Darwin's arguments against God

CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s arguments against God

How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity

by Russell Grigg

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.¹ Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.² I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’³

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...

[Alter Kaker]

You’ve been strangely quiet today w/regard to the Colorado River’s supposedly non-existant delta. What’s up?

[Alter Kaker]

Why does creationism need this wild global flood theory?

Why does creationism need to exist? I think creationism at its heart is just one more iteration of the maxim: "Who do you believe: me or your own lying eyes?"

If yoi interpret the Bible one way, but a veritable mountain of real-world observation says the opposite, then maybe the problem ain't with science.

[CottShop]

[[A “Kind” could be many different things. The Bible says that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. So how do we know he wasn’t referring to genetic lineages or something less obvious?]]

Simple- because genetics show that kinds are kinds- it’s ONLY WHEN macroevolutionists go BEYOND the genetics in declaring everythign is related, without a shred of evidence, that kinds break down. We know from genetic tests and breeding experiements that kinds are kinds, but apparently, in macroevolutionsits viewpoints, species must have ‘stopped macroevolving’ ‘sometime in the past’. Fruit flies remain fruitflies, ducks remain ducks etc. they reamin the same kind- that is the actual evidence- claiming every species is evolved from one another is nothign more than a religious belief that has no actual evidence to back it up

[CottShop]

‘mountain of evidence’? Where? ALL the evieence points to creation- goign beyond hte science is hte ONLY way to come to a macroevolutionary conclusion. The evidence hsows discontinuity- the evidnce STOPS at discontinuity- but we’re ‘assured’ that htere is a ‘mountain of evidence’ that shows ‘continuity’, but when htis ‘mountain’ is examined critically, and objectively, it will be seen to be nothign more htan assumptions that go way beyond what the actual evidence points to. That is why Creationism exists, b3ecause the evidence points to it.

[CottShop]

[[You’ve been strangely quiet today w/regard to the Colorado River’s supposedly non-existant delta. What’s up?]]

The sediemtns are there, and they show another perfectly viable explanation for how the canyon was ‘carved’, and what would have occured during a worldwide flood-:

“What Talk.Origins is not saying is that the Colorado River flows south into its delta and that the entire delta is on the Pacific plate. As such not only would newer deposits tend to be further south than older ones, no matter how fast the deposition rate was in the past, the entire delta is moving in the same direction so this is most likely a calculation based on current plate movements and not any kind of objectively measurable displacement from the delta.”

http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon_was_carved_by_retreating_Flood_waters

[CottShop]

[[How do you plan on convincing the scientists, and the people who write the science text books based on their work of that? ]]

Convince people that ignore biological, mathematical, chemical, and natural laws that macroevolution is impossible? Good quesiton- just how do you convince people like that? People desperate to deny there is a God and that we are sinners in need of salvation? While there may be soem who are indeed Christians- TRUE Christians, who have been deceived by hte lie of macroevolution, and who have been deceived to put hteir trust in man’s word about past events for which they have no evidence to back it up, and for which they MUST go WAY BEYOND the evidence in order to adhere to the religion of Darwin, and hwo may beleive ‘God just got thigns started’, the majority of Macroevolutionsits are quite simply running from that inner voice that is tryign to lead them to salvation- so ‘convincing htem’ will be quite a task- but really, in the end, they will be responsible for hteir own soul’s condition, and hte truth will still stand quite nicely on it’s own despite these people’s insistance that God didn’t create everything. The actual evidence doesn’t need a ‘majority voice’, or a ‘consensus’ in order to be truth. truth is truth, and no amount of stubborn insistance contrary to hte truth will undermine hte actual truth. Whether devote congregationalists of Darwinism are ‘convinced’ or not matters not.

[CottShop]

[[Why does creationism need to exist?]]

[[If yoi interpret the Bible one way, but a veritable mountain of real-world observation says the opposite, then maybe the problem ain’t with science. ]]

[[The by your account the people who say that the objective of the creationists is simply to make science conform to their theology are right.]]

—Really? Because:

The Natural Limits to Biological Change
Neo-Darwinism Under Attack
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D.

“One of the most significant questions in the origins debate concerns the nature of biological change. Can organisms change into an infinite array of creatures? Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place? There are two major theories of evolutionary change: neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. As creationists, Lane Lester and I proposed in 1984 that indeed there are limits to change in our book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Theoretically, it may seem difficult to propose that immense variety may occur within a group of organisms yet this variety is constrained within certain genetically induced limits. It may seem contradictory even. But in the intervening ten years, my confidence in the proposal has only strengthened, and my confidence in any evolutionary mechanism to accomplish any significant adaptational change has waned considerably.

The arguments against neo-Darwinism center around four topics: mutation, natural selection, population genetics, and paleontology. Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria. We quoted from Pierre-Paul Grasse’, the great French evolutionist. When commenting on the mutations of bacteria he said:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

A mechanism for the creation of new genetic material is also sadly inadequate. Sometimes, an extra copy of a gene arises due to a DNA duplication error. Evolutionists suggest that this extra gene can accumulate mutations and eventually code for a new gene with a different function. In reality, however, this fails to explain how an old gene takes on a new function and new regulation pathways by the introduction of genetic mistakes into the gene and the regulatory apparatus.

Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. The famous example of peppered moths teaches us how a species survives in a changing environment by possessing two varieties adapted to different conditions. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria only instructed us in the ingenious mechanisms of different bacteria to share the already existing genes for antibiotic resistance among themselves.

Decades of research in the science of population genetics has not helped the neo-Darwinist position. The data from protein and gene variation shed only a dim light on the major problem of evolution— the appearance of novel adaptations. The major significance of population genetics has been helping to understand how an organism responds to minor environmental fluctuations. And even this can be clouded in fundamental differences in theory.

First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/natlim.html

[Soothesayer]

Are you trying to say that organisms with very different phenotypes also have very different genomes? I don’t think so. There are so many genetic similarities among dissimilar organisms that they had to move away from the old system of classification. There is no way to prove evolution but it is logical and (nearly) complete enough to serve as a suitable explaination if and when a better explaination arrives. The Bible does not say HOW God did all those things, it just says that he did it.

A creationist seems to have only two choices as of today:

1. God used genes as the template for all life and we are able to study it.

2. All life was created fully formed and we have no idea how. Time to start experimenting.

[tacticalogic]

Convince people that ignore biological, mathematical, chemical, and natural laws that macroevolution is impossible? Good quesiton- just how do you convince people like that? People desperate to deny there is a God and that we are sinners in need of salvation?

I'm sure they'll be quite impressed with insults and accusations of spiritual inadequacy.

[CottShop]

[[I’m sure they’ll be quite impressed with insults and accusations of spiritual inadequacy.]]

I don’t really care hwat htey’re ‘impressed’ with- they’ve proven their threshold for being ‘impressed’ is unconscionably low- As I mentioned, the truth is truth, their opinions and assumptions that DEFY the truth are meaningless without any actual data or evidences to back hteir braod generlizations and claims up. As well, I’m not concerned with what they are impressed with or not- they certainly don’t mind maligning Creationism and ID while clinging to hteir own reliigious belief systems.

The public are hte ones that are being duped by these charlatans, but the tide is turnign as people start examining the truth more carefully- so the scientists’ ‘consensus’ hold little weight when examined against the truth- not really concerned with ‘convincing’ them of hteir mistake- their religion does not hold precendence over the truth

[CottShop]

[[2. All life was created fully formed and we have no idea how. Time to start experimenting.]]

YES we DO have an idea how, and we also know that it is impoissible for single cells to evolve the necessary higher metainfo that is present in all highly IC systems- completed species- The article I posted above also explains that there is NO direct evidence of macroevolution, and that species simply hsow up fully formed, and Baraminology shows discontinuity, NOT continuity as claimed by macroevolutionists who rely on highly imaginitive scenarios for which they have no proof- worse yet, for which the biological evidnece refutes- Our position is NOT as dire as you make it out to be I’m afraid!

[demshateGod]

No, not really. They’re letting the science conform to their belief.

[CottShop]

[[Are you trying to say that organisms with very different phenotypes also have very different genomes? I don’t think so. There are so many genetic similarities among dissimilar organisms that they had to move away from the old system of classification.]]

“They” Can do whatever they like- the ‘similarities’ do NOT take into account hte billions and billions of DISSIMILARITIES- “They” can deny common design all they like, but similarities just furhter point to common design while hte DISSIMILARITIES also strongly indicate uniqueneses of kinds- these dissimilarites are what seperate kinds, and furthermore, species own unique species specific parameters PREVENT the kinds of continuities macroevolutionists claim happened in the ‘past at some point’ despite a complete lack of evidence to support htis claim-

[[There is no way to prove evolution but it is logical and (nearly) complete enough to serve as a suitable explaination if and when a better explaination arrives.]]

Actually NO it isn’t! It DEFIES natural laws, biological, mathematical, and chemical laws- the very laws that are the underpinnings of hte very science that ignores the laws- quite hte contradiction there dont’chathink?

[Soothesayer]

“it’s unreasonable to imagine anythign liek that- great upheavals couldn’t possibly upset layers”

Ever seen an earthquake?

[Soothesayer]

It’s actually very easy to damage the fossil record. We are very fortunate (thank God?) that we have so many intact fossils.

[Soothesayer]

So apparently earthquakes don’t exist now ;)

[Soothesayer]

The Bible doesn’t even explicitly say that Adam and Eve were the first and the only. It just says:

“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

“..but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground- then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground..” (Genesis 2:6-7)

“The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden...” (Genesis 2:15)

[Soothesayer]

That’s not even the claim. The claim is that there were very slight changes at the genetic level that happened over many many generations.

[Soothesayer]

Sea levels have fluctuated considerably over the eons but there may have been a time when the entire surface of the planet was covered in a “flood” of H2O in what is referred to as “snowball Earth”. This is only a hypothesis but refers to paleoclimatic global-scale glaciation. As far as I can see, there is no current data suggesting a ‘water world’ formed by liquid precipitation.

[Soothesayer]

There are many people who accept Christ but deny young-earth creationism. So you are saying that only belief in a particular set of religion doctrine qualifies as accepting Christ?