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. :-)

[Ichneumon]

["and how does "looking around at the wonders of nature" prove the existence of that specific deity, with all of its specific attributes, and no other?"]

So I take it you don't believe in God, correct?

So I take it you're not going to answer the question which points out problems in your reasoning, correct?

Since you won't accept my evidence, there's really no point in continuing, correct?

He didn't say he wouldn't accept your evidence. He said you haven't provided any so far. And he's correct. Make sure you understand what actually constitutes "evidence". I'm afraid that saying, "wow, look out that window!" doesn't even begin to qualify.

Can you prove that God didn't have a hand in the formation of the earth?

Can you prove that Huitzilopochtli, Isis, Odin, Sutekh, Dis, Zeus, Brahma, Ra, Athene, Shin-Mu, Blodewedd, Prajnaparamita, Tara, or Minerva didn't have a hand in the formation of the Earth? No? Wow, then *they* must exist too! Oh, wait, maybe there's something wrong with your so-called "reasoning"...

Now why don't you take another whack at the question you were asked?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It might very well have been the work of Xorg, an alien from the universe next door, completing his grad school project in his Universe Creation 204 course required for his advanced physics degree."

Actually that IS true. I took the same class with him though and I can tell you that he did NOT get an A. :)

[Coyoteman]

"It might very well have been the work of Xorg, an alien from the universe next door, completing his grad school project in his Universe Creation 204 course required for his advanced physics degree."

Along these lines, see Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice.

[PatrickHenry]

[Thunderous applause!]

[Sam Hill]

I gathered from your posts on this thread and others similar that you are a troll. But now I suspect you are some serious psychological problems. (Which I guess goes with the territory.)

I entered this inane discussion because of your laughable claims that Hitler was not anti-Christian.

But your argument isn't with me, but it is with history. In case you hadn't heard, there was a trial:

 

The Nuremberg Project

Installment No. 1 - Posted: Winter, 2001

July 6, 1945 - "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches"

1. Part I (11,890 KB)
2. Part II (10,431 KB)
3. Part III (8,017 KB)
4. Part IV (10,392 KB)

 A document prepared by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Research and Analysis Branch. Courtesy of Cornell Law Library, which holds the original document.

 

 Commentary

 THE NAZI'S PERSECUTION OF RELIGION AS A WAR CRIME: THE OSS'S RESPONSE WITHIN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PROCESS

Claire Hulme and Dr. Michael Salter

PDF Version

 

2002 Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion

http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurinst1.htm

For your benefit I will post the table of contents from the Nuremberg Trial report:

Please stick to subjects you know something about. If there are such subjects. (Which I doubt.)

[metmom]

Facts would work. Statistics are meaningless but useful. They can prove anything someone wants them to because anyone can do a *study* to support anything they want. All you have to do is do enough of them and slant it the way you want with the type of question asked or sample used.

[Ichneumon]

Ich, I support any Christian in their work to discuss this topic. It does not matter to me from what perspective they come from.

Oh, so it's "support" when you call them "blasphemous"? Fascinating.

[Ichneumon]

It pleases me to know you devote so much time to ME! Please continue researching my posts...its just one more way I can be assured youre reading the truth somewhere in your life.

Your evasiveness is transparent. Now are you going to address the fact that your posts contradict each other, or not?

[ml1954]

Weren't all of Hitler's followers Christians and wasn't Germany before and during Hitler's rule an almost exclusively Christian nation?

[Ichneumon]

How would you expect me to look at pictures of skulls that have been fashioned from small pieces of bone and know which came from apes and which ones came from humans?

Actually, I'd expect you to be ignorant of the fact that those skulls were found in far better condition than "small pieces of bone", and that you'd make the common anti-evolutionist error of presenting your false presumptions as fact, and you haven't disappointed me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Facts would work."

Again I ask you, on what grounds do you dispute the facts I presented? What was wrong with the polls? Hand waving them away is less than persuasive.

"Statistics are meaningless but useful."

Only if you're ignorant and can't understand what the poll said. What you are saying is that no matter what info I provided you with to back up my claim that most people in the USA who accept evolution are Christian, you would dismiss it a priori because according to you all statistics are meaningless. You therefore never asked me for the info in good faith; not really surprising I might add. You rejected it before I even provided it.

Again, I provided you with the info you asked for and you have done NOTHING to challenge that info on any substantial ground.

[Sam Hill]

"Weren't all of Hitler's followers Christians and wasn't Germany before and during Hitler's rule an almost exclusively Christian nation?"

On paper, sure. The same could be said of Lenin at the start of his revolution.

And as with Lenin, Hitler and the Nazis leaders intended to change that.

Events intervened, so that they were prevented from instituting changes as dramatically and swiftly as possible. But there is no serious doubt that Hitler saw Christianity as an enemy which he wanted to uproot.

People mistake Hitler's Mein Kampf as the sacred/guiding text of the Nazis revolution. It wasn't. (Though it is anti-Christian enough.)

Alfred Rosenberg's "Myth Of The Twentieth Century" is really the Ur Nazis text, which rests on the shoulders of Chamberlain's work:

The Myth of the Twentieth Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Twentieth_Century

Rosenberg, like Hitler, saw Christianity as just a further flowering of Judaism.

[metmom]

From the link:

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

*presumably*

How did they define scientist? How did they define Christian? Who determined who fit into which category? Where did they sample the people? Universtiy? Church? Big city? Little town? Are they sure people told them the truth? One can run survey's and do *studies* galore until one finds something that backs up his claim. Unless there is concrete measurements, like a population count, statistics are meaningless because they are too easily manipulated.

[ml1954]

So the Nazis were what? Atheists?

[swmobuffalo]

Perhaps after you read ALL of this and digest it, you might begin to understand my "evidence". If not, oh well.


http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf

[Sam Hill]

"So the Nazis were what? Atheists?"

Despite your tagline, I smell a troll.

Hitler (like Rosenberg) believed that he had found the secret key to history--which is what Marx had also claimed.

But Hitler thought Marx was wrong. That instead of class struggle, the struggle was between peoples.

(And yes, Hitler was an adamant believer in evolution. Much of his theories is based on Darwinism as he understood it.)

Hitler believed that Christianity had been used by the Jews to infect and degrade the Aryan race. That it is why he saw it as the worst calamity to hit mankind in history.

He and his cronies wanted to wean the German people away from Christianity and into "positive Christianity" -- which in truth had nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever.

What it was was a mixture of Germanic folklore and pre-Christian paganism. It was meant to develop loyalty to the race/the people/the blood/the volk and to build up the warrior mentality.

That's one reason why Hitler admired the Moslems so. He felt they were very warlike and very militant about advancing their blood/people.

[RightWingNilla]

Even within this thread one of your fragile friends is threatening to hassle the mods--all in context of "virtual ignore"--

I have a better idea. Could you please post in blue from now on? Thanks.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The "scientist" group would presumably include..."

Who the hell cares? I didn't say anything about the scientists group. I was using the group that included everybody. But since you brought it up, how about looking at the rest of the paragraph:

"The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc."

The point was that many of those who are listed as scientists have no professional training in the sciences directly related to evolutionary biology. Not that there was any doubt that the group included biologists and geologists.

"How did they define scientist?"

Who cares? I wasn't talking about them.

"How did they define Christian?"

People who say they are Christian.

"Where did they sample the people?"

The same way Gallup samples people in other polls.

"Are they sure people told them the truth?"

Not being omniscient, no. But the results of these polls have been very consistent over the 15 years they have been performed.

"One can run survey's and do *studies* galore until one finds something that backs up his claim. Unless there is concrete measurements, like a population count, statistics are meaningless because they are too easily manipulated."

A population count is also a statistic, just so you know. Learn what words mean before you use them so ignorantly. And if THAT is what you require as evidence, I repeat my statement that you never asked for supporting info in good faith.

Polls aren't perfect, but your hand waving dismissal of them all as being of no use whatsoever is indicative of depths you will go to not believe the truth. The poll could have been off by quite a bit and my point would have STILL been correct.

[Mamzelle]

Perhaps your crew of Those Who Must Not Be Spoken To, and your Fearful Leader--should identify yourselves in yellow font. There are so many of your timorous sort that a marker would be appreciated. It would also help reduce the constant evo-nagging of the authorities.

[metmom]

I couldn't have dismissed your evidence offhand before I saw it because I didn't know you were going to use an *opinion* poll as evidence. Hardly scientific.