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!
mc5cents: ? 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.
I read the excerpt. Did you understand my response? From your reply, the answer would appear to be, "no."
"Hitler didn't invent Darwinism, he just used it ..."
is identical to
"Hitler didn't invent the Edison effect, he just used it ..."
It was a way of pointing out that your argument is a logical fallacy.
Oh, ok. You knew Hitler? Did he write about that? I guess the "fixity of species" means that what is, is. Right. So, if you were a Jew to Hitler that was a bad thing since it was fixed? Or did he think that the Jews and those of "non-arian" lineage were defective fixed objects? Just wondering.
Hmmm. Yea he used light to read. To keep from tripping over things in the dark and such. In that way he "used" it. Using Darwin to justify your crazy ideas is another thing me thinks. Not identical. Different as using an electric light to read and using electricity to kill someone. You know, different in that way.
It's still a logical fallacy.
The attempt to explain a purposeful function without overseeing intelligence in developement always ends up hollow and illusive.
Of course when you reveal the futility of their premise, they claim you don't don't understand evolution and they go on to reconfigure their position.
The nature of the evolutionist argument betray all the earmarks of self-deceit.
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -The theory of evolution addresses only common descent of all species on earth. It addresses no other subjects.
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth.....
Not true of Evolution but true of some more specific theory like maybe "Darwin's theory of the evolution of species" or something.
Your point being?
Me: Some specific citations to back this up would be in order. Thanks.
DaveLoneRanger: Do you deny it?
Yes. If you think that having multiple sex partners is somehow implied by the ToE, do like I asked and provide references and arguments to back it up.
Hint: Populations evolve or go extinct. Consider the fates of two tribes, in one the men act like Blythes or Clintons, in the other like Bushes. Which tribe do you figure will be better able to act cooperatively during a flood or war? Which one will survive?
I guess you could apply that same standard to "scientists," couldn't you? You just have poor judgement in selecting physicians...
Well, they sure beat the heck out of prayer.
There are no Amalekites disputing that claim.
Hey, wait a minute, your're the one who made the crazy illogical statement. I.e. my wanting to hang Edison and all that for the crime of "using light bulbs."
Anyway, to paraphrase Glenn Beck, I'm not a philosipher, but I am a thinker and sometimes you don't need logic you just need good old common sense. And besides it wasn't me who was saying the things you appear to disagree with in the first place. I was quoting Ann Coulter.
From what I've read about GPS is the remarkable fact that the calculations do not have to be adjusted by relativistic effects.
There are no Amalekites disputing that claim.
Guess he's never heard of Canaanites, Cimmerians, or Albigensians either. What a boob!
Um, no. I'm the one who used a crazy example to illustrate your logical fallacy, or rather, your agreement with Coulter's logical fallacy. To wit:
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.This is a classic argument from adverse consequences. You agreed with it: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.
Or are you claiming Ann wrote those last four sentences? Anyway, to paraphrase Glenn Beck, I'm not a philosipher, but I am a thinker and sometimes you don't need logic you just need good old common sense. And besides it wasn't me who was saying the things you appear to disagree with in the first place. I was quoting Ann Coulter.
"Good old common sense" is not as common as is commonly suspected, and when someone attempts to use it as a shield against logic, it's, well, nonsensical.
You agreed with Coulter, as I pointed out above. (Post 535 to this thread). You swallowed her fallacy hook, line, and sinker. You posted it, too. Posting HTML
"the first genocide in recorded history"
The worldwide flood at the time of Noah as described in Genesis, chapters 6 to 8. From the description, it almost completely wiped out the human race, with the exception of Noah, his wife and sons and their wives.
The Passover incident described in Exodus chapters 11 and 12, in which all of the firstborn of all Egypt were slaughtered.
The conquest of Canaan, in which God ordered the Hebrews to completely wipe out the Canaanite people -- from the elderly to newborns and fetuses. This is described in the book of Joshua.
The near extermination of the tribe of Benjamin by the remaining 11 tribes, triggered by the serial rape and murder of a priest's concubine. See Judges, chapter 20.
Well in fairness I should have said that "some" evolutionists take this tact.
Evolution doesn't require atheism, its just that some atheists (and some Christians) think it does.
As I asked in another thread
Say a genetic marker is common to cows and whales, but is not found in horses. Which other species will it be found in? Rhinos, hippos, pigs, camels, deer, pigs,platypuses, elephants, what? The ToE can answer this, and so far its answers have always been confirmed by genetic analysis. What is the corresponding answer for any "alternative theory"?
Tell me, how does "self-deceit" make true predictions about lab experiments and fossil finds?
I didn't say anything about deceit. I can only speak for myself. Thinking back, I believe it was you that accused me of deceit (lying about being an undercover ID agent or something to that effect).
But I'm wondering if many of the experiments you reference aren't better described as observations. Observations can be quite accurate, but they aren't experiments.
I'm interested in reading more on the DNA research as I have time, but I'm currently not convinced on the "why" part of evolution, at least as a blanket answer goes.
They can be.
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.