Official number of attempts to address my challenge of the science in Coulter's book:
0
I seem to have drawn in one Coulter fan in the comments who can't shut up, but he hasn't got the guts to stand up for anything specific that she has said.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It only took five years. Remember, my Coulter Challenge was for someone to take any of Coulter's paragraphs about evolution from her book Godless, and cogently defend its accuracy. It's been surprising how few takers there have been: lots of wingnuts have praised the book and said it is wonderful,…
A while back, I wrote a response to Coulter's piss-poor excuse for a book, Godless. It's actually fairly long and substantial; since there was absolutely no accurate statement of either fact or theory on the subject of evolution in the entire book, and since there was nothing specific to address, I…
Scarcely do I mention Ann Coulter and my challenge to her fans, than one such fan shows up in the comments. You will not be surprised that this person didn't even try to meet the challenge, which is to cite some specific paragraph in Coulter's drecky book, Godless, that they considered to be…
Responses to my challenge at the end of this article are trickling in, but so far, none of them are filling the bill. Let me explain what is not an appropriate reply:
Cackling that Coulter must be right because she's got "liberal panties in a twist" is not cogent.
Telling me that the "WHOLE BOOK…
Haha, this is my new favorite blog!
At this point, I'd be curious to see even a coherent explanation from some Coulter fan to the effect that they don't want to play a game under your ground rules. While there is nothing particularly onerous about expecting a defense of a specific paragraph, I think that response has some legitimacy.
What a surprise.
What Coulter makes her money on is a sort of neocon porn, pretty much the same as a bigot telling dirty ethnic jokes to a bunch of other bigots.
Analyzing the jokes for truth isn't part of the deal. In fact it would ruin it for them, so the deafening silence is not a surprise.
Please, PZ,
I haven't shut up thus far-- because in these grounds no one except me has the ability or impetus to keep you honest. Everybody's your liberal crony. You'd crow with wild abandon were it not for a single voice HERE, opposite this narcissism you consider above repoach.
As for guts; I've given Pharyngula enough hell for one man; and you & your cohorts never seem to bring me to heel; you only retort with animosity. While I, because I realize this is private property, take care not to be too feisty or abrasive. You'd just silence me the same as Arianna has; knowing perfectly well there's no reasonable way to rebut me. You'd axe my entry into this blog like cowards. Can't face honest competition. And I'm not even pretending to be a doctor or professor.
Strange how you've had to recoil at the straightforward posts of one self-educated Christian & conservative. You were supposed to bang me up with flair, and you whimper because I don't ''shut up.''
OK, if I haven't read the book we're quarreling about --it's not on account of you. You haven't intimidated me. But why are you claiming to be unchallenged? Do you think this blog had national importance enough to draw fire from all 52 states? Don't flatter yourself. Take what you're offered.
Oh, please. Everyone knows *I'm* the sole voice of reason that keeps PZ honest.
Why is it that the people who claim to have been self-educated know little to nothing about everything, and what they do know seems to have been gotten wrong?
And they can't even read a book before they begin authoritatively stating opinions about it -- for shame, for shame!
Posted by: tumbler | June 22, 2006 11:58 PM
Take what you're offered.
Well tumbler, he might if you were actually offering anything. Take up the challenge and see how you do. What's the worst that can happen? You'll be deleted, you say? So what? Dare to show some of that ol' time religion and try defending your creationist beliefs (or Coulter's, at any rate.)
"You'd just silence me the same as Arianna has; knowing perfectly well there's no reasonable way to rebut me."
How can one rebut someone who never actually comes out and says anything? You've rambled on incessantly without making a single claim other than attesting to your own bravdo and genius... while never actually getting around to demonstrating it.
You want a response man, then SAY SOMETHING. And people will respond.
You VOUS? keeping the professor honest? I haven't heard your voice or your reason. PZ Myers has heard mine; and now he says I won't shut up. He's actually been conspicuous by his absence whenever I submit posts.
Do you read, Caledonian? I'll match you book for book. Who's an author you can vouch for, Sola Voce? --Does opera appeal to you? I get a charge out of it. Il mio piacere incomparabile. Rispondi. --Ciao.
All 52, huh? Personally, I'd be happy to get to 50.
I'm not even going to try to touch that one.
Dear Schnorrers:
You expect me then, to expound upon a book (books) I haven't read? I can tell you all about The Magic Mountain, and The Biography of Alice B. Toklas. Or the Holy Bible. But all I can say about Ann Coulter is, she's refreshing and BOLD. Great attributes in a young writer.
I see it in her weekly columns. Not the best-sellers or TV interviews. While all of you, her detractors and denigrators; have stated up front you will not buy her book to save your lives; BUT, yet you're informed enough to hate her with a passion? You're no better informed than I.
So, logic tells me you're merely unhappy to be the objects of her disgust. And she says it honestly, without apologies. Bravo, Cool Ann! --How's that for a quick commentary on Ann Coulter? Don't complain; I served you as you demanded. Coulter detests you all, Libs. What else?
You cut me, nwren. I'm curious what the other two states are. I have suspicions as to what state this cat's in, but it would be unseemly to say so.
For the record, I'm self-educated too. The difference between myself and Tumbler is that I had a good teacher.
Opera? Where in the world does the opera connection come in? Pretentious much?
I don't hate Coulter. I feel pity for her, and disgust that the lies and hate she peddles find an audience, but I don't hate her. However, in the interest of teaching her to a better person, I think she should have a live weasel shoved up her ass.
"Young writer"? She's in her mid- to late-fourties and has, what, four books on the market. She's been a public pundit since the mid '90s (wasn't it '96 or so when she told a disabled Vietnam Vet he was the reason the U.S. lost that war?) Let's be serious. It's not like Ms. Coulter's some cherub-cheeked fresh new talent, taking on the literary world with nothing but pluck and gumption.
And for whatever it's worth, I don't care if she hates me or not. Not like she's ever met me, so what does she know?
OK, if I haven't read the book we're quarreling about [...]
You keep forgetting that "S" on the front of your name.
We don't buy AC's book because she sounds and writes like an impudent child. Goading us to buy her books, which by the way have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to house a density of falsehoods not yet witnessed by man, is like daring us to argue intelligently with a primadonna spoiled child that demands anything and everything it desires. You're not putting up a reputable opponent for debate.
Am I saying that AC is not a suitable debate candidate? Well...yes actually.
On the other hand, people have been in debates with, and challenged AC to debates multiple times. All she comes with is recitations from her books.
If you want us to debate intelligently, at least find someone a touch more qualified, like George Will. If AC is the best representative for truth you have, there's hope for this country yet.
tumbler, is this quote "I seem to have drawn in one Coulter fan in the comments who can't shut up, but he hasn't got the guts to stand up for anything specific that she has said." referring to you.
If so mumbles, why the lack of guts?
Maybe Iraq and Afghanistan are the 51st and 52nd states of the United States of America.
Except the people don't have senators or congressmen or even civil order.
But they do have religious theocrats who want to run the country and lots and lots of guns.
Capt. Mike, Ciao!
Capt Mike, '' For the record, I'm self-educated too. The difference between myself and Tumbler is that I had a good teacher.'' A borrowed quip? Never mind, Mike. Are you that erstwhile weatherman from San Diego? I was your fan. Very humorous type. What happened? Weasel got you?
Don: My question was well meant. One Caledonian appeared to doubt my level of intelligence. ''Shame, shame.'' So I made a try at scoping HER level of intelligence. It seems to have intimidated her. She likely enough listens to Aretha. (There is nothing wrong with that.) Don; is opera a dislike or a favorite of yours? Is it a favorite of ANYONE in this contrary blog?
tumbler, you are the very definition of a troll. You say absolutely nothing of substance, at great great length, mostly just vaugely insulting everyone you can think of and acting in general like a dick for no obvious reason.
You aren't going to get booted out of here because of your viewpoint. You're going to get booted out of here because your lack of a viewpoint is a waste of everyone's time and patience. Every post of yours I've read has been an exercise in wishing I could get back the time I've lost. Not a single thing you've said so far has made any appreciable point worth remembering.
And no one with a brain will have the least bit of regret about tossing you out. I'm sure you'll whine and bitch about it to whatever next blog you plop yourself down in before being run off again. I feel really really, sorry for those new people.
I don't see your problem, Gang;
You say, ''We don't buy AC's book because she sounds and writes like an impudent child. Goading us to buy her books, which by the way have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to house a density of falsehoods, blah.'' When you haven't read the book being flamed here, how can you comment on its content? I don't; and they want me to know it's from my lack of guts. A dubious motive indeed, for so much hatred.
I know only what I see in the media about Godless. Neither do any of you. PZ least of all; but he issues a challenge. We should bring forth a snippet from the book and HE shall demonstrate how pathetic it actually is. Poor Ann. Does she realize who PZ Myers is?
Oh, do we have an opera thread now? I don't think it will last (just a bit off topic, don't you know?), but it might be fun for the nonce. However, I prefer the Sturm und Drang of the noisy German stuff, viz., Wagner and Strauss (R., not J.). I'm even rather fond of the completely imaginary stuff.
I wonder, though, what this alpha-male display behavior is all about. The focus of this site is biology. That makes most of us here members of the laity. We can express our opinions with varying degrees of persuasiveness, based on varying degrees of knowledge, but randomly piling up personal attributes doesn't accomplish much. It smells of squandered testosterone.
But all I can say about Ann Coulter is, she's refreshing and BOLD. Great attributes in a young writer.
She's 45.
Forty-five.
Four to the friggin' five.
Personally, I found her words of support for Tim McVeigh quite "refreshing"; after I bathed the stench of it off of me.
hey plunge, I second your motion to ban tumbler.
your comments were on mark, however they appeared to go over his head (possibly because it's a pinhead). Not even once has any sense been observed in his posts. Dissenting posts are a welcome challenge but that appears to be beyond his scope or ability.
Dear Plunge:
If you're looking for PZ Myers to bounce me for not giving you & others the necessary excitement (punching-bag) and satisfaction, maybe he ought to sell tickets to the spectacle. But remember; what if they had a war and nobody came?
You might be the only one present to see something. You'd only have your own dick to play with, once again. Don't let this excite you.
I know only what I see in the media about Godless. Neither do any of you. PZ least of all; but he issues a challenge. We should bring forth a snippet from the book and HE shall demonstrate how pathetic it actually is.
This is untrue. In previous posts, Prof. Myers has addressed points made in Godless concerning the stuff she said specifically on evolution. He notes in this post, where he points out a number of misfires and outright lies. He goes into more detail here and here. Perhaps you missed them?
Once more, then Goodnight:
Bravo, Cool Ann! --How's that for a quick commentary on Ann Coulter? Don't complain; I served you as you demanded. Coulter detests you all, Libs. What else?
This is a science blog focused on biology, not a political blog. The only reason PZ has brought up Coulter, as far as I can tell, is to point out that her recent book appears to contain uncounted errors on scientific issues. He's an expert, and is wondering if any of Coulter's fans can defend *any* of the scientific claims she makes. So far, all I'm hearing on that score is the crickets. And I'm getting the impression that Coulter readers know even less biology than she does.
If any of us want to "debate" the merits of Coulter's political views, I'm sure we can find other forums to do that. But I suspect most of us would find the experience pointless: Coulter seems to be all rhetoric, no evidence, and we science types find the evidence for claims to be the interesting part.
And the rhetoric itself? Ghoulish (9/11 widows enjoy their husbands' deaths), demented (Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the NYT), and fascist (can you tell the difference between Hitler and Coulter?). I wouldn't accept an offer to debate against David Duke or Georg Haider on their political views, and the same goes for Coulter.
I'm sorry, Matt--
Your post appeared after mine, and I was about to log off.
I base my previous statement on the lead in at the top of this thread. Coulter Challenge Status. I don't know much else about Prof Myer's vendetta against Coulter. I gather it's about science.
Well; she isn't a qualified judge of evolution science I know. Her fury is really directed at the liberal agenda that demands it ratified and required in the schoolroom. As if it contained no noticeable flaw. As anyone can see, it does. We refer to it as a Missing Link.
"If you're looking for PZ Myers to bounce me for not giving you & others the necessary excitement (punching-bag) and satisfaction, maybe he ought to sell tickets to the spectacle."
Trolls get tossed all the time, and somehow, the world turns without you. No one is asking for punching bags. But you have had nothing at all to say, and have basically just tried to be as annoying on offtopic as possible. You're a pest and nothing less. You'd be just as dull and unwelcome on any board of any political stripe.
Tumbler:
Why not read Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale"? It's a beautifully written book that traces humanity's ancestors back through the tree of life. There are many "links" in this chain which we can see, and the pattern of genetic and fossil evidence points clearly to common descent.
Do we have a complete record of every organism mankind descended from, back to the start of life itself? Of course not, and we never will. But the pieces we can see, much like the handul of frames a video camera records of an event unfolding in real time, are evidence enough for the vast, vast majority of scientists. To speak of a single "missing link" is bizarre, and a dated bit of pop science.
Oh, and that vast majority of scientists believing in evolution? It must include the majority of conservative *and* liberal scientists. Evolution doubters are so few in number among biologists that there is simply no way that a majority of conservative biologists oppose evolution. So how can it be a liberal plot?
Well; she isn't a qualified judge of evolution science I know. Her fury is really directed at the liberal agenda that demands it ratified and required in the schoolroom. As if it contained no noticeable flaw. As anyone can see, it does. We refer to it as a Missing Link.
That doesn't make any sense. Is it merely part of the "liberal agenda" that other scientific theories such as gravity or the photoelectric effect or photosynthesis? In other words, is teaching solid science part of the "liberal agenda"? And the "Missing Link", or lack thereof, means evolutions is irrevocably flawed? What in the world does that mean? I'm not expert on the subject, but I do know that there's no serious scientific concept of a single "missing link" whereupon hinges the whole theory. Evolution doesn't work that way, not by a long shot. The fossil record is filled with examples of creatures that represent change throughout the ages.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about. Prof. Myers asked for Coulter defenders to back up her claims about evolution, but it doesn't appear that you have a solid grasp on the concept. There are several excellent websites available to learn what you need to know, particularly Panda's Thumb and TalkOrigins.Org. There's also several very accessible books available that give the layman a deeper understand of evolution, genetics and the development of life on Earth. I personally recommend Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale.
And finally, I guess it's obvious you're not really trying to match Prof. Myers' challenge, as you're not making a serious attempt to back up claims inre: evolution, merely tossing about nonsense like "liberal agenda". Good science is not and should not be a partisan issue. And furthermore, by your own admittance, Coulter is not an expert on the biological sciences, however she took it upon herself to criticize various tenants of evolution and the reasons why serious scientists study it. She also managed to do some heavy plagiarizing, apparently, and get a whole lot wrong in the process by quoting the most dubious of sources. Had you done the requisite research before coming to her "defense", you might have known that.
I must say, you've mounted a pretty poor defense of Coulter's claims on evolution. If, as you suggest, she's spewing falsehoods and such because evolution - and indeed, good science - represents part of the "liberal agenda", then her motivation is, therefore, suspect and so is any defense of her. As a scientist and an educator, it is within Prof. Myers' right and responsibility to criticize someone who lies about his field in order to further a political goal, especially someone with the public access of an Ann Coulter.
You haven't read up on the previous critiques of Coulter by the site owner. You haven't read any of the book in question (while he has). This is by your own admission. You obviously don't have a solid grasp of the modern theory of evolution. You cannot or will not mount a solid rebuttal based in sound science to said criticisms. Your postings on this thread bear this out.
All we do know is that you really don't like liberals and you really like Ann Coulter. And opera.
tumbler's a giant stinky douchenozzle.
that's all the response s/he's worth.
Tumbler wrote:
Why should biologists take the Whore of Babylon's book seriously? She's just
the newest initiate into the ID Cargo Cult.
Dressing ID followers up in lab jackets and lifting laptops to the heavens
isn't going to get them the answers that evolution has provided mankind.
Maybe for her next performance High Priestess Ann can perform the
Ritual of the Sacred and Holy Equation for next year's summer solstice.
I would prefer Mr. "self-educated Christian & conservative" would keep his
cargo cult to his own tribe.......
Please forward to "tumbler" if he doesn't read this .....
Every major scientific acadamy has just stated that creationism isn't science.
As near as anything scientific can be a fact ( i.e. 99.9999 ... 9% ) Evolution is a fact, just like Gravity and QM.
Right, can you please show, in juyst one way, using either your own words, or Coulters' (and attribute the source, please) how or where she is correct, and where the experts have all been wrong for 150 years.
There, that wasn't difficult, was it?
We await a rational answer
The quote on the masthead, which I assume is PZ's doing, describes PZ as a "liberal". The post That danged exasperating caution appears to be explicitly political, as do many others. In fact, it's filed under politics, as are a number of other posts.
It's up to PZ to describe what this blog is, I would think, and clearly his focus is what he does and is expert in. But, until PZ says otherwise, it would appear that politics, as they touch on science and otherwise to a degree (based on what PZ has chosen to post) are indeed legitimate subject of this blog.
Of course, PZ can say this is wrong any time he chooses. (I happen to agree with his politics, but that's not germane, I don't think.)
sixteenwords---
Fair enough, and of course its PZ's blog, so it's up to him.
Tumbler did seem to be missing the point that the discussion PZ and others were trying to generate was on Coulter's science (or her politicization of science, if you prefer), and not a debate about political ideology per se, of which I haven't seen too many on this blog.
But then, most of the blogs I read are political, so perhaps its only in contrast that this seems to be a "science blog".
I'm almost surprised that no one from uncommon descent has had a go, given the post about PZ's projection.
The other dishonest thing Paul does right off the bat is uses the term "evolution" in the loosest sense of descent with modification and then presumes that Coulter is disavowing that broad definition of evolution when in fact Coulter is doing nothing of the sort but is rather only bashing, and bashing really well, the baseless notion that evolution is a purposeless process driven solely by chance and necessity.
Surely in that case there must be dozens of factual examples he can point to.
It's interesting to know that having actual scientists decide what is and isn't science and how it is taught in schools is part of the liberal agenda. I would hope so. Is it the conservative agenda to replace all teaching with the Bible?
Coulter as refreshing and bold...
Well, if calling for the deaths of Americans is refreshing and bold, then I guess you're right.
Ever notice how trolls want everyone to pay attention to them and never actually address the issue?
"Strange how you've had to recoil at the straightforward posts of one self-educated Christian & conservative. You were supposed to bang me up with flair, and you whimper because I don't ''shut up.''"
Oh, poor tumbler. To go through life with a misguided persecution complex about how it must be because he's "self-educated and Christian" that everyone thinks he's a baiting, long-winded troll. That sad misjudgement is sure to cost him many a friend before he figures out that the problem is him, not his religion or upbringing.
As to some other comments: PZ can call it whatever he wants, but IMHO this is a science blog that discusses politics from time to time too and arguing over exactly what to call it is meaningless. If tumbler thinks he can make a political point, hey, I'm sure he can go ahead and make one (I won't hold my breath for that either, hint: tumbler, just babbling about how you like opera is not the same thing as making ANY sort of point, political or scientific) and if PZ cares, he can argue the point.
Also, I wouldn't plainly refer to evolution as a fact, since there are many different things we could mean by the word "evolution," but rather as a theory (i.e. set of explanations and explanatory frameworks) that consistently and robustly explains an important fact (common descent of all known life with particular patterns and rates of modification): just as QM is a theory that explains some important facts (two-slit observations, etc.) That's a much more robust description of how science works than simply saying that this or that is a fact, which, while it's basically on target in terms of layperson terminology, isn't actually all that descriptive in the end.
And it's just plain goofy to give unrealistically precise values of certainty to anything: that's just insulting to mathematicians (besides, .9 with infinate 9s after it is mathematically exactly equivalent to the interger 1, weren't you listening to Good Math, Bad Math?!!).
So tumbler, tell us:
Which states are the 51st and the 52nd?
I am eager to know.
If every excerpt from the book we can find is a flaming bag of poo, are we really expected to rush out and buy it/read it in order to give AC a fair shake? My understanding is that PZ has read the chapters in question, and was so overwhelmed by the quantity of falsehoods that rather than write a whole book refuting her claims, he asked that anyone point out a single paragraph in the science section that they can stand behind.
For example, if I were a creationist, I might ask him to refute this paragraph:
Of course I'm not a creationist, so throwing him a softball doesn't seem right -- I think he may have already refuted this paragraph anyway.
Correct, I have read the whole thing, and it's exactly like that paragraph you've quoted: every sentence is wrong.
What I'm looking for, though, is someone willing to defend her lies. There doesn't seem to be anyone willing to do that, though -- they'd rather just sit back and tell us how cool and bold Ann is.
And every sentence seems to be wrong in multiple ways, too. Remarkable!
For all those concerned about giving AC your money, consider the following: There exists a fine class of institutions in this (and many other) nations. They are called "libraries". You can check books out for free.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the reluctance to waste the time, and at least a few bits of neuronal storage, on this material.
Ignoring Tumbler's brain-fart about 52 states (stuff like that happens to me all the time), has he looked at the international readership of this blog? Yes, T, this blog reaches all 50 states, and the uncensored part of the rest of the planet, too. (I doubt it's accessible in China or Iran)
But this is a common theme of trollery: ignore the specific request, challenge, or issue (in this case, defending the scientific content of one of Coulter's evolution-related statements) and just bluster a lot.
Oh, and I'm 'self-educated' too. It's the obligation of every citizen, whatever degrees they hold. Education stops when the heartbeat does.
shorter tumbler -
blah blah blah, persecution complex, pretenentious and irrelevant garbage, lie about coulter, blah, blah, blah, ad hom insults, and still no answer to PZ'a challenge.
I remain unimpressed.
Which states are the 51st and the 52nd?
Still in the planning stage, but the states are:
Liberaliana: liberals are deported here and forced to listen to Ann Coulter 24/7. Needless to say, no one ever comes out alive.
Califorangiana: a state created for residents of Orange County, California. Conservatives living here pepper their conversation with off-hand remarks about blowing up the New York Times Building and executing anyone who isn't conservative. No. 1 on the bestseller list: Who Stole My Ann Coulter? Darwin? Banned from the libraries. Actually, they don't call them libraries. They are known as "Conservative Science" reading rooms.
tumbler = DaveScot if you haven't noticed.
"And every sentence seems to be wrong in multiple ways, too."
Coulter's creationist arguments are interbreeding and producing hopeless monsters. She can't even get her supposed objections to evolutionary theory straight. Forget evolution--it's creationism that seems to be abused so far in her book.
I've read her columns. Blah, blah, parroting, blah, blah, I didn't come up with this concept either, blah, blah, look at me thinking for myself ("Darwinism"?), blah, blah, I need my hyperbole fix, ah, that's it! yakkity-yak.
When I read that tumbler considers him/herself intelligent because of his/her knowledge of opera, I almost fell of my chair laughing because it reminded me of a "Second City" sketch where a H.R. guy has to break news to a V.P. of his company that his I.Q. test came back, and the V.P. was legally retarded. Here is a short excerpt from the sketch which I think is an analog of how tumbler approaches these science questions (the whole sketch is worth a read at http://www.probablydavid.com/sketch.xml):
Work order, submitted to Troll HQ by "tumbler":
nonsensical posts on Pharangula: 37 x $1.77/post
ad hominem attacks " " 82 x $0.37/attack
factual supports of arguments 0 x -$1.26/fact
reasonable citations 0 x -$4.36/citation
bold-faced inaccuracies 13 x $22.56/instance
In case anybody was wondering why tumbler says things like "52 states", it all comes down to how the pay scale at Troll HQ works. The purpose of Troll HQ is simply to bog down discourse with inanity. Looking like an idiot while you do so is encouraged.
It's amazing how hard it is to stop feeding trolls. I'm not knocking anybody because I've been known to succumb to temptation myself. Just sayin'.
Oh, and I think I caught tumbler writing for 'the onion':
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49604
Mr. Tumbler, what you have been saying, are the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point, in your rambling incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
"tumbler = DaveScot if you haven't noticed."
For real? That dude has some mega inanity skills. The fact that Dembski has him administrating his blog pretty much is case in point that Dembski is a nutjob. Oh, well, that and and his mathematics are complete nonsense. Did you know that if you actually try to work out what his definitions of "specified" and "complexity" are, they end up being two completely contradictory qualities? Seriously: he wants to claim that, say, a human being has "specified complexity" which if you work out his definition, roughly equates to "something that has a lot of information, but doesn't have a lot of information."
tumbler,
I just read your comment that you have never bought a Coulter book; you simply read her Thursday columns.
With that in mind, What in the heck are you doing here? How can you defend statements about there being no fossil record if you haven't read those statements? Do YOU think there's a fossil record?
A few of PZ's posters didn't get banned; they basically ended up banning themselves. I can't imagine why you're putting yourself through this.
By the way, "Self-educated" and "52 states"... THAT was funny. Funnier than you realize, I'm guessin'.
I wonder if tumbler isn't trolling in the original sense: intentionally making up the most inane things he can think of to say in order to waste the time of those foolish enough to respond. The "52 states" comment increases the likelihood. Elsewhere, tumbler claimed to be nearly 70 and to remember WWII as a child. In that case, he should have memories of Alaska and Hawaii gaining statehood. I can imagine some young kid from a bad school district getting the number of states wrong, but not somebody who claims to have lived through the second half of the 20th century.
I also wonder if tumbler isn't posting drunk a fair part of the time. I don't mean that as an ad hominem attack. I've done it myself (not in years). Some of his comments are so meandering and incoherent that it is more of a struggle to figure out what he is trying to say than it is to rebut it.
"nonsensical posts on Pharangula: 37 x $1.77/post
ad hominem attacks " " 82 x $0.37/attack
factual supports of arguments 0 x -$1.26/fact
reasonable citations 0 x -$4.36/citation
bold-faced inaccuracies 13 x $22.56/instance"
Swallowing whatever Ann Coulter tells you: priceless.
"Well; she isn't a qualified judge of evolution science I know. Her fury is really directed at the liberal agenda that demands it ratified and required in the schoolroom. As if it contained no noticeable flaw."
Tumbler, if she knew anything about science, she'd realise that it doesn't contain any deadly flaws. No more than modern medicine, physics, engineering, or chemistry.
Why are you basing your opinion of evolution's validity on the views of someone who by your own admission knows nothing about evolution's validity? It's the blind leading the blind. It'd be like basing your opinion of George W. Bush's species on the knowledge of a flying squirrel.
Unlike PaulC, I have never posted drunk. Or even ever been drunk. I am just naturally giddy like this all the time. Tumbler appears to have a similar "talent".
It's scary.
My God, the more of tumbler's posts I read, the more hilarious it gets. I imagine if he was hired to sell cars, he'd go after customers with a convincing argument for the rental of bacon-powered submersible crab-robots. He's gone so far with the straw man fallacy that he's no longer fighting straw men, but attacking the straw dispenser at McDonalds.
Bacon-powered submersible crab-robots? How much? I'd like a dozen!
Has anyone ever seen tumber and John Davidson in the same room?
Dunno if you're referring to me, but I just picked up the book at that wonderful red-state company known as Target (where I got the last copy on the shelf) and have been reading it whenever I get the chance. Unfortunately, being the working father of two pre-schoolers doesn't give me many chances, so I'm still on the first chapter.
I have to say, I was really surprised to see this thread go from "0 to 60" (comments) in just a couple hours.
We do need to stop feeding the trolls.
But it's a kind of bravado on our part as well, I think. We who respond to lunatics like tumbler, and the entire ID crowd, feel a little bit of: _I've_ got something to say that will shut them up for good.
Never works.
When we are rational, they respond with irrationality (as they only can). When we get exasperated, then the giggle with delight, "See? I made those (liberals, scientists, evolutionists, atheists, etc.) lose their marbles."
I repeat my invitation to tumbler to come over to the Internet Infidels discussion board: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
There are lots and lots of people there that need to "hear the message of the Lord," the topics are very wide-ranging, and almost nobody gets banned.
I extend the invitation to all of you. If you've never visited Internet Infidels, come on over: http://www.infidels.org
"How much? I'd like a dozen!"
Depends on whether you take the optional lettuce and tomato injection system.
"That's not a straw man. That's a straw chorus line." -- Chris Baskin
I must admit, I'm terribly disappointed at the poor turnout for this Coulter Validation Challange. And I don't even mean that in a snarky way; I was looking forward to seeing whether it's even remotely possible for one to present some sort of rational/persuasive/not-babbling-idiocy kind of arguement for Ann's take on "science". Are there really and truly no Coulterites out there who can meet this demand?
TGIF, and Hi,
I'll be scrolling back up to last night's posts after this one. I scrolled all the way here first to reply to ''mms''-- a contributor of excellent tone and taste. It's a pleasure to find the kind of sanity he/she demonstrated in the post he--she addressed last nigt-ht; to me. Thanks, mms.
OK, your sensible objection: in a serious scientific blog like PZ's, why practice our Gotcha and vulgarity over subjects such as Coulter and Anger against Coulter? Your point is well taken. I myself am a Coulter supporter; practically alone in this ultra-leftist camp; so it gives me satisfaction to give this my free speech two cents. Even so; I wouldn't enter a thread like this merely to aggravate the knighthood of pharygula.
I only did because Mr. Myers played his pat hand triumphally titleing this ''Coulter Challenge'' and belittled me indirectly right away. I'm the guy who can't shut up. (Meaning nobody considers me capable of fencing with him --because i couldn't possibly. He's a professor. And Moi? A plebeian is all.) A plebe who agrees with you, mms. Why all the animosity and gnashing of teeth?
The other main reason I entered these parts was Prof Myer's seeming contempt for religion, believers and the notion of a deity. Such insufferable tripe, he indicates very boldly, only deserves the back of his hand. I soon spotted a variety of yes votes posted in his favor; the spirit of academe, you understand; and it appeared to me a fine place to deflate a few puffed-up Bozoes and even defend my faith in the bargain.
Telling you this is a rare privilege; not to be had at large in a godless, leftist liberal blog. You struck me more receptive than anyone else here in terms of a level head; somebody comfortable in ''his own skin,'' as they say among the chattering classes. Not just some vandal in search of Ann Coulter's personal property (to mar and splash grease on) --as so many here seemed to be. You win the Palm, then, mms. Thank you for your humane words, even though you may be a liberal. I believe in good liberals like you.
Robyn B.:
Agreed. I'm almost tempted to enter my own submission. It's pretty hard to write an entire book of lies.
No, you guys can't enter: it defeats the purpose. The idea is to find someone who will actually defend the science in Coulter's book. These seem to be very rare creatures.
I'm willing to overlook the 52 states, as I occasionally have slips as well. Heck, I switched up Peter and Paul! However...
"(Meaning nobody considers me capable of fencing with him --because i couldn't possibly. He's a professor. And Moi? A plebeian is all.)"
Not at all. Your rank has nothing to do with it. Nobody considers you capable of "fencing with him", as you put it, because after all of your posting, you still haven't done so. You've done the equivalent of standing 100 feet away, swishing your foil in ridiculous circles over your head and getting your hair tangled up in it while we all watch and wonder what's going on. As such...
"and it appeared to me a fine place to deflate a few puffed-up Bozoes and even defend my faith in the bargain."
It certainly would be a good place to do so; so, why haven't you? You have said absolutely nothing of significance yet. You've barely even constructed coherent sentences. I've read that you think that all Catholic tradition comes down by word of mouth from the apostles, that Ann Coulter must be correct in everything because in your opinion she's feisty and hot, and that opera is good. Would you care to address any of the actual issues raised in any of PZ's posts? We're still waiting.
You expect me then, to expound upon a book (books) I haven't read? I can tell you all about The Magic Mountain, and The Biography of Alice B. Toklas. Or the Holy Bible. But all I can say about Ann Coulter is, she's refreshing and BOLD. Great attributes in a young writer.
Tumbler, sorry if you've already explained this, but what's your opinion on Coulter's suggestion that Congressman Murtha should be murdered?
Coulter just makes shit up.
Insisting that SCIENCE and not CREATIONISM be taught
is not indoctrinating our youth to a liberal agenda.
It's teaching them truth and fact.
Which is what the reality fearing right hates.
No Jason not you. You're no where near as entertaining as this one. Thanks for letting us know again how you acquired the book
PZ:
I think this may be similar to posting a challenge to pro-wrestling fans to prove that their game isn't rigged. You'd need to find someone capable of following a scientific argument who believes that Coulter has proved what she claims. Even Dembski doesn't try to justify the science. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1213#comment-43255
Follow-up; to mms,
Oh,
I neglected to reply to: ''Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale"? It's a beautifully written book that traces humanity's ancestors back through the tree of life. There are many "links" in this chain which we can see, and the pattern of genetic and fossil evidence points clearly to common descent.''
I've never read him; but know him yes, by reputation. He's incomparable in so many ways, I know. What could I possibly learn from the man, except that God didn't have a hand in Creation at all? He is consistent in his atheism, I think. I happen to be consistent in my total faith in One God.
However; my view of God's Creation has never been exclusive of nature and its machinery; we may well be descended from a strain of mutated apes. I can support that much likelihood of "links" in this chain which we can see, and the pattern of genetic and fossil evidence points clearly to common descent.'' (to quote you.)
Except that my knowledge of His divinity (not delusion, knowledge) can see His hand in the development, not only of mankind, but every living example in the world, of flora and fauna. HE created it all, totally all, because it couldn't have created itself. He hasn't made it obligatory for believers to insist it was done in six days literally. Saying to Adam, ''Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return,'' is a marvelous way of telling us, you are carbon, or whatever mineral we can be pulverized into over ages in the grave. I am not a fundamentalist, nor Creationist in the sense of that word. Atheists associate creationism the faith, with a literal and biblically exact action by God. Catholics do not; except for the metaphorical and allegorical value of the texts. (Whew!)
It has been written as a revealed truth, to show us His infinite power and love. But a description of His works coming down from prehistory would be impossible and useless coming to us as a Richard Dawkins manuscript. How would a shepherd in ancient Israel have understood it? The plain reason for writing Genesis out so simply without the least jargon or boilerplate. It had to be accessible in every era, to every man. The style is purely functional and timeless.
That's why Genesis shouldn't alienate a learned man, or even a child. It's easy to understand. If you give a peasant in the country Dawkins to read, ''Here; it explains man's origin,'' he won't grasp the science. But if he reads Genesis, he learns about Creation. He learns, very likely the same thing Dawkins learned in his research. In fact; he learns more. God is the Mover. Dawkins hasn't found that out, because to him, Genesis is only fiction. --Jesus told His disciples; ''Even if a man should rise from the dead, they will not believe.''
Wow.
Just wow.
Tumbler,
Answer the challenge!
"I will suggest instead that if anyone reading this thinks some particular paragraph anywhere in chapters 8-11 is at all competent or accurate in its description of science, send it to me. I couldn't find one." - PZ Meyers
That's the original challenge. You have not addressed that yet.
You are a Coulter supporter, so stop your cheerleading and start supporting!
OK, Tumbler: having scrolled through the 70-plus posts on this thread and (so far) having not encountered anything that addresses the original challenge from Prof. Myers, let me lay down a different sort of gauntlet.
I'm a Christian. I've posted on Pharyngula quite a bit in the past six weeks. My views have been subjected to fairly stringent criticism, but at no time have I been censored, nor have my views been ignored or not substantively addressed. Quite the contrary. That's why I come here, because the material is substantive: 'meat', as St. Paul might've put it. In fact, I received a helpful email just this week from Prof. Myers with respect to citing from his blog.
My challenge to you is this: can you explain how any of your posts would be regarded as helpful to anyone interested in actually discussing the scientific merits of Coulter's views? Speaking for myself, I don't find it helpful either as science, religion or politics. If this tangent is meaningful, perhaps you should explain how it relates to this thread.
I might add that I'm not being a smart-alec. I've had similar requests made of me by other thoughtful people at times and I've done the best I could to address their concerns. You will note that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you have something of relevance to offer. You will forgive me for assuming otherwise if you don't reply in a substantive manner.
Sincerely...Scott Hatfield (epigene13@hotmail.com)
Spike says:
I repeat my invitation to tumbler to come over to the Internet Infidels discussion board: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
There are lots and lots of people there that need to "hear the message of the Lord," the topics are very wide-ranging, and almost nobody gets banned.
I don't have a message. I believe what I said I believe. If it pleases you, we can discuss it, and your objections to it. One more thing: I'm not a troll. My presence here is from necessity and my own self-respect. Just as you have them. And I've never called you a troll. Now; tell me what's so interesting about the discussion board. I might visit.
Essentially he's arguing that god created it all...
so we really don't need to understand it.
Am I wrong? Oh wait... he had no point.
Circles. Circular. Round and round.
Maybe he's an existentialist philosphy student just messing with us and pretending to be catholic.
"What could I possibly learn from the man...?"
Indeed.
You? I'm venturing to guess, nothing.
Others? A whole hell of a lot, none of which has anything to do with his atheism.
Why is his atheism relevant to the information he presents in The Ancestor's Tale? Granted, I'm only about a third of the way through, but I don't remember him mentioning his atheism a single time so far.
Yeah, speaking of which, I'm wondering what exactly makes Target a "red-state company." Jason is perhaps not aware that Target was founded in Minneapolis? Not only did Kerry win Minnesota in 2004, but along with DC it gave the only electoral votes to Mondale in 1984. Not such a red state after all, I don't think.
Just because Target exists in so many red states now that it has to support pharmacists' refusal clauses doesn't make it one of your own.
(tumbler was just getting so much attention, Jason was getting left out)
So Tumbler, you don't have an opinion on Coulter's statement that Murtha deserves to be killed?
"He learns, very likely the same thing Dawkins learned in his research.
Um, no.
So you are saying that the Bible is sort of a "Science for Dummies" book?
The documents and stories in the Bible were conceived by people thousands of years ago! They had no understanding of nature when compared to current day humans (and no, our knowledge is still limitied, and will be so for a long time coming). They attributed natural events to invisible beings. They thought there were actual windows in a sky dome that let in water when it rained.
The plain reason for writing Genesis out so simply is because the people who wrote it were simple!
"HE created it all, totally all, because it couldn't have created itself."
Translation: I don't understand it so goddidit. This is how the simple people of Genesis thought. "How did the world form?" "Goddidit." "Where did man come from?" "Goddidit." It's a simple answer for simple people.
"His infinite power and love"
...love...hmmm...slavery, killing innocent children, wiping out HUMANITY, damning humanity for eternity for the mistake of just two people...
"But he sacraficed his only son to save humanity!"
...a son who couldn't die anyway...being a godling an all. What sort of sacrafice is that?
This God ain't love...
He gave up a long weekend for your sins.
And he had plans for that weekend.
Maybe that doesn't seem like much to you, but I hate when that happens.
Just an FYI. I hadn't seen this before.
For the last week, in several posts and articles, the Rude Pundit and Ron Brynaert of Raw Story have detailed the multiple plagiarized and unattributed passages from Ann Coulter in her "book" Godless. In fact, it's hard to tell what part of the book doesn't have plagiarism or unattributed (or wrongly attributed) passages.
nicole:
Well, their political contributions go mostly to the GOP if that means anything:
http://www.buyblue.org/node/1963/view/summary
I shop at Target fairly often, myself. It's just a store. I have no politics invested in that decision. It compares favorably to WalMart on several grounds: the employees are better at their jobs, the inventory is less likely to be trashed by customers, and you are more likely to find higher end products. WalMart usually beats the price marginally on identical products, but I don't see that as sufficient grounds to go there.
How would a shepherd in ancient Israel have understood [Dawkins]? The plain reason for writing Genesis out so simply without the least jargon or boilerplate. It had to be accessible in every era, to every man. The style is purely functional and timeless. That's why Genesis shouldn't alienate a learned man, or even a child. It's easy to understand. If you give a peasant in the country Dawkins to read, ''Here; it explains man's origin,'' he won't grasp the science.
Good thing the universe is in no way a complicated place.
Wait, no.
I think Tumbler is really PZ pulling our collective chian!
"He gave up a long weekend for your sins."
Awww, snap. I never looked at it like that. Jesus was a damn righteous dude. :)
PaulC:
No, I agree. The thing that got to me about Jason's comment was the implication that only red-staters can make anything Big, Wholesome & American (TM), like Target. Target is obviously for real middle Americans, not for those liberal elites in ivory towers reading books with actual facts. But really, it's just a store, and one that happens to be demonstrably not from a red state.
Coulter, of course, also loves things that are Big, Wholesome & American, like strip-mining (she speaks reverently of it in the first chapter of this book as one of the heights of human ingenuity, something I don't think even strip-miners themselves bother to do at this point). Coulter, too, is demonstrably not from a red state -- rather, from a very elite and non-middle American area. I find it a bit bewildering myself since she's from about five miles away from where I live and I've never encountered her brand of irrationality around here. Republicans, sure, but real whackos? Not so much.
I attracted a number of learned types here, PaulC, and Kmarissa; a jormungandr and good ol' stevie nyc;
All intent on showing themselves how easy it is; laughing at God, ribbing a holy roller; yeah. They represent the best and brightest. In case it escaped you all; I only reacted to a valid suggestion by one apparently kind man. To read a book in which the great chain of links; all leading back to a common origin; and it mot help me understand the theory of evolution. All I replied was; the theory is already familiar to me. At almost 70, I've been exposed many times to the theory; and Dawkins may be the greatest scientist in your lifetimes; but I don't need him. You do-- since nothing else interests you. I merely stated that what I agree with possibly, in the theory; doesn't interfere with my continuing faith in God. You say I never made a point in all my ''comical'' posts. You say, laugh. ''We don't believe, and you must have rocks in your head, on accounta we're smart and you're dumb.'' You are all amusing and certifiably contrary little Dawkins-clones; except for his genius part. WHY? On account of God! he has no business in science!
He created the human race. Dawkins and you are purportedly humans, and so you needed God to give you the origin (and even your present existence). I have no quarrel with the theory as THEORY. Once before I pointed out that my faith in God is as focused and permanent as your faith in the theory is. I haven't trashed the theory of evolution. I see nothing wrong in a hypothesis of recent duration; until further evidence bears it out.
It's not so long back physicians were still prescribing leeches and blood-letting. They considered themselves true servants of mankind; sharing their knowledge with plebeians (such as me). Also, not that long ago; in just about all scientific circles there was a pervasive belief (faith again) in something termed ''The Ether''.
The ether and blood-letting as a treatment were supplanted in time, they are working hypotheses which nobody believes anymore. The best advice ever for a true scientist is: There is always somebody better than YOU at this pursuit. And maybe soon you'll find it out, when the theory doesn't excite science anymore. If it becomes passe, like leeches.
God has commanded our faith since Genesis, and has never come to an end. Jesus said, ''Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away.'' I believe HIM. You may not, and you may continue mocking the idea of Our Father right up until you go room temperature. When I die, I'll die in the faith; and I owe nobody here an apology. I haven't laughed at you, Chums.
It's not nice to laugh at the babbling religious man.
But it is fun.
"What could I possibly learn from the man [Dawkins], except that God didn't have a hand in Creation at all?"
Well, what could you possibly learn from looking through a telescope, except that the world isn't the center of the universe? People thought that this would mean there was no God. Well, hell, religion hasn't gone away, has it?
Science isn't about whether or not God made the world. Science is about observation and testing, and formulating theories, not metaphysical speculation in an armchair. Whether or not you believe God made the world, we can still make statements of fact, such as common descent, and Coulter saying that biologists are not scientists does not mitigate those facts.
After all, in my daily work I have to treat every religion, ancient and contemporary, as absolutely equal. That requires me to learn about each religion. The subject fascinates me on a sociological level, being that they are human creations. (It also highlights the question of how, in the absence of evidence, one is supposed to choose from among them.) You might learn a great deal from Dawkins' books.
Actually leeches are still used in medicine. Particularly in cases of reattatched limbs and fingers.
http://www.soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2002/mystery/leeches.html
"Except that my knowledge of His divinity (not delusion, knowledge)" - Tumbler.
Where did this knowledge come from? I'm not being facetious, I would really like to know.
I was never a weatherman in San Diego, by the way. But oddly enough I used to be in broadcasting. Coincidence? Yep.
Also, where did I borrow that quip from? I thought I had made it up and was very self-congratulatory at the time.
Tumbler:
I appreciate your effort to engage my comments directly. I suspect if you made a greater effort to engage directly with other commenters, you would enjoy your time here more. Scientists have a different way of communicating than non-scientists: when it comes to scientific topics, we aren't really interested in just "sharing our opinions"; we want to see if those opinions are supported by evidence, because we are all in this to learn. Making assertions you can't back up will bring out the critics fast, because you are wasting time we'd rather devote to discovering something new.
Moreover, there's a reason scholars are skeptical of the "self-taught". The sciences are too complex, too hard, and too large for self-teaching to work. As you read the literature, you need a community of students and teachers challenging you to defend your views and interpretations. You need to be forced to read things that present evidence against your prejudices, something you, as a "self-taught" man, have avoided:
"I've never read [Dawkins]; but know him yes, by reputation. He's incomparable in so many ways, I know. What could I possibly learn from the man, except that God didn't have a hand in Creation at all?"
As other commenters point out, Dawkins is first and foremost a biologist. As a non-biologist, I found his ideas (e.g., the selfish gene) profound, non-obvious, and enormously useful for understanding the world around me. I doubt you will "intuit" that idea, or anything else Dawkins contributes to evolutionary thought, from, say, second-hand reports of his atheism. And if you don't know what the "selfish gene" refers to, there is a huge gap in your self-study program.
(FYI: It seems to me that you could agree with Dawkins on biology and still believe in a divine creator, without logical contradiction. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other on whether a supernatural being exists. Most of us are therefore skeptical, but you don't have to be.)
"But if he reads Genesis, he learns about Creation. He learns, very likely the same thing Dawkins learned in his research."
There are hundreds of creation myths from all over the world. On the evidence, they all appear wrong, and comically so. In the last two hundred years, science has generated, and evidence has widely supported, very different ideas about our origins. The creation myths---Genesis included---told us nothing non-obvious and true, and misled us for millenia.
But since you haven't read Dawkins---or much else in the sciences, apparently---how would you know?
If you really want to be "self-taught", get some syllabae from a reputable university, and read what *other* people recommend, to challenge your preconceptions. Right now, you can't defend those preconceptions. If you read critics of them, you will either be persuaded to abandon them, or will discover how to defend them. But right now, there is no reason for any of us to take your ideas on science seriously. And that's why so many people here are dismissive of you.
It's very sad that the majority of people on the planet have not gotten beyond belief in a deity. It's a shame that so many human beings are incapable of seeing what is as plain as day: that a bunch of people long, long ago, before the sciences took hold, made up stories about the formation of the universe that are patently false.
We spend most of our time on the planet figuring out ways to entertain ourselves and make ourselves feel better. Might as well go about it with open eyes.
tumbler,
You actually had me going there for a minute with...
"The ether and blood-letting as a treatment were supplanted in time, they are working hypotheses which nobody believes anymore."
But then, you reverted back to unsupported faith claims.
If religionists would apply the same methods that the scientists use when they learn new things and replace working theories with improved versions and eventually with scientific laws, we might start taking them seriously.
Religions change over time, but never improve. Well, if their social philosophies become less draconian and more forgiving, one could say that is an improvement. But they never seem to provide better explanations for the natural world than the authors came up with 4,000 years ago.
Why not?
Because of faith - the ability to believe the most outrageous claims without a single shred of evidence and to take pride in believing the most outrageous things in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
So your visit to the blogs of a self-proclaimed godless liberal produced a whirlwind of pixellated hot air, finger pointing and some name calling (on your part as well, you seem to conveniently forget). You've managed to prove the truth of the bible writers who said that non-believers would mock those who parrot the falsities of the faith. Not a very profound revelation, however, and not unique to your particular book. And now you have to remind us how you are going to a better place and we'll all be outta luck.
You are correct. There is nothing new in what you say. It is the same hogwash that religionists have spouted as truth since the beginning of human history.
But what we non-believers have been asking since then, and are asking still, is just a simple request: Prove it.
"It's not nice to laugh at the babbling religious man.
But it is fun."
But don't let your kids make fun of his bald head! You know what will happen...raar!
One of the smart guys:
Jormungandr: ''He learns, very likely the same thing Dawkins learned in his research.
Um, no. Um, Yes.
So you are saying that the Bible is sort of a "Science for Dummies" book? --Bad analogy, nevertheless applicable to you. It's His revelation of the truth --But without blueprint or schematic. Made to carry one true message for all the ages.
The documents and stories in the Bible were conceived by people thousands of years ago! They had no understanding of nature when compared to current day humans (and no, our knowledge is still limitied, and will be so for a long time coming). You have a problem with this kind of divine revelation? Supposing it works? Don't fix it!
''They attributed natural events to invisible beings.'' Wrong; Creation is only natural AFTER the Creator gives it existence (out of nothing) and places it all, merely by willing it. God revealed Himself to man as omnipotent.
HE created it all, totally all, because it couldn't have created itself."
Translation: I don't understand it so goddidit. (Dawkins doesn't understand it; but he feels free to dismiss a Creator.
This is how the simple people of Genesis thought. "How did the world form?" "Goddidit." "Where did man come from?" "Goddidit." It's a simple answer for simple people.'' --They may've thought something else; a repugnant myth, like fuzzie-wuzzies in Borneo do even now. But God disabused them of mythology. He actually revealed His existence to a select people; they saw the truth through all the lies. God is eternal truth.
When His truth was written, it had to cover all the complexity without confusing the believer. That's Genesis. True enough NOT to say more than is necessary. Dawkins, for all his genius writes more than is necessary and still doesn't know a basic truth. God is behind all material reality.
"His infinite power and love"
...love...hmmm...slavery, killing innocent children, wiping out HUMANITY, damning humanity for eternity for the mistake of just two people... Say what pleases you. That's an imbecile's view of reality. God created all things good. He even called it all good. Mankind is to blame for the tragic world we see. But, worry no more: It's only in this lifetime. We have hope in Christ.
"But he sacrificed his only son to save humanity!" No doubt about that. To save us from our sins.
''a son who couldn't die anyway...being a godling an all. What sort of sacrafice is that?'' Whyn't you use a spell-checker, Mate? His Son is not a ''godling''. His Son actually suffered death and was raised up into new life. Proof that God is omnipotent. There were many reliable witnesses.
Note, please, Prof Myers; I have only posted this in reply to various of your friends' questions. Not to proselytize or gain a platform for religion. I answer truthfully what is taught in my Church. You may dispute it all if you like. I have deep respect for all good scientists and that doesn't change because they don't know God. You're doing good work. You only lack faith, IMHO.
Move along. Nothing to learn here.
You close your eyes and ears to fact and science.
We're here to discuss how Coulter ATTACKED science and the theory of evolution.
And she did it with lies.
We're looking for one person... JUST ONE to defend her argument.
Don't really know why you're here. PZ was right. You really don't shut up.
"He created the human race." -Tumbler
I would like to see some positive evidence supporting this claim, please. Barcode, serial number, made by God stamp, "do not remove under penalty of Hellfire" tag, anything that would give this claim some serious weight.
Hearsay, published rantings of simple people from thousands of years ago, or a "I'll see it when I believe it" style of logic will not be accepted. I want to see the evidence, solid evidence, testable evidence, that supports this. If this is true and fact, there must be something tangible to support it.
It's in the evidence, Tumbler. You can believe that God made you, but without some evidence, why should I even consider your beliefs?
The problem with this infered point is that evolution has massively more evidence, data and observable aspects than anything "The Ãther" ever had. This makes the theory (and don't think we didn't catch you try and redefine theory) that much stronger and the comparison is false. I have no doubt that evolution will continue to be refined in the future, but as of now its it on much more solid ground.
Please ban tumbler. He is disruptive and ruining this thread.
Bleh.
Tumbler's obviously incapable of rising to the Coulter challenge.
And he doesn't even do readable religious apologetics. Even those who arguably DO are, in nicer terms than I will, starting to question what this inane simpleton is hoping to accomplish here?
Right now, the only reason I'm not shutting Tumbler down is that he's doing such a wonderful job of discrediting Christians for me. So go ahead, knock yourself out everyone, and tear into the fool who has ambled in here.
I know there are sensible religious people who read and post here -- if you're feeling at all embarrassed at the Tumbler spectacle, let me know, and I'll mercifully terminate him.
Tumbler,
To put a somewhat finer point on something mss said...
We don't care what you think. You haven't given us any reason to.
This has nothing directly to do with your credentials vs. ours. It has everything to do with your ability and willingness to explain to us why we should agree with you.
If you're not going to accept the challenge, please go away. It's Boring with a capital B and that rhymes with T and that stands for Troll.
It's not that we don't tolerate dissenting opinions, or listen to opinions from uncredentialed people. It's that we've heard you express your viewpoint many times without giving us any reason why we should take it seriously. We've heard many other people say similar things, and it got old a long time ago.
You like Ann Coulter and you believe in God. OK. You've expressed your opinion. Now stop being boringly repetitive and evasive, or go away.
We're not here to talk you out of believing in God or liking Ann Coulter. We'd rather talk about actual reasons for believing or disbelieving this or that. It's far more interesting.
You seem to think the burden of proof is on P.Z. and/or us. It's not. This is P.Z.'s blog, and he's paid his dues for years, explaining and justifying his views. If you don't understand them, too bad. Go through the archives and get a sense of WHY he and most of us don't believe in God, and don't agree with Ann Coulter about evolution and I.D.
If you expect him or us to argue with you personally, you're expecting too much, unless you make it interesting. And that means making contentful statements and real arguments, rather than assertions of your opinions. (E.g., that Coulter is young, bold, and refreshing, or that Dawkins' doesn't get it that there is a god after all.)
We know why Dawkins doesn't believe in God. You don't seem to, so you're boring. Somebody might explain it to you if you ask nicely, but if you get all defensive about us disagreeing with you, it will go badly for you.
Get real. This is a liberal, atheistic blog. The burden of proof is on you. If your opinion doesn't get a lot of respect here, you shouldn't be the least bit surprised, offended, or paranoid about it---you have to earn our respect, and so far, you're failing miserably.
We don't respect P.Z. because he's a professor. We respect him because he frequently demonstrates that he knows what he's talking about. We may disagree with him about some things---most of us do, and will argue with him rather than defer to him.
But we know that he, unlike Ann Coulter, never writes 80 consecutive pages of sheer bullshit. And he never does what you're doing---repeatedly asserting the same stuff without argument, and whining if his opinion isn't respected. No, he doesn't justify everything he says every time he says it. He doesn't have to, because it's his blog and he has a track record---if you don't understand his reasons for something he asserts, it's probably because you haven't been around and paying attention.
And if you ask a good enough question, it'll likely get answered well, even if it's been covered regularly before. Most likely by somebody else here, because P.Z. doesn't have time to explain things most of us know, over and over, to every troll who wanders through... but maybe by P.Z. himself, if he disagrees with an explanation or has a better one.
You have not been making good arguments or asking good questions about why people disagree with you. You don't even seem to be trying---you seem to think you deserve respect for your dissenting opinions, period. You seem to think we haven't heard them before, or don't understand the most basic arguments for your side. You are sorely mistaken. Most of us have been there and done that, and you're in way over your head here.
You're setting yourself up to be a boring troll and to be treated as such.
please everyone, do not respond to tumbler. It will do no good and will just disrupt the post. He has very large hands which can cover both his eyes and hears at the same time. Especially when proof is submitted to him.
tumbler, please do your self a favor and find a bible blog to go to, there you can be happy in ignorance. STAY AWAY !!
Or at LEAST go to an ID blog a learn their weak and unsupported arguments.
They're as valid as your belief in god.
People here need lessons on how to deal with trolls. The only thing that's relevant is whether or not he met the challenge of the original question.
"None of this addresses the challenge. Try again."
"Nice song and dance you got there, but you still didn't address the challenge."
"Obviously, you're unable to address the challenge. Sorry, but time's up -- thanks for playing."
Seriously, everybody -- quit throwing b'rer rabbit here into the briar patch. Make him stick to the question at hand. Any other tangential topic he brings up should be ignored and brought back with the simple post 'Please answer PZ's challenge'. You won't get anywhere by adopting the strategy of 'give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.' He'll just troll here, stomping on the flowers of discourse in this garden of a thread.
Until he backs up Coulter's claims, which is his purported purpose, give him no truck, other than to ping him occasionally, asking 'are you ready to answer the challenge yet?'
My apologies to those of you who have thoughtfully responded to tumbler -- I know you are sincere and smart, and I am being peevish, but geez, this troll isn't even very entertaining. I can get the same unreasonable, uncritical schlock by tuning in my local christian televangelist.
I think Tumbler is really PZ pulling our collective chian!
I'd expect PZ to set up a creationist sock puppet with actual arguments, not just tumbler's inane gob-drunk blithering; all Homer Simpson's belligerent ignorance with Ned Flanders' science-denying religiosity. Tumbler's "limp-dick," "ankle-grabbing" hypocrisy is all his own, I'm afraid.
Dear Spike. Here's my thoughts on your clever constructions:
''But then, you reverted back to unsupported faith claims.'' They aren't unsupported, Spike. Experience has verified many things AFTER I'd studied my faith. I acquired a foundation that enabled me in young adulthood and to this day, --enabled me to stand up under REAL TESTS of my faith. A true story which is likely not to be welcomed here by PZ, you know why. I can relate some of it if you'd care for my email addy. Except-- don't bother, if you want to waste my time with your scoffing, please.
''If religionists would apply the same methods that the scientists use when they learn new things and replace working theories with improved versions and eventually with scientific laws, we might start taking them seriously.'' --What do you know about religionists? Nothing.
Religions change over time, but never improve. Wrong. Cultures change, not the faith of the apostles. And it cannot be ''improved'' because God reveals it. Throughout history, due to cultural pressures, certain norms or human failings may show exterior improvement or advances. These are only peripheral to God's Church. The underlying truth can't become false, or be overcome by men. Empires passed away, cities were levelled, great men came and went. Horrible trials and tribulations, wars. And always, the Catholic Church stood, and braced up civilization itself.
Try reading The Everlasting Man, by C.K. Chesterton. Highly recommend it to you, if you're actually a thinking man, Spike. The remainder of your post sinks into a ruin, never a humane thought behind your words; just cynicism. It's not worth countering, because it's clear you don't value the truth. You call for truth without any respect for the other man. Prove it?
My answer is simple. We who truly love God aren't just ''connecting the dots'' to see proof. Spiritual growth is something interior and knowable. The strength and freedom it gives your soul. We live without fear of tomorrow, with no fear of pain or poverty or death. We live fulfilled. I could shower & shave and have some wine later; and gratefully die before bedtime. Because I have God. He uplifts me. The prophet David says it in a psalm, perfectly (and remember we all are sinners, even he was)
''Though I should walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil.''
You have everything else, except inner peace. You worry over money, your kids, obesity, crime, the future. etc., And yeah. You should. you have your reward in this life. You expect to die and just flat-line out of history. Not a believer, a Christian. This life is just the beginning of everything good. We have a life that will never end.
nicole:
I agree that the implication is insulting and false. Actually, I'm quite proud to live in one of the most workaholic places in the country, Silicon Valley, which happens to be strongly Democratic as well.
Jason's characterization of Target as "red-state" is especially curious, since I always heard it portrayed as the liberal-elite answer to WalMart. Allegedly, the hip people pronounce it "Tarjay" as if it's a french word and brag to each other about their fashion purchases there. I honestly don't think it's all that great, but it's OK for restocking on essentials. I'm reasonably happy with solid-color polo shirts I bought there, but dissatisfied with most of the other store-brand clothes.
And always, the Catholic Church stood, and braced up civilization itself.
The Catholic priests who taught me high school science had no qualms about teaching evolution as the very foundation of modern biology.
The Catholic priests who taught me about Catholicism in high school had no qualms about teaching us about the history of the Church, with all its factionalism and strife and, yes, changes.
They would no doubt regard both your "faith" and your understanding of science as a jumble of obscurantist hooey.
Tumbler said: "Empires passed away, cities were levelled, great men came and went. Horrible trials and tribulations, wars. And always, the Catholic Church stood, and braced up civilization itself."
Nice to get the big picture - where little details like the Spanish Inquisition and that massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day don't have to be considered.
"We don't respect P.Z. because he's a professor."
How true. I respect PZ because he reminds me of Richard Dawkins, without the latter's well known restraint and tact.
I expected less abuse here than over at Arianna's blog. OK; it's less obscene except for spots. But hardly a generous or respectful domain. No complaints; I made myself unwelcome answering the various insulting questions posed by these great scholars who call others ''trolls'' with no excuse. Mostly infantile bed-wetters too carried away with their self-absorption. I'm surprised, actually at PZ's lack of good will. The great man will ''mercifully terminate me.''
OK, and this morning I had decided at first, tell the bloggers you're grateful for the time they devoted speaking to me. Even the flamers. I wasn't invited, so I can't kick.
Then I thought, spend the afternoon with the lesser egregious of them, the people of good will. After awhile, say to them this is your last day in their camp. You have no hard feelings, etc., I was very happy to meet all of them, sincerely. Let it be so.
Well; I won't wait for PZ to do anything in the least bit merciful. He won't ban me or terminate me. He'll basically shut his mouth, and not even say Thanks! Thanks for nothing! Buh-By! To which I mot have answered-- Buh--by, Prof. You're welcome for nothing! Ciao ! ! !
"At almost 70, I've been exposed many times to the theory;"
Being exposed to something is not the same thing as demonstrating that you understand it. Note that I didn't say believe it is true. I don't care whether you do or you don't. What I do care is that you act as if you know what you are talking about in regards to evolution when you very clearly are poorly informed at best.
I'm glad to see that, at least, you've actually started to make some actual arguments, even if they are completely off-topic. Bravo! Can you now at least understand why we all felt you were being ridiculously long-winded before, to no purpose and no point, in comparison to now at having SOME sort of discussion about something other than that you vaguely like Coulter and vaguely implying that share some of her dumb opinions about liberals or telling us all about your hobbies and age.
For the record, this is not AOL chat. We don't really care about you rambling on about your age sex, and your favorite color.
I think the Chinese missed this along with alot of other cultural groups. Like most things the RCC has done good and bad. Has good ideas and bad.
They are human.
Later!
Thanks for contributing nothing! Nothing but bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv2yXh6pTDY&search=George%20Carlin%20Rel…
tumbler:
It's the reverse of that old Monty Python sketch. You came here expecting abuse but everyone else is waiting for you to offer an argument of some kind. (see http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm )
I have little desire either to argue with you or spout abuse at you. But you seem to think it is our job to show infinite patience with your rambling. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, but you're not convincing anyone. I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to accomplish.
Chance:
I've never understood how they made it through that Three Kingdoms period without Mother Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
tumbler wrote: "How would a shepherd in ancient Israel have understood it? The plain reason for writing Genesis out so simply without the least jargon or boilerplate. It had to be accessible in every era, to every man."
No, it doesn't. Text that has the identifying marks of and is broadly understood by the common literate community of a particular culture shows nothing more than that it likely originated there. It would be truly a sign of inspired authorship if instead, parts of the text was not understandable, was preserved by that community because of its divine authorship, and gradually became understandable as human science reached the point where it made sense.
The fact that most scripture reads as if it were written by people ignorant of science living in ancient kingdoms and empires is best explained by the supposition that it was so authored.
BTW, no text is "accessible in every era, to every man." There are a broad variety of medical conditions, some congenital, that leave an individual incapable of reading, or even learning speech. That may not have much relevance to texts that are authored by fellow mortals, with only mortal science to remedy such problem. But what is its implication for an omnipotent author, who presumably wants his text accessible to every, single individual?
More Carlin heretical stuff.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5519239193881956619&q=George+Ca…
Chance:
I think the Chinese missed this along with alot of other cultural groups.
I've never understood how they made it through that Three Kingdoms period without Mother Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
I've never understood how the Catholic church made it through the three popes period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
We do need to stop feeding the trolls.
We also need to voluntarily end all wars. These two needs are about equally realistic.
Har. Two days into it, and Jason wonders if this is all about him!!
That's almost as funny as "52 states" (WHAT ABOUT that, tumbler??).
Jason: Search for 'tumbler'. When you've figured it out, let us know so I can laugh anew. I guess I'm just selfish that way.
I found a great page where a conservative lists all the quotes he/she likes in "Godless." Check it out:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/godless.php
PZ: Can we start offering satirical defenses yet?
Hey, tumbler! Why don't you get around to reading Coulter's book, and then providing examples of her points that you believe to be valid and defensible?
"I found a great page where a conservative lists all the quotes he/she likes in "Godless." Check it out:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/godless.php
PZ: Can we start offering satirical defenses yet?
I'd love to see a satirical science blog along the lines of Jesus' General. That would be a place to make fun of the buffoons, and I'm sure there'd be endless sources for inspiration.
Coulter was interviewed on the Beeb a few nights ago. I missed it, but there's a YouTube on this blog. I see around the net that some people are complaining that Paxman didn't eviscerate her and decorate the studio with her entrails, but really, after the introduction, he didn't really need to do anything but let her run her mouth off. What a vapid woman.
Hey, Tumbler, you're ignoring my question.
You seem to dig Ann Coulter a lot. How do you feel about her statement that Congressman Murtha deserves to be killed? Think that clashes with the 'Christian' values she's espousing?
Well, I think Tumbler checked out in his last message:
"Buh--by, Prof. You're welcome for nothing! Ciao ! ! !"
I've been missing my periodic "WTF????" I would enjoy upon reaing his... messages(?). Gotta admit, it was a pretty impressive derailing... 140 messages, most of them dedicated to (drumroll... ) nothing at all! Certainly not to PZ's challenge! Not sure how I would classify this one... quite different from the occcasiional predictable drive-by shootings (and missings) by our recent regular troll. And certainly not like some which had had actual content. Pretty interesting. Opera...
Uncle Don
Viewing the Paxman video, her body language suggests she's not particularly passionate about the subject she's talking about. Her eyes wander around as if she's trying to memorize lines.
OK, I must pop out of lurker mode for just a bit.
(s)tumbler (I like that tag, because it fit's his lack of logic and awareness) has presented a bit of amusing trollery.
my personal beliefs lie somewhere in the deist range, but for fuck's sake I have no truck in beleiving the bible is "inspired". too many people too long ago creatively adding their two cents to what was supposed to be "inspired" truth.
so, (s)tumbler, peddle that crap elsewhere, this is mainly a bio blog, not a philo/theo blog. if you wan't to argue the accuracy of the bible, amuse folks like like Ehrman, who have the training/scholarship/research to put your little mind at ease about what the bible says.
erm, scratch that, i doubt that you do know any ancient languages.
so, to get back to the heart of PZ's post, please do qoute a paragraph of coulters that you feel is an epiphany to the world of biology. and, support it, and not waste everyone's time here.
I am a bit of a conservative, but I must say that when comparing the vacuous crap that you spew compared to one of PZ's screed's against conservatism, you are sorely lacking. at least PZ's arguements can be backed up with logic. yours are too simplistic to bother with.
please, post intelligently, or go have a circle jerk with the folk's of uncommonly dense (i like that, it is descriptive). you can all hide your heads in the sand together.
post something intelligent, or piss off.
''at least PZ's arguements can be backed up with logic. yours are too simplistic to bother with.
please, post intelligently,''
I saw hardly any of PZ's ''arguments'' He must be on sabbatical.
If your fetish is logic, why are you dumping on ''simplistic'' // ? ? ? Logic isn't a liberal murder mystery, or some Olympian ceremony. It makes sense, that's all. I favor simple logic. PZ likely favors simplicity. Why don't you ask him? ( Arguments is spelled argu-ments. Learn to spell, Cretino; spell intelligently).
Ha! Learn to spell, says tub-diddler (or whatever the name is)... Lessons in pedantics -- rich for a person who thinks there are 52 states!
Hey, Tumbler, you're still ignoring my question.
I shall repeat.
You seem to dig Ann Coulter a lot. How do you feel about her statement that Congressman Murtha deserves to be killed? Think that clashes with the 'Christian' values she's espousing?
Show us you're not a weasel. Answer the question.
tumbly
learn to post an intelligent argument, then we can chat about spelling and punctuation
simply avoiding the issue makes you look moronic
And, in the very same post -- for a person with an I.Q. north of 150, what learned person punctuates with '//???'?
My guess -- teh super-smart!!!1!
lovepettis, thank you for remiding me of my crappy english politely.
let's see what tumbly has in store :)
maybe tumbly will stumble upon the miraculous missing "n"
:P
Christian!
Whaaaa...? no, no! you english good -- fire, tumbly, and syphillis bad!
150! My, my, the post that keeps on giving!
Ha!
I get it! Oh, you clever, clever pixie, tumbler!
Don't you all see! Oh, it's so obvious now -- it's a test! tumbler was testing us! tumber thought, 'why they want to argue Ann, so I'll post as if I thought like Ann!
It's so clear now -- the open admission of no real credentials in a field, but going on to smear opposition opinions. The whining over being called names while name calling en passant. And the oh so tell-tale style affectation of never actually getting to an argument's substance. All so, so Ann! We get interact with an Ann doppleganger of Rich Little talents! We get to thrust our rhetorical bayonnets at Ann through tumbler to see if they will kill the beast so that we may be better prepared when we meet the devil Ann face to face!
Such service in the name of love to godless liberals! I was hesitant to reveal the tactic, but I wanted to be the precocious student who got the trick question.
So, it's out. Ollie-Ollie oxen free! You can take off the mask now tumber, and grade us on how we fared against a stubborn and willfully ignorant viewpoint.
Ok? tumbler?
I see Ann's outburst as the natural reaction of an American who respects the men of our armed forces; when reminded of a chicken-shit who uses the war in Iraq as political propaganda; --Not just opportunistic but disloyal. He deserves nothing but contempt. Ann chose a very vitriolic style of whacking the idiotic Murtha. More than most delicate souls would condone. Is it Christian? Let God decide. The only ones deploring this are those who do NOT serve God in any way, shape or form. Coulter owes that bunch NOTHING.
dear me (and my name really is Christian),
my brain does explode with your fecundiy (s)tumbler.
and I do mean fecundity as the next door neighbor to fecal...
which is pretty close to what you spout off.
damnit, once again, give us your "logical" argument for supporting one of ac's crappy evolution paragraphs, and I am sure that many in here will be happy to help your understanding
otherwise, please stop, you are hurting what is left of my faith
yes, let God decide who is chicken shit
and the answer is TUMBLER
congratualtions tumbler, God selected you as chicken shit of the year, Murtha will be delivering you the prize, a one year subscription to Ann Babbles.
Has this mob noticed how Murtha camped on Rove; as to the ''fat ass'' etc, ???
Murtha's morbid obesity would be swell for blocking freeway traffic; and he dwells on another man's fat ass? Just about the way PZ Wyman operates this blogsite. A sauceboat announcing to the world how deep he is; on account of some biology degrees earned in America's drug-fueled 60's? You're in the company of greatness, Weenies.
(s)tumbler, can you ever get back on the original topic?
what support can you show for ac's view of evolution?
please be specific...
tumbler does Jesus know you hate?
PZ, as a Catholic I strongly suggest it is time to ban this troll. He is an insult to Christians and a nusiance on this blog and he has no intent of participating or learning. I have no problem with him differing politically from Murtha, but insulting Murtha, a war hero, while he himself has never served is going too far. So as a former Marine that served my country I request the tumbler be banned.
His only wish seems a strong desire to appear stupid!!!!!
I see Ann's outburst as the natural reaction of an American who respects the men of our armed forces; when reminded of a chicken-shit who uses the war in Iraq as political propaganda; --Not just opportunistic but disloyal. He deserves nothing but contempt. Ann chose a very vitriolic style of whacking the idiotic Murtha. More than most delicate souls would condone. Is it Christian? Let God decide.
Sure changed the subject fast, I see.
But I'm not asking God, Tumbler. I'm asking you.
Ann made a remark saying Murtha deserves to be killed. And yet you seem to be holding her up as some model of Christian ideals. So you approve? You're a Christian, and you agree that Murtha should be killed for disagreeing with Bush? This doesn't make her a bad Christian, Tumbler? Do you think Jesus approves of the murder of anyone who displeases Bush, Tumbler?
Did you agree with AC that the people at the New York Times should have died? Did you think it was appropriate that she joked about poisoning a Supreme Court Justice? Nothing unchristian about that?
Question: "You seem to dig Ann Coulter a lot. How do you feel about her statement that Congressman Murtha deserves to be killed? Think that clashes with the 'Christian' values she's espousing?"
Answer: "Murtha's morbid obesity would be swell for blocking freeway traffic."
You know, usually people try to at least dress up total non sequiturs so they aren't so painfully glaring. My head hurts.
"on account of some biology degrees earned in America's drug-fueled 60's"
I don't think the math works out very well here (Google tells me PZ is 48) but perhaps it is based on the same calculation that revealed that we actually have 52 states.
To save money on the satellite feeds, the image only goes one way, from the interviewee to the studio. I'm guessing Coulter isn't used to being interviewed that way, being more used to chat shows, and so let her eyes drift around instead of focussing on the camera. Still, not a very impressive performance from someone who is all performance, no substance.
Tumber scrawled:
Wow. It's the Man in Shack (who happens to rule the galaxy).
One of the more obscure parts of The Hitchikers Guide: Fitt the twelfth (and search for shack).
Bob
tumbler, please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that anyone who objects to Coulter's suggestion of "fragging" Murtha does "do NOT serve God in any way, shape or form." Last time I checked, A. Coulter did not stand for Ayatollah Coulter, but maybe I missed the memo in which her pronouncements were elevated to the status of fatwas.
I can no longer present myself as a religious person, but I don't think you'd have to go far to find people of sincere and active faith who find Coulter's statement inappropriate.
As for Murtha referring to Rove's sitting on his fat ass, besides being an indisputable fact and not subject to a libel suit, it is hardly equivalent to finding humor in the notion of his being murdered, now is it?
The point is, even after 163 comments in this thread (this being 164th), attempts to address PZ's challenge is still a big, fat zero.
That is, 0. Hmm. I wonder why that is.
PaulC at his very best:
--''not subject to a libel suit, it is hardly equivalent to finding humor in the notion of his being murdered, now is it?'' I maintain it's been intended as black humor. A ''notion''of Murtha having DESERVED to be ''fragged'' for lying about the armed forces in Iraq (He did it,) is hardly that difficult to understand. She answered a direct question in a flippant manner. Coulter didn't lay awake the night prior, figuring out how to inspire a ''frag''. She mentioned what has happened in the past to soldiers who betray the trust of comrades-in-arms. It was off-the-cuff outrageous. But not a murder plot.
Recall when Whoopi got rolling in front of a DC audience; and the whole Bush family was in there; with the media, et al;
She went on and on, talking about her ''bush,'' very likely a large and smelly part of her female pudenda; attacking the Bush family NAME, with reference to her own ''bush''-- and her comfy smile at the humor she had rehearsed beforehand, and not off-the-cuff. Just vile;
How did George & Laura and Barbara Bush, and the older Dad; how did they take that? Lots better than you take the Coulter humor. You don't laugh at all, do you Libs? Bunch of sad sacks. No wonder you can't win political debates.
Bunch of sad sacks. No wonder you can't win political debates.
So *did* you get this debating style from that Coulter book? 'Cause, like, you're not exactly 'winning' here.
''--after 163 comments in this thread (this being 164th), attempts to address PZ's challenge is still a big, fat zero.
That is, 0. Hmm. I wonder why that is.
Posted by: Y.B --''
Gee, Yub,
I'd handle that job easily, on an even playing field. Prof M is choosing that area in which (ostensibly) he's an authority; as if poor tumbler had been challenged to a game of cribbage. How about him challenging me to argue the case of--
Capital punishment in this country as opposed to abortion on demand? The sanctity of LIFE. That ought to interest a biologist. Biology is the science of living things.
But he'd get creamed, and I wouldn't even have to bring up God's commandments; though for me that's arguing from the MOST strength. As for the unimportant matter of Coulter's take on Darwinism and Liberalism; let him argue that with her. She doesn't need me. I already mentioned I haven't read that book. How am I supposed to defend whatever she wrote? I told him and this blog what my own opinion was, about the evolution theory. I said he ought not refer to it as FACT. He can't challenge that, because i'm right. But he CAN misrepresent things as facts, here in his own place. None of his clones will contradict him.
Recall when Whoopi got rolling in front of a DC audience; and the whole Bush family was in there; with the media, et al;
She went on and on, talking about her ''bush,'' very likely a large and smelly part of her female pudenda; attacking the Bush family NAME, with reference to her own ''bush''-- and her comfy smile at the humor she had rehearsed beforehand, and not off-the-cuff. Just vile;
And just like Coulter, you make shit up. Whoopi's rutine was at a Kerry-Edwards fundraiser. Not someplace I'd expect George and Laura to show up.
As for the unimportant matter of Coulter's take on Darwinism and Liberalism; let him argue that with her. She doesn't need me
Can't do it, then?
Capital punishment in this country as opposed to abortion on demand? The sanctity of LIFE.
What do you think Coulter's take on the sancity of life is, setting aside the preborn?
Gee, Majeff,
I relied on memory; OK, it wasn't the party in which a stand-up ''artist'' demeaned Bush; you're right.
It was some other party, and some other ''bush''??? Yeah. Hey, I don't ''make up shit.'' Nor do I fly to Google in order to rebut your POV. I ad lib, and let the chips fall where they may. Coulter has no need to make up shit. It's easily seen in the over-reaction of certain unhappy libs. She only comments on it.
This has been a discussion about humor. Did you have your sense of humor lobotomized?
Hey, I don't ''make up shit.'' Nor do I fly to Google in order to rebut your POV. I ad lib, and let the chips fall where they may. Coulter has no need to make up shit. It's easily seen in the over-reaction of certain unhappy libs. She only comments on it.
For such a self-important Christian, you have an awfully lackadaisical attitude towards the truth. But it's one that seems standard among Conservatives nowadays.
What do you think Coulter's take on the sancity of life is, setting aside the preborn?
Posted by: George Cauldron | June 24, 2006 05:13 PM-----------------
I know what my take is. I think she's Pro-Life. I also think she's for capital punishment. It isn't usually stressed; but ''sanctity of life'' means INNOCENT life, about the unborn. Or, life of the defenseless and infirm; as vs. euthanasia. Coulter is conservative, and she seems to see the distinction between these and capital punishment. That is justice, in principle. Not attacking innocent life. It's a matter of the Law, not sanctity of life.
And yet; it may soon be abolished in our country. It really shouldn't be, IMHO.
I know what my take is. I think she's Pro-Life. I also think she's for capital punishment. It isn't usually stressed; but ''sanctity of life'' means INNOCENT life, about the unborn. Or, life of the defenseless and infirm; as vs. euthanasia.
Does her compulsion to talk about killing people who politically displease her conflict with that?
Or is it that Murtha, Supreme Court Justices, and the NY Times staff aren't 'innocent'?
''--her compulsion to talk about killing people who politically displease her.''
It's a good thing you aren't going to be the judge at her murder trial, isn't it? I have this compulsion right now; to say, stop asking ridiculous questions. You are a DULL interrogater. It's YOU who keeps talking about killing. AND, about:
Murtha, Supreme Court Justices, and the NY Times staff aren't 'innocent'? Reply: We'll arrest her if she murders these innocents. Your ''Right-to-Choose'' killers don't worry about being arrested for it. Thanks to Bozoes like you.
This has been a discussion about humor. Did you have your sense of humor lobotomized?
"Gee, when Ann talks about murdering you liberals, she's just being FUNNY! Why can't you liberals have a sense of humor about this?"
It's a good thing you aren't going to be the judge at her murder trial, isn't it? I have this compulsion right now; to say, stop asking ridiculous questions. You are a DULL interrogater. It's YOU who keeps talking about killing.
I'm just baffled, Tumbler! You talk about how much more moral you are than all us liberals, and how 'pro-life' Coulter is, and yet she seems to traffic in a very violent rhetoric, and despite your professed Christian 'prolife' beliefs, you don't hold it against her in any way. It just doesn't add up to any kind of internally consistent picture. But that's okay, I think we all have a pretty good handle on your (and AC's) religious beliefs by now.
But I've been keeping you from answering other people's questions. Go ahead and tend to that. You're making such a good impression so far.
In fact, Tumbler, there's a message addressed to you right *here*:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_…
Better take care of that, no?
You don't understand English well. We have a number of terms for cognitive operations. You have no proof as normally defined. Yes, spiritual growth IS IN FACT internal. Hence it is subjective and therefore not knowable in the true sense of the word (objective knowledge - knowable by you as well as others such as seeing a bird fly).
So unless and until you can get past the apologia speak, you are going to be seen a loon - at best slightly educated loon.
Latin hint(s):
Scio
Cogito
Puto
Credo
Get to the real work. Faith is a lazy man's out with no real discovery at its end.
No, you have, objectively speaking, not answered the main question. In the time you have ranted here, you could have read the book. So? What is you simple, self educated defence of any of Coulter's statements. Just pick one? Please? It was all that was answered.
As an aside, you are full of crap. Evidence has it Sva created the world and your silly books, stolen, BTW, making up the so called Genesis are frauds.
Dear John M:
That's a fine try. You appear quite the opposite of these other churls; except for your closing sentence. The usual zinger out of a blase sophisticate. Well; you're not a cretino; you're an infant terrible, but not so smart. You're exquisitely stupid.
I said my ANSWER was simple, John; not my proof. I know of a perfect God who loves me not for my command of Latin and not for keeping current on birds in flight. He answers my prayers. With more than discovery; with recovery. I suffered a very heavy affliction most of my life; such as would cause a faithless man to jump off a tall building. It was a syndrome, a pituitary gland somehow kept me deficient in the endocrine sytem.
Permit me to conceal the details, they aren't for Internet display. It's enough to say that I never lost faith, and I decided to suffer in silence. I offered my pain up to God. I even dared say before a crucifix; Jesus; I want to partake of it, where you were. I never really prayed for myself, oddly. It didn't seem the thing to do.
But others prayed; mainly my mother. It was very apparent; rosaries, novenas, tears. One day it came to an end. God answered her prayers and I became a new man. Not only that; I had been in love with a young woman seemingly unattainable to someone like myself. An impossible love, you mot say. I would pray for HER, every night. I'd pray God she might not marry any man who'd mistreat her. Or not love her enough. The awful romantic things we ponder late at night.
Then, unbelievably; we were brought together and she became MY wife. I've never stopped thanking God! Today, rather than ''hanging on a cross,'' as i'd accepted out of life, I'm the happiest man in this world. We don't have kids. But we're extremely happy. We have love and we have God. We married in 1982. A lovely wedding in May; at a Catholic church in San Diego. The same one where I prayed bfore that crucifix above the altar. I wouldn't change my life for anybody else's. I'm now nearing 70; and I still pray a lot. I pray for people like you, John M Price. And like PZ Myers, all the good pharyngula rattlesnakes. They're in God's care, though they don't know it. Just as Cool Ann is. (I must pray she controls her mouth in front of TV cameras.) You don't have to believe me. It's OK; I don't believe you.
Just as Cool Ann is. (I must pray she controls her mouth in front of TV cameras.)
It's telling that you merely want her to control her mouth in contexts where she'll be recorded, and apparently don't wish she felt differently.
PZ Meyers
PLEASE PLEASE ban tumbler, this has gone far enough
he is a complete idiot and never even once responded to anyone. He is taking up space and will soon spred to other blogs. Those attemping to reason with him must surely now know that is futile. Reasoning with complete stupidity is a complete waste.
end this PLEASE
I'd handle that job easily, on an even playing field. Prof M is choosing that area in which (ostensibly) he's an authority; as if poor tumbler had been challenged to a game of cribbage. How about him challenging me to argue the case of...
Nope, he made his challenge first, and you answered it. How about you put up first and then make your own challenge?
I exorcise thee, Tumbler, in the name of PZ the Blogger Almighty, and in the name of godless liberals everywhere, and in the name of productive discourse, that thou depart from this Blog, which our PZ hath designed to call unto his unholy audience, that it may be made the blog of the living atheist, and that godlessness may dwell therein.
Once a troll has been identified, ignore it. If you feed it, it will grow. If you starve it, it will wither away. This troll has grown so fat because people keep trying to get it to engage in serious debate, which it won't do because it's a troll.* If you want it to go away, ignore it. If you wanted it not to take up so much space in the blog, you should have ignored it from the start, or at least from when it became obvious it was trolling.
*Duh!
tumbler, you wrote a long reply without answering the question: how do you conclude that anyone who objects to Coulter's fragging comment does "NOT serve God in any way, shape or form"?
Was this the result of an extensive study comparing views on Coulter with a tendency to serve God? It seems like a very difficult claim to prove.
Or is rejecting one of Ayatollah Coulter's fatwas an automatic ticket to the Lake of Fire?
Cute, now it is witnessing.
Look, tumbler, your personal, subjective, experiences don't address the question of whether there is a silver tea service orbiting Pluto, either.
The one has nothing to do with the other.
A religious person can support the Theory of Evolution, and a very large number of them do.
Defend Lizard Annie's "arguments" or go away.
Tumbler as never read this blog. Doesn't understand in the least bit what goes on here.
He believes human life begins at conception.
We've had pretty detailed discussions about the stages of human devlopement.
All too complex or REAL for him to get his religion addled brain around.
I thought the discussion of murder millions of potential "human lives" every time
one masturbates was pretty funny. They are living cells...
As far as I can tell tumbler may still be a virgin... no kids... didn't find a woman until he was what? 46? And she came to him because his mother's prayers were answered?
Eek.
I'm happy being a godless sinner... wasting millions of those suckers every week.
Has the (-t, +M)umbler popped up anywhere else?
Or was he B to the a to the doube n -ed?
Tumbler was quietly and painlessly neutered, by popular request.
Loverly.
It was like watching a train wreck.
Just kept think WOW that's so horrible yet entertaining.