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. :-)

[Mamzelle]

Who knows how many new songs you'd be playing, indeed!

[Echo Talon]

Yes, neither of you have an argument.

Evo is junk science. no argument here.

[pby]

Hey CTM.

In John 5:46-47, Jesus says: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

What did Moses write about Jesus?

And...There are several references to creation outside of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, including New Testament references (a few by Jesus).

How, is not spelled out.

Yes it is...He spoke it into existence (Genesis 1; Hebrews 11:3).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Besides being pathologically bitter she's also pathologically paranoid. :-D"

So true. It's the astronaut thing.

[muir_redwoods]

" Coulter reveals that the so-called “gaps” in the theory of evolution are all there is — Darwinism is nothing but a gap."

That statement is total ignorant nonsense.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Who knows how many new songs you'd be playing, indeed!"

Nice analysis of the links I provided on the historical sciences. Your never failing search for knowledge is breathtaking.

[freedumb2003]

re you determined to rehash the embarassing behaviors of your crew? That'll have to be your job, I'm too squeamish to open that can of worms, but anyone curious can freepmail me and I'll provide references, keywords, etc.

You can NOT be comparing the conduct of Evos to CRiders! That is a laugh and 3/4. Lets start with the blanket assertion that all people who undestand TToE are athiests and/or Christian haters and/or supporting socilaism?

We might get frustrated with people who want to substitute mythology for science, but that is the extent of it. It is CRIDers who go low almost immediately.

And yes, I have the posts to back up what I say.

[Boxen]

Oh, Mamzelle. I think I'm in love. I used to hang out with mlc9852 after lunch. But now I'm REALLY sure that you are the troll for me.

Love,


PS - I will try to pass you another note during english class!
PPS - I drew this picture of us! I hope you like it!

[Junior]

Even within this thread one of your fragile friends is threatening to hassle the mods...

Really? Who?

[Ichneumon]

[Can someone post actual excerpts from Ms. Coulter's latest?
I've enjoyed her polemics in the past, but if now she's supporting anti-science or pseudo-science,
1) I'll never buy another one of her books, and
2) I'll be a lot more careful quoting from her previous ones as though she had actually researched something and knew what she was talking about.]

thats silliness...are you just one dimensional?

Um, are you really this confused?

There's nothing at all "one dimensional" or "silly" about a) wanting to see what she actually says before drawing a conclusion, and b) stating that if she turns out to have really screwed up this part of her book and naively passed on a lot of anti-science propaganda, it's proper grounds for not wanting to support her future efforts, and it's justifiable reason to not trust her other material either without careful vetting, if she can bungle this one so badly due to laziness/sloppiness/conservative-PCness/whatever. Thus, it would be reasonable to drop her from one's "trustworthy sources" list and not be able to confidently quote her in the future, at least not without a lot of cross-checking.

I agree with Virginia-American on this -- if Ann has actually bungled this as badly as first indications make it appear, I've lost an enormous amount of confidence in her. She would have become the conservative equivalent of Michael Moore. I hope that's not the case, but I'm going to have to look into it.

[Junior]

That statement is total ignorant nonsense.

Well, she is a lawyer, after all...

[ahayes]

ROFL!! I love that expression!

[Mamzelle]

Wow--your entire posting history is a single page, and you make a special perplexing graphic just for me. I'm honored. A little creeped out, but honored, too.

[stands2reason]

If I'm a misogynist, I hate myself.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can write an essay on "Virtual Ignore" if you like, being one of Those Who Must Not Be Spoken To until very recently."

When someone asks you repeatedly to not post to them, it is the courteous thing to do to not post to them. It's the Christian thing. That too many anti-evos could care less about courtesy says a lot about the extent to which they adhere to the morality they profess.

"That'll have to be your job, I'm too squeamish to open that can of worms, but anyone curious can freepmail me and I'll provide references, keywords, etc."

Don't be shy.

"Even within this thread one of your fragile friends is threatening to hassle the mods--all in context of "virtual ignore"-- but I have to say I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish with this imposture."

Who? Is someone you've been stalking again?

[stands2reason]

You are right about that.

[Mamzelle]

Are you accusing me of stalking you?

[pby]

...but how?

We just don't know."

Yes we do.

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1:21)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you accusing me of stalking you?"

Not at the moment.

[stands2reason]

Looks some some people will now be trying to get Ann banned at FreeRepublic!

Who will?