How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[ratiocinator]

He said that the information that's in people's brains would fill as many as in the world's largest libraries. Each person has the equivalent of twenty million books. That is how complex humans are.

So what? Presumably you think your god has an infinite amount of information yet you don't think your god needs explaining. Talk about double standards and special pleading.

You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that you've been shown to be wrong on several different points and just spamming out more and more rubbish in the hope something sticks...

 

[Skywalker]

No. That's just the false dichotomy that you have set up.

As I already told you, you can only argue "for" your religious case and "against" science, by making fallacious arguments while misrepresenting said science.



You don't know that. You just believe that.



We don't know. Neither do you.

If not a singularity, what did we come from?

How could the universe be eternal?

Every belief has faith.

 

[ppp]

He said that the information that's in people's brains would fill as many as in the world's largest libraries. Each person has the equivalent of twenty million books. That is how complex humans are.

Another point against your position. Please continue.

 

[ratiocinator]

If not a singularity, what did we come from?

I know of no serious cosmologists think there was a literal singularity. A singularity is what happens to the equations.

How could the universe be eternal?

Why couldn't it be?

Every belief has faith.

Nonsense. We can believe those things for which we have evidence and simply admit that we don't know the rest - no faith required.

 

[Skywalker]

Complexity is not evidence of design.

To say it is, is an argument from ignorance / incredulity / awe.

How is complexity not evidence of design? If I saw a painting, I would know that it's too complex not to have a painter. A computer is too complicated to not have a maker. There are evolution defying creatures. Why would the process of random mutations and blind chance put suction cups on the gecko's feet? Only half a suction cup would make the gecko lunch for some other creature. Too much suction and the gecko isn't going anywhere. Only the hand of God could have created the purposeful design of the gecko lizard. What could have created our universe if not the hand of God?

 

[ratiocinator]

How is complexity not evidence of design?

If it is, then your god must have been designed.

There are evolution defying creatures. Why would the process of random mutations and blind chance put suction cups on the gecko's feet?

More misinformation. Natural selection isn't random or "blind chance".

 

[ppp]

How is complexity not evidence of design? If I saw a painting, I would know that it's too complex not to have a painter.

You don't identify design by complexity. If you did, then you would be unable to recognize a sheet of paper or a toothpick as being designed.

 

[Skywalker]

You make zero sense.
The hydrogen, carbon, etc atoms you find biological creatures are the exact same atoms you find in anything else.




Well, if you ignore all the evidence, then yes, there is no evidence.

The hydrogen and carbon atoms are the same but what is biological decays differently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Carl Sagan described the brain's neurochemistry as "busy and the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any designed by humans". https://publicism.info/science/cosmos/12.html

Yes, and he was not afraid to accept reality. You do realize that by quoting people that clearly disagree with you that you are shooting yourself in the foot regularly, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientist Nils Heribert Nillson said, "fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled". CREATION / EVOLUTION: The Fossil Record

Fossils exist because things decay over time.

LOL, a lying source and a quote from a man that died in 1955.

Do you think that scientists quit finding new fossils when he died? But even when he was alive the theory of evolution was the only theory that explained the fossil record. And there were more than enough fossils to prove the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt even back then.

When one rely on liars for one's arguments one tends to look like a liar. Why are you so afraid to even learn the basics of science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If not a singularity, what did we come from?

How could the universe be eternal?

Every belief has faith.

No, your beliefs require faith and you refuse to learn how others work without it.

There are times when the correct answer is "We do not know that yet". That is never evidence for a god or a valid excuse to believe in one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The hydrogen and carbon atoms are the same but what is biological decays differently.

Different compounds react differently. Another argument refuted by:

So what?

 

[Skywalker]

Any evolution experiment will do.

What evidence is there, btw, that such complexity could develop WITH a god? What evidence is there that there even is such a thing as gods?



How many times must it pointed out to you that evolution isn't compatible with what you call a "change in kinds"?

If a "change in kind" would occur (ie: mammals speciating into NON-mammals), then evolution would be disproven.

Seriously, how many more times must it be repeated? When are you finally going to let go of this strawman?

Again I have to ask: if you are so certain that evolution is false, then why can you only argue against it by arguing strawmen?



By all means, cite the paper that details this lab experiment.
I predict that you won't because you just stucked that out of your thumb
I also predict that if you link a paper, it will not at all say what you claim it says (just like was the case with just about all links your provided till now).

How would changes in kinds disprove evolution? Evolution implies that animals came from animals that were different animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would changes in kinds disprove evolution? Evolution implies that animals came from animals that were different animals.

How many times do you need to be told this? Because it is contrary to what the theory predicts. Evolution is not a change of kinds. You seem to keep forgetting the fact that you are still an ape.

Of course part of the problem is that you do not even have a working definition of "kind". It is a garbage term that has no proper definition.

Perhaps you can help yourself here. How would you test to see if two different populations of organisms are the same "kind" or not?

 

[metis]

How is complexity not evidence of design?

If an object actually exists, it must have a "design" of some sorts, even if it's irregular.

 

[Skywalker]

If an object actually exists, it must have a "design" of some sorts, even if it's irregular.

Where would that design come from, the imagination of nature?

 

[exchemist]

Scientist Nils Heribert Nillson said, "fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled". CREATION / EVOLUTION: The Fossil Record

Fossils exist because things decay over time.

Well obviously fossils come from dead organisms. (The pope is Catholic, by the way.)

Whatever this rather obscure and eccentric long-dead botanist* may have said, fossils provide evidence of life forms (a ) changing over time and (b ) becoming progressively more complex as one goes from pre-Cambrian through the various eras.

That is simply incontestable, unless you decide to deny the geology by which the ages of rocks are determined and believe that the pattern of change and increasing complexity of fossils is deceit on the part of God.

* A botanist, writing in the early 1950s, would not necessarily know much palaeontology. Heribert-Nillson knew none at all.

 

[metis]

Where would that design come from, the imagination of nature?

Let me put it this way: if there was no "design" of some type, then it couldn't exist.

My point is that one simply cannot use the argument of "design" as somehow proof that there is a creator of the design. But what this also doesn't posit is any kind of proof that there cannot be a Creator.

 

[Skywalker]

Well obviously fossils come from dead organisms. (The pope is Catholic, by the way.)

Whatever this rather obscure and eccentric long-dead botanist may have said, fossils provide evidence of life forms (a ) changing over time and (b ) becoming progressively more complex as one goes from pre-Cambrian through the various eras.

That is simply incontestable, unless you decide to deny the geology by which the ages of rocks are determined and believe that the pattern of change and increasing complexity of fossils is deceit on the part of God.

There is little fossil evidence for changes of kinds. What pre Cambrian fossils show intermediates? Fossils like the Piltdown man are complex but are shown to be hoaxes.

 

[Skywalker]

Let me put it this way: if there was no "design" of some type, then it couldn't exist.

My point is that one simply cannot use the argument of "design" as somehow proof that there is a creator of the design. But what this also doesn't posit is any kind of proof that there cannot be a Creator.

Where would the design of whatever type come from, in nature?