Quote
I still don't think there's much to compare between using history as evidence as there is using science. There is an infinite number of facts about the universe a 7th grader can prove in a laboratory at school; history books are subject to impurity - after all, you'd have to trust what's been written in order to know it's factual in the first place. And even if you can get past that issue, there's still the fact that it cannot be tested and verified time and time again.

Here's a wonderful quote I dug up on the subject


How ironic. If such thinking was applied to the evolution theory, as you've applied with history - what would be left? You have admitted that history books are subject to impurity - could the same possibility exist with evolution theories in science textbooks? Are you absolutely certain what they tell us about origins is correct without observation and physical evidence?

Has it been observed that one kind of creature evolves into another under certain conditions/circumstances? Has such a theory been tested and verified time and time again? Have you seen the fossil record showing simple life to complex/full form?

I've simply applied this to evolution as you have applied to history.

At least with history, there are usually witnesses/documents/testimonies (medical and otherwise) oral history, physical aftermarths in cases of war/abuse etc and in many cases even photographs/film etc. The list goes on because we can find much out through our ancestory/generations and there usually more ways than one to verify such statements.

Doing so also (hopefully) educates future generations to avoid repeating past unfortunate mistakes and horrors. Though not all changes = better! In some circumstances we have to re-evaluate what has been dictated as updated and "improved" after deterioration or even disastrous results have been observed and learn from our ancestors and occassionally re-employ the good old faithful methods. History connects very much with science/experiments/testing and future generations learning from past, avoiding past mistakes, improving on past discoveries/breakthroughs

But let's consider the theory of evolution itself - what evidence is there in regards to our origins? What are the testing methods that have been employed that give evidence that life arose from simplicity that is compatible with science/observation/fossils?

Quote
It's not that scientists are more honest people. It's just that nature is a harsh taskmaster. You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution as long as you like, and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry, and it'll be refuted tomorrow.


Which is why you'll find evolutionists present very little substance in their posts to back up claims and prefer instead to employ assumptions and scenarios and shifting burdens of proof. Nature isn't too kind regarding the evolution theory of origins when we look at physical evidence in the fossil record. It simply dictates the opposite.