Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

[UTEOTW]

Bob

If you cannot make a case on the banded iron formation material that you brought up yourself, just tell us that you cannot. I'll be glad to let you out of it.

You can even do the same thing you did on the reptile genetics thread. There you basically disavowed your post when you could not support yourself by saying it was someone else's mistake. You didn't explain to us why you posted it so confidently in the first place. And you did not let us know how you felt about being fooled and embarrassed by your YE "source." But at least you did something that was as close to admitting a mistake as you are likely to come.

So why don't you step up and do that here. Tell us that you cannot make a case for your banded iron assertion. Tell us you were just repeating someone else's idea. Tell us that y0u did not understand the subject well enough to knw you were being fooled again.

You brought it up. Address it. Support it. Or withdraw it.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

If you cannot make a case on the banded iron formation material that you brought up yourself, just tell us that you cannot. I'll be glad to let you out of it.

Thanks for bringing it up "again" -- and showing how you DO react to an argument that you "think" still has life to it.

(BTW I already pointed out your error on that one - but you did not take the hint. But I am not hammering your failed point here three-ways-to-dust the way I did with your 52 card blunder -- for the sake of contrast)

In your gloss-over of all details and facts key to any discussion - you seem to be bent on SHOWING yourself to run "and run and run" from your 52 card blunder and your "proteinless cell" blunder on this thread --

By contrast you are LATCHING on to "banded iron" argument INTEAD of the probability question that is the point of this thread in an effort to escape focus on your failed stack of 52 cards!!

Emile Borel -- the nobel prize winning mathmatician that YOU ATTACK on this thread - was right about probability and science.

YOU on the other hand painted yourself into the corner of attacking HIM and ALL of prbability science with your wild bogus claim that statics says it is impossible to deal a deck of 52 cards and get one of the 52 card combinations in the set!!

How convenient of you to run away from such a failed argument!

How "instructive" that we see you wantint to come back "AGAIN AND AGAIN" to the banded iron topic "instead" or rescuing your failed initiative!

Surely it is true that EVEN the children reading this thread can see this!!

You can even do the same thing you did on the reptile genetics thread. There you basically disavowed your post when you could not support yourself by saying it was someone else's mistake.

When you do not gloss over details and run away -- THEN you simply REVISE HISTORY and claim fantasy as historic fact!!

As in the case above!! I never stated that the Times Higher Educational Supplement" (That YOU kept attacking) - had made a mistake.

YOU DID!!

Why do you insist on "digging holes of falsehood" on every one of your initiatives??!!

You brought it up. Address it. Support it. Or withdraw it.

Hey I like that!!

UTEOTW - your 52 card blunder has died - yet YOU brought it up!!
"Address it - as in RESCUE it - support it or withdraw it"

UTEOTW - your PAtterson blunder has DIED! yet YOU brought it up!!

"Address it, as in RESCUE it - support it or withdraw IT"!!

 

[UTEOTW]

In your gloss-over of all details and facts key to any discussion - you seem to be bent on SHOWING yourself to run "and run and run" from your 52 card blunder and your "proteinless cell" blunder on this thread --

Oh, Bob, I have never run from an argument. As I told you, it gets pretty useless to just repeat myself over and over with no hope that you wil ever see your flawed logic.

You talking about the "proteinless cell blunder" when there was no bluder. I showed that the opinion of science is that the road to life as we know it included a stage where there were no proteins. A stage where RNA served as both the information carrying molecule and the catalytic molecule for cell processes. I showed how such useful RNA strands can be randomly assembled in the lab from base components using common materials as catalyst. I showed how one group of researchers has even taken these RNA strands, used clay to put them into lipid protcells, and watched as they reproduce ans grow. Yet you cling to your strawman about proteins needing to come first because you cannot vary from the comfart of your script, even when is shown to be a fictional fallacy.

And think hard about what he difficulty of my 52 card analogy really is. You have missed the boat on that one. For the odds of any particular 52 card sequence really is impossible according to your own logic. That you wasted time talking about 51 card sequences and 53 card sequences shows your lack of understanding. No the real problem is that you were not trying for a specific 52 card sequence. And that is the problem with your statement about the difficulty of making a given protein. You are starting with an arbitrary goal that skews your calculation. I dealt with all this on the first post in the thread, but you cannot be brought to read, I know. Research has shown that for a given function, there are several orders of magnituge sequences that will work other than your singel arbitrary goal. Plus, most, well all, proteins have undergone a selective process as well. So, this too, is a fallacy of yours.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, Bob, I have never run from an argument.

Well -- by contrasting your runaway from your own 52-card blunder on THIS thread AND your attacks on all of Probability science INCLUDING Emile Borel -- with your continued "interest" in "Banded Iron" for this "Probabilities" thread - we SEE your "runaway" vs your "I would like to discuss more" approach.

Obviously.

In all your vaccuous fact-challenged posting since then - you have done nothing to rescue those failed attempts.

How instructive.

You talking about the "proteinless cell blunder" when there was no bluder.

Actually - HUGE blunder on your part.

#1. THERE ARE NO proteinless cells! Not in the lab, not in nature!

You merely "tell stories" that atheist darwinists tell when they want to "imagine success" in the huge chasms and gaps where they HAVE no success in the lab showing the "assembly" of a living cell.

WHY do YOU need this natural "assembly"??

Obviously because you swallow that horrible noxious swill that the atheist darwinist claims a CHRISTIAN must believe. The atheist says that a Christian must say "God created the World Gen 1-2:3 and Jesus Created Everything John 1:1-4 but NOT SO's YOU WOULD NOTICE - because we can already account for everything in a "THERE IS NO GOD" fashion!"

In other words when it comes to choosing Abiogenesis MYTHS (having NO CELLS to SHOW for it) vs believing Romans 1 -- you choose atheist darwinist Abiogenesis MYTH!!

You say you have not SEEN EVEN ONE example of the truth of Romans 1 "The invisible attributes of God seen CLEARLY by UNBLIEVING pagans in the THINGS that HAVE BEEN MADE".

You sir - "are without excuse" just as the text says!! You choose the story-telling of others (Just-So stories according to Richard Dawkins) INSTEAD of fact!

You equate the junk-science "religion" of atheist darwinist - to ACTUAL science. Stories "easy enough to tell but NOT shown in the LAB" INSTEAD of science.

I showed that the opinion of science

Science is a SUBJECT not a PERSON! Certainly not a true devotee of atheist darwinism clinging to MYTHS not even found in the LAB artificially!!

UTEOTW
the road to life as we know it included a stage where there were no proteins.

Road TO LIFE is very different than -- "A glob of gue in which there is no life and no proteins".

I have a small bottle of sulfuric acid with no protein and no life in it already!!

A stage where RNA served as both the information carrying molecule and the catalytic molecule for cell processes. I showed how such useful RNA strands can be randomly assembled in the lab from base components using common materials as catalyst.

If science supported the MYTH that LIFE consistes of a few molecules of RNA and NO protein at all - then the atheist darwinists would ALREADY be telling us how they reached "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"!!

But check it out - NOT ONE SINGLE CELL in all of nature - not ONE CELL in your body is just "a strand of RNA"!!!

EVEN the simplest virus - is DNA wrapped in a protein shell - and it is debatable as to whether a virus is life at all!!

Your proteinLESS world does not EXIST!!

The point is that you willingly accept "Story telling" instead of science!!

UTEOTW
Yet you cling to your strawman about proteins needing to come first

Historic revisionism in the standard fact-challenged gloss-over of UTEOTW!

What else did we expect.

I maintain that FACTUALLY - ALL living cells use Protein to maintain structure and there IS NO SUBTITUTE in living cells for protein.

But that is science FACT.

You seem to prefer science FICTION as a sufficient excuse to ignore not only science but Romans 1!!!

Your blunder here could not be more glaring!

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW

And think hard about what he difficulty of my 52 card analogy really is.
You have missed the boat on that one.

You are simply "repeating yourself" without ANSWERING the point that was raised AFTER you said this - that so EXPOSED your flawed argument!

Why do you keep doing that? Why not ANSWER the points raised INSTEAD!!???

Statiscal science shows that there is a 100% chance of getting a 52 card sequence as a result of dealing a deck of 52 cards --- YOU SAY it is IMPOSSIBLE according to statistics!!

You sir - have totally failed to understand even the most basic concepts of probability science!

And you seem to be willing to demonstrate that fact "repeatedly"

For the odds of any particular 52 card sequence really is impossible according to your own logic.

Wrong. The odds against KNOWING (pre-SELECTING) the sequence that will result from a fully randomized deck is impossible.

The odds of GETTING a sequence is NOT!!

You keep wasting our time claiming that to merely GET a 52 card sequence (any one of them - does not matter just having the RESULT) is "impossible".

Anyone with an ounce of math knows that is not true!!

UTEOTW
No the real problem is that you were not trying for a specific 52 card sequence.

Huh? You tell the truth for a second??!!

How can that be???!!

Man have you slipped up here.

IF in dealing the cards you are in fact "trying" to get a "SPECIFIC" pre-selected sequence (as in - you guess it ahead of time) then you are correct - that is statistically very unlikely.

BUT YOU did not do that! You simply said TO DEAL and get the 52 cards to LAND in the order dealt is "impossible". You either lied or you really do not understand math at all.

UTEOTW
. I dealt with all this on the first post in the thread, but you cannot be brought to read, I know.

If only THAT were true

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob, please don't think that just because I exposed the fallacies under which you are laboring in your ficticious script that I intend on returning to those topics, no matter how much you would like to return to areas where you have your smoke and mirror, lies and fallacies, distortions and plagiarisms down pat.

No, no.

Oh, and don't think that I didn't notice that you so cut up and mangled my post as to have lost all sense of what I meant to begin with. You simply cannot deal with facts.

And as far as Patterson goes, you ignore that he says that the passage you quote means the opposite of what you claim. Period. YOu cannot give us any reason to not believe him so you weave your smoke and mirrors and never address the salient fact.

Thanks for bringing it up "again" -- and showing how you DO react to an argument that you "think" still has life to it.

Oh, trust me, it has life. Much more life than anything else on this thread.

You brought up the subject with some nebulous hints about a line of reasoning you say you possess.

I, have done my part by giving you the facts in the case, problems with your assertions, areas in which you must deal if you choose to respond and peer reviewed references.

You have yet to answer at all. That is why it has so much life.

The other subjects have been run into the ground. They have no life left. We could go on with them, but we have both said all we have to say. They are dead.

But your banded iron has life. All of the important areas have yet to be exposed.

Besides, we are getting a lesson in how you avoid fact based discussions like the plague, even in subject that you bring up.

It is such great fun to watch you twist in the wind on a subject of your choosing.

Here are the things you must address.

Again.

Well here is your chance. You have hinted around at banded iron and basement rock without ever really making a point or even being clear in where you were going. Your last statement seems to indicate that this was a deliberate debating ploy. Seems strange to me to attempt debate by purposely being vague and unclear. But when you have no facts on your side, I suppose that it is all you can do.

So let's put things into perspective. I had asserted that the early atmosphere was reducing and only later became oxidizing. You disagreed and made your cryptic reference to banded iron.

So let's review and expand my line of reasoning.

In the oldest rocks, up to about 2.5 billion years ago, we find materials that formed under anoxic conditions showing that the atmosphere contained very little to no free oxygen. What are some of these materials?

Well, let's look at one, first, because I think that I see a strawman coming from you on this one. Prior to the large banded iron formation formed 2 - 2.5 billion years ago, there are other iron formations. But these formations contain incompletely oxidized iron which again confirms my assertions. If the atmosphere were oxidizing, they would have been completely oxidized as the later large iron deposits were.

We have also discussed how uraninite is found in thick deposits in formations older than 2.5 billion years of age. Uraninite can only form such deposits in anoxic conditions.

We also discussed similar deposits of pyrite, which can only form under anoxic conditions. There is an important detail to add. Some of the deposits of pyrite show signs of weathering, meaning that they spent time exposed at the surface. If conditions had been oxic, they would have oxidized.

And let's add another. Paleosols from before 2.5 billion years old that contain cerium have it in an unoxidized form. It would be impossible to have soil in an oxidizing atmosphere in which the cerium did not also oxidize.

Finally, the great banded iron formations themselves of 2 - 2.5 billion years old. These bands of iron, in contrast to the earlier bands of iron, are completely oxidized and represent the time when life evolved that gave off oxygen. The new oxygen in the water oxidized the dissolved, reduced iron. Iron oxide is basically insoluable so it precipitated out.

So Bob, tell us what banded iron formations of which you speak.

Tell us what their oxidation state is, it is important.

Tell us what you mean by basement rock. Tell us what area this basement rock is from.

Tell us where those great beds of iron came from if the atmosphere were never reducing to allow the reduced iron to dissolve in the oceans.

Tell us how all these materials that can only form in anoxic conditions were able to be formed if the atmosphere were never anoxic, especially those that show signs of being at the surface for extended periods.

Let's hear it Bob. We have heard hints, rumors and allegations that you can build a case using banded iron that there was never a period with a reducing atmosphere. Well, do it. And deal with all the counter evidence I have already presented.

Oh, and I have one more thing for you. References. Please try to have some peer reviewed, published references.

Murakami, T., Utsinomiya, S., Imazu, Y. and Prasad, N. (2001). "Direct evidence of late Archean to early Proterozoic anoxic atmosphere from a product of 2.5 Ga old weathering." Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 184(2): 523-528.

Rasmussen, B. and Buick, R. (1999). "Redox state of the Archean atmosphere: Evidence from detrital heavy minerals in ca. 3250-2750 Ma sandstones from the Pilbara Craton, Australia." Geology, 27(2): 115-118.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, please don't think that just because I exposed the fallacies under which you are laboring in your ficticious script that I intend on returning to those topics,

Please don't think that in your endless "running away" from YOUR OWN examples - I have somehow seen you as being up front and RESPONDING in some substantive way to the devastating points raised against your failed efforts in an attempt to rescue them.

I see that you are "still running" so no need to claim you ARE still running.

That is the ONE point we seem to agree on!

And frankly with your slippery gloss-over and avoidance of facts and details so far -- I will take any agreement we can get!!

 

[BobRyan]

Here UTEOTW almost seems to want to rescue one of his failed arguments

UTEOTW:
You talking about the "proteinless cell blunder" when there was no bluder.

Actually - HUGE blunder on your part.

#1. THERE ARE NO proteinless cells! Not in the lab, not in nature!

You merely "tell stories" that atheist darwinists tell when they want to "imagine success" in the huge chasms and gaps where they HAVE no success in the lab showing the "assembly" of a living cell.

WHY do YOU need this natural "assembly"??

Obviously because you swallow that horrible noxious swill that the atheist darwinist claims a CHRISTIAN must believe. The atheist says that a Christian must say "God created the World Gen 1-2:3 and Jesus Created Everything John 1:1-4 but NOT SO's YOU WOULD NOTICE - because we can already account for everything in a "THERE IS NO GOD" fashion!"

In other words when it comes to choosing Abiogenesis MYTHS (having NO CELLS to SHOW for it) vs believing Romans 1 -- you choose atheist darwinist Abiogenesis MYTH!!

You say you have not SEEN EVEN ONE example of the truth of Romans 1 "The invisible attributes of God seen CLEARLY by UNBLIEVING pagans in the THINGS that HAVE BEEN MADE".

You sir - "are without excuse" just as the text says!! You choose the story-telling of others (Just-So stories according to Richard Dawkins) INSTEAD of fact!

You equate the junk-science "religion" of atheist darwinist - to ACTUAL science. Stories "easy enough to tell but NOT shown in the LAB" INSTEAD of science.

 

[BobRyan]

You are simply "repeating yourself" without ANSWERING the point that was raised AFTER you said this - that so EXPOSED your flawed argument!

Why do you keep doing that? Why not ANSWER the points raised INSTEAD!!???

Statiscal science shows that there is a 100% chance of getting a 52 card sequence as a result of dealing a deck of 52 cards --- YOU SAY it is IMPOSSIBLE according to statistics!!

You sir - have totally failed to understand even the most basic concepts of probability science!

And you seem to be willing to demonstrate that fact "repeatedly"

UTEOTW
For the odds of any particular 52 card sequence really is impossible according to your own logic.

Wrong. The odds against KNOWING (pre-SELECTING) the sequence that will result from a fully randomized deck is impossible.

The odds of GETTING a sequence is NOT!!

You keep wasting our time claiming that to merely GET a 52 card sequence (any one of them - does not matter just having the RESULT) is "impossible".

Anyone with an ounce of math knows that is not true!!

UTEOTW
Quote:
UTEOTW
No the real problem is that you were not trying for a specific 52 card sequence.

Huh? You tell the truth for a second??!!

How can that be???!!

Man have you slipped up here.

IF in dealing the cards you are in fact "trying" to get a "SPECIFIC" pre-selected sequence (as in - you guess it ahead of time) then you are correct - that is statistically very unlikely.

BUT YOU did not do that! You simply said TO DEAL and get the 52 cards to LAND in the order dealt is "impossible". You either lied or you really do not understand math at all.

-----------------

It is no accident that UTEOTW THEN fails -- utterly fails to rescue his failed argument beyond this point. It is because he has nothing to offer in this regard. It was a fact-challenged assertion on his part to BEGIN with and he has dug his own hole as DEEP as he is willing to go.

Well - the good news is that it seems EVEN UTEOTW has stopping point when it comes to digging himself into a hole!!

I just does not have the intellectual honesty to then LEAVE the pit he dug for himself!

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW - your 52 card blunder has died - yet YOU brought it up!!
"Address it - as in RESCUE it - support it or withdraw it"

UTEOTW - your PAtterson blunder has DIED! yet YOU brought it up!!

"Address it, as in RESCUE it - support it or withdraw IT"!!

UTEOTW

please don't think that ...I intend on returning to those topics, no matter how much you would like to return

Every now and then - you can squeeze a few ounces of truth and fact from UTEOTW -

ANd that is a classic one!!

 

[BobRyan]

The problem is that IN NO CASE were you able to respond EVEN ONCE with a response that paid attention to detail or ANSWERED any of the glaring failures SHOWN to be in your position!!

SEE? HINT: Start reading here! http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=164


The sad truth is that you "ran away" a long time ago - and being reminded of it - you find you are incapable of going to the links, looking at the data, answering the points, or reviving your dead failed arguments to a point of actual substantive recovery.

Your repeated empty vaccuous claims that some time in the past you might have actually done something substantive - does NOT hold true in the case of those links.

Obviously.

As has been pointed out - your silly antics when you 'Want to run" were held up IN CONTRAST to your behavior when you actually think you have a point.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=174

--

Ok so nothing new in your tactics there.

But what is incredibly facinating and new - is the degree to which you think that fellow atheist darwinist believers would fail just as blatantly on all those links as you did!!

That is the part in your many failed positions that even I find amazing!!

 

[BobRyan]

There is NO lab "data" that supports a path for building a one celled creature!

There is NO lab "data" that tells thinking mankind that the myths and fairytales of atheist darwinists about events that CAN NOT be fabricated in the lab regarding A SINGLE celled organism -- could be remotely demonstrated WITH DATA!

Atheist darwinists BELIEVE in SPITE of the data not BECAUSE of it!

And they do so in blind service to their primary world view "There is NO God"!

Obviously.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to discredit ACTUAL sciences like stastics and probability studies - exchanged for his devoted service to the junk science religion we call atheist darwinism - are well documented on this thread.

UTEOTW's utter 52 card failure on this thread is available for all to read. Much as he might wish to hide it.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to interpret basement rock in any part of earth as the "oldest rock on the planet" is well documented here.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to INSERT his own quotes in Christian posts AS IF his inference was "data" in the post is as transparently flawed AS IS his claims that the pausity of data in support of abiogenesis is "a good thing"

UTEOTW's failed argument that the atheist darwinist confessions that that the horse series was "all wrong" and "had to be discarded" and was "a lamentable fact" for having hung around in textbooks so long -- should be blindly "revisioned and wrenched" into "YEAH but nothing fundamentally wrong with it" is also well documented by his participation in the false quotes thread.

With failure after failure mounting for UTEOTW -- how does he keep posting in that SAME model as if he is "doing a good thing"??

That UTEOTW - is the question that is going unnanswered on this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

AFter totally ignoring TALK ORIGINS as the text DEBUNKS UTEOTW's own wild factless claims about Patterson--

UTEOTW then goes on to draw this summary from Talk Origins


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819507&postcount=117

UTEOTW
[SIZE=+1]Time[/SIZE]
(Myr ago) [SIZE=+1]Event[/SIZE]
4600 Formation of the approximately homogeneous solid Earth by planetesimal accretion
4300 Melting of the Earth due to radioactive and gravitational heating which leads to its differentiated interior structure as well as outgassing of molecules such as water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide
4300 Atmospheric water is photodissociated by ultraviolet light to give oxygen atoms which are incorporated into an ozone layer and hydrogen molecules which escape into space
4000 Bombardment of the Earth by planetesimals stops
3800 The Earth's crust solidifies--formation of the oldest rocks found on Earth
3800 Condensation of atmospheric water into oceans
3500-2800 Prokaryotic cell organisms develop
3500-2800 Beginning of photosynthesis by blue-green algae which releases oxygen molecules into the atmosphere and steadily works to strengthen the ozone layer and change the Earth's chemically reducing atmosphere into a chemically oxidizing one
2400 Rise in the concentration of oxygen molecules stops the deposition of uraninites (since they are soluble when combined with oxygen) and starts the deposition of banded iron formations
2000 The Oklo natural fission reactor in Gabon goes into operation
1600 The last reserves of reduced iron are used up by the increasing atmospheric oxygen--last banded iron formations
1500 Eukaryotic cell organisms develop
1500-600 Rise of multicellular organisms

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

Question for UTEOTW's endless "runaway" game -- what fossil evidence did you have for actual living cells, blue-green algae etc at the 3500-2800 MYR range? (Since this key detail seems to be the heart of your EVIDENCE against banded Iron)

 

[UTEOTW]

This is funny.

You are accusing me of running from topics which I have posted on dozens of times while you give us an object lesson in actual running from topics as you refuse to post at all on the reptile genetics and banded iron which you brought up yourself.

You really cannot argue facts can you? YOu are only comfortable behind your smoke and fallacies, which you just repeated for us in all their debunked previously glory.

Question for UTEOTW's endless "runaway" game -- what fossil evidence did you have for actual living cells, blue-green algae etc at the 3500-2800 MYR range? (Since this key detail seems to be the heart of your EVIDENCE against banded Iron)

Let's see, five minutes after you posted...

The cyanobacterial fossil record is among the oldest for any group of organisms, possibly reaching back to 3500 Ma ago. The molecular phylogeny of cyanobacteria is complementary to the fossil findings, confirming the antiquity of the group, the role of cyanobacteria in the evolution of planetary primary production, and the symbiotic origins of plastids in algae and plants from cyanobacterial ancestors. The study of fossil cyanobacteria followed the discovery of Precambrian microbial fossils by S.A Tyler and E.S. Barghoorn in 1954, and is still developing. Most fossil cyanobacteria are preserved in permineralized conditions in cherts and phosphorites or as organic compressions in shales. The interpretation of fossil cyanobacteria is aided by the study of modern counterparts, preferably within their natural habitats. These comparisons include the post mortem degradation of cellular remains. The fortuitous preservation and fossilization of ancient cyanobacterial communities in growth position, i.e. in the synsedimentary context, allows one to draw conclusions about their palaeoenvironment, including interactions between cyanobacteria and ancient sediments. These relations are based on cyanobacterial ecological requirements, and they compare well with behavioural responses of modern cyanobacteria in microbial mats and modern stromatolites. The general trend in the evolution of cyanobacteria is one of gradually increasing complexity and diversity, but the group shows a conservative maintenance of morphological adaptations to successful ecological niches. Accordingly, a large proportion of ancient morphological types is still represented among modern cyanobacteria. Fossil to Recent counterparts are identified for several coccoid and filamentous cyanobacteria. Evidence for heterocystous cyanobacteria is indirect, through identification of fossil akinetes.

STJEPKO GOLUBIC a1 c1 and LEE SEONG-JOO, Early cyanobacterial fossil record: preservation, palaeoenvironments and identification, European Journal of Phycology (1999), 34: 339-348 Cambridge University Press

So, when do you plan to support your banded iron and reptile genetics assertions?

I bet never! You cannot deal in facts for there are none on your side. That's why you keep repeating your fallacies and distortions.

 

[UTEOTW]

The speed with which I found that reference should tell you how easy it is to argue facts when they are on your side.

Your inability to give us any facts about the banded iron and reptile genetics, along with your inescapable use of fallacies and distortions and lies on other topics, tells us just how difficult it is to argue facts when there are none on your side.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
You are accusing me of running from topics which I have posted on dozens of times

Please provide the LAST time you gave us a substantative rescue attempt at your 52 card blunder - other than simply repeating your failed argument AND NOT addressing the devastating points made AFTER you first launched that failed initiative?

Try doing the same for your debunked Patterson initiative.

Try doinig the same for you debunked "ALL wrong means nothing fundamentally wrong" blunder.

Try doing that with your "proteinLESS cell" myths.

Try doing that with "Romans 1" invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN EVEN by PAGAN UNBLIEVERS in the THINGS that have been made where YOU SAY you have not seen that to be true EVEN ONCE!!!

In other words - trying being intellectually honest for a few minutes.

 

[UTEOTW]

Still running I see.

Notice taken that you cannot deal with facts.

 

[BobRyan]

Please define possibly reaching back...

The cyanobacterial fossil record is among the oldest for any group of organisms, possibly reaching back to 3500 Ma ago[

Found -- or imagined?

 

[BobRyan]

Please provide the LAST time you gave us a substantative rescue attempt at your 52 card blunder - other than simply repeating your failed argument AND NOT addressing the devastating points made AFTER you first launched that failed initiative?

Try doing the same for your debunked Patterson initiative.

Try doinig the same for you debunked "ALL wrong means nothing fundamentally wrong" blunder.

Try doing that with your "proteinLESS cell" myths.

Try doing that with "Romans 1" invisible attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN EVEN by PAGAN UNBLIEVERS in the THINGS that have been made where YOU SAY you have not seen that to be true EVEN ONCE!!!

In other words - trying being intellectually honest for a few minutes.

In UTEOTW's endless gloss-over of facts and details and endless revisionist history presented "as fact" -- he seems to view this summary of his own failed arguments as "me running"

How curious that the debilitating effects of atheist darwinism would take him down such a road.

 

[UTEOTW]

Still running I see!

So, Bob, if I were to take an hour of my time and repeat all of your fallacies and other logical errors and errors of fact and errors of distortion and misrepresentations and lies and plagiarisms, would it change you mind? If it has not sunk in yet, it is unlikely to do so now.

So why don't you trot out this masterful set of facts you have hidden back on the banded iron and reptile genetics?

I'd say because they do not exist.

Found -- or imagined?

What part of " The cyanobacterial fossil record is among the oldest for any group of organisms" was hard for you?