Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[brettpalmer]

My decision to even respond to brettpalmer's snide comments was to hopefully derail the unecessary profane laced, flame thrower he (she?) seems to have for Enyart. It only lead to a tit for tat and more eye-poking, so he's no longer on my pen pal list. Had he responded with something constructive instead of the hand video, which I dubbbed "the palmer", I would have believed he had something constructive to add. He has taken my comments right off the cliff, but that was my prediction.

Yes, when you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, blame the chef.

What's really funny here is how TOT2F claims to have risen above all the eye-poking in hopes of having a constructive conversation, but he was the one who decided to post his masturbation fantasies. Why don't you go back into the thread and find where you first posted a comment directed at me? Remember? Where you implied that atheists use Darwin as a replacement for God ("a group of people that base, in part, their beliefs on a man who believed in God and rebelled agianst the God he believed in, then wrote a theory about what could potentially replace that God in the realm of education") and that likely suffered from some illness known as "the angry man?" Real "constructive" you fucking hypocrite. My only response was to post a gif of a talking hand (because you hadn't offered anything constructive) and of a cute kitty nodding off reading such a dull post as yours.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

So we need to figure out the weight of all the animals on board the ark (to ensure that it is designed to be capable of supporting such enormous weight).

Not necessary. We know how large the Ark is... Genesis 6

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Given a cubit length of roughly 18 inches, that translates into 138 metres of length, 23 metres of width and 14 metres high. Put two elephants, two rhinos, two hippos and two diplodocus's in there and already the ark will explode.

It was a TARDIS.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Not necessary. We know how large the Ark is... Genesis 6

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Given a cubit length of roughly 18 inches, that translates into 138 metres of length, 23 metres of width and 14 metres high. Put two elephants, two rhinos, two hippos and two diplodocus's in there and already the ark will explode.

It was a TARDIS.

Then we are unequivocally fucked

 

[Visaki]

...
Just to be pedantic: "... of every KIND of animal", even though nobody knows what a "kind" is. Creationists usually imagine the number of individual animals on the Ark to be on the order of 19.000, which includes butterflies and ants, but also (supposedly) dinosaurs, elephants, rhinos, hippos, giraffes, lions, tigers and many more.

Also note that God failed to kill all of the fish, whales and dolphins, even though he specifically stated that he'd kill everything.

Wouldn't the people believing in kinds in the ark like that also, by nessesity, have to believe in a kind (no pun intended) of super evolution? Why yes, yes they would! After all, all those kinds would have to change, or dare I say evolve, into all the species we have now (at least 1.6 million and that's only the one's we actually know about now). They might not admit it but getting 1.6M species from less than 10 000 "kinds", or base forms I guess, in 4 000 years isn't just evolution, it's megahypersuperextra-evolution. But hey, GDI so who cares?

 

[brettpalmer]

...
Just to be pedantic: "... of every KIND of animal", even though nobody knows what a "kind" is. Creationists usually imagine the number of individual animals on the Ark to be on the order of 19.000, which includes butterflies and ants, but also (supposedly) dinosaurs, elephants, rhinos, hippos, giraffes, lions, tigers and many more.

Also note that God failed to kill all of the fish, whales and dolphins, even though he specifically stated that he'd kill everything.

Wouldn't the people believing in kinds in the ark like that also, by nessesity, have to believe in a kind (no pun intended) of super evolution? Why yes, yes they would! After all, all those kinds would have to change, or dare I say evolve, into all the species we have now (at least 1.6 million and that's only the one's we actually know about now). They might not admit it but getting 1.6M species from less than 10 000 "kinds", or base forms I guess, in 4 000 years isn't just evolution, it's megahypersuperextra-evolution. But hey, GDI so who cares?

These creationists accept "micro-evolution" in which "kinds" can evolve into slightly modified "kinds." So, they'll say Noah only needed to bring one feline "kind" aboard the ark (maybe just one pair of lions, for example) and, following the flood this single pair of lions "micro-evolved" at a rate never before proposed by any scientific theory into the myriad of cats alive today (tigers, panthers, leopards, lynx, cougars, house cats, etc.). But, they'll point out, these are all still "cats" of the cat-kind and never did they share a common ancestor with dogs, bears, or any other mammal. God made a "cat-kind" and there is an invisible barrier placed in all animals preventing them from evolving beyond their "kind."

 

[Gnug215]

Agreed that my last comment "...ignoring "brettpalmer" is akin to reading the "good points and arguments"..." was un-constructive, yet when a door is left that wide open...

Well, I certainly won't try to dictate who you respond to, but if your time is limited, I hope you'll pick the posts that don't involve eye-poking - or inVOKE eye-poking.

My intent here is to learn from the site, and I am succeeding at that.

Good to hear.

I also hope that you'll learn something about the people here. Maybe that even though we may be a "hostile audience" in terms of your own personal beliefs, and even in spite of eye-pokings, we're fairly normal people, and the hostility and eye-poking comes purely from being in a position of antagonism between directly opposed worldviews. And many of the pokings stem from frustration over the other party not being able to see reason (from one's own point of view), which really can be annoying to experience.

I decided to listen to some of the archives on Enyart's website. The show topics are hardly limited to discussions on science and he does sound educated in the topics being discussed. There are shows discussing the culture in general and when I listened to a couple of shows on his testimonies before legislatures and exposing so-called Christian organizations dishonoring their very beliefs to gain a seat at a political table, he seems genuinely interested in seeking the truth. Sure, that's subjective, but for anyone on LoR to just dismiss the man for no other reason than he doesn't hold to evolutionary teaching, therefore he must be a ____________, does very little to advance the discussion, especially for occassional readers such as myself.

To be honest, I don't know an awful lot about Bob, but what I have heard reveals someone who may be well-versed and rhetorically able, and yet not quite have the grasp of science that a trained scientist has. I mean, there's a reason scientists are all highly specialized in their fields. If you ask a nuclear physicist about biology, you run the high risk of getting an an "untrained" response.
This sort of thing happens often (scientists, people in general making (or well, they're trying) authoritative statements about something outisde their field. The "untrained" response may very well be true, but usually you have a response that does not compl with reality. And in such case, the person might rely on their authority in their specialized field, and mentally "transfer" that authority over to the new filed. The problem here is that such a mental "transfer" usually only transfers feelings, not factual knowlede and training, so you might end up with this nuclear physicist, who while not a biologist, might be too proud to realize that they do not posess in this new field.

I'm not sure people here dismiss Bob because he doesn't hold to evolutionary teaching. But I'm fairly sure they dismiss all his arguments against evolution.
Besides, his anti-evolutionism are, conveniently, in tune with his religious beliefs, which will naturally make him biased. It is against Bob's interests to accept the Theory of Evolution.
In spite of what some may say, I don't think those of us who accept the Theory of Evolution have any particular interests in that. We don't really gain anything from it.

The path I choose on responding to many comments is rooted in the hope that the alternate viewpoint would be better understood, or called out, not just readily dismissed. I will admit that on other sites comparable to LoR, there's a more amplified level of disdain and hatred for anyone who's beliefs are contrary to evolutionary teaching. Thankfully, that is not the norm here, as this also insults those who are giving of their time with well reasoned responses.

I see plenty of disdain here, I'd say, but we try to keep it in check, and I think we generally have a good and mature userbase - certainly compared to many other forums.

I have never been asked here, but have been accused about my beliefs, and for the record am a man very advanced years, and have yet to acknowledge the so-called facts that somehow prove testing something physical from the earth today equals what happened 1,000, or even 1,000,000 years ago. I see and read a lot of evidence for and against evolution theory, and what is most striking to me is that for all the scientific advancements and the careful implementation of evolutionary teaching in government run schools, it remains the minority belief, according to those keeping track of what people think and believe.

Thank-you for your reply. I am attempting to catch up on the thread and hopefully won't be so inclined to interject my own brand of tongue-in-cheek on any of those non-constructive comments.

Yes, well, since you seemed to accompany some other users that joined in connection with Bob joining the debate here, I think we just assumed that your beliefs are similar to that of the other users.

While acceptance of evolutionary theory may be a minority belief in the US, it is not quite so in EU, and it is not so in academic and scientific circles. I think that has significance.

 

[scalyblue]

Ugh! I just posted for the last hour on all your points and got logged out. Sorry, but I'll have to do it again sometime over the weekend. I'll give more thought to what you have shared and attempt to type faster next time.

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/7671

Greasemonkey on firefox or any modern build of chrome can run this script and automatically back up anything in a text field to be restored even if you crash.

 

[Visaki]

These creationists accept "micro-evolution" in which "kinds" can evolve into slightly modified "kinds." So, they'll say Noah only needed to bring one feline "kind" aboard the ark (maybe just one pair of lions, for example) and, following the flood this single pair of lions "micro-evolved" at a rate never before proposed by any scientific theory into the myriad of cats alive today (tigers, panthers, leopards, lynx, cougars, house cats, etc.). But, they'll point out, these are all still "cats" of the cat-kind and never did they share a common ancestor with dogs, bears, or any other mammal. God made a "cat-kind" and there is an invisible barrier placed in all animals preventing them from evolving beyond their "kind."

Is it just me or does this thing get more and more silly the more they have to ad hoc to fix it? They pretty much admit that evolution happens, though much faster than indicated by observation, and that common descent exists, though limited by God into "kinds", and still claim that neither are true. What we got is the ToE's slightly retarded small brother who goes into more and more absurd explanations in face of questions trying to explain his idea on biodiversity based on Bible.

Am I the only one that thinks that getting a complete list of "kinds" would be fun? If for no other reason than the pretty much quaranteed inconsistensies on the what is a "kind" (species? genus? one of those other things that I don't know the english term for? all of them?).

 

[Gnug215]

These creationists accept "micro-evolution" in which "kinds" can evolve into slightly modified "kinds." So, they'll say Noah only needed to bring one feline "kind" aboard the ark (maybe just one pair of lions, for example) and, following the flood this single pair of lions "micro-evolved" at a rate never before proposed by any scientific theory into the myriad of cats alive today (tigers, panthers, leopards, lynx, cougars, house cats, etc.). But, they'll point out, these are all still "cats" of the cat-kind and never did they share a common ancestor with dogs, bears, or any other mammal. God made a "cat-kind" and there is an invisible barrier placed in all animals preventing them from evolving beyond their "kind."

Is it just me or does this thing get more and more silly the more they have to ad hoc to fix it? They pretty much admit that evolution happens, though much faster than indicated by observation, and that common descent exists, though limited by God into "kinds", and still claim that neither are true. What we got is the ToE's slightly retarded small brother who goes into more and more absurd explanations in face of questions trying to explain his idea on biodiversity based on Bible.

Am I the only one that thinks that getting a complete list of "kinds" would be fun? If for no other reason than the pretty much quaranteed inconsistensies on the what is a "kind" (species? genus? one of those other things that I don't know the english term for? all of them?).

First, LOL, and second, hell yeah, that would be fun!

 

[brettpalmer]

These creationists accept "micro-evolution" in which "kinds" can evolve into slightly modified "kinds." So, they'll say Noah only needed to bring one feline "kind" aboard the ark (maybe just one pair of lions, for example) and, following the flood this single pair of lions "micro-evolved" at a rate never before proposed by any scientific theory into the myriad of cats alive today (tigers, panthers, leopards, lynx, cougars, house cats, etc.). But, they'll point out, these are all still "cats" of the cat-kind and never did they share a common ancestor with dogs, bears, or any other mammal. God made a "cat-kind" and there is an invisible barrier placed in all animals preventing them from evolving beyond their "kind."

Is it just me or does this thing get more and more silly the more they have to ad hoc to fix it? They pretty much admit that evolution happens, though much faster than indicated by observation, and that common descent exists, though limited by God into "kinds", and still claim that neither are true. What we got is the ToE's slightly retarded small brother who goes into more and more absurd explanations in face of questions trying to explain his idea on biodiversity based on Bible.

Am I the only one that thinks that getting a complete list of "kinds" would be fun? If for no other reason than the pretty much quaranteed inconsistensies on the what is a "kind" (species? genus? one of those other things that I don't know the english term for? all of them?).

Well, if we could ever get Bob Enyart's attention away from Sir Isaac Newton and dino-blood we just might get that chance. He believes phylogeny is just a bogus science. If you've watched AronRa's videos on the subject you just know Bob's in for a beating if the subject can be steered in that direction. In such a discussion, Bob can be asked to do just as you suggest: give a list of biblical "kinds." Would make for some entertaining reading, don't you think?

 

[Visaki]

Just as a short reply to BobEnyarts latest post which admittingly I've mainly only glanced over:

BobEnyart requests and apology from Australopithicus as representing LoR "...on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior...". Even is he would consider doing so, which I doubt, I stricktly prohibit Australopithicus for apologizing for anything I've posted on these forums (considering that isn't much I doubt there are any points I should apologize even in BobEnyart's opinion for but the principle stands). Even though the admins here have the power for moderate the posts that doesn't mean I've given them a right to speak on my behalf or that I actually think BobEnyart has a right to request apologies from them about my writings.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'll be damned if he apologizes for my dirt-hugging tree-worshipping ass.

Astral, I do not permit an apology from myself - but you can forward a pleasant not of "Shove that shit back where it came from," if you feel so obliged.

 

[bluejatheist]

BobEnyart needs to make like a christian and start forgiving.


I propose a whole new thread devoted to "LOR Members respond with their own words"

 

[australopithecus]

Wait, what?

 

[bluejatheist]

Wait, what?

Last part of BobEnyart's debate post, he wants you to apologize for how he's been treated and how YYNJ have been treated, or something like that.

 

[australopithecus]

Australopithicus: Representing LoR, please consider this request.

I represent nobody other than myself.

I would like an apology from you on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior, giving Aron a pass for his "trust me" claim that the soft-tissue has "been refuted," while for no reason being utterly dismissive toward my references to journal papers.

I will do no such thing, either on my behalf or anybody elses. That you are butthurt is entirely your problem, and any imagined slight you choose to get upset by is none of our concern. The reason people are dismissive of your references is because they have read those papers.

(I've only skimmed the other threads, but it seems that you all have treated Will Duffy, "YesYouNeedJesus," in the peanut gallery debate comment thread with this same bad behavior and arbitrary criticism.)

"Arbitrary criticism" in this insatnce I can only assume to mean "calling bullshit when we see it". It's not our problem you or Will seem happy to comment on subjects on which you are woefully lacking. Perhaps a little honesty on your parts would go a way to earning some respect.

It has been completely surreal Australopithicus that your site regulars have largely united behind the extremely absurd claim that "Enyart" et al., "do not even know what fossilisation means," for, allegedly from your evolutionist members, the reports above DO NOT EVEN CLAIM that soft biological tissue has been discovered. No? Well then, why all the controversy for 20 years?

This isn't my site, and your own and Will's inability to read the papers you cite is again, not our problem. If you don't like the conclusions of the papers then try reading them before you use them to try and back up your claims.

Could you apologize Australopithicus also for that extremely bad behavior?

I have nothing to apologise for. The members of this forum have nothing to apologise for. You are not getting an apology. Now, I advise you wipe away any lingering tears and await AronRa's reply. Furthermore, I find it highly fucking ironic that Will (smooth move running to Daddy to complain, by the way Will) complains about us given the sheer amount of intellectual dishonest the man has displayed. Crying censorship for days on end over a paper that hadn't been censored only to demand the thread that we set up about said paper be locked in a display of childishness I'd not witnessed since my days as a 5 year old, without may I add, actually addressing any of the criticisms of the paper.

If either of you expect me to apologise for anything then it will only to be to apologise to anyone viewing the forum for the colossal waste of time and effort you and Will have been.

 

[Prolescum]

Oi Bob...

What is consensus among its members is always subject to change, and there is no established policy. The only collective belief of its team is that if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Remember, if you wish to convince other members that your ideas are the reasonable ones, you will almost certainly be expected to justify your claims!

http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/about/

 

[australopithecus]

Cheeky git. Seriously, did he think I was actually going to apologise?

 

[Inferno]

I won't criticize his post yet, just address this one (stirring) paragraph:

Australopithicus: Representing LoR, please consider this request. I would like an apology from you on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior, giving Aron a pass for his "trust me" claim that the soft-tissue has "been refuted," while for no reason being utterly dismissive toward my references to journal papers. (I've only skimmed the other threads, but it seems that you all have treated Will Duffy, "YesYouNeedJesus," in the peanut gallery debate comment thread with this same bad behavior and arbitrary criticism.) It has been completely surreal Australopithicus that your site regulars have largely united behind the extremely absurd claim that "Enyart" et al., "do not even know what fossilisation means," for, allegedly from your evolutionist members, the reports above DO NOT EVEN CLAIM that soft biological tissue has been discovered. No? Well then, why all the controversy for 20 years? Could you apologize Australopithicus also for that extremely bad behavior?

Dear Bob!

Where exactly have we exhibited "arbitrary behaviour"?

First of all, we don't "trust" AronRa any more than we trust you, at least not on issues of science. If you were to actually look at the thread, instead of what I can only presume is you listening to what your lackey said, you would find that we too went and did the research, trying to see who was right. Nobody was trusted, everything was checked.

Second, how dare you claim that we treated YYNJ aka Will Duffy badly? He came here and made a bunch of unfounded claims, on which we called him out. We even asked him a bunch of questions, none of which were answered. WE treated HIM badly? We let him ramble on for quite a few pages until he left, we provided him with answers to his ReMine paper, which he falsely presented as an answer to Hytegia's challenge, to which he never replied. You want US to apologize? How about you apply that same criticism back home?

Third, you apparently don't know what fossilization means, well at least your lackey doesn't. If I remember correctly, and I really can't be arsed going through 27 pages of drivel just to check which mistake he made, YYNJ claimed something about the fossil needing no demineralization, which was directly refuted by what Mary Schweitzer herself said. And so on and so forth.

Fourth, you almost hit the nail on the head: There is an ongoing controversy about this issue, we don't yet know the answer. That's why I don't understand why you're trying to drive this home as hard as you are.

In any case, everyone has already told you that you won't get an apology from us because frankly we have nothing to apologize for. Here's what I'd recommend you do:
1) Talk to Will Duffy and ask him to answer the questions.
2) Get on the subject of phylogeny already. This is bloody boring.

Respectfully
Inferno

 

[KittenKoder]

Not necessary. We know how large the Ark is... Genesis 6

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Given a cubit length of roughly 18 inches, that translates into 138 metres of length, 23 metres of width and 14 metres high. Put two elephants, two rhinos, two hippos and two diplodocus's in there and already the ark will explode.

It was a TARDIS.

I read that and just imagined this ark appearing in downtown Seattle with some old guy looking confused at the helm.