Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Really? And what are you doing? You have never posted your "empirical evidence". Why should everyone else be required to do so when you can't come up with j&*** S8888888iT????

Why don't you answer the question - WHAT IS YOUR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? How does it contradict the prevailing evidence?

Which is why I am asking for the "prevailing evidence". Why are you getting so worked up? Just show the evidence that apes emerged 25-30mya, since there is so much prevailing evidence it should be easy.

Of course, this is just a summary of the research involved. The more you read, the more you gotta read to understand what you just read. Doing your homework is fun that way.

www.sciencemag.org...

I thought this thread was about Abiogenesis, not evolution. I made the mistake of going to the last page and starting to work backwards through several pages......nothing about abiogenesis, just personal attacks and circling the wagons. Guess I'll go back to lurking until this thread gets back on track.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Of course, this is just a summary of the research involved. The more you read, the more you gotta read to understand what you just read. Doing your homework is fun that way.

www.sciencemag.org...

You call this a summary, but it only cites one research article. The research article consists of dating an incomplete mandible from an unidentified animal.

Are you suggesting this is the overwhelming evidence for the extraordinary claim that apes evolved from old world monkeys 25-30mya?

originally posted by: Sparky63
I thought this thread was about Abiogenesis, not evolution. I made the mistake of going to the last page and starting to work backwards through several pages......nothing about abiogenesis, just personal attacks and circling the wagons. Guess I'll go back to lurking until this thread gets back on track.

It stays on track for a while if you read from the beginning forward

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Of course, this is just a summary of the research involved. The more you read, the more you gotta read to understand what you just read. Doing your homework is fun that way.

www.sciencemag.org...

You call this a summary, but it only cites one research article. The research article consists of dating an incomplete mandible from an unidentified animal.

Are you suggesting this is the overwhelming evidence for the extraordinary claim that apes evolved from old world monkeys 25-30mya?

Considering it was a 6 year old article and there’s been even more evidence and data to support the 25-30 Ma split, that particular article wasn’t the end all be all but it’s still infinitely superior to anything you’ve supplied to support your own position, which is ZERO.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, there is evidence. However, since you don't post a single citation which endorses your "opinion", you have no credibility. You're not prepared to have a discussion as a scientist because you aren't a scientist.

a reply to: cooperton

You call this a summary, but it only cites one research article. The research article consists of dating an incomplete mandible from an unidentified animal. Are you suggesting this is the overwhelming evidence for the extraordinary claim that apes evolved from old world monkeys 25-30mya?

Did you bother to read that research article? Did you read the references? Do you understand the methodologies used? No, you didn't because you never do.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

LMAO! Dude, just stop. I'm not appealing to OPINIONS of scientists, the article DIRECTLY referred to RESEARCH and cited the exact fossils that were analyzed. Yes I trust experts over religious liars. You really think I need to go to the lab and verify all scientific evidence MYSELF in order to agree with trained certified experts on their research?? Have you EVER done that for YEC or literally anything at all??? You don't grasp appeal to authority, you don't grasp science, you don't grasp reality. If we are appealing to authority by agreeing with experts analysis and study of evidence, then what are YOU doing? Where have you ever posted any relevant evidence for anything related to YEC???

So you can't find empirical evidence proving apes emerged 25-30 mya?

All evolutionary evidence points to that. Stop being so dishonest. You have been fighting science for YEARS on this website and you still don't even grasp the basics. Science doesn't deal with absolute 100% proofs of anything. It makes the best explanation based on EVIDENCE. Are you going to refute the fossils in the article or not?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

LMAO! Dude, just stop. I'm not appealing to OPINIONS of scientists, the article DIRECTLY referred to RESEARCH and cited the exact fossils that were analyzed. Yes I trust experts over religious liars. You really think I need to go to the lab and verify all scientific evidence MYSELF in order to agree with trained certified experts on their research?? Have you EVER done that for YEC or literally anything at all??? You don't grasp appeal to authority, you don't grasp science, you don't grasp reality. If we are appealing to authority by agreeing with experts analysis and study of evidence, then what are YOU doing? Where have you ever posted any relevant evidence for anything related to YEC???

So you can't find empirical evidence proving apes emerged 25-30 mya?

All evolutionary evidence points to that. Stop being so dishonest. You have been fighting science for YEARS on this website and you still don't even grasp the basics. Science doesn't deal with absolute 100% proofs of anything. It makes the best explanation based on EVIDENCE. Are you going to refute the fossils in the article or not?

It's not evidence, that's the problem here.

All species on Earth today are the same species as before today. None have 'evolved' into other species, nor any indication of that.

Extinct species have been found throughout human history, it's well-known. None of those now-extinct species 'evolved' into other species, obviously.

To claim all extinct species have 'evolved' into other species, ignores all of the evidence showing extinct species have NEVER 'evolved' into other species, over thousands of years. And no species today has indicated any such thing, once...


No evidence supports 'evolution.


You want to see scientific research that shows 'evolution' is not true.....?

The real question to ask is why they all ignore the real, valid evidence, to start with??

You seem to think if all the research papers support 'evolution', it automatically makes 'evolution' valid, and true, or something!


Think again.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why is it that there are no human fossils found past about 200K years ago in the geological strata as we dig deeper?

Did humans just "appear" out of nowhere?

In Eden perhaps?

a reply to: turbonium1

It's not evidence, that's the problem here. All species on Earth today are the same species as before today. None have 'evolved' into other species, nor any indication of that.

Hey, let's jump over this already. You've been saying the same thing ad infinitum. But you never cite any evidence. On the other side, evidence has been posted also ad infinitum and you don't pay attention. That says everything about YOU and not about anyone else.

It's do or die now - that's for you as well as Cooperton. Either you start posting your evidence, or you're relegated to the frauds, the ignorant, the stupid, the mental cases that have zero credibility. Is that where you want to be? It's okay with me.

You are human, and your parents are human, and they had human parents, who also had human parents, and so on....


You now have evidence, first hand.



Anything else?

a reply to: turbonium1

There are humans, and then there are humans. Not all have been us.
But we do carry them with us. Those who are gone.
Through our mothers' mothers' mothers'... mothers.

Which has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

There are humans, and then there are humans. Not all have been us.
But we do carry them with us. Those who are gone.

Evidence of our ancestors being human is conclusive, nothing has proven otherwise, and never will.

a reply to: turbonium1

Genus homo, indeed. In the nearer term.
Which species are you descended from?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Genus homo, indeed. In the nearer term.
Which species are you descended from?

No species has descended from another species, we are living proof of that fact.

Over a billion humans on Earth today, had human ancestors, as well..

Every other species on Earth today is still the same species, as before...as now...and forever after today...


Science is supposed to be about evidence, wherever the evidence is found, no matter what it leads to...


It does not take a scientist to see the evidence here. We all can see the evidence ourselves, each and every day.

a reply to: turbonium1

No species has descended from another species

Incorrect.

we are living proof of that fact.

Contrarywise, we (and every other living thing) are proof of evolution.

I prefer the overwhelming evidence, over those nonsense arguments, without a shred of evidence. If you prefer the latter, have fun..

originally posted by: turbonium1
I prefer the overwhelming evidence, over those nonsense arguments, without a shred of evidence. If you prefer the latter, have fun..

Where is this "overwhelming evidence"??? You haven't posted a single item of evidence. You're just like Cooperton - all blabber and no solid evidence.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I prefer the overwhelming evidence

Me too. Between what I learned during my education and what I learned by you know... actually getting my hands dirty doing my own work and research, I’ve found the overwhelming evidence to support the MES

over those nonsense arguments, without a shred of evidence.

Yet here you are, spouting nonsense arguments and once again proving that you don’t have the most elementary grasp of the subject matter. You go on rants and tirades, repeat the same unsubstantiated statements and claims ad infinitum yet substantiate none of it. You’ve got nothing

If you prefer the latter, have fun.

Anytime you want to cite all of this undeniable evidence to support your world view, please let me know. Unless you’re willing to have a open mind and objectively look at the evidence, there’s really yes point in entertaining your blanket denialism.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I prefer the overwhelming evidence, over those nonsense arguments, without a shred of evidence. If you prefer the latter, have fun..

LOL! This guy makes Coop look like a genius.