    I do appreciate that the author acknowledges what he doesn’t know.

    I’ll bite.

    why?

    Because you feel you have now found someone sympathetic towards your likely vast ignorance?

  69. ichthyic says

    another interesting fact about Bob Enyart:

    he just recently flogged away over on the old version of this blog, in the same titled thread.

    so if you want a new chew toy…

  70. says

    Enyart’s ignorance is obvious even as he quotemines Genie Scott

    A lot of it’s the same tired old BS about how some “junk DNA” has turned out to have functions, as expected by many researchers (and as highly suggested by conserved sections, once genomes were sequenced), therefore pseudogenes and other possible “junk DNA” are needed. Ergo Scott is wrong.

    Gee, I wonder if Will could figure out what’s so fucking stupid about that. Possibly coming to a universal conclusion from a few specific examples–alongside good evidence that much of DNA is indeed junk.

    Never was my favorite argument, as far as that goes. There’s such excellent evidence of derivation of organs, organelles, and the like, that no intelligent designer would trifle with, that one never needed to bother with doubtful “junk DNA.” But what of that? The “vitamin C gene” is still broken in primates, even though it apparently has gained regulatory function since then. Obviously “broken,” leaving us with no ability to produce ascorbic acid, and then function was evolved from it. That’s evolution, not design, except in the ID sense of ‘take whatever is found in life and call it design,’ an egregiously dishonest approach.

    Anyhow, you can tell that the guy knows not how to think, let alone how to think about biology.

    You can get the full “debate,” only you have to pay $25 for it. Not worth anything more than the sleazy junk you can get for free, as the guy “thinks” like a dolt, either innately not bright, or clouded by Jeebus “faith” into not being capable of reasonable thinking.

    Oh yeah, he’s another programmer who confuses the easily-ruined and basically unevolvable (yes, I know there are some programs that can evolve, but even those tend to be fairly specific in a way that biology tends not to be) software of computers with the stochastic and parallel-acting DNA of organisms. Don’t need no dang biology to understand it, you know.

    Glen Davidson

  71. christopherbooth says

    Walt Brown is the greatest scientist of our day?!? You moron. Ignorant big-mouthed moron.

    So, that would put him one up on Ed Witten and Steven Hawking. Can he do that kind of math in his head? Take a look at the math they do in their heads; care to explain their work? Where does Walt Brown keep his Fields Medal? How’s his work on String Theory going? Or is M-Theory his thing these days?

    I’d count Richard Feynman as being “of our day”–How come Feynman Diagrams aren’t named Brown Stuff?

    Your assessment would nudge him up over Murray Gell-Mann. So what do we call quarks? Brownspots?

    Huh, perhaps we should rename the subject of CERN’s research the Brown Boson?

    Shall we call the Dyson Sphere a Round-‘n’-Brown, since you claim that he is a greater scientific mind than Freeman Dyson?

    Is the double helix his discovery? Shall we call it the Brown Cruller?

    How about Roger Penrose? In your bathroom, do you have Brown Tiles?

    When’s he gonna finish Don Knuth’s magnum opus? Since he’s such a great mind, perhaps he’d be so kind as to append a Brown Volume to it.

    Kip Thorne–pray tell, how does Brown weigh in on gravitation? (I expect its fell.)

    There are some truly daunting intellects out there–weigh your claims.

    Which of you two solved Fermat’s Last Theorem?

    How many publications does he have in Nature?

    How’s his h-index? What’s his Eddington Number?

    You don’t show any evidence that you even know what the words “science” and “scientist” mean.

    You certainly don’t get your science info, such as it is, from actual scientists or scientific publications.

    You have a duty to either educate yourself, or to keep quiet. And lying about things so they match your crank mindset is just lying, no more and no less. Din’t no one larn ya not ta lie?

    Perhaps you are the answer to Monty Python’s question: “What’s Brown and sounds like a bell?”

  72. troydassler says

    what’s kind of pathetic is some of these people could actually have an interesting discussion, but they insist on this bullshit, hiding behind the bible, or their true selves, or a thousand other things. it would actually be kind of interesting to see the alternative.

  73. BCskeptic says

    I wonder if these fucking creationist morons have any idea at all about the impact of real science on modern life. They focus on evolution/biology, which is front and center in conflict with their religion, making up stories and outright lying to try to dismantle it, but probably don’t have a tinker’s damn clue about anything else.

    For instance, “just” using your computer to communicate like we do over the Internet is a triumph of the very core principles of physics, and builds on the toil of decades of scientific research and development by thousands of scientists to become reality. Same with modern air travel…you take off and land safely with a very high probability because of disciplined scientific method.

    If it weren’t for the disciplined scientific method, and dedication to truth instead of fantasy, none of it would exist! It ain’t fuckin magic! And, it doesn’t matter who the best friggin debater is! It is hard physics, and no amount of bullshit lying changes it.

    The same is true with biology. The vast quantity..and I mean VAST QUANTITY…of facts obtained through more than 150 years of multi-disciplinary research supports the truth of evolution. IT all points IN THE SAME DIRECTION, and is all consistent. Modern medicine depends on it. You are likely alive right now BECAUSE OF IT. You have enough food to eat BECAUSE OF IT. You live as long as you do BECAUSE OF IT.

    So, creationists, take your stupid fucking lies and idiotic debates, and shove them high up your arses. And, the next time you take off and land safely in a plane, use the Internet, talk on the phone, or have a life-saving operation, thank science and scientists for it, and not your non-existent sky god.

    And, finally, if you really have something of substance, write a paper and subject it to the real peer-reviewed scientific process…otherwise, SHUT THE FUCK UP, and just go sing songs in church, and be happy in your delusion. GEEEEEZZZZ!!!!

  74. christopherbooth says

    I just listened to the call to Jack Horner.

    That is some powerful doltery there. That is just some new kinds o’ stupid. And a hogshead of dishonest to boot. Wow.

    Wow.

    [shaking head] PZ, I don’t know how you do it. And a tip of the cowboy hat to Jack Horner, too.

  75. amphiox says

    It should be noted that Evolutionary theory is actually on substantially more solid scientific ground than Relativity. We pretty much already know and acknowledge that Relativity (and Quantum Mechanics) is incomplete, and will one day be replaced by a better theory.

    There is absolutely nothing in biology that calls Evolutionary theory in question in any analogously similar fashion at all.

  76. Tim DeLaney says

    Attn: YesYouNeedJesus–a Challenge to Enyart

    I must admit that Bob Enyart started me on a path that has led me to seriously investigate the evidence for evolution, and very indirectly to the creation/evolution controversy, the atheist community, and Pharyngula.

    A YEC named Jerry something-or-other wrote an op ed to the local paper headlined “Evolution Is a Religion”, and I responded with a very creditable rebuttal, given that my only credentials were that I had watched “Cosmos”. Seriously, I was totally naive regarding the topic. I barely knew that creationists existed.

    A few days later, I encountered Bob Enyart while channel surfing, and much to my amazement, he was calling me out by name, inviting me to defend my position on the air! In my naivete, I called the number on the screen, and soon found myself talking to Enyart himself!

    You can imagine what happened. He started by asking me what evidence I could cite for evolution. In my naivete, I mumbled something about “gill slits”, and Enyart was all over that like a god on a bone. But then, inexplicably, he proceeded to make an ass of himself by emitting a rant about Galileo, and how he was a Bible-believing YEC, and how the story of his persecution was vastly exaggerated, blah, blah, blah. I was both amused and astonished. Fact was, he had me by the balls, and couldn’t resist promoting one of his silly religious agendas.

    Anyway, I resolved to educate myself about this “controversy” and found the newsgroup “talk.origins”. (This was back when internet access was billed by the hour, as I quickly learned, to my dismay.) Guess who was one of the leading lights on the science side? Along with Larry Moran, Chris Nedin, Andrew Macrae, and many others was, you guessed it, PZ Myers, then at Temple University, IIRC.

    The rest, as they say, is history. I am not now an authority on biological evolution, but I strongly suspect I could shred Enyart in an email debate on the subject. So, YesYouNeedJesus, please convey to Enyart the following challenge: An email debate consisting of three 2000 word essays (Enyart can choose to go first or last), followed by a simultaneous 1000 word summary. One week between essays. (Tweak the conditions to your heart’s content.) This challenge is subject to finding a suitable host. (There are many Pharyngulates who have web sites that could host this debate.)

    I would be more than willing–one might say eager–to step aside and defer to any other Pharyngulate who feels more qualified. (There are hundreds who fit this description.) The point is: One on One written email debate. Bob Enyart v any reasonably well-informed reader of Pharyngula. No need to hire a theater, or to pack the audience with supporters, or to be super glib (in the Gish or Hovind sense). Just Ideas v ideas. Let’s get it on.

    P.S. Enyart’s show was entitled “Bob Enyart Live” One of my minor hobbies is anagrams. (My own is “eldynamite”, which I still occasionally use.) I have tried to find a suitable anagram for “Paul Zachary Myers”, but without success. However, for “Bob Enyart Live” I give you [trumpets, please] VILE BANTER BOY

  77. ichthyic says

    alternative to this game playing

    I guess I mean, what would this alternative be?

    I’ve had debates with supposedly serious intelligent design advocates, like Dembski.

    in fact, people like Dembski just take the game to a more esoteric level, but it’s still, by necessity in fact, just a game.

    so, what, exactly, would be an alternative worth entertaining?

  78. Little Boots says

    the problem with all that kel, is that prophets don’t actually end up all that well, really. that’s what makes it problematic.

  79. Steve Ride says

    “Personally I think”

    Should be…

    “Personally I just allow Bob Enyart to tell me what to think”

    There, fixed it.

    Enough said.

  80. ichthyic says

    I must admit that Bob Enyart started me on a path that has led me to seriously investigate the evidence for evolution, and very indirectly to the creation/evolution controversy, the atheist community, and Pharyngula.

    pardon me for saying it then but…

    Well done Bob Enyart!

    excellent own-goalmanship!

  81. quietpanther says

    *tiny head pokes into Important People’s discussion*

    starstuff91 @66 said:

    I honestly can’t be bothered to be angry at these idiots anymore. I just laugh at them and their beliefs now.

    I am angry. Exceedingly, ragingly angry.

    Because less than a month ago I came across the talk.origins archive and realized that everything I knew about the universe was dead wrong.

    And everyone in my life that I trusted about biology, geology, and science in general either intentionally lied to me or parroted lies they believed. I am a very, very recent convert from YEC to Science.

    And I am still furious.

  82. theophontes , flambeau du communisme says

    @ Sally

    It’s funny when they try to use science to show that faith is true. I guess faith is just not enough anymore, even for faithists.

    Yeah, a similar problem to this has long troubled me and I have never received a satisfactory answer from anybody. Their god bears no relation to scientific truth and yet they feel compelled to prove things by means of science. I think the goddists are quite simply blind to the farcical nature of their own venture..

    This is more a problem for the monotheisms as opposed to the Pagans who understood and worked with Allegory. For the so called “revealed” religions, this is obviously not possible. I have responded to Bob Enyart in this regard on Scienceblogs (linky). I can’t say I really expect to receive an answer …ever.

    @ YesYouNeedJeebus

    Do you have a response to this? I am really keen to know what god thinks about this dilemma.

  83. ichthyic says

    And everyone in my life that I trusted about biology, geology, and science in general either intentionally lied to me or parroted lies they believed. I am a very, very recent convert from YEC to Science.

    don’t feel alone; because this has become a large part of what maintains anti-science attitudes to begin with.

    you might enjoy reading this nice, short, summary paper on the subject that was published in Science journal a few years back:

    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf

    It’s titled: “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science”

  84. ichthyic says

    …and when you read that, remember that all the peers you are so angry at were raised just like that.

    some manage to escape the cultural indoctrination, like you did.

    many did not.

  85. RipleyP says

    Funny how it is a bully tactic to challenge someone then call them coward and loser if they don’t engage. The playground bully challenges another child to fight but the other child is a better person and refuses to engage.

    The bully will crow the other child is wrong on everything and craven. Yet no fight took place, no winner of the fight was ever crowned.

    Thus you can’t claim victory because a fight never happened.

    There are very many reasons to not engage. Sometimes something as simple as the other party is a liar, or a slimeball or just plain not worth the effort.

    Sometimes you have to accept that when you enter into an argument with an idiot they merely bring you down to their level of idiocy and beat you with experience. Many of the creationist debaters are exactly this, someone spouting fairy tales and idiocy

    Go away now Mr Duffy and when you have something a little more concrete that fairly tales and poorly quoted studies and have the facts and science to debate with the grown ups you can maybe say something I would like to hear and even possibly debate about.

    PS. This post is not meant to disrespect Tim @89 and his return challenge. I rather like the suggested format as it is a different scenario to the live debate as first suggested by Mr Duffy and can remove a lot of the surprise fairly tales.

  86. ichthyic says

    Does that mean I shouldn’t trust it?

    nope.

    It means that since it’s a review paper, you don’t have to take the authors at their word; you can read the basis of their conclusions for yourself by checking out the primary work listed in the biblio.

    also, Bloom and Weisberg have been doing this kind of work for quite a while now, and they have a nice library of their own to peruse:

    Bloom:

    http://www.yale.edu/minddevlab/publications.html

    Weisberg:

    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/cv.html

    the world of science is large and varied, and has endless hallways to explore.

    have fun!

  87. quietpanther says

    Does that mean I shouldn’t trust it?

    nope.

    It means that since it’s a review paper, you don’t have to take the authors at their word; you can read the basis of their conclusions for yourself by checking out the primary work listed in the biblio.

    Yeah … I was joking. ;-)

    the world of science is large and varied, and has endless hallways to explore.

    have fun!

    God, the insanity … I’ve spent the last two weeks trying to write a blog post touching on my experience at encountering talk.origins … and every time I go to work on it I end up opening (and reading) dozens of tabs of websites painstakingly explaining excruciatingly obvious flaws in the YEC belief system and the ACTUAL truth of the issues. Biology fascinates me. I half-want to impulsively take an entry-level geology course at my local community college. Discussing my wife’s thalassemia with a genetic counselor was wildly exciting — just learning about the mutation that caused it and the effects that mutation had. Contemplating an earth 4-5 billion years old overwhelms me with amazement.

    It’s as if I just discovered color.

    And I love it.

    And I’m still furious at those who insist that the world is 8-bit grayscale.

  88. AK Skeptic says

    quietpanther,

    I also gave up young earth creationism a couple years ago and was pretty angry at all the lies I was fed my whole life. I’ve since come to feel a lot more sorry for those people, because they are missing out on a kind of wonder that old myths can never match. You should be saluted for making the switch from superstition to science so quickly, I wasn’t as rational and took several painful years to overcome my indoctrination.

    Here are a couple books I really enjoyed during my journey from young-earth creationism to rationality; you might want to check them out and see if they interest you. Sagan’s ‘The Demon-Haunted World’, Sean Carroll’s genetics books ‘Endless Forms Most Beautiful’ and ‘The Making of the Fittest’, Brian Greene’s physics books, Stephen Jay Gould’s essay collections, Donald Prothero’s ‘Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters’, and just about anything by Richard Dawkins.

    Congratulations on seeing the light!

  89. says

    I see wut u did there.

    I should hope so, but there is a serious point to be made. Looking at such arguments, that’s all they seem to be arguing. X can’t be explained, ergo Jesus. Over and over and fucking over again.

  90. opposablethumbs, que le pouce enragé mette les pouces says

    Just like to take my hat off to quietpanther for having the intelligence to recognise real information when s/he encountered it and the courage to shake off years of being lied to. And the emotional intelligence to be fucking angry about it. ::tips hat::

  91. Tim DeLaney says

    Challenge II

    It occurs to me that my challenge in post # 89 is not quite fair. In that post, I proposed an email debate between a Pharyngulate yet to be chosen (I volunteered to be the debater for the evolution side as a sort of default spokesman) and Bob Enyart. However, it is, I admit, disengenuous of me to pick on a half-wit like Enyart, and to simultaneously propose that the best of Pharyngula represent the evolution side. I must humbly admit that this was a bit like Mike Tyson challenging the best eighth-grader in the audience to a boxing match.

    So, I would like to amend the proposal. Let the creationist side pick its best spokesperson, and let PZ pick the Pharyngulate of his choice, and let the email debate begin. Let’s see, who shall be the one to designate the the creationist/Intelligent design proponent? Ken Ham? Bill Dembski? Ray Comfort? Bob Enyart (mentioned just for comedic value)? Ann Coulter? Ben Stein?

    If I had to pick one, I’d think Ken Ham should designate the creationist spokesperson. He can call his own number if he wishes.

    Seriously, I think a structured email debate is the most reasonable idea. I would not expect somebody of the stature of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Larry Moran, or Jerry Coyne to stoop to that level, but there are surely others who would be willing participants. Maybe some inventive promoter could come up with a catchy title for the debate, like “Battle of the Century” or something. (How’s that for an original idea?)

  92. ichthyic says

    Yeah … I was joking. ;-)

    I know, I felt I wanted to add something a bit serious to your humour though.

    there is indeed a trust issue involved, after all!

    every time I go to work on it I end up opening (and reading) dozens of tabs of websites painstakingly explaining excruciatingly obvious flaws in the YEC belief system and the ACTUAL truth of the issues.

    *evil laughter*

    Biology fascinates me.

    good answer.

    One of my very first Marine Biology professors was also an avid student of anthropology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, history, and just about any topic remotely relating to those things.

    I once asked him why he was interested in all those things, and he told me:

    “How could I not be?”

    I’ve carried that with me ever since. Curiosity about everything is what keeps us going, I think.

  93. 1000 Needles says

    So that’s what creationists have been reduced to, now?

    “This tiny little obscure part of vertebrae anatomy… therefore a creator god exists!”

    Your response was impressively knowledgeable, as always, PZ.

  94. theophontes , flambeau du communisme says

    @ Tim DeLaney

    [Evolution Challenge]

    It looks like ol’ Bob Enyart is not going to answer me, so I shall hand the question over to you. Why debate evolution with them at all? They will just keep harping on (perceived) ambiguities. I would be more interested in why they completely fail to argue for the sun and moon staying stationary in the sky.(as per my example on the Sb thread. eg:”So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven.”)

    They are not even wrong here. It should be all the more entertaining.

    @ Ichthyic

    Curiosity about everything is what keeps us going, I think.

    Well you can stop now because … (taddaah) … goddidit!

  95. Tim DeLaney says

    Theophontes:

    Why debate evolution with them at all?

    Why debate them? I agree that from my point of view, and from yours, that there is no genuine debate. They are wrong, and debating them is as productive, in a sense, as debating a flat-earther. Unfortunately, roughly half of the USA population believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and they want to teach that to our children in our schools. This is not just an intellectual exercise. If we do not oppose them, then we are, by default, in agreement with them.

  96. says

    I am NOT Bob Enyart’s producer. I was for 5 years, but have not been part of his radio show for over a year now.

    Since you apparently don’t understand the concept of a lie by omission, let’s just make really sure we’re all on the same page, here:

    Are you currently employed by, invested in or otherwise financially associated with by Bob Enyart or any of his associates or organizations?

    Are you receiving, or hoping to receive, any reward or compensation by Bob Eyhart, or his associates or organizations, for your activities on this blog or elsewhere on the internet?

  97. sLUCIDITy says

    @quietpanther,

    I am angry. Exceedingly, ragingly angry.

    Right there with ya quietpanther. It’s been 10 years for me though. And I’m still exceedingly, ragingly angry.

    Try to work through it as I’m pretty sure such long-term rage can’t be too healthy.

  98. FossilFishy says

    quietpanther: On behalf of the crowd lurking in the wings, the mostly silent majority as it were, of this here rational corner of the internet, welcome.

    You might want to check out the following two videos. They’re less about the specific lies you were told and more about the emotional and psychological journey of leaving Christianity behind. Theremin Trees is uncommonly good at explaining things concisely, though his vids tend to information dense and might require repeated viewing to catch everything.

    #1 Transition to Atheism (personal)http://youtu.be/A0WwZc-Vz7Y
    #2 Atheism as Congruence http://youtu.be/xyE8wUteFA4

  99. Tom says

    Here’s the analogy the guy on the phone should have used:

    You’re offering a lot of money to have a microscopist point her equipment at the sky and try to find Jupiter, and then officially announce that she can’t see it. And you just happen to be someone whose interests are served by claiming that planets don’t exist.

  100. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    I know someone with the initials CN that is gonna be pissed you are using his internet mythology inappropriately…

    Whatevs. That internet mythology is of my own creation. I’ve been prevaricating since NoR was in pampers. I don’t know no CN.

  101. Hairy Chris says

    Quietpanther, as another mainly lurker, I’d also like to welcome you to the world of interestingly cool stuff in a universe that works in a really weird ay! I never had to overcome the difficult start that you did so you have my absolute respect. (Definitely have a look at FishyFossil’s links – Theramin Trees has a fantastic YouTube channel. His brother QualiaSoup also produces videos that are great to watch.)

  102. claimthehighground says

    OK, Duff
    Why don’t you just come back and hit us with the big guns. We know you’re holding back. Tell us, ” If we were descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys! Ha, gotcha.” We would all collectively shrink away in awe of your outstanding powers of logic.

  103. ACN says

    @YYNJ

    When people like you quote physics results without understanding ANYTHING about ANYTHING, lots of kittens die.

    For your own education, the actual pre-print of the OPERA collaboration’s paper is here:

    http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

    And I’ll quote the conclusions for you:

    Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here [6 sigma significance] and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.

    Emphasis mine. This is a very careful publication of a result that they’ve been sitting on, working out the systematics and have come up stumped. Publication, in this regard, is something akin to a call for community involvement in quadruple-checking their systematics to try to find something they missed to explain the anomaly. They aren’t proposing new fucking physics.

  104. theophontes, feu d'artifice du cosmopolitisme says

    @ Tim

    Why debate them?

    No, I understand this part well enough. My question is why we debate them about evolution. Though the principles are simple enough, it is, as we constantly observe, a subject that has a lot of people stymied.

    There are however many other things in the bible that have been thoroughly at odds with reality and have been completely put to bed by science. (My Joshua quotation is a simple case in point.) These are very easy for even a willful idiot to understand. Which is why I raise that particular point. I also always notice that I do not get any responses to this question. I like to think it is because people like Bob are embarrassed by what the bible has to say versus a reality they simply cannot deny.

    It is trivial to understand that the sun does not turn about the earth (as Wittgenstein so eloquently illustrated) and neither can it “stand still” as is claimed by god and a few equally obtuse characters. Their god will always try and hide in the gaps. That is the beauty of keeping to simple watertight examples. (Though evolution is simple and watertight, it is nowhere near as straightforward as the stopped sun question.)

    These people should (to use an earlier analogy) not even be in the Tyson boxing ring as (intellectual) 8 year olds. We will look like bullies if we throw them into the deep end.

    I run the risk of sounding condescending to Enyart and his ilk, but I do not think they have the wherewithal to engage in a real debate on evolution. They have a lot of scientific mannerisms without being scientific. Both their and our voices sound like blah,blah,blah to the target audience. Its just that their blah ends with “+jeebus” instead of our “-jeebus”.

  105. Heliantus says

    A confused agnostic here. Slightly off topic, I’m afraid.

    Last Sunday, there was a shiny paper hanging on the outside knob of my flat’s door.
    In short, it was a cleverly guilt-inducing xian text promising me Hell unless I start reading the Bible.
    (“how many times did you lie in your life”, “have you ever lusted after a woman?”)
    To some extend, I read it as “God set you to fail, no matter what you do”. Which is doing wonders to sustain my hopes about my future.
    Creeps, after too many years of celibacy, I recently managed to get a girlfriend. She is not a one-nighter, but someone I consider living with together. Obviously, I lusted after her, and according to this pamphlet, I should feel guilty for this.
    Just what I need right now, more reasons to second-guess myself and lose confidence.

    That this text failed to tell me was which one of the 28000 christian congregations I should follow.
    It also failed to explain why I would go to Hell for not believing that the world was made in 7 days 10k years ago, even if I manage to behave properly in every other aspects of my life.
    It failed to explain why I should give up my brain.

    And then, boy-lusting catholic priests.
    And then, YYNJ lies
    (yes, my comment has a relation with the post’s topic, here it is – If I lie, I go to Hell, or so you say. Then, why do YOU lie, you born-again hypocrite?).
    And more.

    I think I hate religious proselytes.
    Oh, not because they point at my sins, or whatever I should call my failures. This part, is mine to take care of.
    But because I cannot shack the feeling they are inducing guilt feelings into me to manipulate me into submission.
    I hate manipulative bullies.

  106. stanton says

    why do people argue with PZ when they just embarrass themselves? seems self defeating.

    These twits are like kindergartners setting off to kill a live grizzly bear.

    A grizzly bear with laser vision, a nuclear-powered chainsaw, a machine gun, and their parents’ numbers on speeddial.

  107. Ing says

    More to the point.

    Dinosaurs existed from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. Even if the dinosaur was dated to five fucking days ago, the noted era of the dinosaurs is still off by orders of magnitude from the supposed age of the Earth.

    But because I cannot shack the feeling they are inducing guilt feelings into me to manipulate me into submission.
    I hate manipulative bullies.

    Someone keeps leaving the Banana Man “ARE YOU A GOOD PERSON!?” leaflets around. I tear them up when I see them in hopes that they get the point that everyone ignores them save the people who actively despise the view and that littering is a moronic and cowardly way to promote their view. Been thinking of just printing out my own note that says “ABRIDGED VERSION: YOU’RE A DOUCHEBAG! JOIN MY CHURCH FUCKER!”

  108. says

    quietpanther:

    Because less than a month ago I came across the talk.origins archive and realized that everything I knew about the universe was dead wrong.

    Wow. Just … wow.

    I would love to read a full-on essay about this. If you end up writing one, please let us all know. Make sure I know.

    Srsly.

    And: welcome to reality. I think you’ll like it here, for the most part.

  109. greame says

    It’s as if I just discovered color.

    And I love it.

    And I’m still furious at those who insist that the world is 8-bit grayscale.

    That’s actually quite beautiful. I really like that analogy.

  110. theophontes, feu d'artifice du cosmopolitisme says

    @ Heliantus

    Just what I need right now, more reasons to second-guess myself and lose confidence.

    Sex between two consenting adults is not just natural, it is beautiful. You have absolutely nothing to feel conflicted or doubtful about. If it wasn’t for lust, neither you nor I would exist. (I mean to emphasise that it is a good and natural thing and not a “sin”.)

    You call yourself a “confused agnostic”. Why? Do you think the prissy death cultists have a point? If you lived in China would you be a confused agnostic in relation to (generally kindhearted) Buddhists? If you happened to live in Saudi Arabia would you be agnostic in terms of misogynist wahhabists there? Why do the sexually repressed xtians impress you enough to question your own inherent human decency? Is jeebus more likely than the easter bunny?

  111. YesYouNeedJesus says

    Wow…lots to respond to. Love it! A couple points. Everyone seems upset, claiming I lied, was dishonest, held back information, etc. I’m curious, whose standard are you guys using to make the bold assertion that my actions were wrong? Is what everyone claims that I did absolutely wrong?

    Tim Delaney, blast from the past! I own the Bob Enyart Live TV show you were on. It’s a great DVD! Gill slits…LOL. Your short debate with Bob was very similar to Bob’s debate with Eugenie Scott. You both sounded so naive! Anyway, I emailed Bob and he has not seen these comments because he is currently posting on the other site ScienceBlogs. (PZ, just close that site already!) I wanted him to know about your debate challenge.

    He replied that he has been hoping to debate PZ Myers for a long time and thinks a written debate is a great idea. (He’s been doing moderated written debates for years at TheologyOnline.com) He still wants to debate PZ Myers and said if PZ Myers wants you (or someone else) to join him, then I (or someone else) can join Bob and it would be 2 v 2.

    Bob hasn’t had any luck convincing PZ to debate, but maybe you will. Let me know!

  112. opposablethumbs, que le pouce enragé mette les pouces says

    Heliantus, it’s just a pity it was shiny – shiny paper doesn’t make good toilet paper – but apart from that, all it’s fit for is wiping your arse.

    I hate manipulative bullies.

    +1

  113. bobenyart says

    Google News sent me to PZ’s old blog, so I’ll copy my posts there to here…

    PZ (1 of 3), You’re just too kind. I’ll reply to three things you’ve criticized me over: soft-tissue T. rex; C-14 EVERYWHERE; & you missing the point of the Trochlea challenge (of course there could have been other uses for that muscle; but claiming that I say there was not shows that you didn’t understand the question). But to start with, the soft-tissue:

    I think that your claim bio-film claim is a couple years out of date. There’s too much data coming in to sustain that. Now there’s soft-tissue (original biological material) that’s been recovered not only from a T. Rex, but also from an Hadrosaur (though allegedly 80MYA, Harvard has partially sequenced its protein), a Mosasaur (alleged 70MYA), and Archaeopteryx (many different tissue types, alleged 150MYA). See sources at http://KGOV.com/list (of not so old things). And this is all just the beginning now that it’s no longer taboo to even look for the original tissue. Studies decades ago on Egyptian mummies indicated proteins, etc., wouldn’t last more than 10,000 years. Now studies of biological material are becoming more common, and color in bug wings, and (alleged 150MYA) squid ink, etc., etc., and even living bacteria, and eventually, DNA no doubt. Too cool! -Bob Enyart RealScienceFriday

  114. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Everyone seems upset, claiming I lied, was dishonest, held back information, etc. I’m curious, whose standard are you guys using to make the bold assertion that my actions were wrong? Is what everyone claims that I did absolutely wrong?

    What a liar and bullshitter you are. We aren’t upset. You should see us when we are upset. We hate liars and bullshitters like yourself. Real honesty and integrity is valued here, and you lack both. You are dishonest with yourself, and later us. We showed you why you are wrong and dishonest, but apparently you can’t read and comprehend the language.

  115. lazybird says

    Heliantus says:

    But because I cannot shack [shake] the feeling they are inducing guilt feelings into me to manipulate me into submission.

    That’s EXACTLY what they are up to. Once you lose the guilt they become powerless.

  116. bobenyart says

    PZ (2 of 3), regarding C-14 EVERYWHERE and me being ridiculous for offering Jack Horner $23,000 to C-14 that soft-tissue T. rex.

    You’re correct that Carbon-14 is gone in only thousands of years. So evolutionists are shocked when modern labs find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old. C-14 is found in petrified wood, coal, oil, limestone, graphite, amber, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in diamonds (w/o decay chain evidence, awfully hard to contaminate, and 10k times too much to result from neutron capture). See http://KGOV.com/list#c14 .

    And the researchers carbon-14 dated that Mosasaur I mentioned, the one for which they rigidly showed that the biological material did not come from contamination, and it has plenty of C-14, with that (allegedly 70MYA) tissue in that tiny, uncontaminated Mosasaur bone. Radiocarbon exists even in supposedly million-year-old two-mile deep natural gas wells, etc., etc. Horner should have collected the $23,000, because as for the results, most people who follow all the C-14 dating know that that T. rex would have had about the same amount of C-14 as coal does, for coal has about the same amount of radiocarbon, regardless of whether it’s strata-dated anywhere from 30M to 300M years old. Too cool! -Bob Enyart RealScienceFriday

  117. bobenyart says

    PZ (3 of 3), regarding you missing the point of my PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge, talking about whether the muscle could have attached w/o the trochlea is an obfuscation; Yes, even I can imagine such a configuration. That’s not the challenge. Repeated here for your readers:

    PZ MYERS TROCHLEA CHALLENGE: An eye muscle narrows to a cord and then threads through a sling, called the Trochlea. This simple design enables the muscle to pull in the direction needed and helps it function in the space available. The other eye has a trochlea too, and that one is inverted of course. Darwin’s natural selection *could not choose THIS SLING CONFIGURATION until* it functioned minimally, routing the muscle through the sling. Any evolutionary stages that would have led to this configuration, prior to any muscle-through-the-sling functionality, would have had to progress by purely random mutations which would have had to modify all the tissue types needed to achieve such functionality, including bone, nerve, muscle, and cartilage, and do so in a way that led to that function, and without conferring any benefit from this configuration until the sling began to function (so that it could eventually give an actual advantage, which the sling could not give until it functioned with the muscle narrowing and routing appropriately). And of course those mutations do not occur in these tissues themselves but in thousands of rungs out of billions in the DNA ladder. PZ, can you roughly describe (not exactly of course, but just a rough algorithm) how this might happen? -Bob Enyart, http://KGOV.com/PZ & http://KGOV.com/list

  118. says

    Hey Bob, explain geology via the flood, and the weird derivations of life–you know, as expected from evolution and as unexpected from intelligence–with some identifiable intelligent cause that actually acts that way.

    Until then, you have nothing. Your lies aren’t the default.

    Glen Davidson

  119. says

    A couple points. Everyone seems upset, claiming I lied, was dishonest, held back information, etc. I’m curious, whose standard are you guys using to make the bold assertion that my actions were wrong? Is what everyone claims that I did absolutely wrong?

    Translation: “What’s wrong with you? you’re acting like people with feelings and morals or something?”

    Yeah, now I do get upset when some asshole implies I have no morals and basically am not a human being.

    Go fuck yourself you bigot.

    Bonus points: find in the Bible where it says sex with children or abusing children is wrong and then ask yourself why you don’t…Ooooh never mind.

  120. says

    why do people argue with PZ when they just embarrass themselves? seems self defeating

    Like Penn & Teller once said, “they think they’re bullet proof.”

    Whether it’s creationists, anti-vax’ers or 911 truthers, you can basically divide them into two groups:

    1) The leaders and spokespeople. These are full of shit and they either know it or simply don’t care. They’re in it for money and publicity.
    They will happily debate anyone, anywhere because they know that no matter how badly they tank, their followers won’t pick up on it anyway.
    If they’re ever caught out on something, they’ll just make up some bullshit explanation to the sheep, who’ll swallow that just as they have swallowed all the other crap they’re fed.

    2) The great unwashed masses. These people genuinely believe the bullshit. They may be horribly wrong, they may be ludicrously uneducated, they may be so blatantly stupid that it’s not even funny, but they believe what they say.
    They will happily debate anyone anywhere because they think they’re right. They truly believe that at the end of the day, they will be vindicated and the Truth™ will come out.
    Any apparent flaw in their argument is due to their own failings and not symptomatic of any problem with their basic position. “I’m right, I’m just not explaining it right.”

  121. waldteufel says

    We’re not angry with you, YesYouNeedJeeeeebus, we’re mocking and scoffing at your pathetic ignorance and lack of ethics.

  122. says

    I’m angry at YesWeHaveNoBannanas because I’m angry when someone basically treats me like a philosophical zombie.

    I.e. they think we walk and talk but have no inner life and no feelings or sense of values etc. I probably love my family more than Enyart, you child beating flittertyjibbit.

  123. says

    Wow…lots to respond to. Love it! A couple points. Everyone seems upset, claiming I lied, was dishonest, held back information, etc. I’m curious, whose standard are you guys using to make the bold assertion that my actions were wrong? Is what everyone claims that I did absolutely wrong?

    You know, moron, this game you liars play is just tiresome. You lie, omit expected information, whatever, then you ask why we care if we don’t believe in “absolute morality.”

    What’s altogether clear is that you most certainly don’t believe in absolute morality, as you don’t care to follow it absolutely.

    Glen Davidson

  124. says

    Well why WOULD he care about lying when he can just be forgiven. It’s not like Christians CARE about other people. They’re just blood drinking, cannibalism fetishists who want to believe they can be excused for any way they fuck people over and only get married and have children because it’s commanded and they want to continue the religion. They’re not like us who THINK about things or have VALUES or morality or actually give a crap about other people and feel bad when someone is upset.

  125. Insightful Ape says

    Dear bob the troll,
    Possible explanations for the origin of the trochlea are not hard to come by. In order to grasp this, however, you have to first recognize that it need not have been fully functional in it’s current form. It may simply have been a muscle pulling at the eye. Once you have a muscle as such in place it is not hard to imagine that a bony prominence trapping the tendon might have significantly improved its functionality. Subsequently the prominence could have evolved into a full ring and the attachments of the muscle could have changed to maximize the effect.
    Now, if your explanation for the superior oblique muscle is that it is created by
    your god, then this god thing is a pretty crappy engineer. Not only couldn’t he come up with anything better in 400 million years, but worse, the innervation of this muscle is through the trochlear nerve, which is the only cranial nerve that crosses after emerging, and has the longest intracranial course. As a result, it has the highest rate of palsy in head injuries, causing awful diplopias.
    Is this really the best your god can do?

  126. J. Maddox says

    It’s things like this that make me wonder if all of the creationists aren’t just trolling and all of us just don’t get the joke.

  127. says

    I have to wonder. Since people like Jews and Hindus don’t buy into Jesus or even necessarily a Divine Mandate Morality, do assholes like Duffy treat them as zombies he can freely lie and cheat because they have no sense of right and wrong?

  128. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    FYI:

    Bob Enyart has a three-chambered heart.

    Bob Enyart went to highschool with the famous blog commenter, John Kw*k. While they were not close friends, they sometimes hung out.

    Bob Enyart holds black-belts in both judo and goju-ryu karate. He instructs an 8-10 year old class in karate on Tuesday nights.

    Bob Enyart once worked as an ice-road trucker. His CB handle was “Bob Enyart”.

    Bob Enyart is descended from the Martha’s Vineyard Enyarts, regionally famous for introducing minted iced tea to the New World.

    Yearly, Bob Enyart sponsors a tractor in the Colorado State Fair tractor demolition derby. His tractor took first place in 1997, 2001, and 2005. In 2003, Bob Enyart substituted for his regular driver who had fallen ill with rickets.

    Bob Enyart is completely ambidextrous.

    Bob Enyart invented his own neck-tie knot. It will be featured in a Paris fashion review this fall, and is reputably called the “Half Guillaume”.

    Bob Enyart once dated Mary Tyler Moore. Though she was many years his senior, he has gone on the record as saying that he regretted nothing about their relationship which ended mutually and amicably.

    Bob Enyart has a tattoo of a rainbow with a pot of gold on his left ankle. He is very secretive about the meaning of this tattoo.

    Speaking of secretive, Bob Enyart is the next-door neighbor of Thomas Pynchon. Pynchon is a frequent dinner guest at the Enyart household, and effectionately refers to Bob Enyart as “Bob Enyart”.

    On the other hand, Ted Haggard has never been to Bob Enyart’s house, despite several invitations. It’s not as though Haggard has not been without very reasonable excuses for not being able to make it over. He just seems cagey about the whole thing, is all.

    Bob Enyart’s eldest son is named Trayne Bob Enyart– a palindrome! How delightful.

    Bob Enyart raises iguanas, and has been honored by having his name used for a new breed of dwarf-iguana, the “Bob Enyart”.

  129. pelamun says

    Sorry, my browser had trouble loading the thread properly, so I thought the post from Heliantus was the most recent one…

  130. Gregory Greenwood says

    J. Maddox @ 147;

    It’s things like this that make me wonder if all of the creationists aren’t just trolling and all of us just don’t get the joke.

    And yet they seem all too prepared to destroy education systems and profiteer from their anti-intellectual attacks on science.

    I am afraid that they actually are serious, and that is a frightening thought. It makes me worry for the future of our species when so many people are prepared to blindly follow a dogma that makes no rational sense and is at war with all that we know about reality, even going so far as to deliberately misrepresent the evidence in a bid to gull the naive.

    That such a thing is still so widespread in the twenty first century, when the sceintific facts boast an unprecedented level of ready accessibility, should be a cause for concern to anyone who cares about science and intellectual integrity.

  131. says

    I hear Admiral Ackbar over my shoulder shouting, “It’s a trap!” I know that no reasoning will suit these folks, no amount of evidence will suffice, but I figured I’d give it a go.

    Mr. Enyart: I am in no way a biologist (though my mom is). I am just a lowly computer geek. So, engaging me will gain you no fame, no glory, no credibility.

    I just want that to be clear.

    bobenyart:

    Darwin’s natural selection *could not choose THIS SLING CONFIGURATION until* it functioned minimally, routing the muscle through the sling.

    I wonder if your teleological language indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution? Or was it perhaps simply a slip of the (metaphorical) tongue?

    Any evolutionary stages that would have led to this configuration, prior to any muscle-through-the-sling functionality, would have had to progress by purely random mutations which would have had to modify all the tissue types needed to achieve such functionality, including bone, nerve, muscle, and cartilage, and do so in a way that led to that function, and without conferring any benefit from this configuration until the sling began to function (so that it could eventually give an actual advantage, which the sling could not give until it functioned with the muscle narrowing and routing appropriately).

    This is nothing but a common reframing of Behe’s irreducible complexity, and suffers from the exact same logical errors.

    First is the fallacy of composition. While the whole seems to have developed for a single purpose, the individual parts do not necessarily need to have developed for that specific purpose.

    The second fallacy is the fallacy of reverse induction. You assume the trochlea has only ever served as a sling for this muscle. In fact, it has been shown repeatedly that evolution adapts structures evolved for one purpose into structures suitable for another purpose. This is part-and-parcel with pretty much every single case of Behe’s irreducible complexity.

    The third fallacy is the simple (and ubiquitous) God of the Gaps fallacy. You are inherently claiming that, since we are ignorant of specific details concerning the development of the trochlea, it must have been intelligently designed specifically for this purpose. This is patently false, as scientists have shown evolution adapting one feature into a completely different feature serving a completely different function, all while benefiting the evolution of the species at every step along the way. So, a general mechanism is available that explains the general process, even if specifics are lost to history.

    Further, you have no suitable scientific explanation for the trochlea. None. Current evolutionary theory at least gives a verifiable, falsifiable mechanism by which features like the trochlea develop.

    Finally, according to Farish Jenkins Jr’s research:

    The primitive therian trochlea evolved by enlargement of the intercondylar groove separating the ulnar and radial condyles and by retention of part of the ulnar condyle mechanism.

    Basically, the trochlea was left behind as part of a mechanism in which the muscle passed through a bone, but the bone evolved away from that area. That is, if I understand the abstract.

  132. benjaminsa says

    “Wow…lots to respond to. Love it! A couple points. Everyone seems upset, claiming I lied, was dishonest, held back information, etc. I’m curious, whose standard are you guys using to make the bold assertion that my actions were wrong? Is what everyone claims that I did absolutely wrong?”

    Except you haven’t respond to anything, just, it seems openly admit that you lied. How about a direct response to C14 dating, as just one example?

  133. Pierce R. Butler says

    One could, in a hard enough pinch, measure a mile-long object with a yardstick. The process would be boring, liable to errors, and irritating, but not impossible in principle.

    Duffy’s desire is more like wanting to map the moon with sonar, or to measure the volume of an ocean by scooping it out with a paper bag.

    Tell ya what, YouNeedRemedialKindergarten: once you accomplish either of those, I personally will guarantee to get Dr. Myers into your client’s hero’s studio.

  134. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This is an example of enyart lying:

    So evolutionists are shocked when modern labs find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old. C-14 is found in petrified wood, coal, oil, limestone, graphite, amber, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in diamonds (w/o decay chain evidence, awfully hard to contaminate, and 10k times too much to result from neutron capture).

    Science has been aware of geological carbon-14 for over 50 years. Your glee is false, as science understand how it it formed, and the real rates of formation. Here’s what was said about your sources on the other blog

    The “references” is ultimately to the ramblings of Paul Giem, incompetent cretonist
    http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
    But first passing thru the quack Sarfati at
    http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
    Who completely ignores C13(n,gamma)C14, and pulls the 1/10,000 figure from no calculation whatsoever. He also fails to point out that, trapped in the diamond, C14 is decaying to N14, while under neutron flux the N14 is transmuting back to C14 via N14(n,p)C14.
    What lying weasels these people are.

    Essentially, you the liar and bullshitter, and keep thinking a non-scientist creationist who can’t think beyond a single source is smarter than scientists are about science. Especially if they suffer the same delusion you do, belief in your imaginary deity and inerrant babble, and say what you want to hear. Except your deity doesn’t exist, and your babble is a book of mythology.

  135. Matt Penfold says

    One could, in a hard enough pinch, measure a mile-long object with a yardstick. The process would be boring, liable to errors, and irritating, but not impossible in principle.

    Well cartographers do more or less that, or at least used to, when using measuring chains.

    The Ordance Survey measured the UK using chains in the 1960s. They managed to get the distance from the most southerly point to the most northerly accurate to withing a few inches. It was a labourious and length task.

  136. bobenyart says

    Hello ‘Tis Himself, regarding my debate with Eugenie Scott, who ended saying “Well, I don’t debate” a week after she participated in a national televised debate, you wrote, “All a debate does is show who’s a better debater. It has nothing to do with which side is CLOSER TO REALITY.” You decide who was closer to reality. In our televised 1998 debate http://KGOV.com/eugenie, the central disagreement on the evidence had to do with junk DNA:

    And Eugenie flubbed her genetics prediction, and genetic science has vindicated the prediction of the Bible thumper (me). From her atheistic worldview, Eugenie made a philosophical argument that a Creator would not fill our DNA with mostly junk. Of course other than the relatively few gene segments that code for the 20,000 or so proteins in the human body, the widespread evolutionary claim of the 1990s was that the rest of the genome was probably mostly junk without function, which is why the evolutionary world called it Junk DNA. With creationists generally, I doubted that assessment, and so I countered that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. Today it is estimated that the so-called Junk may contain a million other functional, regulatory segments.

    So TH, on just this ONE POINT of the debate, would you agree that the creationist point was closer to “reality,” as I argued, that IT WAS TOO EARLY IN GENETIC SCIENCE TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISCOUNT THE NON-CODING SEGMENTS OF DNA AS JUNK? Who was right on that ONE POINT TH, the creationist, or the evolutionist?

  137. MikeMa says

    PZ,
    I am enjoying the creotard thrashing by the erudite commenters on both SciBlogs and FTB but must follow both post threads to get all the juice. Wouldn’t it be possible, when double posting to link from one to the other and lock comments out on the linking post? Not huge problem, just a thought.

  138. bobenyart says

    Hello hockeybob! (Our three youngest boys are still at home and have played in our local h league for years.)

    You wrote, “Debating a creationist would be as useless as debating Michelle Bachmann… it’s pointless.”

    On our RealScienceFriday radio show, we recently reported on the large survey of U.S. public school science teachers, 60% of whom find ways to avoid endorsing Darwinism in class. (“Make up your own mind” “Just learn this for the test” “Intelligent design is an alternative” etc.)

    And the biblical creation movement is growing by leaps and bounds, not only in the U.S. but around the world. So I don’t think this “debating is pointless” strategy is working for you guys. But then again, I’ve seen and participated in enough debates to know that for you atheists, you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t (literally).

    And yes, I just assumed that you’re an atheist. If you’re not, that’s great! (But I do recommend that you stop impersonating one :)

  139. says

    Who was right on that ONE POINT TH, the creationist, or the evolutionist?

    Guess what, lying fuckwit, we don’t know, because you quotemined Scott in the free portion, and we’re not paying your lying ass a cent.

    More importantly, you have given us absolutely no evidence for your creationist claims. And you’re too dishonest to acknowledge the importance of doing so. Meaning that when the chips come down you’re both dishonest and incompetent.

    Glen Davidson

  140. bobenyart says

    Hi sally strange! You wrote, “It’s funny when they try to use science to show that faith is true. I guess faith is just not enough anymore, even for faithists.”

    If I can get away with quoting a Bible verse about faith on this blog (since you brought up faith), Hebrews 11, the faith chapter, says that “faith is… the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).

    Yes, sally you reject our understanding of the evidence, but regardless of that you might want to consider that the Bible says repeatedly that there is EVIDENCE for God everywhere. For as the Apostle Paul wrote:

    “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” Rom. 1:20

    -Bob Enyart

  141. says

    you might want to consider that the Bible says repeatedly that there is EVIDENCE for God everywhere. For as the Apostle Paul wrote:

    “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” Rom. 1:20

    Wow, dumbass, now all you have to do is give us evidence that Paul had any good reason to say that.

    I can see how you “win debates,” by throwing fallacies at people who want meaningful arguments and evidence.

    Glen Davidson

  142. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    If I can get away with quoting a Bible verse about faith on this blog (since you brought up faith), Hebrews 11, the faith chapter, says that “faith is… the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).

    Which is biblical stupidity at its finest.

  143. Anteprepro says

    Seriously? The evidence for God is “look around you and marvel at His creation”. Resolve the problem of evil first before you pull that kind of shit. Denying evolution in order to use the mantra of “design, design, design” to lull you into enough of a stupor that you take existence itself as proof of God may work for you, but it won’t work for people here, due to presence of a functioning brain.

  144. bobenyart says

    Hello bigdumbchimp! PZ Myers has the power to fulfill your wish, as you put it:

    “I wish just once that these creationist master-debaters would put their science where their mouths are and show us how they are refuting the science, using science, instead of how they can stand on a stage and poke non-existent holes in theories with slick rhetorical tricks and babble filibustering. Not holding my breath.”

    I’ve interviewed/debated a number of Darwinists and atheists http://KGOV.com/atheists including Eugenie Scott and Scientific American’s Michael Shermer, and would be happy to let PZ Myers demonstrate where science refutes my creationist view, in a debate.

    By the way, Shermer denied that the Bible was correct when it stated that the sun should not be worshipped because it is not a god, but rather, that the sun is a light. Illustrating the difficulty debating atheists when they’re hesitant to admit to even the most obvious common ground, Schermer famously replied, “The sun is a not light.” 8-28-03

  145. says

    @BobEnyart:

    If Creationism (I’m sorry, Intelligent Design) is science:

    – Where is its peer-reviewed literature?
    – Where is its evidence?
    – Why is it seemingly subject only to poking holes in evolution?

    To be science, it has to be a testable subject. If the ID movement is successful in somehow undermining evolution, or some evidence breaks some central argument of evolution, ID will not be the ultimate end.

    If evolution fails, ID is not going to replace it. There will be some other science to replace it. And if I had to put forward a guess, I would say that ID would also try to poke holes in that theory rather than come up with its own science.

  146. says

    Here’s a sample of Bob’s mendacity:

    * Now Soft Tissue in a “150-Million” Year Old Archaeopteryx: One would think that these soft-tissue dinosaur finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of the decade. But so many informed evolutionists whom we talk to: 1) have never even heard of these developments, 2) initially deny them, 3) assume that it must be creationists who claim to have found them, and 4) repeat old debunked claims that they then find online that these are not dinosaur tissues but bacterial contamination. Now, from the mother lode of evolutionary dogma, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes this report that scientists have found various types of original biological material in archeopteryx feathers and bones, biological material that supposedly has survived for 150 million years!

    Soft tissue definitely wasn’t found. He does link to the truth, never mind that he lies in that paragraph. Here’s the real story (his link–no doubt he’s counting on the ignorance of his readers not to see how dishonest his statement (it’s his, whether he had some flunky plunk it out or not) truly is):

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/05/1001569107.full.pdf

    One wouldn’t even properly call it “biological material,” although it is inorganic remains of biological material.

    So maybe he’s too ignorant to know the truth? Probably, but someone in his position has no business claiming to know what he does in his state of ignorance anyhow, so if he’s not lying about archaeopteryx he’s lying about his status as an expert.

    Of course he’s hyperbolic about what it means, and about supposed “responses” to his hideous dishonesty.

    Glen Davidson

  147. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Come on Enyart, you should be able to show conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity without using the babble. After all, god –> babble –> god is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. You need to break the circle, and either prove your babble is inerrant, or your imaginary deity. Pick one. But in either case, you will need solid and conclusive physical evidence. For your deity, you will need evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush, which can be studied by science. Likewise, you must prove that babble with equivalent physical evidence, and no excuses for no evidence for the world-wide one-time flood that killed everything but one family and animals on an ark.

    Presupposition arguments have no place here, which is what you normally try. Presupposition arguments are the Achilles heel of godbots.

  148. hen3ry says

    1) As regards “Junk” DNA, it appears that large portions of mouse DNA can be removed without affecting the organism noticably (Nóbrega, Marcelo A., Yiwen Zhu, Ingrid Plajzer-Frick, Veena Afzal and Edward M. Rubin, 2004. Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nature 431: 988-993.) It seems that your argument that “Today it is estimated that the so-called Junk may contain a million other functional, regulatory segments” is perhaps stretching the truth just a little. Have you a reference for this claim?

    2)

    [B]iblical creation movement is growing by leaps and bounds, not only in the U.S. but around the world

    Have you a reference for this particular claim? Church attendance is falling in the USA (Graph [churchsociety.org, jpg]) and the UK (Graph [whychurch.org.uk, png]). These are the easiest trends to find data for, but I am sure I can find others.

    3)Your understanding of evidence is bad, and you should feel bad.

  149. Guestspeaker says

    Bob…

    Nobody wants to ‘debate’ you because you’re a homophobic hatemonger who beats his kids and throws out narrow-minded, circular arguments.

    Even the ‘ad hominem’ attack aside, your argument stinks. And it doesn’t stop with something like C14 (which you can’t seem to get right either); it’s the other crap you believe and how your world revolves around an endless cycle of trying to bend (or disregard) all evidence that doesn’t fit your worldview.

    It’s the one thing I’ve noticed all right-wing creationists hang on to: believing that ‘you’ have the absolute truth and that everyone else is wrong… NO MATTER WHAT. To me, that is the ultimate in cowardice and pettiness.

    Faith by definition means “belief without evidence”. So why don’t you stick to your faith and stop trying mess in the realm of evidence.

  150. bobenyart says

    Hello Human Ape! I’m confused which half of Americans you’re referring to with the following part of your quote, whether that applies to those who believe Big Bang cosmology as with Paul Davies and Hawking, that the universe sprang from “nothing,” or are you referring to those who believe that God made us. You wrote:

    “These tards think the entire universe, billions of galaxies, was magically created out of nothing…”

    So, does that ‘created out of nothing’ absurdity that you point out refer to Davies and Hawking, who posit a big bang from nothing, and with no active Creator? Because if so, I agree that this kind of magic is not scientific.

  151. says

    bobenyart:

    Because if so, I agree that this kind of magic is not scientific.

    But a magical deity is scientific?

    How … odd. This is an interesting discovery. The cognitive dissonance should have caused your brain to explode, yet you seem to be able to operate a keyboard (even if what you type is mostly either fallacious or incoherent).

    This might deserve more study.

  152. Gnumann says

    Come on Enyart, you should be able to show conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity without using the babble.

    You’re always so demanding of the godbots Nerd – personally I’d settle for a coherent, falsifiable theistic hypothesis… (Not that I’m holding my breath while waiting for one)

  153. Hazzard says

    I’ve noticed this pattern with creationists before, and Mr. Enyart is a prime example: They’ll wield poorly-understood pseudoscientific bafflegab to forestall an opponent’s argument, but they will not — ever — make a specific claim for the existence of God or “special creation” that can be held up to scientific scrutiny. It’s all smoke and obscurantism and, when cornered, a couple of vague Bible verses.

  154. says

    [I] would be happy to let PZ Myers demonstrate where science refutes my creationist view, in a debate

    Why a debate? What purpose would the debate format serve? Any evidence you have, you can lay out here. Any argument you wish to present, you can do so.

    Why do you keep insisting on a debate? What is the one thing that a debate allows you to do, that this forum does not?

    Lying.

    That’s the one thing you can do in a public, real-time debate, but not here. Here, people can voice their opinions. They have just as much access to the mic as you. Not to mention, access to google, to check up on your claims.

    If you’re worried about moderator bias, then please, specify a website more to your liking. Alternatively, I’m sure one could be set up by an independent third party. Not a problem.

    So, why do you keep insisting on a debate? if not to get away with lying, then why?

    Please explain.

  155. lazybird says

    bobenyart says:

    So evolutionists are shocked when modern labs find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old.

    That would cause quite a controversy in the peer-reviewed literature. Please provide references (not RATE.)

    And the researchers carbon-14 dated that Mosasaur I mentioned, the one for which they rigidly showed that the biological material did not come from contamination, and it has plenty of C-14…

    That’s not what Lindgren et al. (2011) says:

    Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone…

  156. Tim DeLaney says

    YesYouNeedJesus:

    Tim Delaney, blast from the past! I own the Bob Enyart Live TV show you were on. It’s a great DVD! Gill slits…LOL. Your short debate with Bob was very similar to Bob’s debate with Eugenie Scott. You both sounded so naive! Anyway, I emailed Bob and he has not seen these comments because he is currently posting on the other site ScienceBlogs. (PZ, just close that site already!) I wanted him to know about your debate challenge.

    He replied that he has been hoping to debate PZ Myers for a long time and thinks a written debate is a great idea. (He’s been doing moderated written debates for years at TheologyOnline.com) He still wants to debate PZ Myers and said if PZ Myers wants you (or someone else) to join him, then I (or someone else) can join Bob and it would be 2 v 2.

    I have already admitted that back then I was totally naive about the issue. Please note that even though I had no idea somebody might unearth an actual record of the show, I was entirely honest about the embarassing details. (What year was it? My recollection is hazy, but I would guess 1994.) Now, let’s see if you will return the favor, and post Enyart’s monologue regarding Galileo from that same show, or post a link to it. I suspect you won’t embarrass him by doing that.

    As to the idea of a written debate, I obviously cannot speak for PZ, nor do I have the slightest influence over his schedule. Quite frankly, I think PZ is the ‘Mike Tyson’ and Enyart is the ‘eighth grader’ in terms of a previous analogy of mine. A written debate between PZ and Enyart would be a plus on Enyart’s CV, but not on PZ’s. Bluntly put, Enyart isn’t worth PZ’s attention for more than an occasional blog post.

    However, my original offer still stands. Note that I am still willing to be the debater, but that I am entirely willing to defer to any Pharyngula regular who is better qualified than I. (Since I possess no relevant academic degree, I’d guess that there are many such people.) I’d suggest that the Pharyngula community be the judge of who is their best spokesperson.

    And since you seem to be willing to participate, the offer extends to you personally as well in the event that Enyart declines my challenge. In the interest of fairness, I’d suggest posting each essay on a site of your choosing, and also on the site of a Pharyngulite yet to be determined.

    And since I’m in the guessing business, I’d hazard a guess that you’ll get your sorry ass kicked.

  157. says

    @Birger Johannson:

    Actually – the end of that isn’t true.

    Someone does sell a one-color Rubik’s Cube. I’d link to the webstore, but it’s not loading for me on my net connection here.

    It’s at “The People’s Cube” and yes, it’s all red.

  158. Insightful Ape says

    The one interesting thing creationist trolls have in common is that they won’t stay on topic. This one, for example, comes in with claims about trochlea and C14 and his position is totally debunked by multiple responders. So what does he do? He simply forgets about them and start making new claims. No creationists will stay with one topic, because if they do they will lose. It is a waste of time to try to engage them in conversation, and PZ did the right thing.
    Time for another “surviver pharyngula”.

  159. bobenyart says

    Hello raven. You asked about Will Duffy, “Do you support assassinating MD’s and cheer when one of your co-cultists murders one? Are Scott Roeder and Eric Rudolph your heroes?”

    Actually, Will Duffy and I worked on the Internet primary resource used to convince those who advocate killing abortionists that they are wrong.

    It’s a worksheet for violent extremists, displayed at American Right To Life’s website, at http://americanrtl.org/vigilante

    That work was endorsed by professor of ethics Dr. Ronda Chervin (Notre Dame MA, Fordham PhD) who wrote, “I plan to use this in class. It is the best thing on this subject I have ever read. I just want to thank you profusely for devising it.”

    So raven you’ll probably be glad to have your questions answered, and to know that Will (and I) not only oppose, but successfully have turned many, who advocate killing abortionists. But of course we also try to stop those who kill a fetus in the womb, aborting even kids who dream (REM) while they sleep, and suck their thumbs, and learn their mother’s voice, etc.

  160. says

    The general problem of the debate format when talking science is this: it’s open to ambush questions.

    Science is vasty and broad. No one person can know everything about it. Even in specialized fields like developmental biology, there’s so much information, it’s impossible to carry around all the facts and new developments, available on-demand.

    And since science is based on facts, observations and measurements and evidence, you can’t just make shit up. Meanwhile, the other person arguing from the non-factual side is free to make shit up to their heart’s content. They get to use any swill from any half-assed creationist website, without bothering to understand the facts of the matter. They just understand that, ho-ho!, they have a weapon with which to ambush the scientist!

    Forums like this are far better suited to discussing science, since it’s far easier to do a little research, or one person might have the correct answer to the “puzzling” question.

    Of course, that’s why people like Bob don’t stick around. They find their favorite misconceptions or misunderstandings don’t hold up well to actual facts.

  161. Gaebolga says

    Personally, I’m still waiting for bobenyart to respond to amphiox’s point in #49 above, to wit:

    To further belabor the point: C14 dating is a methodology. An experimental procedure, so named because the first and most widespread use is for dating relatively recent objects in the age range of thousands to tens of thousands of years.

    Of course, even if you take that [carbon dating] result at face value, that’s still almost five times older than the bible says the entire universe is, and thus utterly falsifies pretty much ALL versions of young-earth creationism.

    [Emphasis mine]

    Curious that he places so much importance on a technique whose validity would disprove his beliefs regarding the age of the Earth.

    Also curious that he ignored amphiox’s post on this.

  162. says

    @Insightful Ape

    On the money! This is part of the strategy. They’re not really interested in getting to a resolution on any particular question. all they want to do is create the impression of a rational position and then move on to the next point.
    They wish to go as far as they can, until they meet serious resistance. Then, it’s time to change the subject.

    I’m reminded of the idiot PZ did debate, Jerry Bergman. The first thing he did was to admit that he wasn’t going to defend the position he was there to argue for (teaching ID in public schools). He even admitted that there was no theory of intelligent design to teach.

    He refused to defend his own proposition!

    I don’t know what else to say.

  163. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Come on Enyart, your creator doesn’t exist until you provide conclusive physical evidence it does, not presuppose its existence. Did you ever study real logic? Evidently not, just Xian lies and bullshit methods.

  164. bobenyart says

    Hello MikeG! You wrote to Will, “The reason to carbon date the soft stuff recovered from the Dino skeletons is only to establish if the soft stuff is younger than that age.”

    Of course you are correct, in that, this is the reason why the Darwinists who worked on the Mosasaur carbon dated it.

    But then with your next assertion we disagree, that if C-14 is present:

    “then you know that [the soft tissue] is something that grew on the fossil long after it was deposited [like a biofilm].”

    As with my argument to PZ, modern labs find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old, in petrified wood, coal, oil, limestone, graphite, amber, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in diamonds (w/o decay chain evidence, awfully hard to contaminate, and 10k times too much to result from neutron capture). See http://KGOV.com/list#c14 .

    And the researchers carbon-14 dated that tiny Mosasaur bone, for which they had already ruled out biological contamination from the interior of the bone, and yet, the bone had plenty of C-14, just like coal, amber, diamonds, etc. At some point:
    – finding C-14 in such abundances that neutrino capture can’t explain it, and
    – without decay-chain halos, and
    – a in a hundred-fold greater numbers than the labs’ margin of error, and
    – from specimens handled with clean-room techniques, and
    – from specimens that would be very hard to contaminate, and
    – EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be,
    means that the C-14 findings are NOT an anomaly and that it might be wise to re-evaluate some of the related fundamental assumptions. Surely, science can have the courage to do that. No?

  165. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    drksky: I do not know this “Weird Al”. However, the accomplishments of Charles Nelson Reilly sounds on par with those of Bob Enyart, who has thrice won the New Jersey State Lottery, and squandered the cumulative fortune on an expansive underground alchemy lab and metric tons of saltpeter.

  166. bobenyart says

    Raven, in your criticism of Will Duffy, you included this from Wikipedia, that he agrees with Colorado RTL that he criticizes the Komen Race for the Cure, “because the foundation does not recognize the abortion – breast cancer hypothesis.”

    Yes. You inferred correctly.

    And the lead researcher for the National Cancer Institute, Louise A. Brinton, who was responsible for getting the government-funded NCI to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, HAS NOW CO-AUTHORED a new study which describes SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS, INCLUDING “INDUCED ABORTION.” So the extensive and growing literature on the subject compelled this NCI researcher to admit to an extremely politically incorrect conclusion, that abortion significantly increases breast cancer risk.

    Raven you can find sources at http://AmericanRTL.org/cancer

  167. says

    So I don’t think this “debating is pointless” strategy is working for you guys. But then again, I’ve seen and participated in enough debates to know that for you atheists, you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t (literally).

    Look, dumbass, science is not a debate. Truth is not up for a vote. No amount of rhetorical points or approval from an audience can substitute for empirical evidence. If your ideas fail when tested against reality (and they have), you should give them up.
    But you won’t, because your belief system not only has no reality check, it arms itself against such things, with such commands as “thou shalt not put thy God to a test,” and by making faith a supreme virtue.
    Faith is not the evidence of things unseen; it is belief in things for which there is no evidence, often in the face of contrary evidence.
    Debates are “won” by people who are better at debating. This proves nothing about what is true. As Isaac Asimov once wrote after deciding against debating three astrologers, “the three practitioners would undoubtedly be experts in their own particular line of gobbledygook and could easily speak a gallon of nonsense while I was struggling with a pint of reason.”
    As for your damnation bullshit, fuck you. Hell is your fantasy, not mine, and I am not subject to your fantasies.

  168. SantaCruzOM - this OM does not signify a Molly :( says

    There is serious money to be made advocating the ID position. As long as that fact is true, there will be ID advocates pimping the swill. Look at Comfort, look at the myriad of televangelists…all swaddled in fine clothes and jewelry and harping from their golden soapboxes and opulent sets. Intelligent folks here waste lots of energy arguing with these guys, lamenting their tactics and apparently expecting some integrity from their foes (why?). But the truth is, facts apparently don’t matter when the money is good. There are lots of sheep to fleece. You’d better flocking believe it.

  169. says

    Creationist debate theme song (set to the tune of Jingle Bells)

    blah blah blah
    blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah
    blah blah blah blah blah blah
    blah
    (repeat)

  170. bobenyart says

    Samuel, you crack me up :)

    But in your more serious comments:

    Debates are not part of the scientific process…

    It seems like a stretch to pronounce all debate as unworthy of the scientific process. Haven’t you watched opponents vigorously debate one another on the pages of journals? And like the inefficiency in an O.J. trial that lasts for a year, sometimes it helps get to the truth to have two opposing sides merely talk to one another, in a public forum, challenging each other.

    And you say:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Eugenie Scott lost a debate with a creationist.

    Yes, especially since she claimed in 1998 that science had progressed sufficiently to unreservedly declare that the non-coding sections of the genome have no function. That was our primary disagreement regarding the evidence, and I’m sure that you would agree that history has judged Eugenie wrong, and the creationist right, ON THAT POINT. No? http://KGOV.com/eugenie

    creationists [avoid] the rigorous and no-nonsense forum of peer-reviewed science.

    Samuel, do you agree with the circular reasoning of those Darwinists who maintain that regardless of any claimed scientific evidence or argument, creationists should not be allowed to publish, and then use the fact that they haven’t published as evidence against them?

  171. keepscienceintexas says

    Isn’t that cute. bobenyart finds reliablity in C14 Testing to make his point but must find fault in all forms of radiometric dating. Does bobenyart only find C14 to be reliable when making his case for a biblical young earth but struggle with it when it dates to 30k or even 50k years?

  172. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    My challenge to Bob Enyart, whose long list of achievements I have only begun to enumerate: Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed science journal like scientists do.

    Given your success in translating the works of Cotton Mather*, you should be able to knock this task over in time to get home to your hyperbaric courage chamber to prepare for another day of shooting wamp rats and destroying Darwinist stooges on the dais.

    *Your Klingon is beautiful, btw. IMHO, as good as any Basai Master.

  173. says

    Samuel, do you agree with the circular reasoning of those Darwinists who maintain that regardless of any claimed scientific evidence or argument, creationists should not be allowed to publish, and then use the fact that they haven’t published as evidence against them?

    Idiot boy, no one agrees with your shit-eating lie.

    The only requirement is that they use evidence to come up with reasonable inferences. You can’t do anything but lie.

    Glen Davidson

  174. hotshoe says

    Bobbie:

    And the lead researcher for the National Cancer Institute, Louise A. Brinton, who was responsible for getting the government-funded NCI to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, HAS NOW CO-AUTHORED a new study which describes SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS, INCLUDING “INDUCED ABORTION.” So the extensive and growing literature on the subject compelled this NCI researcher to admit to an extremely politically incorrect conclusion, that abortion significantly increases breast cancer risk.

    Raven you can find sources at http://AmericanRTL.org/cancer

    Bobbie, you are a dogfaced liar. Dr. Brinton’s paper does NOT indicate that induced abortion significantly increases breast cancer risk.

    I checked googleScholar for her recent research papers, and found this free pdf: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.full.pdf+html
    Risk Factors For Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years.

    Then I risked my computer’s safety and my mental health by clicking on the heinous Anti-life, Anti-female, Anti-family link which little Bobbie provided. Sure enough, that’s the paper he is lying about.

    Fuck you, Bobbie. You and all your scummy bigoted child-abusing fornicating lying death cult friends.

  175. says

    bobenyart:

    Samuel, do you agree with the circular reasoning of those Darwinists who maintain that regardless of any claimed scientific evidence or argument, creationists should not be allowed to publish, and then use the fact that they haven’t published as evidence against them?

    That’s a rather curious comment. Creationists are often published in scientific journals. They certainly aren’t barred from doing so.

    Oh! I see what you mean. Creationist arguments aren’t published in scientific journals. Gotcha.

    Can you provide me with a single creationist argument or evidence that is scientific? I mean, an argument or evidence that is solely the domain of creationism. “I said introns were good for something, and Eugenie Scott said they weren’t, so neener-neener” doesn’t quite count as evidence for your side.

  176. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I’ve interviewed/debated a number of Darwinists and atheists http://KGOV.com/atheists including Eugenie Scott and Scientific American’s Michael Shermer, and would be happy to let PZ Myers demonstrate where science refutes my creationist view, in a debate.

    How about a written debate right here? That way we know you won’t resort to the typical creationist debating tactics of Gish galloping, dishonesty and outright filibustering?

    Because Bob, being the highly respected scientist you claim you are, you surely know that science is not done on a stage it’s done in the lab and in peer reviewed literature. Right Bob?

    What do you say?

    Or are you afraid?

  177. says

    Haven’t you watched opponents vigorously debate one another on the pages of journals?

    Notice how a journal debate is NOT a real-time debate?
    Notice how with a debate on the letters page of a journal, each participant has time to fact-check and look up references?

    Notice how this is NOT the same thing as what you’re proposing?

    If this is the type of debate you wanted, then why don’t you just participate? Journals are open to everyone. You don’t need a degree to participate. Anyone can send in a response.

    This is a avenue of debate fully open to you. You can lay out all your arguments and evidence for the world to see. You can debate against the best and brightest in the field.

    Why don’t you?

  178. Gnumann says

    It seems like a stretch to pronounce all debate as unworthy of the scientific process. Haven’t you watched opponents vigorously debate one another on the pages of journals? And like the inefficiency in an O.J. trial that lasts for a year, sometimes it helps get to the truth to have two opposing sides merely talk to one another, in a public forum, challenging each other.

    Ah, the sweet smell of false equivalence… IS this the same as the sophisticated theology we keep hearing about?

  179. bobenyart says

    Ing: Od Wet Rust, regarding our challenge to PZ, you ask:

    Honest question. If someone met this challenge would you renounce Christianity?

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead. For then, Christianity would be false, and I would still be in my sins with no hope for eternal life.

    Christians generally, I think, are better able to look at both sides of the evolution debate. The evidence for this is that millions of Christians accept evolution. Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation. Thus, like many of my fellow creationists, I’ve spent thousands of hours in evolution texts, whereas it seems obvious that very few evolutionists seriously consider creationist rebuttals. That makes it look like the atheists are on the closed-minded side. And I have spent years on air seriously considering atheist counter arguments, and many times, conceding points, because if I have errors in my understanding, I am way more likely to be challenged on them from those I disagree with. That’s another reason that atheist vulgar hostility on most web forums is counter-productive. Because even if the creationists are WRONG, they may be the only ones who would force a look at erroneous assumptions that might be built into the accepted Darwinist dogma.

  180. says

    Boobie? Is that you?

    “in the age range of thousands to tens of thousands of years.

    Of course, even if you take that [carbon dating] result at face value, that’s still almost five times older than the bible says the entire universe is, and thus utterly falsifies pretty much ALL versions of young-earth creationism.”

    Why are you still galloping, why won’t you address this?

  181. bobenyart says

    LykeX, hi. You write:

    “The leaders and spokespeople. … If they’re ever caught out on something, they’ll just make up some… explanation…”

    As for me, I have an Errata link on my homepage to a running tally of the biggest errors that I’ve realized I have made. And in the daily show summaries, we permanently post corrections to errors we’ve realized that we’ve made on air. We have a serious effort to do this.

    Even PZ could try it. It’s refreshing.

  182. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Sorry: I was blathering when you wrote:

    Samuel, do you agree with the circular reasoning of those Darwinists who maintain that regardless of any claimed scientific evidence or argument, creationists should not be allowed to publish, and then use the fact that they haven’t published as evidence against them?

    I review manuscripts all the time for evolution journals, and have never run across one of your manuscripts. Do you think that the editors don’t even send them out for review, or that The Evilutionati are intercepting your telepathic projections before your work even makes it to the editorial office? Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the second one although given the vast amounts of scientific research that is being done by creationists everywhere*, the Mind Council must have their tentacles full. Anyway, next time, why don’t you send your MS directly to me at aepiphanes@skydaddy.fart, and I will pass it on to my superiors.

    *Including Heaven Labs! Angels be crankin it out! Holla!

  183. says

    Because even if the creationists are WRONG, they may be the only ones who would force a look at erroneous assumptions that might be built into the accepted Darwinist dogma

    How would your endless lies do anything but redound upon you, liar?

    Honest critics are valuable. You’re certainly not.

    Glen Davidson

  184. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Because CRTL advocates the standard of a right to life “from fertilization to natural death”, it also opposes euthanasia, arguing that the deliberate taking of one innocent life undermines the value of life as a whole.

    If Duffy and the other CRTL folks are pro-death penalty then they’re hypocrites. Are you a hypocrite, Duffy?

  185. keepscienceintexas says

    bobenyart,

    Here’s your chance to make your case. Debate here on the forum or create one in which people can write in. Like you said, “Haven’t you watched opponents vigorously debate one another on the pages of journals?” Its a bit more difficult when people have time to get their facts together and research before responding, isn’t it.

    Lets do it.

  186. keepscienceintexas says

    bobenyart said: The evidence for this is that millions of Christians accept evolution. Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation.

    Is this a real argument? Thats like saying millions of people believe in Aliens from another world but those who don’t believe cannot tolerate the lack of evidence.

  187. says

    Sorry…I need to amend my previous ‘theme song’ post. Replace “blah” with “lie” for a more accurate representation of how creationists debate.

    Thanks!

  188. says

    LykeX, hi

    Hi, thanks for replying. Now, if you’ll reply to the question I directed specifically at you, in response to your statement, I’ll be much more flattered.

  189. bobenyart says

    raven (Ing: Od Wet Rust; et al.),

    Raven, I know that you don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia, and regarding the accusation you copied about me, that I beat my stepson “with a belt so hard that the beating broke the skin,” I would think that you can imagine (just look at the vitriolic hatred on this board), that such misinformation can be concocted and promoted by those who hate me.

    As presented for years now at: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46992

    After a spanking of five swats on our son’s backside using a cloth belt from my wife’s dress, it was widely reported that there was “broken skin” which would make even me conclude that I would have been guilty of child abuse, and that I had crossed the line of loving discipline. However, the police, who were on the scene literally just a few minutes after the spanking, did not bring our stepson to a clinic; there was no bandaging required, no ointment recommended, no blood, no band-aid, no treatment whatsoever. The origin of that false claim is at the link above.

    I’m am so grateful to God that our boys respect and love us through these many years. It is sad, however, that PZ thinks that his loved ones will die and be expunged from existence. They will not, they will live forever. And he and they will get their desire, either to live forever and enjoy each other with God, or to live forever without Him.

  190. Ing says

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead. For then, Christianity would be false, and I would still be in my sins with no hope for eternal life.

    Then go away. Your challenge is not in good faith and would accomplish nothing by your own admission.

    Christians generally, I think, are better able to look at both sides of the evolution debate.

    Yes they have a much better view of the wrong side than others.

  191. says

    …whereas it seems obvious that very few evolutionists seriously consider creationist rebuttals.

    Many things that seem obvious are not, in fact, true.

    Take, for instance, the research showing evidence for the evolution of the trochlea. The method of evolution was, in fact, completely unlike the sequence you described must occur for evolution to be true. So, both your “obvious but impossible” sequence of evolutionary steps was incorrect, as was your conclusion “it was obviously designed.”

    This is another case.

    The atheists I know (many of them right here) spend an inordinate amount of time considering and rebutting creationist arguments.

    Over. And. Over.

    The problem is, none of the arguments make sense. They’re all predicated on the assumption of a god. That is patently ridiculous, as there is no evidence for this god.

    This leaves any god in the realm of speculation. Speculation, when coupled with a lack of evidence, can lead to no supportable or useful conclusions. It is this epistemic failing that exposes theology as philosophic wankery.

    That makes it look like the atheists are on the closed-minded side

    Hardly. You have yet to admit you were wrong about the evolution of the trochlea, in spite of evidence.

    Also, your refusal to acknowledge the existence of Zeus has left the pantheon quite wroth. This demonstrates you are just as close-minded as you accuse atheists. And the fact you haven’t taken The Cult Of Next Thrusday-ism seriously illustrates your ability to deal with ideas that contradict your own.

    And don’t get me started on your refusal to consider the tenets of the Church of the Subgenius as worthy of debate. Nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.

    And you call yourself an open-minded theologian!

  192. says

    They will not, they will live forever. And he and they will get their desire, either to live forever and enjoy each other with God, or to live forever without Him.

    Got any evidence for that?

    (No, quoting from the Bible does not count as evidence).

  193. says

    [W]hich would make even me conclude that I would have been guilty of child abuse, and that I had crossed the line of loving discipline.

    Considering you were actually convicted, it seems you are, in fact, guilty of child abuse. if your cock-and-bull version of events were true, you would not have been arrested or convicted.

    Once again, you demonstrate yourself to be a liar.

  194. Ing says

    Raven, I know that you don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia, and regarding the accusation you copied about me, that I beat my stepson “with a belt so hard that the beating broke the skin,” I would think that you can imagine (just look at the vitriolic hatred on this board), that such misinformation can be concocted and promoted by those who hate me.

    Can. Wasn’t.

    It doesn’t exactly fly in the face of your character as revealed here.

  195. says

    Considering you were actually convicted, it seems you are, in fact, guilty of child abuse. if your cock-and-bull version of events were true, you would not have been arrested or convicted.

    Once again, you demonstrate yourself to be a liar.

    Now now, if he was black he might very well have been.

    Of course we’re not saying he DID it, we’re saying he was convicted for it and it sure fucking hell looks like he did it.

    They will not, they will live forever. And he and they will get their desire, either to live forever and enjoy each other with God, or to live forever without Him.

    Got any evidence for that?

    (No, quoting from the Bible does not count as evidence).

    Frankly the Bible wouldn’t be much help for this bit of theology either.

  196. kevinhoover says

    I won’t beat this to death, but Bob’s repeated use of the term “Darwinist” indicates too much time spent baking in the creationist echo chamber.

    It’s a dogwhistle to his fellow science-deniers, except that the rest of us can hear it very well. And it screams, “I don’t know what I’m talking and talking and talking about.”

  197. keepscienceintexas says

    You want a fun read go over to PZ Myers other page on this topic. amphiox laid waste to bobenyart on the evolution of the eye. It may be why bobenyart bailed from that site and came and posted here for awhile.

  198. Gaebolga says

    bobenyart wrote:

    However, the police, who were on the scene literally just a few minutes after the spanking, did not bring our stepson to a clinic; there was no bandaging required, no ointment recommended, no blood, no band-aid, no treatment whatsoever.

    Umm…what the hell were the cops doing “on the scene literally just a few minutes after the spanking”?

    Does that seem a little odd to anyone else?

    Who called the cops, anyway?

  199. says

    *Enzyte music*

    This is Bob.

    Bob has a HARD road ahead of him!

    He’s got quite a LONG way to go

    Because the current support for his position is a little FLACID

    That’s why Bob needs Reason, Yes Reason that all natural Mind Enhancer that will give the needed bounce in your step and twinkle in your eye.

    Call now for a free sample of Reason

  200. keepscienceintexas says

    bobenyartsaid: PZ thinks that his loved ones will die and be expunged from existence. They will not, they will live forever. And he and they will get their desire, either to live forever and enjoy each other with God, or to live forever without Him.

    What an arrogant statement. This is typical.

  201. says

    How could anyone GET to heaven, find anyone in their family missing and not be horrified that their God is actively torturing a loved one.

    Or does he remove the memory of them…in which case HOLY FUCKING SHIT KILL THE MONSTER WITH FIRE!!!!

  202. says

    I posted this on the other thread, as Bob called ampiox’s entirely plausible development scenario a “just-so” story.

    Oh, and Bob?

    That’s all theology is, one long “just-so” story with no explanatory power. So before you go using that label to casually dismiss arguments, you might wanna put your own house in order.

  203. SantaCruzOM - this OM does not signify a Molly :( says

    Any time a child is “disciplined” to the point that police get involved, something is very wrong. Sounds like respect wasn’t as much the motive as was your need to have your child fear you. That rings familiar when talking about religion. Having raised two beautiful, compassionate, intelligent children without ever once beating them into submission, I have no respect for a man who employs such a method. You should be ashamed of yourself for your obvious lack of self control. Based on your comments here and your record of abuse, you seem to be more concerned with serving your own ego than educating people.

  204. ichthyic says

    It may be why bobenyart bailed from that site and came and posted here for awhile.

    naww, the reason the bobster came here was because there is more internet traffic here.

    it works better as a sales-pitch for his radio show.

  205. kevinhoover says

    “Who called the cops, anyway?”

    God, one would hope. Inasmuch as He sees and knows all, He was mandated to intervene in the beating.

    Surely Bob sees the hand of God in his child abuse conviction as well, since he attributes so many other things to Him.

    Why is Bob questioning the Lord’s righteous wisdom?

  206. ACN says

    This is not a person worth allowing to comment in this community.

    Not a funny troll, but rather a detestable little toad. I vote for the banhammer.

  207. Danger says

    Hello bobenyart! Have you stopped beating your kids? (I’m guessing yes, because they’re probably old enough now to hit you back.)

  208. ichthyic says

    That’s why Bob needs Reason,

    frankly, Bob has lied so much, I doubt even reason would get his “arguments” hard.

    I’m thinking he should be considering something analogous to changing genders at this point.

    Can god dig himself a hole so deep, even he can’t climb out of it?

    Bob is trying to find out by direct experimentation!

  209. Gaebolga says

    You know, when I first met my (future) step-dad at age 11, I hated his guts and didn’t respect him at all.

    And I can assure you that if he’d laid a hand on me any of the times I mouthed off to him or disrespected him, I’d still hate his guts and have no respect for him.

    Instead, he treated me with love, kindness, and fairness, and I now look back on my childish behavior towards him with a good deal of shame. I’m proud to call him my father (along with my biological father), and I’m damned glad he’s part of my family.

    I wonder how “_____” will view Bob, 30 years down the line….

  210. keepscienceintexas says

    P.Z. why don’t you have a banner at the top of your home page begging for money like bobbie does? He calls it an online telethon and I am sure the money is going to a worthy cause.

  211. ichthyic says

    I vote for the banhammer.

    Normally I would entirely agree. But, as much as I would find that extremely humorous, and even a bit of a statement, I can see there would be value to allow Bob to continue trolling here should he choose to do so.

    he does present the “pinnacle” of the creationist arguments, after all.

    yes, I understand that’s like saying the “pinnacle” of a pre-school attempt to color inside the lines, but recall that there are millions of people who are as fucked up as he is using logic and reason (like Will Duffy). Some of them (not Will Duffy)might learn something from seeing that these people are lying to them, or even perhaps pick up some useful info.

    Alas, my guess is that Bob is just here to take a dump though, and likely will not continue to engage past today.

  212. ichthyic says

    he can’t even out reason a child.

    which of course is why Bob is frustrated, and frustrated Bob is angry Bob…

    Bob is a frustrated, angry, less-than child, who has become a lying pretentious dingleberry to try and cover that fact.

    the sad thing is that people pay him to cover his inadequacies.

    and that is my final conclusion, based on all the evidence.

  213. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    keepscienceintexas: love the nym.

    Indeed, amphiox delivered a thrashing abetted by the ineffable Ichthyic.

    I haven’t been at SB since FtB opened for business, but that thread is certainly worthy. Thanks for pointing it out.

  214. Ragutis says

    bobenyart says:
    27 September 2011 at 7:27 pm

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    It can’t be shown that this Christ person lived in the first place, and you want us to disprove his resurrection? Horse then cart, K?

    For then, Christianity would be false, and I would still be in my sins with no hope for eternal life.

    Well, there’s always Islam.

  215. says

    Y’know what’s rare in Christian apologists, and especially in creationism?

    Intellectual honesty.

    The three most liberating sentence I ever learned was, “I was wrong.” The next most liberating sentence was, “I made a mistake.” The third most liberating? “I apologize.”

    It is so fucking rare to hear any of those from a creationist. As Bob has demonstrated in this thread, his two ways of dealing with actual evidence is to insist he was right (even when the citation he provides says exactly the opposite) or to ignore it. These are the two most prevalent responses when one should say instead, “I was wrong.”

    I’m starting to believe these creationists aren’t here to debate, or even to proselytize. I have a feeling they are here to dominate. They’re like little yappy dogs no bigger than a good-sized cat trying to climb on top of a St. Bernard. And like those little yappy dogs, they’re just not bright enough to realize they don’t stand a fucking chance. Yet they strut around like prideful little yappy dogs always strut.

    And that’s just the funny thing to me: they are always so full of pride, and arrogance. I always thought Christians were supposed to eschew pride.

    But of course, how would I know? I’m all closed-minded and shit.

  216. keepscienceintexas says

    Bobbie????……oh Bobbie…….Bobbie!!!!!!…..Where are you Bobbie???? You got some splainin to do…..

  217. says

    However, the police, who were on the scene literally just a few minutes after the spanking, did not bring our stepson to a clinic; there was no bandaging required, no ointment recommended, no blood, no band-aid, no treatment whatsoever.

    Mike Tyson used to brag about not leaving a mark, too.

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    The fact that billions of people have lived and died, and are still dead, showing that resurrection is fucking impossible, counts for nothing?
    Again, you are making a positive claim. The burden of proof is on you. And what do you have? An old book that makes that claim alongside other claims demonstrated to be wrong (no, the earth is not flat, does not rest on pillars, the sky is not a dome, mustard is not the world’s smallest seed, etc.). We remain unconvinced, and any god that expects us to believe this crap, based merely on ancient claims with demonstrable inaccuracy on every freaking page, when the stakes are merely everything, is too lazy or too much the trickster to be worthy of worship.
    Or he doesn’t exist.

    I’m am so grateful to God that our boys respect and love us through these many years

    Are you grateful because you haven’t earned it?

    For then, Christianity would be false, and I would still be in my sins with no hope for eternal life.

    So without unevidenced belief, your life is horrible and worthless? It really all depends on Christ’s resurrection?
    Sounds like you built your castle in the sand.

  218. says

    illiterate nigelTheBold:

    The three most liberating sentence I ever learned was…

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. That sentence started out one way (three most liberating words) and ended another, and I couldn’t even get the fucking subject/verb to agree.

    I’m just gonna sit over in this corner, okay? Gimme a beer and some good y’allternative on the jukebox, and I’ll be a happy ungrammatical geek.

  219. bobenyart says

    Hello Glen Davidson,

    Wow, you guys are sure worked up that Will didn’t tell PZ that he was still my producer since the last time he had asked PZ to debate me. I’m glad you’re not at the U.N. arguing over the shape of the table at which to negotiate to prevent WW3. You wrote:

    “…this game you liars play… You lie, omit expected information, whatever, then you ask why we care if we don’t believe in “absolute morality. What’s altogether clear is that you most certainly don’t believe in absolute morality, as you don’t care to follow it absolutely.”

    I’d bet $1,000 that you can’t find that much anger and criticism directed at atheist and fraud perpetrator Ernst Haeckel who faked drawings of a fetus to look like a fish and a reptile to support his discredited “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

    According to the New York Times, March 8, 1907, ironically, Haeckel was later honored as the founder of the “Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism,” and that’s after committing his career-level fraud.

    Sources at: http://kgov.com/bel/20100812

    Even Dawkins admits in a video I link to that Haeckel’s drawings were faked and that today’s textbooks should not be propagating his error.

    Do you think that any of you who would protesteth so much about Will not saying that he was previously my producer have ever defended Haeckel over his documented fraud?

  220. ichthyic says

    Wow, you guys are sure worked up that Will didn’t tell PZ that he was still my producer since the last time he had asked PZ to debate me

    what people are rightly “worked up” about is the constant lying and misinformation you cretins keep spreading as if it were jam on toast.

  221. says

    bobenyart:

    Wow, you guys are sure worked up that Will didn’t tell PZ that he was still my producer since the last time he had asked PZ to debate me. I’m glad you’re not at the U.N. arguing over the shape of the table at which to negotiate to prevent WW3.

    Uhm, you realize he presented himself as a complete but adoring stranger, right? His friendship with you might color his judgement of you. So in the interest of complete disclosure (something that is common in the scientific arena), his friendship was fairly important in his evaluation of you.

    It merely hints a deeper intellectual dishonesty.

  222. ichthyic says

    I’d bet $1,000 that you can’t find that much anger and criticism directed at atheist and fraud perpetrator Ernst Haeckel

    actually, you’re wrong about that, too.

    Have you ever looked at the reactions to Haekel’s work, EVEN AT THE TIME?

    no, you fucking haven’t, you dishonest shit.

    of course, your use of Haeckel here is nothing more than a Red Herring, yet another slimy logical fallacy employed by you in lieu of an actual substantive response to your obvious lies and misinformation.

    you’re a pathetic human being.

    Since you used him as a red herring, allow me to do the same:

    Even Haeckel did not employ the tactics you use.

    so, yeah, we SHOULD be more angry with you than with something that someone who can’t defend themselves in person did long before you were born.

    you are supposed to actually, you know, DEFEND YOURSELF.

    fucking git.

  223. IngIng says

    Aying you’d stgill be in sin if Christianity is proven false and now have no hope is like saying you’re terrified if ghosts aren’t real because then who knows what’s haunting your house.

    You can’t even think outside the bubblewrap much less the box

  224. KG says

    Bob Enyart, convicted child-abuser,

    Haeckel? That’s the best you can do? A man who died in 1919?

    Do you think that any of you who would protesteth so much about Will not saying that he was previously my producer have ever defended Haeckel over his documented fraud?

    I doubt it. Even if they had, how exactly would that excuse your minion’s dishonesty?

  225. says

    Bob:

    I’d bet $1,000 that you can’t find that much anger and criticism directed at atheist and fraud perpetrator Ernst Haeckel who faked drawings of a fetus to look like a fish and a reptile to support his discredited “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

    Are you fucking serious? That was a hundred years ago! And the revelation that he faked his drawings was 1) demonstrated by science, and 2) generated a shitstorm … when it was relevant. A hundred years ago.

    Fuck me! Have you really degenerated to this?

  226. ichthyic says

    seriously, Bob, when ya gonna go all Hulk on us instead of tossing these little minnows at us?

    well?

    is this all you got?

  227. Waffler, Dunwich MA says

    So that’s bobenyart’s test of morality? What would Haeckel do? I suppose it’s a higher standard than what you’d normally expect of a fundamentalist.

  228. Gaebolga says

    bobenyart wrote:

    I’m glad you’re not at the U.N. arguing over the shape of the table at which to negotiate to prevent WW3.

    Wow, a gratuitous dig at the UN and a backhanded reference to the apocalypse. It’s a fundie two-fer.

    You do realize that “WW3″ isn’t on the horizon at all, right?

    Which makes your reference to it rather…dated. Positively screams 1980s.

    Why do you hate the present so much, Bob?

  229. ichthyic says

    Bob, since you decided to bring Haeckel into this as a red herring, I wonder if you can even answer this:

    Was Haeckel actually a supporter of Darwin’s primary hypothesis regarding evolution?

    a simple yes/no answer will do.

  230. says

    I’d bet $1,000 that you can’t find that much anger and criticism directed at atheist and fraud perpetrator Ernst Haeckel who faked drawings of a fetus to look like a fish and a reptile to support his discredited “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

    You would find that there isn’t as much anger expressed at people who are merely wrong, as opposed to people like you and Duffy, who are unrepentant liars. Haeckel was wrong. He made several sets of diagrams, all slightly different (as one would expect from hand drawn diagrams), and the ones that creationists fools like yourself love to trot out often weren’t even drawn by him. Lowell saw canals on Mars. Haeckel saw similarities in organisms. They were just wrong about what they perceived.

    And what corrected their errors? Was it valiant creationists brandishing Bibles with “the truth”? Nope. It was other scientists doing the long and tedious work of conducting research, investigating proffered claims, and fact checking. But that’s probably a set of foreign concepts to you.

    According to the New York Times, March 8, 1907, ironically, Haeckel was later honored as the founder of the “Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism,” and that’s after committing his career-level fraud.

    Except there’s not really evidence that he committed fraud. Just that he was incorrect. So once again you are lying. Sort of predictable for you really.

  231. ichthyic says

    corollary:

    since you thought there was no anger directed at Haeckel in his day, I suppose you also can’t tell me who his most vehement critic (of the very drawings you mentioned) was?

    just one name will do.

  232. says

    Wow, you guys are sure worked up that Will didn’t tell PZ that he was still my producer since the last time he had asked PZ to debate me.

    Why does one need to be worked up to call you lying frauds what you are? Just because you lack a moral compass doesn’t mean that we have to treat your dishonesty respectfully.

    I have contempt for you, bullshitter. I can hardly get worked up at an ignorant pissant like yourself.

    I’m glad you’re not at the U.N. arguing over the shape of the table at which to negotiate to prevent WW3. You wrote:

    “…this game you liars play… You lie, omit expected information, whatever, then you ask why we care if we don’t believe in “absolute morality. What’s altogether clear is that you most certainly don’t believe in absolute morality, as you don’t care to follow it absolutely.”

    So I called Will the liar that he is. Does the truth only come out with anger, or what the fuck moronic BS do you believe?

    I’d bet $1,000 that you can’t find that much anger and criticism directed at atheist and fraud perpetrator Ernst Haeckel who faked drawings of a fetus to look like a fish and a reptile to support his discredited “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

    Dumbass, are you angry at all of the lies that creationists, including yourself, have told? I’m barely even emotional while calling you the liar that you are, in fact, but it’s true that it’s still somewhat more emotion than I have toward ancient fraud caused by some git who was essentially non-Darwinian, or even anti-Darwinian. I really don’t care about such ancient history, dickhead.

    According to the New York Times, March 8, 1907, ironically, Haeckel was later honored as the founder of the “Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism,” and that’s after committing his career-level fraud.

    Sources at: kgov.com/bel/20100812

    So you’re lying now, and I’m supposed to be mad at a Haeckel that has almost no impact upon me and science today? You really are a dumb bigoted brute.

    Even Dawkins admits in a video I link to that Haeckel’s drawings were faked and that today’s textbooks should not be propagating his error.

    “Even Dawkins,” huh? You’re being dishonest yet again, as if we aren’t generally opposed to Haeckel’s and your fraudulence.

    Do you think that any of you who would protesteth so much about Will not saying that he was previously my producer have ever defended Haeckel over his documented fraud?

    What a mess of composition that “sentence” is, dumbass. I’ve certainly never defended Haeckel’s fakery (it was less than you liars claim, however), and wouldn’t. I guess you just want to imply falseness where you have no evidence.

    Typical dishonesty, lackwit. BTW, why do you think that one has to be angry to call you the despicable charlatan that you are? Because you don’t even understand what honesty is?

    Glen Davidson

  233. Brownian says

    Do you think that any of you who would protesteth so much about Will not saying that he was previously my producer have ever defended Haeckel over his documented fraud?

    Hey, we had another one of you playing tu quoque earlier.

    I think it’s absolutely rich that the best you can do, with God on your side, is “Hey, we’re no worse than everybody else.”

    Does you think Jesus claps his hands when you lower the bar like that? Or is “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” too tough for a creationist like you to understand?

    I’m am so grateful to God that our boys respect and love us through these many years.

    Sons of an abusive father will say a lot of things, and self-centered liars like yourself will believe a lot more.

    From somebody who also believes a 2,000-year-old mythological man named Jesus loves you, your testimony doesn’t count for sweet, sweet fuck all.

  234. inging says

    Since you called him a liar and are still upset after 100 years clearly youu show equal or greatter anger. I am willing to discus a payment plan

  235. Don Quijote says

    Mr. Enyart.
    Beatus of Liébana, a Spanish monk “forged” a map of the world and he was religious. Or maybe, he drew a map of the world with the information available to him.

  236. Gaebolga says

    …and, of course, I’m still waiting for Bob’s response to amphiox in post #49:

    To further belabor the point: C14 dating is a methodology. An experimental procedure, so named because the first and most widespread use is for dating relatively recent objects in the age range of thousands to tens of thousands of years.

    Of course, even if you take that [carbon dating] result at face value, that’s still almost five times older than the bible says the entire universe is, and thus utterly falsifies pretty much ALL versions of young-earth creationism.

    [Emphasis mine]

  237. Guestspeaker says

    Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer
    N Engl J Med 1997; 336:81-85
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201#t=abstract

    Background
    It has been hypothesized that an interrupted pregnancy might increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer because breast cells could proliferate without the later protective effect of differentiation

    Results
    In the cohort of 1.5 million women (28.5 million person-years), we identified 370,715 induced abortions among 280,965 women (2.7 million person-years) and 10,246 women with breast cancer. After adjustment for known risk factors, induced abortion was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (relative risk, 1.00; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.06). No increases in risk were found in subgroups defined according to age at abortion, parity, time since abortion, or age at diagnosis of breast cancer. The relative risk of breast cancer increased with increasing gestational age of the fetus at the time of the most recent induced abortion: 12 weeks, 1.38 (1.00 to 1.90) (reference category, 9 to 10 weeks).

    Conclusions
    Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

    And that’s just one of many more robust studies. Furthermore, the study you posted doesn’t say there is a cancer-abortion risk at all.

    Dude, stop lying.

    Furthermore, even if abortion predicted breast cancer, so what? Too much smoking and sitting on your fat a$$ also causes cancer (apparently prayer or being a Xtian doesn’t reduce cancer either… go figure).

  238. ichthyic says

    I actually have to thank compulsive liar Bob Enyart for coming here and letting us show for tens of thousands of people who follow this site just how many lies he tells, and what the real answers are for each lie he spins.

    You’ve done the world of intellectual honesty a good deed by thinking we were as gullible as you and your fanclub are.

    your lies are painted bare here, for ever and ever, for all the world to see and record for posterity.

    again, I say to you:

    you are the master Own-Goaler!

  239. keepscienceintexas says

    Gaebolga said; and, of course, I’m still waiting for Bob’s response to amphiox in post #49.

    Gaebolga don’t hold your breath. Bob took a beating from amphiox about the evolution of the eye on PZ’s other page. Bob then proceded to bail from that page and come over here. For a guy who brags about beating “darwinist” in debates he got his ass handed to him by someone posting on a blog. (amphiox)

  240. hen3ry says

    Bob,

    Are you going to respond to any of the questions you have been asked, or just continue to spew shit?

    Oh, look, someone more than a hundred years ago was a fraud _and_ an atheist. Whoop de woo. Would you say that Haeckel was more, or less bad than Abbot Arnaud Amalric?

    Get back to the point. Can you present any evidence of your claims that:

    a) Junk DNA is all functional.

    b) Creationism is on the rise in the USA and the rest of the world?

    PS I win your bet: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/embryonic_similarities_in_the.php

  241. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    I have a question for Bob Enyart or his lovely assistant, Duffy. Why is it necessary for you folks to reject reality for a 2,500 year old creation myth? Do you think God will whip you with a belt forever if you admit the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? What is it with creationists that you feel you have to believe in a lie?

  242. stanton says

    bobenyart said:

    It seems like a stretch to pronounce all debate as unworthy of the scientific process. Haven’t you watched opponents vigorously debate one another on the pages of journals? And like the inefficiency in an O.J. trial that lasts for a year, sometimes it helps get to the truth to have two opposing sides merely talk to one another, in a public forum, challenging each other.

    Scientists do not debate each other in the way members of debate teams debate each other.

    In other words scientists and other members of the scientific community “debate” each other by examining each other’s research to see that said research provides logical, adequate explanations.

    Doing as you do, on the other hand, i.e., lying, disparaging scientists and atheists, as well as making meaningless, arrogant boasts of one’s own faith, are worse than useless in a scientific discussion. Why should anyone debate you in the first place? It is quite obvious that your own motivation for trying to drag scientists and scholars into the Roman Circus you call “debate,” is to parade a freakshow of captives before an audience of sympathetic fanatics before you a symbolic human sacrifice them to your own ego.

  243. says

    Glen Davidson:
    Pointing out how “angry” people are seems to be popular among this crew, and well, all sort of denialists really. One of many in their book of diversionary tactics.

    I likewise do not really get worked up or angry over these people. I laugh at them, I love being sarcastic and seeing their ideas ripped apart, but angry? Naw. It feels damn good to post something calling them out. Brings a smile to my face.

    Then again, even if I did get angry, what would it mean? Does anger somehow make the argument less correct?

    Antiochus Epiphanes:
    I was reading your post responding to Bob’s claim that creationists are somehow being blocked by journals. I have always figured that they must have tried to get their papers published. I mean, it would be dishonest to claim they cannot get published but never actually try, right? Anyway, assuming they are honest about this there must be all kinds of examples of rejected papers. I have floated the idea of creating a website to discuss these rejected papers on a number of occasions. I would love to see the rejected papers posted along with the comments they received from the editor or the reviewers so that everyone can see how fairly or unfairly they have been treated.

    Of course I doubt I would receive any content for this site if I started it. The complaint about mean evolutionists keeping them down is brought up so often yet there is never any evidence given to support this.

  244. amphiox says

    Haeckel has, of course, earned and received the proper desserts for scientific fakery – that being scientific irrelevancy within the field.

    Indeed, the continued use of his diagram in simplified, dumbed-down, entry-level texts, to be seen only by generations of students who mostly take the course only as a requirement for higher courses for degree programs only peripherally related to the field, and who will mostly deem to even glance at it at all only to ignore it and forget it in a week, can be considered part of the ongoing punishment.

  245. ichthyic says

    Are you going to respond to any of the questions you have been asked, or just continue to spew shit?

    that’s a rhetorical question, right?

    otherwise the answer seems pretty obvious.

  246. hen3ry says

    @Ichthyic (281)

    Well, mostly rhetorical. I would be most astounded if either one of the magical duo decided to actually read, comprehend, and respond in detail to a question instead of just vaguely glancing at the page and then vomiting forth whatever additional bullshit they happened to be rolling in at the time. Still, we live in hope.

  247. says

    Pointing out how “angry” people are seems to be popular among this crew, and well, all sort of denialists really. One of many in their book of diversionary tactics.

    Also a way of claiming to be far more important than they are. We’re “angry” because they “have such great arguments” or some such horseshit.

    We tend to use the same disparaging terms against the History Channel’s reprehensible alien claptrap, “herbal medicine,” Scientology, and other junk “science.” Are we “angry” at all of these ignorant bozos, or do we just find these to be the correct terms for ignorant and dishonest a-holes of all kinds?

    Bob doesn’t care to find out, naturally. He only means to say whatever he hopes can get him ahead in the world, facts and truth be damned.

    Glen Davidson

  248. Brownian says

    Haeckel has, of course, earned and received the proper desserts for scientific fakery – that being scientific irrelevancy within the field.

    Haeckel was prodigious: he produced a substantial amount of work and coined a number of terms and concepts still in use (like “phylum”, “phylogeny” and “ecology”). And his fakery meant a lot less than fundies think; it’s clear to anyone who doesn’t have a Jesus-shaped tamping iron shoved through their brain that embryos do share features as is expected due to their evolutionary relationship. (Every picture of Jesus with blue eyes and pallid skin is probably about as wrong, give or take. Note that I’m not defending Haeckel’s dishonest drawings, I’m just noting that they are not the complete works of fiction illiterate creationists wish they were.)

    The next time some piece of shit child-abusing fundie blowhard like assface Enyart mentions Haeckel, make the fucker explain, in laborious detail, exactly what the problem with Haeckel’s embryological drawing is. You’ll see.

    Points if every time they blandly intone “He faked data” you scream “Say ‘faked’ again. Say ‘faked’ again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say faked one more goddamn time! “

  249. TimKO,,.,, says

    “short amount of time before we see evolution…become obsolete”

    It’s going to be a bit difficult to round up all extant species and tell them to just stop it already.

  250. says

    keepscienceintexas:

    . Bob then proceded to bail from that page and come over here. For a guy who brags about beating “darwinist” in debates he got his ass handed to him by someone posting on a blog. (amphiox)

    He shouldn’t feel bad about that. amphiox hands a lot of people their own ass.

  251. Kemist says

    …that I had crossed the line of loving discipline.

    Hitting a child is not “love”, you fucking dickhead.

    It’s all about you losing control of yourself. It shouldn’t happen, and if it happened, you should be ashamed of yourself, not call it “love”.

  252. raven says

    Just skimmed this thread in a few seconds.

    Not in the mood to watch humanoid toads crawling out from under their rocks.

    Think these two toads are sane? Doesn’t look possible.

  253. ichthyic says

    “Say ‘faked’ again. Say ‘faked’ again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say faked one more goddamn time! “

    That’s a mighty tasty burger.

  254. ichthyic says

    It’s all about you losing control of yourself. It shouldn’t happen, and if it happened, you should be ashamed of yourself, not call it “love”.

    well, see, that’s how people like Bobby work:

    They lie to everyone else so often, that they no longer see a problem with lying to themselves, too.

    hence any rationalization at all will do to excuse poor behavior in their own minds.

    I’m dead serious.

    Bobby is likely at least partially simply incapable of recognizing when he is lying; to him it just seems to “fit”, so it all makes perfect sense.

    There is a term that accurately describes persons like Bobby:

    Sociopath.

    not kidding:

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

    Enyart is a sociopath.

  255. ichthyic says

    It’s going to be a bit difficult to round up all extant species and tell them to just stop it already.

    Put Bob Newhart on the case!


  256. says

    The door slammed open. The last time this had happened, frosted glass exploded across my office floor like shards of that asshole snowman Frosty with a cherry bomb stuff up behind his carrot nose. I’d had it replaced with that newfangled unbreakable glass. Turns out that shit’s good. The pane clattered against the wall and fell behind the door like a big unbreakable glass coin down a sewer drain.

    I couldn’t even curse, My hands were full. One hand messed about with the keys, having just unlocked the office. That arm cradled a dog bed. The other held a grocery bag. The grocery bag held other things. Together, it all held everything in close to my body. Even my cursing.

    Swinging my elbow, I threw the dog bed into the room. I muttered, “God damnit,” but that was nothing more than an action delayed by my awkward posture.

    I placed the bag carefully on my solid island of a desk. There were precious things in that bag. Precious things, and not-so-precious things. I pocketed my keys like a man realizing he’d been holding a Benjamin all day, and strode back to the door.

    The damned staples didn’t hold the glass in. I’d done the repair job myself, and I know I’d done a good job. I used two packs of staples. But it still wasn’t enough to arrest the inertia of that fucking lead-like pane of unbreakable frosted glass.

    “Oh well,” I consoled myself. “This time you can put it in right-side up.”

    “Elvis!” I hollered. I kicked the dog bed into a corner.

    He came out from under my desk, skulking forward like he thought I might whip him until he was bloody. That was an unfair reproach. I didn’t treat him like that. Often.

    “C’mere. Good boy!” I tried to sound enthusiastic, even happy, but it came out like a garbled end-times prophecy. I reached into the bag, pulled out the precious contents.

    At least the bottle of scotch was intact.

    Diving into the bag again, I pulled out the new chew-toy. “Here ya go, boy,” I promised without turning around. The label was red, with white lettering that promised, “Indestructible! Undeniable! The best apologist chew-toy for dogs of all sizes! Resists logic! Repels reason! Impervious to evidence! Guaranteed for life!”

    Yeah. Sure.

    I ripped the packaging open. The cellophane seemed sturdier than the toy inside, which turned out to be a vaguely toad-shaped blob of foam, dolled up like two entire cabarets. I put it on the table, ignoring my earlier promise. The bottle of scotch opened like the dream I knew it was. I picked up my glass and tossed the melted-ice contents in the trash can.

    Well, most of it went in the trash can. Some of it, at least.

    As I poured, I said, “Doesn’t look like a Bob to me.” I looked it over. “More like a Hiedenhopper, or a Dudley Jumpright.” I don’t know who names these things, but I’ve created better names harfing up scotch.

    I tossed the toy to Elvis. It immediately jumped forward, and tried to hump the spaniel’s liver-colored curly-haired leg. “I promise you,” it said, “I shall take you in a debate!”

    Elvis clamped his teeth around Bob the squeak toy. Bob didn’t squeak, really. Elvis recoiled for an instant at the pathetic, though polite-sounding, whine. “Can you explain why cats are superior to dogs? I bet you can’t!” Elvis tossed the toy up into the air like a Jack-in-the-box that discovers at the last instant it’s been decapitated.

    “Do you know why the sky is blue?” it squeaked at the top of the arc. “It’s God’s favorite color! I know, because I love that color.”

    Bob writhed in the air as it descended, like some kind of oblivious acrobat with Alzheimer’s. Elvis snapped him up. “Why are you so angry at me?” Bob squealed. “Remember Cujo? He was a dog!”

    Elvis gave one last death shake. Bob popped like an eyeball from a stomped troll. Bits flew up, onto my desk, into my beautiful, inviolable glass of amber grace. Not so inviolable now.

    I picked up the phone, cradled it between my ear and my shoulder. I fingered the string of white digits at the bottom of the red label. I dialed.

    “Yeah, PZ?” There was an vague grunt, almost like an answer. I tossed the tainted liquid into the trash can.

    Well, mostly into the trash can.

    “Yeah. Your Bob Enyart lasted about two minutes.” I held the phone away from my ear. “Yeah, there’s something you can do.” I poured myself a replacement glass of grace.

    “You can send us a new chewtoy.”

  257. A. Noyd says

    Glen Davidson (#164)

    Wow, dumbass, now all you have to do is give us evidence that Paul had any good reason to say that.

    Actually, I think Paul probably did have good reason to say that. People have certain cognitive biases, and if you’re selling bullshit, you’ll have more buyers if you prime them by saying they’ll see evidence for the bullshit everywhere. Paul wouldn’t even have to know about those biases any more than an earnest “psychic” know what cold reading techniques are. I’m sure there’s plenty of evidence that could be scraped up to show whether priming works. (Yeah, I know that’s not what you meant.)

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

    Ing (#231)

    Or does he remove the memory of them…in which case HOLY FUCKING SHIT KILL THE MONSTER WITH FIRE!!!!

    There’s another option: that we get godlike knowledge once we’re in heaven so we can understand why it’s a good and just thing that our heretical loved ones are suffering eternal agony. We don’t forget them or stop loving them, we come realize why it’s actually a wonderful thing for them to be tortured for forever. Their plight is part of the awesomeness of heaven. In which case HOLY FUCKING SHIT, KILL ALL THE MONSTERS WITH FIRE!!!!

  258. says

    When it comes to defending any position that’s not held for relevant reasons, rationalisation is going to occur. I’m going to wager very few people are creationists, at least of the young earth variety, because they studied biology. Rather the belief is pleiotropic on a belief in the inerrant Bible. So while there’s a belief that the bible is the literal God’s Word, Creationism is going to be defended. So what else can we expect but people misrepresenting evolution, misrepresenting the state of biology, and misrepresenting science itself? They’re defending what they know to be the truest of truths.

    Thus these conversations have a fatalistic familiarity to them. They’re not conversations on the validity of the science of evolution; they’re conversations about the existence of God. Unfortunately that conversation so often rests on the pretence of the validity of evolution (or the validity of science itself), and there’s a continual talking past one another. To those who have a familiarity with science, it must seem frankly absurd what creationists come up with. But they aren’t talking science, they are talking religion. Evolution, in that sense, is a religious competitor, and the prophets of evolution like Darwin and Haekel need to be shown that they’re only human. Because the Word of the one true God is what is at stake.

    Yet what else can we do but try to frame and rebut the faulty arguments? Because if we don’t, the creationists claim victory – another Victory For Jesus, no matter how badly it misses the mark. And the scientific literature will go on validating evolution irrespective of such Victories, because there’s nothing scientific about the way they go about things. Intellectually bankrupt, but that’s how it’s got to be when the belief is held for reasons external to the validity of the belief itself. From the greatest sincerity springs forth intellectual dishonesty, because there’s much more at stake than whether great-great-great grandpa was a filthy poo-flinging monkey…

  259. RipleyP says

    I don’t understand. Why are creationists so angry and insulting to those who do not subscribe to their faith?

    As an Atheist I have looked at a lot of the evidence for the theory of evolution and the evidence for creation and found the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

    The evidence for creation relies on a lot of assumptions that are not testable and it makes not testable predictions that I am aware of.

    Most of the arguments from the creationist camps try to pick a hole in the evolutionary theory and then point at the hole and present an argument that one mistake or even a dozen mistakes makes the whole thing invalid.

    The argument then goes to say if the evolutionary argument is invalid then the only alternative is creation.

    This is a fallacious argument in that

    (a) One hole or even a thousand does not necessarily mean the theory is not invalid;
    (b) Even if evolution were found to be invalid that does not support that creation is right;
    (c) Creation has offered no real evidence as a testable and falsifiable hypothesis so as to present itself as an alternate theory;

    I would be so bold as to suggest that seeding by aliens with a preprogrammed DNA sequence as the explanation for life is more testable and falsifiable than a creationist theory as we might be able to find the aliens or evidence of their existence.

    I have therefore applied the scientific method as well as the decision making tree used in assessing legal matters in regards to persuasiveness and come to a conclusion.

    So why I am allegedly a thing called a Darwinist?

    Darwin was a scientist who postulated a hypothesis and tested it. He even published his findings.

    He was not a prophet of a biblical nature; his book is not a book of the bible or random holy writings type.

    Thus I fail to see how there can be such a thing as a Darwinist.

    Therefore I would appreciate it if religious persons would stop referring to my conclusion on the subject as some form of religious experience of cult phenomena.

    If the Christians would be so kind as to stop this misrepresentation I will be happy to stop referring to them as the followers of the sky fairies known as ,Big Daddy, Junior and spooky

    I am a person who evaluated some evidence and was persuaded by the evidence.

  260. Tim DeLaney says

    YesYouNeedJesus:

    Upthread, I asked you a couple of questions about the Enyart show I called into. Your silence gives me the suspicion that you really don’t have a DVD of that show, as you claimed.

    Prove me wrong: What did Enyart say, and what was my reaction? And why not post the entirety of Enyart’s remarks about Galileo?

  261. stanton says

    I don’t understand. Why are creationists so angry and insulting to those who do not subscribe to their faith?

    Because creationists consider those who do not subscribe to their faith to be scum of the earth, disgusting vermin who, for rejecting Jesus, must be deprived of literally every dignity, right and privilege due to humans by other humans.

  262. says

    Because creationists consider those who do not subscribe to their faith to be scum of the earth, disgusting vermin who, for rejecting Jesus, must be deprived of literally every dignity, right and privilege due to humans by other humans.

    If God deems that punishable by an eternity in Hell… well, it wouldn’t be that righteous to go against God!

  263. ichthyic says

    I pocketed my keys like a man realizing he’d been holding a Benjamin all day

    Elvis tossed the toy up into the air like a Jack-in-the-box that discovers at the last instant it’s been decapitated.

    my brain hurts from trying to parse the imagery here.

    make it stop!

  264. stanton says

    If God deems (not being a creationist) punishable by an eternity in Hell… well, it wouldn’t be that righteous to go against God!

    Creationists just want to get in a few licks before God executes us and sends us to Hell to be tortured for all eternity.

    You know, like the jeering mob at a public execution. Apparently, to most creationists, the things that Jesus said, i.e., loving everyone unconditionally because Jesus loves you unconditionally, being peaceful, righteous, harmonious do-gooders, blah blah, etc, those all only apply to other creationists under very specific conditions (i.e., when they’re licking each other’s asses on command). Everyone else deserves nothing but a face full of mud and blood before God finishes the job.

  265. says

    Because creationists consider those who do not subscribe to their faith to be scum of the earth, disgusting vermin who, for rejecting Jesus, must be deprived of literally every dignity, right and privilege due to humans by other humans.

    Duffy upthread literally asked why we were upset at being mistreated since we didn’t believe in morality.

    They don’t see us as human.

  266. says

    Ing:

    They don’t see us as human.

    It’s either that, or they believe morality comes only from God, and the only thing keeping them from beating their children to death* is their belief in God.

     

    * The Bible instructs you to stone disobedient children to death, so they really aren’t that good at this whole Christianity thing. Only beating them until they bleed, indeed.

  267. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    I’m late to the party, but:

    Tim DeLaney, It seems your little exchange with Bob was partially preserved in some of the recondite corners of the Internet. No mention of the Galileo monologue, though.

  268. says

    I don’t understand. Why are creationists so angry and insulting to those who do not subscribe to their faith?

    In comment 161 Bob Enyart quoted Romans 1:20 in a pathetic circular attempt to claim that there is evidence for creation (for Paul it wasn’t particularly worse, or better, than Aristotle’s “solution”). One can’t see why he’d bother, other than the fact that he has no evidence, so simply resorts to authoritarianism where knowledge fails him.

    However, Romans 1 is a favorite of a lot of fundamentalists, because it suggests that anyone who doesn’t see the non-existent evidence for creationism has willfully denied God, and in turn, God gave us over to teh gay and other horrors. Here’s a good deal more of Romans 1, NIV:

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Favorite creationist verse, Romans 20, bolded by myself.

    To those who accept this holy BS as the truth, well, we’re really the dregs, hating God, likely to be gay, with no love, no fidelity, no mercy, and utterly depraved. This is truth for a mindless cretin like Bob.

    I don’t at all wish to suggest that this is the usual Xian take, even if it is in their holy book. But to Bob Enyart it’s more true than anything an honest scientist would say, as it’s part of his own ignorant pathetic ego. It is what makes him “better” than all of the evil scientists, and he certainly has nothing else to commend him.

    Yes, they really do start out condemning and hating us, and when we call them the blithering idiots that they in fact are, well, clearly we’re evil evolutionists who deny what’s evident (the Babble says so) and they don’t have to be decent, nice, or even honest (the Bible doesn’t actually let them off from the honesty bit, they just understand it to be so–at least if it’s done for the Great Truth). They’re completely circular, or at least they strive to be so, and anyone who is more honest than they is clearly dishonest, according to the ignorant Paul.

    Bob Enyart is another Eric Hovind, whose circularity doesn’t allow for anything else to come in, and indeed which forbids it to any mind that fails to adequately resist. A number of pathological thought patterns are at work, condemnation if they “doubt,” the sense that they oughtn’t even begin to think that we’re anything but depraved and fit for hellfire, and a dependence upon an unwarranted logical structure that is meant to deny and punish deviance from the “Godly” beliefs.

    Indeed, their own depravity insists that all of their pathological thought patterns belong to us, and that we be considered to be as evil as they really are.

    Glen Davidson

  269. says

    They don’t see us as human.

    Or to borrow from Ed Feser, we might be biological human but not metaphysically human.

  270. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Any time some self important creationist mentions Haeckel, an angel gets run over by a book mobile.

    Seriously if this is still the level of discourse we can expect from a scientific giant like Bobby, I’m not sure I can handle the intensity of the conversation.

    yawn

    Seriously big fat YAWN Bobby.

  271. No One says

    So bobby…

    Did it feel good when you whipped that kid with a belt? Your dad whipped you didn’t he? So when it was your turn, did you finally feel like a man? What emotions went through you at the moment? Anger? Righteousness? Or Were you coldly detached?

    C’mon brother bob… share your dirty little secret with us. Did it feel good making someone incapable of defending themselves submit to your will by physical violence? Don’t you wish you could get away with doing it with lets say… adults who won’t submit to your will?

    You realize of course that the only real reason that you did that is because you literally could not come up with a better solution to modify the child’s behavior. Which is of course both ignorant and lazy. Or beyond you scope to control. See bob, any argument you offer here on any subject will be tainted by your previous behavior.

  272. says

    It really annoys me when I hear Christians complain that atheists have no grounding for morality. William Lane Craig tries to avoid the complaint by saying atheists can be (and often are) really good people, but that there’s no justification for such a belief.

    Yet the grounding for morality for theists is the same as atheists – in our neurobiology. It’s just that many theists will take this moral sense as somehow being grounded in their belief (or in their God) rather than in their brains. It’s interesting that religious believers, no matter their morality, will tend to think that they share God’s morality, which only serves to highlight the subjective nature of moral belief – wrapped in the pretence of objective absolute authority.

    Yet on a moment’s reflection, the absurdity is thinking that morality needs any justification (or domain) outside of the human condition. We have no choice but to interact with one another, and our behaviour affects other people. Morality is solely to do with how we treat others, and what we’re compelled to do in order to navigate our actions in light of how they affect on other agents in the world. Any worldview that tries to capture that for its own is going to intellectualise away the basis of our behaviour and lead to dehumanising the rest of us who don’t share such beliefs.

  273. ichthyic says

    resorts to authoritarianism where knowledge fails

    one could say this, combined with the argument from ignorance, pretty much entirely encapsulates all of creationism.

  274. ichthyic says

    See bob, any argument you offer here on any subject will be tainted by your previous behavior.

    creationists are quite good at poisoning their own wells.

    So good, in fact, one can’t help but think it’s damn near a cry for help.

    but if it is, it’s a cry for help from someone who is screaming so loud, they can’t hear how to help themselves.

  275. ichthyic says

    Do you see what I have to put up with?

    yeah, you must feel like a derailed rail car full of goats on fire.

  276. hotshoe says

    I’d rather be un-people like us than “people” like the child-abusing scum of little Bobbie’s kind.

    Even among “christians” he’s a sick piece of work. He was living with a girlfriend when he decided to beat that boy (the girlfriend’s boy by some other man). And he had two children of his own by his previous marriage. So he’s already ruined one woman’s life, abandoned his own children, and not satisfied with the amount of misery he has spread in the world, persuades the new girlfriend that he should exert his mastery by borrowing her belt to whip her boy with.

    “People” like Bobbie are one piece of evidence that there is no such god as the christians claim. If the christian god existed, trash like Bobbie would be struck by divine wrath for causing suffering to little children.

    Remember Jesus ? Oh, yeah, Bobbie doesn’t remember him either.

  277. YesYouNeedJesus says

    Well, this site is a tough one. I get home from work and have over 300 comments to respond to. I don’t even think I could simply find time to just read them, let alone respond. What do we do?

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    Next is all the bad language. Do you all really think that makes you sound intelligent or more like the stupid playground bully that has no brains so he bullies kids to make himself feel good? When someone wants to be respected, like in a job interview, they don’t speak like that because they will never be respected or even sound intelligent. They sound like immature fools.

    Then there’s all the accusations that Bob and I are liars and deceivers and child abusers, etc., etc., etc. I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong. Isn’t it quite curious that you all agree in such harmony that Bob and I are wrong? How does that work exactly?

    Tim Delaney, I want to get back to you. I did a search on this mile-long page to see if you had posted. I can assure you that everyone’s idea of Bob debating some random poster on the site is about the equivalent of convincing PZ Myers to debate some random poster on Bob’s forum. (Which is at TheologyOnline.com) Bob is just as famous as PZ is, although in different circles. Bob is nationally recognized for theology and abortion, not science (yet). But I will say this. He has had the opportunity to debate the likes of Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and others because of the size of his audience and he’s the one promoting the debates, not them. According to PZ (and I agree), it’s very telling that Jerry Bergman does not promote his debate with PZ. Bob is slowly becoming more and more recognized in the Creation science movement and would be, at the very least, a formidable opponent. But hey, if PZ doesn’t want to do it, that’s his choice.

    As to your DVD. I do have it and once I find that particular show I will be happy to post this Galileo thing you mention. I don’t recall that, but I guarantee that if Bob was wrong, he will admit it. That’s the sign of an honest objective person.

  278. RipleyP says

    Thank you everyone for your answers to my simple little question. I should have realized it’s the simple questions that take the most to answer.

    Glen Davidson thank you very much for your very comprehensive response. I have printed it out and will enjoy going over it again with my pencil to underline favorite bits for future reference.

    I do hold the honest opinion that as an atheist we tend to be treated by persons who subscribe to faith in a very poor manner. My main question was designed at the religious players in the discussion and their persecution statements. I was hopeful they may reconsider their position when it is suggested they are behaving in the same manner as they allege others are.

    I would have to say I do admire the religious posters for having the gumption to post. I am saddened to admit that I cannot extend the same admiration to the content of their posts.

    Oh the capitalization of the word atheists is something to do with my computer and its nasty habit of capitalizing some words for no apparent reason.

  279. says

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    Going into a synagog and screaming “Kyke” to everyone and goosestepping and then acting all offended that people got mad is not fucking clever.

    I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong. Isn’t it quite curious that you all agree in such harmony that Bob and I are wrong? How does that work exactly?

    Fuck. You.

    I’m not going to defend my personhood to you. You are a horrible excuse for a person.

  280. says

    Next is all the bad language. Do you all really think that makes you sound intelligent or more like the stupid playground bully that has no brains so he bullies kids to make himself feel good? When someone wants to be respected, like in a job interview, they don’t speak like that because they will never be respected or even sound intelligent. They sound like immature fools.

    Removal of language is just as small minded and limiting as excessive use of language.

    You don’t get to come in call everyone subhuman and then accuse others of bullying.

  281. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    Will Duffy said:

    I get home from work and have over 300 comments to respond to. I don’t even think I could simply find time to just read them, let alone respond. What do we do?

    Get on your knees and pray to the Lord. Pray real hard. Ask him to answer all the objections raised against you. I’m sure that such a divine manifestation crowned by godly rebuttals would be capable of converting many a lost soul.

    What, you’re not going to do it? Why? Don’t you believe in the power of prayer?

  282. ichthyic says

    Well, this site is a tough one.

    *pictures the duffster scratching his pointy little head.*

    I should have realized it’s the simple questions that take the most to answer.

    translation:

    “I should have realized that lies that are like tissue paper only work on the already gullible and convinced.”

    Glen Davidson thank you very much for your very comprehensive response. I have printed it out and will enjoy going over it again with my pencil to underline favorite bits for future reference.

    *Imagines the Duffster in full stalking mode, pasting pictures of Glen along with the words from the post all over the walls and ceiling of his bedroom*

    *recalls similar sentiments from one David Mabus….*

    I do hold the honest opinion

    honest is not a word you comprehend. You shouldn’t be allowed to use it in public.

    I was hopeful they may reconsider their position when it is suggested they are behaving in the same manner as they allege others are.

    translation:

    There is no translation. It’s nothing but pure projection.

    I would have to say I do admire the religious posters for having the gumption to post. I am saddened to admit that I cannot extend the same admiration to the content of their posts.

    translation: “I’m extremely miffed none of the other religious posters agree with me! I can’t be wrong if God is on my side!”

    Oh the capitalization of the word atheists is something to do with my computer and its nasty habit of capitalizing some words for no apparent reason.

    and, just to be consistent, he leaves us with yet another, obvious, lie.

  283. hotshoe says

    Oh, shit, Bobbie is a disciple of those child-killers the Pearls.

    Well, that’s it, then, there’s no having a civilized discussion about anything with “people” who admire the Pearls method of beating children to death.

    Bobbie does NOT get a cookie merely for having restrained himself (so far) from escalating his so-called discipline to the murderous levels he believes are justified by “Train up a child”.

    What a creeper he is. Just being on the same planet with him makes my skin crawl.

  284. says

    (We spank as the Bible teaches parents to spank their kids, and as does Dr. Dobson’s original Dare to Discipline book and Michael and Debbi Pearl’s Train up a Child.

    Dobson promote child abuse. This is an admission.

    From the site

    Let’s see, take a rod to a child’s backside, or let him touch the burning stove

    WTF? The only choice is “PAIN” or “PAIN”. How about NOT letting the kid touch the goddamn stove you idiots!? Imagine if Superman was like this?

    “Let’s see, throw a car at her, or let the rapist drag her into that ally?”

  285. ichthyic says

    you know what?

    just entirely ignore that last post in its entirety.

    I’m so pissed off at Heckle and Jeckle (bob and will) that I rather thought it was actually part of the post from the duffster just above it.

    *sigh*

  286. ichthyic says

    The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    that’s because you never came here to actually argue any point, but to try and further convince yourself you’re right, and ignore any and all refutations of your argument that AREN’T angry, and of course, the anger directly stems from not only your deliberate lies and misinformation, but your slimy refusal to actually defend any point you wished to make by hiding it in terms of tone.

    We see through your drama queen act, asswipe.

  287. says

    Now look, you are a newbie and hardly in a position to tell anyone how to respond. Do you understand my point?

    Gee, all that spankings really taught that board how to deal with dissent.

  288. says

    The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue.

    That you take well-deserved contempt as “anger” is an indication that you’re too damned stupid to live (not a threat, moron).

    It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    Oh, the bigot claims to be even more bigoted than before.

    Well, I doubt it, fuckhead.

    Next is all the bad language.

    Clutch your pearls for all they’re worth. My God, bad language. The idiot can lie his ass off, but a few bad words and he’s gasping for breath.

    Do you all really think that makes you sound intelligent or more like the stupid playground bully that has no brains so he bullies kids to make himself feel good?

    As nothing intelligent works with an idiot like yourself, we try treating you to the names you deserve, fucking moron. You’re contemptible garbage, what you claim we are without any evidence–you provide plenty of evidence of what you are, however.

    When someone wants to be respected, like in a job interview, they don’t speak like that because they will never be respected or even sound intelligent.

    You came in whining and lying. Had you tried for intelligence, you’d have gotten it. If you’re a complete asshole, which you are, you get treated like a complete asshole. Maybe not always, as some will try to get through your hatred and stupidity, but I’m afraid that I have dealt with your type of assholery too often to treat it as anything but what it is.

    They sound like immature fools.

    You sound like a moronic tone troll, whining about your delicate ears in order to avoid substance. Odds are good that this means you’re a moronic tone troll, idiot boy.

    Glen Davidson

  289. says

    The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    Maybe if we beat you with a rod /snark

  290. John Morales says

    [meta]

    YYMJ:

    I don’t even think I could simply find time to just read them, let alone respond. What do we do?

    You could start by dropping the royal “we”.

    (The real “we” read the damn comments, then respond)

  291. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    Will Duffy also said:

    Isn’t it quite curious that you all agree in such harmony that Bob and I are wrong? How does that work exactly?

    Well, basically, if you say things that are the opposite of what is verified in reality, you’re wrong. Not exactly rocket science.

    PS: I remember now you’ve still not said what exceptional phenomenon happens at conception that turns a simple human cell into a person. Perhaps you’d like to elaborate a bit more on this topic.

  292. A. Noyd says

    YesYouNeedJesus (#320)

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. [a] One, the anger…. [b] Next is all the bad language. …[c] They sound like immature fools. …[d] I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong. …[e] He has had the opportunity to debate the likes of Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and others because of the size of his audience and he’s the one promoting the debates, not them.

    a) The “anger” is addressed in the comments above yours. Get reading.
    b) If you don’t like the language here, then fuck off.
    c) No one is going to take lessons on appropriate adult behavior from an evasive, lying, willfully ignorant sack of crap like you.
    d) The basis for atheist morality is addressed in the comments above yours. Like, almost immediately above. Get reading.
    e) Why creationists tend to do well in debates is also addressed in the comments above yours. Get reading.

  293. ichthyic says

    Then there’s all the accusations that Bob and I are liars and deceivers and child abusers, etc., etc., etc

    I note you didn’t include the word “baseless”, at least you’re that tiny bit honest, since you and bob have lied endlessly over the last 2 days, and we have exposed them over and over and over again.

    yes, they are accusations. accusations that are demonstrably shown to be accurate.

    in a court of law, there would be zero doubt of your guilt.

    Isn’t it quite curious that you all agree in such harmony that Bob and I are wrong? How does that work exactly?

    evidence. something you obviously don’t understand the meaning of.

    Bob is nationally recognized for theology and abortion

    and we aim to make sure all those people know that Bob SHOULD be nationally recognized for LYING about theology, abortion, and science.

    you guys have given us TONS of ammunition here, so thanks for that.

    He has had the opportunity to debate the likes of Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and others because of the size of his audience

    leave it to morons like yourself to think this is all about a popularity contest. This is why you’re doomed to inevitable failure.

    Bob is slowly becoming more and more recognized in the Creation science movement and would be, at the very least, a formidable opponent

    From what he has posted here, I can’t argue that at all. Bob indeed is a formidable opponent to the Creation “Science” movement.

    doubtless the irony of your own statement will be lost on you though.

    I guarantee that if Bob was wrong, he will admit it. That’s the sign of an honest objective person.

    The only correct thing I have ever seen you utter here, since it’s blatantly obvious to anyone who reads this thread that neither of you ARE honest, objective, people, so we indeed should never expect any kind of admission of being wrong from you.

    both of you are fucking sociopaths.

  294. hotshoe says

    You need a rod to your back, fool.

    Omitted by mistake from last post. That place is disgusting and full of violent authoritarian thugs.

    Whaddya expect, it’s full of christians. Thugs and terrorists in sheeps’ clothing.

    Our little Bobbie is just one of the paid examples. The rest of them commit their thuggery for free.

  295. Tim DeLaney says

    Phalacrocorax @ 309:

    Thank you so much! As embarrassing as the episode was at the time, I am grateful for this window on the naive layman that I once was. That very moment was the beginning of a long journey for me. It’s a little like witnessing my own rebirth.

    I have searched the internet in vain for the answer that was printed in the South Bend Tribune, but even now I believe it was reasonably well done. Note that Enyart didn’t quote a word of it during that phone call, so there were no obvious gaffes in it. Note also that I didn’t protest when Enyart implied that I was godless. In fact, that phone call was the start of my own personal OUT campaign.

    The video solves one mystery for me: apparently Jerry what’s-his-name (It wasn’t Bergman) gave me a heads-up that Enyart, whose name I was happily unaware of until then, was going to talk about me on his show. I’d guess he phoned me, but I really don’t remember. Suffice to say that the two of them set me up, and I took the bait.

    I suppose I should thank Jerry X and Enyart for the episode, in spite of their base motives. I am astounded that you were able to unearth this obscure video. Again, my thanks.

  296. John Morales says

    [meta + OT]

    YYMJ:

    Next is all the bad language. Do you all really think that makes you sound intelligent or more like the stupid playground bully that has no brains so he bullies kids to make himself feel good?

    “bad language”? Bad language is that which is ambiguous, or incoherent, or irrelevant.

    Oh, you mean forthright language.

    (Yeah, forthrightness is so very, very bad!
    We should be mealy-mouthed and insincere…

    <snigger>

    Hey, prude, the fainting-couch is over there.)

  297. ichthyic says

    again, my apologies to RipleyP at 321, for unintentionally mixing in his post with that lying sack of shit just above his post.

    somehow, I thought it was part of the duffster’s post, and I thought he was attempting sarcasm.

    I should have known better.

    The duffster is not capable of sarcasm.

  298. No One says

    Ichthyic:

    “So good, in fact, one can’t help but think it’s damn near a cry for help.

    but if it is, it’s a cry for help from someone who is screaming so loud, they can’t hear how to help themselves.”

    Yes the doors often slam shut quickly don’t they?

    Bobby if you are reading this pay attention…

    We see you.

    Do you understand?

    We – See – You

    Now knock it off.

  299. GODISNOWHERE says

    Isn’t this really all about opposing world views and the faith that “I’m right and he’s wrong”? Example: It is common knowledge that the geologic time scale (Hutton, Lyell, Smith) is found only in textbooks and the minds of those willfully lying to themselves about the age of the earth and the story that the earth’s strata is telling. What is not so common knowledge is the reality that some scientists, clamoring out of their ethical quandary on the earth’s strata, are beginning to speak the truth about this. This article I read is but one example of many; J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy”, American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47. Who knew, that geologists are “assuming” that sedimentary layers represents a long period of time, typically millions of years? Who knew that geologists built upon this “assumption” on the foundation of Uniformitarianism? If we want to get real Mr. Myers, why not admit that Lyell didn’t have the world’s largest backhoe at his disposal to test his theory, and thus held to his faith in millions of years? That’s religion, not science.

    Just exactly what is the kool-aid flavor of the month here on pharyngula? A rational response, regardless of the opposing world view is a better study of the facts and ideas over insults and disparaging remarks. Perhaps I expected too much of those still evolving.

  300. ichthyic says

    Now knock it off.

    naww, he won’t.

    there’s only one way to shut down a sociopath:

    hound them with their own lies, continuously, in public, until their credibility is utterly destroyed.

    In bob’s case, this should actually be easy, since he supposedly has a large audience.

    something like a website called:

    BOB ENYART IS A LIAR .org

    and just post the very things he himself has said, and the corrections should work.

    love to see him try and sue for libel.

  301. Anteprepro says

    Entertaining that Content-Free Willy would complain about bad language when he called me a “fuckwit” in the previous thread for not being aware of a paper that he never mentioned. Am I entitled to a fainting couch moment now? Heavens to betsy, such salty language from a professed Jebusite! What a bad example to set for the children that are undoubtedly watching, hoping that their hero, the Holy Crusader, Willary Duff, will show those terrible, evil, bad, angry atheists what-for with his profoundly incorrect assessments of anything and everything. You have made them all weep by cussing on the internet. For shame, Doofy. For shame.

  302. ichthyic says

    Isn’t this really all about opposing world views and the faith that “I’m right and he’s wrong”?

    no.

    it’s about whether you make decisions based on evidence and observable facts, or lies.

    unless you want to call living by lying a “worldview”.

    I call it a treatable mental condition.

    Just exactly what is the kool-aid flavor of the month here on pharyngula?

    it looks like you’re here to provide it for us, based on your post.

    seriously though, this thread has already had all the crazy it can stand.

    maybe you can save yours for the next thread?

  303. RipleyP says

    to Ichthyic

    I am pleased to accept your apology and no offense was taken. We all have those days.

    I did find the response interesting and although I would be tempted to disagree with your response in total, your observation in connection with projection is possibly accurate. I am happy to give that some thought and I shall watch for it in future.

    I would hazard to explain the incident by suggesting you suffered a reaction similar to mine at the response from heckle and Jekyll, I found banging my head on the desk in frustration at them had some temporary detrimental effect on my cognitive functions.

  304. says

    Bob is nationally recognized for theology and abortion

    “Bob Enyart raised eyebrows in Christian circles in the past few years for his controversial abortion based theology. Contrary to many Christians views, Enyart is known FOR abortion and has vigorously promoted it as a sacrament.”

  305. ichthyic says

    Willary Duff

    Content-Free Willy

    Doofy

    I see wut u did there.

    and my Final Jeopardy question is:

    Who are characters or actors portrayed in Disney Movies?

  306. raven says

    YYNJ the troll moron:

    I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong.

    At Safeway, aisle 2, right next to the frozen foods. That’s where most xians get theirs too.

    One of the worst places to get your morality is the bible. What a horrible book of misogyny, slavery, and other outdated rules. According to the bible you can sell your kids as sex slaves, have as many wives and sex slaves as you can round up, and stone your disobedient children to death along with sabbath breakers, false prophets, and heretics.

    Anyone living an Old Testament lifestyle today would end up doing multiple life sentences in prison. Warren Jeffs of the FLDS tried it and got life + 20 years.

  307. ichthyic says

    I would hazard to explain the incident by suggesting you suffered a reaction similar to mine at the response from heckle and Jekyll, I found banging my head on the desk in frustration at them had some temporary detrimental effect on my cognitive functions.

    *puts finger on nose*

    while I was banging my head on the desk, the screen moved down a line and obscured that I had moved on to your post instead of the duffster’s.

    that’s my answer, and I’m sticking to it.

  308. hotshoe says

    Dear God Is Nowhere

    Unless you prefer to be tainted by choosing to side with convicted criminal christians like Bobbie and his minion little Willy (YYNJ) then I advise you to go away while you still can.

    If you choose to roll around with those pigs, it’s not going to be our fault when you get shit in your eyes.

  309. ichthyic says

    already, if you type:

    bob enyart is a liar

    into google, this thread pops up number 4.

    keep going, folks. Swell this thread to bursting; goad Bobby to come back and tell us yet more lies.

  310. hotshoe says

    there’s only one way to shut down a sociopath:

    hound them with their own lies, continuously, in public, until their credibility is utterly destroyed.

    In bob’s case, this should actually be easy, since he supposedly has a large audience.

    something like a website called:

    BOB ENYART IS A LIAR .org

    Don’t forget our own little YYNJ – real name Will Duffy – who is also a liar and a christian terrorist.

    WILL DUFFY IS A TERRORIST.

    Pass it on.

  311. No One says

    Willy;

    “The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue.”

    Yes sincerity can appear to be anger or “breaking convention” to the insincere.

    We-see-you-too-willy.

    Hiding behind your finger doesn’t work unless everyone in the room agrees it does.

  312. raven says

    Godisnonexistent:

    Isn’t this really all about opposing world views and the faith that “I’m right and he’s wrong”?

    NO. That is just a common lie of fundie xian death cultists. Science isn’t a religion.

    BTW, most xians don’t have a problem with evolution, the Big Bang, or the age of teh earth being 4.6 billion years old. There are far more than 2 “wordviews” and yours is just a cult fundie belief. It’s also scientifically wrong.

    The rest of your gibberish is just more lies.

  313. Anteprepro says

    ichthyic: Funny, I didn’t even notice that my insults fit into a pattern. Sweet.

    GodisNowhere: “Who knew, that geologists are “assuming” that sedimentary layers represents a long period of time, typically millions of years?”

    They “assume” that those layers represent those “long periods of time” because those are the time frames generally indicated by radiometric dating techniques. If you want to debate the merits of that, that is a whole different debate for you to be pathetically wrong about.

  314. raven says

    The latest batch of sociopaths, psychopaths, and pathological liars shows one thing clearly.

    If xianity was true, they wouldn’t have to lie all the time.

    Enyart, Duffy, and Godisnonexistent are the death rattles of xianity. About all that is left to defend the religion are mentally sick, evil creeps like them.

    Contrary to their claims, US xianity is dying, killed off by the fundies. According to the NCC, last year 1.5 million people left the religion.

  315. ichthyic says

    Enyart, Duffy, and Godisnonexistent are the death rattles of xianity

    they are some of many who seem hell-bent on destroying the last shreds of credibility xianity ever even attempted to laid claim to.

    It’s like watching that Python skit: Twit of the Year, but for REALZ!

  316. says

    It’s interesting that before there was radiometric dating techniques, geologists figured out the world was old. And before evolution, geologists were able to use fossils in order to find relative ages between geological strata. It’s even more interesting that there are multiple techniques and tools for relative and absolute dating that creationists still harp on about uniformitarianism.

    Again, to come back to post #297, this is just arguing over the existence of God dressed up in the pretence of scientific inquiry. It’s not like creationists who go on about uniformitarianism reached this conclusion through studying geology – so we live with another red herring straw man being brought up again and and and again and again by people who are really arguing that their God really really does exist!

    Again, the greatest sincerity brings forth intellectual dishonesty.

  317. raven says

    GodisNonexistent:

    GodisNowhere: “Who knew, that geologists are “assuming” that sedimentary layers represents a long period of time, typically millions of years?”

    They assume no such thing. They know they are.

    This was known centuries ago. By rates of sediment deposition, rates of erosion, changes in the fossils contained in them, and so on. How else do you get fossil coral reefs on top of the Rockies.

    The discovery of radioactivity and radiometric dating confirmed what was already known and allowed actual numbers to be assigned.

    GodisNonexistent is scientifically illiterate.

  318. ichthyic says

    so we live with another red herring straw man being brought up again and and and again and again by people who are really arguing that their God really really does exist!

    yup.

    one might almost be concerned as to whether the red herring has become an endangered species, given how much creationists like to throw them out like popcorn.

  319. says

    one might almost be concerned as to whether the red herring has become an endangered species, given how much creationists like to throw them out like popcorn.

    It’s like worrying that we’re running out of pigs because we eat them. Red Herring farming, as far as I can see, is a booming industry.

  320. Tim DeLaney says

    YesYouNeedJesus @ 320:

    Tim Delaney, I want to get back to you …

    Back in 1994 (give or take) Enyart was eager to “debate” with me on air to the extent that he had his minion, Jerry What’s-his-name (Not Bergman) telephone me to goad me into calling in to his show. (See post # 342 for details)

    Now you’re telling me that Bob Enyart is too famous and too important to take notice of me? Is that the message of your post @ 320? Please spare me the condescension. I knew about Bob when he was just a random Christian twit broadcasting from a tiny studio on South Ironwood drive in the backwaters of Northern Indiana. So, don’t give me the “nationally prominent” bullshit.

    Bob Enyart is no ‘Mike Tyson’, and I’m not an eighth grader any more. My offer (more details upthread) stands. Put up or shut up.

  321. No One says

    Heraclitus figured something was going on when he observed sea fossils on the top of mountains about 500 BC or so. So the observations and conclusions Lyle made had an empirical “spark” that started at least 2500 years ago.

    Sorry “godisnowhere” no cookie.

  322. amphiox says

    I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong

    From the exact same place that Christians do. The place that tells Christians that the bible is moral and should be followed when it tells them to “love thy neighbor” and which tells Bob Enyart that the bible is immoral and should not be followed when it tells him to murder your children when they give him lip (so he beats them with a belt instead).

    The same place that all humans do.

  323. ichthyic says

    Bob Enyart is no ‘Mike Tyson’

    oh, i dunno, they have a lot to compare:

    abusive personalities
    habitual lying
    chewing on ears…

  324. amphiox says

    A rational response

    What you see here IS a rational response. Not that the idiot writing those words would recognize rationality if it smacked him upside the head with a frozen salmon.

    why not admit that Lyell didn’t have the world’s largest backhoe at his disposal to test his theory

    I wonder if this idiot realizes that Lyell lived like 200 years ago, and that subsequent to his pioneer work, LOTS of researchers utilizing LOTS of backhoes, (and plenty of other things) thoroughly tested that theory and confirmed it?

  325. ichthyic says

    KEN HAM RAPES PIGLETS!

    (sorry, just felt the need to add that one in there, for posterity)

    GOATS ON FIRE!

  326. Owlmirror says

    And Eugenie flubbed her genetics prediction,

    Except that she did not.

    and genetic science has vindicated the prediction of the Bible thumper (me).

    Nonsense.

    From her atheistic worldview, Eugenie made a philosophical argument that a Creator would not fill our DNA with mostly junk. Of course other than the relatively few gene segments that code for the 20,000 or so proteins in the human body, the widespread evolutionary claim of the 1990s was that the rest of the genome was probably mostly junk without function, which is why the evolutionary world called it Junk DNA.

    Which is true. Most of the rest of the genome is junk.

    Today it is estimated that the so-called Junk may contain a million other functional, regulatory segments.

    That number — “a million other functional, regulatory segments” — looks suspiciously high.

    Is that estimate made by people who actually know anything about genes or regulatory DNA?

    So TH, on just this ONE POINT of the debate, would you agree that the creationist point was closer to “reality,” as I argued, that IT WAS TOO EARLY IN GENETIC SCIENCE TO SYSTEMATICALLY DISCOUNT THE NON-CODING SEGMENTS OF DNA AS JUNK? Who was right on that ONE POINT TH, the creationist, or the evolutionist?

    The evolutionist, of course.

    The current estimate of known junk is 65% of the genome — which means that even if the rest of it were magically to be found to be functional, the assessment that “the rest of the genome” being “probably mostly junk without function” was correct, and still is correct.

    ==========

    Yes, sally you reject our understanding of the evidence, but regardless of that you might want to consider that the Bible says repeatedly that there is EVIDENCE for God everywhere.

    The bible also says that this supposed God created all the animals both before man (Gen 1) and also after man (Gen 2), and implies that insects have four legs (Lev 11).

    There’s no reason whatosever to believe that what the bible says is true, especially when it doesn’t actually provide any evidence.

    ===========

    By the way, Shermer denied that the Bible was correct when it stated that the sun should not be worshipped because it is not a god, but rather, that the sun is a light. Illustrating the difficulty debating atheists when they’re hesitant to admit to even the most obvious common ground, Schermer famously replied, “The sun is a not light.” 8-28-03

    The bible famously says: “There is no God” (Psalms 14). So if you believe the bible, you should be an atheist.

    Or in other words, if you get to quote-mine out of context, so does everyone else.

    ===========

    Yes, especially since she claimed in 1998 that science had progressed sufficiently to unreservedly declare that the non-coding sections of the genome have no function. That was our primary disagreement regarding the evidence, and I’m sure that you would agree that history has judged Eugenie wrong, and the creationist right, ON THAT POINT. No?

    No. You had no idea what you were talking about; Eugenie did.

    ===========

    Samuel, do you agree with the circular reasoning of those Darwinists who maintain that regardless of any claimed scientific evidence or argument, creationists should not be allowed to publish, and then use the fact that they haven’t published as evidence against them?

    Heh. Creationists should not be allowed to publish in peer-reviewed science journals because they have no empirical evidence for their claims, and use logical fallacies in their reasoning, and are fundamentally dishonest, and the fact that they have not published in peer-reviewed science journals is held against them because it highlights the simple fact that creationists have no evidence for their claims, and use logical fallacies in their reasoning, and are fundamentally dishonest.

    The point being that creationists have no evidence for their claims, and use logical fallacies in their reasoning, and are fundamentally dishonest. This is the cause of their lack of peer-reviwed science papers, and is what is held against them.

    ============

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    Or in other words, if an event for which there is no evidence of having occurred could be shown to have not occurred?

    For then, Christianity would be false, and I would still be in my sins with no hope for eternal life.

    What, what?

    If Christianity is false, then why would you be “in your sins”? The very concept of sin in Christianity is predicated on Christianity being true.

    Do you not care that your theology is even more senseless than your science?

    ===========

    Christians generally, I think, are better able to look at both sides of the evolution debate. The evidence for this is that millions of Christians accept evolution. Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation.

    Millions of Christians accept science based on empirical evidence and sound reason. Good for them.

    Atheists cannot tolerate claims and arguments that have no empirical evidence and use fallacious logic and intellectual dishonesty. Good for us.

    I see no problem here.

    whereas it seems obvious that very few evolutionists seriously consider creationist rebuttals.

    Creationist “rebuttals” are either based on fallacious logic, or are dishonest in some way. They cannot be seriously considered.

    That makes it look like the atheists are on the closed-minded side.

    It’s quite right to close one’s mind to bad logic and intellectual dishonesty.

    Because even if the creationists are WRONG, they may be the only ones who would force a look at erroneous assumptions that might be built into the accepted Darwinist dogma.

    That’s silly. Creationists are wrong, and refuse to question their own erroneous assumptions (or when they do question them, they stop being creationists, as noted in the anecdotes above)

    ========

    As for me, I have an Errata link on my homepage to a running tally of the biggest errors that I’ve realized I have made.

    Something tells me you won’t do it with my proof above aboue Eugenie being right and you being wrong. You’re too proud of it; you have too much invested in it.

    ========

  327. ichthyic says

    I have an Errata link on my homepage to a running tally of the biggest errors that I’ve realized admitted I have made.

    fixed, you fucking liar.

  328. ichthyic says

    The current estimate of known junk is 65% of the genome

    one thing that should be added here is that is for the HUMAN genome, which has already been entirely mapped.

    other genomes have MUCH MORE junk in them; some over 90%.

    so, unless a creationist wants to play the game of answering why God would add more junk to some genomes than others….

  329. Ermine says

    Wow.

    Welcome to another stirring episode of Creationist Bullshit!

    Welcome, QuietPanther! It’s been over a decade since I made the same discoveries you’re making now, ten -wonderful- years of learning the wonders of the real universe. The anger is likely to remain, tempered with time but always ready to flare into life again when another knotheaded, willfully-ignorant creationist starts to vomit out the same tired apologetics. The joy of discovery can be with you always, as long as you keep exercising that mind of yours.

    I too was quite devoutly religious, from a family of 9 children, (That might give some idea of the religiosity right there), and I even spent a couple of years as a traveling minister. Then I came home, found the internet – and a whole new world was opened to me!

    @YesYouNeedJesus:

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    That’s one hell of a lot of fail for one tiny paragraph. And you’re an -expert-, with the Supreme Being and all His angelic hordes at your back? You have got to be kidding me. This is pitiful!

    First, you admit that you didn’t actually read all the posts, you just “skimmed” – but everyone is displaying too much anger, huh? One or the other statement is a lie, but when they come right after one another, what they really make clear is that honesty really isn’t one of your strong points, is it?

    Second, you think anger isn’t rational when one discovers that they’re being lied to? Lied to blatantly and often, in big obvious ways that are immediately pointed out but totally ignored by the liar in question? Sorry, I don’t buy it, you’re just trying to shut us up.
    NO.

    You lied in your first post here, and you’ve lied again and again since. Your lies have been pointed out, and some of them, like the results of the mosasaur tests, clearly give the opposite results to those that you claimed. Not only did none of them actually advance your claims, but together they showed a clear rebuttal of one of your fundamental religious claims about the age of the earth, and you’ve completely ignored the question even after it was repeated several times and by several people (See #188, for instance). (Yes, even the lurkers notice how you’ve avoided answering that question. We’re not stupid, and creationist arguments are all old. We’ve seen ‘em before. We’ve got whole websites that debunk every creationist argument, point by point. The creationist websites won’t even mention the names of the science-based sites, much less actually link to them – and we see that, too. It all adds up – but religion doesn’t.)

    Anger is a perfectly natural response when you encounter a blatant liar castigating you for perceived faults. You don’t think that’s normal? Well, we already know something is wrong with you, don’t we?

    And so of course to you, the fact that any of the posters are angry is reason enough for you to feel all the more sure in your mindset. Plenty of reason to ignore the clear rebuttals of your claims, right? “What do you mean, my facts are just plain wrong? Can’t you see? – They’re angry!” That’s not an argument. That’s certainly not a reason to feel more secure in your mindset, especially when along with their anger, the other side also has an embarrassingly-high success record, something like the record flaunted by eeevil atheistic Science. Trust me, Science is not on your side. Coming here to try to bandy science with a scientist did not help your reputation or your cause! Fortunately, I think we’re all happy that you did though. Always nice to see the piranhas in the moat properly fed!

    Next is all the bad language.

    Oh nooooooooo! Baadd woorrds! They maliciously put letters in an order that I cannot tolerate! It makes my brraaiinn hurrt!

    It’s like kryptonite for you people, isn’t it? Except that it never seems to actually scare you away, you just whine louder and stay right here in the cesspool. Guess it wasn’t so bad after all, was it?

    Let me say it as clearly as I can – I prefer an honest guttermouth to the politest liar in the world. No wait! I can say it clearer!
    FUCK. YOU.

    Then there’s all the accusations that Bob and I are liars and deceivers and child abusers, etc.

    We’ve caught you in several lies in this thread alone. Bob was convicted for child abuse, was he not? See, this is what we have that the religious haven’t got – EVIDENCE.

    That’s all it takes, really. That’s why churches are losing members at an increasing pace all around the world right now. Science has the evidence. Religion doesn’t. And Science can prove it!

    I notice that neither you nor Bob has even attempted to answer the question directed at you in regards to C14 and the age of the earth. You’ve completely ignored a question that was asked clearly, repeatedly, and politely, putting the lie to all of your protestations about anger and profanity.

    I don’t buy it. From the look of the other responses, we don’t buy it. Don’t worry, we don’t really expect answers back from either of you. As usual, you guys are the religious kooks who fly in, kick the chess pieces about, crap on the board, then fly home to crow about victory. You just go right ahead and do so, but this time all your words and the immediate rebuttals have been recorded for other seekers to find.

    Thanks to responses EXACTLY like yours, I and many other seekers have reasoned our way to freedom. It’s for those seekers that I and many others have responded to you two tonight, and it’s for those seekers that we have hope for the future. QuietPanther has shown us all once again that these conversations CAN make a difference, and the statistics show us that we ARE making a difference – and evidence matters to us.

    -Ermine

  330. says

    @Tim DeLaney and YYNJ

    If the debate challenge ever actually goes through, I would be happy to host it on my blog.

    I don’t know if I really count as a “Pharyngulate” since I only heard about PZ a week or so ago, and my blog isn’t terribly popular nor much to look at … but if nobody else offers, at least it’s something….

  331. says

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    You know, there might be a reason for the anger – that the same fallacious creationist objections come up time and time again. Seeing people completely misrepresent evolution, biology, and science itself over and over, and to see the same refuted arguments again and again, by people who have no trouble labelling us immoral and evil; well, surely you can appreciate why there’s a sense of hostility.

    The funny thing is that no matter how strong your conviction is, or how “angry” opponents of your view get, the fact remains that your view has long since been discarded by scientific inquiry – and no matter how much you affirm your own conviction, your view will still have been discarded by scientific inquiry. How people react to someone espousing nonsense isn’t really the best gauge of the validity. Do you think the moon landing was a hoax because Buzz Aldrin punched someone confronting him about it? If not, then perhaps consider that hearing the same creationist nonsense time and time again isn’t going to be rewarded with milk and cookies.

    Creationism is scientifically dead, get over it.

  332. ichthyic says

    I think I have graduated from SIWOTI syndrome to CILOTI syndrome…

    a Creationist Is Lying On The Internet!

  333. ichthyic says

    Thanks to responses EXACTLY like yours, I and many other seekers have reasoned our way to freedom.

    Bravo, Ermine!

    your entire post is well said.

  334. tushcloots says

    Ermine, this freak accuses others of anger as if he doesn’t display any himself.
    Passive-aggressive. That is another form of anger expressed.
    How many of these do both of the cretins display?:

    The DSM-IV Appendix B definition is as follows:[2]

    A pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
    passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks
    complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others
    is sullen and argumentative
    unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority
    expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate
    voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune
    alternates between hostile defiance and contrition
    […]
    Signs and symptoms

    Chronically being late and forgetting things: another way to exert control or to punish

    Ambiguity or speaking cryptically: a means of creating a feeling of insecurity in others or of disguising one’s own insecurities.

    Making chaotic situations

    Making excuses for non-performance in work teams

    Obstructionism

    If YYNJ and Bobenyart displaying contempt for everyone here by lying to our faces, ignoring questions and proliferating red herrings, ah fuck, all of the above and more, isn’t viciously expressed anger then I don’t know.
    Their expression of anger is far more insulting, insidious, frustrating, and as you and others point our, dishonest.

    Speaking for myself(others probably agree), you two are sick fucks. You demand that others take you seriously and show you respect while spitting lies and evasions in our faces.
    You are fucking fools, and loudly drawing attention to that fact without even knowing it.
    Where does your subconscious hate for yourselves come from, anyways?
    ” Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.”
    From your Christianity to your refusal to answer questions directly or to even acknowledge them, from your projections to your persecution complexes, convincing people to agree with your flawed thinking in order to validate yourself, it is the full time purpose of your lives.
    Oops

  335. Tim DeLaney says

    Quietpanther@385 and YesYouNeedJesus:

    So now I have a more concrete proposal:

    The debate will consist of three 2000 word simultaneous essays on the question: “Is Young Earth Creationism true?” Each essay will be published on a weekly schedule to be determined by the participants. A final 1000 word simultaneous summary will be published by both sides.

    Quietpanther, and perhaps any other interested parties will publish both essays. The same applies to the Enyart team–choose your own web sites. Both sides will send, at a predetermined date and time, their essay to the opposition’s email list.

    What will it be, Duffy? Man up, or slink away?

  336. tushcloots says

    LMAO! That’s the funniest accidental submission I’ve ever done.
    Oops, all I’ve accomplished here is to verbosely state the already obvious fact that you are Christian: fantasy over reality is your MO!

  337. theophontes , flambeau du communisme says

    @ bobenyart #206

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    There is the clear implication here that you believe jeebus existed because you believe he rose from the dead. Do you realise, Bob, that there are hundreds of Sons of God that rose from the dead? The most famous of these being Attis. Why do you then believe in a noob-god like jeebus, rather than Attis? (or Dionysus – “Son-of-God” or Apollo -“The Light”& “Protect us from evil”? They where also born of a virgin with sperm donated by a father-god.) Like many year-gods, they where not only sacrificial, but also served as scapegoats that died for our sins.

    Have you ever asked yourself why Attis looks so much like your jeebus? More honest xtians than yourself have actually tried to answer this. Their solution: Satan reversed the usual order of nature, so that He could go back in time, so that Attis would pre-empt jeebus. Holy fuck, that is imaginative! What a sad lot of liers xtians have become since the early apologists. They lack both truth and imagination.

    If the question of Attis is to complicated for you, then answer my question at # 111 (Original question here) . Do you believe Joshua 10:13 to be true? Or is that just god lying again?

    @ ichthyic #316

    resorts to authoritarianism where knowledge fails

    You are being far to charitable here. It is not about whether or not their knowledge fails. Though this may often be the case (“why study when we gots teh babble”), the more likely scenario for the less gormless xtian is to reject even the knowledge that they do possess. They would rather turn their backs on truth than let go of their life’s lie.

    Also consider that the babble is an authoritarian guide-book. They like to quote the bible because, … well, … it is authoritarian.

  338. Guestspeaker says

    Then there’s all the accusations that Bob and I are liars and deceivers and child abusers, etc., etc., etc. I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong.

    Duffmeister…

    Isn’t it obvious that the primitive peoples who wrote the bible had some ideas of moral values before they wrote it? Isn’t it obvious that we would come to the conclusion about things like “hey, it’s not a good idea to kill and rape each other” without some book? And isn’t it obvious that the bible is chalk full of very bad moral teachings and examples? (slavery, rape, war, blood sacrifice, taking crap from people, etc)?

    How did Australian aboriginals treat each other so well (i.e. they are peaceful people, at least until the white man came along) and manage to live together for about 40,000 years with no Bible? Why is it that Europeans treated each other so badly for millennium? I am sure the aboriginals didn’t sanction torture in some dungeon as Europeans did during the inquisition in the name of “god”. Even groups of gorillas in the mountains help each other – it is advantageous to survival of primate species.

    Honestly, this tired old question of “well then where do you get your morals from” is idiotic.

    I DO know where you get your morals from, and it is a pathetic document written by bronze age sheep-herders. In fact, you don’t even follow the moral prescripts set out in it.

    Read The Moral Landscape or Stephen Pinker’s new books mentioned here: as our species becomes more educated and less dogmatic/ideological, we’ve become more peaceful. You, sir, are an ideologue, as is violent Bob.

  339. says

    I’m really late to this thread and I’ve only read to #129 so far but:

    1. Awesome Train of Reason running right over the cretinous… err, creationist nonsense in this thread so far.

    2. quietpanther is fucking awesome and I’m goddamned stunned how quickly his/her transition from mystical to critical seems to have occurred. Fucking inspiring and gives me hope for some of my extended family members mired in that bullshit.

  340. Alain says

    @Tim DeLaney
    How about:
    Paralyzes Ray (Comfort) Much
    A Purely Crazy (Ken) Hams

    Are you the same person here?

  341. alaingriffen says

    @Bob Enyart
    If you want to debate the modern (scientific) theory of evolution, please come up with an alternative (scientific) theory not an hypothesis.
    To understand scientific, please use and read Karl Popper and David Deutch [2].
    We will not accept ID as anything more than superstition/pseudoscience [2] as long as you haven’t quantified your concept of God.

    Resources:
    [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pseudoscience
    [2] http://youtu.be/folTvNDL08A

  342. ConcernedJoe says

    I posted this other site but in case Bob is interested:

    Bob Enyart so sciency and so truthy and so full of crap and useless in essence!

    But clever and cunning you are – not all of us can earn big bucks so easily. Easier to be critical than correct and all that rot. That I admit.

    Let me boil it down. You COUNT ON your audience to NOT see the fatal (to your body of work) flaw in your ramblings and protestations which is that YOU BRING NOTHING USEFUL TO THE TABLE – ZERO – NADA – NULLA. You do bring obfuscations, misdirections, miss-characterizations, and the like for the entertainment of your adoring fans and the enrichment of your pockets.

    Science through those that seriously and honestly practice it brings us closer to the truth and helps arm us with tools (knowledge and things) that can help us survive. Science knows and admits that it sometimes is making a SWAG. No problem it strives hard to honestly self correct and refine.

    You probably are a charlatan it seems to me, but at best you are a purveyor of WAGs, fantasies, and sophism designed to desperately support your chosen dogma and doctrine.

    I for one appreciate the work of real scientists and in general thank them for their work. We all should!

    ________________________

    Bob you know jargon, tidbits, and how to construct a pleasing populist position statement. That is NOT science in operation.

    For those Bob followers please try hard to understand this – really try:

    1. Science is basically proposal, destructive tests, measurements, results, and conclusions (which are in themselves proposals – and the cycle starts again)

    2. Given (1) science never claims the Truth rather only that its conclusions seem to fit observations and seem to work (e.g., reasonably explain phenomena and/or aid in prediction reliably)

    3. Nailing down every detail or having every detail correct is not essential to drawing useful correct conclusions. See “white box” and “black box” testing for example.

    4. Bob’s BS and obfuscations have been addressed honestly and adequately many times; he is not right in essence he just knows how to make a populist sounds right phrase appeal to his target audience. Take for instance his harping on the “the Sun is not light” so called error; layperson view “of course it is!” – scientist view “not so fast – more properly it is a generator of many things some of which are photons”; hope you get the drift.

    5. Science is complex, hard work, not always correct at any specific point in time; it entails much branch and bound logic (look it up); that is a GOOD thing; an HONEST thing.

    6. Bob brings NOTHING useful to the table – yet he claims superiority; that is why scientists are annoyed. Moreover his arguments (specifically and generally) have been addressed and nullified – many times – yet he continues to make them. That is immature or imbecilic at best, and dishonest otherwise. This is annoying to people who devote their lives to seeking honest descriptions and conclusions.

  343. Guestspeaker says

    @John Morales

    [pedant]

    “chalk full” → ‘chock-full’

    Thank you for the correction, kind sir. Pre-coffee brain fart.

    “Originally a person or thing stuffed to the point of choking was “choke-full.” In modern speech this expression has become “chock-full,” or in less formal American English, “chuck-full.” Chalk has nothing to do with it.”
    http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/chalkfull.html

    We can safely say that the bible, like our two creationist friends here, is choke-full, i.e. stuffed with ‘something’ (dare I say BS or foreskins?) to the point of choking (apparently unless you’re in the US, in which case it seems to be full of Chuck, maybe Chuck Norris).

  344. Iain Walker says

    GODISNOWHERE (#347):

    It is common knowledge that the geologic time scale (Hutton, Lyell, Smith) is found only in textbooks and the minds of those willfully lying to themselves about the age of the earth and the story that the earth’s strata is telling.

    This would be “common knowledge” in the sense of “shit I made up”, then.

    What is not so common knowledge is the reality that some scientists, clamoring out of their ethical quandary on the earth’s strata, are beginning to speak the truth about this. This article I read is but one example of many; J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy”, American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.

    An article which is about methodology and does not in fact challenge the established geological timescale (indeed, the whole point of the paper is to show other ways in which conclusions about deep time can be epistemically validated). However, it’s also a badly written article full of inaccuracies, so maybe you can be excused for drawing the wrong conclusion from it. Maybe.

    TalkOrigins fisks creationist misuses of O’Rourke’s article here.

  345. says

    Bobby and Willy keep crowing about how they “destroyed” Eugenie Scott in a debate, but the only specific bit they cite was on Junk DNA, right? And it appears that their whole claim about Scott being wrong on junk DNA is bullshit?

    I almost want to hear a recording of this “debate” now. I’m sure the totality of it is just as “convincing”.

  346. says

    YYNJ:

    I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong.

    Well, Will, where do you get yours?

    No. Seriously. I know you’re going to say, “From God,” but that isn’t an answer. That’s just a bundle of new questions, like, “How did you get them from God? How do you know it’s a good standard for right and wrong?” And so on.

    I can even predict the answers to these questions. “In the Bible,” and, “Because they’re from God,” respectively. There really isn’t a question I could ask that I don’t already know the answer you’re likely to give.

    Setting aside the epistemic problems, you have a metaphysical problem. The standard of right and wrong presented in the Bible is not a very good standard.

    And you know it.

    That’s why you pick and choose among the many, many laws presented in the Bible. That’s why you are selective about the bits you think are relevant or meaningful. I assume you don’t think the keeping of slaves is moral, yet the Bible is rife with rules for the keeping of slaves (both old and new testaments). I assume you believe a rapist should be tried and jailed, rather than simply fined 50 shekels by the woman’s father, or forced to marry the woman for life. I assume you don’t believe a person should be stoned to death for eating shellfish or sleeping with a menstruating woman.

    I assume you don’t believe that bats are birds.

    If you were truly devout, you’d follow the entire Bible, rather than just picking and choosing between the various bits and pieces you judge as moral.

    But then, you’re not truly devout, are you? You’re just a typical Christian hypocrite, willing to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you wish to use to justify your bigotry, you authoritarianism, your beating of children, your hatred of anyone not like you.

    And Willy? I’m not angry. Not in the least. I’m slightly repulsed by your corrupt morality, and my opinion of you is low, as you aren’t honest nor sincere. I think you are a petty dictator frustrated by your inability to impose your will on many people, which causes you to be petulant and demeaning. And I think you and Bob are very similar in all these respects. But I’m certainly not angry.

    You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

  347. ACN says

    I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong.

    Well, Will, where do you get yours?

    No. Seriously. I know you’re going to say, “From God,” but that isn’t an answer. That’s just a bundle of new questions, like, “How did you get them from God? How do you know it’s a good standard for right and wrong?” And so on.

    I love people like YYNJ, people who haven’t considered the dilemma of Euthyphro, people who haven’t considered that others have been thinking about “how ought we treat one another” and come to more meaningful conclusions than their the religious claim of “hur dur god said so hur dur”.

  348. Tim DeLaney says

    Alain @ 396

    @Tim DeLaney
    How about:
    Paralyzes Ray (Comfort) Much
    A Purely Crazy (Ken) Hams

    Are you the same person here?
    http://youtu.be/juIQB_6A3S4

    Those two are creditable tries (I actually toyed with the second) but a good anagram shouldn’t have explanatory text, and should be appropriate (as both of yours are).

    And, yes, I’m the voice in that video. You’re the second to find it–see post 309 and my reply at 342.

  349. alaingriffen says

    @Bob Enyart
    To directly respond to your question.
    No, the eye muscles are poorly designed.
    There is a condition known to every opthalmologist/optometrist called strabismus or (3D) stereo blindness.
    And there are Scientists like Susan R. Barry and Oliver Sacks who promote/endorse vision therapy.
    It covers at least 3 fields: (developmental) opthalmology (eye), physiology (eye) muscles and neurology (motor cortex and occipital lobe).

    The positive claim is an anecdotal book Fixing My Gaze by Neuroscientist Susan R. Barry featured in a single chapter by Oliver Sacks: The mind’s eye.
    1. Barry S. Fixing My Gaze: A Scientist’s Journey Into Seeing in Three Dimensions. New York: Basic Books, 2009.
    2. http://www.fixingmygaze.com/?p=4
    3. PMID: 21870913

    The skeptical side of this “vision therapy cures 3d vision” argument, is summed up in this post.
    1. http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/barry.html
    2. Worrall RS and others. Eye-related quackery. Quackwatch,
    3. Shotton K, Elliott S. Interventions for strabismic amblyopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Apr 16;(2):CD006461, 2008.
    4. Aziz S and others. Are orthoptic exercises an effective treatment for convergence and fusional deficiencies? Strabismus 14:183-189, 2006.
    5. Convergency Insufficiency Treatment Trial (CITT) Study Group. The Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial: Design, methods, and baseline data. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 15:24-36, 2008.
    6. CIGNA Medical Coverage Policy: Vision therapy/orthoptics. Dec 15, 2008.
    7. Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletin 0489: Vision therapy. Dec 18, 2009.
    8. http://www.srmhp.org/archives/vision-therapy.html

    superior oblique muscle intelligently designed
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=strabismus%20superior%20oblique%20muscle

    I’d love more papers on this subject since, I have this condition.
    Unfortenately, most are hidden from the public.
    However if you want to hijack this for religious propaganda, please keep it together with the bad stuff.

  350. lazybird says

    YesYouNeedJesus says:

    Isn’t it quite curious that you all agree in such harmony that Bob and I are wrong?

    Yes, it’s quite extraordinary. It almost seems like you actually are wrong. Your religion appears to be interfering with the learning process, why not try living without it for awhile?

  351. says

    lazybird says: #411

    Your religion appears to be interfering with the learning process, why not try living without it for awhile?

    I’m not so sure that would be a good idea. Will & Bob have both shown that they are incapable of even conceiving of behaving in an ethical or moral fashion without selected quotes from scripture to guide them. I’d hate to inflict that upon society.

    Please note that I’m not saying they have shown any signs of ethics or morality. But they clearly THINK they’re moral, and they clearly think that without their religious beliefs, all restrictions fly out the window.

  352. heliobates says

    @ConcernedJoe

    Bob you know jargon, tidbits, and how to construct a pleasing populist position statement. That is NOT science in operation.

    This whole “soft tissue” line of attack makes Bob’s cognitive restrictions clear. Bob isn’t just not getting it, I don’t think he has the mental flexibility to get it because for him too much depends on not getting it.

    He wants to say that C-14 dating of “soft tissue” must somehow invalidate the stratigraphic and radiometric methods used to date a “70 mya old Moasaur” fossil. In other words, these methods, with millions of data points in support of their utility and accuracy, with entire fields of practical applications from civil engineering to oil exploaration and mining, to atomic clocks, chemotherapy, radiation treatments… all of this stuff that works exactly as we expect them to in every area except, apparently, the age of the earth and the explanation for why life is the way it is.

    I’m not sure that creationists like Bob can voluntarily snap out of what an outsider to their worldview sees as willful ignorance and stupidity.

    The Bible contains most of their faith propositions and for those to be true, the Bible has to be inerrant. One unreconcilable error or contradiction and the whole thing comes crashing down. They have to deny, obfuscate or rationalize error and live with the cognitive dissonance. They have a heavy emotional and rational—yes rational—commitment to seeing things this way.

    Bob, when you try to bootstrap creationism with stunts like “soft tissues in fossils”, you’re not toppling the scientific worldview. You’re not asking the hard questions and holding “Darwinists” to account. No, the evidence you’re la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-ing over is more than some dry assertions in an academic paper, or chapters in a textbook. It’s your cell phone, your GPS, the computer you’re typing with, your microwave oven, the gasoline in your car, and even the radio equipment with which you trumpet your ignorance.

    It takes a special kind of mental resolve to ignore how our modern understanding fits together. Indeed, to ignore what’s right in front of you in favor of that which you just really, really want to be true takes something else entirely. And I think the word I’m looking for is “faith”.

  353. says

    Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation.

    Thus illustrating that it is a religious idea and NOT science.

    Better question; do you know what age the Hindus put on the Earth?

    I really want a Hindu creationist and a Christian to debate the age of the Earth, that way we can have a legit example of “the truth is somewhere in between”

    How many Chinese Buddhists have you convinced of Creation as you conceive it?

    That’s why I asked if you’d give up your religion if the challenge was met.

  354. says

    Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation.

    Nor talking snakes and virgin births.

    Oddly identical with the list that science calls nonsense (can Bob figure it out, though?).

    How bigoted of atheism!

    Glen Davidson

  355. theophontes, feu d'artifice du cosmopolitisme says

    @ heliobates

    Well said.

    I wonder if Bob realises that merely getting into his car (SUV?) and turning the ignition makes a complete mockery of his religious beliefs. He is so utterly naive of even the most basic science, that he fails to see how deeply steeped we are in science for every trivial detail of our contemporary existence. Every aspect of even his own daily life bears witness to his complete ignorance.

    But you know what Bob? You can get by just fine without worrying about the details because you have scientists and engineers doing all the thinking for you. You don’t even understand what it is you are attacking do you? The very technological society that gave you the soap boxes you stand on to spout your garbage. Religion really is like a societal cancer in this regard.

  356. amphiox says

    Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation.

    Oh really?

    Funny, but I do not notice atheism having any problem tolerating synthetic biology.

    Nor does atheism have any problem with the idea of future humans creating de novo lifeforms, or terraforming entire biospheres.

    Nor does atheism have any fundamental objection to the idea of aliens creating life on earth (Science rejects this one on the grounds of Occam’s Razor and lack of positive evidence, but Science and Atheism aren’t the same things).

  357. lazybird says

    The whole C-14 thing is coming from the Institute for Creation Research and their Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project:

    The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.

    Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.

  358. mitchelllee says

    Like Saul, Isaiah, and Micah, Perhaps Bob and Will just can’t do their best “godwork” with their clothes on. Maybe they need to show their willies to god before he helps them with their wisdom. That’s the way it worked with the prophets.

  359. bobenyart says

    Hello nigelTheBold, perhaps your biologist mom will agree to help us along with our discussion. That’d be great! She can help us evaluate your criticism.

    You wrote: “I wonder if your teleological language indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution? Or was it perhaps simply a slip of the (metaphorical) tongue?” And here’s the quote that you were criticizing, from the PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge:

    RealScienceFriday: “Darwin’s natural selection *could not choose THIS SLING CONFIGURATION until* it functioned minimally, routing the muscle through the sling.”

    We agree, nigel, that Darwinism argues that structures could come about by small changes to earlier versions of those structures, by incorporating components from elsewhere, etc. That’s what you’re accusing me of misunderstanding, but I think that I do understand that claim. We should ask your mom, but here’s what I think is the actual disagreement:

    What I said, which is not invalidated by the claims of Darwinian mechanisms, is that Natural Selection could not choose this SLING CONFIGURATION until it functioned minimally. The sling configuration adds to the survivability of the organism by improving its vision system. Sure, other forms and structures could be posited that could make one more fit, but that’s not the point. You should be able to agree that Darwin’s Natural Selection Could Not Choose This Sling Configuration (that is, THE RE-ROUTING OF THE MUSCLE THROUGH A LOOP) until it functioned minimally.

    Many evolutionists take issue with that statement, even though it is merely a re-statement of Darwinism regarding a simple anatomical feature.

    -Bob Enyart, RealScienceFriday

  360. lazybird says

    myeck waters, you’re probably right. It’s frustrating though, seeing people holding on to ignorance and superstition like it’s a life jacket, unaware of the toll it’s taking on them and those around them.

  361. ssully says

    Enyart:

    Respond to the point that even your C14 scenario results in an earth *tens of thousands of years older* than YEC dogma asserts.

    Who’s right, you or the Bible?

  362. says

    You should be able to agree that Darwin’s Natural Selection Could Not Choose This Sling Configuration (that is, THE RE-ROUTING OF THE MUSCLE THROUGH A LOOP) until it functioned minimally.

    Enyart: This has been answered a dozen times in this thread already. Continuing to spout a lie after it has been refuted doesn’t do you any good. It just makes you look like even more of a buffoon.

  363. says

    bobenyart:

    What I said, which is not invalidated by the claims of Darwinian mechanisms, is that Natural Selection could not choose this SLING CONFIGURATION until it functioned minimally.

    Do you understand what the word “teleological” means? I’m just curious, since that’s the bit of my post you quote, and then go on to restate everything you stated before without addressing a single point.

    Let’s simplify this.

    Do you agree that the “sling” might have been something else at one time? If I can come up with a logical scenario in which the sling might have been something else at one time, will you consider your challenge met? Or do you require it to be a sling at every step of the way?

  364. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Enyart, still no evidence for your imaginary deity, or that your babble isn’t a book of mythology. Without that evidence, all you have is presupposition, which is invariably wrong. Time to put up or shut the fuck up. But then, that requires honesty, intelligence, and integrity. All of which are missing from your ill-formed character.

  365. Gaebolga says

    bobenyart wrote:

    What I said, which is not invalidated by the claims of Darwinian mechanisms, is that Natural Selection could not choose this SLING CONFIGURATION until it functioned minimally. The sling configuration adds to the survivability of the organism by improving its vision system. Sure, other forms and structures could be posited that could make one more fit, but that’s not the point. You should be able to agree that Darwin’s Natural Selection Could Not Choose This Sling Configuration (that is, THE RE-ROUTING OF THE MUSCLE THROUGH A LOOP) until it functioned minimally.

    Many evolutionists take issue with that statement, even though it is merely a re-statement of Darwinism regarding a simple anatomical feature.

    Well, for starters, evolution doesn’t choose anything; it merely retains mutations that confer a breeding advantage (although even that is a highly simplified statement, since it can also retain neutral mutations, or even detrimental ones, given the right environment).

    But the big issue here is your claim that “Natural Selection Could Not Choose This Sling Configuration (that is, THE RE-ROUTING OF THE MUSCLE THROUGH A LOOP) until it functioned minimally,” and that said “function” is that “the sling configuration adds to the survivability of the organism by improving its vision system.”

    Assuming for the sake of argument that this “configuration” was retained because it conferred some breeding advantage, it does not necessarily follow that the “useful function” (to use your terminology) was the “useful function” we currently see (pun intended); that “configuration” (or even something only vaguely similar to the current “configuration”) could have been retained originally because it provided some other advantage that had nothing to do with moving the eye. And then, once retained, that “configuration” (or its vaguely similar antecedent) could have been “re-purposed” (to use the imprecise metaphorical language you seem to prefer) at a later date to provide the “function” that it currently does (or some aspect of that “function” which got progressively more and more refined through later mutations).

    This is admittedly mere speculation – which others have pointed out is unavoidable in this instance due to a glaring lack of actual data – but it is plausible.

    Your implied claim that this “configuration” was created by the biblical god is equally mere speculation.

    Unlike your claim, however, mine is based on theories which have actual, physical, verifiable data to support them.

    Yours, on the other hand, is based on the extensively translated writings of some goatherds who lived thousands of years ago (and whose writings were often mistranslated or miscopied (given the state of the art of both translation and book copying in the pre-Gutenberg world), which resulted in a number of conflicts – some of them violent – whose victors were assumed to be correct solely on the basis that they won that particular conflict).

    So at its core, your argument is that we should believe – absolutely literally – a book that was first was written more than two thousand years ago, over the course of hundreds of years, by multiple disparate authors, in multiple different languages, that was translated at least three times (at the absolute minimum, probably many more times than that for some sections), whose content was revised on multiple documented occasions for multiple different reasons (none of which were based on considerations of actual evidence), which contains contradictory accounts of events, and many of whose verifiable claims are demonstrably wrong…

    …over the findings of scientists working in the field in question who are examining actual data, testing actual theories, and using the principles of the scientific method – the very method which has led to the vast majority the technology we currently enjoy.

    Hmm.

    I wonder why you’re not getting anywhere with people who don’t already believe that your god-book-ledegook is literally true….

  366. Tim DeLaney says

    bobenyart @ 423

    What I said, which is not invalidated by the claims of Darwinian mechanisms, is that Natural Selection could not choose this SLING CONFIGURATION until it functioned minimally. The sling configuration adds to the survivability of the organism by improving its vision system. Sure, other forms and structures could be posited that could make one more fit, but that’s not the point. You should be able to agree that Darwin’s Natural Selection Could Not Choose This Sling Configuration (that is, THE RE-ROUTING OF THE MUSCLE THROUGH A LOOP) until it functioned minimally.

    “Gee whiz, I don’t see how X could evolve. Therefore it couldn’t have evolved.”

    Have you seen Penn and Teller’s “magic bullet” trick? I have, and the first reaction is that it just cannot be done. Flat impossible.

    “I don’t see how … ” is never a valid argument. Your ignorance, or PZ’s ignorance for that matter, does not constrain the working of natural selection acting on millions of creatures over millions of years, any more than it constrains what a talented pair of illusionists can do on a Las Vegas stage.

    In the biological world there are millions of structures, or biochemical pathways, or behavior patterns about which you could say the same thing: “I don’t see how … ” Your incredulity has no bearing on reality. Penn and Teller are still alive, having survived what the audience thought would cause instant death.

    So, don’t bother with these silly “challenges”. The prove nothing, except to the gullible.

  367. heliobates says

    “I don’t see how … ” is never a valid argument.

    so much depends
    upon

    the endosteally derived
    tissues

    glazed with
    biofilm

    beside the white
    lab coats.

  368. Happy Camper says

    Hay Bobby:

    You do realize that you and your gay friend are nothing more than chew toys here?

  369. says

    If you atheists are so smart when it comes to isotopic dating:

    D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) –> what does it mean?

    t=age
    D= Daughter isotope. Number of atoms present
    D(sub 0) is number of atoms of the D iso of the original comp..
    N= number of atoms in the parent isotope at the present time which is (t)…represented by N(t) = N(log–> variable btw))o(of)e-λt
    That wierd thing λ which is a metric measure of volume = decay constant.

    N cannot scientifically lean on (t) because (t) is TIME. what time? Where did you find this time!? (better question is who wasted their time with this…but Ill leave that one for the imagination) Answer is: No one found the time. Its MADE UP. Aren’t we trying to find the age it started decaying? so why is TIME DECAYING in this equation to find out when it died?? Its saying “I think its this old so..given the half life (and to be honest i question how they found the half life sometimes as well) of this objects chemical composition…I think its this old..” See how I (THEY) did that? Its CIRCULAR REASONING

    you cannot get (t) from N because you are already trying to find out when N DIED. (t) is the variable that assumes WHEN N DIED. Do you see the problem with this?

  370. says

    Tim DeLaney:

    So, don’t bother with these silly “challenges”. The prove nothing, except to the gullible.

    That’s what he counts on — a gullible, credulous audience. He preys on their ignorance.

    It’s just that, after all this time of gullible credulous bootlickers like Duffy telling him how amazing he is at science, he’s started to drink his own Kool-Aid™.

  371. Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism says

    Bob Enyart

    You’re correct that Carbon-14 is gone in only thousands of years. So evolutionists are shocked when modern labs find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old.

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    Shorter Bob Enyart: You aren’t doing legitimate science unless you have all the answers in advance like we do, and in order to falsify our claims you have to prove a negative!!!

  372. ichthyic says

    Bob Enyart, RealScienceFriday

    even the very title of your show is a lie, Bob.

    BOB ENYART IS A LIAR AND CHILD ABUSER

  373. ichthyic says

    You’re correct that Carbon-14 is gone in only thousands of years. So evolutionists are shocked when modern labs find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old.

    translation:

    EVERYWHERE = this little spot over here where I think the light is.

    bob, you really don’t get it.

    they didn’t find c14 IN THE MOSASAUR BONES.

    what does that fucking tell you???

    idiot

  374. ichthyic says

    You’re correct that Carbon-14 is gone in only thousands of years.

    lying again, I see, Bob.

    not THOUSANDS of years.

    TENS OF THOUSANDS of years.

    and even then, it isn’t “gone”, it’s that it’s half life is such that after about 50 thousand years (pushing that to 70k now I hear), there is too little of whatever c14 is left from when the organism was alive for us to be able to detect it any more.

    it’s clear you either are lying about (most likely) or completely ingorant of (or both):

    how radiometric dating works
    what c14 actually is and how it is formed in biological systems
    what the halflife of c14 is, and even what a halflife means
    how we detect c14
    why c14 does not work to actually age things that are millions of years old.

    among many other things you lie and are ignorant about, the above directly relates to why you fail so hard on this specific issue you have chosen.

    again:

    here is the question you simply REFUSE TO ANSWER.

    In all those studies you like to link to, WHAT DID THEY USE TO ACTUALLY DATE THE FOSSILS THEMSELVES?

    hint, since you seem so oblivious:

    NOT C14.

  375. Kemist says

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue. It’s actually strengthened my stance on the issue at hand.

    Even if anyone here is angry, how exactly does that make anything they might say wrong ? Or why does it automatically make them irrational ?

    And how the fuck can you know whether somebody is angry just from reading posts ? With the exception of actual threats of violence, I sure can’t.

    Use of colorful language or insults doesn’t mean that the person doing it is angry. Most here will do it just to pull on some pompous gasbag’s chain, and chuckle merrily as they do it.

    Seems to me xian “logic” sucks just as bad as xian “programming”, xian “science”, and xian “music”.

    Next is all the bad language. Do you all really think that makes you sound intelligent or more like the stupid playground bully that has no brains so he bullies kids to make himself feel good? When someone wants to be respected, like in a job interview, they don’t speak like that because they will never be respected or even sound intelligent. They sound like immature fools.

    But the thing is…

    ‘This be the internets, pwecious widdle cupcake.

    It ain’t a job interview or a science conference.

    It’s an argument with deluded cretins who don’t want to learn anything. You know – weekly entertainment. Target practice. New chew toys to keep our coats sniny.

  376. ichthyic says

    C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old

    LOL

    I just can’t get over how fucking stupid this is.

    Try this one, Bob:

    SUGAR IS EVERYWHERE!

    BUT IT’S MADE BY PLANTS! it shouldn’t be, if the earth is old!

    fucking idiot.

  377. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Bobby the Child Beater uses personal incredulity and ignorance as reasons to reject evolution. If he had a real argument, he’d use that, but since he doesn’t, it’s logical fallacy time.

  378. ichthyic says

    cannot scientifically lean on

    statements like that make you completely ignorable.

    you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

    save your crazy for a different thread, eh?

  379. synapse says

    Seems like an unholy union between a dishonest creationist and a wart-covered tone troll led to the manifestation of this YYNJ guy.

  380. Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism says

    Bob

    One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue.

    The anger is because people around here are rational on this issue. Some of the people here are real scientists, you moron. No one with an actual stake in science is going to like seeing liars impersonate our profession for the purpose of spreading misinformation to gullible people.

  381. ichthyic says

    btw, I’m sure this has already been mentioned, but lying Bob doesn’t want you to know that the majority of Christians have no problem with the age of the earth.

    for example, there is a classic website that has detailed explanations about how radiometric dating works, and it’s done by a Christian, from a “Christian Perspective”, even.

    It’s a good primer, for those who wanted to know more about how we date rocks and fossils.

    Make sure to read the section titled:

    Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Techniques

    and you will see the Bobster’s claims featured prominently there, even though this site was written many years ago.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

    for a more “cliff notes” version of the radiometric dating methods used, try this one:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html

  382. says

    It came from my crappy blog (that google refuses to index, so it hasn’t been updated in about two weeks.)

    This is what we’re dealing with people; the crux of YEC flailin’s and hootin’s…

  383. ichthyic says

    …for those that go there, I’d ask you to note what is missing from the second link.

    hint:

    it’s a website about how we date rocks.

  384. ichthyic says

    This is what we’re dealing with people; the crux of YEC flailin’s and hootin’s…

    yeah, I figured.

    you might want to make it clearer YOU didn’t write that next time.

    ;)

  385. amphiox says

    Bob Enyart’s post at 423 is just a complete word-for-word rehash of his earlier post without even attempting to answer a single one of the responses he got in between.

    Bob Enyart must also be a bot, it seems.

    Many evolutionists take issue with that statement, even though it is merely a re-statement of Darwinism regarding a simple anatomical feature.

    That’s because evolution =/= Darwinism, and evolutionist =/= Darwinist. (For that matter, what Enyart is implying to be “Darwinism” =/= what Darwin actually said or meant).

    Modern evolutionary theory is much more than natural selection as described by Darwin, and definitely much more than the caricatured, deliberately misleading oversimplification of Darwin’s thoughts and ideas that dishonest people like Enyart pretend to call “Darwinism”.

    Indeed I find the term “Darwinism” to be a useful litmus test. The moment I see it used in a debate regarding the evolution vs creationism/design (vs a detailed discussion of fine aspects of evolution or the history of evolution, where the term may in some cases be legitimately useful), I know the speaker is an idiot whose words are not worth taking seriously.

  386. says

    What I said, which is not invalidated by the claims of Darwinian mechanisms, is that Natural Selection could not choose this SLING CONFIGURATION until it functioned minimally. The sling configuration adds to the survivability of the organism by improving its vision system. Sure, other forms and structures could be posited that could make one more fit, but that’s not the point. You should be able to agree that Darwin’s Natural Selection Could Not Choose This Sling Configuration (that is, THE RE-ROUTING OF THE MUSCLE THROUGH A LOOP) until it functioned minimally.

    I really thought that irreducible complexity had taken enough of a conceptual hit (IC systems have a pathway to evolve), and enough of an empirical hit (Proposed IC systems has been shown to evolve) that the concept has been effectively abandoned.

    That people still persist with this logic is amazing. It’s an argument from ignorance; that we don’t have an answer doesn’t mean it didn’t evolve. Yet by making such arguments, all you do is show that your God is a substitute for human ignorance. An intellectual pyrrhic victory, provisional until such time as actual knowledge is found.

  387. amphiox says

    You’re correct that Carbon-14 is gone in only thousands of years.

    50 000 years (actually closer to 60 000 years).

    Which is actually plenty long enough for quite a lot of gradual evolutionary change. Indeed, in the actual 4.5 billion year history of the earth, there have been many periods of relative evolutionary stasis, and evolution proceeding at a much lower rate than what is theoretically possible. And indeed, we needed to find evidence of these periods of stasis before we could declare the 4.5 billion year age of the earth consistent with evolutionary theory.

    Still TEN TIMES LONGER than the creation theory’s postulated age of the entire universe.

  388. amphiox says

    Natural Selection could not choose this SLING CONFIGURATION until it functioned minimally

    You must define “functioned minimally”. Natural selection does not require the function to be any specific function, just some kind of function, any function, that benefited the organism. Functional co-option is a standard part of modern evolutionary theory. (“Darwinism” is now only a tiny piece of a now much wider and broader whole).

    And genetic drift is fully capable of choosing it, or anything else, with NO FUNCTION WHATSOEVER.

  389. amphiox says

    there is too little of whatever c14 is left from when the organism was alive for us to be able to detect it any more.

    Based on the limitations of our current testing technology. In theory, with infinitely sensitive detection technology, you really could use C14 to date hundreds of millions years, assuming you could figure out some way to wean out all the false positive background noise you’d get.

    Maybe one day, we will. Though probably not since we have better ways of dating that far back and thus no need to invest the resources into developing such insanely accurate detection mechanisms.

  390. raven says

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    I’d renounce my belief in “Bob the Rain God” if it could be shown that it doesn’t rain.

    Christofascist troll:

    One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue.

    No. It is evidence that we don’t like fundie death cult liars. Which is all of them. Most of the USA including the majority of other xians don’t either.

    NYT/CNN/CBS polls show that fundie xians and the Tea Party are two of the most hated groups in the USA. They earned it.

    As the magic book they never read says, “As you sow, so shall you reap.

  391. ichthyic says

    hmm, don’t know where my last post went.

    I’ll make a shorter version:

    Bob the liar says:

    C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn’t be if the earth were old

    which is based on the false premise that all c14 in the world was created when the earth formed, and has been decaying ever since.

    He’s already been corrected on that, many times. In fact c14 is being CONSTANTLY produced, as anyone can readily find out just by checking the damn wiki entry on c14.

    so, Bob, you have two choices:

    you either have a serious case of sociopathy, or you are just lying to try and make a buck.

    which is it?

  392. says

    A fable:

    There once was a number of people called creationists who doubted evolution because they were genuinely concerned that evolution didn’t explain important facts about life. A big issue that they presented was the evolution of mammalian ear bones from jaw bones, for which no reasonable gradual change seemed possible (to them, anyway).

    Duane Gish pounded on the issue in, what?, the 1980s?, for real.

    Since these people were concerned about the truth and not about their agendas, scientists answered them, and embryological and fossil data were presented to show how the ear bones did indeed gradually evolve into ear bones. Fortuitous discoveries even showed important previously-unknown details.

    Being intellectually honest individuals, all of the creationists from Gish to Bob Enyart looked seriously at the evidence, and concluded that evolution occurs. They’d challenged science, and, even though they have absolutely no evidence for their claims, science met the challenge, so that the creationists were duly impressed by what science could do, along with how evolutionary theory facilitates answering such questions.

    Continued in another comment

  393. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I love how Enyart and sycophant think they have something with respect to carbon 14. From the Wiki article on radiocarbon dating:

    Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument.

    In the environment, neutron capture by carbon 13 forms carbon 14, whether Enyart the fuckwit thinks his creobot buddy is right or not. Real scientists know better.

    ^{13}C(n,h\nu)^{14}C

    Link to dating diamonds in rock more than 100,000,000 million years old. Environmental contamination due to neutron capture by carbon 13. And I’ll trust a real peer reviewed scientific paper from Harvard over a flea-bag ignoramus preacher with a large mouth every day of the millennium.

  394. says

    Continuing from previous comment:

    Sadly, we know how different actual creationists are from such honest skeptics. Not one of the yammering dolts thought the slightest bit about how evolution triumphed, they just moved the goalposts and looked for something else that “evolution can’t answer.” Increasingly they’ve gotten to areas lost in the mists of time, where much knowledge has been lost, and for which there was never any realistic chance of finding fossils to show what occurred.

    There is, I suppose, some chance that the evolution of the trochlear pulley could be shown to have evolved via fossils (it’s not hard to imagine how it could have, since development of tissues is readily affected by other tissue development, with considerable plasticity), but what’s the point, really? These jackasses aren’t the slightest bit interested in an honest pursuit of the truth, only in casting aspersions upon truth and truth-seekers.

    Otherwise they’d be thinking about Gish’s “challenge” and how it was met. Notice what Bob Enyart wrote without any irony:

    And I have spent years on air seriously considering atheist counter arguments, and many times, conceding points, because if I have errors in my understanding, I am way more likely to be challenged on them from those I disagree with.

    Not rethinking his basically dishonest position, of course, only trying to hone his lies so that they can fool others better. To him, patching up lies is important, getting to the truth is not, save that it ends with his closed-off circular presuppositional “truth.”

    Glen Davidson

  395. hotshoe says

    In theory, with infinitely sensitive detection technology, you really could use C14 to date hundreds of millions years, assuming you could figure out some way to wean out all the false positive background noise you’d get.

    Is that so?
    I thought C14 content would reach an equilibrium between decay of any remaining original carbon and average formation of new C14 from environmental radiation sources. Isn’t this the reason why we expect to find tiny-but-measurable amounts of C14 in coal, etc ? The measurable amount is worthless for determining a million year age because there is no way, even in theory, to differentiate between the “old” C14 and the “new” C14.
    Or am I mistaken ?

  396. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The measurable amount is worthless for determining a million year age because there is no way, even in theory, to differentiate between the “old” C14 and the “new” C14.

    Yep, you can’t tell if it was formed last year, or before the body that was fossilized was buried. Parsimony (the Achilles heel of crebots/godbots) says environmental formation in situ is the answer.

  397. raven says

    Basically the fundies are confusing background C-14 levels with a signal.

    Because they are stupid, liars, dishonest, and don’t care.

    The background only starts being important when the C-14 levels originally from atmospheric sources start approaching their levels. Which is around 10 half lifes or 50,000 years.

    Which is about the limit that the technique can go back to.

  398. says

    Hey, Baaaah-aahb. (That is, “Bob” in a kind of child-like catcall.) I’ve simplified your challenge. Are you going to back it up in its simplified form, or are you going to run and hide? I mean, I don’t care either way, because I have you two moves from check-mate. I don’t care which way you run.

    You know why? Because I’ll spell it out right here how you’ve already lost the challenge, no matter which way you go. Not that I need to — other folks here have covered that bit. But I’m gonna do it just because I want it made clear that you have been beaten by one of PZ’s minions, someone who stopped his biology career in college in favor of physics and computers.

    I want to make it clear that you are a science fraud, based on your own challenge.

    “Real Science Fridays” my ass. “Made up shit to make me look good in front of ignorant saps” is more like it.

    You are a pathetic intellectual wannabe. I think you know it. That makes sad little sycophants like Will Duffy doubly-pathetic.

  399. amphiox says

    you either have a serious case of sociopathy, or you are just lying to try and make a buck.

    Not infrequently the second implies at least a mild instance of the first.

    I thought C14 content would reach an equilibrium between decay of any remaining original carbon and average formation of new C14 from environmental radiation sources.

    You’re probably right here. Maybe it might be possible to find a specimen in a particular set of circumstances where you could with high confidence rule out the possibility of new C14 formation (though I’m not sure if its even possible for any place/location/circumstance to be isolated from potential neutral capture….).

    Of course, even if such a circumstance were possible, we could just use Iodine-Xenon, or Potassium-Argon.

  400. amphiox says

    I’ll just pause to point out that in real life, C14 dating can be cross-checked with dendrochronology (tree rings). For every dating method we use, we try to have a second, different dating method to cross check, to increase our confidence in the measured dating.

    Tree rings, when daisy-chained, give us a record dating back over 11,500 years, and unlike radioactive clocks, which are accurate to a percentage (so the longer your half-life, the greater your error in absolute time), tree rings are accurate to the year.

    That’s two creationist universes, come and gone.

  401. David Marjanović, OM says

    Dinosaurs existed from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago.

    If you exclude the birds, which you really shouldn’t.

    Even if the dinosaur was dated to five fucking days ago

    It’s a mosasaur. Mosasaurs are squamates closely related to the snakes, and appeared no more than about 130 Ma ago.

    Google News sent me to PZ’s old blog, so I’ll copy my posts there to here…

    Yeah, unchanged, as if nobody had replied to them over there.

    That’s intellectually dishonest.

    Finally, according to Farish Jenkins Jr’s research:

    The primitive therian trochlea evolved by enlargement of the intercondylar groove separating the ulnar and radial condyles and by retention of part of the ulnar condyle mechanism.

    Basically, the trochlea was left behind as part of a mechanism in which the muscle passed through a bone, but the bone evolved away from that area. That is, if I understand the abstract.

    You don’t. “Trochlea” just means “smooth concave surface over which something moves”. The trochlea the article you cite talks about is in the elbow.

    And Eugenie flubbed her genetics prediction, and genetic science has vindicated the prediction of the Bible thumper (me). From her atheistic worldview, Eugenie made a philosophical argument that a Creator would not fill our DNA with mostly junk. Of course other than the relatively few gene segments that code for the 20,000 or so proteins in the human body, the widespread evolutionary claim of the 1990s was that the rest of the genome was probably mostly junk without function, which is why the evolutionary world called it Junk DNA. With creationists generally, I doubted that assessment, and so I countered that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. Today it is estimated that the so-called Junk may contain a million other functional, regulatory segments.

    Yeah, and taken together these segments amount to almost nothing.

    It is known today that most of the human genome is, in fact, junk. We know that it has no function.

    More than half of the human genome consists of retrovirus corpses in all stages of decay. Most of the rest contains nothing but repeating sequences – runaway copy mistakes. 10 % consists of pseudogenes – genes that are broken so they don’t code for a functional protein (and that’s not counting the viral pseudogenes, those are already counted). Much of the rest is introns. The total proportion of our genome that may have any function at all is 15 %, and much of that is probably useless, too.

    I keep talking about humans. How egocentric of me. Maybe you’d like to take the onion test?

    Soft tissue definitely wasn’t found. He does link to the truth, never mind that he lies in that paragraph. Here’s the real story (his link–no doubt he’s counting on the ignorance of his readers not to see how dishonest his statement (it’s his, whether he had some flunky plunk it out or not) truly is):

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/05/1001569107.full.pdf

    One wouldn’t even properly call it “biological material,” although it is inorganic remains of biological material.

    Oh, that? The authors don’t quite spell it out, but it’s clear what happened: as part of the decay process, sulfur from the feathers formed pyrite with iron from the surrounding water. (Some of the iron may have come from the feathers, too – from eumelanin, the black pigment, that is.) So, the original sulfur is still there, it hasn’t gone; that’s the big news. It also means that the original protein has rotten.

    Interesting how they misspell phosphorus almost every time they mention it. Folks, it’s not an adjective! Greek phosphoros means “light-bearer”.

    neutrino capture

    Neutron capture.

    If you don’t even know what the difference between a neutron and a neutrino is, it doesn’t make sense to explain to you how carbon-14 can form close to radioactive stuff like uranium ores or just granite, because you can’t tell if I’m actually explaining something or just feeding you treknobabble.

    Debates are not part of the scientific process…

    It seems like a stretch to pronounce all debate as unworthy of the scientific process. Haven’t you watched opponents vigorously debate one another on the pages of journals?

    On the pages of journals.

    In writing.

    With plenty of space to cite references.

    With no opportunity to commit a Gish gallop – that’s how it’s called when you just rain down lies and half-truths on your opponent faster than they can refute them, then say “you didn’t address [long list], so obviously you can’t, and I win”.

    Where every contribution is a full-fledged scientific paper – and is peer-reviewed like every other paper in that journal.

    With no limit on the number of participants. Every reader can submit a paper of their own; that’s part of the discussion.

    And so on.

    You really have no clue about science.

    Yes, especially since she claimed in 1998 that science had progressed sufficiently to unreservedly declare that the non-coding sections of the genome have no function. That was our primary disagreement regarding the evidence, and I’m sure that you would agree that history has judged Eugenie wrong, and the creationist right, ON THAT POINT. No?

    No. On the vast majority of the non-coding sections of the human genome, she was right and you were wrong: it was already known in 1998 that they’re retrovirus corpses, nonsense repeats and pseudogenes.

    Samuel, do you agree with the circular reasoning of those Darwinists who maintain that regardless of any claimed scientific evidence or argument, creationists should not be allowed to publish, and then use the fact that they haven’t published as evidence against them?

    You invented those people.

    If this is the type of debate you wanted, then why don’t you just participate? Journals are open to everyone. You don’t need a degree to participate. Anyone can send in a response.

    Just for the record, this is true. I’ve seen several papers by people who had a home address as their institutional address, and the very Jack Horner you phoned has an honorary doctorate which he got for his many years of doing good science without ever having written a PhD thesis.

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    This assumes that Jesus can be shown to have existed in the first place.

    Christians generally, I think, are better able to look at both sides of the evolution debate.

    “Both”? LOL. How about Old Earth creationism in its Christian and Muslim variants? How about Vedic creationism, which claims that humans – let alone the rest of the universe! – have been existing for longer than the universe is actually old? How about Scientology, which blithely talks about trillions of years?

    You haven’t understood the topic of what you believe you’re debating!

    Whereas atheism, of course, cannot tolerate Creation.

    That’s not true. What if this universe is a lab experiment in another universe? What if it’s a computer simulation? A creator need not be supernatural at all.

    And why do you confuse the origin of the universe with the origin of life on Earth?

    After a spanking of five swats on our son’s backside using a cloth belt from my wife’s dress

    That’s evil enough, really. I’m with comment 314 and 319.

    Even Dawkins admits in a video I link to that Haeckel’s drawings were faked and that today’s textbooks should not be propagating his error.

    “Admits”?

    That makes it sound as if he had previously claimed they were genuine.

    You’re again being dishonest.

    Well, this site is a tough one. I get home from work and have over 300 comments to respond to. I don’t even think I could simply find time to just read them, let alone respond. What do we do?

    You take all the time you need to read them, and then you respond. Very easy.

    We can wait.

    I skimmed the comments and a couple things stand out to me. One, the anger displayed by pretty much everyone. The anger is evidence to me that you all are not rational on this issue.

    :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

    Dude. We’re confronted with intellectually dishonest, evil people. How are we going to react? What do you think? Hmmmmmmm?

    Next is all the bad language. Do you all really think that makes you sound intelligent or more like the stupid playground bully that has no brains so he bullies kids to make himself feel good? When someone wants to be respected, like in a job interview

    Way to miss the point. We call a spade a spade and a demented fuckwit a demented fuckwit. Those of us who are professional scientists have even trained long and hard to do that.

    I would just love to know where you atheists get your standard for right and wrong.

    “If I do good, I feel good. If I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”
    – credibly attributed to Abraham Lincoln

    Isn’t it quite curious that you all agree in such harmony that Bob and I are wrong? How does that work exactly?

    Apparently it’s innate in humans (sociopaths excepted). Don’t you think?

    Besides, if nobody got angry at intellectually dishonest people, society in general and science in particular couldn’t work.

    Oh nooooooooo! Baadd woorrds! They maliciously put letters in an order that I cannot tolerate! It makes my brraaiinn hurrt!

    It’s like kryptonite for you people, isn’t it? Except that it never seems to actually scare you away, you just whine louder and stay right here in the cesspool. Guess it wasn’t so bad after all, was it?

    Let me say it as clearly as I can – I prefer an honest guttermouth to the politest liar in the world. No wait! I can say it clearer!
    FUCK. YOU.

    Seconded. :-)

    Even groups of gorillas in the mountains help each other – it is advantageous to survival of primate species.

    Not so much the species as the genes, but I digress…

    apparently unless you’re in the US, in which case it seems to be full of Chuck, maybe Chuck Norris

    So true, so true!

    the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past

    Sooooo… why didn’t the entire planet melt?

    Radioactive decay produces heat, you know. Energy isn’t capable of just disappearing.

    N cannot scientifically lean on (t) because (t) is TIME. what time? Where did you find this time!? (better question is who wasted their time with this…but Ill leave that one for the imagination) Answer is: No one found the time. Its MADE UP. Aren’t we trying to find the age it started decaying? so why is TIME DECAYING in this equation to find out when it died?? Its saying “I think its this old so..given the half life (and to be honest i question how they found the half life sometimes as well) of this objects chemical composition…I think its this old..” See how I (THEY) did that? Its CIRCULAR REASONING

    That’s stupid. You measure how much of the original element and how much of its decay product is present in your sample. The total is N(0); how much is still the original element is N(t).

    We aren’t “trying to find the age it started decaying”; we’re trying to find the age when the system became closed so that no parent or daughter isotope was added or removed anymore.

    100,000,000 million years

    Heh. Try again.

  402. David Marjanović, OM says

    In addition to dendrochronology, carbon dating can be cross-checked with CO2 from air bubbles in ice cores throughout its range. Inland ice accumulates in yearly layers as the snow falls. Greenland has 250,000 such layers. The deepest hole drilled into Antarctica has 800,000, and it doesn’t reach the bottom by far. Like tree rings, you can count the layers with just an eye and a finger.

  403. John Morales says

    [pedant]

    ‘has rotten’ → ‘has rotted’

    (rotten is an adjective too)

    Well, it’s not like I can dispute anything else DMFM has written, is it? ;) )

  404. Menyambal says

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    I like how that reads out as “if it were possible for it to be able to be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead”.

    If it’s falsifiable, he wants nothing to do with it.

  405. says

    John Morales:

    You don’t. “Trochlea” just means “smooth concave surface over which something moves”. The trochlea the article you cite talks about is in the elbow.

    Yeah. amphiox corrected me on the other Pharyngula. I am suitably chastised for my ignorance.

    Now, I am not as ignorant.

    (See how that works, Bob?)

  406. John Morales says

    [meta]

    nigelTheBold,

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. That wasn’t John Morales I was quoting. It was David Marjanović.

    Ah well, there’s a silver lining: Your embarrassment is my pleasure (as close as I’ve ever been to being compared to DM); fleeting and erroneous as it may have been.

    (Indirect praise, if not to you)

  407. ichthyic says

    …well, actually MISUSE, since he didn’t get that it was actually a base 4 counting system (typo in previous).

  408. says

    John Morales:

    Ah well, there’s a silver lining: Your embarrassment is my pleasure (as close as I’ve ever been to being compared to DM); fleeting and erroneous as it may have been.

    Oh, just shut your mouth. You are no slouch. You don’t need comparison to DM — you stand on your own.

  409. A. Noyd says

    amphiox (#454)

    You must define “functioned minimally”. Natural selection does not require the function to be any specific function, just some kind of function, any function, that benefited the organism.

    Isn’t it also the case that one or more of the less recent precursors to the sling could have been a byproduct of a change in function to a neighboring (or developmentally related) structure, allowing for a reduction or loss of function at the proto-sling site so long as the net change was beneficial? Meaning, its evolutionary history wouldn’t have to be a series of directly beneficial changes to function?

    ~*~*~*~*~*~

    David Marjanović (#471)

    More than half of the human genome consists of retrovirus corpses in all stages of decay.

    Obviously, god put those there to function as a measure of relatedness between species based on which corpses they share at which locations and their degree of decay. Oh, wait, that’s more evidence against god-did-it-ism, isn’t it? Whoops.

  410. says

    ichthyic:

    winning is vastly overrated.

    Well, by winning I meant, “Writing a factually-accurate post.”

    But by creationist terms, that’d probably be losing. So I guess it all depends on your world-view.

    BTW: you will not be able to withstand my nuts-to-your-fist style. How do you like it?

  411. Father Ogvorbis: It's Good for You. It Builds Character says

    One goddess that atheists cannot ignore is Teh Wholly Tpyos!

    Ah, I think that Tpyos is ondragoness androgoness ondrojoniss andronjanović androyges aeondraejonis both male and female at the same time.

  412. ichthyic says

    you will not be able to withstand my nuts-to-your-fist style. How do you like it?

    That’s a lot of nuts! That’ll be four bucks, baby! You want fries with that?

  413. ichthyic says

    Isn’t it also the case that one or more of the less recent precursors to the sling could have been a byproduct of a change in function to a neighboring (or developmentally related) structure

    yup.

    genetically linked traits.

    or developmentally linked pathways…

    any number of related things, really.

  414. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    Ah, I think that Tpyos is both male and female at the same time.

    Correct. But her true followers are required to misattribute a gender to her.

  415. Father Ogvorbis: It's Good for You. It Builds Character says

    Correct. But her true followers are required to misattribute a gender to her.

    But which gender is teh proper misattribution?

    (This humourous sidebar actually makes more sense than Christian theology. Even teh sophistimicated stuff.)

  416. Tim DeLaney says

    amphiox @ 468

    I’ll just pause to point out that in real life, C14 dating can be cross-checked with dendrochronology (tree rings). For every dating method we use, we try to have a second, different dating method to cross check, to increase our confidence in the measured dating.

    Just a few hours ago I ran into a claim by Enyart that bristlecone pines can generate several rings a year, which (surprise!) invalidates any dendrochronology that rely on this species.

    Bob, in his stupefying ignorance, doesn’t seem to understand that the “daisy chaining” relies on finding tree ring patterns that correspond to weather and climate changes. Of course, these are correlated across many species, adding another layer to the reliability of the method. But the kicker (for me at least) is that he conveniently omitted the fact that the dendrochronology of bristlecone pines has been used to calibrate C14 measurements. Of course this is exactly the point you made in the quoted text above.

  417. says

    Astronomical dating is an independent method that correlates with radiometric dating back to around 100 million years ago.

    There’s nothing really so boring as discussing the age of the earth with morons like Bob and Will. We have various cross-correlating methods for dating that clearly make the world far too old for their fantasies.

    I’ve never seen any of these dolts even address astronomical dating, but I suppose they’d claim that orbital and rotational changes were incredibly sped up like radioactive decay was (without leaving us with a high-helium atmosphere or sterilizing the earth with that heat), and by exactly the same amount, too. Because, you know, with God all things are possible, so who cares that something as different as dating from the effects of orbital and rotational changes yields the same dates within the error ranges (although better for more recent dates) as radiometric dating provides?

    Yes, God was awfully busy faking the various means of dating the age of the rocks, making sure that they’d agree so anyone who believes them could be sent to hell. Or it was Satan, one never knows whether it’s God or Satan with these people, since they apparently do about the same things.

    Glen Davidson

  418. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    Father Ogvorbis said:

    This humourous sidebar actually makes more sense than Christian theology.

    How can anybody deny the existence of Tpyos? Evidence for her is everywhere. Her blessed touch of confusion is present even in the Bible.

  419. raven says

    Tree rings, when daisy-chained, give us a record dating back over 11,500 years.

    Worse than that.

    We have living organisms that are several times as old as the fundie universe.

    The oldest well documented one is the Tasmanian holly which is the only one left of its genus and species at ca. 40,000 years old.

    IIRC, the oldest ice cores from Antarctica show 800,000 years worth of layers.

  420. Father Ogvorbis: It's Good for You. It Builds Character says

    Where do creationists come up with this shit? Bristlecone Pines magically produce multiple growth rings per year. The decay rate of fill-in-the-blankium has changed over time. The speed of light has slowed in the last 6,000 years. The Coconino sandstone’s sand dune strata were created by the noatic flood (Answers in Genesis makes this claim.

    Now, the Bristlecone assertion may very well be true. Is there a shred of evidence anywhere, anytime, anyplace, that would suggest that it is true? Maybe the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has changed but, again, where is the evidence? Maybe the speed of light has changed but there is no evidence for it.

    Now, one of these I am familiar with. The Coconino Sandstone (which has been used by creationists to prove that the Grand Canyon was created by the noatic flood) was, without doubt, laid down in an extremely xeric environment. Some of the solidified dunes show wind ripples and pronounce barchan formations. In places, raindrops have been preserved on the upper surface of dunes. And animal tracks, tracks left by feet with no web, have been found. All of which provides evidence that the formation was not created in a lacustrine or fluvial environment, but rather a xeric, or dry, environment. There is actual evidence to support the claim of geologists. I have seen and touched the evidence in situ along the Kaibab, Bright Angel, and Hermit Trails. The evidence supports one claim. There is none to support the claims of delugionists.

    I picked on the Grand Canyon example because that one I know (I’ve seen Bristlecone Pines, but have little experience with dendrochronology. The speed of light and radioactive decay are things of which I am aware, but I have no direct experience with them and must, perforce, depend upon experts). Though I am an historian, my dad is a geologist. He pointed out the evidence and explained how we know what it means. This was not a claim pulled out of his arse, it is supported by physical evidence, evidence which is there for all to see.

    So why do creationists get to make shit up? Why are their assertions, assertions with no evidence at all, assertions pulled out of their collective asses, taken as gospel by so many? It takes a special form of dishonesty to create such bald-faced lies and repeat them, again and again and again and again, in the face of evidence to the contrary. It takes a special form of dishonesty to ignore all evidence and make a completely unsupported assertion claiming that reality does not actually exist.

    I’m saddened by this. The last time I was able to get away with bullshit like that was when I was about seven years old.

  421. hotshoe says

    Just a few hours ago I ran into a claim by Enyart that bristlecone pines can generate several rings a year,

    Bob Enyart is a liar.

    He doesn’t really think bristlecone pines miraculously grow extra rings and therefore cast doubt on the treering sequence that proves the Earth is – at absolute minimum – twice as old as his YECtard faith says. He is just flat out lying about them to keep the donations flowing in to his xtian scam program.

    BOB ENYART IS A LIAR, A CHILD ABUSER, AND A CHRISTIAN TERRORIST. Pass it on.

  422. theophontes, feu d'artifice du cosmopolitisme says

    @ David M.

    I would renounce Christianity if it could be shown that Christ did not rise from the dead.

    This assumes that Jesus can be shown to have existed in the first place.

    Oh, I understood this differently. It is christ’s death that is important not his life. This is completely in accordance with the generic saviour gods that I mentioned earlier. Even murderers could take the role of the sacrificial scape-god. This was because the person would be scourged to purity prior to taking on the sins of the community and dying to thereby redeem them.

    Interestingly, goddist bullies like Bob still seem to think that sin (disagreement with Bob?) can be cleansed out of children with beatings.

    (It is a pity that PZ never has threads dealing with mythology. I so badly want to spank thugs like Bob (even if only with theaphontes cloth belt) without feeling like I’m hijacking a Science thread. I guess teh Bob ilk will keep claiming that their jeebus is unique though, whatever we throw at them.)

    @ Phalacrocorax

    Her blessed touch of confusion is present even in the Bible.

    If She is in the babble then She MUST be real!

  423. amphiox says

    What if this universe is a lab experiment in another universe?

    The Roundworld project?

    Isn’t it also the case that one or more of the less recent precursors to the sling could have been a byproduct of a change in function to a neighboring (or developmentally related) structure, allowing for a reduction or loss of function at the proto-sling site so long as the net change was beneficial?

    Yes. And it doesn’t have to a neighboring structure, it could be another function of the some of the same gene(s), or other genes located nearby on the same chromosome. AKA Linkage.

    There are at least three evolutionary mechanisms for preserving and expanding any particular trait (ie, to fixation), most succinctly put in a prior thread by either David M, Nerd of Readhead, or Ichthyic (I think, could be someone else):

    Selection. Linkage. Drift.