| 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 ...
So she mixes facts with her cheap shots. BFD. A lot of liberals do that too.
a cheap shot is not a cheap shot if it's true!
Among other things. Here's another: "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats."
Not exactly. It not only has to be true, it has to be relevant.
You're entitled to your opinion. I to mine.
Yes, the Tragic Vision thing. But some find her utter lack of diplomacy not only shameless, but delightful.
Ann has many detractors in the GOP--the neos detest her.
Do you have to be a Christian to be a conservative?
You may also need to ask for the definition of Christian. I've seen many, many posts stating one or more of the following...the Pope is not a Christian, Catholics are not Christians, anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible literally is not a Christian, many Church of England clergy are not only not Christians but are atheists, and the ever popular, if you 'believe' in evolution you are not only not a Christian you are an atheist. You get the idea
Opinions are varied. I like her. And I am not a registered Republican.
You've made the claim. Back it up wiht examples.
Remind me how...?
You haven't been paying attention to the last 90 years of commentary on Relativity, have you?
Last I checked, your name wasn't next to the definition of conservatism in the dictionary. So spare us with the " out of touch with true conservatives" jive and recognize your own condescending attitude in that very statement. I for one could care less what some idiot on the DU thinks of a discussion here on the Free Republic. I bet there are some (few) pro-lifers and some free traders on the DU too, how lame would it be to include their perspective on similar topics posted here to attack a position? Its a Red Herring (Guilt by Association) at best. Let them muddle in their own muck.
As if being nice would suddenly change your IQ?
What is it that you wish to conserve?
In this country, the term has always meant preserving the freedom and rights that have accrued to us as a nation founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the source of all that we hold dear, thus we work to conserve it, and protect it. What else is there?
Nope. I have a personal worldview that rejects religion because most religions make statements that conflict with scientific fact. The horse goes before the cart.
One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist.
Could you track this down, please. As it stands, it appears to be a third hand, unsourced claim, different from the previous version already posted in the thread. I'd like an original citation.
And as for the Keith quote, it's also mined. Full context, please.
I really don't see you saying this when they jump on the evolutionary propaganda bandwagon, or hyping the latest version of global warming alarmism.
Yes, you do Dave. You know full well yesterday that I agreed with you that most of the higher estimates of the effects of global warming were alarmist.
Your adherence to Darwinism and the evolutionary model ARE, in fact, religious in tenacity. Even if I didn't feel this to be the case, the term still applies
Tenacious, to you, seems to be inseparable from religious. That surely says more about you than it does about me.
According to Dictionary.com, "religiously" can mean "extremely scrupulous or conscientious", which I'm sure you'll agree describes your defensive stance.
Thank you, yes, I would like to think I'm both scrupulous and conscientious. Why this is supposed to be pejorative, though, befuddles me.
Evolutionists and frevolutionists vehemontly deny that evolution has anything to do with anything other than strict, cold, hard science. This is simply not the case. No offense, but evolutionists need to pull their heads out of the laboratory and find out that there's a whole other world of politics, theology, doctrine, morality, ethics and philosphy that evolution has ramifications in.
The scientific truth or falsity of evolution does not depend in any way on politics, morality, or anything else. Politics, ethics and philosophy however should take account of evolution. What we are depends on where we came from and how we got here.
"In this country, the term has always meant preserving the freedom and rights that have accrued to us as a nation founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ."
What does that mean for the country's Jewish population?
Actually, I found their admiration vaguely pathetic, sort of like the Pakled on Star Trek. "They are smart. They can make it go".
Maybe, somewhere between the 'I hate all eggheads' mentality on FR, and the 'DUH, those guys are smart' on DU, sanity is to be found.
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.