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!
Too late for the latter possibility.
Yes it can, it's just that for science this one is so easy you seem to have missed it. It's called specific gravity and surface tension and a couple of other fairly simple rules. Given this planet, the mass and volume of a normal adult male, and a few other rules and quantities, it can't happen. It can be repeated over and over and over. For science it's easy and science is saying "NEXT".
You: Science has no such explanation for anything.
When science cannot explain something using natural theory either the phenomenon is (a) supernatural and hence beyond the scope of science by definition or (b) natural but not yet understood by science.
Sometimes we wish we could come over and (figuratively) hit y'all over the head till y'all finally get this incorrect idea out of your heads. As a professional scientist, please take a few minutes and pick up a science text and read up on proofs, hypotheses and theories.
Hey - I think you're cute, too!
CA....
It was NEVER 400k years. It was originally closer to 10k then as we improved the methods and databases it (don't quote exactly) has been pushed to about 50k. Anyone even remotely close to the issue would know that 400k years for carbon dating would be an erroneous statement.
"Yes it can..."
Science can investigate an alleged event that has no evidence to back it up? How?
"Given this planet, the mass and volume of a normal adult male, and a few other rules and quantities, it can't happen. It can be repeated over and over and over."
Are you saying you know for sure Jesus didn't walk on water?
Where?
You get a majority of the members of the school board to put ID into the science class.
Not me, unfortunately.
The evolutionary explanation is that all lifeforms use the same building blocks because they're all descended from the first life form to develop them.
The creationist explanation is that God doesn't fix things that aren't broken.
In other words, DNA & RNA may be no more the end-all "building blocks" than is the lowly carbon element.
Just a thought.
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.
This time, I won't leave room for error. You requested a fact, not proof (at least from me. Here it is:
Let us list the misconceptions in the above post alone:To: Gumlegsuhhhhh ...... that was my point! It's a theory. No proof.
Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. Theories however can be supported via the facts and experimentation. That doesn't mean that they go into the realm of Proofs. They only become proofs when they are proven by the facts.
I have yet to see a single fact that supports evolution, period. Every so call "fact" supporting evolution relies on the viewer/reviewer to infer the result, not very good scientific practice.
124 posted on 06/27/2006 1:00:24 PM EDT by Russ_in_NC
But the conversation went on. Here you are again, this time in post 133.
There's the request [bolding and font size mine]. See? "Fact" not "proof."To: GumlegsPlease read Websters New World Compact Dictionary, page 363, bottom right side of the page.
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.
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.
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 ask you for facts and like all evolutionist you answer the request by trying to divert the argument. For your small weak mind, the Clinton Democrats "IGNORED" facts. Evolutionist, 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.
Please post / list one "FACT" that supports evolution. Not something that can be inferred, fact. If its just a theory (as all the information available today so states) then the schools and evolutionist should stop referring to it as fact and call it a theory. It as plain and simple as that.
133 posted on 06/27/2006 2:05:49 PM EDT by Russ_in_NC
On this very thread, we've already answered your objection "It was just a new species of flower," with the perfectly reasonable response, "That's what evolution is, speciation." You tried the "show me a flower that mutates into … " what was it? A fungus? Algae? We pointed out that such an event is not only not predicted by the TOE, it would actually disprove it.
Speciation is one step. The process of Evolution takes more years than you're willing to admit ever existed. If you want to argue this on theological grounds, there's nothing to argue about. However, if you want to take on the science, you're going to have to do better.
How can anyone not believe in evolution?
It is clear life started with little wiggly things in a mud puddle.
The wiggly things became Republicans; the mud puddle became Democrats.
Read the following, courteously prepared by fellow FReeper Ichneumon (who has for quite a while been patiently and painstakingly summarizing for recalcitrant creationists the mountains of evidence supporting evolution). And as you read, follow the links embedded within Ichneumon's summation. Read them. Learn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456007/posts?page=76#76
When you are finished with this, there is a great deal more. Ask, and you will receive.
And please, don't follow up this post with yet another ridiculous, global claim that evolution is unsupported by evidence.
From page 268-69:
Upon first reading The Origin of Species, Darwin's mentor from Cambrirdge, Adam Sedgwick, wrote a letter warning Darwin That he was "deep in the mire of folly" if he was trying to remove the idea of morality from nature. If such a separation between the physical and the moral were ever to occur, Sedgwick said, it would "sink the human race into a lower grade of degration than any into which it fallen since its written records tell us of its history."As Darwinism gained currency, humanity did sink into greater degradation and brutalization than any since written records of human history began. A generation later, the world would witness the rise of the eugenics movement; racial hygiene societies; the first genocide in recorded history; Nazi Germany; Stalinist gulags; and the slaughter of 70 million Chinese at the hands of their exalted chairman. To be sure, other books were published on the eve of the bloody twentieth century. But Hitler and Marx were not citing Louisa May Alcott's Little Women for support. They were citing Darwin.
After reading Darwin's The Origin of Species, Marx dashed a note to Engels, saying, "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views." While Marx saw the struggle as among classes, Hitler conceived of the struggle as among the races. Mein Kampf means "My Struggle," which Hitler described in unmistakably Darwinian terms.
I think she is right on in her analysis. Darwin is at the root of many of the liberal's thought processes. Ann gets into that also. It is a damming indictment.
Use this after "me" and before the period in paragraph three: )
Hitler and Stalin used light bulbs. Do you want to hang Edison?
? What are you talking about? Did you read the exerpt? Hitler didn't invent Darwinism, he just used it as an excuse to "clense" the races. He just thought that "natural selection" thing needed a little boost I guess.
Even-more-idiots-on-parade-than-usual placemarker.
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.