[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

[lordkalvan]

....If you click on this link you see that my solution has been to let the reader -- view the details and conclude the facts for themselves.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419

You keep arguing that I should not do that -- and I think that is "instructive"....

You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent my argument.

I have only pointed out that interpretations other than your own are equally (if not more) plausible and that, when arriving at a judgement, all the relevant evidence should be considered, including in this case the statements of Richard Dawkins himself and the motives of the film-makers who, need I remind you, gained access to Professor Dawkins' private residence under false pretenses.

Again, the argument is not whether you think Dawkins is 'unreasonable' for preferring not to grant interviews to creationists, nor is it whether his view of the phrasing of certain questions as 'truculent' is appropriate; it is about whether or not the footage has been deliberately deployed in an effort to discredit Dawkins. If you believe Richard Dawkins is telling deliberate untruths in the course of his explanation, perhaps you should say so in those precise terms.

 

[turnorburn]

G-Day mate, whats it about 8:00 PM. in the down under, that link of yours id already seen, there will always be one or two or even maybe three that will be skeptics. What I see through these tired eyes of mine are people searching for truth but never being able to realize it, and I find that sad. Like Paul the Apostle said as one beating at the air. I believe you would like God, I know he likes you, do like Job and see for yourself how he framed the universe by his knowledge, he talks to me all the time, you and he could be good mates but it will cost you, the same it cost me. But what is life if you don't have life, its as Solomon wrote, vexation of spirit and vanity.

 

[BobRyan]

....If you click on this link you see that my solution has been to let the reader -- view the details and conclude the facts for themselves.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419

You keep arguing that I should not do that -- and I think that is "instructive"....

You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent my argument.

I have only pointed out that interpretations other than your own are equally (if not more) plausible

Let's see what the viewers say.

and that, when arriving at a judgement, all the relevant evidence should be considered, including in this case the statements of Richard Dawkins himself and the motives of the film-makers who, need I remind you, gained access to Professor Dawkins' private residence under false pretenses.

Again, the argument is not whether you think Dawkins is 'unreasonable' for preferring not to grant interviews to creationists, nor is it whether his view of the phrasing of certain questions as 'truculent' is appropriate;

On the contrary. If Dawkins reveals the junk-science religious-core of his argument in typical dark-ages censorship of all objective thought, wild complaints that critical thinking (rather than pablum drinking) is "truculent" AND (consistent with that evidence) is FLUMMOXED by a question so central to his own beliefs that even YOU ask it when the subject comes up -- then we have junk-science religious behavior EXPOSED for all the world to see.

Assuming "all the world" is not as welling to gloss over the details as you appear to be.

Then when Dawkins himself argues that the sequence in the footage IS CORRECT -- there is almost no rock for the darwinist devotee to hide under.

it is about whether or not the footage has been deliberately deployed in an effort to discredit Dawkins.

Hint: Dawkins AFFIRMS the sequence we see in the footage. It now remains for the viewer to ALLOW themselves to SEE it.

Hence my repeated posts urging the viewers to do just that and then answer a few basic questions.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p398349


Bob

 

[Gabe]

It seems to me that the Creationists who had interviewed Proffesor Dawkins are implying that he is unable to answer the question they had asked of him and he is claiming that he is capable of answering the question but was unwilling to answer it when he realised that they were Creationist.

My question (which is open to all) is: what is the answer to this question?
Can anyone (including Proffesor Dawkins) give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
If 'yes' then what? And if 'no' then why not?
And how does the answer relate to Creation and Evolution?

My interest is genuine, but my scientific knowledge i fear is non-existent when compared to most on this board.

God bless

 

[lordkalvan]

It seems to me that the Creationists who had interviewed Proffesor Dawkins are implying that he is unable to answer the question they had asked of him and he is claiming that he is capable of answering the question but was unwilling to answer it when he realised that they were Creationist.

My question (which is open to all) is: what is the answer to this question?
Can anyone (including Proffesor Dawkins) give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
If 'yes' then what? And if 'no' then why not?
And how does the answer relate to Creation and Evolution?

My interest is genuine, but my scientific knowledge i fear is non-existent when compared to most on this board.

God bless

Many of us struggle to come to terms with the current state of scientific knowledge across a wide range of fields, so you're not alone there. Richard Dawkins' more detailed answer to the question that he was posed in the infamous video that Bob refuses to admit any interpretation possible other than his own can be read here:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

 

[Gabe]

Thanks, i've just read his answer. I do not see what Creationists hoped to gain from the video other than a chance to make Proffesor Dawkins look silly in the eyes of a casual or biased viewer who would delve no deeper into this incident than the video itself. Pretty childish and unChristian if you ask me. The interviewers should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[lordkalvan]

.... I keep making your case for you.

As I did with your failed argument about Patterson who admits that "Stories about how one thing came from another .. are stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" and your failed argument about Osborne and "Nebraska man", I am simply "pointing to the inconvenient details" in what Dawkins' says about his own 11 second flummoxed response.

1. Your definition of a failed argument in respect of Dr Patterson appears to be that any interpretation and understanding that differs from your own and that you refuse to acknowledge as even remotely plausible must therefore be a 'failed argument'. By the same criteria, if I obstinately insist that only my own interpretation and understanding of Dr Patterson's reported (alleged) spoken words, letters, and subsequent clarifications and work makes it 'glaringly obvious' that your interpretation and understanding are misguided, then I can also claim to have laid bare the dessicated bones of your own 'failed argument'.

2. With regard to Hesperopithecus, my argument indeed 'failed' if you understand 'failed' to mean that I showed with some degree of confidence that Osborn did not engage in fraud in respect of the discovery, initial interpretation and subsequent investigation of the Hesperopithecus molar; that I showed evidence attesting to the difficulties associated with identifying the origin of such molars; and that your claims of fraud in this case eventually reduced to the opinion that Osborn's non-testifying at the Scopes' Trial was 'deceitful'.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks, i've just read his answer. I do not see what Creationists hoped to gain from the video other than a chance to make Proffesor Dawkins look silly in the eyes of a casual or biased viewer who would delve no deeper into this incident than the video itself. Pretty childish and unChristian if you ask me. The interviewers should be ashamed of themselves.

But "delving deeper" into this issue than the video itself one finds that the hole Dawkins digs for himself -- seems to have no bottom.

1. he calls the question in the video "truclent" but the question is in fact the heart and soul of the Darwinian proposition -- so much so that L.K ALSO asked that question here.

so what kind of junk-science religion would lead someone to conclude that a question at the core of the supposed science in question is not to be asked???

2. He argues that he never allows objective critical thinking people to question him on the subject - only kool-aid drinking cheerleaders. How "enlightened".

3. Without going to the linke and reading to see him dig himself deeper into that hole - you only have his 11 second flummoxed response to the question to give you a "clue" as to the blunders he might actually make in a written response -- such as the one we can all read now that he has offerred to do that very thing.

But of course you only discover that if you "go beyond looking at the video" as you point out.

hence my request that readers actually click on this link and respond to these few basic questions about "details".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p398349

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

.... I keep making your case for you.

As I did with your failed argument about Patterson who admits that "Stories about how one thing came from another .. are stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" and your failed argument about Osborne and "Nebraska man", I am simply "pointing to the inconvenient details" in what Dawkins' says about his own 11 second flummoxed response.

1. Your definition of a failed argument in respect of Dr Patterson appears to be that any interpretation and understanding that differs from your own and that you refuse to acknowledge as even remotely plausible must therefore be a 'failed argument'.

How so? details please. Generalities and hand-waiving only work for a failed argument that "needs" to avoid "the details".

By the same criteria, if I obstinately insist that only my own interpretation and understanding of Dr Patterson's reported (alleged) spoken words, letters, and subsequent clarifications and work makes it 'glaringly obvious' that your interpretation and understanding are misguided, then I can also claim to have laid bare the dessicated bones of your own 'failed argument'.

As much is it is fun to pretend that the statements from Patterson are "vague" or non-specific when dealing in generalties -- it turns out that Patterson was VERY specific. Why not refer to details in your defense of your position? Oh yes -- that is right -- it is because your argument only works when avoiding them.

Would you be enterested in actually looking at them again TO SEE if you argument holds water?

I know I never tire of those details -- I enjoy referencing all of them by way of review.

L.K.
2. With regard to Hesperopithecus, my argument indeed 'failed' if you understand 'failed' to mean that I showed with some degree of confidence that Osborn did not engage in fraud

Quite the contrary. Your OWN link argues that there was "NO WAY Osborn could not have known" about the problem of engaging in wild story telling about "ape man" and "irrefutable evidence" based on weak evidence so thin and skimpy as a pig's tooth.

Then your OWN LINK went on to tell us about Osborn's perfidity in wisely keeping the problem away from the public eye once he began to see the TRUTH of the false claim in the light of day.

You have this notion that when your OWN sources point to the perfidity of darwinist religionists IN NOT wanting the truth to come to light -- that this is a prime example of your argument "prevailing".

Frankly - I think that is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Thanks again for making the point.

Bob

 

[Gabe]

Bob, i've watched the video, read Dawkins response, considered the points you have raised and am well aware of your interpretation of the 'flummox'. I do not need to answer your questionaire because Proffesor Dawkins hostility towards Christianity and other faiths is no secret and if he would only like to be questioned by 'cheerleaders' then that is his call, but can you honestly blame him for his preference of not being interviewed by Creationists when this is what they do with it? And how does his crappy attitude prove your interpritation of the'flummox'? I detest the guy and STILL find no reason to doubt his explanation behind the 'flummox'. And what is it that you disliked about his answer?

 

[Gabe]

Thanks, i've just read his answer. I do not see what Creationists hoped to gain from the video other than a chance to make Proffesor Dawkins look silly in the eyes of a casual or biased viewer who would delve no deeper into this incident than the video itself. Pretty childish and unChristian if you ask me. The interviewers should be ashamed of themselves.

But "delving deeper" into this issue than the video itself one finds that the hole Dawkins digs for himself -- seems to have no bottom.

1. he calls the question in the video "truclent" but the question is in fact the heart and soul of the Darwinian proposition -- so much so that L.K ALSO asked that question here.

so what kind of junk-science religion would lead someone to conclude that a question at the core of the supposed science in question is not to be asked???

2. He argues that he never allows objective critical thinking people to question him on the subject - only kool-aid drinking cheerleaders. How "enlightened".

3. Without going to the linke and reading to see him dig himself deeper into that hole - you only have his 11 second flummoxed response to the question to give you a "clue" as to the blunders he might actually make in a written response -- such as the one we can all read now that he has offerred to do that very thing.

But of course you only discover that if you "go beyond looking at the video" as you point out.

hence my request that readers actually click on this link and respond to these few basic questions about "details".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105#p398349

Bob

1) He has not concluded that the question should not be asked, he finds the answer to be more complicated than a simple yes or no and the length and complexity of which would make it unsuitable for a recorded interview

2) He does not argue that he never allows himself to be questioned by objective critical thinking people, he states that as a rule he does not allow under-handed, lying creationist to question him, the very kind that would lie their way into his home and twist his words in any way they find possible.

3) i HAVE gone beyond the video and HAVE read the entire written response made by Proffesor Dawkins and HAVE read all that you have to say on this subject.

And as an 'unbiased objective reader' who has no interest in furthering the cause of 'Atheistic evolutionist Dogma' i conclude that Dawkins explanation of the '11 second flummox' is more plausable than your assumption.

God bless

 

[lordkalvan]

.... I keep making your case for you.

As I did with your failed argument about Patterson who admits that "Stories about how one thing came from another .. are stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" and your failed argument about Osborne and "Nebraska man", I am simply "pointing to the inconvenient details" in what Dawkins' says about his own 11 second flummoxed response.

1. Your definition of a failed argument in respect of Dr Patterson appears to be that any interpretation and understanding that differs from your own and that you refuse to acknowledge as even remotely plausible must therefore be a 'failed argument'.

How so? details please. Generalities and hand-waiving only work for a failed argument that "needs" to avoid "the details".

I have already posted at length on my differences with you about the understanding you take from Dr Patterson's alleged words and written comments in two letters. I have no intention of following you down this path yet again. You are well aware of why I differ with you and that you decline to acknowledge any worth to my counter-arguments.

[quote:3k2ongtv]
By the same criteria, if I obstinately insist that only my own interpretation and understanding of Dr Patterson's reported (alleged) spoken words, letters, and subsequent clarifications and work makes it 'glaringly obvious' that your interpretation and understanding are misguided, then I can also claim to have laid bare the dessicated bones of your own 'failed argument'.

As much is it is fun to pretend that the statements from Patterson are "vague" or non-specific when dealing in generalties -- it turns out that Patterson was VERY specific. Why not refer to details in your defense of your position? Oh yes -- that is right -- it is because your argument only works when avoiding them.[/quote:3k2ongtv]
Disingenuous as so often, Bob. If I ever 'pretended' that Dr Patterson's statements were 'vague', please supply the link. The point I made and that you quote without appearing to understand it is that I can ignore your arguments and claim success for mine as easily as you can ignore my arguments and claim success for your own.

Would you be enterested in actually looking at them again TO SEE if you argument holds water?

I know I never tire of those details -- I enjoy referencing all of them by way of review.

You mean you enjoy spamming the same things over and over and stubbornly ignoring counter-arguments, regardless of who makes them.

[quote:3k2ongtv]L.K.
2. With regard to Hesperopithecus, my argument indeed 'failed' if you understand 'failed' to mean that I showed with some degree of confidence that Osborn did not engage in fraud

Quite the contrary. Your OWN link argues that there was "NO WAY Osborn could not have known" about the problem of engaging in wild story telling about "ape man" and "irrefutable evidence" based on weak evidence so thin and skimpy as a pig's tooth.

Then your OWN LINK went on to tell us about Osborn's perfidity in wisely keeping the problem away from the public eye once he began to see the TRUTH of the false claim in the light of day.

You have this notion that when your OWN sources point to the perfidity of darwinist religionists IN NOT wanting the truth to come to light -- that this is a prime example of your argument "prevailing".

Frankly - I think that is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.[/quote:3k2ongtv]
The 'unbiased objective reader' is, I am sure, quite capable of seeing through the forest of verbiage you erect to determine for themselves that Henry Cavendish Osborn did not in any sense engage in deliberate fraud in the case of Hesperopithecus, which illustrates perfectly the vacuity of your 'failed argument' triumphalism.

 

[BobRyan]

Gabriel Ali -

From the link where you supposedly looked at the "details".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419

==================================================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

That was Dawkins; 11 Second flummoxed response to the following question ( A question ALSO asked by L.K on this very thread!!)

Dawkins

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.


From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

==========================================================================

1) He has not concluded that the question should not be asked, he finds the answer to be more complicated than a simple yes or no and the length and complexity of which would make it unsuitable for a recorded interview

How "instructive" that it is "truculent" to ask the same question you asked and that L.K asked IF the answer is to be "recorded.

Notice the "inconvenient detail" glossed over in that response is that Dawkins says "this is the KIND OF QUESTION ONLY a Creatioinist would ask"

The self-conflicted logic in your conclusion above about that spins that fact around to "good question but answer must not be video taped" is self-evident.

Gabriel Ali
2) He does not argue that he never allows himself to be questioned by objective critical thinking people,

Notice the "inconvenient detail" glossed over in that response is that Dawkins says "this is the KIND OF QUESTION ONLY a Creatioinist would ask"

3) i HAVE gone beyond the video and HAVE read the entire written response made by Proffesor Dawkins and HAVE read all that you have to say on this subject.

As I had hoped.

i conclude that Dawkins explanation of the '11 second flummox' is more plausable than your assumption.

Instructive -- in that case our atheist darwinist friends along with you should be REJOICING that I keep pointing to that video as it shows so clearly YOUR view and not mine.

You guys should be thanking me!! ;-)

And I just want you to know how happy I am in complying with what you consider a perfect example of honesty and integrity --

BASHING Creationists for daring to ask the question that YOU and L.K also ask.

Whining that only "a Creationist" WOULD ask such questions and then arguing that ONLY CHEERLEADERS are ALLOWED to ask questions

Totally flummoxed for 11 seconds for all to see - on a question CENTRAL to his own atheist darwinist doctrine -- one that YOU and L.K have BOTH asked.

Gabriel asks the question
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=120#p398387

L.K asks the same supposedly "truculent" question
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p395990

(BTW one can only "wonder" at how you expected your own question here to be answered given that you view the answer is "unsuited for recorded" response -- and of course the slow typing method on these boards has to be the "slowest" recorded format possible ;-) )

Demanding that the tape be turned off -- and insisting that no more interview take place for DARING to ask YOUR question and L.K's question.

The fact that you and our atheist darwinist friends aLL view this as the stellar "expected" behavior one should expect when discussing science not religion -- let us now go on to my previous example of CONTRAST where an ACTUAL scientist is to be asked about something like Gravity "CAN you give us an example of something in space being pulled toward earth due to the effects of gravity" and then the answer "11 second flummox... TURN the tape OFF!!!... how dare you ask such a truculent question"

It seems that there is no end to the conflicted logic to be employed in defense of atheist darwinism.

Bob

 

[Gabe]

Gabriel Ali -

From the link where you supposedly looked at the "details".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419

==================================================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

That was Dawkins; 11 Second flummoxed response to the following question ( A question ALSO asked by L.K on this very thread!!)

Dawkins

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.


From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

==========================================================================

1) He has not concluded that the question should not be asked, he finds the answer to be more complicated than a simple yes or no and the length and complexity of which would make it unsuitable for a recorded interview

How "instructive" that it is "truculent" to ask the same question you asked and that L.K asked IF the answer is to be "recorded.

Notice the "inconvenient detail" glossed over in that response is that Dawkins says "this is the KIND OF QUESTION ONLY a Creatioinist would ask"

The self-conflicted logic in your conclusion above about that spins that fact around to "good question but answer must not be video taped" is self-evident.



[quote:3dsb7ncj] Gabriel Ali
2) He does not argue that he never allows himself to be questioned by objective critical thinking people,

Notice the "inconvenient detail" glossed over in that response is that Dawkins says "this is the KIND OF QUESTION ONLY a Creatioinist would ask"

3) i HAVE gone beyond the video and HAVE read the entire written response made by Proffesor Dawkins and HAVE read all that you have to say on this subject.

As I had hoped.

i conclude that Dawkins explanation of the '11 second flummox' is more plausable than your assumption.

Instructive -- in that case our atheist darwinist friends along with you should be REJOICING that I keep pointing to that video as it shows so clearly YOUR view and not mine.

You guys should be thanking me!! ;-)

And I just want you to know how happy I am in complying with what you consider a perfect example of honesty and integrity --

BASHING Creationists for daring to ask the question that YOU and L.K also ask.

Whining that only "a Creationist" WOULD ask such questions and then arguing that ONLY CHEERLEADERS are ALLOWED to ask questions

Totally flummoxed for 11 seconds for all to see - on a question CENTRAL to his own atheist darwinist doctrine -- one that YOU and L.K have BOTH asked.

Gabriel asks the question
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=120#p398387

L.K asks the same supposedly "truculent" question
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p395990

Demanding that the tape be turned off -- and insisting that no more interview take place for DARING to ask YOUR question and L.K's question.

The fact that you and our atheist darwinist friends aLL view this is stellar "expected" behavior -- is now to be contrasted with that "other example" I gave you about an ACTUAL scientists being asked about something like Gravity "CAN you give us an example of something in space being pulled toward earth due to the effects of gravity" and then the answer "11 second flummox... TURN the tape OFF!!!... how dare you ask such a truculent question"

It seems that there is no end to the conflicted logic to be employed in defense of atheist darwinism.

Bob[/quote:3dsb7ncj]


And what was it about the question that made him angry? Lets see what he says about it:

'It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask IN THAT WAY'

Notice the three words in his sentence that you had failed to highlight in red? The ones i have have put in CAPS. It was not the question but in the way in which they had asked it and in the way they expected him to answer it!

Why do you continue to ignore the obvious and twist everyones replies to your questions?

You specificly asked us to review your posts and give our opinions, i have done this and you attack my answer, insult me and imply that i am a liar!

So i gather that the view of the 'unbiased objective reader' is unbiased and objective ONLY if they happen to be the same view as yours. How "instructive"

 

[BobRyan]

And what was it about the question that made him angry? Lets see what he says about it:

'It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask IN THAT WAY'

Ok -- time to put on the "critical objective thinking" hat.

1. When you SAW the question asked and HEARD it asked -- what "WAY" was it asked that differs from your OWN asking of the SAME question?

2. When you READ Dawkin's OWN restatement of the question below -- what "WAY" is the question phrased that makes it -- in your mind -- "truculent"?

, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way,

Notice that for Dawkins the MERE ASKING of the question as if he needed an answer is itself "truculent" and would give them away as non-cheerleaders.

Perhaps a more obsequious form of the question would have been "we know of course that darwinism is true no matter what -- and so have the many wonderful complete solutions in favor of darwinism that are out there -- which one would you like to highlight showing us genetic mutation (or any kind of evolutionary process at all) that shows an increase in information in the genome"?

Recall that when YOU ask the question you simply REFER to the one we SEE being asked on the video and in the internet restatement and say "I would like to see the question answered" -- in fact you do not change the question AT ALL!

And as you point out -- in the unchanged form -- it is truculent to ask it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for L.K's argument for "Nebraska pig" being touted as "ape man" (Nebraska man) being an honest lie for darwinists to tell when they held in their hand -- nothing more than a pig's tooth!!

2. With regard to Hesperopithecus, my argument indeed 'failed' if you understand 'failed' to mean that I showed with some degree of confidence that Osborn did not engage in fraud

Bob said

Quite the contrary. Your OWN link argues that there was "NO WAY Osborn could not have known" about the problem of engaging in wild story telling about "ape man" and "irrefutable evidence" based on weak evidence so thin and skimpy as a pig's tooth.

Then your OWN LINK went on to tell us about Osborn's perfidity in wisely keeping the problem away from the public eye once he began to see the TRUTH of the false claim in the light of day.

You have this notion that when your OWN sources point to the perfidity of darwinist religionists IN NOT wanting the truth to come to light -- that this is a prime example of your argument "prevailing".

Frankly - I think that is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

The 'unbiased objective reader' is, I am sure, quite capable of seeing through the forest of verbiage you erect to determine for themselves that Henry Cavendish Osborn did not in any sense engage in deliberate fraud in the case of Hesperopithecus, which illustrates perfectly the vacuity of your 'failed argument' triumphalism.

And so "once again" we have the darwinist devotee arguing faithfully for a single pig's tooth being touted as "irrefutable evidence" of "ape man".

how "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Also this -- (Osborn discussion had in detail at the following link)

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=345#p398589

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS (L.K's own reference site for the sake of this discussion)

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:1c9i7sx6]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read these details carefully.[/quote:1c9i7sx6]

TalkOrigins -- thanks to L.K -

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By the same criteria, if I obstinately insist that only my own interpretation and understanding of Dr Patterson's reported (alleged) spoken words, letters, and subsequent clarifications and work makes it 'glaringly obvious' that your interpretation and understanding are misguided, then I can also claim to have laid bare the dessicated bones of your own 'failed argument'.

Bob
As much is it is fun to pretend that the statements from Patterson are "vague" or non-specific when dealing in generalties -- it turns out that Patterson was VERY specific. Why not refer to details in your defense of your position? Oh yes -- that is right -- it is because your argument only works when avoiding them.

Disingenuous as so often, Bob. If I ever 'pretended' that Dr Patterson's statements were 'vague', please supply the link.

Obfuscation L.K - as the "about interpretations" argument you just attempted was seen to be nothing more than an exercise in reaching for the wild speculation that Patterson's statements are soooo vague that various interpretations are possible when in fact -- all you did is gloss over "inconvenient details" in what Patterson said to try and spin a story to your liking -- hoping that the reader would not actually read Patterson's full letter "objectively".

Then here again you simply make sweeping factless accusation without any evidence at all - AS IF you had ever sustained a point in your discussion of Patterson.

Good revisionist history tailored for the uncritical darwinist reader that is not going to go look at the discussion to see IF your point holds water.

Bob said

Would you be enterested in actually looking at them (the actual details in Patterson's letters and other statements) again TO SEE if you argument holds water?

I know I never tire of those details -- I enjoy referencing all of them by way of review.

[quote:2uk6w7hw]L.K.
You mean you enjoy spamming the same things over and over and stubbornly ignoring counter-arguments, regardless of who makes them.

[/quote:2uk6w7hw]

Revisionism "again" L.K?

notice that when your argument runs aground needing to ignore inconvenient detail after detail -- you then call it "spamming" to remind you of the unnanswered points -- of the places where you argument simply failed.

How "instructive".

The darwinist revisionist failure was pointed out on this very thread --
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&start=0#p394514


Then in quite "exhaustive" detail a few posts later -- and lasting for 2 posts
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&start=0#p394563


The alternative to your simply glossing over details that devastate your argument - would be to actually answer the points instead of ignoring them and then claiming that any reminder of those unnanswered points so devastating to your argument -- is "spamming".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, I have said everything I am going to say about what I believe to be your misrepresentation of and the misunderstandings you take from Dr Patterson. You are immune to any contrary opinion on the topic, to the extent that you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that anyone else's thoughts on Dr Patterson's remarks might have any validity at all if they disagree with your own, so I decline to rise to the bait of your triumphalist claims and ill-considered rubbishing of my posts in which I put forward the reasons I had for differing from your conclusions. It is impossible to sustain points against someone who either refuses to acknowledge them or just simply ignores them in favour of repetitively posting his own arguments as if simple repetition is in some way evidential.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I have said everything I am going to say about what I believe to be your misrepresentation of and the misunderstandings you take from Dr Patterson.

And then I gave the actuall links TO the points raised that you simply could not answer.

My argument is that as long as you continue to avoid the points of detail in the argument - you can not simply wave your hand over the entire topic and pronounce victory on yourself as if this changes the history of the points raised and still to this day not answered by you.

This is why I am sooo happy to point to the very LINK where those details are outlined and you settle for after-the-fact revisionist-summaries without content in substance.

I am constantly pointing to details in Patterson's letters that you are constantly trying to avoid. It does not get better than that for someone arguing my position.

Hence my more-than-willing reference to the actual link where the discussion takes place.

And as pointed out on PAGE ONE of this thread -- when a Darwinist is lured by his own false hopes and high faith into quoting the TalkOrigins links that SHOW Patterson's letters -- only to have to IGNORE practically EVERYTHING Patterson said IN those very letters -- I am simply over-joyed to respond with DETAIL in their own link SHOWING their lack of attention to detail in making their hopeful argument for Darwinism.

Again - a more perfectly tailored scenario could hardly be imagined and yet here it is in real life !! :-D

When darwinists appeal to their WEAKNESS as if this is the strength of their argument -- I am more than happy to comply by engaging them on that point. While one might possibly argue that the Darwinist argument also has STRENGTHs in other areas -- I have found that their own willingness to highlight their area of weaknesses as if this was a point in their favor -- leaves me with more golden opportunity than I have time address with my posts as it is.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

As for L.K's argument for "Nebraska pig" being touted as "ape man" (Nebraska man) being an honest lie for darwinists to tell when they held in their hand -- nothing more than a pig's tooth!!

A lie is a deliberate intent to deceive, in other words it is a fraud. I have never used the phrase 'honest lie' and your attempt to imply I did is itself a falsehood. Hesperopithecus was an honest error and the despatch with which Osborn ensured that the discovery was further investigated, widely examined and extensively tested refute any suggestion that he was engaged in a fraud. Your continued efforts to besmirch the reputation of a man who cannot defend himself against an accusation of fraud are unpleasant and unsupportable and your attempt to insinuate that I am defending a fraud is mud-slinging of the worst sort.

2. With regard to Hesperopithecus, my argument indeed 'failed' if you understand 'failed' to mean that I showed with some degree of confidence that Osborn did not engage in fraud

Bob said
Quite the contrary. Your OWN link argues that there was "NO WAY Osborn could not have known" about the problem of engaging in wild story telling about "ape man" and "irrefutable evidence" based on weak evidence so thin and skimpy as a pig's tooth.

You have quite simply ignored every reference I have given you about the difficulties involved in clearly identifying the teeth of pigs and primates as unequivocally belonging to either. The cautionary words of W.D. Matthew did not mention 'wild story telling about "ape men"' at all; this is grossly exaggerated creative fiction on your part. What Matthew said was:

The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries.

You have no reason to suppose that Osborn, being aware of this caution, did not determine that his examination of the molar was sufficient to conclude that it was that of a primate. You assume that the caution was ignored and that, having assumed it was ignored, that the only conclusion that follows is that fraud was involved. However, rather detrimental to your argument is the fact that Osborn showed not only the first, but also the second tooth to Matthew and wrote regarding the first specimen:

The instant your [Harold Cook's] package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, and I said to myself: "It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid." I then took the tooth into Dr Matthew's room and we have been comparing it with all the books, all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar of some higher Primate . . . We may cool down tomorrow, but it looks as if the first anthropid ape of America has been found.

(quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus, London 1992, p.434).

Regarding the second specimen which he also showed to Matthew, Osborn noted:

The specimen belonged to an aged animal [please note the use of the term animal and not "ape man"] and is so water-worn that Doctor Matthew, while inclined to regard it as a primate, did not venture to describe it.

(quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, op.cit., p.444).

So even Matthew, who must have been even more familiar with his cautionary words than Osborn, agreed with Osborn that the molar was likely that of a primate. Where is your fraud now?

Then your OWN LINK went on to tell us about Osborn's perfidity in wisely keeping the problem away from the public eye once he began to see the TRUTH of the false claim in the light of day.

I have agreed before that the most honourable course of action for Osborn to follow would have been to express his doubts as soon as he became certain of them. However, the conclusive evidence that established for sure that the molars were from peccaries rather than primates came from the expeditions carried out in 1925 and 1926, i.e. while the Scopes' case was underway and then well after it had concluded. Osborn undoubtedly began to have doubts in mid-July 1925 when the first specimens from the 1925 expedition were returned to him, but the Scopes' Trial ended on 21st July and unconfirmed doubts alone do not demand immediate public retraction. Again this is not fraud.

You have this notion that when your OWN sources point to the perfidity of darwinist religionists IN NOT wanting the truth to come to light -- that this is a prime example of your argument "prevailing".

The truth came to light, Bob, and it was 'atheist darwinist' scientists that did the work, not fearlessly honest creationists. That it did not come to light in a way that pleases you is not grounds for your assertions of perfidy and fraud. In conclusion, a paragraph that you chose not to quote from the TO article:

Hesperopithecus was not mentioned by anyone during the course of the Scopes trial, although other major discoveries of fossil hominids were discussed from the stand and in written testimony. Recent claims by Hitching that "the Hesperopithecus tooth was proudly displayed [at the trial] as evidence that man had a long evolutionary past" (1982, p. 211) are simply untrue; it is equally false that "the trial that became a significant turning point in U.S. educational history . . . was steered towards its verdict by a pig's tooth." (Hitching, 1982, p. 212)

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Who is engaging in dishonest perfidy here?