First, you are not using technically accurate terms. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. Different sequences of DNA are possible and have been observed. Same for RNA. To date, however, no substitutes for DNA or RNA have been confirmed.

Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.

The notion that different molecules could be used as DNA analogs is certainly testable.

Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.

In fact, if you recall, there was a recent claim that some bacteria used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA... which would make it "not DNA". I am not aware of any reason to believe that "alternate DNA" would be any more or less susceptible to evolution than our known DNA. Therefore this hypothesis is just as testable as the other. The only difference is that it is not currently, actively testable given our state of technology, and we currently know of no examples.

Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:

"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."

Frankly I am not convinced that your argument "evolution is only compatible with 'all life uses the same DNA'", is any more plausible than the argument that "evolution is possible given a suitable alternative analog of DNA". The only difference I see is that only one of them is testable today. The flap over the "arsenic DNA" in Mono Lake shows that the other idea is at least plausible to many scientists.

Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:

Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.

Just as, for years, there were no known methods to test for the existence of dark matter. Yet that did not stop many scientists from creating models based on it, nor did it get them ejected from the halls of science.

Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a "flaming, large-bore asshole"...

I probably won't keep asking you to retract anything, because you obviously don't have the necessary intellectual integrity. But if you're going to keep digging these absurd holes... shouldn't you limit yourself to digging one ridiculous hole at a time?

Well, it was a retraction of that example. I'm not going to retract my more general claim, because it is not incorrect. And you are already well aware that statistically speaking, it is almost certainly true.

Maybe that was a bad retraction, and maybe you're not retracting your more general claim even though it's absurdly incorrect, and maybe you're accusing me of being "well aware" that your more general claim is "almost certainly true" even though I've been emphatically denying your absurd claim.

... All currently known life forms have structures based on DNA or RNA. This is a fact. Creationists argue that because we know of no actual examples of the evolution of DNA or RNA from simpler molecules, then DNA (or RNA at least) were created and did not evolve. NOTE: I do NOT claim it is evidence of creation, only that it is evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a creationist's arguments. (By the way: the claim of the existence of organisms that use arsenic rather than phosphorus has not been substantiated.) Now, let's be clear: I also did not and do not claim that this argument is sound. I am simply saying that it is not an inherently silly argument, it is based on genuine observable evidence, and I am not aware of counter-evidence. (Though I do not deny that some may exist. The very same evidence might be interpreted as supporting the argument for evolution, for all I know, but I am not sure how at this time.) Therefore I have found a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument.

No, you haven't, and you obviously didn't read the link I just gave you:

It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases– a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. This is why I was confused when Brett mentioned Message Theory. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.

Your second example was actually bad too, because it shows evolution is falsifiable science while creationism is just religion. Try again.

Yes, or no. Do you deny that given the size of the body of evidence, the probability of ALL available evidence being against the ideas of creationism or "young Earth" is very close to zero? Do you deny that a corollary if this is that SOME evidence must almost certainly be supportive of creationism?

Yes, I deny that any fact supports young earth or old earth creationism. Yes, I deny that there is any evidence supporting young earth or old earth creationism. I'm a denier.

You've repeatedly claimed that some facts support the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Since you probably won't surprise us on this account, perhaps lowered expectations are in order. Earlier, you claimed:

Just one example: The fact that radiometric dating relies on certain assumptions has been one of their favorite talking points. Are those assumptions reasonable? I think so. But they ARE assumptions, and that is a fact. Therefore, there do exist facts that can be said to support (or at least not refute) the creationists' arguments. ...

I replied by saying "No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again." and your response was "Okay, maybe it was a bad example."

Any example may be a bad example, so that wasn't a retraction. Your example actually was a bad example, and anyone who understood my point would have the intellectual integrity to admit that without weasel words. So perhaps my website was down; here's the relevant part:

Isochron dating results of old rocks depend only on nuclear decay rates being constant in time. Isochron dating isn’t dependent on initial quantities of elements, and the analysis method automatically produces error bars on the obtained age. The oldest rocks we have agree that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, plus or minus 100 million years or so.

Just to be clear, we can’t be sure that nuclear decay rates are exactly constant. But experiments have placed constraints on the size of any variation in decay rates:

1. Supernovae produce many radioactive elements which slowly decay after the explosion. At first they shine brightly in a spectroscopically unique manner, but over the course of several weeks they fade to half their previous brightness. The amount of time it takes the brightness to fade is a direct measurement of the nuclear decay rate. The best example is supernova 1987A, which lies ~169,000 LY away. That means that when scientists looked at that light in 1987, they were measuring the nuclear decay rate as it was around 169,000 years ago. The results were experimentally indistinguishable from current decay rates, and have been confirmed by similar experiments on SN1991T, which is 60,000,000 light years away.
2. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that can be used to determine the fine structure constant and neutron capture rates, both intimately entwined with quantum mechanics’ predictions of nuclear decay rates. This experiment is more ambiguous and as a result the error bars are much larger than the SN1987A constraint, but it’s also consistent with a constant nuclear decay rate. Since the Oklo reactor was active 1.8 billion years ago, the Oklo evidence only supports a change in the fine structure constant of one part in 10 million over that timespan.
3. The increase in nuclear decay rates necessary to increase the “apparent age” of rocks from thousands to billions of years is enormous. This decay rate would make all the mildly radioactive elements in the Earth decay faster, releasing enough heat to melt the crust. It would still be molten to this day unless God made a cosmically sized refrigerator to cool it down fast enough to fit into the creationist timeline.
4. Any change in nuclear decay rates would have to affect all types of nuclear decay identically, otherwise isotopes that decay by different mechanisms (alpha, beta, neutron emission, etc.) would’ve decayed at different rates. If these rates changed differently, it would cause isochron dates of the same object but using different isotopes to disagree. To the best of my knowledge, that’s never happened.
5. If nuclear decay rates have changed, then why do ice cores like the one taken at Vostok, Antarctica show agreement between annual layer counts and isochron age? A change in nuclear decay rates wouldn’t affect the annual temperature fluctuations that form the basis of the annual layer counts, so the two different methods of dating the same (~400,000 year old) ice core should be different. They aren’t.

Your example was bad. If you can't even retract your more general claim, can you at least admit that your example was actually bad, not just "maybe" bad?

I'm not the one who claimed that some facts support the creationist position. You did. Repeatedly. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.

To nobody's surprise, Jane "pulled a Jane" again. Retracting the two words "went missing" ignores all your other baseless smears, which I helpfully listed here. It's strange that you say I think you are another person. Anyone who reads this thread can confirm that I never said any such thing.

It's amusing that you have the time to write all that arrogant nonsense but don't have time to provide even one example of a fact that supports the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.

Again, water is wet, which doesn't support evolution. But your original claim before your goalpost moving was that there are some facts which support the creationist position. You can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or pull a "Jane" by doing neither. Surprise us.

Now that you've moved the goalpost to a fact that just doesn't refute the creationists' arguments, here's one: water is wet.

No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again.

What facts support the creationist position?

... this is why others caused an uproar when "original data" went missing from EAU and CRU right around the time of "climategate". ... there was simply no way to evaluate the quality of CRU's work. access to the RAW DATA was NOT available. Only data that has already been "massaged" (to an unknown degree) was available before the "official" release, and that release was prompted by complaints about this very (and very valid) issue. ... access to original data is vital to verifying and reproducing results. ... CRU could have avoided the FOIA requests if they'd simply handled things in a professional, reasonable manner, as opposed to one that was blatantly arrogant and dismissive. They needlessly pissed a lot of people off. When you do that, you should not expect them to not piss you off in return. ... I'm not trying to say data was actually "missing", but it is true that some of it was not available. And CRU's documented attitude regarding requests about it contributed to an atmosphere of distrust. ...

Jane Q. Public, please use your feminine voice to tell Lonny Eachus that when he finds himself deep in a hole, he should use his masculine strength to... stop digging.

Again: "Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for a third party to withhold access to the data. Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so."

Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned.

access to the RAW DATA was NOT available

Previously, you could have used your ignorance as an excuse. Now you're just lying. And apparently neither you or Lonny Eachus have enough intellectual integrity to retract your latest steaming pile of civilization-paralyzing misinformation. This flood of misinformation isn't just staining "Jane Q. Public's" sock puppet legacy. It's also staining Lonny Eachus's real human legacy. Please stop.

it was uncovered that most of the original data could (later) be obtained from the original sources

I didn't notice this comment before I wrote mine, otherwise I'd have been forced to correct this incorrect claim too. Again, the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." Most of the data was already in the public domain, which is why the FOIA blizzard against CRU was so hysterically pointless.

Years ago, I explained in excruciating detail that this played absolutely no role in evaluating the quality of CRU's work because the majority of data in CRU's dataset "are derived from the same freely-available raw data sets used by NOAA and NASA." The Muir Russell review reproduced the necessary code in two days without any help from CRU.

And, of course, this isn't CRU's fault because “the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.” Oddly, many people seem to ignore this point and blame CRU.

By the way, I debunked the misinformation that you and Lonny Eachus were spreading about Cowtan and Way 2013. Feel free to retract your misinformation (or double down on it) here. Lonny Eachus is welcome to do the same, but for some reason he never replied.