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

[The Cadet]

Why, then, do evolutionists use this as Exhibit No. 1?

Because it's a well-documented case that even a child could understand? Because it demonstrates the concept of natural selection in such a simple, easy-to-understand manner? What is it with creationists and zeroing in on the material we use to teach children about science?

 

[Chris B]

Here we go again.
Human can not be evolved because its intelligence is off-scaled. That is certainly a VERY scientific statement.

Not really. I know some animals that look to do better than some humans at problem-solving intelligence.
If you bias the tests for human skills, that's distinctly unfair.
We are not as remarkable as was once insisted upon.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do you keep inserting odd terms to try and improve your case?
"for no reason" is a false loading.

No it isn't.
If there was a reason, what had the reason?

"accidental circumstances" too.

Otherwise it would be on purpose.
What's your problem with the meaning of words?

[edit]
deleted the rest

 

[juvenissun]

Not really. I know some animals that look to do better than some humans at problem-solving intelligence.

Where is that animal? Let's try to kill them and see who is more intelligent.
May be I will eat it to increase my intelligence.

 

[Shemjaza]

It is quite coherent among animals. That is: LOW.

My point was that your argument was incoherent.

We both agree that humans are significantly more intelligent then all other animals. You have not presented anything like an actual or even theoretical barrier for evolution in building this intelligence.

Here we go again.
Human can not be evolved because its intelligence is off-scaled. That is certainly a VERY scientific statement.

This is not even remotely scientific.

We see variation in intelligence throughout the animal kingdom, in particular the most intelligent non human animals are also the most similar to us genetically and in body plan.

 

[Hieronymus]

Because it's a well-documented case that even a child could understand? Because it demonstrates the concept of natural selection in such a simple, easy-to-understand manner?

But it's not evolution, but they get taught it is.

What is it with creationists and zeroing in on the material we use to teach children about science?

Because ToE is not science, obviously.

 

[juvenissun]

My point was that your argument was incoherent.

We both agree that humans are significantly more intelligent then all other animals. You have not presented anything like an actual or even theoretical barrier for evolution in building this intelligence.
This is not even remotely scientific.

We see variation in intelligence throughout the animal kingdom, in particular the most intelligent non human animals are also the most similar to us genetically and in body plan.

The degree of intelligence is expressed by products and achievements.
So you can compare that between animals and human.
That is a very very scientific argument.

 

[Hoghead1]

But fossils don't show evolution.

They most certainly do. In fact, they are a major sour e of support for evolution. Fossils are like snap shots set in stone as to what happened way back then. To date, the only explanation that explains the fossils and the way they occur is evolution. That's why evolution is central tenet of modern science.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have opened a topic to show you naturalism as preached by the church of naturalism is not science but a belief:

http://www.christianforums.com/posts/69512200/

You will see there is no need for a theist to subscribe to popular scientific consensus.

Too inflammatory. There is no "church of naturalism." That's just a term of ridicule you brought up.

 

[Hoghead1]

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/

Take a careful look at yourself. You will easily see that you are continually changing, evolving. Moment to moment, you are a different person. No thinker thinks twice. Anti-evolutionary people should look at themselves.

 

[Hoghead1]

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

No, I don't. There are may other viable models of God other than the judge and Ruthless Moralist one.

 

[Chris B]

No it isn't.
If there was a reason, what had the reason?t

The natural forces: descent with difference and natural selection which notably got such a downplaying in the video.
Way to go in addressing other possibilities when presenting a hypothesis.
Oh, sorry, not hypothesis in video: done deal with no rivals.

Otherwise it would be on purpose.
What's your problem with the meaning of words?

It's not on purpose if something emerges via natural selection only because other variants failed, in terms of evolutionary survival.
No design at all. Just something that looks as though it might have been designed.


On words the main thing, here, is the assumption that applying them makes them accurate and valid.
Saying ID doesn't make anything ID, not of itself.

It was a good propaganda video. A great sell.
Just horribly flawed argument. But those fed little else will hardly be in a good place to spot that.

 

[Chris B]

Where is that animal? Let's try to kill them and see who is more intelligent.
May be I will eat it to increase my intelligence.

I rest my case.


Spock: To hunt a species to extinction is not logical.
Dr. Gillian Taylor: Whoever said the human race was logical?
Star Trek IV.

 

[The Cadet]

But it's not evolution

It is evolution, actually. It may not be speciation, but the peppered moth is a textbook example of evolution in action. A mutation led to a change in phenotypes, natural selection selected for those phenotypes, and the species evolved. If you don't think this is evolution, you do not know what evolution is.

 

[SteveB28]

It is evolution, actually. It may not be speciation, but the peppered moth is a textbook example of evolution in action. A mutation led to a change in phenotypes, natural selection selected for those phenotypes, and the species evolved. If you don't think this is evolution, you do not know what evolution is.

Ah, but apparently that's only micro evolution! You're only allowed to take 'baby' steps, don't you know?

 

[Hieronymus]

The natural forces:

That would be causes.

It's not on purpose if something emerges via natural selection only because other variants failed, in terms of evolutionary survival.

When itś not on purpose it's... exactly.

 

[Shemjaza]

The degree of intelligence is expressed by products and achievements.
So you can compare that between animals and human.
That is a very very scientific argument.

You just repeated yourself and said it was very scientific... I asked for a reason why.

Please either say that you aren't sure or present evidence. "It just can't! Okay?" Is not helping your cause.

 

[juvenissun]

I rest my case.

Good. I know the way to deal with people who is not logical.

 

[Hieronymus]

Too inflammatory. There is no "church of naturalism." That's just a term of ridicule you brought up.

Nope.
They have buildings where their beliefs are taught to their followers, the have scripture and prophets too.
They even tell the flock what to believe.

 

[juvenissun]

You just repeated yourself and said it was very scientific... I asked for a reason why.

Very simple. If you can understand why is "political SCIENCE" called a science, then my argument is hundreds of times more scientific than any argument in the political SCIENCE.

To answer your question directly: Any argument use the structure: "because .... so that ....", then it is scientific.