• 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?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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?




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.

:rolleyes:

Cats only producing cats and mammals only producing mammals supports creation, not evolution. The law of monopoly supports that macroevolution is impossible and only micrevolution is possible. I agree that there are variations within kinds, but there are no examples of a eukaryote evolving into a mammal.

Just because we don't have the zooming function that eagles have doesn't mean that our eyes don't have irreducible complexity, in different ways.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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.

Speciation is the formation of distinct and new species. A tiger giving birth to a non tiger isn't macroevolution, but macroevolution insinuates that there were intermediates between a tiger and a non tiger. Something gradual has intermediates and gray areas. What are the intermediates and gray areas of tigers?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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?


:rolleyes:




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.




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.

Thor and Odin have no historical evidence to support their existence. The gospel writers, the disciples, and the apostles, all had doubts about Jesus before He appeared to them after he came back to life. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by preaching Jesus. The scholar Gary Habermas said that the disciples had no motive to create a hoax that would start a new religion. The Bible has embarrassing testimony, like Peter denying Jesus three times. The disciples expected the Messiah to defeat the Romans. They were Jewish, and Jewish leaders considered Jesus blasphemous. People of other faiths have died for their beliefs. But their faith wasn't based on historical events. The New Testament writers witnessed, heard, and experienced Jesus, and so did multiple sources. Why would they go through persecution for something that they knew was a lie?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Its also a plausible explanation that people and apes look the same because they have a common designer. I am not comparing evolution to people creating cars, or using cars themselves as my reason for why I don't agree with evolution, but cars that have the same designer will have a similar look.
The problem is that there is no reliable evidence for a designer. There is endless scientific evidence that supports evolution.

You would think that if creationism was true that creationists could find some scientific evidence for it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Thor and Odin have no historical evidence to support their existence. The gospel writers, the disciples, and the apostles, all had doubts about Jesus before He appeared to them after he came back to life. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by preaching Jesus. The scholar Gary Habermas said that the disciples had no motive to create a hoax that would start a new religion. The Bible has embarrassing testimony, like Peter denying Jesus three times. The disciples expected the Messiah to defeat the Romans. They were Jewish, and Jewish leaders considered Jesus blasphemous. People of other faiths have died for their beliefs. But their faith wasn't based on historical events. The New Testament writers witnessed, heard, and experienced Jesus, and so did multiple sources. Why would they go through persecution for something that they knew was a lie?
LOL! By the same standards as no evidence for Thor or Odin there is no evidence for the gospels. And good story writers know that making one's characters more human makes them more believable. Your argument fails.

And none of the Gospels were written by witnesses nor is it even likely that they spoke with any. The earliest Gospel was written forty years after Jesus died.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Molecules don't assemble themselves into the complexity of DNA, with the exception of bacteria that grows on meat, and even that is sterile and just creates rotted meat.
So what? I would suggest that you study abiogenesis a bit. You are only making yourself look bad here. Here is a hint, DNA was not how genes were originally passed on.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Speciation is the formation of distinct and new species. A tiger giving birth to a non tiger isn't macroevolution, but macroevolution insinuates that there were intermediates between a tiger and a non tiger. Something gradual has intermediates and gray areas. What are the intermediates and gray areas of tigers?
Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand what you are talking about since the theory of evolution does not allow for a tiger to have anything but tigers. You are still an ape. People never stopped being apes. We are just a different type of apes than others are.

But you have admitted that macroevolution is real. The appearance of a new species is by definition macroevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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.

Evolution is a theory because of all the doubts that there is about irreducible complexity and macrevolution. There is questionable evidence about intermediate organs and intermediates of DNA. Germs aren't a theory because we see them. Plate tectonics are in nature and atoms can be seen with a microscope. Relativity is a theory. There are people who don't agree with what Einstein said.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evolution is a theory because of all the doubts that there is about irreducible complexity and macrevolution. There is questionable evidence about intermediate organs and intermediates of DNA. Germs aren't a theory because we see them. Plate tectonics are in nature and atoms can be seen with a microscope. Relativity is a theory. There are people who don't agree with what Einstein said.
When you admit that evolution is a theory you admit that it appears to be correct, and that no other concept rivals it to boot.

By the way, irreducible complexity has been refuted. Macroevolution has been directly observed. There are mountains of evidence for evolution and none against it. Yes, some of the evidence may be questionable, but the vast majority is not.

And yes, there are crazies that do not agree with Einstein. Oddly enough that does not stop them from using the satellite navigation features on their phones. Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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.



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. :rolleyes:




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?

Einstein and Newton believed in God, and Darwin was publicly an agnostic. Even when affirming natural selection after saying it seems absurd to believe that the eye came from natural selection, he said that it is insuperable by our imagination. Quote by Albert Einstein: “But science can only be created by those who ar...”

“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Isaac Newton Quote

All material Things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles... variously associated with the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For it became him who created them to set them in order: and if he did so, it is unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature.

Isaac Newton: Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and other suchlike considerations, always have, and always will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, who has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.

Did blind chance know that there waslight and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curiousmanner to make use of it? These and othersuchlike considerations, always have, andalways will prevail with mankind, to believethat there is a Being who made all things, who has all things in his power, and who istherefore to be feared.

Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

Agnosticism
In 1879 John Fordyce wrote asking if Darwin believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. Darwin replied that "a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[1]

Those opposing religion often took Darwin as their inspiration and expected his support for their cause, a role he firmly refused. In 1880 there was a huge controversy when the atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected as a member of parliament and then prevented from taking his seat in the House of Commons. In response, the secularist Edward Avelingtoured the country leading protests.[87] In October of that year Aveling wanted to dedicate his book on Darwin and his Works to Darwin and asked him for permission. Darwin declined, writing that "though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."[88]


 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Red herring. And a false appeal to authority.

By the way, Einstein fully accepted evolution and thought that Christianity, and his own Jewish religion, were nonsensical. Whether he believed in a god or not is debatable. The god that he believed in if he believed in one was a totally disinterested god.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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.

The Bible is consistent with biology. The Bible mentions biogenesis. Biologists Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur believed in the Bible. In Genesis, God created light, water, the soil, and then plants. Plants need sunlight, water, and minerals to grow and to make energy and food. If plants don't have sunlight, and yet they have water and minerals, they cannot produce chlorophyll, and they will die. The Bible is consistent with biology. The importance of blood in our body's mechanism has been fully understood only in recent years. The Book of Leviticus says that blood is the source of life and it was written in 1400 BC. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell and maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells. The Bible had science before its time. In 1616, scientist William Harvey discovered that bloody circulation is they key factor in physical life, something that the Bible mentioned before people discovered it.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Do you understand what that Einstein quote means? He is saying that the scientist's conviction that there is order in the universe that we can comprehend is akin to a religious belief. He is not saying that scientists need to have a religious faith in God, in the usual religious sense. They need to have faith in that comprehensible order.

From what I have read about Einstein, he felt that if there is a "God", it is that order in the universe, i.e. what we often call the "laws of nature" that IS God. This seems to be rather similar to Spinoza's position. So if anything. it's a kind of deism - certainly nothing like the personal God of the Abrahamic faiths.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The Bible is consistent with biology. The Bible mentions biogenesis. Biologists Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur believed in the Bible. In Genesis, God created light, water, the soil, and then plants. Plants need sunlight, water, and minerals to grow and to make energy and food. If plants don't have sunlight, and yet they have water and minerals, they cannot produce chlorophyll, and they will die. The Bible is consistent with biology. The importance of blood in our body's mechanism has been fully understood only in recent years. The Book of Leviticus says that blood is the source of life and it was written in 1400 BC. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell and maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells. The Bible had science before its time. In 1616, scientist William Harvey discovered that bloody circulation is they key factor in physical life, something that the Bible mentioned before people discovered it.
Everything the bible says about biology, which is practically nothing, is obvious. Your examples about plants needing light and water would be obvious to any bronze age person who had ever tried to grow anything, as would the observation that blood is critical to the life of animals. This is not science.

But the bible is not a science manual and only a very naive person would read it as such, when it is plain that its purpose is something else entirely. So none of this really matters.
 

Skywalker

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




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....



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.




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




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....



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.




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?

Even the part that comes right after only gives a vague benefit of the doubt to what he said earlier. Darwin using the word seems still involves a certain doubt about natural selection.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Do you understand what that Einstein quote means? He is saying that the scientist's conviction that there is order in the universe that we can comprehend is akin to a religious belief. He is not saying that scientists need to have a religious faith in God, in the usual religious sense. They need to have faith in that comprehensible order.

From what I have read about Einstein, he felt that if there is a "God", it is that order in the universe, i.e. what we often call the "laws of nature" that IS God. This seems to be rather similar to Spinoza's position. So if anything. it's a kind of deism - certainly nothing like the personal God of the Abrahamic faiths.

Its still a departure from the belief that there is no God.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Bible is consistent with biology. The Bible mentions biogenesis. Biologists Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur believed in the Bible. In Genesis, God created light, water, the soil, and then plants. Plants need sunlight, water, and minerals to grow and to make energy and food. If plants don't have sunlight, and yet they have water and minerals, they cannot produce chlorophyll, and they will die. The Bible is consistent with biology. The importance of blood in our body's mechanism has been fully understood only in recent years. The Book of Leviticus says that blood is the source of life and it was written in 1400 BC. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell and maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells. The Bible had science before its time. In 1616, scientist William Harvey discovered that bloody circulation is they key factor in physical life, something that the Bible mentioned before people discovered it.
The Bible also says that critters breeding in front of striped sticks will have striped kids. And that is just one of many errors. If one counts the few hits one must also count the many misses.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Even the part that comes right after only gives a vague benefit of the doubt to what he said earlier. Darwin using the word seems still involves a certain doubt about natural selection.
We went over this. I linked an article for you to read to show that the quotes out of context that you used were not his actual thoughts. You are back to claiming that the Bible says "There is no God".
 
Top