Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

Ok ok great. So the best evidence you could find for apes evolving from old world monkeys is a partial fragment of a mandible from an unidentified animal. Let's go over some straight-forward evidence that disproves your assertion and evolutionary theory:

Here's a human-made hammer in supposedly "400 million year old" strata:


Here's Guadalupe Woman found in "28 million year old" limestone


Human footprints in a "150 million year old" strata


human footprint in a "290 million year old" strata



^That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much evidence disproving evolution, you just have to look for it.

a reply to: cooperton

The only way for you to think any of your “examples”, (which unsurprisingly all lack citations and links despite your demands from others) can be viewed as Evidence of anything is to be honest and admit that you’re a monstrous hypocrite and are only looking at things from a specific perspective to support your confirmation biases and preconceived notions.

I and many others have seen the above examples and debunked them more times than I can count at this point, I’m not even going to waste my time explaining why none of your examples are evidence of anything other than your own gullibility and willful ignorance. We all know that you won’t read any citations so there’s zero point in even considering that your posts and threads are anything more than trolling exercises. I truly hope you have the loveliest of bridges to live beneath.

a reply to: cooperton

Yo coop, post the scientific research papers regarding those artifacts. You whine about appeals to authority, but where did you get that info? You are just posting screen shots of a website and think that constitutes scientific proof? Pardon me while I laugh myself to death over your blatant hypocrisy.

a reply to: cooperton

Don't forget to add this one to y our collection:

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Yo coop, post the scientific research papers regarding those artifacts. You whine about appeals to authority, but where did you get that info?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

The only way for you to think any of your “examples”, (which unsurprisingly all lack citations and links despite your demands from others)

Ugh this is getting tiring. Did you even look at the whole post? The last two have citations in journals, and even include the page number. The first two are also examples of how the conventional narrative is wrong. Can you show me any empirical evidence regarding apes evolving from old world monkeys 25-30 mya? A mandible fragment from an unidentified animal does not suffice.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Don't forget to add this one to y our collection:

You are a joke. You resort to satire when logic can no longer defend your position.

a reply to: cooperton

Please link the research papers. The petrified footprints one from 1992 cannot be found and the few abstracts I found say nothing about human footprints. I doubt that was ever actually published in a journal. This was debunked a long time ago. Real human footprints do not look that perfect, ESPECIALLY not one allegedly from 290 million years ago.

Info on footprints

Look at the picture there to see what ACTUAL hominid footprints look like.

For the other one, every site that comes up is a creationist site. LMAO @ claiming these are peer reviewed journal articles. Again, post the direct links to the papers instead of dishonest screen shots with false claims that come from AIG and other creationist websites rather than scientific articles or journals. Funny how you have no standards at all for what you post, but then hold everyone else to insane standards. You committed appeal to authority fallacy to a T.

And of course the first 2 have no sources whatsoever, we are supposed to just take your screen shots on faith. Come on dude. Stop the hypocrisy!

Can you show me any empirical evidence regarding apes evolving from old world monkeys 25-30 mya? A mandible fragment from an unidentified animal does not suffice.

Yes, it does suffice, not to mention the comparisons from old world monkeys to early apes and the entire theory of evolution that is backed by so much evidence, which you have still to this day not debunked a single piece of evidence for anything. You just cherry pick little things here and there as the be all end all, when evolution as a whole has been thoroughly substantiated and this is just one transition among millions. Even if they don't have tons of evidence of this single transition, it's OBVIOUS, and scientists have been working on this for decades. You don't care though. You have a narrative and you are loyal to it above all else, regardless of actual research.

So the ball is in your court. Post the research papers instead of silly screen shots from creationist websites.

originally posted by: Phantom423

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.

What you consider as 'evidence', is hardly considered what you, or any others, CLAIM as evidence, or not as evidence, or whatever else...

There is nobody who decides what evidence is, or is not. Evidence is not a personal, or a group, that decides what evidence is, or is not, in any case, or any scenario, etc....


You think evidence is when all these 'experts' universally agree, with no doubts, or questions -

Scientists have never agreed 100% on the laws of physics, even today, but somehow, agree 100% on gravity, as a real force, while having no proof gravity even exists, nor demonstrations of any kind...

Unlike the laws of physics, which have proof, and which have been, and can be, demonstrated...



Same as 'evolution' is accepted 100% true, without a shred of valid evidence for it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Please link the research papers. The petrified footprints one from 1992 cannot be found and the few abstracts I found say nothing about human footprints. I doubt that was ever actually published in a journal. This was debunked a long time ago. Real human footprints do not look that perfect, ESPECIALLY not one allegedly from 290 million years ago.

Info on footprints

Look at the picture there to see what ACTUAL hominid footprints look like.

For the other one, every site that comes up is a creationist site. LMAO @ claiming these are peer reviewed journal articles. Again, post the direct links to the papers instead of dishonest screen shots with false claims that come from AIG and other creationist websites rather than scientific articles or journals. Funny how you have no standards at all for what you post, but then hold everyone else to insane standards. You committed appeal to authority fallacy to a T.

And of course the first 2 have no sources whatsoever, we are supposed to just take your screen shots on faith. Come on dude. Stop the hypocrisy!

Can you show me any empirical evidence regarding apes evolving from old world monkeys 25-30 mya? A mandible fragment from an unidentified animal does not suffice.

Yes, it does suffice, not to mention the comparisons from old world monkeys to early apes and the entire theory of evolution that is backed by so much evidence, which you have still to this day not debunked a single piece of evidence for anything. You just cherry pick little things here and there as the be all end all, when evolution as a whole has been thoroughly substantiated and this is just one transition among millions. Even if they don't have tons of evidence of this single transition, it's OBVIOUS, and scientists have been working on this for decades. You don't care though. You have a narrative and you are loyal to it above all else, regardless of actual research.

So the ball is in your court. Post the research papers instead of silly screen shots from creationist websites.

There is nothing linking any species 'evolving' into a completely different species...and that's what you're trying to claim here.


The evidence is very clear about that.

Many species are extinct, which once lived alongside humans...

None have 'evolved' into other species, as we all know...

You cannot 'link' those extinct species to any other species...


If those species were already extinct, before humans were around, what would happen?


They would claim those species 'evolved' into other species, of course.


It's simply nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phantom423

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.

What you consider as 'evidence', is hardly considered what you, or any others, CLAIM as evidence, or not as evidence, or whatever else...

There is nobody who decides what evidence is, or is not. Evidence is not a personal, or a group, that decides what evidence is, or is not, in any case, or any scenario, etc....


You think evidence is when all these 'experts' universally agree, with no doubts, or questions -

Scientists have never agreed 100% on the laws of physics, even today, but somehow, agree 100% on gravity, as a real force, while having no proof gravity even exists, nor demonstrations of any kind...

Unlike the laws of physics, which have proof, and which have been, and can be, demonstrated...



Same as 'evolution' is accepted 100% true, without a shred of valid evidence for it.

This statement is totally ignorant. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't have a clue how science works. It also underscores the fact that you haven't read a single post or link which addresses your questions and comments.

In total, your statement points to the fact that you are unteachable. The real world is irrelevant to your embedded beliefs which have zero proof. You repeat the same garbage over and over, just like Cooperton, but never present an iota of evidence. You don't even understand what evidence is!

Best recommendation is that you take up paint-by-numbers as a hobby - you don't have to think or figure out anything. Just fill in the blanks.

Here's a link to get you started: www.michaels.com...

Happy Bugs is highly recommended:

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Please link the research papers. The petrified footprints one from 1992 cannot be found and the few abstracts I found say nothing about human footprints. I doubt that was ever actually published in a journal. This was debunked a long time ago. Real human footprints do not look that perfect, ESPECIALLY not one allegedly from 290 million years ago.

Info on footprints

Look at the picture there to see what ACTUAL hominid footprints look like.

For the other one, every site that comes up is a creationist site. LMAO @ claiming these are peer reviewed journal articles. Again, post the direct links to the papers instead of dishonest screen shots with false claims that come from AIG and other creationist websites rather than scientific articles or journals. Funny how you have no standards at all for what you post, but then hold everyone else to insane standards. You committed appeal to authority fallacy to a T.

And of course the first 2 have no sources whatsoever, we are supposed to just take your screen shots on faith. Come on dude. Stop the hypocrisy!

Can you show me any empirical evidence regarding apes evolving from old world monkeys 25-30 mya? A mandible fragment from an unidentified animal does not suffice.

Yes, it does suffice, not to mention the comparisons from old world monkeys to early apes and the entire theory of evolution that is backed by so much evidence, which you have still to this day not debunked a single piece of evidence for anything. You just cherry pick little things here and there as the be all end all, when evolution as a whole has been thoroughly substantiated and this is just one transition among millions. Even if they don't have tons of evidence of this single transition, it's OBVIOUS, and scientists have been working on this for decades. You don't care though. You have a narrative and you are loyal to it above all else, regardless of actual research.

So the ball is in your court. Post the research papers instead of silly screen shots from creationist websites.

There is nothing linking any species 'evolving' into a completely different species...and that's what you're trying to claim here.

Except that you’re completely wrong and there is copious evidence supporting the MES

The evidence is very clear about that.

Yet you’re completely incapable of demonstrating anything resembling evidence because you don’t have any. You have an opinion that’s not grounded in facts or reality.

Many species are extinct, which once lived alongside humans...

Nobody disputes this.

None have 'evolved' into other species, as we all know...

Yes, as you claim, not as we all know.

You cannot 'link' those extinct species to any other species...

Not every species evolves. Some go extinct and that’s it for that species.

If those species were already extinct, before humans were around, what would happen?


They would claim those species 'evolved' into other species, of course.

You seem to have an entirely false narrative in your head that doesn’t exist in Anthropology or Paleontology. We don’t and never have claimed that every extinct species has merely evolved into a new species. Species go extinct and dead end. Nobody claims otherwise. Some species do evolve. This is a fact regardless

It's simply nonsense.

What’s nonsense is your refusal to read anything that disputes your perceptions that of reality which means you refuse to look at things objectively while ranting and raving nonsense. You have no ground beneath your feet here. Nothing to support your opinion in anyway aside from tantrums.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Except that you’re completely wrong and there is copious evidence supporting the MES

Are there any anatomically complete transitional fossils between apes and humans? No. Which shows evolution is wrong, considering the supposedly millions of years that these transitional species would have theoretically been roaming the earth there should be plenty of samples.

Has it ever been observed in a lab that an organism can change into another organism? No. Which shows evolution is wrong, considering the millions of generations of lab organisms that have been selectively pressured to try to do so to no avail.

Has it ever been demonstrated that interdependent mechanisms could have developed in a piece-by-piece mutative manner when all the pieces need to be present for it to work? No. Because it's absolutely ridiculous to even think that it would be possible. Which is why Darwin himself said his theory would fall apart if we ever discovered that biological organisms had interdependent organs.


When was the last time you thought critically and unbiased about your beliefs?

a reply to: cooperton

So you disappear and come back again ignoring everything I asked for. I'm still waiting for your research links to those footprints / fossils. Why do you hold MES to such ridiculous standards where every single transition has to be proved absolutely 100% and fully documented or you throw out the entire theory? Then you have the gall to perpetuate YEC as an alternative, while posting no supporting evidence at all. You hold one idea to ridiculous standards of scrutiny but accept the other willy nilly with nothing.

Are there any anatomically complete transitional fossils between apes and humans?

There is no "between apes and humans," humans are a type of ape.

Anatomically complete? So you want a fully preserved human ancestor will all the organs intact or you won't believe it? You realize that organic material decays over time right? That's why for the most part we just have fossils.

When was the last time you thought critically and unbiased about your beliefs?

That is as ironic as it gets.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Except that you’re completely wrong and there is copious evidence supporting the MES

Are there any anatomically complete transitional fossils between apes and humans? No. Which shows evolution is wrong, considering the supposedly millions of years that these transitional species would have theoretically been roaming the earth there should be plenty of samples.

An incomplete fossil record does not falsify evolution. You make it sound as if there is only one line of evidence ever investigated. Your beliefs in how we actually operate in the field or the lab aren’t valid evidence for anything except that your opinion is born from a lack of education on the topic. Willful ignorance is your cross to bare, not mine.

Has it ever been observed in a lab that an organism can change into another organism? No. Which shows evolution is wrong, considering the millions of generations of lab organisms that have been selectively pressured to try to do so to no avail.

So you have no clue what the goal of these experiments actually are then do you. If you did, you would know that the end goal of those experiments was not to get bacteria to turn into a cow. That is what would falsify evolution not your misrepresentation of the data.

Has it ever been demonstrated that interdependent mechanisms could have developed in a piece-by-piece mutative manner when all the pieces need to be present for it to work? No. Because it's absolutely ridiculous to even think that it would be possible.

Your impressions of how evolution works and what is actually postulated is seriously flawed. It’s been explained to you in multiple threads over several years. You’re unwilling to entertain the notion that you might just be bat s-# crazy

Which is why Darwin himself said his theory would fall apart if we ever discovered that biological organisms had interdependent organs.

Good for Darwin? You do know that the study of evolution isn’t relegated to what Darwin postulated right? There’s a reason why the current framework is referred to as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, because as we learn and grow our knowledge, we utilize new tools. Like genetics for example. Genetics alone destroys your myopic views of science.

When was the last time you thought critically and unbiased about your beliefs?

Every time I read a paper, get a new journal in the mail or correspond with another paleoanthropologist regarding their work and their hypotheses.


How about you? When was the last time you got yurscience from a source that doesn’t support insanity like YEC? Every single position or argument you put forth originated from those sources and then you misrepresent what science actually postulates to fit your confirmation biases. Even Raggedyman puts more effort into at least understanding both sides of the argument. You put in zero effort at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton
I'm still waiting for your research links to those footprints / fossils.

The citation is on the picture. It's even one of the infallible Smithsonian articles.

Anatomically complete?

Stop playing dumb. It was obviously a reference to a complete skeletal anatomy.

originally posted by: peter vlar


How about you? When was the last time you got yurscience from a source that doesn’t support insanity like YEC?

Literally on this exact page I posted from a Smithsonian article and a Russian journal.

It’s been explained to you in multiple threads over several years.

No, you have never explained a viable mechanism for how step-by-step mutations could have overcome the hurdles of developing mechanisms with multiple interdependent components.

I don't think you even know what I am talking about, because you have never effectively demonstrated that you even understand the dilemma.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Good for Darwin? You do know that the study of evolution isn’t relegated to what Darwin postulated right? There’s a reason why the current framework is referred to as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, because as we learn and grow our knowledge, we utilize new tools.

Haha see here^ it is exactly what I'm referring to. You change the topic and avoid the question - which was the interdependence of the components of biological organisms. Do you understand what I am saying? I don't think you are capable of understanding. Brick walls have better comprehension. I have tried explaining enough times, and you have never demonstrated once that you understand the question. Now you will just respond about how you think I am dumb because I don't believe the same as you do. Great. You are incapable of discussing scientific topics objectively. You'll just say its been explained to me multiple times - but it certainly has not - because even the greatest scientists in the world do not have the answer to these questions, because it is beyond the realm of observed physical possibility for these interdependent mechanisms to have been created by random chance.

a reply to: cooperton

Link me to the papers, buddy. I have seen nothing confirming a human footprint dating 290 million years ago. I want to see the research, why is this so difficult? I search extensively for them, but found absolutely nothing but creationist links and a paper that has nothing to do with your claims, no reputable journals at all. Your standard of proof is screen shots, yet you blindly ignore and dismiss the one I posted that contained a picture of ACTUAL hominid footprints researched by scientists that looks nothing like yours. Give me the research. It shouldn't be so hard if those things are confirmed facts.

a reply to: cooperton

Consider this a gift.

A topical summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy

Paluxy Man - The Creationist Piltdown

It's a hoax.

Funny how I'm unable to find any research about your claims, yet find these debunks instead in the process. Can't wait to hear your excuses this time.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Link me to the papers, buddy. I have seen nothing confirming a human footprint dating 290 million years ago. I want to see the research, why is this so difficult? I search extensively for them, but found absolutely nothing but creationist links and a paper that has nothing to do with your claims, no reputable journals at all. Your standard of proof is screen shots, yet you blindly ignore and dismiss the one I posted that contained a picture of ACTUAL hominid footprints researched by scientists that looks nothing like yours. Give me the research. It shouldn't be so hard if those things are confirmed facts.

lol you need a white coat to tell you what a footprint is supposed to look like?

You
are
an
NPC

Just keep blindly believing in evolution. You do realize that all the evidence you could find for old word monkeys turning into apes 25-30mya was a partial jaw bone fragment? Go and believe that a partial jaw fragment is more evidence than multiple examples of footprints in supposedly 100 million year old rock - one source even being Smithsonian. If you need someone else to tell you what a footprint looks like, then you have deeper problems than believing that your ancestors were mutants. Think for your self.

a reply to: cooperton

I came into this thread today thinking Coop was going to back up his claims, post his references and meticulously refute my sources. I would be shown the error of my ways and learn something new. I am deeply disappointed.....

Just kidding. I knew the whole way it would be deflected and instead of addressing the subject matter, insults would be posted. You accept a picture of a hoax as evidence over actual scientific research and that's hilarious. You 100% ignored the 2 links I posted that explained it with the supporting research directly linked.

I looked up your citations. They don't exist. I looked at all material published by Smithsonian that year, so either the screen shot is a lie, or Smithsonian removed it when it was found to be a hoax.

I backed what I said up by posting the jaw bone research, which is not the only evidence that shows apes descended from old world monkeys, by the way. I will give you more as soon as you do the same and back up your claims above. Deal?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

I came into this thread today thinking Coop was going to back up his claims, post his references and meticulously refute my sources. I would be shown the error of my ways and learn something new. I am deeply disappointed.....

There was still never any mechanism explained in regards to the leap from non-life to life, given the challenges presented in the OP. I know it is flat out impossible to explain by conventional means, so I didnt expect anyone to give any sort of reasonable refutation of the impossibilities presented in the OP. If you do, I want to hear them in your words backed by empirical science, and mentioning the points I made in the OP.

I looked up your citations. They don't exist. I looked at all material published by Smithsonian that year, so either the screen shot is a lie, or Smithsonian removed it when it was found to be a hoax.

You can't play that game for very long. The game where all contradicting evidence is a hoax. I even got it from a Smithsonian magazine. Just purchased that exact 1992 July article, and will post it once it arrives. Here is the preview from the site I bought it from, page 70 is the article in mention:

I backed what I said up by posting the jaw bone research, which is not the only evidence that shows apes descended from old world monkeys, by the way. I will give you more as soon as you do the same and back up your claims above. Deal?

That jaw bone in no way was ample evidence to demonstrate anything. If anything, it demonstrates how much they have to grasp at straws to try to prove their theory. Consider this: if transitional species were living for millions of years, why can't we find any of their fossils??? Humans have been living for far less than one million years, and we can find an abundance of their fossils, along with dinosaur fossils. So where are these fabled transitional fossils? Why can't we find one single complete skeleton, or even cranium for that matter???

originally posted by: cooperton
There was still never any mechanism explained in regards to the leap from non-life to life, given the challenges presented in the OP. I know it is flat out impossible to explain by conventional means, so I didnt expect anyone to give any sort of reasonable refutation of the impossibilities presented in the OP. If you do, I want to hear them in your words backed by empirical science, and mentioning the points I made in the OP.

Nice deflection. I am talking about the specific examples above.

You can't play that game for very long. The game where all contradicting evidence is a hoax. I even got it from a Smithsonian magazine. Just purchased that exact 1992 July article, and will post it once it arrives. Here is the preview from the site I bought it from, page 70 is the article in mention:

LMAO! Give me a link already. Pictures are not evidence. The article was clearly removed after being confirmed to be a hoax. You didn't refute ANYTHING in EITHER link I posted about the footprints. Why would you buy a magazine from 1992 with old data published that has since been changed? Do you not grasp how science and peer review works? New information can update / refute old information in science.

That jaw bone in no way was ample evidence to demonstrate anything. If anything, it demonstrates how much they have to grasp at straws to try to prove their theory. Consider this: if transitional species were living for millions of years, why can't we find any of their fossils??? Humans have been living for far less than one million years, and we can find an abundance of their fossils, along with dinosaur fossils. So where are these fabled transitional fossils? Why can't we find one single complete skeleton, or even cranium for that matter???

Stop making excuses and post your evidence and papers. You posted FOUR piece of unsubstantiated conjecture above and sourced ZERO of it. I get that you HATE the conclusion of scientists based on research, but seriously GROW UP. You literally just deny everything and won't back up a single thing you say.. It's getting old. This guy is probably directly on the AIG payroll LOL!