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

[The Cadet]

There's nothing wrong with the law. If I reached into the water and lifted the ax head, that would still conform to the law because there was an external force applied. The same thing happens with God's miracles.

...Except that something clearly is wrong with the law. Again, the purpose of the law is to form a general predictive model of what will happen. If what it predicts doesn't happen, the law is falsified. This is like with gravity - if Newton observed an object of known weight moving at 0.99c, he would find that his theory, his natural laws, were wrong. They were falsified and expanded upon. Such an anomaly allows us to refine our models.

With that in mind, let me ask you something. Why do you think people talk about "not allowing a divine foot in the door"?

I'll give you another one. A small church was facing a deadline to make a payment on their building project. When they counted the money, they were way short. The pastor prayed for a miracle and they recounted the money. The count was one dollar higher. They recounted again and gained another dollar; and again and gained another dollar. They kept this up through the evening until they had enough money to pay the bank. None of the people counting added to the count, and there was nothing wrong with their counting skills. They prayed for a miracle and that miracle happened.

I personally knew all the people involved. They were very devout people with no reason to invent such a story. In fact, they were all pretty humble that they had been a part of such a happening. These things still happen, and God still works His miracles today.

Again, while this anecdote may be convincing to you (I find it rather hard to believe, particularly given that slipping in a few extra dollars on the sly would be considered by some an extremely humble way to help), I hope you understand that I'm not just about to take your word for it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A nested hierarchy is not expected, unless evolution is true.

Straight out misinformation and falsehoods...

I see a perfectly nested family tree with no evolution at all. Just separate infraspecific taxa mating with other infraspecific taxa creating new infraspecific taxa.

 

[Loudmouth]

Straight out misinformation and falsehoods...


I see a perfectly nested family tree with no evolution at all. Just separate infraspecific taxa mating with other infraspecific taxa creating new infraspecific taxa.

First, common ancestry is what produced that family tree.

Also, the nested hierarchies are seen between species, exactly what we should see if evolution and common ancestry are true.

 

[46AND2]

A small church was facing a deadline to make a payment on their building project. When they counted the money, they were way short. The pastor prayed for a miracle and they recounted the money. The count was one dollar higher. They recounted again and gained another dollar; and again and gained another dollar. They kept this up through the evening until they had enough money to pay the bank. None of the people counting added to the count, and there was nothing wrong with their counting skills. They prayed for a miracle and that miracle happened.

Hmmm, I've heard that story somewhere before...

 

[KWCrazy]

Hmmm, I've heard that story somewhere before...

I've posted it here before.

 

[Chris B]

Possibly you were listening to the orchestra instead of the Master.
Going to church and following the Ten Commandments may make you a better person but they won't save you. Only the Master can save you. He is found not through logic and reason, but through faith and obedience.

Such is your belief and position of faith.
I disagree with what you believe. (No great shock, I'm sure!)

Though at the time in question I thought I was a real Christian, and seemed to be as committed and genuine as you can get.
Early 80's I was involved in evangelism, and had put myself forward for consideration to fill a teaching missionary post in Kabul.

"He is found not through logic and reason,"
But that leaves some terrible consequences open. Faith and obedience can be assigned in all sorts of directions, and faith can only confirm that the faith is correct. What else can it do?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If the number of neuron matter, than compare to the intelligence of elephant, the neurons in our brain should be millions of miles long. Obviously neuron number is only a feature, not the cause of our super high intelligence.

XD hahahaha, of course not! Elephant brains ARE BIGGER THAN OURS BUT HAVE FEWER NEURONS. Obviously, their neurons have to be bigger than ours in order for that to be the case. But honestly, for all intents and purposes, number of neurons is far more important than their physical size, and their configuration is how memory and thought processing works. Every time you make a new memory, your brain's shape changes as the connections between your neurons adjust to "hold on" to the memory, so to speak. So yes, more neurons definitely contributes to intelligence, as does having more cells that maintain neurons.

 

[Hoghead1]

It's a book of truth.
Science studies the creation.
The Bible shows us the Creator.

Not tension, opposition.

We weren't created by any scientific natural process. Our Creator is supernatural.
[quote[What you are really arguing for here isn't really the validity of the Bible, its the validity of your fundamentalist ideology about the Bible.

False, as usual. Only one of us actually quotes Scripture. It isn't thou.

And it has been; many times. Prophesies written come true many years later. It might surprise you that science can't disprove a single miracle, because miracles are by definition against the laws of nature.

The best way to make sure you are not in error is to NOT disagree with the Scriptures or the teaching of Christ.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hoghead1]

It's a book of truth.
Science studies the creation.
The Bible shows us the Creator.

Not tension, opposition.

We weren't created by any scientific natural process. Our Creator is supernatural.
[quote[What you are really arguing for here isn't really the validity of the Bible, its the validity of your fundamentalist ideology about the Bible.

False, as usual. Only one of us actually quotes Scripture. It isn't thou.

And it has been; many times. Prophesies written come true many years later. It might surprise you that science can't disprove a single miracle, because miracles are by definition against the laws of nature.




The best way to make sure you are not in error is to NOT disagree with the Scriptures or the teaching of Christ.[/QUOTE]

We weren't created by any scientific natural process. Our Creator is supernatural.
[quote[What you are really arguing for here isn't really the validity of the Bible, its the validity of your fundamentalist ideology about the Bible. [/quote]
False, as usual. Only one of us actually quotes Scripture. It isn't thou.

And it has been; many times. Prophesies written come true many years later. It might surprise you that science can't disprove a single miracle, because miracles are by definition against the laws of nature.

Miracles are definitely not the issue here. The issue here is what is the natural order and how does God work in and through that. Questions about supernatural events are important, but belong in separate thread.

If you think the Bible is a science textbook, then you better take a course in science 101. The Bible is nowhere near written in scientific language and does not follow the scientific method. Moses did no have an additional tablet saying F =MA or E=MC2 or anything like that. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the Bible to be considered a scientific work, as it was written in prescientific times. Newton was a major biblical scholar, but he derived his knowledge of gravity from studying nature. He did not find one single law of gravity stated in Scripture. Funny, how you seem to be saying he should have but that as a major biblical scholar he didn't.
You claim you are not following fundamentalist ideology, because you are quoting Scripture. Are you kidding? In fundamentalism, everything has to be referred back to a literal reading of Scripture to validate it. That's exactly what you are doing here.
Again, the issue here is not about believing or following Scripture. The basic issue is about how accurate and satisfying is the Bible Belt version of the Bible. You seem to continually forget that, which is precisely why you are misunderstanding my points. The vast majority of Christians today have no trouble at all accepting both the Bible and evolution. The big flat over evolution and religion was resolved by the end of the 19th century in England. About the only place today where this flap still goes in is in the American Bible Belt. That's because Bible Belt ideology praises old-fashioned religion. "Gimme that old-fashioned religion," goes the popular song. So the Bible Belt still hangs on to the old-fashioned 19th-century natural theology, when the rest of Christendom has moved on and way beyond that. So, yes, you are going on a fallible, human-made version of Christianity.

 

[Hoghead1]

Wong! I am pointing out that you are teaching contrary to the Scriptures, which makes you a false teacher by definition. Even when showed in Scripture where you are 100% contrary to what is written, you persist with your own consistent attack against the word of God.

Try Exodus 32.

Wrong. You are simply having too much fun here breaking the rules, being angry and hostile and personally attacking me. It is a major no-no here to cast aspersion on the character of anyone, as you are doing here by labeling me a false teacher. That is an incredibly arrogant and ignorant remark on your part. "Attacking the word of God" is another silly remark on your part. The problem seems to be that you are so het up in attacking me that you do not pay a bit of attention to what I am saying. The issue her is not one of attacking the Bible. The issue here is, however, definitely attacking your irrational exegetical method. and your hateful intolerance of fellow Christians who do not agree with what you have to say.

 

[Shemjaza]

As a group, human is far more intelligent than animals. (so human is not evolved)
In detail, yes, some humans are more intelligent than some others on something. So men are born unequal. This is also a property of creation.

You didn't answer my question.

Is intelligence from our physical bodies?
And are those physical bodies formed from our genes?

 

[Hoghead1]

Wong! I am pointing out that you are teaching contrary to the Scriptures, which makes you a false teacher by definition. Even when showed in Scripture where you are 100% contrary to what is written, you persist with your own consistent attack against the word of God.

Try Exodus 32.

Are you kidding me? Have you read Exod. 32? There is absolute nothing that that says Moses brought down a tablet with the creation narrative of Genesis written on it. Where on earth did you get that idea? The Bible makes it clear the tablets contained the 10 Commandments, but that's it. It appears you are the one here twisting Scripture to fit your version of Bible Belt ideology.

 

[Abraxos]

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 Cambrian explosion has puzzled evolutionists for centuries. Darwin himself had pondered the sudden diversity of life of flora and fauna at this period well into his old age never able to give an answer to accommodate his theory.

I wouldn't say this is the greatest evidence against the theory but certainly one of the many evidences.

 

[florida2]

There's nothing wrong with the law. If I reached into the water and lifted the ax head, that would still conform to the law because there was an external force applied. The same thing happens with God's miracles. I'll give you another one. A small church was facing a deadline to make a payment on their building project. When they counted the money, they were way short. The pastor prayed for a miracle and they recounted the money. The count was one dollar higher. They recounted again and gained another dollar; and again and gained another dollar. They kept this up through the evening until they had enough money to pay the bank. None of the people counting added to the count, and there was nothing wrong with their counting skills. They prayed for a miracle and that miracle happened.

I personally knew all the people involved. They were very devout people with no reason to invent such a story. In fact, they were all pretty humble that they had been a part of such a happening. These things still happen, and God still works His miracles today.

When and where did this happen? Where's the local news coverage of this amazing event?

To be honest, stories like that do nothing for me. If it was a true miracle it simply shows a God that is completely arbitrary, inconsistent and random in his favours and not the all powerful, all loving one often portrayed. Shame God could rustle up a few extra dollars for a church but couldn't be bothered to heal a very good friend of mine who died earlier this year from a brain tumour. She was a pillar of her local church for many years and had a very strong faith but I guess God didn't want to listen to prayers to heal her?

For every one story of supposed miracles it's easy to name 99 other occasions where the all loving parent didn't step in because...reasons? Miracle stories do not support an all loving God. They could support a rather apathetic deity who occasionally decides to get involved for a few random people now and again, or it could be the case that miracle stories are simply not the work of the supernatural but rather coincidence, wishful thinking, misinterpretation, and fallibility of human memory and sometimes deliberate deception. Not all miracle stories can be true so it seems more likely that none of them are.

 

[juvenissun]

You didn't answer my question.

Is intelligence from our physical bodies?
And are those physical bodies formed from our genes?

No. Intelligence has little to do with the physical body.
Is there any study on the correlation between IQ and a particular body part?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Cambrian explosion has puzzled evolutionists for centuries. Darwin himself had pondered the sudden diversity of life of flora and fauna at this period well into his old age never able to give an answer to accommodate his theory.



I wouldn't say this is the greatest evidence against the theory but certainly one of the many evidences.

Why do you think that the Cambrian explosion is a problem? Relying on creationists that always get confuse on how evolution works will never lead you to the right conclusion. Try siting a valid source next time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Intelligence has little to do with the physical body.
Is there any study on the correlation between IQ and a particular body part?

Yes, people without a functioning brain tend to score very low on IQ tests.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Cambrian explosion has puzzled evolutionists for centuries.

No such thing as an "evolutionist".

Biologists and paleontologists imperfectly understand some of the underpinnings of the rapid morphological diversification during the early Cambrian period.

Similarly, we have imperfect understanding of these following rapid diversifications of life:

Avalon explosion;
Devonian explosion;
Mesozoic–Cenozoic radiation;
Mesozoic marine revolution;
Cretaceous terrestrial revolution;
Great Ordovician biodiversification event;
Diversification of land plants;
Rapid angiosperm radiation;
Paleocene epoch mammal diversification;

Wow, look at them all. It's almost like very rapid diversifications/morphological radiations are common in the history of life.

Oh and by "very rapid", I generally mean periods of a minimum of 10-15 million years.

For example, the lowest bounds on the Cambrian explosion are about 18 million years and the upper bound is about 25 million years. The Avalon explosion took about 30 million years, mammal diversification took about 12 million years.

Darwin himself had pondered the sudden diversity of life of flora and fauna at this period well into his old age never able to give an answer to accommodate his theory.

I wouldn't say this is the greatest evidence against the theory but certainly one of the many evidences.

Science marches on. If Darwin were alive today, he'd be happy as a pig in mud, studying the incredible amount of fossils we are pulling out of the earth that show just how complicated life actually was before the Cambrian. Our knowledge of the Ediacaran biota is immensely richer than it was just 15 years ago, let alone 150 years ago when Darwin was publishing.

I wouldn't say that the Cambrian explosion is evidence against the theory of evolution. Rather, I'd argue that it presents us with an embarrassment of evidence for evolution. There are so many fossils being discovered that there is years long backlog of species waiting to be cataloged and classified.

Just because one part of the picture is not yet completed, it doesn't mean we've not put the rest of puzzle together correctly.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually you evolutionists are wrong again. As usual.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...ack-couple-makes-a-white-baby-oguejiofo-annu/

Where is your evidence that Darwin ever said he was stumped by teh Cambrian? Specific quote please. I have to check our everything, because creation-science spreads so very many false rumors about Darwin.

 

[Abraxos]

Where is your evidence that Darwin ever said he was stumped by teh Cambrian? Specific quote please. I have to check our everything, because creation-science spreads so very many false rumors about Darwin.

"When Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species " in 1859, the sudden appearance of animal fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian was of particular concern to him. It was at odds with his view that the diversification of life on earth through natural selection had required a long period of time. Darwin's theory predicted that the major groups of animals should gradually diverge during evolution. He knew that the sudden appearance of fossils would be used by his opponents as a powerful argument against his theories of descent with modification and natural selection. Consequently, he argued that a long period of time, unrepresented in the fossil record, must have preceded the Cambrian to allow the various major groups of animals to diverge. At that time the strata that we now regard as Cambrian were subsumed within the concept of the Silurian, so Darwin wrote,

'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'

The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 - 314​

• Derek E.G. Briggs, Douglas H. Erwin, & Frederick J. Collier
  "The Fossils of the Burgess Shale," 1994, Smithsonian Institution, p.39.

Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.

• Darwin, Charles
  On the Origin of Species, 1st edition
  Harvard Univ. Press, facsimile reprint, 1964, p. 307

Note: In Darwin's time, the "Silurian" was the name given the oldest known fossil-bearing strata. "Cambrian" does not occur as an index entry in this edition of the Origin.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/cambrian.html​