Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

You are confusing genetic variables present, within each one, single species, itself.

Adaptation.

Same species, as before.

I'm not confusing anything.

Each species has a wide range of variation within it, some present, some dormant.

This is what you believe is species changing, or 'evolving, into a completely different species. Like all evolutionists try to do. I prefer actual evidence, over unsupportable claims, while you prefer the latter. So be it.

Already posted the evidence and you ignored it dishonestly. There's nothing to discuss here. You are intellectually dishonest and likely trolling here.

a reply to: Barcs

Pot, kettle, black.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

You are confusing genetic variables present, within each one, single species, itself.

Adaptation.

Same species, as before.

I'm not confusing anything.

Each species has a wide range of variation within it, some present, some dormant.

This is what you believe is species changing, or 'evolving, into a completely different species. Like all evolutionists try to do. I prefer actual evidence, over unsupportable claims, while you prefer the latter. So be it.

Until enough of those variations exist that add up to an organism that is a different species than its distant ancestors.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Barcs

Pot, kettle, black.

How so?

Turbonium1 has been posting the same rhetoric over and over in this thread and many others. We have explained his errors and flaws to him many times. He ignores the explanations and supporting evidence completely, and repeats the original claim again. I have never used such a strategy, and I'm willing to back up claims or defend them when asked. I'm also willing to admit if I make a mistake or get something wrong. It happens.

a reply to: Barcs

And you're lying or unable to exercise self control and self analysis. You've been his mirror image with an additional dash of ad hominem.

originally posted by: Box of Rain


Until enough of those variations exist that add up to an organism that is a different species than its distant ancestors.

That is the assumption. But it is only that - an assumption. We have never seen an organism go outside its bounds. This is because most of these adaptation mechanisms are epigenetic - turning genes up or down to adapt to various environmental and behavioral cues. Epigenetics works on an already existent genome. Allele drift is similar on the population level, because it is working with alleles that were already present in a genome. No novel functions, just useful pre-existent functions arising in the genome when cued by the environment.

Take for example human skin tone. Black skin exhibited by those near the equator in Africa adapted to the harsh annual sunlight by increasing the expression of melanin in their skin. This is not mutation, or evolution, it is adaptation using something that was already existent in all humans (melanin).

a reply to: Box of Rain

As I posted in the link, dinosaurs and birds are an excellent example of how evolution works. This is not adaptation - this is a permanent change in the genome. That is what speciation is - a change in the genome where the ancestor and the current species cannot reproduce. There is overwhelming research evidence for speciation.

Cooperton is a cut and paste "scientist". Has never been in a lab, has never studied the subject. His posts are opinions backed up by zero evidence.

Here's the link for details on dinosaur/bird evolution:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
This is not adaptation - this is a permanent change in the genome. That is what speciation is - a change in the genome where the ancestor and the current species cannot reproduce. There is overwhelming research evidence for speciation.

The burden is on your to prove that dinosaurs transitioned into birds, and a plausible mechanism as to how it could happen. There is none, because the lab has yet to demonstrate evolution. You sending a laundry list of articles without your summary of it demonstrates you are just blindly believing the same religious zeal that is grasping at straws to try to prove evolution. It is a silly fantasy

Cooperton is a cut and paste "scientist". Has never been in a lab, has never studied the subject. His posts are opinions backed up by zero evidence.

Haha you assume because I disagree with you that I have never been in a lab. I went through rigorous science courses my entire life. I know how real science works, and I know how your material-reductionist religion works and how it is not based in empirical lab evidence.

Here's the link for details on dinosaur/bird evolution:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You just send people to go fish. What empirical evidence from that proves that birds evolved into dinosaurs? It is your burden to prove it.

a reply to: cooperton

As I said, anyone who can read and write can read the research papers which I posted. All the methodology is contained in those papers.

You can deny all you want. Makes no difference to the evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As I said, anyone who can read and write can read the research papers which I posted. All the methodology is contained in those papers.

You can deny all you want. Makes no difference to the evidence.

Are you not capable of phrasing it in your own words? I would not send you to go fish to prove a point. I would explain why empirical data proves my point. What is the empirical data that proves birds evolved into dinosaurs?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As I said, anyone who can read and write can read the research papers which I posted. All the methodology is contained in those papers.

You can deny all you want. Makes no difference to the evidence.

Are you not capable of phrasing it in your own words? I would not send you to go fish to prove a point. I would explain why empirical data proves my point. What is the empirical data that proves birds evolved into dinosaurs?

I'm not going to lead you by the nose. You're not capable of doing it yourself. Enough said.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Barcs

And you're lying or unable to exercise self control and self analysis. You've been his mirror image with an additional dash of ad hominem.

LOL! Baseless empty accusations and nothing more. Comparing my posts to his is absurdity of the highest caliber, I'm sorry.

You obviously have only been reading my posts for a very short time because I have been bringing evidence and logic to the table for more than a decade on this web site. Some people simply will not listen to reason, no matter how many times somebody explains it. I no longer have patience for those people I have extensive history with, history that YOU are not familiar with.

a reply to: Barcs

Sure.
Keep telling yourself that.

Funny that you justify while trying to deny.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

As I said, anyone who can read and write can read the research papers which I posted. All the methodology is contained in those papers.

You can deny all you want. Makes no difference to the evidence.

Are you not capable of phrasing it in your own words? I would not send you to go fish to prove a point. I would explain why empirical data proves my point. What is the empirical data that proves birds evolved into dinosaurs?

I've found that asking them for evidence is a hopeless waste of time, but I applaud your valiant efforts, anyway!

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Barcs

Sure.
Keep telling yourself that.

Funny that you justify while trying to deny.

Now THIS is ironic. You falsely accuse me of ad hominem and then rather than backing up your claims, you just attack me again.

Is THIS post ad hominem?

Is THIS?

How about THIS?

Maybe this?

You aren't even paying attention if you think I am just personally attacking people that disagree. What you are posting is ad hominem, not me. You made baseless accusations and couldn't back them up. You aren't familiar with my history, even in this topic. I must have triggered you somehow, but I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt at first, but as soon as the intellectual dishonesty starts, I stop being polite.

There are certain people on here that are extremely dishonest and ignore any/all evidence posted. Maybe actually look at the people's claims that I am arguing against and see why what they are saying is fallacious and invalid. Look at how I have explained their flaws multiple times and my explanation gets ignored. You do not seem to be looking at things in context here. If you have an argument against anything I have presented, then please make it instead of just focusing on me and interjecting one liners insulting me and trying to attack my credibility.

a reply to: Barcs

Don't need to write a novel to point out the obvious.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Ironic that you accuse me of ad hominem, yet everything you say about me is false attacks on my character.

originally posted by: Barcs

Now THIS is ironic. You falsely accuse me of ad hominem

This is absurd. You're one of the most indignant disrespectful people on this forum:

originally posted by: Barcs
Science actually works. Praying to imaginary friends do not.

originally posted by: Barcs
I feel like my IQ lowers every time I read your nonsense.

originally posted by: Barcs
Maybe get a basic understanding of a subject before posting gibberish about it.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Why is it that conservatives can't debate a topic at all

I also searched one of your favorite condescending remarks... calling someone, or a general group of people who disagree with you "scientifically illiterate"

came up with a lot of results:

originally posted by: Barcs
There hasn't been an actual debate about evolution in years, just false claims perpetuated by creationists based on faith and creationist websites run by scientifically illiterate people.

originally posted by: Barcs
The term darwinist or darwinism is an immediate red flag that you are dealing with a scientifically illiterate science denier

Check your post history, a large portion of your comments include personal attacks and generalizations. When you're not doing that, you are keeping up with the conversation and a constructive debater. There is No need to attack people personally, or condescendingly, you are only hurting your self when you do it.

a reply to: cooperton

You can't call it ad hominem when:

1. It is mostly true.
2. I have made actual arguments substantiating most of those statements. Funny how you conveniently left those parts out.

I don't just insult people, I give valid arguments first. It's true that most evolution deniers do not understand science. That's NOT an insult, it is a fact.

Check my history, yes, don't cherry pick it. I have made tons of positive contributions to this website in the past, full of data and scientific evidence, along with clearing up many misunderstandings regarding evolution. With that said there are only so many times you can hear the same person repeat the same misunderstandings (despite being corrected numerous times), before one stops being polite.

Young Earth Creationism has been thoroughly refuted and debunked. Many don't care and keep supporting it for religious reasons, but there isn't any debate going on in science about the validity of evolution or the age of the earth. YEC belongs in the LOL section like flat earth topics. This isn't insult, it's a fact. It doesn't have a leg left to stand on.

Nobody can prove the age of Earth, nor can anyone prove all species on Earth 'evolved' from other species, either.


All good, then!