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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 661 next last
To: Westbrook
That was not the opinion of Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Washington, and many, many others whose accomplishments dwarf those of Darwin.
You're confusing philosophy of science with science. Science fundamentally and necessarily requires naturalism to work(i.e. that you can prove or disprove things empirically and only empirically). While their philosophies were certainly different(as was Darwin's BTW) their *methods* were exactly the same.
61 posted on 02/23/2009 3:33:03 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook; ketsu

He always does this when he starts to sense he’s on the losing side of the debate. Which, in the case of Darwood’s fanciful creation myth, is quite often.


62 posted on 02/23/2009 3:33:28 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
So is it *inductive reasoning* for the overwhelming majority of the 40 and under college educated to be whole 'hog' Bama supporters??? Pure science has NO predetermined unprovable foundations. Evolution is whole hog fundamentally based upon a belief that life popped out of a hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum. That belief has never survived the test of time.
Huh...? I see one point inside that word salad, which is the assertion of a "prime mover". Which has been done to death before. What do you think of the big bang?
63 posted on 02/23/2009 3:36:26 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
You seem to have an affinity for baby talk.
Humans "evolved" to use babytalk when dealing with children and the "differently abled"(e.g. GodGunsGays).
64 posted on 02/23/2009 3:38:56 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

Also, he likes to bring up homosexuality alot.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191791/posts?q=1&;page=1#42

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191791/posts?q=1&;page=1#49

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191791/posts?q=1&;page=1#50

Ect, ect, etc...


65 posted on 02/23/2009 3:39:19 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

And let’s no forget reply #64. LOL


66 posted on 02/23/2009 3:41:09 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Huh...? I see one point inside that word salad, which is the assertion of a "prime mover". Which has been done to death before. What do you think of the big bang?

Given the evidence around this globe, there does appear to have been an event that would have sounded like a big bang. Something happened eons ago that caused the end of tropical vegetation from having a climate to grow and reproduce around the polar north region.

Now whether you Darwinists like to admit it, the overwhelming majority of 40 and under college educated crowd support Bama and that scientific methodology. You all have come a long way, so be happy.

67 posted on 02/23/2009 3:45:48 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Given the evidence around this globe, there does appear to have been an event that would have sounded like a big bang. Something happened eons ago that caused the end of tropical vegetation from having a climate to grow and reproduce around the polar north region.

Now whether you Darwinists like to admit it, the overwhelming majority of 40 and under college educated crowd support Bama and that scientific methodology. You all have come a long way, so be happy.

Uuumm.. no. Young people are so sick of ignorant and stupid crevos(not to mention pandering scumbags like McCain) that they were willing to vote for Obama. So *you* should be proud of yourself.
68 posted on 02/23/2009 3:54:20 AM PST by ketsu (It’s not a campaign. It’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

==All science is *inductive reasoning*

If all science is inductive reasoning, then Darwood’s “T”oE is unscientific:

A second unsatisfying assertion in the review, that Darwin was a “ruthlessly inductive thinker,” ignores the impressive scope and depth of Darwin’s deductive achievements in “On the Origin of Species,” as noted by Peter Medawar 40 years ago in, ironically enough, “Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought.” Throughout his great work, Darwin derives the deductive implications of his fundamental ideas for the natural world and compares reality to logically generated expectation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/books/review/Letters-t-DARWININFULL_LETTERS.html


69 posted on 02/23/2009 4:08:34 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

PS Darwood’s 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.


70 posted on 02/23/2009 4:12:02 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Uuumm.. no. Young people are so sick of ignorant and stupid crevos(not to mention pandering scumbags like McCain) that they were willing to vote for Obama. So *you* should be proud of yourself.

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.

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.

71 posted on 02/23/2009 4:21:04 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

> You’re confusing philosophy of science with science.

Sir, I perceive that it is you that is confusing philosophy of science with science.

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.


72 posted on 02/23/2009 4:30:25 AM PST by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

> Humans “evolved” to use babytalk when dealing with
> children and the “differently abled”(e.g. GodGunsGays).

Silly condescension demeans you more than your opponent.


73 posted on 02/23/2009 4:34:17 AM PST by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook; ketsu
January 2009 issue of New Scientist:


74 posted on 02/23/2009 4:36:45 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook; ketsu

From the New Scientist article:

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html


75 posted on 02/23/2009 4:45:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon; doc1019
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.

Believing that the Bible is the Word of God makes you a cultist? Who knew?

Got sources?

76 posted on 02/23/2009 5:28:50 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
lol... why is it that the biggest perverts are always Crevos?

Oh, you haven't been hit on by Sir Francis until you get a love note like this . I'm so lucky.
77 posted on 02/23/2009 5:28:52 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.

I think you've scored your "dumbest post of the day" early today. By the way, are you capable of seeing the irony in posting articles that A) bolster evolutionary theory and B) show the strengths of how science actually works?
78 posted on 02/23/2009 5:30:45 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Stop drooling GGG, this isn’t science abondoning evolution. Science evolves as new data and evidence come to light. As it should because it’s real science - even to the point of re-evaluating core ideas. That’s what makes science so resilient and honest. Creation ‘science’ could never experience such a thing since no evidence or data or facts do, or can, exist which contradict your interpretation of scripture.


79 posted on 02/23/2009 5:34:51 AM PST by Natufian (The mesolithic wasn't so bad, was it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

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

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.

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.

80 posted on 02/23/2009 5:35:38 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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