Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Love]

Then rephrase it, or make it, (minus ridiculous statements which apparently didn't have to be made anyway) rather than complaining about how I "don't get it". That is a failure of your own, as the communicator of whatever idea you're trying to convey.

I did not come anywhere near close to saying that any old garbage can get through the scientific peer review system. If you re-read my posts properly, you will see that my points are very plain and simple: (1) nothing in science is taken seriously unless it has been verified in the peer review system, and (2) the peer reviewers are human beings, and there is a distinct possibility that one reviewer of the submitted evidence could potentially interpret it in a completely different manner from another reviewer. To repeat, this is one of the main reasons why the mathematical formalisms in quantum mechanics are interpreted in a multitude of different ways.

I think you are being extremely disingenuous now. Please explain to me why the points I have tried to make (in the paragraph above) are not clear enough to you.

I see debates as an exchange of ideas, where people can learn from each other. I just get the impression that you're much more interested in coming across as the "winner" in a debate rather than actually being absorbed and interested in the content of the discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absorbed and interested? I'd say im pretty well there, and even contributing to the way your communicate you idea. Notice that your points have been boiled down - and you're no longer repeating absurd things that are not required to make whatever point you wish to convey?

Some people are just ungrateful.

1) nothing in science is taken seriously unless it has been verified in the peer review system.

Correct (and that peer review process is fairly hefty)

2) the peer reviewers are human beings, and there is a distinct possibility that one reviewer of the submitted evidence could potentially interpret it in a completely different manner from another reviewer.

Correct, human beings do human things. Which, in this case, is great.

3) to repeat, this is one of the main reasons why the mathematical formalisms in quantum mechanics are interpreted in a multitude of different ways.

-To repeat- if any of them can produce conclusive results, and specifically those to which other interpretations are bereft- then we'll see that interpretation put forward as the best explanation -business as usual.

[Mister Agenda]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously).

No, it isn't. Enki or Ptah or Yahweh could have 'poofed' the first microbe into existence and the theory of evolution would still be the best explanation for the evidence concerning what happened after that.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with.

There aren't enough atheists to make up the majority of people who accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for speciation.

When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer.

If anything, the problem is too many plausible answers and a trail so cold it's difficult to sort out which of them is actually the case.

So to avoid the problem of the long debunked theory of abiogenesis, some have jumped onto the creation bandwagon and claim they are theists who believe in evolution theory. In fact some claim they are Christians.

The abiogenesis that Pasteur debunked was not about the original origin of life. Unless you think God is a biological entity, God creating life is also abiogenesis. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that once there was no life on earth. Now there is. At some point life came from non-life, even if it was caused by God breathing on dust.

According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a "primordial soup," it resulted in a "common ancestor" from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans.

There are no prizes here for longest sentence. You are conflating the hypotheses of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. There are a variety of mediums in which the first self-replicating molecule might have formed. A common ancestor isn't a requirement of the theory, it's just where the evidence points. If life arose in multiple locations, evolution would still apply unmodified.

All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome.

The origin of life is abiogenesis, no matter how it happened. What happened after is described by the theory of evolution. The explanation is sufficient without supernatural input, but many theists believe God governed the outcome of evolution.

Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means.

No one who isn't an idiot thinks anyone thinks that. Non-living matter doesn't decide anything, it can only be acted on. No hypothesis of abiogenesis requires anything more than organic chemistry to describe how self-replicating molecules could have arisen naturally without any 'deciding'. It took nearly four billion years to get from the first microbe to us, I suspect intelligent means could have got it done much quicker.

CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth just as they are, with the ability for each "kind" of creature to produce variations of itself up to a set point.

Abrahamic creation. Other religons have quite different creation stories, equally evidenced. Uniquely different except for how closely they are related by DNA in exactly the way evoluton predicts, I suppose you mean. If you can discover the mechanism of the 'set point' or even prove it exists, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you, otherwise you're claiming the equivalent of 'you can add ones up to get ten, but that doesn't mean you can add them up to get a billion'.

Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites.

It depends on how you look at. Creating man from dust is easily viewed as a lovely poetic metaphor for evolution from microbes.

Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific.

Are you arguing that it is?

They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis).

That you personally don't find it credible doesn't mean that it isn't. Pretty much every single person who actually understands it finds it credible.

Furthermore, pro-evolutionists—including those in academia/the scientific community—routinely dodge the issue that their philosophy is based entirely upon speculations for which there is no credible scientific evidence.

I don't think you're too stupid to understand what scientific evidence is, so I can only conclude that you are too blinded by your religion to process that the theory of evoluton is supported by multiple lines of evidence, any one of which would be convincing in the absence of contrary evidence, of which there is none.

They routinely use fabricated words such as "species transition", "speciation", "Punctuated Equilibrium", etc. to mislead the gullible.

I understand why you might feel scientists coin terms just to confuse you, but every branch of science uses specialized terminology. I'd like to hear exactly how you think those terms are misleading.

I might add that many pro-evolution scientists are determined to make names for themselves and will resort to outright dishonesty when necessary. I will present proof of this later on in this thread.

If any scientist can disprove the theory of evolution, not only will they get a Nobel Prize, they will be remembered right up along with Darwin; just as Einstein is remembered right up along with Newton. There is nothing that would bring a biologist more fame than, say, finding a mechanism that prevents speciation from ever occurring.

Regarding the credibility of the Genesis creation account vs. evolution theory, one source states: "But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific?

By the standards that apply to any branch of science, it is.

On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science?"

If Genesis were structured the way some other myths are, the sections would go something like this: How Yahweh separated the light from the dark. How Yahweh made the first man. How Yahweh made the first woman. How Yahweh made the plants and animals and moon and sun and stars. Why we die. Why we do things we know are wrong. Why snakes have no legs. Why childbirth is painful. Why life is hard.

Greek mythology comes closest to the findings of science. Their primal chaos sounds a lot like quantum foam.

FACTS TO CONSIDER:
FACT #1: Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).

It's an assertion based on the available evidence, but it wouldn't damage the theory if evidence were discovered that there's a branch of organism that don't have the same common ancestor as us.

FACT #2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).

Science doesnt' deal in proof, proof is for math and liquor. The evidence supports common descent.

FACT #3: Atheists have no credible explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed.

Not only untrue, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on nontheistic abiogenesis. However the first organism came into being, evolution applies thereafter.

So their routine is to attempt to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life.

The theory of evolution is a theory of biology. It doesn't apply until there is biology. However, natural selection applies to anything that self-replicates with a high, but not perfect, rate of fidelity. Every abiogenesis hypothesis I'm aware of starts with one event: a molecule that replicates itself, and then its products are selected for improved replication. All other things being equal, given a self-replicating molecule, the process of chemical evolution is inevitable. But some being could have conjured that molecule and natural selection would still apply to it and when its products achieved what we would define as life, biological evolution would begin.

If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.

You give the impression that you know you're wrong, the way you anticipate some of the ways how wrong you are will be pointed out to you.

[Love]

Absorbed and interested? I'd say im pretty well there, and even contributing to the way your communicate you idea. Notice that your points have been boiled down - and you're no longer repeating absurd things that are not required to make whatever point you wish to convey?

Some people are just ungrateful.

1) nothing in science is taken seriously unless it has been verified in the peer review system.

Correct (and that peer review process is fairly hefty)

2) the peer reviewers are human beings, and there is a distinct possibility that one reviewer of the submitted evidence could potentially interpret it in a completely different manner from another reviewer.

Correct, human beings do human things. Which, in this case, is great.

Thank you for addressing those points.

To repeat- if any of them can produce conclusive results, and specifically those to which other interpretations are bereft- then we'll see that interpretation put forward as the best explanation -business as usual.

Do you believe the following is possible: some theories will never have a conclusive "single" interpretation; that is, some theories will, forever, remain ultimately inconclusive? Or, are you confident that scientists will eventually get to the bottom of the matter in all disciplines of science?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you believe the following is possible: some theories will never have a conclusive "single" interpretation; that is, some theories will, forever, remain ultimately inconclusive? Or, are you confident that scientists will eventually get to the bottom of the matter in all disciplines of science?

I don't know, part of me at least hopes that there will always be some element of the unknown in our experience. As to what might remain forever inconclusive, I'd need a power far greater than my own to predict that, or even consider it as a possibility. Especially for forever - that's a damned strong word.

The only thing I'm confident in with regards to what science will accomplish is the continuing refinement of our explanations. I suppose there's sort of a sliding scale in which some things that are not currently known to us -in my mind- are at least within our grasp our could conceivably be within our grasp

-and this slides towards the middle wherein there are things for which we currently have no explanation and it is beyond me as to how we might happen upon one (I give the nod to the fact that this might simply be a lack of imagination on my part and is quite clearly ignorance on my part )

- all the way up towards the opposite end of the scale, wherein lie (or maybe don't lie) the "unknown unknowns".

[Love]

The only thing I'm confident in with regards to what science will accomplish is the continuing refinement of our explanations.

Very well put. I honestly hope this does happen. I am just very skeptical that it will in extremely complex areas like quantum mechanics and subjective consciousness. Certainly, I am with you there, though.

I think some people have the misconception that I am somehow opposed to science; nothing could be further from the truth. I love all areas of science very much. Without physics and electronics, computers would not exist, which would eliminate my primary passion in life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Very well put. I honestly hope this does happen. I am just very skeptical that it will in extremely complex areas like quantum mechanics and subjective consciousness. Certainly, I am with you there, though.

Ah but shouldn't we suspend skepticism - transcendental argument for the ability of science as we have experienced this ability. hehehe.

All jokes aside- I don't know that I'd put consciousness or QM on the list of things for which we might even conceivably remain without adequate explanation. They're both in our sphere already, we're already doing work and achieving -some- promising results. We just haven't been able to explore it as fully as we've been able to explore modern synthesis in biology - for example (to keep it at least close to the thread), and so overall - we lack a satisfying explanation.

I think some people have the misconception that I am somehow opposed to science; nothing could be further from the truth. I love all areas of science very much. Without physics and electronics, computers would not exist, which would eliminate my primary passion in life.

I share that particular passion-

---

on our (af.coms) minecraft server..lol



Just put the finishing touches on a much faster, much better (and much prettier) ALU on the server yesterday actually.

---

-For the record, the sorts of stuff that I file away in the

-we could concievably handle this, though we haven't yet- would be a reliable and comparative (to biologicals) "artificial" photosynthetic apparatus

-not sure how we're supposed to figure this one out- any "before" the big bang, the specifics of the origins of life

-unknowns unknowns..are, predictably, unknown.

[Love]

They're both in our sphere already, we're already doing work and achieving -some- promising results. We just haven't been able to explore it as fully as we've been able to explore modern synthesis in biology - for example (to keep it at least close to the thread), and so overall - we lack a satisfying explanation.

Indeed, science has contributed a great deal in terms of providing explanations for the "quantum world", and also for neural correlates in consciousness.

I share that particular passion.

Nice one. Although I had heard of Minecraft, I did not really know what it is, so I just skimmed a Wikipedia article on it. Sounds interesting. I take it that you make up your own objectives? Have you chosen to build things? My main passion in computer science is a bit more boring: web search engine systems (I am obsessed with Google and how it works).

[The Grand Nudger]

I hate minecraft and building things - I just like to build circuits - and it;s cheaper to make them in minecraft (and the simulation of scale is nice too..you can become a bit and follow it's path in arches over your head. That little daisy I posted (a replica of an NES btw) is nearly 100mx100m, ingame.

[Love]

I hate minecraft and building things - I just like to build circuits - and it;s cheaper to make them in minecraft (and the simulation of scale is nice too..you can become a bit and follow it's path in arches over your head. That little daisy I posted (a replica of an NES btw) is nearly 100mx100m, ingame.

Very impressive! A novel way to build circuits; I feel like such a dinosaur!