Folks, I've all but stopped listening to Bob. It was a fun for a while, but, like every job, it just got a bit tedious due to the repetition. Therefore, I'm going to lock up the blog for a while. Perhaps, I'll throw the doors back open sometime in the future should I be so motivated.
But I'll leave you with a link to a few posts from the past. First, is the refutation post that I put up in January. Bob had claimed that "evolutionists" had never refuted him. So I simply linked to over 50 posts on this very blog which successfully refuted Bob Dutko.
Second, is a the post I did about Margaret Sanger. Bob demonizes Sanger regularly because she's the founder of Planned Parenthood and they happen to do abortions along with other reproductive health services. But Sanger's true legacy lies in the promotion of birth control, not in the promotion of abortion.
Lastly, this post shows how Bob isn't the small government conservative he pretends to be. Instead, he wants to use the power of government to interfere with private medical decisions. Specifically, Bob would require that the government require "three or four" doctors, including "Christian doctors", in order for a woman to have an abortion if her life was at risk. The truth is Bob does not really want smaller government. He wants bigger government to control all people according to the tenants of his religion.
With that, I bid you all adieu.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
The truth, selectively told, is the greatest lie of all and Dutko does it well.
Here is the second post I wrote of July 5.
After Dutko gave Michelle Goldberg a royal thrashing with his tired falsehood on Fisher Ames the conversation moved to evolution, one of Bob’s favorite subjects.
He was quick to let us know has debated many evolutionists modestly added they “always lose.”
Goldberg responded saying creationists have erected an “Elaborate tapestry of non-sense.”
Without taking a breath Dutko trotted out his favorite Stephen Gould quote to resume his pasting of his invited guest.
This from Gould, Dutko said:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions and organic design, indeed our inability to even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Harvard U “Paleobiology” Vol 6 page 127 January. 1980
“You don’t get any bigger than Gould,” in the field of evolution Dutko added.
If they “don’t get any bigger,” wouldn’t anyone with both an interest in this complex subject and a microgram of intellectual honesty spend a few minutes to stay current with Gould’s views, at least until his 2002 death? One would indeed think so, but those of us acquainted with Dutko know he would not bother. He knows the answers, you see.
I have not checked this 1980 quote, but let’s assume it’s correct just to give Dutko a break .
I did, though, check with about a dozen mouse-clicks and found Dr. Gould's article entitled, “Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,” included as a chapter in “Dinosaur in the Haystack,” 1995. And yup, there it was in plain view for all to see in the Rochester Hills library. Gould wrote:
“Ambulocetus natans (whale that walks) weighed some 650 pounds, the size of a hefty sea lion.
“…if you have had given me both a blank sheet of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who can make white black, and black white, by verbal trickery will never be convinced by anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that creationists proclaimed impossible in theory.
“…..This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology.
“… Ambulocetus is so close to our expectation for a transitional form that its discovery could not provide a professional paleontologist with the greatest of all pleasures in science — surprise.”
So Dutko beats on Goldberg with the “absence of … intermediate forms,” while over a dozen years ago -- more than a decade -- Gould wrote of a “picture-perfect intermediacy…”.
There it is fellas and gals -- the “elaborate tapestry of non-sense,” Goldberg mentioned, and our own local guy, Dutko is making the fabric bold and rich in non-sense of his own making.
And often -- so often -- we know, Dutko speaks of “intellectual dishonesty” of those on the “left” and those who, as do I, accept the theory of Darwinian evolution. He shows how’s it done, don’t he?
After Dutko gave Michelle Goldberg a royal thrashing with his tired falsehood on Fisher Ames the conversation moved to evolution, one of Bob’s favorite subjects.
He was quick to let us know has debated many evolutionists modestly added they “always lose.”
Goldberg responded saying creationists have erected an “Elaborate tapestry of non-sense.”
Without taking a breath Dutko trotted out his favorite Stephen Gould quote to resume his pasting of his invited guest.
This from Gould, Dutko said:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions and organic design, indeed our inability to even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Harvard U “Paleobiology” Vol 6 page 127 January. 1980
“You don’t get any bigger than Gould,” in the field of evolution Dutko added.
If they “don’t get any bigger,” wouldn’t anyone with both an interest in this complex subject and a microgram of intellectual honesty spend a few minutes to stay current with Gould’s views, at least until his 2002 death? One would indeed think so, but those of us acquainted with Dutko know he would not bother. He knows the answers, you see.
I have not checked this 1980 quote, but let’s assume it’s correct just to give Dutko a break .
I did, though, check with about a dozen mouse-clicks and found Dr. Gould's article entitled, “Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,” included as a chapter in “Dinosaur in the Haystack,” 1995. And yup, there it was in plain view for all to see in the Rochester Hills library. Gould wrote:
“Ambulocetus natans (whale that walks) weighed some 650 pounds, the size of a hefty sea lion.
“…if you have had given me both a blank sheet of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who can make white black, and black white, by verbal trickery will never be convinced by anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that creationists proclaimed impossible in theory.
“…..This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology.
“… Ambulocetus is so close to our expectation for a transitional form that its discovery could not provide a professional paleontologist with the greatest of all pleasures in science — surprise.”
So Dutko beats on Goldberg with the “absence of … intermediate forms,” while over a dozen years ago -- more than a decade -- Gould wrote of a “picture-perfect intermediacy…”.
There it is fellas and gals -- the “elaborate tapestry of non-sense,” Goldberg mentioned, and our own local guy, Dutko is making the fabric bold and rich in non-sense of his own making.
And often -- so often -- we know, Dutko speaks of “intellectual dishonesty” of those on the “left” and those who, as do I, accept the theory of Darwinian evolution. He shows how’s it done, don’t he?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Dutko's flat-out dishonesty, again and again.
Saturday, July 4th WMUZ used an earlier interview Bob had with Michele Goldberg once it was edited as material for “Duking it out with Dutko.”
Following is excerpt one of two I want to expose to the revealing light of day.
(1)Dutko:…… It was the government that printed the Bibles for the schools in this country and as a matter of fact the guy who coined the language in the first amendment Fisher Ames – he argued that bibles need to remain textbooks – required reading in the schools in this country – that’s the guy who authored the language for first amendment. I don’t understand how you can say this is not true….
(2) Goldberg: First of all (cross-talk) it was Madison working from language that Jefferson used in the Virginia statue of religious freedom…
(3)D: (cutting her off) No as they were having this debate (summer of 1791 during development of Bill of Rights) -- they were crafting all of the language and Madison was the one who finally accepted the final language – the language that he used came from Fisher Ames: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
(4) G: Can I ask a question? Do you disagree that the first amendment was based on the 1786 statute establishing religious freedom in Virginia? That’s what most mainstream historians argue. Do you disagree with that?
(5)D: You know, honestly I don’t really have a strong opinion about that I, I think it’s irrelevant I honestly consider it irrelevant whether it does or does not.
(6)G: It is not irrelevant! Because here’s what Jefferson wrote in his autobiography about that statute. He wrote that someone wanted to refer to Jesus Christ as the source of religious liberty: He wrote that it was “rejected by the great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend in the mantle of it protection, the Jew and the gentile the Christian and the Mohamden, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. “ (Bob’s response is unknown since the editor terminated this exchange and went to commercial)
Background: On hearing some years ago the Fisher Ames story I was nonplused at somehow overlooking in my reading, so I thought, a major player in the development of the First Amendment (FA) . A few mouse clicks showed Fisher Ames was but a minor contributor to the processes. Yes, the record shows on August 20, 1789 he did indeed introduce language, largely developed by others, onto the floor of the House of Representatives.
I promptly sent Bob an email with a paste of what I had easily found (posted 8:26 PM) and receiving no response, was surprised and angered when he continued to tell the same story again and again. I then sent a large envelope via USPS with full source documentation plainly showing Ames as the minor player he was. David Barton in his book “Original Intent,” even describes Ames as a “helper.” Ain't that faint praise? (Wallbuilder Press, 1996 p 365)
Bob must insist on the Ames story as he falsely tells it because to those who see the FA as Garry Wills, Randall Balmer, Michael Shermer, Harry Cook, Dan Barker and I do, he likes to rip into us with this: “Now, who knows more about the FA, you and the ACLU or the guy who wrote it?” Should he be truthful about Ames, his favorite rhetorical cudgel collapses.
Back to the dialogue:
In (2) above, Goldberg swiftly and correctly picks up the trail of the facts surrounding the source of FA language. Whenever, for the sake of brevity, FA language is attributed by mainstream authors to a single person, it’s Madison. She knows that.
In (3) Dutko omits not only the early but wordy and less-focused contribution of Madison (June 7, 1789) also fails to note the important late addition of the expansive term, “respecting,” after Ames’ “help” of August 20.
In (4) Goldberg further homes in on the blatant falsity of his Ames story and presents Dutko with a simple and inescapable question.
Look at his response.
(5) Here it is, classic Dutko: Evading the direct question by summarily branding as “irrelevant” any hint that he might be in error. This is a typical hostile, demeaning, ham-fisted stunt of Dutko’s – keep pounding a bewildered guest with nonsense while steering the conversation to where Dutko can continue to dominate, intimidate and overwhelm , thus burying the threatening question apart from the minds of the audience.
Now think of what we are to believe: So it’s important that we understand Fisher Ames was the author of the FA, but the philosophy and derivation of its language, which leads us forthwith to Madison and Jefferson, is not worth a “strong opinion” or it’s “irrelevant.” Dutko, you are a trip.
Following is excerpt one of two I want to expose to the revealing light of day.
(1)Dutko:…… It was the government that printed the Bibles for the schools in this country and as a matter of fact the guy who coined the language in the first amendment Fisher Ames – he argued that bibles need to remain textbooks – required reading in the schools in this country – that’s the guy who authored the language for first amendment. I don’t understand how you can say this is not true….
(2) Goldberg: First of all (cross-talk) it was Madison working from language that Jefferson used in the Virginia statue of religious freedom…
(3)D: (cutting her off) No as they were having this debate (summer of 1791 during development of Bill of Rights) -- they were crafting all of the language and Madison was the one who finally accepted the final language – the language that he used came from Fisher Ames: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
(4) G: Can I ask a question? Do you disagree that the first amendment was based on the 1786 statute establishing religious freedom in Virginia? That’s what most mainstream historians argue. Do you disagree with that?
(5)D: You know, honestly I don’t really have a strong opinion about that I, I think it’s irrelevant I honestly consider it irrelevant whether it does or does not.
(6)G: It is not irrelevant! Because here’s what Jefferson wrote in his autobiography about that statute. He wrote that someone wanted to refer to Jesus Christ as the source of religious liberty: He wrote that it was “rejected by the great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend in the mantle of it protection, the Jew and the gentile the Christian and the Mohamden, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. “ (Bob’s response is unknown since the editor terminated this exchange and went to commercial)
Background: On hearing some years ago the Fisher Ames story I was nonplused at somehow overlooking in my reading, so I thought, a major player in the development of the First Amendment (FA) . A few mouse clicks showed Fisher Ames was but a minor contributor to the processes. Yes, the record shows on August 20, 1789 he did indeed introduce language, largely developed by others, onto the floor of the House of Representatives.
I promptly sent Bob an email with a paste of what I had easily found (posted 8:26 PM) and receiving no response, was surprised and angered when he continued to tell the same story again and again. I then sent a large envelope via USPS with full source documentation plainly showing Ames as the minor player he was. David Barton in his book “Original Intent,” even describes Ames as a “helper.” Ain't that faint praise? (Wallbuilder Press, 1996 p 365)
Bob must insist on the Ames story as he falsely tells it because to those who see the FA as Garry Wills, Randall Balmer, Michael Shermer, Harry Cook, Dan Barker and I do, he likes to rip into us with this: “Now, who knows more about the FA, you and the ACLU or the guy who wrote it?” Should he be truthful about Ames, his favorite rhetorical cudgel collapses.
Back to the dialogue:
In (2) above, Goldberg swiftly and correctly picks up the trail of the facts surrounding the source of FA language. Whenever, for the sake of brevity, FA language is attributed by mainstream authors to a single person, it’s Madison. She knows that.
In (3) Dutko omits not only the early but wordy and less-focused contribution of Madison (June 7, 1789) also fails to note the important late addition of the expansive term, “respecting,” after Ames’ “help” of August 20.
In (4) Goldberg further homes in on the blatant falsity of his Ames story and presents Dutko with a simple and inescapable question.
Look at his response.
(5) Here it is, classic Dutko: Evading the direct question by summarily branding as “irrelevant” any hint that he might be in error. This is a typical hostile, demeaning, ham-fisted stunt of Dutko’s – keep pounding a bewildered guest with nonsense while steering the conversation to where Dutko can continue to dominate, intimidate and overwhelm , thus burying the threatening question apart from the minds of the audience.
Now think of what we are to believe: So it’s important that we understand Fisher Ames was the author of the FA, but the philosophy and derivation of its language, which leads us forthwith to Madison and Jefferson, is not worth a “strong opinion” or it’s “irrelevant.” Dutko, you are a trip.
Origion of establishment clause of First Amendment
I paste this information since it is critical to the story that follows in a later post.
Some early draft amendments to the religion section of the First Amendment were:
James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames) Emphasis mine
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.
Source of this brief summary is unknown but it is fully consistent with accounts by credible historians.
Some early draft amendments to the religion section of the First Amendment were:
James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames) Emphasis mine
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.
Source of this brief summary is unknown but it is fully consistent with accounts by credible historians.
Bob's "Best of..." with Michelle Goldberg
Yesterday, Saturday, Bob's lead-off reprise was his exchange with Michelle Goldberg. Time is short now, but I hope go into some detail in a day or so. Suffice it to say Bob was at the very top of his dishonest game with this guest. I have a recording so I can be sure of all he-said's, she-said's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
