Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement
Talk Reason (from Skeptical Inquirer) ^ | March 14, 2007 | Peter Olofsson

Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-450 next last
To: CyberAnt

Ah, so you ask for proof and detail, when someone posts it, you ignore it?

Wow, nice firewall around your brain.


151 posted on 03/31/2007 6:10:12 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Fundie Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Nice try.

In the beginnig, God CREATED....


152 posted on 03/31/2007 6:11:26 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"It seems clear from that document that the modern iteration of ID is a ruse to sneak creation "science" back into the classrooms, after it was eliminated by a Supreme Court decision in the late 1980s."

I have a better idea. Instead of worrying so much about religion sneaking INTO the classroom, perhaps we should just get gov't OUT of the classroom.

No Separation of Church and State would need apply, as if there were such a thing.

~faith.

153 posted on 03/31/2007 6:12:09 PM PDT by ziravan (winning the lotto one vote at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I agree. To me, Creation is the reason. Evolution is the method.


154 posted on 03/31/2007 6:12:36 PM PDT by TxCopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts; Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

And there it is, the cultural world clash, one knowlegable of what actually happened inside our country 40 years ago, and one who has no clue.

We not only prayed in school sometimes, but we questioned our teachers when evolution came up, especially when they tried to teach Lamarkism, that Giraffes got longer necks beause generations of giraffes stretched to reach leaves, leaving the short necked baby giraffes to starve with no long necks...


155 posted on 03/31/2007 6:14:38 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser; All

A Baptist preacher had a valuable friend who was a biologist. One day at lunch, the biologist claimed he was so excited because after 25 years of research, he had discovered the 5 major elements in the universe:

Time
Force
Energy
Space
Matter

The Preacher started laughing and said, "Well, that's too bad, because you could have saved yourself those 25 years if you had just read the first line of the Bible. It says:

In the beginning - TIME
God - FORCE
created - ENERGY
the heavens - SPACE
and the earth - MATTER

You can save yourself and your friends a lot of trouble. I do not nor will I EVER believe in evolution. I may be a lot of things, but I'm not ignorant about GOD!

Frankly, I don't give a rip what you believe. I believe God!

Goodbye!!


156 posted on 03/31/2007 6:17:15 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Bravo Ichy, its quite fine work that you do...I read everything, and look forward to even more when you have it completed..

And for those who will not read your grand rebuttal, so what?...I think you and many of us know, that will always be those who will refuse to read and understand what you have written...that is a given...

But rest assured, for many posters here, as well as for the lurkers, your work is appreciated...


157 posted on 03/31/2007 6:17:27 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I distinctly recall telling my 9th grade biology teacher that SHE might have come from monkeys; I did not.

~faith.


158 posted on 03/31/2007 6:19:14 PM PDT by ziravan (winning the lotto one vote at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

I'm smart!


159 posted on 03/31/2007 6:20:08 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Whewwwww you call it unreadable, I feel better, I thought it was just me.
160 posted on 03/31/2007 6:20:43 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Hi, I agree there's too much time wasted on irrelevancies and personal attacks.

I've asked questions several times and have never gotten a (to me) satisfactory reply. The questions, for those who hold to a naturalistic view of creation, are the following:

- If you were to drop a pencil a week from now, which direction would it go? What if you did it two weeks from now? Why do you answer the way you do?

- Do you believe in the historicity of Adam?


161 posted on 03/31/2007 6:21:27 PM PDT by rudy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

And many who support evolution, also believe God and are not ignorant of God...we may not believe your personal interpretation of the Bible tho, and that is truly what this comes down to...We may not buy into your particular notion of God tho...

Millions of people do support evolution, and believe God...that is evident on this thread, and is evident in real life as well...


162 posted on 03/31/2007 6:22:56 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
[Hitler was actually privately basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.]

What Hitler thought of Biblical foundations

Hitler did indeed go after churches because they rose up to oppose him, but that doesn't change the fact that he did indeed base his racial views on Biblical foundations (again, as revealed by his own private handwritten notes), and felt that he was "solving" the "Jewish problem" in order to, in his own words, do "the work of the Lord". But neither the Bible nor Christianity in general is responsible for Hitler's choices and depravities, nor would Darwin nor the theory of evolution be responsible even if he *had* used them for support in the way he used the Bible. As I wrote in other posts:

[...] the fact that the KKK and other groups explicitly rested their actions firmly on religious grounds, and explicitly *attacked* evolutionists. If you and Coulter can play guilt-by-association by mentioning that Marx liked Darwin, I'll be glad to return the favor and point out that you're on the same side as the KKK with regards to being pro-Christian and anti-evolution. That means exactly as much/little as the Hitler/Marx/Darwin twaddle, so tell me again how much stock you put into such stuff. [...] It's one thing to note that "Darwinism" has been misused and abused -- but name me one ideology that hasn't been.

[...]

Science describe how things happen when nature is left to take its course -- only a moron would argue that this is how things *should* be or that humans are bound to "assist" nature in killing off the weak and drowning people who live in the paths of flash floods and infecting people who are at risk of pathogens.

[...]

You do not see the connections between their thoughts and their actions?

I see connections between Hitler's rabid hatred of Jews and his actions. I see connections between Stalin's brutality and his actions. I see connections between Mao's lust for power and his actions. I don't see that a study of how species are shaped by nature suddenly turns anyone into a monster. These men would have been monsters in any age, whether Darwin had written books on biology or not. Plenty of racists through the ages have "justified" their innate racism by quoting scripture, too, but scripture didn't make them racists, it was just one of the things they used to try rationalize their behavior.


163 posted on 03/31/2007 6:23:00 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

So, when in doubt, just trust in ignorance?

Stubborn and ignorant is no way to go through life.


164 posted on 03/31/2007 6:23:50 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Fundie Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"They aren't worth a word. Just glance - and pass" [Dante, Inferno] And while they are not worth a word as they haven't yet evolved to comprehend it, you spent a whole bunch of words on them.


165 posted on 03/31/2007 6:25:11 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
reductio ad Hitlerum

lol

Thanks for the post, excellent read!

166 posted on 03/31/2007 6:26:45 PM PDT by Cruising Speed (Give A Hoot, Vote For Newt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
A Baptist preacher had a valuable friend who was a biologist. One day at lunch, the biologist claimed he was so excited because after 25 years of research, he had discovered the 5 major elements in the universe: Time
Force
Energy
Space
Matter

Look, if you have to distort the actual tenets of science that badly -- i.e. if you have just make it up as you go along like this and have a "scientist" making a claim that no scientist actually makes -- then obviously the conclusion to your "parable" is so weak you have to "fudge" the answer to make it come out the way you like.

Sad.

Come back when you've got enough knowledge of the topic to be able to discuss the subject on its actual merits, you'll find that people might take you more seriously for a change.

167 posted on 03/31/2007 6:30:26 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
but that doesn't change the fact that he did indeed base his racial views on Biblical foundations

It's not a fact.

According to the Bible the JEWS ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE LOVED BY GOD !

And where does scripture mandate racial discrimination? I suppose you can make the claim that the Jews were commanded not to mingle with certain nations but all those nations were basically the same race.

When it comes to different races, Moses had black wives and the Ethiopians (blacks) are never referred to in any demeaning fashion.

There is not a hint of racial discrimination in the New Testament.

168 posted on 03/31/2007 6:33:13 PM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Sorry. Still don't care, but I like the pictures.


169 posted on 03/31/2007 6:35:14 PM PDT by Poser (Willing to fight for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Brevity is the soul of wit - Shakespeare (Hamlet)
170 posted on 03/31/2007 6:35:44 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (In this (political) War, Republicans are gutless appeasers. -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Ichy how you do go on...
but I still LOVE YOU... and pray for you..
171 posted on 03/31/2007 6:36:00 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: rudy45
- Do you believe in the historicity of Adam?

I'll take this one....

It is said that man is the image of God, but given the nature of an omnipresent God, clearly this is not a physical image. Indeed, one of the tenets of Judaism is that God has no physical form. Therefore, this image is a spiritual and/or intellectual image.

God tells Moses that His name is "I am that I am." I believe that Adam was the first Homo sapiens to have the idea, "I am," and thus become the image of God, "I am that I am."

Physically, there were human creatures before Adam, but they were not, spiritually, in the image of God. Adam took -- or was led through -- that necessary step.

172 posted on 03/31/2007 6:37:55 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (WWGD -- What would Groucho do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating.

I remember what you do/did. :o)

Here is a things that pique my curiosity about carbon dating:

The c14 method uses assumed c14/c12 ratios. The assumption is that the atmosphere was the same when the organic material is being analyised. With radiocarbon being manufactured in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays, historically the assumption is that it has not changed. Therein is an "x" factor.

This is from Fairhill and young and I'll quote it so that I do not mangle it. "We note in passing that the total natural (current?)c14 inventory of 2.16 x 1030 atoms corresponds to the c14 decay rate of 1.63 x 104 disintegrations/m2s of the earth, considerably below the estimated production rate of c14 atoms averaged over the last 10 solar cycles (111 years) of 2.5 x 104 (+0.5 x 104) atoms/m2s. The source of discrepancy is unknown unless the present day production rate is indeed significantly higher than the average production rate." (Advances in Chemistry, vol. 93 pg. 402)

The possible influx/outflow rates are where the possible errors are. This is based on the advancements of tree-ring data showing that the issue is a lot more complex than was/is first thought.

Hope that wasn't too mangled and glad to see you got my personal post to you.

K4

173 posted on 03/31/2007 6:39:31 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my Hummer with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

If Hitler used scripture to base any of his beliefs, then that is an example of Satan's perversions of the Word of God. It makes me sick!


174 posted on 03/31/2007 6:40:30 PM PDT by pcottraux (Fred Thompson pronounces it "P. Coe-troe"...in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Ah, thanks.

The bible says, though, that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. Paul, in Romans 5, calls Adam the first man.

What is your reaction to this position? And, on what authority do you form your own beliefs? Thanks.


175 posted on 03/31/2007 6:41:00 PM PDT by rudy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

As you say, it is your business. But you cannot, in all fairness, hold me accountable for how YOU interpret what I said.


176 posted on 03/31/2007 6:41:10 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I read Ann Coulter's book.

I have studied a bit of Biology. Nowadays it is all about Micro biology, and Molecular biology.

When I was a kid, my College Biology courses were all about Plants & Animals. They don't teach that stuff no more in college. You have to specialize these days, if you want to learn about deciduous plants, or insect colonies, etc.

Most modern day professors will find ways to inject the TOE into their lectures regularly. Who the heck is going to object to such notions while the teacher has the power of the subjective grading?

There is no serious debate happening on college campuses these days concerning TOE!

You, and your others who have opused on this matter willingly or not, have fallen into the same trap as the global warming idiots who somehow now think that Moon Bat Al Gore's messiah complex is just a minor character flaw.

If I had time for discourse. I'd enjoy a romp around the block with you and those of your mindset. The fact is, my time is more precious to me right now than that whimsical ambition.

So the, let me be succinct.... take a hike hike, and take your BS intellectualism with you.

177 posted on 03/31/2007 6:41:55 PM PDT by Radix (Reasonable people often can and do disagree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

Just remember how Satan quoted Scripture when tempting our Lord.


178 posted on 03/31/2007 6:42:40 PM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Did I ask for your condemnation by saying I don't care? Suffer us fools a quiet space not to care so much about so little.


179 posted on 03/31/2007 6:42:57 PM PDT by PatrickF4 ("The greatest dangers to liberty lurk...with men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; EveningStar
Well, the portion of Godless dealing with the theory of evolution is rather small to begin with.

ROFL!!! Did you actually read the book? She spends far more time on the theory of evolution than any other topic, by far.

Four full chapters on evolution out of 11, chapters 8-11, comprising 83 pages (pages 199-281), fully 30% of her entire book, and no other topic had anywhere near that much of the book devoted to it. It was *the* main focus of the book, and the one she chose to end with as a "capper".

Uh uh, that's a "rather small" portion of her book. Yeah. Right. Pull the other leg now.

180 posted on 03/31/2007 6:43:28 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Ah, so now you want to whine..


181 posted on 03/31/2007 6:45:53 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It used to be PatrickHenry, but he and some of his troublemaking companions got their knickers in a knot when Jim Robinson came out against evolution, and vacated the forum.

Wow, what a remarkably distorted "summary" of the actual events and reasons...

But hey, why start being fair and accurate now, eh?

182 posted on 03/31/2007 6:46:50 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

It is quite grand that you actually read the whole book and can give an accurate report of how much of that book, discussed evolution...I myself did not read the book, and from many of the reports right here on FR, I was led to believe that evolution was 'barely' discussed...

Now, I see, that may have not been true...I guess I will just have to get the book for myself, and actually see who is telling the truth here...Of course, I am sure, you know, that I rely on your judgement here, as you have actually given us the number of chapters that actually discussed evolution...all I have to do, is look it up, and see who is telling the truth, and who is stretching it...

Thanks for the info...


183 posted on 03/31/2007 6:50:34 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: rudy45
The bible says, though, that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. Paul, in Romans 5, calls Adam the first man.

First off, I'm Jewish, so Paul doesn't impact how I think. However, I will note that from my description above, Adam was the first man in a spiritual sense. I'm not sure a homo sap without a spirit is man.

With regard to Adam being made of the dust of the ground, there's something interesting about the Hebrew word translated as "made" of "formed." From what I've read, the root of the word a term used for making pottery.

A potter does not simply throw down clay and have it take the form he wants. He molds and reshapes it over time. The image, I think, a Hebrew would have had from Genesis 2:7, is not an instant creation in final form, but a creation in which formless material is molded and remolded, through intermediate forms, until its final form.

Which, all in all, is not that bad a description of evolution in terms that ancient people might understand.

In other words, I believe the first part of Genesis 2:7 is an explicit description of evolution.

184 posted on 03/31/2007 6:52:17 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (WWGD -- What would Groucho do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
...feel free to provide what you think are your 2-3 *best* examples, and I'll be glad to go over them for you.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on uniformitarian geology and the explanation for things like the Matterhorn, mammoth graveyards in the arctic/Siberia, The Lewis overthrust, La Brea tar pits, Sicilian fossil graveyards over 4000 feet above sea level on Mt. Etna, The Malta caves and how they should not be placed in the deluvian model?

185 posted on 03/31/2007 6:55:51 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my Hummer with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

What an extremely interesting perspective on that verse...I had not heard of this view before, and I thank you for it...


186 posted on 03/31/2007 6:56:07 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: PatrickF4
Did I ask for your condemnation by saying I don't care?

I did not "condemn" you.

Suffer us fools a quiet space not to care so much about so little.

I did not call you a "fool".

I pinged you to a post I thought you might find of interest, since you at least cared enough about the topic to come read the thread and comment on it, and my post was not at its heart about "the varying philosophies of man", as you put it, it's about honesty and integrity, which I hope you'll agree are more lofty subjects than mere disagreements about "varying philosophies".

187 posted on 03/31/2007 6:56:20 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Screamname; Eaker
The primates that are around today, Gorillas, Chimps, Orangutans, seem to have all survived when Cro-magnon, Neaderthals have not

You reckon we oughta wear name tags or something?

188 posted on 03/31/2007 6:56:34 PM PDT by humblegunner (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; PatrickHenry
Are you thinking of PatrickHenry?

Sorry PH if you are already here. Haven't got to the end of the threads.

189 posted on 03/31/2007 6:57:47 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my Hummer with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: K4Harty
Here is a things that pique my curiosity about carbon dating:

The c14 method uses assumed c14/c12 ratios. The assumption is that the atmosphere was the same when the organic material is being analyised. With radiocarbon being manufactured in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays, historically the assumption is that it has not changed. Therein is an "x" factor.

This is from Fairhill and young and I'll quote it so that I do not mangle it. "We note in passing that the total natural (current?)c14 inventory of 2.16 x 1030 atoms corresponds to the c14 decay rate of 1.63 x 104 disintegrations/m2s of the earth, considerably below the estimated production rate of c14 atoms averaged over the last 10 solar cycles (111 years) of 2.5 x 104 (+0.5 x 104) atoms/m2s. The source of discrepancy is unknown unless the present day production rate is indeed significantly higher than the average production rate." (Advances in Chemistry, vol. 93 pg. 402)

The possible influx/outflow rates are where the possible errors are. This is based on the advancements of tree-ring data showing that the issue is a lot more complex than was/is first thought.

You ask about C14/C12 ratios, and the ratios in the atmosphere in the past, and write "historically the assumption is that it has not changed."

That was true in the early days of radiocarbon dating. But, in 1958, de Vries showed that atmospheric fluctuations did occur and suggested means of accounting for them in dating. The fluctuation appears to be on the order of 1%. Since then, a detailed calibration curve has been worked out using dendrochronology and other techniques.

The current calibration curve is in 1 year increments back to about AD 1600, and in 10 year increments back to about 12,600 years ago. Much of this is based on the tree rings found in standing dead bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of southern California. Bristlecone pines have distinct annual rings because of their environment, unlike other species, which can have more than one ring per year. These tree rings are matched with environmental events, such as volcanoes, of known ages, and the method is shown to be accurate as far back as these comparisons are possible.

The tree-ring calibration curve has been confirmed and extended based on other methods. It goes back past 25,000 years last I heard.

Your next question is on the current C14 levels. You cite an article which notes, "The source of discrepancy is unknown unless the present day production rate is indeed significantly higher than the average production rate."

The answer is likely that since the atomic bomb tests beginning in the 1940s, the atmospheric levels of C14 have increased from what they were prior to the tests. Perhaps this is what Fairhill and Young have noted.

Your final comment on tree-rings; I am not sure what you mean by that.

For a large amount of information on radiocarbon dating, see Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

190 posted on 03/31/2007 7:02:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Dave Elias
"but evolution is NOT A SCIENCE " Yes it is.

No, actually it isn't. Evolution is a branch of science that has multiple disciplines. Such as mirco and macro that is followed using other SCIENCE disciplines. There is not a degree in Evolution.

191 posted on 03/31/2007 7:02:43 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my Hummer with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
I also have a problem qualifying throat-cutters as followers of God, the essential basis of Western religion. The cutthroat Barbary pirates were practicing theft and slavery in the name of Allah. Can one imagine a God who would approve of such behavior?

Have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The opening up of the New World? The Slave trade? Maybe you should go watch the Merchant of Venice.

The People of the Book are more similar than any other group of people.

192 posted on 03/31/2007 7:03:15 PM PDT by LeGrande (Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God of Abraham.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

>> Personally, I like to defend truth no matter who says it...

And here you lie completely in the margins of error. As one who purports to be a critical thinker, you should reflect on your statement I quoted above. It's quite a statement few should be willing to make.

You certainly could have made your point without a catalog of information. To inundate the thread with so much data is obnoxious - and of course, we know you know that.

The practice of science is not that of Faith. It's a pragmatism that welcomes volatility, curiosity, creativity, and reexamination. Dogmatic practitioners soon find themselves mumbling alone and without cause. If you're unwilling to engage then best not to complain or mumble for that matter.


193 posted on 03/31/2007 7:03:27 PM PDT by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Radix; Ichneumon
So the, let me be succinct.... take a hike hike, and take your BS intellectualism with you.

Wow! What a reasoned response!

I'm sure Ichneumon, as well as the lurkers, are impressed by your wit and acumen!

194 posted on 03/31/2007 7:07:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

...all I did was make a stupid Seinfeld joke.


195 posted on 03/31/2007 7:08:44 PM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I didn't figure the A-bomb testing. Great point. You covered the tree ring calibration. but concerning the c14/c12 ratios I noticed that the quote I used was from the 70's. That is when Fairhill and Young were doing their research. How does that jive with DeVries?

45 journals! Jeez, C-man everytime you send me a link it takes me a year to get through them! :o) I think that is why I only get to discuss this with you about that often!

Also, are you AZ? i haven't check your homepage. If you are I have a question about an excavation down there a while back (50's or 60's) that has a "mysterious" theory about it. If I think of her name and that of the dig she was working on I'll send it.

If I don't get back to you tonight it's because Im over at the link you sent.

FReepgards,

K4

196 posted on 03/31/2007 7:11:57 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my Hummer with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Why do you say, that Ichy posting his data was obnoxious?...frankly, I was fascinated by it, as I am sure others may have been as well...of course, I did take the time to read it all, and tried to absorb as much as I could...But this is no different from other posters who post nothing but reams of Scriptures...actually whenever I am on a thread that piques my interet, I do make the attempt to read everyones posts, long, short or somewhere in between...

I did not know that there was a standard to be followed, as to how long, or short ones posts should be...

Frankly, if a long post upsets you, just scroll right on past it...but for the rest of us, those long posts may be something we are greatly interested in..

Until JR, says, that no one can post such long posts, there will always be some of these...so what?...just that mouse and just scroll on past...the rest of us, will take up your slack...


197 posted on 03/31/2007 7:12:12 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
whenever I am on a thread that piques my interet, I do make the attempt to read everyones posts, long, short or somewhere in between...

Pass the coffee, we're gonna be here a while.

:o)

198 posted on 03/31/2007 7:16:06 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (I buy gas for my Hummer with the Carbon Offsets I sell on Ebay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: K4Harty
I didn't figure the A-bomb testing. Great point. You covered the tree ring calibration. but concerning the c14/c12 ratios I noticed that the quote I used was from the 70's. That is when Fairhill and Young were doing their research. How does that jive with DeVries?,/i>

On the C14/C12 ratios, that appears to be natural. Fluctuations on the order of 1% appear when the tree-ring comparison is made.

This was found, if I recall, by de Vries by comparing historically known samples with radiocarbon dates. Once the tree-ring calibration was developed, the ages matched.

I am not sure of the method used by Fairhill and Young; I have not examined their paper. If they were just using the beginning and end points of their range, they might have been using ratios affected by nuclear bombs for the end points, giving an artificially inflated slope.

Check into it and let me know what you find.

199 posted on 03/31/2007 7:19:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom; Gene Eric
Frankly, if a long post upsets you, just scroll right on past it...

LOL, admittedly, that's what I did. I'm a bit of a hypocrite, though, being known for long posts myself. I'm actually not sure why I was included in the long ping...was he pinging everyone who posted here? Must have taken some effort.

200 posted on 03/31/2007 7:20:21 PM PDT by pcottraux (Fred Thompson pronounces it "P. Coe-troe"...in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-450 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson