Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

quote:

---

You are calling all these things facts... because someone thought it up, didnt in any way prove it, and it got down to you. It isnt fact. Fact is observable. Your belief that this could by chance happen over billions of years is nothing but a belief, not fact. Please use the word fact only for facts.

---

If the only facts are those that are observable, how would you define facts for a historical science? How do we know how the romans lived? How do you or anyone else know who jesus was? History by definition isn't observable after the fact, so unless you have a video, there's no observation. You may say we have written records but, how do we know how accurate those are? how have prejudices and other biases affected the account?
Just like human history, in evolution we are going by a record that we found. Just like Mayan writtings, that record needs to be deciphered and that deciphering can affect the accuracy.
Just because we haven't directly observed fish evolving into amphibians doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that nobody alive observed the american revolution doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We know it happened because of the record we have, in the form of fossils.

quote:

---

They are never going to be able to evolve something they dont already have. Like being able to breath out of the water. That is the most important aspect of changing from a fish to a land animal, is it not?

---

Obviously, you've never heard about lungfish. Actually, while the ability to breathe on land is crucial, it's not enough to make an animal ameanable to land life. The buoyancy of the water makes the animals that live in it much less affected by the pull of the earth's gravity, but on land the affect is unrestricted. The force of gravity would have put a heavy strain on the internal organs of the early amphibian transitional fish. The remedy to this is a ribcage, which braces the internal organs and was present in several transtional fish, including a primitive version in the recently found tiktaalik.

quote:

---

As for this;

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some things that are FACT.
that the earth is billions of years old.

​

that the universe is tens of billions of years old.

​

that evolution happened.

​

that the record shows that early life was very primative.

​

that the makeup of life on the earth has changed over time.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I dont see how any of that can be shown as fact.

---

The entire fields of geology, biology, and astronomy are consistent with the idea that the earth and universe are many billions of years old. Radiometric dating is one, please do not confuse with carbon-14 dating which is only accurate for specimens of a few thousand years and Extrapolation of universal expansion backwards just to name a couple.
Evolution by natural selection has been observed in the laboratory. A good practical example is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. There's also the genetics which prove relationships. BTW, there's not only nuclear DNA but also, mitochondrial DNA. Why would unrelated species show relatedness in two different pieces of DNA? Protein sequencing is a good one, proteins are made of amino acids and there is a redundancy in the code that RNA uses to make amino acids, so animals can make the same proteins but have different codes. The chances that unrelated animals would have mostly the same amino acid codes is ungodly. Also, some mutations give rise to benign genes that have no selection pressures for or against and they accumulate and the chances of most of those to be shared among unrelated species is essentially zero.
The fossil record is very clear in going chronologically from primitive to advanced. This pattern is among the first ones discovered about the fossil record and has withstood at least 50-100 years of scruitiny longer than evolution has.
The last part is pretty obvious when one looks at the fossil record. invertebrates in the cambrian, fish in the devonian, reptiles in the permian, dinosaurs in the mesozoic, mammals and birds since the begining of the cenozoic which we are in right now.

quote:

---

Just because evolution was made up 150 years ago. And everything evolutionist have discovered they fit into the evolution theory. And if it went against the evolution theory, they simply changed the evolution theory in order to fit it into the evolution theory. If you call that fact, have fun with it.

---

That's actually not a problem it's called good science. When darwin's theory was merged with genetics in the 40s to make the neo-darwinian synthesis model that we use today, that was a modification of the theory to fit more recent facts. The same thing happened when scientists began to see problems with newton's laws in the early 1900s, then einstein came along and fundimentally altered (at the time) current theory to fit the facts. That's what happens in science when new facts emerge, theories change or they get thrown out.

quote:

---

Becuase the evolution theory will be much different tomorrow as it is today.

---

I hope so, there's so much we don't know about the process that we may uncover with genetics or fossil finds in the next few decades.Let's contrast this with religion. In religion people believe even when in direct opposition to the laws of known science. Water and wine are far too chemically different to convert one to the other spontaneously, the hydrogen bonds of water isn't strong enough to hold the weight of a human being, and virgin birth in humans is biologically impossible. Yet these are stories that people proudly believe. That's not to say they are necessarily wrong, but the point is that people believe them irregardless of what the laws of nature are. In science, theories are allowed to change with the facts in order to improve their accuracy, which improves their explanatory power.