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

[juvenissun]

The trend being extinction.

Popular science shows you a trend and they line up fossils for it.

Extinction is an event, not a trend.

Yes, they lined them up and show it to people. It is good for them to do that. We can not deny what we see. We need to explain it.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, some animals look alike.
So do cars.

What is LOW?

Low is, well, low.

Yes, animals are dumb. We are smart. Quite different.

 

[Hieronymus]

Extinction is an event, not a trend.

No, it's several events.
It continues, so it is a trend.

Yes, they lined them up and show it to people. It is good for them to do that. We can not deny what we see. We need to explain it.

You will have to listen first.
Do cars line up if you want to? Yes they do.

 

[Hieronymus]

Low is, well, low.

Valleys are low, but what is low when you said: that is LOW ?

Yes, animals are dumb. We are smart. Quite different.

Relevance?

Please, check my topic:
http://www.christianforums.com/posts/69512200/
Or do you have a stake in naturalism?

 

[Chris B]

Why do we deserve anything better than we have?

I'm not working on "deserve", I'm working on the idea of a loving deity with infinite competence...

If you want to go the "deserve" route, (as I've met with Hindus having a strict view of Karma)
Then I can't imagine how a harlequin baby can have come to "deserve" their condition. Just for one example.

If the line is "deity immunity", like diplomatic immunity only more so, then yes I can see biblical support for that.
God can do no wrong whatever God chooses to do... (Romans 9)
Then you have a look around at the world and it still looks more like a capricious deity rather than a benevolent one.

Unless there's no god at all. Now that fits the observed data interestingly well.

 

[Hieronymus]

What else do you see as necessary for speciation, then?

You need morethan just the "special theory of evolution", because that doesn't go beyond changes within the kind.

A disinclination or inability to mate with a portion of a previously interbreeding group has pretty much set a divide between the two populations.

This does not make it a different kind of organism.

 

[Chris B]

You need more than just the "special theory of evolution", because that doesn't go beyond changes within the kind.This does not make it a different kind of organism.

Err, no you don't. Enough little changes can reach a tipping point where the only future is divided. For two species, initially very similar.
There's kangaroos and there's tree kangaroos.
Would anyone have invented or designed a *tree kangaroo* if starting anywhere but with an incremental divergence?
And the early tree kangaroos surely only got away with it because they had limited competition for the niche.
They are good in trees. For kangaroos.

 

[Armoured]

Does "creation" explain why I had impacted wisdom teeth, or eyes of well less than ideal design?

That's their cognitive dissonance avoiding trump card... anything "good" in nature is evidence of design, anything "bad" is attributed to the fall.

This, of course, makes the whole thing quite un-disprovable, which makes it fundamentally NOT science, but the true believers don't care and will pretend their nonsense is scientific anyway.

 

[The Cadet]

Popular science shows you a trend and they line up fossils (or fossil interpretations) for it.

Does a line of photos of me on my birthday for 20 years show a trend of growth?

 

[Hieronymus]

Does a line of photos of me on my birthday for 20 years show a trend of growth?

Yeah, great analogy...

Have a look at what you're defending, as should all of you evolutionists:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/

 

[Armoured]

Yeah, great analogy...

Have a look at what you're defending, as should all of you evolutionists:
http://www.christianforums.com/posts/69512317/

Wha...?

 

[Hieronymus]

Wha...?

Tha.. !

sorry, here's the right link to OP:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/

 

[Armoured]

Tha.. !

sorry, here's the right link to OP:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/

Can't help but note many of those quoted aren't scientists. And who the heck is "lt more"?

 

[Hieronymus]

Can't help but note many of those quoted aren't scientists.

I think you mean "some", but they're all part of the scientific community and the church of naturalism.

And who the heck is "lt more"?

Louis Trenchard More (1870-1944), a humanist.

 

[Armoured]

I think you mean "some", but they're all part of the scientific community and the church of naturalism.
Louis Trenchard More (1870-1944), a humanist.

Then the thread title is misleading.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not working on "deserve", I'm working on the idea of a loving deity with infinite competence...

If so, what's wrong that we can not run faster than a dog?

 

[Chris B]

That's their cognitive dissonance avoiding trump card... anything "good" in nature is evidence of design, anything "bad" is attributed to the fall.

But it is a beautiful self-working trick.
There is a related one found in a variety of forms (I've seen it in politics and business as well as religion)
"Those who agree with us are wise, enlightened, good.
Those who disagree with us are foolish, blind, evil."

 

[Hieronymus]

Then the thread title is misleading.

A little...
Most of them are though.

 

[Hieronymus]

But it is a beautiful self-working trick.

Both sides do this.
Do you want God above you, judging you?

 

[Armoured]

But it is a beautiful self-working trick.
There is a related one found in a variety of forms (I've seen it in politics and business as well as religion)
"Those who agree with us are wise, enlightened, good.
Those who disagree with us are foolish, blind, evil."

Very similar. False dichotomy is one of the main tools they use.