Forum Thread

Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 48 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    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 atheist-evolutionists 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 when in reality they are pagans. (A pagan is a theist who does not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

    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)


    POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
    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 explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try 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. [/COLOR]


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Former Member Wrote: POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
    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 explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try 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. [/COLOR]


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
    Yes Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields of science. Evolution does not address how life originated. It explains the diversity of life. The fact is life exists and it evolves. There really is no scientific controversy here. It has been observed, tested, used to make predictions, and all fossil records support the theory (Your Fact 2 is grossly wrong). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's actually on of the most concrete theories in science. There are thousands of sources on this. A quick Google search will net you some good ones

    Abiogenisis is the study of how life originally began and there are really no good solid theories on how yet. Many experiments have been conducted on the topic but there are extremely limited in scale. (Scientists have to recreate the conditions of the Earth 3.3 billion years ago which is extremely difficult on a large scale.) Some experiments have yielded the creation of amino acids which are the building blocks of life but that is about as far as science has be able to get. So for now, we don't really know.

    As for the creation claim. You still have to prove that there is an "Almighty God." Then you have to explain where that "Almighty God" came from. No idea why you would think that creation is even close to credible claim when there is more scientific evidence (almost none) that life started spontaneously than life started with a divine creator (exactly none). Essentially, what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    Former Member Wrote:POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
    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 explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try 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.
    Yes Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields of science. Evolution does not address how life originated. It explains the diversity of life. The fact is life exists and it evolves. There really is no scientific controversy here. It has been observed, tested, used to make predictions, and all fossil records support the theory (Your Fact 2 is grossly wrong). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's actually on of the most concrete theories in science. There are thousands of sources on this. A quick Google search will net you some good ones
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Every evolution theory in existence is linked up with abiogenesis theory (life coming to life spontaneously). As stated in my OP, there can be no evolution without the existence of the supposed "common ancestor". And since atheists insist there is no Jehovah, abiogenesis theory is what they are stuck with. Too bad that abiogenesis theory was debunked more than 100 years ago.

    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:Yes Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields of science. Evolution does not address how life originated. It explains the diversity of life. The fact is life exists and it evolves. There really is no scientific controversy here. It has been observed, tested, used to make predictions, and all fossil records support the theory (Your Fact 2 is grossly wrong). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's actually on of the most concrete theories in science. There are thousands of sources on this. A quick Google search will net you some good ones
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Evolution has never been observed; its predictions have all been proven wrong; and the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps. Even the most rabid pro-evolution scientists have been admitting for decades that there is no evidence in the fossils to support evolution myth.

    "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)"


    Notice from the above what Eldridge (a pro-evolution paleontologist) admitted in 1984. Almost 20 years later, nothing had changed, as indicated by Ernst Mayr (another pro-evolution paleontologist) who said the following:

    "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Former Member Wrote:
    Zach F Wrote:Yes Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields of science. Evolution does not address how life originated. It explains the diversity of life. The fact is life exists and it evolves. There really is no scientific controversy here. It has been observed, tested, used to make predictions, and all fossil records support the theory (Your Fact 2 is grossly wrong). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's actually on of the most concrete theories in science. There are thousands of sources on this. A quick Google search will net you some good ones
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Evolution has never been observed; its predictions have all been proven wrong; and the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps. Even the most rabid pro-evolution scientists have been admitting for decades that there is no evidence in the fossils to support evolution myth.

    "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)"


    Notice from the above what Eldridge (a pro-evolution paleontologist) admitted in 1984. Almost 20 years later, nothing had changed, as indicated by Ernst Mayr (another pro-evolution paleontologist) who said the following:

    "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
    Evolution has been observed all the time. Here is a list of evolution observed in the wild. In addition, evolution has been observed in the lab. E-boli and fruit flies are quite commonly used in experiments because many generations can be observed in a short period of time. On top of that, you hear about evolution at work every year. Each winter a new type of flu shot is required because the existing influenza virus mutates making the old shot outdated. Then we see evolution in action again as antibiotics became less and less effective each year. Bacteria are evolving resistance to the treatments.

    Only a minute fraction of animals that lived will ever become fossils. Because of this, there are huge gaps in the fossil record. There are likely millions of species that we will never know existed because the conditions of the animal after death isn't conducive to create a fossil. Though a trend can be seen. However, in non fossilized remains we have quite a complete transition across the animal kingdom. Humans for example. Here is a list of fossils that demonstrate the transition. And technically, because evolution is always at work, every single animal is a transitional animal. There is even a noticeable difference between humans now and humans just 5,000 years ago. Larger brain cavity for example.

    Also, here is a long list of predictions made using Evolution.

    Both of your quotes are taken a bit out of context. But even if they weren't a lot of new information and new discoveries have come up in the last 30 years. New skeletons, new species fill in the gaps all the time. But here is the problem with the classification of species. Species are changing with every generation. The change is gradual. There is no set line that a species crosses to become a new species. You will never be able to observe evolution just observing generation to generation. It's too slow for that. It's only when you compare the one organism to it's ancestor 1000 generations before can you see all the little changes have added up to something almost completely different.
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    Former Member Wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Evolution has never been observed; its predictions have all been proven wrong; and the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps. Even the most rabid pro-evolution scientists have been admitting for decades that there is no evidence in the fossils to support evolution myth.

    "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)"


    Notice from the above what Eldridge (a pro-evolution paleontologist) admitted in 1984. Almost 20 years later, nothing had changed, as indicated by Ernst Mayr (another pro-evolution paleontologist) who said the following:

    "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).
    Evolution has been observed all the time. Here is a list of evolution observed in the wild. In addition, evolution has been observed in the lab. E-boli and fruit flies are quite commonly used in experiments because many generations can be observed in a short period of time. On top of that, you hear about evolution at work every year. Each winter a new type of flu shot is required because the existing influenza virus mutates making the old shot outdated. Then we see evolution in action again as antibiotics became less and less effective each year. Bacteria are evolving resistance to the treatments.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Evolution of animals, insects, fish, plants and organic beings of that sort has never been observed. E-boli is a virus, not an organic being capable of producing offspring. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. They do not evolve into anything other than what they started off as: FRUIT FLIES. In fact, you went so far as to use the word "experiments" to prove the point that there is no such thing as "natural selection" and that, in fact, human intervention in laboratories is the supposed examples of "evolution" you are relying on.

    And spare me the weblinks. I do not click links. I always quote my sources within my post and provide the weblink so that I will not be guilty of plagiarism. If you want to prove something from a source, then briefly quote your source within your post. I will not click any of your weblinks to be taken to more walls of text so that I can read third-party delusions.


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:Only a minute fraction of animals that lived will ever become fossils. Because of this, there are huge gaps in the fossil record. There are likely millions of species that we will never know existed because the conditions of the animal after death isn't conducive to create a fossil. Though a trend can be seen. However, in non fossilized remains we have quite a complete transition across the animal kingdom. Humans for example. Here is a list of fossils that demonstrate the transition. And technically, because evolution is always at work, every single animal is a transitional animal. There is even a noticeable difference between humans now and humans just 5,000 years ago. Larger brain cavity for example.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    So you are basically telling me that yours is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D. To put it simply, evolution theory is the religious theology of the atheist. It is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show that anything evolved. An act of faith, but you and other atheists have the nerve to criticize Christians for accepting the Genesis creation account.


    Zach F Wrote:Both of your quotes are taken a bit out of context. But even if they weren't a lot of new information and new discoveries have come up in the last 30 years. New skeletons, new species fill in the gaps all the time. But here is the problem with the classification of species. Species are changing with every generation. The change is gradual. There is no set line that a species crosses to become a new species. You will never be able to observe evolution just observing generation to generation. It's too slow for that. It's only when you compare the one organism to it's ancestor 1000 generations before can you see all the little changes have added up to something almost completely different.
    I am not interested in more atheist theology for which there is no evidence in the fossils. By your own admission, the fossil record is full of gaps.

    I am still waiting for your explanation of where the supposed "Common Ancestor" came from. How did it come to life without a god to breathe life into it? Without the supposed "Common Ancestor," evolution theory cannot even make it from Point A to Point B.



    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Former Member Wrote:
    Zach F Wrote:Only a minute fraction of animals that lived will ever become fossils. Because of this, there are huge gaps in the fossil record. There are likely millions of species that we will never know existed because the conditions of the animal after death isn't conducive to create a fossil. Though a trend can be seen. However, in non fossilized remains we have quite a complete transition across the animal kingdom. Humans for example. Here is a list of fossils that demonstrate the transition. And technically, because evolution is always at work, every single animal is a transitional animal. There is even a noticeable difference between humans now and humans just 5,000 years ago. Larger brain cavity for example.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    So you are basically telling me that yours is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D. To put it simply, evolution theory is the religious theology of the atheist. It is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show that anything evolved. An act of faith, but you and other atheists have the nerve to criticize Christians for accepting the Genesis creation account.


    Zach F Wrote:Both of your quotes are taken a bit out of context. But even if they weren't a lot of new information and new discoveries have come up in the last 30 years. New skeletons, new species fill in the gaps all the time. But here is the problem with the classification of species. Species are changing with every generation. The change is gradual. There is no set line that a species crosses to become a new species. You will never be able to observe evolution just observing generation to generation. It's too slow for that. It's only when you compare the one organism to it's ancestor 1000 generations before can you see all the little changes have added up to something almost completely different.
    I am not interested in more atheist theology for which there is no evidence in the fossils. By your own admission, the fossil record is full of gaps.

    I am still waiting for your explanation of where the supposed "Common Ancestor" came from. How did it come to life without a god to breathe life into it? Without the supposed "Common Ancestor," evolution theory cannot even make it from Point A to Point B.



    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
    It's not faith at all. When you look at unfossilized remains of the last million years or so the transition is clearly there. Then you take all the current observations. See that they are consistent with all the evidence. After than you can extrapolate backwards in time to the eras that were so long ago that time has damaged much of the evidence. Using natural laws. A parallel to this would be gravity. We know that acceleration that Earth's gravity has on an object. We've known that the Earth has been pretty much the same size for the last 4.5 billion years or say. So it is pretty safe to say that Earth's gravity was the same then. By discovering natural laws, and then seeing that they are constant throughout time, we can make educated guess into the past.

    I've already addressed the abiogenisis issue. There really are no solid ideas yet. What your argument boils down to is "don't know; therefore god." The old "god of the gaps" argument. Neil deGrasse Tyson does an excellent job of explaining why that argument makes no sense and can be extremely damaging

    You say that only a god could have started life, but have still provided zero evidence that a god even exists. Assuming you are able to do that, then who breathed life into that god? Another god? Well then who breathed life into that god? But let's start at the beginning. Show me there is a god and we can go from there.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Former Member Wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Evolution of animals, insects, fish, plants and organic beings of that sort has never been observed. E-boli is a virus, not an organic being capable of producing offspring. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. They do not evolve into anything other than what they started off as: FRUIT FLIES. In fact, you went so far as to use the word "experiments" to prove the point that there is no such thing as "natural selection" and that, in fact, human intervention in laboratories is the supposed examples of "evolution" you are relying on.

    And spare me the weblinks. I do not click links. I always quote my sources within my post and provide the weblink so that I will not be guilty of plagiarism. If you want to prove something from a source, then briefly quote your source within your post. I will not click any of your weblinks to be taken to more walls of text so that I can read third-party delusions.


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
    I gave you a list of observations, did you just skip right over the link? Fruit were still fruit flies, but the flies were biologically different from their ancestors. Their bodies function in a different way. Some used different nutrients. Comparing the youngest generations to the original generations and they significantly different. Compare the groups separated into different environments that shared an originally ancestry and 2 unique versions of flies adapted to their unique environments.

    Viruses evolve just as everything else. Also, the "E-boli" was a typo. It was suppose to read "e-coli" the bacteria. Ebola would be the virus.

    And yes. It's a lot easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend the evidence doesn't exist. Stay away from those scary weblinks.
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    Former Member Wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    So you are basically telling me that yours is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D. To put it simply, evolution theory is the religious theology of the atheist. It is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show that anything evolved. An act of faith, but you and other atheists have the nerve to criticize Christians for accepting the Genesis creation account.
    It's not faith at all. When you look at unfossilized remains of the last million years or so the transition is clearly there. Then you take all the current observations. See that they are consistent with all the evidence. After than you can extrapolate backwards in time to the eras that were so long ago that time has damaged much of the evidence. Using natural laws. A parallel to this would be gravity. We know that acceleration that Earth's gravity has on an object. We've known that the Earth has been pretty much the same size for the last 4.5 billion years or say. So it is pretty safe to say that Earth's gravity was the same then. By discovering natural laws, and then seeing that they are constant throughout time, we can make educated guess into the past.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    You previously admitted that the fossil record is full of gaps, and I even quoted two pro-evolution paleontologists making the same admission. Now you are telling me that "unfossilized remains of the last million years or so the transition is clearly there."

    There are no such remains and there is no dating method that goes back a million years. You are spinning the usual Atheist Religion theology and acts of faith: making claims for which there is no evidence.


    Zach F Wrote:
    Former Member Wrote:I am still waiting for your explanation of where the supposed "Common Ancestor" came from. How did it come to life without a god to breathe life into it? Without the supposed "Common Ancestor," evolution theory cannot even make it from Point A to Point B.
    I've already addressed the abiogenisis issue. There really are no solid ideas yet. What your argument boils down to is "don't know; therefore god." The old "god of the gaps" argument. Neil deGrasse Tyson does an excellent job of explaining why that argument makes no sense and can be extremely damaging.
    No, you have not addressed the abiogenesis issue. You are running from the abiogenesis problem: life coming to life by itself from non-life. Abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists in 1859. They proved that organic life can only result from preexisting life.

    "In 1859, Louis Pasteur entered a contest sponsored by The French Academy of Sciences to examine the now hotly contested spontaneous generation [abiogenesis] controversy, the same year as the publication of The Origin of Species. In the contest, Pasteur decisively undermined the concept of spontaneous generation [abiogenesis]."
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/01/darwin%e2%80%99s-framework-self-organiz...


    Stanley Miller tried to create life from non-life in the 1950's, in controlled laboratory conditions, and failed miserably. He managed to produce several proteins but nothing that resembled life. The only thing Miller managed to prove in his failed experiments was that it required an intelligent being to create life (with Miller himself being the intelligent being, failure that he was).

    Zach F Wrote:I've already addressed the abiogenisis issue. There really are no solid ideas yet. What your argument boils down to is "don't know; therefore god." The old "god of the gaps" argument. Neil deGrasse Tyson does an excellent job of explaining why that argument makes no sense and can be extremely damaging.
    Neil deGrasse Tyson cannot argue his way around the issue of abiogenesis, neither can any atheist who insists there is no Jehovah. So do not waste my time giving me weblinks to third-party websites that I have no intention of visiting. If you want to quote a source, quote it here, within your post. I do not click links that are not accompanied by a relevant quotation from the source.



    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:You say that only a god could have started life, but have still provided zero evidence that a god even exists. Assuming you are able to do that, then who breathed life into that god? Another god? Well then who breathed life into that god? But let's start at the beginning. Show me there is a god and we can go from there.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    The evidence for God's existence is in our fine-tuned universe. It is not my problem that members of the Religion of Atheism insist that precision happened by itself. To get around that problem, they then try to make an issue of who created God, as if somehow that will compensate for their inability at explaining why our universe is so fine-tuned.

    Jehovah is not an organic being. He cannot be limited to the restrictions he placed upon mortal humans. Scripture says Jehovah does not have a beginning, that he has always existed.

    "Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Psalms 90:2 -- New World Translation)


    "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)


    We know that all organic beings required a creator. So where did the "common ancestor" come from so that all other organic beings on earth could have then evolved from it? Deal with that.



    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Again, need evidence. Words in a book alone are not evidence. Just like the Harry Potter series is not evidence that Hogwarts exists. You are using circular reasoning. "God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is right because it was inspired by God." There zero evidence is that claim. This image is what your claim boils down to.

    How do we all know that organic being needs a creator? What leads you to this conclusion? How can we be sure that life isn't one of things that happens to matter under the right circumstances? You can deliver all the philosophical platitudes that you want, you still need to present evidence.

    Also, atheist isn't a religion. It's a default position. "Off" isn't a TV channel. "Not skiing" isn't a sport. There are already entire threads on this site explaining how atheist is only a term because so many people in the world are superstitious and believe in some sort of mythos that a name was needed for people who aren't.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Former Member Wrote:
    Zach F Wrote:
    Former Member Wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    So you are basically telling me that yours is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D. To put it simply, evolution theory is the religious theology of the atheist. It is an act of faith since there are no fossils to show that anything evolved. An act of faith, but you and other atheists have the nerve to criticize Christians for accepting the Genesis creation account.
    It's not faith at all. When you look at unfossilized remains of the last million years or so the transition is clearly there. Then you take all the current observations. See that they are consistent with all the evidence. After than you can extrapolate backwards in time to the eras that were so long ago that time has damaged much of the evidence. Using natural laws. A parallel to this would be gravity. We know that acceleration that Earth's gravity has on an object. We've known that the Earth has been pretty much the same size for the last 4.5 billion years or say. So it is pretty safe to say that Earth's gravity was the same then. By discovering natural laws, and then seeing that they are constant throughout time, we can make educated guess into the past.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    You previously admitted that the fossil record is full of gaps, and I even quoted two pro-evolution paleontologists making the same admission. Now you are telling me that "unfossilized remains of the last million years or so the transition is clearly there."

    There are no such remains and there is no dating method that goes back a million years. You are spinning the usual Atheist Religion theology and acts of faith: making claims for which there is no evidence.


    Zach F Wrote:
    Former Member Wrote:I am still waiting for your explanation of where the supposed "Common Ancestor" came from. How did it come to life without a god to breathe life into it? Without the supposed "Common Ancestor," evolution theory cannot even make it from Point A to Point B.
    I've already addressed the abiogenisis issue. There really are no solid ideas yet. What your argument boils down to is "don't know; therefore god." The old "god of the gaps" argument. Neil deGrasse Tyson does an excellent job of explaining why that argument makes no sense and can be extremely damaging.
    No, you have not addressed the abiogenesis issue. You are running from the abiogenesis problem: life coming to life by itself from non-life. Abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists in 1859. They proved that organic life can only result from preexisting life.

    "In 1859, Louis Pasteur entered a contest sponsored by The French Academy of Sciences to examine the now hotly contested spontaneous generation [abiogenesis] controversy, the same year as the publication of The Origin of Species. In the contest, Pasteur decisively undermined the concept of spontaneous generation [abiogenesis]."
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/01/darwin%e2%80%99s-framework-self-organiz...


    Stanley Miller tried to create life from non-life in the 1950's, in controlled laboratory conditions, and failed miserably. He managed to produce several proteins but nothing that resembled life. The only thing Miller managed to prove in his failed experiments was that it required an intelligent being to create life (with Miller himself being the intelligent being, failure that he was).

    Zach F Wrote:I've already addressed the abiogenisis issue. There really are no solid ideas yet. What your argument boils down to is "don't know; therefore god." The old "god of the gaps" argument. Neil deGrasse Tyson does an excellent job of explaining why that argument makes no sense and can be extremely damaging.
    Neil deGrasse Tyson cannot argue his way around the issue of abiogenesis, neither can any atheist who insists there is no Jehovah. So do not waste my time giving me weblinks to third-party websites that I have no intention of visiting. If you want to quote a source, quote it here, within your post. I do not click links that are not accompanied by a relevant quotation from the source.



    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
    I know of all the experiments that you are talking about and NONE of them show that God is the only way life can come about. No where in the experiment is the idea of God even tested. None of them even involve God. There have been zero successful experiments that show that God even exists or that any kind of supreme being has any sort of influence over the world. Miller's experiment showed that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can form on their own under the right circumstances. And please, watch the Neil deGrasse Tyson video that I linked. He demonstrates why your "god of the gaps" point of view is wrong and how it can be damaging to education.
  • Independent
    Los Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:Abiogenisis wasn't debunked, the experiment did not confirm the hypothesis. The experiment also did not refute the hypothesis. Your knowledge in the scientific method seems to be grossly lacking. Take Newton and gravity for example. His calculation showed the the solar system shouldn't be stable. According to Newton's own calculations, planets should have been thrown from the solar system or crashed into the sun long ago. By the logic that you are using, you would say that only the hand of god could keep the planets in check. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what Newton said. Newton invoked the idea of God to explain things that were unexplainable at the time. We now know that the solar system is actually quite stable and the math backs up that idea. But Newton used the "god of the gaps" and then gave up. Which is really sad. The thing is, we just don't know how life originally started. We are still looking to uncover evidence and test hypothesis. There is just not enough evidence to make anykind of educated guess.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ZACH F:

    Of course it was debunked. Your denials will not change reality. I quoted the source which said in plain language that Louis Pasteur debunked abiogenesis theory in 1859. Here is the quotation again. Notice the words that are in bold print.

    "In 1859, Louis Pasteur entered a contest sponsored by The French Academy of Sciences to examine the now hotly contested spontaneous generation [abiogenesis] controversy, the same year as the publication of The Origin of Species. In the contest, Pasteur decisively undermined the concept of spontaneous generation [abiogenesis]."


    Notice that abiogenesis was not merely undermined, it was "decisively" undermined. Below is the definition of the word "undermine." Focus on definition #4.

    "Full Definition of UNDERMINE

    transitive verb
    1: to excavate the earth beneath : form a mine under : sap
    2: to wash away supporting material from under
    3: to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly
    4: to weaken or ruin by degrees


    Below is another source that confirms abiogenesis theory aka spontaneous generation was debunked. Notice the words that are in bold print.

    DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS GENERATION":
    "the theory, now discredited, that living organisms can originate in nonliving matter independently of other living matter; abiogenesis"
    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/spontaneous-generation


    Now, if you want to continue denying that abiogenesis/spontaneous generation was not debunked aka discredited aka decisively undermined, go ahead and deny.


    ________________
    "That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It wasn't debunked. The experiments that were preformed did not confirm the hypothesis. They also did not debunk the hypothesis. Again, we can go to Newton and his gravity calculations. We go to the Higgs-Boson particle. We can look at hundreds of different scientific experiments and mathematical calculations that did not work at first.

    We simply just aren't sure how life began. And in science "I don't know" is a wonderful phrase. It means there is still a lot more to learn and discover. But like I, and you, have said before, the building blocks of life have formed which is the first step towards life. What we do know for sure is that roughly 4 billion years ago life started showing up on Earth. Evolution is a process which influenced how that life developed after it started showing up.

    Please, take the time to watch the Neil deGrasse Tyson video that I linked you. It explains why your "don't know, therefore god" argument is wrong and how it has been extremely damaging throughout history (in addition to the fact that there is zero evidence to back up your claim).