Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Evolution is not bad science..it's an aproach to understanding. It may or may not be THE only path or the right one.
I do have a problem when we see fossil evidence and assume how one thing led to another. That is our weakness. There is no evidence that an aquatic species evolved to adapt to the land. That may have been the case but we have no way of knowing. We assume A leads to B and think within that framework. It may in fact but there is far too much assumption and far more that we do not know.

You are to have me believe because humans call themselves scientists I am to bow and accept a theory as something more than it is? That would hardly be scientific of me. You are just humans with ideas and falible as the rest of us. It's almost as if by calling the theory of evolution exactly what it is....I have offended people. Theories, even popular ones have been wrong or only partly correct far more often than they have ever been right.

I read the an article on the web. It means nothing until we know more.
The article follows the very pitfall I have mentioned. Evidence is always subject to interpretation.This is from the article: The discovery of Tiktaalik provides an unparalleled insight into the progression from fish to land animal, said Hans Sues via e-mail, a paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution, who called it a groundbreaking discovery of the kind that all paleontologists wish for.
Tiktaalik represents a critical link between fishes and land-dwelling vertebrates (tetrapods) in many of its skeletal features," Sues said.Reading this article gave me far more questions than answers.
Considering the fossil record one might assume that if there was a transition from sea to land it must have been swift or there would be more evidence?
Another question I have is why could animals not evolved from plants on land. The first organsisms were plants in the oceans. The aquatic is not needed for evolution. Plants were the first living things on land yes?
Why not an arganism using plants at the transition zone? They evolve into something more over time. Eventually they spread to utilize plants all over the land. More than one organism does this and they interact....ect.
I think if we are able to aproach the fossil record using dna we will learn far more. We are not quite there yet.What this article tells me is that we have found something interesting which deserves more investigation. We have much to learn and assume to much. But hey...we like to put things in boxes...it's what we do.

I don't believe I ever mentioned my beliefs. What I have said was that we do have a herd mentality. I see it in polotics...in religion...in sports....and in "science". It is because we are....human. I never was much of a follower. We also have a habbit of filling in the gaps in data with our own, based on our take.
What "science" says...comes from people. If other people choose to let evidence lead them to thier own conclusions that is thier business. I will be my own judge.Theory has nothing to do with fact. That is why it is called a thoery.
A theory is a human interpretation of data. There are still far too many questions in my mind about the developement of life on earth for me to adhere to one strict interpretation of data. It is my theory that we will never come close to knowing the full picture. For all that we know....much of the evidence we need may no longer exist. For now it is an interesting way to look at the data. One that indicates a general trend of what we call life. Anything beyond that to me is individual speculation. To tout a particular species as a missing link without knowing all the facts is premature.It is one tiny picture in a mozaic we still do not know the nature of. It appears to be a transition species which may or may not be the case. Time will tell...
. And the search for answers to questions that lead to more questions will continue.

I peeked at the article.Here is a quote."Chloroplasts are one of the forms a plastid may take, and are generally considered to have originated as endosymbiotic cyanobacteria."This is not a fact but a generally accepted belief. I do not mention this to "debunk" anything but simply to show that we do tend to assume.This is another quote from that article."It is interesting to note that in some algae (such as the heterokonts and other protists such as Euglenozoa and Cercozoa), chloroplasts seem to have arisen through a secondary event of endosymbiosis, in which a eukaryotic cell engulfed a second eukaryotic cell containing chloroplasts, forming chloroplasts with three or four membrane layers. In some cases, such secondary endosymbionts have themselves been engulfed by still other eukaryotes, forming tertiary endosymbionts."This is an interesting interpretation of data. Have we seen anything of this nature occure in the lab? I have read several articles on endosymbiosis and they assume many things. See this article. http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm
This is a theory to explain a transition. Not fact. Data is being interpreted based on the framework of this theory. It may be a correct interpretation but there is still much we do not know.

Or the third...Accepting it for what it is...a human interpretation of data. Weather or not it is an accurate interpretation is still being determined. If you have mistaken a theory for fact that is your choice.
Now you mentioned a nasty little thingy called belief.
To believe in such an animal as a theory requires faith. That is indeed a whole other topic. Hmm...I think you need to relax a little. Seems almost like you revere "scientists" as something more than people. Akin to the reverece or respect a religios follower gives a religious leader simply because of thier training and title. Yer kinda skeerin me there.
Do I question the "authority" ? Damn right I do. Someone has to or we all follow the leader like little sheepies. Well yeah. They are thoeries and nothing more. They are not facts but interpretations of data that are there to be molded and shaped..torn down and rebuilt...added to or debunked. That is how it works.
Beauty ain't it? Yes without a doubt. The other is interpreting the data to fit a preconcieved view. I would love see or perhaps do a study on the politics of science and it's effects on theories and conclusions. Data is data, people will be people and there is much we do not know.

http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htmA likely scenario...possibly. It would explain things we see. To treat it as fact...I think not. It's a reasonable theory.

You are just not happy that I am not gleefully willing to wholeheartedly accept the "moral majorities" View of the interpretation of observable information. Where is there the rule that I have to give you or anyone else some other explanation to cling to..so that it somehow will make you comfortable that I do not agree?
There are many fundamental questions that we have not come close to answering. In thier place we theorise and fill the gaps. Though this is hypothetically interesting it is still fiction.One thing I am good at is observing how people work. That is the source of all the material that requires my hip boots. I will always start with the assumption that we are wrong or inclined to see things our way. With us it is a good place to start. We are arrogant and egotistical. We are prone to many behavioural pitfalls. A scientist is a human first. For anyone to suggest that science is "above" or apart from our shortcomings I cannot and will not take seriously. Incorrect assumptions based on interpretations of "facts" have been touted by a majority many times throughout history. It is a simple fact of being human. I do not believe there will ever come a time when we cease to prove ourselves wrong and learn. That is how I approach a theory first. Given the source I happen to think it wise.My real beef is when we begin to treat a theory as something more than it is. We place emotions and passions into upholding it..... become upset when someone reminds us what a theory is.
We can have a theoretical interpretation that fits the facts as they are at the time of the thoery. Then we learn something that requires us to rethink the theory.
I do not "believe" we yet know near enough about the process of life coming to be on earth to make the many assumptions we have.
DNA may eventually change this.
But then there is the question of DNA itself and how it came to be.
This leads to the question...what came first? the instructions or the working model? lol

This is just a general comment.
I don't see any ground breaking work coming from anyone on this sight.
I do not recall coming across posts from any member here since I have joined who has ever published a theory of thier own concerning a topic I have engaged in. I have not run across any member citing thier own material or research in response to the topics I have engadged in. What I have seen seen is people sharing others hard work and discussing it. This includes me.
I have never dismissed any theory. I simply feel that there are many more questions that need answeres before I will hang my hat on the idea of evo as many have.
I am currious how others of you truly feel about it.
Are you seeing it as an idea that is likely true in part or in whole, obviously true, still in the works, open to interpretation.
My personal take on it is that it apears to be generally true, it is still in the works and many ongoing portions of it are open to interpretation. There are some that dismiss it all together. I do not fall into that catagory.

Here I have a little problem. You have introduced the idea of ceationism to relate some kind of lack of purpose on my part or to claim I engadge in aimless rantings. Now that would indicate to me that you have some notion of purpose as a person I understand to be an advocate of evolution. What exactly is it that makes you so willing to fight for this idea? I can understand the creationist point of view. Thier purpose is not "scientific" it is human or reflecting the spiritual aspect of being human. That does not take a genious to see. So now I would ask you....what do you see as being the point of the theory of evolution? I have and as I have stated earlier the basic concept of evolution apears to fit but when there is a "gap" in the preconcieved answer to the riddle it would seem one theory leads to another. When you have answered my previous inquiry we shall see how baseless my claims are. So you believe I am arrogant and ignorant in acurately depicting factual aspects of being human? This just further intensifies my understanding of you as someone who believes that "science" is somehow imune to the human condition. That delusion is my point. That is exactly why I view theories as I do. Intersting ways of explaining observations. You appear hold the whole idea of science with some kind of reverance. I do not. Again...the difference between you and I. Science does not work...people do. I know how people work. In that light I take theories for what they are. Interesting human ideas concerning things we humans are interested in. The theory of evolution is just an interesting idea to me. Weather or not it proves accurate in whole or in part or not at all for that matter, does not matter. We only have a very miniscule and narrow human and earthly idea of what "life" is. I will take the view that we are vastly ignorant first and tend to only be willing or able to learn on our terms....limited by the tools we posess. Abiogenesis is our term. In terms of where life begins and ends we are hardly the authorities of the universe. That would be rather arrogant. Yes the primordial soup and the building of amino acids from basic chemicals through the aplication of various energy sources. I have been aware of this for probably 25 of my 41 years.
You are mistaken. My beef is not with the concept of science. As I stated earlier it is when people attempt to elevate the idea beyond its human capacity. Science is nothing special. It's just a tool we use.

Yes this is only one topic. That is not what I said. I said it applies to all topics I have taken part in or read since I have joined. I have never seen anyone sight thier own work. This may have occured at some time but not in my short experience here. Nothing is wrong with it. You need to go back to my post and look at the context of the exchange to understand my point.

I did rise to the bait. I appologise.
This just shows me that no matter what the subject and supposed level of
reason, maturity, or education, we are all very human first.