Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[Mister Agenda]

Fact: There have been no lab observation of evolution happening such as life coming from non life, only mutations has ever been observed in the lab and mutations are not evolution but variation within a kind, mutations don't increase the genetic information but rather corrupts some parts of DNA and we get a decrease in genetic information in other words devolution not evolution and mutations don't change the kind it is still the same kind.

Fact: Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, which deals with the speciation of existing organisms. If there's a God, the first one-celled microorganism could have been poofed into existence and evolution would apply thereafter. And applying the same standard, you get a decrease in information when you turn a block of marble into a statue. It would take a lot more code to describe the position of every atom of the former, yet the latter conveys more useful information for the purpose of art appreciation. Gene duplication provides the necessary 'new blocks of marble' for point mutations and the like to act on.

Silver black fox- Again that is not evolution but variation within the dog family kind.

Please define 'kind' scientifically. You're having a scientific discussion, using the word 'kind' is like saying 'thou' instead of 'you'. Species, genus, family, what? And variation that is preserved by natural selection is what evolution is. There is a Nobel for you if you can find a biological mechanism that would prevent those variations from accumulating over time to the point where the descendants of an organism are no longer the same species as their remote ancestor.

When it comes to dating the age of the earth.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it
confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New
Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.

The geological column was established before the theory of evolution. Geologists noticed particular fossils were found in strata they established to be certain ages, not the other way around. If they had noticed different colored bottle caps consistently found in different strata, they could then use bottle cap colors to determine the age of a strata quickly, regardless of any theory as to why particular bottle caps are found in particular strata. It isn't circular, it's more like using an index that has been repeatedly shown to take you to the expected pages.

If that's supposed to be the Oxford Tom Kemp; you are definitely taking him out of context because the man definitely accepts the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the abundance of species. Here's a quote from him about his research interests, taken from the University of Oxford Department of Zoology web page:

"My broad field is vertebrate palaeobiology, and I am particularly interested in the mammal-like reptiles and early mammals, and what can be inferred about the structural, functional and ecological aspects of the origin of mammals from their basal amniote ancestry. I also use this case as a paradigm for thinking about major evolutionary transitions and the origin of new higher taxa in general: how long treks through morphospace, involving substantial changes in many characters over the geological time scale, can occur while the phenotype necessarily remains a highly complex, well-integrated entity. I am exploring the extent to which this evolvability versus integration paradox at the phenotypic level can be resolved by the correlated progression model of evolution, and am also concerned about the nature of the adaptive landscapes across which such enormously long-term trends can travel."