Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. And that this organic ancestor came to life from NON-LIFE to LIFE by itself aka abiogenesis theory. Credible scientific evidence proves that organic life cannot result from non-life.
According to the atheists, there is no Almighty God Jehovah who created all life forms. So the question is this: If there is no Jehovah and therefore no Creator, how did evolution's supposed "common organic ancestor" come to life by itself?
The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each CREATED AS-IS, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves—up to a set point.
Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth. Fake science, meanwhile, relies on abiogenesis theory (organic life coming to life by itself) but fails to provide any credible explanation for this impossible feat.
QUESTION 1: How did evolution's common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?
QUESTION 2: Humans are supposedly primates, and they supposedly came from the same common primate ancestor as did apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas. How is it that there is not so much as one single fossil showing the transitions among humans, apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas from this supposed common primate ancestor?
QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
stremba70:
I'm not interested in your Atheist Religion beliefs including the definitions that you seem to be making up as you go. To quote you:
1. "Theories are the end goal of science."
2. "It means 'an overarching explanation that accounts for multiple observations, makes predictions about new observations, and is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.'"
If you didn't make those up, then wherever you got those definitions from, that source is misleading you. Below is the definiti
And furthermore, a sound hypothesis includes both independent and dependent variables. Such reasoning does not apply to any of these contexts (evolution of man from ape; the Big Bang). A further example from astronomy: The process of determining the angular diameter of a planet/other body requires a process of measurement, i.e. observation. This is sound scientific method. Then they go ahead and extrapolate all kinds of other "facts" from this measurement and thus we are now outside the realm of collecting empirical evidence and testing hypotheses.
stremba70:
I have news for you. Just because people claim they are Christian it doesn't mean they really are. Adolf Hitler claimed he was a Catholic and ordered the deaths of millions of innocent civilians.
No true Christian would accept scientific theory that is found nowhere in Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
So the bible is a scientific book ?
stremba70:
I'm not interested in your Atheist Religion beliefs including the definitions that you seem to be making up as you go. To quote you:
1. "Theories are the end goal of science."
2. "It means 'an overarching explanation that accounts for multiple observations, makes predictions about new observations, and is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.'"
If you didn't make those up, then wherever you got those definitions from, that source is misleading you. Below is the definiti
I see nothing in your definition that contradict what he said shrug .
But yes, after countless of experiments and observation in the millions , seem it’s ok to have some confidence to be true .
I doubt there is much evidences, observation and experiments that successfully prove what you believe in .
Actually the numbers are probably inversely correlated and you choose to believe in 1 chance in trillions or quadrillions acts while scientist believes in things that are true millions of time on millions of tries .
Fine so aliens are angels ?
Is that what u telling me ?
So we are not talking about any other life forms that could exist in the other quadrillions of other planets in the universe right ?
Which obviously couldn’t all be created in the last 6000 years I believe .
Fine so aliens are angels ?
Is that what u telling me ?
So we are not talking about any other life forms that could exist in the other quadrillions of other planets in the universe right ?
Which obviously couldn’t all be created in the last 6000 years I believe .
not sure why biblical higher intelligences need to be 'aliens' in the sense of other *phenomenal* beings somewhere in the universe.
Another pseudo-hypothesis from astronomy - that periodic starlight dimming is necessarily the transit of a planet in front of the star.
11t:
As soon as you can quote one single verse of scripture from Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, that says ANYTHING about evolution, you will have made a point.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
There are other religions that espouse the existence of God, your arguing explicitly that Christianity (as you understand it) has a monopoly on religious revelation. Billions of people would disagree with you.
The Bible is not "inspired word" it is merely, as Zeno pointed out; is an amalgamation of texts compiled well after the fact.
The Quran, however, was compiled in such a way that if you believe that Muhammad Ali was a prophet; then you must conclude it is entirely verbatim the word of God. Muslims would also argue that Jesus was a prophet and not God and the reason this lost is due to exactly the same reason that Zeno pointed out.
The Bible is a sales document for Greeks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a conglomerate fiction of just so stories compiled long after they supposedly occurred. Only the gullible, which is a large portion of humanity, take it seriously.
The fact that the Bible is taken seriously means that it must be taken seriously especially when factoring in how prevalent and powerful religion is in our world.
I don't think their gullible, the existence of God is a very powerful argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure why biblical higher intelligences need to be 'aliens' in the sense of other *phenomenal* beings somewhere in the universe.
Another pseudo-hypothesis from astronomy - that periodic starlight dimming is necessarily the transit of a planet in front of the star.
Are u actually saying the existence of planets surrounding stars is not a regular occurrence ?
The fact that the Bible is taken seriously means that it must be taken seriously especially when factoring in how prevalent and powerful religion is in our world.
I don't think their gullible, the existence of God is a very powerful argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
U know how strong people believe in god or rain , god of sun , etc until science came along with explanation , killing all those mighty gods ?
The concept of someone speaking or believing with more conviction necessarily means it’s more true is a slippery slope.
If people who believed in pantheistic religion (the sun god, the rain god) had significant political power in this world then yes, you should take them seriously.
This is completely separate from an argument of the existence of God, which even if you do not believe in God over half the world's population accepts it as a tenant of due to religious revelation.
Most of the proofs of God, including the first mover argument are flawed. The argument I find the most convincing is Ibn Sinas Proof of the Truthful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If people who believed in pantheistic religion (the sun god, the rain god) had significant political power in this world then yes, you should take them seriously.
This is completely separate from an argument of the existence of God, which even if you do not believe in God over half the world's population accepts it as a tenant of due to religious revelation.
Most of the proofs of God, including the first mover argument are flawed. The argument I find the most convincing is Ibn Sinas Proof of the
The problem is that half the world believe in many gods. Not just one .
So when I look at them debating their gods are true while the other isn’t , I see this as an even more convicting that none of them are true , even more so taking Into account all the others god throughout history end up being false and dead .
The success rate is at an all time low ….
Maybe people don’t know much about history Instead, to be so fervently in favour of believing in anything.
Ps: even those believing in the same god cent even agree between each other factions lol.
That doesn’t sound to me to be very convincing .
And furthermore, a sound hypothesis includes both independent and dependent variables. Such reasoning does not apply to any of these contexts (evolution of man from ape; the Big Bang). A further example from astronomy: The process of determining the angular diameter of a planet/other body requires a process of measurement, i.e. observation. This is sound scientific method. Then they go ahead and extrapolate all kinds of other "facts" from this measurement and thus we are now outside the realm of
1&onlybillyshears:
What gets me is when they come up with the claim that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, using dating methods that have proven to be flawed. Radiocarbon dating, for example, has been debunked by credible scientific sources. According to secular sources and Bible chronology, humans have only existed for 6,000 years. The oldest known writing currently in existence is about 5,000 years old.
"Can we crack the world's oldest writing?
Cuneiform was developed by the Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia over 5000 years ago, and whilst there are actually more surviving cuneiform texts than in other ancient languages like Latin and Greek, we have only ever managed to translate a tiny portion of them."
https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/started-in...
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
There are other religions that espouse the existence of God, your arguing explicitly that Christianity (as you understand it) has a monopoly on religious revelation. Billions of people would disagree with you.
The Bible is not "inspired word" it is merely, as Zeno pointed out; is an amalgamation of texts compiled well after the fact.
The Quran, however, was compiled in such a way that if you believe that Muhammad Ali was a prophet; then you must conclude it is entirely verbatim the word of God. Mu
11t:
Billions of people disagreeing with me is supposed to mean something? I should think not.
The Bible is not "inspired word" it is merely, as Zeno pointed out; is an amalgamation of texts compiled well after the fact.
11t:
Why not? Because you say so, without a micro of evidence to support your claim? I happen to have evidence that says otherwise. I presented some of that evidence in the following thread:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/r...
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
1&onlybillyshears:
What gets me is when they come up with the claim that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, using dating methods that have proven to be flawed. Radiocarbon dating, for example, has been debunked by credible scientific sources. According to secular sources and Bible chronology, humans have only existed for 6,000 years. The oldest known writing currently in existence is about 5,000 years old.
"Can we crack the world's oldest writing?
Cuneiform was developed by t
so dinosaurs never existed huh?
11t:
Billions of people disagreeing with me is supposed to mean something? I should think not.
11t:
Why not? Because you say so, without a micro of evidence to support your claim? I happen to have evidence that says otherwise. I presented some of that evidence in the following thread:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/r...
Alter2Ego
________________
I never said prophets were not in direct communication with God but because the manner in which the Bible was collected, which is historical fact, it should be cross referenced with science and history to determine that which is true and that which is allegorical.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I want to compliment those rational-minded individuals in this discussion who have offered up well-written & cogent scientific arguments but sadly I feel that you are totally wasting your time.
Do you really think the die-hard believers will read what you wrote and change their minds? Their minds are closed! They believe BECAUSE they believe! It's not rational! They can't be swayed by logic! This is in stark opposition to scientific theories where the strength is that it CAN be disproved!
Sigh.
It reminded me of a video I saw where Richard Dawkins clearly & painstakingly lays out the steps involved in the evolution of the human eye and when he finishes, Dawkins asks the interviewer what he thought of the explanation. The interviewer responded with something like "Well.....while you were talking, I was thinking about this verse in the Book of" and went on to quote some religious text.
So.... I really don't understand the point of this discussion.
Are u actually saying the existence of planets surrounding stars is not a regular occurrence ?
I'm saying the evidence base is such that we do not observe directly exo-planets but indirectly, by the nature of spectra and the reduction of starlight by a period we have assumed to be the period of an orbiting planet.
I want to compliment those rational-minded individuals in this discussion who have offered up well-written & cogent scientific arguments but sadly I feel that you are totally wasting your time.
Do you really think the die-hard believers will read what you wrote and change their minds? Their minds are closed! They believe BECAUSE they believe! It's not rational! They can't be swayed by logic! This is in stark opposition to scientific theories where the strength is that it CAN be disproved!
Sigh.
It
TL;DR: Animals have eyes, humans have eyes, ipso facto UCA. Babies develop from primitive to mature forms, therefore evolution.
1&onlybillyshears:
What gets me is when they come up with the claim that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, using dating methods that have proven to be flawed. Radiocarbon dating, for example, has been debunked by credible scientific sources.
Name them. Radiometric dating is still used widely in science so the vast majority of scientists don’t consider any of it “debunked”.
According to secular sources and Bible chronology, humans have only existed for 6,000 years.
Named any credible secular source test says this. Earth is 4.3B years old, and young earth creationists themselves acknowledge they can’t explain the heat problem a 6,000 year earth would have that would have melted the crust for thousands of years
The oldest known writing currently in existence is about 5,000 years old.
"Can we crack the world's oldest writing?
Cuneiform was developed by the Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia over 5000 years ago, and whilst there are actually more surviving cuneiform texts than in other ancient languages like Latin and Greek, we have only ever managed to translate a tiny portion of them."
Who cares how old the oldest writing is when we have works of art 40,000 years old?
Alter2Ego
________________
"1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
I want to compliment those rational-minded individuals in this discussion who have offered up well-written & cogent scientific arguments but sadly I feel that you are totally wasting your time.
Do you really think the die-hard believers will read what you wrote and change their minds? Their minds are closed! They believe BECAUSE they believe! It's not rational! They can't be swayed by logic! This is in stark opposition to scientific theories where the strength is that it CAN be disproved!
Sigh.
It
You are indeed undoubtedly right about the effect of posting scientific explanations on the true believers — there is no effect. They will simply ignore or do some hand waving and go on as if no such explanation exists. However in forums like these there are usually lurkers who read but don’t post. Some of these might truly be questioning whether science or religion explains the universe better. When a true believer posts a “gotcha” type thing, it usually is an overly simplistic misrepresentation of the scientific evidence, but one that seems reasonable and convincing to people who don’t understand the actual science (including, no doubt, the true believer who posts it). By providing an actual scientific explanation in response to the “gotcha” posts, hopefully I am educating someone who might actually be open to learning about the real science. But you’re right, it probably is futile.
