Contra-Coulter Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Contra-Coulter « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, September 02, 2011 - 05:35 am:   

Okay, try to get past any surging emotions concerning the author of this, but....

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html

... made me wonder something. Because I had frankly not been paying much attention to this debate, nor the facts surrounding the issue. But taking the "facts" presented here on verifiable-or-not face value:

Why don't more scientists indeed rob the "intelligent design" of the religionists' (like Anne here) insistence on the "God" quotient? It seems ready-made in fact for science-fiction: If there was introduction of species at some point, how on Earth can anyone extrapolate anything from these "creators," aside from the bare fact that they may have created something? One could never narrow down a number of these creator-beings - to go on to imputing morals and ethics to them, is laughably absurd.

I guess I'm wondering why the scientific community, if indeed it's staring at these facts in the face as Anne claims they are, has ceded all ground to the religionists out there. Is the scientific community indeed as myopic as Anne would have us believe they are?... or is that where she's being deceptive, straw-manning the entire scientific community as being close-minded?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Matthew Fryer (Matthew_fryer)
Username: Matthew_fryer

Registered: 08-2009
Posted From: 90.195.182.194
Posted on Friday, September 02, 2011 - 08:04 am:   

Who are these "dog ate my fossils" Darwiniacs who refuse to adjust their views?

I see plenty of quotes in the article, but none from this mysterious pseudo-religious cult. Funny that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 12.165.240.116
Posted on Friday, September 02, 2011 - 05:04 pm:   

Craig:

(a) Why do you read this crap? Coulter is a muckraker and a media whore, who, given her dating proclivities, doesn't even believe the racist right-wing claptrap she pretends to espouse. She knows how to stir the pot, that's all, and how to get attention. Deprive her of attention and she should (rightly) go away.
(b) I don't understand any of your questions. However, I can respond a bit to Coulter's pathetic argument: There is little record of "transitional" fossil because evolution happens relatively quickly, and (in all likelihood) in fits and starts. Animals with genetic advantages thrive; animals with fewer advantages (ie, transitional ones), don't. Sometimes these "transitional" animals exist as species (or breeds) that we give other names. For instance, a number of different types of dogs exist between wolves and bulldogs, each with smaller noses and tails and legs, etc, many of which are named breeds. These can be viewed as "transitional" animals, if you want. (I wonder how creationists who dispute the existence of evolution explain the variety of dogs in the world, since they are all induced (obviously) by selective breeding? Do they really imagine this sort of thing can't happen in the wild, without human intervention?)

Since Coulter mentions Stephen Jay Gould (although she attributes a quote to him that seems inaccurate to me), I'll let him defend himself. See his essay on the subject here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2011 - 04:46 am:   

Chris, I'm masochistic.

I think I follow your arguments, Chris. I'm not as savvy on all this, but I do seem to remember a little logical maxim that goes, "Absence of proof doesn't necessarily mean proof of absence," which is the fallacy I believe Coulter is making in her article.

My questions were more aimed at the creationists/intelligent-designists, who - I mean, if I were a Christian - I'd be very much against this kind of thread, because it only makes clearer that one can perhaps - perhaps - point to an "intelligent designer" in creation - but beyond those two words, nothing can be stated. Even that term is faulty - what about designers? It makes starkly obvious how much of religion is beyond proof, and remains an act of faith - which is what Jesus anyway makes clear is all that it's ever going to be anyway, in the Gospels... so why are these people so hellbent to PROVE shit all the time?....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.206.133
Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2011 - 06:49 pm:   

And Piers Morgan actually seems like the nice one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQYSX4KYPs4&feature=related

She's a dalek.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomasb (Thomasb)
Username: Thomasb

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.25.141.120
Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2011 - 05:34 pm:   

I wouldn't care to let Ann Coulter, of all people, set the table on this issue, myself.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration