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

[Tree of Life]

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

Perhaps I'm just simple minded but it would seem to me that if a man claimed to come from God, claimed that he would die and then rise again, and then died and rose again then this would challenge the idea that there is no God who interacts with the natural world. Is that silly?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

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

Okie dokie, then.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

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

Meh, you've got nothing.

Step up or shut up.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Perhaps I'm just simple minded but it would seem to me that if a man claimed to come from God, claimed that he would die and then rise again, and then died and rose again then this would challenge the idea that there is no God who interacts with the natural world. Is that silly?

Evolution says nothing whatsoever about God, God's existence, or God's feelings about the natural world. Whoever told you otherwise lied to you.

 

[Tree of Life]

Evolution says nothing whatsoever about God, God's existence, or God's feelings about the natural world. Whoever told you otherwise lied to you.

You should note that I did not say that the resurrection of Jesus challenges evolution as such. Rather, it challenges (as I said) "the wholesale naturalistic conception of evolution" which would include the assumption that there is no God who interacts with the natural world.

 

[Hieronymus]

Meh, you've got nothing.

It is you who misses something.
Comparing gravity to evolution...
COME ON !

Step up or shut up.

Tough guy.

You want me to spoon feed you, or will you make a little effort with the braincells yourself?

 

[bhsmte]

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?

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

Would the mountains of evidence to support evolution disappear, because of a resurrection? I follow the evidence, so the answer is no.

Ok, keep the rabbit to yourself, if need be.

 

[bhsmte]

You should note that I did not say that the resurrection of Jesus challenges evolution as such. Rather, it challenges (as I said) "the wholesale naturalistic conception of evolution" which would include the assumption that there is no God who interacts with the natural world.

Where does evolution assume there is no God?

 

[bhsmte]

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

Ignorance of what?

 

[Tree of Life]

Where does evolution assume there is no God?

Naturalistic evolution assumes that no gods interact with the world.

 

[Hieronymus]

Ignorance of what?

Exactly, bhsmte.

 

[bhsmte]

Naturalistic evolution assumes that no gods interact with the world.

Tell me, does the actual theory of evolution, state there is no God?

 

[Hieronymus]

Naturalistic evolution assumes that no gods interact with the world.

...and never has...

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly, bhsmte.

You don't like details, do you?

 

[Tree of Life]

Tell me, does the actual theory of evolution, state there is no God?

Evolution as such does not. But I've always explicitly been referring to "the wholesale naturalistic conception of evolution".

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution as such does not. But I've always explicitly been referring to "the wholesale naturalistic conception of evolution".

I tend to like the actual scientific theory myself.

When the scientific theory is adjusted to say; there is no God, please let us know.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

It is you who misses something.
Comparing gravity to evolution...
COME ON !
Tough guy.

You want me to spoon feed you, or will you make a little effort with the braincells yourself?

All I've seen you do so far on this board is spout quips and make fun of people for not understanding what you're talking about.

Present your arguments or just shut up.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You should note that I did not say that the resurrection of Jesus challenges evolution as such. Rather, it challenges (as I said) "the wholesale naturalistic conception of evolution" which would include the assumption that there is no God who interacts with the natural world.

The evidence is what it is--nothing points to God having interacted in any way with evolution, so a God who interacts with the world is not relevant.

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence is what it is--nothing points to God having interacted in any way with naturalistic evolution, so a God who interacts with the world is not relevant.

And the fact you demonstrate above, just irks some folks to no end.

 

[sfs]

Evolution as such does not. But I've always explicitly been referring to "the wholesale naturalistic conception of evolution".

Then you seem to have posted in the wrong thread, since this thread is about evidence against the theory of evolution, not a philosophical concept of evolution.