CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:162
Arguments:141
Total Votes:185
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Evolution is Not Science (135)

Debate Creator

Viceregent(124) pic



Evolution is Not Science

To be a part of scientific inquiry, the subject of the inquiry must be observable, testable and repeatable.  Yet, goo-to-the-zoo evolution is none of these things.  Therefore, it is not science.
Add New Argument
Dermot(4049) Banned
6 points

Evolution is a fact , the very few who seem to disagree are mostly Americans religious nuts their collectively spectacular stupidity leads them to sites like Answers in genesis as the leading authority for any “ information “ needed on Evolution thus their continued ignorance and confusion on such matters

AlofRI(1938) Banned
3 points

I agree with both you, Dermot, and deepdiver, but I appreciate your eloquence over "deeps" raw truth. Not sure which (or either), will "penetrate" the owner of this "debate", (which isn't), .... likely neither. ;-)

NumberOne(218) Disputed Banned
-1 points

the very few who seem to disagree are mostly Americans religious nuts who stupidity leads them to sites like Answers in genesis as the leading authority for any “ information “ needed on Evolution

Yup. Spot on.

I think in this case however, the debate is a troll.

Dermot(4049) Banned
1 point

Not alone is it a troll it’s also an idiot .............................

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

Troll = anyone who asks a fool Qs they cannot answer. You people really need to good course in logic.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
-1 points

This is what logicians call the red herring, ad populum and ad hominem argument. I would ask this fool prove evolution is a fact, but I already know he cannot. Instead, I will ask him to deal with the OP. Of course, I know he cannot do that either. Cogitative dissonance has its downside.

Dermot(4049) Disputed Banned
3 points

You say.......This is what logicians call the red herring, ad populum and ad hominem ..........

But you are not qualified to say what logicians say as you’re an idiot , also it’s not an ad hominem to call you such as your posts cleary demonstrate your idiocy and to state evolution is fact is also a ......fact and not as you stupidly assume argument ad populum .

I will ask you as an American religious “ intellectual “ ( 😂😂😂 ) to present your counter theory that disproves evolution seeing as the theory is “nonsense “ you and your fellow American nut jobs must have one or perhaps two peer reviewed counters to what most people accept as fact ?

But of course we know you being a prize idiot cannot do that don’t we ?

Believing in virgin births , a zombie called Jesus and Balaam the talking ass ( no doubt a realation of yours ) has its downside

NumberOne(218) Disputed Banned
1 point

This is what logicians call the red herring, ad populum and ad hominem argument.

All of your listed fallacies are different you silly Russian idiot.

A red herring is a deflection.

An ad populum is an appeal to popularity.

An ad hominem is a character attack.

Honestly, just shut up.

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

What problems specifically do you have with the Laws of Evolution that you are having trouble understanding?

Antrim(1154) Banned
5 points

To disguise itself from its predators the light coloured peppered moth turned black during Britain's industrial revolution to match the soot covered trees and smoke blackened skies.

Now known as Darwin's moth, this species has reverted back to its original light colour as the smoking chimney stacks of heavy industry have all but disappeared from English landscape and the foliage and sky have returned to their natural tones.

Even though this is a classic example to living evolution it is nevertheless freakish, as evolutionary change is insidious and therefore difficult/impossible to observe the subtle changes which occur over millions of years.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

So a moth evolved into a moth? ROFL. Yea, that proves you evolved from pond scum. ROFL Come on, you fools, get serious. Start with showing me in the field life evolving from non-life. Until then, shut up.

outlaw60(9421) Disputed Banned
2 points

Prove field life can evolve from non-life. You made the argument put up or shut up !

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

The easiest life form to view evolve are viruses, they mutate quite quickly as does all life, but if the basis of your acceptance of these laws is tied up in a desire to see one animal turn into another, you have a fundamental miscomprehension of evolutionary laws. A stable species slowly changes over time in reaction to all forces acting internally and externally or adapt which may change some small trait of an animal. These collective small changes turn out to be like a family tree, separating animals at points of convergence backwards in time. Simply put, you have evolved from primitive primate into modern primate, you do not evolve into a moth.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

Hey, evolutionist fools, notice this dude admitted that goo-to-the-zoo evolution is NOT observable, which means it is NOT science. Thank you for playing.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

BTW, automaton, the moth did not change colors. The darker and lighter ones always existed. The darker ones tended to be eaten because they were easily spotted by pray. Then when the in industrial revolution came around and pollution settled on the trees, the lighter ones were picked off. Now that the environment is cleaner, the lighters ones are making a comeback. This myth has been disproved over and ever, but stupid evolutions are too brainwashed to think.

3 points

You can either believe that life evolved, or that sentient life forms magically popped out of the ethereal planes of the astral realm. Because if you believe in creationism, You believe that the first thing that ever existed was a fully developed sentient being.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

This is what logicians call the fallacy of the false dilemma fallacy, where the arguer tries to force his listen to chosen between false alternatives, and the red herring fallacy, which the arguer tries to divert the attention away from the topic at hand rather than address it. And I will not even mention the Biblical illiteracy.

No, I choose to believe that God create the universe ex neilo, with the heavens and the earth being His first creation. Why? He says so.

Now back to the OP.

DeepDiver(13) Disputed Banned
2 points

You are a lopsided scrotal wart Viceregent. Christianity is responsible for countless wars, the war on science, the destruction of historical artifacts and entire cultures, it promotes the idea that it's mans purpose to destroy the environment and overpopulate. I hope a monkey shits on your face and an elephant rapes you.

1 point

Your post "I choose to believe that God create the universe" does not refute LRyuuzaki's claim:

"if you believe in creationism, You believe that the first thing that ever existed was a fully developed sentient being"

it seems to support to it.

2 points

@ Viceregent:

Let's hear your explanation for how humans came to be, I could use a laugh.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

Hey, moron, don't try to change the subject. It is irrational. And the irrationality of the evolutions is almost as funny as their arrogance in thinking they are wise.

2 points

Evolution is observable: see the intergenerational divergence of bacteria; and the development of sickle cell as an immune response to malaria in high-risk regions. I'm sure there are other observations within our life-times.

Evolution is testable in many ways. Ignorance of this is not proof of its absence.

Evolution repeats all the time, in every study of the fossil record; every piecing together of the divergence of species.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

I love this. These fools say evolution is science because it is and if you do not believe them you are "ignorant" Well, that is hard to argue with. ROFL

1 point

There problem with all of these evolutionist fools is that they have been programmed, not educated. They have no idea what to do with contrary data or how to defend their views. They have been taught to be emotive, not intelligent. Is shows.

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

I was born in 1980 and was never once taught evolution in school, I had to go to the book store and pick up books and read them, then read opposing viewpoints to work out a most probable position and then decide if I thought that viewpoint had enough validity to become a truth that existed in my head, regardless of what I was taught. I’m just gonna guess and say you’ve never done this and instead argue like a 12 year old. I am being extremely amenable in this conversation so far, and without reciprocation because I actually care what may be true.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

Unlike you, you presumptuous, arrogant, ignorant fool, I am a credential scientist. Imagine, for all that "study", you still cannot answer my Q and are compelled to irrationally change the subject to try to hide your ignorance.

excon(4877) Disputed
1 point

I was born in 1980 and was never once taught evolution in school,

Hello Rick:

If you were taught biology, you were taught evolution..

Or, you could have been born in Texas where they don't teach science in school. In Texas, you go to church to learn science..

excon

1 point

They have no idea what to do with contrary data

Such as?

1 point

This has already been discussed extensively and it's just a simple objection which many in the science world have already answered...

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85957-does-evolution-follow-the-scientific-method-if-so-how/

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

Assume I do not put my faith in the same websites you do. Prove me the procedures by which I can observe, test and repeat goo-to-the-zoo evolution in the lab. If you cannot, it is NOT science. You people need to learn science, and no, a Google search is not science.

Grenache(5767) Clarified Banned
1 point

Assume I don't bend over backwards to indulge trolls. ...........................................

Evolution = Mutation + Heredity + Selection

All are observable, testable and repeatable.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

Mental midget, I am not asking you to claim it, but to support it with evidence. Start with life evolving from non-life.

Good luck. Be the first and get a Nobel prize.

1 point

For which do you require further evidence - mutation, heredity, selection?

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

Life first came to be as molecular bonds reacted with the energy that’s created by the moon spinning around the earth. The moon is a large prime mover that creates electron movement in the particles in and around earth. These bonds inevitably created a simple “computer program” a quadrilateral instead of binary launguge used for simple line by line coding using a neat little encoding process based on the mandelbrock equations. A simple law of mathematics that is exploited by simple life over and over again until over millions of years, this computing language was able to trap small molecular machines inside of cells with protective outer coatings. At this point life can be thought of as purely reactive and dependant on external variables, with an outcome as predictable as any, life will use up resources until depleted without thought or intention, necessitating a change, which will either present itself and allow the furthering of that creatures lineage or won’t present itself in which case the creature becomes extinct. You see, life is a chain of incidents that are dependant on the incidents behind it happening, and it is likely that all life transpired in a manner quite similar to the way it has here on Earth.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

I ask for science and I get question begging websites. You losers really have no idea what science is, do you?

1 point

Re: inorganic to organic:

"We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry."

http://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2202

observable, testable, repeatable

"These experiments for the first time demonstrate that RNAs can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys, albeit synthetic ones."

https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ lifes-building-blocks-form-in-replicated-deep-sea-vents/

observable, testable, repeatable

Inorganic compounds to "22 amino acids, 5 amines" etc.

Miller Urey experiment

observable, testable, repeatable

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space"

https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory

observable, testable, repeatable

The results demonstrate that the initial dissociation of the formamide molecule could produce a large amount of highly reactive CN and NH radicals, which could further react with formamide to produce adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil."

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/3/657

observable, testable, repeatable

"significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204914

observable, testable, repeatable

evolution in action
ThisNameIs(3) Disputed
1 point

This is not evolution. Are the bacteria turning into a different species? Nope. They are just adapting to the environment that they are placed in. It's not just bacteria that does this...Humans also do this...When the first explorers arrived in the new world, they contracted different diseases that their immune system had not encountered, thus they could not fight it...But over time, the newer generations gained an immunity to the "New" diseases. Did we change as a species? Nope.

Try again.

1 point

This is not evolution.

Yes it is. The reason you do not think so is that you believe there is a distinction between microevolution and larger scale evolution - there isn't. Smaller changes over time add up to larger changes.

Are the bacteria turning into a different species?

This is generally the argument until we observe speciation (ref, ref, + wolves to dogs, etc., etc.)

Then it morphs to an (undefined and unscientific) argument of 'kind's - for which we present transitional fossils, etc., etc.

There is evidence for evolution at every level.

Here is a debate you can use if you want to dispute a change of kinds.

1 point

Let me start off with the meaning of Science. It's Latin for "Knowledge". Do we have knowledge of species becoming entirely different species? Nope. You might say "Oh, well what about darwins finches?" Yea....Have you ever heard of adaptation? It is the ability of a species to adapt to its environment. Does it turn into a DIFFERENT species? Nope. You might say "Oh, well it takes millions of years of adaption, random mutations, natural selection, along with isolation of different groups over time to eventually create a new species." Firstly, going back to my main point, have you observed this? Nope. Thus, is it science? Nope.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
2 points

No, let us start with you providing observable evidence that life evolved from non-life. If you have none, shut up.

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

An animal turns into a different species as soon as two lines of the same animal diverge enough that they are unable to create offspring if mated. And it has been proven and observed many times, you need to read from books that aren’t approved by your mommy first.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

Once more, I bet question begging claims and no proof. Typical atheist.

1 point

Are you wankers still debating this white? Its been almost a year since I been here and I see the braindead Godists still blathering about how science is not science but their holy book which has zero science is the truth. Anyone who thinks that in this day and age with all of our discoveries and technology is bloody hopeless. Deluded beyond help. They need to go all bugger off to the same island and live together and sing Kumbaya and get in one big circle jerk.

We can call it Fantasy Island.

Since god is a fantasy and all.

Cheers!

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

Notice they still cannot answer the demand for actual science? All they an do is vomit irrationalities. This is the typical atheist.

To view the effect of evolution, one has to OBSERVE evolution taking place is your brilliant arguement. Everybody accepts that evolution takes millions of years and countless bodies of biologically stagnant materiel to happen. How would you propose I go about observing something that takes millions of years, since you have so tidily done away with the relevance of all related data except what you can view in your short pointless life.

Viceregent(124) Disputed
1 point

No, crap stain, my argument is that evolution is not science because it is not observable, testable and repeatable. Can you not read? Since you agree with me, debate over.

Hypothesis: if evolution, the geologic column, etc. are true, then we might be able to find a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapod in rocks of the right age.

Experiment: Explore rocks of the right age

Observation: Tiktaalik

http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/its-a-fishapod

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

Why would fish have to turn into a land dwelling animal, which has happened by the way, why couldn’t a completely different organism slowly evolve around the fish which had a newer, transitional type body, more suited to eventually gain the traits of a land animal.

1 point

The hypothesis would have been based largely on comparative morphology and known fossils.

Fish and tetrapod shared: a bilaterally symmetrical body, a head, a torso, appendages with similar attachment sites, spinal chord, vertebrae, tail, eyes, jaw, teeth, ribs, etc.

That a separate lineage which either rarely fossilized or fossilized only in areas that had not yet been discovered could evolve all of that without being related to fish would have been an exceedingly negligible case.

Evolution is proofed by archaeology. The scientific part is when you extend your mind out 50 million years in the past, and view fossils for their place in the puzzle. Fully observable changes in the way Precambrian life dealt with its environment has been frozen in time by fossils and is on display in museums across North America.

You can go and view these for yourself and then start to look at other layers of fossils in those areas and a story starts to present itself. The truth a scientist is searching for is never in a book, that’s where you start, but you have to get out into the field.

0 points

I am afraid you have been seriously misinformed. Evolution has been observed actually happening:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperedmothevolution

ThisNameIs(3) Disputed
1 point

Sir, is the moth still a moth? The answer is yes. Is it a new species? No.

You have failed. Try again.

NKJV(168) Disputed
1 point

I have trouble reading can you provide a youtube video..................................................................................................................

1 point

(Since NumberOne was banned)

The basics ref

Little more info including some of the history and genetics ref

Viceregent(124) Disputed
0 points

Is that right? Putting aside the double-hearsay nature of your claim, please tell me what kind of creature evolved into another kind of creature? And then tell me when you observed non-life evolving into life. Thanks.

1 point

tell me what kind of creature evolved into another kind of creature

Here ya go.

1 point

non-life evolving into life

See this, this, this, this, this, this, this.

NumberOne(218) Disputed Banned
0 points

Is that right?

Ninety nine percent of professional biologists seem to think so. Why would I ignore them all and listen to an unqualified, ignorant religious nutbag on the internet who has probably been sniffing his own homemade methamphetamine all morning?

Putting aside the double-hearsay nature of your claim

Describing recorded history as "hearsay" is about the level of spectacular stupidity one can expect from you, FactMachine.

please tell me what kind of creature evolved into another kind of creature

Yeah, obviously you're stupid as fuck. If we compare the creatures living on the Earth a million years ago with the creatures living on it today, they are almost all completely different. Hence, either life evolved or someone came down and physically swapped all the creatures with different ones, you dopey Russian shill.

0 points

Bingo. Can they prove evolution? I don't want my tax dollars teaching that garbage....................................................

1 point

"Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law."

"It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations."

http://notjustatheory.com/

Rick_Zeta5A(134) Disputed
1 point

Another theological arguement trying to refute claims. Laws are what comes out of a proven theory. Sometimes I think people are slowly unlearning everything.

Arsenal(182) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is proven and witnessed ever single day. It has passed with flying co!ors every test that has ever been thrown at it. There are zero processional biologists ir anthropologists who deny it.

It is mind numbingly absurd and sad that anyone in this age of information and knowledge be so deluded as you and your ilk to believe the words and dogma of Bronze Age Hebrew Mythology over that of modern science.

Wow.

Just plain old fashioned Wow.

NKJV(168) Disputed
1 point

Prove evolution is true and the Bible not......................................................................................