Replies

*sniff* *sniff* What’s that? OH! I know. It’s the smell of trolls! Seems some people only come here to post about one topic; Evolution/Creationism. Wonder if they actually have any conservative bent at all or are just agenda pushers...

You are relatively new to this site, so perhaps some explanation may help.

This site used to be science-friendly at one time. It has since largely been taken over by fundamentalists who insist on interrupting science threads with witnessing or challenges to what elsewhere is considered mainstream, established science.

Most scientists left in disgust, some were banned.

I am one of the few of an old group still left defending science from religiously-oriented attacks.

That comes nowhere close to the definition of a troll. A troll's mission is to disrupt.

And as for conservatism, I remember when being a conservative didn't require a person to believe in one of the extremist, fundamentalist religions. You know, back when I voted for Reagan in four different elections.

You are relatively new to this site, so perhaps some explanation may help. This site used to be science-friendly at one time. It has since largely been taken over by fundamentalists who insist on interrupting science threads with witnessing or challenges to what elsewhere is considered mainstream, established science. Most scientists left in disgust, some were banned. I am one of the few of an old group still left defending science from religiously-oriented attacks. That comes nowhere close to the definition of a troll. A troll's mission is to disrupt. And as for conservatism, I remember when being a conservative didn't require a person to believe in one of the extremist, fundamentalist religions. You know, back when I voted for Reagan in four different elections.

That depends on how relatively you define 'new'. I've lurked, then posted for about three years. That may be small compared to your tenure, but I don't think that qualifies as new by any standard.
Yes, I am totally aware that there are elements who disrupt or challenge science threads, often with ideas that are, at best, tangential. These things are usually also ill-supported. But science-friendly or not, this is not a science site! This is a conservative site. Obviously, I have no idea what your motives are. But if you have a pattern of always fighting the Evo/ID battle, where that is but a slice of the concerns, it would appear that perhaps that is your primary interest. And while that doesn't mean you're here to disrupt, it's also not that far from the pattern of one who does, and it does bring a certain ring of tangentialness itself. Science of course has it's place in the discussion of conservative thought: that the accomplishments of private citizens and groups advance the quality of our lives, not government controls. That a free market of ideas brings us the sweetest fruit.

And as for conservative requirements of belonging to a fundamentalist religion, that's a liberal line if I've heard one. If that was so true, then why did the GOP nominate someone without the proper religious anointation? I seem to recall many of the fundamentalist type leaders being squarely against McCain. (...as well as other secular types) This forum is full of less than religious fundamentalist conservatives, and such a an accusation to the contrary does offense.