Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

[Tribune7]

The OT can be traced back to original texts which still exist.

????? The oldest extant version of the OT is the Septuagint a couple hundred years B.C. -- which is a profound thing, btw. It's recording, however, is traditionally thought to have started with Moses about 1500 B.C.

And you are absolutely right -- there is nothing foolish about believing in a 6,000-year-old Earth as long as you know why you do.

[Tribune7]

:-)

I think I'm going to off the thread for a bit.

[Right Wing Professor]

Since you admitted you're only here to troll, mlc9852, I can't imagine why you'd think I'd want to respond to you further.

[RadioAstronomer]

Only if you take Coulter seriously, instead of thinking her a loudmouthed ditz who gets away with outrageous rants only because of her blonde hair and rapidly fading good looks.

Dittos

[wideawake]

Documentation?

He claimed in the press that the class he was offering was a serious academic critique of creationism - but he was at the same time emailing friends and colleagues about how he was offering the class just to get a rise out of he people he hated.

That's pretty obvious dishonesty and the college recognized it and cashiered him for it.

I spent some time checking it out, and I found no major problems with it.

(1) He claims that he just happened to be taking a long predawn drive to clear his head, that someone was tailgating him, that he stopped and got out of his car and they stopped too and hit him. He couldn't describe the vehicle. Or the assailants. Or the metal object he was hit with. Or where he was when the alleged assault took place. Or even the hour when it took place. Literally no useful details of any kind.

(2) Even though he claimed to have been beaten by two large guys wielding some kind of a metal object, his students who saw him in class six hours later said he looked fine.

(3) The alleged assault occurred at precisely the right time for him to obscure his forced resignation as chair of his department due to his unethical behavior.

(4) He is not the first professor to manufacture a fake "hate crime" to deflect criticism.

Those are all salient - but I doubt you'll allow such inconvenient facts to pierce your steadfast faith in known liar Paul Mirecki.

There is no possible way you could know this, unless you're in the Lawrence Police Department.

A police spokesperson said, after the department interviewed Mirecki, that they did not have much to go on. If they had been given valuable leads, they probably wouldn't have announced that they had effectively no leads.

It is likely, therefore you just made it up. And you call Mirecki a liar?

Nice try. So you are now alleging that the police were given valuable leads by this joker, but in some kind of conspiracy they kept this valuable information hushed up and refused to act on it?

It's 'vicious and unethical' to make fun of one's own religion?

Paul Mirecki was not making fun of the religion of Paul Mirecki worship - he was making fun of Christianity.

But this mockery was not what was vicious or unethical.

What was vicious and unethical was his use of his classroom to advance his personal political agenda while lying to the school administration and the student body about his intentions.

Police have dropped it. I doubt they tried very hard.

Ah, another faith statement, I see.

What exactly are the police supposed to do with nothing?

According to what I'll loosely call your 'logic', Jimmy Hoffa killed himself.

You shouldn't criticize anyone else's logic when you're busy comparing apples and bowling balls.

The Hoffa disappearance became a cold case after it was determined that there was no living witness to Hoffa's murder except his murderers. Certainly no witness ever came forward and the best the cops could do was establish his whereabouts on the morning of his disappearance. There were no witnesses, no physical evidence and nothing even approaching a timeline. Hoffa got in the car that morning and after that, nothing.

Meanwhile, Mirecki is a witness who is alive and well, who claims to simultaneously be a piece of physical evidence from the crime scene, and who is willing to discuss anything but specific details.

Not that I'm saying it was unwise of Mirecki not to give any checkable facts at all when he was filing a false report. If you avoid giving any specifics it's much harder to prove it's a false report in a court of law and Mirecki certainly learned how important it was to cover his tracks after those emails were disclosed.

I'll point out that if you are a professor, you should be appalled by Mirecki's ethical breaches as a matter of principle.

[RadioAstronomer]

What a load of codswallop!

[Tribune7]

Why would I doubt Stalin? LOL!

You believe Hitler.

But what motive would Stalin have to lie about the source of his atheism?

[mlc9852]

You're the troll, Professor, and it is obvious to all. What else do you ever post to?

[Tribune7]

OK, maybe now :-)

[stands2reason]

Have you anything to offer besides attacks?

[Right Wing Professor]

Actually, I just found out she's only three years younger than me. Dangerous position to be in, when the main thing you have going for you is being a leggy blonde.

She's even started lying about her age

[stands2reason]

ARe you colluding by email????

Conspiracy!!!!!!

[svcw]

No, direct evidence, which you can't even begin to deal with, either intellectually or emotionally, so you desperately attempt to dismiss it with a pathetic one-word response which demonstrates quite clearly (especially when taken with all of your *other* posts on these threads) that you have no interest in any of the science which you frequently attack, and have no ability to actually assess it on its own merits, you just operate on your deep bitterness and denial.
OK I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE INCLUDING ME IN THIS STATEMENT. (CAPS NOT YELLING, JUST COMMENTS ON YOUR COMMENTS)
Whatever gets you through the day, Mamzelle.
svcw, you expressed surprise that one could conclude that there are science-illiterate religious conservatives.
NO, MY REAL SURPRISE IS THOSE WHO BELIVE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A RELIOUGS CONCERVATIVE THAT ONE IS “SCIENCE-ILLITERATE”
Ask Mamzelle to actually address the contents of post #107, and you'll quickly realize that there are. Now there's nothing wrong with not being conversant on any given topic, of course, UNLESS the person ignorant on [topic X] is arrogant enough to spend a great deal of time attacking [topic X] and denouncing it and attempting to "lecture" and "correct" people on it without actually having any clue what in the hell they're talking about (by actually *understanding* topic X and having a solid knowledge of it)...
WELL, THANK YOU-THAT “ITS OK TO BE A CONCERVATIVE”. YOUR COMMENT THAT A PERSON MAY BE “IGNORENT” ON A SUBJECT…. I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. BECAUSE A PERSON DISAGREES WITH YOU AND USES A DIFFERENT SET TO ARGUE THEIR POINT DOES NOT MAKE THEM IGGNORATE. IT APPEARS THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOUR SETS, IS IGNORENT OF THE “FACT”.
There are countless religious conservatives, a large number of them right here on FreeRepublic, who viciously attack evolutionary biology and other fields of science, as well as the people who practice in those fields or who are knowledgeable of those fields and defend them from false attacks, despite not having any real clue about the topics they crusade against.
HERE AGAIN BECAUSE THE PERSON ARGUES WITH YOU THEY DO NOT HAVE A “GRASP” OF THE FACTS, SO THEREFORE THEY ARE IGNORANT.
It gets really old after a while. And worse, this kind of "I don't understand science but I know it's wrong and evil and part of the atheistic conspiracy" folks are very vocal in the public discourse, to the point where a great many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservative politics run away screaming after having gotten the impression (which is not far from correct) that conservatism contains a large segment of folks who are wild-eyed anti-science Luddites.
I HAVE NEVER MEET A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS SAID SCIENCE IS BAD OR EVIL. I HAVE HEARD THEM SAY THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DIRECTION SCIENCE MAY BE TAKING IE CLONING. I HAVE NEVER MET A CHRISTIAN WHO IS ANTI-SCIENCE. I HAVE MEET CHRISTIANS WHO ARE ANTI-ARROGANT SO CALLED SCIENTS AND THEIR IRRATIONAL FEAR THAT THERE MAY BE A HIGHER POWER. THIS IRRATIONAL FEAR I BELIEVE STEMS FROM THE FACT THEY FEAR THERE MAY IN FACT BE A JUDGEMENT.
This is similar to how the more moderate liberal movements lose support because people are scared off by the more whackjob liberal nuts.
This is *not* a good thing for conservatism. I personally know dozens of people who might otherwise consider voting for conservatives or Republicans, but every time I try to point out how many of their personal views match those of the conservative movement, they recoil in horror and start listing the various antics of the kind of anti-intellectual extremists WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE YOU SPEAK OF WHO ARE ANTI-INTELECTUALS That have given conservatism a bad name by association.
There's nothing wrong with being religious -- in fact, the *majority* of American "evolutionists" are themselves Christians. But there is a very vocal, very strident, very intolerant, very anti-science segment of religious conservatives who are *not* doing the conservative cause any favors. AND I COULD SAY THE SAME OF ANTI-RELIGIOUS-CHRISTIAN-CONCERVATIVE SUDOINTELLECTUAL SCIENE COMMUNITY.

[Right Wing Professor]

You believe Hitler.

No, I don't. But I know what he said, on frequent occasions, and as reported by third parties.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I meant to include that I was not referring to the religious as a whole. Which was why I kept using the word "some" in my post.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Conservative religious scientist (of sorts) reporting for duty.

[stands2reason]

If you've been reading the creo responses you get the angry and insulting.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

That is a possibility, but how? Was it a vision? did God whisper in his ear? Did Moses having a deep yearning to write about creation, and Genesis is that result? Any and all can be true. We just don't know.

[RadioAstronomer]

And worse, this kind of "I don't understand science but I know it's wrong and evil and part of the atheistic conspiracy" folks are very vocal in the public discourse, to the point where a great many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservative politics run away screaming after having gotten the impression (which is not far from correct) that conservatism contains a large segment of folks who are wild-eyed anti-science Luddites. This is similar to how the more moderate liberal movements lose support because people are scared off by the more whackjob liberal nuts.

I have real-world colleagues who refuse to vote republican for this very reason.

[RadioAstronomer]

Dangerous position to be in, when the main thing you have going for you is being a leggy blonde.

Oh yes. The public is very fickle!