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!
Inability to confess fabrication placemarker.
I actually understand quite a few of the cosmic yard sticks. It's the conclusion about the age of the universe, not C nor the distances that is in question.
What's your alternative explanation then, if you don't have an issue with constant C or the enormous size of the universe?
I repeat. When someone waves their professional credentials to support their post, their professional appearance and credentials are open for attack. A professional has an obligation to uphold certain minimum standards to maintain a trust within and outside of that profession. You were not being professional, and you were called on it. Get over it.
Creation.
Please expound. I'm guessing that you mean omphalism, which has a number of theological and logical problems associated with it.
Do you wear a watch? Drive a car? Set the temperature for the oven? Please go do some research. No PROFESSIONAL scientist would make statements as above. If you want to be treated like a professional, act like one. Till then, we will all doubt that you are one.
Son: Where do babies come from? Father: Storks bring them from Heaven.
Son: What makes the Sun shine? Father: God makes the light.
Son: Why does the sun go around the Earth? Father: The Bible says God made it.
Son: Boy! Why do I have to go to school? You can homeschool me since you already know all the answers!
omphalism?
say, rather, flavored by some demogogues with selective interpretation/application of Darwin's work and its successors.
To say otherwise would be to ignore the historical fact that moral relativism (the ethics of convenience, aka "politics - the art of compromise"), euthanasia (mercy killing, look up the term "misericordia" or "mercy-giver" as relates to knives), infanticide (oh, DO please look up "exposure" and "Sparta" - let alone Phoenicia - before posting again on this topic!), and abortion (look into the abortifacient Silphium as it related to mediterranean trade in the Classical era) all LONG predate Darwin's seminal work.
Ignorance and ebullience are not a happy mix in conversation.
Omphos means navel. There has been speculation about whether God created Adam with a navel or not, given that it would have no function for Adam why would He?
Omphalism refers to the belief that God created the universe 6000 years ago with an appearance of great age.
I ponder what is the difference between an infinitely powerful creator creating something with the appearance of age and the thing actually being old?.... A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.
Further omphalism is scientifically indistinguishable from a rival contention that the universe is 5 minutes old, and God created us all 5 minutes ago with our memories intact. Such claims are essentially worthless because they cannot be tested.
Why would anyone trust or worship a trickster God who for unfathomable reasons created the universe to make it look old when actually it wasn't?
All that said however, I speculate that omphalism is the only sane recourse of someone familiar with the physical evidence of the age of the earth who nonetheless wishes to deny that age.
OK, I suspected you ment some take on young earthers like myself.
So is the theological problem the one where God says He created something but gives no way to prove it? So if God said He created Adam from the dust and even if there were people there to examine Adam he would seem to be older though he was just created? Therefore the appearance of age is a lie which God would never do? Ditto for the universe.
"Nonsense".
So you are disagreeing with my statement:
"the fossil record changes can't be duplicated and observed in a controlled environment as real science would be performed."
That's interesting. I would love to see where you have recreated and duplicated in the lab one of the transitions of Coyoteman's skull fossils from one skull which was found to the next one in the tree.
I did read your link, though.
W.R.T. "concerning how science tests things which can't be directly observed", you can test for the existence of a phenomenon caused by quarks and other particles. These experiments can be duplicated and verified. This is not even remotely comparable to what goes on in the study of evolution. And your link compares the evidence for common descent to the evidence for O.J. as a killer. (Science is now down to what is Beyond a Reasonable doubt? It's a poor state of existence that science is in if that's the case. Poor Newton must be spinning in his grave.) It's not a FACT that O.J. killed his wife. The only thing we know is that there is lots of evidence linking him to the crime but we don't factually know that he did it. Most people only BELIEVE that he did since there were no witnesses.
"I will, however, point out that you have declared your admittedly unsupported and unsupportable belief as if they were established facts. "
You're partly right. I have declared a belief but it is not completely unsupported. I haven't claimed it as if it were established fact, though. I said the opposite: I said it was a belief.
But I also added that since you can't go back and duplicate the findings that you purport as established fact then yours is a system of belief, also. Just like with O.J.
BTW, the gloves didn't fit.
I am sorry but I can not find the user that requested this information so I’ll post it to everyone.
I’m sorry it took so long to reply to your post asking for one proof of Evolution that was later proven false. I wanted to go home and get the information. I must confess however that I gave them out on a loan to a friend and they lost them in a resent move. Since I am unable to recall the titles or authors, I will have to use the web as my reference point.
At any rate, your request was for one, I have listed four. All of these can easily be checked using the web so I’ll leave the actual web site references to you. I used Google as my search engine.
Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)
In 1891 Dubois' laborers found a skull cap along the Solo River near the village Trinil, Java. A year later and approximately 50 ft. away from the skullcap he found a femur.
Today Java man is classified as Homo erectus but questions still remain, one of which is whether the skullcap and femur are from the same specimen. Recent opinions suggest that the femur is a modern type, which leads to a dilemma for evolutionists
Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni)
In 1908 a workman at a gravel pit in Piltdown, England found a portion of a human skull and gave it to an amateur geologist by the name of Charles Dawson. Subsequent digging by Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum and Catholic paleontologist-priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin revealed more skull fragments and the lower jaw of Piltdown man. The Piltdown pit also produced fossil bones of elephant, mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver and deer. Most scientists accepted this find as a genuine subhuman ancestor of man. For forty-five years, until 1953, this find was considered to be a missing link between man and ape. The only problem was that this was a total hoax! Someone had taken a human skullcap and a jaw of an orangutan, filled the teeth and planted the evidence.
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)
In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. A few years later more evidence was found and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig! Little publicity was given to the error.
Although I did not attend the Missouri lecture given by Dr. Johanson, I did have the privilage and honor to attend one of his lectures at a different venue. In that lecture, he restated many of the facts listed below on the Lucy discovery. In all fairness, I never heard him make the statement that ‘Evolution is a fact” so I will have to trust the web source that makes that claim. He did verify that Lucy was found in an area that was 1 ½ mile by 1 ½ mile and approximately 200ft deep. In my opinion, this is not very conclusive.
Lucy (replacement for the outmoded australopithecines)
The bones comprising Lucy were found by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray on the 24th of November 1974, at the site of Hadar in Ethiopia. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered. According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws. The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy. They were found about 200 feet lower and two to three kilometers away.
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy. When Dr. Johanson was asked, given the wide range in which the total find was found why he was sure all of the bones belonged to Lucy, his reply was "Anatomical similarity." Please keep in mind many animals have anatomical similarities such as bears and dogs.
Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. It was pointed out at that time that similar structures nearly always have similar plans. After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: "If you don't believe homology, then you don't believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!" (emphasis mine)
(This seems to be more and more pervasive in today’s society; the statement Dr. Joanson made, “evolution is a fact!”)
With that, I will have to bid you all goodbye. I no longer feel I’m a good fit for this board. I’ve had my honesty, educational level, degree, and job performance questioned and belittled. Finally, I was even threatened with bodily harm, “ …. Sometimes we wish we could come over and (figuratively) hit y'all over the head till y'all finally get this ….,” The phrase sent my way, ‘all in good fun.’ I don’t think personal attacks make for good discussion points. I found myself getting defensive and falling into the same trap; i.e. stooping to that level in my replies. Not a very good place to go for a “Bible Thumping, Back Woods, Christian.” All this compassion from conservatives is just too overwhelming.
I now happily concede that I am not a “Real Scientist.” (ref: "Salem Hypothesis") I now identify myself as a Technician / Engineer. I’ll keep my eyes and ears open for any Scientist that claims they don’t believe in Evolution and let them know they’ve been reclassified so they don’t run the risk of public humiliation.
But so I don’t disappoint the fans I’ve seemed to have made here, let me sign off with ….
I hav’ta go now you’al. Have to get back to do’in that stuff that crazy company I work for pays me for. By the way, I’ma startin a new book tomorrow call “See Dick Run”. I’ma told that it a real thrill’r. Please feel free to ping away. It will give you something to do for the rest of the day. All meant in good fun of course.
On a more serious note, I do wish each of you all the best, especially those who launched the personal attacks, and I hope that Free Republic continues to grow.
BTW, the formal definition of the word proof :n. (please note 3b. “I” am not convinced or persuaded by the consideration of the evidence used for Evolution.)
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Which leads us to ..... God did not create the earth or universe. Interesting.
I guess YEC's have a big problem with GPS and nuclear power ...
If earth age-dating techniques are false science to you then GPS and nuclear power do not exist.
Anyone who would post a few VERY FAMOUS hoaxes as "proof of Evolution later proved false" is capable of God knows what.
These individual hoaxes even after being exposed made no difference to the Theory. It is like sayng that because of Jim Jones we should ignore the Bible and its message.
Taking a hike is probably a good idea since intellectual dishonesty is frowned on around here.
... was regarded with much suspicion by scientists at the time. It was relagated to a dark closet for decades, resurrected when modern dating technologies were established and determined to be a fake. Turns out the most likely person responsible for the fakery was some RC priest from France.
Summary: Science exposes religious fraud. Try again.
Ignorance and ebullience are not a happy mix in conversation.
Wow, some mighty big words there King. Boy, you must be one smart fellow. I give up. And I do it with ebullience!! Good bye. Say hello to your friends at Mensa.
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.