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

[Shemjaza]

The evidences are EVERYWHERE. I can beat your border collie to death no matter how intelligent it is.

The level of animal intelligence goes up and down among species until that of human, which is rocked.

We all know this... but all you have is the assertion that the very high level of human intelligence can't have evolved: "Because it just couldn't have! Alright!?"

 

[The Cadet]

The evidences are EVERYWHERE. I can beat your border collie to death no matter how intelligent it is.

What this has to do with anything is beyond me. I mean, seriously... What? Yes, you are physically stronger than any border collie. This has nothing to do with intellect. The fact that human intellect is miles ahead of any other species is not evidence that intellect cannot evolve, it's simply evidence that humans have evolved differently and as a result have more advanced intellect.

The level of animal intelligence goes up and down among species until that of human, which is rocked.

Humans may be the most intelligent species on earth. This does not, however, imply that our intelligence is stable.

 

[Chris B]

And God saw that it was good.

Which why the extra entity "the fall" has to be employed, to account for all manifold and manifest things which are not good, looking around at the world today.

But that being so, it eats into the strength of the argument (absolute assertion, actually) that God is "unmistakably obvious" in the visible world. If it were all good, perhaps.
But it isn't. Not even by stretching "higher thoughts" and "mysterious ways" beyond all reasonable bounds.
Hurling a giant rock at the Earth to exterminate the majority of the (divinely created, designed, by this scenario) lifeforms in one go really doesn't look good.

 

[Chris B]

The evidences are EVERYWHERE. I can beat your border collie to death no matter how intelligent it is.

The level of animal intelligence goes up and down among species until that of human, which is rocked.

Almost beyond comment.
Surely not a Poe at his late stage?
But the alternative is just as bizarre.

 

[Loudmouth]

Human can not be evolved.

That claim isn't supported by any evidence.

Can you point to a single base difference between the human and chimp genomes that evolution could not produce?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Do you ever notice that creationists try to bring down science by making science look more like their religious beliefs? Tells you a lot about how creationists view their own religious beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Human has high intelligence. So human can not be evolved.

Yet another bare assertion.

 

[juvenissun]

We all know this... but all you have is the assertion that the very high level of human intelligence can't have evolved: "Because it just couldn't have! Alright!?"

It is NOT an arbitrary assertion. It is the FACT.

 

[juvenissun]

What this has to do with anything is beyond me. I mean, seriously... What? Yes, you are physically stronger than any border collie. This has nothing to do with intellect. The fact that human intellect is miles ahead of any other species is not evidence that intellect cannot evolve, it's simply evidence that humans have evolved differently and as a result have more advanced intellect.

Humans may be the most intelligent species on earth. This does not, however, imply that our intelligence is stable.

God give us intelligence to "govern" the world. Has this ever happened in the history of evolution?
We caught whales and kill tigers. Who is stronger?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is NOT an arbitrary assertion. It is the FACT.

Then provide actual objective evidence for it. And no, the bible does not count.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God give us intelligence to "govern" the world. Has this ever happened in the history of evolution?
We caught whales and kill tigers. Who is stronger?

Intelligence on the level of humans? I think you greatly exaggerate how much smarter we are compared to other species. For one thing, given the number of hominid species that existed in the past that have since gone extinct (some, thanks to ancient humans), it's reasonably probable that a few of them had roughly the same, perhaps even a little higher, intellectual potential than humans.

Inevitable question coming from opposing side: "why'd they go extinct if they were so smart?"

Intelligence, while a great trait that is advantageous in most contexts, has a huge cost that can severely impact survival in a negative way: caloric requirements. Prior to the extinction of all species in our genus besides our own, ancient humans had begun to migrate to other regions. Wherever they went, they competed with native hominids for food and other resources, to the point that the other species went extinct. In the case of which member of the genus would win out in the end, it was the most prolific and aggressive that won out more so than the most intelligent.

Furthermore, potential to learn says nothing of the knowledge one actually has. For example, for a great deal of human history, people that lived in China were at the height of knowledge in practically all subjects, while people in Europe were ignorant savages by comparison. Later on, it would be Europe that was the center of scholarly collections and knowledge. The reality is, both populations has always had the same potential to learn, but matters of circumstance made one population more lacking in knowledge than the other, and changes in those circumstances later caused the intellectual shift.

Same idea applies to other intelligent species that existed in the past. Our ancestors could have had better weapons and invasive tactics thanks to matters of circumstance allowing them to develop them sooner than a more intelligent species and win out.

If you think about it, humans are the ultimate invasive species.

 

[The Cadet]

God give us intelligence to "govern" the world. Has this ever happened in the history of evolution?

Why does this matter? It's completely irrelevant if we're the only species to develop advanced intelligence, this doesn't mean that the evolution of intelligence is impossible and has nothing to do with your argument.

We caught whales and kill tigers. Who is stronger?

Oh, we're certainly pretty darn "fit", no argument there. Then again, it's kind of hard to argue that we "govern" the world when we're a few good pandemics away from the stone age, and when as recently as a hundred years ago, a single germ killed between 5 and 10% of the population, and when bacteria and microbes make up some 30% of the earth's biomass.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is NOT an arbitrary assertion. It is the FACT.

It is a claim with no evidence to back it.

 

[Loudmouth]

God give us intelligence to "govern" the world.

That is also a bare assertion.

We caught whales and kill tigers. Who is stronger?

Yersinia pestis killed half of Europe in the 14th century. Who is stronger?

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Are you showing the same fossils, or different fossils?
If we showed pictures of 20 different people it wouldn't show growth at all, would it?

 

[KWCrazy]

The greatest evidence against the theory of evolution is that the Bible specific ally states that man was created by God, and that the heavens and earth were made in six days. For those who believe in the Lord, no further evidence is required. For those who don't, no amount of evidence is enough.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The greatest evidence against the theory of evolution is that the Bible specific ally states that man was created by God, and that the heavens and earth were made in six days. For those who believe in the Lord, no further evidence is required. For those who don't, no amount of evidence is enough.

-_- if that sincerely is the greatest evidence against evolution, then there really isn't any, because of the lack of evidence that the bible is an accurate source of information.

 

[The Cadet]

Are you showing the same fossils, or different fossils?
If we showed pictures of 20 different people it wouldn't show growth at all, would it?

Apples to oranges. A human's growth shows a clear line. Fossils within a genus over time do as well. Your analogy would be more fitting if we were comparing species from vastly different branches of the tree, but obviously it breaks down somewhat. The fact is that we have a clear evolutionary timespan, showing a clear path from ape-like ancestors to modern humans with many transitional forms.

The greatest evidence against the theory of evolution is that the Bible specific ally states that man was created by God, and that the heavens and earth were made in six days. For those who believe in the Lord, no further evidence is required. For those who don't, no amount of evidence is enough.

See, the problem with this is pretty straightforward: the theory of evolution is the direct result of our observations in nature. This wasn't just invented to solve a naturalist's problem, there's actually really good evidence that humans evolved from apelike ancestors. When you pit the bible against evolution like this, what you are essentially saying is that you have to trust the Bible, a book, over what you can observe in the world around you. You might as well pit the bible against the shape of the earth, or the shape of the solar system. It's not a winning proposition for the book.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you showing the same fossils, or different fossils?
If we showed pictures of 20 different people it wouldn't show growth at all, would it?

The analogy is obvious to everyone. That is, everyone who doesn't have a problem with the implications of the analogy.

 

[Loudmouth]

The greatest evidence against the theory of evolution is that the Bible specific ally states that man was created by God, and that the heavens and earth were made in six days. For those who believe in the Lord, no further evidence is required. For those who don't, no amount of evidence is enough.

That is the same evidence that the Pope cited against Heliocentrism.