-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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I know

That's what I was alluding to. To some extent, I think certain universal truths are, in some way, reflected in the histories and beliefs of different religions/ancient cultures. But that's not to say that I don't also see *salient* differences. While I don't agree with all the conclusions of the filmmaker, I nonetheless found the images and patterns in nature extraordinarily beautiful, truly awesome, proof enough to me that we're light years away from understanding it all - despite the pat theories society is only too willing to claim are conclusive.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


Hardly, but Darwin's Zealots are sure trying to.

Anyone here who is still buying into Darwin's religion should do some reading on archeological anomalies.

I suggest for a great read into the corruption that goes on in the background.


A lot of science is suppressed by the Zealots who will stop at nothing to protect their established secular beliefs. This is many fields of science this is just one example. Only the naive believe in a purity of science in a day and age where it is bought and paid for by corporation and government. Like freedom it must also be fought for.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Darwin the liberal..

Darwin spurned on the classical liberal movement imo. He would be considered a liberal moderate by todays neo-liberal standards. lol


i just had to share this video of korn

more like he gave sci fi writers

a way to push their plot lines further. For instance where would star wars, or x-men, or Jurassic park be without evolution?

Chinese are just a variation

Chinese are just a variation of pre-existing genes in the human gene pool. nothing new was created. stuff was stirred . where did the civilization come from? read on line book the two babylons. One of the few books ive read through 5 times. then pick up a copy of the man who built th great pyramid.

curious, if I asked you about race...

how many would you say existed?
just curious, 3? 4? or a gazzillion?


There is only one race - the Bibles speaks of tongues, tribes and nations. Nowhere does it mention race. We all came from one man, Adam.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

read The Case Against Darwin by James Perloff

When I read it, it didn't turn me into a bible thumping convert, but it did make me realize, yet once again, how screwed I got by the public education system.

the fuller version of his research is in Tornado in a Junkyard

Tornado in a Junkyard is more quintessentially Perloff. It has copious amounts of research and reveals more of his Christian views.

Good Book

Some arguments like the one on dragons are pretty sketchy. But overall pretty good.

I like the one on Piltdown man. What a scam that was. Those poor people getting their PHD's on the study of piltdown man went all for not. They probably sitll taught it anyway lol.


Polarizing topic

There is no way in hell a devout Aetheist is going to be converted here or vice-versa.

I do think though that this issue is black and white and not a gray area. There either is a God or isn't, I see no room for manuevering here lol




Just to add to the discussion

Many people are now thinking Darwin was wrong. One of the groups are now leaning more towards Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who preceded Darwin.
Neither understood the complex mechanisms their theory replied up. Instead of mutation Lamarck suggested use lead to newer traits. The classic example is the giraffe neck. By stretching the neck became longer.
Sound absurd? Not really. DNA that was once seen as junk is now being understood. Some of that DNA is triggered by use and environmental feed back mechanisms.


did you hear that? I know that the general understanding of "junk DNA" is starting to change. I think that the consensus about the vast majority of human DNA being "junk DNA" with no function or purpose will be proven wrong during our lifetimes.

However, this is the first time I am hearing anybody say that there is DNA which is "triggered" by environmental and use mechanisms. I am curious as to where you heard this and what specifically you mean by the word "triggered."

This would be fascinating if you are right but i have a feeling that the evidence for what you are referring to will be lacking.

Genes get triggered by environment, yes, is it Lamarkian, no.

You will find that kittens, born blind, need the environmental daylight stimuli to activate genes that cascade the process to grow the optical nerve to the back of the brain. Without that environmental stimuli in the first few weeks, that is the kittens are made to live in total darkness for 10 weeks or so, they will never gain their eyesight and will grow to adult cat-hood but will be blind for life.

Read the books by libertarian evolutionist Matt Ridley, the RED QUEEN for example.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

So all these winkie enlargement products I use...

might show results in my offspring!

Seriously though, that's the first explanation of a Lamarkian mechanism I've seen that makes any potential sense. What tests have been done to demonstrate that dormant DNA is triggered by use?

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

so insane

Darwin in his 6th edition of "Origin" repudiated his own theory for Lamarckism. Mendel proves Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a joke.

A lady with one leg does not pass DNA of one leg to her kid. Its all in the code.

"Some of that DNA is triggered by use and environmental feed back mechanisms." so . . . Does that mean a person who commits homosexual acts takes on homosexual traits? Does he pass off Homosexual DNA to his children?

It not only sounds absurd . . . it is absurd.

Next your going to tell me humans were never meant to be monogamous and should expect to change partners every 7 years like monkeys . . . a kinda 7 year itch thing.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

Well, since you mention it,

there are some recent studies that claim to show women are attracted to wilder, more dangerous-looking men for they're aggressive survival genes when they're ovulating but look for a softer gentler man to parent their children. I'm not saying I like it.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


I meant "THEIR aggressive survival genes" :-[

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


I have heard this also but when they are a week before their period. the other 3 weeks they seek the push over. lol

..just have to figure out the timing lol


I havent shaved for 3 weeks

Haven't cut hair for 4 months. That means I am a babe magnet 5 days out of the month. Move over Julian Assange, Carpavel is on the hunt.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

Women want Russel Brand for

Women want Russel Brand for mating, and Anderson Cooper for child care.

How can Science kill Imagination?

Science doesn't kill Science Fiction so how can it kill religion?

Even if some day while traveling through space we find out there are many other big bangs and the universe never ends it will not change the fact that people can imagine whatever they want about religion. It is part of being human.

A day is a day is a day

This is a bit long, but it should settle the issue.

The word "day" in its singular and plural forms is used about 2300 times in the Old Testament. Why is it that the only time its meaning is questioned is in the first chapter of Genesis? Why is the only time that people want to make it mean thousands or millions or even billions of years is in Genesis? Why aren't other instances of the word "day" interpreted as long periods of time in other passages? Why don't we hear people questioning the meaning of the word "day" in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, etc.?

For example, the Bible tells us that Joshua marched around Jericho for six days. Why does no one wonder if he marched around the city for six billion years? Why does no one ask if Jonah spent three thousand years in the belly of the great fish? When we are told to work for six days, and rest for one, where are the Bible scholars that tell us that our workweek is supposed to be six million years long, and a rest for one million years? Nowhere to be found, are they? Why only Genesis?

Obviously, there are words that can have more than one meaning, so how do we determine their meaning? Simple - the context. For instance, Ken Ham (he's from Australia) often uses this example for the famous word "day":

"Back in my father's day, it took 10 days to drive across the Australian Outback during the day."

The word "day" is used there three times, and each use has a different meaning. The first "day" means time, the second one means a 24-hour day, and the third means the daylight portion of a day. The Bible uses the word the same way, and the context will tell you its meaning. Why is it that we apply common sense everywhere except Genesis?

In Genesis, the plain reading of the text is obvious: the word day means a plain old, regular, literal, 24-hour, one revolution on the Earth's axis, day. This is further proved by three other facts:

First, as I've previously stated, Exodus 20:9-11 tells us clearly that the days of Genesis One are plain old, regular, literal, 24-hour days. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you."


"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

That is why we have a seven-day week. All of our other calendar measurements of time come from the sun, earth and moon. A day is one revolution of the earth on its axis. A month is one orbit of the moon around the earth. A year is one orbit of the earth around the sun. But why is a week seven days instead of three or nine or twelve and a half? Because it is an acknowledgment of God's creation in Genesis.

Second, by the usage of the Hebrew word "yom" (or yowm) - "day" - in the rest of the OT. In the OT, outside of Genesis chapter one, the word day (singular or plural) is used 410 times with a number, and it always means an ordinary day. Whenever the phrase "evening and morning" is used without the word day (38 times), it always means an ordinary day. Whenever the words evening or morning are used by themselves with the word day (23 times each), it always means an ordinary day. Whenever the word night is used with day (52 times), it always means an ordinary day.

Now let's look at Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

What do we have? Day and night, evening, morning, number, day.

Genesis 1:8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

What do we have? Evening, morning, number, day.

Genesis 1:13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

What do we have? Evening, morning, number, day.

Genesis 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

What do we have? Evening, morning, number, day.

Genesis 1:23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

What do we have? Evening, morning, number, day.

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

What do we have? Evening, morning, number, day.

Go back and look at verse 5. First, we have night and day. What are we being told? It's an ordinary day. Then we have evening. In case you didn't get it right, it's an ordinary day. Then we have morning. In case you're a little thick, it's really an ordinary day. Then what? A number. In case you are severely intellectually challenged, it's an ordinary day. How else could you tell someone it's an ordinary day? So what does "day" mean in Genesis One? "I'll take the Blatantly Obvious for 500, Alex."

Third, the plural form yammim (days), never bears any other sense in Scripture than that of ordinary days, as per Exodus 20:11, quoted earlier. The bottom line is that the days of Genesis are plain old ordinary days. A day is a day is a day. Like the rest of the Bible, you don't have to believe that. But don't try to make the text say something that it doesn't.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

OK, you win.

Just don't read this:

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Winning isn't the goal

Well, the purpose here is not to "win" – it is to get at the truth. However, since you didn't address anything I said, let alone attempt to refute it, I'll take that as a concession. And I'll take everything else you wrote as diversion, since the language is irrelevant. Whether Hebrew, English or Swahili, the days of Genesis are ordinary days.

And I addressed the Sumerian/Babylonian nonsense elsewhere, too. A bogus argument if there ever was one. Thanks for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

The Bible is like the Fed.

Doesn't need to be accountable to anyone else. And it's so simple even I can understand it. If it says it, I believe it. How am I doing?

The bogus argument about Sumerian/Babylonian nonsense. Boy, ya got me there. Didn't see your post on that but I bet it's good. Merry Christmas, Spock.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

What does any of this have to do with

What does any of this have to do with the time before Jews or whatever they called themselves before their time with the Egyptians?

Human history goes way back before any of these known religions of today.

Not any recorded history

That is the problem. If human kind has been here for millions of years then where are the records of such. They don't exist. Civilization only goes back to the time of the Sumaritians. It appears suddenly with law and writing already in place.

If anything had existed before this it has yet to be found.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights