|
|
Post by uwaztec on Mar 12, 2010 14:18:35 GMT -8
Hmmm. As the devolution of science continues in the US, China, Europe and India will be laughing as we argue the age of the oldest rocks in the World... are they 5,000 years old.... or are they 6,000 years old?? www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/ |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 12, 2010 14:34:08 GMT -8
Hmmm. As the devolution of science continues in the US, China, Europe and India will be laughing as we argue the age of the oldest rocks in the World... are they 5,000 years old.... or are they 6,000 years old?? www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/ I suggest that you can't be serious about your statement leading into the article. There is no seriously educated Christian person who believes anything like that. Go to my Church any Sunday and you will never hear that kind of argument. Look into the way that Dr. Ross of Reasons to Believe supports mainstream Christian Beliefs with scientific evidence. www.reasons.org/Look at his website and even subscribe to his newsletter unless you are afraid of hearing what real educated Christians believe. You might even get convinced.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 12, 2010 14:46:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Mar 16, 2010 18:40:29 GMT -8
Pooh, the next time you offer a website that isn't tied to the Christian Reich will be the first time you've done so.
And no, I'm not back. I have no desire to argue things on a website that is made up of a few right-wingnuts, some of whom, such as you, are radical right Christian religionists.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 17, 2010 10:03:22 GMT -8
Pooh, the next time you offer a website that isn't tied to the Christian Reich will be the first time you've done so. And no, I'm not back. I have no desire to argue things on a website that is made up of a few right-wingnuts, some of whom, such as you, are radical right Christian religionists. =Bob Bob, you have it in your power to change, perhaps only marginally, the character of AztecMesa. . . all you have to do is share your thoughts from time to time. Oh, yes, one more thing. The founder of this site, your humble servant, is no wing-nut. Well, at least I am no radical right Christian religionist. As regards religion, I am a self-proclaimed agnostic (though one who is by no means hostile to religious values). AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 17, 2010 10:37:01 GMT -8
Pooh, the next time you offer a website that isn't tied to the Christian Reich will be the first time you've done so. And no, I'm not back. I have no desire to argue things on a website that is made up of a few right-wingnuts, some of whom, such as you, are radical right Christian religionists. =Bob Bob, you have it in your power to change, perhaps only marginally, the character of AztecMesa. . . all you have to do is share your thoughts from time to time. Oh, yes, one more thing. The founder of this site, your humble servant, is no wing-nut. Well, at least I am no radical right Christian religionist. As regards religion, I am a self-proclaimed agnostic (though one who is by no means hostile to religious values). AzWm I agree that you don't espouse the views of a "radical right Christian religionist." However, I would disagree with your previously stated claim that you are a libertarian. Your views tend to fall in lock step with the right wing of the Republican party. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 17, 2010 11:32:20 GMT -8
Bob, you have it in your power to change, perhaps only marginally, the character of AztecMesa. . . all you have to do is share your thoughts from time to time. Oh, yes, one more thing. The founder of this site, your humble servant, is no wing-nut. Well, at least I am no radical right Christian religionist. As regards religion, I am a self-proclaimed agnostic (though one who is by no means hostile to religious values). AzWm I agree that you don't espouse the views of a "radical right Christian religionist." However, I would disagree with your previously stated claim that you are a libertarian. Your views tend to fall in lock step with the right wing of the Republican party. Specifics, please! I will add this. To the extent that what you claim may be true, perhaps it is because these days the GOP is sounding much more libertarian, at least in the area of economics. Those who attack Republicans frequently bring up the religious issue. Yet I don't hear Republicans making a lot of noise about religion. Furthermore, GOP-friendly talk radio/TV isn't beating the drum of religion, either. Rush almost never mentions religion, nor does Hannity. Ann Coulter, likewise. Glenn Beck is a committed Mormon, but his program emphasizes constitutional questions, not religious ones. Another consideration is that in any event Republicansism and libertariansism are much closer to one another than are libertarianism and collectivism/Leftism. But back to the issue of libertarianism. Perhaps you could point out areas in which my stated views are antithetical to those of the Libertarian Party or libertarianism in general. One might be the issue of legalizing drugs; many libertarians favor it and I am ambivalent. That difference would not seem to be close to enough to justify your critique of my politics. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Mar 17, 2010 12:03:49 GMT -8
I agree that you don't espouse the views of a "radical right Christian religionist." However, I would disagree with your previously stated claim that you are a libertarian. Your views tend to fall in lock step with the right wing of the Republican party. Specifics, please! I will add this. To the extent that what you claim may be true, perhaps it is because these days the GOP is sounding much more libertarian, at least in the area of economics. Those who attack Republicans frequently bring up the religious issue. Yet I don't hear Republicans making a lot of noise about religion. Furthermore, GOP-friendly talk radio/TV isn't beating the drum of religion, either. Rush almost never mentions religion, nor does Hannity. Ann Coulter, likewise. Glenn Beck is a committed Mormon, but his program emphasizes constitutional questions, not religious ones. Another consideration is that in any event Republicansism and libertariansism are much closer to one another than are libertarianism and collectivism/Leftism. But back to the issue of libertarianism. Perhaps you could point out areas in which my stated views are antithetical to those of the Libertarian Party or libertarianism in general. One might be the issue of legalizing drugs; many libertarians favor it and I am ambivalent. That difference would not seem to be close to enough to justify your critique of my politics. AzWm A great example of selective listening. Hannity, Coulter and Beck do mention religion as often as possible when it is to their advantage and to gain points with the audience... Savage does it also. They understand their hard core audience very well, and when pounding on "Liberals" there are no greater points to gain than Religion (as in they have none), Guns (you won't even be able to have a bb gun) and they are going to let gays run the country... sorry William, but here your observations are not on target. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 17, 2010 13:25:47 GMT -8
Pooh, the next time you offer a website that isn't tied to the Christian Reich will be the first time you've done so. And no, I'm not back. I have no desire to argue things on a website that is made up of a few right-wingnuts, some of whom, such as you, are radical right Christian religionists. =Bob I see, don't care to read scientific information that would not back up your infantile views. I guess that anyone who will take the time to get informed on most any issue is a "wing-net" but you are mainstream if you line up for your daily dose of Obama koolaide. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 17, 2010 13:28:53 GMT -8
Still waiting for a comment from UW.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Mar 17, 2010 13:59:44 GMT -8
Still waiting for a comment from UW. On what exactly Win? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 17, 2010 18:04:38 GMT -8
A great example of selective listening. Hannity, Coulter and Beck do mention religion as often as possible when it is to their advantage and to gain points with the audience... Savage does it also. They understand their hard core audience very well, and when pounding on "Liberals" there are no greater points to gain than Religion (as in they have none), Guns (you won't even be able to have a bb gun) and they are going to let gays run the country... sorry William, but here your observations are not on target.
Actually, I listen a great deal and with focused attention and believe that your charge with respect to those individuals is unfounded. (Here's a sidebar question: Do you object to radio and TV people bringing up religious issues on their programs?)
In any event, that ignores my main point, which is that I remain a libertarian and a non-wingnut. But it would be well to keep in mind that those are simply labels and as such aren't necessarily very useful. It's the positions one takes and the arguments one uses to support those positions that are key. For instance, practicing Christians and non-Christians alike may either favor or oppose abortion on demand.
Another thought: When one throws around terms such as religious wing-nut, listeners (or readers) cannot be faulted for concluding that the one using such terms may simply have a weak case. It's just a more genteel version of calling your interlocutor a stupid idiot or fascist dog. The effect of that kind of speech reflects poorly on the speaker rather than on the target of the epithet.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Mar 17, 2010 18:29:44 GMT -8
A great example of selective listening. Hannity, Coulter and Beck do mention religion as often as possible when it is to their advantage and to gain points with the audience... Savage does it also. They understand their hard core audience very well, and when pounding on "Liberals" there are no greater points to gain than Religion (as in they have none), Guns (you won't even be able to have a bb gun) and they are going to let gays run the country... sorry William, but here your observations are not on target.Actually, I listen a great deal and with focused attention and believe that your charge with respect to those individuals is unfounded. (Here's a sidebar question: Do you object to radio and TV people bringing up religious issues on their programs?) In any event, that ignores my main point, which is that I remain a libertarian and a non-wingnut. But it would be well to keep in mind that those are simply labels and as such aren't necessarily very useful. It's the positions one takes and the arguments one uses to support those positions that are key. For instance, practicing Christians and non-Christians alike may either favor or oppose abortion on demand. Another thought: When one throws around terms such as religious wing-nut, listeners (or readers) cannot be faulted for concluding that the one using such terms may simply have a weak case. It's just a more genteel version of calling your interlocutor a stupid idiot or fascist dog. The effect of that kind of speech reflects poorly on the speaker rather than on the target of the epithet. AzWm William, we can agree to disagree on the religion issue... I'll stick to my guns and say that all these talk show hosts keep the religion card in their back pockets and use it when it is convenient to make points with their hard core audience. These people may believe everything they say, but I am very skeptical. These hosts are about making money first...and lots of it. If you listen to shows like this (and you didn't know better) there is really only two Americas. One America who is in lockstep with what these hosts have to say, and the "Liberals" who are destroying this country. There is no room for discussion or give and take because it does not make for good radio. The formula and talking points are so easy, I could do it. For example.. Beck and Limbaugh last week: "Obama is even trying to take Americans right to fish away"!! Then citing a single skewed hit piece with no backing data. "Left wing rags (that's a joke) like Sport Fishing, Sports Afield, mainstream fisheries biologists etc. would immediately refute that statement, but the point is made and the hardcore audience again is fed an outright lie. And yes, a large percentage of the true beleivers (lacking education or unable to research issues themselves) of Hannity, Coulter, Beck Limbaugh are wing nuts. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 17, 2010 20:22:15 GMT -8
Which is why I prefer to listen to Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, two very well educated and thoughtful talk show hosts. I do not always agree with them, but I cannot dismiss them as know-nothing kooks who have not bothered to do their homework.
In any group there will always be those found far out on the edge. Some may do so for commercial reasons (I rather think that Michael Savage is one . . . he doesn't have the excuse of being a dopey, ignorant boob! Have you checked his credentials?). Others, some with impressive educational resumes, may be sincere but misguided. Unless they lead movements that seriously threaten to overthrow the system they can pretty much be ignored.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Mar 18, 2010 7:38:24 GMT -8
Which is why I prefer to listen to Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, two very well educated and thoughtful talk show hosts. I do not always agree with them, but I cannot dismiss them as know-nothing kooks who have not bothered to do their homework. In any group there will always be those found far out on the edge. Some may do so for commercial reasons (I rather think that Michael Savage is one . . . he doesn't have the excuse of being a dopey, ignorant boob! Have you checked his credentials?). Others, some with impressive educational resumes, may be sincere but misguided. Unless they lead movements that seriously threaten to overthrow the system they can pretty much be ignored. AzWm Well.... I really hate to admit this, but on occasion I do enjoy Savage. Of all of them, he knows how to manipulate his audience the best....and of all of them, may not believe 30% of what he says. But he is extremely intelligent and educated. I appreciate his background in Botany and the development of his story lines are often interesting and entertaining. He makes Coulter and Hannity look like third graders. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 18, 2010 7:42:02 GMT -8
AW - I couldn't find a bullet point list of libertarian views on issues but I did find this test on their web site. www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.htmlI took it and the results for me showed the red dot in the left top corner of the "Centrist" box. Sounds correct for me. How about the rest of you? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 18, 2010 12:30:59 GMT -8
Still waiting for a comment from UW. On what exactly Win? My post Mar 10 at 3:18 in reply to your completely unfounded and inappropriate statement about some supposed Christian belief about the age of the earth. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 18, 2010 12:40:20 GMT -8
AW - I couldn't find a bullet point list of libertarian views on issues but I did find this test on their web site. www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.htmlI took it and the results for me showed the red dot in the left top corner of the "Centrist" box. Sounds correct for me. How about the rest of you? That thing is way too simple, but I scored Libertarian 70% personal and 90% economic. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Mar 18, 2010 13:11:37 GMT -8
My post Mar 10 at 3:18 in reply to your completely unfounded and inappropriate statement about some supposed Christian belief about the age of the earth. Win...when I worked for IMAX, I was told by management that they could not mention the age of the Earth or mention the word "evolution" in films if they wanted them shown in large parts of the south (fundamentalist areas). It is widely reported that Sarah Palin believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. She has been given many opportunities to refute these perceptions of her and she has not. My wife's best friend from high school has a masters degree and is married to a high school biology teacher. She firmly believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. I have read that as much as 35% of Americans believe this. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 18, 2010 13:21:20 GMT -8
My post Mar 10 at 3:18 in reply to your completely unfounded and inappropriate statement about some supposed Christian belief about the age of the earth. Win...when I worked for IMAX, I was told by management that they could not mention the age of the Earth or mention the word "evolution" in films if they wanted them shown in large parts of the south (fundamentalist areas). It is widely reported that Sarah Palin believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. She has been given many opportunities to refute these perceptions of her and she has not. My wife's best friend from high school has a masters degree and is married to a high school biology teacher. She firmly believes the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. I have read that as much as 35% of Americans believe this. I find that hard to believe those figures, but I know that some do exist. I guess that I just wanted you to be aware that very well respected Scientists make compelling arguments for creation without conflicting with science. |
|
