Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. So to avoid the problem of the long debunked theory of abiogenesis, some have jumped onto the creation bandwagon and claim they are theists who believe in evolution theory. In fact some claim they are Christians.

According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a “primordial soup,” it resulted in a “common ancestor” from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life–by itself–and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE–How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)

CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth just as they are, with the ability for each “kind” of creature to produce variations of itself up to a set point.

Clearly, the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account are polar opposites. Those who accept the evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis). Furthermore, pro-evolutionists—including those in academia/the scientific community—routinely dodge the issue that their philosophy is based entirely upon speculations for which there is no credible scientific evidence. They routinely use fabricated words such as “species transition,” “speciation,” “Punctuated Equilibrium,” etc. to mislead the gullible. I might add that many pro-evolution scientists are determined to make names for themselves and will resort to outright dishonesty when necessary. I will present proof of this later on in this thread.

Regarding the credibility of the Genesis creation account vs. evolution theory, one source states: “But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science?” (Source: LIFE–How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11)

FACT #1: Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution).

FACT #2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).

FACT #3: Atheists have no explanation for how the “common ancestor” came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the “common ancestor” came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.



Ok I am jacking this thread.

How have you been Maylar!?

Hey Seravee!

Oh you know how it is with me these days. Work has been taking up a lot of time, but things are actually going pretty good these days. Changed my eating habits and started working out. Lost quite a bit of weight as a response. Also have gotten into a serious relationship, so that’s an added bonus. You’d like her, geeky gamer girl that wanted to go to the Science Center on Sunday for a date. We see eye to eye on so many things it’s downright hilarious. Not sure yet how I got so lucky.

How about you? How you been doing?

You lucky…man! I have been busy with work, work and a little dash of a social life. There are many beautiful girls around me but I have inherited my great grandfathers curse of being a workaholic hence no time to really try and pursue a relationship of any type. Ah, I am also going pursing my Masters if Library Science.

You think that will work with me? Dream on. You went from beating a dead horse at Post #2 to declaring you will hijack my thread. Well, watch this.

Below is the statement of what macroevolution involves. The first statement is from Charles Darwin and the second one is from modern pro-evolution scientists. Focus on the words that are bolded within each of the quotations below.

DARWIN’S THEORY IN 1859: (Origin of Species, p. 484)
“Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

  1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

  2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

  3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
    Evolution - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Evolution? What is Evolution? Where is Evolution? Definition of Evolution. Meaning of Evolution.

In other words, nothing has changed since Charles Darwin adopted Aristotle’s personal delusions. In the 21st Century, evolution theory remains one of the religious philosophies of members of the Religion of Atheism.

Considering a life form is just a conglomerate of atoms then it’s not preposterous at all to assume that life could spring from the non-living.

There’s also been several experiments backing that

You are telling me your personal opinion aka speculating. Where is your proof that, as you put it: “life could spring from the non-living?”

Louis Pasteur debunked abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) in 1859. He proved by experiments that life can only result from preexisting life. So until you can produce evidence since 1859 that abiogenesis theory is valid, your above speculations are just that: speculations for which there is no evidence.

Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Miller-Urey experiment.

Either you are acting ignorant or you really can’t use google. 1859 was a long time ago.


I don’t do links. In case you did not notice, I summarized my sources in my OP, after which I provided the publication and page numbers. If you want to make a point from a third-party source, you need to partially quote the portion that you want to bring to my attention. Only after you partially quote your source should you provide the weblink, in case someone wishes to confirm what you quoted and in order that you not be accused of plagiarism.

I will not do your work for you by going to your third-party source that is not part of this community. You are responsible for partially quoting what you want to bring to the attention of an opposing party during debates. The weblink should accompany your partial quotation. Neither the quotation nor the weblink should be presented alone. You presented only the weblink. Please quote the portion from your source that you wish to bring to my attention.

Um no. This isn’t a job nor is it school. If you want to be willfully ignorant and use science from the 1800s then be my guest. Let me know when you join us in this century.

1 Like

I’m re jacking this thread. That is all.


I haven’t heard of a one yet that created life out of inanimate atoms or molecules.

As a science person, neither have I. On the flipside, I haven’t heard a lick of evidence from the IT Design crowd that actually scientifically backs up their theories either. So it’s all just circling back in on itself over and over with nobody ever agreeing on this stuff.

[quote=“Seravee, post:16, topic:39698”]
I’m re jacking this thread. That is all.
[/quote]I’m unjacking this thread. She’s got discussion, you guys leave it alone.