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

[Derek Meyer]

I would recommend this excellent new DVD by creation-believing Christian scientists. You can view a trailer here.
If you're into astronomy/cosmology, I would also recommend these three Bible-honouring resources. And yes, I realise that cosmology isn't really about evolution in the usual meaning of the word,...

The OP was specifically about the theory of evolution, which is a biological theory on how species come about. Nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I would recommend this excellent new DVD by creation-believing Christian scientists. You can view a trailer here.

This one was funny.

"The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by 9 Ph.D. scientists.'
Exclusively by nine PhD scientists, hey? That really must must be flabbergasting for and to all the knowledge humanity accumulated over the last 500 years by literally hundreds of thousands of scientists!

 

[Not_By_Chance]

THanks but no thanks, NotByChance. I see no scientific or theological validity in creation-science material.

That's your choice, but it was aimed at the original poster, who may not have such a closed mind.

Happening by chance is not possible. However, it didn't happen "by chance", that's what natural selection is about. A NON-random selection method. Anyone who thinks evolutionary theory teaches anything happening "by chance" hasn't understood the theory.

Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment. The chance parts come into this when you consider where the best bits came from, which I understand to be mutations. Are you telling me that mutations aren't really a random/chance process?

Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

See above.

The OP was specifically about the theory of evolution, which is a biological theory on how species come about. Nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology.

I did state that if you look at what I said. I simply added the astronomy/cosmology bit because that has a direct connection with God and for someone who seems to be interested in the biology part of the story (what I would say, the myth of macro-evolution), I felt that they might also be interested to find out what other fairy stories are being put out in the name of science.

This one was funny.

"The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by 9 Ph.D. scientists.'
Exclusively by nine PhD scientists, hey? That really must must be flabbergasting for and to all the knowledge humanity accumulated over the last 500 years by literally hundreds of thousands of scientists!

Have you seen the DVD? If not, perhaps you should. You may find it quite enlightening.

 

[Derek Meyer]

That's your choice, but it was aimed at the original poster, who may not have such a closed mind.


Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment. The chance parts come into this when you consider where the best bits came from, which I understand to be mutations. Are you telling me that mutations aren't really a random/chance process?
See above.I did state that if you look at what I said. I simply added the astronomy/cosmology bit because that has a direct connection with God and for someone who seems to be interested in the biology part of the story (what I would say, the myth of macro-evolution), I felt that they might also be interested to find out what other fairy stories are being put out in the name of science.


Have you seen the DVD? If not, perhaps you should. You may find it quite enlightening.

Actually scientific publications would be the way to go. Creationist pseudo-science on videos is laughable in science. Seen a few creationist videos before. They always tell untruths. About everything.

 

[46AND2]

That's your choice, but it was aimed at the original poster, who may not have such a closed mind.


Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment. The chance parts come into this when you consider where the best bits came from, which I understand to be mutations. Are you telling me that mutations aren't really a random/chance process?


See above.


I did state that if you look at what I said. I simply added the astronomy/cosmology bit because that has a direct connection with God and for someone who seems to be interested in the biology part of the story (what I would say, the myth of macro-evolution), I felt that they might also be interested to find out what other fairy stories are being put out in the name of science.


Have you seen the DVD? If not, perhaps you should. You may find it quite enlightening.

Mutations are random. Evolution is not.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Have you seen the DVD? If not, perhaps you should. You may find it quite enlightening.

It's not going to change the fact that all those exploration and mining companies don't use anything but old earth models to do their jobs in finding and exploiting minerals... old earth models work.

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually scientific publications would be the way to go.

No, it's the scientific data that tells the story, not a naturalistic presupposition.

Creationist pseudo-science on videos is laughable in science.

How would you know?
You obviously have no idea.
Iĺl give you that there's ambiguous stuff out there too though, but so it Piltdown man and many other forgeries.
So we should go where the evidence leads.
Guess where it leads.
Get a clue.

Seen a few creationist videos before. They always tell untruths. About everything.

That's just ignorant denial.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not going to change the fact that all those exploration and mining companies would start using anything but old earth models to do their jobs... old earth models work for them.

I think they just dig and follow strata.
Has nothing to do with how the strata got there.
So it's a strawman...

 

[46AND2]

No, it's the scientific data that tells the story, not a naturalistic presupposition.How would you know?
You obviously have no idea.
Iĺl give you that there's ambiguous stuff out there too though, but so it Piltdown man and many other forgeries.
So we should go where the evidence leads.
Guess where it leads.
Get a clue.That's just ignorant denial.

Many other forgeries? Name ONE from the last 50 years, that was accepted as legit by the scientific community, then found to be fake. Just one. In fifty years. Shouldn't be tough, right?

 

[Hieronymus]

That's your choice, but it was aimed at the original poster, who may not have such a closed mind.


Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment.

Obviously, yes.
Mutations that survive anyhow are the cause of hereditary diseases.

 

[JoeP222w]

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!

That to date, there has been no evidence of Evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

This one was funny.

"The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by 9 Ph.D. scientists.'
Exclusively by nine PhD scientists, hey? That really must must be flabbergasting for and to all the knowledge humanity accumulated over the last 500 years by literally hundreds of thousands of scientists!

Scoffing, no valid arguments.

 

[Hieronymus]

The OP was specifically about the theory of evolution, which is a biological theory on how species come about. Nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology.

That depends on which evolutionary theory you mean.
The general theory, or the Darwinist one.
But, ToE is the term used for Darwinism.

 

[46AND2]

No, it's the scientific data that tells the story, not a naturalistic presupposition.How would you know?
You obviously have no idea.
Iĺl give you that there's ambiguous stuff out there too though, but so it Piltdown man and many other forgeries.
So we should go where the evidence leads.
Guess where it leads.
Get a clue.That's just ignorant denial.

By the way, you know that there are forged passages in the Bible which have never been removed, right?

 

[Hieronymus]

By the way, you know that there are forged passages in the Bible which have never been removed, right?

What have they told you this time then?
Got evidence to support it?

 

[Hieronymus]

Many other forgeries? Name ONE from the last 50 years, that was accepted as legit by the scientific community, then found to be fake. Just one. In fifty years.

Lucy is one of them.

Shouldn't be tough, right?

You should have known this yourself, since you're so interested in the subject.
O wait, you only hear one side somehow...
Then a discussion is quite useless...

 

[46AND2]

What have they told you this time then?
Got evidence to support it?

Funny thing is that the "they" you speak of relating to what has been told to me, are Christian Biblical scholars. There's even a term for it: interpolations. And yes, there is a ton of evidence for it. Here is a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

Some verses have been removed from some Bible translations, and remain in others. Some translations do not remove any of them at all.

 

[46AND2]

Lucy is one of them.You should have known this yourself, since you're so interested in the subject.
O wait, you only hear one side somehow...
Then a discussion is quite useless...

Lucy is not a forgery. Care to try again?

 

[Jimmy D]

Lucy is one of them.You should have known this yourself, since you're so interested in the subject.
O wait, you only hear one side somehow...
Then a discussion is quite useless...

Sigh. We discussed Lucy extensively a week or two ago. Please show how Lucy is a fraud or retract your claim.

Edit: Actually don't bother, you've just demonstrated that you are the one trying to deceive people by saying things like that when you know it's untrue. Do you not remember this thread?

 

[Armoured]

Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment. The chance parts come into this when you consider where the best bits came from, which I understand to be mutations. Are you telling me that mutations aren't really a random/chance process?

Mutations are, more or less, random chance. Mutations are nothing special though. Every generation has mutations from its progenitors. The selection of them is not random. Sometimes natural selection removes non-beneficial traits, sometimes it adds beneficial ones. But the selection is not random, and to insist on talking of evolution in such terms means someone hasn't understood it.