Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Look at this way. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes in a population. All evolution really is when it comes down to it is “change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.”

The great variety of species now is a product of billions of years of populations evolving incrementally.
 
It is obvious that science can say nothing about the supernatural. It cannot detect it, only natural explanations are allowed. These can and do lead to disbelief. Leading scientists reject God.

"The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample1. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively2.

“In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature 3. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.”

Source: Leading scientists still reject God | Nature
 
Last edited:
Provide a scientific definition of “kind”.
You asked and here it is:

A “kind” is a fertile community which exists under natural conditions and amongst whom unrestricted gene interchange is possible (biospecies). A kind possesses the same structural plan (morphospecies)

Evolution is technically defined as:
“A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form”

So what exactly have the finches become?
 
There tons of fossils out there, but they are fully formed creatures that were ready from the get go… no need for trial and error.
You are misinformed. We have fossil embryos and fossil young, still in their eggs. They were not fully formed.

Apart from that, your idea of a transitional organism is incorrect. Every adult transitional is a “fully formed” organism. The “trial and error” is hidden in most fossils when their DNA decays. We only have DNA sequences form very recent fossils, and often those sequences are incomplete.
 
Can I ask you how familiar you are with evolutionary theory? This statement seems to suggest a lack of knowledge of core principles
 
Can I ask you how familiar you are with evolutionary theory? This statement seems to suggest a lack of knowledge of core principles
I was kind being sarcastic there, but I understand the idea of environmental change and so-called “fit offspring”.

How many environmental changes and (fit/unfit) offspring do you estimate it took for evolution to produce the 10 million different kinds of plant and animals species we have today?
 
I totally agree with Rossum.
You picked the wrong horse…

To conclude​

Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations. I suggest that specific electromagnetic signals emitted by key molecules that can relieve the stress are communicated directly to activate the transcription and mutation of the requisite gene(s).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

So now that you know this, I repeat my question.
 
Last edited:
…Again I will ask if anyone at all can find any example of anyone in this entire forum who has claimed that the evolutionary process is a denial of God.

Anyone? If not, then please…cease and desist.
Well, for starters there’s the Op.
Then there’s every atheist who says science displaces God (of the gaps)
 
Last edited:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
TOE cannot predict this
Yes it can.
No it can’t.
 
If natural selection had any predictive usefulness at ALL, we would not be dealing with the scientifically unexpected, totally unanticipated rise in antimicrobial resistance.

Who knew those bugs would spontaneously mutate - nullifying the very thing you claim was some sort of inevitable process.

Certainly not Alexander Fleming. He (mistakenly) predicted the defeat of communicable disease.
 
Last edited:
No idea. A lot. But there’s been nearly four billion years of evolving going on.
 
IF you claim that someone can’t posit a scientific opinion unless they are formally trained in that discipline, then YOU can’t dispute that position unless YOU are formally trained in that discipline.

Read the information he provides, and then base your opinion about that information. Don’t make an ad hominem attack on Dr. Brown.

As for your statement about how he should list what he is self-taught about in his qualifications, nobody I know ever does that.

His book provides a ton of detailed and scientifically-based disputations about the widely-stated beliefs about evolution, etc. I would suggest that you read at least one or two topics, then decide whether he makes valid points or not.
 
So you’re criticizing evolution for not predicting microbiol evolution?
 
WUT?
There’s nothing to criticise about ‘evolution’.
It’s a blind, random, involuntary process.
It would be like criticising gravity for ‘causing’ someone to fall in a particular direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top