I believe that people are atheists because it gives them the belief that they have nobody to answer to and they can make up their standards on morality. Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on. Yes, eyes dont fossilize, but there would still be evidence of the intermediates of eyes. While nobody said that the smallest cells can develop in nature within less than billions of years, making a modern cell would speed up the process, therefore, the fact that people haven't made cells shows that there is doubt about evolution being a fact.
-
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?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
I believe that people are atheists because it gives them the belief that they have nobody to answer to and they can make up their standards on morality. Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on. Yes, eyes dont fossilize, but there would still be evidence of the intermediates of eyes. While nobody said that the smallest cells can develop in nature within less than billions of years, making a modern cell would speed up the process, therefore, the fact that people haven't made cells shows that there is doubt about evolution being a fact.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Read the article that I linked. It goes into how you quoted Darwin out of context. I merely did the same as you did. By the way you did not have the right verse. I can find 15 different examples. I could give you the list if you like.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who was talking about "macroevolution"? Not I.
The reality is that evolution is evolution, thus having "micro" v "macro" is simply an artificial concept with no evidence to support it whatsoever as there being a barrier. In anthropology, we sometimes use these terms just to indicate whether a given change is smaller or larger, but the reality is that there simply is no evidence of a magical or insurmountable wall between them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is projection on your part. Atheists know that when they do wrong that they have to answer to their wrongs themselves to the people that they harmed. Christians . . . not so much. They can get away with apologizing to God.
There is evidence of intermediate eyes. The nautilus for example. They have a pinhole lens eye. That is intermediate between our modern eye with a lens and flat concentration of light sensitive nerves.
And no, there is no doubt about evolution being a fact. That we have not made cells is not only a non sequitur. It is an admission that evolution is a fact. You are trying to move the goalposts to abiogenesis and that is before evolution. In other words by making that argument you tacitly admit that evolution is real.
People have observed microevolution, not macroevolution, happen with one subspecies evolving into another. Subspecies are still of the same kind of animal or plant. A caspian tiger and siberian tiger are still the same species of animal, even though people have different opinions about how closely related the caspain tiger is to the siberian tiger. Some people think its the same subspecies, some people think its a cousin subspecies. Whatever they are to each other, they are still tigers.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Evolution - Wikipedia
Speciation - Wikipedia
Frankly, evolution is just plain old common sense: all material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects.
You can't compare changes within kinds to one species becoming a different species. One thing has nothing to do with the other. People and animals are different species of beings. Animals don't obtain joy from the sounds of music or have orchestras. Animals don't create and harmonize music. Chimpanzees have wars, but they don't have judicial systems. They are not moral beings-people are. Birds can't understand the laws of electricity and they never uncovered the hidden law of aerodynamics. We have the God-given ability to appreciate the value of creation. We unearth gold, silver, oil, and diamonds and use them to benefit us.
For the sequences of DNA to arrange themselves in nature, would be an example of an impossible thing happening. DNA functions like an alphabet.
Christians have to apologize to people they harmed. If a Christian committed a felony, by God's law they would also have to turn themselves in to the law.
That still doesn't explain what existed before the nerves. There is no scientific evidence that what might have existed before the nerves, existed.
I didn't see any evidence that Darwin didn't express doubts about natural selection being true.
Material objects don't have the complexity of organs and genes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Read your Bible. It does not say this.
So now you are admitting to the fact of evolution once nerves or light sensitive spots existed. By the way, all nerves are somewhat light sensitive. Have you ever gone out on a sunny day and felt the heat directly from the Sun?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then you did not read the link that I provided. Or at best understand it.
It's common sense that for certain things people have to apologize or right their wrongs. Not everything is mentioned in the Ten Commandments because some things are a given.
I wasn't agreeing with evolution I was having a discussion about our different beliefs. What is the intermediate of a nerve and a non nerve?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, you moved the goalposts. That is an admission that you were wrong. Once you realize that they you can ask about how nerves arose.
I was asking you how you believe evolution works. I wasn't saying that I believed it too.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Evolution is merely the accumulation of small changes in the genome of a population over time.
And by moving the goalposts you did admit that it was a fact.
When you abandon an argument because you are losing and try to move the goalposts that is an acknowledgment that one is wrong.
Animals and plants can only reproduce with their own kinds. That is what kinds means. How do small changes in the genome change an animal or a plant into a different kind?
I was giving people with different beliefs the benefit of the doubt.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?
God exists, I figure, irrespective of whether Darwinian Evolution was/is correct or incorrect. Right friends, please?
Notwithstanding the above Darwin, as a scientist, was among the pioneers who understood the evolution of life on this planet, nevertheless, as observed by one respected member of the RF fraternity here (@metis post #338) wrote, “evolutionary studies were in their infancy in Darwin times”, if I have correctly understood. Right friends, please?
It also is to be remembered that Darwin did not claim that he had caused Evolution; he only observed the phenomenon that already existed in nature and it continues unaffected by Science. Sciences are "work in progress" and have yet not reached finality, as observed by another respected member of the RF fraternity here( @Subduction Zone post #330):
“The sciences continually advance. We know much more now than we did in Darwin's time. Now Darwin was not always right, but he was right an amazingly high percentage of the time considering how much more we know now than then.”
I, envision, science does not claim and cannot truly claim that it contradicts the truthful Word of God. Right friends, please?
When we observe a contradiction it follows from it:
1. either the religionists have not understood the Word of God correctly for obvious reasons
2. or those belonging to science have not understood the science phenomenon correctly
3. or because science has not reached yet finality.
Etc., etc.
Right friends, please?
Regards
God exists, I figure, irrespective of whether Darwinian Evolution was/is correct or incorrect. Right friends, please?
Notwithstanding the above Darwin, as a scientist, was among the pioneers who understood the evolution of life on this planet, nevertheless, as observed by one respected member of the RF fraternity here (@metis post #338) wrote, “evolutionary studies were in their infancy in Darwin times”, if I have correctly understood. Right friends, please?
It also is to be remembered that Darwin did not claim that he had caused Evolution; he only observed the phenomenon that already existed in nature and it continues unaffected by Science. Sciences are "work in progress" and have yet not reached finality, as observed by another respected member of the RF fraternity here( @Subduction Zone post #330):
“The sciences continually advance. We know much more now than we did in Darwin's time. Now Darwin was not always right, but he was right an amazingly high percentage of the time considering how much more we know now than then.”
I, envision, science does not claim and cannot truly claim that it contradicts the truthful Word of God. Right friends, please?
When we observe a contradiction it follows from it:
1. either the religionists have not understood the Word of God correctly for obvious reasons
2. or those belonging to science have not understood the science phenomenon correctly
3. or because science has not reached yet finality.
Etc., etc.
Right friends, please?
Regards
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, we do not know whether God exists or not. You do not just get to claim that.
And how do we know that this is the word of God:
