how many things in the theory of evolution arent fact?

Question

Evidence :
-fossil evidence
-carbon dating method
-human dna is only 1.2% divergent from gorillas/chimpanzees
-Pentadactyl limbs that are shared between mammals
-comparative anatomy

which one isnt a fact creationists?

Answer 1

You already answered it with your question, it's a theory. There are a lot of theories but that don't make any of them right, science is constantly changing as they figure out whats wrong and right.

This is a wait and see thing but don't put any belief into it til science has figured out what is truth and what isn't or your going to be all screwed up with weird idea's.

Answer 2

Actually "fact" is a misleading term which implies an absolute that doesn't really exist. People should realize that there are no absolutes in science, there's just a really good chance of something being mostly correct, or correct enough, or a not so good chance.

Take carbon dating, for example. Carbon dating can give us a ballpark figure for how old a formerly living thing really is, but the process isn't infallable. Bacterial contamination can cause things to be dated younger than they really are, and sometimes if something is too old, it can't be properly dated either. Luckly there are other dating methods that can often be used.

Answer 3

The theory of evolution is regarded as correct because a large number of facts support the scientific predictions expected from the theory.

The evidence you cite is factual information that supports the theory, however they are not 'in the theory' itself.

Theories are not facts. Theories are explanations of why we observe the facts we do. Because of this, theories are actually scientifically more important, and more valuable than the facts.

The fact that when you drop things they fall is interesting, but it doesn't really tell us anything. However, taking those observations and applying them with the theory of gravity allows us launch a space probe that can reach the far reaches of the solar system.

There are literally thousands of pieces of factual evidence that support the theory of evolution.

Answer 4

But it is still deemed a theory, isn't it, and the Bible is somehow regarded as fact by many on far less evidence. Curious!

Answer 5

I think my theory is correct, not this evolution from apes nonsense, noway!

See in my theory you were all foxes, then you gradually transformed into humans. This is a proven fact with my equation:

O=Human
V=Fox

O*V+6=R41E

Now R41E is the Brain matter for humans and foxes. As you can clearly see, humans and foxes have the same brain matter, which would then make sense that humans are from foxes.

Answer 6

Fossil evidence like...ape jaws joined on human skulls?
A half evolved human cooked up on finding *one* tooth that might as well have been chipped?

Answer 7

i honestly don't know much about the evolution subject but i don't see why these facts would bother any religious people. I don't believe in it, but i'm not completely against it i guess. God (could have) let his creation change, so what.

Answer 8

I like your question but be careful with the terms "fact" and "theory". Much of what you mentioned here, I believe, are extremely well supported theories. But they are not facts like 1+1=2. The creationist will pounce on that like Mike Tyson on crack.

But the theories behind Evolution are, you can claim with confidence, so well established that it would be foolish to doubt them at this time.

Just my two cents worth,

a

Answer 9

science is not an exact science.
there will always be margin for error.
it is not important what is fact and false.
everything comes down to faith.
God Bless

Answer 10

None of them are facts. As far as fossil evidence is concerned, what fossil evidence? The fossil records don't show evolution, they show that everything seems to come on the scene already well developed. Have you ever heard of the cambian explosion, the so-called, biological big bang. Everything comes upon the scene at that point already well developed with no developing forms before that. Darwin understood that well and it troubled him. Back in 1859 you had no pre-cambrian fossils that had been found. So what you had was already well developed fossils that showed up in the cambrian era and nothing before that. That certainly didn't fit evolution. Darwins explanation was that the pre-cambrian fossils were destroyed because they were so deep and the pressure from the soil above and also the heat, being nearer the earths mantle, destroyed them. But that explanation no longer holds because since then we have found some pre-cambrian fossils but they are so basic, such as bacteria and blue-green algae, that you couldn't have had evolution from these basics to already developed forms without some transitional forms.
And where are all the transitional forms? We have never found one transitional form that everybody seems to agree is a transitional form. We've never even found one that all the evolutionist agree on. Darwin was only too aware of that problem also. He said "they're out there by the millions.....you should be stumbling over them as you walk out your back door"(speaking about transitional forms). That's a quote from Darwin. His explanation as to why they hadn't found them yet was that archeology was in it's infant stages at that time. He predicted that after he was dead they would find them by the millions. But here we are 150 years later and they still haven't found any. Stephan J. Gould who was a Harvard paleontolgist and one of the top evolutionists in the world until he died a few years ago said this:"there's a trade secret among the paleontologists of the world.....namely, that the transitional forms don't exist". My question would be...why is it a trade secret? If the evidence doesn't show evolution why don't they tell the world.
As far as carbon dating is concerned, carbon dating for the most part does not date fossils. Fossils, for the most part, are imprints of former living creatures in rocks. They're not living creatures, they're imprints of living creatures. They're rocks.. Even the bones they find are petrified which make them rock-like also. To date with carbon dating you have to have something that has carbon in it. It's got to be something that was living. Also, since carbon has a half life of 5700 years, it would have to have been living recently. Anything over 200,000 years would not have any carbon left. Most of those fossils are said to be(by the evolutionists) over 200,000 years.
As far as comparative anatomy and human and chimp DNA similarities are concerned:
Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18–23).
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans,1 so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
As far as pentadactyl limbs are concerned: One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.
There are no fact for evolution. If you have some show them to me. The FACT is evolution is a farce. . In your brain there are 100 billion neurons. Each one of those neurons(remember, there's 100 billion of them) is connected to 1000 other neurons. That comes out to 100 trillion connections in your brain. These connections send electronic signals(and you can measure the electricity) from one place to another. If part of the brain is damaged and you lose some function that is controlled by that part of the brain, the brain can actually re-wire itself and let other neurons in the undamaged part of the brain take over so that you can get back that function. That's only the connections in the brain, not the rest of the body.
Our bodies also have tons of information in the DNA. You have enough information in your DNA to fill encyclopedia sized books stacked from here to the moon and back 500 times. Do you really think that came about by just random chance........kind of like a monkey typing out the works of Shakespear just by randomly plucking away at the keys?
You need to step back and look at the big picture of what is being claimed by evolution, namely, that the unbelieveable complexity of the human brain(not to mention the rest of the body) is nothing more than re-arranged pond scum. It’s pond scum from the original prebiotic soup re-arranged over billions of years into 100 trillion connections in the brain by luck…..just random chance.