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 ...
Hardcore evolutionists are liberals in almost all cases. Thus most of them hate true conservatism and follow the left as it 'progresses' toward moral anarchy.Yes Sigmund, you know me. Have you considered a second career in psychoanalysis?
They all oppose the fact that we are "Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."
They side with the far left and take issue with our pledge of "One nation under God".
They are almost always in lock step with the far left nineteen sixties liberals who hated America and pushed their far left social agenda. They both take shots at social conservatives and America's cultural and religious history while showing ignorance of our legal history.
The Hardcore Free Republic Evolutionists are mostly social liberals who pretend to be something else, never admitting what they really are, blind liberals who think social conservatives are the enemy of the state.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping, dear brother in Christ!
Translation: crazy Crevos find something they dont want to believe, come up with cockamamie theories that only other dumb crevos believe. Thereby sentencing anyone educated by or around crevos to further ignorance and making crevo areas even greater economic backwaters.WoW!
It continues to be debated because people who do not grock science continue to offer non-scientific arguments. Evolutionists in particular.
You should stop having dirty thoughts there snoogums. [excerpt]Oh boy.
Hey, ketsu, Ive seen you do this before. [excerpt]Its called getting pwned.
Evolutionists in particular.Hahahaha... how many creationist articles get published in Nature(which only accepts the "best" scientific arguments)? How many evolutionary articles? I'll give you a hint, look in this month's issue.
Hahahaha... how many creationist articles get published in Nature(which only accepts the "best" scientific arguments)? How many evolutionary articles? I'll give you a hint, look in this month's issue.Well, I wouldn't expect that a publication which is devoted to promoting Darwinian Evolution would ever contain an article that did not agree with the underlying purpose of the publication.
Well, I wouldn't expect that a publication which is devoted to promoting Darwinian Evolution would ever contain an article that did not agree with the underlying purpose of the publication.Uuuuum... do you even know what the journal Nature is?
(See my ***Tagline***) [excerpt]Uh, ok...
DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)What the ...!
What the ...!Huhuhuh. You made a funny.
I didn't know you were a Creationist!
In hindsight, it makes sense though.
Uuuuum... do you even know what the journal Nature is?Yeah, its the second rate backup paper source that sits under the the JC Penny and Sears & Roebuck catalogs in the outhouse.
Where do Evos disagree with physics? [excerpt]Well, I saw one Evo try to reduce F=ma to F=m
Yeah, its the second rate backup paper source that sits under the the JC Penny and Sears & Roebuck catalogs in the outhouse.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... choke, gurgle, splutter.
You win the award for dumbest crevo ever. DNA? Neutrons? Nuclear fission. I wonder where their discovery was published?
You win the award for dumbest crevo ever. [excerpt]Except I'm not a Crevo.
Except I'm not a Crevo.Okay. You're the dumbest creationist ever. Is that better?
I'm a Creationist.
The term Crevo is an amalgamation of the words Creation and Evolution.
If I accepted both Creation and Evolution, then the term Crevo would be an accurate description.
However, I eschew His Reverend Apostacy Chucky Darwood's theology.
Okay. You're the dumbest creationist ever. Is that better?Well, I dunno about that.
Well, I dunno about that.It's your ability to think that I'm worried about.
As far as I know, my ability to speak is in no way limited or handicapped.
So why did Hitler order Darwins books burned?Card trick.
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.