Posted on 11/07/2005 8:35:20 AM PST by dead
In defence of your wife, it would actually be the GOP jumping off conservatism
YYYYYYYAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN ... there they go again ... yyyaaaawwwwnnn.
So a very ancient species of an ape was found. That is an interesting find. To judge it it based on the article title is a HUGE assumption. Lets sit back and test the find before assuming it a common ancestor between human and ape.
I have yet to see a single ETer define conservatism coherently, athiest conservative is as much an oxymoron as queer conservative. Conservatives rely on tradition and practice not useless speculative theories. ET is as speculative useless and braindead as Marx's Das Kapital.
Surely you know that not all evolutionists are atheists. You're not seriously suggesting that 99% of the scientific community is comprised of atheists, are you? That notion is a creationist lie, plain and simple. More of the canards to advance the foolish notion that Evolution and Christianity are incompatible (a notion that the Catholic Church, no stranger to Christianity, has already debunked). Conservatives value the truth, and do not lie to advance their cause.
Second of all, conservatives value reason above blind dogma. We don't define truths by how they make us feel, which is the essense of ID.
Anyone who claims that the ToE is merely speculative hasn't read the information. Conservatives do not value ignorance, willful or otherwise.
For those reasons and more, I see nothing "conservative" about ID. It's the conservative PC, ignoring reality to prevent hurt feelings, nothing more.
Nonsense. But you know that already.
Look at those fangs in the upper jaw. Wouldn't want to get bitten by this dude.
Sorry, that doesn't sound very scientific.
That's a bunch of garbage. There are many people who are conservatives, on a great many issues, but who also are atheists or agnostics. This isn't a theocracy.
Ugh. That's pathetic. I would have expected better from him than PC garbage.
YYYYYYYAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN ... there they go again ... yyyaaaawwwwnnn.
Perhaps not surprisingly, that's about the most rational defense of ID that has been posted on these boards.
I know a lot of fundamentalists and members of the Christian right don't want to hear it, but there is a sizeable percentage of Republicans (such as me and my wife) who vote GOP primarily on economic and defense issues. We are uncomfortable with many of the social issues being pushed by the right wing of the party.
Would we vote Democrat? Probably not. However, we might decide to stay home on election day, and we would be less likely to give money at election time.
Absolutely. But I don't present mine as fact.
I understand completely. Personally, I'm on board with the Republicans/conservatives on the defense/military issues. I'd like to think that the Republicans would have been more responsible with the federal purse, but that has been shown to be a pipe dream. [line item veto, anyone??]. As for the social issues, a couple of the issues pursued by social-issue conservatives I agree with, but not to the extent they do. They are also not the highest priority with me.
The increasing self-identification of the party with the religious fundamentalists is rather troubling. And I agree that there's more of us than the religious right believes.
Would we vote Democrat? Probably not. However, we might decide to stay home on election day, and we would be less likely to give money at election time.
I think that one of these days, you're going to see a pro-military, pro-defense, moderate Democrat who will capture a lot of the disaffected voters. Thankfully, the Dems seem to be inclined to run someone like Dean, Hillary, or Kerry, instead.
I think the extreme social conservatives are a very vocal minority. While I respect their right to voice their opinions, letting them set the agenda will only push the party further towards Big Government conservatism.
The only difference between social conservatives and leftists is what they want the government to accomplish - they want to use the power of the state to enforce their own agenda, and all that does is increase the power of the state.
When they become the dominant force in the GOP, the GOP is done.
"Perhaps not surprisingly, that's about the most rational defense of ID that has been posted on these boards."
I know you're blind to common sense but this struck me funny. How many "transitional" skulls must you hear about and later learn they're a hoax?
I was yyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
about yet another wet dream of a "transitional" skull.
Hoaxes? Which ones?
The ones that *scientists* uncovered?
The ones that creationists continue to perpetuate?
Which ones?
You hit the nail on the head. To a large extent, the Dems have lost the last two elections because of the loopy nature of their candidates. If they run someone like Joe Lieberman next time around, or another middle of the road Democrat who is tough on defense, the GOP might be in trouble.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda, it is a theory, nothing more, nothing less.
That's right, and as scientists define the term, a theory is something pretty respectable (see below). Is this how you are defining it, or is it one of the other "definitions" you are using?
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
From an NSF abstract:
However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.Lifted from from RadioAstronomers's post #27 over on another thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.