Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Alter2Ego

Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth

108 posts in this topic

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121110093550.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.).

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
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.