iknowhim

Why is Evolution Not Science?

Science-the examination of reality.

Normal(operational) science deals with only repeatable observable
processes in the present.

Evolution religion is a speculation about the unobserable and unrepeatable past.

In real science we can go into the laboratory and assemble chemicals or
equipment and test them over and over again under sets of arranged
cir***stances. And anyone, anywhere can come up with the same results
given the same cir***stances.

In evolution religion this cannot be done. Changes, according to the
believers, must take place during million even billions of years and
therefore are unobservable and unrepeatable. Their "facts" are not real
scientific facts but conjecture and "just-so" stories that change faster
than their underware.

One can believe anything they wish. However, wouldn't it be best to
believe the truth instead of a faith-based religion that is silly as is
evolution(frog to prince-but you can't see it or test it-just believe it
because I told you so!)

bill litchfield

John, just curious here...are you saying that IKHDY and YM1 are the same person? Shalom, Bill

zachriel

How do you assemble Jupiter in the lab? Or do you claim that Jupiter is not
subject to scientific investigation.


We can predict the placement of fossils in the geologic column. Fossils are
the remains of long dead organisms.


The fact is the nested hierarchy of fossil forms in the geologic column.

galt_57

Anyone can make observations regarding evolution by simply making
careful observations of our modern day world. Anyone, anywhere, can
examine fossil evidence, or examine the genetic makeup of E. Coli.


Science is often criticised for not knowing everything and for not
being constant. Occasionally new theories are introduced which fit the
evidence better and force the discarding of old theories and this is
portrayed as a questionable practice by those who wish to contrast
Science against the unchanging nature of the Bible or Qur'an. However
the goal of Science is to probe into the unknown for the exact purpose
of determining what is known and what is unknown, without regard for
anything but establishing the truth.

Wouldn't it be best to examine some of the clear scientific evidence?
You could try looking at this small and very readable book;

"Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

gaffo

Micro-Evolution is a theory............it is not verifiable by
experimentation.

However micro-evolution........experimants with fruit flys/germs..etc..
have shown evolution inthe lab.

and there are signs of natural resistance to pesticides and anti-biotics
for the lest 30 yrs.

such things do tend to show that the theory of evolution is a correct
theory.

I bleive it........but you can beleive whatever you like. I don;t really
care who or what anyone believes as long as they return the favor.


peace.

steven_j

Science is the attempt to explain various aspects of reality in terms
of discoverable regularities of nature.


Yes, and why should scientists care to know about such processes? The
whole point of science is the assumption that the repeatable,
observable processes studied in the lab apply everywhere and at all
times. It would hardly be worthwhile to establish something about the
boiling point of various solutions, or the effect of temperature on
ferromagnetism, if you thought that the results obtained in a lab in
England might not apply in an electrical generator in Ohio, or a bridge in Singapore.


Science quite frequently deals with unobserved events in the past --
and all events are, in their specific detail, unique and unrepeatable.
Science attempts to determine the commonalities in causes in various
unique events. Investigators use the results of "operational" science
to determine how to interpret the evidence left behind by, e.g.
unobserved plane crashes, or industrial disasters, or crimes. The
formulation and testing of hypotheses is as much a part of historical
sciences as of "operational" sciences, and the distinction between
them is not clear-cut.

Note, for that matter, that the difference between observed and
unobserved events is overrated. One repeatable observation about
human beings is that witnesses can lie, or be mistaken, or be
misunderstood; interpreting any alleged eyewitness account requires
inferences about an unobserved, unrepeatable event -- the state of
mind of the alleged eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony is simply
another sort of effect of events, not more reliable or better in any
way that "cir***stantial" evidence such as is used as evidence for evolution.


This can be done, as well, for the evidence for evolution. A dozen
labs, or a hundred, can compare human and chimp DNA, or examine some
set of fossils, or study mutation, natural selection, and speciation
in fruit flies or bacteria. This is all that can be done for the
evidence for the existence of atoms or magnetic fields, neither of
which can be directly observed.

Again, scientific methods are frequently used to study unique events
-- or do you believe that forensic science used by crime scene
investigators is a religion, producing nothing but "just-so stories"
and conjecture? Your claim that evolutionary scientists change their
theories more often than their underwear is, on the one hand, a
misrepresentation of the facts (many aspects of evolutionary theory
have changed little in over a century), and on the other a confusion
of dogmatism and certainty with truth. The mere fact that evidence
won't change your mind is no reason to suppose that your views are
closer to the truth than the views of those who will change their
minds to fit the evidence -- indeed, it is reason to suspect the opposite.


Well, since common descent *is* testable (to take just one of
thousands of possible tests, do humans share pseuodgenes with
nonprimates that we don't share with primates?), and natural selection
is testable, but the belief that "kinds" were specially created (in a
nested hierarchy that would be expected from evolution but not from
separate creations) less than 10,000 years ago (but with the
appearance of age) *is* untestable, and *is* something we are urged to
believe merely because creationists tell us to. So on your own advice
one should reject creationism and accept evolution.

-- Steven J.

thore schmechtig

Really?
Then tell us, why do investigations of rock strata all around the world
continually produce the same results, Watson?

john w

Because I've worked in the science industry for some 15 years. I ran
into MANY scientists who are Christians, and QUITE capable in their
fields, and creationists, some even YEC.

But the scientists with whom I worked who were NOT Christians were
usually atheists who even refused to acknowledge that there was a
sincere difference of opinion. They called their equally capable
Christian co-workers "idiots" even when the Christians were on nigh
shift, working alone, doing the same work, successfully, as the
atheists.
It's a mindset, nothing more.
When I asked these atheist scientists if I could share some proofs of
Christianity and Creation, "not interested."
"Why no?"
"Because I'm an atheist."
"But I have proof!"
"Not interested."

Too many atheist "scientists"do NOT consider "all data", but only data
from non-Christian sources.

I tried to talk with a "Christian/atheist scientist" one day. His
reply was "you must be a fundamentalist." I said, " I have proof! Want
to see it?"
"Not interested" he said. "I prefer to believe in evolution."
"Your preference to BELIEVE in evolution, then, is not science; it's
philosophy." He confuses the two.

I have seen, and other scientists have showed me, inverted strata ALL
over the world, which prove #1 the flood, #2 creation.

The atheists won't even look.

That is not science.

There's the true story of the archaeologist who discovered the duck
billed platypus, in the Amazon, I believe. In sheer excitement, he
wired his company back in England with his findings.

The reply contained only ridicule. "Such a creature CANNOT exist! It
would defy all the laws of evolution!"

And he was ordered to return home, to be replaced by a "more competent
scientist".

He came home, bringing the creature with him.

The creature that "could not POSSIBLY exist" did.

Another atheist evolution theory down the tubes.
John W


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

zachriel

What is your specialty?


As long as they show up for work on time, and use the scientific method,
then of course, they are scientists.


If it is just a mindset, what does it matter, as long as they show up for
work on time, and use the scientific method.

That would be, no doubt, off-topic at work, and they have every right to
refuse to argue with those they may consider to be religious fanatics.

So you work some place that is trying to determine the best way to, let us
say, crystalize DNA strands. Sounds like you are off-topic and wasting your employer's time.

How would your theory of God help us crystalize DNA strands?


You are confusing your personal opinion with science. Futhermore you are
wasting your employer's time and resources.


More than likely, he has work to do, and you are being annoying. Besides,
like most scientists, he defers to specialists in the appropriate field.
Biologists agree that the Theory of Evolution is the unifying principle of biology.

Please point to the specific strata. A peer-reviewed publication will do.

They probably defer to the specialists in geology, who claim that the
Principle of Superposition is one of the unifying themes in earth science.
But what do they know.

zachriel

<snip>


The Platypus was discovered in 1798. Darwin published his Origin of Species
in 1859. Would you care to retract your story?

<><><><><><><><>