Posted on 09/15/2006 3:39:45 PM PDT by ofwaihhbtn
You probably believe that Noah's flood account in Genesis is true, too.
I've said similar things before in these threads. Science, in the broadest sense, does not investigate purpose or meaning. To discover the purpose of existence, one use look to philosophy or religion. Those are better tools than science for getting a satisfactory answer for "why am I here?" Science is a tool best used for investigating the mechanics or dynamics of a situation, or looking for past trends and extrapolating forward. It is a good tool for getting a satisfactory answer to "how does this work?" or "what happens when I do this?"
Tell you what. Write it up so someone as "uneducated" as I am can understand it and we'll go from there. Just use some common sense and logic and I'll do the best I can to understand the pro-Darwin position.
When you refer to "garbage" you must be referring to evolution.
You mean like "Pluto"?
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense:"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Some theories are proven (which means tested) beyond any rational doubt: the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the theory of plate tectonics, &c. Evolution is in this category also. It makes me amused when people storm about wanting evolution taught as a theory. Very well, it's a theory, just like those others I mentioned.
However, I very much liked the above article's reference to the accuracy of the history of the debate between Huxley and Wilberforce. A story which surfaces 38 years after an event, recounting a public event differently from any contemporary account, is very suspect. It reminds me of the commonly accepted myth that Marie Antoinnette said "Let them eat cake." That falsehood also only appeared long after her execution, and turns out to be the retelling of a story originally applied to someone else. I think that it became popular because it provided an excuse of sorts for the barbaric acts of the French Revolution, around which a lot of ridiculous and contrived heroism swirls, and which is a disgrace to France. We now know that the young son of Marie Antoinette died through mistreatment of his murderous keepers, and yet the French state has never indicated any sort of remorse, and still flies the flag of the movement which briought so much suffering, and even what amounted to an early world war. The French Revolution stains the history of France and Europe, and shall always darken my opinion of that country, totally aside from the execrable behavior of the French government today.
But back to the issue at hand. The good Bishop Wilberforce, whatever his scientific short-comings, was a man worthy of great admiration, particularly for his successful influence against slavery. For that he should be considered a hero in world history, and does not deserve to have been unjustly ridiculed. Furthermore, his consideration of Darwin's ideas was honest and free of rancor. Darwin's reaction, likewise, was free of personal attack; and he appears even to have admired his opponent's skill. This is the way civilized people should debate an issue, and it shows Victorian civilization in a good light.
Still, I do like to see debaters toss hissy fits, and some of these guys (on the Evo side) are so wrapped up in what they believe to be "final answers" it's really easy to tip them over into rage.
It's rare that we get a Creo go that far.
I also like to insert humor and humorous misdirection into my posts.
And, you've proved this is wrong. Right?
You are missing the mark, dreadfully. I'm not much of a bible student or passionate reader of it. I'm just sitting out here watching both sides of this issue and it seems to me the intelligent design side makes more sense than the Darwin side of evolution.
As an aside, it's not much of a conservative argument to attack the poster instead of the issue. What you, and others do, is prove Ann Coulters point that when you cannot debate the issue you resort to attacks on the opposition. Not cool.
Fair enough.
Start with this article from PatrickHenry's home page here on FR. Its titled "Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation."
There are a lot of other useful articles on that page as well. They should give you some useful background.
Ms. Coulter also says that evolutionists say whales evolved from bears and bats evolved from squirrels (both of which are absolutely false). She freely misrepresents evolution and the evidence for it.
There are many fossils that provide evidence for evolution, one such is Tiktaalik, a recently discovered fish that has jointed wrists in its front flippers. This is of special interest because scientists had been looking for a link between fish and tetrapods and chose just that location to dig in because other fossils recovered indicated this would be a good spot for a transitional fossil. And that's what they found.
I love P.J. O'Rourke, but if in one of his books he had written a controversial opinion on something scientific or technological, I wouldn't necessarily take his word for it. I don't expect to learn about geology or electromagnetism from P.J. O'Rourke, and I shouldn't expect to learn about biology from Ann Coulter.
Some of you who've had ruinous divorces know about this lawyerly characteristic.
I dont agree with you at all here...I have seen more than one CREO go completely over the edge, into a complete rage, and they wound up banned...it happens on both sides...just as there can be civil debate on both sides, there often can be rage on both sides...
True, but I'd avoid saying any theory is proven, and even something as apparently obvious as gravity is not completely explained.
If a non-climatologist can use his "scientist" credentials in an unrelated field to make a case for global warming, then we should all accept the words of any "scientist" who rebuts evolution, even if they're not paleontologists or biologists, or whatever. Heck, the weatherman might be just as well qualified to knock evolution as a biologist would be qualified to affirm global warming. :)
Er, at least that's what the mass media taught me.
Our modern understanding is awash with drifting continents, and continent sized glaciers.
With a mix of misleading claims, pseudo-scientific arguments, distortions of evolutionary theory, and outright falsehoods, Coulter places herself not only outside the mainstream but truly toward the lunatic fringe. After all, no reasonable person argues that one cannot believe in God and simultaneously accept the findings of decades of accumulated research on evolution. Yet, Coulter appears to believe that in order to prove that liberals are "godless," she must attack evolutionary theory itself.
Though she stops short of saying that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve rode through the Garden of Eden on the backs of dinosaurs, in her quest to disprove evolutionary theory, Coulter echoes the arguments of the creationists from whom even many religious conservatives distanced themselves long ago.
Among her falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions, Coulter:
Misstates how fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition from reptiles and mammals, as well as the fossil record of dinosaurs and mammals.
Distorts the likelihood that a living creature will be fossilized.
Distorts the duration of the period known as the Cambrian explosion, omits important information about its significance, and suggests that 10 million years is "sudden."
On transitional fossils, misrepresents relation of the Archaeopteryx to modern birds.
Omits information regarding the Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor hoaxes.
Misrepresents the evolution of the eye and ignores recent research.
Falsely suggests that "irreducible complexity" disproves evolutionary theory.
On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel, omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
Falsely suggests that the Miller-Urey experiment did not accurately reflect early Earth atmosphere. Throughout the book, displays her own misunderstandings regarding evolutionary theory (i.e. descent with modification, the evolution of bacteria).
Offers only classic creationist arguments from discredited, unscientific ideas, despite a claim on the inner jacket sleeve of the book stating that Coulter writes "with a keen appreciation of genuine science."
Not really that mind-boggling. Been there, done that. I'm an ex-six day Creationist.
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.