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 ...
Seriously, there’s no shame in admitting mental illness. Has anyone else in your family seen “bird sex” as a dominant theme in the notebooks of Victorian naturalists?
Do you find yourself masturbating to National Geographic specials on birds of paradise? Do courtship displays turn you on?
PS Darwoods so-called logically generated expectations are being falsified at a very alarming rate. Needless to say, Creation Scientists have been predicting this eventuality ever since Darwin first published Origins.Yawn... I know you're too stupid to figure this out, but Newton(and all science eventually) was "falsified" close to 100 years ago. AYRTS, IA?
Crap. That last post was supposed to go to 319. The bird sex guy. Sorry.
You are completely and totally out of touch with reality. The scientific methodology is all the majority of these young people have in their brains. The last 20 years public education totally shut out anything but the scientific methodology. My children were of the era of saving the 'rain forest', might just be some medicinal cures yet to be discovered. Their whole elementary school was decorated to appear as some jungle, I mean rain forest and they were coerced into bringing their piggy banks of coins to purchase tiny lots of rain forest to be saved.That's "cargo cult" science.
Now the scientific methodology has evolved to farming for embryonic stem cells and fighting global warming. And Bama's rhetoric made perfect logic to their well programed brains. My pride is not relevant as things are exactly what they are.
No normal person hysterically demands that other people be forced to look at and accept his drawings of imaginary prehistoric ape men. It is in the adolescent big hairy monster and boogieman category of obsessional issues.
Sorry. 321 was for you.
Sir, I perceive that it is you that is confusing philosophy of science with science.Oh jeez not the "intermediate" canard again. What do you think of the new intermediate whale fossils?
Consider the absurdity of a shrew becoming a bat or a dinosaur becoming a bird. Punctuated Equilibrium and Hopeful Monster theories had to emerge in order to address the utter unsurvivability of any of the obviously absurd intermediate life forms.
These theories are little more than stories in support of a philosophy of science, that being evolutionism.
January 2009 issue of New Scientist:Snoogums, you didn't even read it did you? I know it hurts your widdle head snoogums but science *evolves* just as species do.
Ever see 2001: A Spce Odyssesy???
Oh, you haven't been hit on by Sir Francis until you get a love note like this . I'm so lucky.LOL. Tea meet keyboard.
Do you have any examples of Darwin's drawings of ape men?
No, that's not creationists. That's the common ancestor that evos claim they have. It's their bloodline for all their claims of intellectual superiority.Yawn... people involved with science tend to be attached to their pet theories. However they can be swayed. I don't think anyone is disputing HGT.
To an evo, the highest ideal is intellectualism as exhibited by unswerving loyalty to their hard line ToE position. ANY deviation from that incurs their invective of being a YEC, Bible literalist, with the aforementioned characteristics. It's either/or with them. Either you're for them or you're a creatard, an IDiot, *Crevo dimwits*, don't understand *real* science (science as they define it), whatever.
For them, the highest insult is to be called *stupid* or *ignorant*, as if that's all that matters in life.
Do you believe the earth is more than 6000 years old?
Learn to properly quote and write html and get back to me.
Whales are incapable either of living or breeding on land.
Whatever these “transitional” creatures were, they were not whales, nor were they proto-whales.
There were so many flaws and gaps in the assumptions presented by Gingerich et al, that their conjecture can only be received as wishful thinking.
These “transitional forms” have been debunked, along with all the others.
The only difference between these “proto-whales” and the “dino-bird” is that the fossils were not deliberate hoaxes. But neither were they the fossils of any marine creature.
Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Olduvai Gorge 30 years in vain for...
But the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the “big bang” theory, many evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...
Evolution, the theory is called, more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.
Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning, must have an origin as well.
The flaw in the evolutionists’ logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life came from somewhere else...
The evolutionists, like the homosexuals, cannot admit that it is concrete science that evolution can only occur with heterosexual relationships... But, because this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis, they have to reject it in their psychotic religious pursuit to disprove the Bible at all costs, even if it means denying their evolutionist religion!Uuuum... read "the selfish gene" or any lay evolutionary biology book and get back to me on homosexuality. There are a couple of theories about the evolutionary viability of homosexuality kicking around. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.
They just want to set themselves up in a temple for others to genuflect before an assumed divinity.
Oh, the irony!
The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by so-called atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same.
WRT your second point, you like to project don't you? Science really doesn't give a rat's behind about disproving the bible. The bible doesn't exist as far as science is concerned.
Dumb crevos are the ones that get their panties in a bunch because they're so stuck in the bastardization of scientific ideals that they assume that religious experience has some sort of noumenal.
Naturalism = HETEROSEXUALITYYou aren't very secure in your sexuality are you?
Let's try the question professor...
> Oh jeez not the “intermediate” canard again.
And if this is a canard, it is the Darwiniists’ canard. They are the ones who insist that there be intermediate forms.