The Evolutionary Theory is not science.

August 14, 2018, 5:13 pm

Agree14 Disagree45

24%
76%

The debate "The Evolutionary Theory is not science." was started by Aaronr12 on August 14, 2018, 5:13 pm. 14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 45 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 to the disagreers part.

Aaronr12, AGustafson and 12 visitors agree.
historybuff, sabrina, mrcontro, Lolster46, jahnvi, Nemiroff, tina2101, lucafer, Whistlepigs, TheExistentialist, TheNewHuman and 34 visitors disagree.

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

4 weeks, 1 day ago

interestingly, I see the eye as one of the most concrete proofs for evolution

1 month ago

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.

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

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?

1 month ago
Aaronr12
replied to...

trilobite
https://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwinian-mechanisms

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

seriously, how? to both of them

If your impressed by the amoeba you should like at a few of your body's macrophages

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

how?

1 month ago
Aaronr12
replied to...

As well as the ameba.

1 month ago
Aaronr12
replied to...

C'mon, the trilobite is more complex than man.

1 month ago

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?

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

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

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

1 month ago
Aaronr12
replied to...

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.

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

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.

1 month ago
Aaronr12
replied to...

They should have read the Bible. Isaiah says the earth is a sphere.

1 month ago

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.

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

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.

1 month ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

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.

1 month ago
Aaronr12
replied to...

Macroevolution cannot be observed.

1 month ago

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

1 month ago

aaron, please define science

1 month, 1 week ago

this statement doesn't make sense.

1 month, 1 week ago
Discuss "The Evolutionary Theory is not science. " philosophy
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.