The article says nothing of the sort. It's saying that the general/macro theory of evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable, and therefore does not fall under the definition of empirical science. As such, the macro theory of evolution is story telling based on historical inferences that are based on materialistic ASSUMPTIONS.Yawn... much of physics is "non repeatable"(e.g., humans have never gone at the speed of light) however much of this "non repeatable" stuff is readable observable in other phenomena. Just as "macro" evolution is observable in fossils and DNA patterns.
This particular crevo lie has been refuted many times. Then again you don't even understand your own talking points, how can you be expected to understand their rebuttals?
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!:
“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
You're correct -- GGG has repeatedly refused to answer questions about his educational and work background. When educated people refute the stupid articles he links to, he calls them all sorts of foul names.
He doesn't understand the articles that he spams, he doesn't understand that the Bible does not contradict science, he does not understand basic logic, and he does not understand rational rebuttuls. But he does know how to call you a believer in "atheist science" and a "worshipper at the Temple of Darwin Cult.