Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

"Seems like"? You could get some books out of the library on geology and how scientists have studied these things. Science is not about sitting and thinking if something seems reasonable to you. If you are writing "seems like it would be too many" as a hypothesis then how would you prove it? How would you falsify it? There are those who say that. What do you say? Are you aware of the scientific explanations? How much flooding would it take to bury a bone? What if the animal died in or near water and the bones dropped into a soft sediment? Science and mathamatics do not have to satisfy what seems possible to us. Rather it has to satisfy observations of what happens. That is the theory must fit the data. Universal flood does not fit the data.lfen

I wasn't criticizing how you word things. I was criticizing what looked like an assumption on your part that facts should fit your notion of how they should be. I didn't tell you this. They don't lay around exposed. They are buried and a number of different processes can occur. It is when they are somehow exposed sometimes by erosion, sometimes by digging that they are brought to the surface. No.Type this into google, How are fossils made?
Here is a link to get you started.http://caca.essortment.com/howarefossils_rirf.htmIf you are not just trolling this group and are sincerely interested in learning what science has found then google is a start. There are far better sources of explanation then what I can type in here in my spare time.lfenedited to correct the webpage linkThis message has been edited by lfen, 10-31-2004 11:56 PM

Okay. Making very generalized simplistic statements without citing supports is what struck me as trolling.Science can be very complex. Creationist websites way over simplify what science is. On the other hand creationist website's simplicty is easier to understand than science. A world wide flood is a notion that can briefly be used to "explain" a number of things. Science requires a lot of verified data and the findings and theories must be peer reviewed by other scientists in that field.There are a number of ways that bones, plants, footprints, bugs, pollen have been preserved. I don't have the information or knack of condensing this down. A local flooding is one way of burying an animal. Falling into the ocean, or lake, or a river and being covered by mud and sediment is another. The various finds of fossils around the world have been cataloged and documented and subject to geological and other verification.The statement that only a world wide flood could bury animals quickly enough is not a supported scientific theory. It has been repeatedly falsified. Those who put that theory forward have a religious not a scientific agenda. They want the Bible to be literally true so they can believe that that ancient world view is indeed true. If that is what you wish then go ahead and believe it. If what you seek is scientific fact then go and read what scientists have studied.There are many world views. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Read over some of the threads you find here, use google, but your local libary is a better place to find information in my opinion. But I'll tell you animal bones did not lie around on the ground for hundreds of years being slowly covered up nor were they all buried in a world wide Noahic flood. They were buried within days to months and the processes of mineralization to cite only one kind of preservation process then took place over much longer periods of time.lfen