Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 Book Reviews
 Ann Coulter's book: Godless
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  13:49:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Also I'm kinda new to going to links, so I'm a little concerned about viruses from unknown sites like Here, Here, Here.

They aren't mystery links. If you float your cursor over them they tell you where they lead. Talk Origins is one of the premier evolution resources on the net. The Panda's Thumb is a evolution blog and PZ Myers is a PhD biologist. None of them are likely to spread viruses. You are 50 times more likely to pick up a virus from an email sent to you from someone you know than from a public website.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/27/2006 13:58:53
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  14:04:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I'd also like some specific examples where Coulter spews hate.

In her book, Coulter claims the windows of the men who died in the events of 9-11 "act as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them" and "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

What do you think? Do you think that qualifies as a hateful thing to say, GK?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  14:07:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

Well thank you to those who brought in excerpts of Godless. Now we all can see where Coulter stands. I'd also like some specific examples where Coulter spews hate.

Hi GK Pau. I think everyone here was pretty clear about where Coulter stands on things; she's been a media personality for years now.

As for "specific examples" of hate, I'm not sure how you didn't get that from just the introduction I posted above. Perhaps we have different defninitions of hate-spewing, however.
Go to Top of Page

GK Paul
Skeptic Friend

USA
306 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  14:29:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GK Paul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I'd also like some specific examples where Coulter spews hate.

In her book, Coulter claims the windows of the men who died in the events of 9-11 "act as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them" and "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

What do you think? Do you think that qualifies as a hateful thing to say, GK?



It is impossible for me to answer that question unless I have seen the incident that Coulter saw. If you do honestly perceive someone taking pleasure in another's person's death I think it is courageous to bring it to people's attention because it is definitely wrong to take pleasure in your spouse's death.


"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist

"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton


GK Paul
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  14:46:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
It is impossible for me to answer that question unless I have seen the incident that Coulter saw. If you do honestly perceive someone taking pleasure in another's person's death I think it is courageous to bring it to people's attention because it is definitely wrong to take pleasure in your spouse's death.

So you unless presented with evidence one way or the other, you choose to believe the accusation is accurate? What sort of insane person takes pleasure in the death of their husband? Now what are the odds that all of the women who lost husbands on 9-11 take pleasure in it? You'd prefer to think the worst of a whole group of women rather than admit Coulter lies?

GK, it seems as if your are simply intent on refusing to criticize Coulter for anything. How about you stop demanding we provide you with evidence that she's a lying hate-filled propagandist, since you either a) come up with excuses not to read the links we do provide, or b) simply refuse to believe Coulter holds bad intentions when presented with a direction citation.

Just admit up front that no amount of facts or evidence will dissuade you from the conviction that Coulter is right because she tells lies that make you feel good.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/27/2006 14:52:44
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  22:45:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
It is impossible for me to answer that question unless I have seen the incident that Coulter saw. If you do honestly perceive someone taking pleasure in another's person's death I think it is courageous to bring it to people's attention because it is definitely wrong to take pleasure in your spouse's death.

You know, the more I think about this the more it is pissing me off. I can't fucking believe you called Coulter's insane accusation "courageous."

Do you think fighting child molestation is courageous? Now, what if I accused you of being a kid toucher? Am I now "courageous" for leveling that accusation at you or am I horribly out of line for accusing you of such a thing?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/27/2006 22:47:33
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/27/2006 :  23:33:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
Some "courageous" Coulter, GK! Your statement sickens me. You are a clueless fool and right-wing tool. You are staunchly determined to remain that way. No amount of trying to educate you will make any difference.




Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  00:29:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

Godless is a powerful book. Coulter really blasts everything from liberals to Darwin's theory. She calls it unproven "bogus" science and has a lot of information to back it up.

GK, I hope you stay around long enough to recognize there are serious challenges to your current beliefs.

Let's talk about Godless for example. Isn't it disgustingly Godless to make money badmouthing what Coulter calls Liberals, many of whom are devoutly religious, because they don't agree with the way Coulter chooses to achieve her morality? Does Coulter have a history of philanthropy? Is she Godfull because she says she is or do her acts speak louder than her words?

If you are against abortion, to bring up a favorite divider, is it better to outlaw abortions or might it not be better to just work towards lowering the abortion rate without worrying about making abortions illegal? Is making abortion illegal any guarantee there will be less abortions? Seems to me there were plenty of abortions when they were illegal before. Yet those Christians who would choose to lower the abortion rate based on means that have been successful rather than just trying to outlaw them are somehow seen as Godless.

Coulter is mean and vile and makes money by viscous attacks on some very good people. It is she who would appear quite Godless from my point of view.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  00:32:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

Well hello everybody, I'm just saying that Coulter really hits hard and I must admit I didn't read all of her smashing of Darwin. But I was impressed that someone in her arena would try to take Darwin on and not consider it "Gospel" like some people seem to do. And as far as reading your links if I ever get the time and energy I might just take a look. I'll weigh all the facts just like you and make my own decision.

Oh, I just read some of the Media Matters link, and it seems like Random House is supporting her, and said any charges of plagiarism against her are 'trivial', "meritless" and "irresponsible". If she broke any laws, I think the damaged individuals should take her to civil court.

These are two different issues. Her publisher is supporting Coulter against the claim made she cut and pasted much of her books. That is quite separate from making up facts.
Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  00:50:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

Well, out of all the responses in this Ann Coulter "Godless" book forum I don't think that anybody other than me has actually read the book. I'd say I read about 40% of it. Everybody else has read nothing or some articles about it. So It would be correct to say that I'm an expert on the book compared to everyone else.


Marf posted a couple of examples of the many outright lies in the book. As I said before Ann Coulter claims to be a Christian, but she tells lies repeatedly. She makes things up to support her arguments. This makes her a hypocrit. You have not addressed this. Why should anyone here waste their time reading a non fiction book that is full of falsehoods.

I agree with you on one thing - it is a powerful book - repeating a lie until it is believed is a proapaganda technique that worked well for the Nazi's and for the Communists.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Edited by - Ghost_Skeptic on 08/28/2006 00:51:21
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  00:54:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

Well, out of all the responses in this Ann Coulter "Godless" book forum I don't think that anybody other than me has actually read the book. I'd say I read about 40% of it. Everybody else has read nothing or some articles about it. So It would be correct to say that I'm an expert on the book compared to everyone else. Gee It's nice to be an expert. Why don't at least one of you go to your library and read just 40% of it and than come back and talk about the book's topics and not about me or Coulter. Isn't that what Book Forums are supposed to be about; and not a place to vex anger on something you read in another book.

Oh wait a minute, it seems that 2 people have implied that they read excerpts from it, but yet they don't give one specific example of what was said. There is a lot of bashing going on but nobody but Coulter seems willing to give "specific" examples. I will mention specific statements after at least 3 people mention "specific statements" made in the book.



One doesn't have to read her book. I have heard her speak hundreds of times. She is very predictable, for one. She is ignorant of scientific evidence and the scientific process and has demonstrated that ignorance over and over.

She is hypocritical which is why I posted the above about who is really moral and who is really Godless.

So why would I think Coulter would have anything to actually challenge the science of evolution which has essentially been completely confirmed by the science of genetics (as if it needed confirming anyway).

If you educate yourself on anything, read a bit on the current state of genetic science. The history of evolution is spelled out letter for letter in your DNA. How you get a limb from a fin and a wing from a limb is spelled out in the DNA of each life form as it evolved and continues to evolve. People who are still clinging to Intelligent Design and Creationism are just Flat Earthers past their prime. Time to move on. The world is round, the Sun is the center of the solar system, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years and evolution is no longer the least bit questionable. Sorry, those are just the facts, there is no debate, only believers in Bible myths.

If you want to actually learn about why evolution is a fact and not debatable, try educating yourself in the science of biology rather than finding people who reinforce your misconceptions. If you truly want to question evolution, for whatever reason, you cannot do it from a position of ignorance. Coulter supposedly has a law degree so I can't call her uneducated, but she is very ignorant of biology and other sciences.

No I didn't read her book and I don't intend to read any of her books. Hearing her speak is bad enough.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  01:11:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

To Mr. H Humbert

Please, just give me one, just one specific thing Ann Coulter has said in Godless that you disagree with. If you don't want to make the effort to do that, than give me one "specific" thing she has ever said
in her life and the source where you got it from.

And I would appreciate it if everybody else would do the same. Than we actually might, just might, get some information.

Also I'm kinda new to going to links, so I'm a little concerned about viruses from unknown sites like Here, Here, Here.

Here just this once, is a large section (of a very long piece) of the media matters piece since I know they prefer to get their message out and hopefully this isn't enough of the piece to be considered copyright infringement. Here are very specific quotes from Coulter's book with page numbers cited and a discussion of why the book is a piece of trash as far as accuracy goes.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010
quote:
Among her falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions, Coulter:

* Misstates how fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition from reptiles and mammals, as well as the fossil record of dinosaurs and mammals.
* Distorts the likelihood that a living creature will be fossilized.
* Distorts the duration of the period known as the Cambrian explosion, omits important information about its significance, and suggests that 10 million years is "sudden."
* On transitional fossils, misrepresents relation of the Archaeopteryx to modern birds.
* Omits information regarding the Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor hoaxes.
* Misrepresents the evolution of the eye and ignores recent research.
* Falsely suggests that "irreducible complexity" disproves evolutionary theory.
* On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel, omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
* Falsely suggests that the Miller-Urey experiment did not accurately reflect early Earth atmosphere.
* Throughout the book, displays her own misunderstandings regarding evolutionary theory (i.e. descent with modification, the evolution of bacteria).
* Offers only classic creationist arguments from discredited, unscientific ideas, despite a claim on the inner jacket sleeve of the book stating that Coulter writes "with a keen appreciation of genuine science."

Coulter claims several times that the fossil record in no way supports Darwin's theory of evolution. On Page 199, she claims that evolution is "a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record." Again, on Page 215, she claims that there's "absolutely nothing in the fossil record to support it [evolution]." To support her claim, Coulter attempts to show that several well-known examples of the fossil record do not provide evidence of evolution.

Scientists have compiled a well-documented case demonstrating "large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change" between reptiles and mammals. Coulter argues, on Page 228, that scientists "have no idea if the reptiles are even related to the mammal-like reptiles, much less to the mammals." However, contrary to Coulter's claim, science has observed links between reptiles and mammals through an existing succession of transitional fossils. Skeletal features are used to distinguish between reptilian fossils and mammalian fossils. While many characteristics differ between reptiles and mammals, scientists have observed reptilian fossils that over time took on characteristics of mammals, such as the construction of the lower jaw. Reptiles' lower jaw consists of multiple bones, while mammals' lower jaw is a single large bone. Additionally, most bones in reptiles and mammals are homologous, which suggests that the bones are of common origin. The most important homologous bones between reptiles and mammals are several skull and jaw bones of reptiles and middle ear bones of mammals. Furthermore, synapsids (a particular group of reptiles) share an additional homologous structure with mammals -- an opening behind the eye socket in the skull. This is very characteristic of mammals, which is why synapsids are referred to as mammal-like reptiles.

When scientists have placed the fossils of reptiles and mammals in the proper geochronological order, they have observed a natural succession in synapsids that becomes more mammalian and less reptilian. The lower jaw successively increases in size until the entire lower jaw is one bone. Coulter is aware of this evidence, but does not refute it. On Page 229, she states, "The jawbone metamorphosis didn't prove evolution," but she doesn't offer any evidence to explain why evidence of jawbone metamorphosis should not be seen as evidence of evolution; the reader is apparently expected to have faith in Coulter's unsupported conclusion and disregard the work of professional scientists. Scientists also have observed successive, geochronological change from reptilian sprawling limb posture to mammalian upright limb posture.

Another example that Coulter uses to make her argument that the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution involves bats. On Page 230, she claims that "the bat appears in the fossil record millions of years ago, fully formed and largely indistinguishable from today's bats." However, according to the University of California-Berkeley Museum of Paleontology's website, the earliest bat fossils -- which are of teeth only -- exhibit characteristics of both bats and insectivores (an order of mammal that includes hedgehogs, shrews, and moles). The museum also concludes that because the fossils are only teeth, scientists "don't know what the rest of the animal was like"; however, the fossils still exhibit characteristics of two different orders of mammal. Additionally, the website states:

[Bats] are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils.

This suggests that the reason that bats seem to appear in the fossil record as "fully formed" is probably due to the even rarer chance of fossilization compared to other mammals. Furthermore, New Scientist reports that a change in only a single gene allowed bats to evolve wings, which could explain why the appearance of bats in the fossil record seems to be "sudden."

Coulter continues to distort the fossil record when she speaks of dinosaurs and mammals. On Page 217, she states, "Dinosaurs appeared, lived 150 million years, and then disappeared, only to be quickly replaced with mammals." This statement distorts the true fossil record. According to an article in Science magazine, a pair of researchers studied the genetic differences of hundreds of vertebrate specimens and concluded that modern orders of mammals -- such as primates, rodents, and carnivores -- date back well into the Cretaceous period (approximately 144 million to 65 million years ago), in some cases more than 100 million years ago. Previous studies of the fossil record led scientists to suggest that mammals first appeared 225 million years ago (during the Triassic period) as only small, shrew-like animals (still putting mammals and dinosa
Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/28/2006 01:20:59
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  01:12:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul

Well thank you to those who brought in excerpts of Godless. Now we all can see where Coulter stands. I'd also like some specific examples where Coulter spews hate.

From the same link above:
quote:
Smears of Democrats and progressives

No work of Coulter's would be complete without her gratuitously smearing progressives and Democrats while discussing unrelated topics. Throughout her two chapters on evolutionary theory, Coulter slanders prominent progressive and Democratic figures, as well as news reporters and media personalities. These smears work only to undermine the supposed "keen appreciation for genuine science" that Coulter writes from, as stated on the inside jacket sleeve of Godless.

Page 199:

[L]iberals think evolution disproves God.

[...]

If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures.

Page 205:

But most of the cult reacted to Behe's argument the way feminists do to the suggestion that men and women might possibly have different aptitudes for math and science -- they got nasty, they cried, and they denied that anything had been proved.

Page 207:

Darwin's solution is like explaining how humans evolved by saying, "Assume Dennis Kucinich. Now, through slight improvements over a billion years, successive generations would eventually become taller, grow opposable thumbs, and generally become more humanlike until one day -- wham! -- you have yourself a human being."

Page 219:

The bizarre bird [Archaeopteryx] is just an odd creation that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, much like Air America Radio.

Page 221:

This is where all the deep thinking about evolution is being done these days, in the "social sciences" and Style section of the New York Times.

[...]

The New York Times will write honestly about Air America's ratings before high school biology textbooks will tell the truth about the Cambrian explosion.

Page 227:

No one disputes that a monkey looks like a human, especially in the case of Al Franken.

Page 229:

Michael Moore's essence is consistent with the Flatulent Raccoon Theory for the origin of life.

Page 231:

Forget getting to humans, which liberals rank as the lowest form of life.

Page 234:

My headline the day Clinton was impeached: "God Theory Is Proved True."

Page 235:

Yes, the same process [radiocarbon dating] that recently helped us pin down the exact year of Helen Thomas's birth ...

Page 236:

For two years black moths were bused out of the inner-city areas to the suburbs, while white moths were bused into the inner-city areas... (Is it just me, or does this scenario sound oddly familiar?)

Page 239:

And he [Ernst Haeckel] could show what humans looked like 1 million years ago by pointing to James Carville.

Additionally, Coulter repeatedly equates the religion of Scientology with the theory of evolution. She does so four times throughout her chapters on evolution, suggesting that there is almost as much valid science in the religion of Scientology as in the theory of evolution.

Page 199:

Liberal's creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor.

Page 209:

The evolutionists' response [to Behe's irreducible complexity theory] is Well, it's possible. You can't say it couldn't 'possibly' happen -- and that was the test Darwin of Nazareth set for himself. It's also possible that galactic ruler Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, piled them around volcanoes, and blew them up with hydrogen bombs, sending their souls flying every which way until they landed on the bodies of living humans, where they still invisibly reside today -- as Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard claimed. Yes, it's possible. [emphasis in original]

Page 215:

These people [evolutionists] make L. Ron Hubbard look like Aristotle.

Page 235:

Evolution's Piltdown Man makes Scientology's "e-meter" look like a particle accelerator at Los Alamos.

Besides these passing references equating the religion of Scientology with the theory of evolution, Coulter offers no in-depth explanation or justification for her comments.

Go to Top of Page

GK Paul
Skeptic Friend

USA
306 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  01:30:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GK Paul a Private Message
Sure, I will criticize Coulter and anyone else who I perceive is doing wrong. If she lied about something, that's wrong. I'm sure there was a lot of pressure on her by her publisher to make her earlier books as interesting as possible. And sometimes a writer liberal or conserv. will stretch things to be interesting . She's got 5 best sellers and not any won lawsuits against her that I know of. She's has definitely struck a nerve on both sides and that's what writer's are supposed to do.

It seems most everybody in this forum has listened to her a lot more than me. When I don't like someone I usually don't listen to them hundreds of times as one commentor has. Anyway I'm sure Coulter is not perfect but she does have a valid point that some liberals' belief system is like that of a church. And if their beliefs are similiar in structure to a church, so what.


"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist

"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton


GK Paul
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2006 :  03:40:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
You are so full of shit, GK, it's useless to try to try to correct you further.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.27 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000