Skip to comments.A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
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 Roves 2006 campaign strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Shall we let this thread die and see if it gets resurrected?
Let me post my own example of gravity:
A little history here:
Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation
Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einsteins General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
I have and I replied.
And I also think we can all agree that the left has long used the theory of evolution in its attempts to destroy religion. Just like the US Constitution, religion and moral society must be destroyed in order for the leftists to succeed in their long term goal of ushering in a socialist Utopia.Of course the left will poison the well of every other subject they touch. What would you expect them to do?
And more recently, IMHO, homosexualism, feminism, abortionism, global warmingism, stem cell researchism, etc, have all been added along side evolutionism to the Marxist left's tool box of isms.
I say they're "Marxist" because the modern day Marxists, ie, the socialists and liberals, the ACLU, the Democrat Party itself, and the left-leaning main stream media all use these issues not as tools of genuine and sincere science, but as POLITICAL WEAPONS against us.
And I see it as a shame and disgrace that they have so many willing accomplices on the right aiding and abetting their subversive intentions.
But then a big chunk of the conservative movement (& Freepdom, & now apparently the management) sees this and concludes that it must be modern mainstream science itself that is inherently morally suspect. Therefore seemingly good conservatives here who defend mainstream science from the constant blizzard of lies from the passionate science-deniers must really be deep-cover crypto-communist agents & trolls who really should go back to DU where we obviously came from, yadda yadda yadda.
RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
Here's an interesting bit of comedy that I received this afternoon via FReepmail:
Seems some of the "scientists" among us are really nothing more than antifreepers:
What a perfect name for their AFER "scientific" forum.
Excellent post, sir. Kudos to you!
I'm suggesting you should quit working with the leftists and or doing their dirty work for them. And you should quit insulting those of us who do believe in the Creator. If you guys want to prove the theory of evolution, more power to you. But don't use it as a tool to destroy our faith in God or to destroy our political and religious freedom.