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!
It's fun to see people making ignorant statements like that! Please show which Scripture establishes a 6000 year age. I think we should all learn something new.
It is indeed fun to see ignorant people who make statements like that. Your humour, however, should not be directed at me, who doesn't believe that, but at the numerous evolution-rejecting Freepers who *do* believe it. Many of them go so far as to say as you cannot be a true Christian if you don't accept the literal genealogies in the Bible (which clearly do in fact spell out a 6000 year timeline) and that you are calling Christ a liar if you don't take Genesis as revealed literal truth in its most simple-minded interpretation. Your issue is with them, not with me. I don't believe that at all.
Based on my experience in the crevo threads I assert that amongst evolution-rejecting Freepers, young earth creationists are in a considerable majority. Make of that what you will. Evidently you think they are comically ignorant. Take it out on them.
Thanks for a great post that needs to be bookmarked and reposted from time to time!!!
Do you mean something like a fox or a dingo? hmmm...
Interbreeding groups gradually change as natural selection adapts them to environmental changes. When a group splits into two geographically separated groups, natural selection will cause each group to change in different ways as they adapt to different conditions. If they stay separated long enough, they will no longer interbreed should they eventually come back in contact with each other. At that point they are considered two different species and there's nothing stopping them from gradually becoming even more different. Typically, the main genetically diverse group that stays behind evolves more slowly while the smaller more inbred group facing a different geography/environment has the more rapid evolution.
My issue was with you, since you referenced that timeline. You used a universal statement to describe those who prefer to place their faith in God, rather than man.
I do not doubt there are fossils (old bones). They ae part of the cycle of life.
I can make a sock out of wool or cotton. Both keep my feet warm, but one is from animal, one from vegetable. They have have major differences otherwise.
I do not doubt that man's science has made some marvelous advances. I just choose to worship the Creator, rather than His creation! There has been no proof of anything, no matter what your beloved "scientists" wish to convince us. It takes more faith to believe that stuff, than a simple faith in God's omnipotence...
I do not believe life began from a spark, and evolved from a single celled animal. There has not been enough time to complete the processes. If the timeline does not fit their scenario, they just say, "oops" and move it! Carbon dating is based on assumption. In the end, you are just taking somebody else's word for it. There are no COMPLETE records, just clues, SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION! They are fine for board games.
It's Colonel Mustard, with a candlestick, in the dining room!
That's exactly what I said. I said it in fewer words but that was my point. God says A but the evidence seems to imply B. Hence the theological "problem".
Adam was created fully grown but presumably didn't have scars and the accumulated damage of growing up. I don't suppose he was created with formed dental decay or an imperfect repair of a childhood broken arm or callouses on his fingers. If he had such things an independent observer could conclude that the claim that God had only just created Adam was deceptive. Similarly if YEC is true the light reaching us from SN1987A (for example) depicts an event that never occurred. Why does God need to lie in such detail?
So, the fact that a man is standing there as an adult is not misleading but if he has a scar that would the misleading part. Being 30 years old is not apparent age but having a cavity is. And we have no problem at all with the fact that he was created with a language? To me the 30 year-old man with a language is the big evidence that implies he was not created. To argue about belly buttons and cavities is to miss the point, as you so sharply put it.
Anyway we are in rough agreement as to what the point is. Now how does a young earther handle it? God is very clear as to how to handle it. We are to believe Him first and everything else second. Our knowledge is not complete nor trust worthy, our senses are not trust worthy, the people trying to persuade us are not trustworthy, we are to believe Him first. It's an easy equation.
One tiny other point, I don't buy the gene diversity thing at all. Someone has some faulty math going on there.
Do you actually know anything about radiocarbon dating, or are you doing your research on creationist websites?
You seem to be implying it is not accurate. I think you're blowing smoke, and challenge you to support you assertion.
I will be out for a few days, so you have time to compose your best shot, then I can see what kind of research you are really using.
(By the way, don't bother with the dinosaur bones, millions of years old stumps, or wildly changing constants, and don't calibrate the dates using the "global flood." Try science and see where that leads you.)
You seem to be implying it is not accurate...
I have enough information to form my own opinion. Your opinion may vary. I do not imply anything. I stated that carbon dating is based on assumption. Can you please explain the process of CD, whereby there is no assumption in the process? I doubt you can!
We can argue about mechanics all day long. There has been nothing in science that says God did NOT create this universe. Scientific explanations and suppositions are just words for your faith!
I did blow smoke last night, and will continue today. I love a good cigar! As for being out for the next few days, you seem to think that I really could be disuaded from my faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Good luck! I don't need to hear your words, since I already believe I know the truth.
My God is still in charge in my life, even if you think you (and your ilk) are! I can use my Scriptures just as well as you can use your science tomes, to justify my position. Just because a guy can make observations that allow him to send out a space craft to pass by multiple planets, or is able to split an atom, is no reason to deny the Deity. Faith is faith! You think mine is awry. I am sure yours, placed in man's "wisdom", is...
I'll gladly maiantain my old "superstitions", and beleive that in the end, I will be proven correct!
Is-Ought fallacy.
Am I to understand from your response that you actually know nothing of radiocarbon dating, and thus your comments on the subject carry no credibility?
I did not state that fact. I also do not care about being credible with your liturgy, in refuting your religion. Do you not believe that radiocarbon dating is built on assumptions? Do you know anyone who was present when the test was done? What standards were applied?
I love to hear supposition stated as fact. That is all you have to offer. Your theories on the beginnings of life cannot be proven with current facts, just "suggested"! I can do that, just as well! All it takes is faith.
"Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go." .
--http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should
So, he is a high priest? You fool yourself when you say you follow no religion. Your attempts to engage are puerile, and not going very far on this screen!
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.