Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM

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:
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).


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).


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)

#2    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:52 AM










Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Edited by redhen, 03 May 2013 - 03:53 AM.


#3    Mystic Crusader

Mystic Crusader

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

  • "What would you rather be, a bus driver, or a super terrorist?"

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:54 AM

Quoting one of my favorite shows, this is how I believe life formed:

"You see this? This is you. I’m serious! Right here, life is about to form on this planet for the very first time. A group of amino acids are about to combine to form the first protein. The building blocks [laughs] of what you call “life.” Strange, isn’t it? Everything you know, your entire civilization, it all begins right here in this little pond of goo. Appropriate somehow, isn’t it? Too bad you didn’t bring your microscope; it’s really quite fascinating. Oh, look! There they go. The amino-acids are moving closer, and closer, and closer.”

Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous execution, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God."
http://www.astrology...ead.php?t=81593
http://www.astrology...&pictureid=6193

#4    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,441 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:24 AM

ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry:

(facepalm and fires automatic weapon in the air in frustration.)

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#5    AtlantisRises

AtlantisRises

    Oderint dum metuant

  • Member
  • 2,396 posts
  • Joined:08 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • My time has not yet come either, Some are born post humously

    Ecce homo
    Nietszche

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:26 AM

*
POPULAR

The big difference being that people who believe in evolution admit that they don't know how it all started but attempt to find out. People state that God started it all and that there is no need to explore the question anymore.

There are many attempts to show how amino acids may occur in conditions similar to those of early Earth. Just because the exact process hasn't been duplicated or explained just shows that our understanding is not sufficient. This isn't an argument against abiogenesis or evolution, it's just a simple statement that we do not know yet. Science is always ready to admit that it has much to learn still, It is constantly proving or disproving itself. Religious statements on the otherhand are for the most part static, unable or unwilling to change or grow no matter what new information is available.

Posted Image

#6    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,505 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:18 AM

*
POPULAR

1. Genetics show that all life decends from a common ancestor.

2. Someone hasn't been paying attention. Every ancestor has produced genetically related offspring.
The evolutionary theory has never stated humans came from a "completely different" animal.

3. The Evolutionary theory is founded on the fact life exists on earth, it does not explain the origin of life.


#7    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,148 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:32 AM

Quote

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexualEscherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.
Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment

http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

'Microevolution' is a tried and true fact. There is no denying that.





Quote


Describing the fundamental similarity between Macro and Microevolution in his authoritative textbook "Evolutionary Biology," biologist Douglas Futuyma writes, “ One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traved to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.



— Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998), pp.477-8



http://en.wikipedia....volution#Misuse


'Macroevolution' is simply 'microevolution' spread throughout many, many generations coupled with other factors. Small changes over time equal big changes.

Edited by Slave2Fate, 03 May 2013 - 06:33 AM.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#8    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 904 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe"

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:52 AM

Genesis Creation Myth vs. Macroevolution sounds better I feel :)

Watch this space

#9    shrooma

shrooma

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,985 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:41 AM

*
POPULAR

View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.[/color]
.
it seems more than blatantly obvious that you aren't really here have anything even remotely resembling a discussion on the subject of evolution Vs creation, but rather just to spout your idea that god created everything and damn to anyone who believes differently. you aren't here with an open mind, to debate the merits or drawbacks of both sides of the argument, just to stamp your foot saying 'god did it, and anyone who thinks differently is an idiot', the mocking and condescending tone of your post makes that clear.
maybe you misunderstand the purpose of a public forum, or the meaning of the word 'debate', but be aware that the moderators here take a very dim view of 'preaching', so you REALLY need to alter the denigrating tone and mocking content of your posts, or this is going to be one VERY short thread indeed. closed minds aren't really designed for public forums, as things rapidly degenerate into a stalemate of 'i'm right, you're wrong', and then people will just jump off the roundabout and head to a ride that promises better mental stimulation.

"Get off your knees, the party's over."
.
-How do you sleep-
The Stone Roses.

#10    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,656 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:49 PM

*
POPULAR

View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

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).

There is no such thing as "macroevolution". Just evolution. And yes, all life has a common ancestor.


View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

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).

There is a wealth of evidence from the fossil record proving evolution. Simply saying there isn't doesn't change this fact.


View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

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.

What the hell does this have to do with "atheists"?? I was taught everything I know about science by my grandpa, who was a methodist preacher.

Evolutionary theory has never made any claims about the beginning of life - its about the origin of species, not life.

You're saying evolutionary theory makes a claim to explain something, and then criticizing for not being able to, when this was never the case. Like you're average creationist, you're making up the rules as you go along.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#11    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:25 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:


POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
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).


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).


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.  I'm not sure what modern-day scientific community you have been talking to, but the ones I have talked to all discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life developing based off completely different elements than here on earth.  They've also discussed the possibility of computer viruses/robots taking on the characteristics of life to the point of becoming alive in the future.  There was also talk of perhaps other forms of life existing on earth that we are unaware from because they developed in an isolated biome-such us 100 miles underground.

2.  You shouldn't base your whole argument on rocks in the ground.  There are literally thousands of other ways to verify or disprove of macro evolution.  And given what limited information the fossil records provide, It leans more towards evolution than creationism by far.

3.  People are still arguing on what "life" is let alone when it started.  Are viruses or computer viruses alive?  I could mix some organic chemicals in a test tube and say it is life, but people would disagree.  I could mix some organic chemicals in a tube and say it is self replicating and people would disagree.  I could get some of the previous stuff and have it mobile and self replicating and people would disagree.  I could have it be mobile, self replicating, and consuming other organic compounds to sustain itself and people would disagree.  But basically all the stuff to start life is here laying in puddles.  Why wouldn't it eventually form itself into life given enough time?  A monkey can type Shakespeare given enough time, no one argues that.  But a bunch of organic compound laying around for a few billion years is impossible, eh?  I think that quantifies as an explanation.

I guess the best part about all this and the age we live in, is that we will probably have the answer in our lifetime.  I personally think that we will soon create artificial life, be it a whole new organism, computerized artificial intelligence, or something else.  Maybe then we can look back at ourselves and come to accept our past and look to improving ourselves in the future.


#12    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,319 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:58 PM

View PostGromdor, on 03 May 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:



1.  I'm not sure what modern-day scientific community you have been talking to, but the ones I have talked to all discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life developing based off completely different elements than here on earth.  They've also discussed the possibility of computer viruses/robots taking on the characteristics of life to the point of becoming alive in the future.  There was also talk of perhaps other forms of life existing on earth that we are unaware from because they developed in an isolated biome-such us 100 miles underground.

2.  You shouldn't base your whole argument on rocks in the ground.  There are literally thousands of other ways to verify or disprove of macro evolution.  And given what limited information the fossil records provide, It leans more towards evolution than creationism by far.

3.  People are still arguing on what "life" is let alone when it started.  Are viruses or computer viruses alive?  I could mix some organic chemicals in a test tube and say it is life, but people would disagree.  I could mix some organic chemicals in a tube and say it is self replicating and people would disagree.  I could get some of the previous stuff and have it mobile and self replicating and people would disagree.  I could have it be mobile, self replicating, and consuming other organic compounds to sustain itself and people would disagree.  But basically all the stuff to start life is here laying in puddles.  Why wouldn't it eventually form itself into life given enough time?  A monkey can type Shakespeare given enough time, no one argues that.  But a bunch of organic compound laying around for a few billion years is impossible, eh?  I think that quantifies as an explanation.

I guess the best part about all this and the age we live in, is that we will probably have the answer in our lifetime.  I personally think that we will soon create artificial life, be it a whole new organism, computerized artificial intelligence, or something else.  Maybe then we can look back at ourselves and come to accept our past and look to improving ourselves in the future.
I like this post ang agree. Just be careful. If we manage to create life, the only thing that we have prooven is the intelligence can create life.We have to demonstrate that it occurred without intelligence to rule out intelligence as a possibility.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#13    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,656 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:05 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 03 May 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

I like this post ang agree. Just be careful. If we manage to create life, the only thing that we have prooven is the intelligence can create life.We have to demonstrate that it occurred without intelligence to rule out intelligence as a possibility.

Well, we can't. The idea of an intelligent creator is unfalsifiable, we can never rule it out. But we can be pretty sure, scientifically, that life can come from non-life, and I think we're getting there.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#14    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,319 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:28 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 03 May 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:



Well, we can't. The idea of an intelligent creator is unfalsifiable, we can never rule it out. But we can be pretty sure, scientifically, that life can come from non-life, and I think we're getting there.
We will only do that when we manage to observe life comeing from non-life. If we design the conditions and guide the process to create something resembling life... Then indeed the life did not come from nonlife. Infact it was designed by humans.  

One can say that these exact conditions existed on earth I guess. But there is a tremendous amount of assumptions and guess work going back billions of years.

I would rather see some sort of protein in some sort of super primitive state resembling DNA/RNA found at an ocean vent or something.

As it stands even the most primitive life forms we know of have very complex RNA.  There are traces of something scientists think might be the precursor to RNA/DNA. But still that is a very long way from prooving abiogenesis. If real science is done the way it's supposed to be, judgment should be held off. A naturalist/materialist philosophy as well as a creationist one has not at all been prooven.

I'd rather not give the creationists something to hoot and holler about if we manage to create life in a lab but do not observe abiogenesis in nature. Only the most sophisticated creationists would even notice this subtlety, but still. In my book, it would tally on the creationist or alien implantation side of things. Of course scientists would claim victory, but many times the technoologically minded are I'll equipped to deal with the implications of the larger picture.

On the otherside of the coin, If we go a thousand years of technological advancement and we still cannot create biological  life in the lab. That says something also. It might be that it's just to complicated for macro organisms to create life, or could lend itself to some sort of creation theory.

My personal intuition is that there is another side to the process and physics of  life the lies in the quantum realms or potentially in the multiple dimensions of string theory. We have discovered this to be the case in other not well understood  phenomenon like the inner workings of stars. I think we need to be barking up other trees besides just biology and chemistry. ultimately they are all branches of physics any way. When we have a physics that predicts life instead of reduces it, I will be convinced of abiogenesis, but until then there is just as much potential for design as there is for not. I'll keep my mind open.


http://www.scienceda...21110093550.htm


On a side note, there is this game with graph paper. Each number has a specific set of rules for what happens in the squares next to it. I can't find the article, but it was in science or mind or discovery magazine a few years ago. Anyway the numbers morph take shape fluctuate. Then when scientists plug it into supercomputers, many generations down, sets of squares evolve into things that look like space ships that shoot out other numbers to tear apart any obstacles that might damage the stable set. Very strong evidence for the validity of natural selection. Unfortunately in the end it was intelligence that created the rules and the game, so we are left at square 1. Ill keep my eyes out for the article again.

Edited by Seeker79, 03 May 2013 - 04:37 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#15    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:51 PM

View PostAtlantisRises, on 03 May 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

The big difference being that people who believe in evolution admit that they don't know how it all started but attempt to find out. People state that God started it all and that there is no need to explore the question anymore.
What the creationists don't seem to understand is that "God did it," explains nothing.  It is an admission that they don't know, either.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users