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

[AV1611VET]

Is there any actual criteria for who counts as being descended from who?

For evolutionists, it's being able to draw a blue line.

 

[Hans Blaster]

from wiki
"....It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth found by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in Nebraska in 1917. Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake, and was retracted in 1927."....

It may or may not have been a deliberate hoax. Both deliberate and not prevail today.

You said this is happening millions of times today and you give an "example" from 100+ years ago. Try again.

"There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For evolutionists, it's being able to draw a blue line.

No I was asking for how Christians decide if a person is descended from Shem, Ham or Japheth.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

The issue was resolved.

Carry on.

MOD HAT OFF ​

 

[Niels]

What do you know of the natural order?

Care to be more specific?

Except that such a claim is purely founded on confirmation bias. It's not evidence at all. It's special pleading.

In this case it is founded on observation and pattern recognition. Perhbaps you assume that pattern recognition is confirmation bias or special pleading simply because you disagree.

There is no evidence of "nothing" every "existing". (The words get weird, but there is no scientific reason to think that at any point there wasn't "something". The Big Bang is, after all, the expansion of the Universe from a previous hot, dense state and not the creation of that state. It could have existed for a very long time (forever?) until it spontaneously transitioned into an expanding state, or something like that.

What is forever outside of spacetime? 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. 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.

We are talking about science. Reason alone is useless. Evidence *IS* required.

And none of these are about the theory of evolution.

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.

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,

 

[AV1611VET]

No I was asking for how Christians decide if a person is descended from Shem, Ham or Japheth.

Oh.

I think it's done by place names.

Like Egypt is also named Mizraim; and Mizraim is the grandson of Noah through Ham.

Here's my favorite site for this kind of information:

The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In this case it is founded on observation and pattern recognition. Perhbaps you assume that pattern recognition is confirmation bias or special pleading simply because you disagree.

But it is a form of special pleading and confirmation bias. You believe that the world was created and thus any evidence you find will support your claim of creation.

Science cannot find such evidence because there is no way to test it, because to claim everything is created and thus everything needs a creator because everything is created is also circular logic. It's bad logic and bad science.

 

[Astrid]

Care to be more specific?


In this case it is founded on observation and pattern recognition. Perhbaps you assume that pattern recognition is confirmation bias or special pleading simply because you disagree.


What is forever outside of spacetime? 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. 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.


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.

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,

A bit of overreach on your part re the nature of things

A quote from Across the Frontiers

Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.

www.goodreads.com

Anyway, that's off topic.
Plz, let's not have the thread closed

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh.

I think it's done by place names.

Like Egypt is also named Mizraim; and Mizraim is the grandson of Noah through Ham.

Here's my favorite site for this kind of information:

The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah

Wow.

And you have a go at scientists for making stuff up.

 

[AV1611VET]

We see in the writings of theoretical physicists words to the effect of "reality is far far stranger than what we
understand, or probably ever can understand."

Why don't you ask that physicist that said we my someday have the mind of God?

Oh, wait!

He's in Aitch now, isn't he?

Nevermind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow.

And you have a go at scientists for making stuff up.

Making stuff up?

Ask an Egyptian if he's from Mizraim and see what he says.

I did.

And he was impressed I knew that.

You want the Wikipedia article?

(Or is it made up too?)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Making stuff up?

Ask an Egyptian if he's from Mizraim and see what he says.

I did.

And he was impressed I knew that.

You want the Wikipedia article?

(Or is it made up too?)

Yeah, it's very much a 'just so' story, as is the entire Genesis account.

But this is even more off topic so I won't go further on it.

 

[Niels]

But it is a form of special pleading and confirmation bias. You believe that the world was created and thus any evidence you find will support your claim of creation.

Science cannot find such evidence because there is no way to test it, because to claim everything is created and thus everything needs a creator because everything is created is also circular logic. It's bad logic and bad science.

My conclusion that the universe was created predates my belief in God as such. Ultimately, science is agnostic. Neither theistic nor atheistic.

You referred to creation needing a creator.

We see in the writings of theoretical physicists
words to the effect of
" reality is far far stranger than what we
understand, or probably ever can understand"

I don't think you or I have the qualified grasp of the
" the nature of things" to say what can or cannot be.

Do you?

Oh , and with due respect which you certainly deserve-
Please post on topic.

Yes, reality can seem strange indeed. That's why it is so fascinating.

I will respect your wishes on this, however, and bow out of the thread as I don't dispute the theory of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My conclusion that the universe was created predates my belief in God as such. Ultimately, science is agnostic. Neither theistic nor atheistic.

Good for you. But that still doesn't mean that any claim of evidence of creation means evidence of a creator. That's not how science works. As I said, to claim everything is created and thus everything needs a creator because everything is created is circular logic, which is bad logic which is bad science.

 

[AV1611VET]

But this is even more off topic so I won't go further on it.

Smart cookie, aint'cha?

 

[AV1611VET]

Good for you. But that still doesn't mean that any claim of evidence of creation means evidence of a creator. That's not how science works. As I said, to claim everything is created and thus everything needs a creator because everything is created is circular logic, which is bad logic which is bad science.

And from science's perspective:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And from science's perspective:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not really the same thing.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

God says otherwise.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Off-topic

It does.

it doesn't

You need eyes to look.

Unfortunately though ...

Ezekiel 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

Off-topic

Actually it can.

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

Off-topic.

Which came first? God or belief in God?

Irrelevant. Off-topic

One answer to the OPs question is: "missing links."

The efficacy of the ToE does not rely on us having the fossil of every creature that ever lived. "Missing Links" does not fulfil the OPs request.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really the same thing.

If you're going to harp on evidence not being presented, lest it didn't happen as documented, then yes, it's the same thing.