Coulter vs Darwin

Godless | 06/06 | Ann Coulter

[tomzz]

You can't help but notice that there is a very vocal sort of a little clique of evolutionists on FreeRepublic, and there has always been a question in a lot of people's minds as to whether or not the theory of evolution is in any way compatible with conservatism.

This new book ("Godless") of Ann Coulter's should pretty much settle the issue.

Ann does not mince words, and she has quite a lot to say about evolution:

"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory which is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record, and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God....

It gets better from there, in fact a lot better. Ann provides a context for viewing the liberal efforts to shut down everything resembling debate on the subject in courtrooms and makes a general case that it is the left and not the right, which is antithetical to science in general. Anybody interested in this question of American society and the so-called theory of evolution should have a copy of this book

[dangus]

I know a LOT of liberals who believe Ann Coulter has disproven evolution. Ba da bump bump.

Seriously, Ann Coulter has discredited herself badly. No scientist has been looking in labs to prove evolution; by calling it a "theory," they are not asserting that they have not found proof; they are recognizing that proof is impossible, absent a time machine.

[dangus]

Wow. excellently stated.

[dangus]

Thanks... From reading just the one quote, I was sorely disappointed in Ann.

[ml1954]

I think what Coulter said needed to be said even if it was over the top!

In what way was it over the top? Please be specific.

It has been too long before someone spoke up!

When was the last time and who said what? Please be specific.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If we find Jimmy Hoffa's bones embedded in the middle of a piece of concrete poured on April 23, 1975, when was Jimmy Hoffa deposited there?

Honest, I was in London that day and I have papers to prove it.

[VadeRetro]

Honest, I was in London that day and I have papers to prove it.

We'll remember that if that's where the concrete turns out to be.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm not quoting anybody, outside of context or in; all I did was post a picture.

You posted this. Second, last summer, scientists had to break a tyranosaur bone in half to get it out of a remote area by helicopter, and here is what they found inside the bone, i.e. this is what tyranosaur meat looks like:

It's crap. They deliberately broke open the femur, not to get it into a helicopter, but in a laboratory. They then chemically demineralized it with EDTA for a week to remove the bone. They then shot it under a microscope; the scale marks, which the science paper includes and your picture oddly lacks, show the speciments are 2 - 3 mm in dimension; they're tiny fragments of demineralized bone, not 'tyrannosaur meat'.

What is even more interesting is that somebody has been fraudulently manipulating the images you posted. All three are missing the region of the picture where the scale mark was. Somebody trimmed the pictures to remove the scale, so as to deceive the viewer to think they are larger than they are.

That's what Schweitzer means by 'they...manipulate your data'. What you posted is fraud.

Here's the image from the Science paper.

Note to Religion Moderator. It is OK to use the word 'fraud' in the religion forum?

[dangus]

Hmmm... Actually, I had never read that encyclical.
If I take out all the parenthetical clauses, I find this statement:

"This letter ... clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis ... do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people."

The Pope seems to be stating that the eleven chapters are netaphorical and that the truths contained are those that are fundamental for our salvation. Granted, it doesn't say the ONLY truths stated are those which are fundamental for our salvation, but that would be a strangely absolutist statement.

It also says that there is a second component: a "popular description of the origin of the human race and chosen people." That is a very funny way of asserting that something is true. If I say, "It's widely believed that..." do you presume that I am asserting the belief is correct? Likewise, "a popular description" seems to distance the Pope from a direct assertion. If he meant that this description were factual, would he not describe it as "widely known" rather than "a popular description?"

It seems to me that the Pope is trying to not conclusively state that the historical element (as opposed to the theological element) of the story MERELY myth, but he is plainly trying to de-emphasize the centrality of the claim that it is literally true in our objective, modern sense of truth.

Yes, the letter is criticizing not evolutionists, but those who discard the truth of Genesis entirely. But his assertion of what is the intended meaning of Genesis 1-11 is very limited.

[VadeRetro]

I think a crucial difference is in these passages:

Version 1: ... scientists had to break a tyranosaur bone in half to get it out of a remote area by helicopter, and here is what they found inside the bone...

Version 2: They then chemically demineralized it with EDTA for a week to remove the bone.

Version One, taken at face value, would be evidence for a young bone. But take it at face value is just what you can't do with a crackpot claim.

[JCEccles]

Darwinism is only partially about evolution. The part that isn't about evolution is not science. And it is this part that is the creation myth for the godless liberals that fill the ranks of the ACLU and use the courts to dicatate the terms of the national religion that get foisted on the rest of us in violation of the First Amendment.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm still interested in why the scale marks were removed. While I know creationists have been happily using this edited version of the figure, it looks like the original edit was done by AP, who obviously wanted to sensationalize and thus misrepresent the discovery.

The creationists in cahoots with the MSM - so much for being conservative!

[Almagest]

You keep posting this on thread after thread -- even after we have showed that the claim is bogus, and that the creationists are mischaractizing it by taking the popular press accounts over the actual reports of the scientists.

Once again -- I have to show everyone the basic dishonesty of the creationist approach. Here's the article I have linked to several times, now. It tells the whole sordid story. Despicable is the word that describes the behavior of AIG in this mess:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

[tomzz]

That's what Schweitzer means by 'they...manipulate your data'. What you posted is fraud.

I remember reading several accounts of the story at the time and there were no descripancies in the details from one version to the next. What I'd suggest you do is to read the account at that url I posted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

and then sue Bill Gates, MSNBC, and Reuters for fraud if you care to. Again, here's some of what they say:

WASHINGTON - A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.

"The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way," added Schweitzer, whose findings were published in the journal Science.

"Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before." Feathers, hair and fossilized egg contents yes, but not truly soft tissue...

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't see the term 'Tyrannosaur meat' in NBC's account, sensationalized though it is. I don't see you mention that the picture is actually demineralized bone, not 'meat'. I don't see you mentioning what you posted are actually photomicrographs, not photographs.

[tomzz]

Whoever's in charge of that talk.origins web site is a bunch of committed fanatics whose definition of "despicable" is worthless in my view. Moreover, they are just as free to sue Bill Gates, MSNBC, and the Reuters news service as the "rightwing professor" here is. I'll stick with the national news services when it's their word versus the word of a bunch of ideologues or fanatics.

[andysandmikesmom]

I suggest you read the info that is provided by Almagests link in post #232...its a long read, but it discusses in great detail, the whole of the circumstances surrounding this issue about 'dinosaur blood cells'...

[Right Wing Professor]

I'll stick with the national news services when it's their word versus the word of a bunch of ideologues or fanatics.

Or the journal where the work was actually published, written by the scientist who actually did the research?

"I believe the mainstream media" is an interesting thing to hear from a 'conservative'.

[andysandmikesmom]

You know, I go to AIG when people provide links, even tho I disagree with many of their tactics...still I read to see what they are saying...seems that you refuse to read an article, based on where it might be found...interesting...

[Almagest]

<< Whoever's in charge of that talk.origins web site is a bunch of committed fanatics whose definition of "despicable" is worthless in my view. >>


They are committed to evidence -- and that is what appears to be worthless in your view. Here you are, taking the word of a sensationalizing popular news outlet -- one that you, no doubt, curse daily for its bias -- over the word of the very scientists who made the find and described exactly what they found.

If you don't trust talkorigins -- why not read the original scientific papers written by the scientists involved? I know exactly why you won't do that. You will just say they are fanatics and aren't telling the truth, either.

Which leads to a very puzzling situation. Exactly how did MSNBC and AIG come up with the information they have, if not from the scientists themselves? There IS no source of information on this find other than the scientists themselves.

The fact that you are refusing correction on such an obvious point of error says nothing about any "fanaticism" of TO -- but it says plenty about fanaticism. Yes, it does.

Like I said to the other person who refused to back down on this, even after seeing his obvious error -- it's really easy to say, "I was wrong." I have to do it several times a day. All it takes is basic integrity. AIG shows they have none by refusing to correct their obviously false stories that have spread all over the internet, and which are parroted in here endlessly -- by those who refuse to even glance at the real evidence.

[Virginia-American]

A good start would be to take the anti-Christian bias out of scientific literature

Please give a few examples.