• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Regarding how animals suffer -- death is an intellectual abstraction, and an animal doesn't fear an abstract idea of course, doesn't think of it, doesn't get anxious about it, but just has emotions from instincts generally. They fear predators, but don't fear death. They don't suffer the way humans do generally, where a human can feel emotions such as sadness at their own dying, or peace about it. For an animal, they seem to be more in-the-moment, living each moment without regrets or disappointments and so on.

But about the Tiger and the lamb, there are words about this --

5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 11 NIV

and

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” a for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
Revelation 21 NIV


That perfect world is one to be realized, brought about. He will make it so.
Do you mean the perfect mountain? Mountain and not world is the word Isaiah uses, and I agree with extending its meaning but also the rest of the terms. Here is what I think. Isaiah uses some imagery to convey a beautiful idea, and his allegory mustn't be stretched too far but extends further than just changing the word moutain. Isaiah is not a science text and is about people. The lion eats straw, meaning something unkosher becomes kosher, but Isaiah isn't concerned about lions but about people. He is imagining people becoming peaceful who once went about raging. He is speaking about the spiritual creation, a creation of God, a designed creation.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
The problem for you in this is you keep having to make up problems for a theory you don't know enough about it to make real comments.
I disagree.

One cannot be a "reasonable Christian" and take the Adam and Eve story literally.
but I am a reasonable Christian taking that story literally. At the same time I don't believe in a lying God.

For me, the Noah's Ark story literally happened and is true.

Again, simple genetics tells us that there were never only 8 people either

It is genetic diversity that tells scientists there weren't 8 people after the flood. This is at least my understanding of the matter.

In Genesis 11:9, we see that Bible tells God created linguistic diversity.

However, as mentioned in this source here Language and genetics, language and genetics are linked with each other.
So when God created the languages, he must have created genetic diversity, too, I think. At least the diversity of the genetic predisposition that favors structural features of the different languages.
At that occasion, God might have added genetic diversity important for any other aspect of life, too.
Maybe this even happened for the same reason as for why the diversity in language has been created.

EDITED
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I disagree.


but I am a reasonable Christian taking that story literally. At the same time I don't believe in a lying God.

For me, the Noah's Ark story literally happened and is true.



It is genetic diversity that tells scientists there weren't 8 people after the flood. This is at least my understanding of the matter.

In Genesis 11:9, we see that Bible tells God created linguistic diversity.

However, as mentioned in this source here Language and genetics, language and genetics are linked with each other.
So when God created the languages, he must have created genetic diversity, too, I think. At least the diversity of the genetic predisposition that favors structural features of the different languages.
At that occasion, God might have added genetic diversity important for any other aspect of life, too.
Maybe this even happened for the same reason as for why the diversity in language has been created.

EDITED
You keep contradicting yourself. It is not reasonable to believe in a Flat Earth and your beliefs are no different from that.

And yes, you do believe in a lying God. To understand that you would need to take a few science classes.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
I wasn't contradicting myself here.
It is not reasonable to believe in a Flat Earth and your beliefs are no different from that.
My beliefs are different from a belief in a Flat Earth, because the Flat Earth can be debunked through observation.
And yes, you do believe in a lying God.
Actually, I don't. And I don't think that any number of science classes would present any evidence for God having been lying if the Bible is literally true.

Edited
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My beliefs are different from a belief in a Flat Earth, because the Flat Earth can be debunked through observation.

As can your beliefs.

Actually, I don't. And I don't think that any number of science classes would present any evidence for God having been lying if the Bible is literally true.
But the Bible is not literally true. If that were the case the Earth would be flat. And I doubt if you even understand the concept of evidence.

And you contradicted yourself once again.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
As can your beliefs.
I don't think my beliefs can be debunked through observations. And I still think the Bible can be literally true. The Bible does not indicate a flat earth apart from the poetry, prophecy or citations in it, I think.

Actually I think I do understand the concept of evidence, I think. Last time this discussion between us went like this:
"You don't understand this!", "I think I do!" "Noooo, you do NOT!" "I think I do!" "but nooo, you do NOT" etc.. So silly.
I don't think I contradicted myself again.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don't think my beliefs can be debunked through observations. And I still think the Bible can be literally true. The Bible does not indicate a flat earth apart from the poetry, prophecy or citations in it, I think.

Actually I think I do understand the concept of evidence, I think. Last time this discussion between us went like this:
"You don't understand this!", "I think I do!" "Noooo, you do NOT!" "I think I do!" "but nooo, you do NOT" etc.. So silly.
I don't think I contradicted myself again.
Yes, we know that you believe that, but you are demonstrably wrong. And if you really believe that you understand concepts such as evidence you should not be afraid to discuss them. Last time you confirmed my claims by refusing to discuss those concepts.

Are you ready to do so yet?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Are you ready to do so yet?
If you want to discuss, ok.

I think that last time I didn't confirm your claims by refusing to discuss those concepts. I'm not afraid to discuss them. I don't think I'm demonstrably wrong.

Last time the discussion went like this:
"you are demonstrably wrong" "I think I am not" "but you ARE demostrably wrong" "I think I'm not" etc.. So silly every single time...
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you want to discuss, ok.

I think that last time I didn't confirm your claims by refusing to discuss those concepts. I'm not afraid to discuss them. I don't think I'm demonstrably wrong.

Last time the discussion went like this:
"you are demonstrably wrong" "I think I am not" "but you ARE demostrably wrong" "I think I'm not" etc.. So silly every single time...
You have to be civil and not make false claims. That is rule number one. It may have seemed that way to you, but that was only due to very biased vision on your part.

But let's start with evidence. Do you understand that there is no reliable evidence for your creationist beliefs and literally mountains of evidence that tells us life is the product of evolution?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
So now our stupid "discussion" goes on...
You have to be civil and not make false claims.
Actually I was civil and did not make false claims.
And don't have that biased vision you are talking of.
Do you understand that there is no reliable evidence for your creationist beliefs and literally mountains of evidence that tells us life is the product of evolution?
Life being the product of something refers to where life originated, as I understand it. This however is a topic called abiogenesis.

I think there is reliable evidence for creation as a whole. There might not be evidence for the parts of it being the product of creation, though...
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So now our stupid "discussion" goes on...

Actually I was civil and did not make false claims.
And don't have that biased vision you are talking of.

Life being the product of something refers to where life originated, as I understand it. This however is a topic called abiogenesis.

I think there is reliable evidence for creation as a whole. There might not be evidence for the parts of it being the product of creation, though...

Nope, not civil at all. Just because one does not scream or curse does not mean that one is being civil.

And no, abiogenesis only refers to first life. Evolution describes what happened after life existed.

And you might think that there is evidence for creation, but you would be mistaken. This is where you demonstrate a lack of understanding of evidence. To have evidence one needs a testable concept. What reasonable test could.possibly refute what you call creation?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
And you might think that there is evidence for creation, but you would be mistaken. This is where you demonstrate a lack of understanding of evidence. To have evidence one needs a testable concept. What reasonable test could.possibly refute what you call creation?
This is where, IMO, you are mistaken.

You are asking for "evidence", which is simply that which convinces.
You are not even asking for "compelling evidence" which is that which convinces someone else.

My question is ...
are you asking for "evidence"?
Or perhaps "compelling evidence"?
Or perhaps "objective evidence"?
Or perhaps "empirical evidence"?
Or perhaps the bane of theists "objective empirical evidence"?

Basically, what I am getting at is there is all manner of evidencial standards.
Theists tend to lock onto the lowest standards because the high you go on the standards, the less likely God is involved.
Thus you two are working from two fundamentally different ideas of what is and is not evidence.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Actually, I was civil I think.
Evolution describes what happened after life existed.
never claimed otherwise.

--
I think I'm not mistaken for claiming evidence for creation.

And as I said so often: I do think I don't lack understanding of evidence.
It is exactly as I pointed out in #106

Last time this discussion between us went like this:
"You don't understand this!", "I think I do!" "Noooo, you do NOT!" "I think I do!" "but nooo, you do NOT" etc.. So silly.


That's the usual pattern for our "discussions" now.
To have evidence one needs a testable concept. What reasonable test could.possibly refute what you call creation?
well, you need a falsifiable concept, as I see it.
Many things the ToE claims are not testable science, I think. You can't test for the Last Universal Common Ancestor, for instance. Yet this one can be backed by evidence.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is where, IMO, you are mistaken.

You are asking for "evidence", which is simply that which convinces.
You are not even asking for "compelling evidence" which is that which convinces someone else.

My question is ...
are you asking for "evidence"?
Or perhaps "compelling evidence"?
Or perhaps "objective evidence"?
Or perhaps "empirical evidence"?
Or perhaps the bane of theists "objective empirical evidence"?

Basically, what I am getting at is there is all manner of evidencial standards.
Theists tend to lock onto the lowest standards because the high you go on the standards, the less likely God is involved.
Thus you two are working from two fundamentally different ideas of what is and is not evidence.
Actually you took my demand out of context. I asked for reliable evidence. It should be obvious that for scientific concepts one use scientific evidence. Also my opponent claimed to be reasonable. That again would ultimately lead to scientific evidence. A very well defined concept.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Actually you took my demand out of context. I asked for reliable evidence. It should be obvious that for scientific concepts one use scientific evidence. Also my opponent claimed to be reasonable. That again would ultimately lead to scientific evidence. A very well defined concept.
Well defined to those who are familiar with it.
When ones worldview relies upon the lowest standard for evidence, the one does not seek out other standards and will often times completely reject the very existence of standards which are higher than their own.

And to make matters even worse, you need to explicitly specify the exact standard of evidence every single time you use the word evidence.
You miss even once and they latch onto it and there goes the discussion.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually, I was civil I think.

never claimed otherwise.

I think I'm not mistaken for claiming evidence for creation.

And as I said so often: I do think I don't lack understanding of evidence.
It is exactly as I pointed out in #106

Last time this discussion between us went like this:
"You don't understand this!", "I think I do!" "Noooo, you do NOT!" "I think I do!" "but nooo, you do NOT" etc.. So silly.


That's the usual pattern for our "discussions" now.

well, you need a falsifiable concept, as I see it.
Many things the ToE are not testable science, I think. You can't test for the Last Universal Common Ancestor, for instance. Yet this one can be backed by evidence.
When it comes to the sciences one needs to be careful when one claims an idea is not testable. It is almost always wiser to admit that one does not know how to test an idea.

The Last Universal Common Ancestor is a consequence of evolution. There are ways to test the concept. That is usually done with DNA. There is no reason that DNA has to form a phylogenetic tree, if creationism is true. In fact a violation of that would be a major fail of evolution. It is one of the ways to test the theory.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well defined to those who are familiar with it.
When ones worldview relies upon the lowest standard for evidence, the one does not seek out other standards and will often times completely reject the very existence of standards which are higher than their own.

And to make matters even worse, you need to explicitly specify the exact standard of evidence every single time you use the word evidence.
You miss even once and they latch onto it and there goes the discussion.

That would indicate that one's opponent was being purposefully dishonest. I tend to be overly optimistic in that regard.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
That would indicate that one's opponent was being purposefully dishonest. I tend to be overly optimistic in that regard.
Perhaps they are at that.
But it is not with you directly they are being dishonest.
When one is dishonest about content with oneself, said dishonesty spills over to others in order to maintain ones own "storyline" (for lack of a better term)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Perhaps they are at that.
But it is not with you directly they are being dishonest.
When one is dishonest about content with oneself, said dishonesty spills over to others in order to maintain ones own "storyline" (for lack of a better term)
Leading to the old saying "There is no such thing as an informed and honest creationist."
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Leading to the old saying "There is no such thing as an informed and honest creationist."
Creationists do spring to mind quickly on a religious based forum, yes.
However, the same applies beyond creationists as well.
Addicts also often display the same thing.
As do many criminals.

I have lost count of the number of people whose spouse is cheating on them who display the exact same "symptoms" (for lack of a better word)
 
Top