Shout out to Forest M Mims III, the OG 555 circuit guru.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims
replies(1):
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-the-basi...
My biggest critiques are that it consistently fails its predictions. You’d see an endless stream of intermediate forms going in so many directions. Instead, we saw few if any, nature organized more hierarchically, and organisms just appear out of thin air after extinctions (eg Cambrian Explosion). Instead of falsification, scientists keep making excuses for it like it is a religion that can’t be wrong.
I’ll add that humans have observed creatures, in their areas and in captivity, for a long time. We haven’t seen the chickens start giving birth to different animals. I’m grateful the fire ants and poisonous spiders we’re dodging haven’t turned into something more effective. Dumb evolution would have a crazy number of adaptation streams happening, many attempts per species, to create all the life we see. Instead, we see exactly zero movement from one kind of animal to another with changes only happening within kinds.
Whereas, studies of creation itself have proven the opposite. Everything from our non-life experiments to evolutionary algorithms show a creator who fine tunes is necessary. The universe itself has many constants that never change, they work together in precise ways, all has perfect reliability, and life on Earth depends on most of them. Complexity of most of biology is such that we’re incapable of manufacturing it. (See a lung vs a respirator.) It only gets more and more impossible over time the more we learned.
On time scales (X is millions of years old), they seem to assume the Earth didn’t change much at all over a long period of time. A specific thing changes at rate X. They’ll roll the clock back that much until they hit a point in their theory. Both human literature (esp Genesis) and the fossil record show catastrophes with huge effects on the Earth. It probably went through many changes. So, all time estimates that make that assumption are faith-based, likely-incorrect beliefs no matter how many textbooks they end up in. There is a minority studying Catastrophism or something like that to understand their effect.
Finally, godless science that broke from Christian scientists, like Newton and Pascal, all backed David Hume saying only material, observable things exist. Nothing else is ever allowed in scientific theory. A faith-based, unproven belief. While still making godless and materialism axiomatic, the same scientists tell us of a world outside our universe, exceeding the laws of physics, and maybe even having effects on observed phenomenon. Instead of things with evidence (eg Bible), they’ve shifted to purely-imaginary constructs outside the universe to support their claims which themselves contradict the Hume foundation they demand of us. They do it while denying the logical implications of the complexity and fine-tuning we’ve observed.
Those are some examples of counters to mainstream creation, like evolution and long timescales, being a pile of faith-based dogma that continues to fail in scientific experiments, historical writings, complexity theory, and global observations by laypeople. Outside of minor adaptation, evolution theory is provably false which leaves God as the primary hypothesis. From there, we consider whichever God claim has the most evidence and impact. That’s Jesus Christ. :)