Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

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:

Are you kidding? I can cite plenty more, and most of them are pro-evolution but had to face reality. Below are are three more.

ERNST MAYR (Pro-Evolution Paleontologist):
"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.)


STEPHEN J. GOULD (Pro-Evolution Paleontologist):
"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.)


NILES ELDRIDGE (Pro-Evolution Paleontologist):
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


domer76, let me know when you're ready for more of the above. I have plenty.
 
Hume said:
Why can't you Christians be happy in your religion? Why lie about science?
Click to expand...
Hume:

I realize you atheist religionists can't stand competition. It explains why so many of you have shown up in my threads arguing for the Religion of Atheism.
 
Cypress said:
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?
Click to expand...
S/he is hard set on pushing an anti-science agenda in favor of 100% belief in the Bible and that the Universe is only 6000 years old.
 
Commander Dutch said:
S/he is hard set on pushing an anti-science agenda in favor of 100% belief in the Bible and that the Universe is only 6000 years old.
Click to expand...

Probably doesn't believe it her own bullshit.

Trolls and white Christian nationalists have been trained like monkeys to point to scientific uncertainty and howl that it somehow justifies the god of Abraham.
 
Alter2Ego said:
domer76:

Are you kidding? I can cite plenty more, and most of them are pro-evolution but had to face reality. Below are are three more.

ERNST MAYR (Pro-Evolution Paleontologist):
"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.)


STEPHEN J. GOULD (Pro-Evolution Paleontologist):
"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.)


NILES ELDRIDGE (Pro-Evolution Paleontologist):
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


domer76, let me know when you're ready for more of the above. I have plenty.
Click to expand...
So, they are non-evolutionists like you? Of course not. They are all evolutionists, not creationists.

Next
 
Hume said:
I might need to keep you on ignore. I misjudged you. You really do only write insults.
Click to expand...
Nope, I write simple, straightforward posts that can’t be misinterpreted, such as the challenge to Biblical literalists to explain things such as the use of plural in Genesis when referring to gods.

Then, up pops a troll like you asking an absurd question about that very clear post. So, nimrod, are you feigning ignorance or do you not really understand simple English?
 
domer76 said:
Nope, I write simple, straightforward posts that can’t be misinterpreted, such as the challenge to Biblical literalists to explain things such as the use of plural in Genesis when referring to gods.

Then, up pops a troll like you asking an absurd question about that very clear post. So, nimrod, are you feigning ignorance or do you not really understand simple English?
Click to expand...
You really are a hate troll. Ignore. And probably permanent.
 
Cypress said:
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?
Click to expand...
Cypress:

Darwin's theory relies on the existence of a common biologic ancestor. He even proposed abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself) in a letter to his friend, Joseph Hooker.

In a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:
"...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."


Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that:
"...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."


Below is the full quotation followed by the weblink:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html
 
Cypress said:
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?
Click to expand...
Cypress:

That's false. I quoted a modern source from 2015 that says a common organic ancestor is required. Below is another modern source (National Geographic) saying the same thing.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."
www.nationalgeographic.com

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

Creationism is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," says the author of a new study of the statistical probability of a universal common ancestor.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com


So my question to you and all Atheist Religionists is this: How did the "universal common ancestor" come to life from non-life by itself so that evolution could commence?


No common biologic ancestor, no evolution. Nuff said.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Cypress:

Darwin's theory relies on the existence of a common biologic ancestor. He even proposed abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself) in a letter to his friend, Joseph Hooker.

In a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:
"...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."


Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that:
"...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."


Below is the full quotation followed by the weblink:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the question of how the Universe and Creation began.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Cypress:

That's false. I quoted a modern source from 2015 that says a common organic ancestor is required. Below is another modern source (National Geographic) saying the same thing.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."
www.nationalgeographic.com

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

Creationism is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," says the author of a new study of the statistical probability of a universal common ancestor.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com


So my question to you and all Atheist Religionists is this: How did the "universal common ancestor" come to life from non-life by itself so that evolution could commence?


No common biologic ancestor, no evolution. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Only nutjobs believe "I don't know" is an invalid answer.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Darwin's theory relies on the existence of a common biologic ancestor. He even proposed abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself) in a letter to his friend, Joseph Hooker.

In a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:
"...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."


Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that:
"...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."


Below is the full quotation followed by the weblink:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html
Click to expand...
You are Don Quixote flailing at windmills.

Darwin can write whatever he wants in a letter. Letters are not peer reviewed scientific papers. Scientists are free to speculate and guess.

The Neo-Darwinian synthesis of modern evolutionary theory makes no predictions about origin of biology from inert chemicals, nor does it propose a mechanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top