Battle in Beverly Hills: Reflections on the Prothero/Shermer vs. Meyer/Sternberg "debate," Nov. 30, 2009

Nick and Don,

Nick, thanks for posting this and many, many thanks to Don for his great job in exposing Meyer as the intellectual fraud that he is (Unbeknownst to Meyer, Don has had ample experience in dealing with delusional creos like him in the past.). If I wanted someone to debate creos effectively, I wouldn't hesitate thinking of asking Don to do it, since he is truly as effective a debater as Ken Miller. If anyone had any doubts about Don's rhetorical skill, then last night's performance should have put them to rest.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Don,

If you have a chance, could you write this up and submit it to Reports of NCSE? I think this would be most instructive for anyone thinking of debating delusional creos like Sternberg and Meyer.

Again, with ample thanks,

John

This guy is to be taken seriously? I had to remind myself not to laugh every so often during his presentation — it was so pathetic and ill-informed. Basically, Shermer and Prothero blathered on about supernaturalism, and Meyer ceded his time to Sternberg, who made an interesting presentation about whale evolution. Then he proceeded to point out the topic of the debate to Shermer and Prothero: Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?, something which they never addressed because they were so busy falling all over themselves to denounce intelligent design.

I look forward to the video. Now excuse me while I go out for some popcorn..

Also note that Casey Luskin stated that whale evolution was "mathematically impossible." Mathematically, mind you. I guess that sums up the DI's understanding about evolution."

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Sounds like the creos were soundly spanked. I'm glad to know that but I still wonder about the wisdom of these debates. Faith is notoriously hard to shake because the believer has endless magic to fall back on. They have made a conscious decision to maintain that something not true really is true. They are very comfortable, even smugly so, in their delusions mostly due to the size of the company that reassures them with smiles and nods and quotes from scripture.

Debating them often seems like fighting the Tar Baby of Uncle Remus.

Thanks to Don and Michael for putting themselves through the mill. Some small good may have been done.

Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. Steven Meyer gives no "crap" but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees.

Moreover, mud is not a reductio ad absurdum argument against the design inference. Mud is not a living thing that self-replicates according to an informational code.

Excellent summary. I read the Dishonesty Institutes spin, incredible bunch of crap, but what can you expect?
My question is, if there actually is a tape, video/audio/etc., would the DI dare to make it available from their site so that people can actually hear the talk, or might they even go in and edit it. Something to be watchful for.

From your summary, sounds like you guys really slammed 'em hard! Congrats on winning over the fence sitters that were present!

Steven Meyer gives no “crap” but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees.

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

I was going to comment that Luskin has gone after the "mud" comment like a mudskipper in heat, but damn if Groothius didn't go after it, too.

What's the matter, Groo, Baylor Cafeteria run out of Mac & Cheese?

Hmm. IDist/evangelical apologist Doug Groothius comments on PT for the first time ever to defend Meyer, and Casey Luskin posts assertive snark rather than a substantive critique:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/does_donald_prothero_know_inte.html

...both good signs, I'd say...

Doug wrote:

"Steven Meyer gives no “crap” but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees."

Really? I am insulted when someone lies to me. Meyer lies constantly, that is an insult to any intelligent person. By so doing he belittles not ony his own position but reason itself.

Doug Groothuis said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. Steven Meyer gives no "crap" but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees. Moreover, mud is not a reductio ad absurdum argument against the design inference. Mud is not a living thing that self-replicates according to an informational code.

Hey there. A PhD friend of mine wrote after reading your piece. "I was there. Prothero did not do nearly as well as he thinks. His slides were a nightmare in confusion, he came off as arrogant and condescending. Anyone listening would also have noticed that he made several frankly ridiculous claims. Afterwards I heard him congratulating himself on how wonderful and scientific he is. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny."

Nick (Matzke) said: Hmm. IDist/evangelical apologist Doug Groothius comments on PT for the first time ever to defend Meyer, and Casey Luskin posts assertive snark rather than a substantive critique: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/does_donald_prothero_know_inte.html ...both good signs, I'd say...

I asked the audience if they could think of a system that grows and becomes larger and more complex naturally, has mutations, and replicates itself — and then revealed I was talking about mud. Three quick slides on how clay minerals replicate lattice defects (= mutations) exactly like life but without divine intervention, and I asked Meyer if he needed the “Designer” to make every glop of mud.

Prothero later felt it was appropriate to boast about his following question:

"I asked Meyer if he needed the 'Designer' to make every glop of mud."

Of course anyone with a cursory knowledge of ID would be aware that ID fully allows for the action of natural processes, and design is only invoked when we find tell-tale signs of intelligent action, such as high levels of complex and specified information. Needless to say, the weathering of rocks and minerals into mud is not an example of design.

The professor was doing well until he luskined himself, at which point the class started snickering uncontrollably...

Doug Groothuis said: Moreover, mud is not a reductio ad absurdum argument against the design inference. Mud is not a living thing that self-replicates according to an informational code.

To speculate a little further, suppose that a variant of a clay improves its own chances of being deposited, by damming up streams. This is an inadvertent consequence of the peculiar defect structure of the clay. In any stream in which this kind of clay exists, large, stagnant shallow pools form above dams, and the main flow of water is diverted into a new course. In these still pools, more of the same kind of clay is laid down. A succession of such shallow pools proliferates along the length of any stream that happens to be 'infected' by seeding crystals of this kind of clay. Now, because the main flow of the stream is diverted, during the dry season the shallow pools tend to dry up. The clay dries and cracks in the sun, and the top layers are blown off as dust. Each dust particle inherits the characteristic defect structure of the parent clay that did the damming, the structure that gave it its damming properties. By analogy with the genetic information raining down on the canal from my willow tree, we could say that the dust carries 'instructions' for how to dam streams and eventually make more dust. The dust spreads far and wide in the wind, and there is a good chance that some particles of it will happen to land in another stream, hitherto not 'infected' with the seeds of this kind of dam-making clay. Once infected by the right sort of dust, a new stream starts to grow crystals of dam-making clay, and the whole depositing, damming, drying, eroding cycle begins again.

Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments.

...ever the line spouted forth from the mouths of the inane.

translation:

"They're right, but I will smear their integrity in my own mind, thus, defeating them!"

sorry, but that just reeks of insanity.

Doug Groothuis said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments.

Mark said: Hey there. A PhD friend of mine wrote after reading your piece. "I was there. Prothero did not do nearly as well as he thinks. His slides were a nightmare in confusion, he came off as arrogant and condescending. Anyone listening would also have noticed that he made several frankly ridiculous claims. Afterwards I heard him congratulating himself on how wonderful and scientific he is. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny."

Ichthyic said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. ...ever the line spouted forth from the mouths of the inane. translation: "They're right, but I will smear their integrity in my own mind, thus, defeating them!" sorry, but that just reeks of insanity.

386sx said: Mr. Groothuis seems to be unaware that the design inference can be utilized to infer that the whole freakin universe was designed. Or even that our own humble planet Earth was designed (à la the "privileged planet" hypotheses.) That would include mud too!

Of course anyone with a cursory knowledge of ID would be aware that ID fully allows for the action of natural processes, and design is only invoked when we find tell-tale signs of intelligent action, such as high levels of complex and specified information.

I would simply repeat the clarion call of those previous...

with what device do we measure a "high level of complex and specified information"?

and where can i buy one?

there are several items i would like to try it on!

Doug Groothuis said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. Steven Meyer gives no "crap" but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees.

Moreover, mud is not a reductio ad absurdum argument against the design inference. Mud is not a living thing that self-replicates according to an informational code.

Sternberg ended up conceding that he disagrees with not only young-earth creationism but even most of the ID creationists ideas. Apparently, he’s an old-fashioned “structuralist” who dislikes the ideas of Neo-Darwinian random point mutations to explain macroevolution.

Over at AtBC, it is demonstrated that Meyer's penchant for copying himself seems to be a generic IDC advocate trait, as various bits of dissing Prothero are shown to come from earlier screeds of theirs.

Doug Groothuis -

The biological theory of evolution deals with living cells. It may deal with mud as an environment for life, but direct analysis of mud is the purview of geology and chemistry.

There are several hypothetical models of abiogenesis - none of them by any means perfectly complete, and no-one I'm aware of ever said they were - but none of them propose that ordinary modern mud spontaneously turned into living cells.

and wind up providing no Comfort to YEC or OEC Biblical literalists.

Good job, Dr. Prothero!

Please Don, do it for us just a couple of more times. Somebody's got to and you might be the best at it. Look at the recent William Lane Craig debate. You are so much more competent to deal with him than most others.

Though Craig is probably smart enough to avoid you.

I like Shermer and all, but let me tell you, as a former Christian, this "Who designed the designer" is going nowhere. That was completely ineffective on me. The actual facts and evidence (i.e. the kind of stuff Prothero offers in droves) was the real faith shaking stuff. I don't know a single Christian that is bothered by this "Identify that the designer is God, tell us who created him." ERV's are tough.

Don,

I strongly second Jon's endorsement. I don't know of any other professional paleontologist or paleobiologist who is as skilled a debater as you are. Having heard from you how often you've debated creationists in the past - as well as you have done - you're definitely as good as Ken Miller. Since there are only a handful of you doing it, then I earnestly hope you will listen to our pleas to continue.

Thanks,

John

Jon said: I like Shermer and all, but let me tell you, as a former Christian, this "Who designed the designer" is going nowhere. That was completely ineffective on me.

Doug Groothuis said: Mud is not a living thing that self-replicates according to an informational code.

Who was it that said debating creationists is analogous to an NBA team playing the Harlem Globe Trotters. It would only make the NBA team look like morons. I'm not saying that's what happened at this debate but those guys play with a totally different set of rules than scientists. Why bother with them?

Fross said: Who was it that said debating creationists is analogous to an NBA team playing the Harlem Globe Trotters. It would only make the NBA team look like morons. I'm not saying that's what happened at this debate but those guys play with a totally different set of rules than scientists. Why bother with them?

Mark said: Hey there. A PhD friend of mine wrote ...

stevaroni said:

Mark said: Hey there. A PhD friend of mine wrote ...

A PhD in what, Mark?

I never really thought that would be very effective either. Where did the universe come from? Well, nobody knows for sure. But yet… we still have a universe. Christians probably look at it kinda the same way. Where did the designer come from? Well, nobody knows for sure. But yet… we still have a designer. No biggie.

RDK said:

stevaroni said:

Mark said: Hey there. A PhD friend of mine wrote ...

A PhD in what, Mark?

I'm guessing theology, engineering, or mathematics. I'd also put my money on dentistry but I can't be sure without more details.

John Kwok said: Don, I strongly second Jon's endorsement. I don't know of any other professional paleontologist or paleobiologist who is as skilled a debater as you are. Having heard from you how often you've debated creationists in the past - as well as you have done - you're definitely as good as Ken Miller. Since there are only a handful of you doing it, then I earnestly hope you will listen to our pleas to continue. Thanks, John

Great job.

I just hope that you have taped the whole thing. Even if you don't have the copyright and hence could not publish it, you definitely need an independent copy to make sure they don't edit, introduce awkward pauses and (try to) do hatchet job on you.

I would not put anything past them. If you don't have an independent copy, expect lots of surprises when (or if) they publish the video. It will be intelligently eDIted.

Don Prothero said: ... and most of us narrow our focus so much that we LOSE a lot of our breadth of understanding

Doug Groothuis said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. Steven Meyer gives no "crap" but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees.

If the designer is not God, why did he create God?

I think that the ID is just a corpse anyway. The DI is simply same-old same-old. They aren't worth the time of day anymore. It is the pure YEC people who are making all of the noise lately with Comfort and his book and Ken Ham's museum.
The problem is that these guys are even bigger liars than the DI

I was there and got the feeling that Meyer's primary goal that evening was to sell books. I lost count of how many times he plugged his latest, the one prior, the first and every one in between. I was sitting with my 17 year old daughter in the second row in the midst of what must have been a busload of students from a Christian college. Until I realized that fact, I was beginning to think I was applauding at all the wrong moments

Michael J said: I think that the ID is just a corpse anyway. The DI is simply same-old same-old. They aren't worth the time of day anymore. It is the pure YEC people who are making all of the noise lately with Comfort and his book and Ken Ham's museum. The problem is that these guys are even bigger liars than the DI

386sx said: I never really thought that would be very effective either. Where did the universe come from? Well, nobody knows for sure. But yet... we still have a universe. Christians probably look at it kinda the same way. Where did the designer come from? Well, nobody knows for sure. But yet... we still have a designer. No biggie.

Scott said: I was there and got the feeling that Meyer's primary goal that evening was to sell books. I lost count of how many times he plugged his latest, the one prior, the first and every one in between. I was sitting with my 17 year old daughter in the second row in the midst of what must have been a busload of students from a Christian college. Until I realized that fact, I was beginning to think I was applauding at all the wrong moments

Michael J said: I think that the ID is just a corpse anyway. The DI is simply same-old same-old. They aren't worth the time of day anymore. It is the pure YEC people who are making all of the noise lately with Comfort and his book and Ken Ham's museum. The problem is that these guys are even bigger liars than the DI

Donald Prothero said:

Scott said: I was there and got the feeling that Meyer's primary goal that evening was to sell books. I lost count of how many times he plugged his latest, the one prior, the first and every one in between. I was sitting with my 17 year old daughter in the second row in the midst of what must have been a busload of students from a Christian college. Until I realized that fact, I was beginning to think I was applauding at all the wrong moments

So what did you think about the debate itself? Is my subjective assessment pretty close to what you witnessed?

Eddie Janssen said: If the designer is not God, why did he create God?

Don Prothero said:

John Kwok said: Don, I strongly second Jon's endorsement. I don't know of any other professional paleontologist or paleobiologist who is as skilled a debater as you are. Having heard from you how often you've debated creationists in the past - as well as you have done - you're definitely as good as Ken Miller. Since there are only a handful of you doing it, then I earnestly hope you will listen to our pleas to continue. Thanks, John

I appreciate the vote of confidence, guys, but frankly there is little to be gained if I spent a lot more time doing this. None of those "debates" change much, even if there are a few fence-sitters in the audience--and meanwhile, we give them credibility and the appearance of scientific legitimacy every time we get baited into these things. By contrast, the hard work that the NCSE does to help locals battle creationists in school boards, or the Dover trial victors did in establishing legal precedents, have MUCH more long-term effect on the fate of the creation/evolution debate in this country. For that matter, the tens of thousands of copies of my "Evolution" book have reached hundreds of fence-sitters and people who were confused by the arguments, and as you can see from my Amazon.com reviews (even more so from my emails), that gentle persuasion with mountains of facts reaches many more people than do local debates. There are a few instances where it is worth my while to engage them, and when I do so, I'm well prepared. But I do have a life, a research career, students to teach, and a family to nurture, and those take precedence over beating my head against a wall debating IDiots. I think even Ken Miller has cut back on his debating, since it gets old after a while, fighting the same no-win battle over and over again...

Robert Byers said: Yet if your confident your right then you should believe in the intelligence and good will of your fellow citizens to understand the evidence behind conclusions in these areas.

Venus, you are talking to a man who thinks that the Atlantic has been widening throughout recorded history at the rate of half a mile a year. You are talking to someone who says that "whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature". Like, the total loss of the pelvis, apart from two small disarticulated bones, the fusion of the flipper, the development of the driving flukes, the whalebone for filter feeding, the lung functions, the displacement of the nostril, the assymetrical skull, the whole nine yards, took about five thousand years to, uh, adapt. Only that's not evolution, nosiree!

You are talking to someone who denies that Genesis is a religious text, only he knows that it is Revealed Truth on account of his religion. The fact that this doesn't make any sense at all doesn't bother him in the slightest. He doesn't do logical consistency.

You are, in short, talking to an Eliza program, a 'bot, a preprogrammed automaton incapable of thinking in rational terms about reality. You are wasting your time.

Since they are boasting about having schooled Prothero i'm sure the debate will be available in double quick time. I am certainly looking forward to seeing such schooling ;)

I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

— Robert Byers

I guess others that you don’t see debates or general discussion as the important medium to persuade the public but rather school boards and court cases to ban and censor criticism/discussion/alternate ideas on origin subjects.

— Robert Byers

Richard Eis said: Since they are boasting about having schooled Prothero i'm sure the debate will be available in double quick time. I am certainly looking forward to seeing such schooling ;)

Robert wrote:

"I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature."

You can insist anything you want, that doesn't make it true.

Do you have any evidence for a world wide flood?

When you claim that whales are an "adaptation", do you admit that they aroses through a process of random mutation and natural selection? Do you think that this occurred in 4,000 years? Do you admit that whlaes shared common ancestors wit terrestrial mammals? Do you think that any intelligent design was involved? Do you think that with a little foresight and planning that whales could have been much more "adapted" to the marine environment?

Don Prothero said:

John Kwok said: Don, I strongly second Jon's endorsement. I don't know of any other professional paleontologist or paleobiologist who is as skilled a debater as you are. Having heard from you how often you've debated creationists in the past - as well as you have done - you're definitely as good as Ken Miller. Since there are only a handful of you doing it, then I earnestly hope you will listen to our pleas to continue. Thanks, John

I appreciate the vote of confidence, guys, but frankly there is little to be gained if I spent a lot more time doing this. None of those "debates" change much, even if there are a few fence-sitters in the audience--and meanwhile, we give them credibility and the appearance of scientific legitimacy every time we get baited into these things. By contrast, the hard work that the NCSE does to help locals battle creationists in school boards, or the Dover trial victors did in establishing legal precedents, have MUCH more long-term effect on the fate of the creation/evolution debate in this country. For that matter, the tens of thousands of copies of my "Evolution" book have reached hundreds of fence-sitters and people who were confused by the arguments, and as you can see from my Amazon.com reviews (even more so from my emails), that gentle persuasion with mountains of facts reaches many more people than do local debates. There are a few instances where it is worth my while to engage them, and when I do so, I'm well prepared. But I do have a life, a research career, students to teach, and a family to nurture, and those take precedence over beating my head against a wall debating IDiots. I think even Ken Miller has cut back on his debating, since it gets old after a while, fighting the same no-win battle over and over again...

John Kwok said: Don, Think you're right about Ken. He spends a lot more time speaking around the country than he does in debates (Honestly can't recall when was the last time he debated any of the Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers or other, equally delusional, creos.). And, moreover, I might add too that physicist Lawrence Krauss deliberately targets Fundamentalist Protestant audiences whenever he speaks, often to local colleges, etc. (This is something I recall hearing from him during a conversation we had had at the World Science Festival in June here in New York City.). As for NCSE I can't agree with you more, which is why I hope you will find time to write a report on the debate and submit it to Reports of NCSE. Will be looking forward to reading about it in a future issue: Last time I spoke to Ken, I got the distinct impression that he wasn't interested in further "debates" unless there was a strong incentive to do so--and I don't blame him. When he speaks now, it's much more useful for him to give his perspective on the issue in the post-Dover atmosphere, and encourage the troops with his stories of being in the trenches, rather that beat his head against the wall of creationist "debates"

Don Prothero said:

John Kwok said: Don, I strongly second Jon's endorsement. I don't know of any other professional paleontologist or paleobiologist who is as skilled a debater as you are. Having heard from you how often you've debated creationists in the past - as well as you have done - you're definitely as good as Ken Miller. Since there are only a handful of you doing it, then I earnestly hope you will listen to our pleas to continue. Thanks, John

I appreciate the vote of confidence, guys, but frankly there is little to be gained if I spent a lot more time doing this. None of those "debates" change much, even if there are a few fence-sitters in the audience--and meanwhile, we give them credibility and the appearance of scientific legitimacy every time we get baited into these things. By contrast, the hard work that the NCSE does to help locals battle creationists in school boards, or the Dover trial victors did in establishing legal precedents, have MUCH more long-term effect on the fate of the creation/evolution debate in this country. For that matter, the tens of thousands of copies of my "Evolution" book have reached hundreds of fence-sitters and people who were confused by the arguments, and as you can see from my Amazon.com reviews (even more so from my emails), that gentle persuasion with mountains of facts reaches many more people than do local debates. There are a few instances where it is worth my while to engage them, and when I do so, I'm well prepared. But I do have a life, a research career, students to teach, and a family to nurture, and those take precedence over beating my head against a wall debating IDiots. I think even Ken Miller has cut back on his debating, since it gets old after a while, fighting the same no-win battle over and over again...

Byers wrote: I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

I'm guessing Mr. Byers thinks the whales just changed magically in a generation, maybe two, just like the marsupial wolves. Right, Robbie?

stevaroni said: Bear to Beluga in 750 generations. That makes sense to you, because, I suppose, polar bears and porpoises are the same "kind" (they both hunt seals, and they both have lots of teeth, right?).

Folks, I doubt beating him over the head with reason is going to come to any good in the end; he's just too far gone. We've already established the fact that Byers thinks cats, catapults, and cat-of-ninetails are all in the same "kind", there's really not much more we can do.

RDK said: Folks, I doubt beating him over the head with reason is going to come to any good in the end; he's just too far gone. We've already established the fact that Byers thinks cats, catapults, and cat-of-ninetails are all in the same "kind", there's really not much more we can do.

Robert Byers said: I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you might like to visit the forum "After the Bar Closes" (link on top of this site). There is a thread called "Can you do geology and junk the evolution bit". You will soon realize that Mr Robert Byers is beyond help.

This made my day

From evolution news
"He [Don Prothero] is known more for polemical bromides and spurious personal attacks than for any serious science. "

From the article above
"No attempt to brag about their “peer-reviewed” papers (and I was prepared to cut that to pieces, and point out that my more than 200 peer-reviewed articles far outstrip the entire Discovery Institute's pathetic list)."

haelduksf said: This made my day From evolution news "He [Don Prothero] is known more for polemical bromides and spurious personal attacks than for any serious science. " From the article above "No attempt to brag about their “peer-reviewed” papers (and I was prepared to cut that to pieces, and point out that my more than 200 peer-reviewed articles far outstrip the entire Discovery Institute's pathetic list)."

Audio of the debate is at http://tiny.cc/hsb6S

Seriously, why do you guys accept these rigged debates?

You do NOTHING but give credence to these dishonest creationists by agreeing to debate them.

There is NO one you are convincing to change their positions at these debates.

Venus Mousetrap said:

Robert Byers said: Yet if your confident your right then you should believe in the intelligence and good will of your fellow citizens to understand the evidence behind conclusions in these areas.

Robert, the problem is that people don't understand the evidence. Can you believe that there are still people who think 'evolution is just a theory'? That one error isn't even scientific, it comes from the fact that two words can mean the same thing. If people can't even get past that, how do you expect them to understand some science they're likely not even interested in? That one error is one we've been correcting for years, and people still make it today. Another one is the idea that 'evolution is random chance' - some creationists are absolutely convinced that evolution is impossible because of this, despite the fact that selection is not random at all. If you talk to these people, you find that they actually don't understand evolution. I don't think it's that people are unintelligent. It's more that people don't care for science. In the same way, if I were invited to an economics debate, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what all the words meant, but I sure would like more money.

DS said: Robert wrote: "I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature." You can insist anything you want, that doesn't make it true. Do you have any evidence for a world wide flood? When you claim that whales are an "adaptation", do you admit that they aroses through a process of random mutation and natural selection? Do you think that this occurred in 4,000 years? Do you admit that whlaes shared common ancestors wit terrestrial mammals? Do you think that any intelligent design was involved? Do you think that with a little foresight and planning that whales could have been much more "adapted" to the marine environment?

stevaroni said:

Byers wrote: I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

Seriously. First of all, if you're a creationist, you should note that whales were apparently here from the beginning "And God created great whales" (Genesis 1:21). But let's assume that these weren't modern whales in Genesis, let's work your theory a bit. Let's assume the flood ended in 2000BC. Although there is archeological evidence going back much further, the first detailed written record of whaling comes from Japan, abut 700AD, and we have good documentation since then. (whales are mentioned much earlier, in Job 7:12, but they're not described till AD700) Since nobody seems to have noted a dramatic change since the commercially valuable species were described back then (and one would think that a big change in such an economically significant resource would be mentioned) we can safely assume that at least minke, sei and byrds whales attained their present shape 1300 years ago. So you're advocating that some bear-like creature walked off the ark and was able to - oh, I don't know, lets say "descend with modifications" - into whales in 2700 years, while leaving no intermediate types in Inuit bonepiles. Bear to Beluga in 750 generations. That makes sense to you, because, I suppose, polar bears and porpoises are the same "kind" (they both hunt seals, and they both have lots of teeth, right?). Yet at the same time you find it totally implausible when science tells you that yes, whales did descend from primitive swamp-dwelling weasels, but they did it over a much longer time, more like 40 million years. And they did it much more gradually, over 10 million generations, so the incremental steps were very, very tiny. And they left copious fossils, which are now publicly displayed in museums all over the world, and using these collections we can closely recreate the actual path they took. In your mind, Robert, a sudden, unseen, 750 generation evolutionary sprint makes sense, but a much more gradual, well document path... well, that's just fantasy. I gotta admit, Robert, you've got me stumped. I have no idea if you're the most tenacious Poe I've ever seen, if you actually are a True Believer(TM) or if you're just plain batshit nuts.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

So you think whales evolved from "ground creatures" who were passengers on Noah's Ark in 2348 BC to the aquatic creatures we see today? Are you aware of Ambulocetus and Pakicetus? Are they part of the "post flood adaptation"? Do you assign any particular dates to them?

There is NO one you are convincing to change their positions at these debates.

— Marconi

Robert Byers said: Evolution is not the origin of species. Another mechanism in reality was at work.

Robert Byers said: Evolution is not the origin of species. Another mechanism in reality was at work.

Robert Byers prattled: No time is needed. Quick adaption is what the fossil record teaches. so it must be from innate triggers. These fossils are of types of whale creatures, i guess, and not intermediates. they would of been fossilized in the first few centuries after the flood. I see all creatures as quickly filling every niche just like today with thje ciclids if africa or the amazon forest. Diversity is the normal state for life and it was a quick development and done within a few centuries post flood. The water whales were just another type of co-existing creature on the land. There were many types of this kind. likewise with all water mammals. Evolution is not the origin of species. Another mechanism in reality was at work.

Robert wrote:

"NO evolution. Just quick adaptation..."

Well it appears that Robert believes in saltational evolution, albeit with some mysterious supposedly superantural component. I know, maybe it's those magic invisible holograms, or maybe those intelligent photons in the magnetic field.

Robert, you do know that adaptation is defined as EVOLUTION, right? Oh well, what can you expect from a guy who thinks that humans will change skin color instantaneously if they migrate to a differnt lattitude?

Once again, the question must be asked, is it possible to be too stupid to be a Poe, or is that impossible my definition?

DS said: Once again, the question must be asked, is it possible to be too stupid to be a Poe, or is that impossible my definition?

I've just read Shermer's article on the debate (thanks for linking to it Nick). IMO we have a communication issue adding to the ignorance issue.

What I mean is, the reason Meyer et al. came to an "origin of life" debate and then did not discuss the origin of life, but rather evolution, is in part* because to the creationist audience, the origins of life and of species is exactly the same thing. They don't see a distinction (because in the bible, there isn't one). So they come to an 'origins of life' debate focused on the subject of speciation.

Now, as with all things creationist I'd agree that the head honchos probably aren't confused at all - their M.O. is intentional deception. However, in debates like this one the point is not to convince Meyer, its to speak to the audience, and the creationist audience might be legitimately ignorant as to the scientific difference between 'origin of life' and 'origin of species.'

If that's the case, I'd suggest future debaters take a minute or two to describe the scientific difference.

***

*yeah, he's also Gish galloping to hide the lack of substance in his position. But I think my main point has merit, which is that Meyer knows better than we do how the creationist audience will understand the phrase "origin of life," and he came prepared to discuss their understanding of it.

Don Prothero said: But I do have a life, a research career, students to teach, and a family to nurture, and those take precedence over beating my head against a wall debating IDiots. I think even Ken Miller has cut back on his debating, since it gets old after a while, fighting the same no-win battle over and over again...

ravilyn.sanders said: One of my profs used to say, "Specialization is knowing more and more about less and less. At the limiting case you will know everything about nothing."

I think it was C Northcote Parkinson who described the effect. He cited an art PhD candidate who began writing a thesis on Renaissance painting techniques, and found the field just too large, and so concentrated on the manufacture of the paints, found that too large, and so concentrated on the forms of turpentine used...

And so on.

I notice the Dougster didn't stick around for too long. I went to a presentation of his in Denver. It was sponsored by a student ministry and ended with a witnessing - most embarassing.

He said ID wasn't about god but there was literature available, written by him, that said it was. He has also written an article proposing that god be taught in universities.

One paper there had this:-

"All life on earth is the result of undirected natural causes" - apparently his almost complete lack of science knowledge is showing. Apparently he also forgotten about the pigeon breeders in Darwin's book.

Whenever people are talking to him afterwards it's "god this" and "Jesus that".

Some of his lectures are on line at the institution he teaches at. They are quite awful. He speaks eloquently but it's mostly BS. He and Meyer are Godbots, pure and simple. The court ruled that ID was religion - these guys have their hands over their ears.

Why a philosopher thinks it is honest to promote Meyer's ideas when he isn't an expert I don't know. As a mechanical engineer I'm not allowed to design bridges.

Rolf Aalberg said:

Robert Byers said: Evolution is not the origin of species. Another mechanism in reality was at work.

And that mechanism is?

DS said: Robert wrote: "NO evolution. Just quick adaptation..." Well it appears that Robert believes in saltational evolution, albeit with some mysterious supposedly superantural component. I know, maybe it's those magic invisible holograms, or maybe those intelligent photons in the magnetic field. Robert, you do know that adaptation is defined as EVOLUTION, right? Oh well, what can you expect from a guy who thinks that humans will change skin color instantaneously if they migrate to a differnt lattitude? Once again, the question must be asked, is it possible to be too stupid to be a Poe, or is that impossible my definition?

Not even a loon who thinks denial is a river in Africa can seriously maintain that the huge numbers of adaptive changes required to produce a whale from a terrestrial animal is (a) not an example of evolution and (b) could take place in a few thousand years. I call Poe.

"I call Poe.

You've never encountered Byers before then? He is on record claiming that polar bears are white because they are afraid of humans.

Oh, I have encountered him, all right. At first I thought he was a more than usually deluded creo half-wit, but more recently I have come to the conclusion that he's only jerking our chain.

Dave,

He is definitely jerking something. I don't know whether he thinks he is or not, but he definitely is. Either he really believes all the crap he spouts, or he really is schizophrenic and just makes crap up as he goes along, or he just makes crap up to try to get a reaction, either way, it's crap all the way down.

I can never remember this guy makiing a valid point about anything, even the Bible. You would think that someone who made so many outlandish and contradictory statements would eventually realize that he was just making a fool of himself, but one way or another, it just doens't seem to sink in for this guy. Most people would figure it out when everyone starts laughing at them, not this guy.

Unfortunately, the fact that he refuses to answer questions cannot be used to distinguish between the various hypotheses. Either he just sits and gloats at the reactions, or he smugly assumes that he is right anyway. Who knows? Who cares?

At least it is testimony to the fairness of the Panda's thumb that someone as clueless as this is still allowed to post. No one who ever read this guy's crap could ever reasonably question the tolerance of those who run this site. He is good at providing teaching moments sometimes and maybe a laugh or two. Maybe that is why he is tolerated. He certainly is no threat to rationality.

Robert Byers said: YEC here.

Robert Byers said: You once responded to me in letters in “Nature” about whales.

Robert Byers said: I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

Robert Byers said: I didn’t see the debate

Robert Byers said: but thank you for the time and passion for a subject of great interest of thinking people and occasional thinking people.

Robert Byers said: Yes its a gain for any public attention for any creationist criticism

Robert Byers said: however we have earned our spurs in public discourse on these matters.

Robert Byers said: Some or much of North America is aware of the new aggression in ideas against evolution and company.

Robert Byers said: It is informative of your thinking and I guess others that you don’t see debates or general discussion as the important medium to persuade the public

Robert Byers said: but rather school boards and court cases to ban and censor criticism/discussion/alternate ideas on origin subjects.

Robert Byers said: Creationism is confident in ideas and words to contend for the truth

Robert Byers said: and we do well and better as time goes by.

Robert Byers said: We can also take on power structures that try to stop us.

Daniel Brooks said: She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

Robert Byers said: A old story of endangered establishments.

Robert Byers said: In America there is hundreds of years of precedent of freedom

Robert Byers said: and teaching origins with God and Genesis included or exclusively.

Robert Byers said: Creationism believes we do and can persuade great numbers of the public.

Robert Byers said: People can be persuaded to truth or error.

Robert Byers said: I can. I believe your side has no hope because your on the wrong side of interpretations of nature regarding origins.

Robert Byers said: So if you say nothing or say a lot its all a attrition of your former position.

Robert Byers said: Yet if your confident your right then you should believe in the intelligence and good will of your fellow citizens to understand the evidence behind conclusions in these areas.

Apparently Mr. Byers works for the Canadian Ministry of Education. I shudder to think in which capacity.

John Kwok said: Apparently Mr. Byers works for the Canadian Ministry of Education. I shudder to think in which capacity.

Shermer and Prothero clearly got creamed on this debate. Don't take my word for it, listen to the whole debate and decide.
http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/press3.htm

Dave Luckett said:

John Kwok said: Apparently Mr. Byers works for the Canadian Ministry of Education. I shudder to think in which capacity.

Good lord! Surely not. I mean, I suppose he could be a janitor or something, but surely not in any position where he might be able to influence the teaching of any subject?

Wow! If I hadn't read the Evolution News & Views website, from the way you are writing, you would think you won this debate! It is interesting to me that both sides claim they demolished the other side. My suspicion is that neither are being too objective here. I guess the best thing to do is to listen to the debate myself and see who, IF ANYONE, is telling the truth.

For some reason, Dr. Prothero's bold claims leave me a bit skeptical.

tj said: Wow! If I hadn't read the Evolution News & Views website, from the way you are writing, you would think you won this debate! It is interesting to me that both sides claim they demolished the other side. My suspicion is that neither are being too objective here. I guess the best thing to do is to listen to the debate myself and see who, IF ANYONE, is telling the truth. For some reason, Dr. Prothero's bold claims leave me a bit skeptical.

It is interesting to me that both sides claim they demolished the other side. My suspicion is that neither are being too objective here. I guess the best thing to do is to listen to the debate myself and see who, IF ANYONE, is telling the truth.

For someone like Meyer to refer to ANYONE else as condescending is to demonstrate monumental hypocrisy. These people are something else.

Doug Groothuis said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. Steven Meyer gives no "crap" but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees.

Flint said: Look: we all listen to these debates already KNOWING the right answer. Those who disagree with us are simply wrong. HOW they disagree, how they use (or don't use) evidence and logic, only helps us decide if they are fools, morons, liars, weasels, or inadvertent victims of religious think-proofing. Being a priori wrong, they must be ONE or more of these things, right?

slpage said:

Doug Groothuis said: Prothero's lack of civility and arrogant tone do nothing to ingratiate him or his arguments. Steven Meyer gives no "crap" but arguments; moveover, he never belittles or insults those with whom he disagrees.

Oh, right - it was William "The Christian" Dembski who implied that Jerry Coyne looks like Frankenstein... Get off that horse, Groothuis, that sympathy card was played long ago.

Prothero's review ends with, "And they’re NOT going to get me to waste my time at this again unless they pay me a LOT of money!"

Somehow, I don't think that's what I'd be saying if I had just creamed my ID opponents.

bobmo said: Prothero's review ends with, "And they’re NOT going to get me to waste my time at this again unless they pay me a LOT of money!" Somehow, I don't think that's what I'd be saying if I had just creamed my ID opponents.

John Kwok said: Don has spent substantially more years debating creationists than other notable figures, like, for example, PZ Myers (I know this because years ago, as a graduate student, I met Don for the first time - he was then a young assistant professor at Knox College - and he spent time discussing how he had spent his "spare" time debating creos.). Indeed he has probably spent as much time as Ken Miller has. But both regard debating creos as increasingly unproductive and think it is better to lecture directly to audiences, instead of giving IDiots and other creos "platforms" that will allow audiences to conclude that: 1) there is a valid controversy in the so-called "evolution vs. creation" debate and 2) that Intelligent Design creationism (or some other kind of creationism) is a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory:

bobmo said: John, "increasingly unproductive" sounds like "increasing unpersuasive" to me. If Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory, a good debater should be able to disabuse the audience of that notion in short order.

Make that "increasingly unpersuasive"

bobmo said: John, "increasingly unproductive" sounds like "increasing unpersuasive" to me. If Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory, a good debater should be able to disabuse the audience of that notion in short order.

Dan said: A good debater uses tricks, subterfuge, strawmen, and logical fallacies to make his point look good whether or not it actually is good. Scientists are trained to not use these devices, because they're trained to come up with correct answer, not with the most appealing answer. That is, scientists are trained to be poor debaters.

bobmo said: It sounds like you're saying that no advocate of modern evolutionary theory could ever persuade an audience because that requires the use of underhanded tricks! I don't find that very persuasive at all.

eric said: Dan was perfectly clear. The lack of training in rhetoric tends to make scientists poor debaters. It doesn't mean they always lose. Dan never said that, he obviously didn't mean that, and your response is merely an attempt to exaggerate what he said in order to make your argument seem more reasonable. Its ironic that you use a rhetorical trick to argue against the notion that rhetorical tricks play some part in debate.

A warning to mr Prothero, it is a debate tactic to overwhelm your opponent with facts they have no time to counter. Your 15 weeks worth of courses in 15 minutes overwhelms the audience with facts, and can easily turn people against you for being too forceful in your argument.

I haven't seen you speak, but from reading your own account, you talk fast, which adds to the confusion. It leaves you open to the blithering blatherer accusation.

When debating ID, the focus I think should be on the fact that ID doesn't provide real answers, the arguments Shermer used - the gaps, who designed the designer. That question never ends, and ID just stops asking the question.

bobmo said: And now I'm using a rhetorical trick?

bobmo is another bible thumping "weasel ball" ignoramus, and as such will engage in word games until the End Times. Anything to avoid confronting the facts of the real world. Get out now while you can.

My dear bobmo -

I have to concur with both Dan and eric, since they raise valid points regarding the rhetorical skills of real scientists, not mendacious intellectual pornographers like Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, Jonny "I Love Reverend Moon" Wells, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, or other equally reprehensible examples of their noxious, most pathetic ilk.

When Ken Miller debated a creationist for the first time back in the Spring of 1981 at his (and mine) alma mater, Brown University, he was well aware that Duane Gish had made "rhetorical mincemeat" out of someone as eminent as distinguished physical anthropologist Loren Eiseley at a "creation vs. evolution" debate that they held at Princeton University. I think Ken obtained a copy of that debate and several others just to study what Gish and Henry Morris (Gish's "deputy" at ICR and the one who would debate Ken at Brown) were doing with regards to their rhetorical "tricks" (I rendered Ken some assistance at that debate, but frankly, he didn't need any help, since he had Morris flailing and fumbling from the very beginning.). In a similar vein, Don Prothero attended several creation vs. evolution debates and analyzed critically what the creationists were saying, before he embarked upon his debating career.

I know of several eminent scientists who, while excellent communicators of science, would be quite poor in displaying any credible rhetorical skills against creationist opponents who have become quite good in their chosen career as mendacious intellectual pornographers.

The only reason why bobmo, Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism are doing well against valid science is due to the sad facts that most Americans are scientific illiterates and are gullible enough to be persuaded by such uncommonly good snake oil salesmen like Stephen Meyers, Bill Dembski and Ken Ham. For someone who claims to be a diehard "Christian", you should ask yourselves why your fellow Xian creationists tend to resort to tactics favored by your real master, Lucifer; tactics which the prophet you claim to profess, one Jesus Christ, would repudiate as those far more wicked than any he had seen from the Pharisees in King Solomon's temple.

Anyway am delighted that you are behaving like your typical, quite delusional, Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone "driving by" here at Panda's Thumb.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

When debating ID, the focus I think should be on the fact that ID doesn’t provide real answers, the arguments Shermer used - the gaps, who designed the designer. That question never ends, and ID just stops asking the question.

— Jerry

bobmo said: Dan was clear all right.

bobmo said: And as a result, they [scientists] don't persuade audiences.

bobmo said: If scientists could persuade audiences without such tricks, Dan would have no problem with these debates.

I just got the latest missive of mendacious intellectual pornography from the Dishonesty Institute (their NotaBene e-mail newsletter) encouraging people to write positive reviews of Meyer's latest pathetic example of mendacious intellectual pornography "Signature in the Cell") and to vote NO on the negative "Darwinist" reviews. The Dishonesty Institute is sending its online goons to go after mine and Don Prothero's reviews. Please ask your family, friends and acquaintances to vote yea on mine and Don's reviews and vote no on the latest musings by the Dishonesty Institute and its Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Dave Luckett said: Not even a loon who thinks denial is a river in Africa can seriously maintain that the huge numbers of adaptive changes required to produce a whale from a terrestrial animal is (a) not an example of evolution and (b) could take place in a few thousand years. I call Poe.

Calilasseia said:

Robert Byers said: YEC here.

Oh dear. Look who's turned up here. I wondered where he would unload his soiled intellectual nappies next, only he's been polluting various rationalist forums all over the Internet with semi-literate drivel posted as part of his mission to propagandise for a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine arising from theological pornography. During his sordid tenure over at the Richard Dawkins Forums, I had much fun dealing with his robotically parroted canards, which included such comedy gems as his assertion that large predatory animals are scared of humans, leading to the infamous "polar bears are scared to the point of white hair" comment, that elicited hysterical laughter on three continents (see the original here. Additionally, to give those who are not familiar with him, some idea of his modus operandi, he fabricates apologetic erections on a day to day basis as and when it is discoursively convenient to him, without once bothering to ask whether the fabrications of his florid imagination are internally consistent from one day to the next. The classic examples I dissected at length here among other places - note that in two separate posts, which I link to and date in that post, he claims that dinosaurs were alive alongside his mythical Adam, than then in two other posts, makes the exact opposite claim. Consequently, the only reason for treating this individual's assorted ideological vomitings seriously lies in the necessity to deal with ignorant canards head-on wherever they may arise. Basically, this individual is beyond education, so the only reason one regards the droolingly encephalitic simulacrum of ideas that he propagates is for the education and entertainment of assorted bystanders. I shall now proceed to engage in this very process. It's a while since I've had the entertainment of dealing with Byers' unique brand of ideological stormtrooping, and I'm going to savour this instance with special relish. Particularly in light of the fact that this individual openly admitted over at RDF that he was too indolent to bother studying genetics as it was too much hard work (interested observers can read the original post here), yet purported to be in a position to lecture tenured professional scientists that they were all somehow mistaken, and that his beloved book of myths was a more reliable source of substantive information about the real world than direct experimental tests of hypotheses.

Robert Byers said: You once responded to me in letters in “Nature” about whales.

Byers, the idea that your utterly diseased pontifications are worthy of being mentioned in a prestigious scientific journal is a fantasy only you could entertain. But then you've entertained a lot of fantasies in your time.

Robert Byers said: I am a creationist who insists whales are a post flood adaptation of a ground creature.

Byers, you cannot even make up your mind whether dinosaurs and humans lived together, as I demonstrated in that RDF post I linked to above. You fabricated whatever inventions of your imagination were apologetically convenient on a day to day basis, without bothering to ask yourself the basic question of whether your fabricated drivel was internally consistent. As for your farcical assertion that whales were a "post flood adaptation", this is manifest garbage, given that the [1] your fantasy flood never happened, and I can point to numerous consilient reasons from reality why your fantasy flood never happened, and [2] the fossil ancestors of whales pre-date your fantasy flood by about 50 million years.

Robert Byers said: I didn’t see the debate

That won't stop you posting asinine drivel about it though, will it? Being totally bereft of substantive knowledge about a subject has never stopped you doing this in the past.

Robert Byers said: but thank you for the time and passion for a subject of great interest of thinking people and occasional thinking people.

You left out the creationists from the above list. As you so frequently and compellingly demonstrate, Byers, creationists don't bother thinking, they simply accept uncritically whatever farcical nonsense is erected to prop up mythological blind assertion by assorted ideological stormtroopers for doctrine, and robotically parrot said nonsense with a masturbatory level of obsession.

Robert Byers said: Yes its a gain for any public attention for any creationist criticism

So you admit you're more interested in scoring public relations points than being true to reality? Congratulations upon making this explicit here for all to see. But then that arch-charlatan Henry Morris gave the game away in one of his tedious little creationist screeds, where he revealed that the fundamental operating principle driving creationism is that when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right. A principle you've demonstrated that you adhere to on repeated occasions on multiple rationalist forums that you have sullied with your disreputable, and at times pathetically semi-literate, apologetics.

Robert Byers said: however we have earned our spurs in public discourse on these matters.

Poppycock. All that you and your fellow ideological warriors for doctrine have demonstrated by your assorted activities, Byers, is the intellectual bankruptcy and morally corrosive nature of your tacky little doctrine. Not least because some of your fellow creationists routinely resort to lying about valid science. I know this for a fact, Byers, because I've dealt with their lies head-on and demonstrated that they ARE lies.

Robert Byers said: Some or much of North America is aware of the new aggression in ideas against evolution and company.

So you openly admit here that you and other creationists like you are engaged in polemical assault rather than proper discourse? Congratulations once again for displaying not only a wholly unusual degree of candour from a creationist, but making your position explicit.

Robert Byers said: It is informative of your thinking and I guess others that you don’t see debates or general discussion as the important medium to persuade the public

The critical thinkers don't regard so-called "debates" that are rigged in favour of ideological warriors for doctrine from the outset as being a valid means of educating the public, except with respect to manifest creationist duplicity. We regard proper science classes teaching valid science as the appropriate forum. Which may explain why creationists strive with such effort to corrupt those classes.

Robert Byers said: but rather school boards and court cases to ban and censor criticism/discussion/alternate ideas on origin subjects.

Oh dear, not this tiresome canard of yours, Byers. Learn once and for all that science classes exist to teach valid science, and are NOT there to provide ideological stormtroopers for doctrine with a ready-made means of spreading their mythology-based wishful thinking. There are separate classes provided for your drivel, Byers, namely classes in comparative mythology, which is where your doctrinal masturbation fantasies belong. As for the idea that your nonsense is being "censored", Byers, this is bullshit plain and simple. You have well funded, politically connected organisations disseminating your drivel enjoying tax-free income, something that scientific researchers wish they could enjoy whilst striving to find effective cures for cancer. You have churches pushing your nonsense onto the public all over the North American continent, you have talk show radio hosts pushing this drivel, but apparently this isn't enough for you. Because there exists an Establishment Clause in the US Constitution, Byers, which expressly forbids the State from putting its weight behind enforcement of conformity to religious dogma (and how creationists hate that particular piece of legislation), you are not allowed to use government facilities to push your ideology. Learn this lesson once and for all, and live with it.

Robert Byers said: Creationism is confident in ideas and words to contend for the truth

Byers, you and other creationists manifestly wouldn't know the truth if it backed M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks into your ribcages. Need I remind you Byers, that in his summing up of the Dover Trial, Judge Jones effectively accused the creationist/IDist supporters in the trial of perjury? That's right, Byers, Judge Jones cited instances in his summing up where creationists LIED ON OATH. These people were happy to swear on the Bible that you and they claim to uphold as the source of your morals (and moreover assert is the only source of morality that exists), yet having sworn on this book, those people lied in court. Indeed, Byers, the public record clearly demonstrates that creationism is routinely supported by duplicity of this sort. Creationists quote mine scientific papers and misrepresent the work of the authors thereof, creationists routinely spread misinformation about the valid science, indeed creationists routinely lie in order to push their doctrine. So kindly spare us your platitudes here, because we know that your doctrine is supported by mendacity on a grand scale. But then this is hardly surprising, Byers, because reality sticks the middle finger to your doctrine and its suppuratingly gangrenous assertions at every turn.

Robert Byers said: and we do well and better as time goes by.

Byers, the only area in which creationism is "doing better as time goes by" is in the field of duplicity. it has ZERO evidence supporting its fatuous blind assertions, and indeed, in important, substantive areas, is flatly contradicted by observational reality.

Robert Byers said: We can also take on power structures that try to stop us.

Drop the tinfoil hat, Byers, because "power structures that try to stop us" is another one of those creationist myths. The people who are really out to engage in censorship of ideas are creationists, indeed, here at The Panda's Thumb, a nice example of what happened when someone asked awkward questions at a so-called "conference" arranged by IDists is documented in detail, namely here. Allow me to quote the requisite part to you, Byers, so you can see your fellow creationists in action:

Daniel Brooks said: She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

There you are, Byers, creationist and IDist duplicity in action. The moment one of the real biologists at that conference asked an awkward question, discussion was shut down. If anyone tried this at a real scientific conference, they'd be booted out of the conference hall. The organisers of a real scientific conference, Byers, would strive to make time for the extended discussions that would arise from interesting new results, not shut down debate. So spare us the entirely synthetic playing of the martyr card, Byers, because it's yet another piece of creationist duplicity.

Robert Byers said: A old story of endangered establishments.

Oh, you mean the way that the old endangered establishment of creationism is trying to kill off genuine science and replace it with a bastardised version made subservient to religious dogma? As revealed in the Wedge Strategy document, Byers?

Robert Byers said: In America there is hundreds of years of precedent of freedom

Bollocks. The USA has only been a separate, well-defined sovereign nation for 233 years. Moreover, that nation was erected to provide freedom from religious persecution of the sort that had been rampant in Europe for the best part of 1,500 years. Persecution that included subjecting scientists to the Inquisition when the work of those scientists failed to conform to religious orthodoxy. You see, Byers, that's one of the benefits arising from some of us living in Europe - we have a history to fall back upon to teach us such things.

Robert Byers said: and teaching origins with God and Genesis included or exclusively.

Once again, Byers, mythology does not belong in science classes. Learn this basic lesson once and for all, and live with it.

Robert Byers said: Creationism believes we do and can persuade great numbers of the public.

Why do the ideological warriors for your doctrine have to lie to push your doctrine, Byers? If reality supported your doctrine, creationists wouldn't have to lie, would they?

Robert Byers said: People can be persuaded to truth or error.

So why are you expending so much effort trying to sell people a worthless masturbation fantasy of a doctrine that is flatly contradicted by observational reality, Byers? Why are you expending so much effort to sell a doctrine that is based upon nothing more than mythological blind assertions and which is propped up by manifest lies?

Robert Byers said: I can. I believe your side has no hope because your on the wrong side of interpretations of nature regarding origins.

This is bollocks pure and simple, Byers. REALITY says that your assertion above is bollocks, Byers, because REALITY, that entity creationist routinely ignore, provides massive evidential support for evolutionary theory. Oh, and Byers, drop the specious conflation of evolutionary theory with abiogenesis, because it's a tiresome creationist canard we've all seen before and have destroyed time and time again. But then if you had paid attention in a real science class, Byers, you would know this.

Robert Byers said: So if you say nothing or say a lot its all a attrition of your former position.

This is merely another of your fantasies, Byers. Keep staring glassy-eyed at that doctrinal hologram of yours, whilst reality laughs at you.

Robert Byers said: Yet if your confident your right then you should believe in the intelligence and good will of your fellow citizens to understand the evidence behind conclusions in these areas.

If those citizens are taught honestly and presented with the genuine facts, Byers, we have no problem presenting the evidence-based, reality-based case for evolution. Trouble is, we're facing, in the guise of you and your fellow ideological stormtroopers for doctrine, people who are willing to lie for that doctrine. I see you've posted yet more drivel after your first post, Byers. I'll let the professional scientists here render your fantasies even more absurd than they already are. Meanwhile, I urge everyone to follow the links I have provided, and see just how much of a fantasist and a bullshit merchant you are, Byers. it's not as if you've failed to provide evidence to support this charge.

Robert Byers, you are an arrogant and colossal idiot when it comes to the topic of biology. And you never notice that we consistently notice that you never bother to produce any evidence what so ever to support any of your moronic claims in any topic, from biology to biblical history to archaeology to American law and history.

And you continue to reinforce the fact that you are simultaneously stupid, dishonest, and too arrogant to care that you are stupid and dishonest.

My point is that thinking need not conclude adaptation is slow.

the evidence is that creatures could and did instantly change

Here's the text of the Dishonesty Institute's appeal to its intellectually-challenged audience to write as many positive Amazon.com reviews of Meyer's mendacious intellectual porn while dealing with the reviews of Meyer's "evil Darwinist" opposition. Again, I urge you to vote yea on mine and Donald Prothero's reviews (and on the other one star reviews) and vote no on the positive reviews that have been posted at a most frantic pace at Amazon.com since the Dishonesty Institute sent its online e-mail appeal yesterday:

Dear John,

Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell is gaining momentum, and now the Darwinists are fighting back. After Dr. Meyer and Dr. Sternberg trounced Darwinists Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero in last week's debate, desperate Darwinists are lashing out at Dr. Meyer, trashing his book at Amazon.com. They can't afford for more people to be exposed to the arguments that Meyer is making, so they have resorted to trying to ruin the book's reputation.

If you have read Signature in the Cell, we need your help! Please write a review at Amazon.com (they need not be long, just honest). This is a book that has earned its place in the top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon, the book that made the Times Literary Supplement's Top Books of 2009, and an author who was named "Daniel of the Year" for his work. Please take a moment and defend Dr. Meyer and his groundbreaking book.

Sincerely,

Anika M. Smith

Robert wrote:

"..the evidence is that creatures could and did instantly change to fill niche in a post flood world. Whether water mammals into the sea or placentals into marsupials."

Right Robert. And your stuffed teddy bear discusses philosophy with you every night when you go to bed. Got it. Look jackass, you're just plain wrong. In fact, you're so far wrong you're not even wrong, your wong wong wong, thats how wong u r.

If you want anyone, anyone at all, even adle-brained creationists to take anything you write seriously ever again, you will have to at least define the following:

1) Exactly what "creature" are you referring to?

2) Exactly what do you mean by "instantly"?

3) Exactly what "niche" are you referring to?

4) Exactly what do you mean by "change"? Was it a genetic change, a physiological change, a morphological change?

5) Exaactly what "water mammals" are you referring to?

6) Exactly why do you think that placental mammals changed into marsupials?

Now, once you have defined exactly what it is you are trying to say, then you can provide scientific evidence for your claims. Here, I'll make it easy for you, I'll even accept biblical quotes. Just find somewhere in the bible where it says that placental mammals changed instantly into marsupials and im sure that everyone will be convinced.

Now if you cant or wont explain what you are talkin about and cant or wont provide any evidence, then I guess everyone will once again see that you are a lying sack of excrement who just makes crap up without the slightest knowledge of what you are talking about. I'm sure everyone has already come to that conclusion long ago, but thanks for providing more actual evidence. You should try that some time when it comes to scientific issues.

Oh, by the way, Im still waitin for yore evidence that humans can change skin color instantly. Are you sure you werent thinkin about a cameleon or an octupus or a squid?

John Kwok [quoting a creationist advertisement] said: This is a book that has earned its place in the top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon, the book that made the Times Literary Supplement's Top Books of 2009, and an author who was named "Daniel of the Year" for his work.

WORLD's 12th annual Daniel of the Year does not save lives abroad, as Britain's Caroline Cox and Sudan's Michael Yerko do. Nor does he regularly save lives of the unborn, as Florida's Wanda Cohn does through her pregnancy center work. No, Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that those lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance.

At the very least, this summary provided nice phrases to google to enhance the education of those actually curious (admittedly, quite likely not a phrase describing your live audience); so in that respect I don't consider it a waste.

However, one statement in the main body struck me as rather brow-quirking: "It may have overwhelmed the audience with how much information I crammed into 15 minutes, but it had the salutary effect that I hit them with lots of arguments and data they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer, so most of my assertions stayed unchallenged." How is this different from the Gish gallop?

Still, the award for most bone-headed comment easily goes to Robert Byers, for his "Adaption is just a result observed by people." Wow. Considering the foundation of *science* ultimately rests on evidence -- aka results observed by people -- you have just dismissed all of scientific progress with a single flippant sentence! That is impressive.

Interesting reading