Evo myths claim there is no evidence of supernatural events. Abiogenesis

A

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
docphin5 said:
I guess it depends how you define “unnatural process”. If you mean a process that breaks the laws of nature then I must reject it because there is no evidence for supernatural events.
Click to expand...

Ok

All of the evo story legends/myths rely on ABIOGENESIS. a supernatural event.

Notice blatant contradiction to the Fundamentalist Mantra.

DEMONSTRATE abiogenesis. .if it is NOT a supernatural event. Bring out the Fundamentalist Evo Wizards of Smart and Demonstrate abiogenesis.

Including spontaneous development of the building blocks, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acid.

Repeat: Demonstrate, not hand waving and deflection.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Ok

All of the evo story legends/myths rely on ABIOGENESIS. a supernatural event.

Notice blatant contradiction to the Fundamentalist Mantra.

DEMONSTRATE abiogenesis. .if it is NOT a supernatural event. Bring out the Fundamentalist Evo Wizards of Smart and Demonstrate abiogenesis.

Including spontaneous development of the building blocks, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acid.

Repeat: Demonstrate, not hand waving and deflection.
Click to expand...
The evos require a supernatural event(s) to produce things such as an assembly line of organelle that make other organelle.
 
Fundamentalists keep moving the goal posts. Have you conceded to evolution that now you must bark against abiogeneis? they are two different things, evolution and abiogenesis. Eventually, you are going to run out of excuses.
 
docphin5 said:
I guess it depends how you define “unnatural process”. If you mean a process that breaks the laws of nature then I must reject it because there is no evidence for supernatural events.
Click to expand...
Authentic Nouveau said:
Ok
Click to expand...
At least you do agree with docphin5!

All of the evo story legends/myths rely on ABIOGENESIS. a supernatural event.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It is an event that we do not fully understand, but that does not make it supernatural.

Notice blatant contradiction to the Fundamentalist Mantra.
Click to expand...
What I notice is an appalling misunderstanding of real science.

DEMONSTRATE abiogenesis. .if it is NOT a supernatural event. Bring out the Fundamentalist Evo Wizards of Smart and Demonstrate abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
Real scientists are doing real science to do just that. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer.

Including spontaneous development of the building blocks, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acid.
Click to expand...
Different events, but again Real scientists are doing real science to do just that.

Repeat: Demonstrate, not hand waving and deflection.
Click to expand...
We will leave the hand waving and deflection to the creationist.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:

Darwin’s Goddess: Natural Selection as “Divine Surrogate”​


Straight out of the evo pushers training manual.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with natural selection REMOVING information from the gene pool.....the miracle the evos require would be the need for a mutation and natural selection to increase the information in the gene pool (DNA) to produce the diversity of life we see today.
 
CrowCross said:
I have no problem with natural selection REMOVING information from the gene pool.....the miracle the evos require would be the need for a mutation and natural selection to increase the information in the gene pool (DNA) to produce the diversity of life we see today.
Click to expand...
Try to pin them down on demonstrating an increase in information.
 
CrowCross said:
The evos require a supernatural event(s) to produce things such as an assembly line of organelle that make other organelle.
Click to expand...
CrowCross said:
I have no problem with natural selection REMOVING information from the gene pool.....the miracle the evos require would be the need for a mutation and natural selection to increase the information in the gene pool (DNA) to produce the diversity of life we see today.
Click to expand...
Darwinism asserts reptiles added feathers, limbs and wings.

EvoStory sees bone structures in a whale and claim that is loss and former legs.

But since they are famous bone watchers, they don't understand the pelvic girdle represents an anchor for the round ligaments of the uterus.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Darwinism asserts reptiles added feathers, limbs and wings.

EvoStory sees bone structures in a whale and claim that is loss and former legs.

But since they are famous bone watchers, they don't understand the pelvic girdle represents an anchor for the round ligaments of the uterus.
Click to expand...
Indoctrinated...force fed...high school students won't dig that deep.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Ok

All of the evo story legends/myths rely on ABIOGENESIS. a supernatural event.

Notice blatant contradiction to the Fundamentalist Mantra.

DEMONSTRATE abiogenesis. .if it is NOT a supernatural event. Bring out the Fundamentalist Evo Wizards of Smart and Demonstrate abiogenesis.

Including spontaneous development of the building blocks, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acid.

Repeat: Demonstrate, not hand waving and deflection.
Click to expand...
So lets say ABIOGENESIS is a supernatural event. Would that disprove evolution?
 
CrowCross said:
Indoctrinated...force fed...high school students won't dig that deep.
Click to expand...
Another issue close to us is the myth of human primate common ancestors.
Humans are bipedal and our spine goes downward from our skull. The "hole" is foramen magnum. (foramen means hole/opening)

Primates are quads and their spine parallel to the ground and reaches into the back of their skull. There are no intermediates showing transition of 90 degrees by the foramen magnum.

There are several more skeletal features of distinctive differences in the lower spine, pelvis area.
No transitional fossils.

If humans were primates, when standing upright our head/face would point upward. We have a good range of motion C1
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Another issue close to us is the myth of human primate common ancestors.
Humans are bipedal and our spine goes downward from our skull. The "hole" is foramen magnum. (foramen means hole/opening)

Primates are quads and their spine parallel to the ground and reaches into the back of their skull. There are no intermediates showing transition of 90 degrees by the foramen magnum.

There are several more skeletal features of distinctive differences in the lower spine, pelvis area.
No transitional fossils.

If humans were primates, when standing upright our head/face would point upward. We have a good range of motion C1
Click to expand...
Good points.

What will the evo-babblers have to say?
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Another issue close to us is the myth of human primate common ancestors.
Humans are bipedal and our spine goes downward from our skull. The "hole" is foramen magnum. (foramen means hole/opening)

Primates are quads and their spine parallel to the ground and reaches into the back of their skull. There are no intermediates showing transition of 90 degrees by the foramen magnum.

There are several more skeletal features of distinctive differences in the lower spine, pelvis area.
No transitional fossils.

If humans were primates, when standing upright our head/face would point upward. We have a good range of motion C1
Click to expand...
Try again.
There are a multitude of fossils showing the shift of the "Big hole".
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Another issue close to us is the myth of human primate common ancestors.
Humans are bipedal and our spine goes downward from our skull. The "hole" is foramen magnum. (foramen means hole/opening)

Primates are quads and their spine parallel to the ground and reaches into the back of their skull. There are no intermediates showing transition of 90 degrees by the foramen magnum.

There are several more skeletal features of distinctive differences in the lower spine, pelvis area.
No transitional fossils.

If humans were primates, when standing upright our head/face would point upward. We have a good range of motion C1
Click to expand...
Both human and other ape infants have the foramen magnum in a similar position on the skull. In orthograde bipedal humans, aas the occipital bone develop, the foramen migrates forward. In pronograde quadrapedal apes, it migrates back. However, recent work suggests that foramen magnum orientation is not a good indicator of the orientation of the neck during habitual locomotion because foramen magnum orientation is not significantly correlated with basicranial flexion, orbital axis orientation, the orientation of the head relative to the neck, or the size of the cerebellum relative to the posterior basicranium.
From:

Foramen Magnum Placement | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org carta.anthropogeny.org

I would have thought that an expert in Google research such as yourself would have taken the trouble to look up the facts, particularly given your absurd pretentions to medical knowledge.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Ok

All of the evo story legends/myths rely on ABIOGENESIS. a supernatural event.

Notice blatant contradiction to the Fundamentalist Mantra.

DEMONSTRATE abiogenesis. .if it is NOT a supernatural event. Bring out the Fundamentalist Evo Wizards of Smart and Demonstrate abiogenesis.

Including spontaneous development of the building blocks, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acid.

Repeat: Demonstrate, not hand waving and deflection.
Click to expand...
You are right. Since supporters of Evolution has no clue on the differences between supernatural and natural, then, they are all deluded of accepting abiogenesis, as precursor of Evolution.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
You are right. Since supporters of Evolution has no clue on the differences between supernatural and natural, then, they are all deluded of accepting abiogenesis, as precursor of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Their pet notions fall under materialism. The definitions have material boundaries.
So a Darwinist comes to me with a tooth ache. They can't prove it. It is all in their mind. (literally)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top