Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish
As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Ciao!
For some reason, I don't think Dimensio will be showing up here with his rote and ubiquitous declaration that you are lying about evolution, and nothing you say can be trusted.
The list of election victories they have posted at their website.
...don't actually know any science.
A lot of time they spout the silliest things taken for fact. Just the other day you said that modern science has no clue why water expands when it freezes and why flags flap in the breeze. I hope to goodness you learned something. Another guy who totally rejects science any science that conflicts with his theological positions can't even explain the difference between wavelength and frequency. I can go on and on.
There's no shame in not knowing something. The shame is in refusing to learn.
There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in science and engineering disciplines that have no problem with evolutionary theory. This tells me that the problem people have is not with their science, it is with their theology.
The conflict on these threads is not science versus religion at all. It is actually a sectarian conflict between people with a certain highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and more mainstream viewpoints. The mainstream of Christianity and Judaism says that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny.
LOL --- game, set, match, CWO!!
Of course most voters probably thought he was a "librarian" when they pulled the lever.
For all the years of having creation taught in public schools, I don't see that it hurt the advances made in science at all. A great many of the scientific advances made during the last couple hundred or so years, were made at a time where creation was taught in public schools and evolution was not. It cannot be demonstrated that the teaching of creation in schools is going to cause the deterioration of education in America. On the contrary, the only correlation I've seen is a deterioration of the American education system coinciding with the removal of Christianity from it.
I rarely engange the crevo scene at FR for exactly that reason. You post one opinion that questions some point of ToE and the next thing you know you've got folks accusing you of being some kind of Luddite subversive, working behind the scenes trying to unhinging the very Laws of Physics. In fact, just posting this risks that someone will think it's bait [it's not] and flame me for having posting it.
I know of no one who avows creation as writ who disavows "science"; many are, like yourself, working scientists. Honestly. One's position on origins doesn't change the way one might write an analysis on cellular mitosis; it doesn't impact how one might perform a chemical titration; it has exactly zero impact upon the myriad daily tasks carried out by them daily in their work as scientists. Still, there are those in these forums who cannot abide simple observations -- much less a point of debate, that's five or seven orders of magnitude upscale -- such as "this data set could have an explanation that doesn't support ToE". No way. Not going to happen. EVERY post that makes the slightest intimation that ToE could be less than 100% bulletproof MUST be squashed like bubonic plague and no amount of piling on is to be spared. Ever.
Bottom line: people have got to the place where crevo cannot be a simple smoky back room discussion amongst ladies and gentlemen; it has to be a house-wrecking bareknucled brawl that spills into the streets and degenerates into a bloody gunbattle to the last man standing. That's not the fault of ToE, nor is it the fault of the Bible; it's the fault of posters -- posters on BOTH sides of the issue, mind you -- who cannot simply, politely, answer a point or observation, but simply MUST insert their snide little goads; who have so little self-control that they cannot resist the urge to needle and mock; who take the discussion into insulting and derogatory waters with needless, sophomoric (and that's being generous), retorts that precipitate the downward spiral of the whole thread into a morass of childish name-calling and mudslinging in which all manner of narrowmindedness and otherwise hidden bigotries emerge en flagrante. AAAND, in case nobody's noticed, the denizens of DU keep coming by with lawn chairs and buckets of pocorn to cheer and jeer the gore and carnage.
I've had GREAT discussions in my lifetime with others whos views were diametrically opposed to my own on many differing topics. Tone, demeanor, manners, and mutual respect made ALL the difference. So, I submit to you that it is not "anti-science" or "pro-science" Conservatives who are sullying FR, and, by extension, the whole Conservative movement; it is anti-social, rude, impertinent, foul-mouthed, posters who lack manners, respect and self-control who are sullying FR, and, by extension, the whole Conservative movement.
FOTFLOL! Too funny!
I have never read any postings attacking science by those who profess Creationism. Most Creationists respect science and its usefulness and are only questioning the elaborate but flimsy edifice constructed on the vague and gaseous mythic like qualities of Darwinoid assumptions - that human males and females ascended from the earthworm.
It is, in fact, Creationists and ID adherents who are the true scientists here...and Darwinoid evolutionists who cannot bear the scrutiny of their flimsy work. Some science they subscribe to!
Instead of questioning Darwin’s assumption themselves – self-styled evolutionists have erected a personality cult to him and have blocked any and all criticism of the theory while ridiculing those who dare to question. This angry defense of Darwin reminds me of Marxists who deify their materialistic hero…and delight in ridiculing those who do not.
The Missouri constitutional amendment is a case in point. Those steeped in scientism portray that amendment to us rubes as "stem cell research" implying that those opposed to the amendment are anti science and bad Christians because we want to see Michael Fox suffer. Both are nonsense.
What the amendment actually does is enshrine cloning in the the Missouri Constitution and at the same time takes a nice shot at our republican form of government in that it forbids legislators in Missouri from directing what funds can be spent where.
RR said trust but verify. I say that anytime you are condescended to in the manner that the followers of scientism are condescending to the voters of Missouri there is no reason to trust that group of people ever again. No need to verify that at all.
Counterproductive, even ...
LOL! IATZ.
And which Libertarian/libertarian candidate is polling anywhere above 2%?
The message is "we don't need you" and "get lost".
This is really, really stupid. The Republicans need every vote they can get. They need my vote and your vote.
Most people want creation taught in schools...
If people would push for theology and ethics classes in the public schools, an appropriate venue for the topic of biblical creation, instead of trying to sneak creationism in the backdoor of biology class, I think you'd see much stronger support.
Badnarik---> 0.03% in 2004 just slightly under Nader's 0.04%
In the states your percentages are worse, but I guess compared to nothing you're doing fine.
You think too highly of yourself. It does prove the last of the points that I made to you back in August, however. The only thing that I had wrong was that it was not the mods, but the owner.
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.