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

[Chris B]

There is no fault in my mind.

Now there's a pinnacle it's going to be hard to defend!
We all have faults in our minds. The first step to managing them is to acquire some awareness of them.
There are various routes in, but an appreciation and study (as well as enjoyment) of visual illusions can be a good start.
False impressions processed and delivered to perception by the eye/brain system.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You are still ignoring the fact that the tissue in front of the light sensing cells reduces both resolution and sensitivity. You could see better if it were not for the flaws in the organization of the eye.



You are still ignoring the fact that the tissue in front of the light sensing cells reduces both resolution and sensitivity. You could see better if it were not for the flaws in the organization of the eye.

Take it out then. That little piece of tissue disproves that our eyes were made in your mind, doesn't it?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

We have evidence of life on Earth, so that isn't a problem. The theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis. Just life.

To be an atheist I would think you need to prove abiogenesis. Otherwise, the life that looks designed most likely is.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

That is a dogmatic religious belief, not knowledge.



That would be the dogma part.

How dare I believe that I was created and that my eyes are beautiful? What a sick nutcase I am! Am I right?

 

[The Cadet]

Natural: contained within the laws of nature; simple cause and effect.
Supernatural: No contained within the laws of nature; acting in violation of natural law.

Given that the "laws of nature" are fundamentally descriptive laws (that is, we invent them to describe reality, and adjust them when they do not meet our observations of reality), how could something we observe be outside the laws of nature? And, perhaps more importantly, how would we distinguish something that is a part of nature that we simply don't understand yet from something that isn't?

A supernatural encounter might be something moving of its own accord, like pool balls rolling around when nobody has disturbed them or clearly heard footsteps when nobody is walking around. It could be an apparition that is there one moment and gone the next, or the sudden imparting of knowledge of things which had not happened yet.

How do you determine the difference between "this is extremely advanced technology working on some level I do not understand" and "this is supernatural"? To take your example of the pool balls, I could probably pull off a stunt like that, and do so quite convincingly, with nothing more than the modern technology of fake pool balls and robots carrying magnets. The sudden imparting of knowledge of things which had not happened yet would be impressive, but so far I have yet to see any good evidence that this is a thing that happens to any non-trivial degree, personal anecdotes notwithstanding. I hope you understand that while your anecdote may be convincing to you, I'm not really willing to simply take your word for it, any more than I'd just take the word of someone who claimed to have seen a ghost, or any more than you would likely take the word of someone who claimed to have been visited by Shiva.

But, is a cloud formation a good analogy to compare with the biology of life? One is clearly designed.

What would a non-designed thing look like?

 

[Loudmouth]

Should we just cut it out then?

Are you still ignoring the facts?

Yes, because I must believe everything you do, is that right?

My beliefs don't require me to ignore facts like yours do. I think I will stick with my beliefs.

In your mind. I'd like to see someone surgically place an octopus eye on a human being and see how that works out.

Could God not create man with a forward facing retina?

Why do we always see an inverted retina in animals that also have a spinal column? How do you explain this relationship?

 

[Loudmouth]

How dare I believe that I was created and that my eyes are beautiful? What a sick nutcase I am! Am I right?

Why do you continue to ignore the facts?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

What would a non-designed thing look like?

I don't know, but life doesn't look non-designed, that's for sure.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know, but life doesn't look non-designed, that's for sure.

Based on what evidence?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Based on what evidence?

Hmm, I don't know. Have you ever looked at a living creature?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmm, I don't know. Have you ever looked at a living creature?

Have you?

What is the evidence for design?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Why do you continue to ignore the facts?

I refuse to accept everything you say as a fact. I'm sorry that you believe everything the biologists tell you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

What facts can it not explain?

Comments?

God Bless!

The greatest evidence against it is actual observation of how life really propagates and variation enters the species.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:

are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

The next is that spontaneous generation is no longer accepted as scientifically valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

When we get right down to it, life from non-life is exactly that - the formation of living organisms without descent from similar living organisms. No matter the double-talk attempted in defense, there is no getting around this simple fact.

But as stated above, only by ignoring how life is actually observed to propagate can the fossil record be listed as all separate species. So basically 90% of the belief in evolution is founded upon incorrect classification of infraspecific taxa as separate species. Any adaptation because of local conditions simply place them as infraspecific taxa - not separate species. But ignoring their own scientific definitions to support their belief is common among evolutionists.

Don't misunderstand, I certainly believe mutations have an effect on a species.

They just suddenly don't like talking about the reality.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bir...ved=0ahUKEwinqOD6iJvMAhWEOyYKHXSeBEIQ_AUIBigB

 

[Chris B]

My belief is based on the knowledge that I was created. Sure, there are many eyes which have problems, but a few problems don't diminish their magnificence.

No, not if you ignore the data which jar against your belief.

I've seen eyes in the thousands damaged or blinded by a lack of ability to properly regulate their internal pressure.
If this was designed then it was BAD design.

 

[Loudmouth]

I refuse to accept everything you say as a fact.

Then please tell me how light diffracting through cells and being absorbed by material in cells that sit in front of the light sensing cells can not reduce both resolution and sensitivity.

I'm sorry that you believe everything the biologists tell you.

You refuse to accept facts, a trait common among creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

The greatest evidence against it is actual observation of how life really propagates and variation enters the species.

Are humans and chimps separate species?

 

[Hieronymus]

Based on what evidence?

Every organ has a purpose in the system we call 'organism'.
An organism is an organised bunch of interdependent systems.
it is made up of high end nano technological units we call cells.
It is irreducibly complex on many levels.
From eco system to organelles.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Have you?

What is the evidence for design?

How about the fact that we have billions and billions of cells forming different systems and organs which all contribute to make up a single conscious individual? You can;t look at a cell and see that it is an incredibly complex machine that does exactly what it is supposed to? Have you ever listened to music? Have you ever gazed at art? Don't you know what beauty is?

 

[Loudmouth]

Every organ has a purpose in the system we call 'organism'.
An organism is an organised bunch of interdependent systems.
it is made up of high end nano technological units we call cells.
It is irreducibly complex on many levels.
From eco system to organelles.

And?

 

[Loudmouth]

How about the fact that we have billions and billions of cells forming different systems and organs which all contribute to make up a single conscious individual? You can;t look at a cell and see that it is an incredibly complex machine that does exactly what it is supposed to? Have you ever listened to music? Have you ever gazed at art? Don't you know what beauty is?

And yet we can observe new human beings formed through completely natural processes without any deity involved.