Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

Calm down and take a deep breath. You are embarrassing yourself.

381 posted on 04/27/2006 4:44:19 PM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)

To: Right Wing Professor

According to what I'll loosely call your 'logic', Jimmy Hoffa killed himself.

There is no evidence that Jimmy Hoffa is dead. Noöne saw it happen!

382 posted on 04/27/2006 4:45:47 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain)

Noöne saw it happen!

That Herman's Hermits guy really gets around.

383 posted on 04/27/2006 4:49:26 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)

It is important to not take the verse you sited out of context. In this example, Christ was addressing the prophesies of Moses. Moses prophesied a number of times about the coming of the Messiah. In the book of John, Christ is stating that if they believe Moses's prophesy, then they would believe Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophesy. There was a very important reason was Jesus was testifying about the prophesies of Moses. These prophesies came for the Torah, in which the Jewish law was given. With the sacrifice of Christ, salvation was no longer dependent upon that law, but upon acceptance of Christ as God's Son. The prophesies of Moses gave legitimacy to Christ's claim. The first prophesy about the Messiah is Genesis 3:15. It is after the account of creation. It is important also to note that in the verse you referenced, Christ focus was on salvation thru Him, not the manner of creation.

Here are a number of other verses written by Moses about Jesus.

(Genesis 12:2-3, Genesis 26:3-5, Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17,19, Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

Now, at the beginning of the book of John, there is this reference to Christ.

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I think believing Moses on all accounts though is correct. Which part of Genesis am I not believing?

Here is one that supports "spoken" into existence.

Psalm 33:6
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

Now, what does spoken into existence look like? Please explain this process. I have no doubt that God spoke his creation into existence. When God spoke them into existence did they spontaneously appear? If so, is what's spontaneous to God also spontaneous to us? Could spoken into existence be the start of a process that is spontaneous to God, but not to man? Time is irrelevant to him.

"In many separate revelations---each of which set forth a portion of the Truth---and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets, [But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time---(that is) He made, produced, built, operated and arranged them in order. He is the sole expression of the glory of God---the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine---and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power..." (Hebrews 1:1-3.

God spoke of old to our forefathers, in and by the prophets. Pretty interesting. What is "of old"? A six day creation wouldn't have been that long ago, certainly not to God. The rest of this verse is mighty powerful in giving insight into the scope of creation. Job 38 is also similar in that respect.

"Hear another parable. There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country. When the season of fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants, to get his fruit; and the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did the same to them. Afterward he sent his son to them, saying, `They will respect my son.' But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.' And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (Matthew 21:33-43)

It is believed that Christ refers to a new creation for those that accept him as their savior.

One of my absolute favorites in the New Testament is Romans 1:20

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God's invisible qualities being understood from what has been made? Could that be nature? His invisible qualities? If God created nature, which I believe He did, He could work apart from it if he wished. But, it is His tool, so why should He need to, unless He just wanted to. But, perhaps He manipulates nature without defying natural law. That would be invisible.

Here are other verses that mention creation. I don't see anything that fills in further detail as to how.

Psalms 90:2
2 Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Nehemiah 9:6
6 You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.

2 Chronicles 2:12

12 And Hiram added:
"Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who made heaven and earth! He has given King David a wise son, endowed with intelligence and discernment, who will build a temple for the LORD and a palace for himself.

2 Kings 19;15
15 And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD : "O LORD, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.

My point is this. I have no doubt that the universe, and us are God's creation. But, the manner is not spelled out like a text manual. I think Christians must be very careful in passing judgment on others based on the interpretation of the manner of creation. The Bible in a very literal sense, does not speak of the exact manner. This is not, "not knowing what my Bible says". I assure you, I do! I get very frustrated with the many verses taken out of context to support a belief that the verse was not addressing. I get rather suspicious that many of these misrepresentations, or interpretations, are passed down from one generation to the next and supported by saying, "look here." Then pointing out a verse that in context is not addressing that specific point.
In my opinion, this is a misrepresentation of the Bible. I do not want to be responsible for misrepresenting God's word out of my need to be right. It is quite possible that the YEC interpretation of Genesis is correct. It is also possible that a theist interpretation is correct. Only the Creator knows. This is not claiming that Genesis is a parable either. It is not. I have also read that I simply do not believe my Bible, which I do. My view is that Genesis is 100 percent true in it's outline of creation. If it were more than an outline, it would be much longer than 37 sentences. If the manner of creation were relevant to salvation, the exact manner would be spelled out.

384 posted on 04/27/2006 4:51:43 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)

Good point. To me its like saying "I say this color is red, if you don't believe its red then you are ignorant."

What if it is red?

385 posted on 04/27/2006 4:57:53 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)

To: Virginia-American

"Science is hard." - Barbie

Have we ever seen Barbie and Ann together? Hmmm.

386 posted on 04/27/2006 4:59:48 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain)

Attacking a woman's opinions based on what she looks like, and his proferred dislike for her looks--that's mysogyny.

How about attacking a vacuous, bitter woman who frequents discussions on subjects she knows nothing about and posts nothing but venom?

Not that anyone in this company fits that description.

387 posted on 04/27/2006 5:03:23 PM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)

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)

There is something very important in this verse.
prophecy never had its ORIGIN in the WILL of MAN, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The origin of Genesis did not come from Moses, and the purpose of Genesis was not to further Moses's will.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I'd like for us Christians to do a lot less of that. I'm also not wishing to be disrespectful. If I'm coming across that way, I apologize.

388 posted on 04/27/2006 5:04:09 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)

To: editor-surveyor

In this country, the term has always meant preserving the freedom and rights that have accrued to us as a nation founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Where is the Gospel of Jesus Christ mentioned in the founding documents? Indeed, what teachings of Jesus are enshrined in those documents?

Where is the separation of powers in the Gospels? Where is the concept that "commoners" should have any say in how they are governed?

You won't find it BECAUSE IT ISN'T THERE. The U.S. is NOT founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it is founded on the principles developed during the Enlightenment -- such concepts as "natural law" and the "rights of man" -- neither of which are mentioned or even alluded to in the Gospels.

389 posted on 04/27/2006 5:05:46 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)

To: andysandmikesmom

thought you may have some thoughts for this thread.

390 posted on 04/27/2006 5:13:07 PM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)

Attacking a woman's opinions based on what she looks like, and his proferred dislike for her looks--that's mysogyny.

And yet I doubt I'll see you spring to the defence of Helen Thomas anytime soon.

391 posted on 04/27/2006 5:14:59 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain)

"Where is the Gospel of Jesus Christ mentioned in the founding documents?"

Second sentence of the Mayflower Compact...

""In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia;

392 posted on 04/27/2006 5:15:57 PM PDT by DocRock

Sorry, but those aren't principles found in the Gospels. Besides, the Mayflower Compact was a communistic document...

393 posted on 04/27/2006 5:19:30 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)

"Sorry, but those aren't principles found in the Gospels. Besides, the Mayflower Compact was a communistic document..."

Sorry you don't accept facts as facts, but this is our first founding document which clearly states what you asked for.

394 posted on 04/27/2006 5:21:44 PM PDT by DocRock

So we are bound by the Mayflower Compact to remain British subjects and honor the king?

That would be the Christian thing to do, remain loyal to the king. In fact it's pretty much required by the Bible.

395 posted on 04/27/2006 5:22:58 PM PDT by js1138 (somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)

Indeed, and lucky for us!

396 posted on 04/27/2006 5:24:21 PM PDT by Mamzelle

What founding principles are mentioned there? The Advancement of the Christian Faith is not a founding principle. And then again, how is the Mayflower Compact, written 150 years before the founding of the U.S. a "founding document?"

397 posted on 04/27/2006 5:24:21 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)

"Second sentence of the Mayflower Compact..."

The Mayflower compact is not a founding document of the USA. It's a collectivist document that said each would share in the communities production. It established communal farming and lead to a famine in the first year. Much of it was soon dropped. Private property was then established, and productivity soared.

398 posted on 04/27/2006 5:25:09 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")

To: DaveLoneRanger

Think about it, Dave. People who talk about nothing but Darwinism all day and never prove their conservative mettle. It's not implausible that FR is flooded with DUmmies parading as "conservative" Darwinists.

399 posted on 04/27/2006 5:26:41 PM PDT by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)

"It's not implausible that FR is flooded with DUmmies parading as "conservative" ~~Darwinists~~ creationists."

That's a lot closer to reality. :)

400 posted on 04/27/2006 5:27:52 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794