Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

quote:

---

Actually, it turns out that lungs evolved even before the swim bladders possessed by most fish.

---

Indeed, it is widely believed that swim bladders evolved from lungs.In fact, lung fish are called lung fish because they possess lungs. In fact, according to one web site, lung fish can drown if they are not allowed to breathe air.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This is a good one. This is at least very much on topic. You made a firm statment here.What, exactly, things have been changed in the theory to fit new facts? Be sure you understand what you are refering to.

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.

"I have heard many times that the Theory of Evolution is "bad science"."TOE is more of a "bogus science" than bad science.here's a good website that debunks TOE.evolutiondeceit.com is for sale | HugeDomains{added by Edit - Welcome to EvC. Please take the time to read through our Forum Guidelines. You will find that arguing by cut and paste is not regarded as a good debate tactic around here and is proscribed by our Forum Guidelines. We do not debate websites. Please make your argument in your own words and use weblinks as support. - The Queen}Edited by AdminAsgara, : removed large cut and paste

Hi, smegma! That's a very interesting screen name, particularly for a Harun Yahya fan such as you appear to be. Welcome to EvC!

smegmaI want to welcome you to EvC! I see you've found several topics that interest you. In my signature box you will find several threads that can help you make your time here more productive. Please pay special attention to our Forum Guidelines.One issue that is really frowned upon in debates here is the use of huge cut and paste entries from websites, especially with no input from you. We do not debate websites here. In the future, please post your own arguments in your own words. If you want to use Harun Yahya as a support to your views you can quote select, small portions and cite your resource. If all you plan on doing is to recreate your link on our server it will be removed.Thanks in advance for your cooperation and again...WELCOME

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

"One issue that is really frowned upon in debates here is the use of huge cut and paste entries from websites, especially with no input from you. We do not debate websites here. In the future, please post your own arguments in your own words."i'm not a scientist so i'm gonna need sources(websites) to back up what i say here.

of course, that is expected. In fact, it is necessary to supply back up when asked.However, the arguments are still supposed to be yours. If you need to refer to facts as gathered and published elsewhere that is good and needed.If you wish to refer to someone else's explanation of the reasoning supporting your conclusions that is fine too but you have to be able to also give it in your own words. "Because he says so" is not an acceptable arguement. It is a fallacy to argue from authority in fact.If you do refer to any sources as support you can pretty much bet they will be examined and critisized. You have to be prepared to understand the critisism and answer it.Mostly we find that creationist sites post "facts" which are utterly incorrect. Be prepared for this.

"Mostly we find that creationist sites post "facts" which are utterly incorrect."damn!how bias is that lol.i'm done debating here.

Is that a new record? Two hours, maybe?

That was quick. You give up rather easily? It is just a warning. If you don't pick your sources well you will find that they are easily torn up. If you think I'm wrong in my assessment of the sources that you will choose then you will enjoy rubbing my nose in it in the near future.

Evolution doesn't even have anything to say at this point about how the very first single-celled organisms came into being. There isn't any evidence one way or another, so until there is, it's all speculative. However there's loads of evidence that from the first few types of single-celled organisms to come about, all other life later sprang.
The Left Coaster: Comment on Frist Wants Intelligent Design Taught Alongside Evolution In SchoolsThis is what most Evolutionists sound like. So.....is Evolution a-causal (to of course say that the cause is that there is no cause, would be nonsense)? Or does it have a cause? By the way, Evolution doesn't have anything to say about how life came from the first single-celled organisms into being.You'll notice a direct contradiction afterwards, when she says there is a load of evidence that life sprang from a single cell in the next sentence after she mentions its speculation.This is blatantly false, but mostly how Evolutionists present their theory.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

Through Ad Hominem attacks I'm sure he will try.

I think if you actually read what you quoted you will see that there is no contradiction

quote:

---

Evolution doesn't even have anything to say at this point about how the very first single-celled organisms came into being. There isn't any evidence one way or another, so until there is, it's all speculative

---

and

quote:

---

However there's loads of evidence that from the first few types of single-celled organisms to come about, all other life later sprang.

---

are most certainly not contradictory, whatever you think of the truth/false status of the statements...ABE: use the peek button (bottom right) to see the codes for generating both these types of quote boxes.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.