How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[Skywalker]

No, that was not his specialty.

His speciality was in NASA science.

 

[exchemist]

How is a NASA scientist any less credible than another scientist?

Is this serious? A rocket engineer is not the same thing as a cosmologist. Durrh.

 

[exchemist]

His speciality was in NASA science.

There is no such thing as "NASA science".

Read this to see all the many science disciplines NASA makes use of: What We Study | Science Mission Directorate

 

[Skywalker]

There is no such thing as "NASA science".

Read this to see all the many science disciplines NASA makes use of: What We Study | Science Mission Directorate

I'm not saying NASA science exists, but he by definition was a scientist.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not saying NASA science exists, but he by definition was a scientist.

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying.

Yes, he was a scientist. So what? He was not a cosmologist. He was a rocketry expert.

 

[rational experiences]

Science is not cosmological beginnings or representative of any other condition.

Males, humans invented it living on Earth and abstract all substances from the body mass.

That mass, stone he always quantified was the reactive energy power.

His beginning to end thesis was thought how to activate a reaction at a point to abstract energetic reaction from the stone mass. Claiming I am copying the ancient flat top mountain/earth flooded theme. A visionary historic Earth attack from the Sun.

Sun in cosmological advice, stopped attacking blasting......the end of the condition, to convert.

Science then proves that they theoried, the thesis about Sun/radiation conversion.

Yet the Earth was protected by the Saviour asteroid stone release of gases in space, for gases came out of the body of stone as it cooled. Stone science stated created the gases.

Earth created its own heavens and a male theist taught it as Immaculate, as spatial law first law womb/vacuum cooled and held all mass to form. Mass plus vacuum is why anything exists in formed presence. A teaching.

Humans claim we learn.

The basis of a basic teaching proves you all wrong in science today. What you all argue about is owned either by the presence mass body of the Earth. As a planet. All you do as a human is live surviving on that planet. Conditions of balances are therefore important, because you advise your own human self that if you upset the cross + the 4 sea of the son, then you, the son human being son, Father of whom, adult self is the scientist by body form, adult, thinker adult, sacrificed self life.

You then self idolised your own person by how you express your own male human self presence in organization. Yet preach a false doctrine all life is created equally....so why doesn't the organization treat us equally?

The self idolisation theme, son is one of your false doctrines.

You did it yourself is the story......and the God to son of God theme was that God, the natural body/forms of, energetic powers and gases in spirit form sacrificed your life for doing science.

The only human status, wrong, evil chosen, applied evil and then you want to quantify that a natural human who thinks is less intelligent by your organization, human chosen agreement to belong to group status and structures, just because you can.

Is the virtual human natural and equal basic learning lesson.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Physics and engineering relates to the fine tuning of the universe.

So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is a NASA scientist any less credible than another scientist?

It depends on how you use his expertise.

Is he an expert on how to tune a car? On how to properly poach an egg?

Just because he is a scientist does not mean that he is an expert on all the sciences. His opinion only matters in the field of rocketry. Outside of that he is not that much different than the rest of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People associate slavery with racism and the trans atlantic slave trade. The Old Testament slavery was not to that magnitude.

Ignorant people do, sure. And biblical slavery was just as bad. Which brings us back to your previous post:

So what?

 

[rational experiences]

Scientist, just a human living on planet Earth inside of an atmosphere.

Science does not include the reason why self, a human is present in thesis, by human sex.

One of their owned obvious flaws. To not speak natural on behalf of natural presence to reason.

Instead theory just for invention. And invention is the taking all bodies of form for invention from the planet form only.

So he quoted God O the stone planet was the power/energy and still does today.

If you used natural teaching, then science would not exist, for a natural self does not believe in building invention and reacting invention when natural gets removed because of it.

To learn by human suffering conditions, of causes of changes to the natural heavens in which we live/survive. Our teaching model for self.

So when a theist as a natural human quotes to think, a beginning to end reaction, then the written word would be reflected back, as the same beginning quote, to teach, yet end was first. To claim less of the son, the lesson to teach.

In human quantified I am an intelligent natural self thinker first. Know myself first, then thought for science/the machine. Reality.

If you do not use the status reality, in real terms how it is present and seen observed first, then you became a liar as a scientist. Just a natural fact of human teaching to the human self without egotism ignoring that teaching/learning.

So if you first quote as the less of the son....never change God again, as the end quote...then you would go back to explaining all reasons why.

How you are wrong today in science, as the thinking thesis never even existed first, it was only a recorded vision. Exactly how it was taught/quantified as an unrealistic basis to copy and react again, when natural the highest law womb/space the vacuum already owned all and every natural condition present.

How it was explained. The vacuum owned the formed presence, if you altered the formed presence, the vacuum would destroy the creation.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying.

Yes, he was a scientist. So what? He was not a cosmologist. He was a rocketry expert.

Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, who argues that evolution never have given rise to the intricate structures of life, has identified something he calls "irreducible complexity." This refers to an organism which is so complex that it could not have come together piece by piece and still function; all the parts must have come about at once in order to have any function at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, who argues that evolution never have given rise to the intricate structures of life, has identified something he calls "irreducible complexity." This refers to an organism which is so complex that it could not have come together piece by piece and still function; all the parts must have come about at once in order to have any function at all.

And he was soundly refuted well over ten years ago. His claims carry no weight.

You still need to take it up a notch. There is a phrase for all of your arguments. Every single one has been a PRATT: Points Refuted A Thousand Times. That is why you have been treated with so much disdain.

 

[Skywalker]

So what?

The universe is finely tuned. The knee joint consists of at least 16 essential characteristics, each requiring thousands of pieces of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. Therefore, the knee could not have evolved gradually but must have been created all at once as a whole, fully functioning joint.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe is finely tuned. The knee joint consists of at least 16 essential characteristics, each requiring thousands of pieces of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. Therefore, the knee could not have evolved gradually but must have been created all at once as a whole, fully functioning joint.

No, life is merely finely tuned to the universe. You have cause and effect reversed.

And what makes you think that such evolution is not understood? We can observe the evolution of the human knee in the fossil record.

 

[ppp]

Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, who argues that evolution never have given rise to the intricate structures of life, has identified something he calls "irreducible complexity."

He hasn't identified it. He has only asserted it. He has yet to present a method to determine the difference between something that is "irreducibly complex" and something that is simply unknown.

 

[ppp]

The universe is finely tuned.

This has nothing to do with this:

The knee joint consists of at least 16 essential characteristics, each requiring thousands of pieces of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code.

And this does not lead to that:

Therefore, the knee could not have evolved gradually but must have been created all at once as a whole, fully functioning joint.

 

[Skywalker]

No, life is merely finely tuned to the universe. You have cause and effect reversed.

And what makes you think that such evolution is not understood? We can observe the evolution of the human knee in the fossil record.

The flagellum of some bacteria is a marvel of engineering. Harvard biologist Howard Berg refers to in his public lectures as "the most efficient machine in the universe." The flagellum is a little motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 100,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn. The intricate machinery in this molecular motor-including a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft-requires the coordinated interaction of approximately forty complex protein parts. If any part is missing or not available in the right proportions, no functional flagellum will form. So, how could it have evolved? According to Michael Behe, we know of only one sufficient cause that can produce functionally integrated, irreducibly complex systems: an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Skywalker]

He hasn't identified it. He has only asserted it. He has yet to present a method to determine the difference between something that is "irreducibly complex" and something that is simply unknown.

Molecular biology has shown that even a single cell is irreducibly complex. And all the parts must be in place simultaneously or the cell can't function. Since life is built of these "machines," the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is absurd. Although the highly intricate machines in cells often resemble those designed by humans, in many cases they are much more advanced than what man has been able to create.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He hasn't identified it. He has only asserted it. He has yet to present a method to determine the difference between something that is "irreducibly complex" and something that is simply unknown.

Well he ha specific claims of organs and systems that could not have evolved, but those claims were refuted a long time ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flagellum of some bacteria is a marvel of engineering. Harvard biologist Howard Berg refers to in his public lectures as "the most efficient machine in the universe." The flagellum is a little motor-driven propeller that sits on the backs of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 100,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn. The intricate machinery in this molecular motor-including a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft-requires the coordinated interaction of approximately forty complex protein parts. If any part is missing or not available in the right proportions, no functional flagellum will form. So, how could it have evolved? According to Michael Behe, we know of only one sufficient cause that can produce functionally integrated, irreducibly complex systems: an Intelligent Designer.

Yes. It is amazing and its evolution is well understood. Has been for some time. I will link a paper for you to read:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

It might take you a little while to plow through that.