|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2006 : 11:17:45
|
|
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.
|
"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 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 18:06:26 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, it seems that all of her "information" is a bunch of re-hashed ancient creationist arguments she got from William Dembski, who isn't a biologist, or even a scientist, but is instead a two-bit mathematician who teaches at a second-rate Bible college. And because of that, Coulter wouldn't know a good argument if one fell on her. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 18:19:07 [Permalink]
|
Hi GK Paul. If you'll go to the MediaMatters site and look at their Ann Coulter section, you see that she more or less makes things up to support her arguments. (Some examples are here.)
Godless is powerful only if you've already bought into her vitrolic message and agree. Anyone looking for more compelling debate about complex issues will be left wanting. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 18:19:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
She calls it unproven "bogus" science and has a lot of information to back it up.
Too bad the book is full of distortions, omissions, misrepresentations, half-truths, and flat out lies. Her chapters on evolution are particularly awful. There is hardly a single thing that she actually gets right.
You can find essays demolishing her nonsense here, here, and here (the first of a three part series), for starters.
It's easy to tell lies and sell books. Being able to recognize the lies actually requires that you educate yourself beyond trash books written by polemic hate-mongers.
|
"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 08/25/2006 18:20:46 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2006 : 18:23:01 [Permalink]
|
| Coulter has nothing, is nothing, and will always be nothing. Anyone calling her mental feces "powerful" needs to take a long hard look at the themselves and the world in general. No rational human takes her tripe serious except that it influences and inflames a certain segment of the population. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 08/25/2006 18:25:00 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 01:04:59 [Permalink]
|
Hey Humbert and Cune, loved the articles you linked too, especially the one that went through the detailed analysis of Coulter's characterization of the peppered moths research and conclusions.
Alas, I'd be shocked if GK Paul reads any of it and comes back with any kind of retort that even matches the analysis in those articles. If he's stupid enough to think Coulter's book is good, he obviously had not a shred of critical thinking ability, and I doubt the attention spam to be able to get through even one well-researched and well-reasoned retort to Coulter's inane rantings.
In fact, I'm not even convinced that he really agrees with Anne Coulter; having read passages from her book, I think one would have to be insane or brain-damaged to think she's on to anything. She's one of the easiest pundits - liberal or conservative - to make fun of because she's just such a blatant bullshitter.
Here's a couple nuggets I found in 5 minutes on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Coulter#Allegations_of_improper_conduct
quote:
On page 134 of Coulter's book, Slander, Coulter claims that during Regan's Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan's approval ratings fell five percent, from 80 to 75%. A Christian Science Monitor article is cited from January 7, 1987.[53] In actuality, the article states, Reagan's approval ratings fell from 63 to 47%.[54]
quote:
In Slander, Coulter alleges The New York Times did not cover NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt's death until two days after he died ...(see the link for the whole quote from Coulter)...The The New York Times did cover Earnhart's death and covered it on the front page. Earnhardt died on February 18, 2001. Another article appeared in the Times on the front page, on February 19, 2001, one day later, after their intial front-page story, written by sportswriter Robert Lipsyte, making it two days in a row the The New York Times covered Earnhardt's death. Coulter cites an article indeed written two days later, by Rick Bragg, a Pulitzer Prize winner who grew up in the South, who wrote a personal piece on Earnhardt and his passing, bringing the total to three times in which the Times covered Earnhardt, three days in a row.[56]
Can anyone say compulsive liar?
I gotta stop now only because this is like shooting fish in a barrel. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/26/2006 01:06:31 |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 02:47:26 [Permalink]
|
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. |
"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 08/26/2006 03:53:10 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 03:06:17 [Permalink]
|
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 you all 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.
So, you've got the nerve to accuse everyone else of taking evolution as "Gospel," yet you continue praising that hateful, loathsome Coulter bigot while the clear evidence of her lies remains unexamined by you. You haven't even checked out the links presented here for your convenient study?
Have you any idea how much evidence there is for evolution? And how many lies come from Ms. Coulter's fascist mouth? If you could read a bit with a critical mind, you'd change your attitudes fast. That is, if you're not a theonazi yourself.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 04:29:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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 you all 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.
So, you've got the nerve to accuse everyone else of taking evolution as "Gospel," yet you continue praising that hateful, loathsome Coulter bigot while the clear evidence of her lies remains unexamined by you. You haven't even checked out the links presented here for your convenient study?
Have you any idea how much evidence there is for evolution? And how many lies come from Ms. Coulter's fascist mouth? If you could read a bit with a critical mind, you'd change your attitudes fast. That is, if you're not a theonazi yourself.
Well sir, if you read what i've said you'd see that I am not continuely praising anyone. I merely stated her book is powerful, and from what I can see, her words are having a "powerful effect" on the emotions of "everyone" in this forum...
Oh, by the way, I did edit my message before I read yours and changed it to "some people consider Darwin as gospel"... And also Darwin's theory has absolutely nothing to do with how Life began. It only talks about things that might have happened after life was aready in existence. Darwin didn't know anymore about how life began than you or me.
And why is everbody so gun ho on Darwin. The only future he offers is being carted down to the cemetary and having dirt thrown in your face.
At least religion offers Hope. When a public figure so "confidently" takes on a religious icon to the scientific community it increases that Hope. But you can expect anger and rage when you are blasphemus
to a religious icon.
|
"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 08/26/2006 04:54:46 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 06:07:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And also Darwin's theory has absolutely nothing to do with how Life began. It only talks about things that might have happened after life was aready in existence. Darwin didn't know anymore about how life began than you or me.
And why is everbody so gun ho on Darwin. The only future he offers is being carted down to the cemetary and having dirt thrown in your face.
What bullshit.
"Darwin" as you say has nothing to say about god, religion, or the afterlife. So stop lying, and get educated.
You are correct that evolution has nothing to say about how life started. It also has nothing to say about how life ends, or what happens to you after you die.
If you would bother to read up on the actual person Charles Darwin, you would know that he was a Christian.
If you would bother to read up on evolution, you would see through the lies that the christian fundamentalists are feeding you.
Evolution does not "disprove" god or christianity. It does prove that a literal interpretation of the first parts of the book of Genesis is not correct. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 08/26/2006 06:10:48 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 06:50:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Darwin didn't know anymore about how life began than you or me.
On the contrary.
I know a lot more than Darwin about how life began, and I'm merely a n00b when it comes to biology.
Things that I know that is important for the beginning of life, and Darwin didn't know:
DNA it's structure and composition, amino-acids and it their importance for protein, how DNA replicates (and mutation), RNA which is theorised to precede the DNA in the beginning of life. The probable chemical composition of the pre-biotic atmosphere. Different energy sources available.
All this readily available through Wikipedia as a starting point, if you don't take the Astrobiology 101 course at the University. I have 100 years of scientific progress as a head start on Darwin, though I must confess that I don't have as brilliant a mind as he did. |
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. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 06:51:00 [Permalink]
|
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.
Hi, GK Paul. Unfortunately, it isn't impressive that someone like Coulter would bother to attack Darwin. Far-right commentators routinely make attacking evolution a talking point. Entire Christian minitiries are devoted to promoting anti-evolution! No, Coulter isn't impressive; she's a cliché.
quote:
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.
Wow. So for now, you're happy to side with Coutler (maybe because you agree with her?), but in the future, when you have some time, you'll think about maybe bothering to check and see if she's a fraud?
quote:
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.
I agree with you that Coulter's plagarism does seem to be rather trivial. Unfortunately, you missed the main thrust of my link. Perhaps I didn't provide the right one.
A serious complaint against Coulter is that in order to support her rather outrageous views she mas to make things up. The example Marf posted, from her first book Slander is a classic. In an attempt to portray the New York Times as "elitist" and "out of touch" with the mainstream (a typical refrain from the right), Coulter noted that the paper didn't bother to cover the death of a famous NASCAR driver to the same degree that other papers did. She then cites the editions of the paper in her endnotes. A dupe reading this is supposed to see this and think "well, she has a reference so she must be right" and then reflect about how "liberal" the Times is.
Unfortunately, Coulter lied. The Times in fact ran front page stories about the incident for days. Thus, the reality is quite the opposite from her lie. This is but one example from one book. However, all her books are like this. She makes outrageous claim after outrageous claim-- all making "liberals" look as stupid and/or evil as possible. Yet time and again, even a superficial search of her references suggests that she's making it up!
The people who like Coulter have been conditioned to think that "liberals" are stupid and/or evil. It's rehashed time and again as a talking point on AM radio and Fox News. The right has so master this that even the word liberal is now tainted. Yet it's clear that the attacks on "liberals" generally involve fabricated stories, soundbytes taken out of context, and gross distortions of reality.
I'm not sure why it continues to succeed, but perhaps you can tell us, GK Paul. When it was suggested above that Coulter lies to make her arguments you seem completely uninterested. It's almost as though you're happy to belive the lie, even if you know it is one.
Why do you do this? Serious, intelligent debate about policy and culture is important, but as long as people like you are happy to follow the likes of Coulter, Rush, and the rest of the AM-talk/Rox News crowd, that will never happen. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/26/2006 19:28:12 |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 08:10:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
[brA serious complaint against Coulter is that in order to support her rather outrageous views she mas to make things up. The example Marf posted, from her first book Slander is a classic. In an attempt to portray the New York Times as "elitist" and "out of touch" with the mainstream (a typical refrain from the right), Coulter noted that the paper didn't bother to cover the death of a famous NASCAR driver to the same degree that other papers did. She then cites the editions of the paper in her endnotes. A dupe reading this is supposed to see this and think "well, she has a reference so she must be right" and then reflect about how "liberal" the Times is.
Unfortunately, Coulter lied. The Times in fact ran front page stories about the incident for days. Thus, the reality is quite the opposite from her lie. This is but one example from one book. However, all her books are like this. She makes outrageous claim after outrageous claim-- all making "liberals" look as stupid and/or evil as possible. Yet time and again, even a superficial search of her references suggests that she's making it up!
The people who like Coulter have been conditioned to think that "liberals" are stupid and/or evil. It's rehashed time and again as a talking point on AM radio and Fox News. The right has so master this that even the word liberal is now tainted. Yet it's clear that the attacks on "liberals" generally involve fabricated stories, soundbytes taken out of context, and gross distortions of reality.
I'm not sure why it continues to succeed, but perhaps you can tell us, GK Paul. When it was suggested above that Coulter lies to make her arguments you seem completely uninterested. It's almost as though you're happy to belive the lie, even if you know it is one.
Why do you do this? Serious, intelligent debate about policy and culture is important, but as long as people like you are happy to follow the likes of Coulter, Rush, and the rest of the AM-talk/Rox News crowd, that will never happen.
Isn't "bearing false fitness" supposedly against the 10 commandments? Doesn't this make Ann Coulter a hypochristian? GK Paul, are you as untroubled by her lying as she is?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 09:47:56 [Permalink]
|
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.
You emphatically state that Coulter hits hard and smashes Darwin, what little you read, is equivalent to an opinion based on faith. It also doesn't mean much in a skeptic forum. When presented with an opportunity to learn the facts about Coulter and her lack of scholarship and the facts about evolution, you seem reluctant to do so. A honest evaluation of the available data/facts does take time and energy.
During the past ten years I've encountered more and more people for whom the following is true "Believing is easy, thinking is not." Determining whether Coulter is full of shit does not require that much thinking. The hard work here has been done for you, links have been provided. GK Paul, are you a believer or a thinker? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 10:09:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And why is everbody so gun ho on Darwin. The only future he offers is being carted down to the cemetary and having dirt thrown in your face.
As has been pointed out, neither old Chuck himself or the ToE has much of anything to say about what may or may not happen after you buy the farm. And I for one plan on being thouroughly toasted and roasted, then sprinkled into a sand trap.
quote:
At least religion offers Hope.
Hope maybe, but based on what? The lunatic ramblings of some alleged ancient "holy" man? I'll take reality, thank you. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2006 : 13:54:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
At least religion offers Hope.
Hope maybe, but based on what? The lunatic ramblings of some alleged ancient "holy" man? I'll take reality, thank you.
This is a side track I hope we can avoid in this particular thread, maybe we can continue in the religion folder.
We are reviewing a book here, and making media-related comments.
Just my two cents.  |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
