Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Because Bob knows he can't refute any of Aron's points on phylogeny so his opening gambit is to completely ignore the topic of the agreed debate and try and find fault with any issue where he can make it look like he's out-witted a godless heathen.

Newton was a creationist. Understandable given evolutionary theory was over 100 into his future. It doesn't lend any credence to creationism anymore than it would to try and supplant atomic theory because Newton was an alchemist.

Can Bob please address something to do with biology now?

I'm not sure what evolution has to do with this topic. Newton rejected theories on the origin of the universe that existed and believed in special creation. I don't think the discovery of evolution has anything to do with origins. Either way, I can't wait until they get to phylogeny!

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Wow. Just... wow.

Bob and his little crony must be here to practice their selective reading skills. That's the only explanation I can think of.

Maybe I spoke too soon about the niceness...

 

[scalyblue]

I'm not sure what evolution has to do with this topic. Newton rejected theories on the origin of the universe that existed and believed in special creation. I don't think the discovery of evolution has anything to do with origins. Either way, I can't wait until they get to phylogeny!

Yeah I know, I mean I can't wait until there's an actual debate on the subject of phylogeny and somebody puts forward a cogent argument on the subject of...oh....wait...

You honestly don't see anything wrong with the subject of phylogeny being noted, with Aronra's video dissertations and text written on the subject pre-existing, and even custom built for this debate,, and your paragon's opening argument basically being the tenuously tangential "Newton was a creationist, therefore something something, admit you're wrong so we can get started."

Whatever Newton believed as far as creation prior to the codification of relativity, the discovery of radioactivity, the discovery of evolution, and the discovery of the geologic column is about as relevant as Henry Ford's belief in computer controlled automobile ignitions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with phylogeny.

Also

You call yourself a YEC, but you assert that evolution was discovered; that choice of words implies that you see evolution as a fact to have been discovered. Evolutionary theory contraindicates a young earth posit. Which is it?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Wow. Just... wow.

Bob and his little crony must be here to practice their selective reading skills. That's the only explanation I can think of.

Maybe I spoke too soon about the niceness...

Believe it or not, I'm one of the nicer people here. However, when you're so blatantly ignore the obvious (that someone agreed to discuss something and then went off in a completely different direction) it upsets my sensibilities.

 

[Inferno]

Whether Newton was a Creationist or not, and for the record I do believe that he was, has nothing to do with the debate and as such the comment that this is a pure "gotcha" point is valid. I don't know whether it was Thunderf00t or someone else who said it, but Newton, to my knowledge, specifically rejected natural explanations in favour of magical "God did it" explanations, which in my eyes makes him a Creationist.
However, I don't know how that is in any way related to the topic at hand, namely "phylogeny". Heck, it tells us the title in the topic... So unless Newton made any relevant discoveries in that field, heck, even IF he did, this has no bearing on the topic whatsoever.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm not sure what evolution has to do with this topic.

Because the topic YOU stated they would discuss is PHYLOGENY, not Newton's religious beliefs. It's a complete red herring on Bob's part and makes him look like he's trying to avoid the agreed debate topic of phylogeny.

Newton rejected theories on the origin of the universe that existed and believed in special creation. I don't think the discovery of evolution has anything to do with origins.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Newton was a creationist. So what? It is absolutely irrelevant.

Either way, I can't wait until they get to phylogeny!

Which will happen as soon as Bob stops his red herring about Newton and actually starts to the address the issue of phylogenetics.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I give Bob 2 posts until he spirals into a death-spin and crashes into a puddle of ad homs and red herrings after back-and-forthing with AronRa.
I have to say that there's one thing I enjoy about that dumbfuck, ><V><, that comes on here with his barely-coherent fouled-up mathematical discussion - he taught me that even if you're wrong, if you can at least stick to the topic without deviation and lacking Red Herrings, then at the very least you have the guise of knowing what you're talking about.

20 bucks on 2 posts to go to Doctors Without Boarders. Anyone wanna take me up on this one?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Aron claimed in the show that Newton did not reject methodological naturalism. Since Newton believed in Adam & Eve, that will be a tough position to defend!

So you are claiming that someone could not accept methodological naturalism and the story of Adam and Eve at the same time? Why is this? I would agree that today this could be true, but in the 1700s, when science was in its infancy, this does not seem like an unwarranted belief. It seems Newton and many of the fathers of science were still holding onto ideas from the past, which explains why Newton could accept creationism, naturalism, and alchemy all at the same time.

Thus, I agree with brettpalmer; it seems BobEnyart is trying to score gotcha points against AronRa.

YesYouNeedJesus, have you read the section I quoted from AronRa yet? That section alone exposes BobEnyart's poor scholarship and lack of understanding about phylogeny. BobEnyart's posturing about Newton only comes off as him delaying the inevitable refutation of everything he thinks he knows.

It may be inevitable. If so, only Aron is the one holding the inevitable up!

Actually, since the debate is about phylogeny, and here at the League of Reason, we like to keep our debates on topic, AronRa is not holding anything up. Australopithecus has already left a mod-note expressing this fact. Thus, AronRa can, if he wished, ignore this whole irrelevance and get right into phylogeny.

Now, I have asked you several questions, yet they have gone unanswered. Thus, I am going to start reposting all my questions in all my posts addressed to you until they are answered.

Can you please define evolution in its biological context? Have you actually taken the time to read the seven posts AronRa posted? If you have read AronRa's earlier posts, will you point out something you know he got wrong?

Please answer these questions in your next response to me.

I give Bob 2 posts until he spirals into a death-spin and crashes into a puddle of ad homs and red herrings after back-and-forthing with AronRa.
I have to say that there's one thing I enjoy about that dumbfuck, ><V><, that comes on here with his barely-coherent fouled-up mathematical discussion - he taught me that even if you're wrong, if you can at least stick to the topic without deviation and lacking Red Herrings, then at the very least you have the guise of knowing what you're talking about.

20 bucks on 2 posts to go to Doctors Without Boarders. Anyone wanna take me up on this one?

Two posts total or two posts plus the first one already posted?

Because I was thinking something along those same lines, but I was thinking it was going to take another four posts from BobEnyart (five posts total).

I am in. Five-post total from BobEnyart before "he spirals into a death-spin and crashes into a puddle of ad homs and red herrings".

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I give Bob 2 posts until he spirals into a death-spin and crashes into a puddle of ad homs and red herrings after back-and-forthing with AronRa.
I have to say that there's one thing I enjoy about that dumbfuck, ><V><, that comes on here with his barely-coherent fouled-up mathematical discussion - he taught me that even if you're wrong, if you can at least stick to the topic without deviation and lacking Red Herrings, then at the very least you have the guise of knowing what you're talking about.

20 bucks on 2 posts to go to Doctors Without Boarders. Anyone wanna take me up on this one?

Two posts total or two posts plus the first one already posted?

Because I was thinking something along those same lines, but I was thinking it was going to take another four posts from BobEnyart (five posts total).

I am in. Five-post total from BobEnyart before "he spirals into a death-spin and crashes into a puddle of ad homs and red herrings".

Not including this one -
So 3 in total.

My bet is that Ra doesn't like bullshit - and when he steps off-topic (presumably in the first post) AronRa (or astral, Gnug, etc.) will correct him and stiff-arm the conversation on those points with remarks on why they're invalid to the discussion. That gives post #3 to interlope the dragging on of why he needs such red herrings and insulting him for doing so.
That being said, let's just see how it rolls.

Oh - no takesie backsies. >:]

 

[Gnug215]

Why?

Why, why... why??

Why is Newton an issue?

Because Bob knows he can't refute any of Aron's points on phylogeny so his opening gambit is to completely ignore the topic of the agreed debate and try and find fault with any issue where he can make it look like he's out-witted a godless heathen.

Fercryin'outloud, isn't that what I already said? Are my posts hidden from everyone else?

Well, you're totally hard to spot because you've typed your name in lower case!!

Yeah, that's totally it!




(Nothing to do with me being lazy and not reading all the posts before I start running my mouth...)

 

[Anachronous Rex]

One of the main deferences between an open and honest debate and just any argument you might happen to have on the street is that debate is, at least, supposed to be about arriving at truth. Argumentation is typically just about winning. This means that people participating in a debate are held to a higher standard of conduct then those engaged in a simple argument.

For instance, the easiest way to win an argument is simply not to have the argument your opponent wants to have. Summed up in such classic wisdom as:
"If someone tries to make you feel bad, you find out what they feel bad about and you talk about that instead."
"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
And, of course, the infamous strawman.

This sort of thing is not tolerated in a debate, however, because it is dishonest and deceitful and blatantly uninterested in what is true. Which is why I am disappointed in what I have read thus far, because I believe what we have here is a variation on the first:
'If someone tries to discuss a topic you know nothing about (Phylogeny), you find out what they don't know anything about (the private beliefs of a three centuries old alchemist and mathematician) and you talk about that instead.'

This could, of course, backfire if it turns out that AronRa does know a lot about Newton (he could point out that Newton was an anti-trinitarian), but it wouldn't really matter. The important thing is that the bullet of Phylogeny has been dodged.

That is despicable, and it won't be tolerated here.

 

[DepricatedZero]

That opener was pretty well argued, actually. I'm eager to see AronRa's response, this should be good.

Might actually have a good, interesting debate for once.

We shall see!

Agreed! I still predict Aron will not be able to bring himself to admit he was wrong, but I will be incredibly impressed if he does! So far my experience on this site is completely different than other atheist/evolutionist sites I've participated in. People are much nicer, friendlier and honest. Thanks!

Welcome to the League, hope you enjoy it and stick around. It's always refreshing to have viewpoints that aren't part of the groupthink.

His post was beside the point, granted, but it was well put. If he can maintain the quality of discourse while discussing phylogeny(the topic) this will be something to enjoy.

On the point he brought up: I don't think what Newton did or didn't believe has any bearing on an objective truth of reality. A person with brilliant ideas or a flash of stunning insight can still be vastly ignorant in other areas of knowledge. The Principia is a wonderful contribution to the knowledge of mankind, but the man was also an alchemist and believed that lead could be magically("hermetically") converted into gold. We praise him for the knowledge he contributed, we don't hold him as a paragon of reason.

 

[Gnug215]

Wow. Just... wow.

Bob and his little crony must be here to practice their selective reading skills. That's the only explanation I can think of.

Maybe I spoke too soon about the niceness...

To be honest, yes you did.

We're usually quite courteous initially, but if anything, we're impatient and quite a few of us become very vocal about our impatience after a bit.

There are a few exceptions, and how we express our impatience (and ensuing annoyance) varies quite a bit.

However, I'd ask of you to try to ignore the pointy remarks as best you can, as they're probably not really as harsh as they sound. If someone is being only insulting, just ignore them all together.

You have to remember that just about all of us here have been around this community for a while, and we've basically heard all the (bad) arguments before - many times. I certainly lose patience quickly if I see a rehashed argument for the umpteenth time.

I suppose if communication fails or breaks down, that will also be a factor causing annoyance.

When that happens, many of us here dispense with the niceness.

 

[Gnug215]

INFO:


I've been in contact with Bob Enyart in a brief mail, just checking via his official channels to see if it was really him. (Skepticism, wooh!!)

He mentions that he would like to stick to phylogeny, but that AronRa has made some points already (not in that debate - AronRa hasn't posted there yet) that he wanted to address.

That is, of course, a fair point.

I have responded to him offering to maybe move the Newton post to another thread or the like, and I also suggested that we start the "debate" from scratch, since other people have posted there as well. It looks messy! I don't like messy!

Even THIS thread is actually quite messy.

Firstly, it doesn't link to the debate from the original post as we're used to, and it doesn't really seem on topic - which isn't so strange seeing as neither Bob nor Aron have actually debated phylogeny yet!!

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Does anyone have the Jeopardy theme song handy? C'mon Aron!

A lot of people think that Bob Enyart is obfuscating with Newton because he's afraid to discuss phylogeny with Aron. Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But let me tell you what I think:

I think Aron doesn't want to discuss phylogeny with Bob and so he'll either not admit he was wrong about Newton, or use this as a way to get out of the debate. Yes, I know he posted all that stuff, but that's completely different than actively engaging someone. Anyone can post a small book of material on a site where everyone agrees, but it's a whole new ballgame to actively engage. Time will tell...

 

[brettpalmer]

Does anyone have the Jeopardy theme song handy? C'mon Aron!

A lot of people think that Bob Enyart is obfuscating with Newton because he's afraid to discuss phylogeny with Aron. Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But let me tell you what I think:

I think Aron doesn't want to discuss phylogeny with Bob and so he'll either not admit he was wrong about Newton, or use this as a way to get out of the debate. Yes, I know he posted all that stuff, but that's completely different than actively engaging someone. Anyone can post a small book of material on a site where everyone agrees, but it's a whole new ballgame to actively engage. Time will tell...

Wow. With all due respect and everything, you really do live in a world of fantasies, don't you?

 

[australopithecus]

I think Aron doesn't want to discuss phylogeny with Bob and so he'll either not admit he was wrong about Newton, or use this as a way to get out of the debate. Yes, I know he posted all that stuff, but that's completely different than actively engaging someone. Anyone can post a small book of material on a site where everyone agrees, but it's a whole new ballgame to actively engage. Time will tell...

I could refute Bob on phylogeny, so Aron could do so in his sleep. Newton is a irrelevant disgression, Aron does not need to address it as the topic is phylogeny, and there's no time limit, he will post when he posts. I assume you, like he, has a life away from the Internet?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Does anyone have the Jeopardy theme song handy? C'mon Aron!

A lot of people think that Bob Enyart is obfuscating with Newton because he's afraid to discuss phylogeny with Aron. Fair enough. Maybe you're right. But let me tell you what I think:

I think Aron doesn't want to discuss phylogeny with Bob and so he'll either not admit he was wrong about Newton, or use this as a way to get out of the debate. Yes, I know he posted all that stuff, but that's completely different than actively engaging someone. Anyone can post a small book of material on a site where everyone agrees, but it's a whole new ballgame to actively engage. Time will tell...

I guess it is a good think AronRa has already addressed this point:

AronRa[/url]"]My primary contention is with Bob's proposal that failure to post a reply within a single week constitutes a loss by default. It normally takes me longer than that just to catch up on my email! I'm not kidding either. I don't have assistants like yourself. Neither do I have an online ministry peddling books and DVDs and so on. I'm supposed to start my own radio show soon, apart form my podcasts with DPR Jones, but I'll never have sheep to shear like Bob does. So I still have to work for a living, and I more work to do off the clock than on. For example, it Bob posted today, it would take me a whole month to reply to him. I have multiple presentations, promotions, and protests to prepare, and just a few weeks to complete them all. These next few months, I'll be all over the place. I can't put one of these real-world events on-hold, and cannot prioritize Bob above any of them. That and I also have a large and demanding family on top of everything else. At this point, the best I could agree to is no more than a month between posts. I'm sorry, but I'm already sweating just over the amount of time I took me to write this message to you.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Can you please define evolution in its biological context? Have you actually taken the time to read the seven posts AronRa posted? If you have read AronRa's earlier posts, will you point out something you know he got wrong?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I don't expect to convince anyone of this, but Aron brought this upon himself. If you listen to the radio shows he did with Bob and watch his videos and read the comments he's put on this site, he's done nothing but rub it in Bob's face that Bob will have to admit that he was wrong about everything. Maybe Bob is wrong about everything, and yes, he should admit it, but Bob is only asking Aron to put his money where his mouth is.

I'm new to Aron and you guys are new to Bob. Since I've been following Bob for years, I've seen that it's Bob that's willing to admit when he's wrong and not the atheists and evolutionists. So if you think about it from that perspective, you can see why Bob would want to open with this. I can guarantee you that from his past experiences, he expects what I expect, and that's the utter inability for Aron to admit he was wrong. If Aron is so confident that Bob will be the one having to admit he was wrong on a hundred issues, then he should have no problem being wrong on just one minor issue.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Wow. With all due respect and everything, you really do live in a world of fantasies, don't you?

I guess we will see...