Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

Has no one wondered why earth habours teeming life and ToE's adaptation never showed itself outside the earth? If adaptation as per ToE is a constant, it will not apply only to earth's conditions - it would adapt itself to Venus and Jupiter's harsh environments equally so - this becomes vividly blatant when we see the great variety of life and its survival mechanism - even in the harshest places like the core of volcanos. From here we see how the critical seperations prior to life emerging here, as stated in Genesis - becomes totally credible. A worthy experience is if we took 10,000 life forms, such as small insects and viruses, and put them on Mars - will they evolutionise by adapting - why not?

That is a reasoning complimenting other such reasonings I have already proposed. Like an on-going process does not get impacted by the time factor. Nor can evolution of and by itself be credible if this is not seen outside this planet. If 2+2=4 on earth, this would also apply on Saturn.

Its astounding such basic questions were not confronted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can a premise be after the fact? What is your native language? I think half the disagreements that arise are because of the akwardness of your writing. You use words in unfamiliar ways and some of your sentences make no sense at all.

Genesis 1:11 describes the creation of advanced angiosperms a full day before life appears in the seas in Genesis 1:20

Now you ar emoving the goal posts. You declared that every nation follows Hebrew law. Now you conced that China may not follow Hebrew Law. Would you tell me where in the Chinese legal system the eating of shellfish is forbidden? Would you explain to me why the consumption of pork is not only popular in China, but completely legal?
Why is the International Community not condemning the Chinese government for so blatanly breaking Hebrew law?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Think about it: which came first, the law or the action?

That is correct. Vegetation preceded water borne, animated life. The former is the food of the later life forms.

Dietery laws come under ritual laws, advoated to one group only, and pre-fixed with UNTO YOU. But the non-ritual laws are encumbent on China. I quoted you Judiciary laws - its violation would make China's judiciary system wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe because we haven't encountered life off Earth yet. Or are you claiming that if life exists elsewhere that it doesn't follow evolution?

Incorrect. Your error of course is that the ToE only applies once life has arisen. If there's no life then there's nothing to evolve.

If enough of them survived the conditions to breed then yes. Over time.

Except for the slight problem of having shown little reasoning...

Unless evolution is one of many mechanisms.

What I find more astounding is your ability to miss the point.

 

That is a less than intelligent premise held by many. Actually, the math totally negates life not just in the known universe - but also in the unseen one. You wrongfully assume only old stars and space bodies are far - when there is clear proof a relatively near star can be old, thus more advanced, and surely able to conquer the space and distances - evolution, remember?

Worse. If evolution's adaptation is real, as opposed to Genesis' specificity of the seed factor, then life MUST exist everywhere - specially so in planets older than the earth. Evolution is a time based premise.

I see it the other way: the law comes before its effect occurs. E.g. the blueprints of a home comes before the home.

There's already been billions of years of time thus far - and no life. There is no life on Venus, which is older than the earth. It says ToE is not a universal constant; Genesis says life occured because of preceding, critical factors - and thus far the facts remain inclined with Genesis.

THOSE WHO ARE NEVER WRONG - CAN NEVER BE RIGHT.

 

Really?

Please show this "maths".

You appear to be conflating evolution and the age of stars somehow.

Incorrect. Evolution can ONLY occur once life has arisen. Hence your "logic" is flawed.

So what? Evolution says nothing about the chances of life arising.

Nope, you're still not getting it. Maybe because you have things reversed.

Wrong.

Again, so what? And false. If you're always right that would mean you're also never wrong.

 

Evolutution says life emerged on this planet via elements adapting and via survival of the fittest and natural selection. They forgot to say, ONLY ON EARTH. The math says if there is any credence to ToE factors, there is no reason for the elements not to adapt elsewhere. And if time is the factor, and if there are space bodies around us older than the earth - they should have evolved and advanced far ahead of us. Even in our own mental prowess ratio, another life form would have long broken all barriers and reached us.

When such math are performed, it shows that there can be no life in the known universe, and that the unknown universe is more like the known than not so. That Genesis singles out this planet for life - is thus far not dented of its vindication. And no - I am not going to upturn every rock on every planet to verify this factual stat - you do that. The math is on Genesis side - how shocking, no!

.

I say, if life occurs first - than evolution is also thereby superfluous to it.

Heard of: survival of the fittest - adaptation - natural selection? These are causeless actions, which phenomenon is unknown in science and math in any place else - because it glorfies chance. The reverse applies to genesis - nothing is by chance. Even the notion of chance as a premise cannot be by chance. The universe is finite - as are all of its components - this is my preamble. What's yours - what's Darwin's?

????

 

Your meaning is incomprehensible.

Angiopserms did not precede animated life. Seed bearing plants did not precede animal life. Genesis is wrong.

You are twisting and wriggling and equivocating. Purest nonsense and self delusion. (You are deluding no one else.)

 

Joseph, your conclusions seem a little out of balance with reason. Nature is a phenomenon that exist not only on earth but anywhere in our known universe. The effects can be witnessed only on earth thus far because we haven't explored all that much thus far. And even if earth is the only planet that supports life in the entire galaxy or even universe, that doesn't mean that nature is earth bound. The conditions here on earth are ideal for life support and random chance sparked life on it. That can happen anywhere, where similar conditions are present. But finding a planet with similar conditions is a very difficult task. Besides if there are other cultivated planets in our vicinity, they could bear more primitive life than our own. Or more advanced and the inhabitants decided to not establish contact with us. Or they want to but can't for technical reasons. How can you know for sure that the absence of recorded alien visitors is proof of their non existence?

 

Not really. Intelligent life has only existed on Earth for 2 million years or so, and the other planets are unimaginably far away. Even if evolution occurs on them, it is very unlikely that they would mount an expedition which would take several generations to get here. We haven't done the same, have we?

 

Um, no. They didn't forget. Earth was (and still is) the only place we know that life exists.

Again: please show this maths.

Correct. IF Life did arise elsewhere. (And the bit about "reaching us" is a different subject and set of rules altogether).

What maths?

Incorrect.

Wrong. It's not a "fact".

You can claim whatever you like about mathematics you haven't shown to anyone.

Yeah, but then again you have a proven track record of saying a lot of ridiculous things.

False and false.

You do know what the word "preamble" means don't you? Then again, maybe not.

Confused by logic? How typical.

 

Disagree. We have explored, via manifold means, and we have a first hand physical poll of chunks of the known universe. This is via manned travels, telescopes, radiation residues extending to the BBT and visions of far galaxies. Science works by probabilities, not possibilities. This generation must conclude no life, else it is talking Star Trek, not science.

No sir. Life is not ideal for this planet - its the reverse - this planet is ideal for life, marking the difference with other space bodies: why is this so, applies. This only invites a reason for this situation, and we find this in Genesis, namely, prior to life, anticipatory actions occured, or better, were specifically impacted to occur, marking the variant from other planets. It is as if Genesis is telling us this happened, and there can be no other explanation for it. Here, the premise of chance is totally negated by a ratio of 1 and all else in the known universe. This is also how all science and commerce predictions operate.

It cannot happen by itself - it did not elsewhere. Nor do we need similar conditions for life - else all factors of ToE collapse. Adaptation is adaptation generically, whereas if it is subject only to this planet's condition then it is an effect - not a cause. This says that life could have emerged in other forms in all planets with any elementary debris - else there is no such thing as evolution.

Beware of those who make excuses which none can challenge - these are agenda, not science or math, based. The glaring fact is that the absence of life elsewhere totally negates ToE - which is not factored in such statements.

Not if their planet is older - and these may not all be too far: almost half the planets in our own system are older than the earth.

This is a laughable conclusion. If we knew there was a life form yonder which we can reach - be they superior or not - we would not be able to resist - even if for the sake of knowing the universe better. If advanced life did exist, they would not be limited to one single mindset either.

We can know now - the probability factor says so, which is based on actual and physical polls and on theoretical conclusions of math.

The most important factor is not considered or evaluated here: what if there is other life in the universe? Genesis wins - and has won as we speak. The protection of science and logic rests with Genesis - aka a mythical writings? Of note is that Genesis does not say there is no life - but the fact the earth is specifically pointed at for life, sys so - else the text would be rendered superfluous, and a perfect writing cannot do that; this is the same with humans bidden to conquer the worlds - which also means no other life form can.

 

Imagine you are assessing if life exists on the 20th floor of the empire state bldg, and that life is marked with blue marbles, and non-life by red marbles. Imagine the ground floor is chock full of blue marbles. Then you check all 20 floors and find only red marbles. This means that 20% of the empire state bldg.

Tick the only one most correct answer:

1. There is a possibility that life can exist in the 80%

2. There is a probability life exists in the 80%.

3. There is a possibility that life does not exist in the 80%.

4. There is the probability life does not exist in the 80%.

 

And not anyplace else in that time - evidenced by a first hand examination of the known universe. This is the only factor which is utilisable here.

 

What maths?
All you have here is a guess based on unknown factors.

For example:

This of course is arrant nonsense, since we haven't explored in sufficient detail anything even approaching a significant fraction of the universe to declare one way or the other.
Your analogy, oh sorry, your "math"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

would be better phrased as :

"Imagine you're in the Empire state and you've found blue marbles stacked in one corner of the basement broom cupboard and red marbles covering 1/10 of the rest of the floor of that broom cupboard. Now assess the chances of finding blue marbles anywhere else in the building".

Tell me again about your use of "science" and "probabilities", because I enjoy the way you tell jokes.

 

I gave a comprehensible analogy with building a house. The blueprint acts as the law here, and it precedes the house. ToE says the house came by itself - so why do we need science?

This is not a proven premise. Its reversal is incomprehensible. I ask, what did the cows eat - and was there oxygen, a new gas on earth, prior to life, specially vegetation life?

 

The only importance for life elsewhere is that it inclines with Genesis, and that this proven knowledge will be a greater shock to the human psyche than discovering life elsewhere. The prospect of being alone is a premise which is too scary to contemplate - and it inclines only with Genesis' version.

One of the fall out of being alone is we are on the wrong path in managing population and pollution controls. In fact, the more the population increases and the worse the pollution - the better for humanity. This is the only factor which will prompt us to conquer other worlds - as advocated in Genesis, with an eerie futuristic anticipation. Why look 100 years in the future instead of 1000 years - when the population of humans and other life will make it impossible for us to turn our noses anyway - even if we limit repro to 1 per 100 couples?

 

No difference. The math still favors the same proposition. In fact, even a singular, minutae factor in favor of the proposition derives the same conclusion. I just simplified it for easier evaluation. The correct math favors Genesis - else you fail the test.

 

precisely - and your notions stimulate precisely nothing -even you yourself have not been able to demonstrate a single practical application of the stuff you are blathering about - and you are the guy who pulled it out of his arse!!!

if the person who fabricated this fantasy cant even come up with a useful application for it then guess what?

it isnt of any use

 

Not at all.

Obviously you failed maths.