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 ...
placemark
I am a biologist. I have seen these arguements before. You cannot scientifically refute evolution unless you are a biologist, and you are not a biologist (or an acceptable one) unless you are an evolutionist. THis is circular reasoning.
Also, scientific areas are rarely isolated. The physicist, cosmologist, etc have as much to say about evolution as the biologist, just like biology adds to the knowledge in fields.
This was posted Oct 22, and many, many times before that. Probably hundreds of times. Possibly thousands of times on FR.
The classic picture of the extinction of the dinosaurs changed greatly upon the finding of a thin layer of Iridium at the K-T boundary.
Cool, we now have heavy metal contamination of the earth from an external source.
My question is, how external is external?
The validity of radiocarbon dating depends (in an ordinary, laboratory scale sense) on the homogeneity of the sample, and the uniformity of conditions. That is, we assume all of the initial amounts of radionuclei (in whichever decay series we are using) were all formed at the same time. This is important because the initial concentrations of daughter particles will be the same. (When the sample gets contaminated, you can get problems in dating, see the Shroud of Turin re-weave and sampling controversy for a non-evo example.)
OK, so were there any amounts of any radionuclei (wherever in the sequence) introduced at the K-T boundary or by any other impacts?
Secondly, if there were, do we know whether the radioisotopes in the comet were formed at the same time as the ones on Earth?
Just stirring the pot, yanking your chain, etc. :-)
Cheers!
OMG, he did?
I could be mistaken, but IIRC that is who he said that to.
OK, Mr. Spock.
See, that's just paranoid. I'm not asking you to bend to my will.
Personally, I think you're on the wrong side of this issue, but so what? We don't all have to agree on everything. That's *never* been my point. My point is actually closer to the opposite.
What I am saying is that you need to look around your site with a critical eye. What you are going to see are some sneakback trolls who are chasing some long time freepers away. They're the ones trying to get your site to match up with their dictates. Not us. What's really going on is these guys have a problem with pro-science posters. They're making the site unpleasant for us. They are dictating terms on your site, and they are playing on your sympathies to get away with breaking the rules, painting us as the bad guys and so on.
If you scratch some of these guys, you're itching some real kooks. Western medine is fake, the moon landings are fake, crop circles are real, etc. These are the guys going around trying to drive pro-science folks away. Not Joe or Jane middle America Christian. Honestly, what you need is not more moderation, but better moderation. Bad posters drive away good posters. Bad moderation makes the problem worse.
How do you have a broad based conservative site without a broad base? You let some of these cranks chase people away, it erodes your base. This is a reflection of what is going on in the conservative movement at large. Like I said before, I don't have a problem with you at all. This is a function of what's going on in the larger political scene.
That is interesting. Would you provide an example of one of those experiments? I realize that proving that the process of evolution is hard to show due to the apparent length of the process. Has any scientist been able to recreate the "cocktail" that allowed for life to come into being in the first place and, if so, has that cocktail been tested in the lab?
Me neither. Maybe I need to make a trip on the Shuttle.
And he keeps posting it, in the hope that one day some creationist will actually read it, and not say the same old "if it was really true, it would be a law, and not a theory" nonsense.
Apparent age of the universe.
Stellar fuel--both for age of the universe and the influence of cosmic rays on the flip of the earth's magnetic field, claimed (earlier in this thread) to be related to observations in microscopic fossils.
Stellar fuel for formation of heavy elements including "curve of binding energy" and radionucleides used for radiocarbon dating.
Possible panspermia. Yeah, I know, "abiogenesis is not part of evolutionTM" ...except when a pro-evo poster wants to talk about it.
Cheers!
Specially made-by-frevos definitions of words are not really authoritative.
You hit on something right there that I've been saying.
This isn't about science versus religion. There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in science and engineering disciplines.
What we are seeing on these threads is a sectarian conflict. This conflict has been manufactered by people who are advancing their own theology above the theology of others. How many times in these threads have I heard sentiments like "you can't be a Christian if you accept evolutionary theory" and stuff like that. All the time. But there are lots of Christians and Jews who do accept it. Are they nothing but CINOs or whatnot? Certainly these people are no less sincere.
This is a sectarian fight. There exists a group who are trying to drive pro-science folks from conservatism, simple because they believe we don't belong.
Apam made in freevo-pan, home of the obsessive clones.
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.