One Eyed Jack
New member
You seemed pretty bent out of shape when Darwin's ideas were compared to Lamarck's. I was simply pointing out that their views weren't all that different.
What makes you think that?
Real Science Friday: Bergman, Bats and Bellybuttons
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
You seemed pretty bent out of shape when Darwin's ideas were compared to Lamarck's. I was simply pointing out that their views weren't all that different.
What makes you think that?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Bent out of shape? I think you're reading emotions into text that aren't there.
I was aware that Darwin had some Lamarckian ideas long before you pointed it out. What Darwin thought about inheritance doesn't have much bearing on current evolutionary thought. Creationist insistence that it does is purposeful ignorance of evolution.Because that's all I hear creationists say about Darwin. They call it Darwinism as if we still believed everything Darwin said and that he was some kind of prophet or deity. It's stupid. Creationists only extremely rarely bother to even understand what they are arguing against. Bob is just another case in point.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Bent out of shape? I think you're reading emotions into text that aren't there.
Yet you painted those who pointed it out on Bob's radio show as ignorant.
I realize that.
Who are you talking about? Can you give me some names?
You haven't ever heard me say it.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That's not what they pointed out. What was said was "evolutionists the world over believe this". That is patently false and a moronic statement.
Even though Darwin had some Lamarckian ideas (nothing specific to tattoos), it doesn't excuse the stupidity of the statement. If you think it does, you're making precisely the mistake you claim not to. Asserting that whatever Darwin may have said in the past is what "evolutionists" believe today.
You would be just as annoyed if I asserted Christians the world over believed in geocentrism because that was the position of the church before Galileo and Copernicus. And I would be just as wrong as Bob is.
I've chatted with too many YECs over the years to recall names of who said what. I know SD has.
You would be an exception except you are the one that brought up Darwin's beliefs that you should know are not accepted by anyone today . . . .
One Eyed Jack
New member
That's the connection I drew. I don't know how you missed it -- this is supposed to be your forte.
It's pretty obvious to anyone listening to that particular exchange that Bob was just joking around. You don't seriously think he (or any other creationist) holds to the idea that evolutionists believe tattoos can be inherited. Do you?
I haven't.
I never said they were.
Alate_One
Well-known member
My forte is interpreting silly creationist comments? Not the last time I checked. I didn't see anything in that statement that referred back to Darwin himself.
Joking around to what effect? Its obvious he was TRYING to make fun of "evolutionists". But the only joke here seems to be on Bob.
It doesn't make any sense to say something you know full well neither you or your opponents believe and then say how stupid your opponents are for believing it . . . You're seriously grasping at straws trying to defend the indefensible.
Besides, you guys were the ones that selected the "quote of the show". If its lacking context its not because I ripped it out . . .
Apparently he does or he was incredibly sloppy in his "joke telling". Almost nothing surprises me anymore with regard to what kind of silliness creationists believe about evolution. I've seen things even dumber than heritable tattoos. And Bob has said plenty of other stupid things with respect to evolution.
One Eyed Jack
New member
It certainly isn't recognizing jokes. Could you not find anything else in the broadcast to harp on, or have you even listened to it?
I think there can be three possible interpretations for this bizarre quote.
1) (Astounding Ignorance) They honestly don't realize that evolution theory does not involve acquired traits becoming hereditary.
2) (Basic Ignorance) They are making fun of evolutionists for believing random mutations have beneficial results and are jokingly imagining us just waiting around for a random mutation of a tattooed baby to come along.
3) (Pretty damned stupid) They are seriously asking us to consider the (apparently absurd) possibility that if tattoes are attractive, how many generations would it take of women selectively selecting men whose skin have birthmarks resemble tatoos before natural selection occurs and babies are born with tatoo like skin.
If they meant the third interpretation, it's a pretty damned stupid critique, because (God, do I really have to point this out?): 1) Women who prefer tatoos will never select a man whose skin has a birthmark minimally resembling a tatoo over man with impressive artificial tatoos hence no genetic information is being selected or passed down; 2) any serious answer would be thousands of generations. As no fashion fad has ever lasted thousands of generations, this will never occur. So....uh, what possible objection would this observation imply?
1) (Astounding Ignorance) They honestly don't realize that evolution theory does not involve acquired traits becoming hereditary.
2) (Basic Ignorance) They are making fun of evolutionists for believing random mutations have beneficial results and are jokingly imagining us just waiting around for a random mutation of a tattooed baby to come along.
3) (Pretty damned stupid) They are seriously asking us to consider the (apparently absurd) possibility that if tattoes are attractive, how many generations would it take of women selectively selecting men whose skin have birthmarks resemble tatoos before natural selection occurs and babies are born with tatoo like skin.
If they meant the third interpretation, it's a pretty damned stupid critique, because (God, do I really have to point this out?): 1) Women who prefer tatoos will never select a man whose skin has a birthmark minimally resembling a tatoo over man with impressive artificial tatoos hence no genetic information is being selected or passed down; 2) any serious answer would be thousands of generations. As no fashion fad has ever lasted thousands of generations, this will never occur. So....uh, what possible objection would this observation imply?
Why the hell would he make a joke about ideas that were discredited over 150 years ago if he didn't?
No, I don't think he thinks we believe tatoos are inheritable, but for such a "joke" to have any meaning whatsoever, he has to think we are being inconsistant when we don't. Which is astonishingly stupid to think.
No, I read it. She mentioned that by the comment "How stupid could Darwin and all evolutionists be" that Bob was assuming that evolutions believe something that utterly no evolutionist believe. She commented that even Darwin himself would have balked. This shows that before your comment, Alate didn't consider Darwin to be an up to date representative of modern evolutionists theory.
You, commented that Darwin had a few Lamarkian ideas. She responded, yeah, so what? That hardly counts as switching gears. You ask "why did she say he would have balked because he had a few Lamarkian ideas". Because, although he wrongly conceded that some Lamarkian inheritence but minimally occur, he was not an adherent of Lamark by any means.
Okay, now Stripe:
Suppose, I said how "How utterly stupid all creationist are to believe that every time a new dog breed is created that God had to stop all he was doing to create the breed"?
Then suppose, you reacted and said "That is utterly stupid; NO creationist thinks God created dog breeds?"
Then I say, "So I'm right, aren't I? God didn't create dog breeds?"
So you say, "No! You're wrong because that isn't something any actual creationist believe?"
So I answer, "What? Do you think God created dog breeds directly?"
You answer, "Of course not."
And I answer "Ha! Even you admit you creationist are all wrong! Evolutionists 1; Creationists 0"
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
:rotfl:
I think you should leave the thinking to those with the capacity to do so.
:mock: atheists.
One Eyed Jack
New member
I suppose there wasn't anything else in the broadcast for the evolutionists to dispute.
I must admit it is nice to run across a creationist who follows his own advice.
Now if only you'd leave posting to those with something to say...
:chuckle:
Nice comeback. Mind if I use that one?
Yes.
Because he's promoting the debate and she's not.
Alate_One
Well-known member
And why would she promote a debate with a loopy creationist like Bob? It certainly doesn't help her career any. Science isn't decided on the debate stage anyway. Likely she was interested in seeing the creationist mindset (which is part of the reason I post here) especially considering she's heavily involved in the area of science and religion.
Its plainly obvious to me from the quotes I've seen and radio show snippets, that Bob doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about with regard to science.
- Status