Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by IamJoseph, Jul 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Wrong. Form is nothingness. The universe created itself out of nothing and will return to nothing. If you accept the general outline of genesis, then you must accept when scientists elaborate on it using the scientific method. Like Jesus said, I have not come to contradict the law, but to fulfill it. Of course his statements tended to be somewhat too radical for many people of his time to accept it, but eventually they saw the truth of it. The same thing will happen with Darwinian evolution. People will realize that Genesis isn't literal, it's a creation myth. It is rather amazing that it eludes to a gradual process of improvement, but then that's something you can see all around you to this day. Women didn't come from ribs, the sexes appeared long, long ago as an innovation to increase diversity and therefore adaptability.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    This is genesis. Nothingness does not happen by itself, nor can it turn to something by itself. 'CREATE' is a technical term varied from FORM, the difference being it was made to happen that way.


    Science is nothing other than how things work, and has nothing to do with how something comes to work that way.

    That is the furtherest removal from truth possible. Not a single law was successfully fullfilled away despite every effort to do so. None can dent the Hebrew laws - all world accepted laws come from the Hebrew bible - exclusively. You cannot name a single law or advocation from Jesus - name a single good premise and I will follow it. But you don't have one.

    Which part is myth?

    You don't know Hebrew. There is no way of translating that word - rib is a latin/greek misnomer. The focus is that the first human was dual gendered, with no alternative applying.

    Define 'appeared' scientifically. Did the chip in your cell phone also appear that way?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Darwin said nothing about origins - because he does not have any answers, nor can he. In contrast, Creator-Creation is a scientific premise, as is CAUSE AND EFFECT. My science says a car manual proves a car maker - more so than not.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Pls be more specific. I have already pointed out a host of reasonings which you have not addressed, beginning with the universe being finite - yes/no? Here, apples and oranges apply.
     
  8. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Medicine is a faculty of science. Medicine, and its seperation from occultism, comes from the Hebrew bible - the first recording of malignancies, its ID, quarantine and treatment, and the premise of contagious and infectious deseases. Yes/no?
     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    I'm struggling to find any point whatsoever in this discussion, perhaps the OP can enlighten me.

    IamJoseph - can you please explain to me the following.

    Suppose for a moment that you are actually right in saying that ToE comes from Genesis:

    How is this in any way useful?

    How and why does this lead us to any meaningful insights that we wouldn't get by taking the classical view that Darwin's ideas originated from the observations he made while on the Beagle voyage?


    In the new taxonomical system you are proposing where organisms are classified primarily by their environment, what new insights into ToE does this give us that classical Linnean taxonomy does not?
    How and why is your method of classification more useful?
     
  10. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    IMHO, there is no question that Darwin's premises came from and was influenced by Genesis - the precedent factor says so.

    However, your question is an intelligent one, but also it is negatively inclined with no warranted reason, when it should be inclined in the reverse. If we have a foundational premise for life's processes, it can only be as instructions and basic premises and principles - it does not have to include factors such as taxonomy - which is a later effect based on the premise when pursued.

    The reverse of your question is my counter: why should we not recognise the original instruction - we may find some new clues and we may correct errors. One such thought is that life originally emerged as a duality - which can impact our held premises in a different mode in its application and pursuit of life span, cures for deseases and quality of life. The other is that before we get to the process of evolution - we have to also consider what precedent impacts anticipated that process - again it may give new directions: does rainfall, oceans and sunlight - or the lacking of it - effect the process of evolution? - if yes, it can give us new modes of growing pineapples and flowers in the desert or indoor.

    What causes this fiery rejection of the blatancy where such premises originally comes from - it is certainly not based on empirical deductions, but appears an overflow of inter-religious effectations, and primarilly as a compensatory effect with those who have long rejected their beliefs and now want to do the same with all beliefs. But Genesis is not ALL BELIEF nor applying to the relatively recent term of RELIGIONS - Genesis predates by 2000 years when Christianity and islam never existed nor followed any of its advocations - and those do not mention anything of the earth and life's origins. Why not also negate all Judiciary and animal rights laws - non of them came from the NT or Quran, yet they can be termed religious myth?
     
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    thats mostly just meaningless waffle - seriously - I could barely make head nor tail of it.

    the only part where you even attempted an answer to the question was this bit:

    "does rainfall, oceans and sunlight - or the lacking of it - effect the process of evolution? - if yes, it can give us new modes of growing pineapples and flowers in the desert or indoor."

    but you failed to explain why using your viewpoint would lead to more useful results.

    try again
     
  12. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    The only waffling concerns the denial and not seeing where evolution was first derived from - its abnormal. With regard future knowledge, I gave examples, I don't have to give a proven application how we can benefit from it - why don't you do that? Your subsequent question is only an affirmation of good reason to refer to the origins where Evolution comes from - there are many gaps in ToE and there is still much to learn.
     
  13. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    If you expect anyone to to give serious consideration to your notions then you need to explain why they lead to a better understanding and how they can be used to do this - and you need to explain VERY specifically.

    if you cant do this then whether they are right or not is irrelevant - if your notions cannot be used for any useful outcome or to develop a successful methodology that leads to one then they have no practical purpose and can therefore be safely ignored.
     
  14. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    I don't think so. It does not change the facts.
     
  15. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    I'm not debating what you perceive to be the facts - I'm asking you what practical difference these "facts" make - why they might turn out to be useful.

    If they arent useful they arent important.
     
  16. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    Meteorites contains amino acid and proteins( neccessary for seeds ) and they are seeds of planets.first meteorites germinate in asteroids and after that some asteroids convert in big planets. this is the only complete mechanism of planet formation. or we can say planets have biological growth like a tree and having same bark around it . one planet is a result of one meteor only.i need your help on this issue.i have lot of visual and intelligent evidence that we can go in this direction. however i have not any scientific evidence as i am without any facility.i am just a small metal man only.
     
  17. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Suresh - you and IamJoseph are made for each other
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Joseph needs to read The Blind Watchmaker, by Dawkins. It explains how complexity does not always imply a creator.

    Darwin talks extensively about the origin of species, but not the origin of life itself. That wasn't an oversight, that was just his focus at the time. His theory implies that life came from simpler forms, and when a form of life is extremely simple, it's origins are not so miraculous. We can see primitive examples of evolution using bare RNA molecules.

    Not true. The fossil record shows us that the sexes appeared long before there were any mammals. Even plants have sexes.
     
  19. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Hi IamJoseph, will you listen to some sincere advice? Stop reading Genesis for a while and read some science books. Science is not how things work. Science is a means of finding out the nature of the world. Science is not the knowledge we find by that means, but the way we go about uncovering that knowledge.

    Genesis contains, on that basis no science, only a few scraps of knowledge that mostly do not accord with our present understanding. (Our oresent understanding may be wrong in part, but it is not nearly as wrong as Genesis.)


    That's just silly. Are the laws followed in China based on Hebrew laws?
     
  20. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    What does prectical difference mean? As for facts, which are vindicated premises, they act as stimulents for extended knowledge. Look what the first facts of the division of life forms and the seed repro process did for Darwin and ToE.
     
  21. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Planets may well have formed that way - everything has an underlying process of its formation. I am saying that nothing in this process is random or acts by themselves, but are part of a bigger picture. If anything is seen as random, then it negates all science and enquirey.

    What Darwin concluded when he figured how some things work, is he screamed Eureka - it all happens of itself. That is like discovering how a car's steering works and negating the car maker. The notion of a maker does not rely on the maker being evidential - the work does that.
     
  22. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Dawkins is a fool. Nothing he says applies to a finite realmn.

    If simpler life forms are seen as simple, the universe would be teeming with it. There is no question that prior to life on this planet, a host of unique and critical anticipatory actions had to occur - Darwin does not focus on these all important factors, which resulted in ToE'ists depending on Darwin as the cause of life. In actual logic, there is nothing on earth that is simple - a simple life form is more complicated than a human in some ways - it requires less parts to be alive. I agree with Genesis that the waters had to be seperated from the land, among other similar actions, prior to life's emergence.

    Who contested this? I agree with Genesis that the original sex intity had to be dual gendered. Considering there is no such thing as 'nature' - there is no alternative to Genesis.
     
  23. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Science is one of the faculties - the others are math, history, geography, etc, etc. These are all after the fact premesis. There is the car, the car making manual, the car buyers and the car maker: which came first?

    Then tell me which part of Genesis is wrong in comparison to ToE - specifically?

    Let me put it this way. If China is not observing the laws in the Hebrew bible, the rest of the world sees her as operating outside the law. E.g. this would apply if China's judiciary system does not offer an accused an independent defense or if the judge has no arms length from the accuser or if only one party is heard.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page