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 ...
That was not the opinion of Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Washington, and many, many others whose accomplishments dwarf those of Darwin.You're confusing philosophy of science with science. Science fundamentally and necessarily requires naturalism to work(i.e. that you can prove or disprove things empirically and only empirically). While their philosophies were certainly different(as was Darwin's BTW) their *methods* were exactly the same.
He always does this when he starts to sense he’s on the losing side of the debate. Which, in the case of Darwood’s fanciful creation myth, is quite often.
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.Huh...? I see one point inside that word salad, which is the assertion of a "prime mover". Which has been done to death before. What do you think of the big bang?
You seem to have an affinity for baby talk.Humans "evolved" to use babytalk when dealing with children and the "differently abled"(e.g. GodGunsGays).
Also, he likes to bring up homosexuality alot.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191791/posts?q=1&;page=1#42
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191791/posts?q=1&;page=1#49
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191791/posts?q=1&;page=1#50
Ect, ect, etc...
And let’s no forget reply #64. LOL
Given the evidence around this globe, there does appear to have been an event that would have sounded like a big bang. Something happened eons ago that caused the end of tropical vegetation from having a climate to grow and reproduce around the polar north region.
Now whether you Darwinists like to admit it, the overwhelming majority of 40 and under college educated crowd support Bama and that scientific methodology. You all have come a long way, so be happy.
Given the evidence around this globe, there does appear to have been an event that would have sounded like a big bang. Something happened eons ago that caused the end of tropical vegetation from having a climate to grow and reproduce around the polar north region.Uuumm.. no. Young people are so sick of ignorant and stupid crevos(not to mention pandering scumbags like McCain) that they were willing to vote for Obama. So *you* should be proud of yourself.Now whether you Darwinists like to admit it, the overwhelming majority of 40 and under college educated crowd support Bama and that scientific methodology. You all have come a long way, so be happy.
==All science is *inductive reasoning*
If all science is inductive reasoning, then Darwood’s “T”oE is unscientific:
A second unsatisfying assertion in the review, that Darwin was a “ruthlessly inductive thinker,” ignores the impressive scope and depth of Darwin’s deductive achievements in “On the Origin of Species,” as noted by Peter Medawar 40 years ago in, ironically enough, “Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought.” Throughout his great work, Darwin derives the deductive implications of his fundamental ideas for the natural world and compares reality to logically generated expectation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/books/review/Letters-t-DARWININFULL_LETTERS.html
PS Darwood’s so-called logically generated expectations are being falsified at a very alarming rate. Needless to say, Creation Scientists have been predicting this eventuality ever since Darwin first published Origins.
You are completely and totally out of touch with reality. The scientific methodology is all the majority of these young people have in their brains. The last 20 years public education totally shut out anything but the scientific methodology. My children were of the era of saving the 'rain forest', might just be some medicinal cures yet to be discovered. Their whole elementary school was decorated to appear as some jungle, I mean rain forest and they were coerced into bringing their piggy banks of coins to purchase tiny lots of rain forest to be saved.
Now the scientific methodology has evolved to farming for embryonic stem cells and fighting global warming. And Bama's rhetoric made perfect logic to their well programed brains. My pride is not relevant as things are exactly what they are.
> You’re confusing philosophy of science with science.
Sir, I perceive that it is you that is confusing philosophy of science with science.
Consider the absurdity of a shrew becoming a bat or a dinosaur becoming a bird. Punctuated Equilibrium and Hopeful Monster theories had to emerge in order to address the utter unsurvivability of any of the obviously absurd “intermediate” life forms.
These theories are little more than stories in support of a philosophy of science, that being evolutionism.
> Humans “evolved” to use babytalk when dealing with
> children and the “differently abled”(e.g. GodGunsGays).
Silly condescension demeans you more than your opponent.
From the New Scientist article:
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
Believing that the Bible is the Word of God makes you a cultist? Who knew?
Got sources?
Stop drooling GGG, this isn’t science abondoning evolution. Science evolves as new data and evidence come to light. As it should because it’s real science - even to the point of re-evaluating core ideas. That’s what makes science so resilient and honest. Creation ‘science’ could never experience such a thing since no evidence or data or facts do, or can, exist which contradict your interpretation of scripture.
No, that's not creationists. That's the common ancestor that evos claim they have. It's their bloodline for all their claims of intellectual superiority.
To an evo, the highest ideal is intellectualism as exhibited by unswerving loyalty to their hard line ToE position. ANY deviation from that incurs their invective of being a YEC, Bible literalist, with the aforementioned characteristics. It's either/or with them. Either you're for them or you're a creatard, an IDiot, *Crevo dimwits*, don't understand *real* science (science as they define it), whatever.
For them, the highest insult is to be called *stupid* or *ignorant*, as if that's all that matters in life.
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.