How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

Subduction Zone said:

Perhaps you did not ask any questions.

Click to expand...

ah.

Subduction Zone said:

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?

Click to expand...

I answered this already!
First I wrote (#133)
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.
and later I wrote (#137)
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.

Don't go round in circles with me!

Subduction Zone said:

And no, observations do not have to be of events happening today. That is nowhere in the definition.

Click to expand...

@Audie, did you read that quote? Last time you said I expressed odd notions, so what do you say here? Or don't you just say anything because he's your colleage?
you wrote this in answering me:
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 hope you don't suggest that any believer able to think must not question a hypothesis saying that you can observe what lies in the past.
Since this hypothesis is put forward by an evolutionist you don't explain anything to him?

And do you think that the only task for believers here is to ask questions and to get educated that, for instance, it's possible to go back in time and observe past things?

@Subduction Zone. No, you can't observe past things, see Definition of OBSERVE: nowhere does this definition apply to watching processes that lie in the past. They just don't write "you can't observe things that lie back in the past" because it's obvious. You just can't timewalk back in time and observe there.
If you maintain you can observe something that happened in the past, please provide a source from a dictionary that claims so.

I didn't run away from points and didn't try to distract.

Thomas

thomas t said:

ah.


I answered this already!
First I wrote (#133)
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.
and later I wrote (#137)
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.

Don't go round in circles with me!

@Audie, did you read that quote? Last time you said I expressed odd notions, so what do you say here? Or don't you just say anything because he's your colleage?
you wrote this in answering me:
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 hope you don't suggest that any believer able to think must not question a hypothesis saying that you can observe what lies in the past.... because an evolutionist said so?
Do you really think that the only task for believers here is to ask questions and to get educated that, for instance, it's possible to go back in time and observe past things?

@Subduction Zone. No, you can't observe past things, see Definition of OBSERVE: nowhere does this definition apply to watching processes that lie in the past. They just don't write "you can't observe things that lie back in the past" because it's obvious. You just can't timewalk back in time and observe there.
If you maintain you can observe something past, please provide a source from a dictionary that claims so.

I didn't run away from points and didn't try to distract.

Thomas

Click to expand...

Your test is worthless. This was explained to you. The same observations would be made if either evolution was true or if your myths were true.

thomas t said:

ah.


I answered this already!
First I wrote (#133)
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.
and later I wrote (#137)
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.

Don't go round in circles with me!

@Audie, did you read that quote? Last time you said I expressed odd notions, so what do you say here? Or don't you just say anything because he's your colleage?
you wrote this in answering me:
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 hope you don't suggest that any believer able to think must not question a hypothesis saying that you can observe what lies in the past.... because an evolutionist said so?
Do you really think that the only task for believers here is to ask questions and to get educated that, for instance, it's possible to go back in time and observe past things?

@Subduction Zone. No, you can't observe past things, see Definition of OBSERVE: nowhere does this definition apply to watching processes that lie in the past. They just don't write "you can't observe things that lie back in the past" because it's obvious. You just can't timewalk back in time and observe there.
If you maintain you can observe something past, please provide a source from a dictionary that claims so.

I didn't run away from points and didn't try to distract.

Thomas

Click to expand...

And of course we an observe events in the past. In fact technically all observed events are in the past. Now you are denying forensic science. The basis of countless convictions.

You sound like Ken Ham in this video:

I'm not like Ken Ham.

Subduction Zone said:

Your test is worthless. This was explained to you.

Click to expand...

My test isn't worthless. I refuted your "explanation". I don't propose myths here, I think.

Subduction Zone said:

The same observations would be made if either evolution was true [...]

Click to expand...

according to you. This kind of evidence however rather points to God standing behind, I think.

Subduction Zone said:

In fact technically all observed events are in the past.

Click to expand...

Actually they are not. I'm observing a lady passing by. At the very moment this is happening (by the time I'm writing this, 10 seconds went by, already.)

Subduction Zone said:

Now you are denying forensic science. The basis of countless convictions.

Click to expand...

I do not deny forensic science. In forensics, they never observe the crime itself, as I see it. They observe the evidence that later lead to the conviction.

thomas t said:

I'm not like Ken Ham.
My test isn't worthless. I refuted your "explanation". I don't propose myths here, I think.

according to you. This kind of evidence however rather points to God standing behind, I think.


Actually they are not. I'm observing a lady passing by. At the very moment this is happening (by the time I'm writing this, 10 seconds went by, already.)



I do not deny forensic science. In forensics, they never observe the crime itself, as I see it. They observe the evidence that later lead to the conviction.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but your test is worthless. The results support either side equally. Try again.

thomas t said:

Actually they are not. I'm observing a lady passing by. At the very moment this is happening (by the time I'm writing this, 10 seconds went by, already.)

Click to expand...

Wrong again. Even that observation was in the past. Light does not travel instantaneously.

thomas t said:

I do not deny forensic science. In forensics, they never observe the crime itself, as I see it. They observe the evidence that later lead to the conviction.

Click to expand...

Of.course you did. Watch the video and we can discuss it. Those events are all in the past. Once again your error is a lack of consistency.

thomas t said:

according to you. This kind of evidence however rather points to God standing behind, I think.

Click to expand...

Not at all. You can do better than this I hope.

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, but your test is worthless. The results support either side equally. Try again.

Click to expand...

actually it's not, I think.
I don't see the slightest reason of why the results should support evolution.
Evolution is about the rise of the species... not about the rise of landscapes, in my opinion.

Subduction Zone said:

Wrong again. Even that observation was in the past. Light does not travel instantaneously.

Click to expand...

It wasn't in the past. At the time she was passing by... the light reached me already! She did not walk faster than light can travel.

Subduction Zone said:

Of.course you did.

Click to expand...

well I did not, I think.
So this is the same old pattern of our "debates" I mentioned before.

Subduction Zone said:

Not at all.

Click to expand...

I think it does.
So this again, is the same silly old debate pattern that you always try with me, it seems?
Can we finally get off your merry goround?
I have other things to do during my day, believe me.

You mentioned the video, but even in the video they did not observe that Mr. Haggard drove into the house. They found evidence of it. That's all.
and no: my error is not lack of consistency, I think.

Edited to change blue paragraph.

thomas t said:

actually it's not, I think.
I don't see the slightest reason of why the results should support evolution.
Evolution is about the rise of the species... not about the rise of landscapes, in my opinion.


It wasn't in the past. At the time she was passing by... the light reached me already! She did not walk faster than light can travel.

well I did not, I think.
So this is the same old pattern of our "debates" I mentioned before.

I think it does.
So this again, is the same silly old debate pattern that you always try with me, it seems?
Can we finally get off your merry goround?
I have other things to do during my day, believe me.

You mentioned the video, but even in the video they did not observe that Mr. Haggard drove into the house. They found evidence of it. That's all.
and no: my error is not lack of consistency, I think.

Edited to change blue paragraph.

Click to expand...

Yes,we all know that you have no clue when it comes to testing. Your error was not even at a middle school level. It is the sort of error that an elementary school student would make. Even your fellow Christians should be laughing at your argument.

But go ahead. Publish that and see how it goes.

Subduction Zone said:

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?

Click to expand...

You are the only one who thinks breaking up posts is a. "desperate excess". Its a useful way to keep track while responding to a post.
You look ridiculous trying to win points
(Desperste ) that way.

Audie said:

You are the only one who thinks breaking up posts is a. "desperate excess". Its a useful way to keep track while responding to a post.
You look ridiculous trying to win points
(Desperste ) that way.

Click to expand...

Not desperate, but you can have your opinion.

Subduction Zone said:

Not desperate, but you can have your opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't do " opinions ". Ya swab.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes,we all know that you have no clue when it comes to testing.

Click to expand...

I think I do have a clue when it comes to testing.

Subduction Zone said:

Your error was not even at a middle school level. It is the sort of error that an elementary school student would make.

Click to expand...

I don't I think that it was an error to begin with.

thomas t said:

I think I do have a clue when it comes to testing.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is called the Dunning Kruger effect. Your errors were explained to you and your lack of education means that you can't see them.

thomas t said:

I don't I think that it was an error to begin with.

Click to expand...

I know, and that makes your posts both laughable and tragic. Instead of wanting to learn it appears that you only want excuses to believe. That is not a pathway to the truth. It is also an act of a person of very weak faith.

It appears that you do not believe in God as much as you believe in the Bible. The Bible is a guide at best. You have turned it into a false idol. As a result you have rather blasphemous views. If God is real the Earth is God's work. And it loudly proclaims that the Bible cannot be interpreted literally.

thomas t said:

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 put that apelike ancestor in a lab and test if some time later later humans evolve. You can't do that.

Click to expand...

There is fossil evidence. Geologists haven't found fossil humans in Miocene or earlier rocks, but there are about 40 genera of Miocene apes. A moment's thought should convince you that our ancestry, as individual men and women, must extend back indefinitely far into the past, and therefore that we must have had ancestors who lived during the Miocene epoch. Since there are no Miocene human fossils, our Miocene ancestors were not human, but these ancestors must have existed. Since the animals that most resemble us, both anatomically and genetically, are the apes, it follows that our most likely Miocene ancestors were the apes that lived during that time. What other explanation can you think of?

thomas t said:

The evolution of man itself is not observable. Observable processes happen today. You cannot observe things that lie in the past.

Click to expand...

This crater was formed in the past, long before there were any Arizonans to witness its formation. Do you think that the scientists who have inferred that it was formed about 50,000 years ago by the impact of an iron meteorite must be wrong? If not, why do you think that scientists who have used comparative genetics and anatomy, and the fossil record, to infer that humans and apes are descended from common ancestors are wrong?

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, this is called the Dunning Kruger effect. [...] your lack of education means that you can't see them.

Click to expand...

No, I don't fall victim to that Dunning Kruger effect.

My standard aswers to you:

I don't have that lack of education you were talking about.


You couldn't explain an error to me.
I do not want to learn from you (this does not mean that I don't want to learn in general).

I think my posts were not laughable or tragic.
I do not need excuses to believe.
My faith isn't actually very weak.
I believe in God in as much as I believe in the Bible.
I did not turn it into a false idol.
I do not have rather blaphemous views.
I think there is good reason to think the BIble needs to be interpreted literally.

When do we get off this merry goround finally?

Astrophile said:

What other explanation can you think of?

Click to expand...

Thank you for your input.

God wanted to give a history to the human body.
A history that makes us understand more about the nature of the body... or history teaching us a lesson of how God wants us to understand the nature of the human bodies he created.

Whenever scientists say something about the diet of our predecessors... this means it is good for us to eat similarly. Not so much refined sugars, for instance.
I am sure there are many other things to learn from the fossils in the ground.

I am still pondering about what lesson could be drawn from fossils that aren't human but ape-like.


Whenever there is a miracle involved, the evidence left behind rarely teaches it was a miracle, in my opinion.
When Jesus turned water into wine, the wine did not look like a beverage made only instants before.
Often there is an appearance of age, when Bible says there is no old age. For instance the wine was new but tasted old and scientists would have said it is old - when it was in fact young.
So the day when God created man, he also added a timeline to their existence or a history for them very much in the way he added alcohol to the drink when he made wine. As a side effect, the alcohol indicated the (wrong) age.

Similarly, I think the earth was created miraculously and the indicated age is just a side effect when God had other purposes. In the case of the human body, God just wanted to have the comparison between man's physical body today and other physical structures that are comparble to it.

Craters on earth make the earth look like a real celestial body.

Edited for clarity.