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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

It's extraordinary all right. An extraordinary claim that has no extraordinary evidence to match.

Which is what we'd expect when dealing with God of all things since, by His nature of being outside of nature cannot leave any physical evidence.

 

[Niels]

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."

You want me to demonstrate that you can't get something from nothing? Good grief.

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

Reason alone is enough to arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created.

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.

Personally, I personally think the theory of abiogenesis is sensible. I also think the potentiality for everything, what is and what will be, was at least present from the big bang. In the 'language' of God. This is my understanding of how the universe was created 13.7 billions of years ago.

 

[Niels]

It's extraordinary all right. An extraordinary claim that has no extraordinary evidence to match.

Which is what we'd expect when dealing with God of all things since, by His nature of being outside of nature cannot leave any physical evidence.

It is the extraordinary evidence. If you claim that the universe was not created, then that is a truly extraordinary claim which runs contrary to the natural order of things.

 

[Astrid]

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


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.


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


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


Neither your opinion, nor my opinion, changes fact.


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


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.


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.

Nothing has ever been shown to exist without
Batboy. As in, your statement is meaningless.

" therefore a creator" is an assumption that even you don't believe. Don't pretend it's logic ot proof of God or
disproof of evolution. It's none of those.

If you find that faith in, say, the god Zor, is but a nuance from faith the stars won't fall, you've no idea what equivocation even means and i've nothing else to say.

Likewise if you cannot admit to the role of self
deception in choosing to believe that which has no
evidence.

Or how little help such intellectual dishonesty is to
the pursuit of knowledge.


You've not shown in any way that my statement
about 180 degrees is not correct.

That being the case, and this being a pnys sci thread
about data contrary to ToE, not apologrtics or
semabtics, let's drop it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You want me to demonstrate that you can't get something from nothing? Good grief.

There is no evidence of "nothing" every "existing". (The words get weird, but there is no scientific reason to think that at any point there wasn't "something". The Big Bang is, after all, the expansion of the Universe from a previous hot, dense state and not the creation of that state. It could have existed for a very long time (forever?) until it spontaneously transitioned into an expanding state, or something like that.

Reason alone is enough to arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created.

We are talking about science. Reason alone is useless. Evidence *IS* required.

Personally, I personally think the theory of abiogenesis is sensible. I also think the potentiality for everything, what is and what will be, was at least present from the big bang. In the 'language' of God. This is my understanding of how the universe was created 13.7 billions of years ago.

And none of these are about the theory of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

It is the extraordinary evidence. If you claim that the universe was not created, then that is a truly extraordinary claim which runs contrary to the natural order of things.

What do you know of the natural order?

As in politics, religion, hollywood, fairy-tales, myths, economics, statistics, and even science now,

it is usual to find made up, mis-used, mis-directed examples to prove anything desired.

It thus seems best to avoid what is false, and remain honest, stick with what is true.

So be honest and dont just say things you
make up.

Better still if both of you go away as you
have nothing to contribute.

 

[AV1611VET]

it is not.

God says otherwise.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

It does not.

It does.

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

You need eyes to look.

Unfortunately though ...

Ezekiel 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

Literally none of this can be demonstrated.

Actually it can.

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

It's just a belief.

Which came first? God or belief in God?

As such it doesn't really answer the OPs question.

One answer to the OPs question is: "missing links."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is the extraordinary evidence. If you claim that the universe was not created, then that is a truly extraordinary claim which runs contrary to the natural order of things.

Except that such a claim is purely founded on confirmation bias. It's not evidence at all. It's special pleading.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is a real process backed by evidence.

To a point.

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.

But you won't see Christians finding skeletons in the earth and claiming they are from the lineage of Joseph or Mary.

Evolutionists will find a skeleton and claim it is from the lineage of this or that.

 

[Astrid]

it is not.

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

Emotion based belief as neither evidence nor logic
gets to a " god".
Still less to the elusive disproof of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

It thus seems best to avoid what is false,

But they can't avoid what is false.

That's why we went 76 years thinking Pluto was our ninth planet.

And in those 76 years, you'd better put Pluto down as our "outer planet" on your test, or it would get counted wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But you won't see Christians finding skeletons in the earth and claiming they are from the lineage of Joseph or Mary.

Evolutionists will find a skeleton and claim it is from the lineage of this or that.

Yeah but you'll claim it's from Shem or Ham or Japheth, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity. The fleshly carnal world loves that , and promotes it, promotes anything that makes a profit and especially denies God.

Such an example being...?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Right, wrong, or otherwise, science can take a hike.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right, wrong, or otherwise, science can take a hike.

So you say repeatedly.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity.

And they necessarily don't even have to date them falsely.

Remember Nebraska Man?

The fleshly carnal world loves that , and promotes it, promotes anything that makes a profit and especially denies God.

Yup.

 

[AV1611VET]

Emotion based belief as neither evidence nor logic gets to a "god".

Ya -- how many people were tickled pink when they were martyred?

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity. The fleshly carnal world loves that , and promotes it, promotes anything that makes a profit and especially denies God.

That's quite an accusation you level. Care to back it with facts?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah but you'll claim it's from Shem or Ham or Japheth, right?

Well ... you know ...

If the shoe fits ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well ... you know ...

If the shoe fits ...

Is there any actual criteria for who counts as being descended from who? Or is just a generalist direction sort of thing?