Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

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 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.

[neo-x]

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).

Huh! not again...

there are good threads already on the topic, instead of starting a new one you should read those first.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37149
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37648
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7&t=38170

Its fine if you opt for the creationist position. IMHO, arguing against evolution is fine as long as you know what you are attacking. I recommend reading about evolution before you jump to conclusions. I for one would contend that evolution is undeniable.

[RickD]

If this is a hit-and-run post, this topic will be deleted and/or locked.

Signed,
Your friendly neighborhood moderator

[Silvertusk]

If this is a hit-and-run post, this topic will be deleted and/or locked.

Signed,
Your friendly neighborhood moderator

Actually not so friendly....have you seen his avatars?

[RickD]

If this is a hit-and-run post, this topic will be deleted and/or locked.

Signed,
Your friendly neighborhood moderator

Actually not so friendly....have you seen his avatars?

Hey wait a minute!!! Who stole my kitten avatar?

I can't turn my back for one minute with those klowns around!

[SonofAletheia]

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.

FACT#1. Yes, this is true.

FACT#2 Yes, there is a tremendous amount of evidence showing that humans and animals evolved from different beings.

FACT#3 The Theory of Evolution does not claim to explain or provide how the first life came to be. Rather, it explains how life evolves by natural selection. This is not a "song and dance" by evolutionists. It's well known that evolution explains what happens to life, not where life itself came from.
This would be like saying that because we know how our heart works that somehow our heart needs to explain where it and the entire body came from.

This is all coming from someone who is a Christian and an evolutionist

[Alter2Ego]

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).

Huh! not again...

there are good threads already on the topic, instead of starting a new one you should read those first.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37149
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37648
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7&t=38170

Its fine if you opt for the creationist position. IMHO, arguing against evolution is fine as long as you know what you are attacking. I recommend reading about evolution before you jump to conclusions. I for one would contend that evolution is undeniable.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEO-X:
I have no doubt that others have debated this topic previously. But I'm sure you will agree that everybody's viewpoint is not identical and that different people debate the same topics using different methods. And yes, I am arguing against evolution theory. The clue is in the latter part of my thread's title: "Darwin's Macroevolution MYTH" That's myth as in: "evolution never happened" aka "the scientific evidence does not support evolution theory."

[Alter2Ego]

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#2 Yes, there is a tremendous amount of evidence showing that humans and animals evolved from different beings.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
Tremendous amount of evidence, you say. But you didn't bother to present any of it for the rest of us to see. Interesting.

[Ivellious]

Alter2Ego:

Honestly there isn't much for someone who accepts evolution to argue with in this post. You basically just said you think evolution is crap, and left it at that. Frankly, if you want to talk about creationism or something being scientifically superior to anything else, you need to start by providing your evidences. Evolution is and has for decades been considered a powerful and overwhelmingly supported scientific theory, and no other explanation comes close to that. So, if you have evidence that supports your belief, or have specific attacks against evolution, bring them forward. Otherwise, I don't see much point in trying to argue against what you've said so far, which isn't much.

[neo-x]

Alter2Ego:

Honestly there isn't much for someone who accepts evolution to argue with in this post. You basically just said you think evolution is crap, and left it at that. Frankly, if you want to talk about creationism or something being scientifically superior to anything else, you need to start by providing your evidences. Evolution is and has for decades been considered a powerful and overwhelmingly supported scientific theory, and no other explanation comes close to that. So, if you have evidence that supports your belief, or have specific attacks against evolution, bring them forward. Otherwise, I don't see much point in trying to argue against what you've said so far, which isn't much.

I second that.

[SonofAletheia]

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#2 Yes, there is a tremendous amount of evidence showing that humans and animals evolved from different beings.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
Tremendous amount of evidence, you say. But you didn't bother to present any of it for the rest of us to see. Interesting.

What exactly do you want? Evidence from the fossil record? From Vestiges? Atavisms? Dead genes? Bad design? Geographical patterns on continents? Geographical patterns on continental islands vs oceanic islands? Just a few lines of evidence that show evolution is true off the top of my head.

And for humans we have a wonderful line of fossils that show our common ancestry with chimps. We know we share over 98.5 percent of our DNA sequence with chimps. And if evolution is true what kind of fossils should we expect? The older the common ancestor the more it will look like chimps and gorillas but still show some human elements that are coming in. The more recent we get we should start to see more human features come in (larger brains, canine teeth getting smaller, tooth row becoming less rectangular and more curved, and the posture becoming more erect etc) This is exactly what we see

We have fossils for Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis are a couple of our older ancestors. H. Neanderthalensis, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, and H. Ergaster are a few of our more recent ancestors. These are just a couple examples. I can lift more if you'd like
All these fossils are really just icing on the cake for the truth of evolution in my opinion

A good book I'd recommend for you to read is Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. It goes over all this

[neo-x]

Actually you don't even need fossils, just look at the DNA evolving.

[PaulSacramento]

Seems the issue is the whole "macro vs micro" evolution thing.
It should be noted that evolutionary biologist don't really use the term "macro evolution" that much ( if at all).
Basically, the lay-persons definition of macro evolution tends to be quite different than that of EB.
IN a nutshell, the moment one species has changed enough from its original "group" that it can no longer breed successfully with it, it is a new species ( since it can breed withing itself) and macro evolution has occurred.
EX:
A group of wolves (B) branches out from its main group(A).
Over generations and generations of change and random mutations ( 1000's of years or longer) group B has evolved differently enough from group A that they can no longer breed.
Group B is a different spec ices than group A due to evolutionary changes that happened to both groups over the vast period of time.

[SonofAletheia]

Actually you don't even need fossils, just look at the DNA evolving.

That's true. However, I've found people sometimes think the DNA evidence is too abstract. For some people, the fossil evidence seems more "concrete" and therefore more appealing.

[Alter2Ego]

Alter2Ego:

Honestly there isn't much for someone who accepts evolution to argue with in this post. You basically just said you think evolution is crap, and left it at that. Frankly, if you want to talk about creationism or something being scientifically superior to anything else, you need to start by providing your evidences. Evolution is and has for decades been considered a powerful and overwhelmingly supported scientific theory, and no other explanation comes close to that. So, if you have evidence that supports your belief, or have specific attacks against evolution, bring them forward. Otherwise, I don't see much point in trying to argue against what you've said so far, which isn't much.

ALTER2EGO -to- IVELLIOUS:
The forum is waiting for you to present examples of the "powerful and overwhelming" scientific evidence for evolution theory. You did not present a shred of scientific evidence to back up your grand claims. You simply told me what you opine.