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

[KWCrazy]

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?

An ax head floating on water would be supernatural, as would a man walking on the seas, the dead coming back to life, the summoning of a departed spirit (Like Samuel) or the other examples I've given.

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.

None of which happened. On a level table the law of inertia prevents things moving on their own. There had to be an external force applied. We do this with a cue stick. In absence of a physical force, a non-physical force had to be applied to overcome inertia.

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.

Of course, had you been there, you would have a different opinion.
Many people doubt ufo's until they see one.
Paul doubted the Christians until he met Christ.
Perhaps one day you will encounter something that will shake your belief or disbelief to the core.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

So you still can't accept the fact that the octopus eye is objectively better than the human eye?

I reject your belief that the octopus eye is better. Go get yourself a set and see how that works out. Everything you say is not a fact, and it would be foolish for anyone to believe so.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact that we do reproduce is evidence that God created us with the ability to reproduce,

No more so than reproduction is evidence that Leprechauns created us with the ability to reproduce. All you have is a claim.

but I know you don't really believe in any creator so that seems silly to you.

I am asking for evidence, not belief statements. Do you understand the difference?

You have facts? More like an interpretation of fossils that fit the evolutionary theory.

Wrong. Check out the thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

 

[Loudmouth]

I reject your belief that the octopus eye is better.

I gave you the facts which you continue to ignore, a common trait among creationists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You think your view on the eye is enough to disprove that we were intelligently created? Seriously?

Errr... yes.
Also, it's not "his" view. It's factually the case.

The wires are in front of the light sensitive cells.

If an engineer at Sony would design a camera in that way, and then add additional battery consuming software to "rectify" the captured image, he would be fired instantly.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You mean, unless it goes beserk and turns into a cancerous tumor?

Again, that's a symptom of the fall. Is cancer enough for you believe that cells were not designed?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because otherwise you would go blind without that added protection from radiation. Part of the plan to enable you to see in the first place. the fact you think an animal that lives in water should have the same eye composition and functionality as one that lives in air (or you think we should believe that) shows your confusion.

You aren't aware that there are plenty of sea creatures with the exact same blind spot?

You design a sub differently than you design a boat or a car.

Whales and dolphins might disagree.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I gave you the facts which you continue to ignore, a common trait among creationists.

You keep saying that. I guess if you keep saying something it eventually becomes true.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Errr... yes.
Also, it's not "his" view. It's factually the case.

The wires are in front of the light sensitive cells.

If an engineer at Sony would design a camera in that way, and then add additional battery consuming software to "rectify" the captured image, he would be fired instantly.

Yes, because everything you evolutionists say is fact. It's not your view, it's just fact! Let's ignore the incredible complexity of the eye and just point out something we think shouldn't be the case, then we can call it fact and say it is enough to prove that we aren't designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Go get yourself a set of octopus eyes then. I'm happy with mine.

That's a very juvenile response which only serves to dodge the facts.

Again, it is a fact that your brain needs to spend additional energy to "rectify" the image captured by your eyes, ONLY because your the wires are all in front of the light sensitive cells. If the wires would be behind those cells, this problem would not exist, and thus less energy would have to be spend, which would result in an objectively more efficient eye.

This is not something that we can solve or change. It's simply the eye we have. It is the way it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, that's a symptom of the fall. Is cancer enough for you believe that cells were not designed?

So let's get this straight. . .

Life was designed because it is perfect, unless it isn't perfect which means it is still designed.

Do we have that right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, that's a symptom of the fall.

So, dogs get cancer, because some dude ate fruit from some tree?

Is cancer enough for you believe that cells were not designed?

It's enough to counter the claim I was responding too.

 

[Loudmouth]

You keep saying that. I guess if you keep saying something it eventually becomes true.

I will keep repeating the facts. Perhaps you won't ignore them this time?

Light passing through a cell causes the light to diffract. This reduces resolution.

Some of the light passing through a cell will be absorbed by the chemicals in the cell. This reduces the amount of light reaching the light sensing cells. This reduces sensitivity.

Can you show how either of these are not facts?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

So let's get this straight. . .

Life was designed because it is perfect, unless it isn't perfect which means it is still designed.

Do we have that right?

Not even close. We were designed good, and now because of sin everything is subject to death and decay.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

So, dogs get cancer, because some dude ate fruit from some tree?

Rebellion and sin lead to what God said it would.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The octopus eye IS objectively better then ours.

It doesn't have a blind spot, which means that it also has no need for additional, energy consuming, mechanisms to "correct" the image so that one doesn't notice the blind spot.

An eye that doesn't need additional energy consuming mechanism to provide an image is objectively better then one that does.

It's made to function in a medium that requires greater clarity. Just as that eye on land would soon cease to function because it would lack the protection a blind spot in the human eye provides to prevent radiation damage.

Its not better, it is simply better suited to its environment. On land the octopuses eye would soon become useless as it went blind because it had no blind spot. So which is actually better? neither. Both work in the environment it was designed for. Besides - according to evolution your reasoning is flawed, since humans are the pinnacle of evolution - the most advanced. The octopus eye is less advanced, and therefore inferior - but I guess we'll disregard simple to complex in this discussion of superiority and evolution from water to land.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, because everything you evolutionists say is fact.

Light passing through a cell causes the light to diffract. This reduces resolution.

Some of the light passing through a cell will be absorbed by the chemicals in the cell. This reduces the amount of light reaching the light sensing cells. This reduces sensitivity.

Can you show how either of these are not facts?

Let's ignore the incredible complexity of the eye and just point out something we think shouldn't be the case, then we can call it fact and say it is enough to prove that we aren't designed.

No one is ignoring complexity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, because everything you evolutionists say is fact.

It IS a fact. The human eye factually has a blind spot. The human brain factually spends energy to rectify the image so that we don't "see" the blind spot.

This is not "some view" or "belief".

This is factual anatomy.

It's not your view, it's just fact!

It is.

We have a blind spot in our eye. Fact.
This blind spot exists because the nerves need to go through it. Fact.
This blind spot would not exist if the nerves were on the other side. Fact.
The brain needs to spend extra energy to accomodate for this blind spot. Fact.
The brian would not need to do this, if it didn't have a blind spot. Fact.

Fact, fact, fact.

Let's ignore the incredible complexity of the eye and just point out something we think shouldn't be the case, then we can call it fact and say it is enough to prove that we aren't designed.

I'm not ignoring anything.
That would be you.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's made to function in a medium that requires greater clarity. Just as that eye on land would soon cease to function because it would lack the protection blind spot in the human eye provides to prevent radiation damage.

The blind spot doesn't protect us from anything.

Also, fish have the same inverted retina that we have and they live in the same exact environments as squid and octopus. Why do fish have the same eyes as land animals, but not the same eyes as other water species? How do you explain that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So let's get this straight. . .

Life was designed because it is perfect, unless it isn't perfect which means it is still designed.

Do we have that right?

Yep.

"I'm right, even when I'm wrong!!!!"