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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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 ... ...

In AV's defence, while Dawkins is the subject of the photo itself, he is not the subject of the photo when AV brings it up. He's just there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's the thing, brother AV, you're referring to an example which specifically uses Dawkins as its subject.

It's not Dawkins I'm talking about.

Look at the chart -- not the man.

I can show chart after chart after chart with their own "blue lines," if you'd like.

Here's one:

Look at all those smooth analog lines, meant to dupe the public.

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 ... ...

Um ... no.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In AV's defence, while Dawkins is the subject of the photo itself, he is not the subject of the photo when AV brings it up. He's just there.

I can understand that, but I'm not clear about the extent to which AV is clear on the difference between an atheistic Philosophical Naturalist who handles the T.O.E. versus a not necessarily atheistic Methodological Naturalist who handles the T.O.E.

There are many Christians who don't know the difference between these two epistemic approaches to science and by addressing this interior issue within the overall Nature of Science, some headway might be made in clarifying for Christians (or for fellow Christians in my case) as to which evolutionists are a threat to their faith and which one's aren't.

 

[Laodicean60]

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

No one can fact ToE or the Big Bang. You are asking for facts on a subject that may not be factual. I had to Google this because I'm ignorant and there are questions to the theory. I can honestly say I don't know!

Holes in the theory of evolution.
Based on the provided search results, here are some “holes” or challenges to the theory of evolution:

Lack of information addition: The theory of evolution struggles to explain how complex organisms arose from simpler ones, as it doesn’t provide a clear mechanism for adding new information to the genome. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Speed of evolution: The theory of evolution faces difficulties in explaining how drastic changes can occur quickly enough to account for the diversity of life on Earth. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Origin of the first living cell: The theory of evolution is silent on how the first living cell arose spontaneously, and this remains a significant challenge. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Mind and natural selection: Some argue that natural selection requires a “mind” or intentionality to “select for” certain traits, which contradicts the idea of evolution as a purely mechanistic process. (Source: “Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong”)

Design and complexity: Creationists point to the complexity and design evident in living organisms, arguing that this cannot be explained solely by natural selection and random variation. (Source: “Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution ‘Theory’”)

Lack of transitional fossils: Despite extensive fossil records, some argue that transitional forms between major groups of organisms are scarce or missing, challenging the theory of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

Evolutionary mechanism: Alternative theories, such as Lamarckism and orthogenesis, have been proposed as alternatives to natural selection, highlighting ongoing debates within the scientific community about the underlying mechanisms of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can understand that, but I'm not clear about the extent to which AV is clear on the difference between an atheistic Philosophical Naturalist who handles the T.O.E. versus a not necessarily atheistic Methodological Naturalist who handles the T.O.E.

There are many Christians who don't know the difference between these two epistemic approaches to science and by addressing this interior, issue within the overall Nature of Science, some headway might be made in clarifying for Christians which evolutionists are a threat to their faith and which one's aren't.

I'll be short and simple on that: he really doesn't seem to care about the difference. If anything shows evolution in a good light, neutral light, or even any light at all that's not a negative light; to him, it's bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Sure:

‘Missing link’ in human history confirmed after long debate​

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No one can fact ToE or the Big Bang. You are asking for facts on a subject that may not be factual. I had to Google this because I'm ignorant and there are questions to the theory. I can honestly say I don't know!

Holes in the theory of evolution.
Based on the provided search results, here are some “holes” or challenges to the theory of evolution:

Lack of information addition: The theory of evolution struggles to explain how complex organisms arose from simpler ones, as it doesn’t provide a clear mechanism for adding new information to the genome. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Speed of evolution: The theory of evolution faces difficulties in explaining how drastic changes can occur quickly enough to account for the diversity of life on Earth. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Origin of the first living cell: The theory of evolution is silent on how the first living cell arose spontaneously, and this remains a significant challenge. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Mind and natural selection: Some argue that natural selection requires a “mind” or intentionality to “select for” certain traits, which contradicts the idea of evolution as a purely mechanistic process. (Source: “Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong”)

Design and complexity: Creationists point to the complexity and design evident in living organisms, arguing that this cannot be explained solely by natural selection and random variation. (Source: “Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution ‘Theory’”)

Lack of transitional fossils: Despite extensive fossil records, some argue that transitional forms between major groups of organisms are scarce or missing, challenging the theory of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

Evolutionary mechanism: Alternative theories, such as Lamarckism and orthogenesis, have been proposed as alternatives to natural selection, highlighting ongoing debates within the scientific community about the underlying mechanisms of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

You know what's funny: you citing "Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works" is incredibly funny because your own citation source answers the questions for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure:

‘Missing link’ in human history confirmed after long debate​

SOURCE

So:
A) not front page news across the world, just a single headline on a news website.
B) Not large font as your original post claimed it to be, just bolded as a headline for a webpage.

But keep tilting at those windmills, Senior Quixote! You'll get your giant someday!

 

[AV1611VET]

I can understand that, but I'm not clear about the extent to which AV is clear on the difference between an atheistic Philosophical Naturalist who handles the T.O.E. versus a not necessarily atheistic Methodological Naturalist who handles the T.O.E.

I don't think all that gobbledegook matters.

It's interesting that the OP asks a good question.

I answer it.

Then suddenly this junk is brought up, as if I should have been more explicit in my answer.

It's amazing how two simple words (missing link) can cause such a furor and boost one's post count.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll be short and simple on that: he really doesn't seem to care about the difference. If anything shows evolution in a good light, neutral light, or even any light at all that's not a negative light; to him, it's bad.

Well, of course. He's an Independent Baptist, and in that sub-cultural context, I understand his mindset. I don't agree with it, but I understand why he perceives what he does and why he reacts the way he does.

But regardless, here's the upshot to the OP: While I might not assert that I have evidence against the T.O.E.---which is why I've tended to "go with it" ever since I was a kid---this doesn't mean that the theory itself doesn't get man-handled conceptually by certain scientists who, at times, also then go and place a toe or two over the line and commit epistemological trespassing all in the name of "mainstream science."

 

[Laodicean60]

There are many Christians who don't know the difference between these two epistemic approaches to science and by addressing this interior issue within the overall Nature of Science, some headway might be made in clarifying for Christians (or for fellow Christians in my case) as to which evolutionists are a threat to their faith and which one's aren't.

Thanks for sharing I don't have a clue about this stuff but I have my hypothosis with what little information I have. Science has shown me that I can't go by the biblical account but science has shown me that the ape-to-man theory may not be factual either. I think I'm going to argue politics requires less thinking.

 

[AV1611VET]

So:
A) not front page news across the world, just a single headline on a news website.
B) Not large font as your original post claimed it to be, just bolded as a headline for a webpage.

But keep tilting at those windmills, Senior Quixote! You'll get your giant someday!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but science has shown me that the ape-to-man theory may not be factual either.

I have to ask where exactly have you seen such a claim being made?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think all that gobbledegook matters.

It actually does matter, and it doesn't have to matter to you to actually matter.

It's interesting that the OP asks a good question.

I answer it.

Then suddenly this junk is brought up, as if I should have been more explicit in my answer.

If you understood what I was implying, you wouldn't be reacting the way you do because what I'm saying plays in favor of the Christian Faith, not against it.

It's amazing how two simple words (missing link) can cause such a furor and boost one's post count.

That's a God of the Gaps assertion. I don't hold my justified beliefs nor my cognitive coherence for my Christian Faith in ............... gaps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

View attachment 352849

You really can't see that as fake? Really? It's from an Etsy store!

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a God of the Gaps assertion.

And here I thought it was called "missing links"!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for sharing I don't have a clue about this stuff but I have my hypothosis with what little information I have. Science has shown me that I can't go by the biblical account but science has shown me that the ape-to-man theory may not be factual either. I think I'm going to argue politics requires less thinking.

No problem, Laodicean60. There's no need to let any of this evolutionary stuff get under the collar of our faith. If you find that you want some material to help with insights on this, just let me know. If you don't, that's fine too. Either way, I'm only going to say what you'd say: "Trust in God's Word anyway."

 

[AV1611VET]

You really can't see that as fake? Really? It's from an Etsy store!

Oh, good grief, Warden.

The evolution camp has a history of shenanigans behind it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, good grief, Warden.

The evolution camp has a history of shenanigans behind it.

View attachment 352850

We're really getting further off topic now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And here I thought it was called "missing links"!

Well, there are some evolutionary links we'd like to have, and there are some links that some folks deny we have that scientists actually have.

However, in a sort of indirect way, I would agree with you that there is a real bug-a-boo in all of this, and that is in how we interpret the facts since facts in the sciences are so often open to further interpretation and further qualification.

For me, I can believe in the T.O.E. in a way that is similar to how I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun and that we live on but one planet in a solar system. Neither of these topics in science push me to drop my Christian Faith, and I don't think that I'm committing some epistemic fraud or delusion if I continue to value and think I have justified beliefs and cognitive faith about the Bible.