Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). 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. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. 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.

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. 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. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)


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.

Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites. Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis). 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. They routinely use fabricated words such as "species transition", "speciation", "Punctuated Equilibrium", etc. to mislead the gullible. 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.


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? 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?" (Source: LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)


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).


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).


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

[Minimalist]

With the exception of the Genesis creation account, there is no credible explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed.

Put down your fucking bible and go learn some shit.

Maybe then you'll sound like less of a fucking asshole. It's a longshot but it is worth a try.

[Nine]

Same old crap but this time in blue!

[Tiberius]

abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously)

That's not what the abiogenesis theory says. Your entire argument falls apart here.

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

If non-living matter "decided" something, it clearly wasn't non-living matter. To decide something requires the ability to think, and only living organisms can do that.

[Darkstar]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

---

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). 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. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. 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.

---

Long debunked? Where was I? I believe what you should have said was "unproven".

---

According to macroevolution theory,

Which is just a facet of normal evolutionary 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. 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. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)

---

[Mononoke]

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

Even if the rest of your post had anything at all to stand on (Darkstar has shown the problems with it), the bolded section doesn't follow. Why Jehovah? How do you know that whatever supernatural god created life is still around, loves humans, interferes with our affairs, etc.? What makes your god the right one? Since when were all the other creation myths, some of which probably make more sense than Genesis, able to be dismissed out of hand in favour of the Christian one?

[Aractus]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). 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. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. 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.

You are incorrect in principle and in practicality. Practicality would presume that probability plays a role in creating organic life from non-organic life, this is as absurd as presuming that probability plays a role in the formation of crystals. Probability plays no role, it's just physics, entropy, and the ultimate inevitability of the physical processes. In principle we know how abiogenesis works but we don't know why. In other words, we don't know what set of circumstances activates it nor how to reproduce them at present.

And in principle they are not linked any more than Quantum Mechanics is "linked" to General Relativity and so their apparent incompatibility with each other shouldn't mean that one or both are insufficient theories (until a more complete one comes to erase one or the other).

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.

Wrong. Probability does not play a role. In the early stages of the earth the conditions were right for organic matter to be formed, billions upon billions of times. This early organic matter linked and unlinked with other organic matter until such a time as it was possible to reproduce or replicate, and there you have the basic theory of how life is formed from non-living matter. It has nothing to with having one single common ancestor - unless you're talking about a bottleneck when the self-replicating begins. But as we can discount probability from that process, it is more than likely that that too happened any number of times before a meaningful genetic "bottleneck" occurs.

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. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)

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!

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

I have to call you on this one.

Since when does science present credible explanations or answers to specific questions/criteria??

[Tonus]

(Source: LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)

The problem with the Watchtower Society book about creation is that it is rife with dishonest misquotes. Some of them are breathtaking in the extent to which they are pulled out of context in order to make them appear to support the opposite of what they actually mean.

[Anomalocaris]

Look at this. If this isn't the second coming of Ego, then I don't what a miracle is!

Oh, yay. Now we are using huge font as well. *facepalm* Much bigger and I will have to start editing your post A2E. Don't make me have to do that. It's tedious.

ALTER2EGO -to- SHELL B:

You know what? I'm getting ready to disappear from this website. Your spiteful and petty behavior indicates you have issues. Any moderator/administrator that would follow someone around and complain about the size and color of their font needs to get a life.

I don't see anybody complaining about atheists trolls who post insults and curse theists out on a daily basis. They have your blessings despite the fact they are the ones violating forum rules with their trolling behavior. I guarantee that if I were an atheist posting crap about theists in large print and bold, you and the other atheist complainers would be applauding my efforts.

The reason why I post only in my threads is so people who can't stand me for whatever reason can easily avoid reading what I post. You made a point of showing up in my threads to complain about the color of my fonts. Then you proceeded to spitefully turn off my ability to post in colored fonts for no reason other than the fact that I'm a theist and you were determined to harass me.


I am not going to participate at a forum where I'm expected to walk on egg shells and kiss moderators' behinds. I never allow people to intimidate me. I don't care who it is. I abandon website accounts as soon as moderators start getting on my nerves. That's the reason why you see me registered at so many websites--most of which I no longer participate at.




It's not even about the color of the fonts. It's the principle of the thing. I broke no forum rules. Yet, you persisted in harassing me. Well, you've succeeded in running me off. Congratulations!


GOOD-BYE FOREVER!!!

[LastPoet]

You know christians like to redefine words and meanings Chuck, perhaps Ego has a different meaning to the word "Forever"