Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

LOL! The process which is held to be responsble for changes in ToE are themselves part of the process and nothing more. They harken to the seed emergence. If an early bit of dna, or antenae resembles a dna of another life form, Darwin asserts this is proof the later came from the former - this is ToE's entire claim to fame and his conclusions thereby. I say, the reverse applies - it exposes a process further back only. Its like saying we can trace where a car's original metals comes from, as proof the there is no car maker. Really?

Do not follow a corrupted multitude, but explain the anamolies scientifically. I don't want to go into European religionists, but they have a provable history of enforcing and accepting stuff without proof and by belief. There is also an underlying rejection of their own beliefs - its a good way out for ToE'ismists. But the greatest scientists never accepted there is no ultimate source factor for the universe -subtle pointer.

You don't realise what your saying here: it is blatant proof you are rejecting religions - nothing to do with science or the arguements I put up of Genesis. It won't matter if I show you that your wrong of two versions - you will jump somewhere else without admitting the point.

Do you even understand Ch 1 - that the term ADAM here means only 'human' - both male and female, and that this becomes a Pronoun only in Ch.2 - when the word NAME appears for Adam for the first time, after their seperation - what do you think this refers to if not ch 1? Do you even realise that the word 'CREATE' in ch.1 is never repeated again for the rest of the 5 books - why? This is replaced by the term 'FORMED' after ch.1 - why? Why is that - because this is no typo? If these two versions were seperate by different authors, would not the new author use the same term, CREATE instead of FORMED? Have you realized that the term CREATE is a very technical term, denoting something from nothing, seen only in the creation chapter, and that tecnically, this is totally varied from FORMED - making something from something else? So where is your other proof of another author - its been 3000 + years?

You are mis-quoting or mis-understanding me. There are no fixed kinds in genesis - they follow what is embedded in the host seed and they graduate - that means of graduation is factored in the seed - how else? Logic is factored in the process.

This does not have any impact of what is discussed, its not a scientific refutation. Do you see the seperation of the elements prior to life, as given in Genesis - not applicable in ToE? Do you see the seed transmission, as given in Genesis - not applicable in ToE? Lets see TiE work without those factors please?

No such thing as NATURE or NATURAL SELECTION. This has no science implications - it is an admission they have no answer.

Yes, there are many dieties head bashing each other for surpremecy - which is just the same as Genesis, right - the reason we see forums all over the net of other writings challenging evolution? Please look them up and ask if the universe is finite - or if light or darkness came first? Where is your proof - your links - we are reading different books I suppose? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The ToE says no such thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And scientists of the mid-19th century had no knowledge of the mechanisms of DNA function.

You know that you don’t understand the theory you’re trying to debunk, so your continued misrepresentation of the ToE constitutes trolling. I move for locking and a long ban.

Your brain has gone down hill. :bugeye:

 

That's ironic - the term DNA does not even appear in Genesis - perhaps that is your probem. I referred to changes including dna and anetanae, and all such imprints. And this does not include only Darwin and 19C knowledge, but ToE as is seen today. The term DNA refers only to transmission programs inherited - nothing more than what is inluded in the host transmission [the seed] - including dna, bones, brains, eye color, blood, etc.

Here, 'inherited traits' can only refer to Genesis' pointing to the seed factor - stated 1000's of years before Darwin - not stated in any other source outside Genesis. No changes can occur in the absence of the inherited trait - Genesis is more correct as to what causes these changes and that there will be changes. Darwin is merely observing a process introduced in Genesis - but his 'Adaptation' and 'survival of the fittest' fail without the Genesis stated seed factor. Try it.

Re. Population of organisms. These are divisions of life form groups which follow their kind - introduced in Genesis.

In certain circumstances when their habitat becomes poor or deficient, they can adapt - a triat already inclusive in the inherited trait design as stated in Genesis: 'after its kind, 'wherein is the seed thereof' - the following of the parentage issuance of the seed is fully dependent on the tranmision of the host seed - which includes a program to live and exist and extend, same as is the factor of growing from an embryo and baby mode. Here, Genesis is correct in its 'wherein is the seed thereof' - where that trait comes from. Its like one who is in a population which does much walking - they can get offspring with longer legs; this is the same phenomenon whereby loss of blood from an injury will be compensated by other blood cells rushing to fill the vacuum - these are inherited traits, not 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest'. Obervations of these processes at work do not impact negatively on anything said in Genesis but only affirms them.

Again, this means nothing else than what is first introduced in Genesis, namely a life form follows its kind - only this is stated in the reverse order here, grammatically. The generations [offspring] follows the parental seed program.

Most have erounously read this as a contradiction in Genesis - when it is an affirmation of genesis:

"12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind"

Genesis is saying a life form follows its kind. And it does so by the instructions embedded in the seed - where else - from Japan or Jupiter?! IOW, could the life form evolve if this facility was not inherent in the seed transmission, and specifically so allowed? of course not! Otherwise, why does a rock not turn to pineapples - if not for its lacking of the program inherited as per Genesis - or why does an ape not produce a zebra or human? This is not because of millions of years of accumulated changes, but from the seed factor only - it can be proven mathematically the time factor has no impact on a 'continuing' process of changes.

We see from here, the changes are first introduced in Genesis - namely the act of following the host with a new life is itself a change premise. The next issue here, cross-speciation, is a further extension only of the offspring, and it equally does not contradict Genesis: V12 says there are multiples of species in vegetation - all following their kind - all belonging to the vegetation group. The operable factor here is not cross-species, but that a new life form emerges subsequent of the seed directive; the cross-species is only an extension of the former - and both MUST be subsequent of the Genesis advocation. If there is a change allowed in the offspring [independent, new being] - only then can the subsequent cross-speciation become possible; reverse this scenario and there can be no cross-speciation. Rocket science.

This too is not a contradiction of Genesis. 'COMMON ANCESTRY' can only be correct if this refers to the origintor of the universe. Why stop after this point, at one life which branched out - which is surely an after the fact scenario? We see here, genesis is not only correct - it has no alternative. This is like saying the egg comes from a chicken, and the chicken comes from fish - whereas genesis is saying, yes the egg comes from the chicken and the chicken may have come from a fish [the given in Genesis] - but the egg, chicken and fish come from one common source. Here, Genesis condones while giving us a further ancestry; Darwin rejects by giving us no original ancestry of any kind: which is science? How is that condusive to evolution, and is Genesis not a bigger picture?

This is Genesis, not Darwin. The characteristics are in the seed.

This says the potential to vary is in the seed, which contains potentials for numerous results derived from an ancestry of transmissions: 'wherein is the seed thereof' [Genesis]. An organism cannot produce heritable differences if there was no precedent differences in the first offspring itself.

 

I tediously ignored nothing. Ignored are factual provisions provided that the first grouping of life forms is in Genesis - and no other writings any place else. That there is no possibilty of adaptation or natural selection without the seed program - introduced in genesis and no other place. That the display of elevations observed in ToE are of the same validity of growing to adulthood - these cannot occur without the seed program which allows them to do so - again a premise introduced in genesis.

This goes on to the extent there is virtually nothing new in ToE not already contained in Genesis - but there is new in the reverse premise: that the original of all life began with a duality - one of the most enlightening statements in all writings in existence today, and most neglected.

The observances are valid, but the conclusion against Genesis is not. I already gave a host of examples, and the first one is his disregarding of the seed factor. Darwin evades there can be no ToE without Genesis' seed factor. This makes any notions derived from observances of changes unscientific - it starts midway in the process, then dismisses anything to do with any process before the changes are observed. In fact, Darwin gives no reason for these changes, other than his desperation of the term NATURAL - whatever happened to science, math and engineering formulae?!

Here, the million of years of accumulated impact, required to prove cross-speciation and all life coming from one singular life form source - is mathetmatically bogus. Evolution is stated as a continueing process. This says, if a human came from an ape millions of years ago - we must be able to see this occurence continuously and without pause. Continueing means on-going. The million years scenario is also bogus from the POV no other life form displays speech - despite their advantage of the time factor and a greater audio dexterity to boot. Survival of the fittest also falls here - speech being the most powerful survival tool of all- how stupid of those animals not to see this - ornhow clever we humans are for *SELECTING* speech!

Darwin was short sighted and selective - his big calamity being the reading of the Hebrew bible solely from medevial Christian views - which the mulitude have been secummbed to, including the atheists. Thus I gave the example of the notorious Christian Creation Museums depicting the earth as 6000 years old - Darwinism comes from here - not from the lot of those who occupy the biggest Nobels margins of all religionist groups.

That he never said it, is not the issue. There is no other reading possible of Darwin's conclusions. I don't know if humans came from apes - there is no recording of this phenomenon millions of years ago - and the given reasons are open to 1000's of variable factors. But the facts in our midst contradict Darwin and inclines with Genesis. A land based life will produce a land based life. Remarkably, humans are placed in the same land based kind - yet they are accounted seperately. But we see this has vindication: humans possess a trait no animal does. This cannot be disregarded as myth or a typo or a lucky guess: evolutionists like to cherry pic.

No, it cannot be. 99.9% of what an offspring represents is inherited, traceable and observable. I doubt you will admit this inclines with Genesis - because ToEism is now akin to other ISM's these days.

You addressed that genesis introduced the first preamble scientific equation the uni is finite? Or the correct protocol of life form emergences 1000's of years before Darwin? I doubt it. The posts here say all religions are like Genesis - still waiting for proof here.

It does. Seperations of light and darkness; water and land; day from night. All critically impacting to forthcoming life:

THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS, applies.

It does. The seed is said to be the cause of life transmissions and the program is contained in the seed, able to pass on this directive to its own offspring. Of note, these vital factors are totally omitted in Darwin's radar. Wow!

Yes sir: water borne is a terrain based grouping, as is air borne and land borne. These fundamental divisions, understood by all generations of mankind - are first introduced in genesis - the reason the Hebrew KO'd the Greeks and Europe became Christian by the Hebrew, as opposed its own Hellenist ancestry. I bet you'd throw tomatoes at me if I assured you even Democrasy comes not from Greece but the Hebrew!? Christianity is the educator of humanity - an accepted fact; but it does not like upping the Hebrew - so there is also a whole lot of mis-info out there held as sacred. Its anything but!

You are getting desperate now.

A scientific premise. I'm in good company too - Newton and Einstein. You conventiantly forget, there is no scientific alternative to Creationism. Not bad for a mythical book by desert wonderers 1000's of years ago?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't understand your meaning. Terrain is geographical, its usage for life forms the foremost threshold, and one which is understandable by all generations. Why do you expect 3000 years ago man to differentiate between sharks and whales - both being of the same geographical terrain [water based] - can you not see any other thresholds than that nominated in ToE? I see Genesis' divisions of life forms more applicable than skeletal and dna structure in the classifications of their most fundamental differences.

A zebra is different from a mackarel first and foremost by their terrain applicability - one is land based, the other water based - nothing can beat this. Is it a Darwinian blasphemy to give the point to Genesis?

Its greater than that - the computer and its chip can be seen as its derivitive. No seed - no evolution. With seed; then evolution follows like a good soldier. Darwin to must have gone Aah - the seed - then he got dementia - or worse.

If you really wish to test Genesis, then imagine you have a time machine to go 3000 years behind, along with all the knowledge you have today and in this space-time, and then describe to a 3000 year people about your computer - without using that word. What analogy would you propose to them, and one which fits all forthcoming generations' understanding of it? Or else, try writing a scientific thesis which will be debated 3000 years from now in forums?

Darwin was clearly a brilliant guy who made observations which were in blatant contradiction of what he was made to believe by the church - they gave him a disney like version ofn the Hebrew bible, and all he was told did not line up with what he observed. I give the highest points here, and greatly admire his making of a science out of those subtle and minutae details he observed, then aligned them with the same process seen in other places. These factors are not in dispute.

But he was fooled by the deceptively simple texts of Genesis. Other great men do this also today. Take a figure like Attenborough who does those wild life docs. He grimaced in an interview once, balking about man coming from dust. That was very shallow - where else he never said - dust being a mysterious hebrew word for small particles - which is a good description, maybe the only correct term available. There is nithing in us which does not come from the small base particles of the earth - what's so ridiculous about it?

Now your talking - at last! The fact is, they have listed all the most pivotal factors applying, and it is sustained and vindicated today when analysized intelligently and without any unconquorable bias. The factors are given as examples of instructions or pillars, which must fit all levels of applications - whether we decide to call them premises, principles or equations is not impacting. If you examine the description for the universe, for example, it is given as 'heaven and earth' - that is the correct way to describe this 3000 years ago and it is fine today - its a display of supreme literary perfection, whereby the best synonym is used and the smallest amount of words utilised, making it pristine writing. I marvel how they wrote such stuff and in such a manner - when we had not a single alphabetical book yet on the planet.

The first description of the universe is that it is finite, described as a beginning - the term finite being recent. The anicipated quetion who made it happen is also given [In the beginning God] - one does not have to accept this, but it is a great display of protocol for the description of the universe, even ushering a new premise of 'CREATE'. And all this in the first opening short verse. Correctly speaking, one would need much contemplation before even attempting the second verse - the first being a mantatory preamble to it which cannot be violated - and it never is throughout the writings. One can also ask how all its millions of numbers, dates, names, life spans, dod and dob's - are never out of sync with math - a feat even today to emulate.

Why shoud such even be asked. The process of evolution is not negatable - it is manifest scientifically to a very advanced degree. But some of its implications derived and conclusions are based on unscientific premises. When examined, one will see many holes in the notion of all life emerged from one common life source - even when all of ToE is accepted: this is a cumbersome and long issue to discuss, but the time factor, the widespread variety of life scattered all over the world in groups of terrain for all observable time, and the observable repro process inclines with Genesis' mode by the math and science criteria.

I favour genesis' version on this point, namely a variety of life forms first emerged in different groupings, characterized by terrains. Like water based life emerged in great variety, as opposed one life branching out like a tree - this is what genesis is saying. Then a next treshold emerged of another terrain, which is air borne life - again in great variety, as opposed from one life form then branching to millions of kinds. The time factor negates ToE here; the on-going process factor does the same. Genesis does not comment on cross-speciation here, some think it means it disputes it - but Genesis wins Darwin here again - without contradicting any observations Darwin would see.

Yes, he most certainly refers to the factors in Genesis, siting as his claim only observed similarities in life forms. He came out saying in effect, an observable process in a car manuel proves there is no car maker - while the reverse is the better conclusion.

Genetics is a later derived reference to what Darwin implied; while this term's meaning stems from Genesis. It followed that if a seed promotes evelvations in life forms, there has to be a definite engineering mechanism in the seed transmission - and there is. All our engineering comes from what is seen throughout the universe - these predate our definitions of gravity laws, but which can be aligned with the 4th day provisions - he placed the two lights above the earth - giving reason for deriving this engineering has a definitive formulae. The seed factor and its on-going ability to emulate the seed transmission with its own traits - is of course a basis for a scientific equation.

Whatever time factor one allocates to water borne life forms, in all its variety - which ToE claims came from one source - does not measure up with all air borne life emerging - this is seen when we use the estimates of those life form first emerging. However, it is more easily seen in the principle applied being wrong, namelt the evolution is an on-going process [it never ceased occuring] - this makes the time factor inapplicable - we would not be required to wait a million years for a human to evolve from an ape. The transformation would be observable as occuring and in process every second - with no ceasing. Where is it - show one example when you should have trillions?

I've read all that kind of stuff. One can nominate 1000s of other reasonings to explain that. It disregards that among trillions of fossils, there will be seen some which fit Darwin's observances and conclusions as its proof - here, the millions of non-alignable fossils never make the news. Its bogus - we should see billions of these - with none not fitting Darwin instead - we do not. And when exactly did this process cease that we have to go back to nano sized fossils millions of years ago?

Just as I reject any religion vested totally on belief, there is no such thing as natural or nature. Nature is perhaps the most abused and fraudulent premise held today. What is scientific about saying nature makes the wheel of this planet and life happen - how is this varied from the godidit? Is nature responsible for gravity - how did you determine that? How many colors does nature come in - where does it reside? In fact, we have no alternative answer than Genesis - thus we cling to terms such as nature. Its like, suddenly, science does not need proof when push comes to shove - its nature that than done it - if you doubt it go and ask nature.

This merits another LOL. Speech is the only unique trait of humans which make them superior. All life possesses brains, communications, sounds, eyes and limbs. Speech can be the greatest saving or destructive force, as it can take us to the moon. What else?

What are the odds for what you say? Is not a monkey's brains superior to ours in the monkey's world? You bet Speech is not evolution derived - it appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state. We do not teach humans to speak - we merely click and it happens. Its more seed program derived than evolution. Consider why we cannot produce a 'NAME' more than 6000 years ago - the time nominated by Genesis applying to speech? Is this a fluke, how it aligns to fastidiously to the decare? Why no names, kings, wars, cities, monuments - why all history is barren before this period?

Did the first grouping of life forms come from Darwin - or Genesis? Yes, all the primary factors of ToE are in genesis - well inferred by Darwin himself, who acts like his observances are a direct hit on Genesis. Religionists - whatever that means - battle because they disagree with what contradicts their God belief and their scriptural attachments. But there are great scientists today who equally see problems here.

I read Darwin - many times, a long time ago. How else can I examine and compare both? The problem better lies with understanding genesis correctly, by not being side tracked with what appears deceptively simple. There is nothing simple about the universe having a beginning - and stated for the first time.

Better, do you agree with Genesis that a human is made up of a microcosm of the earth's substances in its physical construct, is a land based life form similar to animals - and emerged last in the terrain based life forms?

Which is foremost as the distinquishing factor for both - both being water based, or one having mammal inner, hidden traits?

Yes, but you miss the relevant criteria here. Humans have a trait exclusive of all life forms combined. The ratio is 1 to all other trillions. If you do not select 'speech' of humans as varied from all other life forms, and thus deserving special classification - you will fail the 'spot the dif' test.

 

Wow, you are so full of shit it's not even worth debating.

 

I honestly and truly see the reverse applying. You are mistaken on two counts:

1. Expecting an ancient document to describe its provisions with new, recent terminilogy, instead of what is the same thing but given in an ancient mode - your error.

2. It seems you misunderatand the point of Genesis' grouping: water based life forms being one group does NOT contradict that some are mammals. Its like saying living beings is a group of being found on earth; this does not require sub-groupings. Genesis is correct, and need not be effected by your requiring more classifications.





Wh

I did before, and here it is again: Genesis' groupings are 'terrain' factored. Here, whales, sharks, dolphins and mackarel correctly belong in warer based life forms. Further, if a life form can adapt to both water and land - it still does not contradict Genesis.

Authencity and credibility to its space-times and the present, making it credible for ancient and modern generations. No other writings I know displays this ability.

That is incorrect. It is the 'context' which decides this factor. Note that the word dust is attached to the origins and make-up of the human construct, as well as man's conclusion: death. 'Dust to Dust' is a term derived from those verses. No other reading is possiblenwhen factoring the context - its called GRAMMAR - a pre-requisite to good science.

In a sense, yes of course. How else does one test if it fits? I would not call it 'add' but appropriate aligning where it is due and responsible. The Q is: does the term dust, made in its context, fit modern man thinking how this is expressed to ancient audiences - does not the unseen base particles best describe man's construct, which was employed by Genesis, dispelling forever the mythical dieties, spells and voodooism of the ancient world? I asked, how would you describe it 3000 years ago tey be scientifically credible today - no response.

I can see how that appears to the uninitiated with this writings, because they have never been inculcated to see it that way. This is no mythical work - get out of that dumb mode: what price humanity's first, advanced alphabetical books? It is the first alpahebtical works which spawned three religions, almost all of today's scientists and thinkers in a certain trajectory. The amount of input is directly related to the subject here and his correct knowledge of the modern world.

But if one is shakled by ToE alone, and its current widespread but faulty views of this writings - one will be made wrong eventually, and this will be wherever ToE contradicts Genesis, while sustaining where it does not and is clearly correct. If you compare this with the example of judiciary laws - equally as important as science for humanity, you will find that a host of laws predated the Hebrew bible - some of the older laws are contained [correct], while the incorrect laws are not - this involves greater power than imagined: anyone can copy MC2 or Newton's formulae - but how many can alter, edit and correct them?

You may reduce it all down to such ridicule if you like - but it also leaves no open mind for discussing the issues. Why then even enter such a debate?

Such a premise is ridiculous and has nothing to do with facts on the table. Have you not considered the Hebrew bible is the world's only ancient writings which did NOT state the earth is flat? This while all later so-called advanced writings were steeped in this premise, and when the amazing Hebrew calendar workings are examined - they subscribe only to a set of revolving, patterned spheares, able to give times, sunsets and seasons accurate to a 100,000 years in the future. Clearly, all writings are not the same - the Hebrew calendar is still the most accurate and oldest active one - that should say something to you.

There is no alternative to all actions in the universe, including that of life, subsequent to a minimum of two interacting entities - meaning a duality. Further, there is no absolute 'ONE' in the universe. You can back track this via math or physics and check it out. That Geness introduces this premise, is one of the most enlightening factors for humanity. It makes the GUT [Grand Unity Theory] a lost cause. Metaphor: It takes two to tango.

We are not on the same page here. The ONE [Creator source] is precedent, independent and transcendnet of the later universe - how else? The duality applies to all which is contained in the universe, meaning everything existing is originally derived from a duality. This applies to water, quarks, pineapples, stars and humans. The meaning behind this is that nothing happens only with ONE entity - because at one time in the universe nothing exsted, so with what would the one intereact to form an action - here all science becomes negated? An action can only happen when two entities are created, each programed to identify and interact with the other - if a secific and pre-determined result is required. Here, we get closer to understanding the term GOD IS ONE - and I HAVE NOT CHANGED. This is the only description of Infinite, and independence from the universe - even when said in a simple form - its meaning is not simple, and increases with our knowledge.

Genesis does more than that. It correctly employs the fundamental tresholds of divisions - by terrain. You are referring to sub-groupings, which is a thread which will never end, and depends on our ability to dig deeper - like with more powerful lens, etc.

Shaking head. This is not what I am saying, but what ToE is saying. If there is a continuous process [evolution is an on-going process], the time factor does not apply. Let's say blue marbles turn to green marbles every 100 years. If this process is on-going, we do not have to wait a 100 years for another blue marble to turn to green: all marbles will do that at all times. So, if an ape became a human 1 million years ago - we do not have to wait another million years to witness this event - it will happen 10 seconds ago and 10 seconds from now also. Its in the math of an on-going process. Further, we will also see this action all over the place and with all species at all times.

Now examine Genesis, which says a life form will follow its own kind, and its continuance will be guaranteed by virtue of the seed also having this trait transferable to the offspring. Here, there is no hiding behind million year fire walls - which ToE is notorious for.

The process is a legitimate, scientific way to determine growth and changes, as is the medicine faculty of science - at least it appears so. But there is the uncertainty of aligning resemblances of fossils and dna to ToE's conclusions. I am uncertain of how right it is or how wrong it is - primarilly because it cannot prove itself in a manifest form. It is thereby not credible to allow for it also being wrong and containing errors, while if accepting that of cross-speciation does occur, then Darwin was correct in identifying the process of its occuring. However, the conclusions how life began cannot be vested in ToE, and the notion it has nothing to do with origins a fallacy. The impacting factor is that when correctly read, nothing in ToE or Darwin's observances contradicts or transcends genesis. This means - an aghast scenario for ToE'ists: Darwin affirms Genesis, while comitting some errors in the wake. Why else do we see many respectful scientists also disagreeing?

 

Knock-knock. There is no scientific alternative to Genesis' Creationism - making it the only subj worth debating. Feel free to post a link of your alternative to it. Understand the Q?

 

Nice trolling. Time for locking and banning yet?

 

Nice if you make a single memorable response:

Knock-knock. There is no scientific alternative to Genesis' Creationism - making it the only subj worth debating. Feel free to post a link of your alternative to it. Understand the Q?

Yes/no?

 

But your wrong, and this was responded to. The fundamental provisions are given - the rest comes under extension.

Its not stupid - it will apply to our knowledge today in a short period of future time. You are looking for all space-time's knowledge in one chapter - which would make all human input superfluos. Its like a parent or teacher instructing a child - use that analogy. Why would be need to know of taxonomical classifications instead of some of the fundamental principles which forms its bedrock?

My point is that if life forms are going to be classified - their terrain factor overides all other thresholds. As explained before, you are focusing on sub-groupings, which has no end. In the classifications of life form groupings, a shark is not what its verbertrae shows - first and foremost a shark is a water borne life form, its most striking classification - setting it distinct from a land based life form. Genesis is correct here.

I did not refer to biology. The context rules, wherever it points. There is no alternate reading of the examples presented you.

Which stat are you referring to - the 'dust to dust' - then please present another understanding of it. You will find there isn't one.

Firstly, there is no contest between science and genesis - science is a sacred faculty, as is math, history and geography. But ToE contradicts the science and history of 'SPEECH', and ToE cannot be evidenced any place one looks, being limited to labs and million year firewalls. Nor do I see a defining of a process as a premise there is no Creator - just the opposiite applies. A car manual tells me there is a car maker, even if that car maker cannot be found - how about you?

Yes, Darwin had to have got his ideads from Genesis - this is based on not only his autobio, but also on the factor of precedence. If we have a writing which first introduced life form groups, and also listing how they reproduce and can continue that process via the seed - how is Darwin the originator simply for saying a life form changes because of 'nature' and observed imprints of changes? I prefer the seed factor, and see no reason the changes Darwin observed are all part of one process: a seed cannot effectively give repro any credence unless a host of other measures are supporting it - as in a comprehensive construct.

None of my posts are religious.

Before or after the translation of the Hebrew bible in 300 BCE -I checked and found no alphabetical greek books before that date? I know that the drawings of the idea the stars being as a canopy, comes from the Greeks. However, the point is that this was never claimed in the Hebrew bible, and I am not about to negate other nation's output - all nations have a measure of brilliance.

This applies to the original first pineapple, as it does with the first human. The latter had to be a duality of male/female. Think about it - I gave an analogy of two marbles. Here, 'Male and female Created He them' - is not presented as a religious statement, but as a scientific premise. What do you think the first human was - male? Then the exact reverse female came along at the exact instant? - then that was no first, was it? Alternatively, if we say many came simultainiously, the same problem persists - were they male or female? There is in fact no alternative to the first original example of a life being dual-gendered. I also understand that this propensity is also contained in the egg after concievent, and also before this stage in the sperm cells. How else?

This is Genesis - not ToE. The genes in one's seed makes the offspring follow the host; the genes also contain a directive to continue this process. This almost makes Darwin superfluous - to the extent there is no evolution without the seed factor. I am unaware why Genesis is seen as lacking or myth, as held by many today, when it is anything but.

Yes, I totally reject NS. This does not mean environment factors don't impact - everything impacts, is imprinted in a life, and is passed on. But there is no NS outside of the seed factor - nor any phenomenon or entity called 'nature' - actually.

What do you mean by big picture - this is not even factored in ToE - which is a small, localised picture at best. The big picture is in Genesis, which lists pre-requisite anticipatory actions before life emerged.

Can you see a big picture when the most fundamental factors for life are not even considered? It can also be zoomed out and a bigger universal picture appears - namely the reason we have life here is because there were no critical seperations of the terrains, its elements, oceans and the light measures - which did occur here. It is not guaranteed if water exists, then life will - rather, water is one basic item without which life cannot exist - that's where the buck stops. There has to be a host of critical impacts, even with water, for life to exist - and this is given by examples in genesis. That is a big picture.

This is when a life form leaps inter-species, like an animal emerging from a fowl [air] or ocean [water] based specie, or where any species of any kind crosses over.

Genesis is talking absolute origins with humans - because this is traceable, and a teeming origins for other life forms. In both cases it applies to the first appearence of a life form group.

Yes, if you follow the Christian version of the Hebrew. This is a most grotesque error, and one which has caused great embarrassment. Why no one bothered with the reason the Hebrew calendar omits the creation days, remains a mystery - but I suspect because the Hebrew calendar was cast aside and the gregorian Calendar was used to accomodate the birth of christianity as the starting point of relevent history - a big time error, with all of its flaws in math and how the planet effects time.

Creation refers to how the universe came into existence. Science has no clue here. I suspect because it never factored the duality premise in a finite universe - and this ends only in a brick wall with a sign: NO ENTRY.

 

Neo-Darwinism.

 

Granted he puts a lot of effort in it, but....

ignoring others’ input, refusing to address questions, stating he has addressed questions when he hasn’t, wilful ignorance, dogmatically re-stating discredited viewpoints, asking others for links and references whilst refusing to reference his own statements. And all rolled up in an increasingly patronising demeanour.

=

Troll

In my opinion.

 

You guys are acting like you prevailed in any thing debated here. Not even a single instant is this true. Its not I who has done evading of anything submitted, but the reverse is only true. These are some of the items not addressed or responded to. I ask again that sane folk focus on the protocol of Genesis, where and how it opens, and what factors are foremost, before using the myth word:

That the uni is finite - introduced in Genesis, arguably the foremost instigator of all science today and its seperation from Zeus and a flat earth. It is clear this is where all after-thought must evolve from - for in an infinite realm there is no need for science - everything was always there, including gravity and evolution, so who needs equations if these were there even if your equations are totally wrong? No one gave any points to Genesis here - but I am charged with evading.

That nothing can occur unless there is a mechanism which transforms the formless to form; the void to a repeatable, observable, patterned complexity - where all equations come from. This is the 2nd verse in Genesis. How's that for protocol? I think a non-response is a form of evasion, second has to be denial and escapism - like I am stretching the meaning of the texts - as if there is another reading when its context is considered, and displayed repeatedly in numerous instances. Am I stretching when the term 'CREATE' only appears in the creational 1st chapter, and replaced by the word 'form' in the rest of the 5 Hebrew books - or did some ancient desert wonderors figure this out - or is it a typo - and how many typos = not a type, or does it make any difference if it is not a typo? No response.

Light per se: that it predates sunlight. Now there's a thought!

Life: it had to be preceded by anticipatory actions which cater to life. Otherwise - no science exists. Please show me where this appears in Darwin's observations? If anyone here is good at science, do they even realise that oxygn is a new product on earth, that it never existed for billions of years and it is a new gass inhaled by some life forms - exhaled by other kinds of life forms? Can this be aligned with a kiss of breath, a phrase independently raised in many Eastern beliefs, and perhaps it also bears scientific significance as an anticipated pre-requisite for life?

Origins of life: can this occur without the duality factor? Can anything? No response.

Its not me who is engaged in denial and evasion. Otherwise I will buzz off and you can soothe each other with the same mildewed paradigms without questioning it - till some nerd shows a large multitude something they refused to acknowledge. The fact is, if your talking about the universe and life - you end up on a wrong path if you do not list your preamble exactly as does Genesis. Are you talking about a finite or infinite universe? - does the formless have to first be made as formed before any equations can kick in? Etc; etc; etc.

Darwin is not wrong by his observations - he is wrong for starting in a mid-point. Like someone figured out what the steering wheel of a car does - and deduced his conclusion from that point only. That is a clever observation about the steering wheel - but the rest is not clever. Its a lack of intelligence - a corruption of what he obviously picked up from genesis - but what was explained incorrectly to him as a child. That's all that happened here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!