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

[The Cadet]

No, the mechanism just isn't there.

What about gene duplication and point mutations?

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

I reject this premise as unfounded; I call this creator "the laws of physics" as the formation of planetary atmospheres are pretty darn well-explained.

P3: God exists

I have a problem with the conflation here - you are using the term "God" in Premise 2 (and thus necessarily in conclusion 3) to imply a vague, deistic entity; there is no reason to use this term, given how loaded it is, and given that you actually believe in a God with a great many additional properties not demonstrated or established in this argument.

 

[The Cadet]

Randomly mutating data doesn't write new useful data.

I have to disagree. Point mutations plus natural selection can lead to incredibly improbable results - including whatever you seem to mean by "new useful data".

 

[juvenissun]

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

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

Here is the pitfall. Evidence is not a proof. Many people, include you in this case, are confused about it.
This is another reason I do not like to use the word "evidence".

 

[juvenissun]

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?

Use the evolution model, the evidences are everywhere.
Wolf evolved into dog. How much intelligence increased when compare the two?
You can use ANY other animals to fit into this format of argument.

 

[KWCrazy]

I reject this premise as unfounded; I call this creator "the laws of physics" as the formation of planetary atmospheres are pretty darn well-explained.

The laws of physics disprove the auto origination of anything, so according to those laws the universe had to have an external creator. They also prove that the universe is winding down, not winging up; that increasing entropy is the natural state of all matter. In the absence of anything; absolute zero; there is no activity. So starting without a universe one will never exist until it is created by an external force. We call this force God.

 

[Armoured]

Use the evolution model, the evidences are everywhere.
Wolf evolved into dog. How much intelligence increased when compare the two?
You can use ANY other animals to fit into this format of argument.

wolf didn't evolve into dog, man selectively bred dogs.

But any way... intelligence is just like any other trait, it evolves if it is beneficial within it's environment. Also, remember evolution isn't a linear arrow from lesser to greater, so there's no reason to expect increasing intelligence as creatures evolve. Indeed, there are conceivable selection pressures where an overabundance of intelligence could be a negative trait, and be selected against.

It's also worth noting that we know of other species that either approach human intelligence (orcas, dolphins, arguably some octopus) or display all the basic rudiments thereof (I believe chimps have been observed to display the basic rudiments of any form of higher thought that humans display, including abstractions such as monetary exchange and religion[albeit in a very basic form]) Parrots and crows both display close to human level memory, at least some comprehension of language, and ability to make tools and pass information on to others of their species. Human intelligence is, so far as we know, the most advanced intelligence to exist in biological form, and that is impressive. There's nothing particularly special about it as a trait, per se, though.

We're at the top of the intelligence pile. Elephants are at the top of the strength pile. Blue Whales are at the top of the size pile, and peregrine falcons at the top of the speed pile. Each impressive examples, to be sure, but there's nothing particularly special about the fact that there are "piles", and that each one has a "top".

 

[Armoured]

The laws of physics disprove the auto origination of anything, so according to those laws the universe had to have an external creator. They also prove that the universe is winding down, not winging up; that increasing entropy is the natural state of all matter. In the absence of anything; absolute zero; there is no activity. So starting without a universe one will never exist until it is created by an external force. We call this force God.

Demonstrate these claims from first principles? Display your working? Because, frankly, I see dogmatic claims, I see no reason to believe you are correct.

 

[Chris B]

The laws of physics disprove the auto origination of anything,

Now how could they do that, since the laws of physics as we know them are *derived* from observation of how nature behaves?
They don't in the slightest *prescribe* how nature behaves.
Light is not hurrying along thinking "mustn't break the speed limit: it's the law."

And if anything we have evidence, good evidence, that at the subatomic scale things can and do pop in and out of existence.
It used to be that a vacuum was a nice "nothing". That's now gone to: "handy convenient idea for, say, pumps, but but not good at a detailed level."

 

[Chris B]

So starting without a universe one will never exist until it is created by an external force. We call this force God.

Who is this "We"?
Apart from any atheists who find much to disagree with in your chain of argument, I suspect a good few theists might decline to leap to dignifying a mere force from beyond our plane of existence as "God".
No will, purpose, or sentience has been established, for a start. A bit lacking in God-nature, that. As usually understood.

 

[KWCrazy]

Demonstrate these claims from first principles? Display your working? Because, frankly, I see dogmatic claims, I see no reason to believe you are correct.

Of course you wouldn't, because science is just something some people throw around to help support their favorite pastime of coming to religious forums and attacking the religious beliefs of others. Once again, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (the universe) matter/ energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed to a lower form of heat energy. Thus, the origination of anything from noting is impossible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that increasing entropy is a constant; that all matter/energy is in a constant state of degradation. So the universe is winding down, not winding up. The Third Law of Thermodynamics states that at absolute zero; the absence of anything, there is no activity. Combined, these basic laws of physics defeat any theory of origination man can devise. The only possible scientific explanation for origination is an external energy course capable of creating not just raw energy, but design.
Science, properly understood, reveals the majesty of the Lord.

Of course, you'll rephrase the wording of the laws of thermodynamics to suit your fancy, as all evolution believes do. I have gone so far as to use definitions that people had posted in the past and used them, only to be told I had no clue what I was talking about as the person rephrased the laws to saw exactly the same thing in yet another way. Integrity is not something we see much coming from the dark side of this debate.

And lest you see my post as a personal attack, can you deny that this is a Christian website? Can you deny that you are attacking the religious beliefs of others? Can you deny that you are promoting a belief that runs 100% in opposition to Scriptural teaching and are trying to win others to your side of the argument... away from the word of God? Nothing is personal. My observations are 100% correct. My argument is 100% in agreement with the laws of physics and my point is undeniably valid.

 

[The Cadet]

Here is the pitfall. Evidence is not a proof. Many people, include you in this case, are confused about it.
This is another reason I do not like to use the word "evidence".

Okay, then please show how this counts as evidence. i.e.:

P1: The Sky exists
P2: ...
...
C: There is evidence that God exists

The laws of physics disprove the auto origination of anything, so according to those laws the universe had to have an external creator. They also prove that the universe is winding down, not winging up; that increasing entropy is the natural state of all matter. In the absence of anything; absolute zero; there is no activity. So starting without a universe one will never exist until it is created by an external force. We call this force God.

Do we really have to go over the flaws of the "prime mover" argument again? It's blatant special pleading. If you're interested in going over the flaws in it, you can check out Sean Carroll's debate against William Lane Craig, or just the IronChariots wiki page, which lists a number of serious flaws with every popular formulation of the argument.

 

[KWCrazy]

Now how could they do that, since the laws of physics as we know them are *derived* from observation of how nature behaves?

Exactly. If that's how nature behaves, then nature will follow those laws.

And if anything we have evidence, good evidence, that at the subatomic scale things can and do pop in and out of existence.

You're talking about the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles too small to be affected by gravity. They don't pop out of existence. They become too small to be detected. They still exist. That's like saying if you play hide and seek with your brother and he's in a closet where you can't see him that he ceases to exist. Moreover, that doesn't apply with larger particles, nor does it explain the origins of the particles. Their energy had to have a source or they don't exist.

 

[KWCrazy]

Do we really have to go over the flaws of the "prime mover" argument again? It's blatant special pleading.

No, it's wanna-be science experts dismissing a major flaw which demonstrates that origination is a physical impossibility.

 

[KWCrazy]

If you're interested in going over the flaws in it, you can check out Sean Carroll's debate against William Lane Craig, or just the IronChariots wiki page, which lists a number of serious flaws with every popular formulation of the argument.

Foolishness from your link:
The argument asserts that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". However, this is arguably a false statement and a hasty generalization. It is possible that some events, particularly on the quantum scale (such as in the early universe), do not have causes (or at least we do not fully understand the cause at this time).
No, sorry, it's not possible. Subatomic particles are particles of energy, and energy has to have a source of origination. it cannot be created or destroyed. Secondly, it is faulty reasoning to declare a statement false because there exists a possibility of an exception. If there is no provable exception, then calling the statement false is quite simply a lie. Beyond that, quantum scale does not equal an early universe.

The sad fact is, the best arguments for evolution are based on reasoning so faulty the average "expert" can be disproved with a 7th grade science book. People accept evolution because they don't know better. Scientists accept it because they know that the only alternative is a Creator; that plus it's ingrained into them through years of teachers saying that it's true.

 

[The Cadet]

No, it's wanna-be science experts dismissing a major flaw that demonstrates that origination is a physical impossibility.

And meanwhile something like 80% of cosmologists (you know, the guys who apply this stuff on a daily basis in their research) find this argument incredibly unconvincing. If your claim was correct, we wouldn't have so many people looking to find the answer. Seriously, watch Carroll vs. Craig. Carroll is actually a legitimate expert on cosmology, and he makes it very clear that Craig's claims simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

The argument asserts that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". However, this is arguably a false statement and a hasty generalization. It is possible that some events, particularly on the quantum scale (such as in the early universe), do not have causes (or at least we do not fully understand the cause at this time).
No, sorry, it's not possible. Subatomic particles are particles of energy, and energy has to have a source of origination.

Except that we have yet to find any such cause. You're asserting causality as an absolute law when the evidence we currently have casts doubt on that. Instead of integrating the new evidence, you're essentially claiming that it must be flawed because of the existing theory. This is exactly the opposite of how science works.

 

[Armoured]

Foolishness from your link:
The argument asserts that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". However, this is arguably a false statement and a hasty generalization. It is possible that some events, particularly on the quantum scale (such as in the early universe), do not have causes (or at least we do not fully understand the cause at this time).
No, sorry, it's not possible. Subatomic particles are particles of energy, and energy has to have a source of origination. it cannot be created or destroyed. Secondly, it is faulty reasoning to declare a statement false because there exists a possibility of an exception. If there is no provable exception, then calling the statement false is quite simply a lie. Beyond that, quantum scale does not equal an early universe.

The sad fact is, the best arguments for evolution are based on reasoning so faulty the average "expert" can be disproved with a 7th grade science book. People accept evolution because they don't know better. Scientists accept it because they know that the only alternative is a Creator; that plus it's ingrained into them through years of teachers saying that it's true.

Don't try to get quantum mechanics to mesh with what you remember from high school chemistry.

The conservation of mass is maintained, but only because matter and antimatter are both spontaneously generated in equal amounts, and instantly self annihilate. In the rare case where it doesn't self annihilate, along the edge of black holes, for example, we can detect it.

 

[KWCrazy]

If your claim was correct, we wouldn't have so many people looking to find the answer.

The fact that they haven't yet found an answer that can't be debunked by a 7th grade science book means that my claim IS CORRECT until proven otherwise. Origination is impossible. Something does not sprout from nothing.

Except that we have yet to find any such cause.

I found Him when I was 12. Many found the cause later. We call Him Lord.

You're asserting causality as an absolute law when the evidence we currently have casts doubt on that.

The only doubt is willful blindness.

 

[Jimmy D]

Scientists accept it because they know that the only alternative is a Creator

A classic false dichotomy.

 

[KWCrazy]

The conservation of mass is maintained, but only because matter and antimatter are both spontaneously generated in equal amounts, and instantly self annihilate.

That's a theory, but in the absence of anything; absolute zero; neither matter nor antimatter could form. It's only speculation that antimatter would form naturally. Beyond that, the resulting annihilation would release pure energy, and organization never forms from chaos. As a theory of origination, it fails. For comparison purposes, if all the antimatter ever made by humans were annihilated at once, the energy produced wouldn’t even be enough to boil a cup of tea. It's mostly science fiction.

As for black holes, they are formed from imploding energy. While they are fascinating; some even capable of bending light and possibly time; they still result from energy collapsing on itself, not energy emerging from nothingness.

 

[Armoured]

That's a theory, but in the absence of anything; absolute zero; neither matter nor antimatter could form. It's only speculation that antimatter would form naturally. Beyond that, the resulting annihilation would release pure energy, and organization never forms from chaos. As a theory of origination, it fails. For comparison purposes, if all the antimatter ever made by humans were annihilated at once, the energy produced wouldn’t even be enough to boil a cup of tea. It's mostly science fiction.

As for black holes, they are formed from imploding energy. While they are fascinating; some even capable of bending light and possibly time; they still result from energy collapsing on itself, not energy emerging from nothingness.

I didn't say black holes are the result of energy emerging from nothingness. WHEN MATTER emerges from nothingness, sometimes it occurs right at the Schwartzchild radius, half gets pulled into the black hole, half goes out into the universe. We know this happens, because it's the basis of Hawking radiation, and also why black holes evaporate. I'm sorry, but the old "everything in the universe is all there ever will be, and it can't be created or destroyed" paradigm is like Newtonian mechanics; good enough for most practical applications, but incorrect at a subtle yet fundamental level.