Abiogenesis is impossible

[Quatermass]

The Laws of Thermodynamics are surprisingly good evidence of atoms becoming more complex and more complex until they form life.

[snowtracks]

but of course, there isn’t any paleontology evidence (the claim of ‘future discovery’ only has a limited shelf-life {please not again, that is so lame}).

This is awesome.  You try to cover for your ignorance by making it seem as if you're trying to head off a "gaps" argument (which should set off anyone's hypocrite meter immediately) and it takes less than an hour for someone to produce the evidence you thought didn't exist.  Too bad you didn't warn us against using 'past discovery.'

Got a bunch of skull images, and gibberish postings; hardly evidence. Well, I’ll be more specific: An image of the (FM) foramen magnum (not a skull side view) that shows a side-by-side geometry comparison of an immediate transitional placement of the FM between the posterior location of the knuckle-walking primates and the upright-walking homo sapiens. If you have the goods, no reason to be reticent about posting the images.

[Exian]

Where do you think we'll get the images from, Snowy? You just don't want to find it.

[Tonus]

If you have the goods, no reason to be reticent about posting the images.

Those are 'the goods.'  Your attempt to cover for your mistake by claiming "we can't actually SEE it" is laughable.  But since you were the one who made the initial claim regarding this smoking gun that disproves evolution, feel free to provide the images that show the FM not migrating over various species.  Based on your track record so far, I'm not going to hold my breath.  My guess is that you'll obfuscate until you find some other obscure bit of trivia that you think will overturn the past two hundred years of scientific discovery.

[robvalue]

If people have got evidence that disproves evolution, why are they wasting time trying to get us numbskulls to understand it? They should be submitting it for study to get famous!

[Angrboda]

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/

[snowtracks]

---

---

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/

The caption next to the images you posted says “The fossil hominids show intermediate placement of the foramen magnum between that seen in pongids and anatomically modern man”. However, I asked for images showing an immediate placement between of FM between quadrapedal and bipedal…hominids were bipedal. At least you posted something unlike everyone else who couldn’t comprehend, again.

Tag: this is the conclusion cited in the study: “The exercise of faith is required for any model explaining fossil hominids. For evolution/theistic evolution faith is required in the belief that the fossil record is seriously incomplete and the someday the actual ancestral species will be discovered resulting in an unfalsified hypothesis of descent. In the meantime, faith is exercised to believe the hominids evolved even though no actual ancestor/descendent relationships can be identified. For progressive creation, faith is required to believe that God continually steps in to create new taxa even though the Bible only mentions Creation Week. For young-earth creation, faith is required to believe that man existed throughout the formation of the geologic column even though there is no evidence of anatomically modern man prior to the Pleistocene.”

This conclusion would align with ‘Old-Earth Creationism‘. ‘Young-Earth Creationism’ doesn’t accord with science, and Atheistism denies that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God but worships at the altar of ‘future discoveries’.

[nihilistcat]

I can't believe a thread like this went for 159 pages? I mean, really ... as a biologist, I wouldn't even argue with such an idiot. What's the use? You can't increase his IQ, you certainly won't teach them something as complex as evolutionary biology in the span of an online debate, and anyway, in all likelihood they're intellectually incapable of learning a complex science.

May as well have a conversation with a box of rocks

[robvalue]

Lol On the internet there is an additional motivating factor to debate, in that non-posters browsing the site may check out the arguments and hopefully find the atheist side to be more reasonable than they perhaps assumed.

[Bad Wolf]

That isn't an actual study, it's not peer reviewed and it's not published in a scientific journal. And only 23 other pieces of literature were sited, that is ridiculoulsy small amount when compared to real papers. Also, the wording, in the conclusions, not scientific, not formal, it isn't a study.

P.S. this was actually a transcripted talk, which clearly has it's own agenda, real science doesn't.