On Darwinism: "Liberals creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." --- Coulter, Godless

On the fossil record: "The preposterous conceit that the fossil record has produced a mosaic of organisms consistent with evolution except for the occasional "gap" is absurd. Evolution is nothing but a gap. It's a conjecture about how species might have arisen that is contradicted by the fossil record and by nearly everything we have learned about molecular biology since Darwin's day." --Coulter, Godless

On religion "vs." evolution: "The only religious belief driving opinions about evolution is atheism. God can do anything, including evolution. But the value of Darwinism for atheists is that it is the only way they can explain why we are here. (It's an accident!) If evolution doesn't work out for them, they'll have to expand on theories about extraterrestrials or comets bringing life to earth." -- Coulter, Godless

On Darwinism's appeal to liberals: "Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's "science," which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally. Do whatever you feel like doing - screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child - Darwin says it will benefit humanity! Nothing is ever wrong as long as you follow your instincts. Just do it - and let Mother Earth sort out the winners and losers." -- Coulter, Godless

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/6/2006 11:26a).]

Notafraid - You resort to a citing a plagiarist and documented liar on matters of science?

Are we talking about Ann Coulter the plagiarist?

I know you would JUST attack the person! hahahah! So transparent!


The typical method of liberals is: When they can’t beat you in the realm of ideas, they simply try to discredit you!


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/6/2006 11:34a).]

Just pointing out the obvious flaw in your character

Some of the dumbest quotes I have ever read here. Obviously clueless when it comes to science.

More!!!! I Love it!

quote:

---

Some of the dumbest quotes I have ever read here. Obviously clueless when it comes to science.

---

do we have an evolutionary explanation for the Cambria explosion yet?

quote:

---

God can do anything, including evolution.

---

Theistic evolution is no better than atheistic evolution. Both fit in the same category, that is, infinite-impersonal.

vt

I love this quote....

quote:

---

It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking.

---

Pretty embarrassing given that the last 150 years of science has produced nothing, but consistent support for evolutionary theory. Same old science bashing by the uninformed. Go to the libarary Ann and try digging into the scientific literature...intstead of spouting the same old creationist spew.

Liberals say that Ann Coulter is clueless when it comes to science. Al Gore, OTOH, is a brilliant scientist when it comes to global warming. Scientist? Or failed politician?

Ann knocks it out of the park again with Godless, especially when it comes to the dopey "theory of evolution".

Actually, these quotes are so far "out there" that I think that they would actually support the scientific community by pointing out how clueless the creationist lobby can become.

Oh, what awesom come backs from our very own Godless!

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/6/2006 12:24p).]

how does it feel to be a member of the lunatic fringe texasag73?

Evolution has been scrutinized by everyone for the past 150 years. I would suggest that it has been questioned continously and re questioned with each new piece of information. It is the best explanation given the information we have right now. The only argument against evolution is that it does not totally explain how things evolve in enough detail (yet) for some people who are stuck wishing that the supernatural ideas that they were told were true (which is not science).

quote:

---

It is the best explanation given the information we have right now.

---

wrong. I asked for an evolutionary explanation for the Cambria explosion earlier and no one answered. Why? Because it's accepted that Darwin's theory predicts gradual change. But we have the Cambria explosion where most of the animal phyla show up on the scene. The fossil record shows this as a sudden appearence. Darwin's theory cannot explain this observation.

vt

quote:

---

Evolution has been scrutinized by everyone for the past 150 years. I would suggest that it has been questioned continously and re questioned with each new piece of information. It is the best explanation given the information we have right now. The only argument against evolution is that it does not totally explain how things evolve in enough detail (yet) for some people who are stuck wishing that the supernatural ideas that they were told were true (which is not science).

---

Theists will never win this one against atheists since atheists can predict the future. We might as well quit while we can.

quote:

---

some people who are stuck wishing that the supernatural ideas that they were told were true (which is not science).

---

also, i'm sure you fancy yourself as a free thinker, and if so, i commend the guys at Reasons to Believe (reasons.org). They've developed models for the creation of the universe and biology based on the Bible and offer tests of their models. In other words, they follow the scientific method. They also disagree with I.D.

vt

Creationism/Darwinism is a hot button topic on this and many other boards. There's a major gap I'd like to see explained.

There's much evidence to support evolution: next time you spray insecticide on a roach and it laughs at you those words will come back to your mind.

Darwin addresses the changes in species as the adapt to changing environments. But he doesn't (that I know of) deal with how these species came to be here in the first place. Primal cause doesn't seem to come into the argument.

Creationists state (and I fully believe) that God brought the world into being however many million years ago. Darwinians state (and I fully believe) that the various species either changed to meet new challenges or died off.

The two groups seem to be playing in completely different arenas.

So where, in the long run, is the real conflict between Genesis and Origin of Species?

Let's limit discussion to those two sources and not drag Carl Sagan into the discussion.

VT - You do realize that the so-called cambrian explosion was not a sudden occurence - the "explosion" took place over a period of millions of years.

really? I've read biologist who say otherwise.

vt

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the best explanation given the information we have right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrong. I asked for an evolutionary explanation for the Cambria explosion earlier and no one answered. Why? Because it's accepted that Darwin's theory predicts gradual change. But we have the Cambria explosion where most of the animal phyla show up on the scene. The fossil record shows this as a sudden appearence. Darwin's theory cannot explain this observation.

---

I would bet that there are probably several more "issues" than that that you can find about evolution that people do not fully agree upon. That is the beauty of it. When more information is gained, it will "evolve" to accomodate this new infomation. Unlike a static creationist concept. it is pretty much common sense logic applied to data.

What would be the best explanation in your mind given the information we have right now?

quote:

---

What would be the best explanation in your mind given the information we have right now?

---

I don't think it's Darwinism to the full extent. The fossil record does NOT affirm the Darwin approach to macro evolution; therefore, we cannot proclaim it as consensus and fact and truth. As Hugh Ross points out, the Big Bang and Genesis 1 both start with the same words: In the beginning. So I believe that the universe has a specific starting point and is expanding and under the supervision of a Creator.

Did Darwin make a contribution to science? Absolutely. Is it either/or? I don't think so. But a full humanist/Darwinist position has many problems associated with that worldview. My problem is when people say stuff like science disproves God; I disagree. As I mentioned before, the Big Bang affirms the first 3 words of the Bible. Beyond that, and candidly, I'm still developing my opinion on the development of the universe and of our world. But make no mistake, I do believe in a Creator.

vt

quote:

---

how does it feel to be a member of the lunatic fringe texasag73?

---

Schizman - It's a tough choice to go with you or the Bible.....Hmmm..OK, I'll take the bible...


1 Corinthians 1:20: Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

quote:

---

In the trillion-trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a gumball to astronomical proportions, according to the inflation theory. The universe then settled into a more leisurely pace of expansion over the past 13.7 billion years or so.

---

(The rest of the article is pretty interesting too)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

---

(the rest of the book is pretty interesting too)




It's not that hard to understand, really.

quote:

---

As Hugh Ross points out, the Big Bang and Genesis 1 both start with the same words: In the beginning.

---

If this guy said that, then he would not be much of a scientist. Nothing suggests that that the Big Bang would be "the beginning". Right now it is simply an unknown. I would theorize that there have been several iterations of big bangs and universal recompressions. We will probably not figure that out for a while, however there is no reason to say that supernatural god did it. that is not science.

quote:

---

The fossil record does NOT affirm the Darwin approach to macro evolution; therefore, we cannot proclaim it as consensus and fact and truth.

---

That only depends on what level of the preponderance of evidence that you require in order for you to believe it is a good explanation. I do not think anybody would say that anything in science can be proclaimed as "fact and truth". As we learn more, we adapt our understanding to accompany the new information.

quote:

---

My problem is when people say stuff like science disproves God; I disagree.

---

I would agree with you on this. Since (in my opinion) god(s) are imaginary human concepts, the idea of which can never be disproven because common sense logic does not apply.

What people say that science disproves God?

The main problem I see is the "All or None" approach that so many believers throw at any scientific concept that calls into question their belief system.

If any scientific theory is disproved it DOES NOT automatically mean the religious side is right....


As for Ann Coulter, the woman is a media whooor who loves to anger the left and cater to the Rush Limbaugh Ditto head idiots who are too stupid to think for themselves. Her arguments are old news and have been thrown out by Creationists for years. The only thing she does that is original is show total contempt for the widows of 9/11 who have the audacity to wonder why their spouses had to die.

As for attacking her, what about her do you think is admiral? She considers Joseph McCarthy a hero. She committed voter fraud recently and has yet to explain it. She has committed plagiarism on numerous occasions and actually called for the poisoning of a US Supreme Court Justice (in jest of course)

She has every right to say what is in her pea brain but the woman is the ugliest and most mean spirited person in the country and displays little if any professionalism as a debater or social critic.

I am not familiar with this author. However, I notice that it is interesting that most of the responses are knee-jerk "she is stupid, evil, narrow-minded, and uncool" so therefore, we don't have to deal with the substance of the arguments or observations that she brings up.

Darwin may have been a nerdy, stupid, self-centered geek, but I will respond to the ideas that he wrote not evaluate his life.

But hey, when all arguments fail, fall back on ridicule; it is a powerful tool.

And, by the way, you are wrong because you smell funny, walk weird, and couldn't beat my mom in arm wrestling.

quote:

---

As for attacking her, what about her do you think is admiral

---

To my knowledge, she has never been in the Navy, and has never been an Admiral...

quote:

---

But hey, when all arguments fail, fall back on ridicule; it is a powerful tool.

---

Ironic since this is essentially all she does.

quote:

---

But hey, when all arguments fail, fall back on ridicule; it is a powerful tool.



Ironic since this is essentially all she does.

---

Ironic that you still didn't respond to the content but, once again, fell back on an ad hominem.

And my mom could still beat you at arm wrestling.

What content is there to respond to? She's not putting forth an argument. She's saying "Evolution is stupid."