Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

[Tribune7]

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

[jennyp]

Not to nitpick, but unalienable means you can't sell it. Simply put, you can't sell yourself into servitude.

I've never looked them both up, but it turns out that M-W says they're the same.

[jennyp]

[me] So Mamzelle, in post 300 where do you draw the obvious, insurmountable line between "just an old ape" vs. "just an old human"?

[you] If Coyoteman keeps posting the same photo six times a day for five years, it will inevitably lead to Evo-Morph and the photo will change due to random chance.

<sigh> Afraid to answer. Gotcha.

[jennyp]

Your adherence to Darwinism and the evolutionary model ARE, in fact, religious in tenacity. Even if I didn't feel this to be the case, the term still applies. According to Dictionary.com, "religiously" can mean "extremely scrupulous or conscientious", which I'm sure you'll agree describes your defensive stance.

Ironically, I'm reading The Great Influenza. It spends the first several chapters documenting how terrible the practice of medicine was for centuries, and how it took the profession - especially in America - decades to accept that the scientific method applies to medicine just like it was proving in other disciplines. One effect of this was that in America, the average doctor didn't accept the germ theory of disease for decades after European doctors did. Several nasty epidemics came and went during this time.

If you creationists (or the wacky left - different side same coin) ever decided to become opposed to the germ theory of disease for some ideological reason, you bet I'd be "religiously tenacious" and "defensive" in my defense of the germ theory of disease.

[jennyp]

The remaining portion of evos on FR are the chronic obsessives--"Asberger's Syndrome" sufferers. See Wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with it--practically a Post Office Wanted poster description of some of these crevolisters.

Now you've got me curious, Mamzelle. How would you describe yourself, psychoanalytically?

[Ichneumon]

Now you've got me curious, Mamzelle. How would you describe yourself, psychoanalytically?

After that long rant of hers, accusing just about everyone but people exactly like herself as having various mental disorders, I know what diagnosis *I'd* give...

[jennyp]

... YOU guys -- you anti-evolutionists -- are the ones playing the "DU card" in a cheap, sleazy attempt to propagandize against science by playing to political prejudices instead of addressing the science. So don't try to lecture *me* on the "PR/public opinion" perspective when YOU guys are the ones who are trying to flog the PR angle for all it's worth and brought up the whole DU thing in the first place. ...

You know what's ironic? That DU thread is dripping with delicious sight of liberals trying to make sense of cognitive dissonance - the cognitive dissonance of conservatives who are actually rational and argue from the facts. Someday - maybe - some of those DUers will be assaulted with more episodes of cognitive dissonance WRT conservatives, and will be forced to actually think critically about what they believe because of it. That DU thread only confirms to me that we FRevos are doing good for the country.

[svcw]

Are you kidding this is a blast ..... Ichneumon gets so agitated about everything ,,, especially if you post anything that may disagree with him.

[svcw]

Can one ever have to many beers ;-)

[svcw]

Well whats a girl to do ... ummm think I'll just have a coffee, a cookie and wait with bated breath for your next tirade.

[PatrickHenry]

If anything, you should be *glad* that some of them have come to the conclusion that not all conservatives are morons and that some conservatives actually have a brain. This could be the crack in the door which might eventually lead them to consider that conservative positions or conservatism in general might not be as ridiculous as they had previously believed.

Nailed it. I've got an essay about this at my homepage: WHY DO WE HAVE SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION THREADS? Excerpt:

One of the great un-exploded myths of the 20th century is that the left is the natural home of intellectuals. The democrats -- notwithstanding their socialism, the Kyoto treaty, and countless other idiocies -- love to pose as intellectually superior. It's standard policy for them to claim that Republicans are morons, dunces, rednecks, etc. The "Republicans are anti-science" issue is one that the liberal media are eager to exploit. The presence of science threads on this website -- a very popular and highly visible website -- is beneficial in breaking down this absurd stereotype. We demonstrate that many conservatives are educated, literate, and deeply committed to the advance of science -- a rational enterprise which is a core value of Western Civilization.

[WildHorseCrash]

Sad. There's more I could say but it obviously would be lost on you.

C'mon. Let's have this supposed objective evidence of a deity. You posted that it exists. Show put up or shut up.

[ml1954]

The phrase that seems to apply is ... They can dish it out but they can't take it.

[DocRock]

My post and still no replies, only innuendos.

[Elsie]

YOUR pink picture is a LOT more alluring than the pink picture I post from time to time....

[Elsie]

She doesn't even know Jack Chick about science it would seem.

Just like the majority of Evolution believers.

[Elsie]

I'll stick to reading people like Horowitz, Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, and Walter Williams when I want to read conservative commentary.

Sounds a bit like Evosnobbery.

"Sorry, but your conservative stance is not important as long as you do not cling to ToE!"

[Elsie]

 

Do let us know when you contact these folks to let them know they're wrong about evolution and God being incompatible, won't you?
 

 

---

Consider it done!!!

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is your GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

[Elsie]

 

She's going to become a laughingstock to anyone......

 

Ok...

---

---

 

NIV Psalms 59:7-8
 7.  See what they spew from their mouths-- they spew out swords from their lips, and they say, "Who can hear us?"
 8.  But you, O LORD, laugh at them; you scoff at all those nations.

 

 

NIV Proverbs 1:22-31
 22.  "How long will you simple ones  love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
 23.  If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you.
 24.  But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
 25.  since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke,
 26.  I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you--
 27.  when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
 28.  "Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me.
 29.  Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD,
 30.  since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke,
 31.  they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.

 

 

NIV Luke 6:21-22
 21.  Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
 22.  Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

 

 

NIV Luke 6:25
   Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

[Elsie]

Sorry, there's more to life than the functions of a cell posting on FR!

(But it's not NEAR as fun! ;^)

[ml1954]

I hadn't gotten to your post #467 when I replied to #463.

Provided it's sincere and not a tactic to avoid return fire after taking multiple shots, I can only agree with someone when they propose that further discussion be civil.