| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/28/2006 3:39:28 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
. |
Posted on 06/21/2006 9:17:55 AM PDT by RonDog
Ann Coulter is every thinking man's dream girl.
Only a Liberal or a moron would attempt to discredit the two rising stars of the Conservative movement - Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn.
They are exquisite, brilliant, telegenic, humorous, exciting.
Libs have absolutely no one to compare.
No wonder they are so worried!
BTTT!
In order to be a good liberal you have to find a reason for life besides God--ANYTHING. What you and Pout fail to realize is that Ann isn't debunking evolution as a natural process, she's debunking it as a faith. Evolutionists find any link, no matter how tenuous, and any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, proof of their theories. It doesn't matter what other laws are broken (2nd Law of Thermo comes to mind...) as long as they can explain it away. Evolutionists will take us all the way back to the beginning to... well... anything but God. For them there is no God, no creator, just random processes that gave us modern civilization out of... randomness.
Just as Christianity starts with God's creation, so the nihilists of faith in evolution have to start with... nothing. It is foundational and every bit a BELIEF system as religion. One difference, though... God Himself came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ and affirmed his majesty and authority. From age to age, He hasn't changed and neither has His message. On the contrary, what was written centuries before His Holy Incarnation came true to the smallest detail in our time. The nihilists start from today and work backward and still have... nothing.
I would argue that God's Law rule and have never been debunked (despite millenia of attempts) and the evolutionists theories rely more tenuously on belief.
I don't believe you are really trying to use the 2nd Law argument! I truly find it hard to believe that you know so little science that you could do this.
My advice is to spend a few days on the science websites, and avoid the creation "science" sites for a while. What those sites do to science is ludicrous, and there are few things you will find there more ludicrous than the 2nd Law argument.
Her short essays in polemic are quite good.
Coulter would do better to stick to them, and try to remember to target only those who actually merit such treatment.
She erred -in profusion- in her assault on evolutionary science.
oh, dear, another argument against a strawman.
pgyanke, are you capable of EVER stating things honestly?
I have explicitly stated that I am displeased with Coulter's ERRORS OF FACT, SLOVENLY CITATIONS, and INACCURATE/DISTORTED PRESENTATION.
At what point have I EVER insisted that Coulter is wrong based on her refusal to accept the ToE?
NEVER.
At what point have I castigated YOU for refusing to accept the ToE?
NOT ONCE.
What have I hammered you with, in fact? Your constant refusal to specify exactly how many examples of Coulter's errors you desire, what degree of refutation of those errors you require to be coerced to publicly admit they are indeed errors, and/or a commitment to explain exactly what fault you find in those refutations should you decide to claim they are not compelling.
With every successive distortion and excuse you put forth, you become ever more fully the servant of my purposes on this thread.
I am not in the business of trying to teach a pig to sing when it serves my purposes just as well to allow a pig to wallow in its own filth before all the world.
Do you get it now? If you accept the terms of the challenge, you serve my purposes. If you refuse to accept the terms of the challenge, you serve my purposes. If -at this point- you flee, you serve my purposes. If, instead, you scream for help, you serve my purposes.
It is entirely up to you to decide which way of serving my purposes causes you the least damage. In my opinion, your best option is to accept the terms of the challenge.
You had your chance--I didn't waste time reading your post. Take a hike.
Yet another distortion: it is YOU who have squandered many chances, and have done so yet again. You serve my purposes, costing me no effort. Continue, or choose more wisely.
Great! Are you going to back this up?
Evolution in no way breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Actually it does. The argument against says that life isn't governed by this law. How about the creation of life? I'm not arguing about the process of evolution, as I pointed out above. I am arguing about its beginning. Where does life begin? For the strict evolutionist, there comes a point where one moment there wasn't life and the next there is... THIS violates the 2nd Law of Thermo. I agree life is an open system. However, before there was life, there was entropy. It certainly violates the 2nd Law of Thermo that complex life could come from a system evolving toward inert uniformity.
Nothing you said in the above is correct.
Did you check the link? Thank you for the insulting tone... may I please have another?
I am. See post #291.
Buzz off, junior. We're having a discussion here.
I am. See post #291.
...the thermodynamics argument is one of the very worst creationists have ever used. The argument is wrong, of course. But more than that it is wrong in a way that betrays an extreme simple-mindedness about science in general and physics in particular. Consequently, among scientists the thermodynamics argument has become a symbol for the sort of mind-numbing ignorance that is the stock-in-trade of creationists.
actually, no: you are not having a discussion - you are having your head handed to you by one who favors different tactics than I.
and you are STILL serving my purposes handily.
do carry on.
"Great! Are you going to back this up?"
King Prout already listed a number of her lies. You have yet to counter him on any point.
Evolution fails the priciples of the 2nd Law of Thermo in the creation process. There is no process known where a system evolving toward a "state of inert uniformity" explodes into complexity due to the addition of sunlight.
Let's take another approach... Occam's Razor (I know this has gotten much abused since the movie "Contact", however...). Is it more likely...
The Earth cooled. Life spontaneously occurs at the molecular level. This life evolves to become complex organisms in the sea first, then land. Somewhere along the way, this life finds a way to take flight and becomes birds. An ape stands upright and goes on to dominate the planet.
or
What God Himself told us was true. He created the Earth and its environments and then filled them with appropriate organisms. That He created variety through natural selection and adaptation doesn't contradict His Word or purpose.
In one scenario, life is a cosmic accident devoid of meaning. Man is but the most advanced of the simians and will take a dirt nap at his end just to be food for the plants and bugs. In God's reality, man is created in His image and likeness and has a purpose to his life and his death beyond simple fertilizer.
I'm on God's side. Where science falters, He does not.
Got a link?
I could sum up your post as "cause I said so". I'm convinced.
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.