Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, it all goes back to the blatantly false, unsupported argument that all species have 'evolved' from earlier species. None of it holds up to scrutiny, or available evidence

Then where did apes come from? They didn't exist 30m years ago. What about primates? They were nowhere to be found on earth prior to 60m years ago. If your claim is true, apes, primates, mammals, fish, plants and all other types of organisms should have been there since the beginning and that is clearly not what the evidence shows. You can deny it all you want, but that's the best known picture based on evidence. Don't like it? Become a scientist and expose the errors with the research.

Why are there more than a thousand species of shrimp alone? They were all created individually just for fun?

Apes exist, nobody can date the original apes on Earth to 30 million years ago!!

Why would apes exist 30 million years ago, without changing to another species, or even an indication of changing? You said that all species are continually 'evolving' into different species, right?

So apes existed 30 million years ago, and still exist, then?

Thanks for proving evolution is nonsense, well done!

I rather enjoy when you demonstrate to everyone how out of touch you truly are with the reality of science period and how little you have actually studied basic Biology alone let alone the MES. Apes aren’t a species for one thing and for another, Miocene apes aren’t the same apes that we see today. Is this really that difficult to grasp? Or do your confirmation biases preclude you from checking the facts of your ridiculous claims and statements?

Humans.... are apes.
Gorillas. Also apes
Chimpanzee and bonobo? Yup... more apes
Orangutan? Likewise, apes.
Monkeys? Nope, not apes. They have tails. Apes don’t have tails.

I’d be happy to recommend some basic books for you to read. Look at it as some remedial science. I could even have my 11 year old walk you through it so that it’s easier to understand on your end.

nvm

originally posted by: turbonium1
Apes exist, nobody can date the original apes on Earth to 30 million years ago!!

Why would apes exist 30 million years ago, without changing to another species, or even an indication of changing? You said that all species are continually 'evolving' into different species, right?

So apes existed 30 million years ago, and still exist, then?

Thanks for proving evolution is nonsense, well done!

www.livescience.com...

Great ape is an entire FAMILY. It's not a single species. Humans today are apes, just like chimps and orangutans. Apes were shown to emerge 25-30mya from old world monkeys. They have since split to numerous difference species. You just keep making stuff up and posting it. Please at LEAST do a little bit of research and learn how biological classification works before spewing verbal diarrhea.

This type of ranting belongs in the LOL section with flat earth threads.

originally posted by: Barcs
Apes were shown to emerge 25-30mya from old world monkeys.

What is the empirical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Your source is another appeal to authority because they do not show any evidence that apes emerged from old world monkeys 25-30mya. They simply say so, and you believe it for that reason. You can't just cite the opinion of someone as a fact

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Apes were shown to emerge 25-30mya from old world monkeys.

What is the empirical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Your source is another appeal to authority because they do not show any evidence that apes emerged from old world monkeys 25-30mya. They simply say so, and you believe it for that reason. You can't just cite the opinion of someone as a fact

Read the article I posted. Not an extraordinary claim in the slightest, nor an appeal to authority.

Go ahead and find a single great ape that existed earlier than 30mya. If they existed from the beginning, then there should be tons of them out there that date as old as dinosaurs. Where are they? Why do we exclusively have their fossils from less than 30mya? Explain it.

Nice dodge attempt. You didn't answer this because you can't:

originally posted by: Barcs
Apes were shown to emerge 25-30mya from old world monkeys.

What is the empirical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Your source is another appeal to authority because they do not show any evidence that apes emerged from old world monkeys 25-30mya. They simply say so, and you believe it for that reason. You can't just cite the opinion of someone as a fact

originally posted by: Barcs

Read the article I posted. Not an extraordinary claim in the slightest

Then the evidence should be abundant. Let's see it. Stop hiding

a reply to: cooperton

LMAO @ They simply say so. The evidence is the numerous great ape species fossils that have been found that all date less than 30mya. You are the one dodging, we have fossils for all of them. Stop pretending it is extraordinary because you are emotionally invested in evolution being wrong. There are nearly 30 different discovered species of hominidae all backed by fossils:

Gorillas
Bonobos
Chimpanzees
Orangutans
Homo sapeins
homo erectus
homo ergaster
homo habilis
Denisovan & Neanderthal
multiple Australopithecus species
much more

Where is your evidence for them emerging from thin air? Where is your evidence for anything? Where is your refutation of the fossils?



en.wikipedia.org...

So if you have an argument, you need to show that great apes were always around instead of fallaciously dodging and pretending like we have no evidence. Will the lies ever stop?

a reply to: cooperton

LMAO @ They simply say so. The evidence is the numerous great ape species fossils that have been found that all date less than 30mya. You are the one dodging, we have fossils for all of them. Stop pretending it is extraordinary because you are emotionally invested in evolution being wrong. There are nearly 30 different discovered species of hominidae all backed by fossils:

Gorillas
Bonobos
Chimpanzees
Orangutans
Homo sapeins
homo erectus
homo ergaster
homo habilis
Denisovan & Neanderthal
multiple Australopithecus species
much more

Where is your evidence for them emerging from thin air? Where is your evidence for anything? Where is your refutation of the fossils?

en.wikipedia.org...

In order to refute what I'm saying, you need to show that great apes were always around instead of fallaciously dodging and pretending like we have no evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

LMAO @ They simply say so. The evidence is the numerous great ape species fossils that have been found that all date less than 30mya. You are the one dodging, we have fossils for all of them. Stop pretending it is extraordinary because you are emotionally invested in evolution being wrong. There are nearly 30 different discovered species of hominidae all backed by fossils:

Gorillas
Bonobos
Chimpanzees
Orangutans
Homo sapeins
homo erectus
homo ergaster
homo habilis
Denisovan & Neanderthal
multiple Australopithecus species
much more

Where is your evidence for them emerging from thin air? Where is your evidence for anything? Where is your refutation of the fossils?



en.wikipedia.org...

So if you have an argument, you need to show that great apes were always around instead of fallaciously dodging and pretending like we have no evidence. Will the lies ever stop?

No it is your responsibility to prove your claim. show the actual empirical evidence regarding this 25-30mya claim. Have you ever posted a research article? Or do you strictly use wikipedia and sci-blogs?

a reply to: cooperton

Which fossil is wrong? Please break it down, every species I listed has numerous fossils. I'm not wasting time posting papers that you will ignore for something so obvious that it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. There is no dispute in geology about the fossils that have been found and dated. You are making the extraordinary claim that they were created separately from old world monkeys despite the numerous similarities and the fact that there are NO fossils of great apes that date earlier than 30m.

The article posted clearly lists the transitional fossils from 25mya. If you aren't willing to read it, that's on you.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Which fossil is wrong? Please break it down, every species I listed has numerous fossils. I'm not wasting time posting papers that you will ignore for something so obvious. There is no dispute in geology about the fossils that have been found and dated. You are making the extraordinary claim that they were created separately from old world monkeys despite the numerous similarities and the fact that there are NO fossils of great apes that date earlier than 30m.

If it's so obvious then there should be countless papers demonstrating this. So show me one peer-reviewed paper that has compelling evidence about this 25-30 mya date, explaining in your own words why you think the empirical evidence supports such an idea.

I don't need to prove something that experts have already figured out by studying evidence.

You realize this is exactly the fallacy of appealing to authority?

a reply to: cooperton

If it's so obvious then there should be countless papers demonstrating this. So show me one peer-reviewed paper that has compelling evidence about this 25-30 mya date, explaining in your own words why you think the empirical evidence supports such an idea.

If it's so obvious, why don't you post your citations? Got any? I don't think so. I have already accumulated 6 on exactly this topic with "empirical" evidence - not that you understand what that is.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Which fossil is wrong? Please break it down, every species I listed has numerous fossils. I'm not wasting time posting papers that you will ignore for something so obvious. There is no dispute in geology about the fossils that have been found and dated. You are making the extraordinary claim that they were created separately from old world monkeys despite the numerous similarities and the fact that there are NO fossils of great apes that date earlier than 30m.

If it's so obvious then there should be countless papers demonstrating this. So show me one peer-reviewed paper that has compelling evidence about this 25-30 mya date, explaining in your own words why you think the empirical evidence supports such an idea.

Like you’ve supported your own position with anything but fallacies, slurs and ad hominems? I’ve lost track of how many times several of us have asked you to explain precisely what it is that you believe, what evidence you have to support it etc... not once have you given any of those requests a second glance.

Let’s look at some facts though. Genetics predicted that we should see a divergence in the 25-30MA range. Recent finds and work in paleontology now show physical evidence that supports the genetic predictions based on calculations of the mutation rates. That right there is THE definition of good science. One scientific discipline makes a prediction based on their work and subsequent data analysis. Then another field of inquiry finds physical remains that support the earlier predictions. Is this really that difficult to follow? Or are you just playing a game of “Gotcha!” Instead of actually discussing the actual science because it’s more satisfying for you to think you’ve one upped someone who disagrees with your views?

I don't need to prove something that experts have already figured out by studying evidence.

You realize this is exactly the fallacy of appealing to authority?

How so? It’s not any different than you asking someone to provide citations to support their position and taking such a position makes you look like a bigger hypocrite than usual.

originally posted by: cooperton
You realize this is exactly the fallacy of appealing to authority?

Another blatant lie repeated. Appealing to evidence is NOT appealing to authority. We already covered this in detail.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Genetics predicted that we should see a divergence in the 25-30MA range.

source?

How so? It’s not any different than you asking someone to provide citations to support their position and taking such a position makes you look like a bigger hypocrite than usual.

It is different. Appeal to authority uses expert opinion as proof, whereas evidence refers to empirical observation. I am asking for empirical evidence for your claim above, and barc's claim about the undeniable proof for this occurrence 25-30mya

originally posted by: Barcs

Another blatant lie repeated. Appealing to evidence is NOT appealing to authority. We already covered this in detail.

You weren't appealing to evidence, you were appealing to authorities who you assume appealed to evidence. There is a big difference. It is further proof that you constantly appeal to authority because you cannot find the empirical evidence supporting your claim. You trust the 'experts' without actually looking into the evidence your self. You assume there is an abundance of evidence to support their opinions, but there is not.

a reply to: cooperton

You weren't appealing to evidence, you were appealing to authorities who you assume appealed to evidence.

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?
The problem here is that you're not a scientist. You don't have a clue how to present contradicting evidence because you have none.

So, rather than cutting and pasting your opinion, why don't you post a few citations from independent sources (i.e. not associated with Ken Ham and his financial fraud), that analyze objective data derived from REAL experiments?

Your opinion is irrelevant. You have no status in the scientific community. You have been outed so many times that by now you should be embarrassed to show up at any conversation with real scientists.

So now we demand: Where is your empirical evidence? How does it contradict the existing data which has been reviewed, verified and repeated?

Here's what will happen: You will disappear into the ether (again, for the 150th time) until you think no one is watching, and then you'll start all over again with the dribble.

You lost the battle a long time ago. Time to take a rest - and a few pills.

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.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm not posting anything until you FINALLY cite evidence from the scientific literature that validates anything you have ever posted. I and others have posted dozens of papers that invalidates any piece of crap that you post with absolutely no response from you. A recent example are the "sources" you cited which were supposed to refute evolution. As it turned out, however, every "source" confirmed evolution. You have done exactly the same thing dozens of times on various topics - you simply ignore the real evidence and move on to another post. You don't even read your own sources. You're a complete fraud.

So from now on, it's up to YOU to post a citation for any position you state to be true. I will not post another citation on anything until you validate the garbage that you post.

originally posted by: cooperton
You weren't appealing to evidence, you were appealing to authorities who you assume appealed to evidence. There is a big difference. It is further proof that you constantly appeal to authority because you cannot find the empirical evidence supporting your claim. You trust the 'experts' without actually looking into the evidence your self. You assume there is an abundance of evidence to support their opinions, but there is not.

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???

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?