Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Astrid]

.. which is a belief you hold.
Doesn't answer the question raised in the OP.

As requested elsewhere, posters will please observe
forum rules and keep their religious opinions out.

 

[Astrid]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe if geologists and biologists couldn't find evidence of strata or biological life any earlier than what belongs within our current understanding of The Holocene Epoch. ... something along those lines.

Sure. But said facts do not appear to exist.

 

[Astrid]

Primates and humans have never produced offspring. Unless you know of a case, it is an impossibility.

That is so, but how is it evidence to
disprove ToE? It's a predictable demonstration
of change through evolution.
Do you understand why?

 

[Astrid]

I believe you mean in the eyes of Creationist. There's a vast difference.

Yet again - this is not a forum for religious opinions.

 

[Astrid]

Personally, my favorite story from evolutionary theory is the one where that cow who walked out of the sea one day decides to walk back into the sea and become a whale. What a brilliant, visionary move. When you compare how much beef McDonald's sells to how much whale blubber they sell...brilliant move. <slow clap>

Both transitions make perfect sense to anyone with
a trace of educated understanding.

I could explain. Illustrate with examples. But I'd end
some hint of actual interest, which i be.ieve you
are here to mock.

Which is NOT. as per request in op. for FACTS.



If you are going to act silly, please depart.

 

[BCP1928]

Theories are by definition only opinions. Not at all proven by facts, in fact.

That is the vernacular usage of the term. As used by scientists, the term "theory" means a well-evidenced explanation for an observed phenomenon.

 

[Chesterton]

If you are going to act silly, please depart.

If the TOE is silly, that's on Darwin, not me.

 

[BCP1928]

If the TOE is silly, that's on Darwin, not me.

Not any more, it's not. It would be like blaming deficiencies in quantum mechanics on Newton.

 

[SelfSim]

Show me, these million year old evolving people. Their established civilizations, their art, music, etc.. that is the requirement science demands of the Hebrews who wandered in the desert for 40 years.

.. and so you double down on your demonstrations of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific process.

Can you ask anything relevant, or produce the facts requested in the OP?

 

[Chesterton]

Not any more, it's not. It would be like blaming deficiencies in quantum mechanics on Newton.

Pretty much everything believed today stems from and follows Darwin's imagination. He remains the guru.

 

[Astrid]

Theories are by definition only opinions. Not at all proven by facts, in fact.

Please make note that by definition. and in fact it is impossible to ever prove any theory,

However' a theory, say ToE is " proven beyond all
reasonable doubt".

Why? Because all ( 100%) of relevant facts / data
are consistent with the theory. Zero against.
Doubt is therefore UNreasonable.

kinda like some dope on the jury after the prosecution
offers videotape, witnesses, fingerprints, motive, means,
stacks of evidence to take decades to present it all.

The defense cannot present one excuse, alibi, not one fact in defense.

The hold out on the jury keeps talking conspiracy
computer simulation, miracle...
Unreasonable doubt.

Your doubt will be considered reasonable IF you
can offer one fact contrary to ToE.

 

[BCP1928]

Pretty much everything believed today stems from and follows Darwin's imagination. He remains the guru.

No, he just had the initial insight. His achievement is revered, but his work is no longer referred to except for historical purposes. He understood natural selection in outline, but had no idea of the causes of the random variation he observed or the molecular genetics which lies behind it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. But said facts do not appear to exist.

Yep, exactly.

 

[Astrid]

If the TOE is silly, that's on Darwin, not me.

I made a polite request that you adhere to forum rules.
Here it is again.
Please follow the rules.

 

[Chesterton]

No, he just had the initial insight. His achievement is revered, but his work is no longer referred to except for historical purposes. He understood natural selection in outline, but had no idea of the causes of the random variation he observed or the molecular genetics which lies behind it.

His understanding of natural selection was already understood by every uneducated farmer and rancher for a few thousand years. His great "insight" that a monkey could become a man has never been shown to be anything other speculative fiction, not unlike the work of Sigmund Freud and L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[Chesterton]

I made a polite request that you adhere to forum rules.
Here it is again.
Please follow the rules.

If you can tell me which rule I broke I will apologize and depart. Although I may depart anyway.

 

[Astrid]

If you can tell me which rule I broke I will apologize and depart. Although I may depart anyway.

That last would be swell.

 

[AV1611VET]

What sort of facts could disprove it?

Does anyone have any?

It will take a miracle.

.. which is a belief you hold.
Doesn't answer the question raised in the OP.

As requested elsewhere, posters will please observe
forum rules and keep their religious opinions out.

If you want to rule out miracles, then do so.

You'll just make it harder on yourself.

Without miracles to explain where we came from, you'll need a time machine to go back and see for yourself.

Good luck with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. But said facts do not appear to exist.

Looks like you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you ask anything relevant, or produce the facts requested in the OP?

Did it occur to you that if the facts that are being requested in the OP did indeed exist, there would be no need for further belief in the theory of evolution?

If facts existed that indeed did pwn said theory, said theory would be obligated to take a hike, would it not?