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 ...
Hey, that is what the ID adherents are asking for, to be placed into the arena to be challenged. It should be a piece of cake for evolutionists to completely discredit it in a classroom setting.
Again, you and I are in complete agreement.
All I really wanted to say is that I'm proud of my six years of posting history. I was politcal before I came to FR, but I am not going to get in a competition with you to see who can crow the loudest about their accomplishments.
It didn't. SEE? You really, really, REALLY need to stop trying to be "funny" or "clever".
This is rather a rather unfair thing to ask, and I politely decline your request to stop being stupid.
Your appology is accepted. You may be right about the percent of people living off of the taxpayers. However, I don't think we could never change course if it climbs above 50 percent, although it would probably take another civil war to change our country back. Hopefull we won't have to go to that extreme. But, you are right. Time is running out with respect to getting over that 50% mark.
Hey, another 1998'er! Thank you for the support. Although now I seriously wonder if it's worth it, at least on FR. We've never been too welcome here, but lately management just keeps getting more & more arbitrary & petulant & - jeez - childish.
Good grief, how have I offended you so?
Decide for yourself : The Mysteriously Missing Homepage of PatrickHenry
Not true. If the theory of evolution is supplanted with a better definition to fit the evidence, then evolution will be left on the trash heap of history, along with all of the other discredited theories. No reputable scientist will continue to hang onto a dead theory.
And the creationists will still be there, attacking the theory that replaces it, using the same invalidated arguments, and still with not one shred of evidence to support their position.
They are not the same. Evolution is science. Creation is religion. Science and religion are not the same. How many times has a new study come out, which changes what we thought about the way things work, the theory is changed to accept the new data or discarded altogether in favor of a new theory, and the creationists scream about how science changes. Of course it changes. That is the very nature of science. As we learn something new, it changes our perspective on the workings of the natural world. Science and religion are not the same.
The more I consider it, the more I realize that tonight's thread and the subject of the article are related, and not simply because I posted a Goldwater quote upthread.
If you are an educator how would you handle a creationist student? Would you just write him/her off as a lost cause as you have done in your post?
You're the one who decided to pull out a "conservative" CV. And yes, you shouldn't bother to engage me in that "pissing contest" any further; you WILL lose.
Go try to play your silly games with someone else; ennui has set in, as you have now bored me to tears.
By acting in a juvenile manner.
That question has been asked a lot, and it has not been conclusively answered. It is outside the perview of evolution. Evolution is about what happens to imperfect replicators in a population over time. It is not about origin. It does not address it, and it never will. That would require another theory entirely.
Is that not a worthy area of scientific inquiry?
Hell yes! There's Nobel prize in it, I'm sure. People have been working on it for decades. No conclusive results, yet.
Why limit yourselves the mechanics?
That is what science is. Exactly. How does it work? Why does it work? What in the world does that thing do? That is science. Science does not address the supernatural, nor does it address miracles. That is outside of its scope. It will always be so. The attempts to teach ID in science class have been attempts to take science in a direction that it cannot go. The supernatural is not science.
Well, you jumped to the conclusion I was a cowardly retread. I had to give some bona fides.
Go try to play your silly games with someone else; ennui has set in, as you have now bored me to tears.
I'm actually trying to apologize for getting off on the wrong foot, but you're making it awfully hard.
But that appears to be par for the course. :-)
This thread has gone over 500 posts. At this point, the conversations are the topics of the thread. Do try to keep up, will you?
Since you don't have a clue, I'll give you one: there are multiple topics currently being discussed, by a number of different groups. As people scroll through the posts, they are looking for their conversation. STOP SHOUTING! It is rude, and it is distracting.
If you can't find your conversation, check your ping list to get you back on track. And quitcherbitchin.
Well, please accept my apology, I certainly didn't mean to give offense.
You led me down the garden path, to reach the conclusion you hoped I would and now, NOW, you're whinging about the fact that I took you at your word games?
Many a troll and a disruptor ( you're too late a joiner to remember the likes of Eschior et al ) have been on FREEPS and to things such as THE MARCH FOR JSUTICE. Hence "bona fides: tend to not impress.
Perhaps, some day, on a different thread, you will be able to show me that you aren't what I now think you are. Until then, adieu..............................
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.