Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[IBDaMann]

Why do you think you are going to be able to pass off your shit posts as something meaningful to someone who knows how ill informed you actually are?

It's not working. You don't know anything. Good luck finding someone who believes you that you are some sort of learned thientitht.

Does it get you off to look like a fool in front of someone?

Are you asking because that is what works for you?

 

[Kafka]

It's not working. You don't know anything. Good luck finding someone who believes you that you are some sort of learned thientitht.


Are you asking because that is what works for you?

You know and I know the truth. You can blather on all you like but at the end of the day you and I both know the truth about your lack of bona fides in this area, Into the Night.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. And that this organic ancestor came from NON-LIFE to LIFE by itself aka abiogenesis theory. Credible scientific evidence proves that organic life cannot result from non-life.


According to the atheists, there is no Almighty God Jehovah who created all life forms. So the question is this: If there is no Jehovah and therefore no Creator, how did evolution's supposed "common organic ancestor" come to life by itself so that evolution could proceed?


The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each CREATED AS-IS, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves—up to a set point.


Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth. Fake science, meanwhile, relies on abiogenesis theory (organic life coming to life by itself) but fails to provide any credible explanation for this impossible feat.


QUESTION 1: How did evolution's common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?


QUESTION 2: Humans are supposedly primates, and they supposedly came from the same common primate ancestor as did apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas. How is it that there is not one single fossil showing the transitions among humans, apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas from this supposed common primate ancestor?


QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?



Alter2Ego

NO reputable science supports any aspect of the Creation myth.
I'm even suspicious of the theories that ARE regarded as modern science.

We don't know jack shit about the advent of matter itself, never mind life.
Beyond that, knowing or not knowing has no practical impact on our short, finite lives.

In a short lifetime, knowing how to have a good time is more important than knowing the origin of life.

 

[Alter2Ego]

You really suck at this. I have zero burden of proof. You do. Show me ONE peer reviewed paper in a science journal that says ‘God did it’. I’ll wait.

Concart:

You expect a peer reviewed paper, after I stated the following?

Concart:

Fake science, that is, considering the fact there is no evidence in the fossils record to support it.

FYI: Legitimate science actually supports the Genesis Creation account. They didn't intend to do that, mind you, but their findings line up with what is stated in the Bible's account of creation.

Clearly, from what I stated above, there would be no "peer reviewed paper" for findings that were never intended.

Go figure.

 

[Hume]

Concart:

You expect a peer reviewed paper, after I stated the following?


Clearly, from what I stated above, there would be no "peer reviewed paper" for findings that were never intended.

Go figure.

Stupid.

 

[IBDaMann]

You know and I know the truth.

Nope. You know neither the truth nor what I know.

You can blather on all you like

It's nice to know that I have your permission should I ever wish to blather, but frankly, I would prefer you stop.

Why don't you take the opportunity to refresh the collective JPP memory on how you believe that the earth, as a body of matter in equilibrium, somehow increases in temperature spontaneously because of a magickal gas? That would surely clear up some misconceptions.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Impress me and show me the citations.

See post 172 on page 9 of this thread for citation #1. Below is the weblink that will take you directly there.

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

You hate everything save Marxism. Mainly because you hate life itself. You hate the universe for the crime of your existence. I have to believe you say dumb stuff just to provoke people. You have not the slightest idea what Marxism is. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

www.justplainpolitics.com

 

[Alter2Ego]

You are quite mistaken about what the word "theory" means in science. You are thinking of "common language usage", not the scientific meaning.

Theories, in the sciences, are extremely well supported hypotheses. It is one of the gold standards of how well a scientific concept explains the data. The only thing more "secure" is a scientific Law.

Obtenebrator:

I gave the "scientific" definition of theory at Post 171 within this thread. And guess what? With all the "scientific" language used therein , it still amounts to educated guesses. Below is the weblink that will take you to Post 171.

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

You hate everything save Marxism. Mainly because you hate life itself. You hate the universe for the crime of your existence. I have to believe you say dumb stuff just to provoke people. You have not the slightest idea what Marxism is. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

www.justplainpolitics.com

 

[Hume]

Obtenebrator:

I gave the "scientific" definition of theory at Post 171 within this thread. And guess what? With all the "scientific" language used therein , it still amounts to educated guesses. Below is the weblink that will take you to Post 171.

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

You hate everything save Marxism. Mainly because you hate life itself. You hate the universe for the crime of your existence. I have to believe you say dumb stuff just to provoke people. You have not the slightest idea what Marxism is. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

www.justplainpolitics.com

Nobody can know the truth. Therefore God created the universe. Brilliant logic.

 

[Alter2Ego]

NO reputable science supports any aspect of the Creation myth.
I'm even suspicious of the theories that ARE regarded as modern science.

We don't know jack shit about the advent of matter itself, never mind life.
Beyond that, knowing or not knowing has no practical impact on our short, finite lives.

In a short lifetime, knowing how to have a good time is more important than knowing the origin of life.

NiftyNiblick:

You are so busy having a "good time" in your short lifetime that you don't have a clue about what reputable science has discovered in support of the Genesis creation account. As I previously stated to another atheist within this thread, legitimate science has found evidence in support of the Genesis creation account without intending to.

The problem with members of the Religion of Atheism is that they can't accept the fact that there is no evidence to support Darwin's science fiction aka evolution fairytale, and none to support the science fiction called Big Bang Theory.

 

[Hume]

NiftyNiblick:

You are so busy having a "good time" in your short lifetime that you don't have a clue about what reputable science has discovered in support of the Genesis creation account. As I previously stated to another atheist within this thread, legitimate science has found evidence in support of the Genesis creation account without intending to.

Absolutely false.

 

[Kafka]

Obtenebrator:

I gave the "scientific" definition of theory at Post 171 within this thread. And guess what? With all the "scientific" language used therein , it still amounts to educated guesses. Below is the weblink that will take you to Post 171.

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

You hate everything save Marxism. Mainly because you hate life itself. You hate the universe for the crime of your existence. I have to believe you say dumb stuff just to provoke people. You have not the slightest idea what Marxism is. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

www.justplainpolitics.com

You are being somewhat disingenuous here. All knoweldge in the sciences is an educated guess. But to suggest that a scientific THEORY is the same as a simple, unevidenced hypothesis is to be 100% wrong.

The theory of evolution is EXTREMELY well evidenced and provides the basis for almost all of biology. It is far more than a simple guess.

 

[Kafka]

See post 172 on page 9 of this thread for citation #1. Below is the weblink that will take you directly there.

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

You hate everything save Marxism. Mainly because you hate life itself. You hate the universe for the crime of your existence. I have to believe you say dumb stuff just to provoke people. You have not the slightest idea what Marxism is. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

www.justplainpolitics.com

You found one citation from more than 40 years ago that supports (sort of) your contention. This is HARDLY a swell of support for the claim.

At the end of the day the fossil record shows change in life forms over time. Often with nice "transitions" visible. And it supports the theory of evolution quite well.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

NiftyNiblick:

You are so busy having a "good time" in your short lifetime that you don't have a clue about what reputable science has discovered in support of the Genesis creation account. As I previously stated to another atheist within this thread, legitimate science has found evidence in support of the Genesis creation account without intending to.

The problem with members of the Religion of Atheism is that they can't accept the fact that there is no evidence to support Darwin's science fiction aka evolution fairytale, and none to support the science fiction called Big Bang Theory.

As somebody who loathes the political theocracy result that often springs from religious belief,
I have hostile contempt for the theory that my atheism is a religion.

Darwin's theory can be and has been literally seen with the rapid evolution of fruit flies.

Thirty generations of grey wolves living in a domesticated environment
literally transforms them genetically into dogs
with a larger forward skull to make room for a more advanced cerebrum.

 

[Concart]

Concart:

You expect a peer reviewed paper, after I stated the following?


Clearly, from what I stated above, there would be no "peer reviewed paper" for findings that were never intended.

Go figure.

Thn your statement is demonstrably false. Science does not support creationism. Period. Full stop.

 

[Concart]

Why do you think you are going to be able to pass off your shit posts as something meaningful to someone who knows how ill informed you actually are?

Does it get you off to look like a fool in front of someone everyone.

Fixed it.

 

[Alter2Ego]

You are being somewhat disingenuous here. All knoweldge in the sciences is an educated guess. But to suggest that a scientific THEORY is the same as a simple, unevidenced hypothesis is to be 100% wrong.

The theory of evolution is EXTREMELY well evidenced and provides the basis for almost all of biology. It is far more than a simple guess.

Obtenebrator:

None of your wishful thinking will change the fact that evolution theory is nothing more than educated guesses. It being the "basis for almost all biology" explains why there are so many mistakes in the scientific world. Mistakes happen when people rely on an unproven and outright debunked theory.

 

[Alter2Ego]

You found one citation from more than 40 years ago that supports (sort of) your contention. This is HARDLY a swell of support for the claim.

At the end of the day the fossil record shows change in life forms over time. Often with nice "transitions" visible. And it supports the theory of evolution quite well.

Obtenebrator:

It doesn't matter how many years ago the citation was originally made. Nothing has changed in those 40 years.

FYI: I have many similar citations by pro-evolution paleontologists who were forced to admit the fossils record is filled with gaps. Below are more reluctant admissions by paleontologists who searched in vain for connections between fossils of one creature and its supposedly evolved version.


"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


"Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)


"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.)


Notice that George Neville, in 1960, made it clear that the fossil record had become "almost unmanageably rich." In other words, the problem was not a lack of fossils. Instead, there was a lack of connection between the fossils. Neville said the record "continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Twenty years later, in 1980, Stephen Gould confirmed Neville's findings. He admitted there were no transitions between major groups of creatures.


Again, nothing has changed since the above comments were published by paleontologists, and we are now in 2024. None of the gaps that were seen in the fossil record decades ago have since been filled in with newly discovered examples of transitional fossils. Were that the case, it would have been published in bold print by the more recent pro-evolution paleontologists. But that hasn't happened; has it now?