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

[Loudmouth]

Not only do you need to explain how the eye itself came to be through evolutionary processes, but you also must explain the brain and how the two connect and evolved to form images the organism can perceive.

You don't need a brain in order to have an eye.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I discuss the endogenous retrovirus evidence in this thread:

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

So the endogenous retrovirus proves that life in all of its complexity undoubtedly arose from mutation?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Wrong, you won't let yourself learn. For those who have not blinded themselves the evidence is more than ample. Again, when you are ready to learn I will gladly help you.

Yes, I am the blind one. Funny how before I was ridiculed for saying others were not of the truth, and now the same thing is being said of me. Don't worry though, I'm not offended, because this is what I expect from a person who refuses to believe in an intelligent designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This seems so to you.

Wrong again, it is demonstrable.
No you wouldn't.I do, but you don't.[/QUOTE]

Please, try to debate like an adult. So far you have only shown that you have no understanding of science at all. How do you expect to refute one of the theories with the strongest sets of evidence in the world of science? And why do you use this science every day that you deny exists? That sounds quite hypocritical to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

How does the organism use these "eyes" to see? How do we know those are eyes?

You are moving the goal posts again. You claimed that you have to have a brain and a heart in order to have eyes. That is false.

No, I was asking how cells and DNA evolved if they cannot work apart from eachother.

I told you that we don't need to know that in order to conclude that all life shares a common ancestor and evolved from that common ancestor.

God created us to reproduce; the very process of reproduction was designed.

Evidence, please.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You don't need a brain in order to have an eye.

You need a brain to interpret what the eye sees, do you not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I am the blind one. Funny how before I was ridiculed for saying others were not of the truth, and now the same thing is being said of me. Don't worry though, I'm not offended, because this is what I expect from a person who refuses to believe in an intelligent designer.

You are the blind one because you refuse to look at evidence, all the while claim that no evidence exists.

 

[Hieronymus]

When you demonstrate that you understand the concept of evidence then you can demand it. So far you have only shown that evidence is a foreign notion to you.

This is just your perception.

What we call "God's creation" is not explained by dead unconscious things following the laws of nature.
You know the arguments, but it means 'a divine foot in the door', which is unacceptable to you.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I told you that we don't need to know that in order to conclude that all life shares a common ancestor and evolved from that common ancestor.

Where did this common ancestor come from?

 

[Hieronymus]

You need a brain to interpret what the eye sees, do you not?

Obviously.
The eye is a useless construction without a brain.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You are the blind one because you refuse to look at evidence, all the while claim that no evidence exists.

I look at your 'evidence,' but it simply isn't enough to prove your outrageous claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need a brain to interpret what the eye sees, do you not?

No, you don't need a brain in order to use eyes. Even this one celled creature called a Euglena has an eye. Again, this is a single celled organism. No brain.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously.
The eye is a useless construction without a brain.

The euglena and planaria would disagree.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Obviously.
The eye is a useless construction without a brain.

Right, but I know that many evolutionists are quite content in believing that an organism can have useless organs. They say that about the appendix because they are ignorant of what it does!

 

[ClothedInGrace]

No, you don't need a brain in order to use eyes. Even this one celled creature called a Euglena has an eye. Again, this is a single celled organism. No brain.

How does this 'eye' work, then?

 

[Loudmouth]

I look at your 'evidence,' but it simply isn't enough to prove your outrageous claims.

Then go to the retrovirus thread and demonstrate to us that it isn't evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

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

I am betting that you won't, because you can't.

 

[Loudmouth]

How does this 'eye' work, then?

It is all explained here:

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

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Then go to the retrovirus thread and demonstrate to us that it isn't evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

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

I am betting that you won't, because you can't.

Actually I won't because I don't feel like it. If you are willing then you can certainly explain your theory here on this thread and demonstrate how it demolishes the idea that life was created.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, but I know that many evolutionists are quite content in believing that an organism can have useless organs. They say that about the appendix because they are ignorant of what it does!

We say that the appendix is vestigial because of what it doesn't do, namely digest cellulose. Vestigial organs can still have rudimentary function.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, you don't need a brain in order to use eyes. Even this one celled creature called a Euglena has an eye. Again, this is a single celled organism. No brain.

That's an eye-spot, not an eye.
None the less, a Euglena also needs to be able to react to what the eye spot registers.
The probably seek light or dark, whatever it needs to do to help it thrive.
But just an eye spot is useless.