One liners, or how to make the PRATTS fall

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

Thread copied here from the One liners, or how to make the PRATTS fall thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

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

That works, too.

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."

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?

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?"

quote:

---

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

---

Hydrological sorting does not explain repeated layering.

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.