“...
Kalamata on evolution theory: “It has never been confirmed, or even observed. It is a theory on life support, perpetuated by suppression of opposing theories.
It is dead, for all practical purposes. “
......”
Kalamata continues to demonstrate the difference between dogma & science. He also continues to show that he is angry that dogma is not science and science is not dogma.
He also shows a complete misunderstanding of the word “theory”. Theories come & go as we observe more facts. However when I say “come & go” its doesn’t mean they disappear the are 999/1000 subsumed into a larger explanation/theory. For example I have a book on my shelf called Classical Theory of Electromagnetics (I include electrodynamics in electromagnetics.). Is it right or wrong? Is it dogma or science? Well this book does not include relativistic electromagnetics. I have other books that do. The classical theory has been subsumed into the theory that takes into account relativity. Something will come along and subsume it into a larger theory. (Einstein thought so!) You can do the same with mechanics. Aristotelian mechanics was subsumed by Galilean mechanics which was subsumed by Newtonian (Classical Mechanics) which was subsumed by Einstein’s relativity. There are a myriad of other science examples. If the case is closed, the explanation complete and their nothing in the explanation/theory that allows it to be subsumed into a larger theory then it isn’t science. (Its Global Warning!). I mean “dogma”!
“...or even observed ....”
It has been observed! You don’t accept the interpretations of the observations. Which is fine, you’re perfectly free to do so. But you can’t honestly say it hasn’t been observed!
Reily, was your intent to talk behind my back, or did you forget to ping me?
*******************
>>Kalamata continues to demonstrate the difference between dogma & science. He also continues to show that he is angry that dogma is not science and science is not dogma.
You have it backwards, Reily. I was an evolutionist well into my 60’s, at which time I took a look at the evidence for the first time. Science is about observable evidence, not dogma and story-telling like we get from evolutionists.
*******************
>>He also shows a complete misunderstanding of the word “theory”.
Quit lying.
*******************
>>Theories come & go as we observe more facts. However when I say “come & go” its doesn’t mean they disappear the are 999/1000 subsumed into a larger explanation/theory. For example I have a book on my shelf called Classical Theory of Electromagnetics (I include electrodynamics in electromagnetics.). Is it right or wrong? Is it dogma or science? Well this book does not include relativistic electromagnetics. I have other books that do. The classical theory has been subsumed into the theory that takes into account relativity. Something will come along and subsume it into a larger theory. (Einstein thought so!) You can do the same with mechanics. Aristotelian mechanics was subsumed by Galilean mechanics which was subsumed by Newtonian (Classical Mechanics) which was subsumed by Einstein’s relativity. There are a myriad of other science examples.”
Leave it to an evolutionist to conflate empirical science, such as mechanics, with historical “science”, such as evolutionism. That is deceitful.
*******************
>>If the case is closed, the explanation complete and their nothing in the explanation/theory that allows it to be subsumed into a larger theory then it isn’t science. (Its Global Warning!). I mean “dogma”!
Add evolutionism to that list, following global warming.
*******************
>>It has been observed! You don’t accept the interpretations of the observations. Which is fine, you’re perfectly free to do so. But you can’t honestly say it hasn’t been observed!
I can honestly say evolution has never been observed. I can also honestly say that you can present absolutely NO scientific evidence in support of evolution.
Mr. Kalamata
By the way, you may wonder why I bring up Holocaust denial.
One reason is, when I read this from Kalamata, it is almost word-for-word the language of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago.
They pretend they've already scored points, won the argument and so do their little end-zone victory dance.
Of course that's absurd and they're actually dancing in their own endzone!