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 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,651-1,665 next last
To: Liberal Classic
Now, hold the phone, McGee. You didn't lead off with "You don't know what you are talking about", you stooped to the opportunity to play the snide card right up front. That doesn't make DLR any more likely to rationally review the subsequent content of your post, nor does it contribute to the discussion in any helpful way. A few Beavis and Butthead types around the boards might get an adolescent guffaw out of it, but all it really does is introduce anti-social static into the discussion, and that, in turn, ratchets up the emotional energy, which contributes to further such postings, which elevates the consternation still higher... Eventually --- BOOOM!! And everyone goes away mad; grumbling about what a cesspool FR crevo threads have become.

I fully understand the human struggle to keep up politeness and manners, but it simply MUST be done. I've made apologies to more than one poster during my relatively short term at FR, and I may have to do so again in the future. But, if I lose my patience, I at least make an effort to keep it off-line; to mitigate the permeation of my angst into the text of my posts. Yeah, I'm not perfect; I make mistakes, but the effort has to be put forth. And, please, don't overlook that I'm taking BOTH sides of the crevo divide to task on this point. As you note, repeating a partial list of names you've been called on crevo threads, the problem is a SHARED problem, and the responsibility to fix it must also be a SHARED responsibility.

Respect for other posters -- whether you agree with their stated position or not -- has got to rule the day; it's got to be everyone's personal responsibility. We see the result of that not being the case, and it's nothing if it's not butt-ugly.

351 posted on 10/25/2006 9:40:14 PM PDT by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Right.


352 posted on 10/25/2006 9:40:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
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.

Your statement is not correct, and in fact it is not even logical. Theories in science are not "proven". Moreover, the validity of the theory of evolution does not imply that it should be possible to "cause something to evolve into something entirely different" in a small-scale classroom experiment. In fact, your statement suggests that you do not understand the fundamental attributes of the theory of evolution.

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.

I did not claim that there exists absolutely no "political" bias against intelligent design. This does not change the fact that intelligent design is not science, and as such it has no proper place in a science classroom.
353 posted on 10/25/2006 9:40:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I'm not trained in the field, but others are and although there are not as many "doubting" radiometricians as there are like you in your camp, I suggest that as the scientist you claim to be that you begin questioninng your beliefs and your "science" - science is not written in stone you know. Genius men of science of the past really and truly believed in the theory of humors causing disease for example...or understanding human behavior by measuring skulls....phrenology was it?

When I have time I will look up the "other side' in your field however. Are you familiar with the critical literature or is your field one sided and intellectually blocked to any inquiry?



354 posted on 10/25/2006 9:41:54 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

That's not why it's been kicked out. It's been kicked out based on the *separation of church and state* misinterpretation. It was kicked out because it's Christian, it's religious.


355 posted on 10/25/2006 9:42:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix
Gravity is a theory. The prevailing scientific view supports Einstein's theory of relativity as our theory of gravity. It supplanted what Newton called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Newton's laws are still taught, because they are accurate enough for everyday work, but Einstein showed that they become inaccurate in strong gravitational fields. If you google for the Precession of the perihelion of Mercury you will see what I mean.

Contrary to common opinion "theories" are not promoted into "laws" as hypotheses become theories. The theory is the pinnacle of science. No one argues for the promotion of the "theory of evolution" into the "law of evolution."

Gravity is not just a theory. It is fact and theory at the same time. By this I mean the effects of gravity can be measured, and the theory exists to explain why the phenomenon we observe happens. It is the same with evolution. Using modern DNA sequencing technology, the genomes of bacteria may be sequenced in near real time. More complex organisms, such as fruit flies (that also have short generations) take a little longer, but they are getting there, too. In this way, genetic markers may be tracked through populations of organisms over time. This is the definition of evolution, and due to sequencing technology has moved from theoretical science into empirical science. The theory of evolution is our model to explain why the genetic markers change the way they do.

I'm sure this has been posted a hundred times before, and will be posted hundreds of times again, because this is an exceedly common mistake.

356 posted on 10/25/2006 9:42:22 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: metmom
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.

You were the one who said "call a spade a spade", and you are one who never will. Take your own advice.

What's the point when the account has already been nuked?

DaveLoneRanger, editor-surveyor, Running Wolf, et al, have been nuked? When did that happen?

357 posted on 10/25/2006 9:42:51 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

I feel like I missed the "dave" spectacle.


358 posted on 10/25/2006 9:43:13 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Only in your world.

Yeah, I read. Try it sometime.

359 posted on 10/25/2006 9:43:50 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I've been here a while. I've made some friends. I've been on freeps. I'd like to think I have a stake (however small) in what goes on here.

I think there is a problem, a growing problem. FR is becoming more hostile to pro-science people.

This problem seems to come from the top.

360 posted on 10/25/2006 9:45:18 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

Has the "get fisted" account been nuked? Or is that Creationists still posting?


361 posted on 10/25/2006 9:46:35 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Shhhhh, don't mention Francis'es issues ...
362 posted on 10/25/2006 9:47:16 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
OK, that clarifies it.

I guess what I mean is that God explicity "reserves the right" to get involved at any point He chooses. And often--not always--it would look like an arbitrary change in the rules, because we don't see His hidden hand at work; other times, it would *really BE* a miracle.

In either case, assuming that nature got where it was solely because of fixed laws, which operate today as they "always have", would lead to misleading conclusions.

The annoying part of this is, there is no way to PROVE either way which one of these is true.

So people often break along the theist/atheist boundary. :-)

Cheers!

363 posted on 10/25/2006 9:47:24 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

He's in this very thread.


364 posted on 10/25/2006 9:47:26 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

Hey, nothing wrong with reading fiction.


365 posted on 10/25/2006 9:47:42 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I'm not trained in the field, but others are and although there are not as many "doubting" radiometricians as there are like you in your camp, I suggest that as the scientist you claim to be that you begin questioninng your beliefs and your "science" - science is not written in stone you know. Genius men of science of the past really and truly believed in the theory of humors causing disease for example...or understanding human behavior by measuring skulls....phrenology was it?

When I have time I will look up the "other side' in your field however. Are you familiar with the critical literature or is your field one sided and intellectually blocked to any inquiry?

I am familiar with both the literature on radiocarbon dating and with the creationist websites' distortions of that literature.

I welcome questions at any time.

I may be the only poster on FR who has actual experience with radiocarbon dating (coming up on 30 years worth), so I will try to explain things as well as I can.

366 posted on 10/25/2006 9:48:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I should have known you could dig me up in your archives. I feel like one of stalin's victims as they are led into the cellars of the the Kremlin after being found out that they didn't tow the CP line.

Seriously...I'll get back to you on that when I have time.


367 posted on 10/25/2006 9:48:53 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
There is no small "L" party that I know of,

There's no "Social Conservative" party either. Not every system of belief comes from a party platform.

368 posted on 10/25/2006 9:49:37 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Gee, everything I let go of falls.


369 posted on 10/25/2006 9:49:43 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Sir Francis Dashwood denies being a "creationist". Given his posting style, I am unable to hypothesize whether he is lying, or merely mentally unstable. However, he is still posting as of this evening, despite telling another poster to "get fisted" in a previous discussion. I do not understand why his account has not been banned in light of that clear violation of the terms of usage for this forum, but I do not have adequate information for meaningful speculation on the issue.


370 posted on 10/25/2006 9:50:04 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
So you admit there does exist a political bias against ID being taught in school.

You also admit that evo isn't an exacting science that you can use any standard testing or experiments to prove.

But you also say that ID can't be taught because its not proved to be a science. OooooK.
371 posted on 10/25/2006 9:50:10 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I am familiar with both the literature on radiocarbon dating and with the creationist websites' distortions of that literature.



NO you misunderstood. I asked you if there were serious self inquiry in your field permitted...within the field...not from external sources.


372 posted on 10/25/2006 9:51:08 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

You might want to take a look at how you treat people in your comments before you accuse others of mistreating you. If someone disagrees with anything you and your evos friends say, you engage in a smear campaign against them - belittling and impuning them without having the slightest knowledge of who your are putting down. Maybe if you and your evos friends were to strike a milder tone then you wouldn't feel that others are being hostile towards you.


373 posted on 10/25/2006 9:52:02 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Whatever, pal. It's your right to turn the channel anytime you get fed up with the "top." Just don't expect me to bend to your will because that ain't gonna happen.


374 posted on 10/25/2006 9:52:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I hear you and agree on all counts.

As you say, there is no need to break along the boundaries at every question mark.
375 posted on 10/25/2006 9:52:37 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

SPAM.


376 posted on 10/25/2006 9:52:39 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
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.

"Last Thursdayism" is about as accurate as calling the Strategic Defence Initiative "Star Wars". If you were merely using it as shorthand, seeing as it is a quick, vernacular term, OK; but otherwise it looks like something between a sneer and propaganda.

"Random miracles unexplainable by science" is almost a tautology. IF you start from the point of view that miracles are the result of deliberate actions by a sentinent supernatural being, they are not *random*. They only look that way because they cannot be deterministically predicted, or even probabilistically predicted on the basis of past physical events and the current state of the system under study. (And if they *are* miracles, then science won't be able to explain them, by definition. Why you feel that means the word must be used as a perjorative is another matter...)

Cheers!

377 posted on 10/25/2006 9:52:41 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I keep trying to float up into the sky, but the harder I try the more I seem to be grounded. Funny, ain't it?


378 posted on 10/25/2006 9:53:09 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I should have known you could dig me up in your archives. I feel like one of stalin's victims as they are led into the cellars of the the Kremlin after being found out that they didn't tow the CP line.

I do not believe that your analogy is appropriate. I fail to see how asking you to support a claim that does not have any obvious correlation to reality is analagous to the treatment of anti-communists in the Soviet Union during the rule of Josef Stailn.

Seriously...I'll get back to you on that when I have time.

Are you saying that eleven months is an insufficient timeframe for investigating a claim that you have made and providing supporting evidence for it?
379 posted on 10/25/2006 9:53:48 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
"There's no "Social Conservative" party either. Not every system of belief comes from a party platform"

Correct! Social conservatives are a faction of the Republican party.

There are no social conservative Libertarians, that would be an oxymoron.
380 posted on 10/25/2006 9:54:19 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

You go Jim :}


381 posted on 10/25/2006 9:54:34 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
NO you misunderstood. I asked you if there were serious self inquiry in your field permitted...within the field...not from external sources.

Of course. DeVries (1958), for example, made a major contribution to the calibration of samples. There has been a correction to the calibration curve within the last couple of years. It changed most of my samples by less than 5 years.

But the deliberations within the field are much different from those coming from the outside.

382 posted on 10/25/2006 9:54:40 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I feel like I missed the "dave" spectacle.

It was on another forum, which is where a lot of the scientists and people interested in science have been going to. This is the last post he was allowed to make, after posting a link (only) to try to get a food fight going on here at FR, and nobody was interested. Note that the "actual thread" was him clearing his throat, and a link, nothing more.

Ah, the musty smell of unused brains...

Does ANYONE here care to address the actual thread, and subsequent point? Is anyone capable? Or has the complacency of DarwinCentral eroded all your mental faculties?

383 posted on 10/25/2006 9:54:51 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

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

But...but...

...that's the whole POINT! Gravity makes things fall *down*, so of course there's not any *support* for it! :-)

Full Disclosure: pick up a good translation of Aristotle's De Caelo...

Cheers!

384 posted on 10/25/2006 9:55:24 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

LOL! Very good.


385 posted on 10/25/2006 9:56:19 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; RightWhale
Coyote, was it you who was in a discussion of this list with RightWhale within the past few days?

I believe he wanted to use the definitions of someone else (Whitehead)?

How did that conversation end up?

Cheers!

386 posted on 10/25/2006 9:56:39 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
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).

Are you saying that you're the one who kept deleting PatrickHenry's homepage back in (March, IIRC)?

387 posted on 10/25/2006 9:56:39 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Has the "get fisted" account been nuked? Or is that Creationists still posting?

Still posting, AFAIK. He said that to andysandmikesmom, for crying out loud. But, hey, he's against evolution, so he must be alright, right? %-)

388 posted on 10/25/2006 9:57:42 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; Jim Robinson

Why does pro science mean pro evolution?

In the eyes of the evo supporters, if you are a creationist, you are not a scientist or pro science. THere are a growing number of us that are scientists and creationists. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

And why would you take this one issue to define if one is pro science or not?


389 posted on 10/25/2006 9:57:51 PM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
"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."
390 posted on 10/25/2006 9:58:06 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
He said that to andysandmikesmom, for crying out loud.

OMG, he did?

391 posted on 10/25/2006 9:58:46 PM PDT by stands2reason (Setec Astronomy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Hey, nothing wrong with reading fiction.

Unless you want to post something factual. You should try the non-fiction section sometime, unless you want to keep posting from a fictional viewpoint.

392 posted on 10/25/2006 9:59:26 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
So you admit there does exist a political bias against ID being taught in school.

I do not deny suh a bias. While I have not encountered such individuals, I cannot rule out the possibility that there exist those who oppose the teaching of intelligent design purely on a political basis. While this reasoning, if it is held by anyone, is invalid, it does not alter the fact that there do exist valid reasons for not teaching intelligent design as science.

You also admit that evo isn't an exacting science that you can use any standard testing or experiments to prove.

Absolutely no theory in science can be proven. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory. The theory of evolution can be subjected to experimentation and testing, and in fact it has been subjected to this extensively, but this can only establish further confidence in the theory or potentially -- though this has yet to happen -- disprove the theory. No amout of testing, however, can prove any scientific theory.

But you also say that ID can't be taught because its not proved to be a science.

This is correct. If you disagree, please explain how intelligent design satisfies the requirements of the scientific method.
393 posted on 10/25/2006 9:59:59 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
Oh, I was referring to what you read.
394 posted on 10/25/2006 10:00:12 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Yup.


395 posted on 10/25/2006 10:00:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Doctor Stochastic; Sir Francis Dashwood

Lovely. Sir Francis Dashwood denies being a "creationist", but he's automatically labeled as one. Why? I wonder? Any good answers from the evos?


396 posted on 10/25/2006 10:02:07 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
THere are a growing number of us that are scientists and creationists. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

This is correct, however creation itself is not science, and I have not observed any actual opposition to the theory of evolution that is scientifically valid. I have observed that the majority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution are not biologists. As the theory of evolution is a subject of biology, the existence of non-biologist scientsts who reject the theory of evolution demonstrates neither that evolution is not valid science nor that creotionism is valid science.
397 posted on 10/25/2006 10:02:12 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

some of us actually do know some science and have the degrees to prove it. I work in the science field and do have problems with the evolutionary theory.

You can't paint everyone with a broad brush. There are scientific facts to support both sides of the coin, and my religion is as valid as yours.


398 posted on 10/25/2006 10:02:45 PM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Sheesh! I can't even float in water.


399 posted on 10/25/2006 10:03:48 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
I work in the science field and do have problems with the evolutionary theory.

What is your field of expertise, and what are some of the "problems" that you have with the theory of evolution?

There are scientific facts to support both sides of the coin

When you say "both sides of the coin", to what specific dichotomy do you refer?
400 posted on 10/25/2006 10:04:17 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 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