Replies

To both of you and any other Darwinian delusionists, I will suggest that you take Running Wolf's #274 as my answer. The day will not dawn when tax-fed Darwinian bullies are going to move me a skinny little millimeter toward joining in their delusion that humans are "descended from" apes or whatever. Take Darwin and place him and his idjit theories where the sun shineth not.

And, Godless is, among other things, Ann Coulter's cogent explanation of the hilarious fantasy that is Darwinianism, to you, Bub.

Wanna drag race with Annie for position on the (gulp) New York Times best-seller list???? You'll lose. On such a list of National Review, Human Events or the American Spectator, you'll lose a lot worse.

BTW, right now, FR is doing a poll on whether Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in public skewels alongside Darwinism. I had to vote yes but only because abolition of the hideously expensive gummint brain laundries was not an option. OTOH, a very strong majority voted yes. What does Darwinian delusion or environmentalwhackoism or paleopantywaistism or other heresies have to do with CONSERVATISM????? You are aware that this is a CONSERVATIVE website and not an atheist or agnostic or liberal or "progressive" or gummint edjumakashunist or Darwinian website, right??????

To all who make of Darwinian delusion an understandably irrational pseudo-religion, science, like everything else, was created by God. Any "science" which purports to refutes the word of God is a rejection of His truth and therefore not part of a search for truth. If science is not a search for truth, then it is not science. If you want to believe that whatever passes for Nancy Pelosi's "brain" is made of Ricotta cheese, it would be an awful insult to lasagna but feel free. America, it's a free country to some extent. If you want to believe that Darwin was capable of simultaneously employing three brain cells, feel free. America, it's ..... If you believe that human beings are "descended from" apes or earthworms or pterodactyls or natural rock formations or 1929 Model A Ford 2-seaters with rumble seats or Pee Wee Herman or George McGovern or Howard the "Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh" Dean (I think those three are "primates" and that they almost certainly are simian wannabes, or whomever or whatever, feel free but do not expect respect for such fairy tales from people who know better. If it comforts you to imagine you are "descended from" beasts of any sort, presto and abracadabra! You are a beast! Feel better????? America, it's a great country!

Now, run along and leave the people (You know, Adam and Eve's progeny and their progeny and.... NOT Bonzo's or Mighty Joe Young's progeny, if any) who have Biblical dominion over you beasts alone.

I scanned the rebutal in post 220. Most of it was the same old garbage you see on these boards.

This pretty much shoots down any reason as to why you should take it seriously: Coulter claims several times that the fossil record in no way supports Darwin's theory of evolution.

Darwin's theory called for "gradualism" the inexorable accumulation of tiny changes that led to new species, genus etc. That fossils don't show this, presents a puzzle for evolutionists, hence you have punctuated equilibrium and catastrophism being considered.