Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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!


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1youreanidiot; 2noyoureanidiot; allcapitalletters; anncoulter; anothercrevothread; evolution; flailaway; godless; hurltheinsults; nutherpointlessthred; pavlovian; picsplease; royalwasteoftime; sameposterseachtime; thesamearguments; thnx4allcaps; uselessdiscussion; wasteofbandwidth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 701-713 next last
To: DungeonMaster
I'm saying science knows He didn't and has no other recourse.

If Jesus did walk on water through a supernatural act, then science has no way of evaluating the event, and as such cannot arrive at a conclusion or explanation. Science can be used to make the general statement that there is no natural means by which a human can walk upon the surface of water, but it cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural elements allowing such an event. Your claim is false.
601 posted on 06/29/2006 7:07:49 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Science can be used to make the general statement that there is no natural means by which a human can walk upon the surface of water, but it cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural elements allowing such an event. Your claim is false.

Science uses very precise definitions of all forces and quantities and reactions. There is no scientific definition of supernatural to even default to. That is simply something that one of the scientists may or may not state but it is opinion, not science.

602 posted on 06/29/2006 7:11:18 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
No, it does no such thing at all. This has been explained to you over and over. The supernatural is simply not capable of scientific examination. That is NOT the same as saying that the supernatural doesn't exist.

By definition, any phenomenon that can be investigated by science is a natural phenomenon. It sounds circular, but it isn't. Science is not simply a body of knowledge; it is a process.

Science eats away at the supernatural. It examines phenomena as it acquires the methods and tools to do so. The world of the supernatural is shrinking.

603 posted on 06/29/2006 7:15:38 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Science uses very precise definitions of all forces and quantities and reactions. There is no scientific definition of supernatural to even default to. That is simply something that one of the scientists may or may not state but it is opinion, not science.

Science is a methodology to study the natural world and explain events in the context of a natural universe. Science cannot, in any way, address the existence of lack thereof of the supernatural. As such, science can never be used to make any statement regarding whether a human can walk on water through supernatural means, because such a statement would fall outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.

Science can say that there is no known property of the natural universe that would allow a human to walk upon the surface of water. It cannot say that such an event is completely impossible.
604 posted on 06/29/2006 7:26:52 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
It starts out with there is no supernatural and it is unable to ever get past that. Maybe to some definition of agnostic and on some technicality this well seem to be more agnostic to many. So at that point it's perhaps only a semantics discussion.

Wrong, it doesn't start out with "there is no supernatural", it starts out with, "the supernatural is not subject to rational investigation".

all I've been trying to say is that since science can never cross that line, to me, it is atheistic.

Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. It has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of any deities. Science can examine the specific claims of particular religions and compare them with observed reality however. If the findings of science contradict the beliefs of some religions while supporting others then that is a problem for the religions being contradicted, not for science.

Put it this way. Supposing science had formed the conclusions, solely from examination of the physical evidence, that the universe is 6000 years old and biological kinds were separate creations at around that time, and there was a global flood around 5000 years ago. Would Christians under such circumstances still be declaring that science was atheistic? Somehow I doubt it. Religious people only have a problem with a science when it appears to be contradicting *their* religion. Not when it contradicts everybody else's.

605 posted on 06/29/2006 7:36:17 AM PDT by Thatcherite (I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

inconvenient facts placemarker


606 posted on 06/29/2006 7:37:46 AM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields
On the one hand primative techmology could enable a man to walk on water.

On the other hand it could have a supernatural explanation

The gripping hand is it's a tale told by fishermen.

607 posted on 06/29/2006 7:52:24 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (No Christian will dare say that [Genesis] must not be taken in a figurative sense. St Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Religious people only have a problem with a science when it appears to be contradicting *their* religion. Not when it contradicts everybody else's.

Well, I think I qualify as one of those people but I don't have a problem with science. I just point out it's limitations. Science measures light from galaxies and concludes that that light has been traveling billions of years for it to reach us. I don't have a problem with the fact that science is wrong because it has to be. It has no other recourse.

What it means is that science and scientists are kind of like blind people trying to figure out what things look like. It does get a bit tense when the blind people don't realize they are blind and insist that things look one way when people with sight can see how things really look. Many of these blind people realize they are blind and stick to "well this thing feels, tastes, sounds and smells like such and such but that's all I know".

608 posted on 06/29/2006 7:53:49 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
I just point out it's limitations.

What are it is limitations, exactly?

Science measures light from galaxies and concludes that that light has been traveling billions of years for it to reach us. I don't have a problem with the fact that science is wrong because it has to be. It has no other recourse.

Why is science wrong with these conclusions? Please be specific.
609 posted on 06/29/2006 7:57:23 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents; Ichneumon
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.

You apparently have never met an argument from adverse consequences you didn't like.

Coulter's "reasoning" is fallacious, and so is the reasoning you've quoted above.On this very thread, which I (perhaps mistakenly) assume you've been reading, it's been pointed out that all of the terms I've bolded in the paragraph above also took place before 1859!

Kindly explain (or find us a book blurb explaining), how Darwin's theory caused events that took place before it was expounded.

610 posted on 06/29/2006 8:00:48 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Why is science wrong with these conclusions? Please be specific.

For the same reason science is wrong when it says a man can't walk on water. Light can't go faster than C, a man can't walk on water. Or we could throw in that non scientific stipulation "apart from some supernatural force" which has been tossed around on this thread. I just never saw that in any of my physics books.

611 posted on 06/29/2006 8:04:24 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.

What took place before is not relevent to this argument. Whatever the reasons for those things happening before 1859 are beside the point. The argument being made by Colter and people like Richard Wiekart is that Darwin influenced the thinking in the 20th century. The people of earlier ages had other ways of rationalizing their inhumanity I assume, but there is no denying that Darwin had an impact on the thinking that went into what Hitler and the Nazis and others did during the last century. And it can be argued that moral relativism, euthanasia, infanticide, abortion and the like which continue into this century were all influenced by Darwinism.

612 posted on 06/29/2006 8:28:02 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
The gripping hand is it's a tale told by fishermen.

So were tales of mermaids ...

613 posted on 06/29/2006 8:34:48 AM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
For the same reason science is wrong when it says a man can't walk on water

I posted a photo of a man walking on water. And as an engineer, I can say that science does not repudiate that act.

614 posted on 06/29/2006 8:36:46 AM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
What took place before is not relevent to this argument.

Monday: Man beats wife.
Tuesday: Man beats wife.
Wednesday: Man beats wife.
Thursday: Man watches Geraldo and beats wife. m5c blames Geraldo for man beating wife.

615 posted on 06/29/2006 8:40:53 AM PDT by OmahaFields
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
Hang Edison!


616 posted on 06/29/2006 8:42:43 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
For the same reason science is wrong when it says a man can't walk on water.

Please show that science makes this absolute statement.

Light can't go faster than C,

Please explain how light may travel faster than c.

Or we could throw in that non scientific stipulation "apart from some supernatural force" which has been tossed around on this thread. I just never saw that in any of my physics books.

Science does not address the supernatural, thus such qualifiers are out of place.

I notice that you have not actually answered my question.
617 posted on 06/29/2006 8:49:11 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields

You are correct. I had forgotten the Carbon dating time limitation. I should have thought about the facts I was using in my admittedly poor example before posting them. I agree that Carbon dating is not used for fossil age testing nor should it be.

Acknowledging that however, and recalling of the article, I submit to you that Carbon dating could have certainly been used to test the age of artifacts coming out of an Egyptian tomb, not withstanding the 400K was probably more likely 40,000. The point of the article was that Carbon Dating was not infallible. I don’t think it’s to far a stretch to presume that no dating method today is infallible when dealing with those durations.

But that wasn’t your point of your personal attack was it.

Perhaps rather than launching into attacks questioning everything from job status, to educational level a more compassionate conservative approach would have been …

I believe your recollection of the article you mentioned in your post is in error. Although it is true that Carbon dating would be a valid why to measure the age of Egyptian artifacts, and therefore cat bones found in the tomb, it is not used to measure any dates of longer duration than 50,000 years and up to 100,000 years using ‘Accelerator Techniques for Carbon Dating” (ref. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html#c5 go to the bottom of the page. So now you and others on this blog have the correct facts when you launch your next personal attack on someone using the wrong numbers. Would it be appropriate to use your own words and say ….. Anyone even remotely close to the issue would know that 50k years for carbon dating would be an erroneous statement unless they knew nothing about Accelerator Techniques. All in good fun mind you).


618 posted on 06/29/2006 9:15:27 AM PDT by Russ_in_NC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

Flabbergasted-by-unspeakable-ignorance placemarker.


619 posted on 06/29/2006 9:52:33 AM PDT by balrog666 (There is no freedom like knowledge, no slavery like ignorance. - Ali ibn Ali-Talib)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Religious people only have a problem with a science when it appears to be contradicting *their* religion. Not when it contradicts everybody else's.

Well, I think I qualify as one of those people but I don't have a problem with science.

Well, actually you do. Your following paragraphs show that you will ignore or handwave away physical evidence that contradicts your religious preconceptions. That means you have a problem with science, because science can only operate if Holy Works are left outside the laboratory.

I just point out it's limitations. Science measures light from galaxies and concludes that that light has been traveling billions of years for it to reach us. I don't have a problem with the fact that science is wrong because it has to be. It has no other recourse.

Please explain how the science "has to be wrong" with reference to physical evidence. Explain why the geometric placement of SN1987A at c180k light years away from us is wrong. Explain why atomic decay rates of the fusion products of SN1987A are exactly what we what expect if lightspeed had been constant for the last 180,000 years at least. Explain why far more distant pulsars rotate at the speed that we would expect if lightspeed had been constant in its journey from those incredibly distant objects. Explain the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, which was predicted as an current holdover effect of the big-bang BEFORE it was detected. When you can explain those things you'll have earned the right to declare that standard cosmology "must be wrong". Absent that, you just have religious problems with observed reality.

What it means is that science and scientists are kind of like blind people trying to figure out what things look like. It does get a bit tense when the blind people don't realize they are blind and insist that things look one way when people with sight can see how things really look. Many of these blind people realize they are blind and stick to "well this thing feels, tastes, sounds and smells like such and such but that's all I know".

Who is the blind man? The man who looks at the world about him with no preconceptions and draws the conclusions that the physical evidence leads him to? Or the man who decides the answer in advance of looking, and ignores any observations that contradict his religious beliefs?

620 posted on 06/29/2006 9:56:59 AM PDT by Thatcherite (I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 701-713 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson