Science, a study of the observable, is clear concise and rather limited in scope. However, evolution, anthropogenic climate change etc is not science in that strict sense.
If an experiment is fraught with assumptions of the otherwise unobservable, then it is not science, but a mixture of assumptive belief and observable phenomenon. Not science. You cannot observe what was, only what is.
Example, If we assume that all carbon was of a uniform atomic number at the origin, then we can infer that so much time has passed since origin based on the observable amounts of isotopic carbon in nature compared to decay rates (assuming static rates of decay-see another wrench). However, if we assume that at origin, there were numerous isotopes of carbon, and or that decay rates may not remain constant) then we have no idea how much time has transpired since origin.
The former assumption is what is used in the “science” of time today, the latter is what skeptics of that first assumptive timeline outcome question. Since no observation can be made as to the actual condition of carbon at origin, then the whole of the output is questionable.
The best answer to this question is “we don’t know” what the characteristic of carbon was at origin; unfortunately, that leaves the output of “how much time” has transpired since origin (creation) has passed. For secularists, that poses a problem, for the faithful, it is irrelevant.
Evolution is science, in any sense. As a process, it is quite well documented with millions of observations and tested by countless controlled experiments. If you have noticed that children are not identical to their parents, you have observed evolution in action. Evolution impacts just about all of life science. As a theory, it does everything a theory is supposed to do: provide a framework that unites all known facts and allows for the formulation of working hypotheses that scientists use to design experiments to reveal new facts.
If an experiment is fraught with assumptions of the otherwise unobservable, then it is not science, but a mixture of assumptive belief and observable phenomenon. Not science. You cannot observe what was, only what is.
In that case, forensics must not be a science, but is just a guessing game, since determining what happened at a crime scene depends completely on what was, not what is. Although you cannot observe directly the process of evolution as it happened thousands or millions of years ago, you can look at the evidence left behind, both in the paleontologic record and in phylogenetic analyses of current and recent living species. And you absolutely can look at the process of evolution as it shapes currently living species, since it is an on-going process.
Example, If we assume that all carbon was of a uniform atomic number at the origin, then we can infer that so much time has passed since origin based on the observable amounts of isotopic carbon in nature compared to decay rates (assuming static rates of decay-see another wrench). However, if we assume that at origin, there were numerous isotopes of carbon, and or that decay rates may not remain constant) then we have no idea how much time has transpired since origin.
The atomic number of carbon is invariable. Carbon is an atom with the atomic number of 6, meaning that it has 6 protons in the nucleus. If the atomic number is not 6, then the atom is not carbon. The atomic mass of an atom is the number of protons plus the number of neutrons. Most carbon atoms have 6 neutrons, but small fractions of carbon have 7 or 8 neutrons, making the average atomic mass slightly more than 12. The ratio of higher atomic mass carbon (C-13 and C-14) to C-12 is fairly constant, and is a reflection of solar activity since carbon isotopes are created when solar radiation interacts with carbon. The decay rate of isotopes is absolutely constant; the only people who have tried to say that decay rates can be random or variable are non-scientists, usually those running pseudoscience scam sites like Answers in Genesis, and their target audience are those who know nothing about real science.
The former assumption is what is used in the “science” of time today, the latter is what skeptics of that first assumptive timeline outcome question. Since no observation can be made as to the actual condition of carbon at origin, then the whole of the output is questionable.
The best answer to this question is “we don’t know” what the characteristic of carbon was at origin; unfortunately, that leaves the output of “how much time” has transpired since origin (creation) has passed. For secularists, that poses a problem, for the faithful, it is irrelevant.
I'll be blunt--these last two paragraphs don't make any sense.
The truly faithful should not have to try to discredit science or call scientists liars to maintain their faith. I would question the strength of faith of anyone whose faith is threatened by the fact that the evidence is that the universe and life have been evolving for billions of years, and that everything did not just spring into existence some 6,000 (+/-) years ago.