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

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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

No. I want you to demonstrate that Universe was created by a being that actually exists. But as I said even if I concede all of this it does not address the topic of the thread.

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

We can reason that the universe came into being as we know it, but "created" carries a whole lot of assumptions. But, again, off-topic.

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.

There you go.

 

[AV1611VET]

Off-topic

QV post 152.

It's okay for you to say the totality of nature is not evidence for a creator; but when I say the Creator says otherwise, you say it's "off topic"???

What gives here?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you're going to harp on evidence not being presented, lest it didn't happen as documented, then yes, it's the same thing.

No, they're not similar.
Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence is a fair cop and makes sense. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there, or that we haven't found evidence for it. God and the super natural in general are good examples of that, but until actual physical evidence outside of a book can be presented and studied, then it's not something science touches.

Circular logic (to claim everything is created and thus everything needs a creator because everything is created) is just bad logic since it is, as the name suggests, just a loop and really answers nothing. It can't be studied or verified.

The former has the chance, no matter how far down the line, to be studied and verified, while the latter decidedly cannot be studied. See the difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

The former has the chance, no matter how far down the line, to be studied and verified, while the latter decidedly cannot be studied. See the difference?

Ya -- myopia.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya -- myopia.

 

[Astrid]

My conclusion that the universe was created predates my belief in God as such. Ultimately, science is agnostic. Neither theistic nor atheistic.


Yes, reality can seem strange indeed. That's why it is so fascinating.

I will respect your wishes on this, however, and bow out of the thread as I don't dispute the theory of evolution.

You're welcome here, just, let's not do too much topic drift.

 

[Astrid]

Off-topic

it doesn't

Off-topic

Off-topic.

Irrelevant. Off-topic

The efficacy of the ToE does not rely on us having the fossil of every creature that ever lived. "Missing Links" does not fulfil the OPs request.

There's an awful lot of missing data in Jesus life.
Or the history of Rome.

As evidence contrary to Jesus having lived at all,
it stinks.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're welcome here, just, let's not do too much topic drift.

Good idea.

Let's get back on topic and discuss everything that's missing between Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence is a fair cop and makes sense.

It's a decent rule of thumb, but not a blanket truth.

P1: If there were an elephant in the room, I'd see it.
P2: I don't see it.
C: There is no elephant in the room

(As a reminder, yes, one can challenge the premises, but as formed this is valid.)

If we agree with the premises, we have proved the negative of "this is an elephant in the room".

P1: If a god exists, prayers would be answered.
P2: Prayers are not answered:
C: There is no god.

Again, you can disagree with the premises (not the point), but if you do agree with the premises, we've proved a negative: That there is no god.

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

Modus tollens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, if we can justify expecting to see some evidence (Q) from P and we don't, well, then, no P. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence provided we are justified in our premises.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's an awful lot of missing data in Jesus life.
Or the history of Rome.

Jesus was born Jesus, died as Jesus, and resurrected as Jesus.

Rome was built as Rome, existed as Rome, and still exists as Rome.

This has absolutely zero to do with evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Good idea.

Let's get back on topic and discuss everything that's missing between Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens.

Since Homo Floresiensis is not a direct line of human evolution, an offshoot, it's not really a problem. Even if we didn't have Homo Floresiensis fossils, human evolution and the theory of evolution would not be a problem.

Is it a problem that you can't find out about any distant cousins of yours?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's a decent rule of thumb, but not a blanket truth.

P1: If there were an elephant in the room, I'd see it.
P2: I don't see it.
C: There is no elephant in the room

(As a reminder, yes, one can challenge the premises, but as formed this is valid.)

If we agree with the premises, we have proved the negative of "this is an elephant in the room".

P1: If a god exists, prayers would be answered.
P2: Prayers are not answered:
C: There is no god.

Again, you can disagree with the premises (not the point), but if you do agree with the premises, we've proved a negative: That there is no god.

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

Modus tollens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, if we can justify expecting to see some evidence (Q) from P and we don't, well, then, no P. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence provided we are justified in our premises.

... okay?

 

[AV1611VET]

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence provided we are justified in our premises.

And in the case of evidence for the Creation Events, that's not going to happen this side of the Rapture.

 

[Tinker Grey]

... okay?

You seemed to be agreeing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I'm saying that's not true and the validity of that "maxim" depends on the premises.

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

If I misread you, I apologize.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since Homo Floresiensis is not a direct line of human evolution, an offshoot, it's not really a problem. Even if we didn't have Homo Floresiensis fossils, human evolution and the theory of evolution would not be a problem.

Looks like you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

Is it a problem that you can't find out about any distant cousins of yours?

They're ... what do you call them ... Homo sapiens.

That's all that matters, isn't it?

Let's talk about those things that came BEFORE my cousins.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You seemed to be agreeing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I'm saying that's not true and the validity of that "maxim" depends on the premises.

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

If I misread you, I apologize.

You kind of did misread since I did say after the part you quoted:
"Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there, or that we haven't found evidence for it. God and the super natural in general are good examples of that, but until actual physical evidence outside of a book can be presented and studied, then it's not something science touches."

And I also finished the post with:
"The former has the chance, no matter how far down the line, to be studied and verified,"

 

[AV1611VET]

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

What if something occurred that didn't generate any evidence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Looks like you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

Not really.

And you also don't need to explain what SOL means. You just can't use it if you accidentally add another O in there.

Let's talk about those things that came BEFORE my cousins.

Your uncles and aunts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What if something occurred that didn't generate any evidence?

Such as?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me see if I got this wrong:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ... unless it is?

Right?