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

[Subduction Zone]

So do you believe that the eye evolved out of necessity? Because then mutations would not be so random.

Why do you think that mutations would not be random? Selection is not random, that is what keeps evolution from being random. It is not so much a "necessity" but it is a huge advantage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say... In reality you are just too eager to believe anything that fits into your worldview that science is the explanation for everything, even going so far as to say that humanity needs no intelligent explanation, but only a long series of mutation.

Please, you need to quit making false claims about others that you cannot support. I accept evolution because it is the only concept supported by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its eye is not the same as our eye. Our eye needs a brain to work.

Correct, our eye evolved along with our brains. They both rely on each other. What he showed you was the simple eye that would have been ours 600 million years ago.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Please, you need to quit making false claims about others that you cannot support. I accept evolution because it is the only concept supported by evidence.

The evidence that you interpret to fit your worldview.

 

[The Cadet]

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

Hold the phone. You don't know what non-design looks like, but you claim to know how to detect design? That... makes absolutely no sense. You're using some criteria to determine "this is designed", correct? Well just apply the inverse criteria - i.e. "This lacks criteria X, Y, and Z, therefore it looks not designed". I mean, in order to determine that something looks designed, you must distinguish it from that which is not designed... Right?

...Unless you don't actually have criteria, and are just going on poorly-thought-out intuition. In which case it makes perfect sense.

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.

You didn't really get my question, though. How are any of these things outside the laws of nature? If they happened, the laws of nature would necessarily be changed to include them.

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.

...Missing the point somewhat... The point being that determining the difference between something supernatural and something that is simply beyond our current understanding of technology seems to be impossible. For example, let's say we come up with medical technology that allows us to reconstruct the last brain state of someone before they died. We could bring the dead back to life! Entirely naturally, with no magic required.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Why do you think that mutations would not be random? Selection is not random, that is what keeps evolution from being random. It is not so much a "necessity" but it is a huge advantage.

Just think about it... Not only did these simple lifeforms need to mutate in just the right fashion, but then they had to reproduce that mutation and escape the dangers of its environment. And they had to do this probably billions of times if we honestly think that we are the result of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence that you interpret to fit your worldview.

The evidence that only has one interpretation. No one is stopping creationists from interpreting evidence, though one does take a risk when doing so. A person's interpretation can be shown to be wrong, and creationists have a very poor record when the evidence is investigated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just think about it... Not only did these simple lifeforms need to mutate in just the right fashion, but then they had to reproduce that mutation and escape the dangers of its environment. And they had to do this probably billions of times if we honestly think that we are the result of them.

Wrong again, there was no "right fashion". Very often there are multiple routes that can be taken to get over a problem. Sight evolved independently quite a few times, and all of the "eyes" produced has traits based upon how they mutated.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

The evidence that only has one interpretation. No one is stopping creationists from interpreting evidence, though one does take a risk when doing so. A person's interpretation can be shown to be wrong, and creationists have a very poor record when the evidence is investigated.

I'm sorry, but if you think evidence has only one interpretation, then you are mistaken.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, but if you think evidence has only one interpretation, then you are mistaken.

I did not mean that quite that way. I said that every creationist attempt to interpret the evidence has been refuted. Scientific evidence can support or run counter to an idea. Creationist attempts using scientific evidence have all failed to date. And they only have themselves to blame for their failure.

It is possible that there is another interpretation of the evidence, but after over 150 years it does not look like that is the case.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I did not say that. I said that every creationist attempt to interpret the evidence has been refuted. Scientific evidence can support or run counter to an idea. Creationist attempts using scientific evidence have all failed to date. And they only have themselves to blame for their failure.

It is possible that there is another interpretation of the evidence, but after over 150 years it does not look like that is the case.

You interpret fossils to fit your worldview, and we interpret the fossils to fit ours. Some on this thread interpret cancer to mean that life was not designed; we interpret cancer to mean that life is in a state of sin. You only think you've refuted our interpretations because you don't believe them; they haven't actually been refuted in any way.

Everything you say and believe is from your own perspective, and likewise for me.

 

[46AND2]

Wow. You can't simplify this in anyway? I see now how hard it is to prove that life was not designed.

Yes, science is hard. One has to put effort into learning it, and even more effort into correcting it.

How do you know it is wrong if you can't understand what it claims?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Yes, science is hard. One has to put effort into learning it, and even more effort into correcting it.

How do you know it is wrong if you can't understand what it claims?

Maybe if it was better explained then I would understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You interpret fossils to fit your worldview, and we interpret the fossils to fit ours. Some on this thread interpret cancer to mean that life was not designed; we interpret cancer to mean that life is in a state of sin. You only think you've refuted our interpretations because you don't believe them; they haven't actually been refuted in any way.

Everything you say and believe is from your own perspective, and likewise for me.

You don't seem to understand. The creationist interpretation can be shown to be wrong since they always end up contradicting themselves. And yes, the creationist arguments have all been refuted. There is a term for this. They are called PRATT's. Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

The sad fact is that you do not interpret the evidence, you come up with ad hoc explanations. Those are even worse than failed interpretations. You really need to work on the basics of science Creationists have lost court case after court case because they do not understand the concept of evidence. Guess what? Judges do have an excellent understanding of evidence. That is why your side keeps losing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your 'evidence' only works if you believe it. I'm sorry your explanations of evolution are not enough to convince me that I am the product of mutation and millions of years.

You don't believe that retroviruses insert into host genomes? This process has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Why don't you believe it?

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence that you interpret to fit your worldview.

So retroviruses really don't insert into host genomes, even though we watch it happen in the lab and in the wild?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe if it was better explained then I would understand it.

Maybe if you tried to understand it, you would understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I posted a video for you to watch. It is not overly complex. You asked for an answer, watch the video and you will learn.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You don't believe that retroviruses insert into host genomes? This process has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Why don't you believe it?

I never said I didn't believe it. Can you tie this in to how it proves life evolved and was not created?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

And I posted a video for you to watch. It is not overly complex. You asked for an answer, watch the video and you will learn.

What I learned is that you have holes in your theory. The video assumes evolution, but it doesn't prove it.