Coulter's Book Chapter 1

[Wildalaska]

And God made them, and he made us.

good..now tell us "who" god is, and how is "he" a "he"

WildwaitingforthisoneAlaska

 

[Redworm]

(and why using gravity as an analogy is rather disturbingly wrong).

I think it serves to make a point. Maybe not as an analogy to the evolution theory but certainly as a way to point out that science doesn't prove anything. Science only supports an idea or disproves it. The law of gravity may have stood the test of time but tomorrow morning we may find out that it's completely wrong and there's another explanation (zomg INTELLIGENT FALLING ^_^).

Nope. They'll be revealed as False Gods as soon as O'Neill returns.

Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the gods, ships shall be built to carry our warriors out amongst the stars and we will spread Origin to all the unbelievers. The power of the Ori will be felt far and wide and the wicked shall be vanquished.

good..now tell us "who" god is, and how is "he" a "he"

WildwaitingforthisoneAlaska

Please. God is a large black woman. Like Oprah only less...Oprah.

 

[tyme]

Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
6. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
7. Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
8. Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
9. The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

1. There are plenty of intermediate forms in the fossil record. You just unrealistically expect a million fossils each with some tiny difference distinguishing it from all the other fossils. The simple reality is that if we applied the same standards to fossils of current humans, we might easily conclude that the fossil of a japanese man is a different species than the fossil of a basketball player.

2. What the frell is a "higher order"? You think you're a higher order than a cobra? Let's put you in a room with no weapons and find out.

3. Blind assertion.

4, 5, 6. See 1.

7, 8. O RLY? More blind assertions.

9. There's speculative evidence of "floods" of a sort, that is, tsunamis. There is no evidence of a "great flood" that I'm aware of, certainly nothing without realistic alternative theories. I'm sure I would have heard of it otherwise.

 

[carbiner]

Has anyone here ever heard scientists refer to the" GOD qwerk", It's that pesky little part thats still missing as far as the beginning of the universe.

Explain thought?

 

[Marko Kloos]

urkslaven,

which part of my request was unclear or nebulous to you? Do I have to spell out "DROP THE SUBJECT" in bright red letters?

I'm not interested in your cut-n-paste Intelligent Design essay, and this site is not the place for that discussion. ID is not science, because the claim at its core is non-falsifiable, even if you discount the logical fallacy at the core of ID. (If complex beings require a designer, who designed the designer, who must by necessity be at least as complex as his creations?)

Since this discussion is not likely to go back onto the right track, and I'm not interested in moderating a debate on the merits of Intelligent Design, I'm closing this thread now. This is not Biology or Geology 1010...if you need some formal training in current scientific theories, please take advantage of your local community college.