Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Altered, Jun 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- EVERYONE:

    ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. So to avoid the problem of the long debunked theory of abiogenesis, some have jumped onto the creation bandwagon and claim they are theists who believe in evolution theory. In fact some claim they are Christians.

    According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a "primordial soup," it resulted in a "common ancestor" from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)


    CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth just as they are, with the ability for each "kind" of creature to produce variations of itself up to a set point.

    Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites. Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis). Furthermore, pro-evolutionists—including those in academia/the scientific community—routinely dodge the issue that their philosophy is based entirely upon speculations for which there is no credible scientific evidence. They routinely use fabricated words such as "species transition," "speciation," "Punctuated Equilibrium," etc. to mislead the gullible. I might add that many pro-evolution scientists are determined to make names for themselves and will resort to outright dishonesty when necessary. I will present proof of this later on in this thread.


    Regarding the credibility of the Genesis creation account vs. evolution theory, one source states: "But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science?" (Source: LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)


    POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
    FACT 1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).


    FACT 2. There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


    FACT 3. Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  2. Neshi

    Neshi HH's cuddly Blue Bear

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,225
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    108
    so what do you expect now?

    you are basically saying: These are the facts, macro-evolution is a myth and untrue, god has created everything. now talk about it. oh, and if anyone comes along that does believe in macro-evolution, you'll see him squirm.

    yea, that's a great conversation starter mate.
     
  3. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
    FACT 1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).

    forgive me but where did you read this again? Macro evolution merely means a "major evolutionary change, I think your a bit confused.



    FACT 2. There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).

    Again, you see no evidence, well then so what? Again, this has nothing to do with your initial reference...."sigh"


    FACT 3. Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.

    Brother, I think you have a constructed an almost translucent argument, and I will tell you why. The DIAPHANOUS (please wiki this for your own good) and smokey veil your looking through to create your so called facts is rather weak, like a yellow tea.
    I think your looking for an argument, rather than a rational exchange of ideas, and your posting looks rather familiar to me, have you been banned here before?
     
  4. crowTrobot

    crowTrobot Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Oh boy, despite OP's use of point-form explanation, his/her argument is still all over the place.

    also lol @ sources. "Encyclopedia Brittanica 1978". So you take perhaps the most well-known encyclopedia that has been updated REGULARLY and has only recently announced last year that they are no longer publishing print, and choose a quote from a 1978. Also, LIFE magazine is not a magazine, not a scientific paper.


    Wrong, science doesn't claim it is from only a single organism.


    Wrong again. Every fossil is a "missing link" linking one evolutionary step to the next. This is not only proven by biology, but it is also corroborated by geology, chemistry and physics. By their very nature, it is impossible to find a fossil of every single creature that ever lived but by looking at the environment the creatures lived in and the fossil evidence and through mathematical scenarios, it can be deduced where the particular fossil fits in the biological and geological branch.



    Are we talking about scientists or atheists? Atheists just means absence of any religious belief. Unlike religious groups, they don't HAVE to come up with an explanation of things because they don't purport to HAVE any explanation or any dogmatic principles. There is no "supposedly" proceeding with evolution. It is happening whether you believe it or not. Just the fact that vaccines are necessary means that evolution is "proceeding".
     
  5. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,904
    Likes Received:
    2,637
    Trophy Points:
    153
    That is the largest heap of bullshit I have read in a long long time...

    If this is the case (As you believe) how on this earth Life (In any form) were evolving and growing well before well before any religion were formed.

    Personally I am a Christian (And christened at birth) but do I believe there is a God, Other time I think other wise.. because of other reasons.. But they don't fit (or will I say anything on this forum) in any form.
     
  6. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- CROWTROBOT:
    Your only complaint is the year of the publication of my source. That's not an effective rebuttal. Now, if you were to post a more current source that is a respected source, and your source rebuts mine, then and only then would you have made a point. As of now, you have not.
     
  7. Neshi

    Neshi HH's cuddly Blue Bear

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,225
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    108
    and just ignore the rest of the points he makes...
     
  8. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- CROW TROBOT:
    Of course it does. Below are two sources that confirm what I listed as Fact #1. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within each of the quotations.


    DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859: (Origin of Species, p. 484)
    Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."


    EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2013:
    "The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

    1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

    2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

    3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
    http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/


    I will respond to the remainder of your post at another time.
     
  9. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123

    this is getting even more delusional, I can see why you come here, its all mental masturbation and you enjoy tossing off on the forum, you really believe your own rubbish. :hmm:
     
  10. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,904
    Likes Received:
    2,637
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Sorry, there is no need to post anything more recent as Darwin's publication is part of Human History. And that can not be changed..
     
  11. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    This chap ALtered is seeking an argument, but he has brought a knife to a gun fight, its pointless to entertain him unless you really have nothing better to do IMO. Jason, this guy is daft from the letter D.
     
  12. Liqourice

    Liqourice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Well, you're not reading it right. "One form" is not the same thing as "one organism"
     
  13. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- LIQOURICE:
    Charles Darwin claimed that all organic beings "descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed." Likewise, the 2013 pro-evolution science fiction camp says all biologic creatures that have ever lived on earth came into existence, as follows: "The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) A SINGLE ANCESTOR."


    Focus on the word "ONE" in Darwin's statement, and the expression "a single ancestor" in the 2013 sci fic statement, and maybe it will sink in.

    I cited my sources for both of those fallacious statements at Post 8. It's not my problem that you are in denial and that you want to play the game of semantics. Keep playing your fiddle. It will not change a thing.
     
  14. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- MIG-31:
    I quote both Darwin and a 2013 source. The result was the same: speculations and no proof about biologic beings having evolved from a "common ancestor." If you are embarrassed by it, well you should be.


    BTW: If you think anything has changed since Darwin, feel free to post the evidence for the rest of us to see.
     
  15. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,904
    Likes Received:
    2,637
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Sorry, But i'm not here to prove otherwise to what you seem to believe is true..

    I'm afraid that you are just so Blind that you can't even see your own ignorance to what anyone has said above...

    All you seem to be doing is Posting your own belief and expect everyone else to believe you and you alone.. regardless to what has been said in the past.


    Sorry if this is something you may not like, But Charles Darwin was one of the first to recognise Natural Evolution among many species of life.

    This is set in stone and every publication no matter how modern always refers to Charles Darwin..

    And for this reason this thread is now closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

visited