Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution debate persists because it's not science
The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; spam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-661 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
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.

251 posted on 02/23/2009 1:45:56 PM PST by woollyone (I believe God created me- you believe you're related to monkeys. Of course I laughed at you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Clever.


252 posted on 02/23/2009 1:49:36 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
And I will continue to laugh at them.

Laugh you may but the train of progress has left leaving you at the platform.

253 posted on 02/23/2009 1:50:25 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: utherdoul

>>I don’t get what the big push is about evolution. It’s 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.<<

And vice-versa.

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”.


254 posted on 02/23/2009 1:51:14 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
“Laugh you may but the train of progress has left leaving you at the platform.”

Holding “progressive” views is not something I will ever miss.

enjoy your theoretical ride

255 posted on 02/23/2009 1:55:23 PM PST by woollyone (I believe God created me- you believe you're related to monkeys. Of course I laughed at you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
the train of progress

The TOE train has, literally, gone backward for 150 years.

256 posted on 02/23/2009 1:57:19 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
It is, frankly, literally impossible for something like DNA and it’s actual functionality to evolve.

I guess we can all pack up our science books and just get our facts from you.

257 posted on 02/23/2009 1:57:21 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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.


258 posted on 02/23/2009 1:57:29 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: woollyone
Holding “progressive” views is not something I will ever miss. enjoy your theoretical ride

I guess anyone that rides a Harley is not about progress.

259 posted on 02/23/2009 1:58:24 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; js1138
I'm telling you, this dude is totally a plant. Pure parody.

No argument from me there either.....

260 posted on 02/23/2009 1:59:54 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Believing that the Bible is the Word of God makes you a cultist?

I did not say that. I said that those who believe that the Bible is literal word of God are cultist.

Who knew?

Everyone outside of your little cult.

261 posted on 02/23/2009 2:07:13 PM PST by Jeff Gordon ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
little cult

Please tell us how many members there are world wide in that "little cult".

262 posted on 02/23/2009 2:10:06 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
C’mon, how many Bible (literal) believing “cultists” are there?
263 posted on 02/23/2009 2:22:02 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

264 posted on 02/23/2009 2:23:44 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

>>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. ;)


265 posted on 02/23/2009 2:33:52 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Please tell us how many members there are world wide in that "little cult".

The true biblical literalists make up something less than 10% of world's population.

266 posted on 02/23/2009 2:39:25 PM PST by Jeff Gordon ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
C’mon, how many Bible (literal) believing “cultists” are there?

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.

267 posted on 02/23/2009 2:43:31 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal

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.


268 posted on 02/23/2009 2:43:59 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Tell that to the “little cult” guy.


269 posted on 02/23/2009 2:48:25 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Unfortunately for you and your ignoramus club, your word makes nothing so, and we are not stupid enough to place any creedence in your statements.

In other words, you couldn't grasp a word I was saying.


270 posted on 02/23/2009 2:50:41 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

I wish!


271 posted on 02/23/2009 2:51:15 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Coming from the biggest lying spammer on this board, GGG most likely will take that as a complement. I know that I would.

Instead of calling me names, why don't you point out where I'm wrong?

Oh, I forgot. You can't.


272 posted on 02/23/2009 2:52:36 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
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.

We always get it wrong. We even classified the bat as a mammel instead of a bird!

273 posted on 02/23/2009 2:53:41 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

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?


274 posted on 02/23/2009 2:56:45 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Coming from the biggest lying spammer on this board, GGG most likely will take that as a complement. I know that I would.
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.

275 posted on 02/23/2009 2:56:50 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

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)?


276 posted on 02/23/2009 2:59:50 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The only way evolution can work is through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

Yawn ... Please post photos of male and female bacteria ...

277 posted on 02/23/2009 2:59:58 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Evolution works just fine on living systems that reproduce by asexual division, or by parthenogenesis.


278 posted on 02/23/2009 3:00:01 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
What is your take on this related and obviously essential FACT?

My take is that you don't know what you are talking about.

279 posted on 02/23/2009 3:00:37 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Archaeopteryx

PS. You meant to write Archaeoraptor liaoningensis but you can't even get your goofy non-answers correct. Archaeopteryx was real. Get your frauds straight.
280 posted on 02/23/2009 3:05:50 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

281 posted on 02/23/2009 3:10:10 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

Let me guess: You’re a “Covenentalist?


282 posted on 02/23/2009 3:14:48 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Mammals...

Do you know what those are???


283 posted on 02/23/2009 3:20:31 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Have you ever heard of a form of life called the MAMMAL?


284 posted on 02/23/2009 3:21:37 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
The ideas of Relativity preceded any observations that lended any support to the theory.

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.

285 posted on 02/23/2009 3:21:47 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Does evolution only work on mammals in your world?


286 posted on 02/23/2009 3:22:39 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

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,


287 posted on 02/23/2009 3:24:53 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Get your frauds straight.

That's whay I got yuo for. Java man.

288 posted on 02/23/2009 3:25:53 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Mammals... Do you know what those are??

I thought bats were mammals but you have just about convinced me that they are birds.

289 posted on 02/23/2009 3:26:08 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Eschoir,
Does your parole officer know what you’re doing?

Aren’t you supposed to stay away from FR?


290 posted on 02/23/2009 3:28:16 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
My take is that you don't know what you are talking about.

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...

291 posted on 02/23/2009 3:28:23 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Right. So you are suggesting rational intuition has a sound epistemic foundation. Husserl, Brentano, Plato, Aquinas, St. Anselm agree.


292 posted on 02/23/2009 3:29:15 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Does evolution only work on mammals in your world?

Humans are mammals...

But please do explain to me how evolution operates in mammals... HETEROSEXUAL relationships...

SCIENCE PLEASE...

293 posted on 02/23/2009 3:30:44 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
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.

I really have no idea what your point is. Make your point.

294 posted on 02/23/2009 3:31:54 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

The Godless Evo-Atheists are too embarrassed by their obsession with everything gay so they avoid anything that questions their fetish for their *lifestyle*.


295 posted on 02/23/2009 3:33:06 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory

Absolute bigoted balderdash


296 posted on 02/23/2009 3:34:17 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . The original point of America was not to be Europe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

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?


297 posted on 02/23/2009 3:35:00 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory

I think you and your companion Mr. Dash have something going on?


298 posted on 02/23/2009 3:35:17 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

John Scopes does look like the chronic masterdebator type.
And a little anxious. You may have a point.

299 posted on 02/23/2009 3:35:35 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: bert

And yet evo-atheists wallow in their bigotry for all too see. They should look in a mirror, if they can take image.


300 posted on 02/23/2009 3:36:00 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 651-661 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson