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 ...
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.
Laugh you may but the train of progress has left leaving you at the platform.
>>I dont get what the big push is about evolution. Its at least as plausable that we evolved over millions of years and that life was conjured out of thin air and we were created from dust.<<
Actually, that is not true. It is, frankly, literally impossible for something like DNA and it’s actual functionality to evolve. Throwing more years and adding zeros to the “odds” number just doesn’t help. Eventually, the number is effectively “zero”.
I do know that if my chances of winning the lottery were 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I wouldn’t buy a ticket.
I swear that if we could develop a microscope so powerful that we could actually find a manufacturers serial number on a strand of DNA some evolutionist would say the number “evolved”.
Holding “progressive” views is not something I will ever miss.
enjoy your theoretical ride
The TOE train has, literally, gone backward for 150 years.
I guess we can all pack up our science books and just get our facts from you.
Blame shifting is not a responsible response.
You brought that up right out of the blue; nobody held a gun to your head and made you post that. You weren’t provoked and it wasn’t in response to any other post referring to the subject matter.
I guess anyone that rides a Harley is not about progress.
No argument from me there either.....
I did not say that. I said that those who believe that the Bible is literal word of God are cultist.
Everyone outside of your little cult.
Please tell us how many members there are world wide in that "little cult".
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.
>>I guess we can all pack up our science books and just get our facts from you.<<
I think that may be a bit of an overreaction.
But I appreciate the compliment. ;)
The true biblical literalists make up something less than 10% of world's population.
According to a recent survey posted by GGGs, about 36% of the U.S. population say they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Main Entry: literal
1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures
b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual *liberty in the literal sense is impossible B. N. Cardozo*
c: free from exaggeration or embellishment *the literal truth*
d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts *a very literal man*
2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3: reproduced word for word : exact , verbatim *a literal translation*
So what’s wrong with believing that the Bible is literally the Word of God?
Or are you referring to the tired old canard that some people insist that the Bible be read so that everything be interpreted as literal, with no recognition of poetry, parable, analogy, metaphor, etc.
The only ones who claim that anyone has to read the Bible as being meant completely literal are the evos who look only to mock, ridicule , and disparage. Sad that the only way evos can win in their attempts at character assassination of creationists is to lie about them.
Whenever I ask for someone to provide examples to back up their contention that the entire Bible be read and interpreted in a completely literal manner, they never provide it. They simply create a strawman and try to knock that down instead.
So, please, provide an example of any religious group that demands that the entire Bible read read and interpreted in a completely literal manner with no recognition of any of the other literary devices that Scripture incorporates.
Tell that to the “little cult” guy.
In other words, you couldn't grasp a word I was saying.
Instead of calling me names, why don't you point out where I'm wrong?
Oh, I forgot. You can't.
We always get it wrong. We even classified the bat as a mammel instead of a bird!
The only way evolution can work is through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
There seems to be a particular uneasiness about this FACT in certain people...
What is your take on this related and obviously essential FACT?
I'm sure that he would, too. Confronting Young-Earthers with reality makes them feel like they're being persecuted for the sake of Christ. In reality, they're being mocked for their ignorance of both scripture and God's revelation as shown to us through his creation.
I asked you what criteria you used to place Lucy with the two fakes (Piltdown/Nebraska) and you answered with, “Archaeopteryx.”
I struggle to understand how that is a viable answer to my question. It’s becoming very clear as to why you failed all your science classes in school.
Are you capable of answering a single question... ever? If so, try answering another one - what criteria did you use to place Lucy with the two fakes (Piltdown/Nebraska)?
Yawn ... Please post photos of male and female bacteria ...
Evolution works just fine on living systems that reproduce by asexual division, or by parthenogenesis.
My take is that you don't know what you are talking about.
More like the way Thomas Kuhn describes but not exactly scientific method, strictly speaking. The idea preceded any observation.
Let me guess: You’re a “Covenentalist?
Do you know what those are???
Have you ever heard of a form of life called the MAMMAL?
The formation of the Periodic Table preceded the discovery of many of the elements that make up the table, and preceded the formation of the theory of atomic orbitals.
In Science the idea often precedes the collection of data that would falsify or support the idea.
Does evolution only work on mammals in your world?
If God did not mark the days until day four, how do we know how longs days 1 through 3 were?
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
That's whay I got yuo for. Java man.
I thought bats were mammals but you have just about convinced me that they are birds.
Does your parole officer know what you’re doing?
Aren’t you supposed to stay away from FR?
Mammalian anatomy... Should I find nice little 5th grade cartoons of a penis and vagina to show you how MAMMALS evolve... or is it to difficult for you to comprehend a very basic factual foundation in evolutionary theory and genetic theory???
I am curious about the uneasiness certain proponents of evolution have about the topic of sexual reproduction and how it relates to evolution.
Please professor, explain... I'm waiting...
Right. So you are suggesting rational intuition has a sound epistemic foundation. Husserl, Brentano, Plato, Aquinas, St. Anselm agree.
Humans are mammals...
But please do explain to me how evolution operates in mammals... HETEROSEXUAL relationships...
I really have no idea what your point is. Make your point.
The Godless Evo-Atheists are too embarrassed by their obsession with everything gay so they avoid anything that questions their fetish for their *lifestyle*.
Absolute bigoted balderdash
I am more interested in you explaining how evolution ONLY works in (hetero)sexually reproducing species.
Do you wish to amend or correct your statement?
I think you and your companion Mr. Dash have something going on?
John Scopes does look like the chronic masterdebator type.
And a little anxious. You may have a point.
And yet evo-atheists wallow in their bigotry for all too see. They should look in a mirror, if they can take image.