Is God and Evolution mutually exclusive? Darwin said, No.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


To me God is a scientist, he set the rules and made the experiment and he is watching it all unfold, he/she/it/Bod isn't anything like we can understand and never will and people who follow religion are putting a human psyche into God because the human condition is the only condition we know....they are of course all wrong as Iam calling God "God" and "he/she/it/Bod.
Sooner people release this the sooner we can go forward as a specie.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey

Dude, Darwin named 8-10 things that would nullify all of his THEORIES if proven true. All of them have been proven true. Darwin essentially disproved Darwin. Get over it. It's the #1 conspiracy of all times.

Can you cite which potential falsifications were suggested by Darwin, and then cite which ones "have been proven true"?

When people say "Theory of evolution" and dismiss it as such, I really do see the words "stupid" flashing in neon lights.

Dear stupids. The theory of evolution is as baseless as the theory of gravity. If you dismiss gravity then you are really up in the clouds.

You see the problem is not that it is a theory, but that you are lost as to what a scientific theory implies.

No biggie, it keeps the church full, and god must be happy with that!

Evolution may or may not exist within the definition that we propose it to be, but it will have happened, demonstrably, with or without that definition or us to provide it.

God on the other hand, exists simply because you want it to. You need it to. Without your desire, it vanishes without a trace, not even a whimper. Not even a silent fart. Remove the human brain and you remove god in it's entirety.

"What is this? I can't explain this, it must be spirits. It must be god!"

God and evolution are mutually exclusive. As much as the easter bunny and evolution are.. or gandalf and evolution. Or darth vadar and evolution. You can have them together if you make up a story, but in reality, the science that leads us to a scientific theory excludes the flights of fancy in favour of things we can actually test.

By hook or by crook I will prove the tooth faery is real. I will use a common theory and attach it to it. Then we'll either bust a common theory, or create a new reality. -- not how it works.

reply to post by winofiend


Well said
We have even seen it in our lifetimes in certain lizards.

MrFGB
reply to post by swanne

 

I may have missed something, but isn't it the THEORY of evolution. My meaning is that it hasn't been proved. Many people talk as if evolution were a fact, but I don't think it has been proven to be a fact. Consequently, what Darwin felt about the compatibility between belief in God and evolution is immaterial. He may very well have been wrong about evolution as a matter of fact.

Google "meaning of theory in a scientific context"

Evolution is fact, it's obvious and everywhere....many forms of life become resistant to anti-biotics do they not?
Once you understand it, you won't question it anymore....
Good luck

reply to post by winofiend

When people say "Theory of evolution" and dismiss it as such, I really do see the words "stupid" flashing in neon lights.

lol, that could be the strangest and most awesome form of synesthesia I've ever heard of!

winofiend
When people say "Theory of evolution" and dismiss it as such, I really do see the words "stupid" flashing in neon lights.

Dear stupids. The theory of evolution is as baseless as the theory of gravity. If you dismiss gravity then you are really up in the clouds.

You see the problem is not that it is a theory, but that you are lost as to what a scientific theory implies.

No biggie, it keeps the church full, and god must be happy with that!

Evolution may or may not exist within the definition that we propose it to be, but it will have happened, demonstrably, with or without that definition or us to provide it.

God on the other hand, exists simply because you want it to. You need it to. Without your desire, it vanishes without a trace, not even a whimper. Not even a silent fart. Remove the human brain and you remove god in it's entirety.

"What is this? I can't explain this, it must be spirits. It must be god!"

God and evolution are mutually exclusive. As much as the easter bunny and evolution are.. or gandalf and evolution. Or darth vadar and evolution. You can have them together if you make up a story, but in reality, the science that leads us to a scientific theory excludes the flights of fancy in favour of things we can actually test.

By hook or by crook I will prove the tooth faery is real. I will use a common theory and attach it to it. Then we'll either bust a common theory, or create a new reality. -- not
how it works.

...And that, folks, is how you drop a bombshell. I can feel the heat from here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


"theory of evolution is as baseless as the theory of gravity",,for the "theory of gravity",,Newton had an apple drop on his head,,
i think what is being dropped here, is ,,yes it is warm,, and u can feel, some heat from it,,but it is still pretty stinky.

reply to post by iterationzero


Here is one in the form of a direct quote from Darwin: find the rest yourself, they are published in countless books and scientific journals.

... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)

Theory of Evolution,,actually supports "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

"after his kind' ,,,,,in other words,,there are no missing links.

Why should they be mutually exclusive? Science does not set out to prove god does not exist it proves that god is not needed to explain the world. IE how man came to be in his present form can be explained by evolution. Back in the past every thing from the sun, the weather to events in that effected your life were the result of super natural beings.

During an eclipse some ancient peoples thought that a wolf monster was eating the sun, and by shouting they could scare it away. We now know that this is not the case. That at certain times the moon is at the right distance at the right place to momentarily block the sun and can be accurately predicted.

Religion has never been incompatible with science, many scientists are religious. Einstein for example, in frustration with the randomness in quantum mechanics declared, 'god does not play dice with the universe'. The thing is, in the past, there was less tools of observation, gradually through knowledge of our environment we are learning that we are not at the whim of super natural forces and that the world can be explained with a high degree of certainty. Its called progress.

I love this idea and I applaud your neutral stance on religion vs evolution. Let me offer you this, no matter which side one takes on this debate everyone always contrasts the two beliefs systems. No one ever compares the two stances. So why don't we try to compare the two sides. In my journey I have come to notice that they are dependent upon one another. Call me a Buddhist, but when you look at it from a yin and yang perspective you will see that if Religion was not here then there would be no opposing force like Evolution. I always say that atheists are not always evolutionists, but I am seeing a trend. Because there is creationism, atheists cling to evolution. So lets become more neutral and say that these forces wouldn't exist without each other. Better yet lets say they are two sides of the same coin.

winofiend
When people say "Theory of evolution" and dismiss it as such, I really do see the words "stupid" flashing in neon lights.

Dear stupids. The theory of evolution is as baseless as the theory of gravity. If you dismiss gravity then you are really up in the clouds.

You see the problem is not that it is a theory, but that you are lost as to what a scientific theory implies.

No biggie, it keeps the church full, and god must be happy with that!

Evolution may or may not exist within the definition that we propose it to be, but it will have happened, demonstrably, with or without that definition or us to provide it.

Yes. Some do not realize that a scientific theory is built from facts gathered from a multitude of disciplines. In the case of evolution from areas such as archaeology, DNA and cellular research, genetics and molecular biology. The evidence is clear that organisms change over time. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is the single best example of this.The theory is sound there are just some details that have not been worked out.

That said all a theory can hope to achieve is make accurate predictions, if a better theory comes along that better explains all available facts it will take over. In order for a theory to be accepted it must be confirmed by either repeat experimentation or observation. look how quickly bunk ones get shot down.

yamammasamonkey
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Here is one in the form of a direct quote from Darwin: find the rest yourself, they are published in countless books and scientific journals.

... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)

Maybe you should have taken your own advise and used Google to see if you were correct . . . which, you are not. Plus, your assertion was that Darwin's "nullifications" were all proven true, yet all you can do is quote his words without showing how it was "proved true"?

Dude, Darwin named 8-10 things that would nullify all of his THEORIES if proven true. All of them have been proven true. Darwin essentially disproved Darwin. Get over it. It's the #1 conspiracy of all times.

We have found many transitional forms, in the fossil record, since the time Darwin published "Origin". Do you even understand what constitutes a "transitional form"?

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection. Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils. Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

Transitional Fossils
Transitional Fossils 2
Panda's Thumb Transitional Archive

The term "missing link" refers back to the originally static pre-evolutionary concept of the great chain of being, a deist idea that all existence is linked, from the lowest dirt, through the living kingdoms to angels and finally to God. The idea of all living things being linked through some sort of transmutation process predates Darwin's theory of evolution. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck envisioned that life is generated in the form of the simplest creatures constantly, and then strive towards complexity and perfection (i.e. humans) through a series of lower forms. In his view, lower animals were simply newcomers on the evolutionary scene

Transitional Wiki

There are no transitional fossils?


Strike one . . . care to enlighten us on how little you know about claims #2-8?

Call me a Buddhist, but when you look at it from a yin and yang perspective you will see that if Religion was not here then there would be no opposing force like Evolution.

Taoist. Ying/yang is Taoism. Well before Buddhism...

MeditatingStewie
I love this idea and I applaud your neutral stance on religion vs evolution. Let me offer you this, no matter which side one takes on this debate everyone always contrasts the two beliefs systems. No one ever compares the two stances. So why don't we try to compare the two sides. In my journey I have come to notice that they are dependent upon one another.

My thought exactly!

AfterInfinity
In other words, our "sinful nature" and our everlasting debt started with God before we even happened. Unless it was out of his control? But that would be putting a cap on his power, right?

I'm one who thinks that if he exists, he couldn't have absolute control over everything.

Who says God absolutely has to be omnipotent/omniscient? Even light rays don't travel instantly. If he would exist he would be bound to not know everything anyway.

Just saying...

reply to post by yamammasamonkey

Here is one in the form of a direct quote from Darwin: find the rest yourself, they are published in countless books and scientific journals.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence to support it. That's how science works.

... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)

You have provided the words of Darwin, not any evidence that his potential falsification "has been proved true".

1. You did yourself and your argument a disservice by simply copy and pasting this from another website, which you then failed to cite, either accidentally or intentionally. It's immediately recognizable as an example of quote mining to anyone that has actually read The Origin Of Species. If we fill in some of the gaps your source left in Darwin's words, you'll quickly see why it's not an example of one of the potential falsifications which "have been proven true".

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural connections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Emphasis mine.

He wrote an entire chapter discussing why there were so few fossils, based upon the work of and in consultation with the geologists and paleontologists of his day. In other words scientists knew and understood why there's no such thing as a "complete" fossil record over a century and a half ago.

2. This isn't a potential falsification, as you seem to claim. The initial part of your quote mine is from a chapter called "Difficulties of the Theory". No scientific theory is ever finished or complete or whole, all scientific theories have unanswered questions. In fact, I'd argue that scientific theories aren't the end of an avenue of research but a beginning. Darwin, in a completely open and honest way, was pointing out where further research needed to be done to understand evolution.

Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory.

Emphasis mine.

3. There's a reason why only people who don't really understand modern evolutionary synthesis, today's theory of evolution, still call it Darwinism or Darwinian evolution -- it's because they're laboring under the misunderstanding that the theory has remained unchanged for a century and a half. Darwin theorized that traits were heritable, and that traits that improved chances of reproduction would be favored over time. But he had no idea by what mechanism they were heritable.

Mendel's work wasn't initially recognized as being the answer to that question until the early 1900's. If anything, Mendel's work was initially viewed as running counter to Darwin's theory... it wasn't until after both men were dead that scientists finally understood that they were complementary theories with the understanding of population genetics.

All of that was just a really long way to get around to saying this: the evidence for evolution used to support the theory today is overwhelmingly genetic. Not fossil. Genetic. So much so that, even in the complete absence of any fossils, the theory of evolution would still be the dominant explanation for biodiversity.

So we've now covered the first of your "8-10 things that would nullify all of his THEORIES if proven true". Given that you've provided zero evidence that it's what you're claiming, I sincerely hope for your sake that you didn't lead with your strongest example. Tee up the next one!

reply to post by iterationzero


You said: "You have provided the words of Darwin, not any evidence that his potential falsification "has been proved true"."

The lack of evidence is the proof. He said it himself. I cannot provide a lack of evidence. I state their is a lack of evidence in the fossil record. It has never been found. This backwards BS reasoning you use is the exact reason why I will not waste my time going through each with you.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


What lack of evidence? we have genetic evidence that we share a common ancestor with other great apes, we have fossil evidence...we have tons of evidence supporting evolution.
Come on now back up the claims you have made otherwise you are just talking BS.

The students name?

Albert Einstein