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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-661 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


2 posted on 02/22/2009 11:00:00 PM PST by utherdoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Much of geology couldn’t be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they can’t be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.


3 posted on 02/22/2009 11:06:42 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The Big Bang theory is metaphysical cosmology. Unfortuntely there is very little good philosophy in either the American or British educational system.


4 posted on 02/22/2009 11:13:07 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


5 posted on 02/22/2009 11:15:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: utherdoul

"I don’t get what the big push is about evolution." 2 posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 2:00:00 AM by utherdoul

It's delayed adolescent sexual anxiety and maladjustment to conventional morality. The percentage of people who get most hysterical about pushing the atheistic version of Darwinist materialism is about the same as that of those with obsessive-compulsive disorder and those suffering from masurbation anxiety. The facts about this have been suppressed so as not to embarrass left-brained dorks at prestige universities who go in for compulsive obsessions in hard sciences. But it is sexual and masturbation anxiety which drives the emotional hysteria behind this movement to make kids spend hours upon hours studying graphs of imaginary prehistoric hominids and gargantuan ape men. Although it's unclear why this in particular relieves the anxiety.

It would require more research into what brought on the anxiety and when the obsessions, cathexis, and fixation on pictures of large ape men set in.

6 posted on 02/22/2009 11:25:06 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yes, let me see if I can simplify this AMAZING revelation.

If there is debate, then it is not Science.
However, what is not debatable is Science.
Genesis is not debatable.
Genesis is Science.

I respectfully think not.


7 posted on 02/22/2009 11:30:23 PM PST by acliffhang3r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ooops, forgot to put in link:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/opinion/story/794342.html


8 posted on 02/22/2009 11:33:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: acliffhang3r
The article says nothing of the sort. It's saying that the general/macro theory of evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable, and therefore does not fall under the definition of empirical science. As such, the macro theory of evolution is story telling based on historical inferences that are based on materialistic ASSUMPTIONS.
9 posted on 02/22/2009 11:40:44 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

And how about astronomy? Objectively, it consists in the recording and interpretation of electromagnetic radiation impinging on the earth. How is it that these interpretations gain the status of FACT ?


10 posted on 02/22/2009 11:42:18 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"is unobservable and unrepeatable"

When we start hearing rumors of Navy Seals being re-engineered to have gills and Army Rangers re-engineered to have binocular vision you will think otherwise.

11 posted on 02/22/2009 11:43:39 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear (The cosmos is about the smallest hole a man can stick his head in. - Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages."

One quibble with this, leaving aside Petrarch's metaphor from philology
and rhetoric. The "scientific method" didn't bring "man out of the Dark Ages."
Charlemagne did.

And liberalism, scientism, and moral relativism will send man right back.

12 posted on 02/22/2009 11:43:52 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.


13 posted on 02/22/2009 11:45:32 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

==And liberalism, scientism, and moral relativism will send man right back.

I got a good chuckle out of that one. And I would argue that Darwood’s unscientific theory of origins is a major contributor to all three.


14 posted on 02/22/2009 11:48:50 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

GOD created the world (universe) in six days … nuff said. Call me a religious fanatic if you want. This I read in His holy word, this I believe. All else is anathema.


15 posted on 02/22/2009 11:53:02 PM PST by doc1019 (Obama's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

“The Big Bang theory is metaphysical cosmology.”

As is the idea of parallel universes.


16 posted on 02/22/2009 11:57:06 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Much of geology couldn’t be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they can’t be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.

But those same geological processes can be observed in artificial, experimental conditions, in which they have been greatly speeded up. Geology is a science because it receives confirmation from physics and chemistry.

The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isn’t just that we don’t observe it in nature; we don’t observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.

I think we might say this:

In Darwin’s day, evolution was (to quote Karl Popper) a “metaphysical research programme”; i.e., a way of looking at the world that could guide the sort of research one did, and the sort of questions one asked.

Since the age of biochemistry and molecular biology, however, Darwinian evolution can be considered, and should be considered, A FAILED SCIENCE, not a “non-science.” It is perfectly legitimate to ask “Can random mutation plus natural selection either cause life to come into existence from non-living matter; and can it cause one species to change into another?”

It’s pretty clear from biochemistry and molecular biology that the answer is no.

This doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as “change over time”; everyone knows (and always knew) that change over time existed. It means that CHANCE cannot explain such change.


17 posted on 02/23/2009 12:00:29 AM PST by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Sadistic personalities tend to go in for the “survival of the fittest” narrative with the most enthusiasm. It should prove interesting when Sharia comes to Europe and Londonistan how literally they are enthused by it.


18 posted on 02/23/2009 12:08:03 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Evolution debate persists because it's not science

Insightful observation 

19 posted on 02/23/2009 12:18:28 AM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“I got a good chuckle out of that one. And I would argue that Reverend Darwood’s unscientific theory of origins is a major contributor to all three.” [corrected]
All right GGG, every time you reach for the capital D key mid sentence, you need to ask your self, Am I addressing Reverend Darwood by his earned title?
20 posted on 02/23/2009 12:44:29 AM PST by Fichori (B. Hussein Obama is nothing but a genocidal Kenyan baby killer ... albeit by proxy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Interesting topic (i.e., parallel universe/other dimensions)

The problem comes in when the theorist doesn't know the difference between empirical science and metaphysical cosmology. Or between a fact and a theory.
Between reality and paradigmatic symbols or models.


21 posted on 02/23/2009 12:52:23 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

For some reason, I have a very difficult time associating the “R” word with the “D” word. Perhaps if I used the “a” word in front of the “R” word, it would make things a little easier.

(a = apostate)


22 posted on 02/23/2009 12:57:02 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Translation: crazy Crevos find something they don’t 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.


23 posted on 02/23/2009 1:16:33 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The article says nothing of the sort. It's saying that the general/macro theory of evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable, and therefore does not fall under the definition of empirical science. As such, the macro theory of evolution is story telling based on historical inferences that are based on materialistic ASSUMPTIONS.
Yawn... much of physics is "non repeatable"(e.g., humans have never gone at the speed of light) however much of this "non repeatable" stuff is readable observable in other phenomena. Just as "macro" evolution is observable in fossils and DNA patterns.

This particular crevo lie has been refuted many times. Then again you don't even understand your own talking points, how can you be expected to understand their rebuttals?

24 posted on 02/23/2009 1:20:41 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay
The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isn’t just that we don’t observe it in nature; we don’t observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.
Ummmmmm... no.
25 posted on 02/23/2009 1:23:39 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.
All science is *inductive reasoning*(i.e. inference to save dumb crevos the chance to misinterpret what I'm talking about) . Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?
26 posted on 02/23/2009 1:26:51 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

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 atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Oldavai 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, 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 a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists’ logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life also came from somewhere else...


27 posted on 02/23/2009 1:28:17 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.


28 posted on 02/23/2009 2:02:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
"...Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric...?"

If there is one, perhaps he can explain why apes and monkeys have identifiable "friction ridges" on their toes, feet, fingers and palms.

In Homo sapiens, we call ridges on one's palms "palmprints": on one's fingers, those ridges are called "fingerprints".

Apes needed "friction ridges" to enhance their grip on tree limbs.

Humans have them because?

29 posted on 02/23/2009 2:32:43 AM PST by Does so (White House uncomfortable? Sleeplessness? The 0bama will quit before 6 months are up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

As Ernst Mayr points out, Darwood could not experiment in the past, so he invented just-so “historical narratives” for the atheists and materialists in need of intellectual fulfillment of today...and you guys fell for it...LOL!:

“The most widely used method in the physical sciences is the experiment. However, in his evolutionary studies Darwin had to cope with a factor that is irrelevant in most of the physical sciences except in geology and cosmology, the time factor. One cannot experiment with biological happenings in the past. Phenomena like the extinction of the dinosaurs and all other evolutionary events are inaccessible to the experimental method and require an entirely different methodology, that of
the so-called “historical narratives.” In this method one develops an imaginary scenario of past happenings on the basis of their consequences. One then makes all sorts of predictions from this scenario and determines whether or not they have come true.”

Unfortunately for the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, Darwood’s “historical” narratives are being falsified right and left, thus creating an ever increasing number leaks to develop in the hull of the HMS Beagle. Indeed, it has started to sink so fast, that it has the Evos panicked to the point of publishing articles in the New York Times (of all places!) to the effect that Darwin must die so that evolution might live. Don’t you get it, Ketsu, just about everybody who is anybody knows that the HMS Beagle is going down—except you. Or perhaps you’re just doing the honorable thing by going down with the ship. LOL


30 posted on 02/23/2009 2:41:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: utherdoul
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution?

It continues to be debated because people who do not grock science continue to offer non-scientific arguments.

31 posted on 02/23/2009 2:43:15 AM PST by Jeff Gordon ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Does so

==Humans have them because?

Because God designed us that way. In addition to stamping each and every one of us as unique, the last I checked humans grip a far greater variety of objects (large and small, coarse and smooth) than do apes.


32 posted on 02/23/2009 2:49:03 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

==It continues to be debated because people who do not grock science continue to offer non-scientific arguments.

Darwin’s fanciful creation myth is not a scientific argument. Have you read Origins? It was nothing more than a long argument with practically ZERO data.


33 posted on 02/23/2009 2:51:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Does so
Humans have them because?

If they didn't, television writers would need another way to have their protagonists track down criminals. Granted, this is a anthropic argument, but if it's good enough for Steven Weinberg, it's good enough for me! (well, not really - actually anthropic arguments are the worst kind of pseudo-science)

34 posted on 02/23/2009 2:52:56 AM PST by TheWasteLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth blah blah blah.

Nah, he's not upset. Upset is when you post multiple articles per day repeating long-disproven or simply irrelevant talking points, drawn from small pool of like-minded web sites and occasional articles from the opinion pages of small newspapers, even though one's opponents draw freely from a century of technical and lay scientific literature and happily slap down these talking points as a way to pass time during commercial breaks. That's upset. That's a level of upset that, if directed into the electrical grid, could power a small city. It's too bad there's only one of you, GunGodsGuts. A few hundred more and we could solve the country's energy problems.

35 posted on 02/23/2009 2:54:34 AM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

Small newpapers, eh? It’s a very flowery sounding article...until you realize all the flowers are for a funeral. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html


36 posted on 02/23/2009 3:01:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

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 atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Oldavai 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, 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 a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists’ logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life also came from somewhere else...

Uuuum... I know farmers with gay sheep and a friend has gay dogs. Homosexuality is not a religion, although it may be a mental illness.

Evolution is a theory, right up there with relativity and other physical theories. It *is* not indoctrination, although--because it conflicts with the nuttiness of crevos-- it is often projected as such.

As for your "immaculate conception" hypothesis, google "RNA world" and get back to me.

37 posted on 02/23/2009 3:04:21 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Call me a religious fanatic if you want.

Religious fanatic would be far too much of a generalization to define you. You belong to small cult which not only believes that the bible is the word of God but that it is also the literal word of God. Maybe "small time cultist" would be a better fit.

38 posted on 02/23/2009 3:04:31 AM PST by Jeff Gordon ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.
Yawn... you certainly haven't had any logic or rhetoric education that's for sure. "Argumentum ad hominem" would be a good place for you to start.
39 posted on 02/23/2009 3:07:10 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwin’s fanciful creation myth is not a scientific argument. Have you read Origins? It was nothing more than a long argument with practically ZERO data.

Nods and smiles.

40 posted on 02/23/2009 3:08:14 AM PST by Jeff Gordon ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
As Ernst Mayr points out, Darwood could not experiment in the past, so he invented just-so “historical narratives” for the atheists and materialists in need of intellectual fulfillment of today...and you guys fell for it...LOL!:

“The most widely used method in the physical sciences is the experiment. However, in his evolutionary studies Darwin had to cope with a factor that is irrelevant in most of the physical sciences except in geology and cosmology, the time factor. One cannot experiment with biological happenings in the past. Phenomena like the extinction of the dinosaurs and all other evolutionary events are inaccessible to the experimental method and require an entirely different methodology, that of the so-called “historical narratives.” In this method one develops an imaginary scenario of past happenings on the basis of their consequences. One then makes all sorts of predictions from this scenario and determines whether or not they have come true.”

Unfortunately for the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, Darwood’s “historical” narratives are being falsified right and left, thus creating an ever increasing number leaks to develop in the hull of the HMS Beagle. Indeed, it has started to sink so fast, that it has the Evos panicked to the point of publishing articles in the New York Times (of all places!) to the effect that Darwin must die so that evolution might live. Don’t you get it, Ketsu, just about everybody who is anybody knows that the HMS Beagle is going down—except you. Or perhaps you’re just doing the honorable thing by going down with the ship. LOL.

As usual you don't understand how science works. The problem is that you and the rest of the Crevo dimwits have taken "naturalistic materalism" and tried to use it as a lense to interpret Christianity. Hence all the bilge about dinosaurs being on the ark.

That's also why you mindlessly project your own hero worship onto others. Hate to burst your bubble but science doesn't work that way.

41 posted on 02/23/2009 3:10:49 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
Nah, he's not upset. Upset is when you post multiple articles per day repeating long-disproven or simply irrelevant talking points, drawn from small pool of like-minded web sites and occasional articles from the opinion pages of small newspapers, even though one's opponents draw freely from a century of technical and lay scientific literature and happily slap down these talking points as a way to pass time during commercial breaks. That's upset. That's a level of upset that, if directed into the electrical grid, could power a small city. It's too bad there's only one of you, GunGodsGuts. A few hundred more and we could solve the country's energy problems.
If you keep this up, you might make him mad enough to call you a homosexual.
42 posted on 02/23/2009 3:12:18 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

> Is there a single Crevo that’s gone to a real college
> that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?

Yes, of course. Creationists must be tragically ignorant, simply uneducated, or just plain stupid if we don’t ascribe to your materialistic story of origins.

Evolutionists have nothing if they don’t have condescending invective.

Just like your pet theory, your narrative against your intellectual opponents has no basis in fact.

Many Creationists are college educated. Many Creationists hold advanced degrees. Many Creationists are successful in business, science, and engineering.

They are not the buck-toothed, google-eyed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling caricature you so much like to convey.


43 posted on 02/23/2009 3:12:47 AM PST by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

PS Did you see what the Evos gave Darwood for his birthday? It was published in one of those BIG newspapers that sophisticated city-folk read. Of course, they didn’t dare mention that creationists have been predicting this inevitable falsification ever since the days Darwood first published his fanciful creation myth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html


44 posted on 02/23/2009 3:12:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

> “Argumentum ad hominem” would be a good place for you to start.

You should know.

In my observation, that’s where Darwinists always start.


45 posted on 02/23/2009 3:17:34 AM PST by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Yes, of course. Creationists must be tragically ignorant, simply uneducated, or just plain stupid if we don’t ascribe to your materialistic story of origins.

Evolutionists have nothing if they don’t have condescending invective.

Just like your pet theory, your narrative against your intellectual opponents has no basis in fact.

Many Creationists are college educated. Many Creationists hold advanced degrees. Many Creationists are successful in business, science, and engineering.

They are not the buck-toothed, google-eyed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling caricature you so much like to convey.

Science is inherently materialistic. That's why Crevos are so funny(and laughably ignorant) they keep trying to bang a big square peg(monotheism) into a little round hole(natural science or "materialism" as you like to call it).

It's inherently paradoxical for a true scientist to be a creationist. Science *necessitates* materialism. Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.

So *yes* Crevos are "tragically ignorant, simply uneducated or just plain stupid" as you so aptly put it.

46 posted on 02/23/2009 3:18:13 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
I know farmers with gay sheep and a friend has gay dogs.

Stop having sex with them...

47 posted on 02/23/2009 3:18:35 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

==Yawn... you certainly haven’t had any logic or rhetoric education that’s for sure. “Argumentum ad hominem” would be a good place for you to start.

Look who’s talking! Have you looked in the mirror lately? Or did you break it in a fit of rage when you found out that God’s creation has falsified Darwood’s so-called tree of life?


48 posted on 02/23/2009 3:19:00 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
You should know.

In my observation, that’s where Darwinists always start.

I see you're another graduate of the Godgunsgays school of argumentation.
49 posted on 02/23/2009 3:19:28 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Stop having sex with them...
lol... why is it that the biggest perverts are always Crevos? You should stop having dirty thoughts there snoogums.
50 posted on 02/23/2009 3:20:24 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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