Free Republic

Obviously I disagree. FR is a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty conservative site. We are biased toward God, Life, Liberty, family and country.

All I'm going to say to you is that FR is what it is and I'm perfectly happy with it just the way it is. Those who don't like it and or think we're being unfair to opposing points of view can take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Because, frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn.

So you disagree that other points of view on the evolution debate are not to be tolerated here? That only a fundamentalist POV is allowed? That the faith of anyone who disagrees with a YEC POV should be called into question and that their “Christianity” is somehow false or faulty?

So in other words Jim, you think it is fine for creationists to insult anyone who disagrees with them, call them mentally retarded or insane, liberal trolls, etc. and to insult conservative Catholics by inferring that they are not “real” Christians, which I understand it against most forum’s rules, and yet when conservative and pro-life Catholics and other Christians object to that depiction based on their belief that the TOE and a 4.5 billion year old Earth is not contrary to their beliefs as Christians, they should not be able to defend themselves?

Although you and others might think otherwise, I am not nor are many other posters here against God, Life, Liberty, family and country just because we believe the Earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old. I’ve been a pro-life, free market, pro-1st and 2nd amendment, constitutional conservative all my life. While I’ve debated on the evolution and other science topics, I’ve tried to be civil and respectful of other’s religious beliefs and that civility is often not reciprocated. But it’s good to know where you stand on the topic and that you think that Christians who think that TOE is valid science or that the Earth is older than 6,000 years are not “true” Christians or “real” conservatives and that according to you, that they are no longer welcome here.

Frankly Jim, you’ve allowed this site to become a cesspool of the fringe. Please remove my account because I no longer want to be associated with Free Republic, for this and many other reasons of late, as you evidently know nothing about “Freedom” or the meaning of the word “Republic”. And quite frankly “my dear”, I don’t give a good damn what you think either.

You should really consider changing the name of this site to “Fundamentalist Republic” as that would be a more honest representation of what this once good, conservative and influential site has become.

And I am here to defend my unalienable rights. ALL of them! Including my rights to religious freedom. Those who can’t stomach that and or don’t like my methods or priorities are perfectly free to go somewhere else or start their own websites. I won’t be changing.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your post, but just where did I ask you or anyone else here to change? Where did deny your or anyone else’s right to religious freedom? Is not my and other’s religious freedom just as important around here?

I understand that the evolution debate has long been a hot button topic around here. And I’ve engaged that topic from what I believe is a factual and rational point of view. If you disagree, that’s fine; we can either debate further or civically agree to disagree. But I’ve never suggested that your or other creationists POV should not be allowed, only that contrary opinions should also be allowed and subject to the same rules of engagement as those allowed by the other side of the debate and that the personal insults need to be reigned in, no matter which side they come from. Do you disagree with that Jim?

Hey CG, why not just ping Jim to the question, since it is his policy that has governed these threads.

“Religion” is inseparable from evolution, and the origin of all things; that is a fact. Its not off-topic ever at Freerepublic. For specific discussions of theological matters, there is, of course, the Religion Forum.

Very rarely do I post on the Religion Forum because I have no argument either for or against any religion. Like the many of our Founding Fathers I support religious freedom for everyone and believe that religious belief is best left to conscience and personal conviction of the individual.

What I pinged to the Admin Mod was in response to was a very legitimate question asked by Buck W. and what I perceived was by some the posters on this thread, an attack on his and others religious beliefs that were just as much “off topic” as what they were accusing him of. If religion is not off topic or inseparable in the evolution debate as you say, then why should only some religious beliefs be allowed to be expressed? While I understand that you think that no “true” Christian could support TOE, there are others here who disagree.

But I wasn’t asking for conformity of opinion or a FR official stance on the topic, only a fair and consistent treatment of opinion and other poster’s religious beliefs by the Admin Mod that evidently was supported by Buck’s removed comment being reinstated and GGG being told to “knock off the personal attacks”.

If either you or Jim Robinson believes the Earth is 6,000 years old or that evolution is not valid based on your religious belief, believe it or not, that’s fine and dandy with me. But when posters post articles or comments that are contrary to what I believe is solid science, I’m entitled to disagree and to say so. And if I’m in disagreement with the owner of this site on this topic, then so be it. If my disagreement with that is a bannable offence then so be it. I didn’t see the part when I signed up here that I had to be 100% in lock step with every one of Jim’s personal opinions. I’m a Baltimore Orioles and Raven’s fan. If Jim is an Angles or Dodgers or Raiders fan that does that mean I should be suspended for that as well?

As to “policy”, to date, I never been admonished, suspended or had any of my comments deleted on this site by any Admin for being offensive to anyone.

Granted, I’ve gotten into some very heated debates with other posters here on many subjects since I’ve been here but I’ve never stooped to the level of hurling the types of base personal insults as you and unfortunately a very few others so often do. For instance I’ve never called you or anyone else a liberal, a troll, a moron and idiot, etc., or questioned their mental stability or sanity, etc.

And I can heatedly engage in debate and agree to disagree without hitting or threatening to hit the “Abuse” button or pinging Jim Robinson to come settle my playground disputes for me.

Thank you for managing this ping list. I don’t post as much as I used to but I do read them and always find them interesting and informative reads. You do a great job! Thanks again.

Defending coyoteman, and Buck W. isn’t helpful as one is a known liberal troll and one is a known liberal troll flying under the radar.

Neither coyteman nor Buck W. are liberals unless you, by your religious beliefs define a conservative solely as someone who believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. But thanks for playing and for proving my point.

Are the religion-derived posts of the creation supporters also off topic? I sincerely want to know. Thank you.

I also want to know. When a legitimate science topic is posted that is not from a creationist website, will you also tell the creationists who show up and post Bible quotes and or accuse posters of being atheists or liberals to stay on topic?

Do you want examples?

When the last article posted by Coyoteman on a science topic, one of the very first posters accused him of being a Satanist. When Coyoteman objected, he got banned, not the offensive poster.

GGG complains about “evilutionists” spamming his threads with cartoons but he has no problem spamming threads not even about evolution with his favorite cartoon. This was way off topic but I didn’t see any admonishment from the Admin Moderator.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2298711/posts?page=27#27

And what of these two posts?:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2297999/posts?page=106#106

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2297999/posts?page=107#107

Neither Buck W. nor allmendream were even on this thread prior to these two posts (and they were not pinged which is supposed to be a no no). And no one had brought up Catholicism or the Pope in this thread. When are you going to tell tpanther and Ethan Clive Osgoode to stay on topic?

Did he say that? Why do evos keep jumping to the most absurd conclusions about what creationists believe and then accuse us of believing them, with no evidence that we do?

Sheesh.

Perhaps NL and others picked up on this quote from the posted article.

"There is therefore no scientific basis for the Darwinian philosophy that living forms find a way to adapt and improve, ever-increasing their repertoires of functional biological mechanisms".

Sounds like Brian Thomas, the community college teacher, is making that exact conclusion; that somehow cancer rates in animals disproves evolution.

Do you realize that you have proven yourself insane?

I answered your request twice, but since I answered it factually, rather than playing your bizzare strawgirl game, you repeat! (look up the “definition of insanity,” to see yourself)

I looked back through your comments in case I missed something and no, you didn’t answer my question. But then that wouldn’t be the first time. When boxed into a corner all you ever do is hurl insults and make snide remarks.

Einstein, no matter what you and GeocentricDan and others claim, was not a geocentrist and neither are the scientists and engineers who sent Americans to the Moon.

Caramel is not exactly an engineer, nor a physicist!

True. I’m not. I never claimed to be one. But then again neither are you.

Perhaps I should be correcting for solar gravity when I take shots on street monuments?

I know you claim to have a degree in engineering and a PE and I take your word for it. But as I have worked for architectural, engineering and general contracting firms over the years in PR, HR, personnel management and recruitment; what you are is a land surveyor. I know and have worked with some very well qualified people who are land surveyors with nothing more than a high school diploma and perhaps some community college or trade school classes who do exactly what you do. It isn’t exactly rocket science.

On the other hand I have a friend who works at the Goddard Space Flight Center as a flight controller on the Hubble Space Telescope. She has a degree in Aerospace Engineering and is finishing up her Ph.D in astrophysics and has been working at Goddard for the last 20 years and early in her career worked with and was mentored by Gene Kranz.

I emailed her the link to this thread last night and asked her to comment re: the heliocentric vs. geocentric models. Her reply to me this morning was “You’ve got to be kidding me – right? Some of these people are actually geocentrics – LOL!” She also went on to reiterate what much of what Phileleutherus Franciscus said. She said that a geocentric model would have not only have made the Moon mission impossible, it would have made Voyager and all the other unmanned space flights impossible.

If I ever need my property boundaries surveyed, I might look you up. But when it comes to space exploration, and you can call me “insane” if you still want to, I’ll rely on those who actually know something about what they are talking about. (Hint - that's not you) :),

Again. I ask you to show proof, any proof at all to back up your opinion. Show me proof that Einstein subscribed to heliocentrism.

Re: correction: geocentrism

Me: “You at first denied any knowledge that heliocentric s/b “geocentric” creationists posted on these threads. Now you acknowledge them but now claim that it doesn’t really matter to you.”

You: “I do? Where?”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2291546/posts?page=360#360

I've never been personally acquainted with a geocentrist, creationist or not.

Does what someone else accuses an anonymous internet poster of count? Not really.

Creationists are regularly accused of all kinds of ridiculous things by evos. I'm not taking the word of one anonymous internet poster on the beliefs of another anonymous internet posted and then say that I know a geocentist.

Me: “You should be embarrassed by the heliocentric s/b “geocentric” creationists.”

You: “Why?”

Me: “That you defend them or refuse to refute them tells me that you really care nothing about science.”

You: “What? Don't you believe that the earth revolves around the sun?”

I see that I made an unfortunate typo/error. I’m certainly not a geocentric. I know that that the Earth is not the center of our solar system or the center of the Universe. However there are posters here who believe this. And yet you defend them and or say that it doesn’t matter to you.

/roll eyes..... Indeed.

You simply don't understand the subject, do you?

I understand the subject. Do you?

Einstein's proof showed that the difference between each coordinate system was purely philosophical. He didn't ascribe to any particular system because he considered philosophical questions irreconcilable. (most honest secular scientists take that view)

Again. I ask you to show proof, any proof at all to back up your opinion. Show me proof that Einstein subscribed to heliocentrism.

“Why should we take so much interest in the observer in his rotating room? Simply because we, on our earth, are to a certain extent in the same position. Since the time of Copernicus we have known that the earth rotates on its axis and moves around the sun. Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance of science. But let us leave this question for the time being and accept Copernicus' point of view. If our rotating observer could not confirm the laws of mechanics, w^- on our earth, should also be unable to do so. But the rotation of the earth is comparatively slow, so that the effect is not very distinct. Nevertheless, there are many experiments which show a small deviation from the mechanical laws, and their consistency can be regarded as proof of the rotation of the earth.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. The Evolution of Physics, p. 161-162

“Physics again intervenes and changes our commonsense point of view. The c.s. connected with the sun resembles an inertial system more than that connected with the earth. The physical laws should be applied to Copernicus' c.s. rather than to Ptolemy's. The greatness of Copernicus' discovery can be appreciated only from the physical point of view. It illustrates the great advantage of using a c.s. connected rigidly with the sun for describing the motion of planets.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. The Evolution of Physics, p. 223

So why are you changing the subject and now focusing on heliocentric creationists?

I didn’t bring up the subject, you did. You at first denied any knowledge that heliocentric creationists posted on these threads. Now you acknowledge them but now claim that it doesn’t really matter to you.

It doesn't bother me one bit what someone believes about geocentric or heliocentric models of the solar system or universe. That's their decision and they have reasons for believing what they believe.

So you believe that one’s belief in a geocentric or heliocentric model doesn’t matter one wit as long as that’s what they believe and it’s all up to their own reasons and “decisions” as to what to believe. Yet you admonish and ridicule anyone who doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and a 6,000 year old Earth or who accepts the TOE. How convenient and grossly intellectually dishonest and inconsistent of you.

I'm not embarrassed by it; it doesn't have any effect on me in a practical sense. It's really irrelevant to my day to day living.

You should be embarrassed by the heliocentric creationists. That you defend them or refuse to refute them tells me that you really care nothing about science. And whether or not you care to admit it or not, it does have a practical effect on you, unless you want to believe that the Moon landings were staged events and never really happened.

It doesn't eat at me that others think differently than I do, but I'm not going to roll over and play dead while we lose our freedoms in the name of "science".

Tell me exactly how legitimate scientific research or TOE has resulted in any loss of your freedoms. You are still entitled to believe in what ever you choose to believe in. Heck, there are people who believe in alien crop circles, alien abductions, clairvoyance, Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster and that 9/11 was an inside job. However none of those “beliefs” should be accepted as legitimate science or taught as such in a science class room.

And if you are going to bring up the man made global warming argument, please be aware that it doesn’t amount to a total scientific consensus. Many climate scientists are skeptical of AGW. It’s not their fault the liberal MSM largely ignores them.

If Al Einstein buys it, why would anyone make such a stink to deny it?

Please provide a source for your proof that Albert Einstein was a Heliocentric.

You're a real piece of work yourself!

Pot - meet kettle.

As predicable, you are very long on the insults and very short on the facts.

Predictable as the sunrise.

Would that be the sunrise of the Sun revolving around Earth or the Earth revolving round the Sun? LOL!

That you are incapable or unwilling to answer a very simple question makes you look rather ridiculous.

Having too much trouble discrediting geocentric creationists?

No. They do that all on their own without any help from me. :),

So you still deny that there are heliocentric creationists? Do they embarrass you? Why aren’t you willing to admit they exist and either agree with them or call them out on it?

It is not a ridiculous quibble and to claim it absolutely untrue is not honest. It is simply a fact that you wish to ignore. Please read George Ellis' quote again. There are no scientific models, only philosphical ones.

Interesting that you post this this week when we are remembering the Apollo 16 landing on the Moon 40 years ago.

For your geocentric model to be accurate, or just as accurate and valid as a heliocentric model, perhaps you also count yourself among those who think the Moon landing was staged on a Hollywood set and that Neil Armstrong and all the NASA scientists and astronauts are out and out liars and party to some vast conspiracy? You’d have to believe that in order to believe in heliocentrisim.

metmom: do you still deny that there are heliocentric creationists posting on this site and that you have no knowledge of who they are? Are you willing to call them out for their errors? Or do you also buy into their “lunacy”.

I’m still here GGG. (Hugs :))

I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my case I’ve found that trying to have intelligent conversations with creationists regarding science is much like beating one’s head with a hammer – it feels so good when you stop. And it’s just as pointless BTW.

All the best—Caramelgal

ROTFLMAO!!! I mean, that is not just a little funny but really hilarious. These people should be writing comedy for TV.

Please, nooo! We have enough bad writing and unfunny comedies on TV now days as it is. Really good comedic writing requires intelligence and a sense of irony. And that would most certainly disqualify Brian Thomas.

From steve-b's outdoor faucet. That's why his bill was so high.

No, that was Professor Kaos, aka Butters.

In the Cold, Cold Night by the White Stripes

Honestly when the White Stripes first came out, I didn’t get it (them). I appreciate them a lot more now and really admire Jack White’s other musical endeavors. Very talented guy.

Loretta Lynn & Jack White "Portland, Oregon”

You don't Understand Me - The Raconteurs

1943 - Christine McVie

Two of my favorite Christine McVie songs:

Fleetwood Mac ~ Why & Over My Head ~ Live 1976

I can’t ever listen to this without crying:

Fleetwood Mac - Songbird (live)