• 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?

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
If that was at me... I'm not dishonest.


There are ways to test the concept.
I think we have a different understanding of what testing actually means.
I see it that way:
You can't test the rise of man, for instance. You can't test it in the wild nor in the lab. You can't just but that apelike ancestor in a lab and test if some time later later humans evolve. You can't do that.
You can do other things though... you can test if foxes develop a new number of rips if put in certain circumstances, for instance. This is testable science, as I understand it. You wait decades and observe the changes. That's an experiment or test.
There is no reason that DNA has to form a phylogenetic tree, if creationism is true.
well, these trees could point to a God who potentially wants history.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If that was at me... I'm not dishonest.



I think we have a different understanding of what testing actually means.
I see it that way:
You can't test the rise of man, for instance. You can't test it in the wild nor in the lab. You can't just but that apelike ancestor in a lab and test if some time later later humans evolve. You can't do that.
You can do other things though... you can test if foxes develop a new number of rips if put in certain circumstances, for instance. This is testable science, as I understand it. You wait decades and observe the changes. That's an experiment or test.

well, these trees could point to a God who potentially wants history.
I am not sure what you mean by "the rise of man". We can test the evolution of man.

As to your God, that is a claim. It needs to be backed up by reliable, and that means objective, evidence. Your God appears to be very deceptive. All of the scientific evidence that he left behind only supports the theory of evolution. "Magic" is not a very convincing argument.

EDIT: And perhaps one should say one is not intentionally dishonest. Though one cannot debate for creationism for very long without crossing that line.
 

Audie

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

Is there some other reason for you to
ask such kind of ignorant sounding questions ?
If you know better what's s the game?
 

Audie

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)

In fairness, limit it to intellectual dishonesty.
And maybe just as it relates to this fairly narrow
area.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
And perhaps one should say one is not intentionally dishonest.
I am neither intentionally dishonest nor unintentionally dishonest, I think.
I am not sure what you mean by "the rise of man". We can test the evolution of man.
You can test models of the evolution of man against the data.
However you can't present an experiment that shows it. And you can't observe it.

Your God appears to be very deceptive.
Except that he doesn't.
All of the scientific evidence that he left behind only supports the theory of evolution.
Much of it does, some of it does not, I think. Beautiful landscapes that are in harmony with themselves point to God, as I see it. Not to evolution.
Landscapes are not exposed to evolutionary pressure to look beautiful. Yet they do.

ask such kind of ignorant sounding questions ?
I didn't ask ignorant sounding questions.
Neither am I intellectually dishonest @Audie, in case you meant me.
I always post to the best of my knowledge, of course. I'm no deceiver.

EDITED blue paragraph
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I am neither intentionally dishonest nor unintentionally dishonest, I think.

I'm convinced: you can't.

Except that he doesn't.
Much of it does, some of it does not, I think. Beautiful landscapes that are in harmony with themselves point to God, as I see it. Not to evolution.
Landscapes are not exposed to evolutionary pressure to look beautiful. Yet they do.


I didn't ask ignorant sounding questions.
Neither am I intellectually dishonest @Audie, in case you meant me.

So when it is pointed out to you the how and why your assertions and questions re evolution reflect ignorance, you satisfy yourself with,
"I disagree"? No rationale, no demonstration
that you do know the topic, just, "I disagree".

Are you considering that there are people here,
such as myself, with many long hours of lecture, lab, and self directed study, whose understanding you cannot hope to match?

I don't see you as dishonest, I think you are entirely sincere.

But are you being entirely square with yourself in your belief that whatever cursory look at such as biology and geology as you've had really gives you the capacity to have a data based disagreement with those who have spent years studying?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
So when it is pointed out to you the how and why your assertions and questions re evolution reflect ignorance, you satisfy yourself with,
"I disagree"? No rationale, no demonstration
Unsubstanciated claims can also be dismissed without providing substanciation, I think.

But are you being entirely square with yourself in your belief that whatever cursory look at such as biology and geology as you've had really gives you the capacity to have a data based disagreement with those who have spent years studying?
Anything I said concerning the topic was right, I think.
Anyone posting correctly can always say something, I think.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am neither intentionally dishonest nor unintentionally dishonest, I think.

That is what a person that is unintentionally dishonest would say.

You can test models of the evolution of man against the data.
However you can't present an experiment that shows it. And you can't observe it.


That is incorrect. I gave you an example of that. Your definitions of observation and experimentation are incorrect.

Except that he doesn't.

And yet you keep claiming that he is. Your lack of understanding of the sciences almost makes this inevitable.

Much of it does, some of it does not, I think. Beautiful landscapes that are in harmony with themselves point to God, as I see it. Not to evolution.
Landscapes are not exposed to evolutionary pressure to look beautiful. Yet they do.

This is not evidence. Once again one needs a testable concept. If you cannot come up with a reasonable test all you have are ad hoc explanations and not evidence.

I didn't ask ignorant sounding questions.
Neither am I intellectually dishonest @Audie, in case you meant me.
I always post to the best of my knowledge, of course. I'm no deceiver.

How would you know? When your questions tell us how little education you have those are ignorant sounding questions.

Instead of taking offense so quickly why not try to learn? You still have not learned what is and what is not evidence as shown by this post of yours.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unsubstanciated claims can also be dismissed without providing substanciation, I think.

Anything I said concerning the topic was right, I think.
Anyone posting correctly can always say something, I think.
But they are not unsubstantiated. Your errors were explained to you and you ignored the corrections.

And sorry, but you do keep claiming that God is a liar. Perhaps you should try to learn how you do that.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Unsubstanciated claims can also be dismissed without providing substanciation, I think.

Anything I said concerning the topic was right, I think.
Anyone posting correctly can always say something, I think.

At least you see why you contention that you
have a meaningful knowledge of science
Is dismissed for lack of evidence / contrary evidence.

You think your comments are correct, sure. But again,
Zero evidence zero data goes into the thought.

Prove me wrong, plz.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I am neither intentionally dishonest nor unintentionally dishonest, I think.

You can test models of the evolution of man against the data.
However you can't present an experiment that shows it. And you can't observe it.


Except that he doesn't.
Much of it does, some of it does not, I think. Beautiful landscapes that are in harmony with themselves point to God, as I see it. Not to evolution.
Landscapes are not exposed to evolutionary pressure to look beautiful. Yet they do.


I didn't ask ignorant sounding questions.
Neither am I intellectually dishonest @Audie, in case you meant me.
I always post to the best of my knowledge, of course. I'm no deceiver.

EDITED blue paragraph

Ah, here is a simple test. Yiu connect landscapes and evolution, above.

Show us your understanding of the science
with a couple of sentences describing the connection.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
But are you being entirely square with yourself in your belief that whatever cursory look at such as biology and geology as you've had really gives you the capacity to have a data based disagreement with those who have spent years studying?

First of all, I think when scientists make claims relevant to faith, it is absolutely fine for a believer to respond.
Scientists should not expect believers to tiptoe carefully away.
And in this thread there were statements relevant to faith such as Genesis was a myth. Which I don't believe. Of course, believers can respond here.
You think your comments are correct, sure. But again,
Zero evidence zero data goes into the thought.
My conversation partner made the bold claims here, as I see it, and the onus was all on him to bring evidence to the table. Which he didn't provide, in my opinion. I refuted some of his claims, if I remember well.
I didn't make bold claims here.

Ah, here is a simple test. Yiu connect landscapes and evolution, above.

Show us your understanding of the science
with a couple of sentences describing the connection.
The connection being that plants have an evolutionary requirement to attract insects and look great, even inside a landscape.
My conversation partner made the claim that there is all evidence for evolution and zero evidence for creation. If I understood him right.
That's what I commented on.
 
Last edited:

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
why not try to learn?
Please don't teach me anything. Don't be my teacher, please.
I'm not taking offence, here. But my request still stands: don't teach me!
When your questions tell us how little education you have
I didn't ask questions to begin with. Don't put words in my mouth.


This is not evidence.
I think I did provide evidence for creation.

Once again one needs a testable concept. If you cannot come up with a reasonable test all you have are ad hoc explanations and not evidence.
you could test my claim: present a beautiful landscape to people and more than 50% say it's beautiful.
This points to God's love and creation as I see it.

I still think I know what evidence is.
But here it is like I said in #113:
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.


So can we get off that merry go round?





I stay with my opinion; I am not unintentionally dishonest.

I think my stance on what is testable concerning the rise of man was correct and my definitions are correct.

I do not keep claiming that God is a liar.
I do not have the lack of understanding of the sciences you are talking about.
I didn't make the errors you think I made. No corrections necessary.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Please don't teach me anything. Don't be my teacher, please.
I'm not taking offence, here. But my request still stands: don't teach me!

Remember when I said that you ran away? You are doing so again.

Why are you afraid to learn? If you refuse to learn you have no grounds to complain when others point out your ignorance.

I didn't ask questions to begin with. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, you did.

I think I did provide evidence for creation.

But you did not, and why it was not evidence was explained to you. You only demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence.


you could test my claim: present a beautiful landscape to people and more than 50% say it's beautiful.
This points to God's love and creation as I see it.

That is hardly a valid test since the beauty of a scene has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a god. In fact it is a tautology at best. To be evidence the test must be able to.go both ways. By your logic if I found some ugly scenery and over fifty percent of people agreed that would refute God. Seriously, does that make any sense to you?

I still think I know what evidence is.
But here it is like I said in #113:
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.


So can we get off that merry go round?

All you have to do is learn what is and what is not evidence or stop complaining when corrected.


Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

I stay with my opinion; I am not unintentionally dishonest.

I think my stance on what is testable concerning the rise of man was correct and my definitions are correct.

No, since I explained and will gladly explain again how ideas can be tested you are wrong. Let's try to focus on one idea at a time. The evolution of man is testable. It is observable. We can observe it in the fossil record and find massive evidence for it in our DNA. Your definition of observable is overly limiting.

I do not keep claiming that God is a liar.
I do not have the lack of understanding of the sciences you are talking about.
I didn't make the errors you think I made. No corrections necessary.

Actually you did all of that. Why does all of the scientific evidence support evolution and none of it supports creationism? Why would your version of God go to such great lengths to create an artificial past? That is a form of lying.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
First of all, I think when scientists make claims relevant to faith, it is absolutely fine for a believer to respond.
Scientists should not expect believers to tiptoe carefully away.
And in this thread there were statements relevant to faith such as Genesis was a myth. Which I don't believe. Of course, believers can respond here.

My conversation partner made the bold claims here, as I see it, and the onus was all on him to bring evidence to the table. Which he didn't provide, in my opinion. I refuted some of his claims, if I remember well.
I didn't make bold claims here.


The connection being that plants have an evolutionary requirement to attract insects and look great, even inside a landscape.
My conversation partner made the claim that there is all evidence for evolution and zero evidence for creation. If I understood him right.
That's what I commented on.

Ok to you flowers attracting insects is landscape.

Far from expecting someone to "walk away"
from interesting information, a scientist would hope to help the ignorant to understand it.

Such odd notions you express.

Anyway...for our mutual relief, I am going to cease any attempt to communicate.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Remember when I said that you ran away? You are doing so again.
[...]All you have to do is learn what is and what is not evidence or stop complaining when corrected.


Scientific evidence - Wikipedia
I don't run away from dicsussion. In general, I do want to learn, but I want to ask you: please accept a no.
Is it possible for you to accept that I don't want you to be my teacher?
Please accept the no and don't be my teacher here.
I don't see me as running away.
It's like the insurance agent at your door step, remember when I made the comparison already?
I wrote, click here:
I don't need any links from your side to understand what is and is not evidence. Please stop trying to educate me. Your offers of "help" are simply getting on my nerves.
What would you do if someone knocks your door saying
"I sell you this insurance, it is quite good"
"no, good bye"
"but I offer you my help!"
"No, get yourself off my door"
"but you need it soo much!"
You see, people can just get on other people's nerves. What would you do to get this person off?


It's the same exact debate we're having here. Sadly. Don't steal my time, please.
--------------
I did not ask one single question (on the subject level), here. If you think I did: provide the quote!
Don't just come forward with empty claims.

But you did not, and why it was not evidence was explained to you.
I think I could provide the evidence for my claim that God created the world. The explanation that this was not evidence, according to you, was wrong I think.
You only demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence.
[...]
so this is something I already answered!
I wrote in #133:
But here it is like I said in #113:
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.

So can we get off that merry go round?


But oh of course I complain when you repeat and repeat and repeat yourself in senseless reiterations of the same empty claims again and again!
Don't steal my time any longer.



Why does all of the scientific evidence support evolution and none of it supports creationism? Why would your version of God go to such great lengths to create an artificial past? That is a form of lying.
God does not lie, he has other reasons to produce the data that man is interpreting to be the evidence for evolution.
As I said I provided evidence for creation. Ugly landscapes can't disprove anything, I think, if there are ugly landscapes to begin with.
For this reason: Man could even enjoy the not so beautiful landscapes when the sky is beautiful and the sun shines nicely.
According to you the perceived beauty of nature has nothing to do with God.
But it's the very evidence for him, I think. It's no tautology.

I maintain my stance on what is testable concerning the rise of man was correct and my definitions are correct and I think I know how ideas can be tested.
The evolution of man itself is not observable. Observable processes happen today. You cannot observe things that lie in the past. The whole of the rise of man does not happen today.
I don't think my definition of observable is overly limiting.

I maintain that I do not keep claiming that God is a liar.
I maintain that I do not have the lack of understanding of the sciences you are talking about.
I also maintain that I didn't make the errors you think I made. No corrections necessary.

This again and again is the old pattern of our "debating" I explained above.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don't run away from dicsussion. In general, I do want to learn, but I want to ask you: please accept a no.
Is it possible for you to accept that I don't want you to be my teacher?
Please accept the no and don't be my teacher here.
I don't see me as running away.
It's like the insurance agent at your door step, remember when I made the comparison already?
I wrote, click here:
I don't need any links from your side to understand what is and is not evidence. Please stop trying to educate me. Your offers of "help" are simply getting on my nerves.
What would you do if someone knocks your door saying
"I sell you this insurance, it is quite good"
"no, good bye"
"but I offer you my help!"
"No, get yourself off my door"
"but you need it soo much!"
You see, people can just get on other people's nerves. What would you do to get this person off?


It's the same exact debate we're having here. Sadly. Don't steal my time, please.
--------------
I did not ask one single question (on the subject level), here. If you think I did: provide the quote!
Don't just come forward with empty claims.


I think I could provide the evidence for my claim that God created the world. The explanation that this was not evidence, according to you, was wrong I think.

so this is something I already answered!
I wrote in #133:
But here it is like I said in #113:
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.

So can we get off that merry go round?


But oh of course I complain when you repeat and repeat and repeat yourself in senseless reiterations of the same empty claims again and again!
Don't steal my time any longer.




God does not lie, he has other reasons to produce the data that man is interpreting to be the evidence for evolution.
As I said I provided evidence for creation. Ugly landscapes can't disprove anything, I think, if there are ugly landscapes to begin with.
For this reason: Man could even enjoy the not so beautiful landscapes when the sky is beautiful and the sun shines nicely.
According to you the perceived beauty of nature has nothing to do with God.
But it's the very evidence for him, I think. It's no tautology.

I maintain my stance on what is testable concerning the rise of man was correct and my definitions are correct and I think I know how ideas can be tested.
The evolution of man itself is not observable. Observable processes happen today. You cannot observe things that lie in the past. The whole of the rise of man does not happen today.
I don't think my definition of observable is overly limiting.

I maintain that I do not keep claiming that God is a liar.
I maintain that I do not have the lack of understanding of the sciences you are talking about.
I also maintain that I didn't make the errors you think I made. No corrections necessary.

This again and again is the old pattern of our "debating" I explained above.
Let's go over one point at a time. I dislike the desperate excessive breaking up of posts. It is usually done to run away from points and is an attempt at distraction.

Perhaps you did not ask any questions. You should have. As to evidence you have not provided any. Remember, to have evidence, and since this is a science based discussion one needs scientific evidence, one must first have s testable hypothesis.

What is your testable hypothesis? What reasonable test could refute it?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
In fairness, limit it to intellectual dishonesty.
And maybe just as it relates to this fairly narrow
area.
Could be at that.
I mean, i have seen some otherwise extremely intelligent people turn a blind eye more than once.
And interestingly enough, the vast majority of it had nothing to do with religion.
 
Top