Why Evolution is science

I think that Evolution is 'crack' science because it does not satisfy the requirements for scientific study in the first place. Science demands that that which is studied be testable, demonstrable and observable of which Evolution doesn't qualify. We certainly can observe speciation and adaptation which falls under micro-evolution but we cannot observe or test physiological changes which occur that result in a totally different creature. That is assumed and based on inference. If it is claimed that Evolution occured over millions of years, then how can we observe it? I believe that Evolution be taught as a religion and not as part of science.

Yes, we observe speciation but I don't agree that it falls under macro-evo. There are many different species of birds but they're still birds, they're just different variations and have adapted. That sounds like micro-evolution to me. Now, if you can, give me an ovserved case of macro-Evoltion, that is a creature completely changing into something esle?

The fact is that we have distinctly different creatures on this planet, yes, we are all made up of atoms and most creatures have common features such as eyes, ears and skin but we observe that they're different for example a dog and a fish. Now logic would conclude that those creatures had a common ancestor meaning that the fish gave rise to various species of fish if you would like. Just like we have variations of birds, cats and dogs, we have variations of humans to a lesser extent. This reveals to me a common designer, that seems logical to me. Coming back to your post, on what basis do you believe that creature x evolved into creature y (x and y denoting two different creatures) when we simply cannot observe the changes since they happened over millions and millions of years according to Evolution theory? Consider that certain assumptions not based on science have been made in order that evolution seem more plausible.

Well you're assuming that the Egyptians built them, there's a real difference here. Now consider that maybe giants built those pyramids even before the Egyptians were around. A bible verse mentions that 'there were giants on the Earth in those days'. Now if I'm totally off-track here remember that the Evolution theory is based on wild figures of millions of years which we cannot even comprehend, which are in fact inferential. We're talking thousands of years which is far easier to comprehend and doesn't require mental gymnastics. Must just add that those millions of years are based largely on circular reasoning for example the rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks.

Hi ChiropteraThats perfectly agreeable, it's just that so many claim Evolution to be scientific fact and I think that the majority of evolutionists would disagree with your post. I will add that I like Science, heck!, it certainly has brought us this far.

Yep, it really is easy to stray from the topic. I don't think I have much more to add though so I may move on sometime..

Hi razdHow do you know that birds were once dinosaurs? Do you accept this because science tells you so?Remeber, that was millions of years ago so how does anyone know?

That is your worldview chiroptera but I certainly don't subscribe to it. It is very easy and convenient to accept Evolution in a world that does not want a God, that's the short of it but since we cannot prove Gods existence or non-existence I must mention that when I see the beauty in this world in contrast to the suffering of creatures and mankind I admit that I have to believe in God. Scientists can theorise, hypothesize and extrapolate but man inherently makes mistakes, who would doubt that? Now who am I to question Evolution when I have aboslutely no qualifications on the matter, on the other hand Evolution is neither fact since we absolutely cannot know for sure, regardless of ones knowledge on the subject. Those 'millions' of years are impossible to account for and we don't even know how it is that we are living on this planet but please, Evolution is not Scientific fact! That I know for sure.

I'm off now, back soon!I've enjoyed the forum

Hi allI googled Evolution is not Science and found this article. What are your opinions on this..Evolution is NOT Science
by David J. Stewart
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" -1st Timothy 6:20
I frequently receive e-mails from evolutionists who accuse me of being ignorant of science. The absurdity of their accusations rests in the FACT that evolution is NOT based upon science, but rather upon unproven speculations. "Science" means "to study." How can you study something that doesn't exist? How can you call evolution science if it cannot be studied? Evolution is a THEORY, not science. The reason why evolution is only a theory is simply because no one can prove that it ever happened.
If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution. Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
God's creation is able to be studied, it is science. Evolution makes huge ASSUMPTIONS which cannot be studied. The only FACT which the evolutionists know for sure about the MISSING LINK is that it is STILL MISSING.

Ok, I had a look at that site. As usual, micro-evolution was
cited which is perfectly acceptable but when hoaxes are
involved, alarm bells sound!!
I found this regarding archaeoptryx and as is the case with
other so called 'missing links' there is an explanation for
them all which is not in favour of the theory.Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax”it is a truebird, not a “missing link”
by Jonathan Sarfati, AiG-Australia
24 March 2000Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and
Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle
is completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains
dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating
manganese dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some
of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the
Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the
feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he
backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab
dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding
dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have
formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split.
Since that book, more recent evidence has even further
devastated the hoax theory:
The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This
indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air
sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern
birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design
was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the
earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with
feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly
reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist
view that birds have always been birds.
Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning
shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s,
three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size
(although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx
even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed
for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea
length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of
a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could
hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance
required for coordinating flight.5 Pterosaurs likewise had
similar brain structures for flight”the large optic lobes,
semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes,
probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing
gaze-stabilization while flying.6 Once more, a forger adding
feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian
braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.

"Which both have bones, a central vertebrate nervous system, a closed
circulatory system, calciferous teeth, aerobic cellular metabolism, and generate amino acid polypeptides based on the same substitution codes."
But that doesn't prove millions of years of change, indicates a common designer."Well, we can observe the changes over millions of years; the fossil
record provides a static record of changes that have occured in the
past."
The fossil record is very incomplete. Why is it always assumed to be
over millions of years? It has to be stressed to make the theory look
plausible."Moreover, we can see it happen in the present, too; we make direct
observations of new species arising from old ones." Again this does not indicate macro-evolution or prove millions of years. Products of variation and adaptation."Untrue. Evolution is based on scientific evidence, not assumptions."
The whole idea is an assumption. I stick to real science..

Ok crashfog, please enlighten me with an example of macro-evolution that we see happening right before our eyes?

The way I see it is that the whole of nature disproves macro-evolution but not micro-evolution. We simply cannot directly observe macro-evolution and if someone could provide an example I would greatly appreciate it.

Micro, as in variation and adaptation.
Macro, as in complete change fronm one creature into another.
Thanks..