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

[toLiJC]

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 fact that the evolution would only prevent the souls from having/inheriting abundant and eternal life for a longer time if something had first to evolve so that it could only then be possible for the souls to have/inherit such a life

Blessings

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Then you understand nothing of Hebrew if you don't understand the verb is in the past tense in verse one. That the Hebrew word hayah means to fall out or to become.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

It never means the state of being it started as - but the state of being it ended up as.

The state or condition something falls into or becomes.

I need not confuse Gen 1 with Gen 2 nor use imperfect verb usages to make them harmonize.

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.

I am afraid you are mistaken. The order of creation in genesis is the exact order that science uses for evolution. How do you think they got a plausible order in the first place?

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.

Says who, someone that does not understand science? perhaps they might believe so.

Romans 1:20 clearly asks that we understand what was made in order to understand God. Granted some people in fear wish to ignore science - and others out of fear wish all Christians would ignore science.

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.

No, let us be clear that for centuries the leading scientists were the priests. Your entire Big Bang cosmology is founded on one of those scientific priests.

After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.?

All of science did, that's who. I like how people always blame the priests, when it was the philosophers - not the priests who refused to look into Galileo's telescope. The Jesuit priests looked and agreed and understood. But you blame them anyway because the philosophers talked the church leaders into backing the popular science at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
"Scientific opposition to heliocentrism came from Tycho Brahe and others... there was no opposition to heliocentrism from any institution at the time, and Copernicus's work was used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar in 1582...

Then of course politics got involved....

"...in December 1613 the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo's friends and followers, Benedetto Castelli, with biblical objections to the motion of the earth."

Stop spreading misconceptions.

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

"Jesuit astronomers, experts both in Church teachings, science, and in natural philosophy, were at first skeptical and hostile to the new ideas; however, within a year or two the availability of good telescopes enabled them to repeat the observations. In 1611, Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations. Christoph Grienberger, one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits. Not all of Galileo's claims were completely accepted: Christopher Clavius, the most distinguished astronomer of his age, never was reconciled to the idea of mountains on the Moon, and outside the collegium many still disputed the reality of the observations. In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

The priests looked and understood, it is the philosophers - the scientists of the time that refused to even look.

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.

And yet again - it was the actual astronomers - the philosophers that opposed his teachings. The priests looked, repeated his experiments and agreed. it is politics that interfered, just as it interferes today. Christians believed the earth was flat and the sun circled the earth - because that is what the greatest philosophers of the time told them was the scientific truth.

Just as a mere 100 years ago all of science believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. And had all the math and observations to prove it. And so the populace believed it was so. And were just as wrong as the philosophers in Galileo's day. But oh how easily you fail to mention this....

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.

We must step outside the box. You must first realize hayah means to fall out or to become. The earth "became" desolate and waste. And darkness "became" upon.... Hence the dinosaurs died out when that darkness encircled the earth. You have to step outside the box - and realize the animals in the fifth creation - dinosaurs - were not the animals in the sixth creation - mammals created after man. When you realize there have been 5 destruction's.....

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

...and six creations - soon to be a sixth destruction and seventh creation, you find everything harmonizes to the nth degree. But first you must give up your pre-conceived beliefs and your incorrect interpretations.

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.

Except I see no contradictions, when one interprets it correctly. As long as you hold to your pre-conceived beliefs, you will always find a contradiction where none exists.

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.

The problem is generated in the reader's mind, because the reader refuses to give up his pre-conceived beliefs and realize that more than one creation is being discussed. That the darkness created by that comet or meteor caused the extinction of the life that existed previously - the dinosaurs - and had nothing to do with the creation of man and the mammals that were created with him, or after if you prefer.

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.

2 creations? There were six. And five destruction's that occurred between them. This is why young earth believers can not reconcile their pre-conceived beliefs of the Bible to the earth. Only one of those creations was worth mentioning, because only one concerned mankind. But you were informed that the last creation was destroyed when that darkness became upon the earth.

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.

He does work it in its true order. The seeds were already in the ground from the last creation before it went extinct. The animals created before man - the dinosaurs - were not the same animals created with man. As long as you refuse to harmonize scripture with the works, you will forever be confused by the error you read into it. Both were penned by the same Author. If the two do not agree perfectly - then it is simply man's interpretation of one or the other that is at fault.

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.

Only the first creation in genesis one is used as in ex-nihilo. In every other verse the word means from pre-existing matter. You MUST start to realize the same word used in the first verse is not the word used in any of the other verses. Until you come to this realization by studying the original Hebrew, you will again always be confused about life being created from pre-existing matter versus ex-nihilo.

You talk of thinking outside the box - then willingly confine yourself to that box you say to think outside. Stop relying on man's interpretation of the original Hebrew. Stop listening to what men 2000 years ago believed the words to mean. Use your understanding of science to harmonize what the Bible is telling you about the works. If you can't find agreement then your interpretation of one or the other is in error.

 

[Hoghead1]

Then you understand nothing of Hebrew if you don't understand the verb is in the past tense in verse one. That the Hebrew word hayah means to fall out or to become.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

It never means the state of being it started as - but the state of being it ended up as.

The state or condition something falls into or becomes.

I need not confuse Gen 1 with Gen 2 nor use imperfect verb usages to make them harmonize.



I am afraid you are mistaken. The order of creation in genesis is the exact order that science uses for evolution. How do you think they got a plausible order in the first place?



Says who, someone that does not understand science? perhaps they might believe so.

Romans 1:20 clearly asks that we understand what was made in order to understand God. Granted some people in fear wish to ignore science - and others out of fear wish all Christians would ignore science.




No, let us be clear that for centuries the leading scientists were the priests. Your entire Big Bang cosmology is founded on one of those scientific priests.




All of science did, that's who. I like how people always blame the priests, when it was the philosophers - not the priests who refused to look into Galileo's telescope. The Jesuit priests looked and agreed and understood. But you blame them anyway because the philosophers talked the church leaders into backing the popular science at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
"Scientific opposition to heliocentrism came from Tycho Brahe and others... there was no opposition to heliocentrism from any institution at the time, and Copernicus's work was used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar in 1582...

Then of course politics got involved....

"...in December 1613 the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo's friends and followers, Benedetto Castelli, with biblical objections to the motion of the earth."

Stop spreading misconceptions.

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

"Jesuit astronomers, experts both in Church teachings, science, and in natural philosophy, were at first skeptical and hostile to the new ideas; however, within a year or two the availability of good telescopes enabled them to repeat the observations. In 1611, Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations. Christoph Grienberger, one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits. Not all of Galileo's claims were completely accepted: Christopher Clavius, the most distinguished astronomer of his age, never was reconciled to the idea of mountains on the Moon, and outside the collegium many still disputed the reality of the observations. In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

The priests looked and understood, it is the philosophers - the scientists of the time that refused to even look.





And yet again - it was the actual astronomers - the philosophers that opposed his teachings. The priests looked, repeated his experiments and agreed. it is politics that interfered, just as it interferes today. Christians believed the earth was flat and the sun circled the earth - because that is what the greatest philosophers of the time told them was the scientific truth.

Just as a mere 100 years ago all of science believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. And had all the math and observations to prove it. And so the populace believed it was so. And were just as wrong as the philosophers in Galileo's day. But oh how easily you fail to mention this....





We must step outside the box. You must first realize hayah means to fall out or to become. The earth "became" desolate and waste. And darkness "became" upon.... Hence the dinosaurs died out when that darkness encircled the earth. You have to step outside the box - and realize the animals in the fifth creation - dinosaurs - were not the animals in the sixth creation - mammals created after man. When you realize there have been 5 destruction's.....

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

...and six creations - soon to be a sixth destruction and seventh creation, you find everything harmonizes to the nth degree. But first you must give up your pre-conceived beliefs and your incorrect interpretations.





Except I see no contradictions, when one interprets it correctly. As long as you hold to your pre-conceived beliefs, you will always find a contradiction where none exists.





The problem is generated in the reader's mind, because the reader refuses to give up his pre-conceived beliefs and realize that more than one creation is being discussed. That the darkness created by that comet or meteor caused the extinction of the life that existed previously - the dinosaurs - and had nothing to do with the creation of man and the mammals that were created with him, or after if you prefer.





2 creations? There were six. And five destruction's that occurred between them. This is why young earth believers can not reconcile their pre-conceived beliefs of the Bible to the earth. Only one of those creations was worth mentioning, because only one concerned mankind. But you were informed that the last creation was destroyed when that darkness became upon the earth.





He does work it in its true order. The seeds were already in the ground from the last creation before it went extinct. The animals created before man - the dinosaurs - were not the same animals created with man. As long as you refuse to harmonize scripture with the works, you will forever be confused by the error you read into it. Both were penned by the same Author. If the two do not agree perfectly - then it is simply man's interpretation of one or the other that is at fault.





Only the first creation in genesis one is used as in ex-nihilo. In every other verse the word means from pre-existing matter. You MUST start to realize the same word used in the first verse is not the word used in any of the other verses. Until you come to this realization by studying the original Hebrew, you will again always be confused about life being created from pre-existing matter versus ex-nihilo.

You talk of thinking outside the box - then willingly confine yourself to that box you say to think outside. Stop relying on man's interpretation of the original Hebrew. Stop listening to what men 2000 years ago believed the words to mean. Use your understanding of science to harmonize what the Bible is telling you about the works. If you can't find agreement then your interpretation of one or the other is in error.

Sorry, didn't find anything here that really addressed any of the points I made.

 

[PsychoSarah]

the fact that the evolution would only prevent the souls from having/inheriting abundant and eternal life for a longer time if something had first to evolve so that it could only then be possible for the souls to have/inherit such a life

Blessings

1. Eternal life/an afterlife are not guaranteed to exist.
2. Unless you think humans and only humans could possibly have an afterlife, I can't see how evolution would have any involvement with it.
3. Souls do not demonstrably exist.

 

[toLiJC]

1. Eternal life/an afterlife are not guaranteed to exist.
2. Unless you think humans and only humans could possibly have an afterlife, I can't see how evolution would have any involvement with it.
3. Souls do not demonstrably exist.

it is also not guaranteed that eternal life doesn't exist

evolution has nothing to do with the fact that God since the beginning has always had everything (prepared in advance) that the humans need, so they just have to receive it from Him, considering that they anyway could not provide themselves with any good thing if He didn't provide them with such things

why must the existence of souls be necessarily proved?!, don't forget the sentence "i think, therefore i am/exist"

Blessings

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Apparently fewer than 40 million, the number of mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes. That equates to about 2% of the human genome. Since there is 40 million total between the two species, that would be approximately 20 million per lineage. The majority of those mutations will be neutral, so only a minority of those 20 million mutations are actually required for the physical differences that we see.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, it is very silly.
Because intelligence can not be evolved.

The only silly thing here is your bare assertion that intelligence can't evolve.

 

[Kylie]

You and your pet ARE one of my citation.

You are making no sense. How does my existence show that humans cannot evolve?

 

[Hoghead1]

it is also not guaranteed that eternal life doesn't exist

evolution has nothing to do with the fact that God since the beginning has always had everything (prepared in advance) that the humans need, so they just have to receive it from Him, considering that they anyway could not provide themselves with any good thing if He didn't provide them with such things

why must the existence of souls be necessarily proved?!, don't forget the sentence "i think, therefore i am/exist"

Blessings

Well,, after all, Descartes sure thought you should prove the existence of souls. That's why he argued, "Je pense, donc je suis." You should remember that Descartes was the father of modern philosophy and that he started with the method of radical doubt. Everything should be submitted to doubt and disregarded until we find something we cannot doubt. He touched on a point that had been unrecognized for 2000 years in philosophy: That it is not enough to say you know, you have to say how you know.

 

[juvenissun]

You are making no sense. How does my existence show that humans cannot evolve?

You are the master of your dog.
Does that explain the difference?

 

[Shemjaza]

You are the master of your dog.
Does that explain the difference?

No.

You are using completely different standards of what the word evidence even means. You are not really communicating well in this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The goalpost is drifting. But it is OK.
What you said is exactly where the idea of evolution failed, but on the other end. It suggests the evolution is process is toooo fast on the scale of geological time. If intelligence evolved that fast, then we should have a supper super smart ameba.

Evolution is not a ladder and "intelligence" is not an inevitable outcome of an evolutionary process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, it is very silly.
Because intelligence can not be evolved.

What is your evidence for this absolute statement?

 

[juvenissun]

No.

You are using completely different standards of what the word evidence even means. You are not really communicating well in this thread.

Evidence is a "sign". Did you see the movie Sign? That is what an evidence is.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution is not a ladder and "intelligence" is not an inevitable outcome of an evolutionary process.

Absolutely not.

 

[juvenissun]

What is your evidence for this absolute statement?

You are much smarter than your dog. That is the evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evidence is a "sign". Did you see the movie Sign? That is what an evidence is.

The movie about a man who finds his faith because his son had a conveniently timed asthma attack and invading aliens were incompetent?

I fail to see the relevance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are much smarter than your dog. That is the evidence.

I don't have a dog.

Anyway, how is me being smarter then a dog, evidence that intelligence can't evolve?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Absolutely not.

Then why did you imply otherwise?

 

[Hoghead1]

You are the master of your dog.
Does that explain the difference?

The fact of the matter is, we are all in a continual state of evolution. No thinker thinks twice. Moment to moment, we are different persons. We are in a continual state of evolution.