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

Skip to comments.

Professor Limbaugh Debunks Junk Earth Science (Creation/evolution linked to environmentalism)
Rush Limbaugh | August 10, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 09/06/2005 7:02:43 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last
RUSH: I'm just going to tell you why I don't believe this stuff.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: I believe in Creation.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I believe in God.

We can't even explain the existence of the earth, scientifically. We've got to go back to something called the Big Bang, and then we've got to try to make guesses as to we were all spermazoid, promozoics. We came out of the ocean. We walked four legs and two legs, but nobody really knows for sure. We have these theories. There were the other day some theory was just debunked big time and I don't remember off the top of my head what it is, but the idea if you look at this planet and you look at all the changes this planet has undergone that we can document historical for thousands of years, the forces that cause change on this planet dwarf the combined efforts of all human beings today.

Excellent notes about creation/evolution from Professor Limbaugh. This was the show used as Labor Day's Best-of. I'm very thankful I was able to hear it.

1 posted on 09/06/2005 7:02:46 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; plain talk; ...
(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest in matters of Creation vs. Evolution, Creation trumping evolution, and evolutionary fraud. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."



I've pointed out before that in the new Blogospheric age, we do not have to accept everything that scientists tell us as concrete fact. The science elites have told us evolution is true for a long time, and they tell us global warming is true. Healthy skepticm in both cases (at least!) should be exercised.
2 posted on 09/06/2005 7:05:52 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. (1 Corinthians 16:13))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Right Wing Professor; RightWingAtheist

For your interest.


3 posted on 09/06/2005 7:23:36 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. (1 Corinthians 16:13))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thanks for sharing this with us.


4 posted on 09/06/2005 7:36:52 AM PDT by aworldtrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
CALLER: Or that humans created the ozone, destruction of the ozone. RUSH: No. No, no, no. I don't. Because the hole closes every year and we don't do anything to close it.

"I spray roundup on my driveway. The weeds die. Next year, some more weeds grow back. Because the weeds grow back and I didn't do anything to cause it, I must not have killed them in the first place."

Put that way, it's pretty stupid, isn't it?

The ozone hole, and how it's caused by chemical reactions on the surface of ice particles in the stratosphere, is no longer even mildly controversial, guy. Limbaugh is a brilliant political polemicist; he should avoid pontification in the area of atmospheric chemistry, where as far as I know he doesn't have much expertise. There isn't that much ozone up there in the first place, and if you put a source of atomic chlorine into the stratosphere, in the presence of particles upon which it can react with ozone, it will destroy the ozone.

Most 'environmnetalists' are indeed chicken-littles; there is a great deal of total b.s. talked by tree-hugging types, and he's right that many of these people really are ideologues who true goal is to make the rest of us live according to their particular notion of a harmonious life. But that doesn't mean that all environmental science is b.s.. Problem is, to tell the b.s. from the legitimate science, you really do need to know some science, and most people, on both sides of the issue, are not willing to do the hard work to learn science. So they toss idiotic slogans at each other, and when Rush does it, he's no better than the tree-huggers.

We've got to go back to something called the Big Bang, and then we've got to try to make guesses as to we were all spermazoid, promozoics.

This is gibberish. As I said, he looks like a fool when he says this sort of thing. If I were a liberal trying to convince scientists that conservatives are idiots, I'd play Rush's words here at them, without comment.

5 posted on 09/06/2005 7:38:16 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Healthy skepticism in leftist agenda driven science BUMP!

(Rush has equated evolution and global warming junk science before as well).

6 posted on 09/06/2005 7:38:34 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

What's Rush doing? Doesn't he read FreeRepublic? According to the evolutionists on this forum he's now officially an uneducated idiot.


7 posted on 09/06/2005 7:42:05 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
This is gibberish. As I said, he looks like a fool when he says this sort of thing. If I were a liberal trying to convince scientists that conservatives are idiots, I'd play Rush's words here at them, without comment.

Thanks for confirming my theory. You guys are too smart for your own good.

8 posted on 09/06/2005 7:43:22 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Sorry, I gave on another thread.


9 posted on 09/06/2005 7:46:00 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
According to the evolutionists on this forum he's now officially an uneducated idiot.

He's a former sports commentator who runs a radio show. He's good at that, mostly. I wouldn't assume he knows much about the chemistry of the stratosphere, any more than I'd expect him to know how to unclog my drains. Having a radio talk show doesn't make you an expert on everything you've ever read about.

10 posted on 09/06/2005 7:50:09 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Don't worry, Coyote, you're not required to offer any logical argument or legitimate criticism to Rush.


11 posted on 09/06/2005 7:50:49 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

And he calls himself conservative, and "right wing" folks!


12 posted on 09/06/2005 7:51:22 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

13 posted on 09/06/2005 7:54:27 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
And he calls himself conservative, and "right wing" folks!

Yes, I do. Apparently you think conservative means 'unquestioningly accept everything Rush Limbaugh ever said'. Sorry, guy, being conservative means you don't put your brain on hold for anyone, not even Rush Limbaugh. If you want unquestioningly accept everything someone says, slap a 'Run, Hillary, Run!' sticker on your car.

14 posted on 09/06/2005 7:56:03 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
There isn't that much ozone up there in the first place, and if you put a source of atomic chlorine into the stratosphere, in the presence of particles upon which it can react with ozone, it will destroy the ozone.

The highest reading of chlorine in the atmosphere is 0.5ppb. In other words there are 1,999,999,999 other molecules for each chlorine up there--how is that going to destroy the ozone?

15 posted on 09/06/2005 8:07:30 AM PDT by Cruising Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
On the front bumper, please.

Hiya, professor!

16 posted on 09/06/2005 8:10:30 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cruising Speed
The highest reading of chlorine in the atmosphere is 0.5ppb. In other words there are 1,999,999,999 other molecules for each chlorine up there--how is that going to destroy the ozone?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_destruction

Most importantly, the chlorine atoms so generated destroy ozone molecules in a catalytic cycle. In this cycle, a chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule, taking an oxygen atom with it (forming ClO) and leaving a normal oxygen molecule. A free oxygen atom then takes away the oxygen from the ClO, and the final result is an oxygen molecule and a chlorine atom, which then reinitiates the cycle. A single chlorine atom would keep on destroying ozone forever were it not for reactions that remove them from this cycle by forming reservoir species such as hydrochloric acid and chlorine nitrate

17 posted on 09/06/2005 8:10:53 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
This is what "science" has become:

This doesn't even come close to the number of good-for-you/bad-for-you/good-for-you/bad-for-you articles that come out in the popular media about particular foods.

Let's face it, the grant system has taken science on the edge of alchemy, with wild promises of drastic results (e.g., stem cells) that are -- at best -- decades to centuries down the road. We have wild tales of doom-and-gloom from every corner of "science".

And then there's the pompous superiority of scientists who proclaim idiocy upon any individual who doesn't hold to the theory of the day which is "right" and "the only valid scientific explanation" until the next one comes along. Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Hawking. And even he can't figure out what he's doing. See here and here. At least string theorists don't call you an idiot if you don't declare 5 times a day that their theory is right, genuflecting to Cambridge. These petitions signed by scientists are nothing but the condemnation of Galileo under a veneer of a democracy.

With junk science and the absolute allergy of public schools to any mention of religion (to the point where any other faith-based philosophy -- say Communism -- has much more free reign) can you blame anyone for wanting to use ID to poke a stick in the eye of the self-righteous secular fetishists? Nobody wants ID taught, really. If you're religious, you want your religious point of view taught. It's just an attempt to undermine the existing order.

On a personal note, I am a mathematician (not a "mathematician" like Hawking -- he's a physicist) and if you believe in evolution, math is still true. If you believe in ID, math is still true. Axiom, conjecture, theorem, proof. No muss, no fuss. Of course, that kind of rigor is a little too difficult for most. Hence, if anything can be used to underscore the shifting sands on which so-called science is built, so much the better.

18 posted on 09/06/2005 8:12:39 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

Beat me to it. The shorthand version is that chlorine is merely a catalyst for the destruction of ozone - the chlorine atom is not consumed or removed from the atmosphere during the process.


19 posted on 09/06/2005 8:13:31 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
He's a former sports commentator who runs a radio show. He's good at that, mostly. I wouldn't assume he knows much about the chemistry of the stratosphere, any more than I'd expect him to know how to unclog my drains. Having a radio talk show doesn't make you an expert on everything you've ever read about.

So either he's an idiot or he's knowingly spreading propaganda. With conservative friends like you who needs the left? :-)

20 posted on 09/06/2005 8:14:11 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 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