How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

You asked me what I thought about their beliefs.

No, I didn't Go back and look at my question again. You sort of dodged it. Well actually you brought up an even worse example.

 

[Skywalker]

No, I didn't Go back and look at my question again. You sort of dodged it. Well actually you brought up an even worse example.

The Old Testament never mentions sexual slavery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Old Testament never mentions sexual slavery.

Yes it does. You need to take off the blinders.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes it does. You need to take off the blinders.

There are other explanations for Numbers 31, and God never told Moses to spare the Midianite virgins. It was something he decided to do. Even if the Israelites used them as sex slaves there's no evidence Moses allowed that, and the Israelites were human beings with a sinful nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are other explanations for Numbers 31, and God never told Moses to spare the Midianite virgins. It was something he decided to do. Even if the Israelites used them as sex slaves there's no evidence Moses allowed that, and the Israelites were human beings with a sinful nature.

I was not talking about those verse right now. Though that example is bad enough on its own. I was talking about the fact that the Bible allows a Hebrew father to sell his daughter into sex slavery.

And let's drop the "sinful nature" BS.

 

[Skywalker]

I was not talking about those verse right now. Though that example is bad enough on its own. I was talking about the fact that the Bible allows a Hebrew father to sell his daughter into sex slavery.

And let's drop the "sinful nature" BS.

God make concessions to our sinful nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God make concessions to our sinful nature.

Once again you are defending your God's evil nature. Have you read the Ten Commandments? The first three could be tossed since they are simply sops to his vanity and much more worthwhile ones could replace them.

How hard was that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think the alternative explanations are?

First of all, they are not "alternative" explanations. They are the only explanation.
And, obviously, that explanation is that it's the result of many different, local, floods at different periods throughout history. A history, stretching billions of years.

Flooding isn't exactly a rare process.... it happens every day, somewhere.

Also, not all sedimentary layers are the result of "floods".

Plenty of "dry" land today, was actually the bottom of the sea eons ago. The earth is quite a dynamic thing. What today are mountain tops, used to be ocean floor millions of years ago.

They don't contradict the belief of the flood

Except that they do.

Geologists don't say its the result of a single flood because they don't believe in the flood.

Because the evidence shows it wasn't the result of a single flood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are unanswered questions, but it is far better to have unanswered questions than to have wrong answers.

Truer words, have never been spoken!

 

[Skywalker]

First of all, they are not "alternative" explanations. They are the only explanation.
And, obviously, that explanation is that it's the result of many different, local, floods at different periods throughout history. A history, stretching billions of years.

Flooding isn't exactly a rare process.... it happens every day, somewhere.

Also, not all sedimentary layers are the result of "floods".

Plenty of "dry" land today, was actually the bottom of the sea eons ago. The earth is quite a dynamic thing. What today are mountain tops, used to be ocean floor millions of years ago.



Except that they do.




Because the evidence shows it wasn't the result of a single flood.

But why a certain amount of sedimentary layers? What you said about dry land supports the flood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In 1953 people found out that Piltdown Man was a hoax.

And these people, were scientists.

Radiocarbon tests showed that the skull was from a 600 year old woman and the jaw to a 500 year old orangutan

Isn't science awesome?
Far better then to "just believe" stuff, wouldn't you agree?

The Nebraska man was from an extinct pig

As shown by science as well.

Neanderthals were fully human

They were not. At least, not in the sense that they were Homo Sapiens. We (and you yourself) wouldn't be calling them neanderthals if they were.

The very fact that we can tell the difference between homo neanderthalis and homo sapiens, is a testament to the fact that there are differences.

and had stooped posture because of disease and they spoke and were artistic.

Desease? So from which propaganda channel did you pull that nonsense from?

Asexual reproduction doesn't explain the intermediates of gender.

I didn't say it did. The point being made is that clearly, sexual reproduction is not the only way. And in fact, asexual is the most prevalent way.

How can someone be neither gender and both gender?

Yes. There are such species. It's called "sequential hermaphroditism".
And it's actually a feature of the species. Not some rare genetic quirk like hermaphrodite humans.

Sequential hermaphroditism - Wikipedia

Gender isn't gradual. Either you are male or you are female.

See the link provided.

What are the chances that both male and female existed at the same time?

See the link.
There are many species alive TODAY that ARE both at the same time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Charles Darwin said in the Origin of Species that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Charles Darwin birthday: Six quotes from the Father of Evolution

Why did you omit the sentence that followed right after?
Here it is: "But I can find out no such case."

Darwin also had doubts about natural selection. Quote by Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable...”

Once again, you completely misrepresent it. Once again, you omit the part that comes right after.
First, the very quote you link to, has the word "SEEMS" in it. Which is already, by itself, enough to show that he isn't saying what you are pretending he was saying. No, he had no such doubts and he most certainly wasn't expressing such doubts in that quote.

Second, right after that, he goes on to explain how it is NOT absurd.

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty get in your way....

One scientist said 99% of modern people and some say all modern people, share genes with an ancestor named Y chromosome Adam, and people also believe that we descend from mitochondrial Eve. How does that not support that there was only one man and one woman?

1. not a single one of them says that they were the only people alive back then. "Y chromosome adam" and "mitochondrial eve" were both part of a population.

2. these two individuals lived 10s of thousands of years apart


You should ask yourself, why you can only argue against evolution by using false arguments, misrepresent science and use sources that only LIE about it.

What did our ancestor's ancestor have-an intermediate Y chromosome? I'm not saying its impossible, I just dont have any evidence.

YOU don't have evidence. Maybe, just maybe, that is so because you are willfully ignorant about the entire topic and every single one of your "arguments" are misrepresentations, lies and just plain false.


Ask yourself why.

Nobody forces you to "believe" in evolution. But at least have the integrity to not misrepresent it.

In all the posts you did on this topic, you literally were wrong about everything you said.

Why is this so?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We still don't know about the origin of how the eye works. What do we know about the eye having inimitable contrivances and adjusting the focus to different distances?

By "we", you mean creationists who are willfully ignorant.
Evolutionary biologists, and people with high school level knowledge of biology, aren't as ignorant as you people are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The founder of the theory of evolution gave doubts to natural selection to the degree of not having another opinion.

1. we have already pointed out to you that this is a creationist lie and misrepresentation. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?

2. it doesn't matter either way. Einstein for example, didn't only have doubts about his theories, he actively believed he had to be wrong, because he thought the idea of quantum physics and black holes was absurd. He called some of his findings "his greatest blunder". And then years later, black holes were discovered and his theories were validated.

You should really learn that there are no ultimate authorities in science. There are no "infallible" scientists and in fact individuals do not matter. Evidence matters.

You're clearly projecting your irrational religious standards of "ultimate authority" and "infallibility" on the rational enterprise of science. Science doesn't work that way. The sooner your realize that, the better. It will make sure you will cease to say such ignorant things and make such silly "arguments".

Darwin, the person, and his beliefs don't matter.
Newton, the person, and his beliefs don't matter.
Einstein, the person, and his beliefs don't matter.

Their theories and the evidence in support them - that's what matters.

Take Newton for example. Arguably one of the most intelligent men that ever lived. But did you know that the work in physics that made him famous, was actually more of a footnote in the greater scheme of his life? The bulk of his writings was actually about alchemy. Pseudo scientific nonsense. If it wasn't for his work in physics, nobody would know him today.

This isn't about my beliefs this is about Darwin believing that evolution is a theory

Ow, goody........ another creationist who thinks that the label "theory" in science means "just a guess".

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Please read the above page. It's only 15-ish sentences and it will clear up your confusion concerning scientific jargon.

Having said that, as said earlier: Darwin, the person, and his beliefs don't matter.
And misrepresentations / lies about his beliefs, matter even less.

Did science create an alternative theory for what Darwin couldn't explain or didn't know about the eye?

Read the rest of the chapter that immediately follows the part you (or your source) quote mined. You'll see that he goes on the explain possible pathways by which eyes evolved.

Again I have to ask: if you are so confident about evolution being false, then why do you (or your sources) have a need to lie about it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible says the fool says in his heart there is no God. The context is in talking about the Bible's views on atheism. Darwin said that the difficulty of believing that the eye could be formed by natural selection shouldn't be considered subversive of the theory. How am I taking him out of context? Saying that theory is insuperable by our imagination doesn't take away that natural selection was just a theory to him and not something he was fully convinced about.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home


You are making a gigantic fool of yourself by expressing the idea that saying "it is JUST a theory" concerning a scientific theory, means that one doesn't have to take it seriously.


Germs = "just a theory"
Atoms = "just a theory"
plate tectonics = "just a theory"
relativity = "just a theory"
...


A THEORY is the highest standard that any idea in science can get. It is the ultimate goal of a scientist to come up with a solid theory. It's the graduation stage of a hypothesis.

Read the link.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that people are atheists because it gives them the belief that they have nobody to answer to

So, do you not believe in Thor and Odin because it gives you the beliefs that you don't have to die on the battle field to get to whalhalla?

Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on

How would you know? You have demonstrated time and again that your knowledge on the matter is below zero.

You can't even express in the most simple terms what evolution is about.

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.

See? What you say here is patently absurd.
Human ability to "create cells" is completely irrelevant to evolution being accurate or not. It literally does not matter if humans can or can't. Your non-existing level of knowledge concerning basic biology is absolutely shocking. And the fact that you think you know enough about it to argue against it, is even more shocking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Speciation is a vertical process.
Just like reproduction is.

If you think "macro evolution" is a tiger giving birth to a non-tiger, then I have news for you... It's "news" that all of us already know. And that news is: you know nothing about the topic.


If a tiger would evolve into a non-tiger, then evolution theory would be falsified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People and animals are different species of beings.

First of all, people ARE animals.

Secondly...

Humans and chimps = both primates.
Humans and rabbits and chimps = all mammals.
Humans and rabbits and chimps and crockodiles = all tetrapods.
Humans and rabbits and chimps and crockodiles and fish = all vertebrates
Humans and rabbits and chimps and crockodiles and fish and trees = all eukaryotes

The law of monophy: organisms do not outgrow their ancestry.

All descendants of eukaryotes, will be eukaryotes.
All descendants of mammals, will be mammals.
All descendants of primates, will be primates.
All descendants of homo, will be homo.


In evolution, cats don't produce dogs.
Cats will produce more cats and subspecies of cats.
Mammals will produce more mammals and subspecies of mammals.


AGAIN: learn about the theory you are hellbend to argue against.
If evolution is so wrong, why then can you only argue against it by lying about it, or by quoting sources that lie about it?

Animals don't obtain joy from the sounds of music or have orchestras. Animals don't create and harmonize music

And human eyes don't have a zooming function like the eyes of an eagle.
Neither can humans find their way in a pitch black cave through echolocation.

Every species has its own unique traits. It is what makes them a distinct species.
If humans and chimps would be the exact same, then they wouldn't be different species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For the sequences of DNA to arrange themselves in nature, would be an example of an impossible thing happening. DNA functions like an alphabet.

DNA is a molecule. Molecules self-assemble all the time in nature. It's called chemistry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't see any evidence that Darwin didn't express doubts about natural selection being true.

So you didn't even read the very quote you yourself provided.

I'll give you a hint: the word "SEEMS".

When he says "it SEEMS absurd", he means: it looks like that at first sight, but it actually is NOT. And he goes on the explain how it is not. But you didn't read that part, because the dishonest lying source you pulled it from conveniently left that part out.