-18 votes

Did Darwin Kill God?

I don't want to promote that neocon-running-for-office's thread about evolution anymore.

Here is a wonderful documentary, Did Darwin Kill God?, on how evolution and God can and should coexist.

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 1:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part2:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 3:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6 isn't worth watching.

You cannot argue that evolution occurs. It can be created in a laboratory, in our very own DNA mutation, and through observation of nature. Evolution does not equal atheism and it is a false dichotomy.

This issue is not black and white. It is gray. Both sides on the extreme should watch this series and realize the either-or fallacy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This looks good....

Thx for posting!

‘Imagination is not a talent of some men, but the health of every man.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Building a Dinosaur from a Chicken ...

... if evolution were not valid, then this would not be possible:



He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, WOW really and these are billions of years old .. so you believe soft tissue last billions of years .. OK

So do scales evolve into feathers .. how does this happen .. do you understand the complexity of feathers

No probably not.

Creation or evolution? Why draw a distinction between the 2? I believe in God and consider myself a christian, recently baptized as a matter of fact, I place a great amount of faith in the bible, and it's teachings, but blind faith I do not. I'm sorry but you can't throw science out the window if it contradicts your faith. You can try but it's still there staring back at you. Do I believe in evolution? Well yea I do. It is a sound, legitimate theory with plenty of proof to back it up. Does it contradict the Bible, Genesis in particular? Yes, many Christians will argue that, while others will try and piece the two together, good luck to you. For me it doesn't matter if it took 7 days or 7 billion years. The fact of the matter is that we are here, observing this marvelous universe, with all it contains, trying so hard to make sense out of it all.

Just for a minute stop and think about this. Now, we don't know for sure, but, it has been estimated that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and 100,000 that we know of. We have estimated that there are 2 hundred billion stars in our galaxy, the milky way alone, and potentially a trillion planets to boot. What would be the point of all this if life was not meant to happen? Observable and unobservable.

Throw science out the window if you want, but what we see is the continued expansion and evolution of this creation. Life was inevitable.

Here's the thing though.

I'm a Christian AND I believe that evolution was likely.

HOWEVER, do not call it science. Specie to specie evolution is a scientifically unproven and unprovable theory. It is not possible to prove via the scientific method that Species A turned into Species B. Even Charles Darwin recognized this and stated his own theory was not science for that reason.

Well I disagree.

It is science just as much as physics, chemistry, or astronomy are.

No, your not going to see s parakeet evolve into an elephant. From what I can grasp of evolution, it just doesn't work that way. I understand that the fossil record is incomplete in a lot of ways, but there are plenty of examples of speciation in it, and we can even observe it today on a micro scale. It took billions of years of small incremental steps to get us were we are today, not thousands or even millions. However I am willing to except that tomorrow we may make some sort of revolutionary discovery that throws the whole theory into a tale spin forcing us to modify our thinking. I'm not hard headed, but as it stands the big bang (and there are theories other than the big bang), the multiple hypothesis of abiogenesis, and evolutionary theory are the best scientific explanations of this creation. The question is, did it all "just happen" or was it intentional?

I appreciate your opinion, but it's irrelevant.

The scientific method is very specific. You repeat the same test over and over and get the same result each time. That's what's called scientific "proof".

We can test the sun rising each day. We can test the doppler red shift. We can test gravity on Earth. And we'll get the same result each time.

You cannot test specie to specie evolution. But the scientific method requires repeatable tests yielding the same results each time in order to obtain a scientific PROOF. Since you can't do it, you can't prove it. End of story.

Feelings and opinions about that are irrelevant. It can either be proven via the scientific method or it cannot. Since the tests for it cannot be repeated, it is not scientifically provable. Belief in it as proven science is a religious belief because it IS NOT scientifically proven, nor can it ever be.

Even Charles Darwin himself knew this which is why he said his own theory is not scientific. Recall, I also believe that evolution was LIKELY, but I do NOT believe in it as any kind of science and realize that it was possible, but it's probability is not demonstrable nor is it scientifically provable.

Trying to understand your reasoning

Your willing to concede that evolution was likely, but until it's observed on a macro scale and repeated in a laboratory then it's not science?

The scientific method is black and white....

...and is independent of your or my opinion.

The scientific method, in order to prove something, REQUIRES with no exceptions repeatable tests yielding the same result each time.

If you cannot perform the test and obtain the same result, then you cannot scientifically prove it. Period end of story.

Does it mean it's not true? No. Does it mean there is no scientific proof for it? Yes.

It's quite simple. Opinions and beliefs regarding the test subject or process are irrelevant to whether the test was conducted and results reproduced or not, which is very black and white.

This is why Darwin himself said his own theory was not scientific because it was not scientifically provable.

Anyone who believes in evolution as being scientifically proven is a RELIGIONIST no different than any other religionist, because they believe in something on faith, unprovable by science.

just because a result is not repeatable

Just because a result is not repeatable does not make it scientifically improvable over a big enough sample.

take a coin toss with true randomness. with a big enough sample size the numbers will ALWAYS tend toward 50/50. But because it's random somebody could go for month or years throwing all tails, but it does not change the scientifically proven fact that the toss is 50/50.

Same goes for evolution just because the results are not repeatable does not change that FACT that things change from one generation to another(aka the proof). over a large enough sample size the change will ALWAYS tend to change especially if the environment drastically changes.

You wouldn't say entropy is not scientifically provable because you cant EXACTLY repeat a sand pile from a sand castle, would you?

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

Nice try, but false.

The test MUST be repeatable and the results must ALWAYS be the same.

Your opinion (as mine) about it is irrelevant.

In the coin flip test (a test of randomness), the expected outcome of the test is that the test will yield EITHER heads or tails. In other words the sum of the probable distributions (divided by number of coin tosses) is always 1. That's the test and it's 100% verifiable every time.

Yes, things change from generation to generation. That's called mutation. No one has ever tested an ape turning into a man. Specie to specie evolution can not be tested, if for no other reason than the time horizon. So, it doesn't matter what pseudo-intellectual spin you want to put on it, it's not testable and, hence, it's not scientifically provable, even if it may be possible.


you can test it

because it has been done...

look a corn and how humans have shaped it from a mexican .5 inch long micro corncob vine like plant to a foot long or more multi colored cob in just 4000 years or less.

or dogs from wolfs and foxes, we now have teacup poodles in the space of about 2000 years. or about .0000000377% of the time since the Cambrian explosion.

imagine that... that in .00000000377% of complex lifes' time on earth, we have gone from wolfs to teacup poodles. yet you say its not proven and that a book written in that smallest of blimps in deep time is the prove agianst evolution.

You can take the genes of our body and trace it back to every ancestor we have ever had and that is FACT. You can even see what fraction of our dna is present in a chimp and physically see the change from one type of ape to another.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

Mutation is not speciation....

And even if you claim that you have speciated a species, did you reproduce Amoeba -> Fish -> Amphibian -> Ape -> Man?

No you did not. Unless you can reproduce the SAME RESULTS every single time from conducting the same test, you do not have a scientific proof.

Don't argue with me about whether evolution occurred. I BELIEVE it was likely. But don't argue with me either about the science of it. There is no scientific proof of it and it is impossible to ever scientifically prove it.

Like I said, life has been

Like I said, life has been around a LONG LONG time. 2000 years is only .00000000377% (or 1/270,000th) of the time since the Cambrian explosion about 540 million years ago, and unicellular life has been around FAR longer then that.

Imagine 270,000 different permutations of the wolf into poodle scenario. 2000 years to go from wolf into a teacup poodle... then just one more permutation a teacup poodle into a mouse type dog etc etc over 270,000 times.

each time an almost uncountable amount of different environmental conditions which could speed up or slow down the process.

It HAS BEEN PROVEN in even such a short time period. you can irrefutably test through DNA that you are different then your parents and that you parents are different the their parents and so on. factor in a fast breeding organism like a fruit fly that you selectively breed and you could RADICALLY change it so much that it is a new species within a few decades.

dna test and a refined evolutionary measurement has only been around for about 30 years and just look at what has been done. Just give it another 50 years and hopefully this ridiculous religious argument will be dead, just like the terracentric solar system and flat earth arguments of eons past.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.


I didn't make a religious argument. YOU DID. Reread your own post. It' all about your beliefs and your FAITH in something that is not proven.

Read the title of the thread... Op started down the path.

without religion this argument would never even happen.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

Your religious beliefs about evolution.

Or the Op's religious beliefs or mine are irrelevant.

You can't prove God.

You can't scientifically prove evolution.

BELIEFS about the above are IRRELEVANT with respect to the scientific method.

Religion is a faith based belief in something that is not scientifically provable. That includes BOTH creationism AND evolution.

One is no more or less scientific than the other regardless of how strongly you FEEL about it.

My motorcycle has a radiator

so does my car .. so i guess that means my motorcycle evolved into my car .. more BS logic from BS scientists

who ever said certain traits were mutually exclusive?

who ever said certain traits were mutually exclusive? the cooling of the engine is the result of necessity and was independently designed from several people in the early days of auto.. same with lifeforms, and various adaptations resulting from nessasity

It would be accurate to say that an aircooled engine evolved into a water cooled engine. that you could look at the genome of the engine and recognize the crankshaft, piston and valve train... what changed from say an aircooled Porsche to a water cooled Porsche is just a slight modification. the genome would have a few new part like a water pump and a water jacketing system around the block.

tThese "evolutions" could even happen independently but look VERY similar, and in the case of cars, the various designs methods of cooling an engine change with different brands. the different brands of radiators is kinda like different gene sequences in life forms. in life forms you can tell from the genome which ancestor a particular trait came from...

but I don't expect you to understand this in the slightest... because GOD is right and science is wrong :/

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

That is NOT Evolution

What you state is mirco-evolution or Variation .. every Christian believes this .. These are traits already in the genome .. there is nothing new .. Darwinian Evolution involves NEW traits not already in the genes .. so once you can show me that then you prove Evolution

Nothing new?

Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase. You can finish reading here:


Good video on frame shift mutation and gene duplication:

evolution and biblical God

No, these two are mutually exclusive theories.

The Bible says that man was created in God's own image and that mankind is a fallen creature.

Evolution says that man is risen from the muck.

Anyone who believes in the risen from the muck story has not studied the bible enough, or has only studied it from an antagonistic perspective.

Evolution has been thoroughly discredited for decades, flat Earthers have as much credibility.

Of course you understand that your above post does not

prove or disprove anything -- so maybe you could show me a few links where "evolution" is dis-proven.

Asking "what came before the big bang" and then getting "crickets" is not "proof" -- it also has nothing to do with "TOE" (theory of evolution) -- that's an "origins of the universe" type argument.

Everything that man creates is both Darwinist and Creationist -- isn't it?

Maybe we "divined" God and are now building him (big brother -- all seeing eye etc etc)?

Is that not a possibility?

I personally believe that there is something "more" but I'm not sure if that isn't an evolutionary imperative -- "hope" (maybe it makes me a more successful breeder). Other animals don't seem to need it, but maybe we do?

Maybe there is a universal consciousness -- so "weak" and spread out that it only becomes potent when trapped in matter (star dust). In the beginning the consciousness was tiny and dense, and very aware -- then "bang" (spread everywhere and now weak).

It's fun to pose questions that have no answers -- it gives us permission to fantasize and to be creative, right?

No matter what the ultimate truth is -- I doubt that Christianity is it's "wisest" representative nation, hahahaha (certainly not historically).

The missing link

The missing link is what prooves humans did not evolve from apes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Link

It's doesn't prove it didn't happen.

It's an insurmountable problem preventing evolutionists from scientifically proving that it did.

That doesn't mean evolution did not happen.

It only means it can not be scientifically proven that it did.

I rode the bible bus for the whole 5 years

With Dr. J Vernon McGee the last centuries PRE-EMINENT Protestant biblical scholar.

I also majored in philosophy(well originally), and studied Aristotlean logic, deprogramming Christian cultists, Islam, The Hindu vedas, Darwinism, Communism, Christain apology and hermanutics, Catholicism, Mormonism, Masonry, the Illuminatti, and many other isms, in much detail.

You can believe that infantile bullcrap you believe and I will just keep KNOWING what I know and spreading the truth.

The so called 'theory' of evolution changes every year, maybe every day, which makes debunking it tricky, because by the time you catch the apologists in their most recent lie, they say that part of the 'theory' was not current with the 'science' of the day...

If you are a master of logic and debate why not show it.

I dont care what chitterling circuit you were on, arguing from authority is still fallascious. Or did the rules of debate change.

You also provided no links.

Even if TOE is not true it doesn't prove one world religion is true.

When one can explain to me

When one can explain to me what lies beyond the infinite, only then will I consider the non-existence of god.

On a lighter note: Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic who wasn't sure there was a dog or not.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.