Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
hey give us cubicle-bound a break- tell us?
Excellent analogy! This demonstrates quite aptly that the random union of a sperm and an egg could not possibly *randomly* assemble a newborn baby out of the nutrients and water in a mother's uterus! This obviously shows the in utero fertilization and birth theory to be an impossibility, and lends support to the birth by ciconia ciconia freefall theory!
Proof is 'evidence that establishes the truth of something" It's the 1st definition of the word and copied verbatim. If you disagree, perhaps you should write Webster and tell them they have no idea what they are talking about.
This line of argument has been tried before and isn’t terribly impressive. If you can’t comprehend that “proof” as it pertains to a scientific theory is not the same as the everyday use of the word, it is yet more evidence that you’re no scientist.
Perhaps before you accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about you should look up their proofs/definitions before you prove to everyone else reading your response that the exact opposite is true.
Good idea. Try taking a look at Coyoteman’s post 117 to this thread, especially where it says:
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
you wrote: "Your above statements demonstrate beyond any doubt that you're no scientist." So the 26 years I've been working in the scientific field and being rewarded for those efforts, with several outstanding contribution awards, were all a fraud simply because you don't know the real definition of the word proof? Stop the presses, "Gumlegs" says anyone who require proof is not a real scientists.
I am suspicious because if you were really working in a scientific field, you wouldn’t be confusing “proof” with “evidence” and implying that a “theory” might become a “proof”. In post 124 to my, you said, “They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts,” remember? I’m using your own words as the basis for my doubt. Thus far, you’ve offered no, um, proof to demonstrate that I was wrong.
I ask you for facts and like all evolutionist[sic] you answer the request by trying to divert the argument. For your small weak mind, the Clinton Democrats "IGNORED" facts. Evolutionist[sic], such as yourself, rely on theories not facts. So let's stop and get off the personal attacks and actually get back to the point at hand and my original post.
You never asked me for facts. Re-read your posts. Do you know how to pluralize, by the way? Just a question. Most people I know in the sciences do.
You did post, “I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period,” which was the source of my comment about the Senate Democrats. They said they hadn’t “seen” any evidence, either, when there was a room full of it available to them. They just never looked at it. Is “I have yet to see a single fact that supports< evolution, period,” anything like that?
Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution. Not something that can be inferred, fact. If its[sic] just a theory (as all the information available today so states) then the schools and evolutionist[sic] should stop referring to it as fact and call it a theory. It as plain and simple as that.
You are acting like a Democrat. In the last six or seven years, thousands upon thousands of facts have been posted right here on FR. I could list every one of them on this thread, and, Janet Reno-like, you could take each one in isolation and say, “That’s not proof,” and you’d be right. No fact in isolation is proof of anything, which was one of the points I was making before. It’s only the theory that provides the facts with any meaning.
But let’s try this one, just for laughs:
Regarding the way evolution is taught these days, see my post 130 in this thread."Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
ID was an assumption on my part -- it's the "alternative" that needs to be taught, according to its enthusiasts. If you weren't going there, I withdraw the comment and apologize.
Excellent analogy! This demonstrates quite aptly that the random union of a sperm and an egg could not possibly *randomly* assemble a newborn baby out of the nutrients and water in a mother's uterus! This obviously shows the in utero fertilization and birth theory to be an impossibility, and lends support to the birth by ciconia ciconia freefall theory!
Gen 4:4,5 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."...
Gen 6:1-3 ...When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
John 3:1ff- 1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]
Well, then, you rule out the explanation that has a gaping hole in it ("Where did God come from?") and are left with the other (unless you can think of a third alternative).
They (Theories and Evolution is a Theory) only become PROOFS when they are proven by the facts."
Ohhh . . . I see. A theory only becomes a scientific axiom when it is evidence that establishes the truth of a scientific truth.
I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering what kind of scientist you are.
Wow. She's even stupider than I'd thought (and that's saying something).
The museums are full of fossils of extinct species.
Um, does it suffice to say that a "flower producing an amoeba" is not a prediction made by the theory of evolution?
I'm not sure what kind of scientist you are, but your education is obviously seriously lacking in the area of evolutionary biology. You might want to get caught up on some of what's been learned by hard working scientists over the last century and a half before making ridiculous comments like this one.
I assume you mean her politics as of today. The moment she thinks it will get her more attention, she'll do the David Brock Spinaround.
What was not enjoyable about the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Other than the shooting.
Aw, come on. Tell us. What kind of scientist are you?
Just like evolution.
I'm not sure which ring species article you read, but either it wasn't clear or you misinterpreted.
And if you're waiting for a frog to evolve into a cow in one step, wou need to learn more of the basics.
Hi DungeonMaster! Jeepers, does that mean that if something isn't "natural," then it doesn't exist? Yet that wouldn't seem to provide much of a definition of what "natural" means....
Here's a little list of things, just a grab bag of seemingly unrelated items:
King Lear, the Bhagavad Gita, the U. S. Constitution (the document, not the ship), Paradise Lost, Le Morte d'Arthur, the Bible, the Divine Comedy, Plato's Timaeus, Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey-Maturin novels; God. Would you say these are "natural" things? If so, how so? If not, why not? And if not, would you say then they have no status as existents? (i.e., that they "aren't real?")
Just wondering....
Thanks for writing!
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.