Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Opinion
Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Evolution debate persists because it's not science
By Raymond H. Kocot
...
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.
Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...
(Excerpt) Read more at myrtlebeachonline.com ...
I see that you and Carmelgal (AKA Strawgal) have met :o)
How does a light photon travel billions of miles without losing energy through friction?
Good morning, Allmendream. I thought I’d poor you a cup of right-back-at-ya d:op
Geology debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because the Evos disagree with its findings.
Astronomy debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because Evos disagree with its findings.
Physics debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because Evos disagree with its findings.
I think this article was too ambitious. It tried to cover too much. I found it a bit choppy as it quickly went from one element of the debate to another, without fleshing out any particular element. Still, it had it’s good points.
I have sympathy for the author. Sometimes one wants to cover a lot of ground quickly. However the gulf that separates people is sometimes too great.
For example, last night I spoke with a liberal relative and suggested that the new deal did not work. He responded that he was well aware of recent “partisan” interpretations of the new deal. When I said Reagan turned the economy around. He said Reagan left the country bankrupt. When I mentioned that government recently pressured banks to make subprime loans, he responded with incredulity that there was “no regulation” in some financial markets. If I mention socialism in America, he laughs. If the economy ends up stinking after eight years of Obama and Democratic Congresses, he will conclude that Obama inherited a really big mess. It is not surprising that he gets a lot of liberal news; the news industry is liberal. It just isn’t possible for me to convert him in one conversation. So there. I vented. But I also tried to make the point that it is just about impossible to quickly get through to someone who has a different world view.
Can this author, in a single article, convince generations who have been indoctrinated on “the fact of evolution” in high school and college? It just isn’t possible.
I enjoyed parts of the article. Other parts left me confused:
“Three decades after his gene theory was rejected by the scientific community, he ridiculed scientists that touted intelligent design theory.”
Is the author referring to Dawkins (of the previous paragraph)?
There are many fields of interest to mankind. Some are amenable to repeatable laboratory experiments. Some are amenable to frequent field observation. Some are amenable to firm reason, logic, and mathematical analysis. Some are amenable to introspection. Some “explain,” some “predict.” The differences are in the subject matter, more so than the skills of the individuals who pursue the topics.
I read Darwin’s Origin of the Species and found it to be highly speculative. Since it was written, generations have followed his leads and searched for evidence for evolution. The subject remains speculative.
Gould and Etheridge revised the theory to dispense with the need for fossil evidence. Then they admitted that the fossil record did not support change (Darwin’s evolution) but stasis. In one fell swoop, the supposedly massive fossil evidence for evolution was declared null and void. No one was too upset with Gould and Etheridge because they were on the right side: they believed in evolution and Gould, the more outspoken, ridiculed creationists. Is this science where people first agree on the answer, then accept or reject facts at their convenience? I think not.
DallasMike claims to be a Christian and a creationist, and I’m calling him a liar.
I take it that DallasMike is not on your side?
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
Dr. George Wald
Evolutionist
Where do Evos disagree with physics?
He doesn't need to. His education consists of what he was told in Sunday School at the age of seven and his work background consists solely of posting threads to FR.
The ramblings of one devoid of understanding.
All "old age" estimates of the age of the universe fail because they disregard the expansion of time that had to go hand in hand with the expansion of space. There has to be a point from which all things originated, and expanded, and at that point the true age is quite small.
Earth is that point. (whether you like it or not)
"compare the geneologies in Matthew 1:6-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. I believe that the Bible is literally true, and I know several possible ways of reconciling the contradiction. How would you explain the contradiction?"
If you were a Bible student rather than a Bible attacker, you would probably know that God declared that certain people would be removed from Israel's history for their idolatry, and constant disobediance. They happen to be the ones missing from that geneology. Amazing, huh?
According to theory, with acceleration time slows down. Therefore the '24 hours' in the Bible (told to us in our frame of reference were actually billions of years in real time.
==Where do Evos disagree with physics?
Starlight and timea further breakthrough
A stunning new book by a physics professor purports to show more firmly than ever how light from the most distant stars would have reached Earth in a very short time.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6184/
A photon is not matter, and is absorbed if it encounters matter. It can continue to propagate only as long as it contacts nothing.
Are you a sixth grader just beginning to read old sci-fi books?
The obvious problem with your stupid idea is that it is the rest of the universe, not Earth that is accelerated away from us.
Here is your scientific proof? Egad!
“By plugging this galactocentric universe into Carmelis equations, and then adding the biblical stretching out of the heavens by God at creation (big bangers can scarcely disagree, as they call something like that inflation), what falls out is an astonishing by-product. Namely, that there are built-in gravitational time-dilating effects”
Are you a sixth grader just beginning to read old sci-fi books?
The obvious problem with your stupid idea is that it is the rest of the universe, not Earth that is accelerated away from us.
You really are a sixth grader!
Quote mine project Placemarker.....................
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html
See my ***Tagline***
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
But you said that friction was a reality in all physical functions. Movement of a photon is a physical function. Friction requires energy to overcome thus according you your definition a photon should lose energy based on how far it travels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.