Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[AV1611VET]

Such an animal would overturn the whole of biology.

So much for Post 90 then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you found such a creature? A pre-cambrian rabbit, perhaps?

Sure haven't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jesus' life isn't a scientific theory.

No, true. It's a matter for historians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bring them on! I'd be as excited as anyone.

I'm sure scientists are ready to make some explanation for them, should one ever be found.

Even according to Wikipedia, finding a rabbit in the Precambrian would not disprove evolution.

 

[Astrid]

But He was a real man backed by evidence.

Good point! You solved your imagined issue with ToE

For lo-


TOE is a real theory backed by a million times
more evidence than the life of Jesus.

Actual physical facts, mind you, not hearsay.
Or notoriously unreliable eye witness testimony..


You wouldn't be employing any of them, uh,
double standards, now, would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No true. It's a matter for historians.

I'm sure you meant "so true".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So much for Post 90 then.

What I said does not disprove what was said in post 90. A crocoduck is not an intermediary animal since ducks and crocodiles are not in anyway similar biologically. They are two distinct and different species of animals that have such differing bodies, in many ways and forms, that to produce something of a mix between the two would be something that would make Doctor Frankenstein go "Now that's a bit much."

 

[Laodicean60]

Why do you keep claiming that evolution is a belief, when it is supported by science?

Because my belief changed because of other conflicting evidence. It's the arguments that had me question ToE so I'll choose to say I don't know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sure you meant "so true".

No, I missed the comma between 'No' and 'true'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because my belief changed because of other conflicting evidence. It's the arguments that had me question ToE so I'll choose to say I don't know.

Again: Why do you keep claiming that evolution is a belief, when it is supported by science? Why do you feel it's right to denigrate acceptance of science as if it's a belief in a derogatory way?

I'm not asking about YOUR BELIEFS. I'm asking why YOU CALL evolution a belief.

 

[Astrid]

My beliefs have evolved depending on the evidence or lack of it and not just on this subject or others and I'm not smart enough to debate something I read about 30 years ago. As long as there are unanswered questions about it I'll carry my own belief about the beginning of mankind. Trying to prove or disprove is futile.

Trying to prove is impossible.

Trying to disprove with such limited understanding
even of the topic is, yes, futile.

 

[AV1611VET]

TOE is a real theory backed by a million times more evidence than the life of Jesus.

And for every piece, there's about 10,000 pieces missing.

(Speaking conservatively, of course.)

Kent Hovind said it best:

You can't prove any of these guys sired a new offspring.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I missed the comma between 'No' and 'true'.

Okay.

 

[Astrid]

Because my belief changed because of other conflicting evidence. It's the arguments that had me question ToE so I'll choose to say I don't know.

Conflicting evidence!!??

Really?

Just one will do. Conflicting evidence is exactly
what i asked for!

What's the best one?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So a crocoduck wouldn't disprove evolution, since the Theory of Evolution doesn't imply a bi-genus animal?

Like Ray Comfort you have it backward.

The ToE predicts there will be no literal chimeras composed of body parts from two extant species from different genera glued together to form a species.

The existence of one would disprove evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

The existence of one would disprove evolution.

No, it wouldn't.

Or evolution would have admitted it already.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, it wouldn't.

Or evolution would have admitted it already.

View attachment 352853

The platypus is not a chimera.

It's an oddity, 100% but not a chimera.

 

[Niels]

God beliefs and science are opposite.

Science and God (nature's creator) are complimentary.

Belief has faith, it's emotional in nature

The belief that science and God are opposites is likewise emotional. Faith means trust. Although trust can sometimes have an emotional component, this does not imply that trust is inherently misplaced. I trust my friends, I have faith that my house won't collapse when I walk to the kitchen. I believe that when I click "Post reply" my reply will appear in this thread.

Science is fact based. Objective in nature.
Like auto mechanics.
Auto mechanics are the same regardless of " belief sysyem".

Yes, but like auto mechanics the car has a creator. So does nature. "God" is what we call the creator of nature.

The thread though is about disproof of evolution.

Why should we want to or need to disprove evolution? It isn't a salvific matter, and last I checked it is a natural process. Because evolution is a natural process, it was therefore created by God (the creator of nature).

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, it wouldn't.

Or evolution would have admitted it already.

I know your desire to take certain words literally may make this difficult for you to understand, but the 'duck-billed' platypus does not have the bill of a duck.

 

[Laodicean60]

Just one will do. Conflicting evidence is exactly

Fossil records