Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

Hi Photizo,
I like irony, but I can't see it here either. Help us out please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are many examples of earlier genesis stories form dozens of cultures. First does not mean right.

Darwin was just a man. He introduced us to evolution not mortality and faith.

There are way to many different creationist arguments. How about you get some form of consensus before presenting your dribble.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not talking faith or morality, but applying science to Genesis - which is encumbent to do so with an open mind. Specially of a document which is humanity's first alphabetical book and introduced a host of factors [DAY; WEEK; etc] Darwinism is hinged upon - like the first grouping and sub-grouping of life forms, later termed as species.

Here's an example from a cosmological [science] pov:

There is no explicable premise for the earth being life friendly [water; oxygen] and the moon being lifeless like other planets. This is specially so if the moon is seen as coming from part of the earth - a current theory. What does Darwin's theory say about the earth being the only life holding body in the known universe - because ToE 'MUST' be conducive to this question if it has any credibility. The notion Darwin is only discussing what he sees is not a credible response.

The other held notion of the earth predating other planets also has no plausable reasoning - in fact we are not given any reasoning here whatsoever. There are two striking factors in Genesis here which conforms with science and evidenced logic:

In Genesis' 4th cosmic day the stars are mentioned immediately after the sun's light is mentioned - Genesis is saying for the first time that our sun is a star - and that the stars are unaccountable - which has great impacts on later cosmology.

The other factor introduced in Genesis is that our sun did not emit light at once, and that vegetation appeared [but it did not grow] before the sun's light was focused on earth. This has unusual and radical credibility because the sun's light is a life sustaining fuel, but is not the life giving source - else all planets which also have the same sunlight would display life. This is like saying a car can be completed but it does not move till ignited - this is evidenced by all known bodies being lifeless. So an external source must be factored in here, which is not answered in ToE.

Think about it carefully instead of only accepting held notions which give no answers here other than allocating everything to nature: because there is no old man in the sky with a long white beard called NATURE!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By seed - a mysterious Hebrew word denoting 'essence' or a comprehensive output issue, can also be understood today as a chip containing a directive program. Without this seed factor, ToE becomes non-science, with no plausable premise of replacement. We are given only esotherical reasonings to make up for the absence of ToE's factoring of the seed. IOW, no seed - no repro - ToE falls. Check mate is in order here, and the premise of reporting only what is observed also falls.

 

"Premise of replacement"? As in reproduction? The biology of reproduction is quite well known. A mystic, esoteric philosophy founded on that physiological and morphological process is unrooted.

 

We know nothing about it - all we know is what is observed when looking at a dot in its mid section. ToE does not even factor a host of pre-life anticipatory factors encumbent for life on this planet, but brilliantly listed in Genesis: critical and focused seperations of water from land and light from darkness. Obviously, these did not occur in the same mode elsewhere - why?

We are saying that water & oxygen are vital for life - but we are not saying why water & oxygen are vital for life, why this occured on earth or that if life would exist elsewhere had they water. What happens if the latter is validated: if water and oxygen are found on Neptune - but no life? It begs the question if Evolution is a universal premise - and if not - why is it still credible as a science?

Things change when the pivotal questions are asked.

 

The ToE as such does indeed consider such factors, and knows a great deal about reproduction. I think you could review this in much more detail. "Light from darkness" is an arbitrary binary expression of photoperiod. They didn't occur in the same mode elsewhere - that we know of - because of differences in planet size, orbit, angle. ToE is based on probability as much as anything: evolution is universally possible, but if conditions for life aren't met, they aren't. Life has limits. You expect life in an inferno? How about at absolute zero? If so, would you even recognize it if you saw it?

 

One of the major pre-life requirements is existence of plate tectonics. Genesis fails to mention this.

 

Good point - but your wrong. Genesis does introduce pre-life factors and stands out in its presentation from Darwin and all other explanations of life origins.

When we see Genesis listing the seperation of the waters from the lands, it is inclusive of a host of factors which will be discovered by science today - even those which will be discovered many generations from the present. If Genesis were to list all such factors then the book would still be in the process of being written: so some subjective intel is required here.

It is important to understand Genesis is a big picture view [Darwin being a localised view], and is written for all generations' understanding. We cannot look for terms such as tectonics - this would render the text non-authentic of its writings dates - here the doubt must be cast on the reader not the writing. What we find instead is an all encomposing description incorporating all mindsets and all future knowledge - a feat in itself.

That Genesis represents all scientific knowledge can be seen when one tests this writings from the POV of the Genesis' given preambles - that the universe is finite and that the premise of form from the formless is an indispensible actuality function - not something which occured via a fictional term called nature - which is non-science. There is no science outside the Genesis premises - and there is no such thing as nature - examine Genesis from this pov.

 

Yes there is life in an inferno and absolute zero - also in the deepest, darkest, lightless ocean beds - but only on the earth. The factors of planet sizes outside the earth does not allow your conclusions for the same reason.

If darwin's evotution is a universal premise, than its survival of the fittest cannot be limited only to earthly conditions - life would exist in poisonous Venus also: why are only earth's fitness fit for life? If natural selection was universal, nature would exemplify this by selecting moon rocks also. But all facts are centred in the Genesis example of life, which affords only natural selectEE not selectION.

IOW, till we find life everywhere there are gasses, elements, winds and movements - the factors of ToE cannot be described as universal. This problem is not seen in Genesis!

 

Joseph, the ToE is based on simple mathematical inheritance. It is possible to find a species or trait system which is unaffected by ToE - for example, if a given phenotype was affected only by environmental variance. Yet, the overwhelming evidence is that almost all characters are heritable to some degree; taken in toto, this means that for each species, some phenotype is heritable, which involves it in the ToE.

There's also the metaphysical aspect to this: assuming a species that is genetic-invariant, any de novo mutation means that this species may be subject to evolution, with selection for or against the new mutation; or even non-selective evolution via drift. As such, all species are undergoing the process of evolution, even if that process is stasis. This would apply even to pre-cellular self-reproducing molecules and complexes.

 

I've read such stuff years ago, as a means of ratifying the unratifiable. A process being in place is not disputed, but the conclusion of its meaning can certainly be disputed. Quoting an invironment as the impacter, with a back-up of heritance - are contradictions in terms, at least by the logic in Genesis. Analogy: a car is either derived by the invironment or by its maker - but not by both equally.

The other problem here is ToE is not talking of THE environment but conditions on earth only - this says ToE factors are not universal - and the evidence proves this. What enables blood cells to supply blood - nature - or a directve program embedded in the seed's genes? Then ask - which answer is scientifically based? One way is to test this is with your mobile phone's chip - if you say nature did it, you are talkin ToE; if you say the chip has a directive program - you are talking Genesis. ToE gets away with its unscientific conclusions only because we cannot prove who done it - but ToE fails all scientific premises, while genesis does not. 'IT JUST HAPPENS' cannot apply to a complexity whether we can identify the causer or not - the sound, theoretical premise wins in the end.

In-variant refers to specific, pre-determined similar output, which you also say is subject to changes via 'drift' [invironment], which you accept as the igniter of a result. Then try it without the chip [seed] factor - does it still work? Why not - has the drift become ineffective?

This is what I mean by the coinage of neo unscientific terms, whereby the invironment is referred to as the causer of changes: these are resultant not from logical observances and their conclusions - but only to negate any religious doctrines, and which is understandable. But religions do not mention these things - only the Hebrew bible does. Most other religions have no input here and are basically entrenched only in self serving localised names - not the origins of the universe. While the invironment can impact changes on the entire earth, as also the moon and sun can - eventually all these factors are themselves forces of a directed program. Why not and how else?

For a life form to even recognise these impacts for the creation of a pre-determinable outcome, both the life and the invironment have to be critically interactive to be scientific: yes/no? And interactive and random are contradictions in terms again - yes/no? We know that the invironment cannot make a stone produce a pineapple - because here the two entities are not programed to do so; this only occurs when there is an interacting program in both interacting forces. Analogy: one can say a lock found on Jupiter can be a random occurence - but this does not hold if we also find an exacting key to that lock.

All that ToE is saying refers to an observable process - then it allocates neo unscientific reasoning to it - like drift. There's no drift on Mars - yet we see volcanos there but no life; this negates the natural selection premise entirely.

ToE's repro doctrine can only be ratified if its factors are seen outside the seed factor - and in all conditions. Otherwise repro is exclusively rested on a directive program contained in a chip. This does not change if the moon or the temperatures or the spin of the earth also impacts - repro still won't happen without the seed, and we must assume that the invironmental factors are also part of the directive program. Else there is no science - only selective science.

 

Which planet are you from? Genesis not only mentions the seed factor but is totally identified by this. :shrug:

We are talkin here correct comprehension - there is no science without it. Check my statement again and then your conclusion of it:

"A process being in place is not disputed, but the conclusion of its meaning can certainly be disputed. "

Of course a process is in place whereby things change and grow. My arguement is this is totally reliant on the data contained in the seed of the host parentage. How is that vague and nebulous? If these changes are invironmentally factored, then I asked to prove this without the seed - is that not reasonable?

Thanks for enlightening me cars are not living things. But the principle still applies, namely is it the invironment or the seed's directive program. A car, living or not, also requires a directive program as opposed the invironment. The notion that a car needs a car maker and cannot emerge from the invironment is an acceptable analogy. Nothing on this planet is resultant from the invironment per se because the invironment on its own - without the seed - does not result in an offspring - but the seed does. This is due to the directive program in the seed. This applies equally to biological and inanimate stuff.

We know that for some 4 billion years the invironment did not produce life on earth, and the notion this was not in a life producing form yet is bogus: there are many life forms and they do not subscribe to a particular invironment. If something occured later - then it aligns with Genesis. We know also that life did not occur in the known universe for some 14 Billion years - again, the notion all invironments all over the universe was not yet life producing is bogus - except it says the invironment has no impact.

Evidence your claim? If NS is universal where else is it seen? If survival of the fittest is universal where else is it seen outside the universe? Am I asking the wrong questions or the ones which impact?

Evolved from what and by what - it was not the invironment for billions of years - are you saying the invironment evolved as a counter to the inherited seed? The basis for the blood cells is generic to all life - there is no evolve here. What you are saying is that the food we eat causes blood cells to function as they do - same thing if measured by the invironment.

If a mobile phone does not get impacted by the invironment but the chip - why is this not seen with life forms: I say it does more than it does not? In both the mobile phone and the life form, the invironment impacts are belated and not aligned with the life or the phone. E.g. the invironment can cause water damage to a phone in a flood - that is invironmental impact.

It does not work without the seed factor nominated in Genesis - come what may of the invironment. Is that simple enough?

Who's not being specific now - which part in Genesis is not science? Please don't evade the Q.

Correction. There's no evidence the invironment laws are directed by nature. There is also no such thing as laws without a director. As I stated, the only factor which Darwin gets away with is the claim there is no director - but this applies equally to nature: where does nature live and how many colors does it come in?

But what happened to natural selection here - why can we not see the invironment impacting on a stone to cause a pineapple? Maybe because of the missing seed factor?

Yes, that's my question also - drift was nominated for changes. We have drift on Mars - but no life. Why so?

Whew! Its not my brilliant discovery - the seed factor is given us in Genesis - so is the first intro to life form groups and sub-groups, and that each species follows their kind by virture of the seed program. There is nothing here which is not logical or scientific, and its manifestation does not require millions of years to verify. And that is another slight of hand casino science from ToE: if evolution is an on-going process, the time factor is irrelevent - basic math - yes/no?

Correction. That the invironment causes life has no proof - it is not testable as is Genesis and its seed factor. Religion is a new term and cannot apply where the universe and life origins are concerned - unless you can show us any other religions which also have input here? Here, the religious nuttery is itself a nuttery: you are talking of the first alphabetical book, the first description of species and the source for all humanity's laws.
- is that religious nuttery?

Now here's an easy way to test yourself. Please give your assessment of the first emergence of any life form species you choose: did they emerge as one or as millions? IOW, did the first single zebra emerge at one specific time in the past or did zebras appear in their 1000's all at once - and was that a male or female? ebra's are a land based life form with black stripes.

Please don't say you don't know - use your prowess of ToE to give an answer to this real life question - as in an exam. The question is meant to test whether you have challenging input in what you have read of ToE - or just swallow everything without any variance. Lets see if ToE or Geneis is more scientific?

 

Poor start with spell check focus in forum debates and the text age. An occasional vowel slip up is not related to not knowing science - poor comprohension is far more onuserable.

Its a classic example of poor comprehension - have you even read Genesis' creation chapters, because first you stated it does not refer to a seed factor?

FYI, speciation comes not from Darwin but Genesis: a life form species will follow its own species [kind] - and the allocations of life form kinds are by divisions of vegetation, water, air, land and speech based groups - the most fundamental criteria of divisions. This says a land based group like a cat may be derived from changes to its predessor land based group - be that a saber tiger or whatever.

Further, while Genesis mentions these sub-group speciations can occur within those group allocations, it does NOT exclude other forms of cross-speciation of one group [water based] to another [land based]. This is not why I say but what Genesis' text says - firmly placing it as the first introduction of both speciation and cross speciation - 1000's of years before Darwin. There is also no part of the texts which restricts humans from chimps here - both being of the same land based life forms. So by speciation, Darwin said nothing - aside from a new word coinage. But Genesis says speciation is a result of a directive factored in the seed - not by the invironment.

I won't deliberate nor give you this point. The car is surely not subject to ToE styled natural process but the seed factor again applies - because what we call natural is a fiction, but the input of the human in the car does constitute a natural process of human knowkedge input interacting with other intergrated forces within the same construct. Genesis takes the big picture view here - not a localised one. But not the kind of natural prowess which ToE presents as a magical deity which controls the car or a life form's changes. There is no such thing as nature - so how can there be natural processes, acting on their own 'BECAUSE?' and no other reason - that is not science - which scientific principle does it align with?

That is because nature does not do what you say it does with life forms. The car, unlike ToE, does have a source factor - a car factory controlled by human input - note, no natural forces - the point.

Fine - I was making a point of principle here, namely that in the beginning life did not exist on this planet - and this factor also comes from Genesis - not any other source. If nature was present the first 500M years - still no life. So what happened according to your assessment - did pink quarks bang into blue sparks from a certain angle and hit the jackport? Is that still science? I bet if a religious nut said that he'd be booted out before he finished his sentence!


Th

Poor math! The known uni is the biggest chunk before us, still too big to fathom. fact is we have not seen life for 14 B years from even the unknown universe. Life advancement is based on the time factor - so at least 5 trillion life forms would have beaten the distance barriers in the known universe alone - well before us and they would have long made themselves known. We have a first hand survey poll of parts of the known universe - this says the rest is more like the poll sample than not. Math works on probabilities - not possibilities. You have also negated the viability of NS and survival of the fittest as universal syndromes. By default.

All we can say now is all indicators say: NO LIFE. The math thread of this is tedious but in my favor. You will be making an unscientific leap to even factor any life probabilities here - which is not to say it is impossible. Nor does other life impact genesis - which is silent iof this premise, except that this silent is telling.

Absolutely wrong. You are lookin at a mid-point in the thread. Originally, there has to be a program which caters to modification, with specific focus. That is why a pineapple cannot be derived from stone - they do not recognise each other beause this is not catered to in its program directive; but a stone can produce other elements like iron, bronze and diamonds - its base foundational program caters to these modifications. Thus I say, darwin's observations of a process is not the issue - his conclusions are. All modifications can only be derived by an inherited program - not from the magic of the invironment - else life would be found 'EVERYWHERE' we see invironments.

Of note, Genesis text does cater to modifications and adaptation, allowing the inherited chimp to pass on the same growth process to the offspring - a land based life firm shall follow a land based life form? So again - nothing new with Darwin's adaptation - its a Genesis lift off.

That is very specific, open to no other meaning that the chip [seed], which is a directive program [dna; genes] inherited by the host parent. This program includes the offspring being able to continue the directive process [Genesis, again].

I've no idea.

E.G.?

No - its Genesis. Modern science only affirms Genesis wth new words. The DNA is part of the inherited seed - there can be no other reading of the Genesis verse, which context is the passing down of traits and attributes.

The seed refers to an issue from both parents which become enjoined as one in a conception [male sperm+ female egg; etc]. Genesis puts it very well and understandable by all generations. Its a term also mentioned in lineage of human genealogy - as in the seed of Noah and Abraham.

I asked you to specify which verse in the creation chapter is not alligned with modern science. Remember? I also asked you to name any other 'religious' text which caters to this issue - because you are lumping everything as one basic category, which is not reasonable.

I did answer to species. With blood, all I can say is it contains proof of the dna trait and a carrier of fuel to different organs. I am not sure where you want this to lead.

Not sure if your being sarcastic. I never said no director but that nature is not the director. At best, what we call natural forces are the result of one director of both the seed and the forces it interacts. These have to be interactive, else nothing happens [the stone analogy].

.

No, because you are saying a fiction called nature is responsible and I say laws are responsible. Further, laws must have a law maker to be a scientific premise - regardless of the proof factor, which by the way impacts negatively more on ToE than genesis. Cause & effect VS no cause/effect?

We see and touch - but we do not see and touch nature. This is a term we use for the inexplicable only, but has been hyped up as a scientific premise as a back door to science. Its not science. In ancient times, nature was the deities of the wind and spells. Its modern voodooism.

Err...I know well what drift is. Yes, it is changes derived by random [invironmental] impacts on the gene flow. It is also referred to as genetic drift.

You will get zero for such a statement. A program is a set with pre-determined directives to effect a specific result. It is well described in genesis - the offspring is a result of the seed which makes it follow its own kind [read, the stuff contained in the seed data]. Let's not be confused by a deceptively simple text - this is intentional. Why don't you imagine going back in a time machine and tell us how you would word it?

You certainly never answered it and there is no question I am right. An on-going process which started 4 B years ago does not ceace for even a nano-second. We would see chimps turning to humans every second - a new cross-specie life 1 second ago and 1 second from now. On-going means continuous.

No. We have assumed that life started. I asked how did a zebra start - one, many, male - both genders?

Ok. A finite uni is a myth! Formless to form as the pre-requisite for science is a myth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Prove your negation.

Yes it does. Kinds are life form groups which follow their kind - aka specie.

Name me ONE law accepted by humanity's institutions and not contained in the Hebrew bible? Or else, name me one contained in any other source and also accepted by the world's institutions? The Gospels and Quran contain no laws - this being a premise accepted and followed by other groups also. This despite that Genesis predates by 2,600 years.

No one told me this. I read both side's account. But you can correct me by producing - instead of using colorful adjectives.

You are escaping the issue. How can there not be a first zebra, regardless of its original design - its reverse says many zebras emerged. Ok, so at least answer if male came first - or they both appeared simultainiously. This is an important point for negating ToE and affirming genesis.

No contest. But I still say there has to be the first emergence of a species' sub-group and its main group. Like the first dog and the first bull dog. This can also relate to life per se and the BB. At one time there was no life and no universe - then there was. And evolution itself says they evolved - from a base one?

You refuse to consider the issue. The factors you present do not impact here.

Try this. if a red marble turns to green once every 10 years - is it an on-going process or a periodical process? And if the red marble produces green marbles, does it mean the red also contained green - or the invironment produced the green inside the green marble - which came from the red? Note, Genesis says the red must cintain green to reproduce a red and/or a green. The dual-gendered male and female apples: "MALE AND FEMALE DID HE CREATE THEM' [GENESIS]. There is no alternative to this.

There is no alternative to the universe having a universe maker. Obvioysly no other explanation is at hand for a finite realm, nor can there ever be one.

One duality. All changes are post this point. [Genesis]

There is no alternative to the dual-gendered first entity. [the red and green marble analogy]. [Genesis]

Both are one species - each a different sub-group of that species. Namely, they are land based - the foremost factor impacting here, well before dna and skelatal variances. [Genesis].

Sure, Every quark is unique. The host parentage are also unique - and their seed contains billions of variations - yet they follow the inherited data. A human produces billions of sperm cells - they all cintain the same core data with variances.

5. There

Whatever number of zebra species - they are all dependent on the inherited seed data. No alternatives apply. [Genesis].

One dual gendered original entity applies. We are a product of a dual-gendered union of inheritance. The invironment impacts are belated and limited - so is food and life style.

Everything in a finite realm is time limited. This is generic.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. Freedom of Religion is not a biblical concept.

 

Well, I kind of agree with this one, and that this has become a law in the modern world. I don't want to go into a religious discussion here, but your suggestion is the only one which has some credence. This stems from the premise of two laws: honor the kingdom which houses you; equal right for the stranger as the inhabitant. Seperation of religion from state is best seen with King David and the prophet Nathan - whereby David was charged before his nation and convicted under the law represented by Nathan. This example is unseen in the ancient world, specially where a king is concerned, nor in many states operating illegally today.

The sum total is that one must not induce or enforce one's belief on another [as with christianity and islam], but do this only via example ['be a light unto others']. Nowhere in geo-history is the right to uphold one's belief better defended than with Judea against Rome's heresy law - nowhere is it worse than with Islamic states today - which emulates medevial Europe. America's constitution is derived from the Hebrew laws.

 

Yes.

No. Food also has an impact. But we are not talking behaviour here.

Yes. It requires translation and expansion derived via mental evolving - a facility factored in the chip. The first factor is deciding which universe we inhabit - a finite or infinite one. This is clearly and boldly seen in Genesis without sending us to biology classes.

The reverse applies. The dna is able to accumulate evolved data and pass this on [Genesis]. The invironment cannot do this. MC2 is not a result of the invironment - else it would occur maybe 4000 years ago.

Yes. This also applies to everything which may unfold in the universe in the future. A song which will be penned 5000 years from now already exists now: do you even understand the true technical emaning of 'CREATE' - as opposed to FORMED - a deep idea introduced in Genesis - the word does not appear outside the first creation chapter: why? Its not a typo!

A careful comprehension of genesis says that everything in the universe was created in one click at the beginning, namely all of the heavens [galaxies] and the earth: they merely evolved from potential to actual when its due time arrived. How else? The light produced by the sun already existed before the sun - else the sun could not produce light. This is what Genesis says, and not agreeing does not mean it is not a scientific and logical premise.

No, this is a wrong understanding. The subject life form allows the invironment to impact, same as it does with oxygen and food. This is due to the data in the chip - we saw this does nt allow a stone to reproduce a pineapple - no niches in the stone and pineapple apply! Try to zoom out and see the big pic here?

Again, look at a bigger picture. Its not the invironment that performs this feat - its the pliability allowed by the chip. A bear will not survive on Mars' invironment - guess why?

Wrong again. Genesis is intelligent. It gives the foundational means for future understanding. An example: 'NOT TO LEAVE A HOLE IN THE GOUND IN THE VICINITY OF YOUR DOMESTIC DONKEY. By your faulty reasoning, every creature on earth must be listed - but a wise view says all owned animals must be given a safe invironment and this is the onus of the animals' owner. This is how Genesis must be read. In ancient times, none would understand what invironement means - but they would understand what is obligatory for their animals' safety - and so will we today regarding all animals.
---

???

Better, ToE's NS and survival of the fittest appears limited to the 3rd rock from the sun! Why does a universal premise fail here - because of the invironment on Mars or because earthly chips forbid it?

Yes, otherwise you will fail by Genesis. You want to do what ToE does - assume a premise via observation in a later mid section of a process, say you have no idea of origins, then argue that the mid point is the origins when you send me to biology classes - and the biology class is of course ruled by ToE! Nice trick - but I didn't fall for it.

I say one of the most underated premises of origins is that all things in the universe began as a duality. When the universe is accepted as finite - there is no alternatve to this premise introduced in Genesis. And it impacts all of science and the BBT. Please think deeply about this and check the transcendence of Genesis here, and why I find this the most mysterious doument humanity possesses, and which ToE'ists see only as another mythical religious nutty case made by some desert wonderers! Actually, not all desert wonderers can perform such feats - so what's going on here?