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 There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies.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 ...
Perhaps you should read those definitions I post, and learn what the term "theory" means to scientists.
Words have meanings, and willful ignorance is not something to be proud of.
Yeah, you are one of the five idiots that show up at every meeting. I tell you the things you guys believe in (with no proof) is harder to believe than the Virgin Birth or that Christ was raised from the dead. Go figure. I guess you believe what all those Liberal Commie professors told you in college. You are leaning on "faith" whether you admit it to yourself or not. Yourself is the easiest person to lie to.
Please explain how you would prove "Gravity." A general outline of such would suffice.
Hard to find here these days. Sigh. Unfortunately I have found that my civility has waned over time here arguing with the same folks thread after thread.
Who refuse to even look at the evidence yet proclaim all of us scientists are either; a) morons, b) white collar welfare, c) going to hell, or d) completely wrong - even though they never take the time to understand what we are trying to teach.
I used to post lots of teaching posts here but most were ignored or never read.
Thank you for taking the time. It is refreshing and uplifting.
I would be interested myself. :-)
You can't argue logic and reason with someone that refuses to think.
Not much chance I'll get a serious answer.
I read a lot, and I am a bit schooled. I come to this place to express opinions.
Do you have a problem with that?
Their problem with that is You and Your voice, and they will employ every attempt to silence that via any technique/s they can engage. That much is certain..., here and 'there'
Yep. You obviously didn't.
She spends far more time on the theory of evolution than any other topic, by far.
Maybe you read a different book than me.
Four full chapters on evolution out of 11, chapters 8-11, comprising 83 pages....
How DARE she!
(pages 199-281), fully 30% of her entire book,
Hmmmm - 30% sounds like a lot less than 100%, 90% or 50%. It's not even 40% or even 1/3rd.
and no other topic had anywhere near that much of the book devoted to it. It was *the* main focus of the book, and the one she chose to end with as a "capper".
She dealt mostly with the legal issues surrounding it, such as the teaching of it. It wasn't the main focus of the book, as the topics were wide ranging. She did have some sources from people you probably don't like, like Behe.
Uh uh, that's a "rather small" portion of her book.
You just said yourself 30% - and a good portion of that being the legalilties around it. That sounds like a small portion to me. The way you and others were carrying on, one would think it was most of the book. Curious why people who *claim* to be conservatives were all of a sudden trashing her, I bought it, read it, and decided that their concerns were much ado about nothing. I was satisfied that she didn't commit thoughtcrime, and that is good enough for me.
Yeah. Right. Pull the other leg now.
No thanks. Sorry if I can't work myself into an appropriate frenzy about it. I enjoyed the book, and recommend it to others.
As God said to Moses, "Take two Tablets and call me in the Morning."
Or...
Proof that all cats have nine legs:
1) No cat has five legs.
2) One cat has four more legs than no cat.
3) Therefore, one cat has nine legs (5 + 4 = 9) QED.
PS I didn't know you was from Arizona.
Cheers!
'Twas a little more complicated than that; some of the home pages of stridently pro-evo FReepers got deleted without immediate explanation.
Jim Robinson's site, he has the right to do stuff like that; and JR explained more or less that evolution was used as a stalking horse to undermine America's faith and (ultimately, by incrementalism) its foundations.
[I don't quite remember if JR said it was *necessarily* like that, every time, by design; or if he meant "all too often it ends up being *used* like that.]
A lot of folks disagreed, some respectfully, and some posting Opuses.
There were also a couple of threads which got out of control, especially back in October '06.
Many of the hard-line atheistic evos, and a few scientists who were pro-evo but not *militantly* so, (i.e. not 'evangelical' atheists) also left in solidarity or were banned.
Many, if not all, went to Darwin Central. A good site for hard science, much of the politics is more libertarian than here.
Apparently there is a fair amount of mutual lurking between that site and this.
I wish things could've been settled more amicably, I miss posting Calvin and Hobbes cartoons to crevo threads.
There is another way to look at this: ID may be true, but, even if it is, it's not science.
The word "science," as generally used today, usually means specifically natural science. How the universe works free from outside interference.
ID, for the most part, assumes a supernatural hand in the matter. Therefore, it is not science. This doesn't mean it's not true. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that ID is true, to the extent that God has fiddled with things now and again, to get them on a track that He finds more interesting. However, because ID implies a supernatural agent, it is by definition not science.
Science is the study of the universe at default -- how it acts without a supernatural agency acting on it. Bring a supernatural agent into the discussion, and the subject is no longer science, regardless of the truth of the matter.
I think she's on her way to finding gold -- or maybe striking oil -- but that's just my opinion.
And you are who? Sisyphus?
Camus-ver here and say that.
For you to find equivalence in the God of the Jews with that of Mohammad's numbs me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I only made a statement that goes as far as it goes, the equivalence that you mention is only in your own interpretation of what I say, I cannot be responsible for words you put in my mouth.
The gravity pixies did it. duhhh.
Thanks for all your propaganda .. but you wasted your time .. I didn't read it .. and please don't force your garbage on me again!!"
You chose not to read it. You chose to ignore it. You chose to ignore a legitimate reply to you because you feared it would contradict your beliefs. Your beliefs, and your faith, must be very weak if you fear challenges. A true conservative would at least review rebuttle. Only an ignoramous would put his fingers in his ears and say "la..la..laa..I can't hear you" when confronted with something that counters what they beleive.
Thanks for your help, as usual.
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.