Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

ALTER2EGO -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 atheist-evolutionists 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 when in reality they are pagans. (A pagan is a theist who does not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

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.

1. Wrong. 2. Wrong. 3. Wrong. Rinse, repeat.

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.

Getting just a bit off topic here, but zeroing in on only plant/animal life, avoids the rest of the creation by God story. We know that stars, planets and other objects in space are still being formed - so that means that creation was not a single, six day event in the past. We also know that all human DNA does not trace back to a single mating pair.

Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) « Why Evolution Is True

Lack of proof of macroevolution does not constitute disproof of it, it just keeps it in the unproven theory category. The six day creation of everything "biblical fact" has many things that are said to disprove it.

The Bible says stuff lived in water before on land, and animals came before people. That's not a bad overview.

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)

Alter2Ego said:

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...

Everything that exists has a first cause, ma'am.

Jango said:

Everything that exists has a first cause, ma'am.

Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have one. The inspired word of God says the Creator is eternal. And since the Bible has been proven to be inspired of God, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy on that.


Meanwhile, since the atheists insist there is no Jehovah, suppose you explain to the rest of us how the "common ancestor" came into existence by itself?



No common ancestor. No evolution.

ttwtt78640 said:

Getting just a bit off topic here, but zeroing in on only plant/animal life, avoids the rest of the creation by God story. We know that stars, planets and other objects in space are still being formed - so that means that creation was not a single, six day event in the past. We also know that all human DNA does not trace back to a single mating pair.

Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) « Why Evolution Is True

Lack of proof of macroevolution does not constitute disproof of it, it just keeps it in the unproven theory category. The six day creation of everything "biblical fact" has many things that are said to disprove it.

Click to expand...

Pick up a book called rethinking genesis. I think it is a good read. it describes the 6 days of creation of Moses recording the days he spent on the mountain with God as he revealed himself to Moses.

Which means that it is possible that creation did take longer than 6 days. it is hard to define how long it took because time to someone that exists out of time is hard to depict.
according to Christ 1 day on earth is like 1000 in heaven.

So there is quite a bit of room. However there are major questions with evolution unless you are just a blind duck.
What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?

The problem with macroevolution is when it comes to DNA sequencing. It has to be so exact and on target otherwise the critter would die.
You can't just randomly change DNA sequences without major side affects.

Why do they need to be both?

What I mean is; since evolution tends to move from the simple (single celled) to the complex (animal life and ultimately to humans), why can't evolution be an intelligent process?

Alter2Ego said:

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have one. The inspired word of God says the Creator is eternal. And since the Bible has been proven to be inspired of God, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy on that.


Meanwhile, since the atheists insist there is no Jehovah, suppose you explain to the rest of us how the "common ancestor" came into existence by itself?



No common ancestor. No evolution.

Click to expand...

1) It is not an opinion, it is fact.

2) How & when was "the Bible...proven to be inspired of God"?

3) The common ancestor didn't come into existence by itself. Obviously I wasn't there when it happened and there is no YouTube video to link to, but from everything I've ever heard & read goes something like this: Environmental factors like Goldilock's porridge lead to suitable conditions allowing essentially microbes to become something else over time which then became something else over time which then became something else over time which then became something else over time... until it got to us.

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.

Ah evolution denial...

It would be funny if there weren't so many denialists on school boards.

Quite disturbing.

ludin said:

Pick up a book called rethinking genesis. I think it is a good read. it describes the 6 days of creation of Moses recording the days he spent on the mountain with God as he revealed himself to Moses.

Which means that it is possible that creation did take longer than 6 days. it is hard to define how long it took because time to someone that exists out of time is hard to depict.
according to Christ 1 day on earth is like 1000 in heaven.

So there is quite a bit of room. However there are major questions with evolution unless you are just a blind duck.
What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?

The problem with macroevolution is when it comes to DNA sequencing. It has to be so exact and on target otherwise the critter would die.
You can't just randomly change DNA sequences without major side affects.

Click to expand...

There are bible stories that claim all people descended from but two people, Adam and Eve; as well as the Noah's ark story that had all animals descending from what would fit on a relatively small craft and all people, again from only the 8 aboard that craft.

From you link:

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

There are bible stories that claim all people descended from but two people, Adam and Eve; as well as the Noah's ark story that had all animals descending from what would fit on a relatively small craft and all people, again from only the 8 aboard that craft.

From you link:

Click to expand...

As far as Adam and Eve goes, they appeared not the only ones around.

Look to the story of Cain and Abel, how could he get a cursed symbol if there were only his parents around to know?

BmanMcfly said:

As far as Adam and Eve goes, they appeared not the only ones around.

Look to the story of Cain and Abel, how could he get a cursed symbol if there were only his parents around to know?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Not only that, Cain was then banished to go live with "the others" which were who, if not other kin? So now we are to believe that either God created more people (those without belly buttons?) possibly not in "his image" or that other of Adam's and Eve's descendants were simply not mentioned (there was much other begetting going on) in the bible.

Folks complain about holes or gaps in evolutionary knowledge yet simply blow off even bigger holes in biblical accounts of "fact".

Alter2Ego said:

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have one. The inspired word of God says the Creator is eternal. And since the Bible has been proven to be inspired of God, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy on that.


Meanwhile, since the atheists insist there is no Jehovah, suppose you explain to the rest of us how the "common ancestor" came into existence by itself?



No common ancestor. No evolution.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, is that proof?

Jango said:

Alter2Ego said:

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have one. The inspired word of God says the Creator is eternal. And since the Bible has been proven to be inspired of God, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy on that.

Meanwhile, since the atheists insist there is no Jehovah, suppose you explain to the rest of us how the "common ancestor" came into existence by itself?

No common ancestor. No evolution.

Click to expand...

1) It is not an opinion, it is fact.

Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

Fact because you say so? Where is the evidence to support what you claim is "fact"? Since you claim the supernatural God, Jehovah, must have had a beginning and therefore there is no God, your job is to prove that life could result from non-life without the intervention of the Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah.

Jango said:

2) How & when was "the Bible...proven to be inspired of God"?

Click to expand...

That topic is being debated in my other thread entitled: "Proof: Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God". Feel free to go take a read. Here is the weblink to that thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...udeo-christian-bible-inspired-god-w-52-a.html

Jango said:

3) The common ancestor didn't come into existence by itself. Obviously I wasn't there when it happened and there is no YouTube video to link to, but from everything I've ever heard & read goes something like this: Environmental factors like Goldilock's porridge lead to suitable conditions allowing essentially microbes to become something else over time which then became something else over time which then became something else over time which then became something else over time... until it got to us.

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...

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.

Alter2Ego said:

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

Fact because you say so? Where is the evidence to support what you claim is "fact"? Since you claim the supernatural God, Jehovah, must have had a beginning and therefore there is no God, your job is to prove that life could result from non-life without the intervention of the Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah.




That topic is being debated in my other thread entitled: "Proof: Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God". Feel free to go take a read. Here is the weblink to that thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...udeo-christian-bible-inspired-god-w-52-a.html




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

ttwtt78640 said:

There are bible stories that claim all people descended from but two people, Adam and Eve; as well as the Noah's ark story that had all animals descending from what would fit on a relatively small craft and all people, again from only the 8 aboard that craft.

From you link:

Click to expand...

It was no small boat. It was 450 feet long by 45 ft tall and 75 feet wide. by the biblical description and measurements.
That is a very large boat by any standards.

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?: What About Inbreeding?

Jango said:

Everything that exists has a first cause, ma'am.

Click to expand...

Some food for thought: Unmoved mover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alter2Ego said:

Fact because you say so?

Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhh..........irony. :lamo

Gotta love it.

Dragonfly said:

Ahhhhhhhhh..........irony. :lamo

Gotta love it.

Click to expand...

Alter2Ego said:

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.

Jango said:

Everything that exists has a first cause, ma'am.

Click to expand...

Does that first cause need to be intelligent?

Alter2Ego said:

ALTER2EGO -to- JANGO:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to have one. The inspired word of God says the Creator is eternal. And since the Bible has been proven to be inspired of God, I have no reason to doubt its accuracy on that.


Meanwhile, since the atheists insist there is no Jehovah, suppose you explain to the rest of us how the "common ancestor" came into existence by itself?



No common ancestor. No evolution.

Click to expand...

How has the Bible been proven to be the inspired word of God?