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 ...
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.If he wasn't so damaging to the conservative cause, he'd be funny in a pathetic kind of way.
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.
Birth defect....you are welcome.
I think you mean "young earth" creationists. God could have created the universe through the Big Bang and man through evolution. That's not inconsistent with Genesis, unless you take the literal "day" thing seriously.You're quite right. A god *could* have created the universe through the big bang and evolution. However for science to accept his existence, there would have to be some observable phenomenal evidence of his existence that could be falsified.
That's why people have so much fun torturing crevos with "spaghetti monsters" and the like.
So much for the the Bible and evolution being compatible fairy tale that the evos like to foist off an everyone.Uuuum... no. Science is perfectly compatible with the bible *if you don't judge the bible by science's assumptions*. Which is precisely what Crevos try to do and why it makes their little heads pop.
All physical function requires friction. It is irreplaceable in the physical universe.Uuuumm... look up the term "vestigial" and get back to me. Human "friction pads" don't really do much.
Whales are incapable either of living or breeding on land.You're going to need to provide some citations to back up these claims. Unsourced assertions aren't going to cut it.
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.
Sure it does...
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 also have an origin.
The flaw in your logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well.
Life did not come from the earth and the earth did not come from itself.
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...Are you a bot? We dealt with this(the last time you said *exactly the same thing*) earlier in the thread.
rest of garbage snipped
And if this is a canard, it is the Darwiniists canard. They are the ones who insist that there be intermediate forms.Yawn... "I know you are but what am I" doesn't cut it. I mentioned some transitional fossils and they were hand-waved away. You'll have to do better than that.
What's wrong with believing that the Qur'an is the word of God?
But there is no way for you to know that those are really “missing links”.
These are assumptions based on similarities in morphology. Nobody was there to observe or measure.
As has been shown elsewhere in this thread, morphology is not a very reliable indicator of speciation. If so, then, in the presence of only their fossilized remains, the Retriever could be mistaken as an intermediary between the Chiuaua and the Great Dane.
The worst of it is how damaging it is to Christianity. In college, I saw people lose their faith when confronted with reality in science classes. It's a stumbling block to my peers, many of whom believe that propaganda that all Christians are uneducated and, furthermore, don't want to be educated.
You would make a good trial lawyer. I can hear you now at the OJ trial. “If you weren’t there, you must acquit.” Brilliant. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?
> You’re going to need to provide some citations to back up
> these claims. Unsourced assertions aren’t going to cut it.
An article published by Institute for Creation Research cites the following salient references, among others.
Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D.E. Russell, and S.M. Shah, Science, Vol. 220, 1983, pp. 403-406
A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd Ed., U. of Chicago Press, 1966, p. 244.
> I can hear you now at the OJ trial. If you werent
> there, you must acquit. Brilliant. Why hasnt anyone
> else thought of this?
Ah, I see.
Conjecture based on fanciful assumptions of what may have occured in the distant past is as good as hard DNA evidence taken from a virtually contemporaneous event.
As you wish, but not a very brilliant analog.
Good film. Touché.
Partial to the Himalayan Yeti though.
An article published by Institute for Creation Research cites the following salient references, among others.Citing 20 and 30 year old research is not helping your cause. Do you have any *recent* research that refutes the transitional fossils(described *this* month)?
The worst of it is how damaging it is to Christianity. In college, I saw people lose their faith when confronted with reality in science classes. It's a stumbling block to my peers, many of whom believe the propaganda that all Christians are uneducated and, furthermore, don't want to be educated. I am a 100% creationist, believe that the Bible is without error, and believe that salvation is obtained by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.
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.
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.