[ShadowAce]

Thanks for your definitions. Let's appply some of them to the TOE:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

The TOE is a theory based on the above definition. I have no quarrel with that. Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence? Don't limit this to the TOE, but answer in terms of generality about theories.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

The TOE does have a hypothesis, and it has not yet been verified.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God. Given this faulty assumption, the TOE also assumes that science is the only begetter of Truth. This is also faulty, as science cannot explain beauty, aesthetics, faith, or quite a few other things.

[Dimensio]

Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence?

Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

No, it does not. Any conclusions that you derive from this faulty premise will also be faulty, so there is no need to comment further.

[Right Wing Professor]

Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

Utter nonsense. TOE makes no such assumption, and I defy you to find any scientific textbook that says it does.

[Ichneumon]

Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

Creationist lie #71,482 -- collect the whole set!