[<1/1,000,000th%]

We’re back to fossils being created by the devil again.

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess those darned evolutionists aren't rolling over and surrendering, just because you say they aren't science.

Stickleback fish becomes an unlikely star of evolutionary science

[woollyone]

yep.

Science: the study of OBSERVABLE phenomena

But those who cling bitterly to their evo-religious belief in their own primordial soup origins (see tag line) simply don't like the definition, so they have added the notion that they can THEORIZE all they want and still call it "science".

Despite the fact the fact that the macroevo theory is NOT obeservable, testable, or repeatable.

But they will continue to banter.

And I will continue to laugh at them.

[count-your-change]

One of the mainstays of evolutionary theory is the development of different species by various routes, perhaps mutation or adaptation.

Of course that presupposes that there is some way of identifying a new species when we see one. That would require a common understanding of what a species is, a definition of the term “species”.

We are favored with over a dozen definitions and even that number may be increasing. Its like asking thirteen of more people the definition of economics, you get more definitions than people.

Imagine a chemist with a dozen meanings of “Do not mix” on his flasks. But while imagining I would leave the room.

The Hallmark of Darwinism, the formation of new species, the evo in evolution, the win in Darwinism , and there is no clear definition of what the critter is.

Tell us all again how Darwinism is science. or not.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Darwin: "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work..."

More like the way Thomas Kuhn describes but not exactly scientific method, strictly speaking. The idea preceded any observation.

[Old Landmarks]

The Free Republic hardcore evolutionists sound exactly like and use the same tone as the far left leadership of the Democrat party.

They are all hardcore evolutionists whose worldview presses them to explain away the first eleven chapters of Genesis at all costs.

They all ultimately end up accepting homosexuality as not so wicked and sinful as the Bible clearly says it is, an abomination. Just like the father of lies, they say, "Yea, hath God said?"

Death entered the world by sin, and fools make a mock of sin.

[PapaBear3625]

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution?

Because people generally don't find their religious beliefs threatened by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Meanwhile, anything that points to a world older than 6,000 years gets argued about endlessly by people who refuse to accept any evidence or chain of reasoning that contradicts the Bible.

[woollyone]

not science

...just saying
again