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 ...
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.
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.
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.)
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?
Actually, it was a Dubya-appointed judge, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
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".
Dave? Given the tense and defensive tone of their (darwinoids) chatter here...I'd rather not.
When we've been reduced to third world status the chains will tighten.
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!
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!
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.
Rudy is about as statist as one can get.
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.
Excellent point.
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.