Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution

Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:19:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
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.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:41:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:19:46 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
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.

Your god doesn't exist and any argument based on it is spurious.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 11:49:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 11:19:46 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
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).


That's not quite macroevolution per se, but ok.


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).


So, you ignore all of the iterations of "humanity" and its precursors, such as homo erectus and neanderthals and all that stuff, which are all very clearly shown in our fossil records?


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.

Well first, evolution doesn't have to do with how the common ancestor came to life. This isn't even a point to argue, it's just part of the definition. Evolution is the process by which categories of living creatures change by means of natural selection. Natural selection is a process that kills off creatures with certain characteristics, it has no role in explaining how the first organism came to be.

That's why the vast majority of Christians (I can link to studies) in the scientific community believe in "God-directed" evolution. Creationism is itself not mutually exclusive with the process of evolution; it is, however, distinct from abiogenesis.

Continuing, there are lots of theories as to how the first organism came to be within the field of abiogenesis. Your willingness to dismiss it shows that you lack a true scientific spirit, and it shows that you are narrow-minded and strawman things about which you have little knowledge.

Even if you think that abiogenesis is faulty, saying "God did it" is an argument from ignorance. Look it up, it's a logical fallacy. Just because we can't immediately explain something naturally does not mean we resort to the supernatural. Why not? Well, look at our ancestors who explained simple natural events such as lightning by the gods. You are not any more reasonable in immediately blaming something on the supernatural now than the pagans were in blaming lightning on the supernatural.

As a final note, why is your "Genesis Creation" the only alternative to natural explanations? It's a false dichotomy that shows your bias towards your own preconceived views. What about the stories of creation that other religions have? They are just as valid as yours.