Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this:

CP489

Critical Thinker
CP489
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
319
Cybercast News Service: Most people consider evolution to be a branch of science, or at least a scientific theory, yet in "Godless," you refer to it as a "cult" and a "fetish." What is your basis for calling it that?

Ann Coulter: There is no evidence that it is true. The fossil record contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to "prove" evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology. (Of course, I would say that. I'm just a Capricorn, aren't I?)

Cybercast News Service: Creationism is not considered a science because it can't be observed or empirically tested. You assert in your book that the theory of evolution has the same problems. Why then has the U.S. public school system been willing to accept the theory of evolution, but snubbed creationism?

Ann Coulter: Because evolution is the official state religion. Although it is possible to believe in God and evolution, it is not possible to not believe in God without believing in evolution -- otherwise, atheists have no explanation for why we are here. Thus, it's very important for the liberal clergy to force small school children to believe in a discredited mystery religion from the 19th century -- evolution -- in order to prepare them to believe in the nonexistence of God, one of the main goals of the American public education system.


Funny because she's so blatantly ignorant, sad because people actually believe the crap she spews.


ETA: The fossil record contradicts evolution? WTF is she talking about?
 
Last edited:
I'd love to peer into her head. The woman has no brain at all.

Still she reminds me of Mister Ed. I wonder if they use peanut butter on her gums to get her to talk.

ETA a Ann Coulter/Mr. Ed joke.
 
She kind of scares me. She spouts gibberish but it comes across believable because she is a fairly decent orator. So was Adolph Hitler.


(Do I win this thread or something??:D)
 
CP489 said:
ETA: The fossil record contradicts evolution? WTF is she talking about?
Click to expand...
I was just reading about this today but, sadly, don't remember where. I believe that she points to some guy who says he has found fossilzed penises (peni?) in coal beds, thereby putting humans on earth at the same time as the dinos. :jaw-dropp

*noodles about* Nope, can't find it. Treat the above as raw rumor.
 
From what I know of her book (and that's not much, yet. I'm going to try to sludge through her evolution chapters this weekend) I believe she's talking about the Cambrian explosion (as far as a fossil record that contradicts evolution), which I'm certain has been tackled. I know Dembski, which is where she got her info, along with Behe and one other whose name escapes me, has in the past misquoted Ward on the Cambrian and Precambrian in order to make it look like this is a major problem for evolution.
 
jimlintott said:
She kind of scares me. She spouts gibberish but it comes across believable because she is a fairly decent orator. So was Adolph Hitler.


(Do I win this thread or something??:D)
Click to expand...


Damn! (rule 8? I'm too new to know, just tell me and I'll edit) You've put into words something that I've been mulling over for a while. Something about her scared me, but it certainly wasn't her intellect or factual representation of reality. Thanks, I'll probably use that in the future.
 
a_unique_person said:
Is there any evidence of that? I think she says half of it (and believes the rest), just to make lots of money. Better than being a filing clerk.
Click to expand...


Any evidence of which part? That she's ignorant? I guess not if you aren't going to presume that her words are an accurate representation of her ideas. Of course, if we start doing that then we have no evidence of anyone being ignorant.

As for people believing her, there's plenty of evidence of that.
 
CP489 said:
Any evidence of which part? That she's ignorant? I guess not if you aren't going to presume that her words are an accurate representation of her ideas. Of course, if we start doing that then we have no evidence of anyone being ignorant.

As for people believing her, there's plenty of evidence of that.
Click to expand...

I was discussing her books with some who believes everything she says or writes. The person said, "She has footnotes in her books. That shows what she says is true." I countered with, "Have you ever checked the sources she cites?" I was met with a blank stare followed by a grumble that "Liberals always nitpick about little things!"
 
With apologies to Al Franken:

How to lie with footnotes: Use 754 of them! :D
 
CP489 said:
Any evidence of which part? That she's ignorant? I guess not if you aren't going to presume that her words are an accurate representation of her ideas. Of course, if we start doing that then we have no evidence of anyone being ignorant.

As for people believing her, there's plenty of evidence of that.
Click to expand...

What I mean is, she is telling people what they want to hear. Her audience wants to hear someone trash Evolution, she'll happily do it, even if she doesn't believe it, or if she finds it easy to convince herself it is true. A lot of it appears to be a game for her.
 
a_unique_person said:
What I mean is, she is telling people what they want to hear. Her audience wants to hear someone trash Evolution, she'll happily do it, even if she doesn't believe it, or if she finds it easy to convince herself it is true. A lot of it appears to be a game for her.
Click to expand...


Gotcha. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
 
What I mean is, she is telling people what they want to hear. Her audience wants to hear someone trash Evolution, she'll happily do it, even if she doesn't believe it, or if she finds it easy to convince herself it is true. A lot of it appears to be a game for her.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the audience really wants is more of a figurehead, someone to nod their head too and say 'thats what i was thinking too'.
 
I wonder if Ann Coulter would still be as popular if she looked like Phyllis Schlafly? Thanks to bleach, silicone and Photoshop, Ann looks halfway attractive (even if she has a horse face). How many people are really listening after she shows a little skin with that miniskirt of hers. Same goes for her books. Few authors play kodak whore and slap a photo of themselves on the front of the dust jacket.
 
Ann Coulter is a prop to make the more ridiculous political positions look sane by comparison.

Why do they smear crap on the walls at a [random ethnic group] wedding?
To keep the flies off the bride.

Ann Coulter is the crap on the walls.
 
The Vampire said:
The person said, "She has footnotes in her books. That shows what she says is true."
Click to expand...

This is a plus and a minus. People at least acknowledge that works should have sources of information. It's an educational step up from blindly accepting the truth of printed pamphlets. People, in general, do not check the validity of those references, either to the internal structure of the argument or to the larger context. That will be the next step in social education, perhaps.

I countered with, "Have you ever checked the sources she cites?" I was met with a blank stare followed by a grumble that "Liberals always nitpick about little things!"
Click to expand...

Always more work to do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom