australopithecus
Active Member
You reeeeeeally need to get over it.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko
- Thread starter AronRa
- Start date
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
DiscipleTube1 said:
What statements would you like me to correct? I do not remember criticizing Mr. Dutko for not making the debate available. You also do not seem to get AronRa's point about holding creationists accountable. It is not just that Mr. Dutko is not making the debate available, as you pointed out BobEnyart did that, it is having them admit to there mistakes when they are pointed out, something BobEnyart still refuses to do.
Furthermore, since you are here, what do you think of Mr. Dutko's evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together?
DiscipleTube1
New Member
Sorry it took so long to reply back HWIN. Real life has been quite demanding lately.
In the first page of this thread you said that Bob Dutko was "withholding" his debate with AronRa. It's just not true, for the reason's I've already noted in this thread.
I find it fruitless to debate in these forums on deeper topics if the opposition has no intention of admitting ANY error. Austral you tell me I whine, and that I need to get over it. That's fine for you to have that opinion. But I don't see it the way you do. Creationist are getting attacked unfairly (most times) on their integrity, honesty, their character in general, because they come to different conclusions. Not to say that evolutionist don't have respectable arguments against creationist theories. But it seems like a lot of evolutionist or atheist, wont give creationist and theist even an inch, when even the most critical opponent, if objective, would give them at least a foot. I have no problem saying that long-age concepts fit better with what we observe than young-age concepts, in some cases. Yet that admission doesn't cause me to believe in long-ages. To me, MOST of what we observe fits a young earth. I know we disagree on that, but lets put that aside for a moment. Because my point is that I can give atheist and Evolutionist a mile. I can honestly look at their interpretations, and find them respectable, yet still disagree. Creationist don't get the same respect. Instead your followers don't even have to look at the creationist positions because you've called them dishonest before they can even look at it for themselves. They're laughing at pictures of bananas and tin foil hats and they get the idea that creationist aren't even worth hearing out. No respect.
But it goes beyond that. There is a double standard too. AronRa shows this consistently. He claims creationist have no accountability because he didn't have the audio available for this debate. Did one person on this forum ask him if HE made a tape? Hold on let me put my tin foil hat on first but this is the message I'm hearing:
Creationist + No Tape = Chastise Creationist for No Accountability/Withholding debate.
Evolutionist + No Tape = Whatever/No Big Deal
So yeah, its a big deal Austral. Until both sides of this issue can start showing each other a little more respect, I feel it is very necessary to point out such things
In the first page of this thread you said that Bob Dutko was "withholding" his debate with AronRa. It's just not true, for the reason's I've already noted in this thread.
I find it fruitless to debate in these forums on deeper topics if the opposition has no intention of admitting ANY error. Austral you tell me I whine, and that I need to get over it. That's fine for you to have that opinion. But I don't see it the way you do. Creationist are getting attacked unfairly (most times) on their integrity, honesty, their character in general, because they come to different conclusions. Not to say that evolutionist don't have respectable arguments against creationist theories. But it seems like a lot of evolutionist or atheist, wont give creationist and theist even an inch, when even the most critical opponent, if objective, would give them at least a foot. I have no problem saying that long-age concepts fit better with what we observe than young-age concepts, in some cases. Yet that admission doesn't cause me to believe in long-ages. To me, MOST of what we observe fits a young earth. I know we disagree on that, but lets put that aside for a moment. Because my point is that I can give atheist and Evolutionist a mile. I can honestly look at their interpretations, and find them respectable, yet still disagree. Creationist don't get the same respect. Instead your followers don't even have to look at the creationist positions because you've called them dishonest before they can even look at it for themselves. They're laughing at pictures of bananas and tin foil hats and they get the idea that creationist aren't even worth hearing out. No respect.
But it goes beyond that. There is a double standard too. AronRa shows this consistently. He claims creationist have no accountability because he didn't have the audio available for this debate. Did one person on this forum ask him if HE made a tape? Hold on let me put my tin foil hat on first but this is the message I'm hearing:
Creationist + No Tape = Chastise Creationist for No Accountability/Withholding debate.
Evolutionist + No Tape = Whatever/No Big Deal
So yeah, its a big deal Austral. Until both sides of this issue can start showing each other a little more respect, I feel it is very necessary to point out such things
No, I'm sorry DiscipleTube1, but that's simply not true. Let's start with your paragraph and then move back to what you said about Bob Dutko.
That's not true at all. Aron made a video in which he conceded an error, an error a creationist pointed out!
I can point to multiple occasions where people on this forum have conceded error.
So we're faced with two possibilities:
1) Either all these people were happy to admit error to other people, but they simply couldn't admit error to you and Bob Dutko (and Enyart, and whatever)
2) or you're (and Dutko, etc.) the one who's wrong, who won't admit to error.
Given that we have already admitted to errors when I can't think of a time you did (and I have no idea about Dutko, so I won't speculate), doesn't option two sound slightly more plausible?
Wrong. First, note that this forum is fairly tolerant of creationists. The odd creationist (Stripe) might get banned, but the overwhelming majority are not.
Second, I'd point you to the numerous times creationists have actually lied and been dishonest throughout their times.
(To name but one example: Ken Ham recently announced he was baffled by people thinking humans used dinosaurs as transports. Funny enough, it's HIS museum that displays people riding on dinosaurs like we ride horses. The hypocrisy...)
And that's just one example in the last week, let alone the literally thousands of examples in the last few years since I've entered this debate.
It's not that proponents of evolution would unfairly accuse creationists of dishonesty, it's just that so few creationists have ever been honest about anything they do.
Aside from the fact that this is not true, I have to ask one question: Why the hell should I? It's not just that the creationist view is wrong, but you're actively poisoning the curriculum with your nonsense. If homeopaths or abductionists would say similar things, I'd be just as outraged.
Let's be absolutely clear about one thing: (and I'll reference the above-linked "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" by Kenneth Miller)
This is war. We're fighting a (less rather than more) intellectual war about the future of our education and our children. Your view, as stated above, is poisonous and wrong, it's actively misleading. So I, for one, regard you as my enemy. I won't cede even a Planck length unless you can actually prove to me that I'm wrong. Why would I, when it's your stated goal to introduce nonsense into the curriculum (and possibly even worse, into science) and when it's my stated goal to crush you intellectually?
Give me one good reason why I should, unless it's to lure you into a trap.
That alone should make you think twice about whether you're really true. To the best of my (and science's) knowledge, there is not a single piece of evidence that would point to a young earth. If even a single piece of evidence were to turn up, I'd be forced to review the whole idea. (Plus a lot of other science which would simply be false if the earth were young, but that aside...)
I honestly couldn't give a crap if you found the "interpretations" respectable, because what I'd rather want is for you to weigh the evidence rationally. That's what you don't or can't do and that's why we'll never see eye to eye.
Screw respectable. I intently dislike (or disrespect) one of my Professors at University, but I have to admit he's right about a particular thing. I like a different professor quite a bit, but sadly he's simply wrong about a particular academic issue.
Neither of that is true, plus I'm not sure whose "followers" you're referring to. Is it possible you're projecting your views onto us? (Answer: Yes.)
How could I call creationists dishonest when I know nothing about them? Rest assure (or rather, don't! Check the evidence) that I evaluate each case separately. There's a Creationist on here at the moment, Tsentralka, whom I have a bit of respect for and I have no evidence to call him dishonest. And yet, he's still my enemy.
That's what you fail to distinguish: Enemy =/= no respect =/= dishonest.
And that's why I can't take you seriously, why I have to tell you that all evidence points to you being dishonest.
Tell me, who made the show? Who should record it? Bob Dutko, of course.
Is it normal for me to show up at an interview and bring my own camera, just to make sure that it's recorded? Ridiculous. That has never happened and will never happen, yet you claim it should.
When an "evolutionist" interviews a creationist and withholds the interview or loses the tape or whatever, THEN and only then will I agree with you.
Look at the track record:
Bob Enyart provided his recording, Bob Dutko did not.
AronRa (in this case, the MSS) provided their recording multiple times.
I'd say you didn't critically appraise the evidence.
That's not true at all. Aron made a video in which he conceded an error, an error a creationist pointed out!
I can point to multiple occasions where people on this forum have conceded error.
So we're faced with two possibilities:
1) Either all these people were happy to admit error to other people, but they simply couldn't admit error to you and Bob Dutko (and Enyart, and whatever)
2) or you're (and Dutko, etc.) the one who's wrong, who won't admit to error.
Given that we have already admitted to errors when I can't think of a time you did (and I have no idea about Dutko, so I won't speculate), doesn't option two sound slightly more plausible?
Wrong. First, note that this forum is fairly tolerant of creationists. The odd creationist (Stripe) might get banned, but the overwhelming majority are not.
Second, I'd point you to the numerous times creationists have actually lied and been dishonest throughout their times.
(To name but one example: Ken Ham recently announced he was baffled by people thinking humans used dinosaurs as transports. Funny enough, it's HIS museum that displays people riding on dinosaurs like we ride horses. The hypocrisy...)
And that's just one example in the last week, let alone the literally thousands of examples in the last few years since I've entered this debate.
It's not that proponents of evolution would unfairly accuse creationists of dishonesty, it's just that so few creationists have ever been honest about anything they do.
Aside from the fact that this is not true, I have to ask one question: Why the hell should I? It's not just that the creationist view is wrong, but you're actively poisoning the curriculum with your nonsense. If homeopaths or abductionists would say similar things, I'd be just as outraged.
Let's be absolutely clear about one thing: (and I'll reference the above-linked "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" by Kenneth Miller)
This is war. We're fighting a (less rather than more) intellectual war about the future of our education and our children. Your view, as stated above, is poisonous and wrong, it's actively misleading. So I, for one, regard you as my enemy. I won't cede even a Planck length unless you can actually prove to me that I'm wrong. Why would I, when it's your stated goal to introduce nonsense into the curriculum (and possibly even worse, into science) and when it's my stated goal to crush you intellectually?
Give me one good reason why I should, unless it's to lure you into a trap.
That alone should make you think twice about whether you're really true. To the best of my (and science's) knowledge, there is not a single piece of evidence that would point to a young earth. If even a single piece of evidence were to turn up, I'd be forced to review the whole idea. (Plus a lot of other science which would simply be false if the earth were young, but that aside...)
I honestly couldn't give a crap if you found the "interpretations" respectable, because what I'd rather want is for you to weigh the evidence rationally. That's what you don't or can't do and that's why we'll never see eye to eye.
Screw respectable. I intently dislike (or disrespect) one of my Professors at University, but I have to admit he's right about a particular thing. I like a different professor quite a bit, but sadly he's simply wrong about a particular academic issue.
Neither of that is true, plus I'm not sure whose "followers" you're referring to. Is it possible you're projecting your views onto us? (Answer: Yes.)
How could I call creationists dishonest when I know nothing about them? Rest assure (or rather, don't! Check the evidence) that I evaluate each case separately. There's a Creationist on here at the moment, Tsentralka, whom I have a bit of respect for and I have no evidence to call him dishonest. And yet, he's still my enemy.
That's what you fail to distinguish: Enemy =/= no respect =/= dishonest.
And that's why I can't take you seriously, why I have to tell you that all evidence points to you being dishonest.
Tell me, who made the show? Who should record it? Bob Dutko, of course.
Is it normal for me to show up at an interview and bring my own camera, just to make sure that it's recorded? Ridiculous. That has never happened and will never happen, yet you claim it should.
When an "evolutionist" interviews a creationist and withholds the interview or loses the tape or whatever, THEN and only then will I agree with you.
Look at the track record:
Bob Enyart provided his recording, Bob Dutko did not.
AronRa (in this case, the MSS) provided their recording multiple times.
I'd say you didn't critically appraise the evidence.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
DiscipleTube1 said:
I found it funny that you could not just quote what I said. Here it is for everyone to see:
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=144640#p144640 said:
As anyone can plainly see, I am lamenting the fact that Mr. Dutko is withholding this debate from me. Mr. Dutko’s radio station is not broadcast in my area (to my knowledge), thus even if he does air it later, I will still be unable to listen to it. Mr. Dutko could broadcast this debate 100 times from now until the end of the year and I would still be unable to listen to it.
I just want to touch on one thing, seeing as how Inferno has already done a wonderful job refuting everything else.
DiscipleTube1 said:
Nice copout.
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.DiscipleTube1 said:
This isn't politics were there is room for a middle ground and everyone can be happy, this is science and truth is not democratic. If you don't have any scientific qualifications, don't expect to have a place at the table. Consider yourself lucky that someone has took it out of their time to listen to you, because really if we are going to be professional you are just simply going to be ignored as a nut job.
Darkprophet232
New Member
DiscipleTube1 said:
I just wish to address this one statement, as I feel that others have done a far superior job than I can with the rest.
You can give anyone anything you wish, it doesn't change the science. The truth is when creationists have to defend their conjecture in a scientific (or legal) environment, they fail. Every. Time. Your beliefs (as that is all they are) have been proven time and again to be unscientific and incongruent with reality and as such have no place in a reasoned discussion on the facts. You don't give scientists a mile, they take leagues from dishonest creationists through sheer force of evidence.
AronRa
Administrator
DiscipleTube1, you're actually prohibited from conceding any critical point in this argument. Don't forget that every creationist organization posts a 'statement of faith' wherein they say they will believe whatever they do -regardless what the evidence actually implies- and that they will never ever admit when they're wrong no matter what. That is already about as dishonest as it is possible to get, but it still gets worse.
It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet that is what religion does. All religious claims -every last one of them- fall within one of two categories: They're either
1. not evidently true (meaning there is no reason to believe them)
or they are
2. evidently not true (meaning there is good reason not to believe them).
There are no exceptions, so there is no third category for religious claims that are indicated by evidence or even probably true. So if truth is defined as whatever we can show to be true, then there is no truth at all in yours or anyone else's religion, but there is a whole great giant fuck-ton of lies involved in every one of them, and yours especially. Baring all this in mind, how can you pretend that you even have a defensible position or any arguments worthy of consideration?
It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet that is what religion does. All religious claims -every last one of them- fall within one of two categories: They're either
1. not evidently true (meaning there is no reason to believe them)
or they are
2. evidently not true (meaning there is good reason not to believe them).
There are no exceptions, so there is no third category for religious claims that are indicated by evidence or even probably true. So if truth is defined as whatever we can show to be true, then there is no truth at all in yours or anyone else's religion, but there is a whole great giant fuck-ton of lies involved in every one of them, and yours especially. Baring all this in mind, how can you pretend that you even have a defensible position or any arguments worthy of consideration?
brettpalmer
New Member
AronRa said:
Aron, sent you a PM via YouTube and also an email from here. Do you have this audio still and would you be able to send it to me? I'm making a reply video to Dutko regarding my "Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence" series and I mention this exchange between the two of you. Would love to have the original audio from the above quotes to use. Thanks in advance!
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Brettpalmer has uploaded his video about Bob Dutko and it has the audio of AronRa and Mr. Dutko. I can only assume that the audio came from AronRa and if it did, I would like to request that AronRa upload the whole audio as well, because Mr. Dutko refuses to do this. Listening to the short sections in brettpalmer’s video makes me curious to hear the rest of that fiasco.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
AronRa said:
Oh.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Just incase anyone is interested, I am sharing a blog and some images about the Tucson Artifacts, (The Dinosaur on the Tucson Artifacts). Dutko claimed the dinosaur on the sword was as accurate as anything from Jurassic Park, yet it appears more like the drawings from the early 1900s.
