Science doesn't need, require, or use a "biblical backing".
But it needs to be observable, testable, repeatable, and able to be proven wrong if the evidence goes against it. Evolution does not meet this standard, and therefore it is not science. Only a theory.
I used the biblical backing wording as there are Christians on this thread.
Evolution was not known in the time of Jesus.
Exactly. But creation was spoken of. Jesus said, In the beginning God created them male and female. Not sludge that evolved.
We'd prefer you argue in good faith. You've been doing a lot of long content dumps filled with things that just aren't true. It's going to take time for us to illustrate all of them. In part we are seeing what of your large set of claims it will be worth replying to given how many you have made. We don't know what kind of poster you will be.
I’m more than happy to argue in good faith; that’s exactly what I’ve been doing. I’ve responded directly to the questions that have been asked, often in detail, and I’ve done so without resorting to dismissive language. If anything, I’ve taken the time to thoughtfully engage with multiple people at once, which I hope shows that I’m here to have a serious discussion, not to troll or mislead.
If you believe some of what I’ve said is incorrect, I’m open to correction, but simply labelling my posts as "content dumps" or “not true” without addressing the substance doesn’t move the conversation forward. Dismissing a position because it’s well developed or challenges deeply held assumptions isn’t a rebuttal.
I understand that responding thoroughly takes time, that’s fair. But if a group of several committed individuals needs to pause to figure out how to reply to one person, that may say more about the strength of the evidence than the style of delivery. I’ll keep engaging respectfully as much as possible and honestly, and I hope the same will be extended in return.
Oh boy. (I should have expected this...) Science is about hypothesis testing. Make a plan to get the data needed to test a hypothesis and then analyze it. It could be samples taken from something; it could be measurements of some fossil bones, it could be the genomes of extant life forms; it could be the light curves of a bunch of pulsating stars collected over months; it could be a chemical experiment; etc. Of course evolutionary hypotheses can be tested with data.
Sure, I agree that science involves hypothesis testing and data analysis. But when it comes to evolutionary claims, especially large-scale historical ones like common ancestry, the origin of body plans, or the transformation of major life forms, we run into serious limitations that don’t apply to experimental sciences like chemistry or physics.
Why? Because we're dealing with non-repeatable, unobservable events in the distant past, not real-time processes we can directly observe, test, or replicate under controlled conditions. In fields like palaeontology or evolutionary biology, we are often piecing together fragmentary evidence and trying to reconstruct ancient environments, ecosystems, genetic information, and population dynamics based on inference, not direct observation.
And the truth is, those ancient conditions can't be fully recreated or verified. Environments change, genetic pathways mutate, and selective pressures fluctuate over time. We can’t go back and test the climate, the oxygen levels, the predator-prey relationships, or the mutation rates at every supposed step of evolution. We can only guess based on present-day proxies and scattered fossil or molecular data.
So yes, evolutionary hypotheses can be framed in scientific terms, but their testability is often limited by the fact that the key events and variables are locked in the unobservable past. Unlike testing the boiling point of a liquid or the orbit of a planet, we can’t rewind history and run it again to see if fish really could turn into land animals, or land mammals into whales. What we get are interpretations of data, often built on assumptions, like uniformitarianism or genetic similarity implying common descent.
This is entirely not true. Speciation has been observed many times by scientists in the last 150 years.
Yes, I’m aware that speciation has been observed, but let’s be clear about what’s actually being observed. The famous example of Darwin’s finches shows changes in beak size and shape based on environmental pressures. But in the end, they were finches before, and they were finches after. No new body plans, no new organs, no fundamentally new genetic information, just minor variations within an existing gene pool.
The same goes for other examples like cichlid fish or fruit flies. You can breed a population into slightly different species (based on reproductive isolation or ecological preference), but you’re still working with the same basic form, the same body structure, and the same overall genetic toolkit.
This is microevolution, which no one disputes; it's simply variation, adaptation, and sometimes speciation within a kind. But Darwinian macroevolution requires far more than that. It requires step-by-step changes over time that produce entirely new structures, new organs, new genetic information, and eventually entirely new kinds of creatures (e.g., turning a fish into a land mammal, or a reptile into a bird). That kind of transformation has not been observed.
So, pointing to observed speciation events as proof of macroevolution is like pointing to regional accents in English as proof that Latin turned into Chinese. Yes, changes happen, but not that kind of change.
Until we see observable, testable evidence of large-scale transformations that go beyond shuffling or losing existing traits, Darwinian evolution remains an unobserved extrapolation, not a directly demonstrated process.
This one is so old Darwin himself figured out the basics of it.
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
I had a look at the article, it doesn’t actually answer the core issue. It outlines a hypothetical pathway from simple light-sensitive cells to complex eyes, but it assumes each tiny step would be both viable and advantageous. That’s not shown, it’s just inferred.
The real question is: how do you go from scattered cells to a fully integrated system involving lenses, muscles, nerves, and a brain that interprets signals, all of which must work together? The article doesn’t explain how random mutations produced the tightly coordinated parts needed for vision; it just assumes it.
So no, pointing to a series of light-sensitive blobs doesn’t explain the origin of the eye. It just sidesteps the deeper problem of interdependent complexity, which still points strongly to design.
Did you learn nothing in HS biology?
Hemolymph - Wikipedia
Yes, I did learn high school biology, and the Wikipedia article on hemolymph doesn’t undermine the original point. It simply describes an open circulatory system found in insects and mollusks, where hemolymph (a fluid analogous to blood) bathes organs directly, lacking the closed system of arteries, veins, and capillaries seen in vertebrates.
That actually reinforces the argument for irreducible complexity, not diminishes it:
-Vertebrates have a tightly coordinated system of heart, blood, and vessels, each part indispensable and co-dependent.
-Invertebrates can get by with a simpler, less efficient system, but that doesn’t make vertebrate complexity any less remarkable, and it doesn’t explain how such a closed system originated step by step.
The existence of hemolymph in insects just shows nature has different solutions, but it doesn’t solve the problem of how a closed circulatory system, with its interlocking parts, could evolve via small, functional steps. So, bringing hemolymph into the conversation is a distraction, not a rebuttal.
Good for us circulatory dependent organisms our circulatory system grows with us in utero.
You're missing the point. Yes, the circulatory system grows during development, that’s not in question. But development in the womb and the origin of the system through evolution are two entirely different issues.
Development is guided by a pre-existing genetic blueprint. Evolution, on the other hand, is supposed to explain how that complex, interdependent system (heart, blood, vessels) came to exist in the first place, before any such blueprint existed.
Saying "it grows with us" doesn’t explain how that entire system arose through random mutation and natural selection. You're describing how a functioning system replicates, not how it was built from scratch in evolutionary history. That’s the actual challenge, and it still stands.
I leave someone else to deal with this entry from the Big Book of Creationist Tropes.
If you call it a trope, then you should be able to defend your belief. Though simply dismissing it shows you may need to do a little more HS biology