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

#16    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,479 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:52 PM

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

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).
First:  there is no difference between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution.  They're the same process.  Just keep micro going long enough and you have macro.

Second:  the Bible differentiates between "kinds," not species.  Species is a concept unknown to the Bible's authors.

One does not have to evolve a new species to have a new "kind."   The English sparrow was imported to North America several times during the 1850s.  Since then, the American birds have evolved a whole new sub-species.  Thus, we have a new "kind" of English sparrow.

Quote

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).
I am working on a project to re-describe the bottom 50 feet of the Mississippian Formation.  This fifty feet was deposited in a desiccating sea over a period of about ten million years.  Part of the description includes conodont fossils, a small eel.  We have collected samples at three-inch intervals over the whole fifty feet and are identifying, by species, the conodonts in each sample and their relative abundance.  I can see evolution through my microscope.  In each sample (400 samples, two replications) there are tiny changes ("microevolution") that over the fifty-foot section produce six new species ("macroevolution").  That's pretty solid evidence that one species evolves into another.  In case you've ever been there:  the type locality is at Roaring River State Park in southwest Missouri.  The samples are coming from the road cut about 200 yards south of the lodge.  I will be over there collecting a week from today, probably about 4:00 p.m.  I will be glad to give anyone who wants, a guided tour of the site; look for a black pickup.

There are also complete fossil collections for several genera.  The wooly mammoth became the imperial mammoth became the Columbian mammoth.  We have the complete fossil record.  Same for horses.  We also have fairly complete records for bears, deer, wolves and cats.  The argument that we don't have a fossil record of one species becoming another one is bogus.

Also, your question misunderstands the entire concept.  Species do not evolve from "completely different" species.  They evolve from ancestral species which are very much like them.  As different branches of the family tree produce new offspring, each generation differs slightly from the last.  As evolution proceeds, the populations diverge until they can no longer interbreed.  The ability to interbreed is the definition of a species (Sort of; there are a lot of exceptions.).

Quote

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.
I am not an atheist.  I am an agnostic.  That is a person who is waiting for theists to put up some evidence for their claims before jumping to an unsupported, speculative conclusion.

Do you know what a virus is?  Is it alive?  You can dry it out, boil it and do any number of other nasty things to it without hurting it.  When conditions are favorable it starts making more viruses.  A virus is neither living nor dead.  The concept doesn't even apply to it.  It is what it is.

By the same token, there are molecules which we assume to be non-living that can replicate themselves.  Put some of these inside a soap bubble and you have a cell.  One by one, you add the traits of living organisms until you have something that's alive.  But in retrospect, you're not sure where you crossed the line between the living and the dead.  Non-living molecules also evolve.  Each minor change you might call "microevolution."  Put enough of these together and you have "macroevolution."  It's your own concept.  All you have to do is apply it.

Is a computer alive?  Problems that haven't been solved in computing acquire the label "artificial intelligence."  As soon as they're solved, they become "computer applications."  But as more and more of these problems get solved, one day we will build a machine that is aware of itself.  Will it be alive?  Will it have a soul?  If it does, will it die and go to Heaven?  What happens if it doesn't accept Jesus?  Does that mean our computer will go to Hell?  Where's the line?  And we'll do all that without ever explaining how the machine became aware of itself.  Indeed, we're not entirely sure that we haven't crossed this line already.


I assume you are a Young Earth Creationist.  How old do YECs think the earth is?  I've heard some say 6000 years.  The Jewish calendar puts us in the 5773rd year of the world.  The Irish calendar makes it the 7213th Year of the World.

The oldest known single-stemmed tree is 9550 years old.  It's a recently-discovered Norway spruce in northern Sweden.  There's a huon pine (multi-stemmed) in Indonesia that's over 10,000 years old.  A creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is estimated at 15,000 years old - older than the Mojave, itself.  And Clone Pando, the world's oldest and largest living thing, an aspen clone in Utah covering 106 acres is somewhere between 100,000 and one million years old.  And we have tree-ring calendars going back 8400 years (The White Mountain 2 Chronology; I have a copy on my desk.).  There's a European oak chronology going back 17,000 years and we may eventually be able to get back 60,000 years, maybe farther.  How do these extremely old living things figure into your concepts of evolution?

I read weather from tree rings.  If you will tell me what year the earth was created, I will tell you what the weather was that year.  And the year after.  And the year before.


I do wish you fundies would learn something about evolution before you decide it isn't valid.  You're pretty good at knocking down you own strawmen.  But these religious strawmen don't reflect the reality of the theory.  So you disprove a theory that nobody believes in, anyway.  And you think you accomplish something by doing that?
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 03 May 2013 - 06:17 PM.

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

#17    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:10 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.

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
The routine of scientists in the pro-evolution camp is to speculate and make claims for which they have no proof.  In otherwords, they avoid having to admit they don't know.  So for the most part, they make things up as they go.




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

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
Correction: Honest scientists make admissions like the ones you described above.  The scientific community, as a whole, is not honest.  Many within that community have resorted to fabrications in order to promote macroevolution myth.

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

#18    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:15 PM

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

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.


Ahhh the Creation Vs Evolution debate.  It's amazing that some still believe that such a debate is possible.  Creation doesn't concern itself with changes in living things once they exist just how they came into existence.  Evolution doesn't concern itself with how living things came into existence just the changes that occurred after they came into existence.  It's kind of like having a debate between a tree growing from a seed and what piece of furniture it was turned into.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#19    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:24 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 03 May 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

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.

I would say that prions and viroids are so primitive that they are not even lifeforms, yet are self replicating without any cellular machinary whatsoever.  Also, life being created in a lab lends no credence to a creator unless the experiment is set up in such a way that would make it impossible without intelligence.  Did forgetting about E. coli cultures and leaving them to starve for weeks give any evidence that intelligence is required for adaptive mutagenesis just because it happened in a lab?  No, because E. coli can starve anywhere.


#20    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
The routine of scientists in the pro-evolution camp is to speculate and make claims for which they have no proof.  In otherwords, they avoid having to admit they don't know.  So for the most part, they make things up as they go.






ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
Correction: Honest scientists make admissions like the ones you described above.  The scientific community, as a whole, is not honest.  Many within that community have resorted to fabrications in order to promote macroevolution myth.

Sorry, wrong again.  I guess it is hard to understand evolution when you have such a poor understanding of science.


#21    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:



ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
The routine of scientists in the pro-evolution camp is to speculate and make claims for which they have no proof.  In otherwords, they avoid having to admit they don't know.  So for the most part, they make things up as they go.






ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
Correction: Honest scientists make admissions like the ones you described above.  The scientific community, as a whole, is not honest.  Many within that community have resorted to fabrications in order to promote macroevolution myth.
.
this
doesn't
make
sense.
just as I said it wouldn't.
you're contradicting yourself OP.
AND you're preaching, in exactly the closed-minded way I said you would.
did you not read my warning on how people here take a dim view of that kind of thing? hmm?
the posters here are offering alternatives to your hypothesis, but you aren't putting up any kind of counter-argument to prove your point, you're just stamping your foot saying 'i'm right, **** you all', and that's unacceptable.
either offer a credible argument, something better than 'you're wrong, so there! nyer nyer na na nyer ner' or have a moderator come along and close the thread on account of you preaching your beliefs and wasting everyone's time.
.
just a suggestion.....

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#22    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,557 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:05 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 03 May 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
The routine of scientists in the pro-evolution camp is to speculate and make claims for which they have no proof.  In otherwords, they avoid having to admit they don't know.  So for the most part, they make things up as they go.






ALTER2EGO -to- ATLANTIS RISES:
Correction: Honest scientists make admissions like the ones you described above.  The scientific community, as a whole, is not honest.  Many within that community have resorted to fabrications in order to promote macroevolution myth.

You've come to the wrong place. Not a single thing you're going to type we haven't seen before, and no-one is that impressed with this sort of holier than thou nonsense.

Move on.

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

#23    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,930 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:26 AM

View Postshrooma, on 03 May 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

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

View Postshrooma, on 03 May 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

or have a moderator come along and close the thread on account of you preaching your beliefs and wasting everyone's time.
.
just a suggestion.....
With respects, shrooma, leave the Moderating to the Moderators.  If you feel someone has broken any rules, use the Report button rather than attempting to police the matter yourself.  Holding an opinion (even a dogmatic opinion) is not against site rules.  Nor is posting that opinion in a dogmatic fashion.  That is NOT preaching.  Take a moment to head to the Conspiracies section and see how many people are there to tell us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that we never landed on the moon.  Preaching is taking it a step further than simply stating a dogmatic belief (now if this member stated "evolution is a lie promoted by the devil/atheists and if you believe it you're going to burn in hell for all eternity, so repent now, accept Genesis and Jesus as your saviour and you can have eternal life in heaven" - that, shrooma, is preaching, and note how different it is to simply stating that macro-evolution is a myth).

~ Paranoid Android (Forum Mod. Team)

Edited by Paranoid Android, 04 May 2013 - 12:26 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#24    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:41 AM

point taken marvin.
it's just that she's new here, and screaming 'god did it' isn't gonna do her any favours, so a pre-emptive word to the wise never did anyone any harm in my books.
better to hear it at the start than be branded a kook is what I was trying to get at, but hey, it's your rules man, i'll play by 'em if nothing else!
honestly, no offence intended...,.

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#25    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,730 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:43 AM

View Postshrooma, on 04 May 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

point taken marvin.
it's just that she's new here, and screaming 'god did it' isn't gonna do her any favours, so a pre-emptive word to the wise never did anyone any harm in my books.
better to hear it at the start than be branded a kook is what I was trying to get at, but hey, it's your rules man, i'll play by 'em if nothing else!
honestly, no offence intended...,.


Off topic shrooma, but do you change your avatar pic like every ten minutes or something? :P

"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


#26    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 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 04 May 2013 - 01:08 AM

View PostFurthurBB, on 03 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:



I would say that prions and viroids are so primitive that they are not even lifeforms, yet are self replicating without any cellular machinary whatsoever.  Also, life being created in a lab lends no credence to a creator unless the experiment is set up in such a way that would make it impossible without intelligence.  Did forgetting about E. coli cultures and leaving them to starve for weeks give any evidence that intelligence is required for adaptive mutagenesis just because it happened in a lab?  No, because E. coli can starve anywhere.
Hahaha prions are a mentos in a 7 up bottle, and viroids have pretty complex sets of RNA. Non of that explained complexity. E coli, can and does starve in many places especially dead people but that's not what I was talking about was it? ;)

I never said inteligence is Required. I only suggested that because you want to explain away things from a certain philosophical point of view Does not  mean its right. A prudent precaution. I'm a skeptic of skeptics. As soon as  one identifys bias , then one must pay careful attention to the others rhetori. There is not as much evidence for materialistic philosophy as some seem to think. ;)

Edited by Seeker79, 04 May 2013 - 01:14 AM.

"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-

#27    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:22 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 03 May 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:
Correction: Evolution theory is inescapably linked to abiogenesis theory (life coming to life by itself).  In fact, Charles Darwin proposed abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) theory even after he was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of his time.  

Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend, Joseph Dalton Hooker, suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:
"...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."


Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that:
"...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
http://www.daviddarl.../D/DarwinC.html


In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God). Even after his abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of the time, Darwin persisted in his abiogenesis theory.  And since it is Darwin's version of evolution that modern evolution theory is based on, abiogenesis is what all atheists are stuck with.

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

#28    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:36 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 04 May 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:




Off topic shrooma, but do you change your avatar pic like every ten minutes or something? :P
.
no dude, what I was trying to do was post a pic of my ugly visage, and then swap it for a valmorphasized image, a là team america, but the pic was too large to fit a profile photo, so I just stuck a pic of last year's mushroom picking highlights in there instead, as I couldn't think of anything else offhand in my drunken stupor, but now you come to mention it amigo, there'll be lots of different pics heading your, and everyone elses way!
and you've only got yourself to blame.....
:-D

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#29    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:40 AM

but back on topic,
god sucks! darwin yaay!
.
discuss.
:-)

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#30    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2013 - 04:56 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:
Correction: Evolution theory is inescapably linked to abiogenesis theory (life coming to life by itself).  In fact, Charles Darwin proposed abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) theory even after he was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of his time.  
...

No it isn't and repeating it over to yourself doesn't make it true. This is called a strawman. Understand what is?

And who gives a flying duck fart if Darwin also proposed other hypotheses? Look, science isn't like your religion *snip* Old scientists aren't ancients to be worshiped or revered. Their ideas and writings aren't holy. We mind as well get out the fiddle and dance on their graves for all we care. In science we acknowledge their ingenuity and discoveries, but that's it.

You fundies have your worlds so gd mixed up, you think everything operates in the tiny little boxes you guys live in. You all seem to labor under this fetid delusion that modern scientists worship old scientists and I can only assume that is because how your fundie worldview requires you think. Ancient inerrancy is a plight *snip* Please don't reach for the rest us as your ship sinks.

Edit: BTW, I know you creationists are special *snip* but you do realize that you guys are actually the ones proposing spontaneous generation right?

And no Darwin didn't propose spontaneous generation--Which has a specific definition and use that is not synonymous with abiogenesis. I mean your open salvo was how "evolutionists" and scientists are these terrible, dishonest people. Yet here you are either too dumb to realize you don't understand the terms you are talking about or misusing them anyway (surprise surprise a dishonest creationists?!!!!!! Come to find out that is 'bout as common as bears ****ting in woods. Who'd-a thunk!).

Edited by Paranoid Android, 04 May 2013 - 06:51 AM.
Removed personal insults





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users