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 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,661-1,665 next last
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 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,661-1,665 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