Fhe ToE is extraordinarilly well supported by by experiment, observation and has passed the test of predicting future discoveries. It is settled science except for creationists who want to believe an old Babylonian myth.
“Fhe ToE is extraordinarilly well supported by by experiment, observation and has passed the test of predicting future discoveries.”
That conclusion has been hotly debated around here for a long time. Your comments about anyone who disagrees with you being a nut case notwithstanding, there are many problems with the TOE and you are aware of that. I personally am not a YEC.
The TOE may be a popular idea but there is no experiment under controlled conditions which can show the progression of one type into another simply because of the long time periods required by the TOE. If changes take place over millions of years then there is no valid test which can be set up to observe the results. (Yes, I realize that Natural Selection can be tested in the lab all day long; that’s why there is no argument over whether such adaptation exists. But NS is only a component of the TOE, not the sum total of it).
Discussions of Ring Species and Punctuated Equlibria and other data don’t answer the fundamental question of the validity of the TOE to explain the diversity of life, they are simply another way to try and make a certain data set fit the popular paradigm.
The fossil record is not a controlled experiment, it is a forensic record, and is useless for testing a scientific theory. The TOE is a beautiful theory in the sense that a test can be designed to test it and to falsify it, but one of its basic premises declares that it never can be tested because of the long time period required. That’s what’s called a test you can’t fail.
But then again, the whole TOE industry is built on finding ways to make any and all data fit the TOE, not finding ways which might call it into question. For example, see discussions of Punctuated Equilibrium.
But I have another question for all the Evolutionists. What difference does it make? Who cares? Maybe the TOE is correct, maybe it’s not, but there is no way to test it and observe it, so why should it be so dogmatically stated? Sure it’s fun to discuss but what difference does it make to anyone? Science can exist just fine with the concepts it uses in the lab independent of the TOE, such as Natural Selection, so what difference does it make?
Why not bring science back into the realm of what can actually be tested as classical scientific theory requires and let anything outside that realm be a subject for discussion but not dogmatically asserting that it happened this way or that way?
What do scientists have to lose by only stating what can be tested? After all, no one can ascertain what happened based on forensic evidence anyway. There will always be an element of belief involved with forensics. And until a time machine is invented it will always be that way.