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 There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies.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 ...
This is an odd departure from the usual modes of logical discourse. Since when is thinking a form of libel?
When you accuse someone of cutting and pasting their essays, and it isn't true. Sue me for sloppy writing. The original comment by DLR was defamatory and untrue. Not only that, but he has made the claim numerous times and has been informed numerous times that the claim is untrue.
You also seem to have ignored the fact that a creationist has plagiarized his essay. Someday one of these little thefts will result in a lawsuit against FR.
The missing link is missing for a reason.
Frog to a prince in a moment is a fairy tale. Add a bit of time and it’s “fact.” Right.
... then God is a liar, or an impotent misleading ill-informed wimp. Scripture is pretty clear about how “all this” came about. If it didn’t come about as Scripture clearly says, then the God of that Scripture is not worth following.
As for me, I’ll believe the evidence *and* Scripture, that slime did not produce Man.
DaveLoneRanger is handling the ping list because most of us are tired of being attacked by those who either hate God or who are deceived by those who hate God into believing that God is impotent and irrelevant, and that “all this” just came about because of chance. It’s a tiring discussion to have to refute what evolutionists consider “evidence” that supports their anti-God theory.
We’re tired of continuing to provide evidence that Reason exists, and that Reason brought “all this” about, that slime is not our cousin, that the evidence points to something other than “evolution.”
I don’t know if you’re a Christian or not. If you are, of course you don’t need to believe Scripture and the evidence to be saved. You simply need to have a humble relationship with Christ. If you are a Christian, though, there’s a joy and liberation to be able to believe the evidence and Scripture, to stand in awe of what the Lord has done, rather than to believe in the theory that God is a liar and is not involved.
If you’re not a Christian, then your position on evolution naturally follows from your God-is-irrelevant presupposition.
This old thing again?
I do not care for the fact that RA, and Patrck Henry and so many others have been booted from this Forum, but the truth is, my opinion does not carry a lot of clout here.
It seems that the proprietors here have determined that there was a sort of tumor growing, and so they excised it.
I guess that the bottom line is that this is a political forum, and a conservative forum, and not a place for advancing the notions of agenda driven know it alls who like to rub elbows with the greater than hoi polloi.
There are many Christians and Jews who believe that the Scriptures are allegorical rather than literal. Are they call God a liar? Are they God haters?
When Scripture speaks plainly, it’s best to interpret it plainly, rather than START with the presumption that it’s probably wrong and therefore needs to be interpreted allegorically.
When Scripture (including Jesus) speak of an Adam who sinned, it’s probably best to believe Scripture. Of course, you’re free to disbelieve Jesus. It’s a free country.
The use of Evolution to attack Christianity is not justified. It is a scientific abuse by such an attacker because science is impotent to address issues of faith. Evolution is neither pro-God or anti-God.
Evolution has happened and continues to happen with every passing generation of every living thing. Natural selection is the theory that explains these observations.
My biggest problem isn't with Christianity, for I am Christian. My issue is with the literal interpretation of Genesis which is not supported by physical observation. To me, it is the interpretation that needs to be re-examined, not denied. My faith is not threatened by a world billions of years old and a dwelling place for creatures that faded to extinction long before we were here. There is great awe in that.
There is no evidence of any kind that supports a 6 day creation about 6000-10000 years ago. Genetics undeniably does show that 'slime' is a distant biological relation to us.
Like I told DLR, one must understand his opposition before trying to counter it. I have yet to meet a creationist who has done this.
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.