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

[MorningDance13]

Evolution runs on "the evidence of things not seen."

And according to the Bible, that is the definition of faith.

That's awesome! I'm going to steal that

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually all 66 documents of the Bible attest to the fact that evolutionism is the ridiculous religion.

Chapter and verse.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution runs on "the evidence of things not seen."

And according to the Bible, that is the definition of faith.

It really doesn't, to both claims.

 

[MorningDance13]

Chapter and verse.

Read. It. (Them)
Go to the websites of Answers in Genesis and Creation Research Institute.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read. It. (Them)
Go to the websites of Answers in Genesis and Creation Research Institute.

No, you said that the documents of the Bible say that 'evolutionism is the ridiculous religion'. I'm going to do your work for you since I've never once seen anything in the Bible that claims evolution as a religion.

You say they do. So cite chapter and verse or do not make that claim again since it is a false claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

Read. It. (Them)

I have. Many times. They do not support your assertions.

Go to the websites of Answers in Genesis and Creation Research Institute.

I have. They are rife with contrived, manipulative, egregious content.

The topic for this thread is "facts contrary to TOE". Please do not post any further off-topic, fact-deficient preaching. There are plenty of sub-forums where such content would be on-topic. This is not one of them.

 

[Larniavc]

You guys want information but you can look up the information yourself.

The thread is asking for someone to post that information. What are the evidences against TOE.

If one claims that that evidence exists it is incumbent on one to present it.

Saying “its there but I won’t provide it” can only mean one is unable to provide it.

 

[stevevw]

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.

When it proves itself. No theory of consciousness under methodological naturalism is going to prove itself. It can't because theres an explanatory gap between science (measuring the physical quantities) and consciousness (measuring the subjective qualities). Remember science cannot comment on the subjective as its a 3rd person perspective and consciousness is a 1st person one.

Here you mistakenly portray it as a weakness, worse,
as scientific dishonesty.

Not dishonesty in and of itself. The science method is just a method, a way of measuring a particular aspect of reality. So it cannot even if we wanted to measure subjective conscious experiences.

But its when the science is used to refute stuff it cannot measure as being Woo or unreal as far as fundemental reality is concerned. It has no justification in doing so as its beyond its means. This is what has happened where science has become so intertwined in society, in peoples materialist worldview that the explanations of science are actually telling us what reality is. That we can only know reality through science.

When someone makes claims that only naturalistic empiracle science is evidence and the only evidence this is going beyond science and into making epistemic truth claims (how we should know reality) and ontological truth claims (that this is what reality is).

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

I am not sure what evidence you want. Are you asking for evidence that shows that the science method is limited in telling us what reality is. Or in explaining subjective experiences. Or how science is a social endeavour and therefore people including scientists care working within metaphysical beliefs rather than facts when it comes to fundemental reality. Or that there is bias and dishonesty in science. Because I can provide evidence for all of these.

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

But are not you doing the same. You have made some strong claims about my position and what I have said without clarifying what I said nor providing support for your claims. If you make claims I assume you have researched things and are confident that I am wrong and you are right.

There's no ' standard theory".

Actually there is. Just like theres a standard theory for gravity or QM. The standard theory is the Modern Synthesis.

The current standard model in evolutionary biology, known as the modern synthesis (MS), which was crystallized by the classical writings of Dobzhansky, Huxley, Mayr, Simpson, and others during the 1940s and early 1950s (Mayr and Provine 1980).
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/6/511/290249

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

If there is no problems with the theory then that is a problem in itself because theories should have problems if they are to be revised towards something closer to the truth.

But there are anomelies with the current theory.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - Nature

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

www.nature.com

The q was about disproof of evolution.

Yeah we will get there don't worry lol. These things take time as they are no simple matter.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually there is. Just like theres a standard theory for gravity or QM. The standard theory is the Modern Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis is three quarters of a century old. Perhaps you missed them, but there have been numerous amendments in that time. Yes, the theory of evolution has itself evolved. The backbone of the theory is arguably the Modern Synthesis, but just as in the biosphere not all vertebrates are the same. There is a spectrum of views as to the relevance of that standard model. At one end are those who insist it should be ripped up, or has already met its demise; at the other end those who hold the view that it remains fundamentally robust. Both are correct. After all it is only a matter of classification and classification is artificial.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why are you leading him on? You know evolution isn't a belief system and that it is a science, don't you? He's never going to be able to demonstrate that notion.

That's strange. I don't remember having "led anyone on" lately, Hans. The only thing I recall having done for him was to offer (suggest, really) a further point of education about getting his point across ...

... do you find fault with the short article I offered him for the sake of denotative clarification?

Of course I know that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific paradigm. And those of us, like you and I, who have been educated within its intellectual contexts, believe in its veracity. I've known this for quite some time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution runs on "the evidence of things not seen."

And according to the Bible, that is the definition of faith.

I think the problem here in understanding what the meaning of "the evidence of things not seen" is a matter of deeper hermeneutical clarification, because I definitely do think Christian faith is contingent upon some amount of evidence.

In fact, I'd argue that a conceptual component of "faith" is that it is a response to available evidence. It's just that where the validity of the Gospel message is concerned, it's not the only component. Science, on the other hand, involves a different degree and form of belief and faith.

 

[BCP1928]

When it proves itself. No theory of consciousness under methodological naturalism is going to prove itself. It can't because theres an explanatory gap between science (measuring the physical quantities) and consciousness (measuring the subjective qualities). Remember science cannot comment on the subjective as its a 3rd person perspective and consciousness is a 1st person one.

Not dishonesty in and of itself. The science method is just a method, a way of measuring a particular aspect of reality. So it cannot even if we wanted to measure subjective conscious experiences.

But its when the science is used to refute stuff it cannot measure as being Woo or unreal as far as fundemental reality is concerned. It has no justification in doing so as its beyond its means. This is what has happened where science has become so intertwined in society, in peoples materialist worldview that the explanations of science are actually telling us what reality is. That we can only know reality through science.

When someone makes claims that only naturalistic empiracle science is evidence and the only evidence this is going beyond science and into making epistemic truth claims (how we should know reality) and ontological truth claims (that this is what reality is).

I am not sure what evidence you want. Are you asking for evidence that shows that the science method is limited in telling us what reality is. Or in explaining subjective experiences. Or how science is a social endeavour and therefore people including scientists care working within metaphysical beliefs rather than facts when it comes to fundemental reality. Or that there is bias and dishonesty in science. Because I can provide evidence for all of these.

But are not you doing the same. You have made some strong claims about my position and what I have said without clarifying what I said nor providing support for your claims. If you make claims I assume you have researched things and are confident that I am wrong and you are right.

Actually there is. Just like theres a standard theory for gravity or QM. The standard theory is the Modern Synthesis.

The current standard model in evolutionary biology, known as the modern synthesis (MS), which was crystallized by the classical writings of Dobzhansky, Huxley, Mayr, Simpson, and others during the 1940s and early 1950s (Mayr and Provine 1980).
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/6/511/290249

If there is no problems with the theory then that is a problem in itself because theories should have problems if they are to be revised towards something closer to the truth.

But there are anomelies with the current theory.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - Nature

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

www.nature.com

Yeah we will get there don't worry lol. These things take time as they are no simple matter.

You're wasting your time with that old article. There is no way that evolution is going to be "rethought" into creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's awesome! I'm going to steal that

Go right ahead!

I give God the credit for bringing that to mind!

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you said that the documents of the Bible say that 'evolutionism is the ridiculous religion'. I'm going to do your work for you since I've never once seen anything in the Bible that claims evolution as a religion.

You say they do. So cite chapter and verse or do not make that claim again since it is a false claim.

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

And no mention of evolution, nor of evolution being a religion.

I think there's some problems with adding to the Bible, AV.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're wasting your time with that old article. There is no way that evolution is going to be "rethought" into creationism.

Well, just to be fair, the folks over at Biologos do consider their own evolutionary viewpoint to count as a form of creationism. However, this isn't to say that anyone here has to agree with the viewpoint of Francis Collins' Biologos think tank. I don't think I do, but it's one additional position on "Creationism."

 

[AV1611VET]

And no mention of evolution,

Do you argue that the Trinity doesn't exist, because the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you argue that the Trinity doesn't exist, because the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible?

I'm not arguing basic religious doctrine of Christianity.

@MorningDance13 said there were passages in the Bible that specifically call evolution a 'ridiculous religion'. I asked him for chapter and verse. He failed to provide. You provided nothing of the sort either.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not arguing basic religious doctrine of Christianity.

@MorningDance13 said there were passages in the Bible that specifically call evolution a 'ridiculous religion'. I asked him for chapter and verse. He failed to provide. You provided nothing of the sort either.

If you don't see the ridiculosity that Jeremiah is talking about, then the problem is on your end.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you don't see the ridiculosity that Jeremiah is talking about, then the problem is on your end.

No, it's 100% on your end, not mine. Especially since the passage is, very specifically about Israel forsaking God.