Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth (1 Viewer)

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:15
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
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)
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
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.
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.
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.
 

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:15
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
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:

"[FONT=&quot]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.)[/FONT]"
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)
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
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.
 

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:15
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
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
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
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.
 

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:15
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
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:

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 08:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
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!)
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
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.
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 08:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
I didn't have a problem until he was proclaiming facts when there is no physical evidence to back them up.
 

Brianwarnock

Retired
Local time
Today, 08:15
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
12,701
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.:rolleyes:

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

Brian
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 08:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
From now on I shall answer religious answers with:

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

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:15
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
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
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 08:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
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
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 08:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
ConnorGiles:
People do not get credit for repeatedly trying at the same thing and consistently failing


They don't get any for repeatedly quoting a book that may or may not have been fiction either. Real evidence or Just another story book. ;)
 

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:15
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
They don't get any for repeatedly quoting a book that may or may not have been fiction either. Real evidence or Just another story book. ;)
ConnorGiles:

You are talking to me about "real evidence," while you continue to repeat the same false claims about fossilization?


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
That was taken from post 8--after I quoted Ernst Mayr at post 3, where he stated the following:
"[FONT=&quot]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.)[/FONT]"​
Which fossilization, might I ask, are you referring to? The fossilization for which Ernst Mayr in 1982 stated that all species are separated by "bridgeless" gaps? [FONT=&quot]Remember, Ernst Mayr was a pro-evolution[/FONT] paleontologist, and even he saw through the evolution myth. So much so, that he repeated what he had already stated in 1982. He repeated it in 2001, almost 20 years later.

[FONT=&quot]
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
In other words, you are hardly in a position to point fingers at the Judeo-Christian Bible--for which there is evidence of divine inspiration--when you are stuck with science fiction aka evolution myth that the fossils record says never happened.


Alter2Ego


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

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:15
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
11,940
That was taken from post 8--after I quoted Ernst Mayr at post 3, where he stated the following:
"[FONT=&quot]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.)[/FONT]"​


This same quote is repeated across thousands of anti-Evolution posts online. Each time it is parroted by people who have not even bothered to read the passage in the original context.

In the subsequent paragraph Mayr goes on to explain that fossilisation itself is a very rare event, while the relatively few that formed must survive many millions of years of tectonic activity and be brought to a location where they can be found.

So no, neither Mayr nor any other scientist expects to find a steady stream of small evolutionary changes in the fossil record.

However the fossil record does show a radiation of species over time from common ancestors. This record is also backed by genetic evidence.

In other words, you are hardly in a position to point fingers at the Judeo-Christian Bible--for which there is evidence of divine inspiration
There is zero evidence for divine inspiration of the Bible. All such claims are invariably based on circular arguments referring back to the Bible.

Indeed science shows us that the Genesis account is profoundly incorrect proving that it is nothing more than the musings of arrogant, ignorant men who presumed their every thought was given them by divine being.

Genesis has plants, including fruiting trees created on the third day, the Sun on the fourth while birds and fish were created on the fifth day. I should not need to explain why plants could not have lived without the Sun.

Moreover, flowering plants are a relatively recent evolutionary divergence. The first fish predate them by hundreds of millions of years.

-when you are stuck with science fiction aka evolution myth that the fossils record says never happened
Even if the fossil record lacks enough examples to satisfy your scepticism that absence does not prove Evolution "never happened".

You are quite welcome to live in your fantasy. However you will find that expressing your delusions here will be met with intellect and you will invariably find yourself looking like a fool.

If you want to contemplate what you are up against try reading through this thread from a few years ago where another anti-evolutionist failed to get traction no matter how he tried.​
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
Galaxion, I saw an interesting comment last weekend on this topic on another site.

"Please explain how, after God deposited the Ark on Mt. Arrarat after the flood, kangaroos travelled 7700 miles to Australia and how, despite not having opposable thumbs, they managed to pick up and carry every single bone from every single kangaroo who died on land enroute."

It's not really a 'disproving', but the "answers" pretty much always require either miracles ("God did it") or a complete incomprehension of physics, biology, and/or geology.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:15
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
11,940
"Please explain how, after God deposited the Ark on Mt. Arrarat after the flood, kangaroos travelled 7700 miles to Australia and how, despite not having opposable thumbs, they managed to pick up and carry every single bone from every single kangaroo who died on land enroute.".
There were only two kangaroos so none could be allowed to die on the way to Australia. They were very fit.

They had it much easier then the koalas who are not good walkers and can only eat the leaves from a small number of eucalypt species that only exist in Australia. They were very hungry by the time they got home.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom