|
Posted on 03/23/2004 11:08:10 AM PST by ZGuy
More apt to be the comics.
But your secular scientist, it's important. They can not find the link they've been looking for to prove evolution, therefore, they are looking too outer space to find that link. They will not, if they do find life on Mars, they will also find that life came from Earth....proving God sparked life on earth not darwin's evolution.
(although I am partial to the crossword puzzle)
|
Thanks, by Jove, I think you it. You have spoken what 'scientists' have not articulated here [or any reason for that 'matter']. If they are trying to prove the existence [or non] of God through evolution, they must first get past how Mars 'evolved' and the predictability of interplanetary motion.
Methinks, they are still in the Buck Rodger's comic book phase and not beyond the dismissive 'you read sports pages, comics, etc'. Maybe they work on government/academic contracts so they think they don't have to justify funding.
You just can't keep yourself from setting a rude tone can you?
If you weren't such a misogynist, you'd see that I didn't set the tone...and that you are continuing it. But then, I expect nothing less from you.
We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. The same people who decry the welfare state, think (rightly) that socialized medicine is a disaster have a peculiar blind spot for socialized science. Personally now that we know that Mars consists of rocks and dirt, but probably had salty oceans about 2 or 3 billion years ago, so what. It's too far away to economically strip mine it, likewise too far away for a cost effective nuclear waste dump.
* Well daring to criticise St George Bush on his liberal spending or his sucking up to Teddy Kennedy or his support of gun control or his no child left behind policy or his total lack of vetos on the estrogen fueled day-in-the-life-of thread will get a bunch of whiney old maids on your case even quicker
misogynist = One who hates women. (from dictionary.com)I don't hate women. I just don't like what you post. You are incapable of producing a polite reasoned response to any criticism of government spending in the sciences for example, your comment
Nah, they'll just pop another beer and continue to mess up this thread.implies that anyone who fails to find any economic benefit of using confiscated tax dollars to support a vast bureaucracy whose total output is pretty pictures of Mars "messes up the thread"
I wonder what you would have thought of the Lewis and Clark expedition. That would have also been also "Socialized Science" in your book.
That arguement was "lost" soon after John Smithson made the bequest that founded the Smithsonian.
I would question just how you think Lews and Clark are even vaguely analogous to MArs, and second, because there were economic incentives to exploring the west it would have gotten done by private ventures
What does the Smithsonian have to do with anything? It's marvelous entertainment to be sure, but still entertainment at the taxpayers' expense.
It seems to me we ought to start designing something that would autonomously mine and process ice and store it as water in large tanks. We should also be looking toward other necessities to support a manned scientific station on Mars or on one of the moons of Mars.
You poor dear, you actually had to look up the word? Well, at least you learned something today.
You are incapable of producing a polite reasoned response to any criticism of government spending in the sciences
Please review some of the threads dealing with "spending in the sciences", and you will find far more vitriol from others (including yourself) than the few posts I have contributed. I am of the opinion that you simply do not like the fact that an uppity-woman has an opinion on these matters and chooses to express those opinions (and supporting facts) on FR.
Please do not follow me from thread to thread or post to me anymore.
Is that what ex-snook was doing? I could have sworn ex-snook was just being flippant - like me.
Now, with regard to your characterization of "public funded socialized science," I'd like to remind you that the Manhattan Project was publicly funded and probably save hundreds of thousands of American lives. Salk's work to develop the polio vaccine was publicly funded. There are lots of other examples.
Sure, there is more waste than I'd like to see. Sure, I'd like to kick most of the researchers off of the public teat and into the capitalist world; but not everything that is funded by government grants or performed by government employees is "socialist." You have painted with a very broad brush.
I'm glad Lewis and Clark, or Columbus, or Cousteau didn't have your attitude.
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.