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 ...
As Ernst Mayr points out, Darwood could not experiment in the past, so he invented just-so “historical narratives” for the atheists and materialists in need of intellectual fulfillment of today...and you guys fell for it...LOL!:As usual you don't understand how science works. The problem is that you and the rest of the Crevo dimwits have taken "naturalistic materalism" and tried to use it as a lense to interpret Christianity. Hence all the bilge about dinosaurs being on the ark.“The most widely used method in the physical sciences is the experiment. However, in his evolutionary studies Darwin had to cope with a factor that is irrelevant in most of the physical sciences except in geology and cosmology, the time factor. One cannot experiment with biological happenings in the past. Phenomena like the extinction of the dinosaurs and all other evolutionary events are inaccessible to the experimental method and require an entirely different methodology, that of the so-called “historical narratives.” In this method one develops an imaginary scenario of past happenings on the basis of their consequences. One then makes all sorts of predictions from this scenario and determines whether or not they have come true.”
Unfortunately for the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, Darwood’s “historical” narratives are being falsified right and left, thus creating an ever increasing number leaks to develop in the hull of the HMS Beagle. Indeed, it has started to sink so fast, that it has the Evos panicked to the point of publishing articles in the New York Times (of all places!) to the effect that Darwin must die so that evolution might live. Don’t you get it, Ketsu, just about everybody who is anybody knows that the HMS Beagle is going down—except you. Or perhaps you’re just doing the honorable thing by going down with the ship. LOL.
That's also why you mindlessly project your own hero worship onto others. Hate to burst your bubble but science doesn't work that way.
Nah, he's not upset. Upset is when you post multiple articles per day repeating long-disproven or simply irrelevant talking points, drawn from small pool of like-minded web sites and occasional articles from the opinion pages of small newspapers, even though one's opponents draw freely from a century of technical and lay scientific literature and happily slap down these talking points as a way to pass time during commercial breaks. That's upset. That's a level of upset that, if directed into the electrical grid, could power a small city. It's too bad there's only one of you, GunGodsGuts. A few hundred more and we could solve the country's energy problems.If you keep this up, you might make him mad enough to call you a homosexual.
> Is there a single Crevo that’s gone to a real college
> that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?
Yes, of course. Creationists must be tragically ignorant, simply uneducated, or just plain stupid if we don’t ascribe to your materialistic story of origins.
Evolutionists have nothing if they don’t have condescending invective.
Just like your pet theory, your narrative against your intellectual opponents has no basis in fact.
Many Creationists are college educated. Many Creationists hold advanced degrees. Many Creationists are successful in business, science, and engineering.
They are not the buck-toothed, google-eyed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling caricature you so much like to convey.
PS Did you see what the Evos gave Darwood for his birthday? It was published in one of those BIG newspapers that sophisticated city-folk read. Of course, they didn’t dare mention that creationists have been predicting this inevitable falsification ever since the days Darwood first published his fanciful creation myth:
> “Argumentum ad hominem” would be a good place for you to start.
You should know.
In my observation, that’s where Darwinists always start.
Yes, of course. Creationists must be tragically ignorant, simply uneducated, or just plain stupid if we don’t ascribe to your materialistic story of origins.Science is inherently materialistic. That's why Crevos are so funny(and laughably ignorant) they keep trying to bang a big square peg(monotheism) into a little round hole(natural science or "materialism" as you like to call it).Evolutionists have nothing if they don’t have condescending invective.
Just like your pet theory, your narrative against your intellectual opponents has no basis in fact.
Many Creationists are college educated. Many Creationists hold advanced degrees. Many Creationists are successful in business, science, and engineering.
They are not the buck-toothed, google-eyed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling caricature you so much like to convey.
It's inherently paradoxical for a true scientist to be a creationist. Science *necessitates* materialism. Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.
So *yes* Crevos are "tragically ignorant, simply uneducated or just plain stupid" as you so aptly put it.
Stop having sex with them...
==Yawn... you certainly haven’t had any logic or rhetoric education that’s for sure. “Argumentum ad hominem” would be a good place for you to start.
Look who’s talking! Have you looked in the mirror lately? Or did you break it in a fit of rage when you found out that God’s creation has falsified Darwood’s so-called tree of life?
You should know.I see you're another graduate of the Godgunsgays school of argumentation.In my observation, that’s where Darwinists always start.
Stop having sex with them...lol... why is it that the biggest perverts are always Crevos? You should stop having dirty thoughts there snoogums.
> I see you’re another graduate of the Godgunsgays school of argumentation.
Thank you for establishing my point.
==As usual you don’t understand how science works.
Actually, it is you who does not understand how science works, otherwise you wouldn’t have fallen for Darwood’s unscientific creation myth.
Look who’s talking! Have you looked in the mirror lately? Or did you break it in a fit of rage when you found out that God’s creation has falsified Darwood’s so-called tree of life?Awwww... snoogums is headed for meltdown land again! Poor widdle snoogums, "god" has nothing to do with the end of the tree of life. Big bad materialistic science and DNA research did it. HGT still posits evolution BTW. Shouldn't you be going apoplectic to discredit that or will your poor widdle cult of personality go away if you did that?
==If you keep this up, you might make him mad enough to call you a homosexual.
Don’t you know your own religion? Everyone is an EvoSexual according to Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.
Actually, it is you who does not understand how science works, otherwise you wouldn’t have fallen for Darwood’s unscientific creation myth.Is widdle snoogums projecting again?
> Science *necessitates* materialism.
That was not the opinion of Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Washington, and many, many others whose accomplishments dwarf those of Darwin.
So is it *inductive reasoning* for the overwhelming majority of the 40 and under college educated to be whole 'hog' Bama supporters??? Pure science has NO predetermined unprovable foundations. Evolution is whole hog fundamentally based upon a belief that life popped out of a hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum. That belief has never survived the test of time.
> Is widdle snoogums projecting again?
Hey, ketsu, I’ve seen you do this before.
Is this one of your key debating tactics?
You seem to have an affinity for baby talk.
No need: "In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results." It is clear enough except to the blind and as they say, "There is none so blind as those who refuse to see".
Creationists have predicted that Darwood’s tree of life would be pulled up by the roots ever since the publication of Origins. As per usual, the creationists have been vindicated by God’s creation, whereas the Evos have been once again forced to eat Darwood’s finches.
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.