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

[Chris B]

I thought I was being clear I was referring to absolutes. The problem is that there is no way to derive probabilities or partial logic if all reason remains suspect, so for this argument it has to be all or nothing, probability scales have the same problems only on a different level as well, down to the smallest axiom. Each statement would itself be nullified.

Yes, I had to let go of absolutes long ago,
but on probability I have lots of things I can treat as *provisional* absolutes, with no need to attempt a quantification of the level of shortfall from absolute certainty.
"Near-certainty" treated as "certainty" *for convenience* does very nicely for many day-to-day activities.
Forgetting that short-cut is there, when that difference is relevant or important, that can make for difficulties.

Each statement nullified? No. The uncertainty creeps in there too, as a bare minimum.

 

[Blastcat]

My wife has a webpage she found, just google "giant bones or skeletons discovered", and you'll get a lot of links...

I'm happy that your wife has found a webpage, saying that to us doesn't give us a source. Saying that I can look things up on the internet is also not giving us a source.

If I make a claim, I source it, or drop it. I don't say that others should look it up, or that my wife found a webpage. There are webpages for just about every crack pot idea imaginable. IF she has a real scientific source for your claim, just link us to it. You are making a claim about SCIENCE.... so I would expect a respected science source.

Otherwise, your claim is one of those ... unjustified claims I hear on the internet all too often. Apparently, Obama is a lizard king :

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/polling-theory-embarrassment-453096

Thank you.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I always thought that evolution has trouble explaining the existence of giants, giant human skeletons and bones were discovered, giants like are spoken about in the bible?

Admittedly, evolution does have a hard time explaining giant humans, but that's largely because there's no such thing as giant humans.

 

[Geralt]

that it is man-made and presumes to be 'definite & confident' in its 'theoretical' conclusions.

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!

 

[SepiaAndDust]

that it is man-made and presumes to be 'definite & confident' in its 'theoretical' conclusions.

Do you question the man-made theory of gravitation?

Don't know what you're referring to with 'definite & confident' and 'theoretical'.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

My wife has a webpage she found, just google "giant bones or skeletons discovered", and you'll get a lot of links...

If she researched any further, she'd discover this was an internet photo hoax.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton.html
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

 

[sfs]

Many political and religious groups have consensus, that however doesn't mean they are right. Even courts of law, and juries, can have consensus and still be wrong.

Of course ToE could be wrong; any theory could be wrong. The question posed in this thread, though, is whether there is any evidence that it is wrong. You haven't presented any.

I think you overstate the consensus too. I bet many scientists sit back and scratch their heads, wondering is certain things in ToE are true or false.

Many scientists wonder whether certain things in evolutionary theory are wrong, and undoubtedly there are many things wrong in current theory. There are very, very few scientists, though, who question whether evolution is a more or less accurate description of the actual history of life on this planet.

Consider past error found in ToE. The consensus should be instead that ToE is just a fallible theory and should never be taken out of the context.

Absolutely. More accurately, the consensus should be that it is a fallible theory with an enormous weight of evidence supporting its core ideas, and one that explains and predicts a vast range of data. Also, a theory that has zero competition for explaining the diversity of life.

 

[bhsmte]

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

If he stopped, what would he have left?

 

[Tree of Life]

The greatest piece of evidence against a wholesale, naturalistic conception of evolution is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[bhsmte]

The greatest piece of evidence against a wholesale, naturalistic conception of evolution is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why?

Also, demonstrate a resurrection took place.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

The greatest piece of evidence against a wholesale, naturalistic conception of evolution is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's also why we didn't land on the moon.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's also why we didn't land on the moon.

Explain.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why?

Let me just ask. If you became convinced that the resurrection of the Jesus found in the Gospels really took place would it make you reconsider naturalistic evolution?

Also, demonstrate a resurrection took place.

Not here. I'll pull that rabbit out of the hat in some other thread.

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you question the man-made theory of gravitation?

That's a really foolish comparison.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's also why we didn't land on the moon.

You don't think that the resurrection has any relevance to naturalism?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Explain.

Because Jesus came to Earth, not to the moon. So God never meant for us to go there. So we never went there.

Or something.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

That's a really foolish comparison.

Can't see how.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You don't think that the resurrection has any relevance to naturalism?

Nope. And I'll bet you can't prove that it does without sounding silly.

 

[Hieronymus]

Admittedly, evolution does have a hard time explaining giant humans, but that's largely because there's no such thing as giant humans.

Ignorance is bliss, they say, but i'm not jealous...

 

[Hieronymus]

Can't see how.

I was afraid so...
This means you're blinded.