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,  that the premise of evolution comes from Genesis; and  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:  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 1809-1882 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 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. QED. 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?