Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Look, more lies.

How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.

You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.

Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.

And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.

It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

You mean taking scriptures out of context and the atheist unable to reason from what they read ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.

Video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.

The Fossil Record
The Only Direct Evidence.

CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, p. 47

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. ...The fossil record and only the fossil record provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota." NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, p.72, 1981

HISTORICAL � NOT EMPIRICAL, JOHN H. HORNER "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it�s easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19

In Their "Beginning": Sudden; Complex; Diverse; Every Animal Phylum; Assumed History Missing

STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682

Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner, "Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." Science, Aug.27, 1982

RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...�This is Genesis material,� gushed one researcher. ...demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN, John Repetski, U.S.Geol. Survey, "The oldest land plants now known are from the Early Cambrian... Approximately 60 Cambrian spore-genera are now on record...represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..." Evolution, V.13, 6/'59, p.264. Daniel I. Axelrod, UCLA, "This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years." [WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] Science, Vol.200, 5 May, 1978, p.529

PATCH FAILED, "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world. ...just as the peculiar behavior of light forced physicists to conclude that Newton's laws were incomplete, so the Cambrian explosion has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an adequate framework for understanding evolution..." Time, 12/4, 1995, p.67, 74

BLIND FAITH, Douglas Futuyma, "It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another." EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 1985, p.325

"Trees" Contradicted By Fossils, From Some Similarities, Ignoring Others

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS" Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

SEPRATE FOSSIL KINDS" Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.", Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.

"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.", Nat.His., V.86, p.13

STORY TIME, COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H.Dott, U.of Wis. & R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest' forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602

Unrelated Look-Alikes, J.Z.Young, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "...similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem

Embryonic Recapitulation?

R. H. DOTT, Univ. of WI, R. L BATTEN, Columbia Univ., A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

SIMPSON & BECK, "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."Intro.To Biology, 1965,p.273

KEITH S. THOMPSON, Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." American Scientist, 5/6, 1988, p.273 "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated"

Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montagu-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/1980

"EMBRYONIC FRAUD LIVES ON," "Although Hacckel confessed�and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist." New Scientist, p.23, 9/6/97

Significant Change Is Not Observed

BOTHERSOM distresS, STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

"DESIGNS," S.J.Gould, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2

Required Transitional Forms Missing

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

MORE EMBARRASSING, David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Proposed Links "Debunked"

TEXTBOOK DECEIT, GEORGE G. SIMPSON, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." LIFE OF THE PAST, p.119

THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984.

TEXTBOOK HORSES, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL "...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" FOSSIL HORSES, 1994, p.27

STORY TIME OVER, Derek Ager, U.at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1.

Systematic Gaps

orders, classes, & phyla, George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporatic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p.149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol.28, p. 467

NOT ONE! D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95

EVIDENCE-A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. Seward, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize." Plant Life Through the Ages, p.561

"WE KNEW BETTER", Niles Eldredge, Columbia U., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist� my own breed�who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

Punctuated Equilibrium

Unobserved imagined scenario to explain missing evidence,based on fossils not found, mechanisms not observed

GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them - in small, localized, transitory populations...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." p.77, 110, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981

Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100

Implication Of The Fossils

PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories. ...the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.", Evolution, Vol.28, p.466

DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61

Fossils Do Not Support Evolution. Fossils Are Positive Evidence For Creation!



Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "We conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.



THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981

NO VERTICAL CHANGE, NILES ELDRIDGE, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "The classic cases of �living fossils� reveal a more pervasive conservatism: there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ...Against them we might pit the mutability, the evolutionary changeability, of disease-causing and antibiotic-resistant staphylo-coccus bacteria, malaria pathogens, or the dreaded retroviruses (that cause AIDS and other horrid afflictions): in the short term, at least, evolutionary change in these microbes is extremely rapid. And so we ask: what underlies this great disparity of evolutionary rates?" FOSSILS, 1991, p.100



PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard , "It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoans, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23



H.S. Ladd, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7

 

[daws101]

Item According to Genesis According to Evolution Theory
Source Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 Paleontologists, Biologists, Astronomers, Geologists, etc.
Sun Created after the world Present before world coalesces
Grass, land plants, trees Created before the sun Evolved after the sun
First forms of life Land plants Marine organisms
Birds Created before land animals Evolved from land animals
Fruit Trees Created before fish Evolved after fish
Initial diet of animals Restricted to plants Animals evolved as meat, plant eaters, and omnivores.
Age of the universe Less than 10,000 years About 14 billion years
Age of the Earth Less than 10,000 years About 4.5 billion years
Age of earliest life forms Less than 10,000 years About 3.5 billion years
Where humans came from From Adam who was created by God(s). Genesis 1:27 does not explain the method. Genesis 2:7 explains that Adam was made from dust, the ground, or soil (translations differ). Evolved; higher apes and Homo Sapiens share a common ancestor. Actually, any two species of life have a common ancestor, even humans and cabbages, or dogs and sharks.

The theory of evolution concludes that all life forms can be traced back to a primitive one-cell animal. Exactly how that simple animal developed out of non-living matter is beyond the scope of the theory evolution. The origins of life are the subject of a separate field of science, called: abiogenesis.

 

[daws101]

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com

 

[LOki]

Video.

103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.

--ALL THE CRAP CITED IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE CREATIONIST SUPERSTITIOUS PSUEDO-SCIENCE I DIDN'T MISS SNIPPED FOR THE BENEFIT OF RATIONAL HUMANITY---​

No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.

 

[daws101]

Look, more lies.

How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.

You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.

Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.

And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.

It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

You mean taking scriptures out of context and the atheist unable to reason from what they read ?

lol! ahhh...it's seems you have a ass backward idea of what reason is. none of the text was taken out of context, it was taken as written so the flaw must be with the authors, not the readers.
if memory serves the bible was intended to be literal..that every word is true.
a little logic and analytical reading proves otherwise.

 

[daws101]

Why are there two creation stories in Genesis?Answer
The early Jews are believed to have encountered an early version of what is now the first creation story, in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, during the Babylonian Exile. It was assimilated and added to Genesis, without removing the second creation story, which starts in Genesis 2:4b, probably because the older story was popular and it would have caused dissent to have removed it.

Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) says that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman), but he says we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first (and vice versa) if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.
There are two different creation stories:

The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3
The second is Genesis 2:4-25






Read more: Why are there two creation stories in Genesis

 

[LOki]

Lee Spetner

"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to Lamarckian-like inheritance), but rejected macroevolution."​

Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.

He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?

HAHA! YES HE DOES!

"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."

...​

"Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"​

LOLsome!

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

 

[LOki]

I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.

I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.

I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.

Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.

Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.

You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.

 

[LOki]

Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.

I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.

And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.

So,what does he say that is wrong ?

You should make the attempt to read what you reply to.

Previously posted here.

Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself.

~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000* in duration. EDIT: * Just noticed I threw an extra zero in there--I meant to say "about 60,000,000"--I can't fix it in the original posting.

@ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex."

As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute.

Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale.

Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms."

What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists.

Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche.

@ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it.

He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present.

@ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment.

It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards.

@ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations.

Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously?

@ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive."

I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations.

I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time.

So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him.

==========================================
===============INTERMISSION===============
==========================================

This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.

Does the “Darwinist” conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don’t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn’t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that — gasp! — investments in creationism don’t offer anything of value?
--The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009

==========================================
=============END INTERMISSION=============
==========================================

I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically.

But, while I was searching this video I found:

@ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it."

Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.​

You'll just have to excuse me for not documenting every bit of Veith's disingenuous bullshit; his track record for intellectual dishonesty was well established in his first 2 presentations, and in this one he couldn't manage abstain from his bullshit more than 3 minutes.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.

I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.

I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.

Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.

Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.

You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

And you didn't prove a thing except that you're a liar. Who I guess doesn't know what the word "lie" means, or "proof" for that matter, which is sad. You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Item According to Genesis According to Evolution Theory
Source Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 Paleontologists, Biologists, Astronomers, Geologists, etc.
Sun Created after the world Present before world coalesces
Grass, land plants, trees Created before the sun Evolved after the sun
First forms of life Land plants Marine organisms
Birds Created before land animals Evolved from land animals
Fruit Trees Created before fish Evolved after fish
Initial diet of animals Restricted to plants Animals evolved as meat, plant eaters, and omnivores.
Age of the universe Less than 10,000 years About 14 billion years
Age of the Earth Less than 10,000 years About 4.5 billion years
Age of earliest life forms Less than 10,000 years About 3.5 billion years
Where humans came from From Adam who was created by God(s). Genesis 1:27 does not explain the method. Genesis 2:7 explains that Adam was made from dust, the ground, or soil (translations differ). Evolved; higher apes and Homo Sapiens share a common ancestor. Actually, any two species of life have a common ancestor, even humans and cabbages, or dogs and sharks.

The theory of evolution concludes that all life forms can be traced back to a primitive one-cell animal. Exactly how that simple animal developed out of non-living matter is beyond the scope of the theory evolution. The origins of life are the subject of a separate field of science, called: abiogenesis.

There is nothing simple when it comes to life.

Letv me show why all your claims on your site simply read everything literally which is dishonest on their part .

Anyone who knows the bible,knows that it is full of metaphors and the bible had to be pieced together.

Just an example of what's done from your side.





Factual Accuracy



Flood



Geology



Miracles



Nature of God



Prophecy



Resurrection of Christ



Salvation



Theistic Evolution



Transmission/Textual Criticism




Alleged Discrepancies













Search :












Search By Keyword

Search By Bible Verse





Share41



Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?



by

Wayne Jackson, M.A.



Q.

Genesis 1 and 2 provide accounts of what God did during creation. But these two chapters don’t seem to agree. Are there two different accounts of creation under discussion in Genesis 1 and 2?



A.

It is common for liberal critics of the Bible to assert that the book of Genesis contains two accounts of the creation of the Earth and mankind. Allegedly, these two accounts reflect different authors, different time periods, etc. It further is charged that the narratives contradict each other in several particulars.

The two records are supposed to involve Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. One author has written: “It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff...” (Weiser, 1961, pp. 72-73, emp. in orig.). This view of Scripture is not the exclusive property of the radically liberal theologians; it has made its presence felt in “conservative” circles as well. Some religionists speak of the “two different creation accounts” (Murray and Buffaloe, 1981, p. 7), or the “two ‘creation hymns’ ” (see Manis as quoted by Thompson, 1986, p. 16).

One of the foundational assumptions of this so-called “higher critical” viewpoint is that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was not authored by Moses. Supposedly, several ancient writers contributed to this collection. These authors are referred to as J, E, P, and D. Some scholars subdivide them even further, e.g., J1, J2, etc. “J” stands for “Jehovah,” since that name for God was prominent in certain sections. “E” signifies Elohim, another divine name allegedly identifying certain portions. “P” purports to be a “Priestly Code,” and “D” identifies what is known as the “Deuteronomic” writer. The critics claim that all of these writings eventually were collected and combined by a “redactor” (editor). This theory, known as the Documentary Hypothesis, became popular in the 19th century when Jean Astruc, a French physician, claimed that he had isolated certain “source” authors in the Pentateuch. His views were expanded and popularized by others so that by the end of the century numerous biblical commentators had gravitated to this liberal concept. Though this approach is circulated widely and defended frequently, it will not bear the weight of scholarly investigation. [For further discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, see the author’s article, “Destructive Criticism and the Old Testament,” (Thompson and Jackson, 1990, 4:1ff).]

In the case of the “two creation accounts,” Genesis 1 is said to be a “P” document (dating from the Babylonian or post-Babylonian captivity period), while Genesis 2 is supposed to be a “J” narrative from the ninth century B.C.

The arguments in support of this radical viewpoint are twofold. (1) It is claimed that the two creation stories show evidence of different styles of writing. (2) It is argued that the accounts conflict in that they reflect divergent concepts of deity and a mismatched order of creation. Let us give these assertions brief consideration.




STYLISTIC VARIATION

Professor Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool has noted, “stylistic differences are meaningless” (1966, p. 118). Such differences may as much indicate a variance in the subject addressed as the suggestion of multiple authors. On the basis of archaeological evidence, Kitchen has shown that the “stylistic” theory simply is not credible. For example, a biographical inscription of Uni, an Egyptian official who lived about 2400 B.C., reflects at least four different styles, and yet no one denies the unity of its authorship (Kitchen, 1966, p. 125).

The plural authorship of the “creation accounts” is supposed to be indicated by the use of two names for deity in these sections. “God” (Elohim) is employed in Genesis 1, whereas “Jehovah” (Yahweh) is found in 2:4ff. In response it may be observed, first, that solid biblical research has clearly shown the use of different appellations for deity to possibly reflect a purposeful theological emphasis. For example, Elohim, which suggests “strength,” exalts God as the mighty Creator. Yahweh is the name that expresses the essential moral and spiritual nature of deity, particularly in terms of His relationship to the nation of Israel (see Stone, 1944, p. 17). Second, the multiple employment of titles was common in the literature of antiquity as a device of literary variety. Archaeological discoveries have amply illustrated this point. Consider Genesis 28:13. The Lord speaks to Jacob and says: “I am Jehovah (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac.” Would one argue for the multiple authorship of this single sentence upon the basis of the use of two Hebrew names for the Creator? Hardly. One scholar pointedly observed:



To conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmistakably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his style and select vocabulary to fit the themes he is developing and the people he is addressing. It goes without saying that a young graduate student’s love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper (Davis, 1975, p. 23).

It must be concluded that arguments for “two creation accounts” in Genesis, based upon a subjective view of “style,” are speculative and unconvincing.




SO-CALLED CONTRADICTIONS

As mentioned earlier, the alleged discrepancies between chapters 1 and 2 involve an imagined difference in the perception of God on the part of the hypothetical “authors,” and the alleged contradictory order of events mentioned in the respective records.

First, it is supposed that in Genesis 1 the Creator is a transcendent Being, majestically and distantly bringing the creation into existence. In Genesis 2, however, He is characterized by naive anthropomorphisms (human terminology applied to deity) which imply an inferior status. For example, in Genesis 2 the writer says that Jehovah “formed,” “breathed,” “planted,” etc. (7-8).

While it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what the critics have failed to notice is that anthropomorphic terminology also is employed in Genesis 1:1-2:4. In that section, God “called,” “saw,” “rested,” etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity in this argument, and one is not surprised that serious scholars have labeled it “illusory” (Kitchen, 1966, p. 118).

Second, as indicated above, some reversed language order, as seen in the two chapters, is also supposed to demonstrate conflicting creation accounts. E.A. Speiser has written: “The first account starts out with the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ (1:1). The present narrative begins with the making of ‘earth and heaven’ (2:4b).” Speiser goes on to emphasize that in the first record heavenly activity is in focus, while in the latter account man is the center of interest. He thus concluded: “This far-reaching divergence in basic philosophy would alone be sufficient to warn the reader that two separate sources appear to be involved, one heaven-centered and the other earth-centered” (Speiser, 1964, pp. 18-19). This argument for a dual authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 is truly unconvincing. Let us carefully note Genesis 2:4. “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” In this one verse there is contained the heaven/earth and earth/heaven motif. [Does this mean that two people must have written this one sentence?] Even the critics do not so contend!

Third, the claim is made that in chapter 1 man is represented as having been made “in the image of God” (27), yet in chapter 2, he is merely “formed...of the dust of the ground” (7), thus suggesting a distinct contrast. The point of comparison is too limited, hence, unfair. As professor John Sailhamer observed:



...we should not overlook the fact that the topic of the “creation of man” in chapter 2 is not limited merely to v. 7. In fact, the topic of the creation of the man and the woman is the focus of the whole of chapter 2. What the author had stated as a simple fact in chapter 1 (man, male and female, was created in God’s likeness) is explained and developed throughout the narrative of chapter 2. We cannot contrast the depiction of the creation of man in chapter 1 with only one verse in chapter 2; we must compare the whole of the chapter (1990, 2:40-41, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.

Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original creation of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant reproduction had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96).

Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.).

Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!

Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1 (Green, 1979, p. 26).




THE REAL EXPLANATION

Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors that militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation.

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:



There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).

This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]

Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

Even Howard Johnston, who was (at least in part) sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis, conceded:



The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).

The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:



It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).




CONCLUSION

One final but forceful point should be made. In Matthew 19:4-5, the Lord Jesus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. He declared: “He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [2:24].” If the liberal viewpoint is true, how very strange that Christ should have given not the slightest hint that the two accounts involved a multiple authorship and contradictory material! Obviously, the Son of God did not endorse the modern Documentary Hypothesis.

When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine.

Apologetics Press - Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?

 

[Youwerecreated]

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lee Spetner

"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to Lamarckian-like inheritance), but rejected macroevolution."​

Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.

He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?

HAHA! YES HE DOES!

"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."

...​

"Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"​

LOLsome!

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

The one problem for you is you don't know or understand what the modern day theory of evolution is. If you do then explain it in detail ?

BB claimed to be a biology teacher but didn't know what it was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.

I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.

I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.

Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.

Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.

You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.

You ignorant bloviator.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.

And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.

So,what does he say that is wrong ?

You should make the attempt to read what you reply to.

Previously posted here.

Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself.

~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000* in duration. EDIT: * Just noticed I threw an extra zero in there--I meant to say "about 60,000,000"--I can't fix it in the original posting.

@ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex."

As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute.

Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale.

Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms."

What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists.

Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche.

@ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it.

He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present.

@ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment.

It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards.

@ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations.

Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously?

@ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive."

I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations.

I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time.

So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him.

==========================================
===============INTERMISSION===============
==========================================

This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.

Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects.

Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.

Does the “Darwinist” conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don’t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn’t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that — gasp! — investments in creationism don’t offer anything of value?
--The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009

==========================================
=============END INTERMISSION=============
==========================================

I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically.

But, while I was searching this video I found:

@ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it."

Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.​

You'll just have to excuse me for not documenting every bit of Veith's disingenuous bullshit; his track record for intellectual dishonesty was well established in his first 2 presentations, and in this one he couldn't manage abstain from his bullshit more than 3 minutes.

Everything he say's can be supported. He uses your own against you. And he makes solid arguments.

I noticed you failed to respond to the ones on your side that secialize in the correct fields to make such conclusions that agree with the Doctors explanation of your side.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are there two creation stories in Genesis?Answer
The early Jews are believed to have encountered an early version of what is now the first creation story, in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, during the Babylonian Exile. It was assimilated and added to Genesis, without removing the second creation story, which starts in Genesis 2:4b, probably because the older story was popular and it would have caused dissent to have removed it.

Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) says that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman), but he says we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first (and vice versa) if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.
There are two different creation stories:

The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3
The second is Genesis 2:4-25






Read more: Why are there two creation stories in Genesis

Responded to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.

I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.

--ALL THE CRAP CITED IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE CREATIONIST SUPERSTITIOUS PSUEDO-SCIENCE I DIDN'T MISS SNIPPED FOR THE BENEFIT OF RATIONAL HUMANITY---​

No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.

Their quotes were clear ,what did they do recant their comments

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lee Spetner

"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to Lamarckian-like inheritance), but rejected macroevolution."​

Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.

He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?

HAHA! YES HE DOES!

"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."

...​

"Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"​

LOLsome!

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

 

[LOki]

I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.

I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.

Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.

Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.

You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

Of course; justly earned ad-hominem attack, but not ad-hominem argument; certainly not application of the logical fallacy you so habitually practice.

And you didn't prove a thing except that you're a liar.

This is a deliberate denial of verifiable reality. It is prima-facie evidence of your pathological projection; your pathetic attempt to deny your unmistakable lack of moral and intellectual integrity.

Who I guess doesn't know what the word "lie" means, or "proof" for that matter, which is sad.

This person, who doesn't know what the word(s) "lie" (or "proof") means, is clearly and unambiguously you.

You have made no substantive demonstration that I have deliberately asserted any misinformation regarding your claims. Meanwhile, I have unambiguously substantiated (with your very own behavior and self-indicting statements) the extent of the validity of the statements you referenced, and I offered my sincere and public apology to you where my misapprehensions led to misrepresentations of your claims. This is an indisputable fact of reality.

And in return for my ingenuousness toward you, you maliciously declare that I'm an idiot and fling the unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a liar.

Considering the abundant evidence you provide, I cannot imagine the rational basis upon which you might consider yourself to be a credit to Christianity, and an affirmative example of Christian moral integrity.

You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.

Utterly meaningless to any fact of reality about me. Yet still, unambiguous evidence that I am entirely correct regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm; which (in consideration of this evidence) I will amend to, "Your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm."

The next time you are inspired to express your objections about the way "non-believers, scoffers, persecuters (sic)", react to your example of Christian behavior, you might benefit from a pause to consider the role your example plays in their evaluation of Christians and Christianity; you might consider Jesus' evaluation of your example.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, you can just go eat a bag of shit.

ENJOY!