A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

[Blackirish]

Its all about indoctrination of other people's children by force of big government mandate.

---

Libertarian/conservatives are for that ?....what evidence do you have for such an absurd statement?

[68 grunt]

Fundamentalist Christian.

[eleni121]

You sound like you are ravingly fixated on me...what did I ever do to you? I said I needed to be reminded.

I do not keep an extensive dossier of comments on every freeper here like you do Mr Anal Retentive.

[CWOJackson]

"Pretending to be more thick headed then you are is not a winning debating style."

As opposed to your renown LP winning style? Get back to me when you actually win something...till then, talking to you is kind of like playing chess with a parrot. The parrot is vocal as hell and leaves a mess but has got clue one about the game.

Get back with me when you're ready for prime time...till then, stick to crackers.

[Coyoteman]

I have never read any postings attacking science by those who profess Creationism.

You are wrong. I have been involved in numerous discussions with folks who deny the accuracy of radiometric and radiocarbon dating. I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work, and have studied it for a number of years. The "talking points" I see on these threads are all from creationist websites, and consist of misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies. I can tell the difference.

Why do we not see any scientific points made? Why do we only see creation "science" trying to pass itself off as junk science?

I think people who oppose radiometric dating on these threads are doing apologetics, not science.

If you don't agree, post some of the arguments against radiocarbon dating and I will be happy to respond.

(If I'm still around. The Luddites are getting to me.)

[Liberal Classic]

Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.

No one says science has all the answers. Science is a just a tool for describing the physical world. It is ultimately an educated guess, but that best guess is very good. All of science's tools, including evoution, are immensely useful and productive tools for mankind to employ.

It looks like to me you are calling people darwin-idolators. As the owner of this site, what kind of tone does this set? I maintain it is destructive. Why drive people away? I seem to remember seeing a copy of a post you made defending libertarians when there was a big stink about them not belonging here. Libertarians always were a relatively small minority, but you went to bat for them. Why won't you go to bat for pro-science folks who don't like to be called idolator and nazi?

[wyattearp]

Thats what the ACLU and the Godless liberal left said too.

Actually, it was a Dubya-appointed judge, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[Fiddlstix]

Yeah, well looks to me like a lot of people see the theory of evolution as much more than mere science.

Therein are the key words: The theory of evolution.

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

Somehow I think some of these same people would throw a hissy fit should it be proposed that Einstein's "theory of relativity" be changed to the "law of relativity".

[eleni121]

Dave? Given the tense and defensive tone of their (darwinoids) chatter here...I'd rather not.

[68 grunt]

... The saddest thing of all is that Marxism is still alive and well. God help us.

When we've been reduced to third world status the chains will tighten.

[grey_whiskers]

The concept of interference would only be from our human and limited perspective. Agree?

Sorry, I've posted a LOT on this thread tonight. Can you highlight the sentence(s) of mine you meant and include them, to help me understand?

Cheers!

[RunningWolf]

Actually I do not have any dossier of comments on every freeper and no I am not fixated on you. That was not to you, but I thought you might be interested since I thought he had called you a liar like he does everyone.

Obviously I was wrong, I wont ping you any more.

[grey_whiskers]

That, and the problem orbiting not Saturn, but Uranus ;-)

Aw shucks, that stinks whiskers!)

Thanks for playing straight man! --

The problem is that for the "ego"-centrists, their sh*t doesn't stink. :-)

Cheers!

[RunningWolf]

No problem

You just have to assume that the Creator interfered at some point, in a way that doesn't fit the current laws of nature, and didn't go out of His way to tell us about it

[ml1954]

No you don't. You just have to assume that the Creator interfered at some point, in a way that doesn't fit the current laws of nature, and didn't go out of His way to tell us about it.

There are other explanations, but that is one of the quickest ways there.

Cheers!

Last Thursdayism and asserting random miracles unexplainable by science is at least a more honest position. Even though irrational, it at least accepts that the earth and the universe do scientifically appear to be older. But trying to claim the evidence shows the earth and the universe are 6000 years old is just plain nuts and inherently anti-science, except of course here on FR, where it is apparently given serious consideration and greater favor than long established and accepted science.

[Dimensio]

I have seen this request on your part before (it must be you)...but I confess I do not remember.

On December 17, 2005, you stated "Piltdown---No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject (as per Muggeridge's "The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.)". This claim was refuted, and you were repeatedly asked to provide a reference to even a small number of these alleged dissertations. Thus far, you still have not done so. In fact, evidence suggests that your claim was, in fact, completely inaccurate and that there were no dissertations written at all about the subject until after it was exposed as a hoax, with dissertations on the subject after that time addressing the fact that the 'find' was in fact a hoax. I am curious why you chose to make a claim that you refused adamantly to support with evidence, and now you deride those who accept evolution for allegedly doing the same.

[Blackirish]

Don't nominate a big government fop like Giuliani in 2008!

---

Yes it did bother my libertarian streak when Rudy tried to shut down Scores.

[stands2reason]

Rudy is about as statist as one can get.

[wyattearp]

True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.

It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".

Not this BS Again! Laws, facts, and data support theories, not the other way around. A theory is as high as it goes in science. A theory does not "graduate" into a law. There is the theory of gravity, and there are the laws of gravity. The latter supports the former, and the theory of gravity has a heck of a lot less supporting evidence for it than does the theory of evolution.

[SoldierDad]

Excellent point.