The debate "The Evolutionary Theory is not science." was started by
August 14, 2018, 5:13 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 62 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Aaronr12 posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 12 arguments, Matthew354 posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Aaronr12, AGustafson, logical_bomb, NitinTher and 16 visitors agree.
historybuff, sabrina, mrcontro, Lolster46, jahnvi, Nemiroff, tina2101, lucafer, Whistlepigs, TheExistentialist, TheNewHuman, Matthew354, wth64828, crispsandchips, castor, Nero and 46 visitors disagree.
Science isn't a thing. It is a process. A process by which an idea/hypothesis is said. This hypothesis is tested and tested and tested trying to disprove the statement. As long as the statement is not a negative of course. Evolution was stated as a hypothesis and has been tested and tested and tested for nearly 200 tears in every which way. In every field and so far all this testing hasn't disproved it but rather supported it immensely. That's how a scientific theory is formed. By going through rigorous nasty testing and still standing up to it. Gravity is a theory. Theories in the scientific world are the most probable and tested ideas out there.
just FYI, we don't determine the age of the earth through carbon dating. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years. However, we use the same process for other elements and thus it is often conflated by Apologists as being the same.
Here are some other isotopes that we use to date along with their half-life which should shed some more light on the issue and why radioactive dating is accurate beyond the life-span of Carbon-14
using uranium-235 or uranium-238 to date a substance's absolute age. This scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years. An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.
Uranium–lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon. One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.
Samarium–neodymium dating method involves the alpha decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of within twenty million years in ages of two-and-a-half billion years are achievable
Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes
You seem to not understand science is to begin with, that is cringe-worthy and you are not fully educated about the subject matter. If you really were, you should be debating if evolutionary theory is a good or a bad theory, not if it is a science or not.
And for the record, I'm a Christian just like you. However, you can't gain the respect of the scientific community if you attack the science and not make any attempt to disprove the theories such as evolutionary theory, and I'm just highly skeptical of the Earth being billions of years old if the carbon dating system doesn't have a half life long enough to tell otherwise. If it helps you feel better, there is scientific evidence of God making the great flood with evidence found in the Kola Superdeep Borehole in Murmansk Oblast, Russia, with cracks in the rocks found to contain water about 7 kilometers deep. And unfortunately, there is also disturbing auditory evidence of tortured souls of screams and agony, with Hell being found deep into the Kola Superdeep Borehole too...
interestingly enough, the next episode of crash course history of science is titled "biology before evolution"
it should be out in about 6 days. will be interesting to watch
interestingly, I see the eye as one of the most concrete proofs for evolution
and since the article brought up intelligent design, how can you call something science when its entire basis of legitimacy is to *try* to poke holes in other theories and give no evidence of it's own independant validity?
and some people want that nonsense taught as science! heck no.
yes, the trilobite eye is complex. but that wasnt your point.
How is the trilobyte, or the amoeba, MORE complex than man? or antelope? or any mammal?
seriously, how? to both of them
If your impressed by the amoeba you should like at a few of your body's macrophages
As well as the ameba.
C'mon, the trilobite is more complex than man.
also, if God created all life as is, why did he coincidentally create them chronologically in order of complexity? or was he intending to deceive us by planting false evidence of evolution?
that is one way to interpret the 4 corners. flat earthers interpret it another way. official biblical interpretation used to insist earth was at the center at some point, so its impossible to say which human reading is correct.
I cant copy paste long passages on this app, but the article isnt too long
The four corners means the four points of the earth. North, South, West and East. Give me an example of a change of kinds that is observable.
the point of my post was that indirect observations work. I dont think you responded to that. this thread is on evolution.
the bible also mentions the "4 corners of the earth" often used by flat earthers to argue the bible supports their flat view. it also says nothing regarding size.
reading the bible and blindly obeying is not the same as verification with your own intellect. the tools and math they developed have lead us to our wonderful modern world, with tools and knowledge not found anywhere in the bible. I find it deeply disturbing that the bible sees the acquisition of knowledge as the original sin.
I do not seek to insult God, but primitive man's flawed interpretation of his message.
They should have read the Bible. Isaiah says the earth is a sphere.
the ancient Greeks figured out the size, shape of the earth not by going into space and seeing it, but by indirect observations of shadows at noon.
it cannot be directly observed, but many things cant. viruses and atoms couldn't be seen until very very recently but we certainly knew they existed from mountains of indirect evidence. black holes are by definition directly unobserable, but we confidently find them indirectly en mass.
we have not seen animals change shape, but we have seen them differentiate to the point of not being able to reproduce with each other (new species). fossils are part of the indirect evidence for evolution but not so much in their shape, but the soil they are found in. we have never, ever, ever found a more complex fossil first appear before simpler creatures.
and that's just 1 piece of evidence. evolution is the only single explanation that flawlessly fits all the evidence together. just look up the refraction index (the thing that bends light in water making it look like the straw in your cup is crooked) of any eye, and compare it to the refraction index of sea water... almost identical... because the eye evolved in water and evolution cant just start from scratch. there is no possible explanation why God would do this, unless God works through evolution.
every single discovery in biology fits beautifully into the evolution model. without it, our understanding of all biology and medicine falls apart.
indeed. so what makes evolution unscientific? if I may address a few common concerns:
we do not only see evolution in single cell bacteria, but also in rapidly reproducing animals like fruit flies and humming birds.
also macro evolution = micro evolution + time. small changes dont stop after a certain number, they keep building unless the entire population dies out.
Macroevolution cannot be observed.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
aaron, please define science
this statement doesn't make sense.