Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2017 9:19 PM
406 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Happy Birthday: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,976 Year: 13,582/21,208 Month: 3,064/3,605 Week: 406/933 Day: 51/97 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   One liners, or how to make the PRATTS fall
subbie
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 1 of 50 (649487)
01-23-2012 12:08 PM


Points Refuted A Thousand Times are a common arrow in cdesign proponentsists's quiver. Most of them are short and based on a deep misunderstanding of what the ToE actually says. It occurs to me that part of the reason they persist is precisely because they are short and the point they are trying to make is easy to understand. If this is in fact true, then perhaps the best way to respond to them is an equally short and easy to understand rebuttal. (I completely understand that we aren't going to change the minds of the truly committed cdesign proponentsist. My goal here is to come up with something we can use to persuade those who are on the fence or who don't really know enough about the ToE to see what is wrong with the PRATT.)

I would like this thread to be a compilation of one or two line responses that cut to the heart of a PRATT, show why it is wrong and can be used to defeat their nonsense in an informal setting. I will begin with this:

PRATT: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Response: If Americans emigrated from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

Miscellany please.

Edited by subbie, : tyop


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-23-2012 6:03 PM subbie has responded
 Message 6 by Panda, posted 01-23-2012 8:53 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 7 by Panda, posted 01-23-2012 9:01 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2012 4:17 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 41 by Steve660, posted 03-05-2013 3:18 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 50 (649489)
01-23-2012 5:58 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the One liners, or how to make the PRATTS fall thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 3 of 50 (649491)
01-23-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-23-2012 12:08 PM


subbie writes:

PRATT: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Response: If Americans emigrated from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

How about this modification

PRATT: If we're descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Response: If we're descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 12:08 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 6:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 4 of 50 (649494)
01-23-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-23-2012 6:03 PM


That works, too.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-23-2012 6:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 50 (649503)
01-23-2012 7:53 PM


I like this thread. I'm sure I'll use whatever clever one-line responses are posted, and I hope there are many.

Unfortunately I don't have a talent for witty one-liners. Apparently, if it's not a wall-of-text, I can barely bring myself to hit "submit."


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1123 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 6 of 50 (649513)
01-23-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-23-2012 12:08 PM


Language version?
subbie writes:

PRATT: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Response: If Americans emigrated from Europe, why are there still Europeans?


Or maybe:
If the English language evolved from German and French, why do the German and French languages still exist?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 12:08 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1123 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 7 of 50 (649514)
01-23-2012 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-23-2012 12:08 PM


"Evolutionism is a religion."

Please describe why being a religion is such a bad thing and then I will explain why evolutionism is not a religion.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 12:08 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 8 of 50 (649515)
01-23-2012 9:25 PM


Well the one-line answer to 90% of PRATTs is "but that's not true, that's something creationists made up". It is only rarely that you get something like "why are there still monkeys" which rests on an error of reasoning rather than of fact.

I suppose a couple of error-of-reasoning ones would be ---

Creationist: Mutation can't account for blah blah blah blah blah.
Me: That's because that's the role played by natural selection.

Creationist: Natural selection can't account for blah blah blah blah blah.
Me: That's because that's the role played by mutation.

That is quick. It's not effective, because of the tendency of creationists to be idiots, but it can be compressed into a single line.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 9 of 50 (649517)
01-23-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-23-2012 12:08 PM


Points Refuted A Thousand Times

I saw the term PRATT used a couple days ago and was wondering what it meant, now I know

Most of them are short and based on a deep misunderstanding of what the ToE actually says. It occurs to me that part of the reason they persist is precisely because they are short and the point they are trying to make is easy to understand.

I did a book review on Sarfati's book Refuting Evolution for my evolution course last semester. And I made this same point. His book was written to be read and understood by those with no scientific training. Although even a student in an introductory evolution course could easily pick out his errors, it is precisely that reason, the simplicity, the brevity of the arguments, that I think many are duped. They pick up a book like that wanting to find answers that they agree with, that make them feel comfortable - and they do. And they are easy to learn and hold on to. Simple.

I had a YEC friend of mine tell me the other day that the fossil record was out of order. That the fossil record was better explained by other means, such as hydro-logic sorting. I just didn't know what to say. I just looked at him. I mean where do you start? I didn't want to spend hours trying to explain why that doesn't make any sense when obviously he was convinced that it did. I think he felt like he had won a victory, but I just didn't have a simple, one-line, easy-to-understand, quick response.

My goal here is to come up with something we can use to persuade those who are on the fence or who don't really know enough about the ToE to see what is wrong with the PRATT.

It doesn't seem as if your purpose is to come up with snide remarks, but short, to the point responses. I am not sure it is possible. I think what bothers most people about YECs is how they insult science (and scientists) by saying that the tens of thousands of scientists who have worked hard in their field and have study and learned their craft actually know nothing about science. And a quack like Sarfati comes along with a couple simple, brief quips and thinks he has overturned hundreds of years of work. How do you correct that with one-liners? How do you teach science with one-liners?

Maybe the point is it gets tiring refuting the same non-sense over and over and so why waste the time? But I am not sure one-liners are the best approach.

If someone did make the point "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", it clearly shows they have absolutely no understanding of how evolution works. Responding with "If Americans emigrated from Europe, why are there still Europeans?" will only sound snarky. I don't think it is as intuitive to them as it is to us.

I don't know, just my thought. I will be interested to see what people's ideas are for this. It would be nice to have some simple rebuttals to arguments like hydro-logic sorting.

HBD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 12:08 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2012 12:09 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 01-24-2012 9:32 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 14 by jar, posted 01-24-2012 9:36 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Pollux, posted 01-24-2012 8:31 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 01-26-2012 12:42 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 28 by DWIII, posted 01-26-2012 9:20 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 10 of 50 (649525)
01-24-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
01-23-2012 10:12 PM


I had a YEC friend of mine tell me the other day that the fossil record was out of order. That the fossil record was better explained by other means, such as hydro-logic sorting. I just didn't know what to say. I just looked at him. I mean where do you start? I didn't want to spend hours trying to explain why that doesn't make any sense when obviously he was convinced that it did. I think he felt like he had won a victory, but I just didn't have a simple, one-line, easy-to-understand, quick response.

Well, the short answers to those assertions are: "No it isn't, that's something creationists made up" and "No it isn't, that's something creationists made up". The long answers are indeed longer, because we don't have to rest on bare assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4637
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 11 of 50 (649534)
01-24-2012 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-23-2012 12:08 PM


subbie writes:

PRATT: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

I did actually work out a proper answer to that for a friend with no biology background (with a lot of help from people here).

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=638814

Of course it's easier to ask the dumb question than answer it. Here's mine

Q. Why are there no transitional fossils?
A1. There are. Visit any Natural History Museum, you can see them for yourself.
A2. All fossils are transitional fossils. (Unless you happened across the last in the line just before the comet hit.)

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-23-2012 12:08 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 12 of 50 (649538)
01-24-2012 5:30 AM


Religious morals
Religion is required in order for a person to be moral.

Then why are most convicts religious?

Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 50 (649550)
01-24-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
01-23-2012 10:12 PM


It would be nice to have some simple rebuttals to arguments like hydrologic sorting.

Maybe a question: "Why have crab fossils and trilobite fossils never been found in the same rock?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28836
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 14 of 50 (649551)
01-24-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
01-23-2012 10:12 PM


quote:
It would be nice to have some simple rebuttals to arguments like hydro-logic sorting.

Hydrological sorting does not explain repeated layering.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 01-23-2012 10:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2012 12:04 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 15 of 50 (649566)
01-24-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
01-24-2012 9:36 AM


Hydrological sorting does not explain repeated layering.

Yes, but in order for that argument to work you then have to start telling them facts about the geological record of which they are almost certainly ignorant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 01-24-2012 9:36 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 01-24-2012 12:13 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017