Proof that not all freepers are brainless

[rumguy]

These posts are from a thread concerning the removal of the word evolution in Georgia schools...

Lights are going out in Georgia but not for want of electricity.
1 posted on 01/29/2004 3:08:07 AM PST by Ben Chad

Here's to the sequel - Scopes Monkey Trial, part II.

The religious right has adopted the tactics of the PC crowd - wonder how far it will go?

Oh well, them Georgia boys never did need no fancy larnin'
6 posted on 01/29/2004 3:28:50 AM PST by Ophiucus

"Whether you believe in creationism or not, evolution should be known and understood by the public," he argued.

Exactly. They don't have to believe it, but they need to know what scientists believe.
17 posted on 01/29/2004 3:59:29 AM PST by Amelia

What other "theories" are there? Honestly, neither creationism nor ID meet the standards of a scientific theory. They are neither testable nor falsifiable, nor do they make any testable predictions. If there were any other "theories" you can be darned sure they would be included.
21 posted on 01/29/2004 4:08:21 AM PST by Junior

Evolution can't be replicated either. Neither does the fossil record support it.

Actually, it can and it does. There have been numerous observed instances of speciation. Genetic studies of point mutations confirms the evidence found in the fossil record as to the veracity of the theory of evolution. You throw out these unsupported statements and then attempt to cut off all debate by claiming you're not interested in "rehashing" the arguments. That statement alone, my dear, is indicative of someone who doesn't want to face the evidence.

Present your best arguement against evolution. Odds are, it's been tackled on these threads a dozen times.
28 posted on 01/29/2004 5:12:39 AM PST by Junior

I amazes me more that those of you who can "see" the Gospel can't reconcile it with 150 years of hard science. From my reading of the Gospels, I can't for the life of me see where they discuss speciation or change in allele frequencies over time. Perhaps you can help me out.
38 posted on 01/29/2004 5:57:12 AM PST by whattajoke

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067413/posts

[frogfromthenorth2]

1. Can't spell CREaTIoNist without CRETIN....

I love the crationist boards on Freakrepublikkk.... so tasty.... You feel the love all over the place....lol

[davidinalameda]

2. probably a DUer and not a real freeper

[rumguy]

3. I don't think so, there are a lot of proponents of evolution over there

There are actually huge, lengthy threads on the subject...

Some freepers are quite intelligent...

[frogfromthenorth2]

4. Yeah... that's the problem when you are too far right... Some wackos

you have to live with if you want to survive as a group. But those religious freaks are a pain in the butt for a lot of them. There's a lot of scientist freepers and they get pissed off by thos religious nuts...

[tom_paine]

5. Intelligence has NOTHING to do with susceptibility to propaganda

or belief of lies.

Ego and consciousness and skepticism has everything to do with it.

Which is why Goebbels v2.0 has been working overtime to eradicate these qualities in the Imperial Subjects of Amerika that they mean to rule.

[rumguy]

6. I'd argue that not all freepers are susceptible to propaganda

There is a lot of open ridicule of those they call "Bushbots"...

Some of them just truly want a smaller government.

[tom_paine]

7. I'll conced your point because I stopped visiting NaziStormtrooper.com

long ago.

But maybe you could link me to some of this supposed "Bushbot" ridicule (and RimJob left it undeleted???), just to sort of corroborate your assertion.

[Rolling Titanic]

8. Read the one on the increase for the NEA

they are in civil war. See e.g. Posts 34 and 36 of the following:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067204/posts

[mike1963]

24. ROFL. the freeps are having a tough time figuring out who to hate...

not that it doesn't happen around here at times...
:evilgrin:

[rumguy]

9. This is from a lengthy thread last night about Bush's increase in spending

Just be a good little Bushbot and keep repeating:
"Bush can do no wrong,...."
"Bush can do no wrong,..."
36 posted on 01/28/2004 6:29:04 PM PST by Merdoug

Many Republicans are statists... just a little less than Democrats

Very few seem very conservative
40 posted on 01/28/2004 6:30:22 PM PST by GeronL

Kind of like that saying "a million here, a million there and pretty soon you're talking real money". This is totally in keeping with Dubya. The guy has not seen a federal program he won't throw a billion dollars at.
41 posted on 01/28/2004 6:30:35 PM PST by Nanodik

Bush is a politician, nothing more. Bill Clinton at heart was more of a conservative.
55 posted on 01/28/2004 6:33:37 PM PST by dwilli

"Conseravtives (such amy myself) have hated it in the past because money from it has gone to fund perverted art. But, if it goes to fund patriotic art- what's wrong with that? A good use of money, so far as I'm concerned."

Welcome to Free Republic. Conservatives -- as you claim to be -- generally have a problem with socialism in any form. Patriotic art is in the eye of the beholder. Hitler was a great supporter of "patriotic" German art. Better to let artists find their own funding independent from government.

Expect to be ridiculed by the Bush supporters for the next few months. They'll call you "irrelevant" and claim they don't need your vote.

Come summertime, they'll be begging you and the rest of us to spend hours of our 'free time' laboring on his campaign.

And then if he loses in November, they'll blame you for it.
428 posted on 01/28/2004 7:59:21 PM PST by Mulder

You are not a conservative, you are a Bush supporter. No true conservative would support the federal government spending taxpayer's money on art of any kind.
617 posted on 01/28/2004 8:50:15 PM PST by redangus

Well, that's true, no doubt. Regardless, Bush has finally come up with a way to lose this election, as the tone of this thread indicates. These aren't just Bush-haters--everyone's becoming a Bush-hater.
663 posted on 01/28/2004 9:03:34 PM PST by The Old Hoosier

[Az]

10. Go ahead and teach it

Just make sure you teach it in the right class. Creationism is not science. They can dress it up and walk it around all they want but it still is not science. It does not present its theories before peers to be refuted.

Teach Science in Science. Teach religious mythology in a comparitive religions class. I have no problem with that.

[rumguy]

11. exactly, and many freepers believe that as well

[Cleita]

15. I agree.

I attended a Catholic women's college and the "truths" taught my theology and philosophy classes were often opposite and contradictory to the science taught in those classes and never did the twain meet. One of my science teachers, an nun, also taught a class on the Old Testament, as the Word of God, but when she taught biological sciences, it was Darwin and evolution all the way.

I once asked her in a private moment how she reconciled the two. Her answer was that God only reveals to us what we can understand. The scripture writers of the Old Testament had to write the Word of God in a way that they understood it. You see, she thought the writers were channeling God.

But she said it was our job to increase our understanding of what God had revealed to us with discovery and learning. She had no problem reconciling the two. It also helped that she was a scholar and had read scriptures in the original languages and in the context of the society of the times they were written. I don't know if some Catholic theologians might have considered her a heretic though if they had known what she thought.

[wadestock]

20. Religion is Philosophy...

and was never really intended to be anything to do with science.

It's intersection with science is only casual.

Meanwhile evolution can never be used as a true argument against creation theory. One could simply say that God created the big bang and everything else followed from that.

There are countless other arguments which could hypothesize God's apparent involvement in different aspects of evolution.

There's no point to any of this.
Appreciate religion for its philosophical value...
and appreciate science for whatever it can possibly do to advance the human condition.

[rumguy]

21. excellent post...you're dead-on correct with that analysis

Religion has value, it just can't be used as a substitute for science.

It's like the end of the movie "Inherit the Wind" - about the Scopes Monkey Trial - when Spencer Tracy, playing Clarence Darrow, picks up Darwin's book and the Bible, and places them side by side in his bag...as symbolic a movie moment as there ever was.

[ComerPerro]

12. That is the one suprising thing

There are many FReepers who think creationism is a complete load.

But, that doesn't mean they have brains. They still swallow all of the crap coming from the administration...

[rumguy]

13. wrong, many of them openly ridicule Bush

[Az]

14. There is a large contingent of conservative atheists

Allan Greenspan is a former Ayn Rand follower. The Randbots largely follow a greed/capitalism is good mantra and flock to the economic consevative wing of the repukes. Those I know are nausiated by the religious right but tolerate them as long as they have to pay less taxes.

[rumguy]

16. Hillary Clinton was also an Ayn Randite in her early days

So was I...

I still like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountianhead. Rand is more of a libertarian than a republican. In fact, she openly dissed the republican party during her lifetime..

Although her involvment with the house committee on un-american activities is very troubling.

[Az]

18. Never could accept Rand

She seemed to react to the notion of altruism so strongly that it became a blind spot for her and her followers. Though they were partially correct in siting that forced altruism may be an inconsistancy they were perhaps unaware of the memetic nature of religion and how it would embrace some concepts that would strengthen society.

[rumguy]

19. yeah, Rand was a bit harsh, but you have to remember where she

came from. She lived in commmunist Russia as a young girl. She rejected the dogma of the state, and grew to hate it. Thus, she grew to hate pretty much all state control, of anything.

I understand where she was coming from, all of her views were reactionary to the crap she went through as a youth...

[PVnRT]

17. The libertarians must be out in force over there

n/t

[rumguy]

22. evening kick

[theorist]

23. Good stuff.

"whattajoke" must know some biology....

He/she gives the formal definition of evolution (change in gene frequency over time) and also gives the standard rebuttals against creationism as theory. Kudos to you, rumguy, for sharing this.

[rumguy]

25. kick, for those smart freepers out there

[Hammie]

26. I think you are misguided

Freepers are the enemy. Any attempt to humanize the enemy dilutes our Righteous Anger at their existence. They are stupid and misguided at best, but typically evil and dangerous.

[rumguy]

27. sorry, but you are so wrong

freepers get a bad name cuz of the morons who invade DU and spew gargabe...

some are hateful creeps, that is true, but there are many who are thoughtful, smart people who just want a smaller government...libertarian more than republican...

for proof of this...it was freepers who invented the word Bushbot...