Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[YesYouNeedJesus]

What evidence!?!

The evidence you've proven consistently you don't understand.

Which was?

What size is your tin foil hat?

In your completely arbitrary definition of "Scientist" you confused origins with neo-Darwinism. Creationists believe the origin of life (and the universe) was specially created, which you say does not make them a scientist. Isaac Newton also believed this. And you claim that if Newton saw the evidence, he would change his mind. I wasn't aware of any evidence on the origin of life. What evidence what change Newton's mind?

We're not having this conversation in the 19th century.

But IF we were, that's what you'd say. Can you admit that?

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the subject, though we already know know you don't.

Just based on the latest and greatest evidence. Another example where evolutionists create a theory and assume that equals evidence. They wrongly assumed that similarity in the genome shows common ancestry. We now know that's false.

 

[australopithecus]

His claim was based on the evidence that he's seen.

He didn't give evidence.

:lol:

But maybe you think less of him than I do?

His opinion on biology? Certainly. When he starts talking about physics I'll start paying attention.

 

[australopithecus]

Which was?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to repost every instance of you ignoring and misunderstanding the evidence for the evolution you've displayed on the board. It is readily available to anyone who reads your posts.

In your completely arbitrary definition of "Scientist" you confused origins with neo-Darwinism. Creationists believe the origin of life (and the universe) was specially created, which you say does not make them a scientist. Isaac Newton also believed this.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does Darwinism.

And you claim that if Newton saw the evidence, he would change his mind. I wasn't aware of any evidence on the origin of life. What evidence what change Newton's mind?

I never said he would change his mind. Your reading comprehension is terrible. What I posted was:

Go back in time, give Newton the evidence, then see what he thinks. Until then...

As for the evidence:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

But IF we were, that's what you'd say. Can you admit that?

Er, no, because you're invoking a non-sequitur based on arbitrary bollocks. I can't tell you what I'd say if this was the 19th century, because this isn't the 19th century.

Just based on the latest and greatest evidence. Another example where evolutionists create a theory and assume that equals evidence.

That's not how science works, and it's not how evolutionary theory works. Your straw man is telling.

They wrongly assumed that similarity in the genome shows common ancestry. We now know that's false.

I do hope you're not referring to the NS article Bob has misunderstood. If not, please show this evidence.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Well at least you attempted to answer some of the questions. After dealing with BobEnyart for a week and seeing how much he dodges questions, I guess I would not expect to much more from one of his employees. YesYouNeedJesus, you do realize that everything I quoted in that thread is also questions you have failed to answer.

I'm not his employee. I once was. You should be careful about claiming someone dodges questions. If I post on PZ Myers site and he doesn't respond, should I claim he dodges questions?

Well I can tell you this is true. I could also tell you why creationists cannot explain this, which is because the geology of any given area is not a result of a worldwide flood.

Where is the evidence of this? What are the assumptions? How is the layer dated?

Well, looky here. Another question you failed to answer.

I'm not a geologist, remember?

I saw your six problems and all I have to say to those is citation please. All I saw was you claiming there to be a problem, no actual science behind any of those claims.

Before I cite them, please let me know what your thoughts are IF they turn out to be true.

Seeing as how original biological material does not always equal soft tissue (stop mincing your terms), as I explained to BobEnyart several times, yes, we have discovered original biological material in some fossils. In addition, heavy elements of the body can remain in fossils for the simple fact that they are to hard to fossilize or degrade. Furthermore, I pointed out this same thing to you almost a year ago. Thus, finding original biological material is nothing special; we have been finding it for years in all sorts of different fossils.

Couple things. You originally doubted that DNA could be found. Have you changed your mind?

To use australopithecus' terminology: Anyone that thinks original biological material or DNA could survive for tens of millions of years is either lying or mentally ill.

Well, please define it for us. We all saw BobEnyart attempt and accept evolution by definition, and this should be easy since I gave the biological definition and cited sources you should trust.

I have limited time to be here and don't want to waste it on pointless exercises. I'm still extremely disappointed that LoR censored Walter Remine when I jumped through the hoops to get him here. They locked the thread as soon as they found out he was coming.

As I stated before, this would change our ideas of fossilization, but I would also say that like with all the discoveries of soft tissue (which support the bird-dinosaur clade), the DNA found would support the bird-dinosaur clade. One of the questions you are still ignoring deals with his very issue.

However, I should just say claims made without evidence can (and will be) dismissed without evidence.

You are really reaching here. "All the discoveries of soft tissue" do not support the bird-dinosaur clade. Where's your evidence of that claim? You also reach in claiming that dinosaur DNA would support the clade. How do you know this? The other problem is your assumption that similar genomes equal common ancestry. That's being disproven left and right.

Your position is a moving target and completely arbitrary. Is it physical characteristics that help us create the tree of life? Is it DNA? Or is it RNA? Or how about proteins? Or maybe it's fossil layers? It's whatever you want, or rather need, it to be. But the fact remains that all these different methods show contradictory evolutionary pathways. So please tell me why these methods contradict and why evolutionists are allowed to pick and choose as they please.

 

[australopithecus]

I have limited time to be here and don't want to waste it on pointless exercises. I'm still extremely disappointed that LoR censored Walter Remine when I jumped through the hoops to get him here. They locked the thread as soon as they found out he was coming.

You odious, lying little shit.

The original thread was locked because YOU decided to send the thread off topic with spurious bullshit. For the edification of anyone who doesn't know, said thread can be found here:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9390&start=0

You challenged Hytegia to dissect Remine's paper, but you failed to provide an actual paper.

Also, may I remind Will that a thread dedicated to dissecting what you did post can be found here:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9402

A thread YOU, Will, demanded be locked for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Coincidentally, said thread is NOT LOCKED and hasn't been for many months, so you can cry bullshit elsewhere.

 

[australopithecus]

As an underscore to Will's claims of censorship with regards to Remine. I'll post exactly what I posted 10 months ago when the thread was locked:

Your claim we're censoring Remine is also bullshit. Firstly, the thread is still available to view along with Remine's paper. Secondly, you posted it in the Aron/Bob debate thread, which is still active. Your claim we are suppressing Remine's work is demonstrably a lie. Everyone who views this forum can see those threads, all that has happened is that one of those threads in unavailable to post in.

Anyone wishing to respond or view Walter Remine's argument against evolution can view it here - http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9402 - along with MGK's refutation of the paper.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Which was?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to repost every instance of you ignoring and misunderstanding the evidence for the evolution you've displayed on the board. It is readily available to anyone who reads your posts.

Just give me the top two.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does Darwinism.

Exactly my point. "Special creation" and origins are inextricably mixed.

As for the evidence:

Pretty shocked to see you put Stanley Miller in the list. Especially since their experiment has done more to show that abiogenesis is impossible than possible.

"Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled."

It's rather hilarious (at least to me) that you mention Stanley/Miller in the same conversation where we're talking about spontaneous generation as Stanley Miller is just a revival of spontaneous generation.

Er, no, because you're invoking a non-sequitur based on arbitrary bollocks. I can't tell you what I'd say if this was the 19th century, because this isn't the 19th century.

Take a guess.

I do hope you're not referring to the NS article Bob has misunderstood. If not, please show this evidence.

Were the scientists involved in the New Scientist article actual scientists according to your definition?

Evidence: http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

 

[australopithecus]

Just give me the top two.

1) All of it.
2) Everything.

Exactly my point. "Special creation" and origins are inextricably mixed.

Except "special creation" invokes magic. Abiogenesis invokes chemistry.

Pretty shocked to see you put Stanley Miller in the list. Especially since their experiment has done more to show that abiogenesis is impossible than possible.

"Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled."

I'm not really shocked you provide nothing in the way of evidence to support your claim.

It's rather hilarious (at least to me) that you mention Stanley/Miller in the same conversation where we're talking about spontaneous generation as Stanley Miller is just a revival of spontaneous generation.

If you count evidencing how organic chemistry can arise natural as "spontaneous generation" then you're an idiot.

Take a guess.

Nope.

Were the scientists involved in the New Scientist article actual scientists according to your definition?

Is this a valid refutation of my post according to any definition of valid, or is this you petty point scoring again?

Evidence: http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

Bob's website isn't evidence. Peer review paper, not a link to Bob's site.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I have limited time to be here and don't want to waste it on pointless exercises. I'm still extremely disappointed that LoR censored Walter Remine when I jumped through the hoops to get him here. They locked the thread as soon as they found out he was coming.

You odious, lying little shit.

On Feb. 20th, at 4:42pm, I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper for Hytegia since he cried foul over Remine. (And he never reviewed that paper either, as he promised to do.)

On Feb. 20th, at 5:39pm, Hytegia requested that the thread be locked for no reason.

On Feb. 20th, at 6:30pm, Anachronous Rex locked the thread for no reason at all, except that I had just mentioned Walter Remine had been contacted.

Who's lying?

The original thread was locked because YOU decided to send the thread off topic with spurious bullshit. For the edification of anyone who doesn't know, said thread can be found here:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9390&start=0

What was off topic? It sure appears like you're the one lying.

You challenged Hytegia to dissect Remine's paper, but you failed to provide an actual paper.

Appears to be another lie. I linked to the paper in the opening post.

Also, may I remind Will that a thread dedicated to dissecting what you did post can be found here:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9402

That thread is the one you opened because you regretted that LoR censored Walter Remine.

A thread YOU, Will, demanded be locked for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Coincidentally, said thread is NOT LOCKED and hasn't been for many months, so you can cry bullshit elsewhere.[/quote]
I asked for that make-up thread to be locked to test if LoR was lying to me, which they were.

Anachronous Rex wrote:
Also, you do realize that even if you hadn't been trolling, I would have been obligated to lock the thread just because the user whom it was directed towards asked me to? You have to calm down and grow up.

Another lie.

 

[australopithecus]

Let's assume for a minute that I found the article Will indirectly linked to on Bob's website. Would it surprise anyone if I said it doesn't claim what Will or Bob claim it claims?

http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185

Overall, the data suggest that gorillas split from their common ancestor with humans and chimps about 10 million years ago, and that chimps and humans split from each other about 4 million years after that. This helps to clear up the evolutionary conundrum of the three types of great ape. "For a long time there was a discordance between the fossil evidence and genetic estimates, in the sense that genetic estimates came up with speciation times that were more recent," says Scally.
Puzzling surprises

But the genome sequencing has thrown up surprises, too. The standard view of the great-ape family tree is that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla , because chimps and humans diverged more recently. But, 15% of human genes look more like the gorilla version than the chimp version.

Much of the 15% is in sections of the genome that do not code for proteins. But the researchers also looked at functional gene changes. They found that certain genes , including some involved in hearing and brain development , had gone through more rapid changes than expected in both the gorilla and human lineage.
Related stories

Some of these rapid changes are puzzling: the gene LOXHD1 is involved in hearing in humans4 and was therefore thought to be involved in speech, but the gene shows just as much accelerated evolution in the gorilla. "But we know gorillas don't talk to each other , if they do they're managing to keep it secret," says Scally.

This weakens the connection between the gene and language, says Enard. "If you find this in the gorilla, this option is out of the window."

This paper has been addressed before in the debate thread here - http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=139994#p139994

 

[australopithecus]

On Feb. 20th, at 4:42pm, I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper for Hytegia since he cried foul over Remine. (And he never reviewed that paper either, as he promised to do.)

Because you provided no methodology for him to test.

On Feb. 20th, at 5:39pm, Hytegia requested that the thread be locked for no reason.

On Feb. 20th, at 6:30pm, Anachronous Rex locked the thread for no reason at all, except that I had just mentioned Walter Remine had been contacted.

Who's lying?

You.

What was off topic? It sure appears like you're the one lying.

Considering you moved the goalposts from asking Hytegia to test Remine's paper, failing to give a working method for this, then stating the thread was no longer about that, but about Haldane's Dilemma....yeah, it went off topic.

Appears to be another lie. I linked the paper in the opening post.

My error, that supposed to be referencing your lack of a peer reviewed paper.

That thread is the one you opened because you regretted that LoR censored Walter Remine.

No, that is a thread I opened because you would just not stop crying.

I asked for that make-up thread to be locked to test if LoR was lying to me, which they were.

Not really, because it was locked. I unlocked it at a later date.

Anachronous Rex wrote:
Also, you do realize that even if you hadn't been trolling, I would have been obligated to lock the thread just because the user whom it was directed towards asked me to? You have to calm down and grow up.

Another lie.[/quote]

The thread was locked.

But that isn't applicable in this case, that thread you demanded be lock because that thread wasn't directed at you. The opening post is:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_113-125.pdf

Go!

It was never about you. I locked it regardless. Then you became more of an annoying pissy little child so I unlocked it.

MGK put a lot of effort into doing what you wanted, that being addressing the paper, I'm damned if I'm going to let your ego bury that hard work.

Will, grow up.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Just give me the top two.

1) All of it.
2) Everything.

I guess we're done.

Except "special creation" invokes magic. Abiogenesis invokes chemistry.

"Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled."

If you count evidencing how organic chemistry can arise natural as "spontaneous generation" then you're an idiot.

Miller research '"¦ suggests that given the primordial soup, with the right combination of amino acids and nucleic acids, and perchance a lightning bolt or two, life might in fact have begun "spontaneously". The major difference is that according to what biologists customarily called spontaneous generation, life supposedly began this way all of the time. According to the "soup" suggestion, by contrast, it began this way only once in the immeasurably distant past.' The Epic History of Biology, Plenum, New York, p. 292, 1993

Nope.

Not surprised.

Is this a valid refutation of my post according to any definition of valid, or is this you petty point scoring again?]/quote]
It's a simple question.

Bob's website isn't evidence. Peer review paper, not a link to Bob's site.

Peer-reviewed papers aren't evidence either. Do you have your own definition for evidence like you do for scientist?

 

[detrean]

I brief aside to the current discussion.

YesYouNeedJesus has been shown to not only be ignorant but also dishonest. The above thread link by Australopithecus clearly demonstrates that he claimed possession of a creationist scientific paper he wanted reviewed. After a LoR member took time out of their previously planned schedule in anticipation to respond to it, he then failed to display said paper. That means he is not only dishonest about this topic but displays a general behavioral dishonesty.

At some point I wonder if we are yelling at the mentally unstable. Either he lacks sanity and we are intellectually humiliating a disabled person or he is knowingly trolling. His behavior shows problems beyond just a misunderstanding of this topic.

The discussion occurring between BobEnyart and LoR regulars addresses specific points. It is based on a written debate had on this forum for which there is still disagreement. I have no argument against it.

As a side note, the knowledge base and ability to debate displayed by LoR regulars, in general, is quite impressive.

 

[australopithecus]

I guess we're done.

You never even started.

"Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled."

Random quotes are not evidence, nor refutations.

Miller research '"¦ suggests that given the primordial soup, with the right combination of amino acids and nucleic acids, and perchance a lightning bolt or two, life might in fact have begun "spontaneously". The major difference is that according to what biologists customarily called spontaneous generation, life supposedly began this way all of the time. According to the "soup" suggestion, by contrast, it began this way only once in the immeasurably distant past.' The Epic History of Biology, Plenum, New York, p. 292, 1993

Spontaneous generation requires organisms to appear fully formed out of nothing. Miller evidenced that organic chemicals can be synthesised using already existing elements and natural processes. You fail.

Not surprised.

Colour me uninterested.

It's a simple question.

From a simple person. I'm not playing your games, Will. Jump through your own hoops.

Peer-reviewed papers aren't evidence either. Do you have your own definition for evidence like you do for scientist?

[/quote]

Peer reviewed papers document evidence and the methodology used. Bob's website is a badly design mass of idiocy.

 

[Isotelus]

You are really reaching here. "All the discoveries of soft tissue" do not support the bird-dinosaur clade. Where's your evidence of that claim? You also reach in claiming that dinosaur DNA would support the clade. How do you know this? The other problem is your assumption that similar genomes equal common ancestry. That's being disproven left and right.

First of all, the affinity between maniraptoran dinosaurs and birds was suggested before DNA was even discovered, and this was based on the morphological similarites between the two, in terms of both skeletal and integumentary structures.

Secondly, and I hope He_who_is_nobody doesn't mind me stepping in on this point. Here's the evidence for his claim, kindly provided by Bob:
I can recall the title of one paper that Bob used in his debate with Aron as 'Detecting Dinosaur DNA' (which actually showed that the DNA in question was a result of human contamination), but made the prediction that if DNA were to be found, it would support morpholigical evidence that birds are most closely related to dinosaurs. Mary Schweitzer was a coauthor of that one. I can't recall if Bob used this one, but there it is regardless: 'Gender-specific reproductive tissue in ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex', where Schweitzer compared the bone tissue (and no, bone tissue is not soft tissue, in case you're wondering) between modern avians and T-rex and found them to be similar, further supporting the link between birds and theropod dinosaurs. I know there were a couple more, but I will have to track them down again, as I can't recall the exact titles at the moment. You had best rethink your position on this point.

 

[Gnug215]

YYNJ, it's nice to get all this activity on these boards, but most of it is fairly negative, so I'm not too thrilled about it.

And before you get all paranoid, no, I'm not gonna ban or censor you or anything.

No, I'm just going to do you a big favor and tell you that you are wasting your time. You're wasting our time, too, but I think some of the people here are actually enjoying the show.

But anyway... the thing is, you don't get it. We think you are outrageously wrong with the things you're saying. And it's not just that we disagree, or have some evil, satanic notions in us that prevent us from seeing what you seem to think is divine truth. No, it's that we live in a different world from you, where all this creationism stuff makes no sense whatsoever, in any way. It goes against every scientific field that we have learned about throughout all our lives, and for you to come here with a couple of, well, what basically amounts to anecdotes and nonsense, it is simply not going to do anything whatsoever in terms of changing our minds.
And we don't want to hear about bias and conspiracies in the scientific establishment. That kind of crap is the last refuge of the desperate. There are so many different people doing science, many religious people, too, that any kind of conspiracy would be impossible, and the bias would be in all directions.

This kind of shit just won't fly with us. And you have to understand this. You have to change your approach to this if you want to convince anyone here of anything.
We don't respond to emotional appeals. We don't take anecdotes or personal testimony to be evidence of anything. We don't trust "creation scientists" who so obviously go into this with a preconceived bias. We don't fall for quote mining and selective reading of certain papers.

On a more personal level (and not wanting to get personal, but I have to say this, because it seems you've missed it), you in particular strike some of us (can't speak for everyone) as particularly disingenuous and well, emotional. If not to say unstable.

So if you want different results from your posts than what you have gotten so far, you really need to rethink things and do something differently, because what you're doing is not working. In fact, you're making things worse for you, Bob and all creationists, because of your unstable nature. We don't mind that, actually. It's part of the "entertainment". Yes, I'll admit to being affected by "group polarization" and whatnot, but the truth of the matter is that I have nothing vested in you as a person (a distancing from you as a person occurred fairly quickly, based on your behavior), so what matters to me is what you bring to the table.

And I'm sorry to say, so far you've only bought crap.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

"Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled."

Quote-mining in typical creationist fashion.

Here's the full quote:

Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. Firstly, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Secondly, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding, especially for the search for life in space.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm not his employee. I once was.

Sorry, I will rephrase that. After dealing with BobEnyart for a week and seeing how much he dodges questions, I guess I would not expect to much more from one of his former employees.

You should be careful about claiming someone dodges questions. If I post on PZ Myers site and he doesn't respond, should I claim he dodges questions?

Of course not, you are leaving comments on someone's blog. It would be unreasonable to expect someone to respond to every comment in a blog. However, this instance and someone posting on a blog are not equivalent. BobEnyart and you have actively participated in a discussion on an open forum. In a discussion, when one does not answer questions they are thought to be dodging, especially when one responds to only (the easy) bits and pieces of posts. It appears fairly obvious that you and BobEnyart are trying to not paint yourselves into a corner by only responding to miner points and dodging the tough stuff. Unlike you and BobEnyart, I have answered every question posed to me.

Where is the evidence of this? What are the assumptions? How is the layer dated?

You can check out your local natural history museum (the Denver Museum of Nature & Science) for some of the evidence. I have visited it before; it was amazing. With something like that in your backyard there is no excuse for the blatant misunderstandings you and BobEnyart have.

The same basic assumptions in any science: the universe exists and we can understand it based on repeatable experiments and observations of reality.

Radiometric dating for one.

Amazing how I am able to answer all your questions, is it not? Perhaps you will one day return the kindness.

I'm not a geologist, remember?

It is somewhat hard to forget that you are not a geologist, seeing as how much ignorance comes from your posts. In addition, I never thought you were either. However, I did think you would have at least an idea of how that fact worked into the creationist view of geology. I take it creationists just ignore this fact, like so many others that are inconvenient to their preconceived notion.

Before I cite them, please let me know what your thoughts are IF they turn out to be true.

Then you have stumbled across one of the biggest discoveries in science.

Couple things. You originally doubted that DNA could be found. Have you changed your mind?

Yes, I have changed my mind. I know this must seem amazing for you, seeing as how you and BobEnyart seem incapable of changing your minds. This is funny, because BobEnyart accused us of having the zero concession policy.

To use australopithecus' terminology: Anyone that thinks original biological material or DNA could survive for tens of millions of years is either lying or mentally ill.

So you are calling yourself mentally ill?

I have limited time to be here and don't want to waste it on pointless exercises. I'm still extremely disappointed that LoR censored Walter Remine when I jumped through the hoops to get him here. They locked the thread as soon as they found out he was coming.

Wow, this was a huge red herring and a very dishonest telling of what actually happened. Luckily, australopithecus already linked to the relevant links to debunk this fantasy of yours. Frankly, I am debating on continuing a dialog with you after seeing this blatant misrepresentation of events. It appears you truly do not care about the facts, only how you are able to spin an event in your favor. Nevertheless, what else would I expect from one of BobEnyart's former employees, we all saw him misrepresent AronRa in this thread.

Also, do not think I forgot how you are still unable to define evolution. The fact that you are still unable to do this is quite telling, especially after I did it for you a page ago. Remember, even BobEnyart agrees evolution happens based on its biological definition.

You are really reaching here. "All the discoveries of soft tissue" do not support the bird-dinosaur clade. Where's your evidence of that claim?

I guess you are right that all of them do not make this claim, the ones that have been (and were able to) be tested for this show that. Here is the evidence, funny you did not know about it, seeing as how it is one of the citations BobEnyart gave.

You also reach in claiming that dinosaur DNA would support the clade. How do you know this?

Again, this is a prediction. You asked me what I thought would happen if we discovered dinosaur DNA and I told you my prediction. This prediction is based on all the science we have to date.

The other problem is your assumption that similar genomes equal common ancestry. That's being disproven left and right.

This is another falsehood, which can be seen by anyone reading this thread. Everyone has corrected BobEnyart's spin about the New Scientist article; he has simply refused to accept those corrections.

Your position is a moving target and completely arbitrary. Is it physical characteristics that help us create the tree of life? Is it DNA? Or is it RNA? Or how about proteins? Or maybe it's fossil layers? It's whatever you want, or rather need, it to be. But the fact remains that all these different methods show contradictory evolutionary pathways. So please tell me why these methods contradict and why evolutionists are allowed to pick and choose as they please.

You are mincing ideas here. All of those (physical characteristics, DNA, RNA, proteins, and biostratigraphy) are used to make phylogenetic trees. Those trees (which are only hypotheses) are tested against each other to come up with the full picture of how life is related on earth. New evidence comes up every date to better focus that picture, but no evidence has come up to contradict the idea of phylogenetics. I think you are confusing the focusing of the picture with a contradiction of a picture. Your ignorance is not an argument.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

YesYouNeedJesus has been shown to not only be ignorant but also dishonest. The above thread link by Australopithecus clearly demonstrates that he claimed possession of a creationist scientific paper he wanted reviewed. After a LoR member took time out of their previously planned schedule in anticipation to respond to it, he then failed to display said paper. That means he is not only dishonest about this topic but displays a general behavioral dishonesty.

At some point I wonder if we are yelling at the mentally unstable. Either he lacks sanity and we are intellectually humiliating a disabled person or he is knowingly trolling. His behavior shows problems beyond just a misunderstanding of this topic.

In your opinion, is it worth me responding to YesYouNeedJesus anymore? As I pointed out in my last response, I am on the fence as to keeping my dialog with him afloat.

 

[Frenger]

In my opinion HWIN, I would carry on the conversation, but not repeat yourself. YYNJ is full to the brim of wrong information and wrong idea, but worse than that, he's full of arrogance. He is SO wrong he doesn't even realise it, but saying that, that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the right information.

I would say you can only go on so much longer. If he has genuine questions, queries whatever, then you should do your best to answer. However, if he carries on asking the same questions and trying to claw back petty points, then the conversation is over.

YYNJ - Whenever you feel like saying something, you should always first remember this quote;

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.