How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[Skywalker]

So what? Why does it matter what Darwin did? Darwin is not a god of evolution. You are appearing to project your religion upon others.

Once again, science advances over the years. When Darwin got things wrong, and he did, or many of the things that Darwin did not know, were corrected or learned since his time.


Every time you try to say "but Darwin . . ." the proper answer is almost always "So what?"

The founder of the theory of evolution gave doubts to natural selection to the degree of not having another opinion. This isn't about my beliefs this is about Darwin believing that evolution is a theory. Did science create an alternative theory for what Darwin couldn't explain or didn't know about the eye?

 

[Skywalker]

He couldn't have as the eye is soft tissue, and soft tissue rarely fossilizes. We also have to be careful about judging Darwin as evolutionary studies were in their infancy.

BTW, do not assume the eye was always complex as many current eyes in some organisms show us.

Did later evolutionists have alternative theories for what Darwin said?

 

[Skywalker]

Areas of the Middle East have flood myths. Some parts do not. Egypt for example. And that is probably true of South America etc.. Some areas have flood myths. Some do not. So what? Once again floods happen. Stories grow over the years. That they have flood myths is not evidence for a global flood since there are some notable exceptions.

People need water. Civilizations need water even more so. They are often found on navigable waterways and they tend to flood over the years. That ancient civilizations have flood myths is expected.

And that is your "best evidence". The fact is that all of the sciences tell us that there was no flood. One of my favorite arguments, just because it is fun, is the fact that you are safe from waking up in a seedy hotel on the wrong side of town in a bathtub full of ice is evidence against the mythical flood of Noah.

I'm not saying the story of the flood was passed down to every descendant. People don't always talk about something just because they experienced it or their relatives told them about it. The details of the flood stories are different from the Bible because stories do change over the years. Exceptions aren't evidence against a global flood since not every experience was talked about to one's descendants. For example, Noah and his family believed in God, but there were only a few Christians around Job's time, the time before Jesus. A Native American told me that there were native american tribes who believed in the Trinity. That isn't the case for all Native Americans before Jesus but I still believe it's true.

Pacific and South American cultures talked about global floods, not local floods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The founder of the theory of evolution gave doubts to natural selection to the degree of not having another opinion. This isn't about my beliefs this is about Darwin believing that evolution is a theory. Did science create an alternative theory for what Darwin couldn't explain or didn't know about the eye?

No, he didn't. That was a lie and I explained it to you. That was a case of quote mining.

By the way "science" does not provide alternate theories. People do. Right now there is no alternate theory to evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is of course the fault of creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did later evolutionists have alternative theories for what Darwin said?

You do realize that Darwin did not have doubts about the eye, don't you? Did you try to find the original work so that you could read it in context? Let's not go claiming that the Bible says that "There is no God" by your standards.

 

[Skywalker]

No, he didn't. That was a lie and I explained it to you. That was a case of quote mining.

By the way "science" does not provide alternate theories. People do. Right now there is no alternate theory to evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is of course the fault of creationists.

The professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University said things that support creationism. The notable atheist and astronomer Fred Hoyle once said that the likelihood of the random emergence of even the simplest cell is less of a chance than 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' Is this true? - Quora

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying the story of the flood was passed down to every descendant. People don't always talk about something just because they experienced it or their relatives told them about it. The details of the flood stories are different from the Bible because stories do change over the years. Exceptions aren't evidence against a global flood since not every experience was talked about to one's descendants. For example, Noah and his family believed in God, but there were only a few Christians around Job's time, the time before Jesus. A Native American told me that there were native american tribes who believed in the Trinity. That isn't the case for all Native Americans before Jesus but I still believe it's true.

Pacific and South American cultures talked about global floods, not local floods.

Once again your claims do not matter. We know that there was no flood. You should try to learn how we know that there was no flood. And even the Bible was probably based upon a local flood. The likely culprit has been found. By the way if you were a student of the Bible you would know that the Noah's Ark story came from an older one from Babylonian culture:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

 

[Skywalker]

You do realize that Darwin did not have doubts about the eye, don't you? Did you try to find the original work so that you could read it in context? Let's not go claiming that the Bible says that "There is no God" by your standards.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University said things that support creationism. The notable atheist and astronomer Fred Hoyle once said that the likelihood of the random emergence of even the simplest cell is less of a chance than 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' Is this true? - Quora

Why would you ask an astronomer about biology? Do you go to your baker and ask him how to set the timing on your car?

Hoyle was unfortunately incredibly ignorant. He compared how difficult it would be to make a modern cell. A cell that has been evolving for about 3 billion years. In 3 billion years even the "simplest" of cells is quite complex. Compare a 747 to the Wright brothers claim and you might begin to understand his error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That was not the verse that I was referring to. So once again by your standards, not mine, you are claiming that the Bible says "there is no God". You just claimed that the Bible says that there is no God again by repeating what you should now know to be a falsehood.

 

[Skywalker]

Once again your claims do not matter. We know that there was no flood. You should try to learn how we know that there was no flood. And even the Bible was probably based upon a local flood. The likely culprit has been found. By the way if you were a student of the Bible you would know that the Noah's Ark story came from an older one from Babylonian culture:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Why are 85% of certain rocks sedimentary?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you go, @Skywalker , an article that explains the Darwin quote in more context. Since you found at least one example of the Bible stating "there is no God" (if one quotes out of context) I thought that I would reward you a bit:

Evolution and the Eye

 

[paarsurrey]

He also explained how it could have happened. By leaving that out you made it look as if he had doubts when he did not. I am pretty sure that you got the idea of this quote from a lying source. It is laziness to rely on lying sources and not fully check out their claims. You were taken in by their lies. Quote mining is the favorite kind of lying used by creationists. This is an old one.

By the way, it does not even matter if Darwin had doubts. This is the problem with Bible believers, they do not understand that 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.

" 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."

A very good point, please.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are 85% of certain rocks sedimentary?

Do you mean surface rocks? Because parts of continents were often underwater. Please note that the whole Earth was not underwater, only parts of it. And sedimentary rocks are not rapidly deposited. There are examples of rapid deposition and they look quite different from 99% of the rest of sedimentary rocks. One would need very rapid deposition for the flood myth and rapidly deposited sediments are poorly sorted. Most sedimentary rocks are very well sorted.

 

[metis]

Did later evolutionists have alternative theories for what Darwin said?

In some cases, yes.

For example, one theory that Darwin had is that a species might evolve some new features on the basis of desire, namely that if enough them wanted let's say longer necks, such as with the giraffe, that desire alone would produce longer-necked giraffes. However, there's no evidence that desire alone would do that. IOW, desire won't by itself change the genes.

Darwin is to the ToE much like Freud is to psychology, thus both sciences have evolved significantly since these two masters.

 

[Skywalker]

Here you go, @Skywalker , an article that explains the Darwin quote in more context. Since you found at least one example of the Bible stating "there is no God" (if one quotes out of context) I thought that I would reward you a bit:

Evolution and the Eye

I wasn't taking him out of context, because there's no evidence he didn't have those doubts about natural selection, based on what you quoted.

 

[Skywalker]

In some cases, yes.

For example, one theory that Darwin had is that a species might evolve some new features on the basis of desire, namely that if enough them wanted let's say longer necks, such as with the giraffe, that desire alone would produce longer-necked giraffes. However, there's no evidence that desire alone would do that. IOW, desire won't by itself change the genes.

Darwin is to the ToE much like Freud is to psychology, thus both sciences have evolved significantly since these two masters.

What Darwin said about giraffes is not evidence of macroevolution, its evidence of a change within kinds, not animals changing to different kinds.

 

[Skywalker]

That was not the verse that I was referring to. So once again by your standards, not mine, you are claiming that the Bible says "there is no God". You just claimed that the Bible says that there is no God again by repeating what you should now know to be a falsehood.

I was explaining why I thought that the comparison between the Bible verse you mentioned being taken out of context and why you think I'm taking Darwin out of context, didn't make sense to me. How was I taking Darwin out of context?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I did post an article for you to read how this quote was taken out of context just as my quote (that I admitted was out of context) can be abused to say that "There was no God". And did you not see that there are at least twelve such examples in the Bible? I never link to this claim of the Bible because it is both foolish and incorrect as far as modern atheism goes.

That is an example of a defensive verse. Where one attacks those that find flaws in the Bible. Please note that it says "in one's heart". That implies an emotional response and very few atheists are atheists for emotional reasons. There are Christians and other theists that sometimes have a "crisis of faith" because something bad happened to them and they become atheists out of anger. In that case the verse is actually right. Reasoning with your heart will not give a reliable answer. Those are the sort of "atheists" that tend to go back to theism once they forgive their god. Most modern atheists are atheists because they realize that there is no reliable evidence for a god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What Darwin said about giraffes is not evidence of macroevolution, its evidence of a change within kinds, not animals changing to different kinds.

NO, no, no. Please do not use nonsense terms and claims. And terms that you do not understand either. Macroevolution has been directly observed. You simply do not understand what is and what is not macroevolution.

Macroevolution occurs when a new species is formed. We see that all of the time. Microevolution is evolution below the species level. And the only difference between macro and micro is time and accumulated changes.