How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would changes in kinds disprove evolution?

I already explained it a couple dozen times.

Because it would violate the nested hierarchical pattern that is predicted by evolution theory.
It would violate the law of monophy.

Both say that descendents of mammals (for example), will always be mammals and subspecies of mammals.
Mammals will not evolve into birds. These are on another branch of the tree of life.

A mammal with feathers would also violate nested hierarchies.
A cat evolving into a dog would violate the law of monophy.

Both would falsify evolution.

This is so because during reproduction, genes of the ancestors are passed on to off spring with slight modification.

Dogs will only produce dogs.
Just like you will only produce your off spring. You and your wife will not be producing your cousins instead of your own kids. Same thing.

Evolution implies that animals came from animals that were different animals.

That were ANCESTRAL animals of which they are subspecies.

How many times must it be explained?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

How is that "more logical'? You would first need to show that a god is even possible to make that claim. Good luck.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Please show the scientific evidence that "disprove scientifically" neanderthals and australopethicus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would be nice if @Skywalker would acknowledge and apologize for using perhaps the worst idiot in all of creationism, Ray Comfort, as a source.

I think that I will be waiting for quite some time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Speciation is not macroevolution

Yes, it is.

because a caspian tiger and a siberian tiger, despite being different subspecies, are both tigers.

And humans and chimps, despite being different subspecies, are both great apes.
And humans and cats, despite being different subspecies, are both mammals.
And humans and pinguins, despite being different subspecies, are both tetrapods.
And humans and fish, despite being different subspecies, are both vertebrates.
And humans and pine trees, despite being different subspecies, are both eukaryotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Human beings have a different face shape than great apes.

Every great ape has unique facial features. It's how you can tell a chimp face from a gorilla face.

Look at the criteria I posted. It doesn't detail a specific "face shape".
Please respond to what is actually posed.

I posted the criteria. You disagree humans qualify. Please point out which of the posted criteria doesn't apply to humans.

I'm not interested in your strawmen.

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, you simply don't recognise it because you are a human?

What, did you think a chimp can only recognise a female by sniffing its butt?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You're again dodging.
I posted the criteria. None of what you said here is addressing those criteria.

Please point out specifically which criteria in your opinion doesn't apply to humans and explain why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Gender dimorphism, or level thereof, is not one of the criteria of how one identifies a great ape.

Try again and try to actually address the actual criteria.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Law of Monopoly refutes macroevolution.

It's not "monopoly" but "monophy", you goof.

And no, it doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would evolution which contradicts the law of monopoly have more explanatory power than God?

I already gave you an example of its explanatory power.

In combination with the theories of other scientific fields, fossil finds are predicted in terms of age, location and anatomical traits.

It's just one example out of millions.

You can't even produce one such example.
I'm sure you can't even comprehend the significance of finding a fossil like Tiktaalik by prediction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Milk is different because it's used to nurse young.

Only in a certain amount of species.

You should get out more.

 

[Skywalker]

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.



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:

View attachment 46243

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.



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.



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



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.



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).




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.



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




Interdimensional pixies.

A tornado developed spontaneously, a hammer is complicated and cannot assemble itself in nature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Parasites exist because when people sinned in Eden nature changed. There weren't on thorns and thistles before.

yes, yes....

All nasty things are "our" fault and all good things are "thanks to your god".

I get it.

Heads you win, tails I lose, right?





You said he created ALL things. That would include nasty parasites.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Slavery in the Bible didn't have an ethnic component.

Right, that makes it better somehow

That's like saying that some serial killer that didn't just kill black folks is better then someone who killed only black folks... Hey, at least he wasn't racist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible says to love one another and not to judge.

Except when they are gays having sex or if they are a "witch".
Then you should kill them.

Jesus reached out to people who society rejected, like gay people.

Give me one line of the bible where jesus reached out to gay people.


You're such a goof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wouldn't that support evolution because it would demonstrate macroevolution?

Again you insist on being incorrect.

We've been over this a couple dozen times already.

macro-evolution = speciation
Speciation = a species producing a subspecies.


Macro evolution is not dogs producing cats. It's not mammals producing non-mammals.

Learn the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against. PLEASE.

 

[Skywalker]

Except when they are gays having sex or if they are a "witch".
Then you should kill them.



Give me one line of the bible where jesus reached out to gay people.


You're such a goof.

Some laws in the Bible were man-made.

Jesus reached out to people society rejected, like Mary Magdalene and the tax collectors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What Christian theocracy punished gay people?

Every single one of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The earth tilted but never to the degree that one would question the irreducible complexity of it.

I think it's funny how you are obviously just dropping silly jargon you heared left and right on propaganda sites.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth discovered in Nebraska. Based on only one tooth (and a lot of imagination), Nebraska Man was sketched complete with a skull, skeleton, tools, and even a family. The only problem is that the tooth was later found to have come from an extinct pig!

And the only reason you know about it, is because scientists exposed it for the fraud that it is.