Genesis Account vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). When asked how life came from non-life by itself, atheists have no credible answer.
CREATION is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God Jehovah 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. The scientific evidence supports creationism. (Source: LIFE–How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)
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.
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
QUESTION #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). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?
QUESTION #2. The premise of biological/organic evolution is the “survival of the fittest,” that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?
QUESTION #3. How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

QUESTION #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). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?
You expect there to be fossil records of single cell organisms that are way up the evolutionary pathway? Never mind the earlier versions of self replicating chemical reactions where the definition of 'life' starts to become fuzzy.
QUESTION #2. The premise of biological/organic evolution is the “survival of the fittest," that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?
The claim older versions of a creature disappear when newer ones evolved is false. Secondly, humans and apes shared a common ancestor, humans didn't come from modern apes. Asking why there are still apes is like asking why is there still Europeans when Americans came from them.
QUESTION #3. How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?
Self replicating chemical reactions which grew in complexity and then grew to such complexity that life as we generally understand it started to exist. Now that your questions have been answered, submit your evidence for the existence of some god. Referencing old books or personal experience will be dismissed as invalid evidence. Provide independently verifiable evidence that does not require belief or faith. You can even start by first trying to propose a logical argument for the existence of some god instead of direct evidence for actual existence.
Now that your questions have been answered, submit your evidence for the existence of some god
The earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth and god scattered dinosaur bones around as a joke on the non-believers. :) These people need to watch an episode of Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/13_ways_neil_degrasse_tysons_cosmos_sent_the_religious_right_off_the_deep_end_partner/
Now that your questions have been answered, submit your evidence for the existence of some god
The earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth and god scattered dinosaur bones around as a joke on the non-believers. :) These people need to watch an episode of Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/13_ways_neil_degrasse_tysons_cosmos_sent_the_religious_right_off_the_deep_end_partner/
It wouldn't get through to them. They know better than to fall for scientific conspiracies. Lois
It wouldn’t get through to them.
Questions like these are not posed in actual search of evidence. They are attempting to use faulty logic to appear like they have proven their point. Science seeks answers. Inherent in this is the fact that all the answers are not known. This is twisted into the conclusion that "Ah ha! You cannot prove every aspect of evolution, therefore Creationism must be the answer!" Sad.
QUESTION #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). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?
You expect there to be fossil records of single cell organisms that are way up the evolutionary pathway? Never mind the earlier versions of self replicating chemical reactions where the definition of 'life' starts to become fuzzy. Robert Walper: Now, why would anyone expect to find fossils of single cell organisms? Are you serious? I expect to see fossils of, for example, Creature A turning into Creature C. No transitional fossils exist (eg. Creature B) showing how ANY creature turned into something entirely different from what it started off as. Instead, as the pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit, all they find is gaps in the fossils record. In case you do not understand what "gaps" in the fossils translates to, notice how one paleontologist puts it. "Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.) That was stated in 1974. And guess what? Nothing has changed since then. In 1999, another paleontologist said the following: "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.) Alter2Ego
QUESTION #2. The premise of biological/organic evolution is the “survival of the fittest," that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?
The claim older versions of a creature disappear when newer ones evolved is false. Secondly, humans and apes shared a common ancestor, humans didn't come from modern apes. Asking why there are still apes is like asking why is there still Europeans when Americans came from them. Robert Walper: Of course that was the initial claim, but it was proven false by the fact that the “predecessors" of various creatures continue to exist alongside those that supposedly evolved from them. No wonder you are now trying to distance yourself away from that claim. The "survival of the fittest" claim by Charles Darwin and his disciples demanded that the "older version" of particular creatures die off when they were replaced by a more updated version aka “natural selection" because the updated version REPLACED the less likely to survive version. This is confirmed by the source below. When you click the weblink that follows the quotation, you will find the above under the subheading: “Words to Know". “Natural selection: Also referred to as "survival of the fittest," the process by which some organisms are better able to survive and reproduce in some present environment. In The Origin of Species, Darwin concluded that some individuals in a species are better equipped to find food, survive disease, and escape predators than others. He reasoned that these individuals are more likely to survive, mate, and produce offspring. Individuals that are not as well-adapted to their environment are less likely to survive, mate, and produce offspring. As a result, each generation of a population will consist of individuals that are better and better adapted to their environment. The overall characteristics of the population will change to reflect this better adaptation." http://www.scienceclarified.com/El-Ex/Evolution.html See that? According to Charles Darwin--Mr. Evolution himself--the survivors would be those that are better able to adapt to their environment aka survival of the fittest aka “natural selection." Darwin reasoned that the population would change to reflect this better adaptation. Humans are better able to survive than the apes from which they supposedly evolve; so why are apes still with us? Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend you’ve completely disproven evolution. Let’s say you’ve destroyed the theory and we’ve rejected it on that basis.
Now back to your position.
Submit your evidence for the existence of some god. Referencing old books or personal experience will be dismissed as invalid evidence. Provide independently verifiable evidence that does not require belief or faith. You can even start by first trying to propose a logical argument for the existence of some god instead of direct evidence for actual existence.

Alter does not wish to engage in a logical argument. Alter ignores valid logical arguments and responds with the same old tired points that have already been disproven. Debating with this person is an activity only Sisyphus could endur.

Don’t feed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
It’s all over the Internet: https://www.google.com/search?q=forum+alter2ego+JEHOVAH

Submit your evidence for the existence of some god.
That really ends the discussion. There is no proof of the existence of Jehovah any more than there is of Zeus or Thor. If the only answer is that it is in some book, I can similarly prove the existence of Hobbits (in a much better series of books I might add). Jehovah is the myth.

I’m sure Alter2Ego is just compiling a compelling argument for the existence of god. :lol:

Hello Paineman and welcome to the forum. I’ve been reading your posts and they’re insightful, besides the fact that you read Paine and quote “fighting Bob”, two of my favorite progressives. As to your last post, yes Alter, Hobbits did exist. Ok, paleoanthropologists borrowed the term from Tolkien but they were actual Hominin species found on the Island of Flores in Indonesia. One of nine nearly intact skeletons measured 3’6" and weighed 66lbs. They evolved, there’s that word again, from the Cro-Magnons who migrated there approx. 94,000 ya ( wow, they couldn’t have because the Earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is a myth OMG). In fact Britain’s leading Paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer posits that at least 4 hominin species existed simultaneously before extinction brought us down to Homo Sapiens. So, no “Great chain of being” but more like a branching tree. Alter likes to have a “post bye” taking a shot at Darwin (who published his works between 1859 and 1871) carefully remembering not to mention the literal mountains of info gathered over the past 150+ years sustaining Darwin’s original findings and those of his colleagues, namely Alfred Russell Wallace who came to the same conclusions. And the tireless “god of the gaps” is often brought out and dusted off for good measure, yawn. And while you’re on the subject of gods, Athena is my all time favorite. Can anyone of you skeptics disprove her existence? I think not. See the Odyssey; much better than Ares and patron of Odysseus. Ultimate proof of her existence and influence on man. Want physical proof? Visit her Earthly temple in Nashville.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
Cap’t Jack

re: “Hobbits” - Too bad the evidence did not include hairy feet. :slight_smile:
Ah, Athena. Included in my “college” coat of arms:Athena, a fully armed mythological goddess, is associated with the arts of war, and her helmet signifies wisdom and learning.
http://www.usma.edu/news/sitepages/coatofarmsandmotto.aspx
For some reason this link does not appear to work, even though I can go to the website independently. Oh, well.

You’re a West Point graduate? Impressive. And the last word isn’t in on the hairy feet! Yet. I borrowed your reference as a segue to Paleoanthropology, but I agree that the Trilogy is by far better written than the cobbled together biblical folk stories. Of course the biblical accounts of war far out way Tolkien’s even though they were inspired by his participation in WW I. Herzog’s book Battles of the Bible is a good example.
Cap’t Jack

But back on topic, for some reason I continue to be intrigued by this biblical Genesis theory and started digging up some things on the Internet that many of you may have already been aware. For example, I was curious what the Roman Catholic stance on this issue might be. I had heard that the current Pope was OK with evolution. Lo and behold, this article from back in November supports that: Pope backs evolution, Vatican calls creation ‘blasphemous’
http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2014/11/03/pope-backs-evolution-vatican-calls-creation-‘blasphemous’#.VOI3QvnF9PM
Who knew the Catholic Church was more progressive than half of the Protestants in America!

First of all, I have no Catholic background so no skin in the game so to speak. Mine is traditional mainstream Protestant with a fundamentalist twist. I can see however why the Pope is relaxing some of the strictures due to a rapid decline in membership. He wants to be more inclusive and that makes sense. Enticing you lapsed Catholics back into the fold and encouraging newcomers is a necessity if the church is to increase it’s membership, and recognizing the irrefutable facts of evolution plus other major issues involving scientific evidence is a plus.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-shows-progressive-views-marries-couples-technically-living-in-sin/
Cap’t Jack

the Pope is relaxing some of the strictures due to a rapid decline in membership
That may be (and as an aside, it won't work on me), but I can't but help in seeing this as something positive. While the fundamentalists dig in their heels by blindly and ignorantly believing that each and every word of whichever bible they happen to follow is dictation from god, at least there is one major church whose infallible head has said "Don't believe everything you read in the bible but look to where the preponderance of scientific evidence points." By the same token one can't but help to notice he picked an aspect of the bible about which there are really no moral issues beyond whether you believe what is written or not. He's not saying anything about birth control or homosexuality. It's not much, but it's something.
According to Charles Darwin--Mr. Evolution himself--the survivors would be those that are better able to adapt to their environment aka survival of the fittest aka “natural selection." Darwin reasoned that the population would change to reflect this better adaptation. Humans are better able to survive than the apes from which they supposedly evolve; so why are apes still with us? Alter2Ego
Yes the population certainly does change to reflect adaptation. It changed in the past and it continues to change today. Where you've got it wrong is that Humans did not REPLACE apes, we simply branched off from the same family tree. Apes that are alive today are just as highly evolved as we are for their particular environment. If you had read up on evolution with an eye toward actually understanding it, you would have caught this. But you don't want to understand it do you, because then you might (Horror of Horrors!) actually come to see how much sense it makes. :) Here's another interesting thing. You claim that evolution can't be right since we can't explain how life originated in the first place. But if you were honest, you would have to admit that YOU can't explain how your designer originated, so intelligent design can't be right either!
And while you're on the subject of gods, Athena is my all time favorite. Can anyone of you skeptics disprove her existence? I think not. See the Odyssey; much better than Ares and patron of Odysseus. Ultimate proof of her existence and influence on man. Want physical proof? Visit her Earthly temple in Nashville. Cap't Jack
I would not dream of attempting it. Athena was always my favorite of all the Greek gods as well. If the Bible had been dictated by her instead of Jehovah, I would take it much more seriously. But I do not see the relevance. Athena was wise enough not to claim that she had single-handedly created all of life on Earth. :)