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 There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies.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 ...
Hi, I agree there's too much time wasted on irrelevancies and personal attacks.
I've asked questions several times and have never gotten a (to me) satisfactory reply. The questions, for those who hold to a naturalistic view of creation, are the following:
- If you were to drop a pencil a week from now, which direction would it go? What if you did it two weeks from now? Why do you answer the way you do?
- Do you believe in the historicity of Adam?
And many who support evolution, also believe God and are not ignorant of God...we may not believe your personal interpretation of the Bible tho, and that is truly what this comes down to...We may not buy into your particular notion of God tho...
Millions of people do support evolution, and believe God...that is evident on this thread, and is evident in real life as well...
What Hitler thought of Biblical foundations
Hitler did indeed go after churches because they rose up to oppose him, but that doesn't change the fact that he did indeed base his racial views on Biblical foundations (again, as revealed by his own private handwritten notes), and felt that he was "solving" the "Jewish problem" in order to, in his own words, do "the work of the Lord". But neither the Bible nor Christianity in general is responsible for Hitler's choices and depravities, nor would Darwin nor the theory of evolution be responsible even if he *had* used them for support in the way he used the Bible. As I wrote in other posts:
[...] the fact that the KKK and other groups explicitly rested their actions firmly on religious grounds, and explicitly *attacked* evolutionists. If you and Coulter can play guilt-by-association by mentioning that Marx liked Darwin, I'll be glad to return the favor and point out that you're on the same side as the KKK with regards to being pro-Christian and anti-evolution. That means exactly as much/little as the Hitler/Marx/Darwin twaddle, so tell me again how much stock you put into such stuff. [...] It's one thing to note that "Darwinism" has been misused and abused -- but name me one ideology that hasn't been.[...]
Science describe how things happen when nature is left to take its course -- only a moron would argue that this is how things *should* be or that humans are bound to "assist" nature in killing off the weak and drowning people who live in the paths of flash floods and infecting people who are at risk of pathogens.
[...]
You do not see the connections between their thoughts and their actions?
I see connections between Hitler's rabid hatred of Jews and his actions. I see connections between Stalin's brutality and his actions. I see connections between Mao's lust for power and his actions. I don't see that a study of how species are shaped by nature suddenly turns anyone into a monster. These men would have been monsters in any age, whether Darwin had written books on biology or not. Plenty of racists through the ages have "justified" their innate racism by quoting scripture, too, but scripture didn't make them racists, it was just one of the things they used to try rationalize their behavior.
So, when in doubt, just trust in ignorance?
Stubborn and ignorant is no way to go through life.
"They aren't worth a word. Just glance - and pass" [Dante, Inferno] And while they are not worth a word as they haven't yet evolved to comprehend it, you spent a whole bunch of words on them.
lol
Thanks for the post, excellent read!
Look, if you have to distort the actual tenets of science that badly -- i.e. if you have just make it up as you go along like this and have a "scientist" making a claim that no scientist actually makes -- then obviously the conclusion to your "parable" is so weak you have to "fudge" the answer to make it come out the way you like.
Sad.
Come back when you've got enough knowledge of the topic to be able to discuss the subject on its actual merits, you'll find that people might take you more seriously for a change.
It's not a fact.
According to the Bible the JEWS ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE LOVED BY GOD !
And where does scripture mandate racial discrimination? I suppose you can make the claim that the Jews were commanded not to mingle with certain nations but all those nations were basically the same race.
When it comes to different races, Moses had black wives and the Ethiopians (blacks) are never referred to in any demeaning fashion.
There is not a hint of racial discrimination in the New Testament.
Sorry. Still don't care, but I like the pictures.
I'll take this one....
It is said that man is the image of God, but given the nature of an omnipresent God, clearly this is not a physical image. Indeed, one of the tenets of Judaism is that God has no physical form. Therefore, this image is a spiritual and/or intellectual image.
God tells Moses that His name is "I am that I am." I believe that Adam was the first Homo sapiens to have the idea, "I am," and thus become the image of God, "I am that I am."
Physically, there were human creatures before Adam, but they were not, spiritually, in the image of God. Adam took -- or was led through -- that necessary step.
I remember what you do/did. :o)
Here is a things that pique my curiosity about carbon dating:
The c14 method uses assumed c14/c12 ratios. The assumption is that the atmosphere was the same when the organic material is being analyised. With radiocarbon being manufactured in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays, historically the assumption is that it has not changed. Therein is an "x" factor.
This is from Fairhill and young and I'll quote it so that I do not mangle it. "We note in passing that the total natural (current?)c14 inventory of 2.16 x 1030 atoms corresponds to the c14 decay rate of 1.63 x 104 disintegrations/m2s of the earth, considerably below the estimated production rate of c14 atoms averaged over the last 10 solar cycles (111 years) of 2.5 x 104 (+0.5 x 104) atoms/m2s. The source of discrepancy is unknown unless the present day production rate is indeed significantly higher than the average production rate." (Advances in Chemistry, vol. 93 pg. 402)
The possible influx/outflow rates are where the possible errors are. This is based on the advancements of tree-ring data showing that the issue is a lot more complex than was/is first thought.
Hope that wasn't too mangled and glad to see you got my personal post to you.
K4
If Hitler used scripture to base any of his beliefs, then that is an example of Satan's perversions of the Word of God. It makes me sick!
Ah, thanks.
The bible says, though, that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. Paul, in Romans 5, calls Adam the first man.
What is your reaction to this position? And, on what authority do you form your own beliefs? Thanks.
I have studied a bit of Biology. Nowadays it is all about Micro biology, and Molecular biology.
When I was a kid, my College Biology courses were all about Plants & Animals. They don't teach that stuff no more in college. You have to specialize these days, if you want to learn about deciduous plants, or insect colonies, etc.
Most modern day professors will find ways to inject the TOE into their lectures regularly. Who the heck is going to object to such notions while the teacher has the power of the subjective grading?
There is no serious debate happening on college campuses these days concerning TOE!
You, and your others who have opused on this matter willingly or not, have fallen into the same trap as the global warming idiots who somehow now think that Moon Bat Al Gore's messiah complex is just a minor character flaw.
If I had time for discourse. I'd enjoy a romp around the block with you and those of your mindset. The fact is, my time is more precious to me right now than that whimsical ambition.
So the, let me be succinct.... take a hike hike, and take your BS intellectualism with you.
Just remember how Satan quoted Scripture when tempting our Lord.
Did I ask for your condemnation by saying I don't care? Suffer us fools a quiet space not to care so much about so little.
ROFL!!! Did you actually read the book? She spends far more time on the theory of evolution than any other topic, by far.
Four full chapters on evolution out of 11, chapters 8-11, comprising 83 pages (pages 199-281), fully 30% of her entire book, 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".
Uh uh, that's a "rather small" portion of her book. Yeah. Right. Pull the other leg now.
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.