Skip to comments.A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish
As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a fast from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Roves 2006 campaign strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Yeah, well a buddy of yours up thread gratuitously connected evolution theory to a whole lot of unrelated things so I was simply following suit. All that aside, only a willing tool or a liberal would ignore the hand the Godless ACLU has in promoting all this anti-God, anti-America, anti-freedom bull crap. And that is the very real association, unfortunately for the "science is the true religion and all others can go to hell thank you very much" people.
The following quote describes EXACTLY the dilemma many feel about the RINOs and the upcoming election...
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,... to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.
The Republican Party can still be reformed from within, the Democrats have passed the point of no return.
Disagreement with the interpretation of the fossil record is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole. Evolution depends on science to support it, but science does not depend on evolution to support IT.
There are those of us creationists who have degrees in science and some who work in scientific fields, and yet that means little to the evolutionists who label us that.
The whole basis for deciding what a *real* scientist is and what *real* science is apparetly one's opinion of the Theory of Evolution. It's irrelevant whether one's field of expertise is even related to evolution or not. If you are a creationist, you are automatically *anti-science*.
Queer marriage, sex with children and small animals, every drug legal, abortion on demand, anything goes
Not much of a stretch when you actually visit the Libertarian Party website...the language is a little more couched in PC terms.
I have seen what pot can do to people. I've watched friends who were bright, amitious people with everything going for them turn into dopey, glassy-eyed pot heads who can only think about their next joint, drink, or guy and have lost their memory and ability to reason and think clearly. I sure wouldn't want anyone in that condition working for me.
Read their platform. You buy into their party you get the whole package.
In today's world, it's the ACLU (and their willing fools and tools) forcing all this crap on us.
"you must buy"
We're discussing the LP...I'm not too sure "intellectual honesty" can be applied. If you'd read any of the drivel coming out of CATO lately you probably wouldn't have used that term.
Thanks cm, Another example of the courtesy with which evos treat non-evos. Lump everyone who disagrees with you into one category to try to discredit them, and of course, post it to nobody so that it can't be considered a personal insult.
Kind of like poaching us slowly vs dropping us like lobsters in the boiling pot
Where on earth did I say anything about the Libertarian Party and its platform?
I am talking about the basic desire to be left alone by the government which is the essence of libertarianism. This is generally called "small-l" libertarianism. And I stand by my statement that nothing in it is incompatible with social conservatism, which also wants to be left alone by government for its own reasons.
Don't caricature my viewpoint.
It's a convenient way to attempt to legitimize their particular anger but without a united definition it's really just a deceptive smoke screen.
Why is that?
No, this is not so. There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in genetics and petroleum engineer for example, as well as other science and engineering disciplines who believe that the Lord created the universe. Typically, these people believe that the Genesis chapter does not give a definitive description of the process, and the findings of modern science are accurate. The theological position of mainstream Christianity and Judaism is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny.
I am not objecting to religion, or Christianity. What I am objecting to is the pig-headedness and assholery of a vocal contingent of science-deniers on this site. The anti-science people I am referring to typically are not simply advocating a belief in the Genesis chapter. As I wrote up thread, there is a contingent of people who are stumping for the false Christ Sun Myung Moon, there are people who say the moon landings were faked by the government, that alien abduction and crop circles are real, that surgery is sinful and doctors are unable to actually cure disease, that dinosaurs walked with man, that petroleum does not come from fossils. I find all of these ideas rather silly by themselves. But taken together there is a pernicious anti-science culture growing on FreeRepublic. They are giving FreeRepublic, and the conservative movement, a bad name.
I am somewhat dismayed to see the forum's founder give creedence to the anti-science crowd. He just handed science-deniers ammunition with which to call me a liar and a marxist -- one of the things I have complained about to the moderators in the first place.
Disagreement with the interpretation of the fossil record is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole.
I disagree with this assessment. You are welcome to disagree with the interpretation of the fossil record, but you actually do run the risk of utterly rejecting the rest of modern science in the process. Disagreement with the interpretation of a particular fossil in the record, or dating of strata is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole. There is debate about the length of time that it took the dinosaurs to go extinct. However, the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory (meaning the modern synthesis theory comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and subsequent discoveries in molecular biology since the description of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others) as valid science. The reason the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory because it produces real world results. This is something the science-deniers refuse to accept.
I have posted this to anti-science posters a number of times. The reaction I have received universally amounts to "too long didn't read." The anti-science crowd does not want to learn, they put their fingers in their ears and go "lalala".
Micropaleontology is the study of microscopic fossils. It is the largest discipline in paleontology, just as microfossils are by far the most abundant of all fossils. Although nearly invisible, micro-organisms at the base of the food chain make up nearly 90 per cent of the biomass in oceans and lakes. The variety of life forms at this level is almost incomprehensible, and while only a few kinds leave solid remains that fossilize, even these few can be so abundant that in places they form mountains of pure fossil remains. The limestone of the plateau from which the Sphinx and Pyramids are carved is actually a mass of foraminifera, preserved in a vast offshore formation that, 40 million years ago, extended from France to Burma. The Chalk Cliffs of Dover, another microfossil marvel, is a layer hundreds of feet thick all across western Europe that consists of nothing but sub-microscopic coccoliths. In other parts of the world, solidly packed remains of diatoms make up formations of thin-layered diatomite hundreds of feet thick that are quarried for industrial uses.
The abyssal floor of the ocean, which occupies more than half of the earth's surface, is buried under a carpet of microfossils that slowly piles up like layers of dust over the millenia. Changes in the abundance and types of microfossils from year to year, over millions of years of undisturbed accumulation, makes an exquisitely detailed record of climate change, plate tectonics, and biological evolution. Each time a new species of free-floating marine micro-organism evolves, it quickly spreads throughout the oceans in countless billions, forming a worldwide marker in the fossil record. Such marker horizons allow geological events in different parts of the world to be related in a global earth history. For instance,it was the microfossil "tape recorder" that proved that reversals of the polarity of the earth's magnetism were worldwide events. Microfossil data also revealed that changes in sea levels, temperature, and glacial advances were synchronous worldwide, proving the reality of global climate changes more accurately than geochemical dating methods.Recently, micropaleontology has shown how oscillations in the earth's orbit and tilt lead to cycles in global climate, including the Ice Ages.
Microfossils are vital to oil exploration. Because of their tiny size and great abundance, they occur unbroken in the rock fragments brought up by drilling into the deeply buried ocean formations and lake beds where oil is found. By comparing the characteristic fossils from each formation as they are penetrated by the exploratory drills, geologists can unravel the geometry of the strata far beneath the surface and locate the domes and traps that may hold oil. The condition of the fossils, as well, indicates whether the petroleum source rocks have been buried and heated sufficiently to generate oil from trapped organic matter. Most importantly of all, the organic matter itself is almost entirely from ancient micro-organisms that make up the ocean's biomass.
Are folks who oppose scientists creating and destroying human embryos "anti-science"?
Are folks who oppose federal courts intervening in local school curricula "anti-science"?
Are scientists who put out garbage like the Michael Fox ad in Missouri trying to dupe citizens into funding and constitutionally mandating human cloning "anti science"?
Interesting conversations going on here. I guess if I got involved, the thread would just spontaneously combust, huh?
Just because someone voted differently does not mean they are anti-science. I have seen people with science degrees be told they don't even know what a theory is because they were a creationist. The minute a person states they are a creationist, they are lumped into the YEC category and called a bunch of Luddites who want to take us back the the Dark Ages and a Taliban style of living. Not so. There are extremes on both sides of the issue, but to automatically label one as being in the extreme no matter what they say and then basically accuse them of lying when they deny it, is wrong.
I am a creationist amd I am NOT anti-science. I know how science works, I have a degree in it. My kids are all creationists and excel in science in school; they're in the top of their classes. In spite of the mockery and scorn of some evos, one can reject the ToE as it stands and NOT reject the science that supports it, and, yes, love science.
As I wrote up thread, there is a contingent of people who are stumping for the false Christ Sun Myung Moon, there are people who say the moon landings were faked by the government, that alien abduction and crop circles are real, that surgery is sinful and doctors are unable to actually cure disease,
A contingent but not the mainstream. I also don't see what some of that even has to do with the ToE and one's acceptance of it or being pro or anti science. SOme of it's just sheer whackiness. But call a spade a spade. Don't label the whole group based on the actions of a few who are either not really part of the group or could just plain be trolls coming in from DU on "suicide runs" just to stir things up and make real Christians and creationists look bad.
The anti-science people I refer to on FR are those arguing that crop circles are real, the moon landings were faked. There is a sub-culture of cranks who are lending fuel to the fire of anti-science suspicion on the part of conservatives. They are banging the anti-evolution drum and appealing to your sympathies. However, if you scratch beneath the surface of some of these people you find they are total nutball who believe the earth once orbited Saturn and gravity was much higher in the past, or the earth had a near miss with Venus flying in from outer space, or whatnot. Many of these cranks have been banned before and are sneaking back in under new nicks. As a long time poster who takes pride in having few posts pulled, it galls me to see people break the rules and get away with it.
Modern conservatism must be solidly pro-science and pro-reason or is will once again be the minority party. I have no problem understanding why some people believe embryonic stem cell research is contentious. What I am saying is to be on the lookout for anti-science kooks who believe that western medicine can't cure anything and that surgery is sinful. If you look around on what passes for science threads these days you are going to see a rather vocal group of people who do little but sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt upon the whole of science. What I am saying is don't buy into it. Don't let the Dems sieze the initiative as the party of science and reason. Don't lose the war for want of a horseshoe nail.
Don't some libertarians think that you have to have liberty to get an abortion any time, and that you can't favor man-woman over man-man??? Come on, now!
The articleis replete with fallacy afer fallacy.
For one, Libertarians are almost an extinct breed and bear little or not relationship with independents.
Another fallacy is that the republicans have polarized the nation...far from it! It is the left wing Godless infiltation of the DEMOCrapic party that has polarized the nation.
The rest of the article is just more gobbledigook.
You make a good point, and the stem cell debate which has sprung up so quickly since the Michael J. Fox ad is an excellent parallel.
Creationists are frequently accused of being anti-science either because they don't accept certain evolutionary interpretations of the evidence or (specific to Free Republic) it is inferred from the sometimes snide one-liners written by some on the creation-evolution threads. (Of course, these one-liners are frequently the heart-and-soul of other Freeper threads.)
Because creationists don't agree that the evidence supports certain ideas such as an ancient earth, accidental life, and a pointless existence, they are branded "anti-science" by some, much as embryonic stem cell advocates brand anti-embryonic research advocates "anti-stem cell research." (Or, simply, anti-science.)
When in fact, they oppose only certain aspects of stem cell research. Freeper Coleus documents real-world, applicable research and treatments being published in science journals every week, making progress from ADULT stem cells, not embryos.
Yet still the accusations of anti-science fly.
My only regret is that no side can divorce itself from the bias and prejudice of its own opinion enough to recognize proper debating form, precedent and procedure.
Now back to the questions I posed. You forgot to reply.
The lower bound of the number of pro-science freepers is one third. I think the number may actually be a lot higher. The poll was on a wedge issue, one that was designed to be contentious. At least one out of every three freepers believes that theology has no place in science class. I actually think that this number is higher.
The minute a person states they are a creationist, they are lumped into the YEC category...
Know that luddites do exist among us. They exist to drive a wedge between us.
I am dismayed. What happened to Sunday school? Has the conservative movement adopted the postition that students need creationism in science class because not enough of them are going to church? What is wrong with lessons of Adam and Noah in Sunday school or bible study? Why biology class? Contrary to popular belief, science classes are among the least politicized classes in the public school system. Science and math classe are also one of the last places that haven't been given over for complete relativism. In science and math, your answer is right or wrong. No mushy feelings and cultural sensitivity involved. How is the wedge issue going to make things better? It isn't. Pick your battles! This is the wrong one!
Sorry Dave but proper debating form where I grew up was hands held high and thrown fast in combinations.
Just joshing. :-}
Then you don't need me to answer. Farewell.
One of the main issues with the teaching of evolution and creation in schools is the use of the judiciary to force on people what they don't want. Most people want creation taught in schools and it's not a science issue to them, it's a moral and belief issue; it's a government forcing people to pay taxes to support something they have no say in issue; it's a whose children are they anyway issue; it's a why should a self-appointed elite decide for us what's best for us whether we like it or not issue.
With all due respect, I think many evos here have overestimated the importance of science as related to politics and the elections. Just because it's important to those who are doing the science, does not mean that it's equally important the the man on the street. Science is not going to make or break the elections. It has nothing to do with the reasons and my efforts to keep Hillary out of office. My vote isn't based on her or her opponents stand on issues connected with the proper understanding or practice of science, it's got everything to do with the other above mentioned issues.
And leave the dims at home, crying in their pillows because they lost another election they were "supposed to win". It will be high humor and great entertainment seeing the knashing of teeth among dims this November 8th. LOL.
The mods don't have access to the posters' profile pages. I do. And I've removed a few of them. Those that I have removed should take it as a warning (if I didn't ban them in the process).
For some reason, I don't think Dimensio will be showing up here with his rote and ubiquitous declaration that you are lying about evolution, and nothing you say can be trusted.
The list of election victories they have posted at their website.
...don't actually know any science.
A lot of time they spout the silliest things taken for fact. Just the other day you said that modern science has no clue why water expands when it freezes and why flags flap in the breeze. I hope to goodness you learned something. Another guy who totally rejects science any science that conflicts with his theological positions can't even explain the difference between wavelength and frequency. I can go on and on.
There's no shame in not knowing something. The shame is in refusing to learn.
There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in science and engineering disciplines that have no problem with evolutionary theory. This tells me that the problem people have is not with their science, it is with their theology.
The conflict on these threads is not science versus religion at all. It is actually a sectarian conflict between people with a certain highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and more mainstream viewpoints. The mainstream of Christianity and Judaism says that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny.
LOL --- game, set, match, CWO!!
Of course most voters probably thought he was a "librarian" when they pulled the lever.
For all the years of having creation taught in public schools, I don't see that it hurt the advances made in science at all. A great many of the scientific advances made during the last couple hundred or so years, were made at a time where creation was taught in public schools and evolution was not. It cannot be demonstrated that the teaching of creation in schools is going to cause the deterioration of education in America. On the contrary, the only correlation I've seen is a deterioration of the American education system coinciding with the removal of Christianity from it.
I rarely engange the crevo scene at FR for exactly that reason. You post one opinion that questions some point of ToE and the next thing you know you've got folks accusing you of being some kind of Luddite subversive, working behind the scenes trying to unhinging the very Laws of Physics. In fact, just posting this risks that someone will think it's bait [it's not] and flame me for having posting it.
I know of no one who avows creation as writ who disavows "science"; many are, like yourself, working scientists. Honestly. One's position on origins doesn't change the way one might write an analysis on cellular mitosis; it doesn't impact how one might perform a chemical titration; it has exactly zero impact upon the myriad daily tasks carried out by them daily in their work as scientists. Still, there are those in these forums who cannot abide simple observations -- much less a point of debate, that's five or seven orders of magnitude upscale -- such as "this data set could have an explanation that doesn't support ToE". No way. Not going to happen. EVERY post that makes the slightest intimation that ToE could be less than 100% bulletproof MUST be squashed like bubonic plague and no amount of piling on is to be spared. Ever.
Bottom line: people have got to the place where crevo cannot be a simple smoky back room discussion amongst ladies and gentlemen; it has to be a house-wrecking bareknucled brawl that spills into the streets and degenerates into a bloody gunbattle to the last man standing. That's not the fault of ToE, nor is it the fault of the Bible; it's the fault of posters -- posters on BOTH sides of the issue, mind you -- who cannot simply, politely, answer a point or observation, but simply MUST insert their snide little goads; who have so little self-control that they cannot resist the urge to needle and mock; who take the discussion into insulting and derogatory waters with needless, sophomoric (and that's being generous), retorts that precipitate the downward spiral of the whole thread into a morass of childish name-calling and mudslinging in which all manner of narrowmindedness and otherwise hidden bigotries emerge en flagrante. AAAND, in case nobody's noticed, the denizens of DU keep coming by with lawn chairs and buckets of pocorn to cheer and jeer the gore and carnage.
I've had GREAT discussions in my lifetime with others whos views were diametrically opposed to my own on many differing topics. Tone, demeanor, manners, and mutual respect made ALL the difference. So, I submit to you that it is not "anti-science" or "pro-science" Conservatives who are sullying FR, and, by extension, the whole Conservative movement; it is anti-social, rude, impertinent, foul-mouthed, posters who lack manners, respect and self-control who are sullying FR, and, by extension, the whole Conservative movement.
FOTFLOL! Too funny!
I have never read any postings attacking science by those who profess Creationism. Most Creationists respect science and its usefulness and are only questioning the elaborate but flimsy edifice constructed on the vague and gaseous mythic like qualities of Darwinoid assumptions - that human males and females ascended from the earthworm.
It is, in fact, Creationists and ID adherents who are the true scientists here...and Darwinoid evolutionists who cannot bear the scrutiny of their flimsy work. Some science they subscribe to!
Instead of questioning Darwins assumption themselves self-styled evolutionists have erected a personality cult to him and have blocked any and all criticism of the theory while ridiculing those who dare to question. This angry defense of Darwin reminds me of Marxists who deify their materialistic hero and delight in ridiculing those who do not.