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

Cookie Parker
New Member

17 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2006 :  19:11:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cookie Parker a Private Message
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.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2006 :  19:31:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
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.
Go to Top of Page

GK Paul
Skeptic Friend

USA
306 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  04:27:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GK Paul a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  04:47:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
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.
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  04:56:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1880 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  05:13:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  07:20:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
I've been enjoying this thread very much. Everytime GK Paul tries to change the topic's direction, he gets destroyed so he changes it again. It's like watching a rabbit in an artillery practice range.

But I am starting to tire of his red herrings. If he wants to talk about Dembski's involvement in Godless, let him. But the second he tries to change the topic again, I recommend not responding to it, just call him out for doing so and ask him again about Dembski.

It's the only way this conversation will ever progress.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  07:30:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
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.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2006 :  11:58:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

GK Paul
Skeptic Friend

USA
306 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  11:07:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GK Paul a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  12:10:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  12:15:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  12:45:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2006 :  13:10:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
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.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 09/02/2006 :  09:29:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
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
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 0.2 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000