 |
How does he look in a slinky black dress? Because that's Ann's only plus... |
Posted on 05/21/2007 9:33:13 PM PDT by LoserPays3000
I don't know how many other folks have read this yet, but I highly recommend it. Sutcliff's style is like Ann Coulter's and the book backs up the brazen title with over 40 sources and rock-solid research. See http://www.evofraud.com for sources, chapter excerpts, purchase.
It's also non-technical and easy-to-read, regardless of your background in science. After reading it I wonder why anyone believes in that pseudoscience. Why Evolution is a Fraud demonstrates why Darwinism is mathematically impossible, why genetics is evolution's worst enemy and how this racist pseudoscience has survived in spite of the facts to the contrary.
Newton dealt in real science. What are you referring to when you say that ‘gravity evolved?’
I never said gravity evolved. Try reading before posting.
Oh, really?
**************************************************
To: LoserPays3000
So evolution is continuously evolving? How convenient! Whenever evolution does not have a valid answer, just say ‘the process is still evolving.’ This circular reasoning is why evolution is a fraud— it cannot be logically justified.
If by logically justified, you mean proven like a theorem in math, you are correct.
The “laws” of gravity also evolve. That’s the way science works. In the meantime, Newton is close enough to get us to the moon and back.
40 posted on 07/10/2007 10:24:23 AM PDT by js1138
*******************************************************
|
How does he look in a slinky black dress? Because that's Ann's only plus... |
I never said gravity evolves. Try reading what I say instead of what you imagine I say.
So you are dissing Ann Coulter, eh? Are you displeased with her take on evolution in Godless or what?
Reading comprehension is something you should work on. Or would you like to rephrase your original statement?
 |
Read "Treason," closely. If you read it carefully, there's a prize inside! |
You already have. Among people who can parse English sentences, what I said was "laws" evolve. Scientific laws are, in general, mathematical descriptions that describe and predict relationships between data points. Gravity is whatever it is, but the formulas describing gravity have changed over the centuries. At the moment we don't have a law of gravity, because Newton's equation fails to describe extreme cases,and Einstein's fails at quantum dimensions.
Oh come on! Talk about a blatant asymmetrical argument. You are trying to liken Einstein’s conceptual ideas with Newton’s concrete ones?
Evolution does not stand up on its own because it is a failure. The only reason that it gets any traction is because atheists use it as a club to attack people of faith with. However, it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than any theistic belief system. Science is evolution’s worst enemy.
Yeah, the truth! You know the pesky things that liberals hate, like the fact that Joe McCarthy was right.
Evolution is just like global warming: liberal agendascience nonsense. You can always tell because the one of the traits of leftardom ‘science’ is that ...
“There is no debate”
the other one is
“There is a consensus of...”
Liberals cannot handle debating facts and that’s why they use these statements to try to shut off the debate. But just like global warming, which they are repositioning as ‘climate change,’ evolution is a fraud. I’ve read Why Evolution is a Fraud and Godless — both books utterly crush evolution. What’s amazing is that otherwise intelligent people actually believe in the dopey walking fish theory.
Coulter hammered evolution in Godless but the liberals in the media chose to ignore the four chapters on this and focus on two sentences about the ‘Jersey Girls.’ It shows that they cannot handle having their phony theory challenged.
The PC evoliberals obviously have never taken a statistics course. The odds of the bogus things happening in evolution are astronomically remote.
The ‘why’ question is either scientific or implies intent and purpose. Evolution certainly has a purpose and meets a need in science, not primarily biological science but human science.
Evolution is not driven by statistics or probability, although some analyses can be statistical just as well as scientific or clinical.
Isn’t evolution supposed to be part of biology?
Evolution has found its true home in other sciences such as literary criticism and politics. It has meaning for such as Bill Clinton whose objective on earth is to accelerate the pace of societal evolution. For biology it is mainly an acknowledgement that this species is close to that species and that species is close to the next one and so on. A mechanism that might produce those differences has been proposed now and then but that is not important. The important thing is the links and differences between species, which allows a method of classification of the many, many species which would otherwise hardly be catalogable or nameable. It’s part of how we might make some sense of what we see. Recall that Aristotle, the botanist of antiquity, had a garden of his extensive collection of species that was so extensive even he knew the names of only about 25% of them. He would have been ecstatic to have a system such as evolution so he could organize them more systematically.
I don’t think anyone questions the classification system of kingdom, phyla, etc. At issue is the idea that random chance will turn a blob of primodial goo into human being. Or that reptile scales will magically morph into flight-worthy feathers.
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.