Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't sound strange Ideologue, it sounds positively convoluted, and there's nothing strange about the twists and knots human beings are willing to tie themselves in to maintain the value of a wish sincerely hoped for.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
The expression "could have" amounts to speculation aka personal opinion. Everybody on this forum has an opinion. Therefore, opinions don't count for much during a debate where scientific facts do not support macroevolution myth. But since, according to you, Jehovah "could have 'poofed' the first microbe into existence," the forum will watch to see you post a few scriptural quotations from the Judeo-Christian Bible, where the aforementioned is clearly stated.

Does this mean you're finally going to bow to the scientific consensus that evolution happened? Because you can't have it both ways; either actually go with what science says, or stop claiming you give a shit about factual things and go back to your fucking bible fan fiction, alright?

ALTER2EGO -to- ESQUILAX:
Why? Because you say so? As I previously stated, the scientific consensus a few centuries ago was that earth is the center of the universe. It turns out that that was dead wrong. Rather than being the center of the universe, earth revolves around the sun.

BTW: If you curse at me again, you will end up being ignored.

[orogenicman]

Does this mean you're finally going to bow to the scientific consensus that evolution happened? Because you can't have it both ways; either actually go with what science says, or stop claiming you give a shit about factual things and go back to your fucking bible fan fiction, alright?

ALTER2EGO -to- ESQUILAX:
Why? Because you say so? As I previously stated, the scientific consensus a few centuries ago was that earth is the center of the universe. It turns out that that was dead wrong. Rather than being the center of the universe, earth revolves around the sun.

BTW: If you curse at me again, you will end up being ignored.

So what? Are you suggesting that some new paradigm has arrived that somehow replaces the biologic theory of evolution? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I am here to tell you that you are mistaken.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:The expression "could have" amounts to speculation aka personal opinion.

That's not his point. The lack of a verified scientific theory regarding the origins of life has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, for which there is ample evidence. He isn't speculating that god may have dipped his finger into the primal soup and conjured up a few single-celled organisms. He's pointing out that even if this was the case, it doesn't invalidate our understanding of why life is so diverse.

ALTER2EGO -to- TONUS:
You are confused. You admitted there is lack of evidence to support evolution theory. And that's theory as in: "A group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Then you turn around and contradict yourself in the same paragraph by making the unsubstantiated claim that there is "ample evidence" for evolution theory. What "ample evidence" are you referring to? According to the fossils record, evolution did not occur.

[Esquilax]

Why? Because you say so? As I previously stated, the scientific consensus a few centuries ago was that earth is the center of the universe. It turns out that that was dead wrong. Rather than being the center of the universe, earth revolves around the sun.

No: because over a century of science says so. You know, that "the earth was once thought to be X, therefore science can't be trusted" argument is so flawed; once we had the ability to test it it became pretty quickly clear that a flat earth, or a geocentric universe, or whatever else was untenable.

But when we gained the ability to test evolution, multiple times over since we've developed genetic, geological and observational tests since the inception of the theory, evolution only becomes a more clear fact. We keep running tests... and those tests keep confirming that evolution is true.

The two examples aren't even apples and oranges; a geocentric universe (which is still what the bible thinks it is, by the way) was a concept based on the only information we had at the time. We didn't have the ability to test it. And when we did, it fell by the wayside.

But we've had the ability to test evolution every which way for decades, and there hasn't been a single shred of evidence against it that stands up to testing. There's a difference between a geocentrism- a concept from before scientific standards that existed before the methodology to test it- and evolution- a concept that has weathered many years of having the methodology and technology to test it without doubt.

You are confused. You admitted there is lack of evidence to support evolution theory. And that's theory as in: "A group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Then you turn around and contradict yourself in the same paragraph by making the unsubstantiated claim that there is "ample evidence" for evolution theory. What "ample evidence" are you referring to? According to the fossils record, evolution did not occur.

Oh, you mean this fossil record? Perhaps you're talking about this observed example of evolution? Or this laboratory experiment with confirmed volutionary results? Or this?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- ESQUILAX:
Why? Because you say so? As I previously stated, the scientific consensus a few centuries ago was that earth is the center of the universe. It turns out that that was dead wrong. Rather than being the center of the universe, earth revolves around the sun.

BTW: If you curse at me again, you will end up being ignored.

So what? Are you suggesting that some new paradigm has arrived that somehow replaces the biologic theory of evolution? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I am here to tell you that you are mistaken.

ALTER2EGO -to- OROGENICMAN:
Go ahead and tell the rest of the forum. Where I am concerned, your personal philosophy doesn't mean a thing. Unless you can present credible evidence to support whatever you are "telling" the forum, I will have to dismiss your comments as mere opinion.

Start by producing evidence of fossils that show where one creature left off and the other one began directly from it aka the second creature evolved from the first creature, and there are no gaps in the fossils record.


The forum is waiting.

[orogenicman]

So what? Are you suggesting that some new paradigm has arrived that somehow replaces the biologic theory of evolution? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I am here to tell you that you are mistaken.

ALTER2EGO -to- OROGENICMAN:
Go ahead and tell the rest of the forum. Where I am concerned, your personal philosophy doesn't mean a thing. Unless you can present credible evidence to support whatever you are "telling" the forum, I will have to dismiss your comments as mere opinion.

Start by producing evidence of fossils that show where one creature left off and the other one began directly from it aka the second creature evolved from the first creature, and there are no gaps in the fossils record.


The forum is waiting.

The biologic theory of evolution is not a personal philosophy. It is a scientific theory that describes natural phenomena. Dismiss it at your own choosing, but that's on you, and no one else.

The fact that you believe the popular myth perpetuated by the lazy and uninformed that fossils show some kind of continuum consistently over time is rather sad and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution and a lack of basic understanding of modern biology. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. Fossilization is the exception, not the rule. For every 100 feet of sedimentary layer available for study, there is something like a half a foot of sediment or less with the characteristics suitable for fossilization. And that is because there are as many fossil environments in the geologic record as there are environments on earth today. And few environments are suitable for preservation. Also, some species are more amenable to fossilization than others. So gaps in the fossil record are inevitable.

That said, I am going out on a limb here and suggest that what you are getting at is that there are no transitional species. That too is a myth since ALL species are potentially transitional from one to another. Genes mutate all the time. The best example we see today is in disease vectors such as viruses and certain bacteria which are always mutating in order to survive whatever anti-biologic agent we care to throw at them.

Moreover, evolution doesn't occur within individuals. It occurs within populations. All populations of life forms have variations in characteristics, the sum total of which defines the species. New species arise out of novel changes in populations that confers a survival/reproductive advantage to one portion of the population over another.

A fossil (and living) example can be found in the different sub-classes of crinoids, marine echinoderms that have a pentagonal body symmetry and usually but not always a stalk with a sort of foothold for attachment to a substrate such as a rock or the sea floor. Each class prefer specific marine environments formed by variable currents. One sub-class is found in calm seas and because it has a fragile exoskeleton, cannot survive in moderate or rough currents. It is adapted to calm seas only. A second sub-class prefers more moderate currents, and has a stronger skeletal structure and brachioles (appendages that allow it to feed) adapted to moderate currents. It can survive in calmer seas but tends to prefer more moderate currents in areas where their food is more abundant. Yet another sub-class consists of robust species that can weather all but the most extreme currents. These typically are found on the upwind side of reefs in more exposed areas subjected to strong currents and storms.

So in crinoids, as with all other species, we see examples of adaptation to environmental conditions that confer a survival advantage. We see all sub-classes of crinoids in modern reefs and in ancient reefs going back nearly 500 million years. They have been one of the most highly successful forms of life on this planet, and as a class, have survived every major extinction during that time.

Modern Crinoids

Fossil Crinoids

Any questions? There will be a pop quiz next week.

[LastPoet]

Some people can't read more than one book in their whole lives.

[Tonus]

ALTER2EGO -to- TONUS:You are confused. You admitted there is lack of evidence to support evolution theory.

Incorrect. There is insufficient evidence to determine exactly how life began, which is abiogenesis. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is the cause of the diversity of life on the planet. Your ignorance of the subject, and of what the fossil record shows, does not change that fact.

[Mister Agenda]

Pretty much yeah. Like I said, if I didn't believe in my religion then there's no question I would accept the theory of evolution, it has an astronomical amount of evidence. Nonetheless, for me, I am more convinced that my religion is true than the evidences that back up evolution ergo I'm a Creationist I know I might sound strange, but that's because I'm a stranger (at least on this forum) and I believe in a strange religion...so glad tidings to the strangers!

---

Then how do you explain so much resistance especially by Christians to Evolution? Is it a question of lack of education ( ignorance)?

I'm not Christian so I don't know, I'm guessing evolution isn't compatible with the Bible? I don't know what you mean resistance, you can't really resist a particular teaching, Evolution is taught pretty much everywhere. And even if it wasn't, there are an awful lot of websites that discuss it.

Points for honesty and self-awareness. At least you know why you believe what you do, and that it's not because the science is so flawed.

---

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
The expression "could have" amounts to speculation aka personal opinion. Everybody on this forum has an opinion. Therefore, opinions don't count for much during a debate where scientific facts do not support macroevolution myth. But since, according to you, Jehovah "could have 'poofed' the first microbe into existence," the forum will watch to see you post a few scriptural quotations from the Judeo-Christian Bible, where the aforementioned is clearly stated.

If you disagree that Jehovah could have created the first microbes by willing them into existence (poof!), then your position must be that Jehovah was unable to do that. Is that actually your position or are you merely confused?

And can you learn to use the quote function? It's easier on the eyes and you won't have to cap-shout who you are and who you're talking to every time you reply to someone.