Abiogenesis is impossible

[Jackalope]

cherry picking chucklefuck

I'm so stealing this.

[JesusHChrist]

Is a chucklefuck descended from a fuckface?

Or in creationist speak, "how comes if I iz a chucklefuck, I'z still a fuckface? Psssssstttttt - Gawd luvs u even if you do like to wership devils."

[Tonus]

Oh I dunno, a chucklefuck sounds like it might be rather pleasant.

[Ksa]

evolutionary biology used cladistics showing diagrams relating humans with primates and it was all a big sham. Evolutionists thought no one would notice that they interpreted the data exclusively within their theoretical paradigm to support human evolution.

Ok, so we got the context wrong. YOU give the context. Do it in this topic. Interpret it.

[snowtracks]

And again, all you have is a single fifteen year old paper.

What??? A Christian using a single source that's out-of-date?

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

[Bad Wolf]

[Tonus]

What??? A Christian using a single source that's out-of-date?

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

There is nothing to refute. Unlike creationists, real scientists are willing to put their theories to the test. Incomplete or sloppy work is therefore exposed and results can be discarded or must be supported via other data and research, which itself can be tested. In doing so, we learn more and get closer to the truth.

You did notice that scientists did not use this one paper to dismiss evolution at all, didn't you? Or perhaps you did, which is why your summary is so misleading and your conclusion so wrong. I realize that at this point you've given up and are just flinging poo at the wall, but a person might expect you to actually read the material you are partially quoting and perhaps learn something, if even by accident.

[Rampant.A.I.]

What??? A Christian using a single source that's out-of-date?

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

So does my earlier comment about reading one source being easier than reading a bunch of hard ones.

You know what refutes this paper concisely?

His credentials, his agenda, and the fact that in the 15 years since the paper was written, it has contributed absolutely nothing to biology, medicine, or evolutionary theory whatsoever.

Quack like your source, Snowballs!

Quack, Quack!

[Esquilax]

What??? A Christian using a single source that's out-of-date?

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

What we need is a video of someone singing the words "argument from ignorance!" in a loud, lengthy, operatic voice, so that we can all post it whenever smug morons like Snowy think shit like this is an argument.

You know what refutes your single, out of date paper, shitbird? The last fifteen years of evolution accepting biological science. Fucking checkmate.

[snowtracks]

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

There is nothing to refute. Unlike creationists, real scientists are willing to put their theories to the test. Incomplete or sloppy work is therefore exposed and results can be discarded or must be supported via other data and research, which itself can be tested. In doing so, we learn more and get closer to the truth.

You did notice that scientists did not use this one paper to dismiss evolution at all, didn't you? Or perhaps you did, which is why your summary is so misleading and your conclusion so wrong. I realize that at this point you've given up and are just flinging poo at the wall, but a person might expect you to actually read the material you are partially quoting and perhaps learn something, if even by accident.

evolutionist atheist are not the only ones going to be referenced on this board, so get used to it.

---

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

What we need is a video of someone singing the words "argument from ignorance!" in a loud, lengthy, operatic voice, so that we can all post it whenever smug morons like Snowy think shit like this is an argument.

You know what refutes your single, out of date paper, shitbird? The last fifteen years of evolution accepting biological science. Fucking checkmate.

the hominid fossil record demonstrate that a reliable diagram cannot be built showing that bipedal primates (human erectus and neanderthals) are transitional forms to humans. so what's with this theory? did it go like this? look, there's a upright animal, we're upright, so we evolved from them.