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

[Astrid]

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.



Your uncles and aunts.

Your post and whatever led to it are o.t.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your post and whatever led to it are o.t.

Let's get back on topic then, shall we?

Let's talk about the missing links between Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens.

How many, and what are their names?

Else I submit "missing links" as satisfying the challenge in your OP.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is forever outside of spacetime?

I don't know. Is there even an "outside spacetime"? Again, I don't know, AND NO ONE ELSE DOES EITHER.

Atheists often use variations of an argument that the universe must not be created because it is old, because it is made of components, and because there are processes involved.

This isn't some dumb philosophical argument. This is science. "Atheists" are irrelevant.

Of course it is made of components, it has an age, and there are processes involved. If anything, such things point to it being created. Not to the nonexistence of a creator.

The age of the Universe has nothing to do with whether it is "created" or not. Nothing about the nature of the Universe or the age of its bits points to a "creator".

Reason involves analyzing observations. Nature isn't a mere philosophical construct. Even a rock can be considered evidence of a creator. Covering one's ears and repeating "it was not created" will neither make that rock disappear nor change its nature.

You clearly aren;t getting this. "Nature isn't a mere philosophical construct." as you said. Yes, that's the point. We use evidence (data) to understand what nature is. Intentional creation is not need to explain anything. A "creator" is an unnecessary hypothesis, so we don't use one in science. That isn't proof there isn't one or covering your senses, it is just a fact.

Abiogenesis pertains to how life and evolution began on Earth. So they are about evolution, but they are not contrary to the theory of evolution. To be fair, I hoped that this thread was about another TOE. The theory of everything,

No. Think of two other fields. You need carbon to do organic chemistry and carbon is generated in stars. You don't need to fully understand (or understand at all) stellar nucleosynthesis to do organic chemistry. For the same reason, you don't need to know how the first life formed to study how it changes.

 

[stevevw]

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

I think there is a degree of resistence to giving up some aspects of the theory that have come under question. The problem is some of the so called evidence is not so straight forward and obvious.

The other problem is that there are so many aspects that go into the theory and some of these may be under question while other aspects are well supported. For example we know that natural selection is a force. But to what extent. Evidence shows that it may be one of several forces that influence adaptive change and not itself a dominant force.

So we can say yes NS has been supported but not in the way the standard theory claims. This sis the case for a number of aspects including mutations which were once claimed to be random in nature but now evidence shows that mutations can be non random and beneficial. Following certain biases that produce certain outcomes rather than others.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think there is a degree of resistence to giving up some aspects of the theory that have come under question. The problem is some of the so called evidence is not so straight forward and obvious.

The other problem is that there are so many aspects that go into the theory and some of these may be under question while other aspects are well supported. For example we know that natural selection is a force. But to what extent. Evidence shows that it may be one of several forces that influence adaptive change and not itself a dominant force.

So we can say yes NS has been supported but not in the way the standard theory claims. This sis the case for a number of aspects including mutations which were once claimed to be random in nature but now evidence shows that mutations can be non random and beneficial. Following certain biases that produce certain outcomes rather than others.

You've still not shown at all how it's not a proven theory. Just saying it's not a proven theory does nothing.

 

[Astrophile]

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?

There are facts that would be contrary to T.O.E. if they were shown to be real. Specifically, if there was no correlation between the genetics of living things and their anatomy or the Linnean classification, that would be contrary to T.O.E. If there was no consistent sequence of fossils in the succession of sedimentary rocks - for example, if crabs, lobsters, ammonites and ichthyosaurs were common in Cambrian rocks and trilobites were common in Cenozoic rocks - that would be contrary to T.O.E. If sedimentary rocks all over the Earth were only a few metres thick and they all showed evidence of being deposited in a flood, that would support young-Earth creationism and flood geology and be contrary to T.O.E.

If you can demonstrate that these supposed facts correspond to biological and geological reality, you will have a basis for argument against evolution. Otherwise, not.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you have proof that the evolution theory is true or disproof in the God theory?

No scientific theory can be proved; it is always possible that new observations will find evidence to overthrow an established theory. However, the fact that no theory can be proved does not mean that anything is possible; theories cannot be proved, but they can be disproved. The astronomical, geological and biological evidence is more than enough to disprove the Genesis stories of the creation and the flood.

The disproof of the God theory is off-topic and outside my field of competence. If you want such a disproof, I advise you to read the Bible rather than scientific books.

 

[Astrid]

You've still not shown at all how it's not a proven theory. Just saying it's not a proven theory does nothing.

There's no need to show its not a proven theory.
It isn't proven.
And your friend didn't say anything about "proven theory".
Perhaps he knows better.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There's no need to show its not a proven theory.
It isn't proven.
And your friend didn't say anything about "proven theory".
Perhaps he knows better.

Okay, now that's just being pedantic as all hell now.

And he actually does say that it's not a proven theory in post #144, in the very first sentence.

 

[Astrid]

I think there is a degree of resistence to giving up some aspects of the theory that have come under question. The problem is some of the so called evidence is not so straight forward and obvious.

The other problem is that there are so many aspects that go into the theory and some of these may be under question while other aspects are well supported. For example we know that natural selection is a force. But to what extent. Evidence shows that it may be one of several forces that influence adaptive change and not itself a dominant force.

So we can say yes NS has been supported but not in the way the standard theory claims. This sis the case for a number of aspects including mutations which were once claimed to be random in nature but now evidence shows that mutations can be non random and beneficial. Following certain biases that produce certain outcomes rather than others.

Of course there's resistance. That's human
nature and the nature of science. The contest of ideas!
One will pervail, when it proves itself.
Here you mistakenly portray it as a weakness, worse,
as scientific dishonesty.

I notice your last sentence also denounces supposed
scientific dishonesty. Heavy stuff. But backed by nothing.

In between, you denounce scientific dishonsty, speaking of phony evidence (" supposed")you call it, again, backed by nothing but uninformed opinion.

There's no ' standard theory".
Theres no "problem" in " residtance" there's no " problem"
in the many aspects of evolution.
There's still more you get wrong.


The q was about disproof of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

Okay, now that's just being pedantic as all hell now.

And he actually does say that it's not a proven theory in post #144, in the very first sentence.

Oh, so you both make the same mistake.
That makes all the difference.
Sorry-ah.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, so you both make the same mistake.
That makes all the difference.
Sorry-ah.

Have you not noticed that no matter how often people can point out that theories aren't proven that people still use it regardless? Therefore, does it not make a tiny bit of sense to communicate with them on the same level?

 

[Larniavc]

Nothing has ever been shown to exist without a creator.

Yes it has.

 

[Larniavc]

The totality of nature is evidence for a creator.

Can you link me to the post where you established this? Pointing and saying ‘ta da!’ doesn’t really count.

 

[Astrid]

Have you not noticed that no matter how often people can point out that theories aren't proven that people still use it regardless? Therefore, does it not make a tiny bit of sense to communicate with them on the same level?

You find it makes sense to write something that
indicates you also don't know theories can't be
disproved? Encourage the yecs with your
clearly evident agreement?

As I very seldom see your posts, I just went with
the evidence in the nonsense you wrote.

 

[Larniavc]

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

It is possible to demonstrate the opposite; that things just pop into existence.

So if one thing is demonstrable and one is not which can we could to be definitely real?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You find it makes sense to write something that
indicates you also don't know theories can't be
disproved? Encourage the yecs with your
clearly evident agreement?

As I very seldom see your posts, I just went with
the evidence in the nonsense you wrote.

Despite the fact that, as I said, people on here have pointed out REPEATEDLY that they don't care if you or anyone else say that theories can't be proven or disproven, does it really bloody matter? We're not a scientific journal nor a full on science forum. This place is a layman's forum in the nicest way, so using one single layman's term is not going to be the end of the bloody world.

 

[Astrid]

Despite the fact that, as I said, people on here have pointed out REPEATEDLY that they don't care if you or anyone else say that theories can't be proven or disproven, does it really bloody matter? We're not a scientific journal nor a full on science forum. This place is a layman's forum in the nicest way, so using one single layman's term is not going to be the end of the bloody world.

It's not my fault that you misuse your words or
find its good policy to join the yecs.
It is my fault I read your post.
I won't do it again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not my fault that you misuse your words or
find its good policy to join the yecs.
It is my fault I read your post.
I won't do it again.

It's not 'joining the YECs' if I use one single word the same way they do. Fix your attitude.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can you link me to the post where you established this? Pointing and saying ‘ta da!’ doesn’t really count.

But you surely agree it is dramatic? We all need a little drama in our lives - as long as we remember drama is a form of fiction.