Bobbo has the intellectual depth of a Hallmark card. If you want simple, easily digestible bits of flotsam wrapped up in Christian colors, Bob is a good source for you. I have to warn you though; A diet filled with Dutko flotsam will lead to intellectual malnourishment and starvation.
You see, Bobbo likes to claim that he's all about the "free exchange of ideas." But if, and only if, the ideas being exchanged benefit Dutko Approved!™ idiocy.
Take a listen to this bit of nonsense:
Do you see what Bob did there? If you don't pay close attention, it could easily slip by.
First, Bob claims that he's so open-minded that he thinks evolution should be taught in public schools. But he would also like Ignorant-Design taught alongside evolution, because that's the "free exchange" of ideas! Finally, if you don't encourage the teaching of Ignorant-Design, you are being a censor!
At this point, Bobbo throws himself on the ground and starts sobbing "Mommy! Those mean lefties won't let me babble incoherently and spread lies! They're mean poopyheads! Make them stop!"
Here's the problem with Bobbo's little fantasy: His idea of the "free exchange" of ideas is no such thing. Bobbo is demanding that the non-scientific idea of Ignorant Design be taught along an actual scientific idea, Evolution.
The Union of Concerned Scientists have a lengthy explanation as to why Ignorant Design isn't science, with the greatest reason being that a scientific theory [nee Evolution] is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.
So, to Bobbo, the "free exchange" of ideas is being able to attack a sure-fire scientific idea with made-up nonsense. That's some Grade A horseshit!
But here's the thing that's really insidious: Bobbo insults and demeans promoters of science with the slanderous term "censor."
Censorship is the suppression of speech, not the refusal to dilute actual science with superstitious bullshit. Scientists have examined the arguments that ID creationists have offered (because they sure as hell don't offer actual science) and found them wanting. Wanting in a coherent testable, scientific idea that makes ID even remotely plausible. So it's completely understandable why scientists don't want to teach Ignorant Design in the schools! ID isn't science!
And another thing: If Bobbo wants to demonstrate how dedicated he is to the "free exchange" of ideas, he should advocate for allowing GLAAD into the schools to speak out against the bullying of gay students. But the day Bobbo advocates for gay activists in the public schools is the day ID creationists proffer a falsifiable scientific theory: It's never going to happen.
So Bobbo should save the "free exchange" of ideas bullshit and just admit that he he's a petty little moron that spreads ignorance like the Pied Piper of Fucktardington.
Showing posts with label Bob's Deceptions about Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob's Deceptions about Science. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Evidence! Evidence? Bob Isn't Familiar With the Term!
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Bob is always claiming that he gives you the evidence. But when you scratch the surface of Bob's "evidence," you'll discover that Bob is polishing turds.
Let's begin by asking a seemingly simple question: What is evidence?
One standard definition is rather broad: Evidence is that which is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
But how can you be sure of the connection between your evidence and your assertion?
As it turns out, justifiable connections between your claim and your evidence is a matter of considerable debate. One line of thought argues that one's views should be guided by the evidence, with the evidence examined objectively, not through the distorting lens of dogma, prejudice or bias. This view believes that evidence is a neutral arbiter, collected prior to the theory, with its accumulation leading to a consensus.
As you have probably guessed, this is the is the scientific method. For a consensus to considered scientific, you collect evidence through observation and testing. The evidence is compiled and presented objectively, accumulating into a specific explanation of a particular phenomenon.
With that in mind, listen to Bob's claim about miracles:
Thus, Bob is claiming that prayer has made tumors disappear. Bob believes that prayer can have a tangible effect on the sick, healing them of devastating diseases. This is very important, because Bob gives us an observation that can be tested. Once we start the objective testing, data about Bob's claim can be compiled. And the data provides us with a conclusion about Bob's claim concerning the effectiveness of intercessory prayer: Intercessory prayer is a big ol' turd.
A few years back, the Templeton Foundation dropped 2.5 million pounds to determine if intercessory prayer is worth anything. As it turns out, [t]he study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers. In fact, 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications. If anything can be gleaned from this study, its that you shouldn't pray for the sick because you might make them sicker!
So how can Bob make this wild-eyed claim that prayers have healed tumors? Obviously, he's not resting his claim on a scientific study. Essentially, Bob's evidence between prayer and healing is "someone somewhere is claiming something I believe in and you should too."
But when you hear Bob make silly-assed claims like this, ask five important questions: Who? What? Where? When? How?
Who is the doctor that Bob talked to?
What is the evidence that the doctor is using to make the claim?
Where and when did this miracle occur?
How do we know that the person with the tumor isn't also receiving effective medical care?
If Bob is pushed into a corner and forced to answer any of these questions, you discover what every rational person knows: Bob's evidence is shit, polished with a glossy coat of God's Varnish!
Do yourself a favor: Stop buying what Bob is selling. His products are forged with Grade A feces, suitable only for flushing.
If you're interested, here's some further reading on the philosophical problem of evidence.
Let's begin by asking a seemingly simple question: What is evidence?
One standard definition is rather broad: Evidence is that which is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
But how can you be sure of the connection between your evidence and your assertion?
As it turns out, justifiable connections between your claim and your evidence is a matter of considerable debate. One line of thought argues that one's views should be guided by the evidence, with the evidence examined objectively, not through the distorting lens of dogma, prejudice or bias. This view believes that evidence is a neutral arbiter, collected prior to the theory, with its accumulation leading to a consensus.
As you have probably guessed, this is the is the scientific method. For a consensus to considered scientific, you collect evidence through observation and testing. The evidence is compiled and presented objectively, accumulating into a specific explanation of a particular phenomenon.
With that in mind, listen to Bob's claim about miracles:
Thus, Bob is claiming that prayer has made tumors disappear. Bob believes that prayer can have a tangible effect on the sick, healing them of devastating diseases. This is very important, because Bob gives us an observation that can be tested. Once we start the objective testing, data about Bob's claim can be compiled. And the data provides us with a conclusion about Bob's claim concerning the effectiveness of intercessory prayer: Intercessory prayer is a big ol' turd.
A few years back, the Templeton Foundation dropped 2.5 million pounds to determine if intercessory prayer is worth anything. As it turns out, [t]he study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers. In fact, 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications. If anything can be gleaned from this study, its that you shouldn't pray for the sick because you might make them sicker!
So how can Bob make this wild-eyed claim that prayers have healed tumors? Obviously, he's not resting his claim on a scientific study. Essentially, Bob's evidence between prayer and healing is "someone somewhere is claiming something I believe in and you should too."
But when you hear Bob make silly-assed claims like this, ask five important questions: Who? What? Where? When? How?
Who is the doctor that Bob talked to?
What is the evidence that the doctor is using to make the claim?
Where and when did this miracle occur?
How do we know that the person with the tumor isn't also receiving effective medical care?
If Bob is pushed into a corner and forced to answer any of these questions, you discover what every rational person knows: Bob's evidence is shit, polished with a glossy coat of God's Varnish!
Do yourself a favor: Stop buying what Bob is selling. His products are forged with Grade A feces, suitable only for flushing.
If you're interested, here's some further reading on the philosophical problem of evidence.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Bob Dutko: Defending the Untruth
If you routinely listen to Bob Dutko, you know that he claims that his beliefs are backed up by "science, logical, and intellectual reasoning." This is the phrase he uses when promoting his syndicated show Defending the Truth. However, Bob's recent statements regarding immunizations and autism show that what he really is doing is defending lies.
On Friday, Bob discussed the recent court ruling confirming that there is no link between immunizations and autism. Curiously, Bob admitted that there is no scientific evidence to support his claims that immunizations cause autism. However, he said that he can't ignore the anecdotal evidence!
I nearly fell off my chair at this point. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence! It is the opposite of scientific evidence and a logical fallacy!
Bob went on to quote a "paper" by a psychologist named Bernard Rimland. Dr. Rimland, now deceased, was the parent of an autistic child. The "paper" that Bob quoted made some fantastic claims, such as "thousands of parents report with their home videos" that their children have autism after getting a vaccine.
As I noted in a previous post, there have been many scientific studies performed to show that there is no causal link between receiving immunizations and developing autism. One of those studies looked at the health records of 537,303 Danish children. When comparing the vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, researchers found no correlation between vaccination and the development of an autistic disorder.
Whose word am I to trust on this matter? A dead man, whose own child has autism, who claims to have viewed thousands of videotapes from other distraught parents or the comprehensive study of over the medical records of a half million children?
I'm gonna go with the latter. Why won't Bob rely on actual evidence?
On Friday, Bob discussed the recent court ruling confirming that there is no link between immunizations and autism. Curiously, Bob admitted that there is no scientific evidence to support his claims that immunizations cause autism. However, he said that he can't ignore the anecdotal evidence!
I nearly fell off my chair at this point. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence! It is the opposite of scientific evidence and a logical fallacy!
Bob went on to quote a "paper" by a psychologist named Bernard Rimland. Dr. Rimland, now deceased, was the parent of an autistic child. The "paper" that Bob quoted made some fantastic claims, such as "thousands of parents report with their home videos" that their children have autism after getting a vaccine.
As I noted in a previous post, there have been many scientific studies performed to show that there is no causal link between receiving immunizations and developing autism. One of those studies looked at the health records of 537,303 Danish children. When comparing the vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, researchers found no correlation between vaccination and the development of an autistic disorder.
Whose word am I to trust on this matter? A dead man, whose own child has autism, who claims to have viewed thousands of videotapes from other distraught parents or the comprehensive study of over the medical records of a half million children?
I'm gonna go with the latter. Why won't Bob rely on actual evidence?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A Letter to Bob
Reader Audioguy64 recently sent a letter to Bob. That letter is copied below. Of course, Audioguy64 is patiently awaiting an answer.....
So, what I did find out is that Mr. Taylor sells "replica" casts of a "sculpted" femur at his museum and website for $450 that comes with a "to-size drawing of a giant human skeleton from its toes to its wrists" and is apparently where Mr. Hovind obtained his "exhibit." In addition, this "sculpture" is based on bones from the Malachite find and as documented on http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm Malachite man is also known as Moab Man and the Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized, of normal size and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. Mr. Taylor's sculpture is not even based on written measurements of the supposed Middle East find which creates a whole host of problems in itself. But I'll ignore those for now. Not surprisingly, I cannot find any evidence of the existence of an actual "bone" giant human femur that can be viewed anywhere in the world or has been written about by an actual archaeologist in any type of scientific journal or even a lay magazine like Discover for that matter. So my question to you is, Does the creation museum in Kentucky have a "real" giant human femur or a copy of Mr. Taylor's sculpted femur? If it is a casted exhibit, do you have any credible documentation of the existence of the actual artifact that can be viewed anywhere in the world? If not, I must conclude that you have simply regurgitated more undocumented "creationist baloney" instead of citing actual documented hard evidence to support your belief in pre-flood giants.
Anxiously awaiting the evidence,
Audioguy64
Bob,
I heard you mention the existence of an exhibit of a giant human femur in the Kentucky creation museum. This seemed highly unlikely to me but since I have never been to that museum and I know that you have talked about going there before, I thought that I would give you the benefit of the doubt and do a little digging on the subject. Unfortunately, I found no mention of such an exhibit on the Kentucky museum's website http://www.creationmuseum.org/, but I did find two other creation museums that boast of such an exhibit.
The first is Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ in Florida and the other is Joe Taylor's Mt. Blanco Museum http://mtblanco.com/index.htm in Texas. The reason I found this interesting is because Kent Hovind's exhibit contains a "replica" of the giant femur that is on display at the Mt. Blanco Museum in Texas. In fact, Mr. Hovind can be seen on videotape stating this fact in Part 2 of his Creation Seminar Series available on his website. So there is no actual "bone" on display at his museum, which by itself is not uncommon in the museum business. The bigger problem is that Mr. Taylor's exhibit in the Mt. Blanco Museum is a "sculpture" that he created based on a description found in an anonymous article sent to him by someone named Jack Wagner in 1996. The statement regarding said article was reprinted on http://www.stevequayle.com/ and reads:
I heard you mention the existence of an exhibit of a giant human femur in the Kentucky creation museum. This seemed highly unlikely to me but since I have never been to that museum and I know that you have talked about going there before, I thought that I would give you the benefit of the doubt and do a little digging on the subject. Unfortunately, I found no mention of such an exhibit on the Kentucky museum's website http://www.creationmuseum.org/
The first is Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land http://www.
From Joe TaylorMr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in Turkey. As a guide for this model, I used the femur of one of the Malachite Man females.What we know about this find is from a letter by the man who found it.The article:Dear Christian Friends, I was born and lived in the Middle East from 1938 to 1968. I was Ain-Tell and Euphrates water works Engineer and was very interested in archaeology and history and had some very interesting findings, some of which may sound unbelievable. I have brought with me a few silex arrow heads, etc., from the very battle-field where King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharo-Necho's armies fought. And what about the giants mentioned in Genesis? In south-east Turkey in the Euphrates Valley and in Homs and at Uran-Zohra, tombs of about four meters long once existed, but now roads and other construction work has destroyed the spots. At two places, when unearthed because of construction work, the leg bones were measured about 120 cms (47.24 inches). It sounds unbelievable. I have lived with my family at Ain-Tell for more than 14 years at the very spot where King Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters after the battle of Charcamish, where I dug the graves of kings' officers and found their skeletons like sponge, and when you touch them they become like white ash, with spears and silex and obsidian tools and ammunition laying by.
So, what I did find out is that Mr. Taylor sells "replica" casts of a "sculpted" femur at his museum and website for $450 that comes with a "to-size drawing of a giant human skeleton from its toes to its wrists" and is apparently where Mr. Hovind obtained his "exhibit." In addition, this "sculpture" is based on bones from the Malachite find and as documented on http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-
Anxiously awaiting the evidence,
Audioguy64
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Bob and Vaccinations
Bob has a paranoid distrust of vaccines, and stated that he has not vaccinated his children. Frequently, he allows anti-vaccination quack Mary Tocco on his show. (Mary sells her lectures on DVD for a profit, just like Bob. Who could have guessed?)
Much of the modern anti-vaccination furor was supported by a 1998 study published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. The study purported that a link existed between the MMR vaccine and autism. Well, surprise surprise, the Times of London is now reporting that the data used in the study was completely faked. Of course, for people in the reality-based world this isn't a surprise at all, as numerous other studies have failed to show any link between vaccination and autism.
So, will Bob comment on this latest refutation of the anti-vax crowd? Nope.
For some strange reason, Bob wants to keep his listeners in a state of ignorance so they'll forgo vaccinations, and endanger the health of the population as a whole.
Bob Dutko: fearlessly endangering the public health!
(h/t Pharyngula)
Much of the modern anti-vaccination furor was supported by a 1998 study published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. The study purported that a link existed between the MMR vaccine and autism. Well, surprise surprise, the Times of London is now reporting that the data used in the study was completely faked. Of course, for people in the reality-based world this isn't a surprise at all, as numerous other studies have failed to show any link between vaccination and autism.
So, will Bob comment on this latest refutation of the anti-vax crowd? Nope.
For some strange reason, Bob wants to keep his listeners in a state of ignorance so they'll forgo vaccinations, and endanger the health of the population as a whole.
Bob Dutko: fearlessly endangering the public health!
(h/t Pharyngula)
Monday, January 12, 2009
Dinosaurs and Man
Last week, on the continuing adventures into stupidity with Bob Dutko, Grady McMurty proclaimed that the "last known dinosaur" was killed in 1887 in Bolivia. I was, of course, skeptical of this claim. Irl found the "source" of this information, a Creationist website called "Genesis Park":
After reading this, I thought: Why didn't they take photographs of the dead dinosaur itself, instead of drawings of the dinosaur? Has anybody seen these photographs or the drawings themselves? It says the body was preserved. What happened to it? Where is it now? Of course, Grady didn't think to ponder these questions before stating this tall tale as fact.
But wait, it gets better. The "Genesis Park" story goes on to say: "One of the odd things about this report is that the saurian creature had multiple heads." (emphasis added) So not only did they kill a living dinosaur, but this dinosaur had more than one head, which is a true oddity of nature.
Folks, if someone came up to you and said they just killed a dinosaur with multiple heads, you'd probably ask them for evidence. And if the evidence they provided was photographs of drawings that you had made of the dinosaur, you'd laugh at them and walk away. But Bob and Grady don't do this. They accept the evidence because it's what they want to believe. More importantly, it also what they want you to believe.
For extra credit reading, check out this article at the blog Stupid Dinosaur Lies. The author dissects Genesis Park (and other Creationist mumbo jumbo) with more accuracy and detail than I could ever achieve.
At the end of the 19th century Scientific American recorded the following remarkable events: "The Brazilian Minister at La Paz, Bolivia, had remitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Rio photographs of drawings of an extraordinary saurian killed on the Beni after receiving thirty-six balls. By order of the President of Bolivia the dried body, which had been preserved in Asuncion, was sent to La Paz." The "monster" was reported to be twelve meters long (39 ft) from snout to point of the tail, which latter was flattened. It's head resemblance the head of a dog and its legs were short, ending with formidable claws. The legs and abdomen sported a kind of scale armor, and all the back is protected by a still thicker and double cuirass, starting from behind the ears of the anterior head, and continuing to the tail. The neck is long, and the belly large and almost dragging on the ground."So the "evidence" that Grady and Bob were hanging their hat on is a short blurb in a 100 year old magazine that reports that photographs of drawings of a dinosaur were taken. Got it.
After reading this, I thought: Why didn't they take photographs of the dead dinosaur itself, instead of drawings of the dinosaur? Has anybody seen these photographs or the drawings themselves? It says the body was preserved. What happened to it? Where is it now? Of course, Grady didn't think to ponder these questions before stating this tall tale as fact.
But wait, it gets better. The "Genesis Park" story goes on to say: "One of the odd things about this report is that the saurian creature had multiple heads." (emphasis added) So not only did they kill a living dinosaur, but this dinosaur had more than one head, which is a true oddity of nature.
Folks, if someone came up to you and said they just killed a dinosaur with multiple heads, you'd probably ask them for evidence. And if the evidence they provided was photographs of drawings that you had made of the dinosaur, you'd laugh at them and walk away. But Bob and Grady don't do this. They accept the evidence because it's what they want to believe. More importantly, it also what they want you to believe.
For extra credit reading, check out this article at the blog Stupid Dinosaur Lies. The author dissects Genesis Park (and other Creationist mumbo jumbo) with more accuracy and detail than I could ever achieve.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Grady and Bob Capitalize on Public Ignorance
Tuesday, Grady told us the nature of sediments do not indicate an old earth as shown by research done at Colorado State University’s Sediments Lab
Looking for more detail, I got the following from Grady’s website:
To those masses unfamiliar with the ways of science and research, this raises no “red flag.” (No surprise, since only about 50% of the adults know the earth circles the sun every twelve months and 72% of the same cannot properly describe a molecule.) This means that the general public and Dutko’s audience are hopelessly uninformed about the fundamental ways of science, and Grady & Co. get away yet again with blatant and deliberate and selective disclosure.
If Grady, really, truly, had “proof conclusive,” would he not shout the names and specifics of all relevant and supportive findings? Anyone else would.
But Grady and Bob make nonsense assertions about the “fossilized” cowboy boot, complete with remains of the owner’s foot. If this was on the level, someone would have presented at the annual meeting of the full membership of the American Geophysical Union for its amazement and wide-eyed endorsement.
Why has this not happened?
Because it’s not on the level, that’s why.
Looking for more detail, I got the following from Grady’s website:
Research conducted in sedimentation laboratories at Colorado State University and in France proves conclusively that in nature sedimentary layers do not form slowly one on top of the other as evolutionists claim; but, rather that sedimentary layers form by growing sideways as the result of sorting by size and velocity as they are extended by water deposition flowing in a specific direction. This is well documented revolutionary research refuting evolutionary thinking.Note that Grady did not describe or post a reference to a paper or an author of said “research.”
To those masses unfamiliar with the ways of science and research, this raises no “red flag.” (No surprise, since only about 50% of the adults know the earth circles the sun every twelve months and 72% of the same cannot properly describe a molecule.) This means that the general public and Dutko’s audience are hopelessly uninformed about the fundamental ways of science, and Grady & Co. get away yet again with blatant and deliberate and selective disclosure.
If Grady, really, truly, had “proof conclusive,” would he not shout the names and specifics of all relevant and supportive findings? Anyone else would.
But Grady and Bob make nonsense assertions about the “fossilized” cowboy boot, complete with remains of the owner’s foot. If this was on the level, someone would have presented at the annual meeting of the full membership of the American Geophysical Union for its amazement and wide-eyed endorsement.
Why has this not happened?
Because it’s not on the level, that’s why.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Grady McMurtry: January 6, 2009
I love it when "Doctor" Grady McMurtry is on the show. He brings a fresh bag of crazy every time he is on. A few months back, Bob and Grady couldn't agree on which radiometric dating methods work and which don't. Then Grady went on to analogize gravity with evolution.
But on Tuesday, the good doctor threw out this whopper:
So, I hope Dutko and McMurtry fans will please point me towards this "documentation." I'm dying to see it.
But on Tuesday, the good doctor threw out this whopper:
The last known dinosaur that can be documented living with people was in 1887. This was down in Bolivia, when a small armored dinosaur was killed.Well, that's a new one for me! I scoured the Internets (OK, I just did some mild searching), but couldn't find anyone else making this claim. Perhaps Grady is confusing "small armored dinosaur" with an armadillo.
So, I hope Dutko and McMurtry fans will please point me towards this "documentation." I'm dying to see it.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Bob Reveals his True Nature!
Bobbo,
Not that you realize it, but you revealed yourself today.
It was during your interview with Karl Giberson. You had Dr. Giberson on to discuss his recently published book, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in Evolution. And it's not so much what you did as much as what you didn't do.
Normally, when you have a guest on to discuss evolution, you have very specific lines of attack. One of your favorites, which I have discussed in the past, is to bring up the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. You'll spew out some long-winded question about either of the laws and then challenge your guest to refute your "logic."
But you didn't do this with Dr. Giberson. And I know why. You see, Bobbo, Dr. Giberson has a PhD in physics from Rice University. Had you attempted to ambush him with your bullshit ideas about physics, Dr. Giberson would have, simply put, kicked your stupid ass up and down the airwaves.
Oh, you put up the facade that you are the last intellectually honest person in the world. You have your conspiracies about academia and how they censor the truth and avoid real debate, all in an effort to deny Christ. But when it comes to you challenging an academic and true expert with your silly-assed notions, you don't have the balls to do so.
So let us be intellectually honest Bob. Why don't you admit to your cowardice and let everyone know exactly what you are.
Irl
Not that you realize it, but you revealed yourself today.
It was during your interview with Karl Giberson. You had Dr. Giberson on to discuss his recently published book, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in Evolution. And it's not so much what you did as much as what you didn't do.
Normally, when you have a guest on to discuss evolution, you have very specific lines of attack. One of your favorites, which I have discussed in the past, is to bring up the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. You'll spew out some long-winded question about either of the laws and then challenge your guest to refute your "logic."
But you didn't do this with Dr. Giberson. And I know why. You see, Bobbo, Dr. Giberson has a PhD in physics from Rice University. Had you attempted to ambush him with your bullshit ideas about physics, Dr. Giberson would have, simply put, kicked your stupid ass up and down the airwaves.
Oh, you put up the facade that you are the last intellectually honest person in the world. You have your conspiracies about academia and how they censor the truth and avoid real debate, all in an effort to deny Christ. But when it comes to you challenging an academic and true expert with your silly-assed notions, you don't have the balls to do so.
So let us be intellectually honest Bob. Why don't you admit to your cowardice and let everyone know exactly what you are.
Irl
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Bob Wrong About Neanderthal DNA
Like Irl, I too had the misfortune to hear Bob's massacre of science today in an ongoing effort to claim that the Earth and the Universe are only a few thousand years old.
This is just a rehash of the same old bullshit. Bob repeated his lie about how radiometric dating of recently erupted volcanic rocks always yields an age in the millions of years, despite the scientific evidence, including this study of rocks from Mt. Vesuvius, which shows accurate dating of recent volcanic eruptions. The Mt. St. Helens "study" that Bob routinely mentions has also been thoroughly debunked.
But what caught my attention today was Bob's discussion of Neanderthal DNA:
This is just a rehash of the same old bullshit. Bob repeated his lie about how radiometric dating of recently erupted volcanic rocks always yields an age in the millions of years, despite the scientific evidence, including this study of rocks from Mt. Vesuvius, which shows accurate dating of recent volcanic eruptions. The Mt. St. Helens "study" that Bob routinely mentions has also been thoroughly debunked.
But what caught my attention today was Bob's discussion of Neanderthal DNA:
"Even the evolutionists have been mapping the neanderthal genome. And guess what? So far, it's coming up identically human. ... Right now 99.5% human. And all humans alive today on the planet have a 1 degree variance in them, so the neanderthal genome is coming in right smack in the middle of the variances that exist among the human beings walking the Earth today."First of all, like Irl mentioned, Bob doesn't give any sources for his assertions, such as the"99.5% human" figure or the "1 degree variance" issue. I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it. But that's a bad idea, because a recent scientific study of neanderthal DNA says just the opposite.
"A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ~0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years."Folks, Bob is just making this stuff up as he goes along. He'll throw out some official sounding terms (e.g., 99.5 percent and 1 degree variance), but there's no actual facts or evidence to back it up. Remember, just because Bob says he uses "science, logic, and intellectual reasoning," doesn't mean he really does!
And the Bullshit Continues!
Bobbo,
Today, I listened to your spiel about the earth being a few thousand years old. Beyond being thoroughly unimpressed by your claims, I am left with a small question: What are your sources?
You see, when scientists make claims about a phenomena, they clearly lay out their experimental apparatus and their data in order to ensure that others can verify their claims. This information is vital to ensuring accurate and truthful dissemination of information.
Let me give you an example:
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a satellite designed to map the Universe, detecting microwaves coming from the most distant source there is: the cooling fireball of the Big Bang itself.
The results of the five year study is conclusive: The age of the Universe is 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years. And if you don't believe the scientists, Bobbo, you can go here, check their findings, examine the experiment's parameters and prove them wrong.
But you can't do that, can you, Bobbo? Because you don't have the science education to intelligently comment on their experiment, do you?
Which, of course, brings me back to my original point: You don't list your sources because they just won't stand up to scrutiny. You make bold assertions about the truth of this, that, or the other thing and then claim that if "all" the evidence was put forward, you would be heralded as authoritative. But that just makes you a bullshit artist, doesn't it?
So if you wouldn't mind, point me to the scientific papers that explain how a cowboy boot came to be "rapidly" fossilized, or how the Bible is a trustworthy scientific source, or to a scientific paper that backs up any of your bullshit claims.
You won't, will you? Because you're a bullshit artist and you know it, don't you?
Irl
Today, I listened to your spiel about the earth being a few thousand years old. Beyond being thoroughly unimpressed by your claims, I am left with a small question: What are your sources?
You see, when scientists make claims about a phenomena, they clearly lay out their experimental apparatus and their data in order to ensure that others can verify their claims. This information is vital to ensuring accurate and truthful dissemination of information.
Let me give you an example:
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a satellite designed to map the Universe, detecting microwaves coming from the most distant source there is: the cooling fireball of the Big Bang itself.
The results of the five year study is conclusive: The age of the Universe is 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years. And if you don't believe the scientists, Bobbo, you can go here, check their findings, examine the experiment's parameters and prove them wrong.
But you can't do that, can you, Bobbo? Because you don't have the science education to intelligently comment on their experiment, do you?
Which, of course, brings me back to my original point: You don't list your sources because they just won't stand up to scrutiny. You make bold assertions about the truth of this, that, or the other thing and then claim that if "all" the evidence was put forward, you would be heralded as authoritative. But that just makes you a bullshit artist, doesn't it?
So if you wouldn't mind, point me to the scientific papers that explain how a cowboy boot came to be "rapidly" fossilized, or how the Bible is a trustworthy scientific source, or to a scientific paper that backs up any of your bullshit claims.
You won't, will you? Because you're a bullshit artist and you know it, don't you?
Irl
Friday, September 26, 2008
McMurtry vs. Dutko
Bob and Grady need to get their stories straight. On Thursday, when talking to a rightfully beligerant caller, Grady repeated the old Young Earth Creationist canard:
Morons.
"Carbon dating doesn't work. None of the radiometric processes work."Less than three minutes later, Bob tries to convince the same caller that dinosaurs and humans living together. In doing so, he gives out this evidence:
I bet you have no idea that the evolutionists' own carbon dating has been done on dinosaur bones and according to their own dating, only dates dinosaur bones to be in the thousands of years."So which is it? Does carbon dating work or doesn't it? Oh wait, let me guess. Carbon dating is accurate and reliable when it can be used to show a 6000 year old Earth but it is inaccurate and unreliable when it can be used to show a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Got it.
Morons.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Grady McMurtry
Whoohoo! Thursday was Grady McMurtry day on the show! You know what that means: pure, unfiltered idiocy!
Just listen to Grady pontificate to a caller who wanted tips on how to debate the sensible people in his life who can comprehend the science of evolution...
Boomp3.com
Read this very carefully and very slowly: Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe or how scientific laws came into existence. The scientific Theory of Evolution is not even SLIGHTLY interested in these concerns. Evolution is all about BIOLOGY and how the various species came to be via the process of NATURAL SELECTION.
To put it simply, Grady wants you to think that human beings were created "whole and complete" by God. But the fact of the matter is that human beings are not natural laws and therefore his analogy is completely nonsensical.
Just listen to Grady pontificate to a caller who wanted tips on how to debate the sensible people in his life who can comprehend the science of evolution...
Boomp3.com
The last question I asked myself before I actually became a Creationist was, "could the Law of Gravity ever evolve?" ... Could that law, which is a law of science, and therefore immutable -- gravity exists everywhere in the Universe, it acts the same way everywhere -- could it have evolved from something less to be what it is? And the answer is no, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If it came into existence whole and complete it had to be created. The same thing is true -- the Laws of Thermodynamics, the laws of genetics, the laws of motion -- all scientific laws had to come into existence whole and complete and could not have evolved from anything less. Therefore, they all had to be created.The stupid is extraordinary! Grady is actually trying to analogize various laws of nature to the biological evolution of the various species on Earth. This makes absolutely no sense. Biological evolution refers to "the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations."
Read this very carefully and very slowly: Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe or how scientific laws came into existence. The scientific Theory of Evolution is not even SLIGHTLY interested in these concerns. Evolution is all about BIOLOGY and how the various species came to be via the process of NATURAL SELECTION.
To put it simply, Grady wants you to think that human beings were created "whole and complete" by God. But the fact of the matter is that human beings are not natural laws and therefore his analogy is completely nonsensical.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Let's Watch Bob Demonstrate His Cowardice!
Bobbo,
On Friday, you rehashed your tired old hyperbole, attacking the Catholic Church for stating that it was God's will for humans to evolve from hominids.
You spewed your standard crap, saying that evolution can't be true because it "waters down" the authority of scripture and if God used evolution he could have mentioned it to Moses, etc. Blah blah blah.
I don't want to argue evolution with you Bobbo. Nope, no discussion of evolution with you because you're far too ignorant to have an intellectually honest discussion of the topic. So instead, I need you to do something else.
I need you to call out all Catholics and demand that they denounce and renounce the Catholic Church.
You see Bobbo, you recently made yourself guardian of the Christian belief system. You did that when you publicly stated that Barack Obama needed to denounce and renounce his church. You said that it was irresponsible for Barack Obama to belong to a church that had a "racist" pastor.
So, since you have appointed yourself to the position determining who should belong to what church, you need to make sure that all the Catholics who accept the church's position on evolution leave the Catholic Church.
Bobbo, in your own words, the Catholic Church has "watered down" the authority of scripture by accepting evolution. If the church refuses to accept the literal truth of the Bible and reject evolution, aren't they putting souls at risk? If they see the Bible as something less than literally true, aren't they practicing apostasy?
So as I see it, Bobbo, you have one of two choices: Call for all members of the Catholic Church to reject the Church and its teachings in order to save their eternal souls, or, you can be shut up about this issue and be proven a coward.
I'm guessing that you're going down the "coward" route.
Yours in bravery,
Irl
On Friday, you rehashed your tired old hyperbole, attacking the Catholic Church for stating that it was God's will for humans to evolve from hominids.
You spewed your standard crap, saying that evolution can't be true because it "waters down" the authority of scripture and if God used evolution he could have mentioned it to Moses, etc. Blah blah blah.
I don't want to argue evolution with you Bobbo. Nope, no discussion of evolution with you because you're far too ignorant to have an intellectually honest discussion of the topic. So instead, I need you to do something else.
I need you to call out all Catholics and demand that they denounce and renounce the Catholic Church.
You see Bobbo, you recently made yourself guardian of the Christian belief system. You did that when you publicly stated that Barack Obama needed to denounce and renounce his church. You said that it was irresponsible for Barack Obama to belong to a church that had a "racist" pastor.
So, since you have appointed yourself to the position determining who should belong to what church, you need to make sure that all the Catholics who accept the church's position on evolution leave the Catholic Church.
Bobbo, in your own words, the Catholic Church has "watered down" the authority of scripture by accepting evolution. If the church refuses to accept the literal truth of the Bible and reject evolution, aren't they putting souls at risk? If they see the Bible as something less than literally true, aren't they practicing apostasy?
So as I see it, Bobbo, you have one of two choices: Call for all members of the Catholic Church to reject the Church and its teachings in order to save their eternal souls, or, you can be shut up about this issue and be proven a coward.
I'm guessing that you're going down the "coward" route.
Yours in bravery,
Irl
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Bobbo on Science: The Wonders of Ignorance!
Hey Bobbo,
Sorry I haven't written in a while. I haven't been able to listen to your show for quite some time, but today I made time. I know you've missed me, because of all the plaintive e-mail you've sent, asking me if I'm okay. Your caring is touching. It's very Christian of you.
Anyway, in listening to todays show, I heard you explain that because the story of Genesis lists the order in which God created the objects in the universe, that theistic evolution is wrong. You also said that science and the book of Genesis are compatible.
Um, what?
Here's the thing Bobbo: Science doesn't care what the Bible says about creation. Mainly because the Bible is not, and never was, a treatise on science.
But I understand why you think they're compatible. You don't understand science!
It's strange, Bobbo. In all your blathering about science I've never heard you once explain the scientific method!
And you know something? I don't think you can. So here's my challenge to you Bobbo: Explain, in detail, the scientific method. And once you've expounded on the step-by-step process that is the scientific method, explain your design for a scientific experiment that demonstrates the existence of God.
I bet you can't.
Your in Dawkins,
Irl
Sorry I haven't written in a while. I haven't been able to listen to your show for quite some time, but today I made time. I know you've missed me, because of all the plaintive e-mail you've sent, asking me if I'm okay. Your caring is touching. It's very Christian of you.
Anyway, in listening to todays show, I heard you explain that because the story of Genesis lists the order in which God created the objects in the universe, that theistic evolution is wrong. You also said that science and the book of Genesis are compatible.
Um, what?
Here's the thing Bobbo: Science doesn't care what the Bible says about creation. Mainly because the Bible is not, and never was, a treatise on science.
But I understand why you think they're compatible. You don't understand science!
It's strange, Bobbo. In all your blathering about science I've never heard you once explain the scientific method!
And you know something? I don't think you can. So here's my challenge to you Bobbo: Explain, in detail, the scientific method. And once you've expounded on the step-by-step process that is the scientific method, explain your design for a scientific experiment that demonstrates the existence of God.
I bet you can't.
Your in Dawkins,
Irl
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Fun with Trilobites
On Friday, Bob ranted about the alleged lack of evidence of what Trilobites evolved from.
Trilobites are the extinct arthropods that are so common in the fossil record of our planet. They went extinct about 250 million years ago.
I'm supposing that Bob's argument is that God created the Trilobites when He created the Earth about 7000 years ago, they promptly went extinct (faulty design, maybe?) and that the various dating techniques used by scientists to establish when Trilobites existed are faulty.
Bob's arguments never make much sense to me, so I did a little bit of Internet searching. A few seconds on Google was all it took for me to find this ridiculously comprehensive website dedicated to the study of Trilobites. As you might have guessed, there are several pages devoted to discussing the origins of Trilobites and how they evolved, including this one. The answers aren't conclusive, but it sure makes more sense than what Bob's selling.
You can rest assured that Bob didn't do any independent research into Trilobites before making statements about them on our public airwaves. Nope. Bob merely parrots some YEC arguments to fill up his 4 hour time slot.
The fact is Bob cannot do any independent research into most of the things he discusses because that might pierce the veil of willful ignorance that he has established over time.
Trilobites are the extinct arthropods that are so common in the fossil record of our planet. They went extinct about 250 million years ago.
I'm supposing that Bob's argument is that God created the Trilobites when He created the Earth about 7000 years ago, they promptly went extinct (faulty design, maybe?) and that the various dating techniques used by scientists to establish when Trilobites existed are faulty.
Bob's arguments never make much sense to me, so I did a little bit of Internet searching. A few seconds on Google was all it took for me to find this ridiculously comprehensive website dedicated to the study of Trilobites. As you might have guessed, there are several pages devoted to discussing the origins of Trilobites and how they evolved, including this one. The answers aren't conclusive, but it sure makes more sense than what Bob's selling.
You can rest assured that Bob didn't do any independent research into Trilobites before making statements about them on our public airwaves. Nope. Bob merely parrots some YEC arguments to fill up his 4 hour time slot.
The fact is Bob cannot do any independent research into most of the things he discusses because that might pierce the veil of willful ignorance that he has established over time.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Darwin was a Racist?
Last Monday, Bob had Ken Ham* on to pimp his new book in which accuses Charles Darwin of being racist. Bob and Ken want to imply that Darwin was a racist, so we dismiss Evolution through Natural Selection. Bob and Ken may have a point. After all, just look at this quote:
Should we discount the accomplishments of Lincoln because of his not-so-enlightened beliefs?
Should we knock down the Lincoln Memorial?
Should we strip his face off of Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Jimmy Carter?
Should we collect and melt down all the pennies that bear his image?
Of course not.
We revere and honor Lincoln because he refused to allow the Christian practice of slavery to tear the United States apart. Was he as enlightened in his view of the "races" as we are today? Obviously not. The same goes for Darwin. We should not discount his positive contributions to our understanding of the development of life on Earth merely because we don't share his 19th Century political viewpoints. Evolution and Natural Selection are judged on their merits, not based on any "racist" tendencies that Darwin had.
Pitifully, this is a further attempt by Bob to discredit a scientific fact withstood the test scrutiny.
The ironic thing is that this is coming from a man who claims "intellectual honesty."
Pathetic.
*I guess there's no hard feelings about Bob's scathing review of the Creation Museum. I guess they're letting bygones be bygones. After all, Ken's got books to $ell and Bob's gotta fill-up four hours per day to keep the advertisers happy!
** Interestingly, Darwin and Lincoln were born on the very same day: February 12, 1809. Who knew?
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position to the white race.Wait a second! That isn't from Charles Darwin! It's Abraham Lincoln.**
Should we discount the accomplishments of Lincoln because of his not-so-enlightened beliefs?
Should we knock down the Lincoln Memorial?
Should we strip his face off of Mt. Rushmore and replace it with Jimmy Carter?
Should we collect and melt down all the pennies that bear his image?
Of course not.
We revere and honor Lincoln because he refused to allow the Christian practice of slavery to tear the United States apart. Was he as enlightened in his view of the "races" as we are today? Obviously not. The same goes for Darwin. We should not discount his positive contributions to our understanding of the development of life on Earth merely because we don't share his 19th Century political viewpoints. Evolution and Natural Selection are judged on their merits, not based on any "racist" tendencies that Darwin had.
Pitifully, this is a further attempt by Bob to discredit a scientific fact withstood the test scrutiny.
The ironic thing is that this is coming from a man who claims "intellectual honesty."
Pathetic.
*I guess there's no hard feelings about Bob's scathing review of the Creation Museum. I guess they're letting bygones be bygones. After all, Ken's got books to $ell and Bob's gotta fill-up four hours per day to keep the advertisers happy!
** Interestingly, Darwin and Lincoln were born on the very same day: February 12, 1809. Who knew?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Transitional Stupidity
Hey Bobbo,
It's me, Irl. Are you listening? Can I ask you something of you?
I heard your spiel on transitional fossils and how you believe they don't exist. You claim that if evolution is true, the fossil record should contain lots of examples of transitions between one species and another. You think that evolution should provide examples of "freakish" fossils that show, for example, a horse becoming a cow. But since there are no fossils showing a horse/cow, you agree with the creationists and claim there are no transitional fossils and creationism is true.
You even go as far as quoting evolutionary scientists that seem to admit that transitional fossils don't exist, and claiming that evolutionary scientists are making things up when they point to extinct animals and claim they were evolving.
Oh, Bobbo, when are you going to stop lying?
First of all, you can't even be honest in how scientists define the term. A transitional fossil is does not show how a horse becomes a cow, as you claim, but shows a sequence of similar... families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. In other words, transitional fossils show how prehistoric animals became modern animals.
An you know what Bobbo? There are examples galore of transitional fossils. Here's the transitional lineage for the horse. Here's the transitional lineage for the cetaceans. Here's Lagomorphs. Here's amphibians to reptiles. And here's reptiles to birds.
So, Bobbo, transitional fossils don't show, as you claim, a horse becoming a cow, they show similarities along a species' family tree. Scientists have plenty examples to prove the phenomenon.
By the way, Steven Jay Gould absolutely believed in transitional fossils. Here's Gould in his own words:
Keep in touch,
Irl
It's me, Irl. Are you listening? Can I ask you something of you?
I heard your spiel on transitional fossils and how you believe they don't exist. You claim that if evolution is true, the fossil record should contain lots of examples of transitions between one species and another. You think that evolution should provide examples of "freakish" fossils that show, for example, a horse becoming a cow. But since there are no fossils showing a horse/cow, you agree with the creationists and claim there are no transitional fossils and creationism is true.
You even go as far as quoting evolutionary scientists that seem to admit that transitional fossils don't exist, and claiming that evolutionary scientists are making things up when they point to extinct animals and claim they were evolving.
Oh, Bobbo, when are you going to stop lying?
First of all, you can't even be honest in how scientists define the term. A transitional fossil is does not show how a horse becomes a cow, as you claim, but shows a sequence of similar... families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. In other words, transitional fossils show how prehistoric animals became modern animals.
An you know what Bobbo? There are examples galore of transitional fossils. Here's the transitional lineage for the horse. Here's the transitional lineage for the cetaceans. Here's Lagomorphs. Here's amphibians to reptiles. And here's reptiles to birds.
So, Bobbo, transitional fossils don't show, as you claim, a horse becoming a cow, they show similarities along a species' family tree. Scientists have plenty examples to prove the phenomenon.
By the way, Steven Jay Gould absolutely believed in transitional fossils. Here's Gould in his own words:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.I guess I just want to ask you to stop lying. If you're going to try to prove the intellectual farce that is creationism, first, be honest about what scientists actually say. When you make stuff up and misrepresent the science, it shows just how ignorant and petty you are.
Keep in touch,
Irl
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
How would Bob do science?
On Monday, Bob went on a tirade against those portions of the charter of European nations that favor teaching evolution over creation or intelligent design. This triggered yet another of his recurring rants on creationists excluded from publication in peer reviewed science journals.
He demonstrated how badly misinformed he is about science, as it relates to the evolution versus creation debate. Bob stated:
Presupposing creation by God is the end of science. Should a scientist "presuppose creation is true," and base his findings on the presupposition, he has just announced to the world he has incorporated the supernatural in his explanations of nature. Reviewers will reject the non-scientific content of the paper reject it. Every time.
Bob forgets that science is a tool with limitations and boundaries. Science is limited to naturalistic explanations just as a catcher is constrained to fielding pop-up fly balls within boundaries defining the field of play. The catcher will not chase a towering fly into the box seats; nor can a scientist identify some supernatural force as a cause of a phenomenon. Simply put, while the supernatural may exist, science cannot include it in hypotheses, theories or explanations. The supernatural cannot be described in field notes, quantified nor replicated.
Had Bob read the opinion of Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller case, he would understand that intelligent design proponents admitted that intelligent design is not science as defined since Francis Bacon. The intelligent design proponents would require that the boundaries of science be expanded to accommodate the supernatural underpinnings of ID. If that were to happen, astrology could then be deemed a science.
He demonstrated how badly misinformed he is about science, as it relates to the evolution versus creation debate. Bob stated:
"If you are a scientist and you write a paper saying evolution is false or you write a scientific piece based upon the presupposition that creation is true, you are not going to get it published."Bob, in this instance, is absolutely correct.
Presupposing creation by God is the end of science. Should a scientist "presuppose creation is true," and base his findings on the presupposition, he has just announced to the world he has incorporated the supernatural in his explanations of nature. Reviewers will reject the non-scientific content of the paper reject it. Every time.
Bob forgets that science is a tool with limitations and boundaries. Science is limited to naturalistic explanations just as a catcher is constrained to fielding pop-up fly balls within boundaries defining the field of play. The catcher will not chase a towering fly into the box seats; nor can a scientist identify some supernatural force as a cause of a phenomenon. Simply put, while the supernatural may exist, science cannot include it in hypotheses, theories or explanations. The supernatural cannot be described in field notes, quantified nor replicated.
Had Bob read the opinion of Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller case, he would understand that intelligent design proponents admitted that intelligent design is not science as defined since Francis Bacon. The intelligent design proponents would require that the boundaries of science be expanded to accommodate the supernatural underpinnings of ID. If that were to happen, astrology could then be deemed a science.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Bob Lies About Lucy
For those who missed it, last week Bob talked about his Christmas vacation trip to the Creation Museum.
That's right, Bob packed up the wife and kids in the Family Truckster and headed down to Kentucky for some old fashioned fake science at the bargain price of $20/head. But a funny thing happened on the path to reinforced ignorance. It turned out that...Bob hated the museum!
Apparently, there simply wasn't enough made-up Creation Science for Bob. He complained that only the Biblical explanations for Creation were presented and not the pseudo-science that Bob is used to from Ken Ham.
At one point in his rant he got off on a tangent about Lucy, the fossilized Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in 1974. Apparently, they had a recreation of the skeleton at the museum with no explanation as to why it was there. So, Bob decided to tell his family the standard creationist lie about Lucy. Specifically, Bob said:
Someone let me know when Bob retracts this latest falsehood on the show. I, of course, won't hold my breath.
That's right, Bob packed up the wife and kids in the Family Truckster and headed down to Kentucky for some old fashioned fake science at the bargain price of $20/head. But a funny thing happened on the path to reinforced ignorance. It turned out that...Bob hated the museum!
Apparently, there simply wasn't enough made-up Creation Science for Bob. He complained that only the Biblical explanations for Creation were presented and not the pseudo-science that Bob is used to from Ken Ham.
At one point in his rant he got off on a tangent about Lucy, the fossilized Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in 1974. Apparently, they had a recreation of the skeleton at the museum with no explanation as to why it was there. So, Bob decided to tell his family the standard creationist lie about Lucy. Specifically, Bob said:
"Do you know why evolutionists say this Lucy skeleton is proof of evolution? Because a knee joint; the knee joint in this Lucy skeleton is supposedly at an angle that is closer to human leg angles than most monkeys. And so therefore, they say that this monkey was actually evolving into a man merely because of the angle of the knee joint, that's it. And then I point out to them that the rest of the information is that first of all the angle of this knee is no different than spider monkeys and orangutans walking the Earth today. And then secondly, the knee joint itself wasn't even found with the rest of the bones, it was found two hundred feet deeper and one and a half miles away. It was just assumed to be part of this monkey's skeleton."Let's take this mess of misinformation one falsehood at a time.
- No "evolutionist", i.e., the vast majority of biologists, would ever say that the Lucy skeleton is "proof" of evolution. Instead, they would argue that the skeleton is merely one piece of evidence, among thousands of other pieces of evidence, that shows that evolutionary biology is correct. Science doesn't deal in proofs. "Proof" is for mathematicians and Dutko.
- The Lucy skeleton was not found with an intact knee. It's true that a knee joint was found some distance away from the Lucy skeleton. But the knee was never represented as part of Lucy. Therefore, Bob's statement that the knee joint was the important part of Lucy is just wrong. It's a flat out creationist falsehood that has been debunked long ago, yet Bob continues to repeat it because it fits his narrative that evolutionary scientists are somehow conspiring to falsify the facts.
- The knee joint, that is not part of Lucy, therefore, is not evidence that Lucy walked upright. Instead, the length ratio of her humerous to femur, along with the presence of a lumbar curve, provides evidence that Lucy was bipedal.
Someone let me know when Bob retracts this latest falsehood on the show. I, of course, won't hold my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)