Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Alter2Ego said:
I used Charles Darwin's version of the fairytale because that's the version that Atheist Religionists rely on.
Click to expand...
What's an Atheist Religionist? It sounds like an oxymoron.

Alter2Ego said:
The version of evolution theory that Greek philosopher Aristotle dreamed up was very different from Charles Darwin's version.
Click to expand...
In what way?

Alter2Ego said:
In Aristotle’s Evolution Theory, he proposed a concept known as the "Great Chain of Being" aka "Scala Naturae."
Click to expand...
Nope. Why do you say he did? You are lying deliberately. You haven't demonstrated any knowledge whatsoever of your subject matter.

Alter2Ego said:
Whereas Darwin believed creatures evolved and changed over time, Aristotle believed that species were fixed and unchanging.
Click to expand...
Darwin noticed that populations change over relatively long periods of time, not any creatures. Aristotle also noticed that no creatures change over time.

Alter2Ego said:
Aristotle classified animals based on their characteristics and observed their anatomy and behavior.
Click to expand...
... as did Darwin.

Alter2Ego said:
But whereas Darwin dreamed up natural selection, Aristotle rejected the idea of natural selection
Click to expand...
Aristotle couldn't very well reject an idea that had not yet been born.

You are intentionally dishonest.
 
Concart said:
Evolution is science.
Click to expand...
Nope. You should be aware that you don't know what science is.

Charles Darwin's theory is awesome (I'm a huge fan) but it isn't science.

Genetics is science. Evolution is not.

Concart said:
Creationism is the fairy tale.
Click to expand...
Creationism is an unfalsifiable religious doctrine, precluding any science.

Concart said:
If you want to believe a fairy tale of a man in the sky who impregnated a virgin so he could kill his kid, go for it.
Click to expand...
I think that's what Christians are going to do. I don't think they're necessarily going to agree with your characterization, though.

Concart said:
Lots of fairy tales have ugly protagonists. But stop pretending that creation has any basis in science, because it by definition does not.
Click to expand...
What Christian(s) are asserting that creationism is settled science? I know that's what warmizombies and Climate lemmings assert about their WACKY religions but Christians refer to their religion as a matter of faith.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
everything about atheism sounds moronic......
Click to expand...

Of course. Because it scares you. You cannot imagine why someone would think differently from you and the fact that some people fail to believe the things you believe most ardently causes you to worry.

Don't worry. Other people's thoughts can't hurt you. Even when they don't agree with you.
 
Concart said:
Evolution is science. Creationism is the fairy tale. If you want to believe a fairy tale of a man in the sky who impregnated a virgin so he could kill his kid, go for it. Lots of fairy tales have ugly protagonists. But stop pretending that creation has any basis in science, because it by definition does not. Ten years? Usually people get better with experience. If this is your best, that's very sad.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Alter2Ego said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nothing in science proves god caused the universe.
 
Alter2Ego said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, it absolutely does not. You have shoehorned your fairy tale to fit physical evidence. It is a lie, told by an insecure person who feels the need to put those two things on equal footing. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Ten years and that hasn't sunk in yet? Seriously?
 

Alter2Ego said:
Concart:

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

Speaking as someone who actually has worked with fossils and learned paleontology I can safely tell you that the fossil record contains NOTHING BUT evidence to support evolution.

Alter2Ego said:
FYI: Legitimate science actually supports the Genesis Creation account.
Click to expand...

Not even close. The "order of creation" in Genesis does not bear ANY resemblance to the order in which life actually populated the earth.

 
Alter2Ego said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither Darwin, nor anyone else has made such a claim.

A dishonest premise makes your argument invalid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top