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

[DogmaHunter]

Naturalistic evolution assumes that no gods interact with the world.

Evolution theory makes no mention of any gods (pro or con).
Neither does atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics, relativity,....

But for some reason, your lot only complains about evolution.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Evolution theory makes no mention of any gods (pro or con).
Neither does atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics, relativity,....

But for some reason, your lot only complains about evolution.

Thats a lie! Didn't you see the flat earth thread the other day?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/a-flat-earth.7937866/

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

This should be good.

Evolution is said to be the cause of speciation, this is said to have happened in the distant past.

Evolution is an ongoing process. It happens every generation.
Speciation is one of the phenomena that results from it, yes.

This is demonstrably the case. We've actually observed this process.

It is not supported by evidence.

It is supported by all the evidence. There is no data in the biological world that doesn't fit the model.

It is a well established fact in biology that organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment

Yes, which is evolution.
How do you think this adaption happens?

but there is no evidence in support of changing into a new kind of organism

Evolution doesn't claim that organisms "change kinds".
Every newborn is always of the same species as its direct parents.

Dogs don't give birth to cats.

adapting the DNA code to implement new features, which were previously not present in the DNA code.

Yet, this is what happens when many changes accumulate over generations.
No, an organism without wings is not going to give birth to an organism with wings.

You are aware that DNA is past on to off spring right?
You are aware about inheritance, right?
You understand what "accumulation of changes" means, right?

It sounds like you don't.

In short: no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

In short: you are either in complete denial, or in complete ignorance.
I hope it's the latter.

The fossils don't support it either, even though they have us believe they do support it.

How do fossils not support evolution?

Gravity is an every day reality

So is evolution.

, a force that can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, you can calculate it,

Evolution can be demonstrated, observed, measured,...

Every newborn has a set of mutations.
Some of these have a positive effect on general fitness, which increases chances of survival and reproduction.
Mutations are inherited by off spring.

it is also a premise for life on earth by the way.

For life, as we know it, at least.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thats a lie! Didn't you see the flat earth thread the other day?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/a-flat-earth.7937866/

Owkay, my bad.

ps: that doesn't really help your case though... perhaps next you could link to a thread about Stork Theory in conflict with embryology.

 

[46AND2]

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

Model for what, exactly?

You claimed that evolution can't happen because it requires an infinite universe, yet you fail to demonstrate such a requirement.

 

[46AND2]

You mean refuse, not refute.

No, I mean refute. Joshua's argument was that evolution, like the monkey typing, requires an infinite amount of attempts. Dawkins shows that evolution is not like the typing scenario, because it is not random, like the typing monkeys. Therefore, to compare the two is an inaccurate analogy. Therefore, Joshua's argument is refuted.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Model for what, exactly?

You claimed that evolution can't happen because it requires an infinite universe, yet you fail to demonstrate such a requirement.

The universe is either infinite or finite. They say that the math for the random theory does not work if the universe is finite, the math only works if the universe is infinite. This is expressed in the monkey and the typewriter theory and according to Wiki this theory in one version or another goes back at least 2,000 years. As we all know that the theory of evolution goes back at least 2500 years before Darwin. Because IF your going to deny the knowledge of God then you have to come up with an alternative theory. Evolution is an attempt to explain how you can have a design without a Designer.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The model without God.

You can not have a design without a designer.

 

[Blastcat]

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

Could you explain how a resurrection has anything whatsoever to do with ToE?

 

[46AND2]

The universe is either infinite or finite. They say that the math for the random theory does not work if the universe is finite, the math only works if the universe is infinite. This is expressed in the monkey and the typewriter theory and according to Wiki this theory in one version or another goes back at least 2,000 years.

And absolutely none of this has to do with evolution, since evolution isn't random.

As we all know that the theory of evolution goes back at least 2500 years before Darwin. Because IF your going to deny the knowledge of God then you have to come up with an alternative theory. Evolution is an attempt to explain how you can have a design without a Designer.

No, evolution explains nothing about a design, or designer (or lack thereof), or anything remotely similar. It is simply the observation of how life changes. It makes no difference if God designed evolution, or if it just happens through nature. In fact there are more Christian "evolutionists" than there are atheistic.

 

[Blastcat]

The universe is either infinite or finite. They say that the math for the random theory does not work if the universe is finite, the math only works if the universe is infinite.

I wonder who "they" are. Please, if you can, provide a source for your information. Also, could you explain what it is you mean by "random theory?

This is expressed in the monkey and the typewriter theory and according to Wiki this theory in one version or another goes back at least 2,000 years.

Could you explain how the infinite monkey theory has anything to do with evolution?

As we all know that the theory of evolution goes back at least 2500 years before Darwin.

If you mean that not everyone believes in gods... ok. But ToE wasn't thought up before the 1850's.

Because IF your going to deny the knowledge of God then you have to come up with an alternative theory. Evolution is an attempt to explain how you can have a design without a Designer.

Some people think that the purpose of ToE is to "deny the knowledge of God".

Again, this only demonstrates my contention that the only people who deny the ToE don't understand what it is, and/or are motivated to disprove it for religious reasons using confirmation bias.

ToE is a theory based on observations of life, not on some desire to disprove ID. And remember, we don't see design, we see APPARENT design, and no link between a fantasy creator god and reality has been established. Believers in a creator god think that a god must have created the universe, but can only offer their belief as proof.

The circularity of this kind of thinking is astounding.

 

[Armoured]

They say that the math for the random theory does not work if the universe is finite, the math only works if the universe is infinite.

Who? Who says? So far, I've only ever seen you make this claim. The "monkey typewriter" thought experiment you've mentioned a couple of times now has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, by the way.

As we all know that the theory of evolution goes back at least 2500 years before Darwin

...as...we...all...know....

 

[Blastcat]

You can not have a design without a designer.

But we only have APPARENT design in nature. In order to have design, there must be INTENTION, and nothing about nature happening demonstrates an intention, other than what WE give it. Is a rock intended to be a tool or a weapon or a paperweight?.. It depends on how WE intend to use it. It's of no use at all to say that it was "designed" to be whatever we want to use it for.

This is true of rocks and anything ELSE in nature. Only HUMAN artifacts are designed with purpose in mind. You would have to DEMONSTRATE that nature has a "purpose" that can be discerned OTHER than by way of imagination.

Apologists really mangle the ability of believers to think clearly so as to make their beliefs seem reasonable. Design theory or ID is such an attempt. It messes up logic so well as to confuse the unwary who are motivated to believe. Confirmation bias works miracles.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But we only have APPARENT design in nature.

Design follows the structure. 2000 years ago they needed columns to hold up the roof. Now building materials have changed and if you see columns they usually have nothing to do with structure.

 

[Blastcat]

Design follows the structure. 2000 years ago they needed columns to hold up the roof. Now building materials have changed and if you see columns they usually have nothing to do with structure.

I have no idea what you mean. We needed columns before and now we don't? How does that relate to the apparent design found in nature? And of course, how does that somehow refute ToE?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Give us the argument, in your own words.

 

[bhsmte]

The universe is either infinite or finite. They say that the math for the random theory does not work if the universe is finite, the math only works if the universe is infinite. This is expressed in the monkey and the typewriter theory and according to Wiki this theory in one version or another goes back at least 2,000 years. As we all know that the theory of evolution goes back at least 2500 years before Darwin. Because IF your going to deny the knowledge of God then you have to come up with an alternative theory. Evolution is an attempt to explain how you can have a design without a Designer.

They say?

Who is they?

 

[Blastcat]

ToE is only true to the degree that it adheres to the truth.

Facts are facts. Any theory has to be based in facts, or is purely hypothetical. In ToE, there are many thousand such facts that can be verified. There have been facts obtained in favor of ToE for more than 150 years by very careful scientists.

We have a hybrid of bait and switch and a Trojan horse.

I love the turn of phrase. But I have no idea what you mean by it. It sounds nasty.

They use what has universal acceptance to stealth in what is untested and untried in their attempt to deny the knowledge of God.

What do you mean by "has universal acceptance to stealth"? I don't follow the language. Are you perhaps expressing a conspiracy theory?

What are you referring that is "untested and untried" ? If you mean ToE, you are in denial of facts. Confirmation bias at work.

Why do you assume that religious people are attempting to "deny the knowledge of God"? You must realize that many theists of all kinds are in favor of ToE, right? They believe in the theory, yet have no interest to "deny the knowledge of God".

It's no use to over-generalize about people like that. It doesn't prove anything but confirmation bias. It certainly does NOTHING to disprove a well established scientific theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can not have a design without a designer.

But a person can misinterpret something as having design that doesn't.

 

[Tomm]

Evolution is an ongoing process. It happens every generation.
Speciation is one of the phenomena that results from it, yes.

This is demonstrably the case. We've actually observed this process.

Evolution is nonsense. I mean macro-evolution.
How could lower life forms evolve into more intelligent life forms ?
If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?
Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?

The operating system of a PC works because it was programmed to follow rules and instructions.
Who designed the rules and instructions in the DNA system ? They evolved on the fly ?

Machines can function properly only if you provide sensible data, and won't do so otherwise. And if
you enter a partial entry, it won't understand you and hence won't give you the answer.
Garbage in, garbage out. On the other hand, the human mind is different. It is intelligent enough to
understand even if you provide a partial entry, or pronounce incorrectly, or mis-spelt words.
The human mind is more than a machine, it is something evolution cannot explain.