A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

[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.

[metmom]

Not all the time, occasionally, sometimes, and my guess would be from the same few posters, although I don't anally keep any records on other freepers.

[takenoprisoner]

"Leave nanny statism to the dims."

I agree. But sadly it looks like your thread has been hijacked by the creationists vs the evolutionists crowd.

The hallmark of political conservatism has historically been limited govt interference in our lives while accepting individual responsibility. Which is exactly why I joined the Reagan revolution in 1980 to become a Republican. Too many govt regulations interfering in our lives and too little recognition for individual responsibility.

To the hijackers I say this: We need G-d and we need science. Anyone who denies a divine creator has not bothered to look at the miracles of life proven by science. By the same token, anyone who denies science has not bothered to appreciate the discoveries in science that makes our lives better and in many cases gives us more time here with the one's we love.

[SoldierDad]

Evos have not yet demonstrated in the "fossil record" that one animal "evolved" into a completely different animal. They use guestimate to try to explain what is unexplainable, and miss miserably on demonstrating their claims. Why would we expect them to use a laboratory experiment to provide evidence of their claims when all of their "proof" is nothing more than speculation?

[Mom MD]

THe theory of evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese. For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

Cosmology is important to evolution. If you want to have evolution be a workable theory, you need to have the conditions conducive to it. A young universe works against evolution as adequate time is necessary for the development and evolution of biologic particles into life. (and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution. Stephen Hawking lamented that a lot of scientists were running off to join the first church of the big bang)

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology. It also feeds in to the mutation rates, etc. Geology also plays an important part here, as well as chemistry. Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

No scientific field exists by itself, they are all interconnected in one way or another.

[wyattearp]

But you have it backwards, in actuality all they have is about 3 bones of a monkey.

That's funny, it certainly looks like they are all there to me.

[Liberal Classic]

Using modern DNA sequencing technology, the genomes of simple, short-lived organisms such as bacteria may be completely read into a computer within hours. This means that we can view genetic markers moving through populations of organisims in near real time. This is the very definition of evolution: the change in allele frequences in populations of organisms over time.

[RunningWolf]

Theres a whole lotta things you don't understand that gets you out of answering them

BTW, disguised talk-origins links aint proof

[Beagle8U]

"But you have it backwards, in actuality all they have is about 3 bones of a monkey."

I really don't care what bones they have to "pick". They can pick them amongst themselves.

[Mom MD]

Christians can definitely believe in evolution and still be Christian. Salvation is determined by ones acceptance of the completed work of Jesus Christ, not on what you believe about evolution. I believe they are wrong, but no less Christian.

A lot of Christians are also in the same place I was at one time, taught evolution in science classes as established fact that no one dared question. There were no intellectually honest presentations of facts on the other side of the arguement. I had to find these out through reading and research of my own. When you are young and impressionable in college, and getting into grad school is dependent on your regurgitating what you are taught in the classroom, unfortunately you learn not to ask too many questions.

Its late and I'm running on, but yes, both evolution and creationism are religious viewpoints with scientific evidence on both sides. Thank you for the civil tone of your debate, it is sorely missing here on most threads!

[Texasforever]

It was just a list of definitions. The dictionary is full of them. If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom. You and yours are fond of calling those that take the ID side of the debate ignorant. That may be so BUT, like it or not, a majority of your fellow countrymen believe in some form of intelligent design and they bring those beliefs with them into the classroom. If you and yours are secure in your science then you should be able to cure their ignorance in short order.

[Liberal Classic]

What the hell for?

[Liberal Classic]

Thank you. Bless you. I'm exhausted, too. I try to stay polite, but Lord knows I lose my temper just like anyone else.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

You claimed a scientific background, this old saw is about as bad as it gets.

Thank you for outing yourself, I was pretty sure you would in short order.

[Jim Robinson]

Guess I got fed up with a smart ass.

[Dimensio]

For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

Could you provide evidence to support this assertion? It does not correspond to references that I have seen. I will attempt to locate these references, but I have found some information here.

and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology.

Are you saying that the external energy input from the sun is insufficient for evolution to occur? If so, then please explain this claim by showing the energy required for evolution to occur and demonstrating that energy input from the sun is inadequate. If not, then please explain exactly how evolution "flies in the face" of the second law of thermodynamics.

Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

Explain how evolution requires this. Also, are you suggesting that, if evolution requires such an event, that evidence suggests that this did not occur?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

And you claimed a biology background, shame on you.

[Liberal Classic]

That was kind of a childish prank to play on someone. Personally, I think you owe him an apology.

[Dimensio]

If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom

The concern is not that Intelligent Design would appear to be more valid than the theory of evolution. The concern is that teaching Intelligent Design in the context of a science classroom would give the incorrect impression that Intelligent Design is science, and that it would create a false impression of what science is.

That may be so BUT, like it or not, a majority of your fellow countrymen believe in some form of intelligent design and they bring those beliefs with them into the classroom.

The number of individuals who "believe" Intelligent Design has no bearing on its lack of scientific merit. It is also interesting to note that many people who claim to believe in "Intelligent Design" have differing ideas of what "Intelligent Design" actually is.

[Howlin]

FR is becoming more hostile to pro-science people.

I take it you don't get off the "SCIENCE" threads, much huh?

It's hostile EVERYWHERE, not just to the ones of you who think you created the sun and the moon.

This problem seems to come from the top.

Were you sniveling when you posted that? GROW UP.

[wyattearp]

If the Theory of Evolution is unassailable then, in the hands of a competent educator, there should be no problem putting it up against ID in the classroom.

How? What evidence is there for ID? What does the theory of ID state? What does it predict? How do you test it? What would falsify it?

Can you answer any of these questions? If not, then what business does it have in science class?

Seriously, answer these questions. I have been asking them for quite some time, and all I get is insults in return.