Don't need no stinkin' research!
Posted on 08/18/2005 5:17:34 PM PDT by curiosity
I don't see what the problem is with taxpayers deciding how the government spends their money. Do you? Sure others will do the research, but presumably with less money, without Uncle Sam writing checks. The underground comment is silly. Even assuming the issue were one of funding rather than prohibition, the idea the research would be done illegally in some basement is ludicrous. It would just be done in countries where it is legal.
Garlic enemas, every two hours. For forty days and forty nights. Always works.
I think I may have found a new tagline.
Let's just survey the trailer park to see what they want our research money spent on, shall we?
Sure others will do the research, but presumably with less money, without Uncle Sam writing checks. The underground comment is silly.
Not at all. Do you really think the 50 billion spent on AIDS research in the last 20 years was really spent on studying one little retrovirus?
Even assuming the issue were one of funding rather than prohibition, the idea the research would be done illegally in some basement is ludicrous.
The issue is only funding. If you outlaw something specific, all you do is change the title on the research grants.
It would just be done in countries where it is legal.
It's already being done there as fast as possible and they are hoping we keep shooting ourselves in the foot instead of competing.
In short, your post is quite a mouthful in my view.
Facts are stubborn things.
The Creator, were He to meet the creation half-way, what might He do? Is it unreasonable to assume He might make use of human language? Is it outside the realm of reason that He might have a set pattern of words not subject to addition of correction? Would He leave it at a bunch of words, or might He also jump into the fray and do something?
The biblical texts indicate that in all situations where the Creator has had, shall we say "direct," dealings with humans, He could not reveal Himself in all His glory. That would require such a suspension of the physical laws of the universe that no human flesh would survive. Thus, it is for scientific, physical reasons, that we are not permitted a "face to face" with the Creator this very moment.
But, when the time was right He entered into biological structure, blood, DNA, and the like. "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." And, as needed from time to time (as it has always been) the laws of "nature" were momentarily suspended, as if it were not a miracle to begin with that the earth and heavens exist and continue as they do.
Drives the Darwinists and materialists nuts, as if science cannot function in an environment where the laws of physics just might demonstrate some downright unreasonable behavior on occasion. At the same time they will be the first to tell you "direct observation" can be deceiving. "We don't have to see a history of amoeba-to-man to know it is true and scientific."
What a hoot. Thanks for your post.
No insult intended. But if you ask for mob rule, you get mob rule. Would you prohibit illiterates from voting on basic research grants? Mental patients? Sciencephobes? Kerry supporters? Where do you draw the line?
posit fraud that cannot be checked so let's just make it all nice and legal,
Not necessarily fraud at all. The same basic research (especially biological research) can fit into a wide variety of research grant categories. And if the research has already been started, few scientists are stupid enough to flush it down the drain for purely political reasons.
and suggest that the US needs to do it just to compete, or somebody else will get the brass ring (no doubt we should fund cloning, and a host of other things to facilitate and expedite unbottling assorted and sundry genies for the same reason, in a race to the lowest common denominator).
If you prohibit basic research, you fall behind in more ways than just the research itself.
Don't need no stinkin' research!
Bye.
You surely seem to think you are a know-it-all. Too bad you no nothing.
I ignored both of jorge's posts.
hmmm. I think you have a problem ...
What's it gonna be? Bleeding statues, Images in church windows? On cheese sandwiches?
Feater, Fester, Fester. Science can only examing phenomena that follow regal patterns. When science examines a spoon bender or a bleeding statue, or claims of global flood evidence, you accuse science of being anti-God.
Of course science will investigate these things, but the only thing science is opposed to, in the long run, is ignorance.
Amazing how you can respond to and ignore posts at the same time.
You are too funny.
Neither of the above. Neither are mentioned in the biblical texts. I have no problem with science investigating the physical universe as it exists. It should be aware, however, that ocasions will come along when it cannot explain diversions from the norm. To the extent it is unwilling to shuck its presuppositions it is bound to reject certain aspects of reality. Meanwhile it's got enough to do without indulging creationism and evolutionism.
Science can't explain everything, just as the majority of crimes are never solved. But the police believe, based on their stubborn naturalistic bias, that the unsolved crimes are committed by human beings using ordinary means.
You should not be surprised that science, having examined countless cases of fraud, lunacy and errors of memory and judgement, is not terribly inclined to attribute unsolved mysteries to miracles.
Look into the past then, and tell me of an actual set of events that drove change.
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.