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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

---