Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Cypress said:
Dumb . It's equivalent to whining that science hasn't answered every single question we can possibly ask, and made us omniscient.


Evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is still an open question.

There are transitional fossils between archaic primates of the Miocene, and modern homo sapiens. Australopithecenes, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus all show anatomical traits which progressively transition from more ape-like to more human-like through time.

There isn't any fossil evidence of the last common ancestor of all life, because it was a single celled prokaryote and single cells almost never leave a fossil record because they are fragile. There are also almost no rocks that survive from the time period of the last common ancestor. Genetic evidence is what establishes a link between extant life and a last common ancestor that lived around 3.5 billion years ago.
Click to expand...
Cypress:

This might come to you as a shock, but Darwin's evolution theory and modern-day evolution theory both rely on the debunked abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself), because they claim there had to have been a common BIOLOGIC ancestor from which all other life forms evolved (including plants, animals, fish, insects, and everything that is considered to be "biologic.")


DARWIN'S 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."


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2015:
"Scientific theory​

The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
http://knowledgerush.com/encyclopedia/Evolution/
 
Alter2Ego said:
Cypress:

This might come to you as a shock, but Darwin's evolution theory and modern-day evolution theory both rely on the debunked abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself), because they claim there had to have been a common BIOLOGIC ancestor from which all other life forms evolved (including plants, animals, fish, insects, and everything that is considered to be "biologic.")


DARWIN'S 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."


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2015:​

"Scientific theory​

The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
http://knowledgerush.com/encyclopedia/Evolution/
Click to expand...
Link to whomever "debunked" abiogenesis theory? Are you confusing it with the debunked spontaneous generation theory?

www.britannica.com

Abiogenesis | Definition & Theory

Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were simple and gradually became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.
 
Commander Dutch said:
Are you saying God couldn't have created the Universe 13.5B years ago and knew that, like a farmer casting out seed into a field, what would happen? Are you limiting God to what is written by man in a book?

Do you believe the Universe is only 6000 years old?
Click to expand...
Commander Dutch:

The topic of my OP is Darwin's Macroevolution Myth, which has nothing to do with the questions you're asking. If you want to start up a thread dealing with your above questions, nobody's stopping you.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Commander Dutch:

The topic of my OP is Darwin's Macroevolution Myth, which has nothing to do with the questions you're asking. If you want to start up a thread dealing with your above questions, nobody's stopping you.
Click to expand...
You're free to run from related questions and lie about the title of your own thread.

My post which you quoted answers allows for the same answer to both thus creating no conflict. Run or lie from that too if you like. :thup:

The fact my only post you replied to was to lie to me is interesting. Are you really religious? Isn't Bearing False Witness a mortal sin?
 
Commander Dutch said:
Link to whomever "debunked" abiogenesis theory? Are you confusing it with the debunked spontaneous generation theory?

www.britannica.com

Abiogenesis | Definition & Theory

Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were simple and gradually became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.
Click to expand...
Commander Dutch:

Encyclopedia Britannica can't help you on this in light of the fact abiogenesis theory and spontaneous generation theory mean the same thing, technically. Both theories propose that life resulted from non-life by itself. Notice the words bolded in blue within each definition below. Also notice how Collins Dictionary adds -- as a synonym -- the other theory after the semicolon (bolded in green).

DEFINITION OF ABIOGENESIS:
"Biology
"the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation"
(Source: Collins Dictionary)


DEFINITION OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION:
"the theory, now discredited, that living organisms can originate in nonliving matter independently of other living matter; abiogenesis"
(Source: Collins Dictionary)


": a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter"
(Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

In case you need me to spell it out, spontaneous generation is a synonym of abiogenesis.
 
domer76 said:
Darwin said no such thing.

The fossil record of humans is there, except for deniers. The DNA evidence is also there

The fossil record is clear.

Lastly, your world is older than 6000 years. There was no flood, no ark, no animal pairs on that boat.
Click to expand...
domer76:

I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, the fossil record is clear. Clear on what, you might ask? On the reality that macroevolution never happened. There is no evidence in the fossils record that ANY creature evolved from something entirely different. Even pro-evolution paleontologists (people who study fossils) have been force to admit that the fossils records is filled with nothing but gaps.


Paleontologist David Kitts put it nicely in 1974, as follows:

"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.)
 
Concart said:
Completely wrong. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Quit trying to steal science to prop up your magic sky daddy bullshit.
Click to expand...
Concart:

At no time did I say it is. I clearly stated that Creation is a FACT and that true science has unwittingly (without intending to) confirmed it to be true.
 
Alter2Ego said:
domer76:

I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, the fossil record is clear. Clear on what, you might ask? On the reality that macroevolution never happened. There is no evidence in the fossils record that ANY creature evolved from something entirely different. Even pro-evolution paleontologists (people who study fossils) have been force to admit that the fossils records is filled with nothing but gaps.


Paleontologist David Kitts put it nicely in 1974, as follows:

"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.)
Click to expand...
Hilarious that Kitts is about the only paleontologist that you creationists can cite. And his assertion was that evolution can’t be proven on the fossil record ALONE.

Who the fuck knows what you morons mean by “intermediate species”. The fossil record on primates is there. Now, we have DNA that demonstrates relationships between species.

Go ahead and site your outliers all you want, Einstooge. Are there some problems with Darwinian theory? Perhaps. But your creation bullshit isn’t the answer. It’s the laugh.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Concart:

At no time did I say it is. I clearly stated that Creation is a FACT and that true science has unwittingly (without intending to) confirmed it to be true.
Click to expand...
Regarding creation in Genesis. What is with the plural gods?

“Then God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness”

“The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil.”
 
domer76 said:
Regarding creation in Genesis. What is with the plural gods?

“Then God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness”

“The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil.”
Click to expand...
You keep stating that. What significance do you associate with it?
 
Alter2Ego said:
Commander Dutch:

Encyclopedia Britannica can't help you on this in light of the fact abiogenesis theory and spontaneous generation theory mean the same thing, technically. Both theories propose that life resulted from non-life by itself. Notice the words bolded in blue within each definition below. Also notice how Collins Dictionary adds -- as a synonym -- the other theory after the semicolon (bolded in green).

DEFINITION OF ABIOGENESIS:
"Biology
"the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation"
(Source: Collins Dictionary)
Alter2Ego said:
Commander Dutch:

Encyclopedia Britannica can't help you on this in light of the fact abiogenesis theory and spontaneous generation theory mean the same thing, technically. Both theories propose that life resulted from non-life by itself. Notice the words bolded in blue within each definition below. Also notice how Collins Dictionary adds -- as a synonym -- the other theory after the semicolon (bolded in green).

DEFINITION OF ABIOGENESIS:
"Biology
"the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation"
(Source: Collins Dictionary)


DEFINITION OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION:
"the theory, now discredited, that living organisms can originate in nonliving matter independently of other living matter; abiogenesis"
(Source: Collins Dictionary)


": a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter"
(Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

In case you need me to spell it out, spontaneous generation is a synonym of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...



DEFINITION OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION:
"the theory, now discredited, that living organisms can originate in nonliving matter independently of other living matter; abiogenesis"
(Source: Collins Dictionary)


": a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter"
(Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

In case you need me to spell it out, spontaneous generation is a synonym of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
spontaneous generation ≠ abiogenesis

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of ABIOGENESIS

the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

abiogenesis​

noun​

abio·gen·e·sis ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs

: the origin of life from nonliving matter
specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances
According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.—David Warmflash et al.


www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

spontaneous generation​

noun​


: a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter
A difficulty that we have forgotten lay in the widespread belief in spontaneous generation. Aristotle had written that flies, worms, and other small animals originated spontaneously from putrefying matter.—Daniel J. Boorstin
 
Alter2Ego said:
Cypress:

This might come to you as a shock, but Darwin's evolution theory and modern-day evolution theory both rely on the debunked abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself), because they claim there had to have been a common BIOLOGIC ancestor from which all other life forms evolved (including plants, animals, fish, insects, and everything that is considered to be "biologic.")


DARWIN'S 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."


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2015:​

"Scientific theory​

The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
http://knowledgerush.com/encyclopedia/Evolution/
Click to expand...
Darwin's theory makes no predictions about how life began from non-life, and provides no mechanism for doing so.

You can continue to be angry and bang your head on the wall because no one has explained abiogenesis, but the simple fact is no one really knows how biology came from non-biology.

The modern neo-Darwinan synthesis only explains descent with modification, as a result of random gene mutation, genetic drift, and sexual selection. That's it, period, end of story.

The hot big bang theory and cosmic inflation theory doesn't explain the origin and cause of the universe either, but it explains a lot about how the universe evolved from an initial hot, dense state. Do you want to stomp your feet in anger about those uncertainties that too?
 
domer76 said:
Hilarious that Kitts is about the only paleontologist that you creationists can cite. And his assertion was that evolution can’t be proven on the fossil record ALONE.

Who the fuck knows what you morons mean by “intermediate species”. The fossil record on primates is there. Now, we have DNA that demonstrates relationships between species.

Go ahead and site your outliers all you want, Einstooge. Are there some problems with Darwinian theory? Perhaps. But your creation bullshit isn’t the answer. It’s the laugh.
Click to expand...
domer76:

Your reliance on foul language says a lot for your poor debate skills. People often resort to that sort of behavior when they realize they're losing an argument.
 
Hume said:
I see. You are not willing to have a discussion. Some people do admit they only come here to post their opinions.
Click to expand...
Those are quotes from Genesis, Nancy. What the fuck do you think the use of plural means? Do I have to review simple grammar for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top