Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
In the summer of 2006, I heard that a new book called Godless presented an insightful and devastating criticism of the theory of evolution. Although I learned that its author, Ann Coulter, is not a scientist but a lawyer turned author and TV pundit, she nevertheless appeared to be an intelligent and well-educated person, so I started reading. At first I was puzzled. There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies. But it wasn't until Coulter dusted off the old Piltdown man story that I suddenly realized: it was a hoax! And it was brilliant...
(Excerpt) Read more at talkreason.org ...
I imagine such "reports" are distributed in various venues, but mass casualty events in nature which could easily lead to future "voluminous fossil graveyards" are happening all the time. Flash floods and river floods commonly kill hundreds or thousands of animals, and often enough aggregrate their remains. Red tides and other algal blooms regularly asphixiate untold thousands of marine creatures. There are many other examples. If you want a creationist source see the discussion in Davis A. Young's Creation and the Flood.
100%, eh? O.K., then, just for instance, take Ichy's pointing out the plain, factual flaws in Coulter's "daffodil" aside: that the figure was arbitrary and made up in the source, but that Coulter treated it as factual; and that the 35% percent genetic similarity was meaningless in relation to morphological similarity (since genomes will match at least 25% just by chance); etc. How exactly is that "propaganda"?
Persuasive stuff there Axlrose! Stop your godless science, or reap the whirlwind! Bwaahaahaa!
Where is the "Yawn Alert"? The problem isn't evolution, regarding which there are truths and myths alike, but far more truth. I.D. is just a joke, and not the solution. The problem is Marxist educators excluding any consideration of God in education. They must be purged.
Marxist educators? Problem.
Excluding magic in science classes? Not a problem.
You must think the Bible full of magic, and his Churches full of wizards.
Because it is based on quasi marxist pseudo science.
Evolution is just a theory, and a flawed one at that.
Is that your professional opinion or your religious belief?
I don't need to be a trained pilot to know that a pig cannot fly, besides there is such a thing as a professional evo ?
Huh? How is clearing up a false claim about daffodils, and pointing out its questionably relevancy in any case, "based on quasi marxist pseudo science"???
You are an actual person, right? Because (at least in the present instance) you post like a poorly programed chatterbot, which constructions typically output a few irrelevant stock phrases when they haven't been able to parse the input.
If you don't know the details of the theory of evolution your opinion is worth little.
I am not sure of your second point. I think it is that there is no such thing as a professional in the field of evolution?
If so, you're wrong again. (I did six years in grad school, half of which was in that field.)
Will you ever get off the kick? Magnetrons notwithstanding, reported measurements of the speed of light have changed over the years.
It can't be. The moon wouldn't be where it is today if it was, and that fact alone throws every evolution theory on it's arse. Which is why it's never mentioned in any evo theories.
Various non-biblical scholars have offered their estimates too. Cremo, Hancock, et. al. and I still have no definite opinion about the dates. They are all best guesses when looking at it from a scientific standpoint. As with geology, there are plenty of signs of hydrological movement but it cannot be put into an all encompassing nice, neat order on a global scale. That is part of the problem for deluvian modelers, self inclined. It's part of the passion I have for the related field works. I jsut wish we could get all the raw data and not have to work from the sieves of Nature and other peer-reviewed journals. That info is cleaned, scrubbed and sanitized. IMO
Insatible appetite for data drives me all over the web.
Response (from Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CE110):
2. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976).
3. The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.
4. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.
(See original for references.)
Looks like you're wrong again!
Theory? as in ONE?
Gee, I'd sure like to see that too. All there is are theories (as in hundreds) all of which clash with each other, and a few formula's developed to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. hardly what I would call a sound theory with the many required predictions which must come to pass. In fact, of the predictions made, many of them have failed.
I am surprised that the Robinsons haven't placed some limit on the number of lines that can be placed in a single post. Apparently there is no limit and some people take advantage of that and hijack a thread.
Stultis, you wrote:
>> The subject is Ann Coulter on evolution. Ichneumon's post was entirely focused on exactly that subject.
which is incorrect in two ways:
1) The thread topic concerns Peter Olofsson's view on Coulter.
2) Ichneumon's post was retaliatory and heavy handed.
The real bones of contention involve secularism and Christianity and the weapons of choice are TOE and ID which are not necessarily exclusionary. The 'studity' and Talibanism you point to is unkind, unwarranted, and not something one can prove.
Fairly silly magic and dismal wizardry, but you are essentially correct.
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.