Posted: Aug 23, 2010 11:51 pm
Let's see if we can focus less on name-calling and more on the points that he tried to make in the video.
He's been told repeatedly that the questions he poses are all based on a misrepresentation of legitimate science and questions like that are never going to be answered the way he wants them to be answered, especially if he's going to reject whatever reply he gets.
Failure to understand the concept of Scientific Consensus.
All they're doing is pointing out how he's not qualified to make such sweeping statements, especially with no evidence to back them up.
ID requires an invisible, IE supernatural, agent of some sort and he seems utterly oblivious to this factor. Then there's the fact that most anti-evolution positions are motivated by religious beliefs and he doesn't know that, or at least he thinks that's not the case for him.
Epithet: noun, and descriptive phrase that goes with a particular person, place, or thing. Given the word's general definition and the context in which he's using it, I think he doesn't even know what the word means, or at least how to use it properly.
Sighting a source is an extremely important attribute in any legitimate claim or scientific paper because it adds good verifiable weight to the argument. Steve never has any appreciation for this and decides to simply skim through and quote-mine the paper.
A fact is a unit of information that is observably true beyond dispute and baseless claims or misrepresented science simply cannot qualify as such.
100% sure only applies to religion. The backbone of modern biology is NOT a religion.
In this bit he shows shots of Dawklins, PZ Myers, that woman from the National Center for Science Education, and another guy who's name escapes me. Steve seems to love the evil evolution conspiracy idea that all the big-wigs who stand up for science are all frauds. Why he thinks this is anyone's guess.
After that crack about the whales, he goes on to quote-mine TJ McGovern. As a Straw-Man argument, the first scenario he mentions is just sad. Apes had already had their skin since way before they started walking upright and he claims that somehow walking or running meant having to loose all that thick hair on their bodies.
The crack about whales can be best described as an over-generalization even if there is a fair amount of truth to it. Maybe whales lost their fur and hind legs because there was no longer any need for them while in the water. He doesn't seem to consider all the possibilities and the claim lacks depth because of that.
(1) Your answers don't match the question posed, and you have no idea.
He's been told repeatedly that the questions he poses are all based on a misrepresentation of legitimate science and questions like that are never going to be answered the way he wants them to be answered, especially if he's going to reject whatever reply he gets.
(2) You dole out memorized groupthink dogma.
Failure to understand the concept of Scientific Consensus.
(3) You respond with demeaning which means you don't know.
All they're doing is pointing out how he's not qualified to make such sweeping statements, especially with no evidence to back them up.
(4) You play the religion card..."fairies, invisible men in the sky..."AKA you don't know.
ID requires an invisible, IE supernatural, agent of some sort and he seems utterly oblivious to this factor. Then there's the fact that most anti-evolution positions are motivated by religious beliefs and he doesn't know that, or at least he thinks that's not the case for him.
(5) You answer with trite epithets AKA you don't know.
Epithet: noun, and descriptive phrase that goes with a particular person, place, or thing. Given the word's general definition and the context in which he's using it, I think he doesn't even know what the word means, or at least how to use it properly.
(6) You refer me to books, vids that "know". They don't know.
Sighting a source is an extremely important attribute in any legitimate claim or scientific paper because it adds good verifiable weight to the argument. Steve never has any appreciation for this and decides to simply skim through and quote-mine the paper.
(7) You reject facts of nature that go against evolution.
A fact is a unit of information that is observably true beyond dispute and baseless claims or misrepresented science simply cannot qualify as such.
(8) You are 100% sure that you know how nature formed.
100% sure only applies to religion. The backbone of modern biology is NOT a religion.
(9) You have no notion that you just might have been fooled by these guys.
In this bit he shows shots of Dawklins, PZ Myers, that woman from the National Center for Science Education, and another guy who's name escapes me. Steve seems to love the evil evolution conspiracy idea that all the big-wigs who stand up for science are all frauds. Why he thinks this is anyone's guess.
(10) You accept any pro-evo scenario, no matter how absurd.
"...ape/man ran after animal and this is how we got our skin..."
"...they evolved four legs and fur. Then they went back into the ocean and became whales and, and..."
After that crack about the whales, he goes on to quote-mine TJ McGovern. As a Straw-Man argument, the first scenario he mentions is just sad. Apes had already had their skin since way before they started walking upright and he claims that somehow walking or running meant having to loose all that thick hair on their bodies.
The crack about whales can be best described as an over-generalization even if there is a fair amount of truth to it. Maybe whales lost their fur and hind legs because there was no longer any need for them while in the water. He doesn't seem to consider all the possibilities and the claim lacks depth because of that.