Media alert!

You can listen to Coulter here claiming that solar and wind power do not create new energy, but nuclear power does! She's such a brilliant scientist that Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate her, but she's a little weak on advanced concepts like the conservation of energy.

You can read Coulter on evolution here:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_06_11.PHP#005875

It's fascinating to see how "I'm not listening, nahanhanhanhanhanha" is considered a legitimate political and scientific opinion by some.

Having been drawn introduced to Coulter via a seedy discussion on UD I am interested to hear this. Is there some way someone from the UK can listen via the Internet?

Bethell quote: "Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago."

We abandoned natural selection??? I didn't get the memo...

On the other hand...Coulter has produced no offspring, so sexual selection appears to be intact. :)

secondclass -- Just to point out, Dawkins hasn't been willing to debate Creationists since they got such a large showing even at Oxford, with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the Creationists.

I agree that it is silly to think that Dawkins should debate Coulter, or that he even cares who she is, but I do find it odd that he refuses to actually engage in any public dialog with Creationists.

Jonathan, I personally don't find it the least bit odd. Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Coulter is just a publicity whore. She likes to sell books. Look for her to pick up some other cause once the book sales peter out.

She sure is laughing all the way to the bank.

On the Harpie vs. Hippie match, I call Harpie by UD. Good chance of a work, however.

"Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse. [...] Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago." [Tom Bethell (1976). "Darwin's Mistake." Harper's Magazine, February 1976.]

— Tom Bethell (1976)

By all means, Jonathan, let's run science by opinion polls.

Perhaps Dawkins realizes that "debates" only give undeserved credibility to people who want their religious opinions taught as science?

There's a lovely Southern saying for why Dawkins shouldn't debate Coulter:

"Never debate an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with years of experience."

Coulter is not a pundit, she is an attention-getter. She will not debate, and in all the times I've seen her on TV, she has not debated any issue. She will attack, using ad-hominem and emotional arguements. (Evil scientists and the ACLU taking away our religon is her latest thesis). Worse, no matter what the outcome, in the media follow-up, 30 second snippets will be extracted, making it look very balanced.

John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be? Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.

Laser --

I never suggested we should.

Never fear. Dembski's now riding the Coulter diatribe like a rented mule:
Coulter's promotion of intelligent design "will propel our issues in the public consciousness like nothing to date."

Re "Honestly, how do you even begin to debate with that?"

How about:
1. It's perfectly logical - complex life comes from ancestors.
2. There's no significant evidence against it.
3. There's lots of places where contrary evidence should have been found if the theory were wrong.

Jonathon, I think that you are playing coy. Exactly what did you mean then, by "with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the creationists"?

If Dembski wants to tie himself and his "movement" to Coulter, then by all means let him. However, his quote could more appropriately be, "She will drag us into deeper levels of muck than even I ever imagined."

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

Actually, no.

But perhaps you have. Care to give a spirited defense?

Randy, since criticisms of Coulter here are about things she has publicly said on her book promotion tour (and in the past), why is reading her book relevant? Is it necessary to read her latest book to criticize her public statements? If you look closely at the comments, nobody criticized her book. They criticized statements that she has made that are in the public record. (They even provided links!)

Coulter is just a publicity whore. She likes to sell books. Look for her to pick up some other cause once the book sales peter out. She sure is laughing all the way to the bank.

— Adam Ierymenko

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

Yes, I read it and enjoyed it.

I don't agree with everything she says, nor do I always like some of the hyperbole.

Nonetheless, she does a good job making her case. It's a footnoted book, and many of the sources can be found in published material on the web. There were a couple of times I was reading the chapters on evolution and thought "No *WAY*!! She must be taking this out of context" and then I went and found the citation and realized she wasn't.

She does a good job gathering materials to make her case that Darwinism is the liberal state religion...and of course I expect that much of this crowd is composed of its true believers, I am sure that the 'contempt' that Ann attributes to 'Darwiniacs' will undoubtedly be thrown in my direction.

But rather than reading ABOUT her book. Maybe some of you should try an exercise in intellectual honesty and read it...in context, read the footnotes, absorb what she's saying, and ask yourself if there isn't some truth to it? It's called self-reflection. I try to read sites with which I disagree for that very purpose. It's a very good habit to get into.

I'd love to read some refutations of her thesis about the history of evolution, but that would in fact require someone to actually read the book....and not just pluck quotes from editorials.

Randy

engage in any public dialog with Creationists.

Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?

It's a footnoted book, and many of the sources can be found in published material on the web. There were a couple of times I was reading the chapters on evolution and thought "No *WAY*!! She must be taking this out of context" and then I went and found the citation and realized she wasn't.

Darwinism is the liberal state religion

she triumphantly cites Stephen Jay Gould's statement about the "trade secret of paleontology", right?. And Patterson saying there are "no transitional fossils"?

Ann Coulter on embryonic stem cells: There are lots of leftovers when you abort 1.5 million babies a year. This is the next logical extension of the obsessive recycling mentality. "Hey, don't just throw away that baby you just aborted. Don't you know how full our landfills are getting? Let's see if there's some parts of it we can re-use for other things, like...I don't know...stem cells?"

Clerly, she's a witless windbag. Dangerous though, because so many people will see their ignorant opinions mirrored by what she says.
And this is a good review of her book, as noted above
http://homepage.mac.com/gerardharbison/blog/RWP_blog.html#ekd172012271

am sure that the 'contempt' that Ann attributes to 'Darwiniacs' will undoubtedly be thrown in my direction.

Uncanny, sir. You must be psychic!

No bomby. She does quote Darwin on the evolution of the eye, though, which is almost as good.

(Yes, I've got a copy of the relevant chapters now. It's awful.)

But rather than reading ABOUT her book. Maybe some of you should try an exercise in intellectual honesty and read it

"Jonathon, I think that you are playing coy. Exactly what did you mean then, by "with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the creationists"?"

No, you are just having difficulty reading. I meant exactly what I said -- that Dawkins didn't like the score being so close. In fact, in the debate he made this impassioned plea for people not to vote for the Creationists even if they are leaning in that direction. It was quite amusing.

Re Gerard's #105674, "Uncanny, sir. You must be psychic!"

ROFL

Henry

LOL!

It's great how you guys prove Ann had you guys pegged. Darwinism *is* the Catholic Church of the 21st century. Either subscribe to it's laughable concept of science (I particularly love the attempts to equate evolution with gravity), or be subjected to a witch hunt.

Usually you can tell how religious and fanatical a belief is by their attempts to censor opposing thought. Darwinism has definitely become quite the religious faith.

I applaud you all. You have far more faith than I could ever have.

Randy

Censor opposing views? Who does more of that, Panda's Thumb or Uncommon Descent?

I actually just yesterday sent an email to Dr Steve Steve suggesting the rebuttal idea for PT. The worrying thing about Coulter is the sheer size of her audience, which greatly outstrips Behe and Dembski combined (numbers pulled from my information suppository, admittedly).

She occupies a rather more prestigious bit of the bookstore than the science section - the bit where they store bestsellers with life-size cardboard cutout displays, and as such, the damage her ill-informed sophistry could do to actual science education is proportionately larger.

The fact that no one with a clue takes her vitriol seriously ignores both the clueless and those who might surmise that there is no smoke without fire.

Interesting. Mr. Magruder breezes in here, accuses you all of intellectual dishonesty, and then triumphantly proclaims that if you attack him, it means you prove Ann Coulter right. So, in other words, he insults you, and then criticizes you when you respond. Priceless.

Also interesting how many evolution-bashers try to peg evolution as a "religion", meant pejoratively. Any number of these same people are complaining that religions are wonderful (at least whatever religion they happen to believe in) and science is evil atheism. Hmmm. Is calling something a religion an insult? If so, why are these people promoting religion over science?

Usually you can tell how religious and fanatical a belief is by their attempts to censor opposing thought.

it's laughable concept of science

Nonetheless, she does a good job making her case. It's a footnoted book, and many of the sources can be found in published material on the web. There were a couple of times I was reading the chapters on evolution and thought "No *WAY*!! She must be taking this out of context" and then I went and found the citation and realized she wasn't.

Actually, I'm opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out, Creationism is out, and evolution is out. No problem there.

>> Oh, yeah...evolution is equated with gravity in that they are both excellent theories that explain much of the universe we see around us---not that they are in any other way identical. >>

I can produce the equations for gravity, run the numbers, and then easily reproduce the calculated behavior in a lab. I may have missed it in the scientific journals, but where precisely, are evolution's equations? Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn't 'fight back' when you were done meddling and revert to the original species). I'm open minded enough to check into this if you'll provide me with hard science instead of just giving me whatever currently passes for 'popular consensus'.

If you ever wanted any proof of the religiousity of evolutionists, the fact that Piltdown man lasted from the early 20th century until about 1953 (?) as 'fact' in the minds of evolutionists just demonstrates that (in spite of their protests), evolutionists are human, too, and are fully capable of believing something because they WANT to believe it.

I enjoy pure, objective science. A shame so few in the biology field practice it anymore.

Randy

I gotta say, I smile at what passes for debate around here by supposedly rational people. I thought I'd find people actually discussing the content of the book...and instead I find:

"Coulter is just a publicity whore."
"What a kook."
"Clerly, she's a witless windbag. "

You guys clearly are some of the more gifted scientific minds I've run across....

Randy

Once again, macroevolution and microevolution ARE NOT DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Macroevolution is the aggregation of the effects of microevolution. Personally, I find the whole idea stupid seeing as species boundries are defined by humans, not some natural law.

And Piltdown Man was the subject of MUCH controversy, not some 'fact.'

Please stop. It hurts me.

Randy, your arguments are no doubt brilliant, but they're not on topic really w/r/t this thread. Accordingly, a board moderater will probably move them to the off-topic area of Panda's Thumb's sister site, After the Bar Closes. However, I've made for you a thread to present your arguments there, and on that thread you can make whatever anti-evolution arguments you wish.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=44909fd61a478790;act=ST;f=14;t=2224

>>Once again, macroevolution and microevolution ARE NOT DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Macroevolution is the aggregation of the effects of microevolution. >>

So you should have no problem reproducing one in a lab just as easily as the other...(and it should last when let out of its cage).

>> And Piltdown Man was the subject of MUCH controversy, not some 'fact.'>>

Interesting....controversy? Yes, sure, about how to interpret it. I don't see widespread belief that it was a hoax during that timespan. I've seen a couple of quotes from people who were hot and bothered about it, but the 'consensus' was that it was there and was real and had to be dealt with, and yes, many jumped on it as 'proof' of Evolution.

I went to the link of the guy who 'reviewed' Ann's book and thought it was enlightening that his most recently read book was "End of Faith", a book that basically blames religion for all the evil in this world, even from 'moderates'. I guess we should take all them religious people and do unto them as Stalin did (religious guy that he was). Or maybe the 're-education' camps of the Chinese.

My point in this, is that the debate isn't really about science. Most of the people who are such avid evolutionists could see God's autograph in a fossil saying "I MADE THIS!" and still not believe, simply because they NEED for there to be a naturalistic phenomenon that explains their existence. I realize I am throwing stones from a glass house here. The main difference is, I'll admit that my beliefs involve a certain amount of faith. A few promininent evolutionists have acknowledge the naturalistic/atheistic/materialistic NEED for evolution to be true, but all too many deny this very human trait, as if they are some how 'above' us mere humans.

Randy

Hey Randy - get on ATBC, it's fun.

I'm going to run the experiment you suggest. How long should it go on for?

Actually, I'm opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out, Creationism is out, and evolution is out. No problem there. emphasis mine

I'm open minded enough to check into this if you'll provide me with hard science instead of just giving me whatever currently passes for 'popular consensus'. emphasis again mine

Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab

If you ever wanted any proof of the religiousity of evolutionists, the fact that Piltdown man lasted from the early 20th century until about 1953 (?) as 'fact' in the minds of evolutionists just demonstrates that (in spite of their protests), evolutionists are human, too, and are fully capable of believing something because they WANT to believe it.

I can see how this thread could just get started going in circles.

I could respond to your long answer with my long answer, to which you could respond to your long answer....ad infinitum.

Any chance we'll meet anywhere reasonable? Or will it just degenerate into a flame war with personal invective? I'm all too aware that I'm on enemy territory and highly outnumbered. I'm not sure what madness possessed me to write in here in the first place. I guess I sometimes forget that this is not a subject that can be discussed without a lot of name calling going on.

I've been on this trip before. Especially when a discussion is done in a public forum, it turns into a giant pissing contest becuase no one wants to be seen as backing down.

Nonetheless, it's late and I'm tired. I shouldn't have posted here at all. If you think that my unwillingness to let this thread get even further out of control is a sign of cowardice, think what you will. I've already had my name plastered on a topic in another forum without my consent or permission, with basically the invitation sent out to the natives to go ahead and attack me there (and it's already beginning). I'm not taking the bait there, either.

I can see that this is how you respond to anyone questioning you...and that's a shame. Hardly worthy of associating the word 'science' with any of this. It's nothing but personal invective.

Randy

Randy - it would be a shame to back down if its something you believe in.
A logical argument will be appreciated here.

I hope you return so we can all search for truth together.

If not, be well.

Any chance we'll meet anywhere reasonable?

Huh, where'd you get the evolution is religion stuff?

— blipey

Or will it just degenerate into a flame war with personal invective?

— Randy Magruder

There is no science in Coulter's book. I just read over the "science" chapters this evening, and they're worthless: lies and mangled science and quote mining.

or be subjected to a witch hunt.

>>Once again, macroevolution and microevolution ARE NOT DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Macroevolution is the aggregation of the effects of microevolution. >> So you should have no problem reproducing one in a lab just as easily as the other...(and it should last when let out of its cage).

I agree that it is silly to think that Dawkins should debate Coulter, or that he even cares who she is, but I do find it odd that he refuses to actually engage in any public dialog with Creationists.

— Jonathan Bartlett

Randy Magruder wrote: I gotta say, I smile at what passes for debate around here by supposedly rational people. I thought I'd find people actually discussing the content of the book...and instead I find: "Coulter is just a publicity whore." "What a kook." "Clerly, she's a witless windbag. " You guys clearly are some of the more gifted scientific minds I've run across....

Ignoring him = censorship.
Addressing his arguments = personal attack.

Yay! Randy wins either way!

So you should have no problem reproducing one in a lab just as easily as the other...(and it should last when let out of its cage).

Regarding Coulter's footnotes, her research has been shown to be shoddy in the past: here and here.

So, did anyone actually SEE the show last night? Were there fireworks? Is there a video clip or a transcript out there yet? Or was it not worth watching. The show got pushed back because of a hockey game here, so I fell asleep before they came on.

I saw it. Bland, bland, bland. I haven't watched Leno in years, and I don't know how people can stand him -- toothless, lame, and boring.

Ignoring him = censorship. Addressing his arguments = personal attack. Yay! Randy wins either way!

I went to the link of the guy who 'reviewed' Ann's book and thought it was enlightening that his most recently read book was "End of Faith", a book that basically blames religion for all the evil in this world, even from 'moderates'. I guess we should take all them religious people and do unto them as Stalin did (religious guy that he was). Or maybe the 're-education' camps of the Chinese.

wow...this thread is still going? I thought I'd been kicked over to the other forum.

quite the echo chamber you guys have built here. Great furniture.

It's cool how it doesn't really matter whether I'm actually here or not, you guys can just keep feeding yourself for days...

Randy

LOL!

It's great how you guys prove Ann had you guys pegged.

You, sir, are an idiot.

When Coulter cites material that's was disproven when it was published, DECADES AGO, I doubt that she has pegged anyone other than fools like you who're eager to lap up foolishness that agrees with your biases.

Patterson and Gould. With those two bogus cites alone, she shows she has nothing of value to contribute.

I can see how this thread could just get started going in circles.

I could respond to your long answer with my long answer, to which you could respond to your long answer....ad infinitum.

Translation: I am going to be beaten like a cheap drum because I have no arguments, so I'll declare victory and move on.

Typical.

Any chance we'll meet anywhere reasonable? Or will it just degenerate into a flame war with personal invective? I'm all too aware that I'm on enemy territory and highly outnumbered.

You know what, Randy? We don't have to read a book that owes a considerable amount of its science to Bill Dembski. It's about time you get some intellectual honesty and actually read the copious treatments of ID that exist on this forum, on the rest of the internet, and in many publications. We aren't obligated to read every derivation of exploded pseudoscience that comes along.

Am I right to guess that Coulter does not put the Darwin "eye quote" in context? You know, where he mentions the many intermediate (but not transitional) eye forms out there. That was the primary reason why he even brought up the "eye question", so if she omitted the evidence that Darwin elucidated in order to show that the eye is not such a great problem for evolution, she fails as much in honesty as in knowledge.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"As for yourself, no one is being particularly rude to you"

Really?

>> "You, sir, are an idiot."

I guess we have different conceptions of "rude".

And then there's this gem:

"Translation: I am going to be beaten like a cheap drum because I have no arguments, so I'll declare victory and move on. Typical."

Where did I declare victory? As for your 'translation', you can believe whatever you'd like. But believe it not, a resistance to wanting to go around in around in circles and give up a decent portion of 'real life' to do so, is not always a sign of weakness. Sometimes, it's a sign of priorities. Do you have nothing better to do with your time than get into long protracted debates here? Everyone chooses their battles, including me.

To illustrate this concept a little more clearly, I have two children, and my failure to browbeat them for every mistake doesn't indicate that I think I'm wrong. It just means I've learned that one has to pick one's battles and not waste time on stuff that won't go anywhere. It's childish of you to just assume that someone who doesn't turn his life into an internet flame war is just doing so because he knows his position is weak. The Internet is full of cases where people allow their lives to get sucked into online threads and it takes them forever to extricate themselves from it, with no real profit for either side.

You can choose to recognize this possibility, or you can keep puffing your chest and believing what you will. Maybe I'm just getting old and tired, but your baiting tactics are nothing new.

Randy

No fireworks between Coulter and Carlin?
I missed taping "South Park" for nothing?
Harrumph.

Actually, I'm opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out, Creationism is out, and evolution is out. No problem there.

I can produce the equations for gravity, run the numbers, and then easily reproduce the calculated behavior in a lab.

I may have missed it in the scientific journals, but where precisely, are evolution's equations?

Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn't 'fight back' when you were done meddling and revert to the original species).

I'm open minded enough to check into this if you'll provide me with hard science instead of just giving me whatever currently passes for 'popular consensus'.

If you ever wanted any proof of the religiousity of evolutionists, the fact that Piltdown man lasted from the early 20th century until about 1953 (?) as 'fact' in the minds of evolutionists just demonstrates that (in spite of their protests), evolutionists are human, too, and are fully capable of believing something because they WANT to believe it.

I enjoy pure, objective science. A shame so few in the biology field practice it anymore.

Hmm... Behe an Denton support common descent. Even Dembski will begrudge guided evolution. Where does Coulter stand on that position?

Randy, you were invited, not kicked to AFTBC.

I'm enjoying the irony of you posting about how posting is bad for us.

oh, a little reading if you want:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

No faith required.

So, did anyone actually SEE the show last night? Were there fireworks? Is there a video clip or a transcript out there yet? Or was it not worth watching.

— improvius

>>Once again, macroevolution and microevolution ARE NOT DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Macroevolution is the aggregation of the effects of microevolution. >> So you should have no problem reproducing one in a lab just as easily as the other...(and it should last when let out of its cage).

Interesting....controversy? Yes, sure, about how to interpret it. I don't see widespread belief that it was a hoax during that timespan. I've seen a couple of quotes from people who were hot and bothered about it, but the 'consensus' was that it was there and was real and had to be dealt with, and yes, many jumped on it as 'proof' of Evolution.

I realize I am throwing stones from a glass house here. The main difference is, I'll admit that my beliefs involve a certain amount of faith. A few promininent evolutionists have acknowledge the naturalistic/atheistic/materialistic NEED for evolution to be true, but all too many deny this very human trait, as if they are some how 'above' us mere humans.

"As long as I can keep everyone here on the defensive by saying how mean and immature everyone here is, no one will notice that I in fact have no evidence for any of my claims!"

Dawkins explains his refusal to debate in his book "The Devil's Chaplain" where he talks about how he and Stephen Gould were working on a joint statement as to why they will not.

It has nothing to do with defeat or fear. It is entirely to do with refusal to give unwarranted and unearned stature to the pseudo-scientists who have no positive science supporting their position.

Unfortunately, Gould died before they could finalize the statement (which is why he publishes the first draft that he sent to Gould in "The Devil's Chaplain").

I'm not sure Dawkins would be the best person to debate them even if he were willing. He has the knowledge and his writing is excellent, but I'm not sure he would really focus on the roots of creationism, and if he did tend toward ad hominem it would reduce the impact of his arguments in a highly visible a public forum like that.

It seems to me those who debate the creationists make the mistake of giving creationist "arguments" too much credit. They tend to assume a defensive tack instead of going on the offensive, and they address the arguments as though they're valid. That's fine in the courtroom, but in a debate, the audience is lost.

Penn Jillette is much more my idea of the type of person who needs to debate them!

Those who missed The Tonight Show missed nothing. Carlin's monologue was not that great (a tried and tested tirade with new buzzwords substituted for old) and his time with Leno was standard fare. He didn't talk about Coulter nor did he say anything significant to her directly. I got the impression that he might have been employing some subtle sign-language off camera, but apart from that, it was a complete bust. I'm sorry I didn't sleep instead.

I had never heard Coulter speak before and now I'm glad I didn't. Where did she develop that grating, quavering voice?? Even if she were saying smart, sensitive, useful things, her voice would sand-paper me so badly that I wouldn't be able to listen!

Al Franken tells you all you need to know about Coulter and her books in "Lies and the lying Liars Who Tell Them" where he thoroughly shreds and discredits one of her earlier books.

(P.S. How come your spell-checker doesn't recognize "Dawkins"?!!!)

M!

Posted by improvius on June 15, 2006 07:42 AM (e)

Ignoring him = censorship.
Addressing his arguments = personal attack.

Yay! Randy wins either way!

Yup, that is why you don't argue with ignorants. After all they have the advantage of years of experience.

I saw it. Bland, bland, bland. I haven't watched Leno in years, and I don't know how people can stand him --- toothless, lame, and boring.

Obviously I took "with her will be George Carlin" to mean that Coulter and he were going to interact, which evidently they did not. Too bad, since it would have at least been one step up, even if they only jabbed at each other with canned phrases.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Randy the Dandy IDiot. Is time for you to go and lay into D_mbski's lap. Better yet since you like to use the term "pegged" so much why don't you offer yourself to your Domina Madame Coulter for her to show you some pegging.
Do what ever you want but just go!!!!

Honestly, how do you even begin to debate with that? She (Ann Coulter) summed up her 3 points in 15 words!!! That's about all there's time for on TV. You can't even begin to talk about heredity, natural selection, mutation, exaptation &c. in that time.

Mr. Magruder:

You have complained vociferously that you have been viciously attacked and slandered without basis. Having looked over the thread, here's my two cents.

1) Ann Coulter has a long history of savage attacks. Her attention is now turned on evolution. She has absolutely no qualifications to judge the science of evolution, and her public articulations on the subject indicate that she is using long-refuted material couched in her usual vitriolic and abusive style -- a style that is so offensive that even many conservatives have objected to her recent work. Needless to say, the reaction here at PT has been strongly negative. Those who turned to the book immediately reported that it is just rehashing (poorly) a series of old and older creationist canards. Rebuttals to this material are abundant, and I am sure that there will be an accumulation of more detailed summaries and rebuttals as time goes on.

2) You enter and immediately aggressively accuse evolution of being a religion based on bad science. You offer no critique beyond unsubstantiated assertions. Your assertions are couched in terms that have been heard over and over and over again by the community here. Not surprisingly, the PT community responds aggressively. The few statements that you have made have been refuted again and again and again. The overwhelming majority of these refutations are polite and detailed. For a sample, go to the talk.origins archive where you can find copious, polite information about all of your complaints, largely written for a non-professional audience. Sadly, most of them are strongly critical of creationist arguments because creationist arguments, when examined closely, are not just bad -- they are horrible. Several folks, irritated at hearing the same rhetoric aggressively regurgitated get a bit "testy" at what is easily viewed as a "troll" fishing for a fight.

3) The few questions you asked were not couched in terms of a serious exchange to resolve a problem, but rather were thrown as an accusation. For example, the way you asked for equations clearly indicated that you feel that there are none. This is utter hogwash, and the question itself belies your ignorance of the relevant literature. If you really want some math, why don't you start with Joe Felsenstein's site? There you can find math galore. Better yet, pick up any issue of the following journals: American Naturalist, Evolution, the Journal of Theoretical Biology. These are three off the top of my head that are particularly rich in lots of equations, but then again, almost any of the dozens of journals on the shelves of a good biology library will be chock full of the stuff. Much of this stuff works (some of it is theoretical, though), and can be reproduced in a lab, in field experiments, or corroborated (or falsified -- that's what makes it science) by a wide variety of observations.

4) Your subsequent posts have done nothing but ridicule, whine and complain. For example, post 105800 above is nothing more than a series of insults. Your posts remain here, and people have been responding to them over a period of hours. Not all of us have time to stay up all night and spend all day anxiously awaiting your thoughts on the subject. These threads tend to last for several days. If you are offended that people might respond to your posts, then don't post.

I have been as harsh to Randy as any, and I don't apologize. However, credit where it is due: He is much better behaved, and apparently more open-minded, on AtBC than he was here:

http://tinyurl.com/fge4g

(There are a few posts before any of Randy's appears.)

Presently, he does not seem to be so unreachable as AFDave and a host of other IDiots. I defer to the future any judgment about whether he can really deal properly with the evidence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Mr. Magruder, I will stick by my description of you as an idiot. I consider it descriptive, not perjorative, of a person who defends a person who uses outmoded, discredited arguments and who lies to support their position--and has been told that those arguments are outmoded, discredited and lies of ommission.

I find it ironic, since that shows that your reading of COulter's book is about as extensive as everyone else's.

Randy Magruder said: "If you ever wanted any proof of the religiousity of evolutionists, the fact that Piltdown man lasted from the early 20th century until about 1953 (?) as 'fact' in the minds of evolutionists just demonstrates that (in spite of their protests), evolutionists are human, too, and are fully capable of believing something because they WANT to believe it."

Actually, this is completely correct, though it's certainly not a valid criticism of the way science--even **gasp** biological science--works.

Scientists *are* people. The success of the Piltdown hoax can be attributed to several factors, among them British nationalism and the fact that scientists don't generally *expect* to be hoaxed. But a major reason for the success was that the Piltdown fossils seemed to show pretty much what most early physical anthropologists expected for early hominids--the expectation was that the changes that led the way from more typical primates to humans were headed by increase in brain size (that feature of ourselves of which we are most proud). So a fossil with a human sized brain and ape teeth was what was expected. This was an error in expectation, as became evident as more, authentic pre-H.sapiens fossils were discovered, but that expectation made Piltdown seem more probable than it would have had it been discovered a couple of decades later.

And, of course, the exposure of Piltdown as a hoax is entirely attributable to good science, from scientists, not from outside agents provacateur. The accumulation of contrary evidence, combined with new examination of the Piltdown fossils broke the back of the hoax.

But an important message all should learn from Piltdown is that scientists are *all* humans before they are scientists, and human beings do not come in a version which is free of bias and expectation. That's why publication and exchange of information and data are so important to the healthy growth of our scientific knowledge. And of course, evolution, and all parts and disciplines thereof, has been exposed to this healthy discourse for the entire lenghth of the existence of the theory. And our theory of evolution has been altered and improved as new insights have arisen. That's how good science works--and evolutionary biology is an example of excellent science.

Another important message is that, to do good science, one must at least attempt to recognize one's own biases and adjust for them. This means doing one's best to look at data free of a priori assumptions. And *that* means leaving all religious influences at the door, as religious conclusions never come from reason and considered thought (that's the meaning of "faith"--believing without, or even despite, evidence). And that shoots nonsense like ID and it's predecessor, scientific creationism, right in the heart. Kills them dead, which is what they should have been a long time ago.

Lynn

*I* said: "And that shoots nonsense like ID and it's predecessor, scientific creationism, right in the heart."

Eek! That should, of course, be "its." My Enlish-teacher mother will be turning over in her grave.

So sorry.

Lynn

I'm open minded enough to check into this if you'll provide me with hard science instead of just giving me whatever currently passes for 'popular consensus'.

Looks like we've got another afdave on your hands: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/i... So, here we are, unable to cure the insanity one creationist at a time when they walk in our door.

But come on, people, Randy's probably about as intelligent as her followers get. She speaks to the clueless, who would be clueless even without her.

She speaks to the clueless...

I saw the show. For those of you who missed it, this is what I absorbed:

- Carlin came out first, he was witty as usual. Getting a little old, but no less sharp. His monologue was clever and even poetic.

- There was a large number of people in the audience who came out to see Anne. Jay didn't seem too happy with all their cheering at each mention of her name.

- Ann came out. I hadn't heard too much from her before this (except that she was controversial), and I wasn't very impressed. She would not answer his questions without what seemed to be arrogance or sarcasm (at times I couldn't really tell which it was). She kept saying that she was surprised that the liberals weren't offended when she called them godless, and instead were offended by other things in her book. She made sure to bad mouth liberals about every other sentence.

-Jay didn't seem all that pleased with her, and Carlin didn't say much about anything after his monologue. Anne did make almost a compliment about Carlin being nice, for a liberal.

That's what I saw.

Actually, I'm opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out, Creationism is out, and evolution is out. No problem there.

Randy the Dandy IDiot. Is time for you to go and lay into D_mbski's lap. Better yet since you like to use the term "pegged" so much why don't you offer yourself to your Domina Madame Coulter for her to show you some pegging. Do what ever you want but just go!!!!

the fact that Piltdown man

Actually, I'm opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out, Creationism is out, and evolution is out. No problem there.

Most of the people who are such avid evolutionists could see God's autograph in a fossil saying "I MADE THIS!" and still not believe, simply because they NEED for there to be a naturalistic phenomenon that explains their existence.

He seems to advocate a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach to teaching biology. "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things."

I'm open minded enough to check into this

See, Dembski? It's because of people like Randy that ID will never win. As much as you tell them "ixnay on the odgnay", they simply can't shut their mouths.

the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

But then, here's the odd thing ------ we know that Dembski, Nelson, Beckwith and other ID luminaries are out there reading all this. We know that Randy's preaching is exactly what kills them in court every time. And yet I've never ever yet seen an IDer anywhere, at any time, ever tell another IDer to stop equating ID with religion. Never. Not even once.

Over at UD lately, though, you can see liberal IDers ask conservative IDers to stop associating ID with people like Ann Coulter.

Davescot's response? Suck it, liberal.

Over at UD lately, though, you can see liberal IDers ask conservative IDers to stop associating ID with people like Ann Coulter. Davescot's response? Suck it, liberal.

Actually, I have, once. In my local school district several years ago there was a push to get Wells' trash included in the science curriculum. There was a first round of public comments to the school board wherein people urged the Board to "teach God's truth" and made remarks like "This is a Christian community and our schools shouldn't teach atheistic evolution", the remarks being greeted with repeated choruses of "Amen!" from the audience. Literally "amen!" --- it was like a gospel meeting in parts. At the second board meeting the first speaker was a local fundamentalist pastor who warned the audience, "...especially my evangelical brothers and sisters", not to invoke religious reasons for the proposed change. Too late, of course, since the comments in the first meeting were on tape.

Carlin USED to be sharp and searing, but the last thing I saw by him, "You Are All Diseased", was awful. He came across as merely angry and abusive. I don't think there was a genuinely funny moment in the whole show. Too bad. He used to be one our finest comedians and observers of modern life.

Given The Shrub's, uh, approval ratings lately, I am very very happy to see ID associate itself as closely as possible with the, uh, "conservatives". One stone, two birds.

Over at UD lately, though, you can see liberal IDers ask conservative IDers to stop associating ID with people like Ann Coulter.

Dave Scott Springerbot is so far right that ANYBODY who disagrees with him about the slightest thing has got to be left of him.

maybe that's the "liberal" part?

Hello, Arden, yes, there is at least one liberal ID'er out there: me. I, personally, think that Anne Coulter's abrasive style lacks class and breeding.

The presence of social graces add 50 points to anyone's apparent IQ. The lack thereof subtracts even more.

Best regards,
apollo230

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

---

If you support anyone who is capable of making statements like that and still try and claim to be anything but a disgusting, ignorant, hateful moron you're a liar.

In many very open countries, statements like that would be criminal - incitement to violence and/or racial hatred.

The American right-wing is is as bad as the scum that put fascistic, genocidal governments in to power in other countries. Their idiocy gets worse by the day.

Why are they allowed on television shows as though their views are normal?

If you really want some math, why don't you start with Joe Felsenstein's site? There you can find math galore. Better yet, pick up any issue of the following journals: American Naturalist, Evolution, the Journal of Theoretical Biology. These are three off the top of my head that are particularly rich in lots of equations, but then again, almost any of the dozens of journals on the shelves of a good biology library will be chock full of the stuff.

— mplavcan

Hello, Arden, yes, there is at least one liberal ID'er out there: me. I, personally, think that Anne Coulter's abrasive style lacks class and breeding.

"You could even overdose on Journal of Mathematical Biology and Bulletin of Mathematical Biology."

Sweet music. Puts student complaints about Hardy-Weinberg into perspective for them real fast. But for real fun, I truly enjoy morphometrics.

Why are they allowed on television shows as though their views are normal?

On Ann Coulter and the likes

http://cupoffeats.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_cupoffeats_archive.html

I saw the Coulter appearance on Leno and feel it went as well as could be hoped for. Leno and Carlin showed class and Coulter showed crass.

She took a missile up her broomstick ever since she was fired by MSNBC and she's been burning venues ever since. Let her hook her wagon to ID and become their spokesperson. She'll galvanize the true believers but turn away everyone else. Thinking individuals will realize that her crassness truly represents the depth of intellect surrounding ID...

Over on Panda's Thumb, frequent commenter Glen Davidson in a gratuitous Coulter bashing festival, asks Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab? Good lord, Glen. Relativistic effects of velocity and gravity have not only been demonstrated they are used in applied science. The Global Positioning System requires clocks so accurate and synchronized that differences in velocity and local gravity amongst orbital and ground based clocks must be compensated for in order to achieve desired accuracy. Doesn't everyone know this? It's really old news, Glen. Anyone claiming any broad based knowledge of science should not have asked the question you did. What's your background again, Glen?

Here's a couple places on PT where I mentioned relativistic effects:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80198

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80214

I didn't tend to mention them separately, though I did once, because both graviational and translational relativity affect spacecraft.

I was the one on a post within a week or so who argued that relativity has been accepted because of evidence, not because of "usefulness". I could link to it, but would rather let that thread rest.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Why yes, it is old news: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80198 http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80214 I have mentioned observed relativistic effects on PT. The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post: "Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn't 'fight back' when you were done meddling and revert to the original species." Then followed my question: "Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. ... So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab." I am more than a little aware of the observations supporting relativity, but I was countering the old canard that if "macro-evolution" is science it must be shown 'in the lab.' I finally had to register for this forum, simply because of the twisting of a reasonable question into one that DaveScot wants to portray as stupid. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

What a surprise, the idiot liar won't print my first post on UD.

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't want his egregious distortion to be exposed.

I suppose it all comes out ok in the end, though. Anyone who actually reads the link, and can think, will know that Dave is just slow, and incapable of reading anything that doesn't fit his preconceptions. And that he's a censor, especially of anything that would make him look bad (well, when written by others. He continually writes nonsense that makes himself look bad, but again, we don't call him DaveTard for nothing).

Nothing new, of course, just the constant unchristian (at least as they'd identify "christian") behavior of Dembski and those he puts in charge.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

After leaving his egregious post unanswered for hours after I had posted, DaveTard finally puts up my response, and of course misses the context of my question once again, claiming that I was not honest with my question.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1236#comments

Vintage DaveTard. I'm always wondering just how much he misses (good grief, he doesn't even understand the evidence in favor of evolution) and how much he just makes up for "his tribe."

It's just another sorry day in the life of Dembski's blog.

I should add that Dave's comments in his original post did not say that I was bashing Coulter, but would leave the impression that I had been. While I did put in a few digs at her, she was hardly my target, so mostly I had been responding to Randy's YEC-inspired attacks on those of us who accept science.

Again, it's just another sorry day in the life of Dembski's blog.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"The first experiment in a laboratory confirming relativistic effects of gravity fields was in 1959. Here's a clue from old Dave, Glen. When you find you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging. Of course if you took that bit of advice you'd have to turn in your Darwinian chance worshipping paraphernalia and face reality head on. I don't suppose that's likely is it? -ds" I did not, of course, claim that no relativistic effects of gravity can be seen in the lab. In fact LIGO is designed to detect gravity waves, though no unambiguous results have been reported yet. While mere detection of gravity waves is not a huge use of relativistic gravity effects in the laboratory, at least it would be something. I would suggest that you quit trying to bury someone else into the holes you dig. I would like to see some evidence for LABORATORY confirmation of relativistic effects of gravity fields from 1959. "By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing." Of course this is one of the least informed comments that you have ever made. Even high school physics students often know better than that. Gravity IS cumulative, which is why relativistic effects of gravity appear around black holes and neutron stars, but it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. These matters are explained further here: http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm I mentioned finding the graviton in my post, because it is considered to be practically impossible to do. Glen D http:tinyurl.com/b8ykm

DaveTard did link to an experiment confirming relativistic gravitational effects in 1959, so that's all well and good. Of course I never asked for "an experiment" that showed gravitational effects, I asked, ""Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. ... So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab." [Emphasis added] Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"Keep digging that hole deeper, dummy. Pound-Rebka is no secret. "

Fine, it's an experiment indicating relativistic effects of gravity. Something I didn't deny was possible or that ever happened. So you avoid the real issue that I brought up, which is that the relativistic effects of gravity remain largely outside of laboratory effects, and resort to what you know how to do, put down others.

— Glen

"It confirmed with 10% accuracy the relativistic prediction of time dilation in gravity fields in 1959. Pound-Snider in 1964 confirmed it to 1% accuracy. Links to the original articles which appeared in Physical Review can be found at the first link I left for you. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you'd stop making faces and spitting it out."

You're like the Jesuit (sorry, RCs, but I'm just recounting the story, not claiming that it tells us anything about Jesuits like one of my teachers was) accused of killing nine men and a dog who triumphantly produces the dog alive. You can't find any denial of mine that there are experiments that confirm one aspect or another of relativistic gravity.

— Glen

"Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces and becomes the strongest. What part of it overwhelming the electromagnetic force in neutron stars and the strong nuclear force in black holes didn't you understand, Glen? -ds"

First of all, I had not seen that post, which may not even have been up when I started to write. Secondly, gravity is the weakest force. That is how it is characterized in physics, while strong gravity fields are understood as cumulative. I was responding to your post, which indeed was terribly mistaken Magnetic forces also become very strong when they are able to be condensed down to small spaces, such as in magnetars. Nevertheless, the electromagnetic forces have never been condensed down as much as gravitational forces have been. It's a shame that you try to cover up your egregious mistake by bringing up the cumulative effects of gravity. I had already alluded to the strength possible in high mass objects by mentioning how relativistic effects are typically studied astronomically, around neutron stars, massive galaxies, and the like.

— Glen

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Dave wrote: Gravitons aren't a relativistic effect of gravity. That's why I wrote: "...I mentioned the graviton because I want quantum gravity effects to be demonstrated in the lab."

"1) produce it in a lab"

"2) why do insects or higher level organisms fight against mutation?"

"You said you did this to "counter the old canard about the lab...". In truth, all your doing is avoiding the difficult question others have not answered after 150 years. Lets remain focused on the issues and problems with macro-evolution."

"Its a valid question. If scientist today with 1000's of years of cumulative lab experience amongst them, in nature and genetics cannot randomly mutate a new insect with novel features and have it naturally selected for survival in the lab and then have it survive in nature, then its a valid question."

"1) produce it in a lab"

"2) why do insects or higher level organisms fight against mutation?"

"You said you did this to "counter the old canard about the lab...". In truth, all your doing is avoiding the difficult question others have not answered after 150 years. Lets remain focused on the issues and problems with macro-evolution."

"Its a valid question. If scientist today with 1000's of years of cumulative lab experience amongst them, in nature and genetics cannot randomly mutate a new insect with novel features and have it naturally selected for survival in the lab and then have it survive in nature, then its a valid question."

"Pointing fingers elsewhere is not an adequate response."

"The experiments done in on insects, fruit flies, etc., were not successful. If RM/NS were true for McEvo, you could reproduce it. You could morph flies all day long with new features that would survive."

"Secondly, the overlooked question of why higher level organisms such as insects, fish, etc., in fact fight against mutations. This leads to more questoins which I've yet to see answered by the RM/NS answer. The regulatory process limits mutations. Why is there error correction, editing and splicing? Why are there dual pathways as backup systems? "These are valid questions."

"I've got the feeling scientist will design a new insect before evolutionist ever randomly mutate one. "I'm very curious to know Glen if you think one day scientist will Randomly Mutate a new insect, or design one."

The analogy between testing the relatavistic effects of gravity in the lab being on par with testing macro-evolution in the lab is false on it's premise. The relatavistic effects of gravity are peripheral to the core workings of gravity in general, not so with macro-evolution, it is THE core of the workings of evolution. False analogies shouldn't be argued with, they should just be dismissed. Mea culpa. You're right of course. I was bored. -ds

After a cursory glance through Glen's "Electric Consciousness" website, I did not find one mention of the most interesting problem of consciousness---intentionality. Curious.

Aw, the retard has a quote: "Curiously, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force in the universe. It always adds, never subtracts, and can build up until it overwhelms all other forces."

Update.. The article Davetard cites starts.. "Gravity is the weakest force in the universe." http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw89.html

Dude, you're rolling in the mud with a pig.

And the pig likes it.

Dude, you're rolling in the mud with a pig. And the pig likes it.

— Lenny

I guess we should take all them religious people and do unto them as Stalin did (religious guy that he was).

In the beginning, according to the big bang theory, gravity was the ONLY force in the universe. The other three forces separated out from it as the universe expanded and cooled. In certain regimes (neutron stars, black holes) gravity continues to overwhelm the other 3 forces even today. And of course gravity is responsible for the overall structure and movement of matter in the universe. None of the other three forces determine the motions of planets, stars, and galaxies. Calling gravity the weakest force only has meaning in certain regimes. In some circumstances it is the strongest. There's really nothing more to say beyond that. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.