Skip to comments.Evolution debate persists because it's not science
Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
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 ...
Hitler, and the majority of Germans during the time of Nazi Germany, were Christians.
When looking at the language Hitler used to whip up hatred of the Jews “blood upon the Cross” and “cast the vipers out of the Temple” took center stage.
As such the Nazi’s were drawing upon a long and storied tradition of prevalent anti-Jewish sentiment among European Christian communities.
How could such insignificant ignoramuses have any appreciable impact on public opinion? And such a small number of insignificant ignoramuses at that.
Which is not to say that Hitler or the Nazi’s were “good” Christians; but they thought of themselves as such, wore crosses, prayed, carried Bibles, put crosses on their equipment, wrote “God is with us” on their belt buckles, etc, etc.
All the trappings of Christianity, but none of the spirit of Christ.
Reminds me of several posters on this forum.
Cedric, once again I see that one of your cut’n’paste posts has been demolished by the actual facts. Thanks doc, for doing the dirty work this time.
Quote mining is a tired, annoying, dishonest creationist practice we are all very familiar with. You won’t get anywhere with it in life (except in the eyes of fellow dolts such as yourself.)
And your response to being shown how dishonest your post was was to snidely remark that he “missed one.” You are yet another embarrassment to conservatism.
As predictable as the sun rising.....
Never laid a glove on me.
Sorry, but I think medical quackery is a bit over the top, even for FR.
If you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up with those who post bizarre medical advice.
Hint: it isn't anyone I hang out with.
The interesting fact is that the same people you hang out with seem to think HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that AIDS treatment is the cause of AIDS, and that your "perverse practices" are appropriate treatment for a wide range of diseases.
Personally, I think that all forms of science denial are new age mumbo jumbo. Some comes from the left wing, some from the right wing, but it's all the same rubbish.
But nice attempt at misreading a word used in the 1860’s with an eye to the modern meaning.
Is your understanding of the subject really as shallow as THAT?
“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”
(John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”
(Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William