You missed my point altogether. The radio announcer was reporting a hard fact, to be sure–a tornado warning. The native ignored it, scorning the “cheap” radio. Hence the mention of McLuhan. Same with Booker, and assessing his statements on their merits.
So he runs counter to the scientific consensus. What did you want, another yes-man? A toady?
Booker is not a scientist? Well, I offer now a statement on this issue from a scientist, astronomer Robert Jastrow:
“To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s expoeriments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scierntists do not know how that happened. …Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”–The Enchanted Loom, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19.
I have a request for the OP: Would you be so kind as to contact the site administration to change your username? I ask this because we both have “Monty” in the name although mine has the “M” capitalized. Also, I had that a few months before you did.
Reason for my request: I’d like to ensure nobody confuses your utter stupidity, lunacy, and flat-out crackpottery with me.
No, we want someone who demonstrably knows what they’re talking about. And when it comes to science, this all too often means looking at a person’s qualifications to determine whether or not we can actually believe what they have to say. Case in point:
Might as well quote a metallurgist claiming that the big bang is “just a theory”. Jastrow clearly has no fucking clue what he’s talking about. I mean, you expect us to take these people’s statements on their merit? Okay. I will - there is not merit to the shit that guy said.
I understand what you’re saying. May I point out what I see as an important difference in your example?
Of course it’s silly that the old man discredited the tornado warning because it was coming from a dime store radio. He applied “this is a cheap piece of junk”, meant for the quality of the manufacture and the parts, to things totally unrelated (the veracity of the news reports).
But! With your analogy, you’re comparing a human being to a piece of electronics. That is the huge difference: the radio is only transmitting information sent over it by a person. The radio can’t think for itself, or evaluate the warning before broadcasting it.
More accurately, the people running the radio station (represented by the announcer) in your analogy are the equivalent of Booker, not the radio. Let’s say the old man hadn’t moved after hearing the announcement, but his reasoning was, “I wouldn’t pay no attention. That station ain’t never been right about a tornado warning. I’d be more wary of a tornado if they predicted sunny skies!” That would be an accurate analogy, because both examples have someone dismissing a point of view because of the perceived credibility of the speaker.
The radio would actually symbolize the physical book that has Booker’s words printed upon it. If someone dismissed his book because it was printed on cheap paper and had an awful cover design, then your analogy would work. Does that make sense?
dougie_monty - you really should limit your arguments to things you understand well enough to argue - so far, I’ve not seen a single ‘debate’ regarding religion or science that you had any business being in.
However, it does look like you might have a unique perspective on this thread-
And here you summarize quite nicely your complete and utter ignorance of science. You perceive that science is operating by fiat because you DON’T UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF SCIENCE. If you don’t understand the basics, then everything science tells you is simply magic mumbo-jumbo to your ears.
Perhaps the kids laughed because they knew better, and realized that you had just revealed your utter, utter ignorance of evolution. People descended from monkeys? Good God man, that is utterly pathetic.
To make a comparison, imagine you were in Sunday school, and a kid exclaimed that he could never believe in God, because someone had assured him that God was a giant purple hedgehog. And he simply could not believe in a giant purple hedgehog. That kid would be utterly ignorant of the Christian religion, and would deserve to be laughed at. Where did he get that idea? Who knows - maybe some crazy guy told him, and the kid did not look into it any further and lacked any critical thinking skills.
Again, you are relying on those who are either completely ignorant of the subject at hand, or are more clever than that, and are being deliberately intellectually dishonest (for the greater good of getting souls to come to Jesus) or alternatively as some have pointed out, are simply loons. Booker is most likely a conspiracy theory loon.
And the main point is: You don’t have the background in science, nor the critical thinking skills to even tell that he’s full of shit. His completely erroneous words sound pretty good to you because they fit with your world view - you can’t see the outrageous errors in them because you don’t have the basic tools.
To make another comparison, I don’t think I should use the crazed old man standing on the corner ranting about Jeeeazus! as an authority on religion. Better that I go to a minister, priest or rabbi. Your “authorities” on evolution are the equivalent of the crazy man ranting about religion and aliens on the corner.
I can see where this is going.
When I opened this thread in The BBQ Pit, I hoped that I could avoid the hazing I was getting from those replying to my posts, or that if I got angry at something someone said I would not be reprimanded by the Moderator, as I was in Great Debates (and I replied to that topic in the first place in good faith and with what I considered solid evidence, anyway).
Unfortunately, my effort failed. In this thread I attempted to adduce authoritative sources. As I found out—I checked his Wikipedia entry myself—Christopher Brooke was not a scientist; but Robert Jastrow was, not that it mattered considering that I got a similar, crude response to my post about him, from some pottymouth. Obviously I can expect more of the same from these hazers even if I continue to cite reputable authorities such as Jastrow (reputable and authoritative whether you like it or not).
Because of this, I request that the Moderator for this forum close the thread, started under good intentions but abused by people who had no aim but to use it as a platform for *argumentum ad hominem. *
dougie_monty has a point. Just because Booker is a loon doesn’t mean he’s always wrong. A stopped clock is right twice a day, after all. You ought to argue against his actual argument rather than merely ad hominem him.
And in this case, that’s ridiculously easy. His argument presented in this thread doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. So Darwin chose an inaccurate title for his book. So what? That says absolutely nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory.
I have had this Username for 14 years and you have not complained until now. To me that is the equivalent of squatters’ rights. You have had all this time to make a complaint to the administrators. You have had your chance.
Besides, your “reasons” consist of the kinds of insults which, if you said them face-to-face to someone, would likely earn you a punch in the nose. You have too much chutzpah for your own good. On the basis of your “reasons” alone I feel I have the right to say No.
Ah, I see you’re unaware of the concept of humor also. Nice to know. And I’d love to see you try to slug me if you were to meet me in person, just as the other person you cowardly threatened (and you got modded for doing that) probably laughingly thought to himself.
Your problem is not your sources. Your problem is that you don’t have the background, the capacity nor the ability to understand the basics of science, let alone evolutionary theory. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: You know so very, very little about the topic under discussion that you are completely unaware of just how much you don’t know. Y
our levels of competence about this particular topic are so low that you are completely unable to evaluate sources and tell a good one from a poor one.
Now I’m sure you are very good at many other things. But in this particular case, you’d be better off to acknowledge that you are completely out of your depth. For the same reason that I would not try to swap engines in my car, (I don’t have the foggiest idea about cars or mechanics), you should not even try to discuss this topic.
dougie_monty, I’m a bit hurt. I haven’t participated in the GD thread and I wasn’t hazing you here. I posted politely and wanted to explain why some people reacted so harshly to your analogy. I hoped my explanation would give insight into a different point of view about your comparison without adding to the pile on.
If there was humor in the post I replied to, a quote from Shakespeare is appropriate here: “caviare to the general.” And if you’re as smart as most of the Dopers posting here make themselves out to be, don’t tell me you don’t know what Shakespeare meant by that.
I don’t see humor in a passage that contains wild insults. As you noticed, all it got from me was a reaction of anger. In law, libel, for instance, isn’t libel unless a third party understands it as defamatory. And nothing else in the post seemed to be humorous, either.
And don’t think of me as a cream puff. I’m six-foot-two and husky and have scared quite a few people. I don’t like fights, however, and would rather avoid one.
You sound like a movie lawyer conducting a bellowing, red-faced cross-examination against a hapless witness on the stand in some Hollywood movie of the forties (except for the gratuitous obscenity, of course). :rolleyes: To sum up your “disquisition,” You are telling me, “You are too stupid to understand, let alone question anything about science, so shut up and go to hell!” followed by a swift kick. I could have had the same effect by reading H. L. Mencken or listening to my drunken ex-stepfather (deceased for eleven years) when he was roaring drunk and belligerent. Your verbal belligerence puts me in mind of a boxing opponent who is a homicidal maniac on speed.
This is why I asked the moderator to close the thread. I don’t need such hostility.
