Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

quote:

---

However it is faith by which one relies upon interspeciary evolution, which appears more a philosophy of Darwin's that all had a common ancestor, than one of his more solidly supported facts.

---

There are a couple of strands here - common ancestry and evolution across species boundaries.It's not essential that all organisms have a common ancestor for evolution to be true. In fact, as WK says, work is being done to investigate whether this really is true for all life on earth. Some biologists wonder whether there is, or has been in the past, a 'shadow biosphere' containing life of a different kind. This is not a threat to evolution.However, it is clear that evolution has crossed the boundaries between groups that baraminologists need to keep separate. There is a lot of evidence for this. Some examples :-We see fossils in the record that are transitional between major groupingsWhen we construct trees of descent using different methods and characters we get consistent results - very good evidence that life falls in a nested hierarchy that crosses baramin boundaries. This is a 'risky prediction' for evolution - if this were not true, large-scale evolution would be falsified. It is not expected to be true if a special creation model is true. As it happens, it is true.We see a reasonably good correlation between the amount of genetic difference we see between organisms and the amount we should expect based on the time they have been diverging based on the fossil record. In fact, palaeontologists now sometimes use genetic measures of divergence times to drive what fossils to look for, as in the case of the origin of modern birds.Embyological patterns of development in mammals, for example, show phases that resemble the embryos of fish, amphibians and reptiles - in that order!There's a lot more, but that's a start. Why are we wrong to draw the natural conclusion from this? There is no evidence that the Christian origin story / flood story is true - and huge amounts of evidence that it is false. That's why science pays it no attention.

quote:

---

We used interpretation to try and force the evidence to fit this view, rather than equally considering the alternative of parent species, lining up species to try and make orderly lines between one another

---

No, that's not true. The evidence tells us that evolution has occurred across baramin boundaries. That's all there is to it. Give up ideas of 'atheist conspiracies'. This is just how things are.

quote:

---

.....Homo Floresiensis, aka hobbit man and labeled a missing link, had in fact lived up until modern times and thus could not be an ancestor,....

---

H floriensis has always known been to be recent.

quote:

---

....or that Habilis and Erectus lived at the same time and would have to be knocked off the lineage, or that Ardipithecus Ramidus, older than Lucy, looked nothing like an ape and walked upright. The news has had major press received that the human family tree is now instead a 'bush' with dead ends everywhere.

---

That's not news. That's what evolutionary patterns generally look like. I'm not sure what you mean about A. ramidus - it is an ape. H habilis and erectus living at the same time - why do you see that as a problem?

quote:

---

Again, not only is there a complete lack of proof for this interspeciary change, but discoveries are beginning to knock out one after another of the missing links that already exist, or else alleged new ones are found wrong. Yet at a time when we should be more seriously considering the possibility of parent species, many are still religiously adhering to Darwin's beliefs of a single common ancestor; macroevolution.

---

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence and more and more transitional fossils are being found. That's all there is to it. No religious belief is involved.There is no evidence of 'parent species' in nature. The concept of 'parent species' is derived entirely from the OT myth of a global flood. We can be absolutely certain that a global flood did not occur in the way the bible says - unless God deliberately wanted it to be undetectable and supernaturally hid all the evidence.