Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[Isotelus]

Now as for the rest: I already explained why it would be a pointless exercise to destroy the fossils. But on a whim, I'll indulge your fantasies. Which "dino soft tissue" has been tested with C14? And why assume there must be an alternate explanation?
Yes, you are crazy. Is that blunt enough for you?

Hopefully this answers that question in particular. Bob stated this in his first post: "And of course tests so far show that there's plenty of Carbon-14 in these dinosaur specimens", and linked to his webpage. The only fossil he lists as being tested is the Mosasaur, which isn't a dinosaur, but whatever. The paper in question said it found "exceedingly small amounts" of C14, and was attributed to bacterial activity on the outer surface of the bone. They amplified one bacterial DNA sequence in addition to finding colonies within the cortex of the main shaft (diaphysis).

 

[Inferno]

Now as for the rest: I already explained why it would be a pointless exercise to destroy the fossils. But on a whim, I'll indulge your fantasies. Which "dino soft tissue" has been tested with C14? And why assume there must be an alternate explanation?
Yes, you are crazy. Is that blunt enough for you?

Hopefully this answers that question in particular. Bob stated this in his first post: "And of course tests so far show that there's plenty of Carbon-14 in these dinosaur specimens", and linked to his webpage. The only fossil he lists as being tested is the Mosasaur, which isn't a dinosaur, but whatever. The paper in question said it found "exceedingly small amounts" of C14, and was attributed to bacterial activity on the outer surface of the bone. They amplified one bacterial DNA sequence in addition to finding colonies within the cortex of the main shaft (diaphysis).

Excellent clarification, thanks!

 

[Isotelus]

No, I'm not proving your point, you're proving my point that you can't read a scientific paper.
I DIDN'T assume. I read the actual paper and checked what Schweitzer et al. said: "The relatively high carbon content of these vessels may fit this definition, but vessel carbon is reduced relative to extant material..."

I'll add to this as well. Schweitzer was ruling out the presence of kerogen, and opting for lipids instead. Nothing is actually said about carbon isotopes, let alone C14. I think what she's referring to here is simply the chemical composition of lipids, i.e. a bunch of carbon-hydrogen bonds.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I pointed this out back in February:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Finding C14 in a fossil is nothing special, it happens all the time in the Morrison Formation. C14 can be created from Nitrogen found in the fossil being irradiated by Uranium or other radioactive materials in the ground. Thus finding C14 in a dinosaur fossil does not prove it is young. This process is so well known that Talk.Origins handles it twice for two different claims (CD011.5 and CD011.6). YesYouNeedJesus, did you even know that C14 can be created from radioactive elements in the ground and that it does not always have to come from the atmosphere? I bet you did not and that is why you think it would come to your rescue.

YesYouNeedJesus went on to expose his ignorance of Carbon-14 and how it is formed, which led to this response:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"] :lol:

First off, this is why people laugh at creationists. I would ask for a citation for this claim, but I already know that your basic understanding of how Carbon-14 is formed is flawed. Thus, the citation you are using is bunk. Carbon-14 does not come from Carbon-13, Carbon-13 is another isotope of Carbon, but it is stable. Carbon-14 is formed from Nitrogen-14. Amazing how someone so ignorant of science attempts to talk down to someone that actually knows something about science. The hubris of it all.

Again, all this happened back in February. This is beside the point that YesYouNeedJesus has been corrected about the soft tissue claim several times, yet he still clings to the fallacious argument that scientists have found soft tissue in a T. rex.

YesYouNeedJesus, I do not understand how you can sit there and claim you love to learn and are willing to change your mind when all the evidence points contrary to that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I thought about this while I was at work today. Why is YesYouNeedJesus harping on about Patterson's paper, which dates the age of the earth and solar system, when we are talking about a T. rex fossil, which comes from the Cretaceous? The radiometric dating methods are not the same. If YesYouNeedJesus actually found a flaw in Patterson's early work (which there was, however it was later corrected), it would make no difference to the dating of the T. rex fossil in question.

One last thing, does anyone else get the feeling BobEnyart is getting his information about fossilization from a Futurama episode? Seems that way if YesYouNeedJesus' understanding can be used as a gauge.

 

[Frenger]

One last thing, does anyone else get the feeling BobEnyart is getting his information about fossilization from a Futurama episode? Seems that way if YesYouNeedJesus' understanding can be used as a gauge.

Either that or the flintstones, assuming people and dinosaurs used to live in harmony mixing cement in a pelicans beak.

 

[Inferno]

I thought about this while I was at work today. Why is YesYouNeedJesus harping on about Patterson's paper, which dates the age of the earth and solar system, when we are talking about a T. rex fossil, which comes from the Cretaceous? The radiometric dating methods are not the same. If YesYouNeedJesus actually found a flaw in Patterson's early work (which there was, however it was later corrected), it would make no difference to the dating of the T. rex fossil in question.

One last thing, does anyone else get the feeling BobEnyart is getting his information about fossilization from a Futurama episode? Seems that way if YesYouNeedJesus' understanding can be used as a gauge.

I think the point is to show that no manner of dating, be it C14, K-Ar or Ar-Ar, works. If he can show but one of them to be in error, then we must admit to the possibility that the fossil is not as old as we think it is.
That's why he insists we try to date the T. rex fossil using the C14 method: Because it will invariably yield bogus results and we would have to re-think the dating methods.

YYNJ's problem? We're too smart to fall for bad science masquerading as logic. We know the science too well.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Devastating.

 

[australopithecus]

The only devastating thing here is that people actually take you and Bob seriously, and the impact that will have on the education of coming generations. Though now you can drop the Salacious Crumb act.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Devastating.

Devastating indeed"¦ for BobEnyart.

I am writing up a full rebuttal to BobEnyart's last debate post, but I feel this needed to be addressed now.

Aron brought up this topic on air as an example to my audience of how they can't trust what creationists say. He rejected my defense that the remains of millions of mammoths are known in the northern latitudes, saying, "there were 51 mammoths, not millions." He said that if we were having a written debate, we could actually document the evidence, so that the readers would know who was reliable. So, now that we are in that debate, it would have been nice of Aron to acknowledge that he was wrong about the number of mammoths. But instead, he dropped that error of his, and pressed these other disagreements:

Wow! This is BobEnyart's most blatant dishonesty yet. As can be seen in the original thread, BobEnyart misrepresented this whole exchange. It appears AronRa is correct when he said, they can't trust what creationists say. BobEnyart, I thought your holy book prohibited lying?

Aron: "I found that there were 51 mammoths, not millions. And that none of them, not one, was found with tropical flora in their mouths"¦ so when you look into the data, if this were a written discussion"¦"

BE: "I've got the data. The tonnage of mammoth tusks, that were sold on the worldwide market, indicate that there were millions of mammoths that were buried in Siberia, and at the Arctic Circle, and north of the Arctic Circle. And there were mammoths that had the seeds of tropical plants, the seeds, in their digestive track."

Aron: Wrong.

Enyart: We'll, I could give you the data.

Aron: I challenge you.

Enyart: Do you thing I'm wrong"¦

Aron: Yeah I do.

Enyart: "¦about [there being] over a million mammoths buried.

Aron: Yeah. Yeah, I definitely do. And it's a formal challenge.

Enyart: How about a $500 bet to your favorite charity, that the documentation shows that over a million mammoths have been buried?

Aron: With tropical flora in their mouths?

Enyart: No, no. There was just one like that.

So here is the documentation I promised:

New York Times: Trade in mammoth ivory"¦ flourishes, "The Siberian permafrost blankets millions of square kilometers"¦ Hidden in one of the upper layers of this mass, corresponding to the Pleistocene epoch, are the remains of an estimated 150 million mammoths. Some are frozen whole, as if in suspended animation, others in bits and pieces of bone, tusk, tissue and wool." Aron, this information had been in the Mammoth article on Wikipedia until I linked to it for our radio program, and then within 24 hours, one of our atheist RSF fans removed it. That's not a unique phenomenon.

Smithsonian publication: Frozen Mammoths from Siberia Bring the Ice Ages to Vivid Life, "Nikolai Vereshchagin, Chairman of the Russian Academy of Science's Committee for the Study of Mammoths, estimated that more than half a million tons of mammoth tusks were buried along a 600-mile stretch of the Arctic coast. Because the typical tusk weighs 100 pounds, this implies that about 5 million mammoths lived in this small region." (quoted by Walt Brown, p. 68)

Creationists are excited about this data. But the hard scientific data that atheists prefer to ignore (just Google this stuff) includes millions of mammoths buried in permafrost, 14C everywhere, Grand Canyon nautiloids, and dinosaur soft tissue!

Dr. Walt Brown's map along with his Table 8 presents the locations and documentation for each of the 58 sites shown where frozen mammoth and rhinoceros remains have been discovered.

[picture snipped]

Just like 14C in diamonds, and tissue in dinosaurs, if you want to find buried mammoths in permafrost all you have to do is just go look.

It is cute that BobEnyart thinks his radio show has enough sway that it would cause atheists to edit Wikipedia. However, what would have been the point? It is not as if AronRa disagreed with that in the first place. Now here was the actual disagreement AronRa had with BobEnyart:

AronRa[/url]"]This is the advantage of a written discussion with internet access. In moments, I can look up all your awkward assertions and strange interpretations and find out for certain how accurate they aren't. You miss detail like no one I've ever seen! That's why it's important that the next portion of our discussion should be transcripted. This part begins at 15:15.

Here's the way science works, because accuracy matters: When you have two guys like us and we're talking, -and it's always been this way with me- I mean, when people say "you know, they found this or that or the other thing and, it's been since like I was a little kid, I keep hearing the story of like, say for example millions of mammoths flash-frozen with tropical flora in their mouths. And then eventually, when you get to a point where you have access to the internet for example, you can start looking up these things to verify who 'they' are, and how many mammoths they really found, etc. etc. I found that there were fifty-one mammoths, not millions, and that none of them, not one was found with tropical flora in their mouths unless a tulip from Denmark can be considered 'tropical'.
OK I actually have the data. I've got the data. The tonnage of mammoth tusks that were sold on the world-wide market indicate that there were millions of mammoths that were buried in Siberia and at the Arctic circle and north of the Arctic circle, and there were mammoths that had the seeds of tropical plants, the seeds, in thier digestive tract.
Wrong.
Well I could give you the data.
I challenge you.
Hey, you think I'm wrong...?
Yeah I do.
...about over a million mammoths buried?
Yeah, I definitely do, and yes, it's a formal challenge.
How about we have a bet? Five hundred dollar bet to your favorite charity -or mine- that the documentation shows that over a million mammoths have been buried?
With tropical flora?
No, no, there was one of that.
...in their mouths?
There was one of that. There was one of that.
Tropical?!
Yeah, tropical.

We then argued the definition of 'tropical' -just to be clear, and I clarified again:

OK so you're gonna tell me that you found, or that somebody found multiple millions of mammoths in the Arctic circle and that ANY of these mammoths were found with flora in thier mouths that are only found in tropical regions?
Yeah, I just said that one mammoth was found with seeds of tropical vegetation.

You made a couple other comments that I will address below, and then I made the formal challenge which resulted in the posts you're reading now.

Now I was only able to find where fifty-one was the number of frozen mammoths, all of whom had been injured, partially dessicated or eaten prior to thier being frozen, all of them. not one flash-frozen. Not one. And yet the claim was that there were millions of them, and the claim was that had tropical flora in their mouths. No.

At that point, you conceded that I was right about the number of frozen mammoths being 'dozens only', and we both agreed that there were millions more buried mammoths that were not frozen. Yet I still challenged you to show your data. Did you think I wanted you to prove the point we both already agreed on? So what remains a point of contention? Could it be that you missed the point you were supposed to prove?

On your website, you claim to have met my challenge with a reference to Wikipedia and your notice that pseudoscience charlatan, Walt Brown read an article in the Smithsonian. Both citations only mention millions of mammoths buried in bits and bones and tusks all over the Siberian tundra. But at 18:30 in our conversation, we both agreed on that point. Can you review our conversation and maybe figure out what point your data was supposed to prove?

We've all heard the stories of how "millions of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths." What is the truth, what is the solution?

I mentioned to you how, -in the days before the web, I would often hear these stories, and I have to give the benefit of the doubt, having no way to investigate any of it. Now that we can Google anything in a moment, the situation has changed. Now we can find out what a lie that is way too fast. That's why AnswersinGenesis lists that as one of many arguments creationists should not use anymore. Amazingly you're still trying to defend it.

Now if you want to argue that there is an area of a few million square miles where vast herds of mammoths have lived and died over a period of several thousand years, and that the bones and tusks of many generations are buried along vast stretches of old rivers and hundreds of miles of arctic coastlines, OK. I have no problem with that. I don't doubt that more than a million mammoths have lived all over the Asian tundra for many mellenia. But if you're talking about a single cache of a million mammoths all together, as if they all lived and died in the same place at the same time, that's another matter, and not the point we were arguing. However the point is that there were never any mammoths that were walking around grazing happily and were suddenly 'flash-frozen' the way they showed on 'the Day After Tomorrow'. That's some of the incredulous part of that story.

You could argue that some mammoths were found in an upright position, and we can see the reasons why, being how they got stuck in bogs or fell through the ice or whatever. You could make some excuse for that, but the next part of the claim is just a flat-out lie with no honest defense whatsoever.

The tonnage of mammoth tusks that were sold on the world-wide market indicate that there were millions of mammoths that were buried in Siberia at the Arctic circle and north of the Arctic circle, and there were mammoths that had the seeds of tropical plants, the seeds, in thier digestic tract.

No sir. None of these mammoths ever had tropical plants anywhere near them.

"....we must first establish the facts, checking the original sources, we find that no more than several dozen mammoths have been found frozen or partially frozen. It is true that tens of thousands of mammoth bones are found, and mammoth ivory has been mined commercially in some places, but those were not quick-frozen. These bones are found in the frozen tundra (or frozen soil below the surface), and are not found in the thick sequences (ten thousand feet thick in places) of sedimentary rock lying stratigraphically below the frozen soil. The frozen parts, are, with few exceptions, found in the frozen banks of modern rivers, usually in small lenses within the larger tundra layer. Some specimens seem to have drowned after breaking through ice covering a river.
Furthermore, the stomach contents and unswallowed food (actually caught between the teeth) are that of a mountain meadow, not unlike that of alpine regions today. The frozen meat itself, while wolves and sled dogs have been known to sample it on occasion, is usually somewhat rancid, not quick frozen and ready to be sold."
-Institute for Creation Research

Mammoths cannot live in the arctic circle. They can't get 200 gallons of liquid water a day. They can't get all the tonage of vegitation they need. They can't live there. That's a mystery that I think I understand that you don't.

One of the many aspects of this which I understand,and you obviously do not- is that there were still mammoths living in the arctic in 1,700 BCE.

"....The woolly mammoth was covered with three types of hair: (1) the outer guard hairs that were coarse and just over 3 feet (90 cm) long, (2) an underfur that was thinner and about 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 cm) long, and (3) below the underfur a thick layer of wool that was around 1 to 3 inches (2 to 8 cm) long.4 A full-grown mammoth tooth is over a foot long and has a series of parallel enamel ridges. The long hair, small ears, and tiny tail are probably adaptations to a cold climate."
-AnswersInGenesis

So not even AiG agrees with you, and the ICR obviously doesn't either, and neither do the real science sources they both cite:

"Mammuthus (Elephas) primigenius appears to have been a species adapted for extreme cold and tundra conditions, as shown by its smaller size and broad four-toed feet for marshy terrain and by a further decrease in the size of dental plates and the thickness of enamel layers. It seems, furthermore, to represent a dead-end evolutionary development.
The habitalt of the woolly mammoth is indicated clearly by it physical appearance and food habits, as deternmined from the frozen carcasses and associated fossils. Long hair, thick wool, and a heavy layer of fat definitelv indicate a cold climate. Stomach contents (1, 2, 6, 14) reveal an abundance of grasses, sedges, and other boreal meadow and tundra plants, along with a few twigs. cones, and pollen of high-boreal and tundra trees. In general, this floral assemblage is "richer, somewhat warmer and probably also moister" than the present flora of the tundra in which frozen mammoth carcasses are now found (14). Quackenbush (15) found "large trees" associated with fossil mammoth in a now-treeless part of Alaska and also came to the conclusion that the climate was somewhat milder when the mamnmoths lived. The flora of deposits enclosing frozen mammoth carcasses is similar to that of the stotmach contents (Table 1). Furthermore, the healthy and robust condition of the frozen cadavers (2, p. 49) indicaites that the mammoths fared well on such a diet."
Soergel strongly emphasizes the effect of seasonal migrations on the faunal assemblages of central Europe, and he points out (17) that woolly mammoths occur only in glacial or transitional (glacial/interglacial) faunas and not in high-interglacial assemblages. Mammoth are very abundant and have been collected by ivory hunters for centuries. Digby (1, p. 169) describes a single cache of more than 1,000 tusks which he examined in Yakutsk, and Flint (12, p. 470) mentions some 50,000 tusks from Siberia alone. The obvious conclusion is that the frozen mammoths were members of a populous race located in Siberia (and elsewhere) and not occasional strays who happened to migrate beyond their normal range. And, contrary to some popular accounts, the figures cited above do not support the conclusion (3, p. 82) that "absolutely countless numbers" of woolly mammoths were frozen and that "many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole, and undamaged...."
-Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology, Farrand, W.

You see now BobEnyart, if you had taken the time to read the original thread, you would not look this stupid right now. There is so much egg on your face. Look at all the effort you put into something AronRa did not say. If there was ever an example of how poor a scholar you are, this is definitely it. The actual disagreement AronRa had with you was gift rapped for you and delivered in December and you could not be bothered to look at a single bit of it. Tisk tisk BobEnyart, that is just shameful and flat out pathetic.

 

[Inferno]

Devastating? Yes, but not in the way you would have it.

It truly is devastating (to ones credibility) if one only corrects a claim - namely Mendel being a creationist - four and a half months after it has last been discussed. This should have taken all of two minutes to research but nooooo, apparently it takes that long.

It truly is devastating if one makes the ridiculous claim that "atheists themselves comprise only two-hundredths of one percent of 230 million U.S. adults if we calculate using one count of atheists, namely, the membership of Michael Shermer's Skeptics Society", even if it is only to prove a point.
I even addressed that point as far back as February seventh!

It also is devastating if one suggests that Aron's 1st FFoC is unsubstantiated. I'll grant you that his earlier videos were rather poorly sourced and an updated version would be welcome, but if you'd take the time to actually look up the whole thing, you'd find the following:

Aron's 12th FFoC, to name but a first example, shows a clip of Ken Ham, the very person mentioned in Aron's 1st FFoC. From 05:06-05:11, he says the following:

"We don't believe in evolution. Evolution is an idea some people have to explain life without God."

A second, yet more disguised, version of this comes up in the very same video at 08:27-08:41. This quote is by some unknown (at least to me) creationist preacher:

"So this is a war of the world views,
and all science is creation science.
Would you agree with that this evening?
All science is___? Creation science.
All truth is ___? God's truth!
And certainly science is the search for ___? Truth!"

By defining science and truth the way he does, the only available option is to define evolution as atheistic, because evolution is not creation science -> is not science -> is not truth -> is not God's truth = atheistic.

I also distinctly remember Ken Ham saying "So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?", though I am currently unable to find that particular clip.

To further drive home my point (that you, Bob, are a lousy researcher):

Morris[/url]"]The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought.

But that's not true, so Morris must have made it up to further his own goals.

There are undoubtedly many others, but this should suffice to prove that what Aron said was right, even though I admit it was sparsely sourced in the beginning.

AronRa Confused About His Own 1st Foundational Falsehood

I've certainly never heard Aron make that claim nor conflate the two, so I must ask you to back up your claim with a quote of some kind. Your related story, about pot, is, as far as I can tell, completely unrelated.

Positive Evidence Contradicting AronRa's 1st Foundational Falsehood

Note that your articles are both more recent (thus not in conflict with Aron's claim that "[t]hat's been their central claim since the creationism movement began") and in contradiction with the examples I provided. One might almost get the idea that creationists will lie in order to achieve their goals!

I won't deal with the "soft tissue" claim because it's already been dealt with ad nauseam, but I will challenge you on another thing, Bob:

This is a Lawrence Krauss type error, when Krauss overstated the evidence and told me that, "All scientists are evolutionists." Many scientists, who use the scientific method, including the hundreds of members of CRS, like Cornell University's famed geneticist Dr. John Sanford, are biblical creationists. So Aron's claim is a non sequitur.

I don't know where Krauss made that statement, but he was certainly correct.
You might have creationists with scientific credentials, but that doesn't make them scientists. For example, I don't (yet) have any scientific credentials (as in a Bachelor, Masters, or Ph.D.) but I am without doubt a scientist, in the sense that I am engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge.
The reverse is true of creationists: They have the credentials, but they abandon the rigorous path of science in favour of magic.

So if one (accurately) defines a scientist as I did above, then creationists (and homeopathers, and astrologers, etc.) can never be considered scientists, even though they certainly would be according to for example Behe's definition of science.

Regarding Aron's mention of THE SYNTHESIS (and other unknown words)

You make one mistake here and fail to understand a concept. I'll start with the concept:
Terms like "evolutionist", "Darwinist" and/or "neo-Darwinist" have no meaning. For example, do I call you or anyone else a Gravitationist, just because you accept the theory of Gravity? No, of course not, what a silly idea.
That's why you'll find so many of these people baffled by your terms. The terms you use are supposed to be (not straightforward derogatory, yet still) belittling the ideas behind them, just like "Big Bang" was once used in that way.

The actual mistake you make is here:

- What's panspermia? [He said he never heard of a scientist suggesting that life might have come from space, even though it's been discussed from its proposal by the co-discoverer of DNA to recently when his friend Richard Dawkins suggested it in Ben Stein's movie Expelled.]

You DO realize that Ben Stein's movie cut and pasted things together that had no relation to one another and thus made it seem as if Richard Dawkins had said that? Potholer54 gives an incredibly precise analysis of that in his latest Golden Crocoduck nominees (2012) video.

I just realized we're now getting into "soft tissue" again, so I'll stop. If after nearly nine months you can't accept that you're wrong on that, one post by me won't change anything.

Devastating, Bob, truly devastating. But not the way you imagined it to be.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

You see now BobEnyart, if you had taken the time to read the original thread, you would not look this stupid right now.

The problem you have is that you think there's an "original thread". Bob never read Aron's 30-page thesis. In case you missed it, here's what Bob said in his last post:

Second, at the end of our on-air debate, in Part 7, from 26:15, 27:45 we agreed to a "5 or 10 round written debate" on LoR, of which you said, "I just want to ask two or three questions each round," and that we would begin in "January at some point." For some reason, you've been claiming that somehow bound me to reply to the 30-pages worth of mostly text that you posted on LoR in December, with your 18,000-word analysis of our entire on-air debate. That's "two or three questions per round"? I've heard of an "opening post", but never what you refer to as an, "opening thread". Have you ever heard of a debate starting:
- before it's agreed upon time
- without informing your opponent
- with an 18,000-word, 30-page thesis?

I haven't heard of such a thing. So instead, as in the manner of debates, we offered, and you accepted, to begin this debate in January, in this thread, and you've been complaining about this, probably dozens of times, to PZ Myers, on your blog, here, and everywhere. I'm confused about all that.

Bob not only transcribes the parts in the debate he's talking about, he also includes links to the audio itself. Let me know if you find any dishonesty and I'll be the first to cry foul.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

1. Did Aron deny that millions of mammoths are buried in the Arctic?
2. Does the evidence show that millions of mammoths exist in the Arctic?

 

[australopithecus]

1. Did Aron deny that millions of mammoths are buried in the Arctic?
2. Does the evidence show that millions of mammoths exist in the Arctic?

Bob said that the number of tusks found indicated millions of mammoths were burried, which Aron disputed. So in answer to 2, Bob provided no evidence to that effect. The abundance of tusks does not indicate millions of burried mammoths. It indicates a lot of mammoths existed, but to claim it implies millions are burried in the arctic is flawed reasoning.

I've found hundreds of bits of broken cups and plates in many gardens of the houses I've lived it. They do no indicate a large number of cups and plates are burried.

Perhaps you'd be better suited to telling Bob to get his story straight. The flash frozen mammoths with tropical flora went from plural to singular in the space of a few sentences. Wish I could peddle backwards too.

 

[Inferno]

1. Did Aron deny that millions of mammoths are buried in the Arctic?
2. Does the evidence show that millions of mammoths exist in the Arctic?

1) Yes.
2) Past tense, there are none now. Though that is possible, that was not the question asked, so do not twist it. The question was
"2. Does the evidence show that millions of mammoths were buried in the Arctic?", to which the answer is "No".

So AronRa is still correct... and Bob Enyart is still as wrong as can be.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You see now BobEnyart, if you had taken the time to read the original thread, you would not look this stupid right now.

The problem you have is that you think there's an "original thread". Bob never read Aron's 30-page thesis. In case you missed it, here's what Bob said in his last post:

Wait, what? Yes, there is an original thread; I am linking to it right now. Just because BobEnyart and you are now refusing to acknowledge it does not make it go away. YesYouNeedJesus, you wrote in it, and BobEnyart quoted a section of it and also linked to it, where AronRa made a prediction that came true.

Furthermore, I did not miss that section of BobEnyart's latest post, I wrote up a response last night, which I will supplement and share now.

Second, at the end of our on-air debate, in Part 7, from 26:15, 27:45 we agreed to a "5 or 10 round written debate" on LoR, of which you said, "I just want to ask two or three questions each round," and that we would begin in "January at some point." For some reason, you've been claiming that somehow bound me to reply to the 30-pages worth of mostly text that you posted on LoR in December, with your 18,000-word analysis of our entire on-air debate. That's "two or three questions per round"? I've heard of an "opening post", but never what you refer to as an, "opening thread". Have you ever heard of a debate starting:
- before it's agreed upon time
- without informing your opponent
- with an 18,000-word, 30-page thesis?

I haven't heard of such a thing. So instead, as in the manner of debates, we offered, and you accepted, to begin this debate in January, in this thread, and you've been complaining about this, probably dozens of times, to PZ Myers, on your blog, here, and everywhere. I'm confused about all that.

It seems that there must have been much confusion about how the debate was going to happen and when it was going to start because AronRa said this in the original debate post:

AronRa[/url]"]As is often the case in any live discussion of this topic, both sides may cite points in their favor which the other side is unable to examine or verify on the fly, and neither of us should get away with making indefensible assertions just to sound right on radio. Accuracy and accountability matter more. That is why Enyart and I agreed at the end that we would have a written debate in this forum pertaining to the points raised live on the air. We both made several claims relating to scientific research, and we both accused the other of being unread, out-of-date, or of misinterpreting or misrepresenting that data. Now we have time to re-examine each of the specific points made on that show, and show how accurate those arguments really were. We should not introduce any new topics here. Enyart has been doing this a long time; so have I. So I have no desire to refute a perpetual arsenal of assertions from what I see as an endless source of pseudoscience, yet never see any concession of the many errors made. Instead I want to whittle down the points previously raised, and answer the challenges already levied. It is time to find out who was really right about what.

AronRa then went on to state this in his opening debate post:

AronRa[/url]"]Although I will be happy to debate phylogeny after the primary points here are settled, this debate is not about that. That was the topic of a live discussion between creationist pastor Bob Enyart and myself of his radio talk show, "Real" Science Friday. The debate here in this forum however is over the academic accuracy of the claims made by both sides during that show. Of course that means the first post logically must contain a summary of each of the contested points, which it did. Yet I am accused of having begun this discussion 'before' it began -by posting when I was supposed to. I was also criticized for having listed all of Bob's errors appropriately,as if it is my fault that he made so many blunders after four hours of false accusations, erroneous assertions, quote-mining, and distorting data. It was a thankless job having to transcribe the whole seven part interview, only to have all of it summarily ignored. Rather than properly address any of the challenges or queries in the thread already created for this purpose, Bob chose to create a whole new thread so that he could pretend to have posted first,and so that he can try to change the subject -while making me re-post all the evidence and arguments previously presented in a more coherent format.

Thus, it seems obvious that the details of the debate were not as worked out as BobEnyart or AronRa thought. AronRa thought it started in December, BobEnyart thought it started in January, AronRa thought a summery of all the mistakes was needed, and BobEnyart seemed to think one was not needed. More time should have been taken to hammer out the details perhaps. Than we might not have had a mislabeled debate (thanks to YesYouNeedJesus), out right denial and refusal to read rebuttals written up about the on air discussion, and egg on BobEnyart's face for thinking AronRa disputed a large number of mammoths being found in the artic, just to name a few examples of confusion.

Bob not only transcribes the parts in the debate he's talking about, he also includes links to the audio itself. Let me know if you find any dishonesty and I'll be the first to cry foul.

Well, there seems to be dishonesty just in BobEnyart's transcribing. If you had taken the time to read the section I quoted from AronRa's original thread, you would have read that AronRa also transcribed that section, and then some. In the sections that they both transcribed, it appears AronRa's is far superior.

1. Did Aron deny that millions of mammoths are buried in the Arctic?

No. It sounds like that in the audio and the transcripts, which is why AronRa's transcript goes further to point out the clarification made. AronRa was only disputing that mammoths were found with tropical vegetation in or around them.

2. Does the evidence show that millions of mammoths exist in the Arctic?

Yes, it does, but this was never in dispute. If you had taken the time to read the section I quoted, you also would not have egg on your face like BobEnyart. It is amazing how repulsed you and BobEnyart are by the original thread. You will not even take the time to read it when it is quoted in the debate or peanut gallery.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Bob said that the number of tusks found indicated millions of mammoths were burried, which Aron disputed. So in answer to 2, Bob provided no evidence to that effect. The abundance of tusks does not indicate millions of burried mammoths. It indicates a lot of mammoths existed, but to claim it implies millions are burried in the arctic is flawed reasoning.

[Snipped]

Perhaps you'd be better suited to telling Bob to get his story straight. The flash frozen mammoths with tropical flora went from plural to singular in the space of a few sentences. Wish I could peddle backwards too.

The amount of buried mammoths was never in dispute. Go back and read the section I quoted from AronRa. There are probably millions of mammoths buried in and around the arctic, which was never in dispute. The dispute came from BobEnyart claiming mammoths were frozen with tropical flora found in or around them.

1) Yes.
2) Past tense, there are none now. Though that is possible, that was not the question asked, so do not twist it. The question was
"2. Does the evidence show that millions of mammoths were buried in the Arctic?", to which the answer is "No".

So AronRa is still correct... and Bob Enyart is still as wrong as can be.

The evidence does show that. Again, read the section I quoted. This is not in dispute. The dispute was whether the mammoths were frozen with tropical flora in or around them.

 

[australopithecus]

For the record, I'm not denying that there are millions of mammoths burried in the arctic (given their success and how relatively recent their extinction). What I'm saying is that to imply those numbers and location based on the fact many tusks are found is weak. There are better ways to imply or evidence that claim.

 

[Isotelus]

May as well settle this silly tropical plants and mammoths nonsense once and for all.

Geophysical Research Letters: "[Canada's Ellesmere Island, well inside the Arctic Circle, was] warm enough throughout the year to sustain palm trees and other tropical flora and fauna." Daniel B. Kirk-Davidoff et al., "On the Feedback of Stratospheric Clouds on Polar Climate", Vol. 29, 15 June 2002, p. 51.

Funny. Clearly Bob did not read the paper, because here's the actual quote from the article (which is public access, by the way): "Northern hemisphere continental interiors were warm enough throughout the year to sustain palm trees and other tropical flora and fauna, as were far northern land regions such as Ellesmere Island." This information was cited from another paper, (Zachos et al., 1994).

So if misquoting isn't bad enough, here's the first sentence from the paper: "Past climates, such as the Eocene (55 - 38 Ma) , experienced dramatically warmer polar winters."
Emphasis mine. This is a paper about Eocene paleoclimate, yet here you are talking about Woolly Mammoths, which are a Pleistocene animal, and are obviously not found in association with Eocene sediments.

Natural History: "On eastern Axel Heiberg Island [in the Arctic Circle in Canada], ... fossil forests are found. ... just 680 milesfrom the North Pole. The stumps of ancient trees are still rooted in the soil and leaf litter where they once grew. ... many trees reaching more than a hundred feet in height." Jane E. Francis, "Arctic Eden,", Vol. 100, January 1991, pp. 57-58.

Not only is this not a peer-reviewed source, but the forests on Axel Heiberg are also from the Eocene. Again, the remains of warm climate fauna and mammoths represent completely different time frames.

This is unrelated, but I felt compelled to comment on it.

When they get specific, their "evidence" is short-lived, because they get burned, like when they claimed that Tiktaalik evolved into four-legged creatures, until the Poland right-left-right-left trackways that predated Tiktaalik by 18 million years ended the reign of yet another missing link. So, classical Darwinists wanted to identify actual ancestors, but spent over 100 years fumbling and contradicting one another.

Gross misunderstanding of paraphyly and Gould's statements aside, Tiktaalik was never claimed to have given rise to tetrapods, not even in the scientific articles that published on it. The possibility that more derived animals predated Tiktaalik does nothing to diminish it's evolutionary importance; rather, this shows it's a late-surviving example of the primitive state (which is commonplace), and that transitional species, ancestral species, and evolutionary theory in general is a foreign concept to Bob.

So, even during this debate, the ranks of Soft Tissue Deniers are diminishing (even here on LoR) , and increasing numbers of evolutionists are joining us creationists in acknowledging the greatest paleontological discovery in a century!

...Since when?

 

[scalyblue]

From "t-rex soft tissue" to woolly mammoths and now baraminology? As much as I can expect from somebody who boycotts a starbucks by buying coffee from them.