Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Margot]

Darwin's theory of evolution and Genesis creationism are entirely compatible. Genesis serves to explain how life came to be. Evolution serves to explain how life changed once it came to be.

The only conflict that exists is between Darwin's theory of evolution and young-earthism. Any theory that places the earth's age at less than a few dozen millions of years has an uphill battle to explain and endless plenitude of physical empirical evidence to the contrary. Nontheless, no explanation is required for one to believe whatever one wants to believe.

As far as I know obviously the flat earth is only 6000 years old. In fact scientific evidence shows that the culture the Flintstones lived in was a flat earth!

 

[Concart]

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.

That is false. Science cannot disprove Gid therefore creation cannot be proven by science. You are hopelessly ignorant.

 

[Hume]

That is false. Science cannot disprove Gid therefore creation cannot be proven by science. You are hopelessly ignorant.

Just another Christian troll.

 

[Concart]

Just another Christian troll.

Problem is they are now trying to sell their cult to public school students. And who knows now what this court will do. Just another reason to vote up and down the ballot. We need to expunge these idiots from power positions.

 

[Hume]

Problem is they are now trying to sell their cult to public school students. And who knows now what this court will do. Just another reason to vote up and down the ballot. We need to expunge these idiots from power positions.

Agree. Christians are trying to sell their mythology as based in science.

 

[Alter2Ego]

No, the way this started is that I said Darwin did not have a theory or mechanism for abiogenesis. At most he had some wild ass guesses, ideas, and speculations.

And you kindly did the work and Google research just proving I was right: Darwin was just speculating and guessing.


Nobody has a theory or mechanism for abiogenesis. The most we are working with at this point are hypotheses or educated guesses

Cypress:

Darwin's theory of abiogenesis was stated in letters to his friends and acquaintances. You are simply giving me wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

[Into the Night]

Not interested. See a therapist for your anger problem.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR HATRED ON ANYBODY ELSE!

 

[Into the Night]

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.

S/he is an atheist and very anti-religious. Especially against Christians.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Sybil!

 

[Into the Night]

So, they are non-evolutionists like you? Of course not. They are all evolutionists, not creationists.

Next

The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation are not mutually exclusive. False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. Ancient Greeks did.
Darwin did not create the Theory of Abiogenesis either, though he did believe in it.

Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, a mechanism of how evolution occurs. This is not a theory of science, since it does not pass the internal consistency check. It creates a paradox. Life forms also exist that are not selectively 'superior' and in fact have characteristics that are a detriment to that life form.

 

[Into the Night]

Cypress:

Next you will be telling this forum that Charles Darwin's science fiction book Origin of Species was peer reviewed. It was from that book that modern evolution theory got its ideas.

Neo-Darwinian theory is based on a book that was not peer reviewed.

Peer review is not used in science. Science has no voting bloc.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory of science. It's not even a theory. It does not pass the internal consistency check.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Credible scientific evidence proves that organic life cannot result from non-life.

Congratulations. You just proved that God couldn't create life from non-life. I guess that makes the bible a lie.

Or are you now going to argue that life can result from non-life but only if you agree with the process?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. Ancient Greeks did.
Darwin did not create the Theory of Abiogenesis either, though he did believe in it.

Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, a mechanism of how evolution occurs. This is not a theory of science, since it does not pass the internal consistency check. It creates a paradox. Life forms also exist that are not selectively 'superior' and in fact have characteristics that are a detriment to that life form.

Congratulations on being completely ignorant of what the theory of natural selection says.

 

[Hume]

Congratulations on being completely ignorant of what the theory of natural selection says.

ITN is completely ignorant. Just a hate bot.

 

[Kafka]

Credible scientific evidence proves that organic life cannot result from non-life.

No it hasn't.

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?

Still unknown but there's a lot of reason to believe in abiogenesis. It explains a HUGE amount of the data and relies on relatively straightforward workable every-day chemistry.

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.

THe reason the Genesis creation story fails is that:

1. It accounts for only ONE creation event. The fossil record shows different life forms appearing on the scene many, many, many times meaning that Genesis is wrong.

2. The order in which various life forms appears in Genesis doesn't even make sense (photosynthesizing plants before the sun?) and doesn't even marginally fit with how those life forms show up in the fossil record

Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account

Not even MARGINALLY. You should really try reading Genesis and then pick up a paleontology book. YOu can see the differences.

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

Life is little more than a somewhat more complex application of standard organic chemistry (which exists even without life...we have found organic chemicals, some of which are the BUILDING BLOCKS of life in meteorites and in other non-biological settings). The first life may have been little more than an RNA-based template.

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?

What would be preserved? Do you know how fossils are usually preserved? And, yes, there are very early lifeforms that are preserved going back billions of years. They are stromatolites. But as for the very first organic thing that might be considered "life", what would be preserved?

That question belies a lack of understanding of the field fo taphonomy.

Alter2Ego

 

[Kafka]

Peer review is not used in science.

Goddamn why do you lie like this? Or are you THAT ignorant of the topic?

Seriously dude, does it "get you off" to spout things which are MANIFESTLY wrong?

Are you TRYING to look dumber than you probably actually are?

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory of science. It's not even a theory. It does not pass the internal consistency check.

Oh, poor little Creationist. Still fighting a war lost over a century and a half ago.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for tacitly confessing that Darwin wrote letters that contained speculations, musings, guesses as to the origin of life, but the letters don't amount to anything close to a scientific theory, do not make predictions, and do not provide a mechanism

Origin of Species was a result of 20 years of work, field observation, testing, which had been shared with scientific colleagues prior to publication. Alfred Wallace had also done contemporaneous field work which independently confirmed Darwins theory. Origin of Species clears the bar as a legitimate scientific theory because it has an explanatory mechanism (natural selection) supported by copious amounts of data and field observation.

The massive misunderstanding you have is mistaking the informal musings and speculations of letter to a friend, with an actual scientific theory.

The Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory of science. It is not a theory at all.

Science is not a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Scientists bounce ideas, wild ass guesses, and speculations off each other all the time.

While speculation is an important part of professional science, conjecture, guesswork, and fanciful musings are not even close to being scientific theories.

Science is not gambling, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Cypress:

You are the one who got in this thread, praising Darwin and suggesting that is book, Origin of Species, was peer reviewed. My point is this: peer review means absolutely nothing if the peers who reviewed one's writings are all a bunch of people who are speculating themselves. That's what you can't seem to understand. Anyhow, I'm logging off for today.

Talk to you later.

Peer review is irrelevant in science. Science has no voting bloc. Darwin's "theory" is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

No it hasn't.

Correct. There is no proof either way.

Still unknown but there's a lot of reason to believe in abiogenesis.

You still haven't explained what this first cell is going to eat. Remember, you cannot create energy out of nothing.

It explains a HUGE amount of the data and relies on relatively straightforward workable every-day chemistry.

There is no data. Speculation is not data.

THe reason the Genesis creation story fails is that:

It doesn't.

1. It accounts for only ONE creation event. The fossil record shows different life forms appearing on the scene many, many, many times meaning that Genesis is wrong.

Genesis does not describe all life created as is. It only describes life being brought to Earth by God. The Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. False dichotomy fallacy.

2. The order in which various life forms appears in Genesis doesn't even make sense (photosynthesizing plants before the sun?)

Genesis describes no such thing.

and doesn't even marginally fit with how those life forms show up in the fossil record

Fossils aren't a "record" of anything other than that a life of that form existed once (assuming the fossil isn't faked).

Not even MARGINALLY. You should really try reading Genesis and then pick up a paleontology book. YOu can see the differences.

Comparing two religions as the same religion is senseless.

Life is little more than a somewhat more complex application of standard organic chemistry (which exists even without life...we have found organic chemicals, some of which are the BUILDING BLOCKS of life in meteorites and in other non-biological settings). The first life may have been little more than an RNA-based template.

So what's it going to eat? Remember, you cannot create energy out of nothing.

I guess you never learned that some of these were faked.

What would be preserved? Do you know how fossils are usually preserved?

Fossils are not "preserved". They are stone or voids in stone.

And, yes, there are very early lifeforms that are preserved going back billions of years.

Fossils are not "preserved life". They are stone or voids in stone.
The age of the Earth is unknown.

They are stromatolites. But as for the very first organic thing that might be considered "life", what would be preserved?

That question belies a lack of understanding of the field fo taphonomy.

Speculations like this are not science. The age of the Earth is unknown.