If it is "about facts" then give us at least one. Please, we are all waiting.
It’s not theism vs. science or Republicans vs. science, but rather theism vs. naturalism.
We cannot agree that primordial slime can yield intelligent life when time and chance are added.
Evolution ASSUMES the myth of millions/billions of years. In the end, evolutionists have an arbitrary (not absolute) OPINION about millions/billions of years, not a time machine that measures time.
Evolution is so plastic and changing and evolving, it can EXPLAIN anything.
Evolution ASSUMES the unproven philosophy of materialism, naturalism, uniformatarianism, and a host of other empirically unproven and irrational tenets.
Natural selection is not in contention; it is something we all agree on. Evolution ERRANTLY ASSUMES Common Descent.
Evolution ASSUMES one species can change into another. Even the village idiot is not that stupid.
Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.
There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence. Anyone can repeat and observe the results; empirical science, observational science, operational science, all the same thing.
Evolution is part of "historical" science that requires no observable, testable, repeatable evidence. Evolution is an unsupported OPINION.
Science cannot even make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—but let's say you can just for fun. Turn it into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
What you are looking for is empirical evidence. That may be a new idea to most atheists, so define your terms. Empirical evidence is how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact.
If the atheist is right, and there is no absolute truth, science could discover nothing. But the atheist is a delusional nutjob denier with an irrational position that he cannot possibly quantify as true w/o using logical fallacy and circular reasoning. This pariah of society has no responsibility to truth and so is untrustworthy.
Empirical Evidence against evolution
1. Watson and Crick disproved Darwinian Evolution in 1953, but some people still must believe in "mythology & folklore," because we're still discussing it, still trying to get the correct information out to dispense with an infinite number of lies that develop around the myth called evolution.
The mechanism for Darwinian Evolution was discredited in 1953 when Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA refuted Darwin's assertion that the possible variation was infinite thereby disproving the common dissent aspect of Darwin's Model.
2. Crick says the human genome cannot occur randomly. If life cannot occur randomly, evolution in the past is impossible. Proof enough.
3. Evolution relies on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is empirically proven false over and over, and will remain false until it isn't. Abiogenesis violates the natural universal law of biogenesis--life comes from life, not non-life. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven false. That means evolution has no starting point and is therefore non-existent.
4. The Natural Laws pertaining to information hold that information is immaterial and that matter cannot bring forth anything immaterial. Yet the whole of the material universe contains vast amounts of information. To assert a materialistic explanation, it is necessary to demonstrate information arising from material interactions.. When we include DNA into the mix we are talking not just information but language - including syntax and grammar and complex algorithms. Not only can science not explain this but the Natural Laws pertaining to Information assert this type of information cannot be produced by matter or material interactions.
This is yet another line of evidence that invalidates systematic materialism..
5. Natural selection is well established but a common tactic is to point to evidence of natural selection and assert it proves common descent.. best to clarify Common Descent so everybody is talking about the same thing.
a. The net product of natural selection is a loss of information - the opposite of what is needed to drive common descent.
b. Gene knockout experiments have demonstrated once a gene is knocked out the cell uses other pathways to obtain what it needs. As a result there is no basis for natural selection to preserve the mutation, and good reasons not to.
c. Experiments and observation demonstrate most mutations are not random but are the product of guided physiological processes - once again observation and experimentation contradict the evolutionary model's claims.
d. Genes are not central and experimental evidence has demonstrated it is not the genes but other factors that determine body types - as all the selection in the world will not produce a novel body type because body type is not mediated by the genes.
At first the inferences used to argue evolution are almost compelling, but looking more closely they all fall through. Evolution fails because the more observations you make and the more data you gather the less viable it becomes. The point has been reached where those arguing for evolution sound more like the Greek Sophists than scientists!
-- the Darwinist's have been comparing the genes but ignoring the organization and structure.. Looking at organization and structure they would have found that the genes for this or that protein was located on different chromosomes. Genomics is concluding that all mammals have a common compliment of proteins (and so genes coding for those proteins) but where those proteins are coded in the Genome varies from genus to genus. Building a tree of life taking into consideration where in the genome the individual proteins are coded and you have something completely different than just looking at individual genes. This is one of several reasons Genetics and genomics empirically disprove Darwinism.
The simple fact is the more data that comes in - the less plausible Darwinism (any of it's forms) becomes. Were it not for the social and political aspects of the theory it would have been abandoned a long time ago.