Skip to comments.The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement
Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
click here to read article
The level of civility dropped a while back and, like you, I drifted away. It amazes me that just because we don't agree that it means we can't talk about it. Coyote was the only reason I posted on this thread because I knew him to be intelligent, reasonable and great to talk with.
I don't think I've ever come onto a CREVO thread hoping that someone would change their mind because of something I said. but I;ve sure searched further and further to understand why I believe what I believe based on what others have said. Hasn't changed my mind, but has been one heck of a fun journey to delve deeper into areas that interest me. Isn't that what JR created FR for?
Also, try googling "Cynthia Irwin-Williams" in addition to Cynthia Williams.
Here are some additional links:
ping for acknowledgement, and reply later.
Cynthia's bio states she used uranium dating at the Mexico site. FYI. Would Steen have used it also? Again, like you said, why would they use that more expensive method and not the usual c-14? Stange.
From the little I read of the articles, Steen was a graduate student, while Cynthia Irwin-Williams ran the project and wrote the report. You might check www.bookfinder.com and see if you can find a copy of the report.
C14 doesn't work on rocks. The sample material has to be something once living, such as charcoal, shell, or bone. I am not sure why she thought that the rocks would have been so old. Perhaps there was no charcoal in the site; that sometimes happens with older sites.
Anyway, if you can find the original report that should answer the questions.
If you have a library near, there is also a several-page obit in American Antiquity, Vol. 59(4). I'll try to remember to check that issue at the office and see if there are any more details for you.
More good info. Thanks.
I understand that, I need to go back (on my own time, not works) and see what she was called to date. For some reason I was under the impression that she was asked to date remains, but then the reference to the uranium dating, which is non-organic (?) testing, confuses me. I'll look more later.
I say someone is trying to get some press by attacking Ann Coulter. Way too late for that; she's been in the crosshairs ever since loser liberals have noticed her. One even tried to copycat her in an effort to sell some books.
Ann's writing is pretty good, and from what I understand her "outdated arguments" are not that outdated, since millions still apparently believe the moth stories, etc.
But only the last 150 trying to prove macro-evolution.
Spam is unsolicited advertizing. Ichneumon posted relevant facts and points to this discussion. Yes, it was lengthy. The stuff that gets posted by creationists and their ilk are small, sound-bite like points. But the lack of correct information coupled with the mind bogglingly misinformation implied by such short creationist snippets can only be refuted with what appear to be long winded explanations.
Moreover, Ichneumon takes the time to compose his own material with his own background reviews. He gives credit where credit is due and does not copy and paste. You are getting information from someone who is extremely knowledgeable in the field and, since you are a college student, you should suspend your personal animosity and pay attention to him. You might actually learn something.
The term also applies to forums with large amounts of content copied from other sources. I could do the same thing easily, copying an entire page of material from an AiG, True.Origin or CreationWiki page. But I practice what I preach; I’m not going to use up a bunch of space on a forum to copy and paste what can be covered with a link.
Yes, Ichneumon also writes his own stuff. Yes, he usually cites it. But let’s not kid ourselves; he copies and pastes all the time.
Knock it off with this “you might actually learn something” garbage, by the way. It’s really getting old.
So, let’s see. If I DO respond, then “Oho! Looks like SOMEONE hit a NERVE!”
And if I don’t respond? “HA HA, WHAT A COWARD!”
Kinda looks like you’ve set this thing up to win either way.
Oh, how funny....you certainly have a fine sense of humor...thanks for that...
You're very welcome
I checked the obit and it has nothing specific on the old Mexican site, but does have a complete bibliography. Are you interested in the references to that site? If so, could get them for you tomorrow. You might be able to dig them out of a major library if you have one nearby. I doubt that you'll find them on-line.
Thanks, as usual.
Thanks for the info. It should be good reading. I knew that there was a plus or minus factor involved.
No, it is not the same thing. You inhibit yourself from copying other people's work rather than writing your own. I hope you maintain that standard in school. I've seen too many students pass cut and paste off as their own essays. It would be another thing all together if you were an actual contributor, or on par with those contributors, to those sites and you could compose your own material.
But I practice what I preach; Im not going to use up a bunch of space on a forum to copy and paste what can be covered with a link.
Ichy posted relevant citations for Coulter's book, no the entire book. Moreover, links are not permanent and some of them have volumes of data. Ichy just extracted the relevant passage and gave proper citation to the source. It's a standard academic practice when writing anything of substance. The main difference is that he does not copy and paste others works and passes them along as an entire posts. The response he gave, albeit lengthy, is the only effective way to counter the creationists disinformation presented on these threads. Moreover, Ichy is on par with cutting edge scientists in the field. Judging by the responses to his post, it seems most creationists chose willful ignorance over enlightening themselves. A lot of people chose not to read it because it was long. What a whimpy, cowardly way to respond to someone who did a lot of work to produce a solid, technical post. To me, the choice to not read the post, and to brag about it, speaks volumes of the character of the objecting creationists.
Yes, Ichneumon also writes his own stuff. Yes, he usually cites it. But lets not kid ourselves; he copies and pastes all the time.
Your problem is that you can't handle someone that is actually a real sceintists who does this sort of thing for a living. It borders on libel when you accuse him of cutting and pasting when all he is doing is expertly refuting the sound bite posts you and other creationists spout. You, and your ilk, post far more than Ichy does. The only difference is that you make many small posts that are superficial at best. It takes effort to tread through these threads to get to something that actually has substance, like what Ichy posts. And based strictly on the postings themselves, it is clear that Ichy is very knowledgeable and you are not.
Personally, I see you more upset with the solid broadside of detailed information Ichy posted than anyting else. Sure his posts are a long read, but you will get a lot more out of them than the creationist 'Godidit' or 'evilutionists are gay commies' nonsense that the immature post here.
Knock it off with this you might actually learn something garbage, by the way. Its really getting old.
It really is your loss, not mine. You want to be the spokesman for creationists here. You maintian the creationists ping list. You appear to want a leadship role in advancing creationism agains the evils of evolution. If that is true, the least you can do is pull your head out of the sand and learn what your opponents known and to understand what they understand. I'm not telling you to agree with it, but if you can't understand the other side of an issue, you cannot effectively campaign against it. You will, instead, pass off your own preconceptions rather than engage in a fact for fact, issue driven discussion. By chosing NOT to read Ichy's post, you are chosing ignorance and are of no use to your own cause. Unless, of course, you are more interested in the praises of other creationists and jsut want to throw out sound bite points without any foundation. In that case, you can never be a leader against evolution, but only a propagandist, and a weak one at that, for creationism.
It’s not 43, it’s 42. And the question is “what do you get when you multiply six by nine?” That is the answer to everything.
No... You set yourself up as the fool. You needed no help from me.
I've linked to them here:
Finally. An explanation.
That ‘s a very accurate list of links countering Ichy’s points. I’m bookmarking it for future reference. Thanks!
Just trying to do my part. Because I care!
LibertarianSchmoe, like doc30, I also appreciate that list of links regarding any and all posts that actually did address the points that Ichy made...when will I have the time to read all of them?
These are the references I think pertinent from the bibliography of Cynthia Irwin-Williams [American Antiquity, Vol. 59(4)]:
1967 Comments on Allegations by J.L. Lorenzo Concerning Archaeological Research at Valsequillo, Puebla. Misc. Publications No. 1, Paleoindian Institute, Eastern New Mexico, Portales.
1967 Associations of Early Man with Horse, Camel, and Mastodon at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo (Puebla, Mexico). In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, ed. by P.S. Martin and H.E. Wright, Jr. Proceedings of the VII Congress of the International Association of Quaternary Research. Yale Univ. Press.
1969 Comments on the Associations of Archaeological Materials and Extinct Fauna in the Valsequillo Region, Puebla, Mexico. American Antiquity, Vol. 34:82-93.
1969 Artefactos humanos encontrados en asociacion con los restos de une fauna extinta pleistocenica, en las region de Valsequillo, Pueblo, Mexico. In Proceedings of the First Congress on Early Man in Latin America, Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile.
1969 Dilemma Posed by Uranium-Series Dates on Archaeologically Significant Bones from Valsequillos, Puebla, Mexico. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:237-244.
1978 Summary of Archaeological Evidence from the Valsequillo Region, Puebla, Mexico. In Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, ed. by D.L. Browman. Mouton, The Hague.
Hope this helps. You need to check a major library. But, when doing serious research, that's always the way you have to go.
also, I worked up a bunch of questions as I was reading last night and I'll try to get those to see what you think, know or can recommend.
Too long, you think? Maybe someone should complain to management. I believe that's the proper way to handle Too Much Information.
But what if I'm thinking that it's a differential space-time gradient that created an appearance of such for you?
Topological 2D Riemann-Cartan-Weyl gravity :-)
In that case you need to see a shrink and or get off the drugs you are taking.
You did not get his point I see.
With regards to C14 dating. I liked the 50s A-bomb testing avenue and know that it would increase the available neutrons which in turn increases C14 concentrations. Im still digging on that subject. Thanks for pointing it out.
Here is where I am also going. What effect, and how would C14 dating be adjusted for sealed underground water reservoirs seepage? Correct me if Im wrong, but the sealed water chamber would be free of C14 because it has been shielded from cosmic radiation. If it were to leech out at, some point, it would upset C14 ratios?
This is a new avenue of thought for me, but there are/were a lot of underground water that move and seep due to tectonic movement throughout the ages?
As usual, you are the field expert and Id love to hear your thoughts.
Check this out.
A sealed water source would receive no C14 from the atmosphere, and the existing levels would eventually drop below the detectable level. (However, tiny amounts of C14 can be created by radioactivity in rocks, which is why coal, dinosaur bones, and other ancient materials often produce measurable amounts of C14.) This could result in dates on that water being too old.
You can get the same problem with water exposed to limestone. It absorbs carbon with no appreciable C14 content, hence dating too old. Freshwater shellfish who live in such water also date too old. These problems have been studied. These effects generally result in dates a few hundred to, perhaps in extreme cases, a thousand or more years too old.
The solution is to know what you are dating and to date multiple materials and compare the dates one against another. My last major excavation produced 31 radiocarbon dates.
A better example is deep water in oceans. Through the upwelling effect, deep water with lower amounts of C14 can enter the food chain and be absorbed by shellfish and sea mammals, as well as the humans who consume those items as food. When these materials, or the humans, are subsequently dated, the dates can be too old.
There are two ways to correct for this. First, for humans, establish the C13/C12 and N15/N14 ratios (these are stable isotopes). This can let you estimate the percent of marine organisms in the diet and hence the amount of carbon from upwelling.
For shellfish and sea mammals you assume 100% marine carbon, and apply a reservoir correction. There have been a lot of studies comparing charcoal and shellfish, for example, as well as dates done on shellfish collected at known dates prior to the atomic bomb tests. These have led to a correction factor applied to dates on marine shell. (See Marine Reservoir Correction Database.) In our area the average correction is on the order of 650 years.
The test of these corrections is how closely marine shell and charcoal date when two samples from the exact same provenience are dated (for example a trash or fire pit). All of the paired samples I have had dated have been statistically the same, showing the calibration is accurate.
Hope this helps.
It's possible we have "a failure to communicate."
This is an odd departure from the usual modes of logical discourse. Since when is thinking a form of libel?
When you accuse someone of cutting and pasting their essays, and it isn't true. Sue me for sloppy writing. The original comment by DLR was defamatory and untrue. Not only that, but he has made the claim numerous times and has been informed numerous times that the claim is untrue.
You also seem to have ignored the fact that a creationist has plagiarized his essay. Someday one of these little thefts will result in a lawsuit against FR.
The missing link is missing for a reason.
Frog to a prince in a moment is a fairy tale. Add a bit of time and it’s “fact.” Right.
... then God is a liar, or an impotent misleading ill-informed wimp. Scripture is pretty clear about how “all this” came about. If it didn’t come about as Scripture clearly says, then the God of that Scripture is not worth following.
As for me, I’ll believe the evidence *and* Scripture, that slime did not produce Man.
DaveLoneRanger is handling the ping list because most of us are tired of being attacked by those who either hate God or who are deceived by those who hate God into believing that God is impotent and irrelevant, and that “all this” just came about because of chance. It’s a tiring discussion to have to refute what evolutionists consider “evidence” that supports their anti-God theory.
We’re tired of continuing to provide evidence that Reason exists, and that Reason brought “all this” about, that slime is not our cousin, that the evidence points to something other than “evolution.”
I don’t know if you’re a Christian or not. If you are, of course you don’t need to believe Scripture and the evidence to be saved. You simply need to have a humble relationship with Christ. If you are a Christian, though, there’s a joy and liberation to be able to believe the evidence and Scripture, to stand in awe of what the Lord has done, rather than to believe in the theory that God is a liar and is not involved.
If you’re not a Christian, then your position on evolution naturally follows from your God-is-irrelevant presupposition.
This old thing again?
I do not care for the fact that RA, and Patrck Henry and so many others have been booted from this Forum, but the truth is, my opinion does not carry a lot of clout here.
It seems that the proprietors here have determined that there was a sort of tumor growing, and so they excised it.
I guess that the bottom line is that this is a political forum, and a conservative forum, and not a place for advancing the notions of agenda driven know it alls who like to rub elbows with the greater than hoi polloi.
There are many Christians and Jews who believe that the Scriptures are allegorical rather than literal. Are they call God a liar? Are they God haters?
When Scripture speaks plainly, it’s best to interpret it plainly, rather than START with the presumption that it’s probably wrong and therefore needs to be interpreted allegorically.
When Scripture (including Jesus) speak of an Adam who sinned, it’s probably best to believe Scripture. Of course, you’re free to disbelieve Jesus. It’s a free country.
The use of Evolution to attack Christianity is not justified. It is a scientific abuse by such an attacker because science is impotent to address issues of faith. Evolution is neither pro-God or anti-God.
Evolution has happened and continues to happen with every passing generation of every living thing. Natural selection is the theory that explains these observations.
My biggest problem isn't with Christianity, for I am Christian. My issue is with the literal interpretation of Genesis which is not supported by physical observation. To me, it is the interpretation that needs to be re-examined, not denied. My faith is not threatened by a world billions of years old and a dwelling place for creatures that faded to extinction long before we were here. There is great awe in that.
There is no evidence of any kind that supports a 6 day creation about 6000-10000 years ago. Genetics undeniably does show that 'slime' is a distant biological relation to us.
Like I told DLR, one must understand his opposition before trying to counter it. I have yet to meet a creationist who has done this.