Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[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.