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

Skip to comments.

A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

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 Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.

(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: besthijack; bestthread; blackirish; braad; creation; darwin; darwincentral; darwinhomebase; doublehijacked; evolution; frhero; frlegend; hero; hijack; hijacked; hijackedthread; legend; libertian; minifreepathon; monthlydonorthon; rehijacked; religion; science; socialright; threadjacked; threadjacking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 1,651-1,665 next last
To: CWOJackson
There is really something sad about seeing Wyatt Earp and the Lone Ranger taking shots at each other.

Well, you must have missed it when he declared me (and others, because we actually know a bit about science) to be the forces of evil, and likened himself to the Marines in Baghdad fighting against the Iraqi insurgents (again meaning me, and others). Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Silver hasn't thrown him.

301 posted on 10/25/2006 9:15:24 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"Sparticus" = Spartacus

Fix it.


302 posted on 10/25/2006 9:15:43 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
... Guess what. Evolution is one of the premier sciences out there and this anti evolution nonsense makes the republicans look just plain pig ignorant.

Arguing about emotional issues also makes us look ignorant. You must accept that people have differences of opinion. Different opinions are not problems and allowing emotion to overwhelm rational debate is not helpful on any side of any issue. The coalescing of different opinions within one group is wherein we find strength and power.

303 posted on 10/25/2006 9:16:47 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.


304 posted on 10/25/2006 9:17:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

"You don't know what you are talking about" is snotty and imperious?

Maybe.

I've been called a terrorist. A nazi. A jihadist. An idolator. A commie. All these on crevo threads.

I try to stay polite, but Lord help me, I lose my patience with some people.


305 posted on 10/25/2006 9:18:17 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
Libertarians seem to be libertarians until it comes to Public Schools. Then they suddenly are for a topdown, leftist, big government, education monopoly that ignores the wishes of the parents in certain matters.

Its all about indoctrination of other people's children by force of big government mandate.

306 posted on 10/25/2006 9:18:50 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
. . the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping.

So now the MSM spin comes from National Review?

Aaaargh! It's a conspiracy, I tells ya.

307 posted on 10/25/2006 9:18:53 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I said that I'd heard this to be the case, disclosed my source, said if it was untrue, I'd be more than happy to admit the error. I did not put it forth as unassailable fact. What was the main thrust of the argument? That there is a lot scientists still don't know. Is that main point true? Yes. Were the examples listed accurate? I cannot confirm them, so I'll withdraw them as examples, but maintain my original point.

Wow. Now that is some serious evasion. In a nutshell; you were absolutely wrong, and if you were wrong, you would admit that you were wrong, but you were not wrong, so you were right. Call the ACLU and put in an app! You'd fit right in!

308 posted on 10/25/2006 9:18:53 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
One must toss out a lot of science, and all that that science implies and infers, to take such a ridiculously irrational position.

No you don't. You just have to assume that the Creator interfered at some point, in a way that doesn't fit the current laws of nature, and didn't go out of His way to tell us about it.

There are other explanations, but that is one of the quickest ways there.

Cheers!

309 posted on 10/25/2006 9:19:19 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; eleni121
Just how many doctoral dissertations" were written on the subject of Piltdown Man do you claim were written? Zero??

That is what I would guess, but it is hard to say for you are very adept at evading questions that you would have to answer directly.

So where are you on that Dimesnio? If you can call a person a liar about that topic infers you have some knowledge as to that the real answer is, but I am guessing that on that as most things, you really do not know and you hope you will not get caught in your false accusations and subsequent judgments of people.

W.
310 posted on 10/25/2006 9:20:28 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U; CWOJackson

Lame dodge boys..

Pretending to be more thick headed then you are is not a winning debating style.


311 posted on 10/25/2006 9:20:52 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: GradientVector2
Libertypost.org where you won't be censored

Here you go, I'll re-ping that silly addie and suggest that you stay there.

312 posted on 10/25/2006 9:20:53 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What was wrong with creation being taught in the science classrooms to begin with?

Its not science!

313 posted on 10/25/2006 9:21:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

BTTT


314 posted on 10/25/2006 9:21:30 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
""Intelligent Design" does not qualify as science, and as such it is not appropriate to teach it as a "companion" to the theory of evolution."

Thats what the ACLU and the Godless liberal left said too.

But I can see your well reasoned point that there is no political bias./ sarc.
315 posted on 10/25/2006 9:21:59 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: eleni121; DaveLoneRanger

LOL. Ask Dave.


316 posted on 10/25/2006 9:22:12 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
The concept of interference would only be from our human and limited perspective. Agree?
317 posted on 10/25/2006 9:22:38 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
That, and the problem orbiting not Saturn, but Uranus ;-

Aw shucks, that stinks whiskers!)

318 posted on 10/25/2006 9:23:17 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Thats what the ACLU and the Godless liberal left said too.

This has little if an relevance to my previous statement.

But I can see your well reasoned point that there is no political bias./ sarc.

If you believe that "political bias" exists, then please explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as science, and explain what you believe is political bias regarding the issue.
319 posted on 10/25/2006 9:23:52 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
... But I do *not* agree with calling folks who disagree names.

I think getting directly into the face of the disruptors is a way to expose them, and to negate their attempts to divide.

You know, reaching for thinly veiled insults is kinda disruptive ...

320 posted on 10/25/2006 9:24:34 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent
Its all about indoctrination of other people's children by force of big government mandate.


Libertarian/conservatives are for that ?....what evidence do you have for such an absurd statement?
321 posted on 10/25/2006 9:25:52 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA
Fundamentalist Christian.
322 posted on 10/25/2006 9:25:52 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

You sound like you are ravingly fixated on me...what did I ever do to you? I said I needed to be reminded.

I do not keep an extensive dossier of comments on every freeper here like you do Mr Anal Retentive.


323 posted on 10/25/2006 9:26:28 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
"Pretending to be more thick headed then you are is not a winning debating style."

As opposed to your renown LP winning style? Get back to me when you actually win something...till then, talking to you is kind of like playing chess with a parrot. The parrot is vocal as hell and leaves a mess but has got clue one about the game.

Get back with me when you're ready for prime time...till then, stick to crackers.

324 posted on 10/25/2006 9:27:19 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I have never read any postings attacking science by those who profess Creationism.

You are wrong. I have been involved in numerous discussions with folks who deny the accuracy of radiometric and radiocarbon dating. I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work, and have studied it for a number of years. The "talking points" I see on these threads are all from creationist websites, and consist of misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies. I can tell the difference.

Why do we not see any scientific points made? Why do we only see creation "science" trying to pass itself off as junk science?

I think people who oppose radiometric dating on these threads are doing apologetics, not science.

If you don't agree, post some of the arguments against radiocarbon dating and I will be happy to respond.

(If I'm still around. The Luddites are getting to me.)

325 posted on 10/25/2006 9:27:41 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.

No one says science has all the answers. Science is a just a tool for describing the physical world. It is ultimately an educated guess, but that best guess is very good. All of science's tools, including evoution, are immensely useful and productive tools for mankind to employ.

It looks like to me you are calling people darwin-idolators. As the owner of this site, what kind of tone does this set? I maintain it is destructive. Why drive people away? I seem to remember seeing a copy of a post you made defending libertarians when there was a big stink about them not belonging here. Libertarians always were a relatively small minority, but you went to bat for them. Why won't you go to bat for pro-science folks who don't like to be called idolator and nazi?

326 posted on 10/25/2006 9:28:16 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Thats what the ACLU and the Godless liberal left said too.

Actually, it was a Dubya-appointed judge, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

327 posted on 10/25/2006 9:28:20 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.

Therein are the key words: The theory of evolution.

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

Somehow I think some of these same people would throw a hissy fit should it be proposed that Einstein's "theory of relativity" be changed to the "law of relativity".

328 posted on 10/25/2006 9:28:32 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Dave? Given the tense and defensive tone of their (darwinoids) chatter here...I'd rather not.


329 posted on 10/25/2006 9:29:07 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix
... The saddest thing of all is that Marxism is still alive and well. God help us.

When we've been reduced to third world status the chains will tighten.

330 posted on 10/25/2006 9:30:21 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
The concept of interference would only be from our human and limited perspective. Agree?

Sorry, I've posted a LOT on this thread tonight. Can you highlight the sentence(s) of mine you meant and include them, to help me understand?

Cheers!

331 posted on 10/25/2006 9:30:42 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Actually I do not have any dossier of comments on every freeper and no I am not fixated on you. That was not to you, but I thought you might be interested since I thought he had called you a liar like he does everyone.

Obviously I was wrong, I wont ping you any more.
332 posted on 10/25/2006 9:30:52 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
That, and the problem orbiting not Saturn, but Uranus ;-)

Aw shucks, that stinks whiskers!)

Thanks for playing straight man! --

The problem is that for the "ego"-centrists, their sh*t doesn't stink. :-)

Cheers!

333 posted on 10/25/2006 9:31:52 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
No problem

You just have to assume that the Creator interfered at some point, in a way that doesn't fit the current laws of nature, and didn't go out of His way to tell us about it
334 posted on 10/25/2006 9:32:12 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

No you don't. You just have to assume that the Creator interfered at some point, in a way that doesn't fit the current laws of nature, and didn't go out of His way to tell us about it.

There are other explanations, but that is one of the quickest ways there.

Cheers!

Last Thursdayism and asserting random miracles unexplainable by science is at least a more honest position. Even though irrational, it at least accepts that the earth and the universe do scientifically appear to be older. But trying to claim the evidence shows the earth and the universe are 6000 years old is just plain nuts and inherently anti-science, except of course here on FR, where it is apparently given serious consideration and greater favor than long established and accepted science.

335 posted on 10/25/2006 9:34:02 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I have seen this request on your part before (it must be you)...but I confess I do not remember.

On December 17, 2005, you stated "Piltdown---No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject (as per Muggeridge's "The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.)". This claim was refuted, and you were repeatedly asked to provide a reference to even a small number of these alleged dissertations. Thus far, you still have not done so. In fact, evidence suggests that your claim was, in fact, completely inaccurate and that there were no dissertations written at all about the subject until after it was exposed as a hoax, with dissertations on the subject after that time addressing the fact that the 'find' was in fact a hoax. I am curious why you chose to make a claim that you refused adamantly to support with evidence, and now you deride those who accept evolution for allegedly doing the same.
336 posted on 10/25/2006 9:34:11 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Don't nominate a big government fop like Giuliani in 2008!



Yes it did bother my libertarian streak when Rudy tried to shut down Scores.
337 posted on 10/25/2006 9:34:16 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Rudy is about as statist as one can get.


338 posted on 10/25/2006 9:34:18 PM PDT by stands2reason (Setec Astronomy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix
True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

Not this BS Again! Laws, facts, and data support theories, not the other way around. A theory is as high as it goes in science. A theory does not "graduate" into a law. There is the theory of gravity, and there are the laws of gravity. The latter supports the former, and the theory of gravity has a heck of a lot less supporting evidence for it than does the theory of evolution.

339 posted on 10/25/2006 9:34:26 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix; Jim Robinson

Excellent point.


340 posted on 10/25/2006 9:35:25 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
Gun grabber, seeks union endorsements, pro-Green.

Essentially Ah-nold with a more annoying accent, IMHO.

341 posted on 10/25/2006 9:35:46 PM PDT by Clemenza (I have such a raging clue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"If you believe that "political bias" exists, then please explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as science, and explain what you believe is political bias regarding the issue."

If evo is such an exacting science you could prove your theory in a classroom experiment by causing something to evolve into something entirely different. I'll wait patiently for the results of your proof.

If there was no political bias against ID you wouldn't have to team up with the leftwing demonrats to prevent it from being taught in schools.
342 posted on 10/25/2006 9:35:54 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
But you wont, because you agree with them on the subject of evolution, so you are willing to let them do or say anything, as long as they say that one thing that you agree with.the evos do just a fine job of it themsleves.
Why waste the bandwidth?

I don't ever see the evos slap down their fellows about their behavior and language towards non-evos (with one exception that I recall) either. It's a two way street you know.

But you wont, because you agree with them on the subject of evolution, so you are willing to let them do or say anything, as long as they say that one thing that you agree with.

What's the point when the account has already been nuked? And you don't know whether I ever was going to or not, or whether I hit the abuse button on them or not. That would be more effective.

My not choosing to slap down every nutjob poster that comes along is not an indication of my agreeing or disagreeing with what he says, and I will not be manipulated into certain behavior by the specious accusations of someone who disagrees with me. You can accuse and imply all you want but I will not be used.

343 posted on 10/25/2006 9:36:01 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Atta girl! :-}


344 posted on 10/25/2006 9:37:30 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
If you believe that "political bias" exists, then please explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as science, and explain what you believe is political bias regarding the issue.

Trivial. The ACLU-types who *do* take sides on this, reject ID in science classes not because it is off-topic for a science class, but on the grounds of the mythological separation of church and state. Not from the "scientifically rigorous" grounds given by evo posters here on FR...

Cheers!

345 posted on 10/25/2006 9:37:38 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Dave? Given the tense and defensive tone of their (darwinoids) chatter here...I'd rather not.

Dave went charging into another forum, waving the flaming sword of righteousness, hurling insults at everybody present, declared himself to be some sort of holy warrior attacking the forces of evil...

It was pathetic.

346 posted on 10/25/2006 9:37:41 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
". . .and the theory of gravity has a heck of a lot less supporting evidence for it than does the theory of evolution."

Only in your world.

347 posted on 10/25/2006 9:38:15 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix
Therein are the key words: The theory of evolution.

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

You have misunderstood how these terms are used in science. Please take a look at the definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). If you have any questions, please let me know and I will try to explain the terms:

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." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

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."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective 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."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

348 posted on 10/25/2006 9:38:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Hey, if you desire to manage a web site, create your own. See my aforementioned statement on "bias" and "fairness."
349 posted on 10/25/2006 9:39:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.

But not by those doing science. The anti-scientists do this constantly, especially if they are freshmen students in a science class.

350 posted on 10/25/2006 9:39:37 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 1,651-1,665 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