Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Enough noise from this damn thing.

Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism ^ | William Dembski

Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by 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. :-)

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; bewarefrevolutionist; coulter; crevolist; darwinism; evolution; godless
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880881-900901-920 ... 961-962 next last
To: Sam Hill
The "professor" just called me a Neo-Nazi.

No, I called you a historical revisionist, rewriting the history of the Nazi era to fit your own agenda. That's only one of your many manifest deficiencies.

881 posted on 04/29/2006 7:43:55 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: pby
...The quest began as an exodous from religious persecution...

Puritans and Quakers. Doesn't apply to Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, etc .

882 posted on 04/29/2006 7:44:34 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your posts are more and more surreal.

NIV 2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

883 posted on 04/29/2006 7:45:37 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]


Thanks for answering this, and thanks for pinging me.

884 posted on 04/29/2006 7:47:11 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Yes, we already know Dawkins doesn't like religion. So?

"He's a top-notch Evo; we adore him. Therefore anything ELSE he says gets a pass from us!"


885 posted on 04/29/2006 7:50:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; metmom; wallcrawlr; AndrewC; RunningWolf
Yes, we already know Dawkins doesn't like religion. So?

"He's a top-notch Evo; we adore him. Therefore anything ELSE he says gets a pass from us!"


886 posted on 04/29/2006 7:51:11 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; Right Wing Professor; Howlin; Deb; kcvl; Mo1; Enchante; nopardons; veronica; KJC1; ...
And yes, Hitler was an adamant believer in evolution. Much of his theories is based on Darwinism as he understood it.)

"Now I not only smell a troll, I hear a troll. I didn't ask that and you are repeating a frequently repeated error and anti-evolution creationist myth that has just as frequently been rebutted and shown to be false."


I will bother to give you a better response than your post deserves.

I didn't say you had asked that. I am addressing the subtext of bringing Hitler into this conversation at all. It seems to rub some of the people here, such at the RWP, who are so proud of being atheistic evolutionists--that Hitler was an atheistic evolutionist.

So much so that RWP even felt compelled to lie about Hitler and make him out to be just the opposite.

Survival of the fittest, especially as it showed up in so-called Social Darwinism, is at the core of Hitler's political and philosophical thinking, as even the most cursory reading of him would reveal.

Yes, Hitler may seem to have bridled at man being descended from monkeys, but only slightly. (He was attracted to the idea that the moon split off from the earth during the time men existed, and this colored some of his thinking here.) But even in his questioning, he generally, albeit grudgingly accepted it.

I once possessed a work on the origins of the human races. I used to think a lot about such matters, and I must say that if one examines the old traditions, the tales and legends, from close up, one arrives at unexpected conclusions. It’s striking to realise what a limited view we have of the past. The oldest specimens of handwriting we possess go back three or four thousand years at most. No legend would have reached us if those who made and transmitted them hadn’t been people like ourselves. Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey—assuming that this transformation really took place.

That is about the extent of Hitler's doubts about evolution. The rest of his extant remarks and speeches are replete with his belief that evolution, the struggle of the fittest, was the law of nature.

The following, like the quotes hitherto, are from Table Talk, but there is similar evidence of his thinking everywhere:

Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-grounds. To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. ..

That’s in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.


In any case, is it we who created nature, established its laws? Things are as they are, and we can do nothing to change them. Providence has endowed living creatures with a limitless fecundity; but she has not put in their reach, without the need for effort on their part, all the food they need. All that is very right and proper, for it is the struggle for existence that produces the selection of the fittest.


One must not put a curb on individuals. On the contrary, one must avoid whatever might prevent them from rising. If one systematically encourages the selection of the fittest, the time will come when talents will again be, in a sort of way, the privilege of an elite.


As in everything, nature is the best instructor, even as regards selection. One couldn’t imagine a better activity on nature’s part than that which consists in deciding the supremacy of one creature over another by means of a constant struggle.


It was with feelings of pure idealism that I set out for the front in 1914. Then I saw men falling around me in thousands. Thus I learnt that life is a cruel struggle, and has no other object but the preservation of the species. The individual can disappear, provided there are other men to replace him.


The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught an hour before—and I remember that I drove them to despair.

The Christian religion tries to get out of it by explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to the images of Holy Writ. Any man who made the same claim four hundred years ago would have ended his career at the stake, with an accompaniment of Hosannas...

One day finally, under the battering-ram of science, dogma will collapse. ...

What is contrary to the visible truth must change or disappear— that’s the law of life.

Does the knowledge brought by science make men happy? That I don’t know. But I observe that man can be happy by deluding himself with false knowledge. ...


It’s senseless to encourage man in the idea that he’s a king of creation, as the scientist of the past century tried to make him believe. That same man who, in order to get about quicker, has to straddle a horse— that mammiferous, brainless being! I don’t know a more ridiculous claim.


The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but they had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly. In that case, it’s better to believe something false than not to believe anything at all. Who’s that little Bolshevik professor who claims to triumph over creation? People like that, we’ll break them. Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.


When I was a child, only actors and priests had shaven faces. At Leonding, the only civilian whose face was beardless was regarded as the most extreme of eccentrics. The beard gives character to some faces, but it’s easier to descry the true personality of a shaven man. By the way, the evolution that has taken place in the sense of sobriety seems to accord with the laws of nature. Hasn’t man gradually, through the ages, cleared away some of his hair?


One must start by accepting the principle that nature herself gives. all the necessary indications, and that therefore one must follow the rules that she has laid down. ...

In aviation, too, we see that the natural laws retain all their original, value. The Zeppelin was on this account a completely artificial construction. Nature, obviously, has rejected the “lighter-than-air” principle; she has provided no bird with any sort of balloon, as she has done in the case of the fish. ... The current design of ships certainly does not conform to the laws of nature; if it did, then we should find fish furnished with some sort of propulsive element at the rear, instead of the lateral fins with which they are endowed. Nature would also have given the fish a stream-lined. head, instead of that shape which corresponds more or less exactly to a globule of water.


By the law of nature, the most important person of a nation should be the best man.


One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends. ...

The toad knows nothing of his previous existence as a tadpole, and our own memory serves us no better as regards our own previous state. That’s why I have the feeling that it’s useful to know the laws of nature—for that enables us to obey them. To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against Heaven.

If I can accept a divine Commandment, it’s this one: 'Thou shalt preserve the species.' The life of the individual must not be set at too high a price. If the individual were important in the eyes of nature, nature would take care to preserve him. Amongst the millions of eggs a fly lays, very few are hatched out—and yet the race of flies thrives. What is important for us, who are men, is less the sum of knowledge acquired than the maintenance of conditions that enable science constantly to renew itself.


It’s a mistake to think that man should be guided by his greed. Nature spontaneously eliminates all that has no gift for life. Man, alone amongst the living creatures, tries to deny the laws of nature.


Peace can result only from a natural order. The condition of this order is that there is a hierarchy amongst nations. The most capable nations must necessarily take the lead. In this order, the subordinate nations get the greater profit, being protected by the more capable nations. 

It is Jewry that always destroys this order. It constantly provokes the revolt of the weak against the strong, of bestiality against intelligence, of quantity against quality. It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity. We would therefore be wrong to sin by excess of confidence and proclaim our definite victory over Bolshevism. The more we render the Jew incapable of harming us, the more we shall protect ourselves from this danger. The Jew plays in nature the role of a catalysing element. A people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order.


I have always been an ardent disciple of the belief that, in a struggle between peoples, the people with the higher average morale must ways emerge victorious. In my opinion, that an inferior people should triumph over a strong is a negation of the laws of nature.


To not know this, is to not nothing anything about Hitler. You, like RWP, seem to revel in making pronouncements on a subject about which you are ignorant.

Why is that?

887 posted on 04/29/2006 7:52:01 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

"Else the Modern Prophet" Placemarker

888 posted on 04/29/2006 7:57:40 AM PDT by ahayes (Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 883 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"No, I called you a historical revisionist, rewriting the history of the Nazi era to fit your own agenda. That's only one of your many manifest deficiencies."

Again, you are a joke. I have gotten many Freepmails warning me that you have (shall we say) "problems" in dealing in a rational ways with a discussion. You certainly have demonstrated it here.

You claimed Hitler was a Christian. I proved that he was not. You then go on to post what you seem to think is some kind of personal revelation that Hitler and Nazi Germany were anti-Semitic.

That is not rational argumentation. That is some kind of mental illness.

As I noted above, it seems very important to you that you are a an atheist. Your posts here and elsewhere across the internet proclaim this proud achievement.

In that you remind me of homosexuals who insist on gay marriages and every other kind of social recognition. And I suspect both stem from your insecurities and a craving for some kind of acceptance--even permission.

That is why it is so important to you to maintain the lie that Hitler was a Christian.

Likewise, since you have put so much into being an evolutionist, it is essential to you to promote the lie that Hitler did not believe in evolution.

And the truly laughable thing is that you call yourself such a defender of truth and science.

889 posted on 04/29/2006 7:59:21 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.


Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?       
   Nose =           ?    
   Teeth incisors = ?
K. Eyes =           ?       
   Nose =           pointy
   Teeth incisors = smaller fangs 
J. Eyes =           Medium
   Nose =           stubby    
   Teeth incisors = BIGGER fangs 
I. Eyes =           Medium
   Nose =           more pointy
   Teeth incisors = big fangs
H. Eyes =           Bigger
   Nose =           more blunt
   Teeth incisors = Even more 
G. Eyes =           real SMALL
   Nose =           Real pointy
   Teeth incisors = More
F. Eyes =           Smaller
   Nose =           Blunt
   Teeth incisors = Thin, less
E. Eyes =           HUGE!
   Nose =           pointy, again
   Teeth incisors = Smaller
D. Eyes =           Smaller
   Nose =           Holes bigger
   Teeth incisors = Bigger
C. Eyes =           Huge, again!
   Nose =           broader
   Teeth incisors = very small
B. Eyes =           less huge
   Nose =           narrower
   Teeth incisors = ??
A. Eyes =           big
   Nose =           rounded
   Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

Are you convinced yet?
Oscillating eye sizes,
head shapes that shift back and forth,
teeth that are large, then small, then large again.
Yeah; I believe this stuff!

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"

After seeing these pix; do you?

890 posted on 04/29/2006 8:01:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
...sandal wearing bronze age goat herders...

 A large part of the evolution deception has the purpose of denying the sin nature, and that man offends a Holy God, and needs a Savior Who existed in the bosom of the Father BEFORE there was a star, or a planet, or a gas, or a vapor or a cell. (Proverbs 8).

NIV 1 Peter 1:17-21
 17.  Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
 18.  For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,
 19.  but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
 20.  He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
 21.  Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:7
  No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

NIV 2 Timothy 1:8-10
 8.  So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God,
 9.  who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
 10.  but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

NIV Titus 1:1-4
 1.  Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness--
 2.  a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
 3.  and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,
 4.  To Titus, my true son in our common faith:   Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
Just how did these ignurt goat-herders have such a concept as 'before time' anyway???

891 posted on 04/29/2006 8:05:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)


Get rid of this ANTI-Evolutionary tagline!!


892 posted on 04/29/2006 8:06:54 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: pby
...animals also had the breath of life.

But NOT the 'Breath of LIFE'.

893 posted on 04/29/2006 8:08:58 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Was Paul WRONG about these???


(Except for the I Timothy part. Paul didn't write it.)

894 posted on 04/29/2006 8:17:21 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Strictly for the benefit of the lurkers, Table Talk was edited by Martin Bormann from original transcripts made by two scribes Bormann chose, and while it purports to be a record of Hitler's dinner time meanderings, there is no independent evidence of the veracity of the material."

You have been busy at the leftwing loony bin, the NoBelief site:

Hitler's Table Talk

You might consider venturing a little further than gleaning your sum of knowledge from a site that thinks 9/11 was perpetrated by George Bush.

Bormann was Hitler's shadow. He was a chain-smoking, alcoholic and meat eater, who constantly tried to give up all these things to be like his idol, Adolf Hitler.

It betrays a total and absolute ignorance of Bormann and Hitler to pretend that he would have purposefully and systematically rewritten Hitler's thoughts--which were being recorded for posterity. He wouldn't have dared. Not in a million years.

But more tellingly, the "two scribes" Heim and Picker, both survived Bormann and the war. Picker even went on to author other books. Either one of them could have easily come forward and said that "Table Talk" misrepresented their notes. They didn't.

Furthermore, most of the other participants in these conversations, such as Christa Schroeder, also lived long past the end of the war and the publication of Hitler's conversations. They also wrote books, gave interviews, etc. They could have (and would have) objected to any misrepresentation of Hitler's thoughts. They didn't.

However, I just picked "Table Talk" because it is the most concentrated form of Hitler's thoughts on the subject. But similar expressions also appear in his other books and of course his speeches.

I have presented quite lengthy and thorough documentation of my claims. You have just made assertions and the most ludicrous personal attacks.

You have revealed yourself to be the worst kind of propagandist and liar. All to promote your agenda.

Funny, isn't that what you claim your opponents here do?

(And for the record, I am an atheist and I probably accept more of Darwin's theories than that I reject. I also had never even heard of Intelligent Design until a few weeks ago. So you and your pals can save your "superior than thou" attacks.)

You are clearly mentally unbalanced and a waste of time.

895 posted on 04/29/2006 8:18:54 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Elsie
...There is no evidence at all that evolutionists are any less moral than creationists...

However, there is evidence that atheists are more law-abiding than theists, namely the percentage of atheists in prison (0.2%) is lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population (at least 3%).


896 posted on 04/29/2006 8:20:19 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Great post, as usual.

I'd like to add that the essay you posted on the reptile-to-mammal transition is from the website of the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.

These are the people who make big $$ prospecting for oil and other minerals. They are 100% behind standard science.

The market has spoken. If some nonstandard form of geology or paleontology were true, you could use it to find oil.

897 posted on 04/29/2006 8:46:10 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
[Two Adams]

Poor Eve! :-o

Lilith. (or the succubus/great owl/night creature/arrow snake)

Poor Adam(s)!

898 posted on 04/29/2006 8:47:27 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Your arguments are refuted continually.

899 posted on 04/29/2006 9:01:05 AM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
It is preposterous to think that all this came about by chance.

No, not by chance. It was bound to happen by chemistry. It so happened that carbon based life got the first foot-hold, but it's possible that life based on silicon or phosphorus-nitrogen could've occurred.
That's the "chance" : C* life versus S* or PN* life.

900 posted on 04/29/2006 9:11:49 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880881-900901-920 ... 961-962 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson