MY SECOND ANN COULTER THREAD - EVOLUTION DISCUSSION (or Here We Go Again)

[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!

[Condorman]

a Theory is just a Theory until it is proven beyond doubt.

And...? Then what happens to it? What is the next stage in its development?

[RadioAstronomer]

Electro magnetics is something that can not be seen or touched yet it's proven to exist through experimentation and the applied sciences. From the ordinary electric generator to the highly comples MRI (which both are the result of the applied science of elector magnetics)

Yet at the fundamental level, the overarching (encompassing) physics is still and will always remain a theory.

A theory in science is the end point.

[RadioAstronomer]

The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs

Paluxy River giant man tracks?

[Thatcherite]

Please don't tell me your that stupid. You profess to be superior intelligence and you want me to show one example that shows proof of science? How about the field of electro magnetics. It's just this minor field of science that dictates every facet of your life .... or should I say normal peoples lives.

OK then, lets see your proof of something in electrodynamics. Not evidence, which we can all see everyday in applications of electrodynamics, but proof. You just don't get it, do you?

I've only read two or three books on evolution.

I'm guessing that they weren't very good ones, as your level of understanding of the subject aspires to "cartoon".

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere? From that the spark of life came into existence and the first gems / bacteria developed. That in turn led to the first single cell organisms which developed into multiple celled organisms and so on and so forth. Eventually complex animals developed into four legged creatures which eventually started to walk on 2 feet dragging their hands on the ground. ect. ect. ect. until man as we know him today ... came to be. (simplistic I know, but isn't that the theory of evolution?)

No, it isn't. The premise of evolution is that allele frequencies vary in populations over time as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and random mutation. With genetic isolation the resultant variation in phenotypes leads to speciation of isolated populations. Common descent from a primeval ancestor is not a necessary part of the theory of evolution, but all the molecular and paleontological evidence that we have to date (and there is a vast quantity of it) suggests that all life on earth does derive from a single ancestor. Even the ID-proposing scientists accept that.

You talk about fossils as if there were know ever found that contradict the facts of evolution. I can think of two such examples. The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs and the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old. And there is one one, the dig that showed fossils that were from the beginning of time that were found above the bones of animals that die only a few thousand years ago.

The Paluxy dinosaur/human footprints aren't even accepted as genuine by most creationsts.

Please provide a citation of a cat being carbon dated to be 400,000 years old.

Overthrust is a known geological phenomenon, and is easily identified.

So by your definition "Real" scientist deal in theories that are the result of looking at pieces of a puzzle and developing a theory that is refined over and over again. There is no way to disprove it because it's based upon subjective reasoning based upon "hypothesis", and "evidence". That's real science and those who deal with that a real scientist.

No, that is not my definition of real science. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Real science starts with observation, proceeds via multiple hypotheses, weeds out the hypotheses using falsifications and successful predictions, and promotes the simplest hypothesis that survives falsification and achieves successful predictions to the status of theory.

[steve-b]

"It assumes only two possible outcomes (truthful creator who honours promise of paradise, or no creator at all), whereas (hypothetically amongst many other possibilites) belief could be punished and unbelief rewarded by a trickster Creator."

A more obvious pitfall is the possibility of a Creator who punishes wrong belief more severely than simple non-belief. In fact, quite a few religions posit exactly that.

[Russ_in_NC]

So someone who believes in Evolution says any scientist that doesn't believe in evolution is a Engineer and he comes up with a fancy statement to prove his own hypothesis and low and behold ..... it's fact, all those scientist are "Engineers"

So if I came up with a hypothesis, I'll call it the "Creation phobia Hypothesis". I'll post it on the Web and get several hundred people to agree with the final definition (may need refinement) Simply stated it says that anyone who believe in Evolution was say a pagan atheist who is incapable accepting even the remote possibility that their could have been a Superior being capable of setting up the universe as we know it with all the laws of nature that guide our lives or a moderate Christian so assumed at their own faith that they needed social acceptance from the so call enlighten elite so they modified what the bible says to allow that acceptance. ...

Makes about as much sense doesn't it




Salem hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The "Salem Hypothesis" is a description of an observed correlation between scientists who profess a belief in creation and the engineering disciplines. There are two distinct wordings of the hypothesis, each having a different implication. Both are associated with the "Salem Hypothesis" name, though.

The first states: "In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree."

The second states: "An education in the Engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to Creation/Intelligent Design viewpoints."

The validity of these hypotheses are debatable, as neither have actually been subjected to experimental data. The first description makes no comments about the engineering disciplines, nor engineers themselves, rather, it merely describes an alleged link between those who see themselves as both scientist and creationist and the posting of scientific credentials to claim credibility. The second description, however, posits a positive connection between the engineering disciplines and the belief in creation. Proponents of the second description often link the "Design" mindset of engineers to a belief that humanity itself was also "Designed".

[edit]
Origins
The "Salem Hypothesis" is credited to Bruce Salem, who developed it as a regular contributor to the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. It continues to be used in circles where the debate between evolution and creation is ongoing, often for its humor value.

[edit]
See also

[steve-b]

I don't understand how she makes the leap from "evolution is wrong" therefore, "creationism/intelligent design is right." Seems to be a flaw in her logic.

Great Ghu, that's the first flaw you noticed in her logic?

I am reminded of some of Scott Adams' stories about fan mail pointing out some relatively minor factual error in Dilbert -- a strip with several regular talking-animal characters set around a company that should long ago have gone bankrupt and had its management imprisoned.

[steve-b]

She's not doing science, nor reflecting the results of science accurately.

Obviously, what she's doing is trolling for attention. I fully expect that sometime in the next few years, she'll decide that the best way to get more attention is to reverse polarity (a la David Brock) and start batting for the other team.

[Thatcherite]

the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old.

I guess we can add high school level physics to the list of scientific fields of which Russ appears to be painfully ignorant. But hey, Russ, don't let your ignorance get in the way of you lecturing us all.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I was recently at the Paluxy River site. (Hammond's Barbecue is recommended in Glen Rose, just to provide my bona fides.) There are no human tracks. Forensic evidence (just like on Forensic Files, etc.) shows at least two types of dinosaur tracks; it seems that a herd of herbivores was being chased by a carnivore.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

[steve-b]

He did a clarification the next day stating that, among other things, "Promising to pray for me, or assuring me that I will burn in hell" does not adequately meet the challenge.

LOL! I thought people who did that were an urban legend, like the guy who thought "cruise control" was an automatic pilot that removed any need for further driver attention.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would like to double my vote.

[steve-b]

In these cases, absent proveable intent, I don't see how anyone can say anyone else is a liar.

In this case, facts that create a presumption of provable intent (i.e. she was aware of information that showed the facts to be the opposite of her assertions, as shown by cites in the book's bibliography) are in evidence.

For example, someone who claims that their property line is in the middle of my yard might merely be mistaken. Someone who makes such a claim after being shown three independent surveyors' reports indicating that the line corresponds to the fence between my yard and theirs is lying.

[steve-b]

So if I came up with a hypothesis, I'll call it the "Creation phobia Hypothesis". I'll post it on the Web and get several hundred people to agree with the final definition (may need refinement) Simply stated it says that anyone who believe in Evolution was say a pagan atheist who is incapable accepting even the remote possibility that their could have been a Superior being capable of setting up the universe as we know it with all the laws of nature that guide our lives or a moderate Christian so assumed at their own faith that they needed social acceptance from the so call enlighten elite so they modified what the bible says to allow that acceptance.

Gee, I had no idea that His Holiness John Paul II was living a lie (the former possibility) or suffering from such deep personal insecurity issues (the latter possibility). Perhaps they explain why he took such poor care of himself that he only lived to the age of eighty-four.

[OmahaFields]

One evolutionist Bozo tried to tell me a physician is not qualified as a biological scientist. Horse hockey... Any physician or veterinarian is just as qualified to comment on biology, probably even more so.

A lot of physicians are not qualified to dispense cold medicines. I know. I went to three doctors, 2 specialists and a whole battery of tests before I self-diagnosed my maledy (acid reflux) to the last doctor. She prescribed Prevacid and 24 hours later I was a new person.

[Russ_in_NC]

Oh now I'm hurt. Because I dare to question your beliefs, I now don't even have a degree.

Gads, I have to say your in the same boat. You too should ask for your money back. I thought Radio Astronomers were Intellectuals, who you obviously infer you are. Are not Intellectuals suppose to have compassion on the weak of mind, which you imply I am. I don't buy that your a radio astronomer. Your just some weak minded nerd trying to socially fit in.

You need to go back to your school and demand your money back and then go home and beat the heck out of both your parents for raising you to be such a non-compassionate nerd.

[OmahaFields]

and have several (seven to be exact) patients

I thought you were an Engineer?

[OmahaFields]

I knew it! I was about to guess engineer and then I checked replies and there it was. So far all of the anti-evolutionist scientists I've run across have been engineers.

Careful! :)

[ahayes]

Why's that?

[OmahaFields]

You see something in nature or the Cosmo's that regular people can't explain, so you develop a theory that explains it. Over the years you refine that theory because of the bugs found in the first one and it can change form year to year until you get the majority of your fellow "thinkers" to agree with your theory and low and behold ..... your a Real Scientist!!

Right. We don't stop at saying the earth is flat because God made it flat, we take our observations and improve our bases.