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

[Loudmouth]

"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​

Correct. Darwin said that we don't have these earlier fossils because we don't have sediments from those time periods, or at least they hadn't found those sediments during his lifetime. The gaps in the fossil record are due to gaps in the geologic record, a fact that he spent an entire chapter describing.

 

[Loudmouth]

You should educate yourself. Here's a pretty good video to introduce newbies to the cambrian explosion.

The earliest ancestors of animals are found in the earliest sediments. This is a problem for evolution how?

 

[Loudmouth]

Injury should not be a factor in the survey or the correlation.

If our intelligence is not a product of our physical bodies, then why is our intelligence hampered by physical injuries?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you can't see the darker skinned female that married into the line, your definitely blind. Or purposefully misstating the facts to support your dogma. I'll let you and others decide which.

Why you refuse to accept that variation never occurs in the species until two infraspecific taxa mate is beyond me, since nothing else has ever been observed in the entire history of observation.

Yes, I know it magically happened that way in the past when no one was there to observe it..... Ah yah, that's it.

I am not being dishonest, and you are ignoring a lot of what I said. I did misspeak, though. Regardless, she marries in, yet her dark skin trait disappears in just 2 generations. What you don't seem to understand is that phenotypic patterns and frequencies are relevant to evolution, and that this decrease in the frequency of that trait is a sign of evolution. Not that it matters all that much, given that I don't even know if this represents an actual family tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think they would all agree on what you said.

What "they" are you referring to? If you are talking about the brain dead obviously they wouldn't. It was amazing that anyone would make such a post today. There is no doubt where intelligence comes from since the days that modern medicine was first practiced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einsteins brain was no larger than the average human brain. In fact, it was a bit smaller than average.

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/einbrain.htm

" (As it happened, the brain was a bit smaller than average; size is not correlated with intelligence.)"

There is no reason at all to suspect a smaller brain will be less intelligent than a larger brain. Cranial and brain size has no direct correlation to intelligence, despite the myths spread about it being so.

No one said that size is the only important consideration. Size is a factor, but there are other very important factors as well. Number of neurons is not the same as size of brain. Number of connections in the brain would be very important to. The simple fact is that intelligence is seated in the brain.

 

[Shemjaza]

Accident have no place in the mechanism of origin. (yes, you may include mutation into it)

A mutation can affect neural development.
Neural development affects inteligence.
In many situations intelligence is an advantage.

That's all there is to it... if you want people to believe in magical intelligence, you are going to have to present magic as evidence.

(At this point I'd be happy to see you present any evidence at all.)

 

[Hoghead1]

With the number of people on here that have lied about their credentials, I wouldn't get worked up about someone accusing you of doing as much. It's par for the course. I'm actually shocked no one has done it to me, but then again, I am a student, not a person that currently has the degree in Biomedical Sciences I am working towards. Wow, come to think of it, I've been a member of this site for about as long as I have been in college.

Well, no, I'm not worked up about it. However, it is an irrational personal attack, nonetheless. Yes, in a way, it is par for the course when you are working with right wingers and Bible Belters, who often like to hit below the belt. In our town, we have a Bible Belt church that put up a big, expensive electric billboard. Whenever they don't like someone, they flash their name on the sign and denounce them. They went after Santa Claus one year. Created quite an uproar. They had to take Santa off their hit-list sign. So, yes, it is par for the course.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, no, I'm not worked up about it. However, it is an irrational personal attack, nonetheless. Yes, in a way, it is par for the course when you are working with right wingers and Bible Belters, who often like to hit below the belt. In our town, we have a Bible Belt church that put up a big, expensive electric billboard. Whenever they don't like someone, they flash their name on the sign and denounce them. They went after Santa Claus one year. Created quite an uproar. They had to take Santa off their hit-list sign. So, yes, it is par for the course.

No, I am saying that, given the number of people on here that have lied about having various credentials, that it is completely logical to doubt someone when they claim to have them.

 

[Hoghead1]

Deuteronomy 5 is Moses talking about the Ten Commandments to his people. The original text of the commandments can be found in Exodus 20:11, and THAT, as I said, was what Moses brought down from Mt Sinai. On those stone tablets carved by the finger of God, it says that the Lord created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Why is it you're the "scholar" and I know this when you do not?

Again, you didn't pay attention to what I said. I said yes, in Exod. 20, but no, in Deut. 5. There are two different versions in the Bible. Check your Bible. Read Exod. 20, then look at Deut. 5. You'll see what I am talking about.
Hmmm, yes, well, it would appear to be the case that you, as are all Bible Belt believers, are going to Heaven, whereas I, as, as all those who believe in evolution, are going to Hell. But big deal so what? Under the circumstance, I am glad I am gong to Hell, because I know I will be able to hobnob with a better-educated, higher-class clientele.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, I am saying that, given the number of people on here that have lied about having various credentials, that it is completely logical to doubt someone when they claim to have them.

Yes, that is also true.

 

[USincognito]

Yet here you are promoting a theory you know the Creator told us did not happen.

And yet the entirety of the creation itself says it did happen.

That's false teaching.

Creationists certainly know a lot about false teaching. They're very familiar with it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Earth to Hoghead; I'm the one who posts Scripture.

To the contrary, you seem to prefer man-made religious ideologies to the Scriptures, since you're disavowing the Scriptural text and embracing the teaching of man; like the Pharisees.

Careful, there. Calling me unintelligent doesn't bode well for you, since I've outsmarted you with every post. I could ask whether you were in the 98 percentile on your CAT, whether you met graduation requirements on your entrance exam, whether you had an academic scholarship, how many colleges you were accepted to etc, but this isn't about intelligence quotient or which of us graduated on the Dean's List. This discussion is about the best evidence against evolution, which I contend is the word of God. Pretending to be intellectually superior because you hold the same opinion as your professors is a vacuous assertion at best.

Mixed metaphor. The Amish are a religious sect, the Bible Belt is a geographic region.

I'm not the one pretending to be intellectually superior here. Hint; you're not. All of my positions are backed in the wording of the Scriptures. I defer to the infinite intelligence of the Creator.

You've made that claim, but which of us posted the passage from Scripture? Twice? Since you haven't posted any ancient Hebrew texts I haven't seen the evidence to substantiate your claim. The Scriptures are quite clear that the last of Goliath's brothers were killed while David was king. If you were to read the Scriptures instead of interpretive commentary, you might have seen that.

Hmmm, yes, well, as I said in an earlier post, it would appear to be the case that you, as a Christian fundamentalist, are bound for Heaven, whereas us "eviloution" people are bound for Hell. Big deal, so what? Under the circumstances, I'm glad I'm gong to Hell, because I can hobnob with a better-educated, higher-class clientele. I'll be able to meet up with all those major biblical scholars, who, fluent in Hebrew, pointed out that the Hebrew text omits "brother of." I'll be able to dialogue with all those scholars into the Higher Criticism, who dispute the inerrancy of Scripture. Yep. Hell will be a real intellectually stimulating venture for me.

 

[Hoghead1]

Earth to Hoghead; I'm the one who posts Scripture.

To the contrary, you seem to prefer man-made religious ideologies to the Scriptures, since you're disavowing the Scriptural text and embracing the teaching of man; like the Pharisees.

Careful, there. Calling me unintelligent doesn't bode well for you, since I've outsmarted you with every post. I could ask whether you were in the 98 percentile on your CAT, whether you met graduation requirements on your entrance exam, whether you had an academic scholarship, how many colleges you were accepted to etc, but this isn't about intelligence quotient or which of us graduated on the Dean's List. This discussion is about the best evidence against evolution, which I contend is the word of God. Pretending to be intellectually superior because you hold the same opinion as your professors is a vacuous assertion at best.

Mixed metaphor. The Amish are a religious sect, the Bible Belt is a geographic region.

I'm not the one pretending to be intellectually superior here. Hint; you're not. All of my positions are backed in the wording of the Scriptures. I defer to the infinite intelligence of the Creator.

You've made that claim, but which of us posted the passage from Scripture? Twice? Since you haven't posted any ancient Hebrew texts I haven't seen the evidence to substantiate your claim. The Scriptures are quite clear that the last of Goliath's brothers were killed while David was king. If you were to read the Scriptures instead of interpretive commentary, you might have seen that.

You know, it goes without saying that you have some extremely strong opinions here. Now, our dialogue could be improved if I had a better understanding of the kinds of life experiences you have had that led you to such beliefs. So why not share some that you feel comfortable in sharing here?

 

[USincognito]

You should educate yourself. Here's a pretty good video to introduce newbies to the cambrian explosion.

Moonie Jonathan Wells? Of "Icons" infamy? Bahahahah! He lied about peppered moths in "Icons". He lied about archaeopteryx in "Icons". Why don't you tell us some of his points in that Darwin's Dilemma video - in your own words - so we can see if he lied about those as well.

 

[Hoghead1]

Earth to Hoghead; I'm the one who posts Scripture.

To the contrary, you seem to prefer man-made religious ideologies to the Scriptures, since you're disavowing the Scriptural text and embracing the teaching of man; like the Pharisees.

Careful, there. Calling me unintelligent doesn't bode well for you, since I've outsmarted you with every post. I could ask whether you were in the 98 percentile on your CAT, whether you met graduation requirements on your entrance exam, whether you had an academic scholarship, how many colleges you were accepted to etc, but this isn't about intelligence quotient or which of us graduated on the Dean's List. This discussion is about the best evidence against evolution, which I contend is the word of God. Pretending to be intellectually superior because you hold the same opinion as your professors is a vacuous assertion at best.

Mixed metaphor. The Amish are a religious sect, the Bible Belt is a geographic region.

I'm not the one pretending to be intellectually superior here. Hint; you're not. All of my positions are backed in the wording of the Scriptures. I defer to the infinite intelligence of the Creator.

You've made that claim, but which of us posted the passage from Scripture? Twice? Since you haven't posted any ancient Hebrew texts I haven't seen the evidence to substantiate your claim. The Scriptures are quite clear that the last of Goliath's brothers were killed while David was king. If you were to read the Scriptures instead of interpretive commentary, you might have seen that.

Well, if you don't believe what I have to say about the original Hebrew, go take a course in Biblical Studies 101 or read up on what the major biblical scholars have to say. You'll see. You might check out one of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, a major biblical scholar, who is professor of Jewish studies at the University of Georgia. If you want any further names, I have a list of about 100 other scholars. Also, note that we are getting way off topic here. Let's get back to evolution and Genesis.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are correct on this point. But then one either accepts the Word of God as the Word of God or one doesn't. There is nothing wrong with the Genesis narrative except incorrect translations and misconceptions about what occurred.

What mistranslations are you talking about specifically? The only ones I know of are the ones that employ teh pluperfect tense in Gen. 2 to make it harmonize with Gen. 1. That's incorrect, because Hebrew has no pluperfect tense. The fact of the matter is that there are two contradictory accounts in Genesis and that only by bogus solutions can they be reconciled. I am including here a synopsis of the contradictions.

1. 
   
   

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[Hoghead1]

Let's go back to when Moses received the commandments, lest we make any error.
Exodus 20:
1Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3“You shall have no other gods before Me.
4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
13“You shall not murder.
14“You shall not commit adultery.
15“You shall not steal.
16“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

18All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. 19Then they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.” 20Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.” 21So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was.

Notice that which is in bold. The hand of God carved the Ten Commandments into stone, and with that He explained why the Sabbath is holy. God didn't need a day of rest, but man did, and so it was from the beginning. Moses would later comment that the Sabbath was to honor the God that brought the people out of bondage. It's the same God who created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

Nobody made such a claim.

Yes, we call them Theistic Evolutionists or "evolution believing Christians."

Our church had a minister who could read Hebrew. He didn't see any significant difference. The Scriptures were translated by simple men who took their work very seriously; so seriously, in fact, that despite constant adjustments to the language the message remains unchanged.

Well, we are still off topic. However, I am wondering if you ever asked your minister about 2 Sam. 21:19. Also, as I said if you don't believe me, go ask the Hebrew scholars. If you want, we can go private and I will give you Friedman's email address and you can ask him to give you a detailed play-by-play on the Hebrew version of 2 Sam. 21:19. Also, I am wondering if you have bothered to look at Deut. 5, which omits any reference to God creating in six days.

 

[KWCrazy]

Again, you didn't pay attention to what I said. I said yes, in Exod. 20, but no, in Deut. 5. There are two different versions in the Bible.

By now it's very clear to everyone that you are NOT a Biblical scholar because you have no comprehension whatever of what is written. You are so blinded by your determination to disprove the Bible that you completely ignore the chronology of events. Seriously, if you're going to pretend to be an expert, do a little more homework first. You really embarrassed yourself.

 

[juvenissun]

A mutation can affect neural development.
Neural development affects inteligence.
In many situations intelligence is an advantage.

That's all there is to it... if you want people to believe in magical intelligence, you are going to have to present magic as evidence.

(At this point I'd be happy to see you present any evidence at all.)

So, how many mutations are needed to pull the human intelligence apart from the chimp's?