How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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."

Another thing Behe argues, is that Astrology (you know - horoscopes and stuff) is proper valid science.
Not because he believes in that nonsense, but rather because he had to redefine what science is to make his creationist bs qualify. And under that new definition, pseudo-scientific nonsense like astrology (and his creationist bs) qualifies as "science".


Go figure.

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 his bs has been refuted a thousand times over within hours after he unleased that bs on the world. Which was several decades ago now.

Why do you continue to repeat already dismissed and disproven nonsense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Did you discover a new webpage or something?
You're late to the party. All this nonsense has been refuted ages ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope, you are simply being lied to and believing those lies. No one has ever come close to even finding evidence for irreducible complexity.

Nobody hasn't even come close to properly defining IC in such terms that anything can be objectively determined to be IC.




This guy is funny though. I'm thinking Poe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Animals have irreducible complexity. How does one explain the tick? The tick has dozens of elaborate weapons in its saliva, which it injects into the wound. To help it camp out on its host for a few days and avoid detection, the tick's saliva contains an anesthetic so the host won't feel it and interrupt the meal. To keep the host's blood flowing, the tick's saliva contains compounds to disable the clotting mechanism. It also tricks the host's immune system into keeping white cells away so the tick enjoys a feast of the red cells it needs. Entomologist Stephen Wikel, who has studied 10,000 ticks, stated, "We probably have a lifetime of work ahead of us," in order to discover how this complex process works. Dr. Ribeiro said these tiny creatures "have a very ancient wisdom." Do you think random natural processes could have come up with this incredible chemical cocktail-or could this come only from an intelligent Creator?

God is irreducibly complex.

 

[Skywalker]

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.

Why does the fossil record reveal each species appearing fully distinct and unchanged? The fossil evidence does not show that all life evolved from a single common ancestor through minor changes. Instead, during the period that paleontologists call the Cambrian Explosion, virtually all the major animal forms appear suddenly without any trace of less complex ancestors. No new body plans have come into existence since then.

The Cambrian Explosion is also known as "The Biological Big Bang," because the majority of complex life forms show up virtually overnight. If the entire period of life on earth was a 24-hour day, the Cambrian period would be less than two minutes. Like the Big Bang that supposedly began our universe, out of nowhere, nothing suddenly became everything. Nature clearly does not reveal the continuous picture that evolution requires. Instead, life forms are strictly separated into very distinct categories. So according to the evidence produced by paleontology-our guide to whether or not evolution is true-life did not evolve gradually over a long period from simple to complex forms. Instead, the fossils show that all the major animals groups appeared fully formed, all at one time. This isn't what evolutionists expected, but it is exactly what we would expect to find if creation were true: each organism is fully developed, genetically separated into kinds, and change is limited.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

How many times must it be explained to you that "change in kinds" in evolution simply doesn't happen and that speciation is always a process of a species evolving into one or more subspecies?

Seriously, how many times before it will sink in that willfully ignorant mind of yours?

 

[Skywalker]

God is irreducibly complex.

How so? God does everything with an order and a purpose. God is where our idea of knowing things comes from because we are made in God's image. God is about keeping things simple.

 

[Skywalker]

How many times must it be explained to you that "change in kinds" in evolution simply doesn't happen and that speciation is always a process of a species evolving into one or more subspecies?

Seriously, how many times before it will sink in that willfully ignorant mind of yours?

That disproves evolution, because speciation can only be a change of subspecies, not a change of kinds. If a change of kinds doesn't happen, then evolution can't happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You mean, like australopethicus?

Or Homo erectus?

These intermediate stages where one species supposedly evolves into another species

Evolution isn't "sudden". It is gradual.
You would know that if you had grade school level knowledge of it.

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

It does not. Not even closely. All fossils could disappear tomorrow and evolution would be as established as even on the genetic evidence alone.

The universe doesn't owe us any fossils. In fact, we are lucky to have as many as we do... Fossils are very hard to come by.

But again, don't let reality get in your way...

If evolution were true, the fossil record should reveal millions of transitional forms

And it does. We're even finding them by prediction of age, location and anatomical features.

It is documented that the fossil Archaeoraptor was fake.

I love how creationists like to
1. focus on a handful of hoaxes while ignoring millions of genuine fossils
2. lie about even that

 

[Skywalker]

You mean, like australopethicus?

View attachment 46244

View attachment 46247

Or Homo erectus?

View attachment 46245

View attachment 46246






Evolution isn't "sudden". It is gradual.
You would know that if you had grade school level knowledge of it.



It does not. Not even closely. All fossils could disappear tomorrow and evolution would be as established as even on the genetic evidence alone.

The universe doesn't owe us any fossils. In fact, we are lucky to have as many as we do... Fossils are very hard to come by.

But again, don't let reality get in your way...




And it does. We're even finding them by prediction of age, location and anatomical features.



I love how creationists like to
1. focus on a handful of hoaxes while ignoring millions of genuine fossils
2. lie about even that

How can the creation of something be gradual? There is no moment people change from looking like a little kid to not looking like one but there are intermediates and gray areas and some changes are instant but virtually impossible to notice. How can this apply to creation?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why does the fossil record reveal each species appearing fully distinct and unchanged?

It doesn't.

The fossil evidence does not show that all life evolved from a single common ancestor through minor changes.

The genetic record does. The fossil record is consistent with it.

Instead, during the period that paleontologists call the Cambrian Explosion, virtually all the major animal forms appear suddenly

"suddenly" in geological time scales. Meaning: over tens of millions of years.

without any trace of less complex ancestors

Before that, life was squishy. Squishy things don't tend to fossilize.

Nevertheless, there are pre-cambrian fossils.

No new body plans have come into existence since then.

Show me a feathered dino fossil found in cambrian rock.
Show me a mammal fossil found in cambrian rock.

The Cambrian Explosion is also known as "The Biological Big Bang," because the majority of complex life forms show up virtually overnight. If the entire period of life on earth was a 24-hour day, the Cambrian period would be less than two minutes.

The cambrian explosion took 10s of million years.

Like the Big Bang that supposedly began our universe, out of nowhere, nothing suddenly became everything. Nature clearly does not reveal the continuous picture that evolution requires.

False

Instead, life forms are strictly separated into very distinct categories.

False.

So according to the evidence produced by paleontology-our guide to whether or not evolution is true-life did not evolve gradually over a long period from simple to complex forms.

False. Ever wondered why actual paleontologists don't say this at all?

Instead, the fossils show that all the major animals groups appeared fully formed, all at one time.

False.

Again: show me a feathered dino fossil in cambrian rock.
Show me a mammal fossil in cambrian rock.

This isn't what evolutionists expected, but it is exactly what we would expect to find if creation were true: each organism is fully developed, genetically separated into kinds, and change is limited.

False, false, false and false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That disproves evolution

Again, no.

, because speciation can only be a change of subspecies, not a change of kinds.

The opposite would disprove evolution.
If you had grade school level knowledge about this theory, you'ld realise that.

Heck... if you would just read the posts you are replying to, you'ld realise that.

If a change of kinds doesn't happen, then evolution can't happen.

Name me one instance of where a "change in kinds" occurred.

 

[Skywalker]

Again, no.




The opposite would disprove evolution.
If you had grade school level knowledge about this theory, you'ld realise that.

Heck... if you would just read the posts you are replying to, you'ld realise that.




Name me one instance of where a "change in kinds" occurred.

There is no example of a change of kinds. That is why evolution is impossible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can the creation of something be gradual?

By incremental changes being passed on to off spring, generation after generation.

Aka, evolution.

There is no moment people change from looking like a little kid to not looking like one but there are intermediates and gray areas and some changes are instant but virtually impossible to notice.

Exactly. It's gradual change over time.

How can this apply to creation?

The same way it applies to growing up or how it applies to latin over time changing into spanish, french and portugese: by incremental change over time.

No latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child.

Instead, latin gradually changed into spanish over time. Through incremental change generation by generation.

Go read an "english" text of 500 years ago. You'll barely be able to understand what it says.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no example of a change of kinds

Exactly like evolution predicts.

That is why evolution is impossible.

I have literally just spend several pages trying to explain to you how the opposite is true.

Why do you insist on being wrong?
What is that you hope to accomplish by being so wrong and making sure you stay being wrong?

 

[Skywalker]

By incremental changes being passed on to off spring, generation after generation.

Aka, evolution.



Exactly. It's gradual change over time.



The same way it applies to growing up or how it applies to latin over time changing into spanish, french and portugese: by incremental change over time.

No latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child.

Instead, latin gradually changed into spanish over time. Through incremental change generation by generation.

Go read an "english" text of 500 years ago. You'll barely be able to understand what it says.

What are the gray areas and intermediates of animals and people evolving? Gradualness by definition involves gray areas and intermediate organisms.

 

[Skywalker]

Exactly like evolution predicts.



View attachment 46248

I have literally just spend several pages trying to explain to you how the opposite is true.

Why do you insist on being wrong?
What is that you hope to accomplish by being so wrong and making sure you stay being wrong?

Because if there is no change of kinds, then the process of evolution didn't happen because evolution insinuates one kind becoming another kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That disproves evolution, because speciation can only be a change of subspecies, not a change of kinds. If a change of kinds doesn't happen, then evolution can't happen.

How many times?

"Change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. It is not what anyone supporting evolution claims. You keep forgetting that you are a "monkey". And without quotes you are still an ape. There was no change of kinds in your evolution.

Please drop the Ray Comfort arguments. Banana Man is a laughing stock and rightly so.

 

[Skywalker]

By incremental changes being passed on to off spring, generation after generation.

Aka, evolution.



Exactly. It's gradual change over time.



The same way it applies to growing up or how it applies to latin over time changing into spanish, french and portugese: by incremental change over time.

No latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child.

Instead, latin gradually changed into spanish over time. Through incremental change generation by generation.

Go read an "english" text of 500 years ago. You'll barely be able to understand what it says.

By definition English has ancestors that are either gray areas or intermediates. Latin and Spanish have intermediaries too.

 

[Skywalker]

How many times?

"Change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. It is not what anyone supporting evolution claims. You keep forgetting that you are a "monkey". And without quotes you are still an ape. There was no change of kinds in your evolution.

Please drop the Ray Comfort arguments. Banana Man is a laughing stock and rightly so.

If none of my ancestors were anything other than apes what about my primordial soup ancestors? Primordial soup to apes would be impossible there would have to be intermediates.