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. :-)

[RightWingAtheist]

FWIW, I would have NEVER signed up here if it weren't for the large evo contigent. FR helped revive my hope for conservatism, and reminded me that those who speak the loudest-be it on TV, radio or blogs-are not always representative of the party or movements they claim to represent.

[DocRock]

Yep, I'm sincere.

[Just mythoughts]

Really, how many times did Christ ask the question of "Have you never read"? There was NO New Testament at the time and Christ continually quoted the prophets from Moses onward.

Christ said to learn the parable of the fig tree and that explanation cannot be gleaned from just what is contained in the New Testament. But of course most Christians are taught to ignore that old ancient writing as it really doesn't apply to them in the modern age of Christianity.

[ahayes]

This is kind of surreal. I don't see that your reply had anything to do with my post at all.

1. Jesus did not say those passages in Ezekiel and Daniel refer to the Antichrist and not Satan, so your interpretation is not really founded upon anything that I can see.

2. You have not yet provided me with Scripture that says that the Antichrist will not be born of a woman.

Now I was just asking because I was curious because I'd never heard anyone say that, so I don't really care if you're right or wrong. I would just like to see some evidence if you've got it.

[ahayes]

That's Ezekiel and Isaiah, although Daniel does have some things to say about the Antichrist.

[RightWingAtheist]

Don't forget The Derb

[DoctorMichael]

For the record: Sorry Anne, you lost me on this one.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Christ was ELECTED to be born at a specific appointed TIME..."

In other words, it was ... predestined? :)

[PatrickHenry]

For the record: Sorry Anne, you lost me on this one.

Well, she's still a good entertainer, far better than the "talking points only" lefties they usually put up against her; and her prior books continue to be worth reading. But on this topic she's in over her head -- and unnecessarily so, as it's not essential to what she's really good at. I think she's bright, and in time she may regret this lapse. So I won't write her off.

[RadioAstronomer]

BTTT

Looks like I have a lot to read since I last posted on this thread.

[Just mythoughts]

"This is kind of surreal. I don't see that your reply had anything to do with my post at all."

Well were Christians to be told what Genesis says in the original would be called surreal. But Christ did say that it is not given for all to understand that is their spiritual protection.

"1. Jesus did not say those passages in Ezekiel and Daniel refer to the Antichrist and not Satan, so your interpretation is not really founded upon anything that I can see."

Christ described in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 what would be the signs of His return, and He is coming back for a harvest to be collected with a double edged sword, not a 'love in' 60's style.

"2. You have not yet provided me with Scripture that says that the Antichrist will not be born of a woman. "

To understand the word Antichrist is the Scripture of who he is, backed up from the beginning. Oh another one of the instead of Christ's names is man of perdition.

For what it is worth here is one place wherein "death" is described.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through 'death' He might destroy him that had the power of 'death' that is, the devil;

Now Christ was tempted NOT of a flesh being, but of the devil and we are told to expect NO different treatment than Christ. Mark 13:12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. Now who is death????

"Now I was just asking because I was curious because I'd never heard anyone say that, so I don't really care if you're right or wrong. I would just like to see some evidence if you've got it."

The only response I can give you is to read for yourself and start digging, you want to know then as it is Written Ask and ye shall receive.

[pby]

"It's just that some of us think the evidence shows that "our creator" was a natural process instead of a supernatural person. So what?"

Holy cow, jennyp...where to start (at least I don't have to take your skull quiz)?!

There is a correct, historical context to our Creator and it is the God of the Bible.

Nothing like pure conjecture and going so far out on a limb that you fall out of the tree...What evidence do you have (evolution, or not) that "our creator" was a natural process instead of a supernatural person?

You don't have any evidence of this belief...You only have your secular humanist/naturalist faith.

What is the basis for said faith?

"We have inalienable rights because our humnan nature requires them."

You have a right to your belief, of course...But your belief is not consistent with the belief of the founding fathers' who believed that we have "inalienable rights" because the God of the Bible gave/endowed them to us (which is the foundation of conservatism).

What?!...Oxygen is an inalienable right?

Words mean something...oxygen is an essential for life but not an "inalienable right".

And please note that I qualified my statement by saying some evo posters (not all).

...but your creator/natural process belief is a nice exhibit of the philosophical/religious bias that many (notice qualifier, again) evos demonstrate (beyond the boundaries of science and science can't discuss the supernatural because it only observes, and operates within, the natural).

Loyal conservatives are not single issue voters that make every issue about evolutionary science and attack everyone/anyone/Ann Coulter that does not agree with their "scientific" philosophies/evolutionary belief systems (and in your case athiest/secular humanist/naturalist belief system).

[RadioAstronomer]

There is a correct, historical context to our Creator and it is the God of the Bible.

And you know this how?

Loyal conservatives are not single issue voters that make every issue about evolutionary science and attack everyone/anyone/Ann Coulter that does not agree with their "scientific" philosophies/evolutionary belief systems (and in your case athiest/secular humanist/naturalist belief system).

Flapdoodle. Ann Coulter spouted nonsense and was called out on it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Loyal conservatives are not single issue voters..."

What about abortion?

[ahayes]

So basically you're just making it up as you go along. Thanks anyway.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So basically you're just making it up as you go along. Thanks anyway."

She also claims there were really TWO Adams in Genesis, not one. Go figure. lol

[pby]

And you know this how?

The Founding Fathers' writings/statements, along with government documents and records, provides primary source documentation that the Creator (specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) is the God of the Bible...Do you dispute this historical fact?

Flapdoodle. Ann Coulter spouted nonsense and was called out on it.

Have you read the book?

Other than her disagreement with your evolutionary beliefs, was all of it nonsense? Or were you offended in general by her all encompassing attack on the church of liberalism?

[Just mythoughts]

"So basically you're just making it up as you go along. Thanks anyway."

Said the blind man, but you are welcome.

[ahayes]

Poor Eve! :-o

[pby]

What about abortion?

Have you ever noticed how pro-abortion politicians/peoples are usually also pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights and etc., etc., etc.

Not exactly conservative thinking.

Do you know any pro-abortion peoples that are conservative in their thinking (I do not believe that it is even possible, btw)?