if you mean to ask if i search the net, um, not generally for things like that. I like to rely on my mind, you know, challenge it to rembmer those oddball facts. Like on my vacation just recently, we saw ducks sitting on a dock, but they weren't called ducks in the language of the area. their name translates into mallards. I spent the next five hours fuming over it, 'cause I couldn't remember what it was, and then on the way to a cousin's house, I went "A MALLARD. THAT"S WHAT THEY"RE CALLED" kinda scared everyone with that shout too. totally random. but man, once you figure it out, feels good.
search engines are great, but it makes a mind lasier (not that I've any hard evidnece for this, just general suspiscion).
and yeah, I know this is off-topic, so I won't continue in this vein.
There is a song by Hamell on Trail called "Coulter's Snatch" I think you like it.I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.
Wow, those guys are talented. :rolleyes:“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” –Steve Turner
There doesn't appear to have been much actual criticism of Coulter's book beyond the OP on this thread. However, Jerry Coyne, a biologist at the University of Chicago, has written an excellent on-line piece discussing Coulter's misunderstanding (and I'm being very generous) of evolution and biology. For your edification: Coultergeist (with many thanks to arricchio from iidb.org).
To put this in a bit of context, for those who don't know Coyne, he is the author of numerous papers on the genetics of speciation, and co-author with H. Allen Orr of the book Speciation (Sinauer 2004). He has also conducted several debates with leading "creation scientists", and has been an expert witness in several anti-evolution court cases.
"There doesn't appear to have been much actual criticism of Coulter's book beyond the OP on this thread. However, Jerry Coyne, a biologist at the University of Chicago, has written an excellent on-line piece discussing Coulter's misunderstanding"
There are no "misunderstandings". Coyne, like most evolutionists, set themselves up as a "teacher" correcting an inferior (opponent). This happens when the evo cannot refute his opponent. In reality, Coyne simply disagrees and/or like I said cannot refute. The tactic is wholly dishonest = the evo way. Since Coyne is a dark-minded evolutionist all of his conclusions are predetermined every step of the way.
Coyne, like most evolutionists, set themselves up as a "teacher" correcting an inferior (opponent). This happens when the evo cannot refute his opponent.
This doesn't make any sense. That is how you refute an opponent when their conclusions are based on false premises - you inform them of the true premises.
The conclusions of science are not democratic. They're evidence-based, and as such, there are correct conclusions and incorrect ones.
Any time a person in possession of correct information chooses to share that with someone in possession of no information, or incorrect information, that interaction is going to take the form of teacher/student - because that's exactly what teachers do (or are supposed to do,) disseminate correct information to people who lack it.
I'm sorry you view that as "dishonest." But realistically, because the conclusions of ID and creationism are wrong at every step, the interaction can take no other form. Evolutionists and creationists are not equals, in regards to being in possession of the facts. Their interactions are not ever going to be able to take the form of equals sharing opinions, or whatever you would prefer, because of that. Because of the inherent inferiority of the creationist position.
It doesn't mean anything. For people like Herpeton, no matter what happens, it proves creationism.
Evolutionists can't present contradictory factual evidence? Proves creationism, obviously. Evolutionists present contradictory factual evidence? Proves creationism, obviously, because if creationism wasn't so correct, why would evolutionists be so rude and arrogant as to presume that they know better?
I guess I'm intrigued to know if herepton actually believes that because a man is an evolutionist then his actions are predetermined in some way.
and on what basis he believes this to be the truth. OT I know, but the extremists on here seem to be fast dissappearing into the realms of insanity. not too long ago there was talk of a christian force to be sent into the middle east under "Heavy Prayer Cover" :eek: