Goodbye from Pistolshot

Too bad I got zapped. I was going to post this last night, but thought calmer heads would prevail. Guess I was wrong.

Years ago, when this forum was young and gaining membership, the dedication to conservative principles was the theme that attracted many who were looking for an outlet to voice matters of political opinion in light of the Lewinsky Scandal. It was my primary reason for signing up. It gave me solace when I was racked in pain with a broken neck and back from an accident. It has been a place where returning the kindness shown to me has been easy, and rewarding. It has been a place to share the horror of 9/11, and the tears of the nation, the celebration of birth, and the tragedy of death and loss.

It has become a home of sorts, where I can share my experiences, and laugh at some of the wit and humor of so many valuable people. I have laughed with you, and cried for you and with you.

Through the years I have seen people come and go and be purged for political views that became, not one of debate, but one of demeaning personal attacks on those who did not agree with them politically. Once again, that has reared its ugly head here at FR and in the form of religious beliefs.

Recently, there has been a new creeping fascism by a small group of Creation Science believers into FR. These few individuals would have you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, there is no other belief other than Jesus Christ, a great flood killed everyone and everything, leaving only a few survivors on a boat, which make little sense, and that any other opinion that does not agree with them either makes you either a ‘liberal’, an atheist, not worthy of posting here at FR, and not a ‘true’ conservative. They would have you believe the Theory of Evolution is the cause of every human disaster since the time of the printing of Origin of the Species and that all science is a lie. The threads promulgated by these very few proclaim the fact they are ‘right’, while anyone disagreeing or choosing to debate them are ‘wrong’. Some of these individuals have promoted bigotry and personal attacks, which would have gotten any other individual here banned.

Yet, under the protection of the owner of the site, these very few have had the audacity to instill their beliefs into the core of what was once a great conservative site, and is now one that determines your conservatism by your acceptability of Creation Science. It has now become a site that determines your conservatism based on rejection of Mormonism, the Roman Catholic faith, atheism, on any religious belief but their own, and not on conservative values that have nothing to do with religious beliefs, but on what is best for the country and what we revere as America.

This is the worst kind of fanaticism as it pits a particular religious belief against an individuals ability to think. Something that has developed over millions of years, from the use of rudimentary tools to the complexities we enjoy today, an individual’s ability to think sets us apart from most of the other animals. And we are still in the adolescence of that developing technology and intelligence. Look how far we have come from the written word to the printing press to the Internet.

This kind of fanaticism was used by Hitler against the Jews and just about every other race and culture, by the Italians against the African Continent, and by the Japanese against the Chinese. It was used by the Catholic Church in Spain as a weapon to force those not of the Catholic faith underground or tortured to death for heresy. It was part of the Crusades and the slaughter of millions of both Muslims and Christians. A struggle that continues even today, although it pits radical self-serving Islam against the free-thinking individual of any religious belief, basic human freedoms, and forces each of us to stand up to that type of extremism.

There are many religions in this world, and many beliefs in a different ‘god’. History is replete with various religious beliefs that either evolved or were discarded. Even those who do not adhere to the Christian belief should be free to choose what and how they think, and not be condemned by the few who see nothing but their way and dismiss their conservative values. This type of religious fanaticism degrades this forum to the very thing that the DUmmies expect from FR, intolerance of others.

Science is the quest for knowledge. That quest requires that each individual take a look at data and information and make a valued opinion. Science is not perfect, nor has it claimed to have all the answers, otherwise, cancer would be cured tomorrow, food would be grown enough to feed the world, and disease would be eliminated. But that is not the case. It is that quest that has sent us in directions to search for who we are, and where we came from. If the science leads us to god, or whatever deity that created the universe, then so be it, but to dismiss it is to ignore the progress of generations, and reinforces an ignorance that only education can alleviate. By using one book as the sole source to how everything has come to where it is now, is ignorance on the highest level. And to use that belief as a ruler to measure your worthiness as a conservative is beyond the pale.

I will miss the valuable wealth of knowledge of the gun-owners here. I will miss the total dedication to the memory of our brave fallen heroes, and the devotion to our military around the world. I will miss the realistic social and fiscal conservative values I found here that reinforces my own political views.

I will not miss the tolerated religious bigotry, the insulting, uneducated, demeaning tripe that passes for knowledge by those few who would dictate to the rest.

Yes, Jim, it is your site to do with as you please, but to allow the few to demean and dictate to the many what beliefs are acceptable and ‘conservative’, and with your blessing, is intolerable to me and probably many, many other conservatives here. It shows that the intolerance the left accuses conservatives of being does live on FreeRepublic. Maybe this kind of self purging is what you wanted allowing the sort of tripe we have seen lately. It serves conservatism very little and demeans everything you started this site to be.

I will continue to fight for conservative causes, pro-life causes, pro-gun legislation, and real conservative candidates to help us get this country of ours back to where it should be. It just won’t be here, where my beliefs in that conservatism will be questioned because my religious beliefs are not coincidental with the owner.

I pray for our country and those who fight for her, in whatever capacity they can.

Now you're back to "engaging in science" vs. "being a scientist".

The definition of scientist is important: not the least of which is the mantle of "credibility" to lay people.

This is the proof, btw, that Climate Change is becoming a religion:

1) argument from authority

2) $$$$$

As Leon Lederman (physics Nobel, once director of Fermilab) said:

"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a lot easier time raising money."

And allowing the "priesthood" of science, with the allegiance to "scientism" to creep in (particularly as it gets co-opted by Marxists, much as liberation theology and seeding the seminaries with homosexuals attempted to co-opt the Catholic Church) will generate tremendous problems for the credibility of science as an institution, once it is clear that "scientists" were hoodwinking the public, and other scientists did not insistently put a stop to it.

Speaking of that, the Nobel to Gore (and to the IPCC, and to Obama, and ...Yasser Arafat!!?) threaten to diminish the prestige of a Nobel prize: throwing away the reputation and a pedigree painstakingly accumulated over a century, and throwing it away for some short-term cheap political leftist showboating.

Cheers!

[[Where “creation science” fails is that it believes that because science is not absolute, that it is all false.]]

again with the misrtepresentation of ID and Creation science- they say no such thing- nor even intimate such a silly notion. They provide evidence showing WHY the evo claims are wrong- as I said before- you’ll find plenty of such evidnece on trueorigins.org

[[I’ve yet to see one that substantially refutes or alters any established scientific views.]]

Really? Because just a geenral searchwill reveal quite a bit actually

[[It also fails in taking due skepticism and then publishing alternate conclusions with all the data and research to back up the alternate conclusion]]

You haven’t looked too hard into ID science if that’s your position

[[No, I don’t think I’m overstretching. Science encourages questioning of established results and new approaches. That is why in order for science to be legitimate, it must be published, and data made available for scrutiny.]]

noone’s quesitoning that- ID science is presented to peer review and scrutiny- and many science sites have taken it upon themselves to try to refute the research of ID- however, like I mentioend, thsoe site’s claism are also refuted. The question is, which side presents them ost reasonable ‘beyond reasonable doubt case’? ID does inthat it doesn’t propose assumptions which violate natural laws

[[No I didn’t. If you falsify and ignore data - without proper documentation, you aren’t engaging in science. That’s why “creation science” isn’t real science.]]

Yes you are overstepping- to make such a claim ignores the facts- and for hte record- what ‘data’ are you referrign to that ‘real scientists’ engage in when making claims abotu things they base on assumptions about past events for which htere is no evidence, and worse yet, for which the evidence we have of todays events show that past events woudl have had to violate several key scientiific principles in order ror evolution to occure? you’ve overstepped by claimign that evolutionists, or ‘real scientists’ as you seem to suggest, present data to back hteir claims up, and you overstep by claiming creation science ‘isn’t real science’ because suppsoedly all creations scientists are negaged in deceit and cover-ups per your words and insinuations. Both premisses are false

[[“creation science” is based on literal Genesis - all reasearch need do is reach a conclusion that something is “just as it is in the Bible”. If someone is skeptical - they risk being held out as a heretic in the “creation science” community.]]

wow! Really? I’ve NEVER heard or read any such hting- apparently you have insight into this claim you’d liek to share?

[[Maybe there are genuine researchers in “creation science” that simply want to know the scientific facts before reaching conclusions.]]

‘Maybe’? you can bet on it

"Focus people, please. Other FReepers are not the problem."

Sometimes it does look like that....even for someone like me. Not that anyone cares but below is a self description.

I love Jesus Christ, America, American heritage, my family, freedom, America's heritage, Ronald Reagan, capitalism, The Constitution, the flag, low taxes, low regulations.

I believe God created the earth and humans. I don't have answers for evolution arguments.

I am considered the most outspoken conservative among those that associate with me. It has been this way since I was in Jr. High many, many years ago.

I use FR as my main source of information and I post many articles on other networks to do a small part to preserve what freedoms remain and possible turn back the socialist agenda.

I strongly support Sarah Palin and if the election were held today (either on the Republican primary or in the general), I'd vote for her early and often. I have never voted for a democrat, but have not always voted for Republicans.

I don't believe in AGW. I believe 0bama and the democrats are socialists intent on taking away freedom.

I am fiscally and socially conservative. I love our soldiers and military.

That being said, I belong to a group that is outside the so called FR mainstream.

I am a Mormon.

Five years ago if you would have told me others would say I was outside the conservative "mainstream" I would have laughed and laughed. To see some of the crap posted here about Mormons is...frankly...laughable also. Oh well. I love FR and most of the post here.

After arguing outside FreeRepbulic I can definitely that unless one is a troll, the people on FR are not the enemy. Try discussing issues with the general public.

Now that is scary.

No, you have a problem with all the evil people applying the science without considering Genesis.

See, I had such high hopes for you, but here's where you went stupid on us.

First of all, let me ask the obvious question - what do you even know about this whole issue of radiodating in the first place? Chances are, the answer is "not much," because you don't even seem to have understood the objections I presented well enough to present a credible response to them which may, in fact, be why you didn't do so.

How can you, with a straight face claim that scientists would ignore data that is presented to them with actual research and data to back it up?

I can do so with a straight face because everything I said in my previous posts is, in fact, experimentally true. If you disagree, then it is incumbent upon you to disprove what I've said, instead of just reaching deep down into your diaper and flinging the contents at me.

Fact - we know that zircons can form with interstitial Ar in them. Sometimes with quite a bit of it. This is shown both by field studies from actual rocks being formed, and in laboratory studies simulating the conditions in which these rocks are formed. Therefore, there is certainly a good reason to call into question the entire assumptive premise under which evolutionists operate when they arrive at their "long ages" for these rocks. This remains true, regardless of whether you wish to believe it or not.

Fact - we know for a fact that lead can be introduced into U-bearing rocks, and that U can be washed out of these same rocks, both of which will yield artificially old ages for said rocks. Again, calls into question the evolutionist assumptions. And again, this is all true, regardless of whether you want to hide your head in the sand about it or not.

So, instead of whining about me about creationists wanting to reject anything that "doesn't agree with Genesis," how about you start actually addressing the facts on hand? Because right now, you're not looking so hot.

If you like, I can also school your ignorant behind on exactly why evolutionist ideas abiogenesis in an "early earth" are also completely scientifically impossible, based on known science that is available to a sophomore chemistry student. You up for that?

Can I interrupt your fit of triumphalism long enough to ask how zircons are dated using the K-Ar method, considering that -- contrary to your assertion upthread -- zircon (ZrSiO₄) does not contain potassium?

Furthermore, also contrary to your claims upthread, geologists do not simply assume that all argon in their samples is radiogenic in origin. They often and extensively test such assumptions, and often reject particular samples and rock types because of what they have learned from such experiments.

As an aside, many, if not most, creationist reports of discordant "dates," supposedly embarrassing to "evolutionists," cite experiments where scientists were doing experiments designed to test the assumptions behind various radioactive dating methods, and thereby document instances where the necessary preconditions do not apply. Creationists, safely assuming their acolytes will not check the references, simply lie about them, pretending the "evolutionists" (geologists) were expecting valid dates, when in fact they were expecting the opposite.

BTW, you can check the amount of atmospheric Argon in your sample by measuring the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁶Ar ratio. (⁴⁰K only produces ⁴⁰Ar, and atmospheric ratio of ⁴⁰Ar/³⁶Ar is known and stable.) Also, the Argon-Argon method was developed largely as a check on the validity of K-Ar dates.

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.