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

[46AND2]

You have no evidence for that, unless you're referring to Moses being the author / editor of Genesis.

None the less, a couple of verses are under debate, as they are missing in certain codices.
I guess that's what youŕe referring to.

I've got gobs of evidence for that...from Christian Biblical scholars, no less. It is well known within Biblical academia that scribes added to, and subtracted from the Bible, over the years.

 

[juvenissun]

Why can't humans evolve gradually?

There is not enough time for the development of intelligence if evolved gradually.

 

[46AND2]

There is not enough time for the development of intelligence if evolved gradually.

How do you know? Just a gut feeling?

 

[juvenissun]

No. That is a problem for people who regect evidence and then say 'Look! No evidence!'

Say "no evidence" is the worst excuse an intelligent man can make. I never use that. (do you use it?)

 

[Hieronymus]

I've got gobs of evidence for that...from Christian Biblical scholars, no less. It is well known within Biblical academia that scribes added to, and subtracted from the Bible, over the years.

Iḿ not sure what you're referring to, other that what i mentioned.
Evidence actually shows there are only a few things under debate, which do not even change the message.
I mean, sure, you can raise doubts about things, but you'll have to substantiate it.

 

[Larniavc]

You mean atheists?

What I mean is that there is no problem. You say it is a problem for ToE but are unable to say why.

Posting grinning smilies does not change that. One might suggest that you grow up.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you know? Just a gut feeling?

See the development of intelligence among animals. Was the later dinos smarter than the earlier dinos after nearly 200 million years of evolution?

 

[Hieronymus]

Say "no evidence" is the worst excuse an intelligent man can make. I never use that. (do you use it?)

I do.
I see no evidence for evolution, as in DNA coding itself by naturalistic means.
Irreducible systems wouldn't even survive and / or thrive when not yet complete and functional.
Thereś no evidence for incomplete systems in organisms either.

 

[Jimmy D]

I mean, sure, you can raise doubts about things, but you'll have to substantiate it.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

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).

I stand corrected.
I misunderstood what i replied to.

 

[juvenissun]

I do.
I see no evidence for evolution, as in DNA coding itself by naturalistic means.
Irreducible systems wouldn't even survive and / or thrive when not yet complete and functional.
Thereś no evidence for incomplete systems in organisms either.

I don't say "no evidence" because I know very well that many things DO have evidences, but people simply can not see them. So have or have no evidence depends on the ability of the person, but not on the existence of evidence.

Everyone can see the sky. But I see the sky as an evidence of God. Many many don't and can't.

 

[The Cadet]

Everyone can see the sky. But I see the sky as an evidence of God. Many many don't and can't.

Could you kindly form this as a syllogism? i.e.

P1: The Sky exists
P2: ...
...
C: God exists

 

[Armoured]

There is not enough time for the development of intelligence if evolved gradually.

Why not? Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the idea that when you make these massive claims, you need to provide evidence alongside them?

 

[Hieronymus]

Ooh, that pointer is just stuck on max..
But i mean doubts have to be reasonable, so what is the supposed irony in that?

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't say "no evidence" because I know very well that many things DO have evidences, but people simply can not see them. So have or have no evidence depends on the ability of the person, but not on the existence of evidence.

Everyone can see the sky. But I see the sky as an evidence of God. Many many don't and can't.

Seeing the sky is not exactly comparable with not seeing evidence for a mechanism that codes DNA to get new characteristics.

 

[The Cadet]

Seeing the sky is not exactly comparable with not seeing evidence for a mechanism that codes DNA to get new characteristics.

Same question. Can you please form this as a syllogism?

 

[Hieronymus]

Same question.

Which question was that?

Can you please form this as a syllogism?

Well, when no evidence is present, no evidence is present.

 

[The Cadet]

Well, when no evidence is present, no evidence is present.

Wait, isn't your argument that mechanisms that code for new traits in DNA is evidence of God? Or is your argument simply that we don't have an explanation for the mechanisms that code for new traits in DNA?

 

[Hieronymus]

Wait, isn't your argument that mechanisms that code for new traits in DNA is evidence of God?

No.
God created organisms, some are extinct now.

Or is your argument simply that we don't have an explanation for the mechanisms that code for new traits in DNA?

No, the mechanism just isn't there.
Randomly mutating data doesn't write new useful data.
It will only survive if it still works despite data corruption.
Unfortunately it produces hereditary diseases too.

 

[KWCrazy]

Could you kindly form this as a syllogism? i.e.

P1: The Sky exists
P2: Nothing can auto-originate, so the sky had to have an external Creator. We call such a Creator "God."
P3: God exists