Replies

What King Pout failed to comprehend (because he never actually engaged the subject) is that the Catholic Church isn't against necessarily against evolution nor scientific discovery. We see it as potentially part of God's natural process. We see the evangelicals as taking a narrative story with a purpose (Genesis) far more literally than Jewish readers of the Torah and the early Doctors of the Faith. St Peter told us that a day for God could be a thousand years. Genesis isn't a "how to" manual on creation... it's a "Who did" narrative. It explains the origins of life, our sinful nature and the need for redemption and rebirth. Evolution isn't necessarily wrong in process (although still unproven), but it does get it very wrong in faith. This is Ann's point.

In order to be a good liberal you have to find a reason for life besides God--ANYTHING. What you and Pout fail to realize is that Ann isn't debunking evolution as a natural process, she's debunking it as a faith. Evolutionists find any link, no matter how tenuous, and any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, proof of their theories. It doesn't matter what other laws are broken (2nd Law of Thermo comes to mind...) as long as they can explain it away. Evolutionists will take us all the way back to the beginning to... well... anything but God. For them there is no God, no creator, just random processes that gave us modern civilization out of... randomness.

Just as Christianity starts with God's creation, so the nihilists of faith in evolution have to start with... nothing. It is foundational and every bit a BELIEF system as religion. One difference, though... God Himself came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ and affirmed his majesty and authority. From age to age, He hasn't changed and neither has His message. On the contrary, what was written centuries before His Holy Incarnation came true to the smallest detail in our time. The nihilists start from today and work backward and still have... nothing.

I would argue that God's Law rule and have never been debunked (despite millenia of attempts) and the evolutionists theories rely more tenuously on belief.

"What you and Pout fail to realize is that Ann isn't debunking evolution as a natural process, she's debunking it as a faith."

She's lying through her teeth about it. She hasn't a clue what evolutionary theory says but doesn't care, because her readership and core audience isn't bright enough to know the difference.

"It doesn't matter what other laws are broken (2nd Law of Thermo comes to mind...) as long as they can explain it away."

Evolution in no way breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You appear to be in Coulter's target audience.

"Evolutionists will take us all the way back to the beginning to... well... anything but God. For them there is no God, no creator, just random processes that gave us modern civilization out of... randomness."

Nothing you said in the above is correct.

It doesn't matter what other laws are broken (2nd Law of Thermo comes to mind...) as long as they can explain it away.

I don't believe you are really trying to use the 2nd Law argument! I truly find it hard to believe that you know so little science that you could do this.

My advice is to spend a few days on the science websites, and avoid the creation "science" sites for a while. What those sites do to science is ludicrous, and there are few things you will find there more ludicrous than the 2nd Law argument.

oh, dear, another argument against a strawman.

pgyanke, are you capable of EVER stating things honestly?

I have explicitly stated that I am displeased with Coulter's ERRORS OF FACT, SLOVENLY CITATIONS, and INACCURATE/DISTORTED PRESENTATION.

At what point have I EVER insisted that Coulter is wrong based on her refusal to accept the ToE?

NEVER.

At what point have I castigated YOU for refusing to accept the ToE?

NOT ONCE.

What have I hammered you with, in fact? Your constant refusal to specify exactly how many examples of Coulter's errors you desire, what degree of refutation of those errors you require to be coerced to publicly admit they are indeed errors, and/or a commitment to explain exactly what fault you find in those refutations should you decide to claim they are not compelling.

With every successive distortion and excuse you put forth, you become ever more fully the servant of my purposes on this thread.

I am not in the business of trying to teach a pig to sing when it serves my purposes just as well to allow a pig to wallow in its own filth before all the world.

Do you get it now? If you accept the terms of the challenge, you serve my purposes. If you refuse to accept the terms of the challenge, you serve my purposes. If -at this point- you flee, you serve my purposes. If, instead, you scream for help, you serve my purposes.

It is entirely up to you to decide which way of serving my purposes causes you the least damage. In my opinion, your best option is to accept the terms of the challenge.