Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[rareblackatheist]

The biggest problem with Bob's last post is that it may be disqualified for Post of the Year because it was split up into 2 posts. Bummer...

No the post of the year was the one you made. You know, the one where you asked for the thread to be locked because you didn't understand the refutations to the paper, because you didn't understand the paper?

 

[australopithecus]

You mean this thread? This thread right here? Is that the thread you mean?

Just so anyone reading this has a crystal clear understanding of how dishonest Will is.

 

[Squawk]

HOW DARE YOU insinuate Enfart has gotten something wrong!

No more of that please. Hmm, probably should put this in big green writing or something.

 

[fightofthejellyfish]

At least, from what I've understood of the papers and comments by Aron and others.

It's either a "plaster cast" (fossil) of soft tissue or mere chemical traces (molecular remnants/fragments).

Confusingly most of the comments in this thread were directed toward the archaeopteryx paper that YYNJ introduced and Bob referred to on his web page but I don't think he's tried to use here. It was about detecting trace metals in the fossil using X-rays. It was a good example of how little they understood the papers they were trying to argue from, about the only thing it had to do with the rest on the finds was that it had the words "soft tissue" in the title. The other finds being discussed are much more exciting because they do involve more than mere chemical traces.

Greetings,

she [Schweitzer] showed that very large bones, properly buried under the right conditions could effectively insulate the core sufficiently that isolated microscopic sections could contain original material not fully fossilized, meaning that demineralization might restore some original properties. Chemical decomposition would of course occur even then, (much the pity) so that these wouldn't be exactly what they were anymore, but the implications were still exciting to me at the time

I think that Aron meant "remineralization" here - correct me if I'm wrong.

Demineralisation is correct. Fossils are a more complex phenomena than the simple "plaster-cast" analogy, which is an ultimate end point, but there are a lot of steps along the way. In the "plaster-cast" process, after burial the organism gets mineralised with all the spaces between and within cells being filled with minerals from the ground water. The process of the breaking down all the proteins and other molecules in the mineralised tissues however, is much slower. Estimates I've read varied from 0.1 - 1.0 million years in one case and 1 - 2.7 in another, for proteins to single amino acids under normal expected conditions.

Demineralisation in this case is basically chucking the fossil in solvent to get rid of the rock and find out how far the break down has got. In the 68 Ma T.Rex what is left are structures containing peptides - short fragments of proteins - from collagen. Protected inside those structures are structures that appear to be remnants of cells. So it is a very interesting find, there is more there than traces of amino acids, and the fragments have survived a good order of magnitude or more longer than was expected. However there haven't even been whole proteins let alone all the other things that would be necessary to constitute original tissue.

The explanation that is given for how long they lasted is basically water. The reaction that breaks an amino acid off a protein chain is with a water molecule. The fragments of collagen protein that have been found are very tightly packed and hydrophobic, so they've been protected from the water that would otherwise have broken them down. Added to this is that these finds are inside very large unbroken bones further protecting them and to some degree preventing microbial invasion that would speed up the process. There's also the suggestion in a paper, I think scalyblue introduced, that biofilms that have also been detected may have helped in their protection.

That's my understanding of the situation anyway. If anyone can expand or correct it please do.

 

[brettpalmer]

On Enyart's radio show today he referred to his latest post in the debate thread as the premiere internet catalog, a one-stop-shop if you will, for scientific papers discussing dinosaur soft tissue. In other words, more than just a Post of the Year. More like Post of the Internet.

 

[Frenger]

HOW DARE YOU insinuate Enfart has gotten something wrong!

No more of that please. Hmm, probably should put this in big green writing or something.

I retract my humorous mis-type Sorry about that.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Confusingly most of the comments in this thread were directed toward the archaeopteryx paper that YYNJ introduced and Bob referred to on his web page but I don't think he's tried to use here. It was about detecting trace metals in the fossil using X-rays. It was a good example of how little they understood the papers they were trying to argue from, about the only thing it had to do with the rest on the finds was that it had the words "soft tissue" in the title. The other finds being discussed are much more exciting because they do involve more than mere chemical traces.

It certainly was confusing.

However, my comment was referring to those posts made in both the debate and this thread referring to "soft tissue" as Enyart and YesYouNeedJesus inferred from the relevant papers.

Thank you anyway for clarifying that point.

Demineralisation is correct. Fossils are a more complex phenomena than the simple "plaster-cast" analogy, which is an ultimate end point, but there are a lot of steps along the way. In the "plaster-cast" process, after burial the organism gets mineralised with all the spaces between and within cells being filled with minerals from the ground water. The process of the breaking down all the proteins and other molecules in the mineralised tissues however, is much slower. Estimates I've read varied from 0.1 - 1.0 million years in one case and 1 - 2.7 in another, for proteins to single amino acids under normal expected conditions.

Demineralisation in this case is basically chucking the fossil in solvent to get rid of the rock and find out how far the break down has got. In the 68 Ma T.Rex what is left are structures containing peptides - short fragments of proteins - from collagen. Protected inside those structures are structures that appear to be remnants of cells. So it is a very interesting find, there is more there than traces of amino acids, and the fragments have survived a good order of magnitude or more longer than was expected. However there haven't even been whole proteins let alone all the other things that would be necessary to constitute original tissue.

The explanation that is given for how long they lasted is basically water. The reaction that breaks an amino acid off a protein chain is with a water molecule. The fragments of collagen protein that have been found are very tightly packed and hydrophobic, so they've been protected from the water that would otherwise have broken them down. Added to this is that these finds are inside very large unbroken bones further protecting them and to some degree preventing microbial invasion that would speed up the process. There's also the suggestion in a paper, I think scalyblue introduced, that biofilms that have also been detected may have helped in their protection.

That's my understanding of the situation anyway. If anyone can expand or correct it please do.

My analogy of a "plaster cast" was more for Enyart's and YesYouNeedJesus' benefit rather than the scientifically-oriented.

As you point out, it's a bit more complicated than that.

I take your point about Aron being correct in that he's referring to the process of demineralisation being required to remove the minerals that have filled the gaps - of which, I confess, I wasn't fully aware.

My intended point - though incorrectly made - was referring to the fact that, in order to return these "fragments" back to the "soft tissue", which Enyart and YesYouNeedJesus keep claiming they are, one would have to add whatever's missing (after demineralisation).

I apologize for my error and any confusion it may have caused.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DepricatedZero]

You mean this thread? This thread right here? Is that the thread you mean?

Just so anyone reading this has a crystal clear understanding of how dishonest Will is.

I keep reading this and rereading it and giggling uncontrollably

 

[GeologyJack]

I have been asked by a member of this forum to comment on the following statement made by Bob Enyart about rapid stratification

Reason 1 - Rapid Stratification: According to geologists everywhere including in this Geology of the Grand Canyon report available from the U.S. National Park Service, the Grand Canyon is missing the entire Cenozoic and Mesozoic geologic eras (off the top) and more than 100 million years of strata are missing from the middle of the Paleozoic (the entire Ordovician and Silurian periods are not there). The dozens of enormous side canyons, that themselves could be major tourist attractions, do not have rivers, extant or the otherwise, to explain their formation. The side canyons have not rivers, extant or otherwise, that could have carved them, but they formed by the rapid drainage of groundwater into the 277-mile long Grand Canyon that itself formed in a regional flood in the days following the breach of a natural dam. In my dozen of trips to the canyon and rafting there in the Colorado River, you can't help but see the flat boundaries between strata which in many places lack evidence of erosion between the strata (even with, for example, rain drop impressions atop one layer). So the virtually worldwide depositional layers exposed in the Grand Canyon provide evidence that strata, including dinosaur-bearing strata globally, were deposited rapidly.

I am solely addressing this as it is in my area, please do not ask me to attempt any other non-geology claims as they are not my specialty and I would not like to mislead.

According to geologists everywhere including in this Geology of the Grand Canyon report available from the U.S. National Park Service, the Grand Canyon is missing the entire Cenozoic and Mesozoic geologic eras (off the top) and more than 100 million years of strata are missing from the middle of the Paleozoic (the entire Ordovician and Silurian periods are not there)

This is true, it is not rare for entire sequences of geological time to be missing in an area, just as erosion happens now, erosion has happened in the past and depending upon how a area was exposed in the past, significant periods of time can be missing. I would like to mention that just because they are missing does not mean they are not there. Evidence of missing periods can be seen directly in the beds that follow, mostly if they are sediementary. Here in Colorado evidence for an ancestral Rocky Mountains can be seen in formations such as the Fountain Formation, a unit which is composed of highly arkosic materials (or in layman speak, materials that had come from continental mountainous areas that were close by).

The dozens of enormous side canyons, that themselves could be major tourist attractions, do not have rivers, extant or the otherwise, to explain their formation. The side canyons have not rivers, extant or otherwise, that could have carved them

First of all, to form canyons, there is no need to have permanent river flow, over time rain storms and snow melt will form canyons. If I am correct and the side canyons on the south rim of the canyon are being referenced, these canyonns are a result of the general southward dip of the surface in the area. As rain and snow accumulate during particularly moist years, canyons start to form going away from the main canyon as water moves south downslope, cool beans right? I hope that was addressing the right material since the northern side canyons are well known to have formed the same sort of way but with the canyons originally moving into the grand canyon.

but they formed by the rapid drainage of groundwater into the 277-mile long Grand Canyon that itself formed in a regional flood in the days following the breach of a natural dam.

I wanted to address this separately since it is important to do so. There is a common misconception when it comes to erosion of canyons and that is "if there is water running through it, it will keep digging deeper." This assumption is positively false, canyons form when you have uplift of an area coupled with streams that already exist. Had the Colorado Plateau not been uplifted, there would be no canyon, super flood or not. When an area has settled, the only activity that will be done involves widening of the canyon. When a stream is cutting down through an area, it tries to fit a flow profile due to the speed of the water flowing. coming down from a higher location, it will naturally move fatser, which allows the water pick up material more readily that in turn causes more erosion. When an area reaches a more more gentle slope, the ability for it to cut is reduced.

It is true that massive floods can create canyons in very little time. for example the Lake Missoula floods that occured after the last glacial maximum carved out massive box canyons throughout the Pacific Northwest. This happened very quickly, not in millions of years, but rather over the course of hours and the massive surges of water picked up boulders, a.k.a. natures wrecking balls. Imagine using sandpaper with huge boulders on it to get a sanding job done, really cool right?

There were many natural dams that formed within the canyon as volcanic activity poured basalt flows into the canyon, some of these flows can be seen today. For the most part when these dams formed they did not last long and when water finally began to break the dams apart, they did not last for long, nor did the silt that had built up behind some of the larger ones. Since silt is easily picked up by water flow, had we been present during those events, it would have looked like a canyon was miraculously carved over the course of days or weeks. In reality though the canyon had already been carved.

In my dozen of trips to the canyon and rafting there in the Colorado River, you can't help but see the flat boundaries between strata which in many places lack evidence of erosion between the strata (even with, for example, rain drop impressions atop one layer). So the virtually worldwide depositional layers exposed in the Grand Canyon provide evidence that strata, including dinosaur-bearing strata globally, were deposited rapidly.

Believe it or not, sometimes erosion does create smooth lumpless surfaces, just because a geologist draws a boundary having bumps doen't mean that is the case. There are places where beds have been placed down rapidly, please remember though that not all rocks are created equal. While a sandstone unit can be emplaced in a short amount of time, it takes time to lithify, on the other hand it can that millions upon millions of years for a limestone unit to form since limestone is the result of chemical accretion which does not happen in a day.

If you have the chance to go looking at many of those rock units in that area of the states, there is a quick way to see how false the idea that the units there could have been deposited all at once rapidly. When a flow of sand is deposited to later form a rock, it will deposit with the heavy grains near the bottom with lighter ones near the top. Many of the units within the canyon have many of the heavy to light sequences visible within them.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Since it's obviously okay to post private exchanges in the comment thread (as Hytegia did with me), here's a reply Bob Enyart emailed me that he sent to a private message from Hytegia.

Hytegia,

Thanks for your gracious explanation of how things work around here. I accepted Aron's suggestion to debate at LoR in part because of his assurance that there is an integrity here in that threads are not deleted. I appreciate that.

We created a forum in part to host my talk show's threads, called TheologyOnline.com, which currently has 14k members, 47k threads and 2.1 million posts, and over many years there are countless threads and thousands of posts by atheists, evolutionists, etc., who strongly oppose me, hate me, mock me, none of which I've ever removed. So in that we have similar commitments.

I did request an apology from Austral-: "...on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior..."

Hytegia, I'm sure you're correct about LoR having threads I'd agree with, and that you don't ban people arbitrarily.

Perhaps you could show me that I'm wrong about claiming arbitrary behavior on your part and from other "regulars" posting about the debate. (And what I've noticed here I've notice everywhere I've been when talking with anti-creationists.)

HERE'S THE ARBITRARINESS AND DOUBLE STANDARD THAT I SEE

TOWARD EVOLUTIONISTS:

Hytegia, to demonstrate this arbitrariness, in 30 pages of posts commenting on our debate, I don't think you can show me a SINGLE example from you or any of you guys criticizing (or even pointing out) that AronRa provided:
- no evidence whatsoever, and
- nor did he link to any peer-reviewed paper,
- nor to anything whatsoever,
to substantiate his claim that soft tissue has been "refuted."

TOWARD CREATIONISTS:

Yet you guys are relentless to criticize those you disagree with (like us creationists):
- for citing evidence that's not been peer-reviewed, and
- even for using popular science press articles (Nat'l Geo, SciDaily, etc.) about peer-reviewed papers, and
- EVEN for quoting from abstracts of peer-reviewed work rather than from the paper itself.

So can you link to any example of you guys holding Aron (or any evolutionist debating a creationist) to that same standard (which standard seems to me more like harassment and an attempt to obfuscate and derail the conversation rather than an actual interest in exploring, confirming, refuting, ideas). Hytegia, if you cannot show me any such example of that kind of criticism against AronRa from you guys in this debate, I think my allegation of arbitrariness on your part is validated.

HOW WOULD YOU TREAT DARWIN AND EINSTEIN?

When you and others jump all over a creationist because he's proposed something that's not been peer reviewed, or because an author has a degree in the WRONG field, I think that's arbitrary too. For example, I've never seen you guys criticize Darwin for avoiding the equivalent of peer review back then by publishing Origins as a popular book without going through the standard scientific channels, nor for having an unrelated degree in theology (of all things). A year ago I re-read Einstein's first paper on relativity from 1905 (and wrote for American Right To Life: Einstein in His Own Words). If I recall, he didn't go through any peer-reviewed process either. And peer-review, while it is a GREAT TOOL, has of course rejected important scientific insights which were later widely accepted, and of course [peer review] might have rejected both Darwin's and Einstein's publications.

Hytegia, I'll go out on a limb here (since I've only read a handful of posts that you've written, and not the thousands of sentiments you've expressed in your adult life) and I'll guess that you don't make it your practice to hold authors whom you agree with to the same standard (of publicly dismissing them because they weren't peer reviewed and/or because they have the WRONG degree).

If you cannot show me any of your posts, or from any of the anti-creationist regulars here on LoR, then I think that's all evidence of you guys being arbitrary, difficult to talk with, and worthy of you guys reconsidering your treatment of creationists, and of an apology.

At the risk of being mocked for bragging, let me show you this example of how a very well-received British author (and Darwinist/theistic evolutionist) James Hannam described the lengthy radio debate that we had:

"I know a fair bit about evolution and genetics. But when it came to familiarity with the arguments, he [Bob] was way ahead of me. On epigenetics, RNA/DNA chemistry, and animal physiology, I was hopelessly outclassed. Bob is not ignorant. And it is pretty clear he is neither stupid nor insane." -British author and theistic evolutionist

Hytegia, contrast Hannam's kind remarks and civility with what we are usually greeted with: howls, cackles, mocking, [vulgarity,] ridicule, and all that even when stating the most obvious things. For example, the allegations against us made here on LoR, as we see elsewhere, are absolutely bizarre, CLAIMING THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ASSERTING THAT EXTANT DINOSAUR SOFT BIOLOGICAL TISSUE EXISTS.

For Round Three I posted that lengthy chronology of journal papers with excerpts, vastly unlike anything that ANY evolutionist or atheist has ever done in 20 years of debates to document any disagreement with me. Here's how hwin replied:

he_who_is_nobody (but not to God), wrote:

...it is great that BobEnyart put all this effort into his last post, but again, his original four sources did not claim to have original biological material. It was not until scalyblue presented Peterson et al. (2010) that any of the citations given thus far made that claim.

2011 minus 6 = 2005.

"The idea that endogenous soft tissues are preserved in Mesozoic fossil bone remains contentious after 6 years of research." -JVP, DNA... and Metagenomics: abstract [as quoted from anti-tissue authors in my Round Three post.]

2005 was when Schweitzer's explosive first shot across the bow was fired. It seems unacceptable in any kind of careful science discussion for someone like hwin or whoever to make such a wildly absurd claim. Of course I am not talking about someone drawing conclusions or making interpretations which I would disagree with. But rather, simply as here, hwin's dismissal of A CLAIM as though it didn't exist, even though the HISTORIC claim has made headlines and has created worldwide scientific tension and controversy, including resulting in opposing published papers. That's an example of the kind of behavior that seems absurd and irresponsibly arbitrary, which kind of behavior for 20 years I have endured daily. I don't know whether you Hytegia, or any of you, have bothered to correct hwin (as you would have jumped all over Will Duffy if he had made any such denial of an obvious claim that had been reported repeatedly in paper TITLES, ABSTRACTS, SCIENCE NEWS REPORTS, and FULL PAPERS). Many years ago I stopped checking to see if any other evolutionists bother to correct such knee-jerk invalid criticisms made against creationists (as HWIN did in this case here on LoR).

Hytegia, yours is probably the only private-message from a forum that I've seen in five years (having been on air for 20 years, I get too many emails even to see their subject lines). So if you'd like to respond, please feel free to, but it would more likely reach my attention if you posted this, which you're welcome to do, and your reply, in the debate comment thread.

Thanks for talking. I appreciate it.

 

[bluejatheist]

What's going on in this thread...

Hm... YYNJ copy/pasting what BobEnyart says...

Nothing new here.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Since it's obviously okay to post private exchanges in the comment thread (as Hytegia did with me), here's a reply Bob Enyart emailed me that he sent to a private message from Hytegia.

Mine was between you and myself - I did it because you were behaving childishly, and it was to prove a point so that you could not claim that I was making such things up.

Thank you for further proving my point. Like I responded to Bob - mostly regarding the martyr complex on your part and him politely excusing him from your behavior:
[showmore=The Response]

Mr. Enyart,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my Message - but unless it is absolutely necessary, I like to keep Private Messages out of a publicly-viewable format for the sake of intellectual trust and integrity.

However, there do seem to be a few things I would like to note here:
Mainly that the claim is not refuted - you just have the wrong idea about the claim itself... Hopefully, this is unintentional.

If you are a man of any intellectual background in any scientific field, you should know that Abstracts of papers are simply teasers towards what could be the implications - and actually have little to do with the evidence or outcome itself. It's like reading the back of a book, and then off of this trying to make a claim from the ~4-8 sentences what the book's final conclusion is.
Trust me, it doesn't work - I tried it in High School.

Your posts are dismissed however it is, by no means, arbitrary.
If you actually sat down and discussed the paper in-full (which should be quite simple, if you'd had read it over) then you would easily see what AronRa is talking about and why he says that it's a false and self-refuting claim.
Quoting from an Abstract, once again, is not sufficient for a full review.

And nor is quoting a brief overview of a paper from a popular magazine. Once again, it's like quoting a review of a book from a magazine itself instead of actually discussing the book.

If you want to discuss something - then discuss it instead of dilly-dallying around the topic by quoting points from abstracts as if they make your point. If you're going to quote something, then why not quote pieces out of the actual paper itself?

HOW WOULD YOU TREAT DARWIN AND EINSTEIN?

Einstein's idea came forth before what we know today as "Peer Review" was even fully practiced due to the impracticability of such methods and the fact that all review was done through the publishing journal itself over peers in one's field.
Darwin's "Degree" was not in Theology - though Theology was a standard degree from his schooling back then. His major was in History. And this, of course, was before the peer review process as it is today was available. As well as the fact that most of that area of science was still gray with nobody exactly knowing what was going on or how things properly worked - today, Evolutionary Theory stands as the backbone of the entire branch of Biological Sciences. Certainly you won't place the conjecture that a man must obtain a degree in a field that doesn't quite exist yet?
I just had to get that out of the way.

And, honestly, if Darwin had thrown a fit like YYNJ did, I would have booted him out the door of my house as well. Intellectual maturity and wisdom of knowledge isn't a difficult thing to measure by any standard - even your Bible has quite the set of gauges for measuring them.


As for compliments and niceties - my compliments upon a person's behavior are the impressions in-review after the dust has settled and I can reflect... For right now, my comments upon the overall pull of a discussion on either side are lacking.
Mainly because AronRa is getting carried away, and you are quoting abstracts and reviews of papers instead of the papers themselves.

However, you should not take any criticism of debate style or presentation of facts be considered personal - though civility is encouraged in the face of harsh critique of them both. Your friend lacked civility, and any standing respect I might have had for him was lost in the child-like tantrum he threw and the whaling of martyrdom.
Even then, though, I would judge him based upon his evidence and reasoning and never personally attack him for anything he has written here.
And, as for other people, I can't speak for them personally minus a few. The main problem is that, well, assholes dominate both of our discussion fields - and neither of us will deny that. I'm not sure if you've reviewed some of the more prominent YouTube creationists, but they aren't the most pleasant people to talk to either.

No comments should be taken seriously until the dust has finally settled.

Respectfully,
Hytegia

Emphasis added post-hoc in BOLD and RED.[/showmore]


Also, unless you have postmarked written and expressed consent from Bob that you can disclose such a transmission - it's a crime to do so without informed and expressed consent from one of any participating parties to do so...
At least in the United States.

I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't adhere to such nonsense either.

=============

Also, your post was off-topic. Quit derailing the thread with your petty child tantrum.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

TOWARD EVOLUTIONISTS:

Hytegia, to demonstrate this arbitrariness, in 30 pages of posts commenting on our debate, I don't think you can show me a SINGLE example from you or any of you guys criticizing (or even pointing out) that AronRa provided:
- no evidence whatsoever, and
- nor did he link to any peer-reviewed paper,
- nor to anything whatsoever,
to substantiate his claim that soft tissue has been "refuted."

What would be the point? The four original papers you cited did not make the claims that soft tissue was found. It is enough to point that out, one does not have to find another paper that refutes claims that were not even made in those original papers.

TOWARD CREATIONISTS:

Yet you guys are relentless to criticize those you disagree with (like us creationists):
- for citing evidence that's not been peer-reviewed, and
- even for using popular science press articles (Nat'l Geo, SciDaily, etc.) about peer-reviewed papers, and
- EVEN for quoting from abstracts of peer-reviewed work rather than from the paper itself.

BobEnyart, try writing a paper and try to publish it in a journal using this style and see what result you get back. This should be something one would learn in a basic 101-science class in any college.

For example, I've never seen you guys criticize Darwin for avoiding the equivalent of peer review back then by publishing Origins as a popular book without going through the standard scientific channels, nor for having an unrelated degree in theology (of all things).

Darwin did publish his ideas in the equivalent to peer-review of his day. Will you ever get anything factually correct?

For Round Three I posted that lengthy chronology of journal papers with excerpts, vastly unlike anything that ANY evolutionist or atheist has ever done in 20 years of debates to document any disagreement with me. Here's how hwin replied:

he_who_is_nobody (but not to God), wrote:

...it is great that BobEnyart put all this effort into his last post, but again, his original four sources did not claim to have original biological material. It was not until scalyblue presented Peterson et al. (2010) that any of the citations given thus far made that claim.

2011 minus 6 = 2005.

"The idea that endogenous soft tissues are preserved in Mesozoic fossil bone remains contentious after 6 years of research." -JVP, DNA... and Metagenomics: abstract [as quoted from anti-tissue authors in my Round Three post.]

2005 was when Schweitzer's explosive first shot across the bow was fired. It seems unacceptable in any kind of careful science discussion for someone like hwin or whoever to make such a wildly absurd claim. Of course I am not talking about someone drawing conclusions or making interpretations which I would disagree with. But rather, simply as here, hwin's dismissal of A CLAIM as though it didn't exist, even though the HISTORIC claim has made headlines and has created worldwide scientific tension and controversy, including resulting in opposing published papers. That's an example of the kind of behavior that seems absurd and irresponsibly arbitrary, which kind of behavior for 20 years I have endured daily. I don't know whether you Hytegia, or any of you, have bothered to correct hwin (as you would have jumped all over Will Duffy if he had made any such denial of an obvious claim that had been reported repeatedly in paper TITLES, ABSTRACTS, SCIENCE NEWS REPORTS, and FULL PAPERS). Many years ago I stopped checking to see if any other evolutionists bother to correct such knee-jerk invalid criticisms made against creationists (as HWIN did in this case here on LoR).

Quote mined by a creationist, I am quite proud of myself. My sentiment expressed in that paragraph was referring to your debate with AronRa, not paleontology in general. Look how BobEnyart tries to spin that into me expressing an opinion about paleontology in general. Furthermore, if you had quoted the rest of that paragraph it would have been easy to see that I was talking about the debate (it is easy enough to see what I was saying from the part you quoted). I was simply pointing out that the four original citations did not say what you claimed they said, just as everyone else who has read those papers has pointed out.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Furthermore, it is great that BobEnyart put all this effort into his last post, but again, his original four sources did not claim to have original biological material. It was not until scalyblue presented Peterson et al. (2010) that any of the citations given thus far made that claim. Now, according to what scalyblue cited and from what you have put together in your third post, it seems there is a great possibility that trace amounts of soft tissue has survived in these fossils. Again, I must emphasize, these conclusions come from the new papers presented, not the original four you cited in your second debate post; those four do not make that claim.

Emphasis added.

I believe AronRa even more now, in that you do not have a poor reading comprehension, you only glean for talking points.

HERE'S THE ARBITRARINESS AND DOUBLE STANDARD THAT I SEE

​

By the way, if you want peer-review and evidence, here is a link to AronRa's original thread again. Perhaps take a look this time, there is ample evidence and peer-review there.

EDIT: added one more underline.

 

[Frenger]

It's quite irritating that Enyart believes people are refuting his claims because he is a creationist. If he had read any of the responses he would see that the rebuttals are based on the fact that he has misunderstood the paper.

Has anyone posted the Potholer54 response to those papers yet? Here it is anyway.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Has anyone posted the Potholer54 response to those papers yet? Here it is anyway.

Yes. However, that video only goes over two of the papers. Not all the ones BobEnyart has presented thus far.

 

[brettpalmer]

I believe AronRa even more now, in that you do not have a poor reading comprehension, you only glean for talking points.

Which is also what I pointed out by bringing up his conversation with Michael Shermer. While both Bob and Michael agreed that the sun is not a light but produces light as a product of fusion, it's the "talking point," the "gotcha point," of presenting Michael as saying the "sun is not a light" that Bob was after and has been dragging around ever since. Do you all really think Enyart is ever going to drop his "talking points" about "soft tissue," even when his error has been pointed out? He still needs to get that 30 grand to run his website this year and stuff like this helps him sell himself to the most gullible audience in America.

 

[australopithecus]

Since it's obviously okay to post private exchanges in the comment thread (as Hytegia did with me), here's a reply Bob Enyart emailed me that he sent to a private message from Hytegia. [...]

I ask this only as I am genuinely confused; are you 12, because you sure act like it? Is everything about point scoring with you and Bob? The Remine thread would be evidence enough, but you seem to pro-actively behave like a child. Keep it up if you want a hiatus from posting.

And just in case YYNJ or Bob missed it the first time (and because it was mentioned in the PM between Bob and Hytegia) the response to the request for an apology:

Australopithicus: Representing LoR, please consider this request.

I represent nobody other than myself.

I would like an apology from you on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior, giving Aron a pass for his "trust me" claim that the soft-tissue has "been refuted," while for no reason being utterly dismissive toward my references to journal papers.

I will do no such thing, either on my behalf or anybody elses. That you are butthurt is entirely your problem, and any imagined slight you choose to get upset by is none of our concern. The reason people are dismissive of your references is because they have read those papers.

(I've only skimmed the other threads, but it seems that you all have treated Will Duffy, "YesYouNeedJesus," in the peanut gallery debate comment thread with this same bad behavior and arbitrary criticism.)

"Arbitrary criticism" in this insatnce I can only assume to mean "calling bullshit when we see it". It's not our problem you or Will seem happy to comment on subjects on which you are woefully lacking. Perhaps a little honesty on your parts would go a way to earning some respect.

It has been completely surreal Australopithicus that your site regulars have largely united behind the extremely absurd claim that "Enyart" et al., "do not even know what fossilisation means," for, allegedly from your evolutionist members, the reports above DO NOT EVEN CLAIM that soft biological tissue has been discovered. No? Well then, why all the controversy for 20 years?

This isn't my site, and your own and Will's inability to read the papers you cite is again, not our problem. If you don't like the conclusions of the papers then try reading them before you use them to try and back up your claims.

Could you apologize Australopithicus also for that extremely bad behavior?

I have nothing to apologise for. The members of this forum have nothing to apologise for. You are not getting an apology. Now, I advise you wipe away any lingering tears and await AronRa's reply. Furthermore, I find it highly fucking ironic that Will (smooth move running to Daddy to complain, by the way Will) complains about us given the sheer amount of intellectual dishonest the man has displayed. Crying censorship for days on end over a paper that hadn't been censored only to demand the thread that we set up about said paper be locked in a display of childishness I'd not witnessed since my days as a 5 year old, without may I add, actually addressing any of the criticisms of the paper.

If either of you expect me to apologise for anything then it will only to be to apologise to anyone viewing the forum for the colossal waste of time and effort you and Will have been.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Australopithicus: Representing LoR, please consider this request.

I'm still not quite sure why they're singling you out. After all, I was the one who locked the thread, and to my knowledge I am the only moderator involved in this who has expressed any willingness to bend the rules (when I said that I would have considered reopening it if YYNJ would have just PMed me saying he wasn't quite done yet, instead of creating a tantrum thread.)

EDIT: It must be the sonic screwdriver, it just screams authority.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Australopithicus: Representing LoR, please consider this request.

I'm still not quite sure why they're singling you out.

Because he is King australopithecus.

 

[australopithecus]

I think it might be because I set up the debate thread and that Bob has failed to pay attention to the fact others mods exist.

Because he is King australopithecus.

Or that.