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

[Astrid]

Please provide an example of such an error and justify calling it remarkable. In addition, I would welcome support for you assertion that "they" have proved "their own theories wrong" is a more accurate observtion than "dedicated research has deepened understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, adding details and correcting misconcpetions". Alternatively acknowledge that your assertions are ill informed. (There is no shame in being ill informed, unless you insist upon making assertions based upon such ignorance.)

There are no examples

 

[Astrid]

The ones on paper and otherwise who promoted theories for fifty years keep proving their own theories wrong .
Anyone not seeking honesty just goes along with new explanations for the remarkable errors.

Aside from denigrating science, (against
forum rules), and having no reference, no examples
( see forum rules) such falsehoods further debase
the already untenable position you choose to take.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and having no reference, no examples ...

No examples?

You mean like heliocentrism, Phlogiston theory, alchemy, evolution, solid state, two moon theory, spontaneous generation, vitalism, telegony, scientific racism (aka, biological racism), Lamarckism, and the like?

 

[stevevw]

The way theories work is that a single contrary
fact can disprove it.

Many claim to "know" evolution is false. But no Nobel is awarded.

Does anyone have such disproof?
If not, how in good conscience can anyone say its false?

I think the theory of evolution as it stands with the Modern synthesis is not a proven theory. It has many anomelies which question the theory which have not been sufficently addressed.

There are also alternative ideas with evidence that either fundementally undermine evolution or at least cause a big revision of the theory along the lines of how the theory incorporated genetics.

So I guess the question is what is a proven theory and what exactly is Evolution theory. What counts and what doesn't. The big problem I see with the theory just like with other theories in phsyics, behavioural psychology ect is they have not adequately accounted for the subject, the observer and agent in the equation.

How much influence does the free choices of agents have on the outcomes. This goes to the crux of the matter in that the standard theory has to treat the subject as passive as far as their influence as a selector of the outcomes rather than being a passive entity acted upon by the forces of nature (NS and random mutations).

It seems many creatures can do their own selecting, similar to human artificial selection that produces better outcomes. Through socialisation, cultural norms, simbiotic relationships, recipricle relationships, HGT, non random mutations, adaptive environmental changes that are conducive of development and in harmony with nature.

This is the biggest challenge to the current theory so its certainly not a given in its current form. May even require a complete paradigm shift in thinking to move forward.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think the theory of evolution as it stands with the Modern synthesis is not a proven theory.

If it is not a proven theory then why is it held as one? Conspiracy?

 

[Niels]

What belief in what god-Aztec maybe- is congruent
with the conduct and findings of science?
You didn't address that.

The concept of a creator God is congruent with science. Nothing has ever been shown to exist without a creator.

"Same basic god except all attributes are different. "
( paraphrased)
Seriously?
That's assuming an awful lot and deeply contrary to
anything in christianity of islam.
It's also assuming- on zero data- tht there's any god at all.

Nature exists. Therefore, it has a creator. People may arrive at different conclusions about the creator, some perhaps wildly different, but they are still seeking to learn about the creator.

I'm not into such leaps.
Still less asserting the unevidenced as fact.
I'm deeply suspicious of all.who do.

"Faith / trust takes many forms".
Yeah, and blurring real distinctions is equvocation.

Nuance is not equivocation. The definition of faith that you are using, apparently something akin to emotionalism, is unsophisticated and misleading.

You did t address that..

" seek and you will find"

Of course. Self deception tops the list. I remember well the Mormon who told me how he prayed and prayed till "god" told him the whole good book story etc is true.

There is a Bible verse that states "The heart is deceitful above all things". This awareness can help minimize self deception.

Witnesses to that " truth".? Yep. Signed and sworn before God. Your eyewitnesses to miracles mean zero to me.
Claims of that sort are thicker than hairs on a dog's back.

Neither your opinion, nor my opinion, changes fact.

But you have faith, my Mormon has faith, the Aztecs with their sacrificial knives had faith, the boys of 911 had faith.
Faith that their belief is in somethung real and true.

Trying to equivocate faith in things unseen or whatever
other ways of describing that for which there is not one
flipping fact or datum point on earth, with faith that
the scientific reliably works is just such waste of time.

Faith has its uses, for good and ill. As an approach to knowledge it's worse than useless.

Faith is one of many emotional states, weak
and strong, positive, negative...

The Christian faith is not an emotional state. Your thinking that it is an emotional state does not make it so.

We are taught that emotional control is essential to
a successful life. Emotions give power to actions.
Not the other way around!
Allowing emotion to take control is weakness and stupidity. Its self indulgence, a candadate for the root of all evil..

It sure keeps our fundie friends in self destructive ignorance.

A faithful Christian is not controlled by worldly impulses. Drunkenness, orgies, anger, greed, gluttony, etc. such things are all antithetical to our faith. The Christian faith is strongly opposed to such self indulgence. I would argue that this is why so many advancements in science, technology, and literature have come from Christians.

I agree with you that emotional control is a key ingredient for success. That is self evident.

I'll give you no more than a token 0.01 degrees off the
180 degrees opposite in my original statement.

Faith in God can be a wonderful thing. I've seen it
in people. It can be a force for good.

But it will do zero for the advancement of physics.

As previously noted.

The Christian faith has already done much for the advancement of physics and other fields by inspiring people to apply their talents for the betterment of others. People have also been similarly inspired by other faiths. Keeping them in the library or the lab while others are impulsively pursuing their worldly desires. Your opinion that it does "zero for the advancement of physics" is patently false.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I think the theory of evolution as it stands with the Modern synthesis is not a proven theory. It has many anomelies which question the theory which have not been sufficently addressed.

Theories are not proven. They are only disproven. They are always provisional and dependent on new observations.

There are also alternative ideas with evidence that either fundementally undermine evolution or at least cause a big revision of the theory along the lines of how the theory incorporated genetics.

Such as?

So I guess the question is what is a proven theory and what exactly is Evolution theory. What counts and what doesn't. The big problem I see with the theory just like with other theories in phsyics, behavioural psychology ect is they have not adequately accounted for the subject, the observer and agent in the equation.

How much influence does the free choices of agents have on the outcomes. This goes to the crux of the matter in that the standard theory has to treat the subject as passive as far as their influence as a selector of the outcomes rather than being a passive entity acted upon by the forces of nature (NS and random mutations).

It seems many creatures can do their own selecting, similar to human artificial selection that produces better outcomes. Through socialisation, cultural norms, simbiotic relationships, recipricle relationships, HGT, non random mutations, adaptive environmental changes that are conducive of development and in harmony with nature.

First, what is a "non-random" mutation? Based on the meaning of words that would mean a mutation deliberately induced with purpose. I assume this would refer to, say, GMO crops?

Otherwise we're just talking about selection here. Everything you listed here is just a facet of mutation and selection.

This is the biggest challenge to the current theory so its certainly not a given in its current form. May even require a complete paradigm shift in thinking to move forward.

What is the biggest challenge? Nothing listed previously seems to be a challenge. Just details of the theory that may further be refined. The overall theory is still very much intact.

 

[Niels]

The thing is, for most "biblical" creationists the Christian faith is built on Genesis as a 100% accurate literal history of creation. Without that, they think, nothing true about Jesus can be known. Some will even refuse to introduce the Gospel to potential converts until they have accepted the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

Some Christians are young earth creationists, but their interpretation is far from universally accepted. It isn't necessarily more biblical than other interpretations. The traditional interpretation of Genesis, as understood by the Jews for thousands of years for instance, is allegorical. The creation story is even written as poetry. Poetry uses artistic symbolism to communicate a meaning. The literary structure of passages, along with their context, can help differentiate the allegorical from the historical. The book of Psalms is largely poetic. The gospels are largely prose, and are meant to be interpreted as historical, but when Jesus spoke in parables he was using allegory.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The concept of a creator God is congruent with science. Nothing has ever been shown to exist without a creator.

Virtual particles. The Universe. Grass. Trees. All of these things exist and no "creator" has been shown to be the source of their creation. A lot of people claim that there is one, but none has been shown. Unless you mean that people created the Universe then your statement is not in the proper frame. The only "creators" we know of are people. And I bet all of the examples you would provide of these things that only exist because they have a creator will be things created by people. i.e. art, furniture, etc.

 

[Niels]

Virtual particles. The Universe. Grass. Trees. All of these things exist and no "creator" has been shown to be the source of their creation. A lot of people claim that there is one, but none has been shown. Unless you mean that people created the Universe then your statement is not in the proper frame. The only "creators" we know of are people. And I bet all of the examples you would provide of these things that only exist because they have a creator will be things created by people. i.e. art, furniture, etc.

The totality of nature is evidence for a creator. It may not specify a particular religious belief system, but its presence demonstrates that it is created. At the most foundational level, that is what "God" as mentioned in the Bible refers to. The creator of nature. Whether somebody agrees that the Christian God is the creator is another matter, but if there wasn't a creator we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't exist.

Interesting choice of words, as the Christian God is said to have personhood.

 

[Larniavc]

God does not need to prove Himself.

He does in a science thread.

If they admitted there is God,

How can you admit to something there is not empirical evidence for?

but people worship themselves.

Don't be silly. No one worships themselves. If you're not religious you worship nothing.

God is Holy, without sin. Sin separates us from God, and because we sin, we deserve to be punished. But God in His mercy judges no one by their sins today. He sent His Son so whomever believes in Him should not perrish but have an everlasting life. But because God is just, His mercy will end one day, and He will punish every sinner that did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please don't preach in a science thread.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The totality of nature is evidence for a creator.

it is not.

It may not specify a particular religious belief system, but its presence demonstrates that it is created.

It does not. "Look at the trees" is not an argument for a creator.

At the most foundational level, that is what "God" as mentioned in the Bible refers to. The creator of nature. Whether somebody agrees that the Christian God is the creator is another matter, but if there wasn't a creator we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't exist.

Interesting choice of words, as the Christian God is said to have personhood.

Literally none of this can be demonstrated. It's just a belief. As such it doesn't really answer the OPs question.

 

[Astrophile]

Quantum mechanics is interesting and might give us some answers someday but our test equipment has to improve. Every human who lives and who believes in God has personal empirical evidence of what others have experienced. Like near-death experience (NDE) you have 7% of the world's population speaking of it, shall I discount whether these people are telling the truth? I don't expect natural scientists to believe because they an opposed to each other in their hypothesis.

Peace Out.

A lot of people claim to have encountered or been abducted by aliens from other planets. I don't believe them. Do you?

 

[Astrophile]

But He was a real man backed by evidence.

Evolution is a real process backed by evidence. The fact that there are gaps in scientists' knowledge of evolution doesn't disprove its reality any more than the gaps in our knowledge of the life of Jesus disprove his historicity.

 

[Astrophile]

The concept of a creator God is congruent with science. Nothing has ever been shown to exist without a creator.

Except, perhaps, the creator itself?

 

[Niels]

it is not.

Not to you, apparently, but it is evidence. Extraordinary evidence.

It does not. "Look at the trees" is not an argument for a creator.

Unless you believe in magic, which I do not, the existence of nature is evidence for a creator.

Literally none of this can be demonstrated. It's just a belief. As such it doesn't really answer the OPs question.

No belief is required to conclude that the universe was created. The idea that Jesus is God, on the other hand, is a belief. A belief that people can arrive at for various reasons, ranging from historical accounts to personal experiences.

Christians are being categorized here as young earth creationists. Young earth creationism and opposition to the theory of evolution is only espoused by a subset of Christians. They do not speak for all of us on this topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No belief is required to conclude that the universe was created.

Yes it is. There are plenty of models for the origin of the Universe that do not involve an intentional act or agent.

The origin of the Universe has nothing to do with biological evolution or the lack of facts contradicting it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There exists false science (wicked),
and 'true' science (honest).

The make believe stories, even some fairy tales, to explain man's own make believe, have kept changing in our lifetimes, when the original/ previous imaginations were shown to be insurmountably false - even to its own adherents. So they changed their words, meanings, assumptions, premises , to try to fit their anti-true propositions. Thus proving themselves their own original was wrong.

Are you making some specific claim? You just replied to the word "science" and then made some vauge claims about science, some of which made sense.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Not to you, apparently, but it is evidence. Extraordinary evidence.


Unless you believe in magic, which I do not, the existence of nature is evidence for a creator.

No. It isn't. No matter how many times you say it. You must DEMONSTRATE that a creator is required. The mere existence of things does not in and of itself act as evidence for a "creator."

No belief is required to conclude that the universe was created.

It absolutely is because it has not and arguably cannot be shown that a "creator" was required.

The idea that Jesus is God, on the other hand, is a belief. A belief that people can arrive at for various reasons, ranging from historical accounts to personal experiences.

Christians are being categorized here as young earth creationists. Young earth creationism and opposition to the theory of evolution is only espoused by a subset of Christians. They do not speak for all of us on this topic.

Sure.

I guess I'll point this out too, though and then we can move on to the actual topic of the thread: Even if I were to concede all of your points about a creator, none of that precludes the ToE UNLESS you claim that "God" created the earth and all life on it in 6 days. Otherwise "God" could have created the Earth 4 billion years ago with self-replicating cells and evolution would take care of the rest as the theory suggests.

Back on topic: Are you aware of any fact that disproves the ToE?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There exists false science (wicked),
and 'true' science (honest).

The make believe stories, even some fairy tales, to explain man's own make believe, have kept changing in our lifetimes, when the original/ previous imaginations were shown to be insurmountably false - even to its own adherents. So they changed their words, meanings, assumptions, premises , to try to fit their anti-true propositions. Thus proving themselves their own original was wrong.

Is the distinction between 'false science' and 'true science' anything that lines up with your specific and personal religious beliefs and viewpoints perhaps?