Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    I don't need two whole days to explain what is blatant and factual, and where there is no other alternative premise being applicable. I correctly see this as a thread in the science sector, because I presented my arguements on this issue in a 'scientific mode' - before and now, and I am not religiously inclined. However, to dismiss a logical and vindicated premise only because it appears in a religious text is without credibility and escapist. One must examine what a text says - rather than dismiss it because where it comes from. That is what scientific thought is all about.

    Most atheists do this because they have either rejected their own particular beliefs and now want to include all scriptures in one green bag - that is hardly a scientific process, but notorious with ex-christians. They refer to the bible as inclusive of the Hebrew bible - when at no time did they ever observe it before or after Christianity emerged, but insist on their views dogmatically; they do not understand the Hebrew - the reason these are two seperate religious systems. This is exposed when Christian clerics argue and demand the earth is 6000 years old - told with no Jewish advocate adjacent in the program. Medevial Christianity has mass murdered millions in this digmatic belief, and has inculcated their dogma on millions of humans - thus the anxst and vehement rejection seen in ex-christians when mentioning Genesis. History exposes what was done to excellent minds in medevial Christian Europe - so imagine how ths impacted Jews, who had to remain deathly silent not to be burnt alive. Christianity has not just lost the battle to science - they have also lost their battle with the Hebrew bible. But this is not an attack to today's genuine Christian believers, only a disputation that Genesis is what Christianty teaches or understands.

    This thread is to seperate Christian unscientific dogma from the Hebrew bible. This requires a text to be debated independently, and a good point to start is with Darwin, as requested by the Monitors, subsequent to unending troll complains by one who is obviously effected by the syndrome of all scriptures belonging in one green bag: not my opinion but easily seen when the posts are read. If anything in this thread is subjected to the same treatment of casting all writ the same instead of independent appraisals - than no need to ban me - I will ban you - because it leaves no means of debating. All that is required is an open mind, free from the shakles of Christianity's premise of the Hebrew writings, and an unbaised scientific vew be made of what is stated instead.

    Re: “ Originally Posted by you
    Evolution itself comes from Genesis, even stated by Darwin himself.

    There are two clauses in the sentence, [1] that the premise of evolution comes from Genesis; and [2] that Darwin himself stated this. I believe the second clause the more pivotal request, so I will deal with this briefly, and if it is dismissed as opposed to debating it - it means I must leave this forum. The first clause is merely to list the primal definition and pillars of Darwin's evolution - and set them against the definitions and pillars of what Genesis says. The second clause should be dealt with first:

    [2] References that Darwin himself stated [and acknowledged] that his Evolution premises comes from Genesis. Here, the premise of 'OBSERVANCES' become a secondary and subjective factor, namely Darwin is saying his observances contradict what Genesis says and that his way is right [which will be seen is based exclusively on Christian Dogma].

    This will be seen in Darwin's own words, then by showing this is true by examining both Darwin's Evolution and Genesis' Evolution - namely his words could come from no other source than Genesis. Here are some of Darwin's own words, lifted from his autobiography:

    The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
    With original omissions restored
    Edited with Appendix and Notes
    by his grand-daughter
    Nora Barlow.
    (1958) http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

    1. During these two years[1] I was led to think much about religion. [# better, he was thinking about Genesis Chapter 1 - the first written record of how the universe and life emerged]. Whilst on board the Beagle

    I was quite orthodox
    , [# He knew all about Genesis]

    and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting Genesis as the Christian Bible as opposed the Hebrew bible

    as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.

    The opening para says he was deeply intrenched in Genesis' version of origins, that this was discussed with his colleagues, and that he eventually rejected Genesis - for which he submits some FX miracles which he asserts are unscientific and barbarous. Further:

    By further reflecting that the clearest evidence [# Darwin is saying why he rejects what he studied of Genesis, al biet by denoting this to Christianity - which says the earth is 6000 years old!]

    would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is suppoted, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree [# Error - the men who believed in Genesis were not all Christians - nor were they anything less than among the most intelligent in humanity]

    almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, [# Error - the Gospels has 'ZERO' to do with Genesis - it is a document wholly and totally vested in a localized divine man belief - the greatest antithesis to Genesis if there ever was one - but blatantly outside Darwin's radar]--

    that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; [# The Hebrew bible is not based on stray eye witnesses - it says 3 M Hebrews and a mixed multitude of others witnessed it, making it at least more 'theoretically' credible - the texts!]--

    by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

    The above should clarify that Darwin began his study which led him to ToE, and signified - in his own words - namely by rejecting what he studied of Genesis from the Christian views. This also means that his new views are based on an alternative to Genesis' evolution, namely the origins and graduated elevations of life. He says he is showing how his observances disprove Genesis. This is like saying he saw how some think a house is built, and that it is wrong - his way is the real, scientifically proven way how a house is built. This means his new way was initiated by first observing the old wrong way. Who's view is correct does not impact here and must be dealt with seperately [clause 1]. Darwin is NOT saying he has a new way of building a house, but that his way is the right way compared to Genesis - after he studied the Genesis way. His own words.


    Clause 2. To determine which way is right here, Darwin's or Genesis' - why don't those who uphold Darwin's way list 4 or 5 points [pillars of reasoning and definition] what ToE is saying, namely its primal factors, and then this will be set against the 4 or 5 primal factors of Genesis. How else?
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Your original claim was:

    I can find nothing in the mangled extracts you have posted here that shows that Darwin stated that his theory of evolution "comes from Genesis".

    Now, let's look at your misquoting in more detail.

    You inserted the statement that he was thinking about Genesis. What he wrote was that he was thinking about religion, and that's all. You're putting words in his mouth - again.

    Here, you actually misquote Darwin, inserting your own words as if they were his. What he wrote was

    He makes no mention of the Christian bible vs the Hebrew bible (whatever that is). Once again you are putting words into his mouth.

    The opening paragraph actually says that he spent a couple of years thinking about religion a lot, coming to the conclusion that the Old Testament of the bible was "no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

    In other words, your initial claim was false - that Darwin based his theory of evolution on Genesis, and stated that he had done so.



    You will now apologise for your lies about Darwin, or be temporarily banned from sciforums.

    You may state publically here that you retract your false statements about what Darwin wrote. You have 24 hours.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Genesis may be likened to a kind of evolutionary process, but it's all wrong. It's only useful as a metaphor.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    I find lots - in fact nothing othern than what I quoted. Its not mangled but addresses the critical factors only.

    Yes, let's.

    No sir. Look again. Darwin is not famed for talking about religion - everyone does that. Darwin is famed for ToE, and this is critically and exclusively related to Genesis' version of the universe and life form origins. This feature in Genesis is seen in nowhere else but Genesis - so there is no misquoting. This makes my premise correct and legitimate - even notwithstanding your point of refute is negligible, meagre, desperate and meritless. Rocket science.

    Yes he does - read his book! I put no words in his mouth. There is no other reading he is negating only Genesis Chapter 1 in his novel treatise: ToE is hardly about the Apostles, Moses or Mohammed. This is why I asked for a listing of pivotal factors of both Darwin's theory of how life began adjacent to that of Genesis - where is it? I even inserted the term, HOW ELSE - how else can one impress that this is only about Genesis 1? How can I be accused of putting words in his mouth when I address only Darwin's foremost and only criteria - that is what you are doing by seeing this as a battle against religions - getting it all mangled up.

    Yes. And he explains his claims in ToE by refuting Genesis Chapter 1 - not "religions". I too have responded by also addressing the same factors: Genesis Ch. 1. It is also the reason I put this subject in the 'SCIENCE' sector - where it rightly belongs, not in the RELIGION sector.

    There is no need to claim 'in ither words' - you have not addressed the issue at all, that Darwin is discussing only one chapter in one book. By your perspective, Darwin is also discussing Apostles, Abraham, dietary laws, mountains, the Tigris - but read his Origins of life again?

    Spoken like a true dogmatic religionist. Be thankful someone bothered to address the forum with a counter arguement. Otherwise you end up like white mice with signs 'no other species allowed'.

    FYI, the foremost scientists of the world refute Darwin - whose first error is not addressing the texts and retreating only to a medevial European version of it. How scientific is that!
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  8. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Which part in chapter 1 is wrong?
  9. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Which part of Genesis ch. 1 is "wrong"?
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    IamJoseph has been banned for 3 days for trolling.
  11. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    I think people in general need to not read into any literal translation of either. these people were people after all no matter how great their ideas were. We dismiss many ideas when we fail to see the overall truth in the stories and apply them to our current state. MORALS are MORALS and stories are stories. Religions would have no boundaries if they saw the same morals and ideas that are already present in each individual religion. We pray each day for the future on sunday but it is in the practices of morals I find a failure in today's society. and i think evolution is just an expansion of infinite monkey theorem or maybe the other way around(= lol
    active practice is done by 100% random acts of "turning yourself into a fool" or kindness and not following the herd like sheeple.
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  13. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    From the International Bible, the relevent bit in Genesis is :

    "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

    6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

    9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

    11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

    14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

    20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

    24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." "

    Now you can turn this into a kind of description of evolution. However, there is no indication in the text above that there is any progression of change from one life form to another, and the actual order of creation above is not that which evolution describes.

    There is no life form described other than that which was known to primitive stone age tribesmen. No spore forming plants. No suggestion of microorganisms. No suggestion of life forms which are now extinct. It suggests that seed bearing plants came into existence before animals, whereas we know they evolved together. About the only thing it really got right is that humans appeared late of the scene.

    Personally, I think it is a major stretch to try to turn the text above into some sort of description of evolution.
  14. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    unless god was a space alien scientist who was good at breeding and came back every once in a while to check up but accidentally crashed in roswell...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    This is the most silly reasoning and is a commonplace one. The exact reverse applies: if micro-orgs were listed it would deem the text unauthentic, and be seen by its space-time people as gibberish. Its like saying an advanced human 5000 years in the future reading about today's sciences would use their references to show how stupid we are today. However, all such items like the micro life forms are well alluded to in Genesis.

    The authenticity of Genesis is it talks to the people of its time: writings which describe today's science to an ancient audience and, if correctly done, it will apply to all generations. It is one of the feats of the Hebrew bible and one should not be confused by its deceptively simple texts. This is the reason I challenged the one who banned my posts to define evolution in its 10 most pivotal factors - then compare it with each verse in Genesis. This post listed the factors of genesis - now list the same factors in ToE - it will be found Genesis is superior.

    The Hebrew bible cannot be thrust in the same category of the NT and Quran ['religions'] - it predates them by 2000 and 2,600 years, and introduced new paradigms to humanity. Those scriptures do not discuss the origins of the universe or of humanity or of this planet's history, and have not given us a single law or concept accepted by the world's scientific and judiciary institutions - they are instead totally embedded in localised figures and assumptions of belief. The Hebrew bible cannot be negated as one of all religions.

    This says in the beginning of the universe there was a universe maker, that the universe is finite, and that both the heavens [galaxies] and the earth, namely everything in the universe, was created simultaniously and evolved later.

    Entropy. The elements of the earth were without form, everything was lumped together. The spirit represents a hovering force - namely directed to a force which was present in the beginning [v1], and able to impact [create from nothing], as opposed it just happened by itself [non-science]; in fact there was no 'IT' or 'HAPPENING' premise at one time.

    The word SAID denotes that there were no tools or intruments, nor any science equations at this time [void], and that all creation is by a word [will/command/directive based on intelligence] - how else? That the word is also the most powerful factor in the universe, as seen with human superiority of all other life forms [what else?]. The verse also says that light is a primodial, benefiting and impacting force [good] and that it already existed in potential form [v1] and was now actualized by extracting and seperating it from its previous void state. This says that light predated the stars and that the stars could not otherwise produce light; this factor is vital for understanding the 4th day. The verse also introduces humanity to the factors of DAY and NIGHT - and later also the 'WEEK' and the first scientific calendar based on solar, lunar and earth movements [Note: the sun's luminosity is yet not mentioned, thus these are not 24-hour days]
    This marks the premise that the elements were crtically seperated to anticipate life, which would not otherwise be possible - namely no life, no science, no evolution without these critical seperation factors. These seperation examples apply to all forms and levels, including the micro and macro. It says there was an intelligent protocol which ushered life, the metaphor being 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' - a totally scientific premise, its absence being a non-science.

    These continue the seperation factors, coming closer to catering for life in various forms and requirements. The premise of these anticipatory actions apply to all critical actions, including quarks, cells, distances, elements, etc.

    The first fundamental life form - vegetation, which is manifest to all generations of humans.

    The first life form contained or was able to issue a chip with a directive program. [DNA, genes?]. Of note, ToE cannot vindicate itself without the seed factor - while Genesis can vindicate itself without the evolutionary premise. IOW, there is no evolution without the factor of the seed and the directive program within the seed. This is a superior premise than ToE's speciation, which does not factor in the most pivotal 'seed' factor, without which there can be no speciation.

    Various species [kinds] of vegetation, including water based plants, shurbs [later itemised] and land based trees - each group with its various species. We also see now, that the first recorded mention of species [kinds] - groupings of life forms and groups wthin groups, comes from genesis, not Darwin, and this also shows where Darwin got his premises from. The banning on this bsis was nothing short of stupid - we have a precedent writings 1000's of years before Darwin!

    Fruits and vegables suitable for the variety of life forms, the word 'good' denotes that the foods will be suitable for all life forms, including humans [the reason of its anticipatory creation].

    This refers to 'luminisoty', not the sun or moon. Only the 'light' impacting is referred to. This shows the creation days are not 24 hour days but epochs of time. This also says that the sun did not reflect light when it first emerged, but required an embryotic period to even become a star. This also gives the first introduction to astronomy [signs] and astrology [omens], whereby the heavenly objects serve as time and distance markers [seasons, days and years] and study of cosmology.

    This gives the reason for the luminosity factor, as encumbent for life [good], applying both day and night.

    The correct protocol of fundamental, animated life - first in the water [but after vegetation life], then as air born. [How did the ancient people know of this protocol?]

    Here, 'every living [alive but immobile, as in coral] and moving [animated] thing' and 'which teems' refers to swarms [micro life, as in bacteria and virus].

    This says reproduction occurs by emulation within the specie group. Of note, it does not support or negate cross-specie [speciation]. IOW, what genesis says is correct and observable and provable. This marks the only variance in ToE, or an assumed variance by inferring a non-existant negative to Genesis.
    Genesis says a lion will reproduce a lion, and that this will be seen in all land based life forms being land based; it does NOT say a lion cannot or did not come from an amoeba, only that different kinds of life forms emerged at different periods.

    This refers to speech [the unique trait making humans to rule over all other life forms] and that a human is a combination of factors of all life and all earthly elements [no alternative exists, except an alien input]. The term DUST is a mysterious hebrew term denoting that which cannot be accounted or seen by the naked eye, and belongs in the realm of base materials and elements.

    So whch part of Genesis is unscientific, and what new stuff came from Darwin which is not already contained here - the term 'evolution' and 'species'?!
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2010
  16. Skeptical Registered Senior Member


    As I said, it is a real stretch. Big time. It can be done as you have shown, albeit very badly.

    There are numerous 'holes' in your scenario. Like creating the Earth before creating the light. And creating the stars way after creating the first life forms. And fruit bearing trees well before the first marine animal life.

    Scientific fact shows that the first light was nearly 14 billion years ago with teh Big Bang. The first stars only a few million years after that. The Earth came into existence some 4 to 5 billion years ago - way after the first light and the majority of stars. Fruit bearing trees came into existence some 100 million years ago, while the first animal life in the sea was pre-Cambrian - more than 500 million years ago.

    I could go on, but I think my point is made.
  17. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    This is an error and a wrong assessment of what I said. Light is a primodial product, according to Genesis, and predates the stars emergence. This is logical: how can a star produce light if it is not yet existant - even if light is produced by heating or nuclear interaction? The earth can exist before the sun's light, because a star does not produce light immediately - some never do and dissipitate before reaching this status. This says the earth and light could both exist, but the light of our sun would not have been yet developed or critically impacting upon the earth. This aligns with the premise the earth was at one time existing but without light derived from our sun, which means the sun's light did not focus on earth till some life emerged or thereabouts - it is the only explanation why life did not exist on this planet for some 4 B years ago. Life is a recent phenomenon on earth. Its another legitimate scientific view, its credibility not negatable because we are not certain of this event's mechanism.

    No sir. Only our sun's light is said to be impacted before life [100% scientific and logical], and the stars were already created, but with our local sunlight not yet impacting. I pointed out, the 4th day refers only to our sun's luminosity [emitting light - the text]. In fact, this is more complicated than first understood.

    The real first percieved problem is not what you concluded, but that the vegetation [3rd day] appears before the sun's luminosity [4th day]. We know that plants need light, so how can it exist before light? Here we have to examine the text more intensely and use deeper logic.

    What Genesis is saying, which can be seen as a direct contradiction with ToE - [but is not really], is that all the life constructs came into existence as in a state of ready for life, but not alive [chapter 2]. Genesis says all life constructs were completed [chapter 1], but that nothing moved; then it says, the life cycle was triggered by rain, critical seperation of the elements, etc - and life was ignited. The analogy is with a completed car, which does not move after being completed - till ignited. This first apears to contradict ToE, but it does not, and is the only way it can work. The fact that ToE claims life 'evolved' does not make sense from the POV this does not work in life's original initiation. IOW, life does evolve, but this is an after the fact scenario - there must first be something to 'evolve' - so first the life has to be initiated. In the car example again, the oil acts as fule, not the cause of the car moving. Here, factors like light and water act as sustenance [fuel] only, as opposed the creation of the life.

    In effect, Genesis is saying a variety of life forms emerged, in fundamentally varied forms [veg, water, air, land life groups] - in graduated epochs of time - as opposed to Darwin saying a zebra originally was once a plant or ameoba - this is problematic because life never existed the first 3.5 B years, but suddenly a whole array is seen in very varied forms - each evolving in their own right. This point of life's emergence is somewhat obscure in both Genesis and ToE. The problem with ToE here is very clear - it does not appear that life forms appeared in grads, but rather in a wide variety at any given time - which does not contradict their evolution, while inclining with Genesis. It requires good contemplation by first zooming out from ToE. We know that vegetation existed for millions of years before any other animated life appeared.

    Yes, Genesis says vegetation preceded water borne life.

    The impacting factor here is that life did not emerge at that time [14B years ago], nor when the earth emerged [5B years ago], and the only explanation of this is that the light existed but was not yet focused on earth till the time life emerged on earth.

    The light existed before the earth and the stars. But life did not - because the light was not yet focused on the earth. No other expanation applies here.

    My understanding is vegetation predated water, air and animal life. The latter life forms could not exist in the absence of the former, which acts as their sustenance. Remember the applicable metaphor:


    You are saying the guests came and the host forgot about their dinner.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2010
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Darwin never said a zebra was originally a plant or an ameoba.

    But let's assume you didn't actually mean what you wrote here, and that all you're actually trying to claim is that zebra and plants do not share a common ancestor.

    How do explain the extensive similarity between the DNA of a zebra and the DNA of, say, a sequoia tree? And I don't just mean that the DNA uses the same chemicals etc., but that extensive sequences within the DNA code are the same for the zebra and the sequoia.

    Is that just dumb luck? What does Genesis say about that?
  19. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Joseph is stretching big time!

    The Genesis account is just plain wrong, and certainly does not reflect current scientific knowledge. I do not see that this is a problem, even for a fervent Christian. All Joseph needs do is accept that the account is a parable - the bible is full of parables, and this would be just one more.

    However, as a factual account, it is way off. For example : Genesis did not say 'vegetation' - it said fruit bearing trees. As I pointed out, such trees evolved about 100 million years ago. The first plant life was 2.8 to 3.6 billion years ago, in the form of cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae), but they did not bear fruit.

    The first complex animal life preceded the first fruit bearing trees by over 400 million years. The first simple animal life was at least hundreds of millions of years earlier.

    Light is as old as the universe. There has always been light, over the whole existence of the universe. The Earth is 4.5 to 5 billion years old, but some stars in our galaxy are over 6 billion years old.

    The Genesis account is just full of errors, if you are trying to align it with modern scientific understanding of the origins of the universe, planet Earth, and life on Earth.
  20. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Yes, he does. There is no other conclusion possible to the ToE premise, even if this occurs via extended branching's. The example of a tree is given in ToE - what happens when we track back all branches and sub-branches on the tree!?

    No, I never said or inferred this. This premise has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin - it is blatantly clear all life share common denominators. Genesis itself says humans are derived from the dust [essence; smallest base particles and elements unseen by the naked eye] of the earth - how else? Iodine, carbon, breath, organic consumption, flesh, blood, light, cells, dna, genes, water - are common denominators. This does not mean all life came from one life - we know that some of those products predate life - so it means the original first life came from those common denomintors just as well. If a human and a zebra share a common trait - such as bones - they can still have different host sources - and still originally from one source, but a source which is not the dust but where the dust came from originally; both/all came from the same common denominator or source point - this is math 101. Acceptance or rejection here does not make Genesis wrong or unscientific but different only, while the logic and manifestations incline with genesis.

    Focusing on the commonality instead of the critical variance in the dna is an error. The most unscientific premise is ToE's total absence of defining its input factor what caused the change - because at one time there was nothing that was available and the same factor did not cause the same result elsewhere. In contrast, the most scientific premise is that both the causation factor and the produced factor had to have an independent and transcended source - otherwise everything becomes unscientific, including science it self. The preamble is the universe is finite - which means there was an entity before the universe ['In the beginning God; a force]; then the universe [creation]. Universe maker; universe. Else all of science falls.


    My reading of genesis says all life and all things in the universe has one common source point. There is no alternative here - encumbently so in a finite realm. Here, the dumb luck factor does not kick in with genesis - only with Darwin's theory: he has no answer, none do, so ToE has retreated to the trillion-trillion to one odd - embellished with those odds successfully banging into each other at the right angle. But science works on plausability - not possibility.

    Evolution is derived from Genesis, and unlike Darwin, it is placed in the correct protocol - after the fact, as a process which is derived from a program in the chip [seed]: how else - I checked with the biology, chemical and cosmology classes?

    I will be satisfied if you retreat and re-consider: Genesis may not fit with all ToE's theoretical premises - but it remains a scientifically based alternative theoretical premise. This makes the notion all religions are mythical without any basis - only one discusses factors which can stand up to or toss with ToE. This is the reason we have no threads of evolution contrasted against any other religion. I have wondered how a bunch of desert people could have figured such protocols [veg before zebras] and stats of the universe [finity; monotheism; anticipatory actions before life] - over 3000 years ago, described in the first alphabetical books - when they came late in the ancient scenario and were insiignificanly smaller than all other kingdoms. This is not a religious but humanity issue I pose.
  21. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    You should improve your comprehension of the text:

    Those are anticipatory factors which had to precede any form of vegetation. Omitted in ToE!

    No 'fruit bearing trees' yet. Grass is vegetation, the kind which sprouts on the ground. The 'sprouting' factor must be in place before any repro is possible.

    Next has to be the 'seed' factor, which can be sprouted. No fruit yet.

    Fruit appears, inherent of the sprouting and seed transmitting facility. Of note that even the sprouting and seed factors, as is all forms of life, are preceded with legitimate factors of critical seperations of the earth's elements. All omitted in ToE - as if evolution can occur without those factors placed as precedent!

    The logic process continues. The offspring is totally encumbent on the particular program embedded in the seed of each kind. Remove any one factor in this process, and everything falls down.

    Conclusion: Genesis sees a bigger, much zoomed out picture than does ToE's localised tunnel view.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Dear oh dear. You've just returned from a ban that followed your falsely attributing statements to Darwin that he never made. And here you are again making false claims about what Darwin said/wrote.

    Do you wish to retract this false statement?

    If you do so, we can ignore it and move on to your real point, which is that you think Darwin's theory implies that zebras were once plants.

    Darwin's theory of evolution postulates that all lifeforms share a common ancestor. That is very far from saying that zebras were once plants. Do you understand why?

    Do you understand the process of random mutation, or do you believe there is no such thing? Do you understand what happens at the genetic level when a male and a female organism breed to create a child organism - i.e. that the child is genetically unique? Or do you deny that?

    With respect, this sounds like waffle. The theory of evolution explains variation in organisms and change through natural selection and other processes. There's no need to bring God into the picture.

    Yeah. Genesis says the Lord God made them all. The mistake you're making is in thinking Genesis is a science textbook.

    I'm not sure what you think is trillion-trillion to one odds. Perhaps if you explain in more detail we can analyse your misconceptions in more detail.

    Evolution is not entirely a random process - far from it.

    There you go again. The scientific theory of evolution was in no way derived from Genesis. Agree?

    Genesis contains no science. You're grasping at straws and hoping you can give it legitimacy by painting it with the authority of science. It's quite ironic that you defer to science even as you try to refute it.
  23. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    We must agree to disagree here. Which in no way makes Gensis non-scientific or illogical, nor does it mean you are right.

    That light is a primodial factor, appears first in Genesis' list - is not in a state of dispute. But Genesis goes further than this - it says light preceded the stars, and is a result of a critical seperation action of already existing stuff in the universe, but which was in a state of void, unformed state. You are saying, by inference, that light is the universe, or that light appeared seperately or independent of the universe.

    Genesis is of course the only legitimate description here - the universe and all it contains is finite. Light emerged after the universe was initiated - it was not always there. Light is a trigger and triggering action, and it had to come from something already contained in the universe, but derived after a certain critical seperation action.

    The reverse - I am aligning science with Genesis. I say evolution comes from Genesis - and the Genesis account is the superior one. I say the first recording of a finite universe [the first scientific equation] also comes from Genesis. This is mostly negated and challenged because of trends against religions. There's no such thing as all religions - there are only two: Pure, absolute and pristine Monotheism - and all others, including atheism.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page