Go Back   Access World Forums > Non-Access Issues > Debates

 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-12-2015, 01:33 PM   #1
Alter2Ego
Newly Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 22
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Alter2Ego is on a distinguished road
Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY
is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). When asked how life came from non-life by itself, atheists have no credible answer.



CREATION is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God Jehovah 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. The scientific evidence supports creationism. (Source: LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)


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.



POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
QUESTION #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). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?


QUESTION #2. The premise of biological/organic evolution is the "survival of the fittest," that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?


QUESTION #3. How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?



________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Alter2Ego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 01:54 PM   #2
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
 
Frothingslosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Flint, Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 83
Thanked 458 Times in 413 Posts
Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
QUESTION #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). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?
Actually, your very point in question number one is a complete falsehood.

Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Additionally, all organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Your expectation that there are chimeras that are half one animal, half another stems entirely from complete ignorance about how evolution works.
Quote:
QUESTION #2. The premise of biological/organic evolution is the "survival of the fittest," that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
Quote:
QUESTION #3. How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Even if life on earth turns out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

I'm sorry man, but just because something is too difficult for you to understand, it doesn't mean that it is therefore false. Also, you really should try coming up with your own questions, instead of the long-since answered "15 questions" they came up with to "disprove" evolution fifty years ago.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Frothingslosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 02:32 PM   #3
Alter2Ego
Newly Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 22
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Alter2Ego is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothingslosh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
QUESTION #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). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?

Actually, your very point in question number one is a complete falsehood.

Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Frothingslosh:

The claimed "intermediate" forms have never been confirmed in the fossils record. There are no fossils showing how, for example, Creature A turned into Creature C. The "intermediates" you are referring to are actually completely different creatures that did not evolve from one another. In fact, pro-evolution paleontologist Ernst Mayr admitted as much when he stated the following in 1982:
"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)"
Notice that he said that in 1982. Ernst Mayr was pro-evolution right up until the day he died. And guess what? Nothing has changed since he wrote the above.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Alter2Ego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 02:40 PM   #4
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
 
Frothingslosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Flint, Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 83
Thanked 458 Times in 413 Posts
Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

As I said, you're looking for chimerae because you don't have the first inkling of how evolution works. That would be the same as me demanding you show me the magical antenna connecting your brain to God.

As just one example, the Archaeopteryx *IS* an intermediary form between full-on dinosaurs and birds.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Frothingslosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 03:26 PM   #5
Alter2Ego
Newly Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 22
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Alter2Ego is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothingslosh View Post
As I said, you're looking for chimerae because you don't have the first inkling of how evolution works. That would be the same as me demanding you show me the magical antenna connecting your brain to God.

As just one example, the Archaeopteryx *IS* an intermediary form between full-on dinosaurs and birds.
Frothingslosh:

Ernst Mayr was a pro-evolutionist and a paleontologist. He admitted in 1982 that based on the fossils record, all species are separated by "bridgeless gaps"--meaning there is no connection between one type of species to another.

The so-called Archaeopteryx is a completely different species from birds, because
Archaeopteryx is reptilian and therefore considered a cold-blooded creature. Birds are warm-blooded creatures. The connection between Archaeopteryx and birds is based upon mere speculation and no evidence. Notice below what one source stated regarding Archaeopteryx.
"Is it a bird or a dinosaur?
Despite having feathers, broad wings and a presumed ability to fly or glide even if limited Archaeopteryx had more in common with dinosaurs than with birds. Like deinonychosaurs, it had jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail and hyperextensible second toes known as "killing claws." It also had features in common with theropods, including a nearly identical hind leg bone structure that was clearly visible.

While there were feathers on its broad wings, which were rounded at the ends, no feathers or down have been found on Archaeopteryx's head or neck. Scientists continue to debate the reason for the lack of covering in these areas. Some paleontologists believe that this is due to the fact that the Archaeopteryx's head and upper neck were scaled more like a reptile's, while others believe that this is a result of decomposition."
http://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html

Look at the words bolded in red from the above source. Nothing but speculations aka personal philosophy. Not only that, the above source admits that the creature called Archaeopteryx was more like a dinosaur than a bird. Dinosaurs have long been considered reptilian, cold-blooded creatures. How does a cold-blooded creature change into a warm-blooded bird when they are wired differently?


But, hark! The answer to that question is the least of your problems. The question for which there is no credible answer from the pro-evolution camp is this: Where did the common ancestor come from? How did it come to life by itself? I am referring to the supposed common ancestor from which every creature that ever walked this earth is said to have evolved from.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Alter2Ego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 03:45 PM   #6
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
 
Frothingslosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Flint, Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 83
Thanked 458 Times in 413 Posts
Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

As I said, all you're proving here is that you're utterly ignorant re: evolution.

I had some hopes that you were the ultra-rare Christian capable of carrying on an intelligent debate, but alas, you have shown your idea of 'debate' is two twist the facts into a pretzel in order to support your fundamentally unsupportable position.

Until such time as you actually know enough about the topic to carry on an INTELLIGENT conversation, I bid you good day.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Frothingslosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 06:58 PM   #7
Alter2Ego
Newly Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 22
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Alter2Ego is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothingslosh View Post
As I said, all you're proving here is that you're utterly ignorant re: evolution.

I had some hopes that you were the ultra-rare Christian capable of carrying on an intelligent debate, but alas, you have shown your idea of 'debate' is two twist the facts into a pretzel in order to support your fundamentally unsupportable position.

Until such time as you actually know enough about the topic to carry on an INTELLIGENT conversation, I bid you good day.
Frothingslosh:

I am not surprised that you are taking your leave, considering the insurmountable problem you are faced with of explaining how evolution's common ancestor came to life from non-life by itself.

Mr. Evolution aka Charles Darwin said every single organic being that has ever walked this earth evolved from a single common ancestor.


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."



Here we are in 2015, with pro-evolution scientists making the same unsubstantiated claim that every biologic being that ever walked on earth evolved from a single common ancestor.

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2015:
"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"

(Source: Knowledge Rush Encyclopedia): http://knowledgerush.com/encyclopedia/Evolution/


The problem that Darwin faced when he eliminated Jehovah and relied on abiogenesis is the same problem faced by today's pro-evolution scientists who, because of their atheism, insist there is no Jehovah: Without Jehovah, they are stuck with the long debunked theory of abiogenesis (life coming to life by itself non-life). Why so? Because abiogenesis theory was debunked in 1859 by Louis Pasteur. Other scientists since Pasteur's time have also tried to create life from non-living matter and failed miserably.


Without evolutions "common ancestor," evolution theory cannot even make it through the gate.


No common ancestor, no evolution.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)


Last edited by Alter2Ego; 02-12-2015 at 07:06 PM.
Alter2Ego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 05:15 AM   #8
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

One thing I find laughable, The way you ask for facts on evolution.

Yet the thing your religion is based on has still to this day no physical facts. Just a book that may have been made up.

To be fair, at least scientists behind evolution has tried to validate it. Can't really say the same for religion since there seems to be a universal opinion "My god is real because the book says so" - (as frothingslosh has said, If we run on that basis - Hogwarts must be real!)
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 05:19 AM   #9
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
 
Frothingslosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Flint, Michigan, USA
Posts: 3,218
Thanks: 83
Thanked 458 Times in 413 Posts
Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough Frothingslosh will become famous soon enough
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Connor, "discussing' with this one is pointless. He's doing the online equivalent of standing there with his hands over his ears screaming "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" ad nauseum. Even Bladerunner is more open to discussion than this one is.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Frothingslosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 05:41 AM   #10
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

I didn't have a problem until he was proclaiming facts when there is no physical evidence to back them up.
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 06:24 AM   #11
Brianwarnock
Retired
 
Brianwarnock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Merseyside England
Posts: 12,701
Thanks: 39
Thanked 539 Times in 521 Posts
Brianwarnock is a glorious beacon of light Brianwarnock is a glorious beacon of light Brianwarnock is a glorious beacon of light Brianwarnock is a glorious beacon of light Brianwarnock is a glorious beacon of light Brianwarnock is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnorGiles View Post
I didn't have a problem until he was proclaiming facts when there is no physical evidence to back them up.
Of course he has evidence, it's in the book.

He is just like Aziz Rasul from the atheist thread in this respect.

Brian
__________________
What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare

I do not have Access these days 2015
Brianwarnock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 06:28 AM   #12
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

From now on I shall answer religious answers with:

"I'm right, you're wrong. The fossils told me so."
__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2015, 05:55 PM   #13
EgoOnTheAlter
Newly Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
EgoOnTheAlter is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Don't feed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

It's all over the Internet: https://www.google.com/search?q=forum+alter2ego+JEHOVAH
EgoOnTheAlter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2015, 07:28 PM   #14
Alter2Ego
Newly Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 22
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Alter2Ego is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnorGiles View Post
To be fair, at least scientists behind evolution has tried to validate it. Can't really say the same for religion since there seems to be a universal opinion "My god is real because the book says so" - (as frothingslosh has said, If we run on that basis - Hogwarts must be real!)
ConnorGiles:

People do not get credit for repeatedly trying at the same thing and consistently failing, so I do not have a clue what you are being "fair" about.

Pro-evolution scientists have been trying to validate evolution myth since Charles Darwin's time: more than 150 years. They have failed to validate the theory every single time. The fossils record says macroevolution never happened. The pro-evolution scientists earned an "F" grade--to be fair.

Alter2Ego



________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Alter2Ego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2015, 12:00 AM   #15
ConnorGiles
Strange Traveller
 
ConnorGiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,068
Thanks: 20
Thanked 45 Times in 45 Posts
ConnorGiles is on a distinguished road
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

I can't help but answer his ignorance. (Guilty pleasure)

We have gained physical evidence of evolution through fossilisation and so forth , and don't give me that "God planted those to test our faith". You try and call evolution a myth.

Where is your "Actual" evidence of your mythical god?

Without referring to the book

__________________
Kind Regards

Connor Giles


Did my post help?
Then don't hesitate to press the 'Thanks' Button or the Scales to the left!
ConnorGiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Win 8.1 Account user name Dick7Access Windows 0 12-24-2014 09:33 AM
ASP.NET account namliam ASP and ASP.NET 2 09-29-2006 06:23 AM
GroupWise Account tripico Modules & VBA 0 11-15-2005 07:17 AM
Statement of account ZahleServ Reports 5 09-16-2004 11:10 AM
Expired Account nx69 Queries 4 03-17-2004 12:40 PM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Microsoft Access Help
General
Tables
Queries
Forms
Reports
Macros
Modules & VBA
Theory & Practice
Access FAQs
Code Repository
Sample Databases
Video Tutorials

Featured Forum post


Sponsored Links


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) copyright 2017 Access World