Watch for Updates

.

Link to clearer copy of image below (I do not agree with Aron – RLBaty):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXyPS_9V4AAxImo.jpg:large

.

It was promoted as a “conversation” between L. Aron Nelson (aka Aron Ra), atheist activist, and Kent Hovind, young-earth creationist activist, and it was announced they would be discussing Aron’s 2 best evidences for evolution of the kind in dispute.

.

Aron announces his 1st best evidence!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xob5fkYo2Gw&feature=youtu.be

.

“First, of course, systematic phylogenetics, which shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with me or my videos because cladistic taxonomy destroys all creationist notions of baramins and created kinds.  The only way Hovind can counter that is to meet the phylogeny challenge which no creationist will ever even attempt to do.”  – Aron

.

Aron explains his phylogeny challenge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKltaQ5HlA

“This is the ultimate challenge to be answered by anyone hoping to promote creationism; the identification of ‘created kinds’?” – Aron

.

Link to 2 hour “conversation” of March 2, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKltaQ5HlA

.

(Excerpts)

.

0:08:15 “I would suggest that we both start with not believing anything and just review the possibilities, and one of the things we have to look at is the Law of Monophyly which is an evolutionary law which Ernest Mayr described as Darwin’s second law of common ancestry.  This is where he says that multiplication of species is Darwin’s third law and this is the one that I refer to as biodiversity.  In either case it means that one specie may diversify into two and two into four and eight and so on, but that every daughter linage evolution is just a matter of superficial changes being compiled in successive tiers of fundamental similarities.  And it is those tiers of fundamental similarities that can be interpreted as being derived synaphymorphies which is what they are basing the phylogeny on. ” – Aron

0:25:30 “At what point do we get to where God created some primordial pair who then diversified into all these other clades?…That’s the phylogeny challenge.” – Aron

.

0:30:20 “Elephants and pine trees are the same kind; they are still eukaryotes…Because of the Law of Monophyly, they are always going to be eukaryotes…You still belong to every clade your evolutionary ancestors did.  There is no point where you stopped being what they were. You can’t grow out of your ancestors.” – Aron

.

My Analysis – Why Aron Failed!

.

While they bantered on for around 2 hours, it seems to me both of them, Aron & Kent, made the matter much more difficult than was necessary.  At least I think the matter is quite simple and could have been resolved within a few minutes, as I explained on the hosts’ Great Debate Community website discussions in recent days.  The actual event has allowed me to feel all the more comfortable with my preliminary analysis and prophecy about the matter.

.

Number 1

.

Aron was being quite disingenuous when he proposed that both of them step, back, lay aside any beliefs, and just consider the possibilities.  Aron, who believes in “common ancestry” had no intention of doing that as was demonstrated throughout the event.  For purposes of of this event, the possibilities are a single, “common ancestor” for all things living, or multiple ancestors.

.

Number 2

.

Aron’s “phylogeny challenge” isn’t what he claims for it.  Aron’s evolutionary theory is not bolstered by anyone’s failure to come up with two or more original life forms instead of Aron’s one, living “common ancestor”; whether created or naturally developing.

.

Number 3

.

Aron’s preferred “phylogentic systematics” is an Aron-based evolutionary system.  It is not evidence for evolution of all things living over “millions of years” but merely represents how those “believing” in evolution over “millions of years” tie all living things together back to what they “believe” to be a “common ancestor”.  That they struggle to tie together all things living, back to what they “believe” to be a “common ancestor” may have its merits, but is not, in and of itself, evidence they have “proved” a “common ancestor” for all living back to “millions or years” ago.

.

Number 4

.

When Aron fails to do what he proposes others to do, consider the possibilities, and rejects, out of hand, the special creation or naturally developing of 2 or more original life forms from which all others have flowed, he gets what he has, a subjective systematics that “draws lines” connecting all life forms we have now back through earlier life forms to a “common ancestor” “millions of years” ago.  That systematic is not evidence in support of godless, “millions of years” evolution from a single, “common ancestor”.

.

Number 5

.

Aron’s appeal to the Law of Monophyly also betrays Aron’s attempt to openly, honestly “consider the possibilities” as he suggests Kent do.  Aron’s appeal to the Law of Monophyly, seems to me, appears to simply be an attempt by him to define himself into a victory for his ungodly systematic belief system. 

.

.

Aron can no more find his “common ancestor” than Kent can find an originally created “kind”.  Checkmate!

.



Other References

.

Phylogenetic Systematics

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html

.

What is phylogenetic systematics, you ask? It is the way that biologists reconstruct the pattern of events that have led to the distribution and diversity of life.

.

There is an amazing diversity of life, both living and extinct. For biologists to communicate with each other about these many organisms, there must also be a classification of these organisms into groups. Ideally, the classification should be meaningful, and not arbitrary — it should be based on the evolutionary history of life, such that it predicts properties of newly discovered or poorly known organisms.

.

While classification is primarily the creation of names for groups, systematics goes beyond this to elucidate new theories of the mechanisms of evolution.

.

Systematics, then, is the study of the pattern of relationships among taxa; it is no less than understanding the history of all life. But history is not something we can see. It has happened once and leaves only clues as to the actual events. Biologists in general and systematists in particular use these clues to build hypotheses or models of the history. We hope to convince you that only with a hypothesis of history can we truly discuss evolution.

.

But, before we begin this journey, hear this warning in the everlasting words of Father Jacobus (from Hesse’s Magister Ludi):

.

To study history one must know in advance that one is attempting something fundamentally impossible, yet necessary and highly important. To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, young man, and possibly a tragic one.

 

.

Stephen Jay Gould

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/14/weekinreview/classification-is-more-than-a-matter-of-fish-or-fowl.html?pagewanted=all

.

“Trying to change a cladist’s mind is like trying to deprogram a Moonie.”

.

The Law of Monophyly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

.

“In cladistics, a monophyletic group is a group of organisms that forms a clade, which consists of all the descendants of a common ancestor. Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. The arrangement of the members of a monophyletic group is called a monophyly.”

.

Kent Hovind’s pre-“conversation” video that was not able to be posted until after the “conversation”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqnqsCqeVg

.

From a thread in the Great Debate Community venue dealing with their gloating about the notion Aron thrashed Kent in the “conversation”.

https://plus.google.com/+WaynePhilmore/posts/MdbkCgNNKP6

.

Looks like “Deep Ashtray” tried to run over to the big boss of the GDC and whine about his loss to me in our “conversation” as archived above.  Here’s that other thread link and what he had to say and my response.

https://plus.google.com/+SteveMcRae/posts/Yy2FegWLnC8

.

“Socka Count”, another moderator on the GDC site, stepped in to help out “Deep Ashtray”, and the following exchange has taken place at:

https://plus.google.com/+SteveMcRae/posts/Yy2FegWLnC8

.

(1) 

From: Socka Count (Moderator)

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018 

Time: 2:00 AM MT

.

I don’t think Aaron’s phylogeny challenge is supposed to prove evolution, it is a challenge to biblical literalists to define the term “kind”.

.
Aron can show how organisms can be grouped into clades, and how any organism will always be in the clades of its ancestors. With common descent, scientists can trace these clades back to single cell organisms while on a biblical model they should be able to trace an organism back to a creature that can not fit into a larger encompassing clade. So while it’s not necessarily proof of evolution, the phylogeny challenge based on a model of common descent can be disproved by any biblical literalist by defining a “kind”, giving an example of a kind and showing that it isn’t just another subgroup of a larger clade.

.

So again, I don’t think Aron uses the phylogeny challenge to prove evolution, he uses it to test biblical literalists. In that sense, Hovind failed the challenge.

.

(2)

From: Socka Count (moderator)

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 2:05 AM MT

.

One more point, the topic of the discussion was “evidence for evolution”, not proof of evolution.

.

Phylogeny as presented by Aron would be considered evidence in contrast to the biblical literalist who can’t explain away the phylogeny challenge. So your objection that Aron didn’t “prove” his theory I think is a little disingenuous as I don’t think it was the focus of the discussion.

.

How would you prove gravity? You can’t just drop a pen and say that you’ve proven it. What you do with gravity is try and explain the observed phenomenon through the best possible model. Evolution is the same thing, you look at the observed phenomenon, the diversity of life and the changing of allele frequency, and then build a model to explain it. The theory of Evolution explains it, the biblical literalist view on creation doesn’t.

.

(3)

From: Robert Baty

To: Socka Count (moderator)

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 10:00 AM MT

.

We might pretty much agree on all of that.

.

You wrote, in part:

.

“I don’t think Aaron’s phylogeny challenge is supposed to prove evolution, it is a challenge to biblical literalists to define the term ‘kind’.”

.

So, as I have proposed, Aron’s phylogeny challenge doesn’t do anything to help prop up Aron’s evolutionary “belief”.

.

Aron can’t find that original, singular, naturally developed life form and Kent can’t find an original created life form.

.

That Aron didn’t “prove” his “belief” is not disingenuous. It is a very important point to keep before us as the controversy continues.

.

It’s not about “proof”.
There isn’t any.

.

Aron “believes” it.
Others don’t.

.

You also wrote regarding our observations, in part:

.

“Evolution is…a model to explain it.”

.

I think that has been my point from the beginning.

.

No particular scientific discipline can justify the model.

.

One has to develop a philosophy and synthesize the information.

.

Aron has his model which is supported by his “belief” in a godless philosophy that brings it all together in a nice neat graphic with a bunch of lines going back through history to a singular, naturally occurring, original life form.

.

I don’t have a problem with sciency guys do what sciency guys do without expecting any interference from any God, angel or devil, and Aron’s “belief” in his godless evolutionary scheme fits the bill and is quite understandable in that context.

.

I don’t call it “religion” like Kent does, but the synthesis of all or some of what we claim to know into a theory about what we don’t know isn’t, strictly speaking, “science”. But that might get us into a fuss over semantics and I will just leave it at that.
.
I will try to watch and see if Aron corrects his course as far as the “conversation” goes, and his continuing promotion of himself and his theory, and makes it clear that his theory takes him beyond the reach of the evidence and he has his own “beliefs” as to “filling in the blanks”.
.
Who knows, as another moderator here suggested, maybe Aron will even come out and claim he didn’t really mean that he “knows there is no God”; he just means he doesn’t “believe” there is any God.

.

Then there was this I just saw and responded to in another thread on the GDC at:

https://plus.google.com/+WaynePhilmore/posts/MdbkCgNNKP6

.

(1)

From: Lucifer Almighty (moderator)

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 3, 2018

Time: 11:00 PM MT

.

Evolution is an observed fact… there is no debate.

.

(2)

From: Robert Baty

To: Lucifer Almighty (moderator)

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 10:40 AM MT

.

“Evolution is an observed fact.”

.
Aron accepts that.
Kent accepts that.
.
Who doesn’t accept that.
.
So, why did anyone even think Kent and Aron had anything to fuss about?
.
Bwahahahahaha!
.
So, does that mean there is no “conversation” either; that Aron is going to back out of the proposed second round with Kent?
.
Are y’all already posturing to justify Aron’s decision not to return to the table for a “conversation” with Kent about Aron’s highly touted “2nd best evidence”?
.
Oh, yeah, some people just don’t understand what is going on with such semantic word games and the state of the science.
.
Cute!
.
But, thanks for the continuing demonstrations from your side.

.

Now we are back to this thread and “Socka Count”, after which “Deep Ashtray” decided to interlope again:

https://plus.google.com/+SteveMcRae/posts/Yy2FegWLnC8

.

(1)

From: Socka Count (moderator)

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 11:00 AM MT

.

“So, as I have proposed, Aron’s phylogeny challenge doesn’t do anything to help prop up Aron’s evolutionary “belief”.”
.
That’s where I think you are in error. The phylogeny challenge is based on what we can observe and extrapolate backwards. This qualifies it as evidence and would therefore act as a justification for why the evolutionary model is the better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
.
“Aron can’t find that original, singular, naturally developed life form and Kent can’t find an original created life form“
.
Finding the original, naturally developed life is not required for the evolutionary model to stand. If the original single celled organism was created by a god or alien species, the evolutionary model still works. The phylogeny challenge supports common ancestory which by itself is not evolution, but another aspect that supports the model of evolution.
.
_”It’s not about “proof”.
There isn’t any.”_
.
That’s my point, proof applies to math, all Aron and Kent had to do was present evidence that best supported the observed phenomenon of evolution.
.
“Evolution is…a model to explain it.”
.
“No particular scientific discipline can justify the model.”
.
Of course it can, to justify something is to simply lay out the reasons for why something is believed. It has to do with the evidence one presents. This is done through every scientific discipline.
.
“Aron has his model which is supported by his “belief” in a godless philosophy that brings it all together in a nice neat graphic with a bunch of lines going back through history to a singular, naturally occurring, original life form.”
.
I disagree, Aron has his model which is supported by the evidence.

.

(2)

From: Robert Baty

To: Socka Count (moderator)

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 12:00 Noon MT

.

I don’t doubt that Aron’s godless evolutionary model is a good godless model which finds some support in some scientific evidence.
.
The model, however, I would propose, takes one beyond the evidence in order to illustrate a history that some, like Aron, “believe”. I get that.
.
To be fair, don’t you also think that Aron should give up his phylogeny challenge since you claim your side doesn’t need to find the single, original life form that gave rise to all plants and animals?
.
I’m thinking Kent can explain his original created kinds as well as Aron can explain his unknown but “believed-in” single original life form; though the scientific explanation may not suit you, and Aron’s attempt to scientifically describe his unknown singular, original life form wouldn’t suit Kent.
.
I would suggest it is sufficient to claim that there was one or more original life forms from which all others have evolved and neither Kent nor Aron can provide a satisfactory description of such life form(s). Aron has chosen to “believe” there was only one. Kent “believes” there was more than one.
.
For all you know, original life from which all plants and animals are now evolved may have been in forms that exceeded the count of 1.
.
If so, Aron’s model fails, despite the accuracy of various and sundry clades contained therein.
.
The phylogeny challenge doesn’t “support” anything.
.
Not having a satisfactory answer for Aron does not mean his “evolutiondidit” any more than you not having that single, original, naturally occurrring life form means “goddidit”.
.
By the way, I haven’t tried to find it and I don’t think Aron ever admitted to it, but since you brought it up; just how many “loose ends” are there in Aron’s phylogenetic tree, and how far back in history does he go in drawing those lines before he stops and just “believes” the connections go back further to that single, original, naturally occurring life form; in spite of the fact the lines stop?
.
“Aron has a model which is supported by the evidence.”
.
There are a “million” pieces to that model, and I doubt they all fit together the way Aron “believes” that they do, and you even admit he hasn’t found his way back to that single, original, naturally occurring life form which he touts in his promotions.
.
Systematics has evolved and, as far as I can tell, it will continue to do so and various models may be proposed. Aron “believes” in his. I get that.

.

(3)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018 

Time: 12:05 PM MT

.

Again your ignorance of science is glaringly apparent.

.

(4)

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 12:15 PM MT

.

I rather think it’s your ignorance that is showing in thinking that someone has to know enough to suit you about science in order to figure out that it’s simply a case of Aron “believing there is no God” instead of “knowing there is no God” and that he “believes” his evolutionary model is accurate back to some unknown, singular, original, life form from which all others have evolved.
.
Such evolutionary models are “believed” by some, like Aron.
Others don’t accept Aron’s “belief”.
.
I’m good with that.
.
Those more knowledgeable about the science and the theology can continue their work to figure it out.
.
I’ve got it figured out well enough to suit me, and I have found that my adversaries just can’t seem to stand admitting that I have it figured out to the extent that I have.
.
For all you know, and Aron knows, there is a God, and it is the God of the Bible.
.
For all you know, and Aron knows, there was more than one original life form from which all others have evolved.

.

(5)

From: Socka Count (moderator)

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 1:00 PM MT

.

“I don’t doubt that Aron’s godless evolutionary model is a good godless model which finds some support in some scientific evidence.”
.
It is, Aron isn’t making this stuff up, it is the consensus of the vast majority of the people working in the numerous disciplines that support evolution.
.
“To be fair, don’t you also think that Aron should give up his phylogeny challenge since you claim your side doesn’t need to find the single, original life form that gave rise to all plants and animals?”
.
No, that’s a non sequitor. Evolution is not predicated on knowing what the first life is, evolution shows us that the first life was single celled organisms based off of all the evidence.
.
“I’m thinking Kent can explain his original created kinds as well as Aron can explain his unknown but “believed-in” single original life form; though the scientific explanation may not suit you, and Aron’s attempt to scientifically describe his unknown singular, original life form wouldn’t suit Kent.”
.
If Hovind could do this, he would be able to address the phylogeny challenge, he failed in this hangout. One of the main reasons he failed was because the phylogeny challenge is directly counter to believing in created kinds. You have to deny phylogeny to prove that flavour of Creationism, yet that is denying all observable evidence we can point to.
.
“I would suggest it is sufficient to claim that there was one or more original life forms from which all others have evolved and neither Kent nor Aron can provide a satisfactory description of such life form(s). Aron has chosen to “believe” there was only one. Kent “believes” there was more than one.”
.
Again, the phylogeny challenge is evidence for a common ancestor, not for created kinds, therefore Aron is in a better evidential position.
.
_”For all you know, original life from which all plants and animals are now evolved may have been in forms that exceeded the count of 1.”_ll
.
No, while its possible that there may have been multiple types of first life, the evidence points that the diversity of life stems down to only one.
.
“The phylogeny challenge doesn’t “support” anything.”
.
Again, this is where you’re wrong, it supports common ancestory, that’s the point of the challenge.
.
” By the way, I haven’t tried to find it and I don’t think Aron ever admitted to it, but since you brought it up; just how many “loose ends” are there in Aron’s phylogenetic tree, and how far back in history does he go in drawing those lines before he stops and just “believes” the connections go back further to that single, original, naturally occurring life form; in spite of the fact the lines stop?”
.
Watch his series on clades.
.
“Aron has a model which is supported by the evidence.”
.
“There are a “million” pieces to that model, and I doubt they all fit together the way Aron “believes” that they do, and you even admit he hasn’t found his way back to that single, original, naturally occurring life form which he touts in his promotions.”
.
They do, the theory of evolution is more complete and has more support than the theory of gravity.

.

(6)

From: Socka Count (moderator)

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 1:05 PM MT

.

Here’s the point. If you pick any two species, you can reduce them down to a common ancestor based on cladistics. The more different the species, the farther back you need to go but you will always get to a common clade.
.
To prove Aron wrong, feel free to take him up on the challenge, name two species that cannot be reduced down to a common clade. On a model of created kinds, this should be easy.

.

(7)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 3:00 PM MT

.

You have made it obvious you don’t know what the science says about the model you’re so desperately trying to denigrate here. You are acting as if of all the thousands of individuals and hundreds of institutions that have researched evolution, cell biology and phylogeny you’re the very first person who is proposing that maybe there was more than one origin of eukaryotic life. AronRa is aware of the latest research and alternative models; for a number of years there has been active research going on in exactly what you think you’ve so brilliantly exposed, any new discoveries would be big news. Regarding science it is quite clear you’re not even at the high school level yet, intellectually or education wise.

.

(8)

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 4:00 PM MT

.

Glad you brought that up, as I ponder a good way to respond further to Socka. You wrote:
.
“Regarding science it is quite clear you’re not even at the high school level yet, intellectually or education wise..”
.
Well, it doesn’t require even a high school science level education to figure out Aron, and others, “believe” beyond the reach of their science as far as coming up with their model. They should admit to that rather than behave and speak as if their fancies as to what is historical has been “proved” instead of simply speculated.
.
And if you want to harp on “proof” again, fine, that’s the point. Aron “believes” he’s got it figured out. Others don’t.
.
But, back to the issue you mentioned.
.
Kent Hovind has indicated he has not been able to come up with any post-high-school science degrees earned by Aron, and that Aron may not have even graduated from high school.
.
Someone in these discussion claimed Aron was highly educated without making any specific claims as to what he was talking about.
.
OK, so just what are Aron’s educational credentials; especially as compared to Kent Hovind’s?
.
Maybe Aron’s Wikipedia page needs to be upgraded to reflect his alleged educational credentials.

.

(9)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 4:15 PM MT

.

Kent Hovind has no credentials regarding science, and there are plenty of theists who will readily say regarding Christianity as well. but that would be meaningless to you of course. If you believe he does then you really are an idiot. As for AronRa, go through his videos on his YouTube channel, you can find out there. But be very careful, you might learn something.

.

(10)

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 4:30 PM MT

.

Bwahahahahaha!
.
I take that to mean you know of no post-high school educational credentials (i.e., masters, doctorates, associates) scientific degrees earned by Aron.
.
Nope!
I am not going to look around as if there was something to find.
I’ll take your response as an indication that there ain’t nothin’ there.
.
If there is, maybe someone more honest than you will simply post what it is.

.

(11)

From: Robert Baty

To: Socka Count

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 4:35 PM MT

.

Maybe you can get Deep Ashtray to shut up and move along so I can try to wrap things up with you as far as this “conversation”. I’m working on it.

.

(12)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 4:45 PM MT

.

You could just look it up yourself. Given how Kent is a serial liar regarding about everything he has ever come out with and you have already declared me a liar at least twice, that would be a prudent course. But again given your obvious distaste for learning, be careful.

.

(13)

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 6:00 PM MT

.

No reason for me to think there is anything to look up.
.
I didn’t see it on Wikipedia.
Kent says he couldn’t find it.
You can’t just tell it.
.
You are a liar, but not always.
.
If you are suggesting that Aron has some earned, post-high school degrees in some scientific discipline(s), maybe your suggestion is a lie.
.
I don’t know.
.
I will, like a good atheist, not believe Aron has any earned scientific degrees for lack of evidence. That would seem to make him fairly matched with Kent Hovind.
.
I’ll keep it on my list of things to look out for.

.

(14)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 6:10 PM MT

.

AronRa articulates the science very accurately. If your smugness didn’t make you so lazy you’d take some time and check it out. Kent totally fucks up the Gospel and the science. I never said either one had an advanced degree. It has been made more than clear that you are no more educated on the science than Kent, so it’s another idiotic and rather hypocritical tactic of yours to claim to refute AronRa on something you are utterly incompetent to address in the first place.

.

(15)

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 6:45 PM MT

.

Thanks for providing evidence further supportive of my belief that Aron has no educational credentials, degrees, in any scientific field, particularly in the field in which he has been put up as your champion to try and best Kent Hovind.
.
Sounds to me like you and yours, and Aron, have a lot of secrets regarding Aron and his history that you would just as well not want found out.
.
I get it.
Bwahahahahaha!
.
No wonder so many on your side, as I have noticed, are not enthralled with having Aron represent their side.

No wonder it is so difficult to make progress with such as you on the weightier matters when you and yours are so stiffnecked even on the simple stuff like Aron’s educational background.

.

(16)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 7:25 PM MT

.

Again he is accurate on the science, something neither you nor your heartthrob Hovind can claim. If you want to continue to prance around screeching out your victory then by all means I will not get in your way. The pair of you make lovely representative bookends of Creationist “science” cliches.
 
.
(17)
From: Robert Baty
To: Deep Ashtray
Date: March 4, 2018
Time: 7:50 PM MT
.

Again, your commentary provides further reason to believe that Aron has no earned degrees in any scientific discipline.

.

Your claim just goes to show how hypocritical you and your people are when they whine about Kent’s lack of scientific bonafides like earned, accredited degrees.

.

Thanks for that further demonstration.

.

(18)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 9:50 PM MT

.

I’m talking about the accuracy of the science, have from the beginning of this friendly little exchange; you have proven you don’t have that capacity so you try to denigrate the science itself the way Kent denigrates Christianity with his foolish gibberish about “kinds”. Kent not only lacks any accreditation but like you he lacks even the basic cognitive capacity to grasp simple scientific concepts.

.

(19)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 10:05 PM MT

.

And what is really hilarious is that your “Doctor” Kent Hovind isn’t even accredited to teach Christian theology. Both his “degrees” are from unaccredited “schools”. At least AronRa can give an adequate account of the science, Kent has both the science and the theology completely fucked up.

.

(20)

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 4, 2018

Time: 10:45 PM MT

.

I’m not particularly interested in what you claim to be talking about.
.
While I’ve had an interest in your hero’s secret past that you don’t want to reveal, and maybe don’t even know yourself, you brought up his education with:
.
“Regarding science it is quite clear you’re
not even at the high school level yet,
intellectually or education wise.”
.
And I think I noticed that someone earlier had accused Aron of having some kind of mysterious educational background.
.
So, for about the 10th time now you have refused to claim any scientific educational credentials for Aron (i.e., one or more degrees in any scientific disciplines).
.
Aron may be able to give an account of science, but he seems to really have a problem admitting when his views go beyond the science and simply represent his “beliefs” beyond his science. Maybe Aron can’t distinguish the difference.
.
I get it, and I get that neither you or anyone here has yet claimed any educational attainments in any scientific discipline for your hero Aron.
.
Really, I get it!
Aron has no degrees in any scientific discipline.
I get it.
I get why you don’t just come out and admit it.

.

(21) Just my comment here

“Deep Ashtray” suggested I look up Aron’s educational background, and I finally got around to giving it a try and found that he wasn’t much of a student in his youth and became a tattoo artist.  I didn’t hear him indicate he has any formal, scientific education.  The performance below was in 2010.  Maybe he has gotten some secret scientific degree since then.  Maybe not.  “Deep Ashtray” didn’t seem to want to say.

https://youtu.be/WSffJCplfGM?t=5m50s

 

.

(22)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 5, 2018

Time: 7:50 AM MT

.

But still you cannot point out anywhere AronRa is wrong about the science. Of course wallowing in your own willful ignorance you couldn’t anyway.

.

(23) 

From: Robert Baty

To: Deep Ashtray

Date: March 5, 2018

Time: 8:15 AM MT

.

I think I’ve pointed out where Aron is wrong on the “science” as opposed to his personal “beliefs” about the science. We still disagree on that.

.

However, all is not lost.

.

I did get around to looking up Aron’s educational bonafides. Aron is a “former tattoo artist” (i.e., see reference below).  If he has any other credentials (i.e., any degrees in any scientific discipline), I failed to come up with it.

.

Aron and Kent appear to be a great match for each other. They both have managed to figure out a way to monetize their hobbies and exploit their fans.

.

(24)

From: Deep Ashtray

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 5, 2018

Time: 8:00 AM MT

.

I won’t argue with that.

.

(25) Added graphic – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKltaQ5HlA

.

“Agrippa Seven” has now joined in to thrash me in yet another thread at the following link.  Here are the last 2 messages of that exchange.  I will try to add earlier comments leading up to them as I get time.

https://plus.google.com/116334593660814261517/posts/fVrYR3CFc6m

.

(1) 

From: Agrippa Seven

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 5, 2018

Time: 2:30 PM MT

.

This is science mate. It is not decided in a debate or by simplistic layman nonsense. It is decided by evidence.
.
Until you understand the science your 101 stuff is layman waffle. Your position goes against 99% of scientists worldwide. Are you really that arrogant? Do you think you know better. You may have been spending too much time near Hovind.
.
Again happy to walk you through the basics.
.
Please don’t tell me you think the earth is 6000 yo.
.
As a degree qualified geologist I’m a little alarmed of your dismissal of one of sciences most robust theories based on just “critical thinking” and no apparent knowledge of the science.
.
Nothing in science is intuitive and applying some preconceived notion of common sense is to be eliminated . Rule 1 Day 1 of any science degree.
.
Robert your position really is no better than Hovind’s at this point.
.
Your inability to understand the science can only be rectified by education. Not “critical thinking” alone.
.
Premise 1. Learn what Theory of Evolution states and what are the mechanisms. When you have done that then you can review the mountain of convergent evidence from biology, geo biology, genetics, morphology, comparative anatomy, paleo sciences, chemistry, physics and geology that all provide evidence that support the theory.
.

(2)

From: Robert Baty

To: Agrippa Seven

Date: March 5, 2018

Time: 3:10 PM MT

.

Well, if we can’t agree on how to approach the matter, we can’t have much of a discussion.

.

We disagree on how to even approach a review of the Aron-Kent “conversation” which I am trying to do.

.

That’s right, I guess, the “science” is decided by the “evidence” and the “evidence” doesn’t get you to that common ancestor of pine trees and elephants.

.

If it does, Aron was conspicuous in leaving it out of his presentation. Maybe I missed it.

.

That’s my main point, I think.

.

The evidence is not disputed, but what Aron, and others “believe” about the evidence is disputed.

.

Seems that is simple and uncontroversial enough and yet Aron shows up to try and claim he doesn’t “believe” anything related to his position.

.

Let’s try it again.

.

Premise #1

.

If anything living shares a characteristic with another living thing (i.e., Pine Tree & Elephant), then such living things had a singular, common, original living ancestor.

.

– Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny

.

In my opinion, you have no good reason to deny that that is just the position that Aron was promoting in his “conversation” with Kent.

.

If it was nonsense, you need to be working with Aron to correct it. Aron is the layman promoting it.

.

I am just taking note of it.

.

And as they say, no one turns against reason until reason turns against them, and it appears many in the scientific community like to turn from reason when their scientific musings are shown to be from somewhere beyond the reach of the evidence.

.

(3)

From: Robert Baty

To: Agrippa Seven

Date: March 5, 2018

Time: 9:40 PM MT

.

Here’s my illustration of a fundamental point on the Aron level. If you don’t like me dealing with such things at the level, you should be talking to Aron not me. I think it works, and your side should seriously consider finding another spokesman if you think anyone can do any better than Aron and convince “us” lower class sorts who don’t speak your language that your evolutionary theory does not involve taking your beliefs beyond the reach of the evidence.

.

You also should be more accepting and less critical of folks who offer you such valuable feedback, in my opinion. How I’ve been treated here for daring to criticize your hero Aron’s performance and position only reinforces the stereotype regarding the character of such as promote evolutionary theory as commonly understood as a scientifically “demonstrable fact”.

.

I’m not the one that has been being arrogant, for example.

.

Link to graphic below included with above post:

https://youtu.be/gEKltaQ5HlA?t=7m50s

.

(4)

From: Agrippa Seven

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 12:55 AM MT

.

“does not involve taking your beliefs
beyond the reach of the evidence.”
.
WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE YOU REVIEWED? What do you know about genetic sequencing? do you even know what the Theory of Evolution states and how the biological mechanisms work? do you have any sort of science education?
.
YET – you claim there is a belief beyond evidence – how the hell would you know?
What research papers have you read?
.
This is like you arguing complicated medicine with a doctor – would you do that and claim before you even do some research that “you know” better? You denigrate the whole field of science and those of us that did 4-10 years pf hard work to learn what we know – that why people get angry.
.
Sadly mate you are just plain wrong. No one claims it is easy to understand. When you enter biology or any of the sciences you enter a very complex field.
.
Like all that deny anything in science whether it is climate change, evolution etc you demonstrate the same desire for a quick fix/ simple. Learning is not a quick fix. Science is not easy. Kent’s appeal is simplicity. Welcome to reality – science is not simple.
.
I’ve offered to give you some basic pointers and explain further and you have rejected this. How do you expect to have any sort of credibility in any debate when , like Kent and YEC you don’t even know the basics?
.
And like it was with Aron v Hovind and others it becomes an education exercise to filter through the absolute bullshit mangled notions of what evolution and science is.
.
Yes people here get annoyed and angry sometimes – why? The laziness of the other side to do some learning and approach with an open mind. It is a fundamental issue with finding truth mechanisms that YEC et al seem to lack.
.
You can spend months researching Kents legal and tax stuff but won’t invest time to understand biology, yet you make broad statements of your knowledge
This claim of knowledge and hubris is baffling to me and anyone from a science background.
.
Simple Solution – if you or anyone thinks evolution or any other part of science is incorrect – publish your alternative solution, the data and experiments that we can replicated.
.
“Affirm” and “deny” nonsense has no place in science and science has no need for it.
 

.

(5)

From: Agrippa Seven

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 1:00 AM MT

.

I’ll quickly address your fist premise and you may want to reconsider
.
Premise #1
.
If anything living shares a characteristic with another living thing (i.e., Pine Tree & Elephant), then such living things had a singular, common, original living ancestor.
.
– Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
.
REPLY – No one in biology including Aron claims this. It is not just “a characteristic” . What characteristics does biology use to map and verify common decent?
we are all eucaryotes ergo we fit in the same phylogenic grouping. This is just one characteristics- it is not the the only one. Can you explain the comparative anatomy and bio-mechanical characteristics of the canid clade and how e see those matched in both the fossil record and genome sequencing??
There is verifiable evidence to support each one of these sciences that form part of common decent. hundreds of thousands of research papers and experiments. Real work – real science
.
Suggest you listen again – Aron made it very clear that the was only taking a Lineaus view, it did not cover in detail the evidence from full Genome sequencing, fossil record, morphology, anatomical comparative biology or geo biology
.
Premise 1 dismissed, there is just so much wrong with your premise
You DENY – where is your evidence to support this position. Science works of p[resenting data and evidence that can be replicated – not words

.

(6)

From: Robert Baty

To: Agrippa Seven

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 8:05 AM MT

.

I think you are trying too hard to keep from simply setting forth one of more of the fundamental issues in dispute; whether or not we get any one or more of them resolved.
.
I’ll wait to see if Aron ever cares to speak for himself regarding the proposition #1, but I will, for now, enter your agreement with me, as shown below.
.
Premise #1
.
If anything living shares a characteristic with another living thing (i.e., Pine Tree & Elephant), then such living things had a singular, common, original living ancestor.
.
– Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm


– Robert Baty: Deny
– Agrippa Seven: Deny
.
I am also a bit glad that you wrote, in part:
.
“There is verifiable evidence to support each one of these sciences that form part of common decent.”
.
That is suggestive of the point Warren tried to make in his debate with Flew; that, strictly speaking, evolution via the common descent notion was a synthesis of various scientific disciplines and philosophical more than strictly “science”.
.
In that context, maybe this even more simple proposition would be to your liking.
.
Proposition for DIscussion
.
Aron Ra believes that elephants and pine trees have a common ancestor.
.
– Robert Baty – Affirm

.

– Aron Ra: Deny

.

– Agrippa Seven: (To Affirm or Deny)
.
Aron said that is his hobby and that, like Kent, he has now monetized it into a job.
.
It’s not mine, and so I will be satisfied to get some consensus that the “demonstrable fact” is that the evolution of pine trees and elephants from a common ancestor is what Aron believes based on his evolutionary theory.
.
Maybe I’ll get it.
Maybe not.
.
But Aron convinced me, and others here have added evidence supporting my conclusion.
.
Aron believes it.
Others don’t.

.

Maybe we are about to wrap up our conversation!

.

(7)

From: Agrippa Seven

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 10:00 AM MT

.

Mate, this is just drivel.

Popularity contests.

.

(8)

From: Robert Baty

To: Agrippa Seven

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 10:50 AM MT

.

Yeah, I’m dealing with the Nelson/Ra – Hovind performance, and you are wanting to discuss the complex scientific details which neither one of them can really establish any bona-fides to justify taking them too seriously.

.

I just noticed that you had posted 2 messages previous to mine above instead of one, and that your 1st one concluded with:

.

“Affirm and deny nonsense has no place
in science and science has no need for it.”

.

Sorry you feel that way. That, if taken seriously, would explain explain why so much of scientists’ theology is not take seriously by us “dummies”.

.

It’s a real conversation stopper, and, in my experience, my adverseries try to justify their positions by using it in more subject than just science.

.

But, while I am back here, let me propose to you that Aron was, in fact, making affirmations, implied or implicit, that can be reasonably illustrated in the following argument which I think he was promoting in his performance with Hovind (which might explain why real scientists are probably not going to be pushing Aron’s performance to justify the work they do).

.

The Aron Nelson/Ra Pine Tree – Elephant Argument

.

Premise #1

.

All eukaryotes have a common ancestor.

.

– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Deny

.

Premise #2

.

Pine trees and elephants are eukaryotes.

.

– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Affirm

.

Conclusion

.

Pine trees and elephants have a common ancestor.

.

– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Deny

.

And I think that is a “demonstrable fact” supported by that performance the other day. You know the one.

.

Thanks for the discussion, Agrippa Seven.

.

(9)

From: Agrippa Seven

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 11:05 AM MT

.

Suggest you watch some of Arons videos – he goes into the detail specifically.

.

Robert, you are taking a whole field of science and dismissing it based on a side show event on YT. This was entertainment not science.

.
And still your premises are ignorantly wrong. No one with any science education is going to take you at all seriously mate. You will get dismissed immediately and asked for your research data and peer reviewed papers – that show science works.

.
I’m happy to give you some education but you seem to want to stay ignorant and peddle YEC mantras.

.
You never answered – do you also think the earth is only 6,000 you?.

.

(10)

From: Robert Baty

To: Agrippa Seven

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 11:10 AM MT

.

I have listened to some of Aron’s videos, and I think you are the one refusing to face how simple these complex scientific promotions can be reduced to fundamental matters.
.
I get your objection to Aron’s argument, but that’s it, and I propose you won’t find anything in any of his videos which indicates it is not the argument he set forth, implicitly or explicitly, in his performance with Kent.
.
The Aron Nelson/Ra Pine Tree – Elephant Argument
.
Premise #1
.
All eukaryotes have a common ancestor.
.
– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Deny
.
Premise #2
.
Pine trees and elephants are eukaryotes.
.
– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
.
Conclusion
.
Pine trees and elephants have a common ancestor.
.
– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Deny
.
You can, Agrippa Seven, either “affirm” or “deny” the premises and conclusion, but you simply whine about them.
.
There is no good reason why you would do that.
.
I know that Aron believes Premise #1, but the problem is he is trying to fool people into thinking it is a “demonstrable fact”.
.
Aron can’t do that.
You can’t do that.
And it’s that simple, as far as my analysis.
.
I get it.
.
Evolution with common descent is believed, for good reason according to some.
.
Aron won’t accept that.
I do.
.
And you don’t need to know much about the complex scientific details to figure that out.

.

(11)

From: Robert Baty

To: Agrippa Seven

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 11:20 AM MT

.

P.S. – No, I don’t think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

.

Just in from Kent Hovind.  Hovind v. Nelson statistics.  I report.  I cannot confirm the claims.

https://youtu.be/o0GjV_6KEX4

.

Before I could complete my archiving of what was an extended discussion with “Agrippa Seven”, that thread in the GDC venue appears to have disappeared.  After some time and repeated efforts to try and find it, I posted the following:

https://plus.google.com/105159591028863936218/posts/DnVBcKSAi4P

.

(1)

From: Robert Baty

To: The Great Debate Community

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 8:50 PM MT

.

Curiouser and curiouser!
.
I don’t know, so I thought, as with my opinions on the Nelson-Hovind “conversation”, I would post this and see if it’s an innocent enough glitch of some sort or something more sinister regarding my participation in this “lion’s den”; if anyone can tell and will let me know.
.
I haven’t had this happen before (see graphic below).
.
Is it just a glitch with the GDC website?
.
Something more sinister?
.
It was a thread where +Agrippa Seven and I were discussing Aron’s failure to put Kent away in their March 2, 2018 “conversation”.
.
Clickable link to thread:
.
https://plus.google.com/116334593660814261517/posts/fVrYR3CFc6m
.
The substance of my position in that conversation was that Aron simply believed his position instead of being able to establish it as an “established fact” (i.e., was proven), as illustrated in the following argument formulated from Aron’s “conversation” with Kent.
.
The Aron Nelson/Ra Pine Tree – Elephant Argument
.
Premise #1
.
All eukaryotes have a common ancestor.
.
– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Deny
.
Premise #2
.
Pine trees and elephants are eukaryotes.
.
– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
.
Conclusion
.
Pine trees and elephants have a common ancestor.
.
– Aron Ra: Affirm
– Kent Hovind: Deny
.
Maybe that is just too simple and to the point for some here. It also seems quite UNcontroversial; at least as to the claims I make for it.
.
My claims:
.
1. The argument was promoted implicitly or explicitly by Aron in his “conversation” with Hovind.
.
2. The argument is so constructed that if its premises are true then its conclusion will follow as true therefrom (i.e., logically valid).
.
3. Aron believes the first premise to be true. Kent does not believe it is true.
.
4. Aron and Kent both believe the second premise is true.
.
5. Aron believes the conclusion to be true. Kent does not believe it is true.
.
6. I have no problem with Aron believing his first premise true. I think it would be good if he would admit to believing it instead of claiming it as an “established fact” (i.e., proven).

.

(2)

From: Robert Baty

To: The Great Debate Community

Date: March 6, 2018

Time: 9:10 PM MT

.

Following is the graphic that comes up for the thread in question:
.
https://plus.google.com/116334593660814261517/posts/fVrYR3CFc6m
.
In each of my attempts, however, I am now getting the prompt above indicating I do not have access to it.

.

Too much going on for me to keep up with, so, for now, I am just posting this last post of mine which I think summarizes and could conclude the banter about Aron’s failure to do what had been hoped for him.

.

(3)

From: Robert Baty

To: DynaCatlovesme

Date: March 7, 2018

Time: 9:35 AM MT

.

You wrote, in part:

.

“You might explain your problem with the
following, to make it perhaps possible to
understand you:

.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal”

.

Good to see you discovered Socrates, but I think you are still having a problem figuring out the simplicity of my set up of what Aron was promoting.

.

Compare to:

.

All eukaryotes are of a common ancestor.
Pine trees and elephants are eukaryotes.
Pine trees and elephants are of a common ancestor.

.

In my experience, many of my adversaries have tended to struggle with even agreeing with me that such constructions are logically valid.

.

If such constructions are not logically valid, the rest doesn’t really matter; the argument will fail as being INvalid.

.

That’s simply a matter of form. As I noted earlier, your attempted effort to present a logically valid argument failed.

.

Now, if a valid argument has true premises, then it might be rightly concluded that the argument supports the conclusion. If the argument has one or more faulty premises, then the argument fails to support the conclusion (whether it be true or not) because the argument is UNsound.

.

Aron believes his first premise is true.
Kent disputed the first premise.
Aron & Kent both agreed the second premise is true.

.

Aron and his supporters think that first premise has been proved, but even some sciency guys claim that science can’t prove such a thing.

.

I don’t propose to resolve the matter, but since this is social media and many made a big deal out of the event, I thought I would present my views as to why Aron failed to do what was hoped.

.

I think I have done that well enough to clearly, more clearly than Aron and Kent did, in my opinion, set up the fundamental issue Aron was promoting (as reflected in the above argument) and my claim that Aron did not, cannot raise his position on that first premise beyond the “belief” stage, regardless of how much “justification” he might use to support his conclusion.

.

I get it.

.

Aron’s position is commonly “accepted” by the scientific community as part of their “belief” in their theory of evolution.

.

I get it!

.

(4)

From: DynaCatlovesme

To: Robert Baty

Date: March 7, 2018

Time: 10:30 AM MT

.

You did not address the question that was asked of you.

.

You repeated your incomprehensible objection to Aron’s argument, which remains incomprehensible.

That Hovind disputes Aron’s first premise is not a problem with Aron’s first premise.

.

(5)

From: Robert Baty

To: DynaCatloves me

Date: March 7, 2018

Time: 12:25 PM MT

.

For anyone interested in my observations and the opposition thereto, I think my last post above is sufficient to note the substantive issues and the opposition viewpoint is noted.
.
I have no objection to Aron’s argument. I am the one that presented it clearly for those who may not have noticed it.
.
I have noted my claim is that Aron failed to establish as a matter of fact (i.e., prove) his first premise which Kent objected to.
.
If you think my approach and explanation is incomprehensible, I would suggest the problem lies with you and your demonstrated failure to understand the basic critical thinking skills involved. Maybe finding Socrates, however, put you on the road to improving your comprehension of the simplicity of what positions I have taken.
.
Thanks for adding your voice to the discussion and for your demonstrations.

.

Bye!

.

(6)

From: Robert Baty

To: David Fulton (moderator)

Date: March 7, 2018

Time: 12:50 PM MT

.

I was thinking, from the beginning, that it was something more sinister, and I am thinking that more now.
.
That is, one option you didn’t mention is that +Agrippa Seven may have been able to block me from the thread and may have blocked me from everything he posts using this platform.
.
And that without warning, without notice.
.
I get it!
That’s my story for now.
.
However, I figure my work on the Aron Argument Issue is done, and if anyone is interested further, they can come to me where I hang out. I have patronized this place enough with that matter.

.



.

March 14, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blzl-S5HVfY

.

March 16, 2018

L. Aron Nelson-Ra Twitter Post:

https://twitter.com/Aron_Ra/status/974736895757385729

.

What Aron is promoting in the above Twitter post:

https://www.christianforums.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F28872442_417785861977438_6717586729370386432_n.jpg%3Foh%3Dfb6188e5cf37954202978c97e5e0251a%26oe%3D5B09EC77&hash=90e2aca020d92d33e8336b369284c1eb

.

Aron’s referenced image adapted for simplicity:
.

One alternative to Aron’s claim:

.

March 17, 2018 – L. Aron Nelson-Ra Lying?
.

Looks like it to me.
https://youtu.be/ShlIIZseCws?t=18m25s

.


Comments

How Aron Nelson/Ra Failed! — 7 Comments

  1. Evolution/Systematics – The Sum of The Aron Nelson/Ra Position
    Evolution 101 Critical Thinking Exercise
    .

    Premise #1
    .

    If anything living shares a characteristic with another
    living thing (i.e., Pine Tree & Elephant), then such
    living things had a singular, common, original living ancestor.
    .

    – Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm

    – Robert Baty: Deny
    .

    Premise #2
    .

    Some living thing shares a common characteristic
    with another living thing (i.e., Pine Tree & Elephant).

    .
    – Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
    – Robert Baty: Affirm
    .
    Conclusion
    .

    Such living things had a singular, common, original
    living ancestor.
    .

    – Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
    – Robert Baty: Deny
    .
    .

    • There is also this one:
      .
      The Aron Nelson/Ra Pine Tree – Elephant Argument

      .

      Premise #1

      .

      All eukaryotes have a common ancestor.

      .

      – Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
      – Kent Hovind: Deny

      .

      Premise #2

      .

      Pine trees and elephants are eukaryotes.

      .

      – Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
      – Kent Hovind: Affirm

      .

      Conclusion

      .

      Pine trees and elephants have a common ancestor.

      .

      – Aron Nelson/Ra: Affirm
      – Kent Hovind: Deny
      .

  2. It doesn’t sound like Aron’s “established fact” is so established to me, after browsing the following article:
    .
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4640172/
    .
    Conclusions
    .
    The long-inscrutable quest for the origin of the eukaryotic cell
    has become increasingly tractable with recent progress in genome sequencing, phylogenomic analyses and the exploration of microbial diversity in natural ecosystems.
    .
    The discovery of new lineages of uncultured archaea in anoxic
    sediments that appear more related to eukaryotes than other
    archaea constrains existing models for the origin of eukaryotes.
    .
    However, if the prokaryotic ancestry of eukaryotes begins to be
    refined, fundamental questions on the eukaryogenic process remain
    fully open.
    .
    Among them are the number and type of metabolic symbioses at the
    origin of the eukaryotic cell, whether mitochondria evolved early
    or late and, most critically, how and why the nucleus evolved,
    and how the eukaryotic membrane lipids came to be (see Outstanding
    Questions).
    .
    The devil is in the detail; thus the elaboration of detailed,
    plausible and, if possible, testable mechanistic models accounting
    for all eukaryotic features is necessary to constrain existing
    models and unravel the transition to eukaryotic complexity.
    .

  3. I think you did a good job. They couldn’t give a simple answer whether to affirm or deny. They kept using an ad hominem attack, appealing to authority, and appealing to the majority. I found it interesting that you were actually defending Dr. Hovind for once by pointing out how unfair it was to make only Dr. Hovind satiate a “challenge.”

    • Thanks for the feedback. I was not intending to “defend” Kent. I didn’t think he did all that well, and I tried to keep from explicitly “defending” him. I understand how it might have appeared as a defense of Kent, but that was not my intent. I think there is enough criticism to go around, and Kent gets plenty, even from me in other contexts, and Aron not near enough.
      .
      If you haven’t seen Randy Dunn’s various posts evaluating the event, you might check them out in the thread in my Hovind FaceBook group at:
      .
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/permalink/930041743831622/
      .
      Randy does a lot better than I did in his evaluation of Aron and his people.
      .

Leave a Reply