How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[exchemist]

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.

The Cambrian is a poor choice since there were almost no fossils before it, so it is harder to find earlier forms to compare. But if we stick to well-known examples, I presume you have heard of Archaeopteryx. What do you think that is?

Or Tiktaalik?

Or Pakicetus?

But actually the entire fossil record shows change occurring. Huge numbers of fossils have been mapped onto a phylogenetic tree and thereby related to their ancestors and descendants.

 

[metis]

Fossils like the Piltdown man are complex but are shown to be hoaxes.

So, Christianity has never had any trouble with "hoaxes"?

We learn through our errors as well as our successes.

BTW, all species at any given time if they produce off-springs are "intermediaries". The changes that took place during the "Cambrian
Explosion" took place billions of years after the earliest life forms emerged that we've seen within the fossil record, so if God supposedly finished creating at the end of the 6th day, how do you explain these changes during that time period?

Instead, I propose that the Judeo-Christian Creation narratives were more likely in refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian creation narrative that was polytheistic.

Within the Biblical creation narratives there are important teachings that I know many overlook because they're too hung up on "Did this really happen?".

 

[exchemist]

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.

What exactly do you mean by fossils like the Piltdown Man hoax? How many of such hoaxes have there been, in your opinion? Do you imagine this is commonplace?

 

[Skywalker]

What exactly do you mean by fossils like the Piltdown Man hoax? How many of such hoaxes have there been, in your opinion? Do you imagine this is commonplace?

Wikipedia describes the Piltdown Man as a hoax that was really a small brained person.

 

[metis]

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

Because it exists.

BTW, if an unborn child is so malformed that it is miscarried, did God make the child that way so as it would die even before birth? If so, why would God do that to an innocent child?

My point is that assigning God to everything that may happen, no matter how bad that may be is highly problematic, thus I would suggest a different paradigm.

 

[exchemist]

Wikipedia describes the Piltdown Man as a hoax that was really a small brained person.

Er, yes?

How about answering the questions I asked you? Can you do that, or am I asking too much of you?

 

[Skywalker]

So, Christianity has never had any trouble with "hoaxes"?

We learn through our errors as well as our successes.

BTW, all species at any given time if they produce off-springs are "intermediaries". The changes that took place during the "Cambrian
Explosion" took place billions of years after the earliest life forms emerged that we've seen within the fossil record, so if God supposedly finished creating at the end of the 6th day, how do you explain these changes during that time period?

Instead, I propose that the Judeo-Christian Creation narratives were more likely in refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian creation narrative that was polytheistic.

Within the Biblical creation narratives there are important teachings that I know many overlook because they're too hung up on "Did this really happen?".

People are not intermediaries. If you look at genealogies and anthropology there are different races of people that developed through intermarriage, like the natives in Mexico became part European and part native Indian, and Jewish people have a distinct look that is intermediate of Middle Eastern and European people, but they are still human beings. What changes during the Cambrian period show animals and plants evolving from one species to another?

 

[Skywalker]

Because it exists.

BTW, if an unborn child is so malformed that it is miscarried, did God make the child that way so as it would die even before birth? If so, why would God do that to an innocent child?

My point is that assigning God to everything that may happen, no matter how bad that may be is highly problematic, thus I would suggest a different paradigm.

Death exists because of the fall. Before original sin people were meant to live forever.

 

[Skywalker]

What exactly do you mean by fossils like the Piltdown Man hoax? How many of such hoaxes have there been, in your opinion? Do you imagine this is commonplace?

Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, Lucy, have been disproved scientifically.

 

[Skywalker]

Speciation is macro evolution.

Speciation is when a species produces a subspecies.

Macro evolution is not a violationg of the law of monophy.

Please inform yourself on the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against, before trying to argue against it.

Speciation is not macroevolution because a caspian tiger and a siberian tiger, despite being different subspecies, are both tigers.

 

[Skywalker]

You make zero sense.
I already gave you the criteria of "great ape". You are welcome to point out how it doesn't apply to humans.

Human beings have a different face shape than great apes. Even though animals look distinct from other animals and they have gender dimorphism, apes don't have the gender dimorphism in their faces like people do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I would suggest that you drop prejudicial terms. Is a snowflake designed? There does not appear to be an intelligence necessary for snowflakes to form. You are letting yourself get fooled by appearances.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Human beings have a different face shape than great apes. Even though animals look distinct from other animals and they have gender dimorphism, apes don't have the gender dimorphism in their faces like people do.

Clearly wrong since you are a great ape.

Try to come up with a valid argument. Now humans have different face shapes than other great apes. But then chimpanzees have different face shapes than gorillas, man, and orangutans. Orangutans have different face shapes than other great apes. Gorillas have different face shapes than other great apes.

This is another argument refuted by "So what?" brought to you by Skywalker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speciation is not macroevolution because a caspian tiger and a siberian tiger, despite being different subspecies, are both tigers.

Incorrect. Why don't you admit that you clearly do not understand the meaning of words that you are using. Macroevolution was a term invented by a specific scientist. He got to set the meaning.

 

[Skywalker]

The frame and face of a chimp looks different then that of the gorilla as well.

But nevertheless all gorilla's, chimps, bonobo's, oerang oetangs and humans, all have a relatively large body frame, protrusive lips, flat nails, and complex fingertips


So I ask again, and this time try not to dodge it: how do you think humans do not comply?

The frame and faces of gorillas chimps bonobos and orangutans are very different from that of people in terms of displaying gender dimorphism. You can tell right away that a person is male or female. There is a clear difference between a male and female face. I used to have long hair and when looking at an old picture of me I was told that I looked like a girl but my friend never mistook me for a girl. Humans have a distinct frame and face. Men and women have different shaped bodies, lips, nails, and finger tips. There is no comparison between the appearance of people and that of apes, in terms of how diverse we are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The frame and faces of gorillas chimps bonobos and orangutans are very different from that of people in terms of displaying gender dimorphism. You can tell right away that a person is male or female. There is a clear difference between a male and female face. I used to have long hair and when looking at an old picture of me I was told that I looked like a girl but my friend never mistook me for a girl. Humans have a distinct frame and face. Men and women have different shaped bodies, lips, nails, and finger tips. There is no comparison between the appearance of people and that of apes, in terms of how diverse we are.

Once again this is a failed argument because all species are unique.

So what?

 

[Skywalker]

Once again this is a failed argument because all species are unique.

So what?

What animal has the gender dimorphism that people have? Male peacocks have plumage that they use to attract mates but if you look at the faces of the male and the female they don't look as distinct as men and women.

 

[Skywalker]

As I said in the very post you are replying to, the simple sentence "you shall not keep slaves, for slavery is an abomination" takes up FAR LESS SPACE then dedicating entire chapters to regulate the practice and explaining who you can enslave for how long, how to pass them off as inheritance to your kids, how to buy them and from whom, how to beat them, how to trick your jewish slaves into becoming slaves for life and how to pierce their ears in that case and etc etc etc etc.


Your argument makes zero sense and it's obvious that you are scrambling to try and defend the undefendable.

Based on how stubborn the people in the Old Testament were, i believe that regulating the practice of slavery kept it more under control than forbidding it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What animal has the gender dimorphism that people have? Male peacocks have plumage that they use to attract mates but if you look at the faces of the male and the female they don't look as distinct as men and women.

Orangutans have even more sexual dimorphism. Chimpanzees appear to have the roughly the same. Remember, you can't tell a female chimp by looking at her face because you are human.

Another "So what?" Argument.

 

[Skywalker]

Not at all.

It's the law of monophy: creatures can not and will not outgrow their ancestry.

All descendants of mammals will be mammals or subspecies thereof (which would still be mammals).

How many times must it be repeated?

The Law of Monopoly refutes macroevolution.