The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
The Contender
SploonTube
Con (against)

Evolution and science is an oxymoron

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SploonTube has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 277 times Debate No: 94948
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

By evolution I am talking about:
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang"
Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another

with the exception of micro evolution which happens.
SploonTube

Con

I will gladly accept This debate
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.

I would firstly like to start of by reminding everyone what science is;
"The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
And since evolution has never been observed or experimented the fact that it is considered a form of science makes evolution and science an oxymoron.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by stoffels 6 months ago
stoffels
Hi Freakoutimaminja234

Yeah, that is what i refer to. As far as i can see, there is in thermodynamics 3 cases:
1. Entropy increase - this is the general case as observed in nature.
2. Entropy stabilise - Eg, with a system where there is some control mechanism to keep the system in steady state.
3. Entropy is undergoing a reversible process.

It seems to me, you are only considering case(1) above. My question therefore, was that you supply some proof on what you base your argument on in this regard.
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 6 months ago
Freakoutimaninja235
Hey stoffels

Can you be specific when you say "this"? I said a lot in my comment. If you are referring to the law of entropy, then yeah it pretty much will always be the case. It's a scientific law we see the universe following. Everything breaks down. Mutations cause loss of information. Anything left unkept falls into disorder and disuse. Why would anything physical go against this law?
If you were speaking of something else in my comment, please specify.
Posted by stoffels 6 months ago
stoffels
Hi Freakoutimaninja235

Interesting statements you made below. I think you are drawing a parallel between the laws of energy(second law of thermodynamics) and the laws of information. Is there any proof that this will always be the case? Do you have any publication in this regard?
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 6 months ago
Freakoutimaninja235
@Zaephou
Have scientists indeed traced the genetics of any animal today all the way back to an insect, and before that, a single-called organism, and before that, a rock?
DNA is incredibly complex and the odds of it coming into existence by chance are infinitely small, not to mention that it's a cycle (ATP production-DNA replication). Rocks don't even have DNA, the very idea that life can come from something made not of DNA but of inanimate matter is ludicrous. How do we have evidence of that? There is plenty of evidence against it, including the many attempts scientists have made at conjuring life from non-living matter. Even the idea of a basic protein chain randomly coming into existence just because around it there were the atoms that make it up is so ridiculously small that it can conscionably be compared to expecting something as complex as a hovercraft to come into being after leaving a yard full of all the necessary pieces on its own for a long long time.
Macro-evolution also goes against the law that the universe is descending further into entropy as time goes on. This means it is becoming more disordered, not more ordered. Macro evolution insinuates that mutations can be beneficial and thus a species is able to evolve into something more advantageous due to mutation. This is the elephant in the room for the macro evolution theory, as about 99% of mutations are harmful and the rest are neutral. Mutation is a loss of information/alleles from the gene pool, not a gain. It is true that on occasion, a mutation may be selected for if the environment should change suddenly and all those without this mutation are wiped out (for example, the Duffy negative phenotype, which provides immunity to a certain strain of malaria, but is also harmful because it means the carrier is 40% more likely to contract HIV. This mutation is widely spread across Africa.) I would like to see your evidence please. I believe in natural selection and microevolution, not macro evolutio
Posted by stoffels 6 months ago
stoffels
Why do you guys say that nature has no beginning? If evolution is about change, does that not point to a beginning?
Posted by Zaephou 6 months ago
Zaephou
vi_spex, we do not know whether nature had a beginning or not
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
nature has no beginning
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
evolution is not about origin, its about change
Posted by Zaephou 6 months ago
Zaephou
Well, there is a difference between first-hand observation and the aftermath observation.

The thing is, first-hand observation is among the worst types of evidence among science, since there is so much subjectivity that could effect our perception. While we have not observed the types of evolution you mentioned first-hand, we have found evidence that they happen after it has happened. By observing what is happening and has happened concerning species, we have traced it back through records of fossils and countless studies of genetics and named the cause evolution. We have even observed the nature of stars to conclude things like the fact that a star dies once nuclear fission achieves the creation of iron in a star's core, and how gravity can form stars out of gas clouds and nebulae. I see a lot of theists mention evolution as false because we have not observed it first-hand, while ignoring the countless amounts of evidence achieved through scientific methods.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.