Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[I_am_not_mafia]

Demonstrate that evolution is not testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable.

We can test for it by cross breeding animals, which has been done for centuries with cattle, chickens, foxes and dogs for example. This can be repeated. It has been observed both in nature and with genetic algorithms. It is falsifiable in that you could demonstrate that what we are observing works by means other than inherited traits, mutation of genetic information and natural selection.

Cross breading is not evolution it is still within the same kind, Another thing is you can't cross bread two kinds of animals so you can't breed a fox and donkey for example. There might be different types of dogs but they are still dogs that is not evolution that is just variation within a kind. The species on earth today descend from the original created kinds of Genesis 1. The many inter-species breedings that are possible today (e.g., zonkeys, wholphins), as well as the close similarities within biological groups (e.g., the canine group) that are distinct from one another, remind us of this fact. 

It is not my job to demonstrate that evolution is not testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable because my position is the negative position. It is your job to Demonstrate that evolution is testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable.

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. You can't show that they are not. Yet you are the one claiming that it isn't.

Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

[I_am_not_mafia]

They are from my hostile sources, therefore I disagree. Why would any would any right minded person trust them?

Never heard this excuse for ignoring a counter argument before.

Please explain what you mean by a hostile source and why this means they should be dismissed.

Edit: On second thoughts don't bother. I've deemed you to be a hostile source and therefore don't trust anything that you say.

[houseofcantor]

They are from my hostile sources, therefore I disagree. Why would any would any right minded person trust them?

Never heard this excuse for ignoring a counter argument before.

AIG. Checkmate, atheist. 

[Fake Messiah]

Maybe from now on admins should automatically lock every thread on this forum that is supposedly disproving evolution because there really is nothing to discuss and people just shout insults. Especially since this is in atheist subforum and not science.
If someone decided to be ignorant on evolution it's their problem.

If you don't find a way to lock this thread, then I will simply progress into destroying all the arguments for evolution.

[robvalue]

Even if the theory of evolution was proved completely wrong tomorrow, so what? What is the end game?

Scientists reconsider and start building a new hypothesis, or more likely adapting the old one.

What does not happen is scientists all say "Well God did it then". It's a pointless argument from ignorance.

And for 10 bonus points, if "God did it", I don't give a shit anyway. Good for him. So what?

[Tonus]

Even if the theory of evolution was proved completely wrong tomorrow, so what? What is the end game?

I think it's better to stop using this hypothetical, as it can give the mistaken idea that it's possible for the theory of evolution to be scrapped. It's not. First, let's keep in mind that the theory explains how the discoveries that prove that evolution happens (ie, the facts of evolution) indicate the path through which life diversified into the many forms we see today. If the theory was proven wrong, the facts of evolution --such as the fact that IT HAPPENS-- would not be wiped away with it. But at this point the only thing that can possibly happen with the theory is that it will be modified slightly here or there. There is no question* that it's as solid a theory as any other in science.

*Among people who know their biology and don't have a religious agenda, anyway.

[Excited Penguin]

Even if the theory of evolution was proved completely wrong tomorrow, so what? What is the end game?

I think it's better to stop using this hypothetical, as it can give the mistaken idea that it's possible for the theory of evolution to be scrapped.  It's not.  First, let's keep in mind that the theory explains how the discoveries that prove that evolution happens (ie, the facts of evolution) indicate the path through which life diversified into the many forms we see today.  If the theory was proven wrong, the facts of evolution --such as the fact that IT HAPPENS-- would not be wiped away with it.  But at this point the only thing that can possibly happen with the theory is that it will be modified slightly here or there.  There is no question* that it's as solid a theory as any other in science.

*Among people who know their biology and don't have a religious agenda, anyway.

Hehe, you've got 6666 posts, you evolutionist devil worshipper, you! 

[houseofcantor]

If you don't find a way to lock this thread, then I will simply progress into destroying all the arguments for evolution.

*gets destroyed*

[The Joker]

Cross breading is not evolution it is still within the same kind, Another thing is you can't cross bread two kinds of animals so you can't breed a fox and donkey for example. There might be different types of dogs but they are still dogs that is not evolution that is just variation within a kind. The species on earth today descend from the original created kinds of Genesis 1. The many inter-species breedings that are possible today (e.g., zonkeys, wholphins), as well as the close similarities within biological groups (e.g., the canine group) that are distinct from one another, remind us of this fact. 

It is not my job to demonstrate that evolution is not testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable because my position is the negative position. It is your job to Demonstrate that evolution is testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable.

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. You can't show that they are not. Yet you are the one claiming that it isn't.

Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. 

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

[Whateverist]

Maybe from now on admins should automatically lock every thread on this forum that is supposedly disproving evolution because there really is nothing to discuss and people just shout insults. Especially since this is in atheist subforum and not science.
If someone decided to be ignorant on evolution it's their problem.

If you don't find a way to lock this thread, then I will simply progress into destroying all the arguments for evolution.

Sounds like this joker is getting tired of hanging around. Probably expected to get chased out of the yard with a hose long ago and now doesn't have an exit strategy. I say we make his presence and participation mandatory.