The Selfish Gene Theory

[DirtyChai]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm not accepting anything by any church, I'm simply making the point that the evidence for evolution and the BB is so strong that even the church recognises them...

Ya, they'll also recognize that God can create a 50 year old tree in one day ex nihilo and that science could never prove it because it has 50 rings. . .

Edited October 9, 2018 by DirtyChai

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, DrP said:

I like his down to earth no nonsense style. Maybe it is time to stop treading on the eggshells of the deluded and call out their imaginations for what they are - fictional delusions.  I haven't studied Sagan in the same way  -  I used to be religious so avoided him as a trickster of the devil, lol.  I found him a bit smarmy. I did look at some vids of him speaking a little while back though and couldn't really fault them. It is different as to what you pick up on and take in when you are on the other side of the discussion - I was for decades.

I actually got hooked on Sagan after watching his fantastic "Cosmos" series in the mid seventies. Dawkins no nonsense approch has though grown on me in the last couple of years. Both it can be said are knowledgable reputable working scientists.

My preference with Sagan also was contributed by his book "The Pale Blue Dot" and who could forget the excellent narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

 

[DrP]

Just now, beecee said:

I actually got hooked on Sagan after watching his fantastic "Cosmos" series in the mid seventies. Dawkins no nonsense approch has though grown on me in the last couple of years. Both it can be said are knowledgable reputable working scientists.

 I'll watch more of him...  I actually like some of the arguments made by Christopher Hitchens too.   I can see how they might rub some up the wrong way - but why pander to nonsense? If you think it is silly that a 'prophet' could 'fly to heaven on a winged horse' then why not say so. Why not challenge such backward thinking and call it out for what it is  -  fiction....  and acceptance of it is delusion.  

 

25 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Why not read his "The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays" for yourself and make up your own mind?

I spent decades reading stuff that was supposed to counter evolution....  there are many things that lead to the reversal in my thinking that it was not true. The 'straw that broke the camel's back' for me was when Dawkins cut open that giraffe showing the laryngeal nerve going from the brain right down under the heart then back up to the larynx. He compared it to a fish where it goes straight across. Something just clicked in me and I though 'ffs - I can't dispute this any more - all of these arguments against this are so poor and clutch at so many straws and are made by priests and people that know nothing about evolutionary biology'  The field is huge and well studied and accepted. It is accepted for good reason - it works, it is demonstrated in nature, in DNA studies and the fossil record.

Bring me one quote from 'The God Delusion' with any rebuttal from any book you have read or from your own mind. Pick the best one so I don't have to plough through a whole book of misunderstanding and twisted thinking. Pick the finest refutal you can find and post it here.  Lets see it so we can discuss it.

[Reg Prescott]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

I spent decades reading stuff that was supposed to counter evolution....  there are many things that lead to the reversal in my thinking that it was not true. The 'straw that broke the camel's back' for me was when Dawkins cut open that giraffe showing the laryngeal nerve going from the brain right down under the heart then back up to the larynx. He compared it to a fish where it goes straight across. Something just clicked in me and I though 'ffs - I can't dispute this any more - all of these arguments against this are so poor and clutch at so many straws and are made by priests and people that know nothing about evolutionary biology'  The field is huge and well studied and accepted. It is accepted for good reason - it works, it is demonstrated in nature, in DNA studies and the fossil record.

I'd agree that this kind of thing does not sit at all well with the "God did it" hypothesis.

What's not clear is which hypothesis do you consider this phenomenon, and others like it, to be evidence for?

It won't do to just say "evolutionary theory", I'm afraid. The scope is far too wide. Do you consider this to be evidence for natural selection? Descent with modification? Gradualism? Punctuated equilibrium? All of the above? Or what?

[DrP]

15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

What's not clear is which hypothesis do you consider this phenomenon, and others like it, to be evidence for?

It is evidence that it wasn't designed and that we all share fish ancestors. (lol - that sounds really silly - but we are talking hundreds of millions of years). I can't remember what their argument was exactly, but the emphasis was that it was not designed that way...  and if it was then it was a stupid design. If it were designed, then why not put it straight across. .  As I said - it was just one small piece in a chain of many evidences.

Actually - I can play advocate to my own argument here with regard to the laryngeal nerve. There is 'some thinking' that coughing can help massage the heart during a mild heart attack and that people have claimed that they were kept alive by coughing hard and rhythmically which kept their heart beating. Maybe the nerve going right down under the heart physically tugs on the heart during a cough or a shout enough to move it in a way that can, in borderline cases, keep the heart going for a bit longer....  long enough to get through the attack or for an ambulance to arrive. How deeply this has been studied I do not know - I think there are mixed opinions as to the effectiveness of cardio massage via coughs. Even so - I found their case quite compelling.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by DrP

[Reg Prescott]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

It is evidence that it wasn't designed and that we all share fish ancestors. (lol - that sounds really silly - but we are talking hundreds of millions of years). 

Not if you've seen my family.

[DrP]

26 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

I'd agree that this kind of thing does not sit at all well with the "God did it" hypothesis.

 Reality rarely does!   It seems to me that the religious types confuse their own numinous and wonder with a feeling of the presence of god. We all get blown away by the beauty and wonder of the world and the universe - it's natural....  but it isn't credible evidence for any god....  even if it was then which one?

Have you actually read 'The God Delusion'?

[Reg Prescott]

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

Have you actually read 'The God Delusion'?

Yes, I've read it.

Way back in the day when I was still able to stomach Dawkins LOL.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Posts concerning the process of science (in general), rather than this book, have been split.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116476-challenging-science-split-from-the-selfish-gene-theory/

 

Since there were some posts that were actually about this thread's topic as well as that tangent, the split may have removed some material that is relevant. Sorry if that causes any confusion.

Please stay on-topic for this thread.

 

 

[ZeroZero]

The "God did it" sargument is actually no argument at all. How? Did he use his little leggies? or his arms? Where did he get the materials? Maybe he had some form of factory?  But where did the factory come from?  Obviously I am being facetious, but the argument stands, no religious thinker can actually give an explanation as to how god did anything, they just say things like "God works in mysterious ways" which translates to "how on earth do I know". So, actually they do NOT know what they are talking about, on any level. 

Not only do they start from a position of utter ignorance and then try to defend it, but they then claim that religious "knowledge" is some kind of equvalence to science. This even though they fail fail to make even the most basic observations about nature. There is a total conceit in religious thinking in the fact that there is never any actual measurement, never any calculation, verification

[beecee]

2 hours ago, ZeroZero said:

The "God did it" sargument is actually no argument at all. How? Did he use his little leggies? or his arms? Where did he get the materials? Maybe he had some form of factory?  But where did the factory come from?  Obviously I am being facetious, but the argument stands, no religious thinker can actually give an explanation as to how god did anything, they just say things like "God works in mysterious ways" which translates to "how on earth do I know". So, actually they do NOT know what they are talking about, on any level. 

Not only do they start from a position of utter ignorance and then try to defend it, but they then claim that religious "knowledge" is some kind of equvalence to science. This even though they fail fail to make even the most basic observations about nature. There is a total conceit in religious thinking in the fact that there is never any actual measurement, never any calculation, verification

well said.

8 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

What's not clear is which hypothesis do you consider this phenomenon, and others like it, to be evidence for?

The fact that the theory of evolution is correct and that any ID is nothing more then myth.

Quote

It won't do to just say "evolutionary theory", I'm afraid. 

Of course it will! That's what this thread is about.

[ZeroZero]

Evolution is a fact, not a hypothesis, just like it's a fact that your mother begat you, this is not a hypothesis too.

Perhaps before we understood how DNA functions and correlates with with Linnaeun classifications of species, nowadays biological morphology classification of genus, before we understand the genome and it's history, then we might say that Evolution was a hypothesis. There are now simply thousands of facts, independent experiments and perspectives which confirm in broad sweep the FACT of evolution.

This does not mean that we cannot improve our understanding of this fact

[Reg Prescott]

5 hours ago, ZeroZero said:

The "God did it" sargument is actually no argument at all. How? Did he use his little leggies? or his arms? Where did he get the materials? Maybe he had some form of factory?  But where did the factory come from?  Obviously I am being facetious, but the argument stands, no religious thinker can actually give an explanation as to how god did anything, they just say things like "God works in mysterious ways" which translates to "how on earth do I know". So, actually they do NOT know what they are talking about, on any level. 

Not only do they start from a position of utter ignorance and then try to defend it, but they then claim that religious "knowledge" is some kind of equvalence to science. This even though they fail fail to make even the most basic observations about nature. There is a total conceit in religious thinking in the fact that there is never any actual measurement, never any calculation, verification

I hear this kind of complaint a lot, but it strikes me as confused. For example, the scientist or science fan is commonly heard to complain, "The claim that "God did it"" is no explanation at all".

If it is indeed the case that God did it (whatever "it" happens to be) then that's the explanation. And yes, it's bad news for scientists. Might put them out of a job LOL.

It may not be the kind of explanation that pleases the more scientifically inclined, but an explanation nonetheless. Explanations must come to an end somewhere (as scientists are won't to say themselves), and this one just did. The buck stops here. That's all the explanation you're getting!

What do you want: a science of miracles? Miracles, are pretty much by definition, an intervention into, or a cessation of, the natural (scientific) order.

(To repeat, I'm not religious myself. I just think the complaint makes little sense.)

3 hours ago, ZeroZero said:

Evolution is a fact, not a hypothesis, just like it's a fact that your mother begat you, this is not a hypothesis too.

I hear this one a lot too. And again it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

According to the Wiki page below:  "Evolution has been described as "fact and theory"; "fact, not theory"; "only a theory, not a fact"; "multiple theories, not fact"; and "neither fact, nor theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Even among those who do countenance a "fact" of evolution, there seems to be little agreement on what this "fact" is.

[beecee]

34 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

I hear this kind of complaint a lot, but it strikes me as confused. For example, the scientist or science fan is commonly heard to complain, "The claim that "God did it"" is no explanation at all".

If it is indeed the case that God did it (whatever "it" happens to be) then that's the explanation. And yes, it's bad news for scientists. Might put them out of a job LOL.

May as well say Santa or the Tooth Fairy did it [it being created the universe of course]...your obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. God or any magical spaghettit monster is simply unscientific and myth. It cannot and never has stood up to scientific protocol or investigative process. Thou appears to be again grasping at straws.

Quote

It may not be the kind of explanation that pleases the more scientifically inclined, but an explanation nonetheless. Explanations must come to an end somewhere (as scientists are won't to say themselves), and this one just did. The buck stops here. That's all the explanation you're getting!

If you prefer faith in myth over evidenced based scientific inquirey and process, then that's your business. Although it appears contradictory as you have also claimed you don't believe any god exists. Which is it?

Quote

 

What do you want: a science of miracles? Miracles, are pretty much by definition, an intervention into, or a cessation of, the natural (scientific) order.

(To repeat, I'm not religious myself. I just think the complaint makes little sense.)

 

 What makes even less sense is your own complaints re myself or anyone that dares take god botherers to task, and instead argues against evolution, the scientific method and all it entails.

 

Quote

I hear this one a lot too. And again it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

This forum and others I have been a part of [two] often has individuals that see the need to criticise science and all it stands for. Closeted god botherers they have been revealed to be. Makes even less sense on a science forum, but it would certainly satisfy your apparent requirements on a religious forum.

 

Quote

 

According to the Wiki page below:  "Evolution has been described as "fact and theory"; "fact, not theory"; "only a theory, not a fact"; "multiple theories, not fact"; and "neither fact, nor theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Even among those who do countenance a "fact" of evolution, there seems to be little agreement on what this "fact" is.

 

As you have been told many times, and cunningly ignore, any scientific theory is always open for modification/change etc...as long as it continues to agree with further and further observation the more certain it becomes...eg: evolution is at the top most rung...others close by SR, GR the BB. Where the lack of agreement appears is only with those critical of science because it actually has demoted any need for any god or IDer into oblivion, and continues to push it further back into oblivion...even the crusading closeted god botherers.

[Reg Prescott]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

May as well say Santa or the Tooth Fairy did it [it being created the universe of course]...your obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. God or any magical spaghettit monster is simply unscientific and myth. It cannot and never has stood up to scientific protocol or investigative process. Thou appears to be again grasping at straws.

 

You've no idea how many times I've had to bite my tongue not to say the same of yourself. Once more, you completely miss the point.

If the Tooth Fairy did indeed "do it", then that's the explanation.

No one is saying it's scientific. No one is endorsing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis, at least not myself. But supposing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis -- wonder of wonders -- is true, then "the Tooth Fairy did it" is the explanation nonetheless.

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

You've no idea how many times I've had to bite my tongue not to say the same of yourself. Once more, you completely miss the point.

If the Tooth Fairy did indeed "do it", then that's the explanation.

No you miss the point, and have in all threads so far you have participated in on this matter. God, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny are unscientific explanations, without any empirical evidence to support such mythical concepts. Then you pretend you don't accept any ID and/or god in the next breath.

Quote

No one is saying it's scientific. No one is endorsing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis, at least not myself. But supposing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis -- wonder of wonders -- is true, then "the Tooth Fairy did it" is the explanation nonetheless.

It's not scientific therefor it falls short as any explanation worthy of consideration.

My apologies to the mods. This is again off topic.

4 hours ago, ZeroZero said:

Evolution is a fact, not a hypothesis, just like it's a fact that your mother begat you, this is not a hypothesis too.

Perhaps before we understood how DNA functions and correlates with with Linnaeun classifications of species, nowadays biological morphology classification of genus, before we understand the genome and it's history, then we might say that Evolution was a hypothesis. There are now simply thousands of facts, independent experiments and perspectives which confirm in broad sweep the FACT of evolution.

This does not mean that we cannot improve our understanding of this fact

Again well said. We may well still call it a theory, but it is far closer to fact, and I believe its simply force of habit and convention that we still call it a theory.

[ZeroZero]

9 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

I hear this kind of complaint a lot, but it strikes me as confused. For example, the scientist or science fan is commonly heard to complain, "The claim that "God did it"" is no explanation at all".

If it is indeed the case that God did it (whatever "it" happens to be) then that's the explanation. And yes, it's bad news for scientists. Might put them out of a job LOL.

It may not be the kind of explanation that pleases the more scientifically inclined, but an explanation nonetheless. Explanations must come to an end somewhere (as scientists are won't to say themselves), and this one just did. The buck stops here. That's all the explanation you're getting!

What do you want: a science of miracles? Miracles, are pretty much by definition, an intervention into, or a cessation of, the natural (scientific) order.

(To repeat, I'm not religious myself. I just think the complaint makes little sense.)

I hear this one a lot too. And again it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

According to the Wiki page below:  "Evolution has been described as "fact and theory"; "fact, not theory"; "only a theory, not a fact"; "multiple theories, not fact"; and "neither fact, nor theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Even among those who do countenance a "fact" of evolution, there seems to be little agreement on what this "fact" is.

Wow so much confusion in one post!

Beecee has done much of my work for me. Here is my response.

Claiming something is "a miracle" is no explanation at all, it says nothing about how something happened. In fact ALL the evidence that Jesus was the "son of God" (whatever that mumbo jumbo means) is not actually evidence at all. Walking on water, changing water into wine (likely a cheap party trick), claiming to feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and all the rest of it are all "non sequiturs" - the conclusion does not follow from the argument. Even if they were all true (and not hyperbole introduced by ignorant scribes not there at the time) , they STILL  ALL don't prove that Jesus was the son of God. Lots of good party tricks but that's all they are. The times were ignorant, if Jesus had a simple electric torch, which he could switch on and off, no doubt everyone would have gone "wow this guy really must have the power of God he can create light itself!" .  

God himself is complicit in all this mumbo jumbo, he himself does not seem to understand what evidence is, his "proofs" through various acts and revelations are not in fact proofs at all. He seems to be uneducated and pretty stupid. Many of his acts  pointless others are jealous and selfish and horrible. 

Take Jesus's curing of lepers. First science has cured a lot more lepers that Jesus ever did. Jesus and God only cured a few,  the rest they let to rot. God, whom it is claimed created everything, created leprosy, along with a lot of other horrible diseases, and various torturous forms of suffering that go on every day for all creatures with God. presumably, whistling Dixie and proclaiming "tell them I work in mysterious ways". 

God is Love, God is Omnipotent, God is Omniscient, Christians claim. Yet the facts of life are ignored, just like they ignore the uglier passages of the Bible. 

the bible, the Quaran and most other religious texts are the psychobabble of peoples that had no grasp of what is true and what is not true, what is verifiable and what is not. Visions and revelations are nowadays treated with antipsychotics. They are not 'proof' of anything. 

[DrP]

8 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

If the Tooth Fairy did indeed "do it", then that's the explanation.

Of course - if the fairy really did do it then that is the correct explanation...  but without any evidence of this fairy even existing why would anyone believe it was responsible?

You don't blindly accept every explanation everybody puts forward....  you sift through looking at the evidences to build a picture of reality. The Tooth Fairy is clearly mythical - so why even give credence to the idea of it's existence let alone credit it for the creation of the universe?

[Reg Prescott]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

Of course - if the fairy really did do it then that is the correct explanation...  but without any evidence of this fairy even existing why would anyone believe it was responsible?

The evidence in this case takes the form of testimony -- from Mummy and Daddy. 

[DrP]

Just now, Reg Prescott said:

The evidence in this case takes the form of testimony -- from Mummy and Daddy. 

You are talking about children...  people lie to them about Santa and Tooth fairies all the time - it doesn't make them objective reality and you know that - why even put that forward as a support to your argument?   If you are willing to accept any old crap then, fine - the tooth fairy or Cthulu did it or whatever - but don't expect to be taken seriously. No point in discussing anything with you if you are going to claim that whatever your mum told you about fairies and monsters is true. Very poor.   I was expecting better somehow.

 

Bye. I won't waste my time anymore then.

 

[ZeroZero]

In philosophy, there is a concept called "an argument from authority". it is a weak proof. Evolution makes it so that we emulate our elders, particularly when we are young. If your elder tells you "don't put your hand in a fire",  it is better that you listen, evolution favours those that do listen to such a statement. However, this does not mean that everything, or indeed most things. your elders tell you are true. My mother told me that opening an umbrella inside, or cracking a mirror, brought seven years bad luck, she would scream if/when such an event happened and we would have to leave our umbrellas outside in the rain. Not so good. 

When, and only when, a person develops a sound ability to exercise critical reasoning (which is for the most part a learnt skill) then they can re-examine claims made by their elders.  If no ability to weigh and gather evidence is present, criticising their elders leads only to chaos and simple delinquency. From observations, it seems there is a time period in adolescence where children reflect upon what they have learnt and generate their own conclusions - this can go rightly or wrongly

Edited October 10, 2018 by ZeroZero

[Reg Prescott]

27 minutes ago, DrP said:

You are talking about children...  people lie to them about Santa and Tooth fairies all the time - it doesn't make them objective reality and you know that - why even put that forward as a support to your argument?   If you are willing to accept any old crap then, fine - the tooth fairy or Cthulu did it or whatever - but don't expect to be taken seriously. No point in discussing anything with you if you are going to claim that whatever your mum told you about fairies and monsters is true. Very poor.   I was expecting better somehow.

 

Bye. I won't waste my time anymore then.

 

Well, sorry. What the hell is it with this place? Is there a rule against humor? Sigh!

Ok, seriously, DrP, you got my point about explanation. Beecee and ZeroZero apparently did not. Probably my fault for not being clear enough. Let me try again...

Two issues are being conflated here: one is epistemological (i.e. knowledge and beliefs); the other pertains to explanation, whether of the scientific kind or any other kind.

With regards the first, do we have good reasons for -- are we justified in -- believing in the existence of the Tooth Fairy? No. Hopefully we can agree on this much.

How about God? I personally don't think the epistemic warrant is sufficient to commit to a belief in the existence in God. Clearly, many others do not feel the same way. Good luck to them.

As for the second issue (forget all about our epistemic warrant for now), just suppose that God or the Tooth Fairy or Donald Duck did indeed create the universe. Then what is the explanation for the creation of the universe? Ans: "God/the Tooth Fairy/Donald Duck did it".

That's your explanation. Like it or not, scientific or not (and what constitutes a scientific explanation is a vexed issue in itself), that's all you get! (unless God decides .... never mind -- a magician never gives away his secrets).

My own personal Big Band theory suggests Glenn Miller created the universe, but that's another story...

[DrP]

20 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, sorry. What the hell is it with this place? Is there a rule against humor? Sigh!

Sorry - everyone likes humour - but not when it is deliberately used to derail a discussion. Your point was so poor.  

21 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

As for the second issue (forget all about our epistemic warrant for now), just suppose that God or the Tooth Fairy or Donald Duck did indeed create the universe. Then what is the explanation for the creation of the universe? Ans: "God/the Tooth Fairy/Donald Duck did it".

That's your explanation. Like it or not, scientific or not (and what constitutes a scientific explanation is a vexed issue in itself), that's all you get!

It's obvious!  IF Donald Duck ACTUALLY made the universe then the answer to the question 'who made the universe?' would be Donald Duck. That is obvious - What's the point?  We KNOW that DD is a fictional character so why even entertain the idea DD was responsible?  The thing with god is that many people don't realise it is a fictional character - they think it is real. That so many believe it doesn't make it real/true.

There is a lot of evidence supporting the ET - silly amounts. If you can't be bothered to read it and understand it then that's down to you. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you try to refute it and look stupid doing so. Bring exact points and let people discuss/refute them rather than attacking authors and science in general without actually bringing any science or testing or evidence to the table yourself.

 

 

23 hours ago, DrP said:

Bring me one quote from 'The God Delusion' with any rebuttal from any book you have read or from your own mind. Pick the best one so I don't have to plough through a whole book of misunderstanding and twisted thinking. Pick the finest refutal you can find and post it here.  Lets see it so we can discuss it.

I'd like to retract this  -  Although most of the book seems pretty sound in it's reasoning with me - the Author is just a man and I would presume that if you trawled through the book then you would be able to find errors and or speculations (usually though he says when he is speculating - somethings we just don't know).   So - I'll retract this - but will welcome any questions about any part of the book  -  I might need time to research the answer if I do not know it off hand...  or other more knowledgeable than I can answer. I'm not going round in circle arguing nonsense about DD though - there is no point in stating the obvious.

 

[Strange]

56 minutes ago, DrP said:

The thing with god is that many people don't realise it is a fictional character - they think it is real. That so many believe it doesn't make it real/true.

I’m not sure that is the key point. The issue is not that “gods did it” is not an explanation (it is) but that it is an explanation that prevents any further enquiry. “Don’t ask any more questions because we have given you The Truth” (and anyone who says that is clearly not to be trusted).

This is opposed to a scientific approach where you can keep asking, of every explanation, “OK, but what caused that” or “how did that come about” or “how can we test that further”

[DrP]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

I’m not sure that is the key point.

I'm not sure what his point is.

I saw some comments about the guy's book he referred to.  In 'The God Delusion' Dawkins mentions the scrap yard and the Jumbo Jet situation which creationist like to put forward as evidence that evolution can't work. They say you don't get a brand new jumbo jet from leaving all the scrap parts laying around no matter what the timescale. He explains how this is misunderstood and points to the bits that they get wrong and how it not a suitable analogy. In the other guy's book, that is suppose to refute Dawkins, he starts with this argument and makes the exact same errors that Dawkins points out in his book, drawing on the plane in the scrape yard analogy as a rebuttal of ET - it is as if he never read the book. He doesn't take Dawkins point and argue against it...  he just re confirms Dawkins' point that the plane in the scrap yard is nothing like what you'd expect to see with ET and claims that as a rebuttal to the argument. I would say that he was stupid - but pointing that out doesn't take the moral high ground or win the argument.  

What can you do when you put forward an argument....  some one else writes a book claiming to rebut that argument, without actually addressing any of the points made in the book you wrote. I can't believe anyone would fall for such basic deception (I call it deception because I don't want to insult the authors intelligence - it is deception or stupidity) - I wonder if the guy even knows he is doing it.