| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Given where we started (Ann Coulter/Bill Dembski's 'thoughts' on evolution, I don't think you can argue the thread's gone downhill.
I've just caught the tail end of this thread. I'm looking forward to an evening of pure entertainment reading the whole thing.
But we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. It's just that some of us think the evidence shows that "our creator" was a natural process instead of a supernatural person. So what?
We have inalienable rights because our human nature requires them. Man is the rational animal - the only animals who constantly engage in deep, abstract thinking, and who constantly think about the past & the future as much as we do the present. That's why we have free will - and that's why we require individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are inalienable because we will never change our essential nature as human beings. In exactly the same sense, we have an inalienable right to pursue oxygen.
If it turned out that God didn't exist, would we no longer need oxygen to breathe? In the same sense, if it turned out that God didn't exist, we would still require individual rights to thrive as humans above a bare subsistence level.
Do you begin to see why your (plural) attempt to write evos and/or nonbelievers out of the conservative movement is so wrongheaded? Do you begin to see why we loyal conservatives take offense at your assertions about our character? Do you begin to see why we feel like we've been slandered?
Not to nitpick, but unalienable means you can't sell it. Simply put, you can't sell yourself into servitude.
I love it -- you anti-evolutionists really need to get on the same page. On this very thread, half of you are accusing us of being "arrogant" and "too confident", the other half are accusing us of being "threatened and insecure".
Make up your minds and get back to us when you have a coherent line of ad hominem propaganda, won't you? Of course, even then you'd be trying to engage in pointless schoolyard taunting instead of actually dealing with the actual material, but hey, why change your tactics now?
Was Ann a cheerleader? Maybe she's bringing out some deep psychic high-school fears in these poor lads.
Behold the substantive arguments of the anti-evolutionists...
Folks, I'm sorry to say that this is about as good as it gets from the anti-evolutionists. If you want adult conversation and a real discussion of the evidence, you won't find it from these folks.
If Coyoteman keeps posting the same photo six times a day for five years, it will inevitably lead to Evo-Morph and the photo will change due to random chance.
Moreover, if the rights disappeared because we decided God didn't exist, they wouldn't be inalienable, by definition.
Why do you find it "unfortunate" that competence in science can be recognized and appreciated regardless of party affiliation?
Please be specific and complete in your answer, this should be very illuminating, a look into the mind of the anti-evolutionist.
But I came here for an argument! (/MP)
The issues of evolution enters into more topics than just the nice, comfortably vague and complex world of science. It effects politics, morals, ethics and philosophy, among others.
Bad argument.
The issues of Einstein's Relativity evolution enters into more topics than just the nice, comfortably vague and complex world of science. It effects politics, morals, ethics and philosophy, among others.
Why aren't you denouncing the Einstein's Relativity? Many charlatans, lunatics, megalomaniacs, liberals, etc. have used Relativity to advance nutty ideas in the political, moral, ethical, philosophical arena.
Look, repeating your delusions over and over again doesn't make them true, RW, although Lord knows you try.
By calling toe science it only highlights and underlines the theoretical and interpretive limitations of science, and also the transitory ephemeral nature of scientific theories.
Nonsense.
Gravity and all other forces have always been, and sometimes we can take measurements of various phenomena and make calculations based on that without knowing what the force truly is or if we have captured the phenomena in its essence/totality.
Nice irrelevancy.
IOW man does not 'own gravity' nuclear fission/fusion, and thru DNA and other processes 'the keys to life' as some (not all) from the evo camp might infer in their arrogance.
...and now you start to babble. Where in the hell did this "ownership" goofiness come from? Oh, right, your addled brain.
Then to completing a science program does not necessarily make one a true scientist.
No one said it did. Thanks for the random but irrelevant comment.
Evos make many predictions about toe and I will too.
Tens of thousands of "evo" predictions about evolutionary biology have been found to be correct, which validates evolution over and over and over again. (You sort of "forgot" to mention that.) Sorry the same can't be said of the predictions of the anti-evolutionists, which again and again end up with them falling flat on their faces. Hey, remember when Duane Gish predicted that an intermediate form between the reptilian jaw and the mammalian jaw would be unworkable, and thus he laughably predicted that evolutionists were nuts for expecting to find such intermediates? Who was right on *that* one, eh? Oh, yeah, the evolutionists. And again, the predictions of the anti-evolutionists were shown to be dead, flat wrong. Oops!
In a hundred years toe will be only a forgotten insignificant trinket tossed off on the path of scientific progress.
ROFL!!! Nice of you to set the prediction far enough in the future that you won't be around to be laughed at to your face when it fails, just like all *these* folks who now are known to be laughably wrong when they made similar predictions about the "imminent" demise of evolutionary biology:
People have been predicting that evolution would come crashing down "any day now" for oh, 150 years or more.But surely, *YOU'RE* finally right *this* time, eh? Dream on. The anti-evolutionists have been fantasizing about evolution crashing down since before the Civil War... Uh huh. Sure. Any day now.For some perspective, check out this web page on The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Anti-evolutionists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840... That page contains quotes predicting the "any day now" crash of evolution from 1825, 1840, 1850, 1878, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1935, 1940, 1961, 1963, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
Sample:
"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
-- Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995)
You guys are hilarious! You're unable to learn anything from past failures, so you keep on making the same mistakes over and over again. But hey, that's what happens when you fail to actually look at the evidence.
I have a problem with many of Ann's fans, both male and female. They wear blinders to the fact that she uses tactics which, if she were a liberal, they would rightfully condemn.
except she uses facts which completley distinguishes her from liberals.
Are you referring to the infamous "girleymen" remark, or perhaps the threat to convert our enemies to Christianity?
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.