• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Jango said:
Alter2Ego said:
Jango said:
Personally, the thing that I cannot reconcile is the explosion in intelligence. There are several theories, like the Stoned Ape Theory or manipulation by extraterrestrials or by a non-God programmer I.e. the universe is a simulation.
Click to expand...
ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

As soon as you can present evidence in support of your above speculations, you will have made a point. So far, all you have done is present the usual fairy tales that atheists seem to gravitate towards--in their failed attempt at replacing intelligent design with science fiction.
Click to expand...
Google
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

I do not click bare weblinks when there is no accompanying quotation from a third-party source. By your own admission, quoted above, you personally cannot find a logical explanation for how intelligence is seen in various creatures. You then follow that admission by telling me various science fiction scenarios. So since you claim there is no Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah who is responsible for the existence of life--and intelligent life at that, it is your job to quote the relevant portions of your source. Do not expect me to click a weblink so that I can be taken to walls of text at some third-party blog. I do not have the time nor the inclination for that.
 
ludin said:
yes but you have to remember that Man was created perfect in God image. after the fall man was no longer perfect so therefore neither was his DNA.
mutations occured that wouldn't otherwise.
Click to expand...

Mutations happen in plant, fish and animal DNA too, it's a flawed method of reproduction. Did plants fish and animals fall too?
 
ludin said:
yes but you have to remember that Man was created perfect in God image. after the fall man was no longer perfect so therefore neither was his DNA.
mutations occured that wouldn't otherwise.
Click to expand...

What? Perfect DNA would not mutate. Are you saying DNA mutations are somehow related to sin?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What? Perfect DNA would not mutate. Are you saying DNA mutations are somehow related to sin?
Click to expand...

Going by the biblical account Adam and eve were made perfect.
after the fall and sin entered the world they were no longer perfect which means they instantly started to die. which means that the DNA would start breaking down as well.
birth defects are not so much of a mutation as they are a break down of DNA and how it is suppose to connect.

There is a right way and a wrong way that DNA connects to itself. These break downs that occur (you could call them mutations) is what causes these defects.
I firmly believe that if adam or eve not sinned then we would not have half the issues that we do today.
again this is my take on it from a biblical perspective.

it is much harder to believe that all of life spawned from some DNA soup that was just laying around that decided to form itself into everything that existed.
Than it is to believe that the earth and the cosmos was designed and created to operate the exact way that it does.

on a side note i believe in adaptation as it can be documented and studied. I do not believe in Macro evolution IE a frog growing wings and turning into a bird
or whatever they want to call it.
 
Cable said:
I have to agree with your "just means, "not yet"" statement. Not having proven something does not indicate it we will never show proof of that thing.

I agree also that we don't need to eliminate science in order to establish God. If God is truth, then all things obervable are part of that truth. How we understand these things are usually where we bump up against issues. Even the scientists are swayed by unscientific input.
Global warming/cooling/change is a great example. They get paid to find alarming things. It isn't odd then that they find alarming things.

Your last statement about faith and proof is on the edge. We are called to reason from the scriptures. We don't just blindly accept our faith without some evidences. If this were the case we could believe a spec of sand created everything we know.
So seeking evidences or showing evidences of our faith does not show a lack of faith.
Click to expand...



We experience the world with our senses.

How can we find evidence of something that is not apparent to our senses?
 
code1211 said:
Alter2Ego said:
Jango said:
Regarding point #3: a first cause was indeed needed to start the building blocks of life as we know it today. That's not hard to acknowledge. What is hard, though, is when a person starts thinking of bigger necessary first causes that lead eventually to our existence. Like the Big Bang - it created Earth & the universe Earth inhabits. But what caused the Big Bang? God allegedly did. Okay, then what was God's first cause? Many say nothing and then the head scratching begins.
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

You are applying organic, human concepts to a supernatural being that clearly is not human. If God had a first cause, the next question would be: What caused the first cause that caused God's first cause? Then that would be followed by: What caused the first cause of the first cause of the first cause. . . . to infinity.


Logic tells us that the supposed common ancestor, which is crucial to the evolution theory, could not have come to life by itself. Why so? Because scientists have tried to create life from non-life in the laboratory and have failed miserably--proof positive that organic life could not have resulted from non-life.


Jehovah is not an organic being, nor is He restricted to the concepts that humans are able to understand. His inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, makes it very clear that Jehovah does not have a beginning.

"Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalms 90:2 -- New World Translation)
Click to expand...


Your argument seems to be that if it has never happened before, it never will happen. In your example, you restrict the "never before/never will" to the lab.

If the 20th century has taught us anything, it has taught us that never before just means, "not yet".

Your "Logic" disallows the question of what caused Jehovah because that would demand that something else caused Jehovah and the the previous cause and so on. For this reason you disallow that line of question. You Logic is rigged. If you believe you have won a point simply because you refuse to discuss it, you are wrong. The debate is not won, it is abandoned.

It is very provable that mammals have evolved and that evolution continues today. Several strains of man-like animals lived and became extinct or at least have disappeared as discreet species.

We all see the very wide and short people, stocky and powerful and the very long and slender, frail people. If you have never wondered how they can be so different, you think differently than I do.

I have often wondered if the Neanderthals and the Homo Sapiens could interbreed. If they could, can, then that would explain why the species that was so successful for 100's of thousands of years before Homo Sapiens competed directly with them suddenly just disappeared.

There is nothing wrong with religious faith. However, it does not require the elimination of science for it to exist.

Faith requires no proof and the seeking of proof to support faith is the proof of a lack of faith.
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

The time that it took you to write all that would have been best spent explaining to the rest of us how the supposed "common ancestor" came to life by itself so that evolution could then proceed. As we both know, members of the Religion of Atheism insist there is no Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah who created life forms as is. Atheist Religionists prefer the science fiction tale that every single organic being that ever walked this earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The atheist's messiah, Charles Darwin, said it, and the modern-day pro-evolution scientists make the exact same claim.


Evolution theory says there is no Jehovah, that life appeared spontaneously (abiogenesis). But history tells us that abiogenesis theory (organic life coming to life by itself from non-life) was debunked by Louis Pasteur more than a century ago. So since there is supposedly no Jehovah, how did the supposed "common ancestor" come to life by itself so that evolution could then supposedly proceed? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
ludin said:
nature is hardly consistent. in fact it is very much inconsistent.
People while looking the same are very different. each person is their own unique individual. every single person has their own set of DNA own set of finger prints all of which are not a copy of someone else's.

We are far from copies of each other as evolution would have us believe.
Click to expand...



Put a couple skeletons next to one another and define the uniqueness from that.

We are dust in the wind.
 
Alter2Ego said:
ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

I do not click bare weblinks when there is no accompanying quotation from a third-party source. By your own admission, quoted above, you personally cannot find a logical explanation for how intelligence is seen in various creatures. You then follow that admission by telling me various science fiction scenarios. So since you claim there is no Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah who is responsible for the existence of life--and intelligent life at that, it is your job to quote the relevant portions of your source. Do not expect me to click a weblink so that I can be taken to walls of text at some third-party blog. I do not have the time nor the inclination for that.
Click to expand...

:lol:

You don't have the time? You just posted the above, didn't you?

PS. The singular link I left for you is a Google search for the word irony. Why irony? Because you're apparently oblivious to the amount of it you're laying down.
 
Cable said:
With our minds.
Click to expand...

Pro-tip: if you hear voices in your head that are not your own, particularly if it tells you to do things, I recommend seeking professional help immediately.
 
Alter2Ego said:
ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

The time that it took you to write all that would have been best spent explaining to the rest of us how the supposed "common ancestor" came to life by itself so that evolution could then proceed. As we both know, members of the Religion of Atheism insist there is no Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah who created life forms as is. Atheist Religionists prefer the science fiction tale that every single organic being that ever walked this earth evolved from a single common ancestor. The atheist's messiah, Charles Darwin, said it, and the modern-day pro-evolution scientists make the exact same claim.


Evolution theory says there is no Jehovah, that life appeared spontaneously (abiogenesis). But history tells us that abiogenesis theory (organic life coming to life by itself from non-life) was debunked by Louis Pasteur more than a century ago. So since there is supposedly no Jehovah, how did the supposed "common ancestor" come to life by itself so that evolution could then supposedly proceed? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...



You are saying you don't understand it and it cannot be understood so your explanation must be true.

This is not an explanation.

I am not saying that Jehovah does not exist. I am only saying that trying to solve riddles using logic in a matter of faith is not a productive pursuit.

If you believe this or anything else and it gives you peace to do so, I whole heartedly encourage you to continue.

To your question, though, as I understand this, the Creationists believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth and also Man. This is an obvious philosophical ploy in that we can see the Earth and Man, but not Heaven or God. However, if He created the Earth and Man and we are told He also created Heaven, it follows that both He and Heaven exist.

The, let's call them "Big Bangers", believe that the Universe originated from a single point of infinite smallness and exploded forth from there in the Big Bang. It seems obvious that either and both positions require ample faith to accept. It was Billions of years ago that this happened. The Earth is thought to be about 4.5 Billion years old. There can be a whole bunch of trial and error in the areas of evolution in a billion years.

It seems as likely to me that origination of life is more likely on a terrestrial plane. It seems more likely to me that cellular life can exist as opposed to none physical life. However, scientists say that they are positive that Black Matter exists, matter that we cannot experience with our senses, and that there is more Black matter than visible matter. It binds the Universe together.

If God exists, He may well exist as Black Matter and our understanding of Him is probably a very limited if this is the case as the two states of matter don't work well together. That said, I don't see the Big Bang Theory and the existence of God to be mutually exclusive. There are scientists who also hold this position.

If God is comprised of Black Matter, can you imagine the shock this will be to White Supremacists!
 
Last edited:
Ben K. said:
Alter2Ego said:
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).
Click to expand...

Fossils are not bones btw. Plants, some animals and cells don't have bones.
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- BEN K.:

Fossils include bones of long-dead creatures, and I was referring to the bones of long-dead creatures. That is what pro-evolution scientists rely on in their consistently failed attempts at finding links between entirely different creatures that literally had bones. How else do you suppose they were able to reconstruct dinosaurs, were it not for the existence of their fossilized bones? And I am well aware that plants and cells do not have bones.


Ben K. said:
Alter2Ego said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no single piece of evidence that proves anything. A scientific theory explains the relationship between observable facts or the term you use here evidence and makes predictions. Discovered fossils are exactly what we expect from evolutionary theory being correct.

Fossils are not bones btw. Plants, some animals and cells don't have bones.


Your prediction is correct because it's true. Explaining biodiversity does not need knowledge of how life originated anymore than it needs to know how the universe was created. Nor does embryology depend on the explanation for biodiversity which is evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION: There is no evidence for macroevolution myth by your own admission, and so you are trying to talk your way around that reality by making it seem acceptable to believe in something for which there is no evidence. There is a name for that, by the way. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is referred to as "blind faith."
 
Alter2Ego said:
ALTER2EGO -to- BEN K.:

Fossils include bones of long-dead creatures, and I was referring to the bones of long-dead creatures. That is what pro-evolution scientists rely on in their consistently failed attempts at finding links between entirely different creatures that literally had bones. How else do you suppose they were able to reconstruct dinosaurs, were it not for the existence of their fossilized bones? And I am well aware that plants and cells do not have bones.
Click to expand...

You are aware that evolution involves living species without bones as well (the majority of them)?

TRANSLATION: There is no evidence for macroevolution myth by your own admission, and so you are trying to talk your way around that reality by making it seem acceptable to believe in something for which there is no evidence. There is a name for that, by the way. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is referred to as "blind faith."
Click to expand...

I didn't say there is no evidence, I said there is no single piece that proves it, just as there is no single piece of evidence that proves anything. I wanted to make it clear that you can't use that straw man and educate you on the scientific method.
 
Jango said:
:lol:

You don't have the time? You just posted the above, didn't you?

PS. The singular link I left for you is a Google search for the word irony. Why irony? Because you're apparently oblivious to the amount of it you're laying down.
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

I figured you could not produce evidence to support your science fiction speculations. You have just confirmed it.

Jango said:
Personally, the thing that I cannot reconcile is the explosion in intelligence. There are several theories, like the Stoned Ape Theory or manipulation by extraterrestrials or by a non-God programmer I.e. the universe is a simulation.
Click to expand...

It is no wonder that you are reduced to providing me with weblinks dealing with irony. Proof positive that you have nothing useful to support your Atheist Religion theology aka macroevolution myth.
 
code1211 said:
Put a couple skeletons next to one another and define the uniqueness from that.

We are dust in the wind.
Click to expand...

From the dust we were made to the dust we return.
 
Alter2Ego said:
ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

I figured you could not produce evidence to support your science fiction speculations. You have just confirmed it.



It is no wonder that you are reduced to providing me with weblinks dealing with irony. Proof positive that you have nothing useful to support your Atheist Religion theology aka macroevolution myth.
Click to expand...

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg


The continued display of irony & denseness is hilarious.
 
code1211 said:
You are saying you don't understand it and it cannot be understood so your explanation must be true.

This is not an explanation.

I am not saying that Jehovah does not exist. I am only saying that trying to solve riddles using logic in a matter of faith is not a productive pursuit.
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE 1211:

Are you suggesting that evolution theory is anything less than an act of faith? A theory for which there is no evidence in the fossils record, no less. And one that relies on the existence of a common ancestor that came to life by means of spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis theory. Never mind that abiogenesis was debunked more than a century ago. And never mind that Stanley Miller and other 20th century scientists have attempted to create life from non-life and failed miserably.
 
ecofarm said:
The Bible says stuff lived in water before on land, and animals came before people. That's not a bad overview.
Click to expand...

But he missed something really important. He created plants and animals before making the stars above. Clearly false.

If you go to the original as it was translated in 1611, we see the order is really ****ed up.
GENESIS CHAPTER 1 *(ORIGINAL 1611 KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.1

2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...

11. And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the euening and the morning were the third day.

14 ¶ And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen, to diuide the day from the night: and let them be for signes and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
I can use my mind to understand James Tiberius Kirk and that is only a character in my mind.
Click to expand...

That isn't quite accurate is it? He's a character on the big screen. I am not saying everything we imagine is real. It clearly isn't and the Bible warns us against every fancy that might cross our minds.
But because some ideas or concepts are fanciful does not mean they all are.
If God exists then there is a spiritual world, and we can relate to it if we will.
 
ludin said:
Going by the biblical account Adam and eve were made perfect.
after the fall and sin entered the world they were no longer perfect which means they instantly started to die. which means that the DNA would start breaking down as well.
birth defects are not so much of a mutation as they are a break down of DNA and how it is suppose to connect.

There is a right way and a wrong way that DNA connects to itself. These break downs that occur (you could call them mutations) is what causes these defects.
I firmly believe that if adam or eve not sinned then we would not have half the issues that we do today.
again this is my take on it from a biblical perspective.

it is much harder to believe that all of life spawned from some DNA soup that was just laying around that decided to form itself into everything that existed.
Than it is to believe that the earth and the cosmos was designed and created to operate the exact way that it does.

on a side note i believe in adaptation as it can be documented and studied. I do not believe in Macro evolution IE a frog growing wings and turning into a bird
or whatever they want to call it.
Click to expand...


Really? So much ignorance in one post. So, all molecular biology is derived from spite? A perfect supreme being got angry and spiteful (not exactly qualities of a perfect supreme being) and forced humans to mutate (forget about pesky outside factors like radiation).

Petulant god = mutations.

No thanks, your god has some personal issues, I'll take scientific facts instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom