Replies

I realize I may be a neophyte on this issue, compared to others. I would still want to read something that is logical, authoritative and makes common sense.

Your first link seems to be a hit piece on Coulter without substance. It does what she says the left always does: personal attacks because she's right.

The second link says: Bringing up fossil evidence and talking about the supposed absence of relatives without delving into whether it would be even slightly likely that such would be preserved (independent of whether they actually had existed) constitutes the Bermuda Triangle Defense.

This is not a rebuttal, but side stepping Coulters accusiaton. I am not arguing your science, I am questioning the logic. A non-scientist can easily presume there would be fossil remains that would prove evolution. Attacking Coulter or changing the subject doesn't address the central premise Coulter makes, which is no fossil proof. My conclusion is if it's not there, why not?

Here is one example of talking over the head of the casual reader that ends up supporting Coulter..

"Now for an interesting forensic question: were there only just seven Archaeopteryxes alive in all history? Kent Hovind thinks that, as Frank Sonleitner reminded me apropos "Maintaining Creationist Integrity", a criticism of Hovind by fellow creationists at Answers in Genesis."Other creationists (YEC or OEC) have yet to venture an opinion here, nor have any Intelligent Design advocates. But evolutionists would rate the idea as highly unlikely. Even though no fossils exist to prove it, they infer that this earliest known bird had close relations within its genus, and that these had to have had parents..."

This may be totally correct but it fails on two fronts. One, who knows what the heck is being discussed? Secondly, by admitting "Even though no fossils exist to prove it," verifies exactly what Coulter said. Don't get me wrong, this article may be correct. But, how would someone know? The thing goes on and on without addressing the issue Coulter claims and muddies the issue with things not relevant to the argument, IMHO.

I got to your third cite and it did have fossil comments. But, it's too overwhelming and convoluted. As I was reading it, it seemed to prove what Coulter keeps saying. The arguments are personal attacks on the individuals supporting that side of the argument, not the issues at hand.

I have no desire to keep arguing this. Really. I accept people of good faith can agree with either side and someday one side will be proven to be correct. Between now and then I hope to keep learning more about it.

I do believe in intelligent design because it just makes sense. But, I do not disbelieve all of evolution because it makes sense that species evolve over time. Probably, in my mind, to fine tune, improve and refine our existence to be better. The one thing that overwhelmingly supports everything Ann Coulter says is how the pro-evolutionist supporters go nuts attacking intelligent design theory without the proof. Just from what you've referred me to seems to make her point. I can even accept that I'm wrong from what you linked me to. But if so, it is so buried in the muck that few people could decipher it.