Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth (1 Viewer)

[code1211]

yet not one of them can explain how the big bang occur or what formed the singularity that caused the big bang. They can theorize what happened but when it comes to explaining where those things actually came from (remember matter and energy have to be created they simply just don't exist) then they run into trouble.

On top of that you have to make a huge assumption that the earth just randomly formed where it is with the conditions that it has in order to sustain life as we know it.
no other planet we have found has the same makeup in water, nitrogen and oxygen in order to sustain life.




They have found things that have forced them to change the evolutionary theory time and time again. I remember a few years ago they found an otter that existed in a time period that they had no mammals existing at all.

They are constantly changing their theory when they find stuff that proved the last one wrong.

I remember all the excitment they got when they uncovered a pair of pigmy skeletons. They were 100% sure that this was the missing link and that they had finally discovered a common ancestor and it's next generation. turns out this wasn't the case both sets of skeletons existed at the same time.

As I understand the Big Bang, Not a physicist here, is that it goes bang and then expands to a point of equilibrium and then contracts again.

It takes a very long time.

When it contracts enough so all stuff is concentrated in a small enough point of space, it goes Bang again.

Kind of an elegant theory.

 

[code1211]

I could go into detail about why I think that certain SPECIFIC line-items within evolution as it is usually presented seem improbable, if considered as taking place an absence of any guiding intelligence, but there seems to be little point in going through all that bother. I'm not going to change your mind about anything, now am I?

Possibly some other time when I'm in the mood to engage in a long and detailed discussion on the subject, and not due at a cook out in 30 minutes.

No offense, but badminton, kids playing, hot dogs and hamburgers sounds more fun just the now. :mrgreen:

A cookout on memorial Day is a better distraction than evolution or the lack of evolution.

Have a Beer and a Brat for me!

 

[obvious Child]

The Bible says stuff lived in water before on land, and animals came before people. That's not a bad overview.

The bible also says that the planet started off as a watery ball. That couldn't be any more wrong. Also said that was light before any light sources. Couldn't be any more wrong. Also said there was plants before a light source. Couldn't be any more wrong.

 

[obvious Child]

You're free to believe whatever you wish, as am I.

As to the improbability of evolution, no it remains. It remains because that is my viewpoint on it. That you do not share that viewpoint is of little concern to me.

So you'd rather believe in magic than a (in your opinion) statistical improbability?

FYI, if you roll a billion dice every seconds, the outcome you're looking for will happen pretty quickly.

You believe because you wish to believe. How about you just own that for once?

 

[ludin]

It's of concern to me though when a person can be in such Grotesque denial.
ie, you didn't address my logical statements from two posts ago:

IOW, your views exist In Spite of the facts.
Evolution is an accepted Scientific Fact with Overwhelming evidence.
You are free to hold the contrary view, it's just troubling.. as is the OP's more blatant and bizarro doctrinalism/denial.

if it is so factual where are the transition fossils? there are in fact no transition fossils. they have yet to find a monkey turning into a man or any stage in between.
the same goes for the majority of fossels out there.

If the theory of evolution was true then we will still be having monkey turning into humans but we don't. we know how humans are born and where they come from.

macro evolution is severly flawed.

here is what i want you to do. take a deck of cards i then want you to write down a random card combination.
then shuffle the deck of cards and draw the first X cards where X is the number cards in the combination.

after you flip X cards shuffle and flip them again.

if you ever manage to get the sequence you are looking for that is 1 DNA sequence in a million that have to occur for macro-evolution that has to take place at the same time in the correct order if not the subject dies.

this is the absuridy of evolution.

 

[ludin]

So you'd rather believe in magic than a (in your opinion) statistical improbability?

FYI, if you roll a billion dice every seconds, the outcome you're looking for will happen pretty quickly.

You believe because you wish to believe. How about you just own that for once?

is there a difference in a designed order of operation or something that the odds of happens are so outlandish that even in scientific terms it is improbable?
it take way more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a created universe.

still waiting on monkey to turn into humans after all it has been millions and billions of year so they should still be evolving according to evolution theory.

 

[obvious Child]

is there a difference in a designed order of operation or something that the odds of happens are so outlandish that even in scientific terms it is improbable?
it take way more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a created universe.

still waiting on monkey to turn into humans after all it has been millions and billions of year so they should still be evolving according to evolution theory.

Monkeys are contemporary evolutionary peers of humans. How would a monkey, who co-evolved with various human species evolve into homo sapiens? That makes no sense and it also suggests you have no actual understanding of evolution.

How does it take more faith to believe that matter structures itself based on the various natural laws we can test and life arouse from such and evolves based on its capacity to survive in changing conditions over magic?

Humans have engaged in evolution of plants and animals based on the conditions we place them in. Why would life not abide to the same principle in the natural world?

I strongly believe in Occam's Razor, and magic flunks that 99.9% of the time.

 

[mbig]

if it is so factual where are the transition fossils? there are in fact no transition fossils. they have yet to find a monkey turning into a man or any stage in between.
the same goes for the majority of fossels out there.

WTF!
There are plenty of transition fossils and more discovered Every day!
Here's just the very short list for .. US!

If the theory of evolution was true then we will still be having monkey turning into humans but we don't. we know how humans are born and where they come from.
macro evolution is severly flawed.

Oooof!
Monkeys don't 'turn into humans' we have shared ancestors though.
I'll give you a much better question:
Why do we/humans have Anatomical Remnants of our predecessors if we didn't evolve from them!
(ie, the Coccyx/coxis/TAILBONE)
And that's just One part.
Hardly immaculate creation with all those fading loose ends!

here is what i want you to do. take a deck of cards i then want you to write down a random card combination.
then shuffle the deck of cards and draw the first X cards where X is the number cards in the combination.
after you flip X cards shuffle and flip them again.
if you ever manage to get the sequence you are looking for that is 1 DNA sequence in a million that have to occur for macro-evolution that has to take place at the same time in the correct order if not the subject dies.
this is the absuridy of evolution.

That's because your premise if very faulty.
What if there are Tens/Hundreds of Billions of decks of cards? (as there are planets in the 'Goldilocks zone')
What if they are ALL shuffled once a year for 13 Billion years?
What are the odds then of getting one in sequence?

Your fallacy is pointing at a Lottery winner AFTER the fact and then asking "what are the odds of it'.
Given enough players, the odds are that Someone/Somewhere might win every week!
You just Ignored one side of the equation. The staggering amount of decks of cards and times they are each shuffled.

 

[obvious Child]

WTF!
There are plenty of transition fossils and more discovered Every day!
Here's just the very short list for .. US!

Uh, I hate to be brutally honest, but this is a waste of time.

If someone is not willing to learn about evolution on their own from actual science sites, it's a waste of our time to try to make them learn.

Also, every species is transitional.

 

[Jayhawker30]

I strongly believe in Occam's Razor, and magic flunks that 99.9% of the time.

Out of curiosity, what's the 00.1%?

 

[obvious Child]

Out of curiosity, what's the 00.1%?

How America hasn't been nuked/dirty bombed yet despite years of border and port security incompetence, widespread insecurity of fissile material and plenty of groups out to get us. It is so completely unfathomable how it hasn't happened when all of the pieces to do it were so easy that I can only attribute it to magic. It was easy for a decade to steal lots of fissile material from various parts of Eastern Europe and FSU states. Our ports only recently got detectors for radioactivity. We barely inspect ANY of the containers ships and it is easy to lie about shipment inventories. Getting explosives in America is fairly easy too. A dirty bomb should have been delivered to an American city years ago. The logistical steps to do so could have pulled off by drunken frat boys.

 

[calamity]

Ok, guys, are we gonna take turns pointing out the thousands of incorrect things, or can we just take my statement for what it was.

How does making a comment about the general accuracy of geologic and biologic development in the Bible invite every Tom, Dick and Harry to point out incorrect crap that EVERYONE KNOWS.

Human nature.

IMO, the origianl translation of the Bible probably got what you quoted just as wrong as the King James version got wrong the age of the stars above. By 1611 or whatever, people already knew plants came before animals and sea creatures predated land mamals. But, they didn't know squat about the age of the earth or the universe.

Coincidence?

I think not.

 

[ecofarm]

By 1611 or whatever, people already knew plants came before animals and sea creatures predated land mamals.

That's why texts saying the same, 2000 years before, are unexpectedly accurate.

 

[calamity]

That's why texts saying the same, 2000 years before, are unexpectedly accurate.

I'm suggesting they don't. If we could look at a true translation of the original Hebrew or Greek text, I suspect we'd find that they got that wrong too.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm suggesting they don't. If we could look at a true translation of the original Hebrew or Greek text, I suspect we'd find that they got that wrong too.

Wild speculation driven by hatred.

 

[ludin]

WTF!
There are plenty of transition fossils and more discovered Every day!
Here's just the very short list for .. US!

No they are not the missing link has never been found.

Oooof!
Monkeys don't 'turn into humans' we have shared ancestors though.

Not according to dwarin or evolution. we are supposedly evolved from primate monkeys. even there there are about 1m or do genetic differences that separate us.
according to dwarin and evolution it does not stop so therefore they should still be evolving into humans.

they are not. the common ancestor BS only came along after they couldn't prove what they said for years that we evolved from monkey's.

I'll give you a much better question:
Why do we/humans have Anatomical Remnants of our predecessors if we didn't evolve from them!
(ie, the Coccyx/coxis/TAILBONE)
And that's just One part.
Hardly immaculate creation with all those fading loose ends!

Who says they are remnants and were not always part of our anatomical structure. so far they have yet to produce any human that was any different than we are now. they have the same type of bone structures etc ...

That's because your premise if very faulty.
What if there are Tens/Hundreds of Billions of decks of cards? (as there are planets in the 'Goldilocks zone')
What if they are ALL shuffled once a year for 13 Billion years?
What are the odds then of getting one in sequence?

no the premise is quite accurate. evolution say that over millions of year that genetic links just formed and started creating life. This is the same exact demonstration.

you do realize that you just made it worse for yourself. with only a deck of 52 cards i have given you better odds.
the first card you have a 4/52 shot of getting the first card right. if you don't get the first card right then you have to just stop shuffle and do it again.
if you do manage to get the first card then you have a 4/51 shot of getting the second card etc..

now you want to add billions of cards to the deck. you still only have X/billions to get the first card right.
you just increased the pool of having to get the correct card by billions. not very likely to happen.

Your fallacy is pointing at a Lottery winner AFTER the fact and then asking "what are the odds of it'.
Given enough players, the odds are that Someone/Somewhere might win every week!
You just Ignored one side of the equation. The staggering amount of decks of cards and times they are each shuffled.

the odds for the lottery are already published why? there is a set number of balls in the pool.
yep there are odds that someone can do that. however depending on the game it doesn't matter which order you get the numbers in.

so if the numbers are 4 10 3 8 20. and you get those numbers in any order you win.

things change a great deal and i mean a great deal if you have to get those number in exact order to win. the odds of winning go extremely low.
that is just the first sequence. you have multiple sequences that have to change at exactly the same time order for the specimen to not die.

Microevolution or adaptation is real it occurs it is documented.

Macroevolution IE changing from one species to another has never been observed or documented in anyway.

What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?

 

[calamity]

Wild speculation driven by hatred.

Wild speculation driven by cynicism.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- BEN K.:

And you are aware that I made it clear in my last response that I was referring to creatures with bones; are you not?

Long story short, there is no evidence for macroevolution myth. Period. If there were, the word "evolution" would no longer be accompanied by the word "theory" aka educated guesses.

A scientific Theory is vastly different than a guess. Gravity is a theory. So is Evolution or, more correctly stated, the various components of Evolution that rise from the research in the areas of Biology, genetics, medicine, farming and so on.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE 1211:

Vastly different in your mind perhaps. A scientific theory is nothing more than educated guesses aka speculations.

Definition of "Scientific Theory"
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.​

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

A scientific Theory is vastly different than a guess. Gravity is a theory. So is Evolution or, more correctly stated, the various components of Evolution that rise from the research in the areas of Biology, genetics, medicine, farming and so on.

Gravity is not just a theory. It is also a Law, which rises above theory.

A Scientific Theory is a working assumption or group of assumptions that serve to act a platform for additional research. It is based on things that have actually been observed and is an explanation of why the thing is observable. When it works that is good. When it doesn't, that is noted and the theory is either discarded or modified to continue to act a platform for further advance.
What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

And assumptions are guesses. The "working assumptions" can be disproven, because the working assumptions are educated guesses. So your source is agreeing with my source that a scientific theory is educated guesses.

 

[ecofarm]

Wild speculation driven by cynicism.

I disagree.

 

[calamity]

I disagree.

your prerogative.

 

[ecofarm]

your prerogative.

Thank you, your majesty. Granting such is just wonderful and I don't know how to thank you.

 

[mbig]

View Post
WTF!
There are plenty of transition fossils and more discovered Every day!
Here's just the very short list for .. US!

No they are not the missing link has never been found.

LOL
What "Missing Link" are you talking about?
ALL of those transitional Fossils are 'Missing Links'.

Why don't you tell the board what those Skulls are. They are Not Monkeys/Chimps.
This should be good.

Oh, YOU Asked for "Transitional Fossils" not "missing Link".
YOU said there were None

if it is so factual where are the Transition fossils? there are in fact No Transition fossils. they have yet to find a monkey turning into a man or any stage in between.
the same goes for the majority of fossels out there.

You now stand Refuted and having to Move your own Goal Posts.

Oooof!
Monkeys don't 'turn into humans' we have shared ancestors though.

Not according to dwarin or evolution. we are supposedly evolved from primate monkeys. even there there are about 1m or do genetic differences that separate us.
according to dwarin and evolution it does not stop so therefore they should still be evolving into humans.
they are not. the common ancestor BS only came along after they couldn't prove what they said for years that we evolved from monkey's.

YES, according to Darwin.
We have common Primate ancestors.... and Their Remnant Tailbones/Wisdom Teeth too.

I'll give you a much better question:
Why do we/humans have Anatomical Remnants of our predecessors if we didn't evolve from them!
(ie, the Coccyx/coxis/TAILBONE)
And that's just One part.
Hardly immaculate creation with all those fading loose ends!

Who says they are remnants and were not always part of our anatomical structure. so far they have yet to produce any human that was any different than we are now. they have the same type of bone structures etc ...

'god' gave us needless Tailbones.. and appendix and Wisdom teeth [only] our Herbivorous ancestors needed?
Wisdom teeth that would kill a good percent of Homo Sapiens (and previous Erectus) whose diet changed faster than their bodies.

That's because your premise if very faulty.
What if there are Tens/Hundreds of Billions of decks of cards? (as there are planets in the 'Goldilocks zone')
What if they are ALL shuffled once a year for 13 Billion years?
What are the odds then of getting one in sequence?

no the premise is quite accurate. evolution say that over millions of year that genetic links just formed and started creating life. This is the same exact demonstration.

you do realize that you just made it worse for yourself. with only a deck of 52 cards i have given you better odds.
the first card you have a 4/52 shot of getting the first card right. if you don't get the first card right then you have to just stop shuffle and do it again.
if you do manage to get the first card then you have a 4/51 shot of getting the second card etc..

now you want to add billions of cards to the deck. you still only have X/billions to get the first card right.
you just increased the pool of having to get the correct card by billions. not very likely to happen.

Huh?
Life could have arisen on any of Hundreds of Billions/Trillions/perhaps Quadrillions, of Planets. Wherever it did/Has, we (the resultant beings throughout the universe) are feeling very lucky.
BUT It could have happened anywhere.

An example maybe you can comprehend.
The odds of a woman a 43 Elm Street in Denver winning ie, Powerball might be/ie 300,000,000:1
BUT the odds of Anyone in the country winning then are perhaps 1:1.

The INEVITABLE winner then says, "that's miraculous", BUT it WAS going to happen somewhere. But from her (like your) Tiny/false perspective, she doesn't see the inevitability/high probability that Someone/Somwhere would win.

http:/ /www.gotquestions.org / microevolution-macroevolution.html

Ooof a Bible site.
"GotQuestions"
"The Bible has answers, we'll help you find them"

 

[Paschendale]

IMO, the origianl translation of the Bible probably got what you quoted just as wrong as the King James version got wrong the age of the stars above. By 1611 or whatever, people already knew plants came before animals and sea creatures predated land mamals. But, they didn't know squat about the age of the earth or the universe.

Coincidence?

I think not.

The earlier single celled creatures were more like modern animals than modern plants. The most crucial element of modern plants, photosynthesis, is only about a billion years old. Life has been around and was multi cellular long before then. Ancient speculation also includes the sun going around the Earth, that people live to be hundreds of years old, that a single flood covered the whole planet and didn't wipe out all the plant life, that monsters roamed across the world, that people can levitate and transmogrify objects, that we are made of four elemental forces, that our health is controlled by mixtures of blood and phlegm in our bodies, that demons and evil spirits make us sick and cause natural disasters...

That's why texts saying the same, 2000 years before, are unexpectedly accurate.

Cherry picking the few things that can be interpreted to match modern knowledge does not translate to "unexpectedly accurate". Myths and legends are incorrect about almost everything. As you said, there are thousands of incorrect things. A few good guesses doesn't demonstrate some kind of uncanny insight possessed by one group of ancient people. Plenty of other cultures had similar ideas, with more or less success.

 

[ecofarm]

Cherry picking the few things that can be interpreted to match modern knowledge does not translate to "unexpectedly accurate".

Of course it does. The act of cheery picking demonstrates the unexpected nature of the accuracy.

Plenty of other cultures had similar ideas, with more or less success.

I'll put Genesis up against any other creation story for scientific accuracy. The cheery-picks will win.

 

[Alter2Ego]

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090503181317AAVdKJy

This is a *partial* list of evidence of evolution (sorry this is long, but there's a *lot* of evidence):

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

it goes on and on and on and on...like dude said--"there is a lot of evidence."

ALTER2EGO -to- CALAMITY:

Right. It goes on and on and on to nowhere. Take for example that list that you presented above. Here are some questions for you.

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

QUESTION #1 to CALAMITY: Did the fruit fly change into anything other than what it started off as--despite the interference by humans in the laboratory?

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

QUESTION #2 to CALAMITY: Did the plant change to anything other than what it started off as--namely plants?

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

QUESTION #3 to CALAMITY: Did the house mouse change into anything other than what they started off as?

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

QUESTION #4 to CALAMITY: Did the fish change into anything other than fish?

2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

QUESTION #5 to CALAMITY: When do you intend to present fossil evidence aka transitional fossils that show, for example, Creature A, followed by Creature B, and then Creature C, and finally ending up as Creature D--a completely different Creature from what it started off as?

3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).


4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

There is no genetic evidence or molecular evidence for evolution. Pro-evolution scientists speculate that that is the case while they cannot present any proof to back up what they claim.