How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[Skywalker]

Look it up, it's not a secret. As I said, you need a basic education in the subject.



False.

What do you think is going on here? Pretty much every scientist who studies these things has one view, and of the tiny, tiny minority who disagree, pretty much all of them have a religious vested interest in evolution being wrong because they are desperate to cling a literal interpretation of their favourite self-contradictory book of myths.

Here is a rare honest creationist to tell you that there's lots and lots of evidence for evolution: The truth about evolution

The minority who disagree have evidence to support their belief. A mutation is a mistake-a "typing error." In the genetic blueprint, the letters that define these features can occasionally be rearranged or lost through mutations, but none of this will account for the additions needed by macroevolution. Remember, in the molecules-to-man theory, everything evolved from simple cells to complex life forms. So if a fish were to grow legs and lungs, or a reptile were to grow wings, that creature's genetic information would have to increase to create the new body parts. This would be equivalent to a "telegram" giving rise to "encyclopedias" of meaningful, useful genetic sentences. Think how much more information there is in the human genome than in the bacterial genome.

If macroevolution were true, where did all that vastly complex new information come from? Scientists have yet to find even a single mutation that increases genetic information. As physicist Lee Spetner puts it, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can't make money by losing a little at a time".

 

[ecco]

The minority who disagree have evidence to support their belief. A mutation is a mistake-a "typing error."

Ignorance is bliss. Nah.

 

[ratiocinator]

The minority who disagree have evidence to support their belief.

No, they do not. Not even the first hint of any. The endless nonsense you've posted here, is evidence that what they have is misinformation, distortion, and falsehoods - that you have just thoughtlessly repeated.

Here comes yet another one...

If macroevolution were true, where did all that vastly complex new information come from?

Care to define 'information' here? Do you even know what it is you are asking for? Mutation provides novelty, natural selection sifts out the useful from the useless or harmful.

Scientists have yet to find even a single mutation that increases genetic information.

Patently false.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information
CB102: Mutations adding information

 

[Skywalker]

Scientists are human. Humans have egos and humans make mistakes. Most scientists in the field never acknowledged Nebraska Man and the finding was retracted by scientists within a few years.

Three thousand years ago your God-Inspired Bible stated that the type of wood used in a hitching post can affect the spots on a goat. That is patently wrong and was never retracted, even in the NT.

What point were you trying to make?

What are the real intermediates? Many people have been led to believe that organisms often develop favorable mutations based on their environments. For example, it's often thought that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, thus proving that they evolve. Where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, there are a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. So either: 1) resistant strains of lice were always there-and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died; or 2) exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations that provide resistance to the shampoo.

 

[metis]

A mutation is a mistake-a "typing error."

Not all "mistakes" provide harm, and some logically may provide a benefit.

Mutations are quite commonplace, and you undoubtedly have some cells inside of you that have mutated, and yet you do seem to quite alive.

 

[ratiocinator]

So either: 1) resistant strains of lice were always there-and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died; or 2) exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations that provide resistance to the shampoo.

You really don't know anything at all about the theory of evolution, do you?

How can you possibly hope to effectively criticise something if your ignorance about it is so complete? If you're getting this nonsense from some creationist resource, you should really be asking yourself why they need to feed you nonsense, distortions, and falsehoods about the theory if they have a genuine argument or evidence against it.

3) Any mutation that helps survival in the new environment will become a significant advantage and will therefore spread through the population because the individuals with it will survive a reproduce more than those without it. The same mutation in a different environment may well not be an advantage and may even be a disadvantage, and so wouldn't spread and may well quickly die out if it is a disadvantage.

As I keep saying, if you want to successfully criticise evolution, you need to get a basic education in it (the real theory, not the creationist straw man).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can think of only one fossil that supports macroevolution. Microevolution is variation within species. There is great variety within dogs-the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane. Both are dogs and they have incredible differences. But they are still dogs. Or look at horses. There are huge variations within the human species. Think of all the different features from Asian to African to Aboriginal to Caucasian. Darwin's theory of evolution, however, is based on the concept of macroevolution. This is the inference that successive small changes seen in macroevolution (these variations within species) can accumulate and lead to large changes over long periods of time. In macroevolution, one kind of creature (such as a reptile) becomes another kind of creature (such as a bird), requiring the creation of entirely new features and body types. This would be a bit like observing a car going from 0 to 60 mph in 60 seconds, and inferring that it can then go 0 to 6,000 mph in 100 minutes-and become an airplane in the process. That's quite an assumption, and it puts a tremendous responsibility on mutations to accidentally create complex new body parts, and on natural selection to recognize the benefit these new parts will eventually convey and make sure the creatures with those new parts survive.

Then you are amazingly ignorant and without excuse. If one wants to debate a subject one takes on a burden of learning what those supporting that subject actually believe. I am not a Muslim and think that they are wrong. I do not debate against Islam largely because I know that I do not understand the religion very well. You should at least try to learn what transitional fossils are.

And ironically you mentioned horses. The evolution of the horse is well understood. Don't be misled by creationist quote mines. The paleontologists that supposedly oppose this were actually pointing out that the evolution of the horse was much more complex than the very simplified version one used to see in textbooks and at museums. There have been over fifty different transitional species found. You might try to read this:

Horse - Evolution of the horse

The selected species in this illustration used to be all that was shown and not the endless branches and dead ends that we know to exist these days. Or you could watch this video that shows more than a few transitional species:

It is very short, less than three minutes in length.

 

[Skywalker]

Then you are amazingly ignorant and without excuse. If one wants to debate a subject one takes on a burden of learning what those supporting that subject actually believe. I am not a Muslim and think that they are wrong. I do not debate against Islam largely because I know that I do not understand the religion very well. You should at least try to learn what transitional fossils are.

And ironically you mentioned horses. The evolution of the horse is well understood. Don't be misled by creationist quote mines. The paleontologists that supposedly oppose this were actually pointing out that the evolution of the horse was much more complex than the very simplified version one used to see in textbooks and at museums. There have been over fifty different transitional species found. You might try to read this:

Horse - Evolution of the horse

The selected species in this illustration used to be all that was shown and not the endless branches and dead ends that we know to exist these days. Or you could watch this video that shows more than a few transitional species:

It is very short, less than three minutes in length.

Those pictures all depict animals that are different breeds of horses. If evolution were true, and humans and chimps did have a common ancestor, we would expect to find something that is half-monkey/half man. These intermediate stages where one species supposedly evolves into another species are called "transitional forms." Because evolution is said to have happened in the past, we have to look to paleontology, the science of the study of fossils, to find evidence on the history of life. Whether the theory of evolution is a fable or a fact rests on the fossil evidence. If evolution were true, the fossil record should reveal millions of transitional forms, as life gradually evolved from one species to another. Darwin understood that evolutionary theory was dependent on these "missing links."

It is documented that the fossil Archaeoraptor was fake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those pictures all depict animals that are different breeds of horses. If evolution were true, and humans and chimps did have a common ancestor, we would expect to find something that is half-monkey/half man. These intermediate stages where one species supposedly evolves into another species are called "transitional forms." Because evolution is said to have happened in the past, we have to look to paleontology, the science of the study of fossils, to find evidence on the history of life. Whether the theory of evolution is a fable or a fact rests on the fossil evidence. If evolution were true, the fossil record should reveal millions of transitional forms, as life gradually evolved from one species to another. Darwin understood that evolutionary theory was dependent on these "missing links."

It is documented that the fossil Archaeoraptor was fake.

No, you are more than "half monkey" You are "full monkey". Monkey is not a monophyletic term. If one defines "monkey" in such a fashion you become one. And just because you are different from other monkeys does not make you one.

There is no "supposedly" either. The evidence supports evolution and only evolution so the term "supposedly" does not apply. Is all that you have elementary school level denial? The so called "missing links" have been found. We can see a steady change from Lucy to us. What more do you want? If you say that Lucy is an ape then you are admitting that man is an ape.

 

[Skywalker]

No, you are more than "half monkey" You are "full monkey". Monkey is not a monophyletic term. If one defines "monkey" in such a fashion you become one. And just because you are different from other monkeys does not make you one.

There is no "supposedly" either. The evidence supports evolution and only evolution so the term "supposedly" does not apply. Is all that you have elementary school level denial? The so called "missing links" have been found. We can see a steady change from Lucy to us. What more do you want? If you say that Lucy is an ape then you are admitting that man is an ape.

Archaeoraptor isn't the first missing link to be under scrutiny. The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modern man. And don't look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he also spoke and was artistic and religious. In a PBS documentary, Richard Leakey, the world's foremost paleoanthropologist, admitted: To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.

Even the classic example of horse evolution is fictionalized. Evolutionist Boyce Rensberg addressed a symposium attended by 150 scientists at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which considered problems facing the theory of evolution. Rather than the millions of transitional forms evolutionists would expect to find, all we have at best are a handful of disputable examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, sorry endless nonsense so I have to break this up a bit.

Archaeoraptor isn't the first missing link to be under scrutiny. The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident.

[

Okay, I have to stop you right here. Yes, there have been a very few frauds against evolution. Who discovered that they were frauds? Hint, it was not creationists. And ignoring who debunked these fakes this is an extremely poor argument against evolution. Seriously think this through. There have been countless frauds against Christianity. According to your standards Christianity is false. Now we may agree on that but I try to base my arguments on rational reasoning. Do you understand how you screw up here?

[quote The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig.[/quote]

Famed Nebraska Man? What on Earth are you talking about? Nebraska Man was never accepted anywhere near a majority of paleontologists. He was never famous. We can tell by your script that you are using lying sources again. When a person relies on liars and passes on their lies that person looks like a liar themselves. I am pretty sure that you do not want to be a liar so why do you so freely pass on obvious falsehoods?

Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. Java Man is now regarded as fully human.

Wrong, amazingly wrong. Java man was the first example of Homo erectus ever found far from "fully human". He was a different species of "human". And yes. The first fossil was very limited in the number of bones found. Once again this is an argument that can be refuted with a "So what?" The scientist that found him could tell that he was a close relative to man from those bones but was not "fully human". Since then quite a few other Homo erectus have been found. Sometimes almost entire skeletons making your argument rather pathetic.

Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modern man.

Whoa! Okay yes that was all that they found . . . for the first specimen. Why do creationist idiots, and I am sorry but the people that you are plagiarizing (by the was that is a sin since it is covered by "thou shalt not steal") always seem to think that only one example of a species is found? Others have been found later and your source openly lied when they claimed that "most scientists reject it". Here is a short article on Heidelberg man. You will find that like most good liars your source had a kernel of truth in their lies. It makes them more believable:

Homo heidelbergensis

WhoAnd don't look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he also spoke and was artistic and religious. In a PBS documentary, Richard Leakey, the world's foremost paleoanthropologist, admitted: To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.

Oh my GaWd!! You really need to stop plagiarizing idiots and fools. Countless Neanderthals have been found. Not just one. They are "human" but again, they are a different species of human than we are. Nor are they transitional. They are a branching species. And then they went extinct. Not only that, Neanderthals are recent enough so that we have been able to analyze their genome. It is very similar to ours with marked differences. Again a short article on Neanderthals:

Homo neanderthalensis

Even the classic example of horse evolution is fictionalized. Evolutionist Boyce Rensberg addressed a symposium attended by 150 scientists at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which considered problems facing the theory of evolution. Rather than the millions of transitional forms evolutionists would expect to find, all we have at best are a handful of disputable examples.

Do you seriously have a reading comprehension problem? I warned you about this false claim earlier today. And we do have millions of transitional forms. What we do not expect to see are complete lineages preserved in the fossil record. I can guarantee you that Rensberg never disputed horse evolution You were lied to again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! I found @Skywalker's lying source:

How to Know God Exists

It was written by, banana man. aka Ray Comfort aka Ray Queef.

I am sorry but you could not have picked a more dishonest and truly truly idiotic creationist than Ray. I take that back. Kent Hovind would tie him. Kent would beat Ray on dishonesty but Ray does appear to be even more idiotic than Kent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's an example of uncaused events happening in quantum mechanics all the time?

Quantum mechanics trumps nonlocal causality – Physics World

Blind chance cannot be given credit for creating our highly ordered universe.

You continue to argue this false dichotomy. Why?
People already pointed out your mistake. Why insist on being wrong? What do you gain by it?

Though Hawkins was an atheist, he admitted, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

And the dishonest quote mining and fallacious arguments from authority continues

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A tornado has a beginner in the sense that it exists within God's creation

In other words... "heads I win, tails you lose".

Intellectual dishonesty to boot.

and we know the cause and effect that led to it existing-the forces of nature having to do with weather.

Yes. Thanks for admitting that you'll just stuff your god into every knowledge gap you can find and then pretend as if you are being reasonable, while you're really just arguing from ignorance.

As Neil deGrass Tyson once said: If that is how you define your god, then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is God more complex than the universe? Does a painter have to be more simple than the painting for them to have painted it? The painter is obviously more complex than the painting.

Yes, the painter is obviously more complex then the painting.

The "painter / painting" is your own argument.
Take it to its logical conclusion.

I know logic isn't your strong suit, but try. I'm sure you can do it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If not a singularity, what did we come from?

I just told you that we don't know.

How could the universe be eternal?
Every belief has faith.

Acknowledging ignorance on a topic, is not a belief. That's just being honest.
You're the one who requires "faith".

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, the painter is obviously more complex then the painting.

The "painter / painting" is your own argument.
Take it to its logical conclusion.

I know logic isn't your strong suit, but try. I'm sure you can do it.

The painter being more logical than the painting supports there being a God.

 

[Skywalker]

I just told you that we don't know.



Acknowledging ignorance on a topic, is not a belief. That's just being honest.
You're the one who requires "faith".

Since nobody has all the answers, doesn't everything require faith?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is complexity not evidence of design?

Because it just isn't.

A tornado is far more complex then a hammer.
Hammers are actually extremely simple. Just a rock or lump of metal attached to a stick.

Hammers are designed though while tornado's aren't.

Clearly, complexity is not evidence of design.

If I saw a painting, I would know that it's too complex not to have a painter.

You wouldn't know that it has a painter, not because of it's "complexity", but rather because you know and understand what paintings are.

Here's an extremely simple painting:

It's actually just a brush stroke or 2-3.
Do I know this because of its "complexity"? No. I know this because I know what brush strokes look like. You can even see the result of the "hairs" of the brush, resulting in the fine lines within the color.

Complexity has exactly ZERO to do with it.

A computer is too complicated to not have a maker.

Again, not because of its complexity. Rather because of the clear signs of manufacturing. The use of plastics, refined metals, soldering, wiring, bolts, screws, trademark stamps, etc etc etc etc.

Complexity has exactly ZERO to do with it.

There are evolution defying creatures.

Name one and explains how it "defies" evolution.
Try informing yourself on what evolution says first, this time around.

Why would the process of random mutations and blind chance put suction cups on the gecko's feet?

Because it gave a survival advantage to its ancestors, which made them outcompete their peers and spread their genes as opposed to those without such cups, or with less efficient such cups..

It's called natural selection. You should read about it some time. Like... now, seems like a good time.

Only half a suction cup would make the gecko lunch for some other creature

But not as much as a gecko with no such cups or only a "quarter" cup (pssssst: evolution doesn't work with "half-" anythings, but whatever - point remains).

Too much suction and the gecko isn't going anywhere.

And one of places such a gecko won't be going, is to a mate to spread its genes, so such traits would be quickly removed from the genepool.

Only the hand of God could have created the purposeful design of the gecko lizard

Or maybe the hand of good created everything last thursday?
With magic, anything is possible after all....

What could have created our universe if not the hand of God?

Interdimensional pixies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You can keep on making this silly argument, but all you accomplish is making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Material objects = made up of atoms.
Biological creatures = made up of atoms.

Therefor biological creatures = material objects

It is what it is. You can either deal with realty, or continue sticking your head in the sand.
The choice is yours.