What is your knowledge of evolution, physics, biology, genetics, astronomy? How can you be critical of something you know nothing about?
You claim scientists are making stuff up as they go but have no understanding of the scientific method. It is in fact YOU, who is making stuff up about scientists, science and the theory of evolution, which you have no understanding of. I suggest reading and studying a subject before you criticize it. At least I have read the bible, front to back and was brought up in a religious family. I know the christian religion quite well and am able to see it for what it is.
I am also a scientist and understand the rigorous process for something to be published in a peer review journal. The amount of double checking facts and cross-referencing involved. Something you are unwilling to do or make an effort for. The amount of criticism and testing and verification a theory goes through, especially one as controversial as evolution, for it to be accepted is beyond you. So please, don't criticize it when you have no idea how something works and are too lazy to make the effort to understand it.
Fact: Life did not spring into being all at once. It has been a gradual process beginning over 3 billion years ago. Dinosaurs and humans did not share the earth and are separated by over 60 million years. This is a fact that cannot be denied and is overwhelmingly supported by the fossil record. Therefore Genesis is false.
Fact: Rabbits do not chew their cud and Bats are not birds, they are mammals. Therefore Deuteronomy 14:7 and 18 are false
Fact: The universe was not made in 7 days. It is at least 14 billion years old. Genesis false.
Noah's Ark, it is impossible. The dimensions of the Ark are given in the bible, "the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits". That is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.
Taking into account the mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, flowering plants, trees, mushrooms, algae, lichens, mosses that could not survive in the ocean for the 367 day duration of the flood, it would total approximately 1,800,000 species (this is a very conservative estimate). That's 3,600,000 individuals. Given the dimensions of the Ark, it is physically impossible to fit this many individuals into the boat.
Therefore Noah's Ark is physically impossible.
Also, with the earth now covered in ocean, all of the fresh water fish now inundated with salt water would have gone extinct.
In addition, the amount of fresh water (rain) needed to cover the earth would have changed the salinity of the ocean. Most marine life cannot survive in water of reduced salinity and would have died as a result of the influx of fresh water.
Therefore Noah's Ark is chemically impossible.
Also, if there had been a flood that killed the dinosaurs, the distribution of fossils would have been completely different. They would not have followed the timescale we see today and represented in evolution but scattered randomly and at even levels within the geologic layers.
Naoh's Ark is archeological impossible.
These are just a few examples of the bible's falsehoods. I can go on and on and on.
I will take a quote from earlier in this thread for you to understand:
Take a rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother next to the mother and so on back in time. Back, back, back, back, back, back through the megayears, a seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we'll eventually notice that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan't notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can't see the motion of the hour hand on our watches - and just as we can't see a child growing, we can only see later that she has become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don't notice the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century, the variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation between mothers and daughters. So if we try to discern the movement of the 'hour hand' by comparing mothers with daughters, or indeed grandmothers with granddaughters, such slight differences as we may see will be swamped by the differences among the rabbits' friends and relations gambolling in the meadows round about. Nevertheless, steadily and imperceptibly, as we retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and more and more like a shrew (and not very like either).
This is in a nutshell a visual summary of evolution to a small scale, speciation. Speciation has been witnessed in the real world and documented over short periods of time. I don't understand how you can accept this part of the theory over a short period of time but can't accept the small incremental changes accumulating into a large change over an immense period of time. Add in the genetic evidence and fossil record and it just doesn't make sense to me how you can have that position.
I find it interesting you mentioning the human DNA and its length and complexity. Do you know how much of that code is not used? Most of the genes within our DNA are vestigial, or relics from our ancestors and are inactive. Did you realize we have a gene to make yolk sacks? It is a fossil gene. Our genome is loaded with fossil genes. Did you know the human fetus is covered in fur at 33-36 weeks? At the same point in gestation as the chimpanzee. We still retain that gene, but the fur is shed for us and continues to grow for chimpanzees.
I don't see how someone could understand the complexity of the human body and genome and not believe evolution and believe it was designed by some perfect creator. The only way people can believe that is by not understanding the complexity of the eye , or the genome, or nerve endings and their many imperfections. Lack of understanding is what leads to religion. What we don't understand we have called it god. God of the gaps. But the more we knew the less need for a god to fill those gaps. Our increased understanding and knowledge of the facts is what opens our eyes to religion's falsehoods.
If you don't understand how a caterpillar changes into a butterfly then I can't help you. May I suggest reading a few books? And if God wanted to show how nuts the theory of evolution was, don't you think he would have made it a little more obvious? Maybe make the evidence for evolution not so strong? Maybe not make the human genome practically identical to chimpanzee DNA, or not make the fossil record evolving from simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms over billions of years, or not have species embryological development display characteristics of evolutionary ancestors, or not have humans and many lifeforms with vestigial structures, or not have the genomes of humans and other creatures have vestigial genes or genes of common descent and not have the human genome dominated by inactive genes like the gene to make yolk, or not have species display adaptaions to their surroundings through natural selection, or not have the "design" of humans and other species so poorly designed and filled with imperfections, or......I can keep going if you would like.