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

[SepiaAndDust]

Hahaha, an atheist..

You're an atheist? Your tag says Christian....

If you picked the wrong faith tag, here is information on how to change it.

 

[Armoured]

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.

On this we agree.

Now, what you and others need to appreciate is that it will take a scientific reason to get the scientifically literate among us to question evolution. Citing "The Resurrection " won't.

 

[Tree of Life]

On this we agree.

Now, what you and others need to appreciate is that it will take a scientific reason to get the scientifically literate among us to question evolution. Citing "The Resurrection " won't.

I was trying to address the OP. He or she seemed to be interested in knowing why a Christian would reject evolution. That, at least, was what I perceived to be the question behind the question.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't really care about getting people to question evolution. The resurrection ought to make us consider the presence of God, death, and salvation.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I was trying to address the OP. He or she seemed to be interested in knowing why a Christian would reject evolution. That, at least, was what I perceived to be the question behind the question.

Ah, now I gotcha.

First law of holes--when you realize you're in one, stop digging.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't think that Scripture obliges Christians to reject evolution.

It leaves no other option.

But if a Christian does reject evolution it's likely because of Scripture and not because of some compelling science.

You assume this.
There are many people who believe in Genesis because of scientific the evidence that supports it.
'Mitochondrial Eve' for example.
Science still discovers more purposefulness in the universe (and in living nature in particular) that it's increasingly silly to ascribe these things to chance.
Here's my youtube playlist to get an idea of what they apparently hadn't yet told you.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
(it's various topics)

 

[Tree of Life]

Then you must have reading problems.

It's more likely that you have hermeneutical issues if you think that Scripture confines us to YEC or some such.

You assume this.
There are many people who believe in Genesis because of scientific the evidence that supports it.
'Mitochondrial Eve' for example.

I doubt this. More likely, people believe in Genesis first and then approach science with this assumption.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's more likely that you have hermeneutical issues if you think that Scripture confines us to YEC or some such.

You seem to let thoughts about YECs decide what hermeneutics to use...

Come on, it's even in the 4th Commandment, and it's referred to frequently, also by Jesus Christ our LORD.

I doubt this. More likely, people believe in Genesis first and then approach science with this assumption.

That's another assumption.

 

[Tree of Life]

You seem to let thoughts about YECs decide what hermeneutics to use...

Come on, it's even in the 4th Commandment, and it's referred to frequently, also by Jesus Christ our LORD.

I believe that the YEC position is warranted by Scripture. But I do not think it is the only position warranted by Scripture. And so, if I were a church officer, I would not require a particular position on this issue for church membership. Would you?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

There are many people who believe in Genesis because of scientific the evidence that supports it.
'Mitochondrial Eve' for example.

Genesis supports that one woman among many thousands of others lived in southeast Africa 150,000 years ago? That's not in my Bible....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you must have reading problems.You assume this.

The majority of Christians may disagree with you. Worldwide it appears that most Christians accept the fact that life is the product of evolution.

There are many people who believe in Genesis because of scientific the evidence that supports it.

Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence that supports that. But then most creationists do not understand the concept of scientific evidence.

'Mitochondrial Eve' for example.

Wrong, there were thousands of people at the time of Mitochondrial Eve.

Science still discovers more purposefulness in the universe (and in living nature in particular) that it's increasingly silly to ascribe these things to chance.

If you think that evolution is based upon chance then you do not understand evolution. So this would be a strawman argument on your part.

Here's my youtube playlist to get an idea of what they apparently hadn't yet told you.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
(it's various topics)

Sorry, but ultimately I rely on peer reviewed science. There are quite a few creationists that are willing to "lie for Jesus" so I don't put too much stock in them. Do you have any actual science that supports your claims? Not distorted science from bogus sources. I would hope that you would agree that a site that tells their workers that they cannot use the scientific method is not a scientific site.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Which again, has zero to do with the evidence for evolution.

Nice strawman though.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

It would typically be, because a Christian, will deny anything that contradicts their interpretation of scripture, no matter how compelling the evidence is.

Never fear, most Christians agree with evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Hahaha, an atheist..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.
Yes, you'd make a good parrot...

Have a nice day.

You demonstrate quite a bit, all on your own.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There are many people who believe in Genesis because of scientific the evidence that supports it.
'Mitochondrial Eve' for example.

You should read more about Mitochondrial Eve. Spoiler alert: It doesn't support the claim you are making.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

Oh, I think human reasoning is faulty enough to be able to assert it might as well be a product of evolution. Do you have reason to deny that? Can we trust you to have good reasoning to deny that?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Some aspects of the evolutionary theory could only work in a infinite universe and the universe is not infinite. . . . . .

I don't believe that. Please explain why you think this false idea is true. (Not the bit about the universe, I accept that the universe is likely finite)

 

[Hieronymus]

I believe that the YEC position is warranted by Scripture.

Alright.

But I do not think it is the only position warranted by Scripture. And so, if I were a church officer, I would not require a particular position on this issue for church membership. Would you?

I'm not sure what the boundaries or the exact premises are to be a member of the Body of Christ.
Maybe John 3:16 and repentance 'cover it', i would like to think a simple belief is what it takes.
The same point was raised also by a creationist here.

None the less, Genesis 1 to Genesis 8 (the ridiculed bits) is the foundation the rest is built on.
Of course Christians search for the evidence in reality.
As do naturalists. But naturalism has had a huge platform in the world.
Science is the new mandatory 'rational' religion.
But God is supernatural, so you can't expect the two to mix.
But guess what, the ever accumulating scientific data and evidence are tipping the scales back to creation again.
It is increasingly unreasonable to ascribe 'creation' to events restricted to the laws of nature.

It's a controversy...........

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

Why couldn't Christ be resurrected by a miracle of God . . . if evolution were true? There's no logic to this claim at all.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, it isn't, Sepia, and that's precisely why I believe the Bible was not intended to be an inerrant geophysical witness. Hence, it is abusing Scripture to pit it against science.