Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Well your argument is pretty much wrong through and through.Can the evidence for evolution also be truthfully used as evidence for creation - and woult it matter if it could ? To take the last part first it would NOT matter. Most of the evidence for Newtonian mechaninics is also evidence for General Relativity (becuase they overlap to a very great degree) - neither is poor science because of this.But as for your list of evidence.a) Microevolution *is* evolution. Therefore it is *more* than evidence for evolution. I also note that you offer no reason why it should be considered evidence for creation.b) The pattern opf similarities can be used to construct a tree of evolutionary relationships. While there are areas of uncertainty much of it is settled. It resembles the pattern expected from common descent rather than that expected from design. Properly considered this evidence supports evolution over creation.c) The fossil record records a long history of change in the life present on this planet. Before it was properly understood the believers in creation held that there had been no significant change - certainly there is no hint of it in Genesis. This alone is evidence for evolution over creation. THe fossil record is also part of the evidence we can use to construct the tree of evolutionary rtelationships - and it fits in very well.So in every case the evidence you raised favours evolution over creation.Now not one of the "frauds" you listed was used to support evolution specifically. The motivation ofr Piltdown Man is unkown. Nebraska Man was not even a fraud. Haeckel's embryo drawings were done to support his beliefs (and in fact also supported similar creationist beliefs that had been proposed before Haeckel).Your reference to genetic similarities - again - fails to consider the actual evidence. The fact is that by using samples from many species we can - again - contruct a pattern of evolutionary relationships and it agrees very well with thw one we get by considering just physical similarities.We also have plenty of evidence that fish gave rise to land animals (fossils such as Eusthenopteron, Icthyostega and Acanthostega) that reptiels gave rise to mammals (a whole heap of fossils - including the change in jaw structure) even single celled animals exchange genetic material and most seedless plants are the product of human interference.So the simple answer is that EVERY ONE of your reasons is an example where you are unaware of the full evidence - typically even a fraction of it.

No, you haven't answered the first point. You need to explain how microevolution is evidence FOR creationism. You can't just say that the evidence is so good that creationists have to accept it.To answer the two specific points raised. Sexual reproduction would have started with hermaphroditic creatures (like snails) - evolution would not have suddenly produced a lone female or male from an asexually reproducing creature.
Lungs developed in creatures which already had gills. The function is unclear (it's a long time ago, we don't have many elevant fossils - and soft tissue is very rarely preserved) although it could have been related to buoyancy control - or perhaps more likely the ability to gain even a small amount of atmospheric oxygen (by "gulping") could have been helpful. You don't need a full-fledged lung for either.The second argument is only "easy" if you ignore the work that goes into it - and the fact that "trees" created for objects which did use common design elements come out looking rather different (Niles Eldredge did one for a musical instrument - the cornet - as reported in New Scientist 26 July 2003). We also have the case of DIFFERENT "designs" used to do the same job (for instance the whole range of flagella - in particular the difference between archaea and bacteria). So I am afraid that my view is legitimate science while the opposing view is an ad hoc explanation which is not supported by the evidence - and therefore does not belong in school at all.As for the rest of your confused post do you understand that "consistent with" does NOT mean "evidence for" (it CAN do if there is a very narrow range of possibilities that are consistent with a theory but that is not the case of ID).We can't use fossils and similarities as evidence for ID unless they really ARE evidence for ID. As I have pointed out properly considered they favour evolution over ID. So we can't use them as evidence for ID over evolution - indeed we would actually need some concrete theory which explains the observed similarities and the observed fossils before we could honestly do so - and even then unless the explanation was as good as evolutionary explanations we would still have to admit that the evidence favoured evolution.

This is a great example of why creationism isn't science. There are a whole range of anatomical intermediates from the australopithecines to "archaic" Homo Sapiens.Creationists call the more ape-like examples ape - so they can ignore the fact that the fossils are more human-like than any existing ape.Creationists call the most human-like examples "fully human" - so they can ignore the fact that they are more ape-like than modern humans.The evidence exists. Creationists do not interpret it differently - they just pretend that it is not there.

Really ? On what basis would you claim this ?Please bear in mind this quote from the 6th Edition of _The Origin of Species_ (end of Chapter 15)

quote:

---

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

---

The origin of life is outside the scope of evolutionary theory. So it makes absolutely no difference to evolutionary theory whether or not it can be explained. It is a complete irrelevance.On the other hand nobody says that General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics are no good even though under certain very extreme conditions they disagree and one or both has to be wrong. (I don't want to give an exaggerated sense of the problem - it is important to Cosmology but almost everything else can continue to use current theory, just as for many uses we still rely Newtonian theory rather than GR. Nevertheless at least one of the theories fails to apply to a situation it is meant to cover - even if that situation is very, very, rare).

Given your rapid retreat from a discussion of AiG's science it seems to me that you ARE one of those Christians who "just believes". You clearly don't understand the evidence well enough to defend AiG's claims - just as you can't support your assertion of "hundreds" of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus (although you tried to use such an assertion as evidence you couldn't find even one prophecy that you were prepared to discuss).It is quite obivous that your "evidence" consists only of beleiving what other humans say - without ever checking out the actual evidence itself.