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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll take the trouble, thank you.

My answer to satisfy the OP is simply this:

"Missing links."

If you think I'm wrong, show me pictures of something that exists between Homo [this] and Homo [that].

Do you want the skull picture again?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Nope. I don't have any disproof of the T.O.E., nor do I know of any scientific facts that clearly show evidence against it.

On the other hand, it's fun for me to pull Young Earth Creationist's literature off of my shelf and rummage through it for possible conceptual critiques of the T.O.E. I've always enjoyed a good conceptual challenge ... it contributes to being educated.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you claim.

My claims are more valid than evolution's claims.

My claims are based on missing links, which cannot be denied.

Evolution's claims are based on ghost bridges between one life form and another.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My claims are more valid than evolution's claims.

My claims are based on missing links, which cannot be denied.

Evolution's claims are based on ghost bridges between one life form and another.

But your claims aren't more valid that the 'claims' of evolution. You are, in the grand sense of everything and especially science, a nobody. A nobody who's main source of contention against evolution is your own very strange attempt at a literal reading of the Bible.

You really have no right to even think that anyone should take your claims as serious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you want the skull picture again?

Do you want that chart showing Dawkins pointing out our closest living relatives again?

The one I use to show what I call those "blue lines"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you want that chart showing Dawkins pointing out our closest living relatives again?

The one I use to show what I call those "blue lines"?

Why do you even bother anyway since anyone knows that what you claim about that picture is not what is shown at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

But your claims aren't more valid that the 'claims' of evolution.

Either that, or they are.

You are, in the grand sense of everything and especially science, a nobody.

"Nobodys" were asked in the OP to give their input.

And this "nobody" is giving his contribution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you even bother anyway since anyone knows that what you claim about that picture is not what is shown at all?

Sorry you can't see it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Either that, or they are.

They aren't.

"Nobodys" were asked in the OP to give their input.

And this "nobody" is giving his contribution.

OP also has you on their ignore list and really has no intention of wanting to interact with you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry you can't see it.

Again: just because you claim something does not mean that you are right.

 

[AV1611VET]

OP also has you on their ignore list and really has no intention of wanting to interact with you.

Smart cookie -- ain't she?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again: just because you claim something does not mean that you are right.

Likewise.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

A. By definition a theory can never proved.
B. There is no " god theory"
C. There is one way of interpreting one old book
that says god just made everything as it is.
D. Evolution is not based on " claims " about " beliefs"
someone " thunks" are true.
E. There is enough evidence to say evolution is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

God beliefs and science are opposite.
Belief has faith, it's emotional in nature

Science is fact based. Objective in nature.
Like auto mechanics.
Auto mechanics are the same regardless of " belief sysyem".

As for many moons? Don't be too hasty.
There's a great many things we know happened- and many we know did not.

We know Antarctica was once tropical. We know dinosaurs roamed the earth.

We know there was no flood.


The thread though is about disproof of evolution.
Not opinions about "belief systems". Or "god".

Scientist get things wrong all the time.

God does not need to prove Himself. He is everywhere in the whole creation. Some people just harden their hearts and believe all sorts of nonsense because humans are evil. If they admitted there is God, then they would have to admit they are sinners and deserve God's wrath.

Admiting to God also means they have to worship God, but people worship themselves.

It's pointless writing to you about God, because you don't want to believe, but I'll write to you what you and others need to know.

God is Holy, without sin. Sin separates us from God, and because we sin, we deserve to be punished. But God in His mercy judges no one by their sins today. He sent His Son so whomever believes in Him should not perrish but have an everlasting life. But because God is just, His mercy will end one day, and He will punish every sinner that did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientist get things wrong all the time.

God does not need to prove Himself. He is everywhere in the whole creation. Some people just harden their hearts and believe all sorts of nonsense because humans are evil. If they admitted there is God, then they would have to admit they are sinners and deserve God's wrath.

Admiting to God also means they have to worship God, but people worship themselves.

It's pointless writing to you about God, because you don't want to believe, but I'll write to you what you and others need to know.

God is Holy, without sin. Sin separates us from God, and because we sin, we deserve to be punished. But God in His mercy judges no one by their sins today. He sent His Son so whomever believes in Him should not perrish but have an everlasting life. But because God is just, His mercy will end one day, and He will punish every sinner that did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That's not really got anything to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Astrid]

Scientist get things wrong all the time.

God does not need to prove Himself. He is everywhere in the whole creation. Some people just harden their hearts and believe all sorts of nonsense because humans are evil. If they admitted there is God, then they would have to admit they are sinners and deserve God's wrath.

Admiting to God also means they have to worship God, but people worship themselves.

It's pointless writing to you about God, because you don't want to believe, but I'll write to you what you and others need to know.

God is Holy, without sin. Sin separates us from God, and because we sin, we deserve to be punished. But God in His mercy judges no one by their sins today. He sent His Son so whomever believes in Him should not perrish but have an everlasting life. But because God is just, His mercy will end one day, and He will punish every sinner that did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of course science is often wrong.
ToE may be wrong.

The question was: can anyone provide a fact to
show its wrong.

Obviously you cannot.

This is a phys sci forum.
You are being disrespectful of the rules set by yiur fellow christians.
Go preach somewhere else.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

No. This is an appealing, but overly simplistic notion that is that clear odds with the way the world works. You appear to be effectively claiming that there is no such thing as objective truth, only subjective belief.

Using this strategy obviously helps when one is painted into a corner by the facts. When the facts do not align with one's liking, one can always say "it's just a belief system".

The "it's a belief system" argument could be used to undermine any well-established fact about the world. That is simply not right.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Scientist get things wrong all the time.

God does not need to prove Himself. He is everywhere in the whole creation. Some people just harden their hearts and believe all sorts of nonsense because humans are evil. If they admitted there is God, then they would have to admit they are sinners and deserve God's wrath.

Admiting to God also means they have to worship God, but people worship themselves.

It's pointless writing to you about God, because you don't want to believe, but I'll write to you what you and others need to know.

God is Holy, without sin. Sin separates us from God, and because we sin, we deserve to be punished. But God in His mercy judges no one by their sins today. He sent His Son so whomever believes in Him should not perrish but have an everlasting life. But because God is just, His mercy will end one day, and He will punish every sinner that did not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is pointless in this forum because this is the Physical and Life Sciences forum and the thread topic is "A fact that disproves the Theory of Evolution" Nothing you've written here has anything to do with the thread topic or the statement of purpose for any post in the forum.

I'll also point out that because of forum rules no one can really dispute what you're saying here without running the risk of breaking forum rules against "Blasphemy or Contempt for Christianity" which is why such discussions are better left to the "Christians Only" sections of the board.

 

[AV1611VET]

Warden, if there are no missing links, as you seem to be implying, then why, when a missing link is "found," do they spread it all over the earth on Page One of the media ... in large font?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you want that chart showing Dawkins pointing out our closest living relatives again?

The one I use to show what I call those "blue lines"?

Here's the thing, brother AV, you're referring to an example which specifically uses Dawkins as its subject. This alone should tip you off to the sort of evolutionists you (and even I) are more concerned about where the T.O.E. becomes problematic for the Christian Faith ... ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden, if there are no missing links, as you seem to be implying, then why, when a missing link is "found," do they spread it all over the earth on Page One of the media ... in large font?

You'd have to give me an example of that before I even pretend to think of answering your question.