Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

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 throug

01 August 2021 at 03:48 AM
Reply...

64 Replies


Earlier posts are available on our legacy forum HERE

There is no magic status to life as opposed to non-life. They are just different functioning of matter.

Wow. Matter is more fundamental than life or death?

I guess since matter is lord over life and death, then matter is a god. Behold the religion of materialism. Behold the never ending maze of the seeker who relies on rationalism, as I’m sure you’ll have a new pet theory shortly.

Just as long as you stay away from reconsidering Christianity, though, right? Forbidden!


by craig1120

Wow. Matter is more fundamental than life or death?

I guess since matter is lord over life and death, then matter is a god. Behold the religion of materialism. Behold the never ending maze of the seeker who relies on rationalism, as I’m sure you’ll have a new pet theory shortly.

Just as long as you stay away from reconsidering Christianity, though, right? Forbidden!

And you wonder what leads to men to committing genocide.


by stremba70

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.

So much this!

In my opinion, even if literally nobody changes their mind on the subject, we can gain a better understanding of where the "other side" is coming from.

At the very least, these discussions can be an enjoyable intellectual exercise (like chess)!


by craig1120

Wow. Matter is more fundamental than life or death?

I guess since matter is lord over life and death, then matter is a god. Behold the religion of materialism. Behold the never ending maze of the seeker who relies on rationalism, as I’m sure you’ll have a new pet theory shortly.

Just as long as you stay away from reconsidering Christianity, though, right? Forbidden!

Boy you really have a need to smuggle in a lord and a god, don't you? I have reconsidered Christianity and decided that it is one of the religions, one of the origin myths, one of the magic stories of antiquity. The idea that a god poofed the cosmos into existence (whoops, the Bible forgot about the wider cosmos), poofed all the life forms into existence, put them all on the ark ... is just a fairy tale, wives tale kind of thing. A co-author of mine calls it the "Poof Theory." It's worthy of Sunday School, worthy of kindergarten, worthy of blind, stubborn, dogmatic zealotry.


by Lunkwill

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 swa

When I realized the lying and evasion used to defend and apologize for religion, I gained a taste for forcing them to lie. There is also an element of pointing up the abject immorality inherent in some of it, making them defend the indefensible, and thus a sneaky crack in their indoctrination where their humanity might surface is definitely possible. They need to hear the truth to have a chance against the awesome power of indoctrination of whichever religion has captured them, because they don't realize they are captured and have sacrificed agency and decency to the religion. As in, "No, killing every child and fetus on earth is not moral and holy and just, and if you are willing to say it is because somebody wrote it thousands of years ago, you have sacrificed agency, rationality, and humanity." They need to hear that because they have heard so much of morality being flipped on its ear (abject obedience is moral, the slaughter of innocents is moral, if you don't buy into this religion you are going to hell, etc.).


by FellaGaga-52

When I realized the lying and evasion used to defend and apologize for religion, I gained a taste for forcing them to lie.

Speaking of evasion, there's this fellow in another thread who asks me questions (which I endeavor to answer), but he often won't answer fair questions addressed to him. I won't name names, but would you agree that such a tactic is intellectually dishonest?

There is also an element of pointing up the abject immorality inherent in some of it, making them defend the indefensible, and thus a sneaky crack in their indoctrination where their humanity might surface is definitely possible. They need to hear the truth to have a chance against the awesome power of indoctrination of whichever religion has captured them, because they don't realize they are captured and have sacrificed agency and decency to the religion. As in, "No, killing every child and fetus on earth is not moral and holy and just, and if you are willing to say it is because somebody wrote it thousands of years ago, you have sacrificed agency, rationality, and humanity." They need to hear that because they have heard so much of morality being flipped on its ear (abject obedience is moral, the slaughter of innocents is moral, if you don't buy into this religion you are going to hell, etc.).

Another intellectually dishonest tactic that some folks employ is called the Strawman; namely, they refute an argument that no serious person is arguing for. The bolded above is a good example: no serious person believes something is true "[just] because somebody wrote it thousands of years ago." The thoughtful Christian doesn't believe the Genesis account because "somebody wrote it", but because the thoughtful Christian believes that God inspired that book.

Of course, the Christian should have a good reason to believe that Genesis is inspired by God. But the above argument as stated is a Strawman.


by geezerchess

Speaking of evasion, there's this fellow in another thread who asks me questions (which I endeavor to answer), but he often won't answer fair questions addressed to him. I won't name names, but would you agree that such a tactic is intellectually dishonest?Another intellectually dishonest tactic that some folks employ is called the Strawman; namely, they refute an argument tha

It's indoctrination at work. That's why they believe. The god is just who they blame their bigotry, genocide and judgmentalism on. I've answered tons of questions on here. Shoot one at me. Do you think I didn't know ahead of time that you would take obvious devices and over generalizations as literal as a strategy to ad hominem disingenuously.


by FellaGaga-52

It's indoctrination at work. That's why they believe. The god is just who they blame their bigotry, genocide and judgmentalism on. I've answered tons of questions on here. Shoot one at me. Do you think I didn't know ahead of time that you would take obvious devices and over generalizations as literal as a strategy to ad hominem disingenuously.

Glad to hear that. But I've been shooting questions at you in another thread and you didn't respond to most of them.

After you answer those questions, I will gladly continue our discussion. (Note well I believe that I answered your questions that you asked me. If I missed one, please let me know, and I will be more than happy to answer it. [After you answer my prior questions, or course.])


by FellaGaga-52

... is just a fairy tale, wives tale kind of thing. A co-author of mine calls it the "Poof Theory." It's worthy of Sunday School, worthy of kindergarten, worthy of blind, stubborn, dogmatic zealotry.

It's still a more coherent explanation of the universe that anything "science" can provide. The Big Bang theory is just another magical "poof theory" and cannot account for the formation of planets and life. According to what we know about physics it would be impossible for any of those things to come into being. "Billions and billions" of year is still not enough time for amino acids to line up in a sequence that could create any sort of animal. We are literally made of code that cannot be explained by "chance" or a long passage of time. There has to be a "coder".


A great refutation of Darwinism done in 12 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnqWD1hq...


by BGnight

It's still a more coherent explanation of the universe that anything "science" can provide. The Big Bang theory is just another magical "poof theory" and cannot account for the formation of planets and life. According to what we know about physics it would be impossible for any of those things to come into being. "Billions and billions" of year is still not enough time for amin

One of the early criticisms of the so-called Big Bang Theory was that the theory sounded too much like the Genesis account of creation!

Also, the term "Big Bang Theory" was invented by critics of what was originally called the "Primeval Atom Theory" by its originator, Georges Lemaître in 1931.


by geezerchess

One of the early criticisms of the so-called Big Bang Theory was that the theory sounded too much like the Genesis account of creation!

Also, the term "Big Bang Theory" was invented by critics of what was originally called the "Primeval Atom Theory" by its originator, Georges Lemaître in 1931.

geezerchess:

Whoever claimed Big Bang Theory sounds like the Genesis Creation Account is lacking in reading-comprehension skills, in light of the fact there is no comparison between the two.

The Genesis Creation account requires the intervention of an intelligent being aka Almighty God Jehovah who guided the outcome so that we end up with a fine-tuned universe in which everything is as precisely as Jehovah intended.

Big Bang Theory says everything happened by itself. It claims that after a long string of accidental events, everything fell into place in an orderly fashion.

Needless to say, credible science says accidents cannot result in precision.

Alter2Ego


by Alter2Ego

geezerchess:

Whoever claimed Big Bang Theory sounds like the Genesis Creation Account is lacking in reading-comprehension skills, in light of the fact there is no comparison between the two.

I agree. But because of BDS (Bible Derangement Syndrome) it was a knee-jerk response to decredit any account that even remotely resembles anything in the Scriptures.

The Genesis Creation account requires the intervention of an intelligent being aka Almighty God Jehovah who guided the outcome so that we end up with a fine-tuned universe in which everything is as precisely as Jehovah intended.

Big Bang Theory says everything happened by itself. It claims that after a long string of accidental events, everything fell into place in an orderly fashion.

Needless to say, credible science says accidents cannot result in precision.

Alter2Ego

Well said.


Big Bang idea was more a facetious knee jerk reaction to the idea that the universe is expanding. It and the singularity will be laughed out of the cosmology books eventually, and soon, imo.


by BGnight

A great refutation of Darwinism done in 12 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnqWD1hq...

"planetary formation... a giant belly button lint in space." That's the train-wreck non-hypothesis. Very well observed.

They are correct - Darwinism thread runs right through cosmogenesis 'theories' - Darwinism actually informs the thermo-nuclear solar model as a system that *allows* for the origin of species by offering the required time-scale. Other 'theories' were rejected on the basis they did not support Darwin's idea. Hence Darwinism is inherent in Hollywood sci-fi also and thus permeates the background consciousness of everyone and anyone susceptible to such brain-washing. The boffins brainwash themselves through their own hubris.

Reply...