Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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!

This quote is not for us.
It's for his listeners whom he will link to the post to read.

Like I said before:
Truth is irrelevant to liars, fools, and sinners.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It seems that Aron was right: whatever happens in a debate with creationists, they'll spin it to show that they won.

One can understand why Prof. Dawkins won't debate them.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Frenger]

So Bob, you do realise you lost that debate right?

 

[australopithecus]

Of course he doesn't, because in his mind he won before the debate started. Seeing as he and Will are still whining about soft tissue despite having Aron, and quite a few people here explaining why Bob and Will don't understand what they're talking about, it's painfully obvious that Bob is happy to keep asserting misinformation, be it deliberately or Dunning-Kruger. I know Bob reads this thread so he has no excuse for peddling nonsense he's already been corrected on.

As for "soft tissue deniers" converting in the ranks of our members, perhaps Bob can point them out to us?

Another thing:

One day, Dawkins will join Dobzhansky and Darwin in their current realization that it was all wrong. Yet for him, and PZ, and AronRa, there is still hope. And I pray for them.

There aren't enough palms or faces.

 

[Serkazong]

So Bob, you do realise you lost that debate right?

Hahahahahahahahahaha, good one.

 

[Serkazong]

Of course he doesn't, because in his mind he won before the debate started. Seeing as he and Will are still whining about soft tissue despite having Aron, and quite a few people here explaining why Bob and Will don't understand what they're talking about, it's painfully obvious that Bob is happy to keep asserting misinformation, be it deliberately or Dunning-Kruger. I know Bob reads this thread so he has no excuse for peddling nonsense he's already been corrected on.

And vice versa.

 

[Frenger]

So Bob, you do realise you lost that debate right?

Hahahahahahahahahaha, good one.

Sorry, does that mean "good one" he won't acknowledge or "good one" Bob won. If it's the latter I think you may have to offer a little bit more than just "good one".

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

And vice versa.

Call me Nostradamus -
but I'm going to say that Bobby has a forum for his show, and on that forum he declared victory and linked to the two threads.

Brace yourselves, lads.

 

[Frenger]

Something tells me you're right. Consider me braced and ready.

 

[australopithecus]

He does. TheologyOnline. Where do you think the likes of Stripe came from when the debate started? One more scientifically illiterate Enyart fanboy noob changes nothing. Bob was called on his nonsense and had no valid rebuttal.

This new guy will post for a while, evidence suggests childishly and without any valid input, then he'll get bored and leave. True story.

 

[australopithecus]

So Bob, you do realise you lost that debate right?

Hahahahahahahahahaha, good one.

How about you learn the lesson your TOL buddy Stripe didn't; post constructively or don't post at all. Think you can manage that?

 

[Frenger]

So Bob, you do realise you lost that debate right?

Hahahahahahahahahaha, good one.

Tell you what, let's try and get off to a good start.

Welcome to the forum! I hope you like it here.

So I see you consider this debate a victory for Lord Bob Enyart, may I ask what you base that on? Because you see, I base my contrary conclusion on the evidence presented in the debate and then backed up on this here Peanut Gallery.

Throughout this debate Bob has shown himself to be confused about fossil T-Rex and vestigial structures and organs, as well as quote mining, quoting only the abstract without reading the paper itself, bollocks about carbon dating millions of year old fossils ALREADY dated, because he knows full well that the results will be invalid and then he can claim a point out of ignorance, and I seem to remember some nonsense about the Grand Canyon and nautiloids proving it happened ever so fast.

Of course I am happy to hear why you think Bob has done so well in this debate, above are just a few examples that I can recall because you see, reading Bob's spluttering arse gravy has rendered my brain into something of a dull slab of goo. Imagine if you will a sieve with a colander underneath. It's going to take me weeks to recover fully from this level of horseshit.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm confused though Aron about why both you and PZ Myers blogged on July 25th about how well this debate was going for the atheists, with you writing that Bob's "next submission ought to be interesting whatever it is"¦", and then you quit on Aug. 15th, the day after we posted in the comment thread that I was preparing my Round 6 post. I had the sense that PZ posted without having read the debate; do you know if he finally got around to it?

The obtuseness is strong in this one. AronRa made it very clear as to why he is not participating in this debate any longer.

AronRa[/url]"]Now we have a problem. I'm booked up nearly every week over the next few months, with events in Denver, Boston, Austin, Houston, Chicago, Springfield, Tallahassee, Little Rock, and Baton Rouge, to say nothing about a few pod casts, and a couple of charity benefits, on top of my usual commitments. I have so many promotions and presentations to prepare in the interim that I won't have time to reply to you until some time in December, and I'm supposed to have my book published before then too!

Let me suggest an alternate plan. You make your next post your last. In that post, you will reply to my 4th post to this debate. Therein I repeated a summarized list from the first post to this thread, which was itself a summarized list from the first thread. I can't make this any easier for you. As we agreed back in November, you must actually answer all of the questions directed to you, and properly address each of the charges and challenges therein.

As one can read, it has everything to do with free time and nothing to do with the spin you put on it.

Aron's 1st Foundational Falsehood video against creationists, titled "evolution = atheism" says that we creationists claim that evolution is synonymous with atheism. We do not.

Well according to Talk.Origin's Claim CA602, Henry Morris's Book Scientific Creationism made the claim that evolution is atheistic. This is in addition to the quote already provided by inferno from Ken Ham.

"Would millions of nautiloids the size of your arm standing on their heads fossilized in limestone in the canyon provide evidence of rapid stratification Aron?"

You answered, "No, not even if they existed. Limestone can't form rapidly"¦"

AronRa's answer is much longer than that:

AronRa[/url]"]No, not even if they existed. Limestone can't form rapidly, (certainly not in the situation you're talking about) and the conditions you describe are not consistent throughout the site you claim, even according to other Bible-believing Christians.

"The nautiloids of Nautiloid Canyon are claimed to be aligned, indicating that they died in a strong current and yet, this writer visited this deposit in July, 1995, and found no alignment of any nautaloids anywhere in the Canyon. The authors ignore the stratification of fossils which are clearly found in layers--not mixed up as a flood would suggest."--John N. Clayton, author of 'Does God Exist'

Coincidentally Eugenie Scott gave a speech on the Grand Canyon at the G.A.C. in Melbourne, as she often does. In it she gave many instances of geology that young earth creationists simply can't account for. That talk hasn't been released on video yet. She has done several others, but I won't provide the links since you wouldn't watch them anyway. For the moment, I'll just quote her:

He goes on to than quote a large section from Dr. Scott. However, unless you are able to demonstrate how limestone can form rapidly under water, your point is moot even with the short answer provided by you.

Incredulously, in Aron's final post he asks me to respond to this: "Bob also claimed that 'original biological material' had been found in a handful of Cretaceous [dinosaur] fossils. Left at that, the claim is ambiguous andarguable. However Bob specified that these discoveries confirmed original blood and other tissues that had not decomposed, and this is not the case. All that has been confirmed relating to the blood and feathers Bob specifically mentioned were that both had been decomposed and/or were preserved only as residue."

I'm not sure if I should reply to his denial here, "this is not the case," or to Aron's claim in Round Four that "I never denied dinosaur soft tissue."

Wait, what?

AronRa[/url]"]Yes I certainly did. First of all, I never denied dinosaur soft tissue. Let's be precise. I asked you to clarify what you meant by that term, and you said 'undecomposed blood cells and other original biological material'. You said this was supported in your citations. However, apart from hardier trace elements like metals (which I've already allowed for) this was never confirmed. Remember when you mistook heme, (an iron-based compound) for actual blood?

As anyone can see, AronRa's Round Four response was clarifying an earlier comment, in that he never denied there could be soft tissue. In the quote you provided from his Final Post, he is clarifying that you never provided the discovery of original blood and other tissues; at most, they had preserved residues or decomposed material.

BobEnyart, I do not understand the constant misrepresentation of people's position (you did this to me as well). In a written forum, such as this, it is very easy to go back, check what was really said, and expose your deliberate misrepresentations.

Aron's confusion on this topic throughout shows that he likely only perused my Post 3-B catalog, created for this LoR debate, presenting the world's most complete listing of peer-reviewed soft-tissue papers on dinosaur soft tissue. These papers are running ten-to-one against Aron's erroneous claim that such finds are either unconfirmed, "refuted", or "not the case."

Actually, AronRa's third post, the one that exposes all your misunderstandings of those papers, shows that science has not discovered soft tissue or original biological material. Your refusal to accept this fact is hilarious and telling about your nature.

"¦theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical)"¦

BobEnyart, your hubris is astonishing.

Even theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) admitted, to me, that he accepts the existence of blood vessels in a T. rex.

I would like to congratulate australopithecus on calling this one.

So, even during this debate, the ranks of Soft Tissue Deniers are diminishing (even here on LoR),"¦

I asked YesYouNeedJesus this, but whom on this forum has accepted anything BobEnyart said about dinosaur soft tissue after AronRa and many others here in the peanut gallery (including myself) exposed all BobEnyart's falsehoods on this forum?

Now, the next step will be for them to begin to wrestle with (as research is beginning to show) the non-racemized (i.e., mostly) left-handed amino acids and the short-duration Carbon 14 in this uncontaminated original biological material from dinosaur soft tissue.

None of your sources talked about non-racemized left-handed amino acids being discovered and the Carbon-14 claims have been rebutted to death here.

On T. rex Tasting Like Chicken

Thus, you admit to saying it, all be it in a joking manner. Fair enough.

On AronRa's claim that he answered my dinosaur evolution challenge:

I believe this proves that BobEnyart only gleaned the post from AronRa; it seems obvious to me that AronRa is talking about this section of the original thread when he makes this statement. It may only seem obvious to me because I actually read all of AronRa's posts and did not glean talking points from them.

BobEnyart, you do realize that if a creationist actually takes the time to read this debate, they will see you flat out ignoring whole responses from AronRa and acting as if you addressed it by addressing nothing. You must know that that will not make you look good by any measure.

Than BobEnyart goes on to provide quotes from experts, but no real evidence to over turn the claims made by AronRa. I am not going to waste my time tracking those quotes down, but something tells me that most, if not all, are quote mines. I say this because it should be much easier to just provide the evidence that clades do not produce new clades than to quote scientists.

Another example, all four-legged creatures that grow from an embryo that develops within a sac that are NOT mammals or birds are reptiles.

This is wrong again, since turtles are not classified as reptiles either. It is BobEnyart basic misunderstanding of biology that makes him ill equipped for this debate.

So, mammals evolved from reptiles. Voilà !

Wrong again! BobEnyart, please pick up a biology textbook and actually learn about phylogenetics. This blatant misrepresentation of evolution stems either from your ignorance or from willful lying on your part. Based on your performance thus far, it seems more likely to be the former.

Aron says that dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. Which dinosaur evolved from which archosaur?

As I have pointed out above, AronRa has already addressed this and you have promptly ignored it.

When they get specific, their "evidence" is short-lived, because they get burned, like when they claimed thatTiktaalik 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.

BobEnyart, the Poland track ways did not end the reign of Tiktaalik, Tiktaalik is still thought to be a transitional fossil. You see the problem here is that you are confusing transitional fossil with ancestral species. You see, before the discovery of the Poland track ways, it was thought that the evolution of tetrapods was very short, geologically speaking, but with there discovery, it has shown us that the window for tetrapod evolution is longer. Again, basic misunderstandings of basic definitions, as above, go along way in exposing how little you know about evolutionary theory.

As a result, world-renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould famously said that large morphological gaps in the fossil record are the "trade secret of paleontology", and also, that anyone could disprove his theory of punctuated equilibrium (fast evolution) merely by showing gradual evolution in the fossil record.

This is a blatant quote mine; follow by an outright lie in one sentence.

"For example, Aron says that it "is a fact", yea, a "verifiable fact" that birds evolved from (are a subset of) dinosaurs. But in an unguarded moment,dinosaur expert (and Jack Horner associate Don Lessem wrote:

"Little dinosaur meat-eaters were probably the ancestors of birds, but we aren't sure which ones."

Wait, what? How does that quote support your case and not AronRa's? Could this be yet another example of your poor reading comprehension?

Again, a group doesn't evolve into a group so these repeated claims violate one of the primary observations of biology, that, like bodily organs, supergroups are not reproducible entities. So, because they cannot reproduce, which is a requirement for any Darwinist mechanism, therefore it is obfuscation to claim that a supergroup evolved into something else, especially when used in a circular fashion such as when a conclusion is presented as the very evidence that supports that conclusion, which illusion is the primary mechanism of AronRa's phylogeny. Yet, that illusion, as we'd say here in the U.S., is "too big to fail." And so, among Darwinists, it persists and has become the dominant paradigm, the one by which Aron "proves" descent as "a demonstrable fact."

No one is claiming that super groups evolved into something else. This paragraph exposes just how little you understand phylogenetics and its role in biology. In addition, since no one is making this argument, it is safe to conclude that this is nothing more than a straw man.

The Standard Model of the Universe (as having no center) is Not Based on Observation:
Aron wrote that "the redshift quantization [Bob] pleaded for is an illusion":

BobEnyart, you never addressed anything AronRa said about the formation of the universe since it was on the original thread, which it seems you refuse to read. Everything you posted in this section was already rebutted there.

On Mitochondrial Eve, AronRa, and Y-chromosomal Adam
Women First.

Wow, more proof that BobEnyart did not read AronRa's posts, it seems like he did not even glean from this one. AronRa has already rebutted this claim, back in December no less.

Creationist Example of Maximum Possible Age
Evolutionist Example of Maximum Possible Age

Both of these seem randomly tossed in here and I do not see the point of either one of them. Perhaps BobEnyart would be so kind to explain what the point was bringing these examples up.

Now the Men

You first claim that geneticists should call Y-chromosomal Adam Y-chromosomal Noah instead since according to PNAS and ABC News, "Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham "¦ And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years"¦" I am assuming that you think the flood happened over 4,000 years ago and that is why Jews and Arab men are "children of Abraham". However, if this were the case, would we not expect to see all men in the world be able to be traced back 4,000 years as well? Why would this only be true for Jews and Arabs? Furthermore, you wrongly claimed that Mitochondrial Eve only dates back to 6,000 years ago, but in order to be concordant with your ideas, would not both Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam date back to the same date? It really makes no sense that one would date to the beginning of creation when the other one only dates back to the flood.

"¦Aron hopes to discredit all the genetic science in my previous post from dozens of scientists saying that genetic trees of descent contradict both themselves and Darwin's traditional tree, by claiming that I don't understand the difference between genes and an entire genome"¦

Wrong again BobEnyart. AronRa goes into great depth in his Final Post to rebut your claim that "genetic trees of descent contradict both themselves and Darwin's traditional tree." He also points out you do not understand the difference between genes and the genome. Give his Final Post a reread and this time read for comprehension instead of gleaning. Again, most of what he said was first written back in December and it still debunks claims you recently made.

"¦and he's still promoting the canard comparing human DNA "to the chimpanzee genome" that "if we only include genes, the ratio is roughly close to 99%." And why would we do that, if not to provide an illusion? For humans and apes being about 99% similar is "too big to fail."

AronRa is not promoting a canard; you are BobEnyart. Please reread AronRa's final post again. He explains in detail why you are wrong about this claim. Restating a debunked argument does not make it any less wrong.

Aron, you omitted text from my brief quote so that you could then tutor me on the difference between genes and an entire genome. If you were correct, and I don't understand the difference, then of course, the reader will assume my points about sponges, chimps, and people were invalid. On the other hand, if I do understand the difference, and my observations are valid, than you are obscuring the alternative assessment of the data

I find it funny that BobEnyart is whining about omitted text from a quote when it seems like every quote he gives us is either omitted something or has something he added into it. In this post alone, I have given at least a half dozen examples of this very practice from BobEnyart in his final post. It is also funny that you admit that your points are invalid if you did not know the difference between genes and genomes. AronRa made it plainly obvious that you did not, thus your points are invalid.

Here is the quote from AronRa in question:

AronRa[/url]"]

The chimpanzee genome is 30% different in the Y chromosome, "¦'horrendously different from the human Y-chromosome. "¦We are 30% different from supposedly our closest living relatives."

One wonders why BobEnyart could not quote it for us to read.

The reason I think he did not quote it is it seems obvious that nothing in the omitted text can correct BobEnyart's poor understanding of genetics. To sum up your quote, you first say that one chromosome is 30% different between humans and chimpanzees. You then conclude from that, that we must be 30% different from one another, forgetting that there are several more chromosomes in both genomes.

For example, I quote the geneticists in New Scientist, hostile witnesses to a creationist, saying that evolutionary lineages based on genetics significantly contradict both themselves AND the traditional trees based on fossils and anatomy.

Wrong again. You quote mined geneticists in New Scientists and prefaces your quote mines by saying that we silly evolutionists would only point them out because we disagree with you. No BobEnyart, they were quote mines because we can show (and have shown) that they were taken out of context (and in some cases, manipulated by you).

You offer to me and the readers in Round Five the rebuttal that I should have read the "editorial" in that issue, which assures everyone that all is well in the Darwinian camp"¦

Once again, another half-truth. AronRa did this, but he also wrote up a lengthy response, including pointing out some of the quote mines.

"¦and that evolutionist Metzinger assures us that "8% of human DNA is actually old virus DNA", yet she's the same evolutionist you quoted as saying that other than the "3%" that codes for protein, the "rest of our genome is called non-coding or junk DNA. Despite the fact that there is so much junk"¦" You quoted that in 2012, and Carrie wrote it in 2011, yet such claims, that most of our DNA is junk, are a decade out of date. The latest study, by 440 researchers working in 32 laboratories around the world (affirming what creationists have been saying for decades), published in Nature that so far, they've been able to identify function for 80 percent of the human genome!

If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am wrong), but the term non-coding DNA has stuck to what was originally thought to be DNA that did not do anything. New research shows some functionality to it, but the name non-coding DNA has stuck to it. Thus, you and AronRa are both correct on this point.

In contrast to your continuous citing of the opinions and conclusions of those you agree with, regardless of what you think of my position, even many evolutionists should be able to acknowledge that in this debate, I have presented mostly evidence, like:
- Grand Canyon nautiloids
- Soft-tissue in dinosaurs
- A hundred million years of missing deposition and erosion in the Grand Canyon between smooth and regular strata boundaries.
- Short-lived 14C in gas, dinosaurs, diamonds, etc. (with you dismissal by quoting your friend Claire1 claiming, completely in error, that all the modern carbon is a "margin of error", all of which is decades out of date).

Yes, you have provided it has evidence, but none of it has stood up to scrutiny. AronRa has rebutted all those claims in the debate and other users in the peanut gallery have done likewise. By the way, BobEnyart, you gleaned from WildWoodClaire1's response as well. She did say, ""¦all the modern carbon is a 'margin of error"¦" about the Carbon 14 discovered, but she also went on to say this:

WildWoodClaire1[/url]"]"one hypothesis is that, occasionally a diamond or carbon in coal may interact with neutrons created by interaction of decay particles from nearby radioactive material, such as uranium. In such a case nitrogen 14, a common element within diamonds (they are NEVER pure carbon), could acquire a neutron to form C14. That's what happens in the atmosphere when C14 is formed, only the Nitrogen atom takes up an with energetic neutron created by interaction of cosmic rays with atoms."

I have been telling this same thing to YesYouNeedJesus since February. Restating a debunked argument does not make it any more correct.

I still call on Aron to correct his 10th Foundational Falsehood video in which he wrongly says that: "the phylogenetic tree of life is plainly evident from the bottom up to any objective observer who dares compare the anatomy of different sets of collective life forms. But it can be just asobjectively doubly confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically."

As was pointed out in AronRa's Final Post and by several other users here in the peanut gallery, AronRa was not wrong to claim that. However, you are wrong to claim he is wrong. You have shown nothing to contradict phylogenetics. All you have provided is your personal incredulity about it. Your ignorance of science does not mean it is wrong, it means you are ignorant of science.

For an example of what AronRa considers to be evidence, look back up at his Round 5 post and search for: flowering plants. He presents quotes that he perceives as strong evidence that evolutionists *know* what creature it was that fish evolved from. And that they *know* what organism it was that flowering plants evolved from. We can repeat this same exercise with any evolutionist's claims about the ancestry of bats, backbones, trees, and turtles. I'll stand on my argument earlier in this post regarding Aron's item #3 of 9 above, that evolutionists have developed a system of illusions to obscure the truth that they have not in any kind of rigorous scientific way established evolutionary lineages for such creatures.

Again, your incredulity is not an argument. Cladistics is a demonstrable method for testing fossils in an evolutionary framework. Furthermore, cladograms are constantly tested and retested against new and old fossil finds.

Aron wrote, "In the 7th and final segment of our discussion, Bob accused me of not knowing why Rhodocetus and Pakicetus were considered related to whales. He said this even after I explained about the diagnostic traits in each of their skulls. Bob accused paleontologist, Phillip Gingrich of 'recanting' this fossil,which he did not, and of rendering this animal as a fish,which he did not."

Aron makes his assertion. I'll give you actual quotes from Dr. Philip Gingerich. This discoverer of Rodhocetus now admits, "I speculated that it might have had a fluke [whale-like tail], I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail." And regarding the imaginative whale-like flippers he had included in his reconstruction of the partial fossil, Gingerich also admitted: "Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn't have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale."

Rhodocetus and Pakicetus were only thought to have a fluke and derived webbed feet. Later fossil discoveries showed that they were far more terrestrial than earlier thought. However, the fact that they were lacking a fluke does not diminish their transitional status, nor do the quotes you have provided. They are both transitional fossils based on the evidence found in their teeth and skulls.

I've seen Dr. Gingerich say these things and I've transcribed them myself. You could see him say these things too Aron if you subscribed to more reliable science video and interview services and science journals, like the resources that are available in our young-earth creation circles. But in the meantime, you can find out more at realsciencefriday.com/Rodhocetus-whale-of-a-tail.

No one denies that he said those things, but those things do not diminish the fact that they are still transitional fossils. Your general ignorance of them is showing greatly. I would bet that Dr. Gingerich also pointed out the things that still make them transitional fossils, but you did not see it as worthy to transcribe.

Finally, AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge: Aron's Phylogeny Challenge asks creationists to identify dozens of created kinds as they diversified on the earth. As a creationist, I'll quote below the evolutionists who oppose us to give a more objective assessment of our attempt to do this. First realize however that Aron's phylogeny challenge is an Evolution of the Gaps argument. If creationists can't answer all our questions about life, then obviously, evolution did it.

After months of huffing and puffing, BobEnyart refuses the challenge by straw manning it. That is a fitting conclusion to this debate.

The creation movement has a careful effort underway, the discipline of baraminology, to lay the groundwork to answer many such questions. Atrealsciencefriday.com/creation-orchard-vs-evolution-tree, I interviewed Dr. Roger Sanders of Bryan College about baraminology, which is a furtherance of Adam's first task (to name the animals), into a classification of living things within the framework of the created kinds as described in Genesis.

Thus, you accept evolution; you just believe that there were multiple origins of life. It is hilarious that creationists will always end up admitting this, but will never come right out and say it is evolution. Furthermore, for baraminology to have any thing to stand on, it would be identical to phylogenetics. The only difference being that there would be definite boarders between kinds. What makes this funny is that, BobEnyart spent so much of his time trashing phylogenetics, when it would be the same process used in baraminology. Talk about doublethink.

"¦related to baraminology, is the study of the dispersion of animals around the world, called biogeography, where evolutionists are beginning to emphasize aspects of the creation model, regarding the transport of countless animals across ocean currents on floating log mats.

Wait what? The hypothesis of floating log mats being a means of dispersing animal population is mostly thought to work for isolated oceanic islands, because small terrestrial based life would have no other means of transporting themselves to an oceanic island. Whereas continental islands would have a population of terrestrial (both large and small) based life from the original continent. Furthermore, biogeography is a legitimate form of science, which studies how life spread around the world. Most of their hypotheses have nothing to do with floating log mats and more to do with floating tectonic plates, climate change, and sea level rise and fall. In addition, I highly doubt BobEnyart would be able to cite a creationist source to claim the log mat hypothesis before an actual scientific source.

An Example of the Creationist Perspective Predicting a Genetic Observation: I asked Dr. Sanders if there is evidence of a geneticbottleneck among land animals. I predict that such a pattern will become increasingly evident over time. Why? Because a global flood destroyed almost all land animals and birds only thousands of years ago. So I asked if marine animals have been shown to have greater genetic diversity than bird and land animals. Dr. Sanders recalled that a study done on land and marine turtles showed greater genetic diversity among sea turtles. This is expected by creationists. However, evolutionists believe that sea turtles evolved from land-dwelling creatures, so if evolution were true, genetically we would expect to see greater genetic diversity among land-dwelling turtles, the opposite of what apparently is reality.

Here is a video about a genetic bottleneck in cheetahs. If there were as few animals as the bible describes around 4,000 years ago, we should expect much worse for all terrestrial based life than what he see from cheetahs. Now that would be a real prediction of creationism based on actual observation.

Bob Strauss, on turtle evolution, wrote: "the basic turtle body plan arose very early in the history of life (during the late Triassic period), and has persisted pretty much unchanged down to the present day... Paleontologists still haven't identified the exact family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises, but they do know one thing: it wasn't theplacodonts."

Again, AronRa covered this, oh right, you would not know this because you flat out ignored the original post which rebutted nearly all the arguments you made in this debate.

...baraminology is the creationist effort to answer our own phylogeny challenge of sorts, as Kepler is paraphrased, said, to glorify God by thinking His thoughts after Him.

Exactly. In addition, you spent a majority of your post trashing the very methods you would have to go about to determine kinds in baraminology. The only conclusion that any creationists could come to from truly studying baraminology is that evolution is correct and all life is related.

My Assessment: It's sad to assess the life's work of studied evolutionists including Aron. He is like a renowned Star Wars trivia buff, able to distinguish between a juvenile Wookiee and a mature Ewok, and explain from geology what froze the oceans on Hoth and how Tatooine was covered by dessert. But degreed evolutionists are like science fiction fanatics who gradually convince themselves that it's all real"¦

Pure projection.

One day, Dawkins will join Dobzhansky and Darwin in their current realization that it was all wrong. Yet for him, and PZ, and AronRa, there is still hope. And I pray for them.

Pure arrogance.

"And remember the nautiloids!"

Oh, we remember them, and we remember how you did not answer the question of how limestone is laid down rapidly under water. Those nautiloids do far more to show that the earth is old than they ever could to show that it is young.

I would also like to thank Isotelus, for debunking BobEnyart's claims about tropic plants found near mammoths. She pointed out that BobEnyart used sources that showed that there were tropic plants during a different period in earths past. I suspected that this was the case, but it was good to get it confirmed and I was not the one that had to read the sources to show that BobEnyart misused them.

 

[Frenger]

Great reply he_who_is_nobody. I do have one thing to add.

If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am wrong), but the term non-coding DNA has stuck to what was originally thought to be DNA that did not do anything. New research shows some functionality to it, but the name non-coding DNA has stuck to it. Thus, you and AronRa are both correct on this point.

You're right in saying that some of what was considered non-coding DNA has been found to have some functionality, mainly transcriptional and translational regulation, however there is still some DNA that either isn't transcribed at all, or is transcribed into RNA that is then not translated.

At the moment it is likely that these truly are junk-DNA but of course, only time will tell. Conservation does infer that there is some kind of selection pressure at work but who knows eh?

 

[Isotelus]

I'm glad someone responded to the entire post, seeing as the debate is over and Aron can't reply to it. Well done.

BobEnyart wrote: For example, Aron says that it "is a fact", yea, a "verifiable fact" that birds evolved from (are a subset of) dinosaurs. But in an unguarded moment,dinosaur expert (and Jack Horner associate Don Lessem wrote:

"Little dinosaur meat-eaters were probably the ancestors of birds, but we aren't sure which ones."

Wait, what? How does that quote support your case and not AronRa's? Could this be yet another example of your poor reading comprehension?

I would have liked to have heard a bit more on this issue. The fact remains that at least a few of the papers that Bob cited mentioned the relationships between birds and theropod dinosaurs. There's a reason why the ostrich and tyrannosaurus samples in Shweitzer's papers were so similar, and to say that birds are not derived theropod dinosaurs is, and I'm putting it nicely, very inconsistent.

I would also like to thank Isotelus, for debunking BobEnyart's claims about tropic plants found near mammoths. She pointed out that BobEnyart used sources that showed that there were tropic plants during a different period in earths past. I suspected that this was the case, but it was good to get it confirmed and I was not the one that had to read the sources to show that BobEnyart misused them.

Ha, you are most welcome! I wish I wouldn't always have to point out that one has to use the original sources, and use them properly. Not doing so can render any argument completely useless and incorrect, as it did most of the time during this debate.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Despite the fact that there is so much junk"¦" You quoted that in 2012, and Carrie wrote it in 2011, yet such claims, that most of our DNA is junk, are a decade out of date. The latest study, by 440 researchers working in 32 laboratories around the world (affirming what creationists have been saying for decades), published in Nature that so far, they've been able to identify function for 80 percent of the human genome! In contrast to your continuous citing of the opinions and conclusions of those you agree with, regardless of what you think of my position, even many evolutionists should be able to acknowledge that in this debate

What I find so ridiculously hilarious about creationists and Bob in particular on this point is that creationists have apparently assessed this for decades without any evidence. Have they tried to find any evidence for this assertion in those decades? As far as I know they didn't. And still, when real scientists present the evidence Bob celebrates it as a victory for the creationist camp. If it would be the creationists that came with this evidence you might have a point Bob. Now, it just makes you look ridiculous. It says a lot about your camp. I can assert now that they will never find a use for the entire 100% of the genome. What if I'm right, what does that mean in the end...it means I made a lucky guess, nothing more.

That's exactly what we've been telling creationists for decades, put up or shut up.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just want to point this out:

Another example, all four-legged creatures that grow from an embryo that develops within a sac that are NOT mammals or birds are reptiles.

This is wrong again, since turtles are not classified as reptiles either. It is BobEnyart basic misunderstanding of biology that makes him ill equipped for this debate.

Birds are also reptiles according to phylogenetics. BobEnyart, you do not even know the basics about biology, yet you feel qualified to comment on this subject. You are in need of an education about evolutionary theory, not partaking in a debate about it.

In addition, I do hope that the few comments already present about BobEnyart's last post are not the only ones we will have. I do hope more people will at least give their final opinion about this debate.

 

[Inferno]

In addition, I do hope that the few comments already present about BobEnyart's last post are not the only ones we will have. I do hope more people will at least give their final opinion about this debate.

What for? It's not like either Will or Bob read this, anyway.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

In addition, I do hope that the few comments already present about BobEnyart's last post are not the only ones we will have. I do hope more people will at least give their final opinion about this debate.

What for? It's not like either Will or Bob read this, anyway.

Who is writing anything in this thread down for their sake? It has already been established that neither one of them will change their mind, even when the evidence is handed to them on a silver platter. The reason people should do this is for the same reason anyone debates a creationist; it is for the sake of the onlookers reading the debate. Those minds can be changed.

 

[WarK]

Who is writing anything in this thread down for their sake? It has already been established that neither one of them will change their mind, even when the evidence is handed to them on a silver platter. The reason people should do this is for the same reason anyone debates a creationist; it is for the sake of the onlookers reading the debate. Those minds can be changed.

Yeah. It's definitely not a waste of effort to reply to creationists' claims. Onlookers can learn from it, even it the creationists themselves are completely uninterested in actual science or factuality for that matter.

Thank you all who addressed creationists' claims, not only in this debate but all other debates that took part on this forum.

You all rule!