Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[AronRa]

On Monday 11/12/2012, I was on some nationally-syndicated (and heavily commercialized) Christian radio show debating young earth creationist, Bob Dutko over 'the [non-]Existence of God'. In that discussion, he did as Bob Enyart also did; make a series of claims purportedly proven by science, according to his citations of scientific sources -which cannot be reviewed and refuted on-the-fly. He would not permit me to discuss things which could be explored in real time, nor anything that would actually have been relevant to the topic.

Anyone who read my debate with Bob Enyart will remember how he [Enyart] made a host of claims that he was wholly determined to endorse, but which turned out not to say what he said they would, and did not support his conclusions at all. When I saw that Dutko's show was based on just as much assertion-of-conviction in fallacious assumptions as Enyart's show was, I knew we would have great fun refuting Dutko's claims too. I can't remember all those assertions at the moment, so we'll just have to wait for him to post his recording of that show. But I did remember to direct his listeners to investigate his claims through my blog, and that I would provide links from there to an appropriate venue to explore the actual merits of each. Of course the League of Reason is the venue I had in mind since it is (I think) most conducive to that exercise.

So if anyone knows anything about the citations he gave, concerning sauropods rendered on pre-columbian artifacts, unfossilized hadrosaur bones, or any of the other ways in which he imagines evolution was 'disproved'; or if you just want to comment on how I behaved, or whether he even could have 'painted me into a corner' such that I would want to 'wiggle out of', please post those points in this thread provided for that purpose.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Fresh creationist meat on this forum; I cannot wait.

I also think I might know something about Mr. Dutko's claims about sauropods rendered on pre-Columbian artifacts and unfossilized hadrosaur bones.

AronRa, I hope you directed Mr. Dutko to your debate with BobEnyart. I hope that Mr. Dutko will read it and not repeat any of BobEnyart's debunked claims.

 

[JuliaL]

Oh Bother! I missed the show and now I can only find up to Nov 9 on Dutko's site.

Anyway, I hope he wasn't talking about the Ica stones as depictions of pre-columbian sauropods.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Pretty much just tourist kitsch to scam the gullible.
Oh, wait....

Julia

 

[Inferno]

I couldn't yet find the debate on YouTube and, being from Europe, I wasn't on at the time of the show.
I can, however, tell you about the hadrosaurus claim.

The very first person in your comment section linked you to this article in national geographic, but this is the WRONG claim. I am fairly certain that I was able to track the claim to Ken Ham's "New Answer Book". (The claim was originally made in the "Answers Book", this is the updated version.)

I originally came across a debunking of this claim here, where the author quotes Ken Ham and consorts on the subject.
I then found the same subject on a creationist site here, which gave me the name of a paper, namely this one. I'll see if I can get the paper when I get back tonight. (EDIT: FOUND IT!)

Note that the claim from your comments section dates back to 2007, but the original claim goes back much further, to 1987.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I have been telling my friends for a long time my desire for Bob Dutko to debate Aron. I've been listening to Bob Dutko for the better part of a decade now and was quite disappointed to find out today that Aron was on yesterday and I missed it. You would think I would know this, being a long-time listener of Bob, but is there a place to get the audio at any point? I would love to listen to the debate if someone could post a link when it is available.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Hrm.......

I have not heard the debate between Dutko and Ra. I would like to hear the debate too.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the arguments presented are something along the lines of.......

Science doesn't have it all figured out therefore "God did it". Would I be correct in making this assumption? Does Bob use a variation of the God of the Gaps argument in his 10 Top Proofs Series?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have been telling my friends for a long time my desire for Bob Dutko to debate Aron.

What is the reason you have been telling your friends you wanted Mr. Dutko to debate AronRa? AronRa has now debated BobEnyart and Ray Comfort, what makes Mr. Dutko any better than those two?

 

[DiscipleTube1]

Well, I never liked Ray Comfort, the creationist. But I like Ray Comfort the evangelist. As far as Bob Enyart I think he took too long when admitting what he did get wrong but he did admit them... but overall his arguments were more compelling than Aron's. I just knew Bob Dutko had different arguments than i had heard elsewhere, and i also have been listen to both him and Aron for awhile now. Just wanted the two worlds to merge for a moment an d see what would happen. I also knew Bob Dutko has some out dated arguments that I thought would be interesting to get a response from Aron.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As far as Bob Enyart I think he took too long when admitting what he did get wrong but he did admit them... but overall his arguments were more compelling than Aron's.

First off, more compelling? Which debate were you reading? How could BobEnyart make a compelling argument when AronRa kept pointing out that the citations BobEnyart was using did not say what he thought they were saying (e.g. BobEnyart's claims about soft tissue and the claims made about the New Scientist article).

Second, BobEnyart only admitted to one mistake (a miner one at that), when AronRa (and others in the peanut gallery) pointed out that almost all of the claims BobEnyart made were false. One example of this was BobEnyart's claims about millions of nautiloids found on their head. Not only did AronRa point out that there were not millions, but he also pointed out how limestone, the sediment the nautiloids were found in, does not form rapidly in an aquatic environment. BobEnyart never addressed either of those rebuttals, but went on to assert this claim as evidence at least one more time after AronRa gave a rebuttal.

This is what creationists call compelling?

 

[AronRa]

As I just posted said on my blog, I got confirmation that there won't be a link to any archived episodes. Because if there were, then we could all hold him accountable, and creationists have no accountability.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I don't see any point continuing a discussion about the Bob Enyart debate on the thread about the Bob Dutko debate. After I take the time to at least skim over the 50 pages of the peanut gallery thread, which includes your sickeningly long replies (and I say that out of respect, not disdain), then I may make a post myself.

I will admit you are completely right about Bob not addressing the nautiloid rebuttals. However there was much more to this debate then nautiloids, and don't forget the step of interpretation, a common gap in evolutionist memory, and a great precursor for the inevitable reifications to come.

Biting my tongue considerably, I must comment on one more thing. Not long ago I would be surprised by your comments Aron, but... gosh I guess I am surprised. You claim that creationist have no accountability because there is no audio of the debate between you and Dutko... Yeah, well I'm pretty sure you just had a lengthy debate with a creationist, on this forum, and linked to JUST 3 POST DOWN FROM YOURS! The same creationist that has all the audio on HIS website. The post just before yours is one of your colleagues HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE! A CREATIONIST! 50 stinkin' pages of supposed accountability are in the peanut gallery thread! WOW! Really!? So did you get any audio from this debate? I mean surely you would right? Because we all know you evolutionist are held accountable unlike us dishonest creationist RIGHT!? And you wonder why I say you have a double standard? You got a rise out of me today, but I hope some day we can laugh about it, as brothers in Christ.

 

[australopithecus]

Is this going to turn into another multi-page thread where you whine about Aron or are you finished?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As I just posted said on my blog, I got confirmation that there won't be a link to any archived episodes. Because if there were, then we could all hold him accountable, and creationists have no accountability.

Well damn. I thought a copy of the debate would be made available on the Ethernet, so I would be able to listen to it at my leisure. It is unfortunate that Mr. Dutko is withholding this debate.

I just knew Bob Dutko had different arguments than i had heard elsewhere...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to step in and provide said arguments for us to properly vet?

I don't see any point continuing a discussion about the Bob Enyart debate on the thread about the Bob Dutko debate. After I take the time to at least skim over the 50 pages of the peanut gallery thread, which includes your sickeningly long replies (and I say that out of respect, not disdain), then I may make a post myself.

First off, the reason my post are sickeningly long is because that is what it takes to properly correct the falsehoods creationists spew. It takes a creationist one sentence to make a claim (e.g. BobEnyart's nautiloids claim); however, it takes a few paragraphs to give a proper refutation of said claim. Furthermore, I know there were a lot more then just nautiloids in that debate. I could have used any claim BobEnyart made, the point would still be the same.

Second, agreed, thus, I await your post in the peanut gallery. I cannot wait to continue our discussion.

 

[rareblackatheist]

He used the cambodian "dinosaur" ? :roll: :lol:

Where are the steg bones in cambodia? I never get an answer to that.

 

[AronRa]

Biting my tongue considerably, I must comment on one more thing. Not long ago I would be surprised by your comments Aron, but... gosh I guess I am surprised. You claim that creationist have no accountability because there is no audio of the debate between you and Dutko... Yeah, well I'm pretty sure you just had a lengthy debate with a creationist, on this forum, and linked to JUST 3 POST DOWN FROM YOURS! The same creationist that has all the audio on HIS website. The post just before yours is one of your colleagues HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE! A CREATIONIST! 50 stinkin' pages of supposed accountability are in the peanut gallery thread! WOW! Really!? So did you get any audio from this debate? I mean surely you would right? Because we all know you evolutionist are held accountable unlike us dishonest creationist RIGHT!? And you wonder why I say you have a double standard?

What the hell are you going on about? The only debate I know of wherein we have both the audio file and fifty pages of peanut gallery is the one between me and Enyart, the guy who refused to concede any of his many errors because he would not be held accountable. The guy who brags that he has an errata, but who won't make corrections to it where that requires him to admit that there was never any unfossilized blood cells found in dinosaurs, or that there was never even one mammoth even found frozen with tropical flora associated with it. So where is the creationist you're talking about who is being accountable? Because I maintain that such does not exist.

Would you like to do the honors of conceding the abbreviated list of errors that he wasn't honest enough to admit?

 

[BobEnyart]

On Monday 11/12/2012, I was on some nationally-syndicated (and heavily commercialized) Christian radio show debating young earth creationist, Bob Dutko... In that discussion, he did as Bob Enyart also did; make a series of claims purportedly proven by science...

...I saw that Dutko's show was based on just as much assertion-of-conviction in fallacious assumptions as Enyart's show was... So if anyone knows anything about the citations he gave, concerning... unfossilized hadrosaur bones...

Hi Aron! I pray you are well. Since Inferno found some links to creationist claims of unfossilized hadrosaur bones, I thought I'd present the peer-reviewed journal papers of discoveries of unfossilized hardrosaur specimens. (I happened upon these at the web's most comprehensive catalogue of such papers at http://dinosaursofttissue.com#research )

See:

2005. Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: Manipulating dinosaurian soft tissue: methods for handling soft tissues, vessels and cells in fossil specimens by North Carolina State's Mary Schweitzer and Jennifer Wittmeyer.

2009. Science: Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis by Schweitzer in a group of sixteen authors from North Carolina State, Harvard University, Montana State, Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana Farbar Cancer Institute, London's Matrix Science Ltd., Bozeman's Museum of the Rockies, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, and Harvard Medical School.

And a fun 2012 paper in Science showing that hadrosaurs actually had "as many as 1,400 teeth" which were "more complex than those of cows, horses, and other well-known modern grazers." With Florida State University biology professor Gregory Erickson saying about this, "We were stunned to find that the mechanical properties of the teeth were preserved after 70 million years of fossilization... if you put these teeth back into a living dinosaur they would function perfectly."

You can find links to these evolutionist papers, with excerpts, at that dino soft tissue page above.

Have a great day guys!

-Bob Enyart
Real Science Friday

p.s. Hey Aron, did you get Ira Flatow all worked up when you saw him? Because after that, he went and sued me. What's up with that?

 

[australopithecus]

Because after that, he went and sued me. What's up with that?

It's an absolute mystery.

:roll:

So, to these papers you've linked to:

2005. Annual Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: Manipulating dinosaurian soft tissue: methods for handling soft tissues, vessels and cells in fossil specimens by North Carolina State's Mary Schweitzer and Jennifer Wittmeyer.

You quote the abstract. Always with the abstracts... :facepalm:

"Exceptionally preserved sauropod eggshells discovered in Upper Cretaceous"¦ in"¦ Argentina, contain skeletal remains and soft tissues of embryonic Titanosaurid dinosaurs. "¦mineralization may also have been rapid enough to retain fragments of original biomolecules in these specimens. To investigate preservation of biomolecular compounds in these well-preserved sauropod dinosaur eggshells, we applied multiple analytical techniques. Results demonstrate organic compounds and antigenic structures similar to those found in extant eggshells."

I've highlighted the bit you do on your site. What you fail to expand upon, however, is that "organic compounds" as referred to in the paper is not soft tissue.

And I quote....

Finally, while the organic material extracted from dinosaur eggshells shows characteristics consistent with extant material similarly derived, it is recognized that the antigenic material may or may not be derived from proteinaceous precursors, and is surely diagenetically altered from its original state. We do not claim here that this material represents complete proteins. Indeed, epitopes are known to be only a few amino acids in length (Child & Pollard 1992); therefore, it is possible that antigenic response may be owing to selective preservation of a few peptides, or even altered, fossilized derivatives of peptides.

So yeah, posting papers your clearly don't understand and that don't support the argument you're trying to make is seems to be a fetish of yours, Bob.

The 2005 paper is the same bollocks you were spouting in the debate, this has been addressed enough time. Not that you paid attention though.

 

[BobEnyart]

Hi Austral!

Over time, as shown by the 17 papers I've linked to and excerpted since that 2005 paper, the confirmation and confidence in the discovery of dinosaur biological material continues to increase, and some of the critical scienst are beginning to back off of their claims that this was all contamination.

The paper I listed next, published four years after the one you excerpted, in Science in 2009, reports finding original biological material in the leg bone of a hadrosaur, and they write that:

"Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins..."

Austral, after reading dozens of peer-reviewed papers and creating that catalogue showing the increasingly accepted existence of dinosaur biological material and even sometimes actual soft tissue (with even Lawrence Krauss acknowledging to me that he accepts the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue, cells, etc.) Aron criticized me for reading too many papers (as though I had misinterpreted their claims that they were documenting extant, endogenous, actual dinosaur biological material and even soft tissue. Now, you tell me I should read the papers.

The disagreements are obvious. But, you're not denying, are you, that unfossilized hadrosaur specimens are readily excavated and studied? I've been on a fossil dig in the Hell Creek Formation of Montana, and I've long heard the claims of paleontologists that you can smell the bones in Montana, that they smell, not like rock, but like animal.

 

[australopithecus]

Lawrence Krauss is a physicist, not a biologist. But then appeals to undue authority are par for the course with you, aren't they Bob? I don't deny molecules of cologen and protein structures have been found, what I disagree with is your insistence of asserting these papers in any way support your creationist agenda, when they don't.

What you are doing is pointing at biologists and saying "I know more than you", when you don't. You've been corrected on your errors, you ignore these and continue to assert you're right.

It may fool your radio listeners, it won't fool people who read and understand the papers you use.

Also, just to clarify; if you've been on a Dino dig with people who think Dino bones they find smell like bones then they're either lying to you, or mentally ill. The papers you've posted do not describe tissue findings of the sort you are implying. Which you'd know if you understood the papers you post.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The paper I listed next, published four years after the one you excerpted, in Science in 2009, reports finding original biological material in the leg bone of a hadrosaur, and they write that:

"Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins..."

I doubt BobEnyart has read the entirety of that paper seeing as how that quote comes only from the abstract. Furthermore, here is the whole sentence:

Schweitzer et al.[/url] "]Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides.

It appears BobEnyart has shot himself in the foot once more. I guess we will have to wait for someone who has access to the paper to put this into context.

Nevertheless, seeing as how everything about these discoveries still supports evolution, why are you still bringing them up? YesYouNeedJesus was asked a similar question and was unwilling (or more likely unable) to answer that question. In addition, it would be nice if you would address this post next time you returned.