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

#31    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,578 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • 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 04 May 2013 - 06:34 AM

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

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.
Wrong, Darwin proposed a hypothesis. I'll repeat it again because you're a bit daft, evolution does not explain the origin of life.


#32    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,578 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • 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 04 May 2013 - 06:42 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 04 May 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

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. ;)
Yet your own confirmation bias is as plain as day. If you're not parroting statements from scientists you're twisting them.


#33    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:55 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 03 May 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

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

'Microevolution' is a tried and true fact. There is no denying that.
ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world.  The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature.  For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND.  Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents.  That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution."  In reality, the animal did not evolve at all.  It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.

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

#34    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 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 - 07:06 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 04 May 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Yet your own confirmation bias is as plain as day. If you're not parroting statements from scientists you're twisting them.
I certainly have a bias, we all do. But it has not been confirmed, I assure you. Also I'm not a scientist, so yes everything I learn is from them. I'm not sure how else you could talk about science without parroting scientists unless of course you are one. Are you? Even then a scientist would be mostly be "parroting" others unless it's a new idea. I havnt twisted anything.

Edited by Seeker79, 04 May 2013 - 07:06 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-

#35    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:18 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world.  The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature.  For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND.  Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents.  That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution."  In reality, the animal did not evolve at all.  It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.
You're right on one thing - there is no such thing as micro-evolution.  There is just evolution.  The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time.  Over the course of thousands and millions of years, micro changes become so numerous that they can no longer be considered the same species as another species that was once similar (perhaps the environments they lived in were two completely different ones, and now 150 thousand years later they meet up again but can no longer be considered the same).

I'm a Christian who believes in Theistic Evolution.  This is the belief that God used evolution as his chosen vehicle to bring forth creation and his ultimate goal, mankind as his chosen people.  This is not inconsistent with the creation accounts of Genesis (for further details, here is a link to a post I made last year on a non-historical approach to creation).  In my estimation, the only reason to not accept evolution is a preconception that God must have done it another way (six days of creation).  Otherwise there is just too much evidence.  Evolution has become a Scientific Theory, and that is not easy to do unless there is an absolute boatload of evidence to accompany it (a Scientific Theory is not a Philosophical theory, it's not a guess - remember, Gravity is also a Theory).

I don't think the Christian God is incompatible with an acceptance of evolution.  Certainly I don't think it's enough to be condemned to hell for such a view (not that you have condemned me to hell, I'm just saying :yes:)

Welcome to the forums, Alter-2-Ego, hope you enjoy it around here :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 04 May 2013 - 07:25 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

#36    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,254 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:43 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 04 May 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

I'm a Christian who believes in Theistic Evolution.  This is the belief that God used evolution as his chosen vehicle to bring forth creation and his ultimate goal, mankind as his chosen people.

Hi PA. Just out of curiosity, I've often wondered what 'theistic evolution' actually means.

I see a few problems with it. It appears to suggest that evolution is goal directed. That is, God used it as a tool to create humans.

So, do you believe that God set up the initial conditions so that humans would ultimately and inevitably evolve?
Or, has God periodically intervened to ensure it stayed 'on course'?
Or, did God wait to see what the first intelligent species evolved was?
Also, this implies that humans are the intended result of evolution. So, what now? Does evolution stop? If mankind are His chosen people, then do you believe there is no other life in the universe? Is it likely God has other 'chosen' species elsewhere?

And finally. Do you believe that evolution can proceed without a guiding hand? ie 100% a natural process.

Sorry for all the questions, but it's something I've long been interested in. To my understanding, evolution is a purely natural process whereby selective pressures act on random variations. Stephen Jay Gould believed that if you rewound the clock and run it again, evolution would take a different course - due to the complex relationship between the variables making it totally unpredictable. So, believing that God has directed it is, in fact, not consistent with accepting the validity of the theory. (as I see it)


#37    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:46 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 03 May 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

'Macroevolution' is simply 'microevolution' spread throughout many, many generations coupled with other factors. Small changes over time equal big changes.
ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
Not only is there no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world, but the equally fabricated term "macroevolution" aka MYTH has long since been debunked by the lack of evidence in the fossils record. In other words, nothing evolved--neither "micro" nor "macro" or anything else in between.  All living creatures were created by Jehovah as-is, according to their KIND, and endowed with the ability to produce variations of their own KIND.  In fact, pro-evolution scientists have been lamenting the lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossils for decades.  Below are a two examples of them doing the usual lamentations regarding the non-existence of evidence in the fossils.

1.
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


2.  "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

Edited by Alter2Ego, 04 May 2013 - 07:50 AM.

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

#38    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:49 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 04 May 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

You're right on one thing - there is no such thing as micro-evolution.  There is just evolution.  The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time.  Over the course of thousands and millions of years, micro changes become so numerous that they can no longer be considered the same species as another species that was once similar (perhaps the environments they lived in were two completely different ones, and now 150 thousand years later they meet up again but can no longer be considered the same).

I'm a Christian who believes in Theistic Evolution.  This is the belief that God used evolution as his chosen vehicle to bring forth creation and his ultimate goal, mankind as his chosen people.  This is not inconsistent with the creation accounts of Genesis (for further details, here is a link to a post I made last year on a non-historical approach to creation).  In my estimation, the only reason to not accept evolution is a preconception that God must have done it another way (six days of creation).  Otherwise there is just too much evidence.  Evolution has become a Scientific Theory, and that is not easy to do unless there is an absolute boatload of evidence to accompany it (a Scientific Theory is not a Philosophical theory, it's not a guess - remember, Gravity is also a Theory).

I don't think the Christian God is incompatible with an acceptance of evolution.  Certainly I don't think it's enough to be condemned to hell for such a view (not that you have condemned me to hell, I'm just saying :yes:)

Welcome to the forums, Alter-2-Ego, hope you enjoy it around here :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Thanks for the welcome.  Literal hellfire torment is not a Bible teaching.

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

#39    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 04 May 2013 - 08:08 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 04 May 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Hi PA. Just out of curiosity, I've often wondered what 'theistic evolution' actually means.

I see a few problems with it. It appears to suggest that evolution is goal directed. That is, God used it as a tool to create humans.
Hi arbenol.  I'll answer your question/s as best I can but just like scientists I don't claim to have all the answers :D

So, do you believe that God set up the initial conditions so that humans would ultimately and inevitably evolve?
Or, has God periodically intervened to ensure it stayed 'on course'?


Either could have happened.  I'd probably lean to the former reason (if God knows all and created all, he could set it up from the very beginning to reach the point it is today), but some proponents of Theistic Evolution propose God intentionally intervened at times (the most common of these ideas being the creation of man from an ape-ancestor).  I don't know if I agree with such or not.  Either way, I don't think it really affects my understanding of God.

Or, did God wait to see what the first intelligent species evolved was?

No, I do not believe this.  The implication is that God did not know what was going to happen, so when humans evolved and began to "sin" (go their own way) it was a surprise to God and therefore he had to make a quick Plan B and chose Jesus to die for us.  The death and resurrection of Jesus was God's plan from the beginning, so he had to know that humans would be his creation.

Also, this implies that humans are the intended result of evolution. So, what now? Does evolution stop? If mankind are His chosen people, then do you believe there is no other life in the universe? Is it likely God has other 'chosen' species elsewhere?

Evolution likely won't stop.  It is a process.  But we are the pinnacle of evolution.  At some point in the future, I believe Jesus will return and usher in the destruction of this world and the creation of a new one.

As to life on other planets, the universe is so large I have to assume that life has evolved elsewhere.  I am agnostic on whether they are God's chosen or not.  I suspect if they make their way to our planet (or we make our way to theirs) then we'll have a whole new Missionary industry available as we attempt to convert our new found neighbours.

And finally. Do you believe that evolution can proceed without a guiding hand? ie 100% a natural process.

I believe that God is in control of everything in our world, and if he stopped then the universe would literally dissolve and the universe cease to exist.  But as a natural process, sure evolution will continue.


View PostArbenol68, on 04 May 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Sorry for all the questions, but it's something I've long been interested in. To my understanding, evolution is a purely natural process whereby selective pressures act on random variations. Stephen Jay Gould believed that if you rewound the clock and run it again, evolution would take a different course - due to the complex relationship between the variables making it totally unpredictable. So, believing that God has directed it is, in fact, not consistent with accepting the validity of the theory. (as I see it)
Since I believe in a creator who controls all, then I agree that evolution is a natural process, but because the creator does exist, he is in control of those natural processes.  Unless God is incapable of manipulating the natural processes of our universe, but that would seem to imply that it wouldn't really be God, wouldn't it?

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

#40    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 04 May 2013 - 08:15 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Thanks for the welcome.  Literal hellfire torment is not a Bible teaching.
I know.  I've written an extensive essay on the issue.  I suppose you could say I'm an Annihilationist, but I don't like to label myself so specifically.  Nevertheless, what I meant to imply in my comment is that I do not think the issue of creation and evolution is a Salvation issue.  We can believe or not believe in evolution and still accept Jesus as our Lord (if one were so inclined to become Christian).

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

#41    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,578 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • 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 04 May 2013 - 08:49 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 04 May 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

I certainly have a bias, we all do. But it has not been confirmed, I assure you.
Is that meant to be a joke or you really think thats what confirmation bias means?

Quote

Also I'm not a scientist, so yes everything I learn is from them. I'm not sure how else you could talk about science without parroting scientists unless of course you are one. Are you? Even then a scientist would be mostly be "parroting" others unless it's a new idea. I havnt twisted anything.
You're right you're not, you parrot scientists that conform to your preconcevied ideas, in many cases it is their opinions and hypotheses.

BTW Seeker, twisting my words in the first 2 sentences of your post kind of makes the words "I havnt twisted anything" rather empty.

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 May 2013 - 08:50 AM.


#42    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 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 04 May 2013 - 08:51 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
Not only is there no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world, but the equally fabricated term "macroevolution" aka MYTH has long since been debunked by the lack of evidence in the fossils record. In other words, nothing evolved--neither "micro" nor "macro" or anything else in between.  All living creatures were created by Jehovah as-is, according to their KIND, and endowed with the ability to produce variations of their own KIND.  In fact, pro-evolution scientists have been lamenting the lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossils for decades.  Below are a two examples of them doing the usual lamentations regarding the non-existence of evidence in the fossils.

1.
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


2.  "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

As another poster stated, there really is no 'micro' or 'macro' evolution. There is only evolution. I was merely using the terms you chose in your OP to state a point (hence the paraphrasing of the terms). Furthermore every fossil is a transitional fossil. If you or I were to become fossilized, our fossils would be transitional. Evolution doesn't stop for a break every few thousand years to say 'that's good enough for now'. It is a continual process and one that skeletal fossils only show a very small portion of.

I can tell you aren't here for discussion, you seem like you think you have it all figured out already. Far be it from me to try and change your mind about evolution. I would kindly expect the same from you about creationism.

"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


#43    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:03 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 04 May 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

As another poster stated, there really is no 'micro' or 'macro' evolution. There is only evolution. I was merely using the terms you chose in your OP to state a point (hence the paraphrasing of the terms). Furthermore every fossil is a transitional fossil. If you or I were to become fossilized, our fossils would be transitional. Evolution doesn't stop for a break every few thousand years to say 'that's good enough for now'. It is a continual process and one that skeletal fossils only show a very small portion of.

I can tell you aren't here for discussion, you seem like you think you have it all figured out already. Far be it from me to try and change your mind about evolution. I would kindly expect the same from you about creationism.
ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."  

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record.  I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much.   In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?

Edited by Alter2Ego, 04 May 2013 - 09:04 AM.

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

#44    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 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 04 May 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."  

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record.  I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much.   In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?

The fact that you are completely wrong about what a scientific theory is is quite telling.

Quote

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Pay special attention to the second sentence there.

"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


#45    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:17 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."  

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record.  I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much.   In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?
So you are sceptical that gravity exists?  That also is just an unproven theory, isn't it?  Edit: maybe if I put it in CAPS, Bold, and Underlined it makes it any better - the THEORY of Gravity!

Edited by Paranoid Android, 04 May 2013 - 09:25 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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users