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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You guys want information but you can look up the information yourself. I'm sure that you guys are experienced debators on the subject. When you have scientists questioning the primordial soup hypothesis. As long as there are arguments against it I chose not to believe all of it. Ape to man needs more information.

The primordial soup hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. It's not a part of the theory of evolution, it's just something that might have been. Plus, it's more a facet of abiogenesis than evolution, so it's a wholly different thing to get hung up on.

 

[Astrid]

You guys want information but you can look up the information yourself. I'm sure that you guys are experienced debators on the subject. When you have scientists questioning the primordial soup hypothesis. As long as there are arguments against it I chose not to believe all of it. Ape to man needs more information.

We " guys" already are vastly better acquainted wit the
ToE than any of " you guys".
We know perfectly well that no googling nor asking
will reveal unto us even one fact contrary to ToE

Not a chance in a billion that any ToE deniers can
provide the asked - for fact.

I sort of thought that some day, having it again
in front of you guys that fact one for disproving ToE
does not exist, that you'd sort of wonder if that might be significant. It doesn't take a genius to think about it.

It takes fantastic arrogance to claim to know more
and think deeper than any scientist on a subject that they hasn't even.studied.



This "primordeal soup" stuff is beyond ridiculous.
1. Its abiogenesis, which has NOTHI G TO DO WITH
EVOLUTION!!!

2. It refers to hypothetical conditions under which
abio may have occurred. And there's pretty good data. It's not just a silly guess.
But it's off topic re evolution. If it causes you doubt about
evolution it should make you doubt all of organic chemistry instead. Coz it is theoretical organic Chem, not evolution.

If ape to man needs more info you could start with
Intro to biology so you'd know that people are apes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really don't want to influence anyone. I'm just trying to explain myself and don't understand the focus belief system. But I never claimed to be smart.

Alright. I respect the fact that you're just wanting to explain your own current view on a belief system like the Theory of Evolution. I'm not trying to "dog" you about it, brother. I'm just trying to give you a small but effective way to better get your point across to others. Additionally, as a fellow Christian, I'm not invested in getting you our anyone else to accept the Theory of Evolution. If you don't feel it's for you, then that's fine by me. My main concern here is similar to yours: for me to be understood even if others may still disagree with me.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

We " guys" already are vastly better acquainted wit the
ToE than any of " you guys".
We know perfectly well that no googling nor asking
will reveal unto us even one fact contrary to ToE

Not a chance in a billion that any ToE deniers can
provide the asked - for fact.

I sort of thought that some day, having it again
in front of you guys that fact one for disproving ToE
does not exist, that you'd sort of wonder if that might be significant. It doesn't take a genius to think about it.

It takes fantastic arrogance to claim to know more
and think deeper than any scientist on a subject that they hasn't even.studied.



This "primordeal soup" stuff is beyond ridiculous.
1. Its abiogenesis, which has NOTHI G TO DO WITH
EVOLUTION!!!

2. It refers to hypothetical conditions under which
abio may have occurred. And there's pretty good data. It's not just a silly guess.
But it's off topic re evolution. If it causes you doubt about
evolution it should make you doubt all of organic chemistry instead. Coz it is theoretical organic Chem, not evolution.

If ape to man needs more info you could start with
Intro to biology so you'd know that people are apes.

How old is the universe now? Is it still 10 billion years old ( and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid)? Or has it been updated to 14 billion (and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid)? Another scientist suggests the universe is over 26 billion years old (and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid). But now the JWST seems to be saying we are all ignorant and stupid, and nobody really knows how old the universe is (and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid). But you know you can only call people ignorant and stupid so many times while contradicting yourself against and again and again. It is just not a very good tactic to convince people. It is called smiting people by scholarship.
BTW, I am TE. So, I do not deny evolution... I maintain that God has a hand in all this. And people are not ignorant and stupid if they disagree!

 

[Laodicean60]

Alright. I respect the fact that you're just wanting to explain your own current view on a belief system like the Theory of Evolution. I'm not trying to "dog" you with it, brother. I'm just trying to give you a small but effective way to better get your point across to others. Additionally, as a fellow Christian, I'm not invested in getting you our anyone else to accept the Theory of Evolution. If you don't feel it's for you, then that's fine by me. My main concern here is similar to yours: for me to be understood even if others may still disagree with me.

No worries if I can handle the dogs from the OP I can handle yours. I am more in line as a theist evolution, I guess. I like the other threads where information is provided, Oscam Razore on another thread cleared up some misunderstanding of what I thought evolution.
edit name: Occams Barber

 

[AV1611VET]

The primordial soup hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis.

Hmmm ...

What's this then?

Primordial Soup Theory

 

[AV1611VET]

It takes fantastic arrogance to claim to know more and think deeper than any scientist on a subject that they haven't even studied.

Speaking of "deeper," I submit deep time as a made-up ingredient to make macroevolution work.

So now you have two answers:

1. lack of fossils
2. lack of time

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hmmm ...

What's this then?

Primordial Soup Theory

Misuse of the word theory on a layperson's website.

Study.com About Us

 

[AV1611VET]

Misuse of the word theory on a layperson's website.

Study.com About Us

QV please:

Scientists Alexander I. Oparin and John B. S. Haldane independently proposed the primordia soup theory in the 1920's.

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:

Scientists Alexander I. Oparin and John B. S. Haldane independently proposed the primordia soup theory in the 1920's.

[URL =]https://study.com/learn/lesson/primordial-soup-theory-model.html]SOURCE[/url]

Try again. I got a PAGE NOT FOUND error.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try again. I got a PAGE NOT FOUND error.

I fixed it -- thanks.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:

Scientists Alexander I. Oparin and John B. S. Haldane independently proposed the primordia soup theory in the 1920's.

SOURCE

I'll respond to this one since this is the fixed one, and yes, Oparin (1924) and Haldane (1929) put forward their ideas, but I do not see how they could be called theories in the true scientific sense because they really had no evidence nor way to study any of their claims. That's something that needs to be studied, especially since I need to see if Oparin or Haldane did any serious experiments (or as serious as they could get in the 1920s, especially in 1920s Russia).

Either way, does nothing to advance the OP topic, and do not say 'missing links' because it's not something that's contrary to the theory of evolution. Do a challenge thread if you think it does.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll respond to this one since this is the fixed one, and yes, Oparin (1924) and Haldane (1929) put forward their ideas, but I do not see how they could be called theories in the true scientific sense because they really had no evidence nor way to study any of their claims.

You were there?

That's something that needs to be studied, especially since I need to see if Oparin or Haldane did any serious experiments (or as serious as they could get in the 1920s, especially in 1920s Russia).

Otherwise, it's No True Scotsman ... right?

Either way, does nothing to advance the OP topic, and do not say 'missing links' because it's not something that's contrary to the theory of evolution. Do a challenge thread if you think it does.

Good idea.

 

[Astrid]

How old is the universe now? Is it still 10 billion years old ( and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid)? Or has it been updated to 14 billion (and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid)? Another scientist suggests the universe is over 26 billion years old (and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid). But now the JWST seems to be saying we are all ignorant and stupid, and nobody really knows how old the universe is (and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and stupid). But you know you can only call people ignorant and stupid so many times while contradicting yourself against and again and again. It is just not a very good tactic to convince people. It is called smiting people by scholarship.
BTW, I am TE. So, I do not deny evolution... I maintain that God has a hand in all this. And people are not ignorant and stupid if they disagree!

I don't know why you're talking about astrophysics and
paraphrasing what some unknown person may have said.

Or talking about someone contraidicting himelf
or calling others ignorant and stupid.

Why are you addressing this to me?

It nice that you don't deny that theres evolution.
And you understand that " just because they disagree"
is no reason to call someone ignorant / stupid.
Good for you.
Ive not seen anyone doing that though.
So it may not be a big prob.


So..why did you write this to me?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Laodicean60, if you want to influence folks to think that they're utilizing a "belief system," then it's usually helpful to back up your intended reference with educated definitions to show your audience that they have something to consider. For instance, we might pull something from a PhD in Education to show how certain educated individuals devise and apply definitions for epistemological considerations, such as is seen in the following article in the provided link:

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you think about quantum physics? This science is backed by math.

Math is the language that quantum physics is expressed with (like much of physics). That doesn't make it math or make it follow the properties of axiomatic systems like math and have proofs, etc.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is true; I choose not to believe 100% ToE as I was taught. The primordial soup part doesn't add up. You believe the other way, this is what I was talking about in a belief system.

The primordial soup has very little to do with evolution. True, it is one facet of one hypothesis to account for the origin of the material upon which evolutionary mechanisms act. But those mechanisms operate regardless of how that first living material arises: abiogenesis, alien seeding, pan spermia, divine creation. Take your pick - it doesn't impact on the subsequent operation of evolution.

And I am with @Warden_of_the_Storm in regard to belief systems, except I go further. Belief is one of the dumbest things humans engage with. I most certainly do not believe in evolution, or evolutionary theory - what nonsense to hold such a belief! Rather I accept the reality of evolution and evolutionary mechanisms described by evolutionary theory as being the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. If a better explanation turns up this afternoon I shall accept it instead. (Incidentally, it isn't the best explanation by a nose, of half a length, but by a few thousand <insert a large unit of length of your choice>.)

What do you think about quantum physics? This science is backed by math.

There is plenty of maths backing aspects of evolution and evolutionary related sciences. Just saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know evolution isn't a belief system and that it is a science, don't you?

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

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You were there?

Of course not. I was born 70 years after Oparin first put his idea forward.

Otherwise, it's No True Scotsman ... right?

No, I just want to see how they came up with their hypothesis and theories, especially in the time and political period they were in.

 

[MorningDance13]

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.

We really do know.
Firstly somebody who was there dictated exactly what happened to someone who recorded it accurately and it has been accurately preserved for us.
That historical account is called Genesis.
Actually all 66 documents of the Bible attest to the fact that evolutionism is the ridiculous religion.
Jesus Himself states that He created the world.
There is so much archaeological, biological, historical and other evidence for creationism, the veracity of the Bible and the existence of God that it's ludicrous to believe the myths and fairy tales concocted by storytellers.
I didn't believe them when I wasn't even a follower of Jesus!
Humans evolved from monkeys?!?!
Get a grip.
There are some excellent organizations that have a plethora of information sharing the evidence and proof two of which are Answers In Genesis & Creation Research Institute.