Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 5
 [ 89 posts ] 
AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 522Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:I'm confused and can only come to one conclusion. A couple weeks ago Aron was advertising the debate on PZ Myers site, encouraging people to follow it and even made the comment that debate would probably continue.

Now he's bowing out. I can only think that someone or a few people from Myers site read the debate and told Aron he was doing bad.
As usual, what you say is opposite of the truth. You obviously didn't see where PZ Myers himself described this debate as "no contest". He said that watching me stomp on Bob Enyart was so hilariously one-sided that it was like watching Bambi vs Godzilla. No matter how you spin it, Will, everyone knows you're lying. Bob lost this debate with flaming colors, and there is just no way you can pretend otherwise. Everyone who sees these threads will know better.

Bob was right on dinosaur soft tissue, which Aron actually denied even the existence of.
You're such a weasel, Will. No, Bob was proven wrong -by everyone here- on each of his claims about dinosaur soft tissue. I never denied its existence either. Stop lying, Will. In fact, while we were still on the show, I acknowledged its existence, and said then what Bob was wrong about. Here in this debate, I proved my point -and he couldn't.

And Bob was right that Aron's claims about genetics were false, members of LoR acknowledged
Aron was wrong and he still wouldn't admit it or fix his video.
If you would bother to read my posts, you would see that I proved my point. I was right about my genetic claims, and I don't think anyone here would contest me on that.

Those were the main highlights of the debate that stood out to me.
What stood out to me was that Bobe was proven wrong on every point every point every time, and that I was vindicated in everything I said. Another thing that stands out is that you're a lying little bitch, Will.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:14 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5002Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa,

although YYNJ is verifiably a liar, purposefully and perpetually duplicitous, and typical of what a risible mess of hypocrisy and desperation swathes Christians have become, it is not in the spirit of this forum to describe him as a little bitch.

A pathological liar who supports a man who at once is anti-abortion and pro-child beating has already damned himself enough to earn a lovely, toasty, magmatic afterlife.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:44 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 522Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Prolescum wrote:AronRa,

although YYNJ is verifiably a liar, purposefully and perpetually duplicitous, and typical of what a risible mess of hypocrisy and desperation swathes Christians have become, it is not in the spirit of this forum to describe him as a little bitch.
I don't think I've ever been reprimanded so eloquently. :geek:
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:42 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 518Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

Prolescum wrote:AronRa,

although YYNJ is verifiably a liar, purposefully and perpetually duplicitous, and typical of what a risible mess of hypocrisy and desperation swathes Christians have become, it is not in the spirit of this forum to describe him as a little bitch.

A pathological liar who supports a man who at once is anti-abortion and pro-child beating has already damned himself enough to earn a lovely, toasty, magmatic afterlife.


Image
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:55 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2561Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa wrote:
Prolescum wrote:AronRa,

although YYNJ is verifiably a liar, purposefully and perpetually duplicitous, and typical of what a risible mess of hypocrisy and desperation swathes Christians have become, it is not in the spirit of this forum to describe him as a little bitch.
I don't think I've ever been reprimanded so eloquently. :geek:


Lol

Yes, well, we have a policy on this site about "direct insults". Prolescum has as a user always been really good at "non-direct" insults, usually covered in three layers of eloquent-sauce.

I'm glad to see his powers used for good, too.

:)
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:14 am
scientiaPosts: 22Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:06 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa wrote:For the purpose of clarity, I will refer to both interviews here as one interview divided into seven parts.

I've now listened to the first five and am working on six. Starting with the third segment, these became difficult to listen to as they are highly embarrassing. The best I could describe it is that it is like listening to a five year old scream that his father could beat up the world heavyweight champion boxer. This is the impression I get from Bob Enyart. I first heard the argument about the laws of thermodynamics some thirty-six years ago and it has not gained any factual support during that time. The same argument disproves the existence of tornadoes since these too are vastly unlikely to form by the random motion of molecules. To hear a grown man cling to arguments like this when he clearly does not understand the science behind them is very embarrassing. If he had done the show while intoxicated, it would only have been slightly more embarrassing.

Enyart wrote:Isaac Newton rejected Descartes' idea that the solar system formed by a condensing gas cloud, a spinning nebula, and he believed that the earth was created -just like Johan Keppler did- about 6,000 years earlier, by God as stated in Genesis. That's what Isaac Newton not only believed, but he wrote extensively to try to persuade people that that was true.

As far as I am aware, Newton's recalculation of Usher's estimate of the age of the Earth based on the biblical genealogy was an academic exercise rather than a testimony of faith. Newton had wide ranging interests; I'm not sure why interest in religious topics would automatically mean that he rejected science in favor of religious dogma. This to me is quite reminiscent of Kepler who first tried to create an Earth centered solar system because that was the religious view. Kepler's laws of planetary motion required rejecting church teaching much as it had with Galileo and Da Vinci. Newton ran into the simple problem that if you have a roughly evenly distributed cloud of gas and dust then where does the angular momentum come from? Logically, it would coalesce into a single non-spinning mass. As I recall, there has never been a good explanation of this and it was only recently that experiments showed that first particle condensation was based on static charge rather than gravitational attraction. Obviously this would have been completely unknown to Newton. So, apparently the standard is that if the early scientists didn't know everything about a field, that field cannot be valid today.
Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:12 pm
scientiaPosts: 22Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:06 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa wrote:Everything would be intelligently designed including those things which 'appear' not to be designed at all. So there is no way he could distinguish what is incidental from what is artificial, or what emerged magically as opposed to naturally.

This isn't usually the case. Usually this comes up for things that seem too smart. So, for example, most Christians would not claim that the flow of a river was designed. However, they would have a problem with communal paper wasps because obviously these insects can't be smart enough to comprehend a large nest. This is when it is claimed that the plan for the nest came from an intelligent agent. In other words, they tend to rule out trial and error development.

He then began the typical creationist game of equivocation and projection, an attempt to paint the illusion that science and religion are somehow comparable, when they are not. The game is played by the creationist pretending to be objective -when he and we all know he is not- while projecting all of his own logical fallacies onto the science-minded, who of course do not share any of those flaws. Typically that game has the creationist telling some or all of the following lies:

*Science is biased just like religion is.

True. This is why we have double blind experiments and insist on repetition of results.

Life is information based.
Since Bob thinks this interpretation of his is relevant, it might be interesting to see him define what he thinks 'information' is, provide a metric to measure it -as that will likely become relevant later- and then see him try to defend this comment.

This is actually just an extension of the thermodynamics argument. What the theory actually says is that you cannot gain enough information to obtain an energy advantage without expending at least that much energy. This prevents you from building an engine that heats up by sorting out and concentrating the higher velocity air molecules. This is nothing but a corollary to the existing laws of thermodynamics. Just as the argument that a DNA molecule cannot spontaneously form through random motion and interaction of constituent molecules is wrong so too is the argument that DNA cannot form because increasing information content would violate information theory. I would assume that most people who do not understand why the thermodynamics argument is wrong would have even greater trouble understanding why an information argument would be wrong.
Last edited by scientia on Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:08 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

scientia wrote: The best I could describe it is that it is like listening to a five year old scream that his father could beat up the world heavyweight champion boxer. This is the impression I get from Bob Enyart.


That is exactly the impression I got from reading the debate between AronRa and BobEnyart.

Furthermore, if you enjoyed the radio debate and have read this thread, you might also enjoy reading the written debate between AronRa and BobEnyart. There is also this thread that BobEnyart commented on quite a few times.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:05 am
YIM WWW
scientiaPosts: 22Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:06 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: AronRa vs Bob Enyart on Real Science Friday

AronRa wrote:He said that watching me stomp on Bob Enyart was so hilariously one-sided that it was like watching Bambi vs Godzilla.

I didn't find it hilarious; I found it both sad and embarrassing. Listening to Bob refuse to even admit that an Emu was a bird or that ducks and geese were more similar than ducks and hawks was beyond intransigent; it was childish. Even in part 7 where Bob admits that he was "stonewalling" there is no reason for optimism. Finally admitting that he was wrong is at least some showing of character but the fact that it took him until the seventh segment to get to this point more suggests that he is incapable of rational discussion on this topic. That is sad indeed.
Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:50 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 5
 [ 89 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests
cron