Evolution falsifies God/s?

I'm tempted to give you one of those little green balls for grouping Stalin's purges with the Kardashians! But alas, your fallacy prevents me from doing so:How do you, as an atheist, bemoan malaria, the Holocaust, tapeworms or yes, even the Kardashians? If everything is just matter anyways, then really, what does it all matter? How do you attribute worth to anything?

Maybe because he values the human life and the joys of being human. Maybe he sees the pain that inflicts humans and tries to relieve as much as possible and abhors those painful things. And maybe he does all this on his own volition, out of his own love, without the need of some sky monster with a lake of fire to threaten him into acting as any decent human should.If you need that threat of damnation in order to act humanely then keep at it. Wouldn't want you out on the streets at night without your crucifix.

You miss the point.If God doesn't exist, then you need to find some natural atheistic way of accounting for all those altruistic feelings you just cited. Natural selection?

I'll cover a couple of posts to consolidate replies.Note that I am throwing a number of threads at you rather than copy the material here, in part to keep the discussion here fairly clean, but also to demonstrate the depth of information available from science. There is objective evidence to back up science, and that evidence contradicts several of your claims.For instance in "Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1" Message 2 we start off with a single tree that is 5,060 years old.In "If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?" we have evidence that show that the Grand Canyon was not formed by flood outflow.The problem for you is not just whether evolution is true, but whether geology, physics and other sciences are true. Care to show us your calculations used to come to that conclusion?Again it is easy to make assertions. It is also silly to make assertions that are demonstrably wrong.Take the Peppered Moths as an example of extreme natural selection removing deleterious traits from the population in response to changing ecological conditions. Rather obvious that natural selection was more than capable of keeping up, even when the ecology changes dramatically and selection pressure was intense. More at Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.Now if mutations are a mixture of deleterious, neutral and beneficial, the deleterious ones will tend to be removed by selection. As natural populations produce many more offspring than are needed to maintain the population size it follows that a significant number are eliminated by the selection process. The moths were more than capable of producing sufficient offspring that the species did not go extinct. Again, your use of the term "horizontal" here shows a lack of understanding of evolution science. In evolution science horizontal transfer means sharing of traits between lineages, as occurs sometimes in unicellular organisms, while the evolution of variations in traits occurs within a lineage from generation to generation. And dogs will always be dogs ... that hoary old PRATT ... you say that as if we should be surprised ...... while in evolution all descendants from a breeding population will always be expected to be members of the clade starting with that breeding population. Saying "will always be finches" is kind of like saying "well the sky is blue so there" -- a statement of the mundane obvious (at least to those that study the color of the sky).Like I said before the creationist concept of "kind" is essentially the same as the scientific concept of clade, with descent from common ancestor populations in a nested hierarchy, and the issue is not with the evolution of the clades, but with their origins.The question is not what their clade is and always will be, but whether more significant evolution occurs than the evolution of variation in traits and divergent speciation. To answer this question one needs to look at the fossil record rather than try to cypher the future. Curiously I've included my answer to your purported "proof" ... based on actual observation rather than bald assertion of an under informed opinion.You also should know that "Darwinian evolution" -- the origin of new species by natural selection -- is an observed fact. Speciation has been observed in several cases, particularly in plants and single cell life forms.Now if you are talking about the Theory of Evolution rather than the process of evolution then you are mixing up meanings of the word evolution and conflating it with the original theory posed by Darwin (which is only a part of the science of evolution -- science moves on, you know, expanding knowledge as we go). Darwin was unaware of genetics, and genetics is a rather significant part of the modern science -- it helps us treat evolving diseases for instance.Perhaps you will take this opportunity to tell us in your words what evolution is and what the theory of evolution is?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..

I don't need an invisible friend in order to bemoan things. It comes naturally to me. Why would it be important what things are made of? If I discovered that people were 60% zinc, it wouldn't make me value them any less.How about you? Would the same person, doing and saying the same things, become more valuable if he wasn't made out of protons and neutrons and electrons, but some sort of not-quite-stuff without substance or mass? Would that also apply to things other than people: would that increase the worth of a couch, for example, or a sandwich, in your estimation?

Of course. Do you really think the human species would have lasted so long and spread so far without the evolved and inherited sense of empathy? No, I hit it all right. You're one of those religious goons who think that their base human instincts (products of evolution, btw) can only be controlled by having their morality issued to them by some god. You have no love or respect for humanity or the human condition on your own volition (so you think) and need to be instructed on proper comportment by some outside threat. And so you believe this must be true of all.Humans are capable of thinking of this world's greatest evils and yet can give and feel limitless love. These same traits get imparted to your gods, not the other way around. The rest of us recognize that we alone are responsible for our thoughts and actions. Society guides us. Other humans guide us. We do not need any supernatural coercion to tell right from wrong, good from bad, righteous from evil.Morality, especially given the evil crap in the jewish part of your book, does not come from up there. It comes from you. If you need the crutch of religion to tap into this well of empathy then fine, have at it. But do not presume the rest of us are so weak.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. If you can't defend the Darwinian evolutionary model, then that can only leave one other answer. In which case all the sciences - physics, geology, cosmology and logic itself - must come from God. Computational Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite SelectionThe infamous peppered moth? You offer that up as proof of Darwinian evolution? The reason you keep hearing us say things like "a finch is still a finch" or "a dog is still a dog" is because you and your ilk have failed once again to produce any example of a creature developing new information. The peppered moth is an example of classic evolution - where natural selection takes what genetic info it already has available to it and merely rearranges the deck chairs a bit. Ultimately though, that Titanic is going to sink (genetic collapse). Rearranging already existing genetic information does not create new information. Natural selection does not occur at the molecular level, where mutations occur, but rather on the entire organism as a whole. Please explain how selection could remove only the deleterious mutations. Wrong, it's you who conflates and obfuscates the meanings and I believe it's intentional. You know your "theory" is flawed, but without it you'll be forced to admit there is a God, so you rally the troops and circle the wagons around this beaten and dead "evolutionary" horse.Here's what real evolution is: natural selection working with existing genetic information (no new info).Your version of evolution: natural selection creating new genetic information over billions of years.

You provided a reference to Computational Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite Selection.The source you provided doesn't include any references to the peer-reviewed scientific journal it was published in. I can smell a rat here . It seems as if it was a 'paper' formatted and designed to superficially look very similar to a sientific paper.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Good one. I don't doubt that. I'm sure you value people, I'm sure most atheists do in fact, but you have no basis to - not from an evolutionary perspective anyways. How could natural selection account for honesty? What benefit could honesty possibly offer to be selected from the genetic herd? Or the notion of right and wrong - do you think animals care whether some other animal is honest or whether they are right or wrong? They're animals - they don't care. No that wouldn't matter to me. If God made us out of legos, we would still have value because we would have been made in His image. But I can account for that thinking because I believe that our value comes from God, an atheist believes we are essentially stardust - and there's no basis for any real intrinsic value there.

Easy.The parents who alerted their children to the pride of lions just outside to the entrance of the cave had their children surviving. Those kids lived on to have children themselves.The children of those weirdo's telling them that those lions are imaginary didn't survive. They didn't survive to spread those genes.

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

Your response to my post doesn't make any sense at all.

Perhaps I might remind you of the parable of the good Samaritan.People typically don't steal from each other regardless of their religious beliefs. I'm not sold on the idea that honesty is an inherited, but I certainly do believe that parental influence is the most important way morality is imparted to children. And parents use various methods to teach their children what societies' rules are.We might also note that being Christian does not stop the ministers of super churches from sleeping with teen age boys or prostitutes. And yet atheists manage to enjoy the company of their fellow humans just as you do. Is that really so hard to fathom? And quite frankly, that need for socializing is more than enough answer to explain why they don't treat you or I like crap. Doing so ends up depriving people of the company of the people they enjoy being around.If your position is that you personally only treat people well because of your belief in God, I thank God that you are wrong because you would otherwise be just that thin thread away from being a psychopath. Maybe on a bad day when you have the kind of doubts all Christians go through who knows what you might become.Fortunately your position, like most of the stuff you've posted here, is just not very well thought out. It actually turns out the being honest has secular rewards. There is value in having your word taken as the truth and consequences here on earth for being a liar.Even here on this site we find that people earn reputations for telling lies, for being logical, for presenting sound arguments. You are earning a reputation right now with every post you make.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I challenge you to develop the chain of logic that leads to your conclusion. If you cannot do that, then along with the other examples you will have truly earned the title of Non Sequitur Man.

My "opinion" is backed up by floors of peer-reviewed articles in major libraries and the evidence in hundreds of museums. That is typical trollish behavior.