Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

quote:

---

Entirely incorrect. Please explain how creationists deal with the genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence that shows human/ape common ancestory.

---

There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.

quote:

---

The relationship between the age of the fossils, the phylogeny constructed with the fossils, and DNA similarities/dissimilarities is a slam dunk for evolution. Don't forget that evolution does not depend on fossils alone

---

Fossils cannot be tested to a conclusive age. In fact, the fact that there still there, preserved. Points to a younger age. DNA similarities dont mean anything. Were similar to bananas. It doesnt mean or prove nothing.

quote:

---

Actually, one of the most basic biological laws (evolution) states that this is exactly what happened. There are fish today that can live both in water using gills and fins, and on land using the same fins to walk on mud and air sacs for breathing air. In the fossil record, we have fossils that possess both reptillian and avian features. Why is that? We also have fossils that have both retpillian and mammalian charateristics. Why is that? Maybe because they are evolving?

---

Natural selection has never worked to add new information that has been never present at least in observation today. However natural selection can work with information already present pointing to reduced information not gained, a mutation. To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter. Animals have always reproduced after their own kind.

I dont agree with evolution being bad science. I would never say that. I do believe they are wrong but it does not mean they are not science or bad science. There trying to prove origins by forms of natural processes. Thats cool, unfortunately the life from non-life bit destroys the theory as it has yet to be proven that life and complexity can arise on its own from dead matter. Even waving around billions of yrs anything can happen does not take anything away. Well maybe for evolutionist believers thinking yes well in a billion yrs maybe it can happen.

quote:

---

Where would you put austrolopithecines?

---

Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls which show that their semi-circular canals, which determine balance & ability to walk upright, 'resemble those of the extant great apes'. Lucy is just a 40% complete skeleton which has been imaginatively restored in museums to like a ape-women.

I think thats because the origins is so bankrupt that they have moved it aside and promoted as not having anything to do with evolution. Evolutionists give it the term chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution. Evolutionists also talk about the general theory of living things coming from a single cell & this single cell coming from non-living chemicals. So it is definately a part of evolutionary theory. Do move it aside is really to avoid the inevitable issue and serious problem for the ToE.

Umm no. Your missing the point here. You see God thats not science. Were not allowed to think about God as an explaination you see. So thats why life came from non-living chemicals, cause were here. God is not science. We cant think of a creator or a designer even if the evidence supports it. The whole point of evolutionary theory is to prove origins & life by pure science and natural procceses. Myth and miracle are not part of science you see. Now that the origins is bankrupt. Evolution has now moved away from the problem that destroys evolution to the ground. The foundation.

The cell itself is evidence for design. Look at you all avoiding the origins and starting a campaign that the ToE is nothing to do with. Yet if it was simply proven. Of course if would be a part of. The complexity that life cannot arise from dead matter. No matter how many yrs go by is evidence of the need of an intelligence. AKA a designer.

quote:

---

Irrelevant. As long as there are potential explanations other than abiogenesis, & evolution can still occur, then abiogenesis isn't a logically necessary part of evolutionary theory. Life could have existed as long as the universe has, for example, assuming cosmologists got the big bang wrong.

​

Furthermore, evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origins of life, only what happened after it was there. It's not your prerogative to tell biologists what is a part of their theory & what isn't. Or are you saying we can't study atomic theory without firstly rejecting god outright, & assuming the Big Bang? You can't have it both ways. In both cases it is possible to study evolution & sub-atomic particles without knowledge of where they came from. So again, abiogenesis is not a logically irremovable part of evolutionary theory.

---

So if it is not a part of the ToE. Please explain to me biochemical evolution and prebiotic evolution.

quote:

---

To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter.

​

And that is one of the strong arguments for evolution. If we suddenly saw something new created, Creationists would win hands down. But until they can show Creation happening, they have no argument. Evolutionists can show evolution happening. Creationists have never been able to show Creation happening.

---

You dont know what your talking about Jar. The fact that life cannot arise from dead matter is proof for creation. Proof that there may be a creator behind it all. If it could happen with natural processes then evolution would be on top. Without it being called the the ToE but the fact of evolution.

I Wrote - The whole point of evolutionary theory is to prove origins & life by pure science and natural proccesesMr Jack wrote

quote:

---

The "point" of evolutionary theory is exactly the same as the point of any other scientific theory: to provide the best explanation of the evidence.

---

I could have sworn Darwin brought up his theory to disprove the need of a creator,designer,higher being when it came to the topic of life and origins.This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-11-2004 01:58 AM

I always assumed evolution was the theory in explaining life and origins by pure natural processes. Am i mistaken?.

But how is the ToE supposed to stand tall as a theory if the origin of life according to natural processes cannot be explained and are deemed by many as impossible?.

I will try to get as many replies as possible, but there are many & i need time to read carefully and think carefully however this one caught my eye...NosyNed if everyone here stated what you said then you could no longer call creation just religion only because its based on Gods word, when evolution which is supposedly pure natural processes are open to the possibility of a creator. It would be somewhat logical to admit that they are both scientific and both have religious aspects. Even if evolutionists believe this is definately no deity it is still a religion, a belief that our world and life has evolved on its own.

quote:

---

The point is that saying God created the first life forms does absolutely nothing to the ToE. NOTHING! It simply answers the question of the origin of life.

---

Which God are you speaking of?. The one in the Bible?. But evolution and the Bible are not compatable, they contradict each other in so many things. Have you ever wondered how one man can believe in evolution and be a athiest then another believe in evolution and believe in God. How are these views compatible unless one has compromised his Bible to fit the ToE?.

quote:

---

You seem to be using the word "religion" in some odd way. Could you please define what is and is not a "religion"? In the context here it is not simply a "belief". If that is what you mean by the word "religion" then how is Christianity different from believing that, in fact, the dog did eat Johnnies homework?

---

Johnnies homework does not answer the question of why we are here, how we are here, when did we come etc. It is not a foundation of origins, life, meaning (if any)etc. A worldview if you will.

quote:

---

Creationists: Believe in the inerrancy of the Genesis account without evidence, and sometimes in the face of contradicting evidence.

---

Definately not true. They believe that real science fits the Bible. And the evidence fits the Bible. If they didnt they would not waste their time with a false religion. The whole point of creation is great because it shows people that we can trust God from the very first verse and not to mans theories.

quote:

---

Evolutionists: Accept the theory of evolution because of the evidence, and in the lack of contradicting evidence

---

The fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory a fact.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should ask yourself this question. Do you believe a literal Genesis is true because of your faith or because of the evidence? Are there people of different faiths (eg Hinduism) that agree that Genesis is a true, literal account? If not, why not?

---

I believe in a literal genesis because of the evidence i found with AiG. The evidence i read in creation magazine. And the evidence that bankrupts evolution. No not by faith. My faith came afterwards, luckily im not one of those christians who doesnt know anything but just believes. And lastly about hinduism and genesis well i dont know if they dont it may be because its based on a different religion then theres.