Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Jackalope]

It's hardly a surprise. Disagreeing with the Catholic church was hazardous to one's health with these guys around.

[orogenicman]

Again you are wrong. Not by itself. A Crystal doesn't decide what shape it's going to be, nor when to begin forming. And we actually can not make the link between its shape and the underlying physics that results in it, such a link is obviously implied to be there since there is remarkable consistency (salt crystals being cubular, for instance). If we have this level of difficulty making a link to something physical which we have a great variety of which to see and study, imagine the difficulty with something that we haven't seen and do not have the diversity we have with crystals!

Actually, the link between the shape of a crystal and the underlying atomic structure is very well understood for thousands of mineral and organic crystalline species. In fact, the underlying chemistry and physics largely determines the symmetry and hence shape of any particular crystal.

[Esquilax]

When you say the atheists and the pro evolutionists, I assume you're talking about the majority of biologists and scientists out there?

ALTER2EGO -go- PAUL PABLO:
As the record of history shows, the majority of scientists once agreed with the Catholic Church that earth is the center of the universe, when in reality, the earth orbits the sun. So exactly what is your point regarding majority rule?

You know what, though? In the entire history of the world, when something like that has happened and the world learns something new, the method by which we have learned that thing has always been more science, and has never been god.

[Alter2Ego]

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.

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.

[Esquilax]

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

[/quote]

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?

[Whateverist]

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.

So you're basically saying opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one? So you should appreciate how little we care for yours or the testimony of anyone else concerning God. If you come up with anything resembling evidence give us a call, 'kay?

It isn't as though anyone has got to have a viable, air-tight explanation for the emergence of life on the planet or else we get stuck with your version. That doesn't mean we don't like what science has to say. I'm just saying that if the science account of abiogenesis isn't yet air tight that doesn't mean your magic book wins, far from it.

[Minimalist]

Yes - or as H. L Mencken said...."The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."

[Anomalocaris]

When you say the atheists and the pro evolutionists, I assume you're talking about the majority of biologists and scientists out there?

ALTER2EGO -go- PAUL PABLO:
As the record of history shows, the majority of scientists once agreed with the Catholic Church that earth is the center of the universe, when in reality, the earth orbits the sun. So exactly what is your point regarding majority rule?

Were it not for a later majority of scientists, you would still think earth is the center of the universe, as would the catholic church and the rest of your bible thumping ilk.

The point is science is certainly often wrong, but when major of scientist differ from what you think the bible says, under no circumstances would you be better off listening to the bible than listening to the scientists.

Science is often somewhat wrong. Bible is never anything like right. That is the difference.

[Tonus]

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.

You seem quick to dismiss his opinion, yet have placed a great deal of faith on unverifiable claims made by ancient men who weren't even concerned with whether or not they had their stories straight. Or do you have some evidence for your creationist claims that go beyond filling a gap or admiring the night sky? Let's hope you're not going to rely on Frances Hitching for help on this one.

[ideologue08]

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.

You seem quick to dismiss his opinion, yet have placed a great deal of faith on unverifiable claims made by ancient men who weren't even concerned with whether or not they had their stories straight. Or do you have some evidence for your creationist claims that go beyond filling a gap or admiring the night sky? Let's hope you're not going to rely on Frances Hitching for help on this one.

Well, the theory of evolution is scientifically valid, there's no question about that, it does make sense. But for Creationists such myself, that is of no concern to me because I believe in the concept of miracles, it is not inconsistent for a person who believes that Moses parted the red sea, or the burning bush or the Christ cures the leper, raises the dead etc. etc. to believe that God created humans directly. So the theory of evolution is the only valid conclusion provided that you reject all scriptural evidences and beliefs. So in the end, it all goes back to religious/non-religious beliefs, it's a theological issue for me first and foremost.