What makes Evolution a theory?

[All Becomes New]

Debate is a continuous thing in science. We debate what the framework is (how the elephant really looks like), but the elephant is the theory. The theory is not his leg, for example. It is evidence, not theory.

The debate is literally about whether there is a unifying theory or not.

 

[trophy33]

The debate is literally about whether there is a unifying theory or not.

The conversation is about the picture, i.e. the elephant was there. And that would represent a scientific theory.

 

[All Becomes New]

The conversation is about the picture, i.e. the elephant was there. And that would represent a scientific theory.

Doesn't that assume evolution is true? If evolution is not true, then of course there will be debates about things of the most fundamental nature of the theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

Doesn't that assume evolution is true? If evolution is not true, then of course there will be debates about things of the most fundamental nature of the theory.

The thing about evolution is that it's not true or untrue based on people's personal opinions or feelings of disbelief or incredulity. It is true or untrue based on testable, repeatable, predictions about what we observe in the world.

In order to really make a case against the theory, you would have to present counter evidence, a counter model, or observations that contradict theory.

And since the 1850s, no one has ever found evidence that runs contrary to the theory, rather the evidence time and time again is predicted by it. And I'll offer the following case as an example:

 

[All Becomes New]

The thing about evolution is that it's not true or untrue based on people's personal opinions or feelings of disbelief or incredulity. It is true or untrue based on testable, repeatable, predictions about what we observe in the world.

In order to really make a case against the theory, you would have to present counter evidence, a counter model, or observations that contradict theory.

And since the 1850s, no one has ever found evidence that runs contrary to the theory, rather the evidence time and time again is predicted by it. And I'll offer the following case as an example:

If you are not going to watch the video I posted, then why should I watch yours?

 

[Job 33:6]

If you are not going to watch the video I posted, then why should I watch yours?

You don't have to watch mine. But at the end of the day, you'll have to inform yourself about evolution if you intend to sway us.

 

[All Becomes New]

You don't have to watch mine. But at the end of the day, you'll have to inform yourself about evolution if you intend to sway us.

I've already said things that proponents of evolution don't know about evolution as a theory.

I don't care about evolution. It's not a hill for me to die on. However, I just go by the plain, straightforward reading of scripture when it says animals produce after their own "kind." Not to evolve from one species into another, which is impossible and has never been observed. Evolution is a theory that EXPLAINS things; it is not observed. Not really.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've already said things that proponents of evolution don't know about evolution as a theory.

I don't care about evolution. It's not a hill for me to die on. However, I just go by the plain, straightforward reading of scripture when it says animals produce after their own "kind." Not to evolve from one species into another, which is impossible and has never been observed. Evolution is a theory that EXPLAINS things; it is not observed. Not really.

If you really went by scripture, you would acknowledge that it describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science. Nobody is going to buy your position. Speciation is a commonly observed fact of nature.

 

[All Becomes New]

If you really went by scripture, you would acknowledge that it describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science. Nobody is going to buy your position. Speciation is a commonly observed fact of nature.

I have some (not a lot) understanding of Israelite cosmology. If you mean to say that YHWH was originally a storm/wind god, then I am going to stop you right there and say you are drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have some (not a lot) understanding of Israelite cosmology. If you mean to say that YHWH was originally a storm/wind god, then I am going to stop you right there and say you are drinking the Kool-Aid.

I never said anything about a storm God. Sounds like you should brush up on the topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[All Becomes New]

I never said anything about a storm God. Sounds like you should brush up on the topic.

I think you should probably not believe something just because scientist tells you.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm aware of this. What of it? Does this mean that we can't trust "In the Beginning God created...." either?

Further, producing after their own kind has nothing to do with cosmology anyway.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm aware of this. What of it? Does this mean that we can't trust "In the Beginning God created...." either?

Further, producing after their own kind has nothing to do with cosmology anyway.

It means that the context of Genesis isn't scientific in nature. It's like trying to argue for geocentrism because the Bible says that the earth rests on pillars and shall never be moved. Arguing against evolution because God created "kinds" is a non-starter. It's not justified by the context of scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you should probably not believe something just because scientist tells you.

I am a scientist, I don't need scientists to tell me things. As are others in this chat.

 

[All Becomes New]

It means that the context of Genesis isn't scientific in nature. It's like trying to argue for geocentrism because the Bible says that the earth rests on pillars and shall never be moved. Arguing against evolution because God created "kinds" is a non-starter. It's not justified by the context of scripture.

The Bible is not a scientific book. I agree on that. Neither is the Bible anti-scientific. That is where you are wrong. The Bible does not get things factually wrong. Maybe our interpretation needs to change or maybe our science needs to change, but the Bible is not wrong.

And I think you are putting WAY too much emphasis on ancient Israelite cosmology. If it's not a science book, then it doesn't answer scientific questions, and cosmology is a scientific question. Also, see my first point. From your point of view, we have no reason to believe the first verse of the Bible unless it is first proven with science. If we were before big bang cosmology, then you, as a scientist, would believe the universe was eternal.

 

[All Becomes New]

I am a scientist, I don't need scientists to tell me things. As are others in this chat.

Yes, you do need scientists to tell you things. Because there are different fields in science.

 

[All Becomes New]

Speciation is a commonly observed fact of nature.

If you mean we have watched a species change from one to another, you are wrong. Else, prove it.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you mean we have watched a species change from one to another, you are wrong. Else, prove it.

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[The Barbarian]

It doesn't say man evolved from any lower lifeform, but man was fully formed, and complex from the beginning.

That's not what it says. Nothing about "fully formed and complex." That's someone's addition to God's word.