Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[Visaki]

dog barks and animal sounds are categorically unlike human language

Isn't that a bit like saying that red and blue colours are categorically unlike yellow colours? It's just pretty much saying the obvious, in other words that different things are different. I completely miss the point of the statement.

On the second read through of Bob's point about language I saw one other thing. He's attacking Aron's claim that there was no Tower of Babel and no supernatural seperation into different languages by attacking the actual developement of language itself. As far as I know we have pretty hefty amount of evidence that one language can "evolve" from another language. After all almost every one of you couldn't understand the language your forefathers were speaking a thousand years ago and different ones can be shows to have "evolved" from an common ancestor. What Bob seems to be doing is akin to attacking evolution by attacking abiogenesis.

That, and getting a cheap shot at what Bob really must believe is the inerrant prophet of evolution, Charles Darwin.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am only going to touch on one thing after reading through BobEnyart's fourth post again. I am doing this because most of his post is about the irrelevant topic of the Grand Canyon. However, I still invite BobEnyart to this thread to answer a few questions about the Grand Canyon that creationists always seem to refuse to answer, if he wishes to discuss the Grand Canyon any further.

Bob Enyart Admits an Error: I need to correct an error I made about Archaeopteryx. I found this mistake myself. But I should point out that I said nothing like what Aron accused me of saying, that the samples the journal paper reported on:

"were all original biological material, implying that they had not been fossilized at all"¦ and were perhaps even still edible."
-Aron misrepresenting Bob on Archaeopteryx

First off, you were on your radio show making the claim that paleontologists are discovering un-fossilized material that could have come straight from a butcher shop, then you would say look to your website, which contains your original four sources. One of those sources is the Bergmann et al. paper about Archaeopteryx. Thus, it was an easy mistake for anyone to assume that when you were referring to butcher shop quality soft tissue, you meant this paper supported your case. Perhaps you should do a better job of choosing your words or did you want to score more gotcha points with this one as well?

Second, there really was no reason for you to discover this mistake on your own. Isotelus and I pointed out the mistake of citing this paper from the very moment you brought it up. Thus, if BobEnyart was actually reading the peanut gallery, he should have known this mistake after he posted it the first time in the debate.

However I did overstate the case regarding Archaeopteryx to say that its "soft tissue" was found. That characterization went further than the actual findings permit. For this species I should have said that scientists have recovered only some of its original biological material.

:facepalm:

It appears that BobEnyart is claiming that chemical compounds and trace elements count as original biological material. However, if this is the case, than we have found original biological material in most fossils for decades now. Most fossils contain high traces of Zinc and Iron (among other chemicals and elements), which are used in bones and blood. Those heavy elements are much harder to wear away or be replaced by fossilization. The point of Bergman et al. paper was to point out how the feather impressions were not just a trace fossil of the feather, but a body fossil of the animal because of the trace elements discovered.

I truly believe that BobEnyart and AronRa need to come to an agreement on what constitutes as original biological material and soft tissue because right now they are just talking passed each other. I truly believe this confusion comes from BobEnyart's lack of education on the subjects of biology and paleontology because his use of soft tissue and biological material seem grossly off from the standard.

 

[Inferno]

I just noticed that there's a Fred Williams listed on Bob's website, specifically the page about Archaeopteryx. Is that the very same Fred Williams who runs the Evolution Fairy Tale forum?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just noticed that there's a Fred Williams listed on Bob's website, specifically the page about Archaeopteryx. Is that the very same Fred Williams who runs the Evolution Fairy Tale forum?

Yes, according to brettpalmer.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Welp. There goes my hope, Fucks, and general care for the turnout of this discussion.

That fun fact also answered more questions than in this entire thread.

 

[DutchLiam84]

What happened to/with YYNJ?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Welp. There goes my hope, Fucks, and general care for the turnout of this discussion.

That fun fact also answered more questions than in this entire thread.

Does anyone still have an account at Evolution Fairytale Forum? If so, I think it would be nice to link the debate thread and perhaps the peanut gallery there as well.

What happened to/with YYNJ?

He was taken away by the wambulance.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Welp. There goes my hope, Fucks, and general care for the turnout of this discussion.

That fun fact also answered more questions than in this entire thread.

Does anyone still have an account at Evolution Fairytale Forum? If so, I think it would be nice to link the debate thread and perhaps the peanut gallery there as well.

What happened to/with YYNJ?

He was taken away by the wambulance.

I got banned for equivocating Creation to "poofing out of nowhere 6000 years ago."

Apparently, it's a big difference.

 

[Inferno]

I too got banned, I can't figure out for what though. From the context of their posts, I have to assume it was for "providing facts". They don't like those too much.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

To not be banned from there, you have to either be a hardcore Young Earth Creationist, or stock to talking about My Little Pony (or other equally useless yet fun) in the general forum without engaging anyone ever.
Ever.

:I

 

[Laurens]

I registered there a while back, but got tired of the fucking idiots so I left, not sure what my user name was; if my account is still valid I could post a link.

 

[DutchLiam84]

What happened to/with YYNJ?

An update, I heard he converted and now accepts the Theory of Evolution!

 

[rareblackatheist]

What happened to/with YYNJ?

An update, I heard he converted and now accepts the Theory of Evolution!

Good for him

 

[DutchLiam84]

Good for him

Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:21 pm
Just sayin'! :roll:

 

[Laurens]

Good for him

Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:21 pm
Just sayin'! :roll:

Yeah, you almost got me with that yesterday. I'd probably have believed you if you said it on any other day... But I trust no one on April fools day...

 

[Frenger]

I too got banned, I can't figure out for what though. From the context of their posts, I have to assume it was for "providing facts". They don't like those too much.

I managed to link the debate and discussion thread before I got banned. I lasted 6 days!

I think what got me banned was calling the moderator out for not reading the papers he was quoting, and I know he wasn't because they said just about the exact opposite of what he thought they said. Oh well, hopefully he leaves the posts so people know he's a daft wazzock

 

[WarK]

I think what got me banned was calling the moderator out for not reading the papers he was quoting, and I know he wasn't because they said just about the exact opposite of what he thought they said. Oh well, hopefully he leaves the posts so people know he's a daft wazzock

There's something about creationists reading scientific papers. They always end up thinking the opposite of what the paper says. To make them accept evolution we should fabricate a paper that says god is real and stuff.

 

[Laurens]

I think what got me banned was calling the moderator out for not reading the papers he was quoting, and I know he wasn't because they said just about the exact opposite of what he thought they said. Oh well, hopefully he leaves the posts so people know he's a daft wazzock

There's something about creationists reading scientific papers. They always end up thinking the opposite of what the paper says. To make them accept evolution we should fabricate a paper that says god is real and stuff.

When I posted there someone responded with an article that was questioning our ancestry and making a (poor) case that Orangutans are more closely related to us than Chimpanzees. Their take on this was that this was a serious challenge to evolution... :roll:

 

[Frenger]

There's something about creationists reading scientific papers. They always end up thinking the opposite of what the paper says. To make them accept evolution we should fabricate a paper that says god is real and stuff.

When I posted there someone responded with an article that was questioning our ancestry and making a (poor) case that Orangutans are more closely related to us than Chimpanzees. Their take on this was that this was a serious challenge to evolution... :roll:

Ha! I got that one too! And they also said "we are also 50% banana, so what does that tell you?"

When I said "that you don't understand the difference between having 50% similarities and being 50% identical" to which he replied "NO, YOU DON'T"

Zing!

I also got your question in Laurens, the can you state the mechanism that stops speciation, to which I got the answer.

"the traits themselves".

Zing!

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

What happened to/with YYNJ?

I'm still around, but loosely. Figured I would spend more time in places where my threads won't be locked. Not to mention Hytegia's disappearance on his challenge to me. If I did this, you guys would be all over me. I guess Hytegia gets a free pass.

Despite all that, the debate is just going so well for the creationist. I'm enjoying every word of it.