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

[USincognito]

Don't be put off by the negative comments here - watch the DVDs and you will see how you are being deceived by all the evolutionist propaganda around us today.

By watching Creationist propaganda?

 

[USincognito]

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

Are you unable to summarize it's points in your own words? Many times people will shotgun You Tube videos or DVDs because they're "just so darn compellin'", but they are unable to express what is so compelling in their own words and that makes me question how well they actually understand the subject.

 

[USincognito]

Iĺl give you that there's ambiguous stuff out there too though, but so it Piltdown man and many other forgeries.

"Many other" forgeries? Please, do go on.

 

[USincognito]

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

How odd. A check of Google Scholar shows 300,000+ hits just for "mammal evolution". That's a lot of evidence for one small part of the subject.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mammal+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31

 

[USincognito]

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

I'm not familiar with the different theories, just the one. Please, tell us all about these other theories (and I hope you're not going full Hovind on us).

 

[USincognito]

Lucy is one of them.

If you think Lucy was a forgery, you either don't know anything about her or you don't know what the word forgery means.

 

[USincognito]

You're now suggesting the general theory of relativity is related to the theory of evolution?

He's probably talking about the "general theory of evolution" which exists only in the fevered imaginations of Creationists like Kent Hovind.

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).​

 

[Hieronymus]

If you think Lucy was a forgery, you either don't know anything about her or you don't know what the word forgery means.

Yeah, convincing point bro.
God bless you.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not familiar with the different theories, just the one.

But that doesn't stop you from having a strong emotionally charged opinion about it...
What makes you think then, that you can have a discussion about the question at hand with creationists?

Please, tell us all about these other theories (and I hope you're not going full Hovind on us).

I don't like Hovind either.
I think he's sloppy and wants to look smart.
Browse my playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
It's all kinds of topics about the BIG question.
I bet you will cringe.

 

[Hieronymus]

He's probably talking about the "general theory of evolution" which exists only in the fevered imaginations of Creationists like Kent Hovind.

Assumptions is what your worldview is based on, it seems...

 

[46AND2]

I bet you will cringe.

I bet he will, too, but not for the reasons you think...

 

[Hieronymus]

Got any science to back this up?

Evolution acts on ANYTHING that can create copies of itself where those copies have slight variations. Since humans can make more humans and those new humans are not exactly the same as the humans that came before them, humans will indeed evolve over generations.

Hereditary diseases is evidence for mutations that survived.
You expect meaningful data can be written by messing up meaningful data.

 

[Hieronymus]

How odd. A check of Google Scholar shows 300,000+ hits just for "mammal evolution". That's a lot of evidence for one small part of the subject.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mammal+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31

Google hits are not evidence.
Google "Harry Potter" for example.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yeah, convincing point bro.
God bless you.

So put up or shut up...

WHY IS LUCY A FORGERY?

 

[Armoured]

Yeah, convincing point bro.
God bless you.

I'm sorry, your convincing point that she WAS a forgery... sorry, where is it?

 

[Jimmy D]

Yeah, convincing point bro.
God bless you.

Now's the time where you use, you know, actual facts to point out how his argument is flawed (or admit that you're wrong/lying).

 

[juvenissun]

Got any science to back this up?

Evolution acts on ANYTHING that can create copies of itself where those copies have slight variations. Since humans can make more humans and those new humans are not exactly the same as the humans that came before them, humans will indeed evolve over generations.

Human is drastically different. It can not be evolved.

 

[juvenissun]

An over-simplification, but basically correct -- unlike some of the things that creationists say about mutations


Mutations exist. The changes to traits that they cause also exist. So we're good on this point.


We're not doing the filtering. What's doing the filtering is the competition to survive and produce offspring. Mutations that increase survival and reproduction survive the filtering better. This is all easily observed in lab and in the wild.

Do we ever see a new life form evolved out in the wild? I guess it is not that uncommon to see a life form extinct in the wild.

 

[Larniavc]

Do we ever see a new life form evolved out in the wild? I guess it is not that uncommon to see a life form extinct in the wild.

What kind of life form would you need to show up for you to believe it happens?

 

[Armoured]

Human is drastically different. It can not be evolved.

Drastically different, how?