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

[Laodicean60]

Then don't come crying to me when you are accused of being ignorant of the theory of evolution; I tried to help.

I won't and I didn't. Keep on believing what you believe is true and I'll do the same. So "What Evolution Is" is the holy grail of evolution because I imagine, it's his assumptions about evolution unless you have scientific proof of the diversity of species from the beginning. At least I listened to a couple of his videos. As long as scientists argue with each other I'll keep my worldview.

I was hoping you'd post a website source about the questions I asked and these questions have been with me since high school. This is the reason I don't argue a theory of something that happened billions of years ago. My original statement still stands.

Do you have proof that the evolution theory is true or disproof in the God theory? We all make claims of what we think are true but it all stems from a belief system. This is why I don't argue about something that happened many moons ago; we really don't know.

I admit I shouldn't have said God theory but what it all boils down to is God vs. no God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While watching some videos of Ernst Mayr this video caught my eye Making matter come alive. Lee Cronin is a chemist and he says it might be possible in two years. I believe science still has to get better.

Reflecting along the conceptual lines of what Cronin suggests in the video you've posted, I wonder if we'll eventually associate a human fetus with the concept of "evolvable matter as life" and thereby come to value a human fetus, itself, as an actual form of life (apart from, and prior to, even having to bring the Bible into the chemical equation)?

Oh, whoops. Sorry! This takes us into the realm of Bio-Ethics. My apologies to everyone.

 

[BCP1928]

I won't and I didn't. Keep on believing what you believe is true and I'll do the same. So "What Evolution Is" is the holy grail of evolution because I imagine, it's his assumptions about evolution unless you have scientific proof of the diversity of species from the beginning. At least I listened to a couple of his videos. As long as scientists argue with each other I'll keep my worldview.

I was hoping you'd post a website source about the questions I asked and these questions have been with me since high school. This is the reason I don't argue a theory of something that happened billions of years ago. My original statement still stands.

I admit I shouldn't have said God theory but what it all boils down to is God vs. no God.

No wonder you don't want to know what the theory of evolution actually says. You are here to promote a bigoted lie, the fundamental lie of creationism.

 

[Laodicean60]

I wonder if we'll eventually associate a human fetus with the concept of "evolvable matter as life" and thereby come to value a human fetus,

You know, I think Ernst Mayr gave this example as an evolutionary process, or I could be wrong but I've been watching a lot about evolution lately.

 

[Laodicean60]

fundamental lie of creationism.

Triggered much? You back my statement of God vs no God. lol

 

[BCP1928]

Triggered much? You back my statement of God vs no God. lol

Henry Morris, the founder of modern creationism, based his work on the assertion that "The purpose of the theory of evolution denies the existence of God." Of course that is false, as even the creationists who promote that idea here know full well. The theory of evolution has no such purpose and no such effect. It is also an affront to Christians who know it isn't true and don't care to pretend that it is.

 

[Laodicean60]

Henry Morris, the founder of modern creationism, based his work on the assertion that "The purpose of the theory of evolution denies the existence of God." Of course that is false, as even the creationists who promote that idea here know full well. The theory of evolution has no such purpose and no such effect. It is also an affront to Christians who know it isn't true and don't care to pretend that it is.

I don't care what Morris says is it my view? Explain exactly what views I hold.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't care what Morris says is it my view? Explain exactly what views I hold.

You said the question boiled down to God vs no God, a question which in fact has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, one way or the other.

 

[Laodicean60]

You said the question boiled down to God vs no God, a question which in fact has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, one way or the other.

Are these theistic evolutionists "It is also an affront to Christians who know it isn't true and don't care to pretend that it is".

 

[BCP1928]

Are these theistic evolutionists "It is also an affront to Christians who know it isn't true and don't care to pretend that it is".

Theistic evolutionists generally understand that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or his authorship of our being. Consequently, they do not need to find fault with it, nor do they need to find Telos in it.

 

[Laodicean60]

Theistic evolutionists generally understand that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God or his authorship of our being. Consequently, they do not need to find fault with it, nor do they need to find Telos in it.

What am I?

 

[BCP1928]

What am I?

I don't know. You would have to clarify how you think the theory of evolution boiled down to a question of God or no God. Do you think the theory of evolution is faulty because it provides no evidence of direct divine intervention?

 

[Laodicean60]

I don't know. You would have to clarify how you think the theory of evolution boiled down to a question of God or no God.

You sure accuse me as if you know, just saying. From what I've seen on this forum there are three beliefs theistic evolution, YEC, and nonbeliever evolutionists. If I'm missing some let me know.

 

[BCP1928]

You sure accuse me as if you know, just saying. From what I've seen on this forum there are three beliefs theistic evolution, YEC, and nonbeliever evolutionists. If I'm missing some let me know.

Maybe I have oversimplified it. I see "theistic evolutionists" as holding various positions. There are those who fault the theory of evolution for not showing evidence of God's handiwork, and those who don't expect to find it there.

 

[Laodicean60]

There are those who fault the theory of evolution for not showing evidence of God's handiwork,

Am I this from what I wrote please quote.

and those who don't expect to find it there.

or this? Quote

No wonder you don't want to know what the theory of evolution actually says. You are here to promote a bigoted lie, the fundamental lie of creationism.

What is this bigoted lie you speak of?

 

[BCP1928]

Am I this from what I wrote please quote.

or this? Quote

What is this bigoted lie you speak of?

That the theory of evolution denies the existence of God. Why should I quote? You haven't said anything explanatory yet about your statement that it boils down to "God vs no God." That statement appears to echo the lie, but I can't tell because you haven't explained it.

 

[Laodicean60]

That the theory of evolution denies the existence of God. Why should I quote? You haven't said anything explanatory yet about your statement that it boils down to "God vs no God." That statement appears to echo the lie, but I can't tell because you haven't explained it.

From what I've seen on this forum there are three beliefs theistic evolution, YEC, and nonbeliever evolutionists.

Theistic evolution and YEC (God) and nonbeliever (No God) in the evolutionary process. Yes, Christians argue about how God did it but still God.

You are here to promote a bigoted lie, the fundamental lie of creationism.

I'm still waiting, what do you mean by this? Quote the bigoted lies I told.

 

[BCP1928]

Theistic evolution and YEC (God) and nonbeliever (No God) in the evolutionary process. Yes, Christians argue about how God did it but still God.

I'm still waiting, what do you mean by this? Quote the bigoted lies I told.

I said that you echoed a bigoted lie. If it is then just an individual matter of faith, then I misunderstood you and apologize It has no bearing on the theory of evolution itself or any evidence there may be against it.

 

[Laodicean60]

I said that you echoed a bigoted lie. If it is then just an individual matter of faith, then I misunderstood you and apologize It has no bearing on the theory of evolution itself or any evidence there may be against it.

And I don't want to be misunderstood and I definitely will fight my accuser if I feel wronged. All good I love you too. If I was thin-skinned I would have done killed my dog but I really didn't realize the importance of Politics and now ToE to some folks. But I do like reading about it. I find myself on the computer than my beloved YouTube videos these last 8 months. Peace

 

[DennisF]

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?

This is a Popperian view of science, as promulgated by British philosopher of science Karl Popper. However, what constitutes evidence or "facts" in Popper is underdeveloped; some would even say naive. A better treatment of the topic is found in the book by Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Despite what the title might suggest nowadays, Polanyi was definitely not post-modern. His name is found in many physical chemistry textbooks and his son John won the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
"Proof" is something found in logic or mathematics but in science this is rationalistic language, as though conclusions can be deduced from established postulates or previously proven theorems. Scientific conclusions result most often from weighing evidence and following where it leads. This is not irrational but it is also not in the habit of thought of mathematical proofs.