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

[Armoured]

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

Um, how? Evolution makes no claims about the miraculous.

 

[Tree of Life]

Um, how? Evolution makes no claims about the miraculous.

You guys don't seem to understand the meaning of naturalism as it relates to evolution.

 

[Armoured]

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.

I fully believe in the resurrection. It doesn't for a second lead me to doubt "naturalistic" evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

You guys don't seem to understand the meaning of naturalism as it relates to evolution.

You don't seem to understand, what the actual theory of evolution states.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You guys don't seem to understand the meaning of naturalism as it relates to evolution.

We understand that it doesn't relate to evolution.

When you can show that any part of evolution has been God-directed, please show it.

 

[Armoured]

You guys don't seem to understand the meaning of naturalism as it relates to evolution.

Well since you're the one using the term, how about you explain it to us?

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

So how does it feel?

Present your arguments or just shut up.

Then iḿ going to explain why it is foolish to compare gravity with evolution.

Evolution is said to be the cause of speciation, this is said to have happened in the distant past.
It is not supported by evidence. It is a well established fact in biology that organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment, but there is no evidence in support of changing into a new kind of organism, adapting the DNA code to implement new features, which were previously not present in the DNA code.
In short: no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.
The fossils don't support it either, even though they have us believe they do support it.

Gravity is an every day reality, a force that can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, you can calculate it, it is also a premise for life on earth by the way.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well since you're the one using the term, how about you explain it to us?

"Naturalistic evolution" refers to a philosophical set of assumptions that include:

1. ToE is true
2. Naturalism is true

You know what evolution is so I won't bother saying more about that here. "Naturalism" is the philosophical position that only natural forces are at work in the world and there are no supernatural beings or forces.

So while the resurrection does not challenge evolution by itself, it does certainly challenge naturalism. And if it challenges naturalism then it also challenges Naturalistic Evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

So how does it feel?

Then iḿ going to explain why it is foolish to compare gravity with evolution.

Evolution is said to be the cause of speciation, this is said to have happened in the distant past.
It is not supported by evidence. It is a well established fact in biology that organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment, but there is no evidence in support of changing into a new kind of organism, adapting the DNA code to implement new features, which were previously not present in the DNA code.
In short: no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.
The fossils don't support it either, even though they have us believe they do support it.

Gravity is an every day reality, a force that can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, you can calculate it, it is also a premise for life on earth by the way.

Could you explain, how scientists all agree, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger over the 150 years the theory has been around?

Are they all just stupid? Do you know something all these scientists are just missing?

Is it just a giant conspiracy, including thousands of scientists around the world?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

So how does it feel?

Then iḿ going to explain why it is foolish to compare gravity with evolution.

Evolution is said to be the cause of speciation, this is said to have happened in the distant past.
It is not supported by evidence. It is a well established fact in biology that organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment, but there is no evidence in support of changing into a new kind of organism, adapting the DNA code to implement new features, which were previously not present in the DNA code.
In short: no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.
The fossils don't support it either, even though they have us believe they do support it.

All of which goes to show that you don't have the scantest actual understanding of the Theory of Evolution or of the evidence which supports it. In short, everything you just said is demonstrably incorrect.

Gravity is an every day reality, a force that can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, you can calculate it, it is also a premise for life on earth by the way.

Evolution is also an everyday reality, and it can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, and calculated. It is a premise for all current life on earth, by the way. Evolution is also the backbone of all modern medicine.

 

[Hieronymus]

When you can show that any part of evolution has been God-directed, please show it.

Impossible, because then you'll have to be able to show evolution (or at least compelling evidence).

 

[bhsmte]

"Naturalistic evolution" refers to a philosophical set of assumptions that include:

1. ToE is true
2. Naturalism is true

You know what evolution is so I won't bother saying more about that here. "Naturalism" is the philosophical position that only natural forces are at work in the world and there are no supernatural beings or forces.

So while the resurrection does not challenge evolution by itself, it does certainly challenge naturalism. And if it challenges naturalism then it also challenges Naturalistic Evolution.

Why do you not want to discuss, the actual scientific theory of evolution?

 

[Armoured]

"Naturalistic evolution" refers to a philosophical set of assumptions that include:

1. ToE is true
2. Naturalism is true

You know what evolution is so I won't bother saying more about that here. "Naturalism" is the philosophical position that only natural forces are at work in the world and there are no supernatural beings or forces.

So while the resurrection does not challenge evolution by itself, it does certainly challenge naturalism. And if it challenges naturalism then it also challenges Naturalistic Evolution.

Ok. So you're basically arguing that The Resurrection proves false a philosophy that no one else in the thread was advocating or discussing. Well done. I'd also caution you against citing unverifiable or subjective beliefs as "proof" of anything, but that's a different discussion.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

"Naturalistic evolution" refers to a philosophical set of assumptions that include:

1. ToE is true
2. Naturalism is true

You know what evolution is so I won't bother saying more about that here. "Naturalism" is the philosophical position that only natural forces are at work in the world and there are no supernatural beings or forces.

So while the resurrection does not challenge evolution by itself, it does certainly challenge naturalism. And if it challenges naturalism then it also challenges Naturalistic Evolution.

Again, this is not a thread about naturalism. You're the only one discussing it.

 

[Tree of Life]

Ok. So you're basically arguing that The Resurrection proves false a philosophy that no one else in the thread was advocating or discussing. Well done. I'd also caution you against citing unverifiable or subjective beliefs as "proof" of anything, but that's a different discussion.

My main point in my original post was that Christians challenge evolution not so much because of scientific evidence but because of Scripture. And the most poignant way of referring to "Scripture" is to refer to the greatest historical event that Scripture puts forth - the resurrection.

 

[Armoured]

Why do you not want to discuss, the actual scientific theory of evolution?

Because strawmen are easier to take down.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Impossible, because then you'll have to be able to show evolution (or at least compelling evidence).

That won't be a problem.

 

[Armoured]

My main point in my original post was that Christians challenge evolution not so much because of scientific evidence but because of Scripture. And the most poignant way of referring to "Scripture" is to refer to the greatest historical event that Scripture puts forth - the resurrection.

I'm a Christian. I see no conflict between believing The Resurrection happened and believing evolution happened. One is a miracle, the other is a natural process. They really aren't related, unless you can explain an insight I'm missing?

Edit: believing in The Assumption doesn't make me doubt the existence of gravity.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm a Christian. I see no conflict between believing The Resurrection happened and believing evolution happened. One is a miracle, the other is a natural process. They really aren't related, unless you can explain an insight I'm missing?

I don't think that Scripture obliges Christians to reject evolution. But if a Christian does reject evolution it's likely because of Scripture and not because of some compelling science.

 

[Hieronymus]

All of which goes to show that you don't have the scantest actual understanding of the Theory of Evolution or of the evidence which supports it.

Hahaha, an atheist..

In short, everything you just said is demonstrably incorrect.

You demonstrate nothing.
But i take it you still don't acknowledge or recognise the fallacy of your comparison.
In fact, it seems you haven't really thought this stuff through at all.

Evolution is also an everyday reality, and it can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, and calculated. It is a premise for all current life on earth, by the way. Evolution is also the backbone of all modern medicine.

Yes, you'd make a good parrot...

Have a nice day.