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

    Allow me to suggest the following on that assessment.

    1. Christianity has made plumb mockery of the Hebrew bible [seen the creation museum in America?!] with its Walt Disney interpretation of the deceptively simple Hebrew texts. Genesis does not say the world is 6000 years old, but that the creation days are cosmic days [epochs of time], outside of the Hebrew calendar, and referring to a period when the sun's light was not focused on the earth [a sceintifically verifiable premise]. The Hebrew calendar, the oldest and most accurate, is a mystery, accurate to the day and year when speech endowed life forms emerged. That we still don't have a NAME older than 6000 should have alerted us something strange is occuring here - but it just flew over the coockoo's nest!

    2. Darwin did not introduce the principle of evolution, but Genesis did. The first life form groupings [with sub-groupings], and in their correct protocol of emergence, is in Genesis, including those principles which were later coined as Natural selection and survival of fittest. The notion of cross-species also comes from Genesis: note that animals and humans are cast in the same cosmic day and based on the same principle a species [kind] shall follow its own: namely one animal species elevated itself with speech among a land-based life form group. This makes Darwin's observations as superfluos, and ToE advocates won over only by the detailed factors made by Darwin - they are not anything new though.

    In effect, Darwin observed what genesis declared over 3000 years ago. But Darwin, upon noting these observations, shouted Eureka! In effect Darwin concluded that a car manual proves there is no car maker. Ugh! Does not the reverse apply? :shrug:
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Hubble! The earth is expanding - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

    Can I take it that if the earth is indeed finite - Creationism has no alternative?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    No. We should keep an open mind until there's good evidence either way. That's how science works.

    Oh, and there's good evidence the universe is infinite.

    The big bang is a beginning.

    Physical laws were involved in the big bang. That theory is a great third alternative to the others of "God did it" or "It just popped up". See?

    Again, you're making completely unsupported claims. The Hebrew calendar is not the "most accurate" calendar. You make the claim; you back it up.

    This is previously-debunked nonsense. I carefully walked you through why you're wrong in another thread. Have you forgotten our previous conversation?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    An open mind says the uni is finite. A closed mind contends the obvious.

    Of an infinite universe!? This is getting even funnier.

    How do you know - science works by observation. In one sense I agree with you, but only half way: the law comes first - then the physicality.

    It is the oldest [5779] and the most accurate human calendar, one which can forecast a sunset 100,000 years in the future, and correctly predicted the date human speech began. I say human as opposed to an atomic calendar, which is not essential for humanity. The components for a calendar - the day and week - were also introduced here. It is the reason you don't see 'dates' in other ancient writings. The Hebrew calendar is so advanced it alligns its festivals on seasonal occurences, which is only possible on a calculous which includes the solar, lunar and earth movement ratios - which is what the Hebrew calendar does.

    To understand the power of the Hebrew calendar, put aside the paranoia and check its verses - it is brimming with dates and numbers like a telephone book with not a single digital error. Examine the texts, when it says 'REMEMBER 'THIS' DAY AS THE SABBATH' - the word 'this' refers to that day also being a Saturday - which is vindicated when all of the dates are calculated in the five Mosaic books. Do you know a writings which can perform such a feat?

    Be assured if you even came close to debunking me I would have either admitted it or said something along those lines. Of course Darwin's bulk of premises are seen in Genesis and nowhere else. E.g.:

    1. The first record of life form groupings with sub-grouping appears in Genesis. Yes/no?

    2. The order of emergence of life forms is first recorded in Genesis. Yes/no?

    3. Natural Selection - this premise also comes from Genesis, only the instrumentation of its causation factor is varied: Darwin claims nature does it - Genesis says the seed factor does it. Of note is if nature makes life forms become selected, then the most powerful tool was not selected - that of speech: what happened? Will we in future see other life forms selecting speech or a higher brain than humans - when, considering all other life forms already have the advantage of time?

    4. Survival of the fittest. Again, this variation makes Genesis win. A life form's survival comes from its ability to counter forces in the invironment, and that ability is firmly vested in the seed data: why do you think humans are the dominant life form - because of the invironment - or tha data passed on via their seed? That some species are extinct has nothing whatsoever to do with the invironment or that life forms lacking to defend itself. We know that Dinosaurs are extinct and roaches are not, while most of science blames a meteorite for the former's disappearanece, not the invironment.

    Drop the fictional term NATURE and where does it leave you? :shrug:
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member


    I won't address the earlier points - I'm neither astronomer nor occult Hermetic - but I wonder if your sentence above can be true. My apologies if I malign you, but you seem very convinced of your premise.

    And please stop spelling it "invironment", unless you wish to develop a term regarding the physiological environment of internal homeostasis. (There are already quantitative genetic descriptions thereof, I might mention.)

    I don't know that this is the first such record, no. But it's not exactly special knowledge, now is it? I remind you that they had birds and bees and beasts of the fields at the time the Bible was written, and had been aware of their existence for some while before that.

    First? Again, don't know. Genesis also doesn't mention fungi or bacteria.

    The order of emergence could be fortuitous as much as anything: when I was a kid, it was implicit that trees were 'less complex' or 'simpler' than animals (and if there are any plant biologists on here that I'm offending, please feel free to get lost) and if I were going to argue some kind of special creation, I'd probably start there. I note that fungi don't spring to the consciousness as quickly as megaflora; but then again if you're arguing special knowledge I don't see why bacteria - vastly important and hugely varied and old - weren't included.

    Where? Define. I've never noticed this.

    Time is no advantage, as the dinosaurs discovered to their great dismay. (Why they never launched planet-defending satellites is, of course, a huge mystery.) The only thing that matters is today and tomorrow; granted, there are demographic and ecological benefits from establishment, sure. (Possibly being greatest in flora rather than fauna; but this too depends on the timescale of observation.)

    As for the development of communication: many other species have it. Whales, dolphins, chimpanzees; even birds and bees do it.

    This does need to be explicitly defined. Are you referring to DNA?:

    A giant meteorite smacking into the earth would well be considered a massive perturbation of the environment. (I can't say what you mean by invironment, but if it relates to physiological phase space then it would certainly also be affected.) I think you're taking a neo-progressionist view of the history of evolution by dampening down the relevance of drift and accident, which isn't really justified. DNA can't start glumly at an approaching comet and say "Oh, come on: really, now." It's merely a heritable set of instructions subject to epigenetic modification that expresses a given phenotype or range thereof. If some of its carriers pass the test, well and good for its perpetuation (keeping in mind that the latter is a moral description of a process that is essentially amoral). If not, then not.

    If you're arguing for space in which to believe, then so be it. That at least I wouldn't interfere with; it's a battle one half of my psyche fights against the other not infrequently. But if you're arguing empirical proof, then I cannot sympathize. I'm sorry.
  10. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    That must have been a tough answer. It means I am totally outdone!

    I thank you for the spell check.

    But you forgot to include any record about the first categorising of life forms before Genesis: which museum - a link please? That is how a forum debate works when you are refuting someone's point. My apologies if I malign you.

    Yes - it does. Comprehension is even more important than spelling. And you are backing my claim of the first recording of life form species here - al bet by default.

    So you feel some desert wonderers figured out that trees are less complex - and then listed this the first? That in itsef is a great deduction. And no one thought of using that clever idea to come up with their own - till 3000 years later? I'm listening - is this still empirical science of human history - or only limited to some desert wanderers who also introduced alphabetical books for humanity?

    NS? Genesis says selection is via the host seed, imparting the same traits to the offspring. Genesis' NS makes ToE's NS somewhat superfluous: one does not work without the seed factor, but Genesis does work without Darwin's version. Comprehension of the text!

    Time does matter - ToE's evolution is totally time factored, and is based on million year periods if anyone dares ask for proof. ToE has a big glitch here: an on-going process [which ToE claims of evolution] - does not get impacted by the time factor for its proof. Of note is that Genesis' evolution does not ask us to wait millions of years. Clever, no?

    No contest. One can say there are two modes of communication: Speech - and all others. This marks a ratio of 1: All other life forms. And amazingly, humans are the last to emerge - hitting the premise of evolution on the head. Here we can see why Genesis lists humans as unique. If you dispute this then you will fail the simple test of TICK THE UNIQUE ONE. We should have long ago given the win to genesis - in every instant.

    Its quite a commonsense and blatant thing. Survival of the fittest is only possible when an inherent means of defense is in-built. A polar bear may develop a fatty white skin after some millions of years - but this is a response to the environment based on its inherent mechanism incorporated in the genes of its seed - not the other way around. ToE claims the environment controls this: but let's try it without the seed - or apply a mosquito's seed in the bear and see what happens? ToE is telling us that if a human becomes an Einstein - the environment did it, or if a particular seed becomes a pineapple - the deed had nothing to do with - Darwin does even factor it in. Than again, Darwin also forgot to consider the impacting pre-life anticipaotry of life listed in Genesis. ToE is magic - Genesis is empirical - how else? Genesis is saying:


    Darwin is saying:


    Humans and dinosaurs cannot live together - we can't live without bridges, trains and buildings. I fIrmly believe if Dinosaurs were not extint, humans would have to do this - or else disappear. The comet premise is a lousy guessmatic because the premise dents ToE if the Dino's are seen as failed to display sufficient survival instincts with all their assets and accumulated instincts by the time advantage.

    I am only debating from an empirical premise - there is no other kind. The universe being finite and the first allocation of life form groupings are absolute empirical premises. Genesis is talking about science before the term was coined. ToE is a myth - else it would impact and be seen the entire universe.
  11. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Why question that an expanding realm cannot be infinite? Has anyone seen another example anyplace?
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    I didn't say it can't be infinite, I said there is no evidence that it is finite. The quality of infinite can entail various kinds of dimensions. There can be an infinite thing contained within a finite area. The universe might be finite in space from our perspective, but could be infinite in space when considered as a whole. It could consist of a finite amount of energy expanding into an infinite space. It all depends on your point of view.

    And why would a finite Earth imply creationism?
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat - Closure

    Mod Hat — Closure

    Okay. No point in continuing this exercise in futility.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page