Christian Doctrine of Omnipresence to Blame for the Triumph of Darwinism

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Olivianus, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Seven problems with Natural selection:

    1. Darwin himself admitted to the existence of God as a possible cause for homology, even after formulating his theory of natural selection. That is affirming the consequent.

    2. Hodge points out the cherry picking and ad hoc fallacies regarding the role the creator could possibly play in the Darwinian theory. Darwinists will often make the argument that accusing Darwinism of necessary atheism is a straw man. Hodge responds,

    “If you admit the intervention of creative power at one point, you may as well admit it in any other. If life owes its origin to creative power, why not species?” (What is Darwinism, pg. 164)

    3. A metaphysical entity is really behind Natural selection. Herbert Spencer admitted it.

    4. This is proved again by the use of passive voice in all definitions of natural selection.

    5. The problem of altruism and virtue signaling. For 50 years the western nations have been doing everything they can to annihilate their genes. So obviously what survives a people is not evolution or natural selection.

    6. Supposedly variations occur randomly yet white countries and only white countries have all simultaneously failed in the struggle for life. So much for random variation.

    7. The problem of the object of the selection is arbitrary: whether it is an individual, a ethnic group, or in Dawkins’ case a gene and these objects are philosophically selected among biologists.
     
  2. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You don't know your history. Galton specifically refuted the idea that the process of evolution is a slow one with his Filial Regression.
    Galton in his principle of filial regression refuted the idea that evolution happened by minute steps over long periods of time, thus, the Darwinists would appeal to Mendel and then to Hugo de Vries discovering genetic mutation in 1903 as a basis for leaps in evolution not slow processes.
     
  3. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Absolutely you do in order get life in the first place. That is why later Darwinists had to appeal to the meteors coming from outer space and then some later appeal to aliens, what a joke.

    The Heliocentric idea of outer space is baseless ad hoc nonsense. There is no evidence a vacuum can be juxtaposed to an atmosphere.

    The clearest evidence that the ISS footage is fake augmented reality is "NASA Space Station Crew Discusses Life in Space with Idaho Students and Educators" 18:17 et. al."
     
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll throw this out there, another possibility is that what appears to be speciation could actually be evidence of design variation and modification on the same theme.
    Think about it. That is how engineering works. What if someone from the distant future were to look at a scrapyard full of cars? It might almost look like an older simpler design had morphed into different variations.
     
  5. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, so this is a flat earth thing?

    There are several theories of the origin of life, panspermia is just one. The point still is that either a god is responsible for everything, or it doesn't exist.
     
  6. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,764
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Galton said those things in the context of selective breeding by humans. Selective breeding doesn't cause new species. It causes different characteristics in the same species. My history is just fine, thank you.
     
  7. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,764
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Believe what you like. There simply is no competing theory with scientific evidence and acceptance.
     
  8. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,764
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course they are.
     
  9. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I just finished reading through this section in his book Natural Inheritance. He deals with the issue on pages 32-34. He says nothing of selective breeding.

    https://archive.org/stream/naturalinherita03galtgoog#page/n50/mode/1up

    Document your argument.
     
  10. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No they aren't. The official definition of species given by Ernst Mayr which can be seen in any modern textbook reads:

    "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

    Bacteria and viruses reproduce asexually eliminating them from this definition.
     

Share This Page