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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 701-713 next last
To: PatrickHenry

...and I'm already here anyway! Oh happy day...


61 posted on 06/27/2006 6:28:50 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: zebra 2

Her erroneous writings on science (not to mention her downright ugliness regarding widowhood) makes me wonder if her politics are really correct. If she cannot even get statements of science correct, why should we believe anything else she has ever said. (Same logic as with Clinton's lying.)


62 posted on 06/27/2006 6:33:06 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

You said: I know this may sound childish - and if so, I guess I have yet to evolve into an adult - but how much time have you spent looking at the fossil record? For that matter, who on FR has spent the most time looking at the fossil record?
***
Very good observation. This is a tactic usually associated with Jack Murtha and abortion supporters. One is not entitled to an opinion unless one has fought in a war (and even then Bob Dole was not allowed to have an opinion be heard) or are a woman who might be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I reject this sort of tactic as irrelevant. If Coulter is wrong about her references to the fossil record, point that out, but the truth of one's statements/opinions does not rest on whether one has personally reviewed the fossil record.


63 posted on 06/27/2006 6:33:17 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: 7thson

"Grog drag Anne back to his
cave but Grog afraid she not shut up."

65 posted on 06/27/2006 6:36:43 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: Doctor Stochastic

You said: Her erroneous writings on science (not to mention her downright ugliness regarding widowhood) makes me wonder if her politics are really correct. If she cannot even get statements of science correct, why should we believe anything else she has ever said. (Same logic as with Clinton's lying.)
***
Assuming her writings on science are erroneous, that does not make her a liar or untrustworthy (just as Bush is not untrustworthy if it turns out there were no WMDs in Iraq).

As for her "ugliness regarding widowhood," you should read what she said more carefully and reconsider your post. She spoke not of widowhood in general, or even of widowhood as a result of 9/11 terror, but of those who use (or allow to be used) their widowhood for political purposes, and appear to revel in the fame brought on by it. Applying your logic to your own post, no one should read what you say, but I will continue to do so.


67 posted on 06/27/2006 6:37:34 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: NCLaw441

Ok, I reread it. It's worse than I thought. I've always expected this from the Left; now such comments seem common on the right.

The difference is that Bush's WMD statements seem to have been based on observations but made in good faith. (It's not clear how such observations could be checked.) In no way can Coulter's comments on science have been made in good faith; she gets facts (not just opinions) wrong. It's not like there aren't thousands of people who could have proof-read her stuff.


69 posted on 06/27/2006 6:42:53 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began

False. Darwin's theory does not address the beginning of life on Earth (or anywhere else for that matter).

70 posted on 06/27/2006 6:43:10 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The thread already has over 50 posts, and it's pretty much taken on a life of its own."

In other words, it has evolved without a "supreme being" having intervened. Now all the sudden that's a bad thing....

71 posted on 06/27/2006 6:47:27 AM PDT by Sam's Army (If you have a problem with the word "God"; you've got a bigger problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
How did you like the beginning of page 212?

We could use Ann on the Cubs, she's a home run hitter.

72 posted on 06/27/2006 6:47:33 AM PDT by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
Assuming her writings on science are erroneous, that does not make her a liar or untrustworthy (just as Bush is not untrustworthy if it turns out there were no WMDs in Iraq).

This speaks directly to her ability to reason.

If she can't understand this, how can she understand the complexities of other issues?

73 posted on 06/27/2006 6:47:57 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Actually, according to evolutionary thinking, a man is supposed to have sex with several women to propagate the species.

There is more to the survival of a species than simple procreation. Procreation by itself will fail to insure the survival of the species if the offspring do not survive and thrive. The behaviour you suggest seems to be destructive to that end in the human species. The evidence is all around you.

74 posted on 06/27/2006 7:00:38 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

Sorry, your typical evolutionist believes firmly in "natural selection", a clearly metaphysical phenomenon.


75 posted on 06/27/2006 7:13:42 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Darwin called his book Origin of Species for a reason.

Stars, planets and galaxies evolve, of course, but the word is used in a completely different sense. The Darwinian theory, which the original poster referenced, is limited strictly to biological processes.

I may not be stating my main point well.

The Law of Gravity states that a human body cannot walk on water. However, it does not say that a localized, temporary exception to this law has never occurred. Thus a Christian who believes in the Law of Gravity is still perfectly free to believe that Jesus walked on water. He did not violate the Law of Gravity, he made an exception to it.

Similarly the Theory of Evolution attempts to describe how species change and evolve into other species. It cannot say that there has never been "interference" in this process, by "gods," advanced lifeforms or other entities.

All science can do is say that it finds no evidence of such interference, and that such interference is not necessary to explain the facts around us.

In my opinion, which is generally not popular with either side, God can use the process of evolution to accomplish his Creation while at the same time guiding or making exceptions to the natural processes as He sees fit.


76 posted on 06/27/2006 7:14:51 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Hunh? What is this "natural processes" critter? Is that an identifiable and measurable process or substance?


77 posted on 06/27/2006 7:14:54 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Ann is turning into Lawrence Larry Mackay (from "Please Don't Eat the Dasies"), a critic who lets a good joke triumph over a correct review.


78 posted on 06/27/2006 7:15:30 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Russ_in_NC
"Probably because they're the people surrounded by clear evidence of evolution all the time."

Please state one proof!!

View Replies

*click*

No replies.


The fact that the Darwinians panic at the mere suggestion that intelligent design be taught along side evolution in public schools is proof that their confidence is not too high in the validity of their theory.
79 posted on 06/27/2006 7:17:47 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
"Random" probably doesn't really exist in our present Universe. The set of numbers or "points" in use is certainly quite large, of course, but we do not yet have a really good "proof" (a rigorous mathematical construct) that "random" can or does occur ~

As is all too often the case we find that this particular Universe has "values", e.g. Cosmological Constant, Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s, einstein's e=mc squared, and so forth.

Other "values" are not available although they must certainly exist under other conditions in other universes. Maybe even the speed of light changes. Randomness, if it were "real", would sometimes select for different values in those constants.

80 posted on 06/27/2006 7:21:47 AM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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