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

[Chris B]

I can at least say that truth exists.

I'll join you in that.

Yes, we have reached an impasse. I thank you for the discussion, it was enlightening.

And likewise. Until some other thread, perhaps.

 

[joshua 1 9]

2 snowflakes that are alike.

https://cbs3weather.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/snowflake-shapes/

If you look at the snow conditions at the ski resorts you will find over 100 different terms they use for different kinds of snow. I use to ski in Utah so I do know a little bit about the different conditions that you can get there.

1. Artificial Snow
2. Avi Debris
3. Baby Heads
4. Ball Bearings (just like it says; little firm balls of snow rolling around under your skis; good luck)
5. BBs
6. Bear snot, barking snot, threadbear, crud
7. Blower
8. Blue (clear ice; you can see through it)

1. Boilerplate (see Bullet-Proof)
2. Boot-Packed
3. Bottomless
4. Breakable Crust (top is frozen solid but not deeply; under that is soft powder; you break through)
5. Brown Snow (Ie, Mud Showing Through)
6. Buffed
7. Bullet-Proof (it's white, but you can't put any dents in it)
8. Bumped Up
9. Bumpy
10. Butter
11. California Concrete - Heavy Wet Snow From A Pacific Storm.
12. Cardboard
13. Cascade Concrete
14. Cauliflower Snow
15. Champagne Powder
16. Chicken Heads

1. Chocolate Chip
2. Chokable (As In Powder So Fine And Deep You Can Choke On It)
3. Chop (freshly fallen snow that's been skied enough to chop it up but hasn't formed bumps yet)
4. Chowder (heavy wet lumpy snow)
5. Chunk
6. Clank
7. Classic Colorado Persistent Depth Hoar
8. Clunk
9. Coarse
10. Cold Smoke
11. Colorado Super Chunk - Heavy Wet Snow About 2 Days After A Spring Storm.
12. Compacted / Un-Compacted
13. Confectioner's Sugar
14. Coral Reef
15. Corduroy, Cord
16. Corn (large, loose, hollow granules of snow that roll around over each other, deeply; usually found in spring)
17. Cornice
18. Cream Cheese
19. Creamed Corn
20. Creation Conditions
21. Crud
22. Crumb
23. Crushed Soda Cans (Aka Death Cookies)
24. Crust
25. Cut-Up, Skied-In
26. Dandruff
27. Death Cookies
28. Deep S#!!
29. Diamond
30. Dirty
31. Drifted
32. Dry
33. Dry Powder
34. Dust On Crust
35. Eastern Firm ™
36. Eastern Powder (artificial snow)
37. Edgy
38. Egg Carton
39. Elephant Snot
40. Fast
41. Fine
42. Firm (see Frozen Granular)
43. First Snow
44. Flake
45. Flake Morphology: Plates, Stellars, Columns, Needles, Dendrites
46. Fluff
47. Formica (hard like white formica)
48. Freshies
49. Frozen Granular (artificial snow groomed and regroomed day after day; hard snow)
50. Frozen suede (looks like the name says)
51. Glacier Terms (E.G., Serac, Bergschrund, Ice Fall, Etc.)
52. Glass
53. Glop
54. Goop
55. Gorilla Glue / Gorilla Snot
56. Granular (Loose, Frozen, Wet)
57. Graupel
58. Green Snow (Grass Patches)
59. Grippy
60. Groomed
61. Hammered
62. Harbor Chop
63. Hardpack
64. Hero Snow, Ego Snow
65. Hoar (Surface Hoar, Depth Hoar, Sucrotic)
66. Hollow (Or “Whumphy”)
67. Ice
68. Injected
69. Ivory
70. Junk
71. Lake Effect Snow
72. Loud Powder
73. Machine Groomed Powder
74. Machine-Loosened Granular
75. Mang / Mank
76. Man-Made
77. Mashed Potatoes
78. Melting Snow
79. Moguled
80. Monkey Snot
81. Muck
82. Mush / Porridge
83. New England Powder (ie, that blue and glossy stuff)
84. New Snow
85. Norelco (Referring To "Untracked Powder)
86. Old
87. Packed
88. Packed Powder (i.e., the infamous “PP” of ski rpts)
89. peanut butter (sticky spring snow)
90. Pellets
91. Pow / Pow-Pow / Powder (New, Old, Light, Champagne, Heavy, Cut-Up -Some Dupes Here)
92. Red Snow
93. Rime Ice
94. Rotted
95. Rubber Cement (sticky; it slows/stops your skis)
96. Salt on Formica (looks and feels like lots of little loose white grains sliding around on white formica)
97. Salted
98. Sand
99. Sastrugi
100. Schmeg / Schmegma
101. Scratchy
102. Screaming Lobsters (aka, Squeaky Snow)
103. Settled
104. Shardy
105. Shattered Glass (Aka Death Cookies)
106. "Should've Been Here Last Week..." Snow
107. “Should've Been Here In 85-86' Snow”
108. 10 AM Powder
109. Sierra Cement
110. harlot
111. Slop
112. Sloppy Seconds
113. Slough
114. Slow
115. Sludge
116. Slurry
117. Slush
118. snizzle
119. Snow
120. Snow Snakes
121. Snowgun Hell (Can I Say That Word Here?)
122. Soft Snow
123. Sos (Slab On Soft)
124. souffle dure It is naturally packed, firm snow like you might get long after any snow-fall on a north facing, steep, seldom skied couloir
125. Soup
126. Spindrift
127. Spring Conditions
128. Squeaky (ie, Cold And Dry)
129. Sticky
130. Styrofoam (Nee. Graupel; feels just like skiing on styrofoam, sounds hollow)
131. Sublimed
132. Sugar
133. Summer Glacier Snow
134. Sun Cups
135. Talc
136. Terracotta
137. Thin Cover
138. Tin
139. Tinfoil
140. Toy Snow
141. Tracked-Up / Untracked
142. Unconsolidated Snow
143. Undercut
144. Unstable
145. Variable Conditions
146. Virgin Powder
147. Walrus Snot
148. Washboard (Frozen Cord)
149. Wet
150. Wet Blanket
151. wet powder (rain over powder - really fast and nasty)
152. White Dust
153. White Gold
154. White Smoke
155. Wind buffed
156. Wind Crust
157. Wind Packed
158. Wind Slab
159. Wind Waves
160. Wind-Blown
161. Windf__Ked
162. Windlips
163. Windslab
164. Yellow Snow (As Immortalized By Mr. F. Zappa)
165. Zambonified

http://www.epicski.com/a/snow-types-and-names-glossary

 

[pgp_protector]

If you look at the snow conditions at the ski resorts you will find over 100 different terms they use for different kinds of snow. I use to ski in Utah so I do know a little bit about the different conditions that you can get there.

... snip ...
http://www.epicski.com/a/snow-types-and-names-glossary

And that has what to do with the false claim you made that
And I Quote " That is why no two snowflakes are alike. "

 

[bhsmte]

And that has what to do with the false claim you made that
And I Quote " That is why no two snowflakes are alike. "

It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Everything has a design that is why no two snowflakes are alike.

The reason snowflakes are unique is due to the shear number of patterns that can form. This also doesn't apply to snowflakes that are below a certain size. For example, if you get dealt 10 different poker hands by a person dealing them fairly, it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would ever get the same exact hand twice, yet the hands you get are random. The thing about snowflakes though, technically, if there were snowflakes identical to each other that fell even within the same snow storm, we wouldn't know it due to the small sample size of the snowflakes we study relative to the number that actually form.

I find it hilarious that you think a deity would consciously put effort into designing trillions upon trillions of different snowflakes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

double post

 

[joshua 1 9]

And that has what to do with the false claim you made that
And I Quote " That is why no two snowflakes are alike. "

I do not say that, science says that.
If you want to disagree with what science says then go at it.
Show them how wrong they are.

They are going to want evidence I am sure for your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not say that, science says that.
If you want to disagree with what science says then go at it.
Show them how wrong they are.

They are going to want evidence I am sure for your claim.

But "science" does not really even say that. No two snowflakes are alike is merely an saying from people that make a very light investigation of snowflakes. This has nothing to do with the validity of science at all.

 

[USincognito]

Maybe its because evolution has paraded around so many false missing link fossils,

"So many"? Please, do go on.

and that they also claim DNA proves what happened hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years ago, even though Science cannot even Read 80% of human DNA.

1. Nothing in science is ever proven so scientists don't use that word.
2. DNA provides evidence for things that happened even a billion years ago so...
3. Did you not see that the human genome was sequenced in 2003?

 

[USincognito]

Many political and religious groups have consensus, that however doesn't mean they are right. Even courts of law, and juries, can have consensus and still be wrong. I think you overstate the consensus too. I bet many scientists sit back and scratch their heads, wondering is certain things in ToE are true or false. Consider past error found in ToE. The consensus should be instead that ToE is just a fallible theory and should never be taken out of the context. It should never be preached as anything but fallible theory. That is what it means to have an open mind and to be scientific. Some people however misuse ToE, they use it as a religion. They turn it into a false doctrine which tickles their ears, just as mankind does.

Expanding a sentence or two of vacuous rhetoric into an entire paragraph doesn't make it any more substantial or germane.

 

[USincognito]

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

What is the mechanism that prevents one from leading to the other?

 

[USincognito]

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.

Odd. I can go to Google scholar and search for evolution and find hundreds of thousands of papers showing both the genetic and fossil evidence supporting evolution. Have you never looked for it? Because that's the only way one could claim it doesn't exist.

 

[USincognito]

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

Is this the point where we learn that your concept of evolution is something like a cat/dog or an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies?

 

[USincognito]

For what it's worth, it took me a couple of years to let go of evolutionary thinking.

Whenever I see phrases like "evolutionary thinking" I know the person using it does not know anything about evolution.

I always used to believe it, it's what was taught, even when i was a kid in the late 1970s, i believed man descended form apes..

Humans, as members of the family Hominidae are apes.

Old earth, ice ages, ancient universe, the default western beliefs...

Yeah, those aren't beliefs. They're facts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not in American where they are built by robots. Machines that build machines. The machines just grind up the humans and spit them out, at least according to charlie chapman.

You are turning to desperation at this point.
The factories are build by humans and the cars are designed and build by humans.
Robots are mere tools in the manufacturing process.

Stop making such silly comments.

 

[USincognito]

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...

Evolution isn't an ideology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not say that, science says that.
If you want to disagree with what science says then go at it.
Show them how wrong they are.

They are going to want evidence I am sure for your claim.

...says the guy who is literally arguing against the entire field of biology.

 

[USincognito]

Indeed.
And the fact is that there is no compelling evidence to support Darwin's 19th century conjecture.

You misspelled "theory" (though I suspect you don't grasp what a scientific theory entails) but, yeah, apart from the mountains of evidence from fossils, genetics, pseudogenes, homologies, atavisms and vestiges, biogeography, etc. etc, there's no "compelling evidence".

 

[Jimmy D]

Hopefully this thread will serve to demonstrate to anyone with an open mind how much actual evidence the evolution deniers actually have.

We've seen.....

Arguments from ignorance - "The human mind is more than a machine, it is something evolution cannot explain."

Blanket Assertions with absolutely nothing to back them up - "The ever accumulating scientific data and evidence are tipping the scales back to creation again."

Philosophical arguments - "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."

Unsubstantiated design arguments - "What is nonsense is to say that a car created itself and that there was no designer."

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

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

Strawmen - "believing in dead unconscious things performing miracles for no reason"

Mathematical claims - "If your looking at the theory of mistakes, errors and random events then the math does not support that aspect of the theory."

Accusations of conspiracy - "Maybe its because evolution has paraded around so many false missing link fossils"

Creationist bingo!

Is it safe to say that there is absolutely no scientific evidence against the theory of evolution? Judging by this thread I'd say yes.

 

[Hieronymus]

Is this the point where we learn that your concept of evolution is something like a cat/dog or an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies?

No. Don't be silly.