Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Uncensored2008 said:
You hate everything save Marxism.

Mainly because you hate life itself. You hate the universe for the crime of your existence.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

This is simply not true.

Evolution is a fact, just as much as gravity. The fossil record overwhelmingly confirms evolution as fact. The Genesis myth is just that, a myth. It has no factual support.
 
Hume said:
you're a fucking bore
Click to expand...

Need your binky?

Say, under the Marxist dictatorship you support, would it be a community binky? I mean, if you had your very own binky, that would be like private property - and I know you commies don't go for that.
 
Concart said:
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?
Click to expand...
Concart:

Prove it.
 
Obtenebrator said:
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.



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

If you think I'm impressed, think again. You lack credibility in light of the fact well respected paleontologists (many of them pro-evolution) have been forced to admit the fossils record is filled with nothing but gaps.
 
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.
Uncensored2008 said:
Neither Darwin, nor anyone else has made such a claim.
A dishonest premise makes your argument invalid.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Uncensored2008:

I know what I'm talking about. You don't. Both Darwin's macroevolution theory and 21st Century evolution theory rely on the pre-existence of a "single common organic ancestor" from which everything else supposedly evolved, including, animals, birds, trees, people, etc. Every living thing that is organic/biologic has supposedly evolved from a single common ancestor. Notice below:


DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY IN 1859: (Origin of Species, p. 484)
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."



MODERN DAY EVOLUTION THEORY:
"Theory of Common Descent

The theory of common descent states that all living organisms are descendants of a single ancestor."
biologydictionary.net

Common Descent - Definition, Theory, Examples, Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Common descent is a term within evolutionary biology which refers to the common ancestry of a particular group of organisms. The process of common decent involves the formation of new species from an ancestral population.
biologydictionary.net biologydictionary.net
 
Uncensored2008 said:
This is simply not true.

Evolution is a fact, just as much as gravity. The fossil record overwhelmingly confirms evolution as fact. The Genesis myth is just that, a myth. It has no factual support.
Click to expand...
Uncensored2008:

You are confused. Why do you supposed the word "Evolution" is ALWAYS followed by the word "Theory"? A theory is nothing more than educated guesses and is never defined as "fact."


Definition of "Scientific Theory"

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
 
Uncensored2008 said:
This is simply not true.

Evolution is a fact, just as much as gravity. The fossil record overwhelmingly confirms evolution as fact. The Genesis myth is just that, a myth. It has no factual support.
Click to expand...
Unsensored2008:

Which fossil record are you referring to? The one that you dreamed up? Well-respected paleontologists (some of whom happened to be pro-evolution) were forced to admit that the fossils record is filled with nothing but gaps. Below is what Ernst Mayr, a rabid pro-evolution paleontologist, was forced to admit.

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)."


As far back as in 1982, Ernst Mayr admitted that every species of creatures on this planet are separated by "bridgeless gaps."

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

In case you don't understand what is meant by "bridgeless," let the Webster's Dictionary simplify it for you, as noted below:

DEFINITION OF BRIDGELESS
a. 1. Having no bridge; not bridged.
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/bridgeless

Mayr went so far as to admit (bolded in purple) that no intermediate species are observed. He said the higher the categories (the more advanced the modern animal was in development) the more serious was the problem of finding intermediates (less developed versions of the modern creature). Simply put, no specimens were found showing how one creature gradually evolved into something else because it never happened.

Alter2Ego
 
Alter2Ego said:
You are confused.
Click to expand...
... whereas you are lying deliberately.

Alter2Ego said:
Why do you supposed the word "Evolution" is ALWAYS followed by the word "Theory"?
Click to expand...
It is preceded by the word "theory," i.e. theory of evolution.

Alter2Ego said:
A theory is nothing more than educated guesses and is never defined as "fact."
Click to expand...
Nope. A theory or theorem is a conclusion of a valid argument. To show that a theory or theorem is false, you show that elements of the supporting argument are false. If all of the elements of the argument are TRUE then the argument is sound and the theory is considered TRUE.
Logic. There is no guessing.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Obtenebrator:

If you think I'm impressed, think again. You lack credibility in light of the fact well respected paleontologists (many of them pro-evolution) have been forced to admit the fossils record is filled with nothing but gaps.
Click to expand...

Impress me and show me the citations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top