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!
So, have we hijacked this thread yet? (LOL)
An answer that produces no more questions is not a worthy answer.
OR
An answer that produces no more questions makes for a very short thread.
Avoiding the question tells me a lot.
Not true of Evolution but true of some more specific theory like maybe "Darwin's theory of the evolution of species" or something. "Evolution" is a different and bigger thing.
It is no more atheistic than any other scientific explanation for any other observed event.
As I asked before, what does science say about walking on water?
Science says nothing about the claims that Jesus walked on water. Happy now? Is that supposed to be an *Ah ha!!* moment for you?
Or, to quote Richard Mitchell, the "Underground Grammarian,"
"If the words don't say it, the mind didn't think it."
A sloppy engineer is an accident waiting to happen.
That was the essence of my post. They are not necessarily the best writers.
I didn't say, or even imply, that that's my population view of engineers. I just said I've known lots of guys like that. And I have. I don't think that's using a "brush".
One of my jobs was sprucing up their work for proposals. We never had a problem with "possible injury or death". Those guys knew what they were doing, and I never questioned their work, because I'm not an engineer. They let me do my work because they trusted me to do what I do, without looking over my shoulder.
I'd pass along your comment about them not being good engineers because they got spelling or syntax wrong on occasion, but I hold them in higher esteem than that.
Your assertion in this regard is laughable, pathetic and regrettable. It may be your experience, but then, maybe your experience has been with the bad engineers.
CA....
your manifest ignorance of science (including the relationship between hypothesis, fact, theory, evidence, and proof), causes me to doubt your claim to be a trained scientist, your company title notwithstanding.
Last time I checked and went to school, granted that was back when they actually taught the basics, both in the science of math and physics the terms Hypothesis, Fact, Theory, Evidence, and Proof are used extensively. They are not just for the scientist of evolution and Astronomy, as you seem to be implying. ….. from my perspective. BTW, Proof means evidence that establishes the truth. I have yet to see where evolution is established truth, meaning it’s therefore acceptable to use the word proof in describing evolution. There is evidence that supports the theory, from your perspective, but not mine.
You wrote:
Further, I haven't discounted anything you've said based on you're grammatical errors.
From my perspective, that is exactly what you have been doing. Your comments, just using the example above from my first response, ignorance of science, are intended to do what you claim they do not. …. Again, from my point of view.
Your wrote:
Nor have I seen anyone else do so.
Perhaps you should re-read the post back to me again and try looking at them from the receivers view.
You wrote:
Your arguments, such as they are, stand or fall on their own merits.
This one is an interesting one to me. I’ve asked several times for the proof of evolution and people have responded back with document references with things like new species of salamanders and flowers. In response I sent a link to a paper on the web where it talks about Evolution and the beginning of life. A poster wrote back and said, I’ll try and quote as close as I can, “… see this proves the point….” I believe he was basically saying evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life just where the species came from. As a fellow poster said, I believe that is the new and modern definition of evolution but fine, I’ll use it for the purposes of this discussion. If salamanders and flowers can create new species of salamanders and flowers respectively, how was the species of salamander created? How was the species of flowers created? Once you’ve answered that question, go back one more species. After that, go back one more. Can you see my point? How can you separate Evolution with the origin of life? From my perspective and many how cannot accept evolution in fact or theory, it cannot be done for the very reason just listed.
No one, not one of you has addresses this issue. Instead you try to seperate the issues which I feel are invalid.
So you say my arguments fall on their own merits yet no one has stated where to find the facts showing the origin of these species. In my opinion, probably proving to you once again my “scientific ignorance”, different bred of dogs matting to create a new bred of dog is not the proof of evolution, just like a white man marring a Chinese woman producing a child is not a new species of man (no doubt I’ll be tarred and feathered over that one). Dog’s still produce dogs, flowers still produced flowers and man still produces man. It’s only sciensist that have come up with new names for the bred that labels them a new species. They are still basically a dog.
Didn’t they mate a lion with a tiger to get a liger? Wasn’t it sterile? I admit I’m not an authority on Liger’s so perhaps you’ll provide sources if there are now packs (is that the right word for a group of Liger’s) of Liger’s are now producing more Liger’s. I might actually consider that one a possible proof of evolution. There is only one problem with it, it was man made, meaning engineered by man (they probably thought they were scientist but let’s not open that can of worms again)
Your wrote:
Mostly they've been falling flat because you don't know what you are talking about. Someone who claims a scientific education and then talks about objects being carbon-dated at 400,000 years old (thereby revealing ignorance of absolutely basic atomic physics that anyone with college science education would know) cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Sorry, that was in the article I read, or should I say, as I remember reading it. Please accept my apologies for using an incorrect reference. It was a long time ago so perhaps Carbon dating accuracy has been updated since it came out. At one time, I believe scientist thought that carbon dating was the cat's meow of finding the age of fossils (that was until more modern methods were created by us technologist). Isn’t it interesting however, how you attack my credibility rather than ask where I got the source? I guess it’s much easier to belittle and make fun of someone, rather than address the issue.
"It was a long time ago so perhaps Carbon dating accuracy has been updated since it came out. At one time, I believe scientist thought that carbon dating was the cat's meow of finding the age of fossils (that was until more modern methods were created by us technologist)."
You're making the same basic error again. Nobody dates fossils with carbon dating. Nor did they used to.
Sorry, but science says Jesus didn't walk on water.
"Sorry, but science says Jesus didn't walk on water."
No it doesn't. There is no way to test that claim. It's outside of the realm of science, as are all claims of miracles. They have to be taken or not accepted on faith.
That is a different thing than saying that scientists know of no way a person could, barefoot, walk over water. What is at question is the very specific event of Jesus walking on water, and science cannot say it did or didn't happen. It can say that it would violate known laws of nature. That's all.
You have a severe short-term memory problem, to match your ignorance of science and casual failure to communicate in grown-up English. I already asked you for the source of that very claim earlier in this thread. You ignored my request.
Your entire performance on this thread is making you and your religion look absolutely terrible. You have made a dishonest claim to scientific knowledge that you clearly don't possess. For your information (and this is basic atomic physics) carbon dating cannot in general be reliably used to date objects beyond about 50,000 years. Other radiometric dating methods are used beyond that date. Anyone with a college science education would know this. So whereever you read about dead cats being carbon-dated at 400,000 years, it was either a lie, or you mis-remembered it. But beyond that, the fact that you refer to carbon dating producing dates of 400,000 years while pretending to a higher scientific education demonstrates that you are dishonest. I have no further interest in debating with someone who cannot manage basic honesty.
Good day. I can't bother to go through the rest of your rantings. Feel free to declare victory. I'm content to let lurkers judge which of us has more credibility at this stage. There is a Middle Eastern religion that had a prophet about 2000 years ago that has in injunction against false witness. You should consider joining it, as following its precepts would benefit you.
I have to jump in here.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but for me, translating my thoughts into langauge is an issue. I simply don't seem to think primarily in words. Or pictures as some tell me they do.
WHAT!!?? You mean that science can't even make a prediction of what happened 2000 years ago? Yet it claims to be able to make theories about what happened hundreds of million years ago! Walking on water is a single event and you better believe that science has something to say about that. How many millions and billions of natural events are supposed to have happened to make and evolve life?
That is a different thing than saying that scientists know of no way a person could, barefoot, walk over water. What is at question is the very specific event of Jesus walking on water, and science cannot say it did or didn't happen. It can say that it would violate known laws of nature. That's all.
Yes, that's what it says, it violates the laws of nature and the conclusion is...He didn't. That's exactly what science says. Science is about the laws of nature and about using these natural laws to look back to see how life started and developed over time. Natural science has no creation theory.
?
Pick up some good texts on water bugs and surface tension of water for your weekend reading. There is lots there about walking on water.
Maybe my experience has been with good engineers. When you work with good engineers, you know how to spot a bad one.
Signed, A good engineer looking out for your needs, comfort and safety.
Wrong. Science says that at our current state of knowledge, if such an event (walking on water) occurred, then the explanation may be supernatural pending further investigation. Science cannot disprove the supernatural; science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Where natural explanations are available they are preferred however.
Walking on water does not appear to have left any physical evidence so the claim cannot be investigated scientifically 2000 years later. Other geological and biological events have left physical evidence and can therefore be investigated hundreds of millions of years later. Astronomical events can be investigated billions of years after they occurred. The evidence resulting from such investigations gives those who interpret certain Holy Writ literally problems. Tough. Reject science if you will, but don't pretend it doesn't exist if it upsets cherished religious preconceptions.
Science has no such explanation for anything.
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.