Re: Ray Martinez

On Jun 20, 5:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 11:10 am, "Devil's Advocaat" <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 20 Jun, 18:04, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipped for focus on falsehood]

I agree that evolution says that God is not involved.

[snipped for focus on falsehood]

How about you show all of us any citation referring to any genuine
website, article, book or other publication on the theory of evolution
that actually says "God is not involved".

Charles Darwin, "Autobiography" (1876-1882):

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which
formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of
natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that,
for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been
made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There
seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in
the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind
blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have
discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of
Domestic Animals and Plants,and the argument there given has never, as
far as I can see, been answered" (pages: 87-88).

Now here is what Darwin said in that 1868 work "Variation of Domestic
Animals and Plants." Darwin publicly rebukes Christian-evolutionist
Professor Asa Gray for suggesting that God is involved with natural
selection:

"However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray
in his belief 'that variation has been led along certain beneficial
lines,' like a stream 'along definite and useful lines of irrigation.'
If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of
all time preordained, the plasticity of organisation, which leads to
many injurious deviations of structure, as well as that redundant
power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for
existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival
of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the
other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything
and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a
difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and
predestination" (1868:432, 1st edition, Volume 2).

Darwin is saying natural selection is not needed if God is involved.
To accept the heresy of Gray is to render natural selection
superfluous. The whole point of natural selection is to say that
nature produces itself automatically. If God is involved then it is
not evolution, but Creationism. Anyone who believes that God is
INvolved with evolution is voicing a subjective and sourceless belief.
The fact that nearly all Atheists rabidly endorse evolution should
tell you that God is not involved. If God was involved with evolution
then Atheists would not be evolutionists.

This is not rocket science.

Christian evolutionists are fools and buffoons, kissing the ass of two
known Atheists: Darwin and Dawkins.

I can tell you for certain that the interpretation of evidence in
favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection,
that is, the alleged main mechanism causing evolutionary change, does
not exist.

Which assumption of the process of natural selection is wrong, Ray?
Do you have evidence that mutations do not occur? That change in DNA
does not occur? Evidence that genetic variation is not ultimately due
to mutation? That the reproductive success of mutational variation is
unaffected by the environment? That the environment is not
"natural". That all "natural" selection is teleologically foretold?
That mutation is teleologically foretold? That all mutations and
variations are always deleterious in all environments? Curious minds
want to know why "natural selection... does not exist".

Darwin was a lunatic and a moron, like all Atheist
evolutionists. Gray is even a worse moron, kissing Darwin's ass by
promoting his book in America then getting a public slap in the face
in return.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its ... Evolution is a random process, ... Natural selection works as a filter for random genetic variation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is atheism merely the Church in drag?
    ... natural selection, so right out of the box we have a move from more ... "evolution" I was referring in that context to the evolution of living ... to what drives evolution. ... want to believe that "God" created them because you can't fathom their ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: guppies, finches, and moths
    ... It's still evolution. ... just natural variation, which can't be avoided as long as mutation ... moths, finches, and guppies to argue that natural selection (at the macro ... We already know that speciation happens from a raft of evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Few Simple Questions
    ... but claim that each species is separately created. ... Since God is directly INvolved ... How is this different from theistic evolution? ... INvolved with natural selection Darwin rebuked him publicly in 1868 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... natural selection has been discovered. ... Professor Asa Gray for suggesting that God is involved with natural ... not evolution, but Creationism. ... Using a spark plug socket, ...
    (talk.origins)