No Comments?

Best posts get no comments. That is because there is nothing to contest, nothing new to add. One just reads them with mouths open in awe.

coturnix has a point.

Although as a long time reader I am in Class A. They were indeed beauties Ed. I've bookmarked a few like the DI definition of ID comments, and your unanswered biogeographical question to creationists.

You just suck Ed.

;)

Not only do I feel that coturnix did a hammer/nail/head on the reason for the abscence of comment -- when I first discovered DftCW I spent many a happy hour exploring it -- but if there has been been extensive comment on one of your excellent posts, there's generally nothing to add after lo these many months/yesrs.

And now I've thought of something amiss/I miss. Please bring back the links to categories that you used to have in the left sidebar.

I didn't comment because I've read them all, and all I could really say is "That's an impressive body of work, my friend." And it is. Outside of our friendship, the thing that makes this my first daily blog read is the consistently high-quality, fair, accurate, and thought provoking work you do. I know how time consuming it is. So:

Impressive body of work, my friend.

I can't count the number of times I've started a comment, only to close it unposted. You are so much more articulate than I, and your arguments are so clear and consistent, I generally feel like I'd be doing a disservice by trying to chime in with some inane comment.

So I think both Coturnix and Pieter B are correct, the posts are simultaneously so good as-is, and yet removed in time, that posting to them seemed superfluous.

However, since I'm here, I wanted to say the post about your mother brought tears to my eyes. I remember reading it when I first found your blog, looking through the archives, and it still remains very powerful and moving.

I can't count the number of times I've started a comment, only to close it unposted.

I've done this too. Sometimes I might type it up in its entirety only to think....gee, Ed already said all this anyway and said it better, so why post it.

You do such a thorough take down of some of these nutjobs that there's nothing to add.

Then too, I'll agree with Jeff. It's hard to post a comment with tears in my eyes.

It's hard to post a comment with tears in my eyes.

Or as we say at the message board I share with a small group of friends, "damn blurry monitor . . ." Yes, indeed; that was one of the most powerful essays I've read in a long time.

When i read through the listing my first thought was: "yes, these are great, but there are so many other awesome ones too." I could see no point in providing that at that time. And i also stand with Dave and Jeff in the camp of self-censored posters who feel some of my efforts are not worthy of consideration given the power and articulateness of yours.

Thanks for all that wonderful ego stroking, folks. That wasn't my intent. I was more surprised that all of the new readers I've picked up over the last few weeks hadn't commented on any of them. I am glad that the essay on my mother moved others as much as it moved me to write.

Well I've been mainly a lurker on this site and others (e.g. Panda's Thumb) since December or so, while anticipating the Dover outcome. I'm really just trying to absorb all this information. I have a B.S. (chemistry) but I didn't take a lot of Biology. I don't know how a lawyer (the one from DI) can say with a straight face he can understand all this.

Having said that, I like to think I've learned a lot in the past month or so, so I thank you and all the others for providing valuable information.

On a side note, you may have already seen this and commented on it:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

A few days later, I read that bears and dogs are related, and that a fossil was found that appeared to be a cross between a bear and a pit bull. The authors of the article I linked weren't really addressing that, but I thought it was funny in hindsight. ;)

Oh for crying out loud, that entire exchange is invented. Johanson never claimed that the knee joint in question belonged to Lucy. That knee joint was found much earlier and had already been published about. It belonged to an australopithecene, but not Lucy. Jim Lippard has actually made this a case study of creationist dishonesty. This story has been repeated (though this particular form of it seems particularly deceitful) widely in creationist literature but it's completely false.

This blog, and a few others, are my stock answer to my son's question "Why do you read blogs?" Occasionally I comment but it's mostly to express appreciation.

I was going to leave a comment in regards to your rebuttal to Governor Romney by linking to a letter that someone else had written and sent to him about marriage throughout recorded history. Unfortunately, the link no longer works... I happen to have saved the letter, though, so I could still share it if you like.