What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[Neogaia777]

What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

What facts can it not explain?

Comments?

God Bless!

 

[jacknife]

What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

What facts can it not explain?

Comments?

God Bless!

Denial.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

What facts can it not explain?

Comments?

God Bless!

Depends on what you mean by the theory of evolution. If your looking at the theory of mistakes, errors and random events then the math does not support that aspect of the theory. Evolution does not work in a finite world, it could only work if the Universe were infinite and it is not. There is an end and a beginning. God knows the end from the beginning. Stephen Jay Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. From a evolutionary perspective changes happens to fast to be a product of any kind of a random process. Of course they argue that Evolution is selective but you have to have something to select. Science can only discuss the changes that take place once something already exists.

 

[Armoured]

Evolution does not work in a finite world, it could only work if the Universe were infinite

Citation?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Citation?

http://listverse.com/2013/02/22/10-mind-bending-implications-of-the-many-worlds-theory/

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://listverse.com/2013/02/22/10-mind-bending-implications-of-the-many-worlds-theory/

Your link does not support your claim.

Try again.

 

[Armoured]

Your link does not support your claim.

Try again.

So, ops normal, then. Good-o.

 

[Armoured]

http://listverse.com/2013/02/22/10-mind-bending-implications-of-the-many-worlds-theory/

You really need to stop doing that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You really need to stop doing that.

You want me to quit answering people questions? They they really get upset if I ignore them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your link does not support your claim.

Try again.

Yes it does, it amazes me that you do not see that. Of course the claim is that infinity is not possible.

 

[Armoured]

You want me to quit answering people questions? They they really get upset if I ignore them.

I want you to stop making wild claims, then citing evidence that has nothing to do with those claims for support.

 

[Armoured]

Yes it does, it amazes me that you do not see that. Of course the claim is that infinity is not possible.

The site you linked does not say that evolution requires an infinite universe.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The only real problem is Reason. If we assume that a brain arose that then started to ponder on the world, then Reason cannot definitively exist.
For if logical propositions are only the product of specific chemical processes in the brain, than if those processes were different, then that would be logical. There is then no way for us to ascertain if something follows something else at all, since reasoning is dependant on processes that might just as well have been different. What we consider 'reasonable' might just be a product of our biology and not on account of concepts actually being related or conclusions necessarily following our specific axioms or thought processes. (Often we see different people coming to vastly different conclusions with the same data set, which actually supports this)
In this way then, if we accept the evolutionary origin of consciousness and reason, then we must doubt the very reasoning which we had used to accept the evolutionary origin in the first place. This does not of course mean our reasoning is wrong nor that evolution does not occur, but it does make all human knowledge highly suspect, if nothing else.

 

[Armoured]

The only real problem is Reason. If we assume that a brain arose that then started to ponder on the world, then Reason cannot definitively exist.
For if logical propositions are only the product of specific chemical processes in the brain, than if those processes were different, then that would be logical. There is then no way for us to ascertain if something follows something else at all, since reasoning is dependant on processes that might just as well have been different. What we consider 'reasonable' might just be a product of our biology and not on account of concepts actually being related or conclusions necessarily following our specific axioms or thought processes. (Often we see different people coming to vastly different conclusions with the same data set, which actually supports this)
In this way then, if we accept the evolutionary origin of consciousness and reason, then we must doubt the very reasoning which we had used to accept the evolutionary origin in the first place. This does not of course mean our reasoning is wrong nor that evolution does not occur, but it does make all human knowledge highly suspect, if nothing else.

Congratulations, you just invented solopsistic postmodernism.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is simply not true, Joshua 19. Not all theories of evolution assume an infinite universe. I don't for example.

 

[SkyWriting]

What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

What facts can it not explain?

Comments?

God Bless!

... greatest evidence against the theory of evolution?

Evolution can happen at breakneck speeds over just a few generations.
(evidently the changes needed are not randomly acquired)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Congratulations, you just invented solopsistic postmodernism.

I invented nothing. I was paraphrasing CS Lewis and John Lennox and it is in line with Scolasticism from the Middle-Ages (in oppositional terms).
Also it isn't solopsistic, as in that view, even the self's existence is suspect.

 

[SkyWriting]

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

If evolution is a scientific reality exposed by unbiased researchers, why are they so often surprised?
Aren't scientists not supposed to be surprised by the findings in their data?
Doesn't this reveal that the theory is born out of bias?

If a scientist says "We were not surprised, this is what we expected" is that not also revealing
bias in their research or conclusions?

 

[SkyWriting]

What facts can it not explain?

What laws of science exist for life itself?
What causes life to reproduce itself?
Why does life want to exist?
What benefit does evolution of life provide to an environment?:How is the evolution of life beneficial to a particular environment?
How does simple life become complex?
What advantage is simple life over complex life?
Why did simple life evolve in the first place?
Why did the original simple life exist?
What is the advantage of complex life over simple life?

 

[Armoured]

I invented nothing.

Yes, I know. It's called sarcasm. Look it up.