Bobbo makes three major points in his invective.
First, he thinks that evolutionary scientists are "afraid" to let creationists present their bullshit. I've covered this issue before, so there's no need to address it again.
Second, Bob believes that evolution is "unproven." But here's an important question that Bobbo is never asked, nor will he respond to: What evidence would Bobbo accept that demonstrates the evolution is scientific fact?
- Would Bobbo accept the results of an experiment which forced E. coli bacteria to adapt or perish showed that, in a pinch, they were capable of improvising a novel molecular tool to save their skins?
- Would Bobbo accept observations of an adaptation that allowed tropical blue moon butterfly to develop a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria?
- Would Bobbo accept the observation of the London Underground Mosquito, which evolved from a different type of mosquito to become a distinct species?
As for Bobbo's third point, that Creationists have "mountains" of "scientific" evidence, but it's "censored" by evolutionary scientists, I challenge him to produce one scientifically verifiable observation in support of the Biblical account of creation. This observation must be on par with the three I've cited above, observable and falsifiable through the scientific method. Hint: Bobbo won't do it, because he can't do it.
Finally, Bobbo thinks that because actual scientists don't want to deal with superstitious buffoons that they are hiding from a fight, and "common sense" demonstrates the weakness in evolution.
Hardly. Scientists aren't "censoring" anything. They are just unwilling to humor superstitious buffoons who refuse to deal in hard evidence.
Finally, Bobbo's appeal to "common sense" is specious. Bobbo's idea of common sense is just his collection ignorance and prejudice. Honestly, Bobbo's appeals to "common sense" is an admission that his tiny, flaccid arguments lack the fecundity to educate all but the most ignorant of minds.
In other words, Bobbo is an insufferable dolt.
4 comments:
I called him and asked him if he could describe a creature that in his mind would qualify as a transitional specimen. I talked about Basillosaurus and how it's a 50 ft long underwater sea mammal with tiny legs that are incapable of supporting the animal under it's own weight. Evolutionists would predict that such an animal would had to have existed since whales evolved from 4 legged land mammals that return to the sea. If this isn't a transitional fossil, what would qualify? No, he didn't answer. You can listen to that call here:
http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2009/03/bob-dutko-and-i-discuss-transitional.html
You asked, "[w]hat evidence would Bobbo accept that demonstrates the evolution is scientific fact?" The answer is simple: Bob would insist that that evolutionists show a dog giving birth to a cat, or some other like event. Never mind that such an event would be absolutely contrary to evolutionary theory. Bob wants to see one established species immediately turning into another established species.
Of course, the evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. If Bob was honest about wanting to learn about this evidence, he could take a field trip up to East Lansing and see Dr. Lenski's e-coli experiments in person. But Bob perfers ignorance, so he won't.
Jeff & Jon,
Excellent points. The other techniques Bob in his quest to deceive his listeners are: Make demands of evolution that the theory doesn't predict or completely ignore the evidence.
Bob has to actively lie to support his ideas. How very Christian of him.
Bob is fine with the idea of lying. He doesn't care about truth, only about getting conservatives elected to office. And he'll use religion in any way, shape, or form he can to achieve that goal.
Post a Comment