|
|
|
Cookie Parker
New Member
17 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2006 : 19:11:42 [Permalink]
|
| Sometimes, I get too dizzy keeping up with their spin and then I realize, I've seen this argument so many times, it's all the same one, just applied to different topics...democrats are stupid, democrats are godless, democrats are evil-doers.....not once do they ever defend...think we can snap them out of it after the 2006 and 2008 elections? |
Blaise Pascal:
To deny, to believe, and to doubt absolutely -- this is for man what running is for a horse. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2006 : 19:31:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cookie Parker
Sometimes, I get too dizzy keeping up with their spin and then I realize, I've seen this argument so many times, it's all the same one, just applied to different topics...democrats are stupid, democrats are godless, democrats are evil-doers.....not once do they ever defend...think we can snap them out of it after the 2006 and 2008 elections?
This was a point I noted earlier: Coulter and her ilk have created a mythical "liberal" boogeyman to routinely attack in books, TV, and radio. Repeated enough times and from enough sources and it's hard not to buy into it. Hell, sometimes I start to buy into it. I have to catch myself when I think that John Kerry or Al Gore or Bill Clinton are "faking" their religion. Truth is, conservatives don't have a monopoly on religion or being religious. But we've been brainwashed into thinking otherwise.
What I wonder now is if some conservatives aren't becoming caricatures of themselves. When conservative politicians try and trump every conversation with the 'strong-on-terror' motif, I see more eye-rolls than ever before. And let's face it-- people like Ann Coulter are popular more for their sheer lunacy than anything else. Sure, she has best-sellers. But so does Mick Foley.
We can only hope that (slightly) more rational thought will take over in November. |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 04:27:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Chapter 8, 9, and 10 in the book all appear to deal with Darwin's Theory and Science. I would estimate that their is at least 50 differnt names in the endnotes for these chapters. Most endnotes appear to be scientific articles. Bill Dembski was only mentioned on 2 pages of chapter 10.
So what? Shortly after Godless hit the shelves, Dembski claimed responsibility for any errors that appear in those three chapters, meaning he was intimately involved in their creation. Coulter has apparently done nothing to disabuse anyone of that notion. So, the idea that she got everything in those chapters (even the endnotes) from Dembski makes perfect sense. Coulter probably just rewrote them in her own venomous style.
I challenge anyone to read Chapter 8, 9 and 10 and than read what Mr Dave W. just said. I also challenge you sir to show me any kind of evidence to what you just said. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 04:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
quote:
So what? Shortly after Godless hit the shelves, Dembski claimed responsibility for any errors that appear in those three chapters, meaning he was intimately involved in their creation. Coulter has apparently done nothing to disabuse anyone of that notion. So, the idea that she got everything in those chapters (even the endnotes) from Dembski makes perfect sense. Coulter probably just rewrote them in her own venomous style.
I challenge anyone to read Chapter 8, 9 and 10 and than read what Mr Dave W. just said. I also challenge you sir to show me any kind of evidence to what you just said.
I'll get to the second part later, but as for Dembski's involvement in Coulter's book, note his blog, where he wrote: quote:
Having been a sounding board for Ann Coulter on chapters 8-10 of GODLESS . . . she has the gist [of the anti-evolutionary position] just right
He clearly played a huge role in the scientific parts of the book. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 04:56:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I challenge anyone to read Chapter 8, 9 and 10 and than read what Mr Dave W. just said. I also challenge you sir to show me any kind of evidence to what you just said.
Who are you to challenge anybody in this thread? Have you been able to answer anything yet?
Why should we wan't to read anything of Coulters drivel? Have you not been paying attention?
If you wan't to have a dissection of Coulters evolution lies there is one available at:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter3.cfm
Edit:typo |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 08/31/2006 04:58:00 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 05:13:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I challenge anyone to read Chapter 8, 9 and 10 and than read what Mr Dave W. just said. I also challenge you sir to show me any kind of evidence to what you just said.
Well here you go from Dembski's own blog.
quote:
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.
And a couple of other links reveiwing Coulter's Godless work.
Coulter on Evolution part 2
Coulter on Evolution part 3
I initially thought why bother GK Paul apparently has the same lack of Scholarship that Coulter does. Niether of you could be bothered by the facts, but then again this reply took just 10 minutes. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 07:30:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
I also challenge you sir to show me any kind of evidence to what you just said.
The evidence has been laid out already, before I managed to get here this morning.
But, just to keep the scoreboard running...
Things GK Paul has failed to acknowledge:- Coulter's many documented lies,
- Pelosi was talking about worshipping the Christian God, not liberalism,
- nobody considers Nina "BJ" Burleigh to be infallible,
- felatio isn't prayer,
- "Pro-Choice" activists use the word "abortion" often,
- Dembski was closely involved in Coulter's chapters on evolution,
- nobody can "tithe" to the NEA who isn't an educator, and
- abortion isn't a "sacrament."
How long is this list going to get? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 11:58:40 [Permalink]
|
Nice summary Dave. On to the Religion forum to see if GK again changed the subject instead of addressing my points. Same pattern there.
GK, Face it, you are in denial. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/31/2006 11:59:09 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 11:07:54 [Permalink]
|
To all my critics, why would Coulter quote many scientists to support her argument if there were serious mistakes in those scientists work. And why would Coulter use Dembski (albeit only 2 pages of the last chapter of her 3 chapters on evolution) to support her argument if Dembski was the cause of these "invisible mistakes" all the scientists made. It doesn't add up. Read the book.
Also note, if any of your responses are rude or impolite, I probably won't respond to them. |
"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 |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 09/01/2006 11:41:01 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 12:10:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
To all my critics, why would Coulter quote many scientists to support her argument if there were serious mistakes in those scientists work. And why would Coulter use Dembski (albeit only 2 pages of the last chapter of her 3 chapters on evolution) to support her argument if Dembski was the cause of these "invisible mistakes" all the scientists made. It doesn't add up. Read the book.
Also note, if any of your responses are rude or impolite, I probably won't respond to them.
Respectfully,
The Creationism movement is not just the actions of just one man. Although Dembski is the most public of the figures, he is not the sole figure. The other thing to look at is the number of scientists quoted, the context in which they are quoted, the area of expertice they have vs the area of expertice they are commenting on, and the sections of text attributed to each scientist.
This whole argument boils down to a giant argumentum ad verecundiam. If the experts are not speaking in their expertice, are not discussing the science in terms of testability or evidence but rather in a spiritual manner, or are not experts in their field, this is an invalid appeal to authority.
That Dembski had major input to the chapters by Coulter makes it suspect. That she repeats old and refuted arguments makes the chapters worthless. With the decision in Pennsylvania revealing the ID movement as merely Creationism repackaged, the statements in the book in regards to evolution is garbage.
Dembski has obviously had a serious hand in the content of the three offending chapters currently under discussion. Other posters here have provided links to the evidence.
When one looks at the number of bonafide experts in the field discussed, an overwhelming number support evolution over ID. To the point that the dissenters are positing a fringe view. The major problem with they are actually not forwarding a theory, they are forwarding theology and philosphy instead of a falsafiable theory.
May the Lord and Lady light your way, |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/01/2006 12:14:53 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 12:15:30 [Permalink]
|
You know what? There is no way I will bother to read Coulters book based on her references, citations and quotes. It is well known that creationists use out of context quotes as a part of their arsenal. The ICR even sells a book of quotes ripped from context to aid creationists in arguing their case. Every one of them has been debunked. That Their Words May Be Used Against Them by Henry M. Morris is a good example of that. What Morris does is provide the quote and the citation so the person (Coulter for example) will not even have to look up the quote in its proper context. Just lift crap from the book, including the citation. God, they are such liars.
For more on this look here:
The Quote Mine Project
And by the way, I own several creationist books. I even have one autographed by Duan Gish himself, who I met at a visit to the Institute for Creation Research.
Also, you were given links above that thoroughly debunk her citations.
What is more, quotes from people like Gish, Morris, Behe and all of the other ID advocates or creationists is not exactly going to get you to the truth of things… If she is doing that, well…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 12:45:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Also note, if any of your responses are rude or impolite, I probably won't respond to them.
What do you want?
The harsh truth,
or sugar-coated lies?
Right now it looks like you prefer the sugar-coated lie, because we have posted links to information, and posted proof that Coulter is lying. But you rather believe in her than in the evidence right in front of your eyes.
If you think her work is so unassailable, why don't you quote a paragraph directly out of the book (preferably a corner-stone argument) and post it here. Then we don't have to read the filthy book, but we can still evaluate the truth-value of her arguments. Post it, and if she truly has a valid point, then there won't be much we can do about it. If it's a lie, then watch us pick her argument to pieces.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/01/2006 12:46:43 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 13:10:20 [Permalink]
|
Why wouldn't Coulter print citations for her lies? It isn't hard to quote other liars. It isn't hard to take things out of context and change their meaning by doing so. It isn't hard to believe in fantasy and to then find fantasy evidence to support your fantasy belief.
But by the same token, it isn't that hard to teach yourself a little about evaluating truth and lies in order to recognize which you are looking at. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2006 : 09:29:21 [Permalink]
|
| Oh hey, I'm with Mab on getting the quote from one of the scientists that Coulter cites in her book for us to look at. Or a few of them would be even better. That way we could really take a look at what she is using to support her case. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
