| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Now, that's the pithiest remark I've seen. Let the evos put Ann on Virtual Ignore, and threaten to run to the mods if she gets fractious. Such a feeble bunch.
What if the evos put all of FR on Ignore and formed their own discussion forum?
It enters those other realms BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU DRAGGING IT THERE. Evolution is a biological theory. It has nothing to say on God, morals, philosophy or anything else but biology. You folks are the ones equating it to everything under the sun.
Do you know how tough it is to be a mod? I know someone who helps run an online rpgame--all these dealings with childish complaints drive the volunteers crazy.
Like "physics," "mathematics," and other silly movements.
ID is the retarded stepchild of Creationism.
It basically says, Barbie style, "it's TOO HARD. We need DADDY to fix it."
But I appreciate the hours of entertainment you IDers provide. Your "scientific treaties" are particularly hilarious.
It is a term you made up.
You have no real argument, do you? This is tiresome.
I'm not "including you in that statement", I was pinging you to the post, for reasons I explained *in* that post.
[svcw, you expressed surprise that one could conclude that there are science-illiterate religious conservatives.]
NO, MY REAL SURPRISE IS THOSE WHO BELIVE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A RELIOUGS CONCERVATIVE THAT ONE IS “SCIENCE-ILLITERATE”
I'm not aware that anyone *does* "BELIVE [sic] THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A RELIOUGS [sic] CONCERVATIVE [sic] THAT ONE IS “SCIENCE-ILLITERATE”". At least no one on FreeRepublic, if that was your implication.
There are of course some whacko liberals who are so simple-minded that they believe that being religious at all is synonymous with being science-illiterate, just as there are some whacko conservatives who are so simple-minded that they believe that being liberal at all is synonymous with being anti-God, or who believe that understanding evolutionary biology is synonymous with being an atheist. But those are hardly remarkable observations -- there will always be some idiots.
Thus, when you said that you were "baffled" by the fact that "there are those who believe that religious conservatives are 'science illiterate'", I presumed that you couldn't be surprised by the fact that there exist at least a *few* people who are so blinded that they think that to be a religious conservative is to automatically be science illiterate, and as a result I took your comment to be expressing surprise that *any* religious conservatives might be construed as science-illiterate. This was the reason I pinged you to a post which demonstrated that yes, indeed, some of them really are.
[Ask Mamzelle to actually address the contents of post #107, and you'll quickly realize that there are. Now there's nothing wrong with not being conversant on any given topic, of course, UNLESS the person ignorant on [topic X] is arrogant enough to spend a great deal of time attacking [topic X] and denouncing it and attempting to "lecture" and "correct" people on it without actually having any clue what in the hell they're talking about (by actually *understanding* topic X and having a solid knowledge of it)...]
WELL, THANK YOU-THAT “ITS OK TO BE A CONCERVATIVE”.
You appear to be entirley unclear on the difference between the word "conversant" (what I actually wrote) and "CONCERVATIVE [sic]"... Please, learn to read. And while you're at it, learn to spell and use whitespace.
YOUR COMMENT THAT A PERSON MAY BE “IGNORENT” ON A SUBJECT…. I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION.
You would disagree with me when I say that it's okay for someone to be ignorant on some topics that they have not yet looked into? Fascinating.
BECAUSE A PERSON DISAGREES WITH YOU AND USES A DIFFERENT SET TO ARGUE THEIR POINT DOES NOT MAKE THEM IGGNORATE.
I didn't say that it was. What makes them "IGGNORATE [sic]" is actually being ignorant -- not knowing even the most basic, elementary material on the topic, much less having any familiarity with the more in-depth material.
Is English your first language?
IT APPEARS THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOUR SETS, IS IGNORENT OF THE “FACT”.
No, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact, I find that exploring the reasons for the disagreement often helps me better understand my own position, and frequently leads me to learn something of which I was not previously aware.
However, I have spent decades learning about this topic, and it's not hard for me to spot when someone is saying things that are based on true ignorance of the actual field, the actual evidence, or the actual body of knowledge. I'm not talking about different *conclusions* -- reasonable people can disagree on some points, surely -- I'm talking about true unfamiliarity with the material. A real inability to discuss the topic on its actual merits, due to lack of any real knowledge about it.
Almost without exception, the anti-evolutionists are grossly ignorant of the field they're attempting to attack. And what little they do "know" about it is mostly just flat wrong -- it's based on the gross misrepresentations and falsehoods from the creationist propaganda mills.
[There are countless religious conservatives, a large number of them right here on FreeRepublic, who viciously attack evolutionary biology and other fields of science, as well as the people who practice in those fields or who are knowledgeable of those fields and defend them from false attacks, despite not having any real clue about the topics they crusade against.]
HERE AGAIN BECAUSE THE PERSON ARGUES WITH YOU THEY DO NOT HAVE A “GRASP” OF THE FACTS, SO THEREFORE THEY ARE IGNORANT.
"HERE AGAIN" you are simply stating your PRESUMPTION, based on absolutely nothing, about why I have reached the conclusions I have. You simply *assume* that it "must be" because people disagree with me. And yet, you have no basis whatsoever for making that allegation. You're making the error of mistaking your empty presumptions for established fact.
[It gets really old after a while. And worse, this kind of "I don't understand science but I know it's wrong and evil and part of the atheistic conspiracy" folks are very vocal in the public discourse, to the point where a great many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservative politics run away screaming after having gotten the impression (which is not far from correct) that conservatism contains a large segment of folks who are wild-eyed anti-science Luddites.]
I HAVE NEVER MEET A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS SAID SCIENCE IS BAD OR EVIL.
The ones who feel that way seldom say it outright (although on occasion they do), but it's very clear in their rants. And many have said outright that portions of science (evolutionary biology, for example) are bad and/or evil. You should drop into more of the "crevo" threads, there are quite a few of them who do that.
I HAVE HEARD THEM SAY THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DIRECTION SCIENCE MAY BE TAKING IE CLONING. I HAVE NEVER MET A CHRISTIAN WHO IS ANTI-SCIENCE.
I have.
I HAVE MEET CHRISTIANS WHO ARE ANTI-ARROGANT SO CALLED SCIENTS AND THEIR IRRATIONAL FEAR THAT THERE MAY BE A HIGHER POWER. THIS IRRATIONAL FEAR I BELIEVE STEMS FROM THE FACT THEY FEAR THERE MAY IN FACT BE A JUDGEMENT.
I'll let that rant speak for itself.
And you're very, very mistaken about the motivations of scientists. Additionally, you're exhibiting more than a whiff of anti-science feelings yourself when you shriek bitterly about "ARROGANT SO CALLED SCIENTS [sic]".
[This is similar to how the more moderate liberal movements lose support because people are scared off by the more whackjob liberal nuts. This is *not* a good thing for conservatism. I personally know dozens of people who might otherwise consider voting for conservatives or Republicans, but every time I try to point out how many of their personal views match those of the conservative movement, they recoil in horror and start listing the various antics of the kind of anti-intellectual extremists]
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE YOU SPEAK OF WHO ARE ANTI-INTELECTUALS
How many would you like me to list? Let's start with Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, HenryMorris, and Philip Johnson, to name just a few. They and their cohorts and their lockstep followers have done all they can to undermine confidence in science and in any method by which knowledge is obtained and verified (other than by looking in the Bible for it or checking whether it appears to contradict something in the Bible), in countless different ways. They are actively undermining the search for objective, verifiable knowledge.
[That have given conservatism a bad name by association. There's nothing wrong with being religious -- in fact, the *majority* of American "evolutionists" are themselves Christians. But there is a very vocal, very strident, very intolerant, very anti-science segment of religious conservatives who are *not* doing the conservative cause any favors.]
AND I COULD SAY THE SAME OF ANTI-RELIGIOUS-CHRISTIAN-CONCERVATIVE SUDOINTELLECTUAL SCIENE COMMUNITY.
If I ever meet anyone who actually matches your wildly over-the-top description, I'll be sure to pass that on. To date, however, I haven't. I doubt you have either, although you're pretty free with your wild-eyed accusations and presumptions.
I get hostile whenever supposed conservatives reveal themselves to be believers in postmodernist nihilism. (Even though they have enough sense to fear nihilism, they nevertheless accept it as being true. Hence their belief that it's impossible to be moral unless you believe in a god.)
BTW, the Grand Master does not have an FR ID, nor would he stoop to posting here. He is far too busy plotting world domination to deign to notice these threads.
You have no real argument, do you? This is tiresome.
I agree, with Ann. No argument here.
Wow, you *really* are clueless on the issues... Come back and try again when you're capable of addressing the actual evidence instead of childishly trying to dismiss it as "pictures and tales", while telling gross falsehoods about your fellow Freepers.
If you think anyone is falling for your lame attempts at denigrating material you can't actually refute, or that anyone is failing to see your flailings for what they are, you're quite mistaken.
I always love it when the anti-evolution folks do that. It makes it quite clear which side is arguing facts and reality, and which side is running screaming from them.
Well, since we don't have an Ignore button I call it virtual ignore.
Yes, neither of you have an argument.
What a hoot. Even within this thread one of your fragile friends is threatening to hassle the mods--all in context of "virtual ignore"-- but I have to say I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish with this imposture.
Besides being pathologically bitter she's also pathologically paranoid. :-D
You know, if you truly want to ignore you shouldn't post to the number of the Ignored Person's post. There's a number on a post which indicates that it is a reply to a particular previous post.
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.