Good, this will make things much more interesting. That is a funny introduction to yourself though. Hi I’m Marty and know science pretty well, so be aware. At least you’ve looked at some data yourself though for myself reading RTB material has left me confused at how they come to certain conclusions based upon papers they cite (while ignoring many others).
Here is one example for me that I wrote about in response to a recent article written by Fuz: Reviewing Adam and the Genome - #143 by pevaquark
This to me, is basically cherry picking papers, coming to hasty conclusions and ignoring other studies. I do still stand by my analysis of the tactic that I see a lot of on anti-evolution websites-- “Here is a weakness of this one part of this theory, therefore it is false and my own version is true” (in this quote ‘my own version’ can be YEC, RTB, etc.). All the YEC science articles do it. At least RTB has much more science in it (related to Cosmology) than some others. Maybe you can shine some light on where I’m going wrong here.
Yeah but. We are getting new evidence all the time. As in every day. Here’s another new neat paper:
Popsci article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/how-sunlight-might-have-jump-started-life-earth
Actual paper: Browse Articles | Nature Chemistry and also referenced in the popsci article: Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism | Nature Chemistry
Note: I hate referencing pop-sci articles as they often dramatize headlines to get readers and clicks on ads but it can help get the gist of highly technical research papers.