Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by Alter2Ego, May 27, 2018.

  1. I think Genesis made it pretty clear 'it was evening and it was morning the first day'.

    I really enjoy the hypothesis of Barry Setterfield, essentially that atomic processes/atomic time has been slowing down, as well as the speed of light. So the day is still the same as far as the planetary movement in relation to the sun, but the atomic processes were much faster. This is grossly oversimplified of course, but worth checking out if it piqued your interest.

    Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
  2. Matthew 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.

    The seven churches is in Revelation. Way too much to type here.

    I hated Sunday school. Found every way I could to get out of it. None of my friends had to go. Doing time as a juvenile I went to Sunday services to get refreshments. It was also coed.
    Maybe 20 years ago (?) I got tired of everybody telling me their religion is right and everybody else's religion is wrong. So I started reading the book for myself. I have read it straight through cover to cover I'm guessing about 8 times over the years. It takes around 4 to 6 months for me. And that's skipping all the begats and getting straight to the story. I've also sat through some Bible college classes, but not for any merit or degree. I'm just interested enough for my own personal understanding. My favorite classes were the book of Genesis and the book of Acts. I don't claim to be some kind of expert or theologian. I'm just a guy who's confident in his eternity. I put my pants on one leg at a time. I'm certainly not the SOB from the main office with all the answers.
    Me, myself, laying in bed in the dark at the end of the day, this is what I believe. A lot of things are interesting to some degree. I'm just not interested "enough" to study into the big bang or evolution or searching for other life in space. Lacking that in-depth knowledge, why would I debate that? The OP asked about the origin of organic life, and what he got was a lot of "aw, the Bible is just a bunch of made up fairy tales to keep stupid people in line" and wacky made up renditions of the stories and outright misquotes. There's nothing quite like watching intelligent people step on their dicks. Why can't people just debate/discuss/banter/share what they know? I already got a handle on what evolutionist think of God and the Bible. I was hoping to discover something more about what they think about evolution.
    On one hand, I intended to bring some inaccuracies to attention, but on the other hand, I'm beginning to feel like I jacked the whole damned thread. But on the other hand, it didn't look like it was going anywhere anyways. But on the other hand, perhaps the OP will return in 5 years and ask the same question from a different angle. Again. Meanwhile, I think I need to go out to the patio and medicate.
  3. It's easy for me to read it that way too. There is the camp who tries to take the evolution story, and take the creation story, and try to "fit" them together. Seems an attempt to make the Bible credible. I'm convinced it does the opposite, but I'm still open to listen.

    You got a specific link you'd like to point me to or should I just google the name for random picks?
    My interest would be to read up on it some, then check for examples in the Bible for verification. But it sounds interesting.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. First, I will give my oppinion on your three questions, then I will elaborate on some other points. Of course, it goes without saying, these are not things I am overly versed on, only things I've contemplated throughout life.

    QUESTION 1: How did evolution's common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

    I don't know, we don't know, and we can not claim we could say either way if this is absolutly possible or not with any certainity. But, my assumption would be, because carbon, carbon loves to hook up with other elements. We're a whole lot of carbon, so, I'll assume because of the properties of carbon. But, as far as I know, we have created a situation that could suggest organic life could result from non organic life. I've cited what I am speaking of, further down this post.

    QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

    We didn't evolve from modern day apes, it is posited that we share a common ancestor, and nothing about survival of the fittest, that I know of, means one group has to end when another arises.

    Could I ask why you would assume this would be the case?

    QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

    If Earth is as old as we believe, that's why... I think we loose context of how vast this land is, and how time changes so much, especially when we speak of that scale.

    But, this is a bad argument, because we continually have found fossil records that more and more connect a suggestable link and transition from and between, at the least, ape to man, so maybe we've found no "smoking gun", but we have continually found more and more evidence that suggest these things.

    Now, for the rest of what I say, please know nothing is intended as an attack. I do have my own belifes, or at the least assumptions, but, I am not trying to claim any of us could know with real certainity, either way.

    But, in your opening statment, there are a few issues.

    As far as I know, Darwin never claimed all species come from one single ancestor.

    Essentially, he spoke of how, let's say one bird adapted to a new eviroment and changed in certain ways that distinguish it as a seperate species, but still, came from a commonly shared ancestor, within it's species.

    I may be wrong, and clarify, with citations, if that is the case.

    Also, please cite your claim "Credible scientific evidence has also proven that organic life cannot result from non-life."

    As far as I know, Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism, suggests otherwise.

    We (Athieist) do not claim there is no creator of life, only that there is no concious hand involved, and religion is simply stories and fables. By the way, stories and fables I'm cool with for the most part, and am in support of, for the most part.

    The sun "creates" life, but, most of us generally are fine with assuming it's unconcious and has no intention of it's own.

    Yes, Genisis accounts for that which will come, which we can assume to mean a couple things, (that which we've yet to learn of, or, that which comes from that which is), but, please clarify what you mean by, "up to a set point".

    I am no theological scholar, but I am not sure what you are referencing, from scripture.

    Your ending statment really bothers me though. You are making claims that seem more bias than supported. Please post the compelling evidence you speak of. I would side with the idea we are in position, and do not have the capabilites to make these claims with certainty, only find things, in our limited ability, that suggests one thing or the other.

    Now, here are a couple other points, some relate directly to your post and some are off shoots.

    I belive life likely does share, ultimatly, a single origin. Though, even if that is not the case, I belive we are apes. Though, I don't know, this is just what I'm leaning to based on how I see things.

    If you look at our social order, our actions, our responses, our physical features, etc. etc. etc. in the context of an ape, we start making so much more sense than if you look at us in the context of some sort of planned divinity.

    Though I share in the idea that there is likely no concious creator, it's not like an explination will ever make "rational" sense.

    I've heard people say "God is a myth because who made God", and I've heard people say, "God is real, because without God, who made this", and neither side seems to realize they are saying the same thing:

    "Something came from nothing, but how? Has it just always been? But how?" No possible possited outcome makes any sense in a way we would call "rational".
  5. Evolution was nothing less then a bad theory .
    There are many scientific facts that make the theory of evolution impossible .

    As a kid I had a play toy top that I would spin on the hard wood floors .
    The top would spin for a few seconds then slow down and fall over because of friction from spinning on the floor and gravity.
    Evolution isn't magic and some how evolutionist bypass the fact that earth spins in a gravitational field and friction because earth has the moon pulling on it ( High Tides ) and a atmosphere that causes friction.
    With that thought in mind is or does the earth slow down every year .
    The answer is yes the earth is slowing down about 2 tenth of a second every year.
    So I ask myself how fast was the earth turning two hundred and fifty million years ago.
    Answer is 213.000 miles per hour and there wouldn't be life or water nor trees on earth .
    This isn't something I made up and its easy to look what I have said up on the internet .
    Please do your own search like I did .
    How quickly was the Earth rotating 250 million years ago?
    I ran across this.
    9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Sorry, but if you continue reading your first link, this fella has it closer. There are other factors to consider also; like changing tides tectonic plate movement, etc.

    The Wikipedia article you linked states:

    Atomic clocks show that a modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago

    If we take this change of 1.7 ms/century and multiply by 2.5 million centuries (250 million years) then we get a change of 4,250 seconds or 1.18 hours. So 250 million years ago the day length would have been 22.82 hours.

    The circumference of the Earth around the equator is 40,075 km, so the speed of rotation at the equator would have been about 1,750 km/hr or about 1,092 mph. The current speed is 1,670 km/hr or about 1,040 mph.


    If you're interested, the paper "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit", Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 37–60, 2000, by George E. Williams discusses the day length changes since the Precambrian. There is a PDF available here. From his figure 2 the estimate of 22.8 hours 250 million years ago looks pretty close.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. To be honest I could really don't give much of a damn how the universe got here or where it is going, we are all going to die one day and knowing this secret won't give us immortality (at least far as I know) so I am just going to enjoy my life and live it to the best I can, just in case we do only live once (who really knows) and far as we know there could be a God or several and they used evolution as a tool to create and enable living beings to become God like.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1

  8. If evolution is true why is two planets spinning in the opposite direction ?
    That one fact destroys the theory of evolutions big bang theory to shit .
    When something is spinning you get centrifugal force. when something flies off because of centrifugal force
    in a friction environment everything spins in one direction.
    In a non friction environment everything spins in the opposite direction then a friction environment .
    The fact there are two planets spinning in the opposite direction how can evolution explain this ?
    I guess evolution doesn't care about centrifugal force laws and the laws of gravity …

    There is a couple of planets that they have two or more moons that the moon's are orbiting the planets in different directions .
    That isn't possible if evolutions big bang theory is true

  9. Evolution VS creation debate
  10. Gravity and momentum come into play.
    To me the big bang and evolution are not necessarily reliant on each other.

    I believe that if I was an omnipotent being, that evolution and the way Earth has slowly been filled with resources, that we either depend on or that enhances our survival, the set it and forget it approach would be best. Trigger the action knowing that natural gases, oil, conductive and pliable metals, etc will be there for my future peoples to discover and utilize.

  11. Aliens from other planets are responsible for human beings' existence.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Humans only exist in the daydream of a space alien. None of us are really here.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. I am not saying the things mentioned have to be wrong, only, what was presented in the 9 facts link should not be presented as "scientific facts", just as evolution should not claimed to be a scientific fact (though it is, theory = fact in natural phenomenon, even though that word is misused and misunderstood almost universally by people...)

    I think we tend to forget, we severely overestimate our abilities...

    Anyways, first point, the article's author does not know what the word theory means when applied to natural phenomenons.

    Their comment about inuit's is as flawed as saying "if evolution is real, why don't we open up a jar of peanut butter and find new life"... And where these things are talked about in the article, get really poorly stated and conflated.

    And the article continues to present these things as false and continues to use trigger words to influence our opinion of these things, yet offers nothing somehow more tangible... that's a sign. Someone who can tell you everything something isn't but can't tell you what it is... they generally just have something to sale...

    Their "The Indoctrination System Called 'Education'" get's really preachy and... I don't know, is ironically intended to indoctrinate an idea.

    I'll quit writing, if I don't, this will get long.

    But this article can not be suggested as facts, and the fact that the continue to reinforce the things that are said by inappropriately/wrongly used trigger words, discredits the author even more in my opinion.

    Still, every one of these facts should be called suggested evidence. Just as every "fact" about evolution should be claimed the same. And come one... this person shits on evolution yet speaks as if intelligent design is somehow on more solid ground.

    Also, the 7th fact really disappoints me, because the author is giving absolutely false information. There is absolutely nothing about the second law that contradicts evolution.

    These theories may be flawed, again, though I side with this, at least that we are apes, whether we evolved from a common ancestor all other apes share, or are simply a single ape species separate to themselves. But, there are no "facts that disprove" anything in here, only suggestions... many of which are not well reasoned.

    Again, not saying evolution can't be wrong, we really aren't as smart as we'd like to imagine, we have scores more hubris in us than insight, but, this is article is poorly written. Though, it uses a lot of words that would compel those with doubt, still, these are poor reasoning's that ignore so many factors and make so many assumptions, most of which, hinge on our ability to understand something.
  14. IDTENT:
    If, as you now claim, it is common knowledge that there is, to quote you: "enormous amount of evidence in support of evolution" it's very telling that you are now stalling. You have yet to present even one iota of evidence in support of the mythical evolution theory.

    By the way, I fully expected you to play the role of Artful Dodger when I called your bluff.

    You did not disappoint.

  15. Can I ask what is so overwhelming suggested about what you believe?

    To be fair, nothing proves, without a doubt, anyone's idea of origin, but, the idea of evolution is well suggested through observation. Doesn't make it fact, only that it's the best theory based on what we can observe. Now, nothing "proves" it, but, in things like these, you can't really have "proof". There is no math, there is nothing concrete that can prove anything when speaking of these concepts. All we have is observable and physical evidence that suggests this, over anything else that is posited, and as time goes on, the picture gets better and better connected (fossil records).

    Of course, it could be wrong, and we could be seeing/dating/etc., wrong.

    But, we have fossil records, and though they do not come close in numbers, compared to all life that has been, you gotta understand, we haven't been doing this long, and the world is vast, and time changes so much.

    If you are speaking of evolution, in it's purest form, selective breeding proves it. Meaning, if you see evolution simply as being a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

    The fact that you can only find some animals in specific parts of the world suggest evolution. There are some animals that are only in some parts of the world. Though they share in the same species, they developed independently and have adapted and changed in ways different then others from other regions. This is something we can observe, so this is what we can consider.

    Our records can help back up the idea of evolution. The older the things are that we find, the less complex they are, the less diverse they are. The further down we go, the simpler things get. This suggest that complexity of life arose over time. This is observable, so this is what we can consider.

    The structural anatomy of each species is essentially a reprint in different forms across the board. Mammals are all similar to other mammals. Even when you strip down a whale, you have a similar structure, in terms of anatomy. This is observable, so this is what we can consider.

    Embryology is something that suggest evolution. The beginning stages of life for a fish, human, chicken, bird, etc., it's all so similar, not to mention origin, (sperm/egg and the couple variations of reproduction) is really common. This is observable, so this is what we can consider.

    Biochemistry suggest evolution. DNA/RNA, that shit's in everything that lives on this planet, and is the same, it's just built in a different order. You got four bases to work with, whether you're a human, or a tree. The cellular similarity is observable, and that too suggest evolution. These things are observable, so this is what we can consider.

    There are other things, but these are a few, tangible things, that suggest evolution over other ideas of origin.

    Again, none of this means it's fact, only, what alternative has better observable evidence and takes less assumptions?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. You are on to something here mate but i doubt we can even work anything out this way.

    If our clocks shows now that our days are longer by 1.7ms per day than a century ago, a doubt that that 1.7ms stayed consistent for 2.5m centuries. If the weight of the world has anything to do with it I'm sure its heavier now than ever and will be dragging through space compared to however many years ago, but that's a different subject.

    If that 1.7ms is visible over the last century what about the century before that one to the last one? Did that stay the same? The answer is there will be no records to show the answer as this experiment wasn't done until recently I'm guessing.

    We'd have to record time for the next 5 centuries to understand the (latency?) of the previous 5 centuries from now. I'm going to make a chart based on what I'm getting at without explaining and confusing everyone too much.

    1518 -8.5ms
    1618 -6.8ms
    1718 -5.1ms
    1818 -3.4ms
    1918 -1.7ms
    2018 -0ms
    2118 +1.7ms
    2218 +3.4ms
    2318 +5.1ms
    2418 +6.8ms
    2518 +8.5ms


    1518 -30.6ms
    1618 -20.4ms
    1718 -11.9ms
    1818 -5.1ms
    1918 -1.7ms
    2018 -0ms
    2118 +1.7ms
    2218 + 5.1ms
    and so on..

    My pattern probably didn't exist, but I imagine time accumulated similar. Leaving that 13 billion year old globe a lot less younger, maybes even a billion years younger but I'd love to smoke weed for that billion years!

    Maybes I'm just too baked..?
  17. Where did it come from, then?

    I believe you are going to say “God” - correct?

    I see the question of evidence being tossed back and forth here.

    If you do answer “God”, can you show evidence of He/She/It and how life was breathed into inorganic matter?

    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Thanks for you comment, for days i was looking for a long forgotten song and i couldn't remember. It was Artful Dodger- Movin' too fast.:D

    Evolution theory is proven wrong. Every species has a genetic code, to make a new species this genetic code needs an input from outside. Nature doesn't do that. We have a saying here that from a dog you can't make bacon.

    After there are the phony religions, all claiming that they have the truth and if you follow them you get some prize after you die.Good luck with that.

    By logic there can only be one truth about the creation of life or our solar system.
  19. Could you elaborate further? Of course, your response was not intended for me, and I've already conceded that there is nothing that proves this even though I side with the idea, still, I would like a further elaboration.

    If nature can not allow the creation of new species, why do we find certain species and a lack of species depending on the era?

    Why do we find less complicated life the further we go back? Of course this could be simply us not digging in the right areas, and of course our fossil record is far from complete and historically fouled by many a diggers ego, but, the overall point remains. The further back we go, the less complex things are.

    What you are premising is that humans lived with dinosaurs. Again, I'm not saying the current thinking of evolution is infallible, or even close to complete, and it's not proven, but, as far as I know, nothing disproves it.

    Would you please cite evidence of what you are speaking of?

    Also, our logic would say many things that quantum mechanics doesn't care about. We can't assume our sense of logic can be applied to the natural world all of the time. Because we've found, time and time again, that it can't.

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page