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. :-)

[dread78645]

The odds of that happening is 1 in 73,786,976,300,000,000,000. Must have been God that caused that...

5-Spades, A-Clubs, 10-Hearts, 10-Clubs
2-Spades, 3-Clubs, 10-Diamonds, 4-Diamonds
5-Clubs, Q-Spades, 8-Diamonds, 6-Diamonds
8-Clubs, 9-Clubs, A-Diamonds, 5-Diamonds
J-Hearts, 9-Diamonds, Q-Clubs, 7-Diamonds
8-Spades, 6-Spades, J-Clubs, J-Diamonds
4-Clubs, 4-Hearts, 4-Spades, K-Spades
Q-Diamonds, Q-Hearts, 6-Hearts, 9-Spades
10-Spades, K-Clubs, A-Spades, 8-Hearts
7-Spades, A-Hearts, 2-Clubs, 3-Hearts
3-Diamonds, 7-Clubs, K-Hearts, 5-Hearts
J-Spades, 7-Hearts, K-Diamonds, 2-Diamonds
3-Spades, 6-Clubs, 9-Hearts, 2-Hearts

8.0658 x 10⁶⁷

[ahayes]

Of those three I think carbon is overwhelmingly more likely.

[RightWingAtheist]

This dinosaur was named in honor of the petroleum industry's contributions to paleontology:

[AndrewC]

The odds of that happening is 1 in 73,786,976,300,000,000,000.

No, the odds of that happening is one, but try to do it again without cheating.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Well, all I can say is that the technicalities of one's interpretation come down to which translation of the Bible one prefers. I did a bit of research on this last night. There are quite a few translations. I very much respect your view though. Like I said, it may very well be correct. My own personal view is not the same as yours, but it is also not as liberal as the one that I was debating with you. I do see, however, that the one I was debating could also be correct. I guess I just don't think it matters. Only the Creator knows the exact manner, and if He wished us to be clear on how, there would be more detail. What He does wish to be clear on is that He is the Creator. The Bible is about Salvation, and we should not loose sight of that.

Anyhow, it's always interesting to challenge one's view, and learn something in the process.

[PatrickHenry]

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

And if some nonstandard form of biology were true, the biotech industry would use it to produce something worthwhile. But for some reason, biotech companies never seem to recruit creationists to conduct their research.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Just how did these ignurt goat-herders have such a concept as 'before time' anyway???



They were inspired by this Guy!


Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I like your post # 863.
I also think this is the motivation for the "Hitler was a Christian" argument. I can see no other reason for this, than its attempt to discredit Christianity by associating it with a tyrant.

[RunningWolf]

Also with that analogy he weakens his own absurd argument.

For those nickels are not just random slugs of nickel ore buried in the ground somewhere tossing themselves about. No it is nickel ore that has been mined purified into nickel formed into a flat circular shape with a different pattern on each side and then flipped by him to get his answer.

Every minute part of his analogy took a consciousness to discern (nickel from ore, pattern on the nickel etc) and make a decision act upon that (flip the nickel etc).

And with the hypothetical precursor to a cell I saw earlier in the thread, they unwittingly put the light on just how absurd their beliefs are. They hypothesize that these less complex but extremely complex molecular activities are going on (by their own volition as it were) in the primitive precursor of a cell, and somehow the processes unconsciously develop even more improbable processes.

Or take the scenario wherein they hypothesize a primitive cell (prokaryote) ingested some aerobic bacteria and converted these aerobic bacteria into mitochondria.

Absurdity to an academically advanced degree

How does a primitive cell a primitive process become cognizant of food/energy) the need for food the recognizing what food is, the taking in of food the digestion of food. And then how would these primitive process's then discern that the absorbed aerobic bacteria might be better used as a mitochondrial engine rather than being consumed with in the cell.

Wolf

[Right Wing Professor]

I suggest anyone interested in the provenance of Table Talk, and in particular the English translation produced by Trevor-Roper, consult this link, which appears to be well-substantiated and thoughtful. In particular it shows convincingly that the Trevor-Roper version of Table Talk was not in fact a direct translation of the Bormann Vermerke (Bormann's edited notes) but a second-hand translation of the French version by Genoud. Genoud was a Nazi sympathizer, claimed to have worked closely with the PFLP for the destruction of Israel, and financed the defense of terrorist Carlos the Jackal. He donated allegedly half the proceeds of the salke of the work to Hitler's sister. Mr. Carrier draws the following conclusion.

Numerous other evidence like this confirms the general conclusion: the published English is from the French, not the German. This means that Stevens and Cameron must have lied to or misled Trevor-Roper, claiming they had translated Genoud's German manuscript. Moreover, the ultimate source for the doctored quotations is Genoud. The immediate and most important conclusion is that the Trevor-Roper edition, the only English version in print, is worthless. No one who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said

I have myself taken steps to obtain the two published German language versions of the Table Talk; the Jochmann version of the Bormann Vermerke; and the Picker version of the notes that he and Heim took. Since I have a good reading knowledge of German, I will be able to report first hand on whether the anti-Christian quotations pasted here by Mr. Hill actually appear in the originals. I will report back on this piece of research, and publish it on my blog.

Two final notes: everyone should remember that Hugh Trevor-Roper also endorsed the authenticity of the fake Hitler diaries in 1983. However, the Trevor-Roper version of Table Talk does have the endorsement of David Irving. So it is clear that it does appeal to historical revisionists.

[WKB]

Goodness Wolf you are beginning to sound like them

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I think Hitler was a master manipulator! He was a genius politician. He used the core beliefs of His people to gain favor with them. I do not think these beliefs were held in any esteem in his private life. His underlying motivation was ambition and hatred. I do not think either of those are consistent with Christ's teachings. In all intents and purpose, he fooled the German people. His deeper motives may very well account for the structure of his military. Germany had it's regular armed forces, but it also had it's more "prestigous" groups, like the SS. I think it's possible that the "inner" groups were more aware of Hitler's true beliefs, and may very well have shared them. This may be the reason they were part of these groups. They were well indoctrinated, and loyal.

I have a dear friend who is German. Her grandfather worked at a concentration camp during the war. His job was the operation of the gas chamber. There was an officer posted to him that kept a gun pointed at his head in case he refused to perform his duties. As the war went on, and the German people bagan to doubt Hitler, fear became the motivating factor for keeping them on board. Once Hitler had established a strong enough network of distrust among neighbors, and integrated enough loyalist into this network, the pretense of Christianity was no longer necessary.

It's been a while since I've read up on this, so I'm generalizing what I remember. My friend's family's perspective though was most interesting!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

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

No, that's not true at all. But when he speaks about religion he is not talking science. It's not relevant to how I evaluated his scientific claims.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

Sorry, you're not Paul. Paul didn't have to prevaricate.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I meant to add this to my other post.

your statement:
Adam was not a living being prior to the sixth day and animals also had the breath of life.


I believe all of this is true, as it is directly stated in Genesis. I just have a different defintion on the word "day", or Yom as it is in Hebrew. I think it was a long period of time.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

You pointed out some bad wording on my part, as I did not mean to invoke all religion. The observation only applies to some in each group.

[Trillian]

Ping

[ml1954]

And yes, Hitler was an adamant believer in evolution. Much of his theories is based on Darwinism as he understood it.)...I will bother to give you a better response than your post deserves.

'Darwinism as he understood it' is the key phrase here. Lot's of lunatics make claims about evolution based on 'how they understand it'.

Much evidence can be provided, many quotes and such, that Hitler was a creationist. But you'd just ignore those, so why bother. They've been posted many times here on FR.

Hitler was a lunatic megalomaniac, an admitted liar who pioneered the 'big lie'. So why should anyone believe anything he wrote or said about anything.

You, like RWP, seem to revel in making pronouncements on a subject about which you are ignorant. Why is that?

My, my. I asked a couple of simple reasonable questions. You implied I was a troll and changed the subject to something I never asked about. I pointed out your new assertion was well known troll bait on these threads that has been refuted many times, and now you engage in further personal insults. Yep, no doubt in my mind you're a troll, engaging in classic troll behavior, and you are incapable of civil discourse. So troll on.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Gotta color my hair placemarker.

[Sam Hill]

"I suggest anyone interested in the provenance of Table Talk, and in particular the English translation produced by Trevor-Roper, consult this link, which appears to be well-substantiated and thoughtful."

You mean the Freedom From Religion Foundation? LOL

You are a preposterous blowhard.

Do you realize how many people are listed throughout as being present during these discussions?

Generals, the "Mountain People" (secretaries, etc.), diplomats, et al. And again, many of these people subsequently wrote books or gave interviews or worked with historians.

No one. NOT ONE PERSON has ever suggested that these remarks were inaccurate.

There would be no reason on Earth for Heim or Picker to allow their notes to be misrepresented or twisted. In fact, they could have gotten some lucrative book contracts, if they had taken this stance.

YOU are the revisionist. And you are a true pig to keep trying to somehow tar my position with David Irving's revisionism. Irving and the rest of the Neo-Nazis do contend that Hitler was a good Christian. So you are taking the Neo-Nazis position, you asshole.

You are poisoned by your hatred of Christianity. Maybe you've inhaled too many chemicals. But you are clearly insane on this subject, and probably others.