The Argument Clinic

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

It is time to actually support your claims Ron and Roy

Which claim? That you lie about what your sources are, or that you lie about what they say?

Evidence for those can be found throughout your posts, and I can even provide support for them both at once:

1. The high similarity between the genetic text and human written language. For instance, Hubert P. Yockey:

“It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”
Microsoft Word - 2005-11-16_Hubert_Yockey_reply_to_FTE_amicus.doc (ncse.ngo)

You didn’t get that ‘quote’ from Hubert Yockey’s brief, because it isn’t in there. You lied about the contents of your linked source.

Nor is that text as presented found in anything else Yockey wrote. The section in [square brackets] was added by Charles Thaxton, so your source cannot have been anything written by Yockey himself, but must have been either Thaxton’s article or one of the many later ID articles that quote it (e.g. Witt or Luskin). So you also lied about the identity of your source.

Here’s some more support:

I was just referencing Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True where he claims, “Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we expect from evolution.” (Coyne, 2014, p. 81)

His prediction is based upon the observation that “[n]ew parts don’t evolve from old ones, and we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features—like the kiwi wing—that don’t work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers.” (Coyne, 2014, p. 81)

You were once again lying about your source. It wasn’t Coyne’s book, page 81 or otherwise, because Coyne’s book says something else. Your source was Casey Luskin: here or here or some-one else who copied his misquote.

Those were from two years ago, and despite being caught passing off multiple misquotes as being taken by you from original text, you are still trying to pass off quote-mines and misquotes copied from creation.com, Reasons to Believe, Uncommon Descent, Evolution News and other unreliable sources as being from the original sources you cite but haven’t even bothered to verify let alone read.

My claims about you have been supported far more often and in far more detail than should have been necessary to convince you that copying quotes from creationists is a bad idea, yet you persist, and are still regularly being caught lying about your sources.

If “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, you must be straitjacket and padded-cell bonkers.

P.S. You probably meant my implicit claim that common descent was testable. I have already supported that via the link you quoted but haven’t read and wouldn’t understand.