Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[AV1611VET]

That last would be swell.

Your OP is flawed.

It is flawed because it wants observable, testable, tangible facts that pwn evolution.

And you're not going to get it without a time machine, which would show a series of miracles; not natural processes.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

LOL

Solid gold.

You want administration to chase out those who have the answer.

 

[SelfSim]

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?

There is never a compelling reason to stick to any particular belief.
Its a choice made by the individual .. but it starts out by recognising that its a belief in the first place.
Facts are mutally exclusive from beliefs.

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

You pose a hypothetical .. a circular one at that .. which starts out believing that some fact exists which 'pwns the theory', (whatever that latter phrase is supposed to mean in this discussion).

And then you expect a serious answer to such a nonsensical question?

 

[SelfSim]

Your OP is flawed.

It is flawed because it wants observable, testable, tangible facts that pwn evolution.

Well then just say there ain't none ... (then go away).
Thank you for that contribution.

And you're not going to get it without a time machine, which would show a series of miracles; not natural processes.

Rubbish.
There's a future ahead in scientific thinking because we can lay out tests in the present, to be conducted in the future. They may even be hypothetical but that's more than sufficient.
We don't know the future outcome/results and what it may reveal to scientifically thinking humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is never a compelling reason to stick to any particular belief.
Its a choice made by the individual .. but it starts out by recognising that its a belief in the first place.
Facts are mutally exclusive from beliefs.

You pose a hypothetical .. a circular one at that .. which starts out believing that some fact exists which 'pwns the theory', (whatever that latter phrase is supposed to mean in this discussion).

And then you expect a serious answer to such a nonsensical question?

The question in the OP goes like this:

What sort of facts could disprove it?

If "sort of facts" A disprove it, then it's disproved.

If "sort of facts" A doesn't disprove it, then it's not disproved.

What's the deal here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well then just say there ain't none ... (then go away).

You say it.

You're a part of this discussion too you know.

Heretofore I haven't seen one academian admit to this though.

Go ahead.

Tell us there isn't a single fact that can disprove evolution.

Something I've been saying here for almost twenty years now.

And while you're at it, tell is how falsifiability is supposed to be factored into the scientific mindset.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a future ahead in scientific thinking ...

You got that right.

A whole houseful of scientific thinking coming right up.

Built on the sand.

And believe me, those rains are coming!

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Selective breeding as practiced for centuries informed him in his studies. But selective breeding is not the same as natural selection. Darwin was just the first to put the matter into an organized fashion and he had the good luck to be the first to publish what other scientists were also working on. You really ought to read his book instead of just making things up about it.

 

[BCP1928]

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?

It certainly would. But creationism would not be the fallback position. That took a hike years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

It certainly would. But creationism would not be the fallback position. That took a hike years ago.

You've got Madam O'hair to thank for that.

 

[Chesterton]

Selective breeding as practiced for centuries informed him in his studies. But selective breeding is not the same as natural selection. Darwin was just the first to put the matter into an organized fashion and he had the good luck to be the first to publish what other scientists were also working on. You really ought to read his book instead of just making things up about it.

Selective breeding and natural selection are exactly the same thing, except that the former is directed by human intelligence.

 

[SelfSim]

The question in the OP goes like this:

What sort of facts could disprove it?

If "sort of facts" A disprove it, then it's disproved.

If "sort of facts" A doesn't disprove it, then it's not disproved.

What's the deal here?

What are you rabbiting on about?

'Sort of facts' means (to me) types of 'facts'. I've never considered types of 'facts' that might 'disprove the ToE' .. but someone else may have. The contexts of, and the specific 'facts' you seek, would have to translate into repeatable, independently conductable objective tests and their abundant, objectively (observable) results. Such test results would be specific to some set of counter-hypotheses to the existing ToE.
The inferences drawn would have to be very convincing, (ie: yet another objective test), in order for those new hypothesis to be preferred over the ToE in its Earth-biological context.

Good luck.

 

[BCP1928]

Selective breeding and natural selection are exactly the same thing, except that the former is directed by human intelligence.

Exactly? It appears you don't know much about either.

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you rabbiting on about?

Facts.

Facts that are being requested to disprove something that hasn't been disproved yet.

If said facts exist, consider evolution disproved.

 

[SelfSim]

Tell us there isn't a single fact that can disprove evolution.

Science isn't based on absolutism .. nor does it need it .. so there's no need for me to tell you that (underlined).

Something I've been saying here for almost twenty years now.

Yes .. yet in almost 20 years, I'll bet you've never once accepted the responsibility for your not making an attempt at understanding a useful philosophy of science, which doesn't force you into these types of self made crushes .. between rocks and hard places.

And while you're at it, tell is how falsifiability is supposed to be factored into the scientific mindset.

Falsifiability is part of the adoption of philosophical Realism, which is an individual's choice , which I do not so choose .. namely because it attempts to force-fit untestable tenets into the scientific method.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science isn't based on absolutism .. nor does it need it .. so there's no need for me to tell you that (underlined).

Then tell the OP.

Yes .. yet in almost 20 years, I'll bet you've never once accepted the responsibility for your not making an attempt at understanding a useful philosophy of science, which doesn't force you into these types of self made crushes .. between rocks and hard places.

Here's what I hold myself responsible to:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Falsifiability is part of the adoption of philosophical Realism, which is an individual's choice , which I do not so choose .. namely because it attempts to force-fit untestable tenets into the scientific method.

-- What?

 

[SelfSim]

Then tell the OP.



Here's what I hold myself responsible to:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.



-- What?

Figure it out for yourself .. Its too far OT to explain it to you.
Suffice it to say you have never thought about it .. which disqualifies you from asking questions related to how theories are handled in science.

 

[d taylor]

.. 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?

-

​

When science produces truth and not just people claiming this and that fact are reality. But concerning facts about creation, science has more problems than just evolution. But what they do have going for them, is sinful natured people willing to believe their claims and facts.

 

[Estrid]

Exactly? It appears you don't know much about either.

I've thought about it some and am inclined to
agree with @Chesterton, that it's a distinction
sans difference.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm just wondering how it's possible for aquatic lifeforms to  evolve into oxygen breathing animals?

Aquatic animals breathe oxygen. What did you think they use for metabolism?