Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

He_Who_Is_Nobody, the problem with creationists is that they don't/won't accept the science - the only thing they'll accept is what their particular "holy" book tells them to believe.

Continue for as long as you think it's necessary to show that he is being deliberately obtuse.

YesYouNeedJesus has still not addressed a question I asked - and an offer of a discussion - about the age of the Earth and why he believes/thinks it's only 6,000 years old.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

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.

True or False? I provided a paper by Walter Remine and I also provided a paper by Russell Humphreys.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

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.

Ah yes, the morphological similarities. You may have noticed this paragraph to hwin:

"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."

Thoughts?

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.

Again, predictions are not evidence. And hwin said "ALL the discoveries of soft tissue" support the bird-dinosaur clade. All? Really? Where's the evidence that ALL the discoveries support that theory?

 

[australopithecus]

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.

True or False? I provided a paper by Walter Remine and I also provided a paper by Russell Humphreys.

You presented a paper by Remine, then when you failed to present a methodology by which Hytegia could test said paper you moved the goalposts and started bleating about magnetic fields, then posting a paper by Humphreys.

The original thread was locked because you challenged Hytegia and failed to meet the requirements. You then started whining about censorship, despite Remine's paper being publicly viewable both in the thread you started and in the Aron-Bob debate analysis thread. A thread specifically for discussion of Remine's paper was started by me, in which MGK dissected the paper and pointed out the errors contained therein. You then demanded that thread be locked without addressing any of MGK's refutations.

Now you're crying like a baby again.

That a clear enough time line of events for you?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Greetings,
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

James, you're killing me here. The full quote you provided expounds on Part A of my original quote, whereas I was emphasizing Part B. I was not quote-mining at all. Your longer quote gives 2 reasons for their uneasiness to state in public that the origin of life is a mystery. But that does not take anything away from the fact that behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled at the impossibility of such a thing.

Creationists often assume that God did certain things. But evolutionists also assume and don't like to admit it. Evolutionists assume that everything has naturalistic origins and quite often appeal to this assumption. It's impossible for Mt. Rushmore to have happened by wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time. Evolutionists freely admit this,yet they fail to admit that anyone from the age of 2 would instantly know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed. And no previous knowledge would be necessary to know this. It's obviously intelligently designed based on the impossibility to the contrary. The same goes for the origin of life.

 

[australopithecus]

James, you're killing me here. The full quote you provided expounds on Part A of my original quote, whereas I was emphasizing Part B. I was not quote-mining at all. Your longer quote gives 2 reasons for their uneasiness to state in public that the origin of life is a mystery. But that does not take anything away from the fact that behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled at the impossibility of such a thing.

Highlighted for purposes of pointing out bullshit.

You're putting words in people mouths, nobody but YOU here has stated anything about impossibility, you dishonest little child. I posted 77 separate peer reviewed papers that evidence how abiogenesis could have occurred. That doesn't scream impossibility to me, something you would have noticed if you hadn't ignored 76 of them.

Creationists often assume that God did certain things. But evolutionists also assume and don't like to admit it. Evolutionists assume that everything has naturalistic origins and quite often appeal to this assumption. It's impossible for Mt. Rushmore to have happened by wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time. Evolutionists freely admit this,yet they fail to admit that anyone from the age of 2 would instantly know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed. And no previous knowledge would be necessary to know this. It's obviously intelligently designed based on the impossibility to the contrary. The same goes for the origin of life.

One massive argument from ignorance. Dismissed as such.

 

[Inferno]

Greetings,
Quote-mining in typical creationist fashion.

Here's the full quote:

*snip*
Kindest regards,

James

James, you're killing me here. The full quote you provided expounds on Part A of my original quote, whereas I was emphasizing Part B. I was not quote-mining at all. Your longer quote gives 2 reasons for their uneasiness to state in public that the origin of life is a mystery. But that does not take anything away from the fact that behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled at the impossibility of such a thing.

Creationists often assume that God did certain things. But evolutionists also assume and don't like to admit it. Evolutionists assume that everything has naturalistic origins and quite often appeal to this assumption. It's impossible for Mt. Rushmore to have happened by wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time. Evolutionists freely admit this,yet they fail to admit that anyone from the age of 2 would instantly know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed. And no previous knowledge would be necessary to know this. It's obviously intelligently designed based on the impossibility to the contrary. The same goes for the origin of life.

I challenge you, YYNJ, to show me where it says "impossibility" in that quote. That's of course completely made up by you, you're putting words in the mouth of the author. The important part is in the last sentence: "ignorance". It's that tiny word that you overlook. They don't (completely) know yet, that's it.

The second incorrect statement is in the second paragraph. What looks designed doesn't automatically have to be designed. I tried to find the post, but I can't find it so I'll just have to rely on your ability to think. Ha, not fucking likely. OK, here's the gist:

Which of those two is designed, which is natural?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Bi-crystal.jpg

http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Samples/083.17/s11s.JPG

I can't know and neither can you.

You rely on your poor powers of deduction to assess whether something is natural or not, but rational people use a first test: Have I seen Humans produce this (or something like it) or not? If, in the case of Mt. Rushmore, we've already seen something similar, there's a great probability that it's artificial (or designed). If on the other hand we've never seen it done by human hands, like in the case of life's origins, there's a great probability that it's natural.
And what do you know, life's origins IS natural.

 

[detrean]

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.

I think one must ask themselves, what benefit is to be had? YesYouNeedJesus is clearly not going to alter his beliefs on this topic. I would guess the main goal of this discussion is to show the observer how incorrect and also uninformed he is. For those that share his beliefs on this topic it may take viewing a discussion like this to convince them they are wrong.

Their bias may blind them on this topic but outright lying about a separate topic would allow them to see his character:

"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."

That is a clear lie and the type of paper he stated that he had was never produced. One member here cancelled appointments to review it for him. He KNOWS he did not provide a testable, scientific paper as this is what he stated toward the end of the thread:

"Hytegia, I appreciate the fact that you want to do something in a lab, and so I'm giving myself a deadline of tomorrow end of day to produce a paper that you can test in a lab. I will start a new thread for it."

That thread was specifically for the paper he was supposed to produce, why would he start a new one? He instead spent time shifting the topic after he stated the above. His own dishonesty locked that thread and now he points the finger at the honest people he lied to.

This man is dishonest or mentally unstable. He is not only confused about this topic but he does not know how to treat his fellow man (gender neutral use of word) in a respectable manner. For any observer willing to look he as shown this.

Your goal with this man has been accomplished. That's my opinion.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

James, you're killing me here. The full quote you provided expounds on Part A of my original quote, whereas I was emphasizing Part B. I was not quote-mining at all. Your longer quote gives 2 reasons for their uneasiness to state in public that the origin of life is a mystery. But that does not take anything away from the fact that behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled at the impossibility of such a thing.

Your partial quote was an attempt to show that science is at a complete impasse as to how life began on Earth.

My fuller quote shows that there's more to what Davies was saying than what you want readers to infer.

As I explained to Bob earlier - here - life is an inevitable result of chemistry, given the right conditions. This is not something that puzzles scientists - despite your ridiculous claim to the contrary - it's the specific manner in which life arose on Earth that baffles them: did the vital ingredient(s) arrive from space or arise on Earth itself? What were the specific steps that led to the first single-celled organism?

The first question may remain unanswerable - the second may be answerable.

There are also a couple of things to bear in mind when reading the above quote:

1) Davies is a supporter of the Anthropic Principle;
2) The book from which this quote was taken [The Origin Of Life] was published in 2000 - things have moved on since then.

Creationists often assume that God did certain things.

Agreed...

But evolutionists also assume and don't like to admit it.

False.

Science accepts that abiogenesis is a natural explanation for the origin of life and that there's no need for any supernatural explanation or involvement.

[And I believe I can predict what you're going to say about that statement...]

Evolutionists assume that everything has naturalistic origins and quite often appeal to this assumption.

This is a reasonable assumption in science.

It's impossible for Mt. Rushmore to have happened by wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time.

Actually, that isn't the case: the right conditions could theoretically have resulted in the current shape of Mt. Rushmore, although it's highly unlikely to have occurred.

Evolutionists

Why are you unable to use the word "scientists"?

... freely admit this,yet they fail to admit that anyone from the age of 2 would instantly know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed. And no previous knowledge would be necessary to know this.

Again, that's simply not the case: we can only tell that something is designed because we've seen similar examples before - in this case, statues.

It's obviously intelligently designed based on the impossibility to the contrary.

This is false, as I already pointed out, it's theoretically possible for natural forces to have resulted in the current shape of Mt. Rushmore.

The same goes for the origin of life.

False.

Since we don't know what a undesigned universe would look like, we have nothing with which to compare it and, as a result, can't say whether it's designed or not.

And since a universe that is undesigned is a simpler explanation than one requiring a designer, it's the default position of science: naturalistic, as against super-naturalistic.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

... the right conditions could theoretically have resulted in the current shape of Mt. Rushmore, although it's highly unlikely to have occurred

... as I already pointed out, it's theoretically possible for natural forces to have resulted in the current shape of Mt. Rushmore.

I take issue with you only on this subject, the rest was superbly phrased. Although it is theoretically possible, it is not even remotely possible, to the point where we can actually call it an impossibility. It is theoretically possible for all the atoms in your right hand to jerk upwards at the same time, but that's just not going to happen. It's also theoretically possible for a beautiful woman to spontaneously assemble in my room, but that's not going to happen either.

I would also be unaware of any natural processes, even in the right conditions, that could carve Mt. Rushmore. But pray tell, which ones are you thinking of?

 

[Isotelus]

Ah yes, the morphological similarities. You may have noticed this paragraph to hwin:

"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."

Thoughts?

I found He_who_is_nobody's reply to this question to be perfectly adequate. All these things you have mentioned are used in concert and confirm each other. No picking and choosing involved.

Again, predictions are not evidence. And hwin said "ALL the discoveries of soft tissue" support the bird-dinosaur clade. All? Really? Where's the evidence that ALL the discoveries support that theory?

Again, see hwin's reply to you.

The second paper I mentioned was not a prediction. Nor is this one: link. Schweitzer again reached the same conclusions that I mentioned before. Regardless, the predictions are based off morphological evidence, which you apparently take issue with. Considering that there are a host of features that are unique to birds and theropod dinosaurs, and that the clade called Avialae shows increasing derivation throughout the fossil record that eventually leads to anatomically modern birds, I see no evidence of any contradictions.

 

[Gnug215]

Creationists often assume that God did certain things. But evolutionists also assume and don't like to admit it. Evolutionists assume that everything has naturalistic origins and quite often appeal to this assumption. It's impossible for Mt. Rushmore to have happened by wind, rain and erosion over a long period of time. Evolutionists freely admit this,yet they fail to admit that anyone from the age of 2 would instantly know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed. And no previous knowledge would be necessary to know this. It's obviously intelligently designed based on the impossibility to the contrary. The same goes for the origin of life.

YYNJ, the difference is that the "naturalists" have REALLY good basis for making the assumption that everything has naturalistic origins.

Why? Because just about everything science has discovered has (surprise!) turned out to have a natural explanation! Even all those things that were ascribed to God/gods/miracles before.
The "naturalists" realize, and rightly so, that ascribing ANY unknown process to God/gods/miracles means that you are thereby preventing yourself from finding a possible explanation hidden BEHIND any immediate sign/appearance of divinity.

"Naturalism" has a very, very good track record in terms of finding explanations to how our world works. Divinity does not.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

It's also theoretically possible for a beautiful woman to spontaneously assemble in my room, but that's not going to happen either.

On the extremely small chance that you figure this out and are able to reproduce the results........ You have to promise to share the experimental procedure........

 

[Darkprophet232]

It's also theoretically possible for a beautiful woman to spontaneously assemble in my room, but that's not going to happen either.

On the extremely small chance that you figure this out and are able to reproduce the results........ You have to promise to share the experimental procedure........

Best. Peer. Review. Evar!

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

 

[Inferno]

It's also theoretically possible for a beautiful woman to spontaneously assemble in my room, but that's not going to happen either.

On the extremely small chance that you figure this out and are able to reproduce the results........ You have to promise to share the experimental procedure........

Are you kidding me? I'd keep the results to myself and have one heck of a life!
That being said, it's more likely this will happen then me ever finding a real GF. (OK, so I quoted that from TBBT...)

The second paper I mentioned was not a prediction. Nor is this one: link.

Would need a paper citation here please, I don't have access to the library of Calgary...

 

[Isotelus]

Would need a paper citation here please, I don't have access to the library of Calgary...

Ooops. Wrong link! Fixed it. Unfortunately it's not open access.

 

[Inferno]

Would need a paper citation here please, I don't have access to the library of Calgary...

Ooops. Wrong link! Fixed it. Unfortunately it's not open access.

You forget that I have basically universal access. Thanks, I'll have it tomorrow, library is closed atm.

 

[Isotelus]

You forget that I have basically universal access. Thanks, I'll have it tomorrow, library is closed atm.

I remembered. But the rest of LoR can't access it. It's actually kind of funny, because this paper was critiqued by another scientist whose name escapes me, and they did a whole paper to rebut this one. Then Schweitzer critiqued his paper and its methodology. Her comments were actually pretty scathing.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

... the right conditions could theoretically have resulted in the current shape of Mt. Rushmore, although it's highly unlikely to have occurred

... as I already pointed out, it's theoretically possible for natural forces to have resulted in the current shape of Mt. Rushmore.

I take issue with you only on this subject, the rest was superbly phrased. Although it is theoretically possible, it is not even remotely possible, to the point where we can actually call it an impossibility. It is theoretically possible for all the atoms in your right hand to jerk upwards at the same time, but that's just not going to happen. It's also theoretically possible for a beautiful woman to spontaneously assemble in my room, but that's not going to happen either.

I would also be unaware of any natural processes, even in the right conditions, that could carve Mt. Rushmore. But pray tell, which ones are you thinking of?

Just being pedantic - of course, there's a difference between being logically and physically impossible (not to mention technologically impossible).

My points are logically possible - even physically (scientifically) possible - just that they're, as we appear to agree, highly improbable.

However, having queried my definition of "possible", you then apply similarly loose definitions in your response to CommonEnlightenment:

Are you kidding me? I'd keep the results to myself and have one heck of a life!
That being said, it's more likely this will happen then me ever finding a real GF. (OK, so I quoted that from TBBT...)

Kindest regards,

James