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

[Chris B]

Yes, the uncertainty creeps in if you accept no absolute. Which undermines the very existence of Naturalistic Materialism as a worldview as it is based on the acceptance of Reason alone.
.

Yes, but in my understanding only as a *provisional* absolute.
"The best we have, for now, on the evidence of how well it works. Including, so far a good number of things that seemed to threatened to unseat it."

If you accept Naturalism as true however, then everything is nullified.

I disagree. All that goes is an idea of absolute except as an abstract or virtual projection extrapolated from the less-than-absolute. Now that actually has a place even so, as a comparative reference point, even if unobtainable.
Hence the difference between Justice (absolute, perfect and what happens in courts of law.

Something similar is there in Platonic idealism.
There is no perfect or ideal table that actually exists, and a flawed but real one is far more actual use.

This goes a fair way to explain why I think Truth and Reality can only be approached asymptotically.
We get better approximations as things that don't fit are ruled out
It's the subtractive progress of a sculptor.

If you admit they are not absolutes, as you do, then philosophically speaking Naturalistic Materialism remains untenable or at least unsupported as its whole viewpoint is grounded on an absolute reason existing..

I don't think it is, but it doesn't surprise me that some make that error, or consider that this provisional or assumed truth has done well enough in practice that it can safely be promoted to an absolute (and grounding) certainty.
An error, but mostly not a disastrous one, so it persists.
(You could sell some of these people a bottle of universal solvent.)

...to gather trustworthy evidence and come to conclusions based on that is therefore bunk, as all evidence gathered must be doubted on grounds that no sense data can be trusted, on top of faulty reason, and this applies in every step ...

Yes, if you insist on staying "black and white or nothing", which has a very limited range of circumstances which it truly (absolutely) fits.

[/QUOTE]A repeatable falsifiable logical sequence, required for scientific method, needs Reason to be held universal if the data supports it, [/QUOTE]
Yes, that is taken as a provision , or an axiom, good unless evidence comes in which requires it be rejected.
Rabbit fossils in precambrian rocks would do for the grounding ideas of evolution, a planet with an octagonal orbit would do in something in established physics pretty nicely... and so on.
I don't think there are any absolutes so absolutely certain (beyond constructed synthetics within their prescribed domains)
that they can be considered more than "so far, unshakable".
Stating that technical uncertainty does make for long-winded speaking and writing, though, so it tends to get dropped after a while. The error hardens when it's absence is taken for real, not for the linguistic short cut that it is.

Without absolutes the edifice crumbles

Nah. It becomes a little uncertain ("it's probably quantum" if nothing else) and also becomes liable to a major paradigm shift, should a better one appear, or be forced into existence by data the older model cannot swallow.
The whole quantum universe started to be revealed, I understand, with a little problem in theoretical physics: the ultraviolet catastrophe, the "catastrophe" being an equation that half-worked very well and then went spectacularly wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

are getting off the topic, Tree of Life. The issue here is not miracles.

Yes it is.
Or if you prefer antoher term, like 'supernatural', that's EXACTLY what the issue is, because there's not a chance in hell for these things to happen by themselves.
Also, God is supernatural, by definition.

 

[Hieronymus]

Hello all.

The hard evidence against any ideology and whatever that ideology may be,
for example be it evolution, capitalism, democracy, e.t.c. All these ideologies
in the end are just useless ideas. Speak to me about the revelation of the Christ
and you will have my full attention, the Christ had no time for the latest ideas.

But if Genesis is not true, why would you even believe the rest?
It implies Jesus lied too.

 

[Armoured]

But if Genesis is not true, why would you even believe the rest?
It implies Jesus lied too.

Only a problem if you insist Genesis is the literal word of God, and it pretty clearly isn't.

 

[Armoured]

Yes it is.
there's not a chance in hell for these things to happen by themselves.

Prove it.

 

[Hieronymus]

What claims? That using youtube videos are not a valid debating tool?

When you're unfamilliar with things, lectures and documentaries, just as text of pdf files, are there to fill you in, to inform and teach you.
The fact that it may be on youtube has nothing to do with it, your argument is invalid.
You pleed ignorance without an excuse.

 

[Hieronymus]

Only a problem if you insist Genesis is the literal word of God, and it pretty clearly isn't.

You mean you don't believe it.

 

[Armoured]

You mean you don't believe it.

I mean there's no reason to think it is, and plenty of reasons to think it's not.

 

[Hieronymus]

Prove it.

Try to get a clue.
Browse this:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W

 

[Hieronymus]

I mean there's no reason to think it is,

denial.

and plenty of reasons to think it's not.

bluff..
Iḿ sorry, Armoured, but you're being disingenuous in your attitude towards the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W

 

[Hieronymus]

So if Dawkins / Hawking are against an infinite number of possibilities than what model do they use instead?

The model without God.

 

[Hieronymus]

refute your point.

You mean refuse, not refute.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, but in my understanding only as a *provisional* absolute.
"The best we have, for now, on the evidence of how well it works. Including, so far a good number of things that seemed to threatened to unseat it."



I disagree. All that goes is an idea of absolute except as an abstract or virtual projection extrapolated from the less-than-absolute. Now that actually has a place even so, as a comparative reference point, even if unobtainable.
Hence the difference between Justice (absolute, perfect and what happens in courts of law.

Something similar is there in Platonic idealism.
There is no perfect or ideal table that actually exists, and a flawed but real one is far more actual use.

This goes a fair way to explain why I think Truth and Reality can only be approached asymptotically.
We get better approximations as things that don't fit are ruled out
It's the subtractive progress of a sculptor.


I don't think it is, but it doesn't surprise me that some make that error, or consider that this provisional or assumed truth has done well enough in practice that it can safely be promoted to an absolute (and grounding) certainty.
An error, but mostly not a disastrous one, so it persists.
(You could sell some of these people a bottle of universal solvent.)

Yes, if you insist on staying "black and white or nothing", which has a very limited range of circumstances which it truly (absolutely) fits.

Yes, that is taken as a provision , or an axiom, good unless evidence comes in which requires it be rejected.
Rabbit fossils in precambrian rocks would do for the grounding ideas of evolution, a planet with an octagonal orbit would do in something in established physics pretty nicely... and so on.
I don't think there are any absolutes so absolutely certain (beyond constructed synthetics within their prescribed domains)
that they can be considered more than "so far, unshakable".
Stating that technical uncertainty does make for long-winded speaking and writing, though, so it tends to get dropped after a while. The error hardens when it's absence is taken for real, not for the linguistic short cut that it is.



Nah. It becomes a little uncertain ("it's probably quantum" if nothing else) and also becomes liable to a major paradigm shift, should a better one appear, or be forced into existence by data the older model cannot swallow.
The whole quantum universe started to be revealed, I understand, with a little problem in theoretical physics: the ultraviolet catastrophe, the "catastrophe" being an equation that half-worked very well and then went spectacularly wrong.

My friend we have reached an impasse of understanding I see.
You are espousing uncertainty essentially, and that is what I said was the flaw. If Reason is uncertain and not sound, then neither is its product.

With no reference point, how can probability be established? How can something be closer to true or 'the best we have' if you have nothing to base what is best on? Its nice to speak of provisionally and so forth until something else comes along, but this does not allow you to make any statement on validity.
No, for there to be any meaning than the Idea (in platonic terms) of true Reason must be established, which negates itself in Naturalistic Materialism.
As to 'ruling things out', heliocentrism was ruled out, then back in, then out again etc. This is no method to base derivitive theory of probability on.

I am speaking metaphysically, so your examples are a bit superfluous.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wearing red glasses doesn't make the grass turn dark grey, you simply can not it is green anymore.

 

[Jimmy D]

When you're unfamilliar with things, lectures and documentaries, just as text of pdf files, are there to fill you in, to inform and teach you.
The fact that it may be on youtube has nothing to do with it, your argument is invalid.
You pleed ignorance without an excuse.

Instead of accusing people of ignorance why don't you tell us why DNA is a problematic for the theory of evolution, you made the claim. You obviously feel that you know more that any qualified scientist who works in the field or you couldn't make such a claim. Please explain what you mean, if you can't, then saying such things is counterproductive to your argument as you look like you're just parroting Creationist propaganda with out any real understanding of what you're on about.

You also said that the TOE can't explain complexity and interdependency, surely that is exactly what it does explain, I'm happy to be corrected on matter but didn't the observation of such things help lead Darwin to his conclusions?

 

[sfs]

How come you have to ask when you are on this forum in this topic?
You're pleading ignorance.

But this lecture should give you an idea:

Why would I listen to an hour-plus lecture about DNA from someone who knows less about DNA than I do, and who isn't here to discuss it? If you have an argument to make about DNA, make it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Depends on what you mean by the theory of evolution. If your looking at the theory of mistakes, errors and random events then the math does not support that aspect of the theory. Evolution does not work in a finite world, it could only work if the Universe were infinite and it is not. There is an end and a beginning. God knows the end from the beginning. Stephen Jay Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. From a evolutionary perspective changes happens to fast to be a product of any kind of a random process. Of course they argue that Evolution is selective but you have to have something to select. Science can only discuss the changes that take place once something already exists.

Evolution is not a random process, nore does it require "infinity" to work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I accept microevolution (minor changes). But I don't accept macroevolution (radical changes).

I accept that you can walk to the other side of the football field (micro-distance). But I don't accept that you can walk to the next town (macro-distance).

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

It's on the interwebs, so it must be real, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

What's wrong with the comparision?
I mean, besides the fact that we actually know more about evolution then about gravity...

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

We want you to spoonfeed it.
Be clear, precise and to the point.