If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Ron Paul is an evolution skeptic, noting that the intelligent design side has "absolute proof"   (scienceblogs.com) divider line 812
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2477 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Dec 2007 at 3:23 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



812 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-28 01:01:58 PM
And the Paulistinians are going to come out of the woodwork to defend this one. This should be good.
 
2007-12-28 01:06:08 PM
Durendal: And the Paulistinians are going to come out of the woodwork to defend this one. This should be good.

They already did, with their standby excuse that it doesn't matter what crazy shiat he believes because he would never do anything in office anyway.
 
2007-12-28 01:06:45 PM
Guess that means he's one step closer to getting elected. After all, Fearless Leader is also an evolution skeptic!
 
2007-12-28 01:07:32 PM
Well, and that's not what he says in the video. -1 for fail for smitty.

He says "I don't think either side has absolute proof"

Still... moronic.
 
2007-12-28 01:09:57 PM
stealthd: He says "I don't think either side has absolute proof"

Which is still effing idiotic.
 
2007-12-28 01:10:55 PM
Non story. Religion doesn't matter in Amerka!
 
2007-12-28 01:19:11 PM
Yeah, he just keeps coming off as more and more of a 'tard the more he gets his mug in the press.

But you know who's a bigger 'tard? Bloggers who use phrases like "below the fold" when, not only is there no fold to be below, but the thing referred to as being below the fold is high enough on the page that it'll even be above the virtual fold of the initial contents of the browser window.

Also, if Paul doesn't understand why this is a valid question to ask someone that we're considering for the position of president, than that makes him a bigger idiot than his views on the subject ever could.
 
2007-12-28 01:19:32 PM
content.answers.com

Pat Paulsen for precedent.
 
2007-12-28 01:19:37 PM
Nerdlinger: But you know who's a bigger 'tard? Bloggers who use phrases like "below the fold" when, not only is there no fold to be below, but the thing referred to as being below the fold is high enough on the page that it'll even be above the virtual fold of the initial contents of the browser window.

More on this after the jump.
 
2007-12-28 01:24:00 PM
I remember a girlfriend in college laughing that 'we didn't come from monkeys'. She was the first person I knew who thought like that and I thought it was so weird. 15 years later and I am still astounded every time someone refuses to acknowledge the science behind evolution and the complete lack of substance behind creationism.
 
2007-12-28 01:24:06 PM
Nerdlinger: But you know who's a bigger 'tard? Bloggers who use phrases like "below the fold" when, not only is there no fold to be below, but the thing referred to as being below the fold is high enough on the page that it'll even be above the virtual fold of the initial contents of the browser window.

While I agree that bloggers are retarded the below the fold thing refers to the place where the story is cut off when viewed from the main page of the blog as opposed to being viewed on the story's actual page. On the main page of this particular blog I think the story is cut off after one sentence.
 
2007-12-28 01:28:17 PM
Does this mean that Paul won't do evolution-y things if elected?
 
2007-12-28 01:31:25 PM
7of7: While I agree that bloggers are retarded the below the fold thing refers to the place where the story is cut off when viewed from the main page of the blog as opposed to being viewed on the story's actual page. On the main page of this particular blog I think the story is cut off after one sentence.

No, what it refers to is the doofus in question's need to tell the world, "See! I'm like a real journalist, just like you see in the paper biz! See!" I'm surprised douches like that don't tack a "-30-" onto the end of their stories.
 
2007-12-28 01:32:11 PM
Well, I was willing to support him for the Repub nomination. He was the only one. Not now, since he's not above pandering to the farktards that make up most of the Repub party these days.
 
2007-12-28 01:32:22 PM
drnugget: I remember a girlfriend in college laughing that 'we didn't come from monkeys'. She was the first person I knew who thought like that and I thought it was so weird. 15 years later and I am still astounded every time someone refuses to acknowledge the science behind evolution and the complete lack of substance behind creationism.

15 years ago, I never heard shiat like this, except perhaps from bible-thumping crazies and inbred retards.

The last 7 years has been like Revenge of the Nerds, in reverse.
 
2007-12-28 01:33:22 PM
Durendal: Paulistinians

I like this phrasing a lot better than Paultards.

I just wish we didn't have a fossil record which such large gaps. It'd make the evidence for evolutionary theory even stronger than it exists as is.

Plus, I wish people would realize that you can have a God and still have evolution. Something had to get that evolutionary process started, right? The two definitely aren't mutually exclusive, though they often are made to appear so.
 
2007-12-28 01:37:44 PM
Evolution isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
 
2007-12-28 01:39:32 PM
This just gets better and better.
 
2007-12-28 01:39:48 PM
GAT_00: Well, I was willing to support him for the Repub nomination. He was the only one. Not now, since he's not above pandering to the farktards that make up most of the Repub party these days.

I think that's the point that the rabid anti RP folks are trying to make, that the Republicans really have nothing at all to offer next year. Seems odd that they would do that, but I'll take their word for it.
 
2007-12-28 01:40:01 PM
1) His whole point was that he's rather disgusted this is even an issue, and that if that's what the election was about he wouldn't be running.

2) He wants to have no role, at all, in setting school curriculum.

3) He didn't say ID had "absolute proof", he said neither side did. That's wrong, but it's not nearly as bad as smitty makes it out to be. Smitty is a liar.
 
2007-12-28 01:41:03 PM
KaponoFor3: I just wish we didn't have a fossil record which such large gaps

Wha? Dunno of any large gaps. That's something one could have argued one hundred years ago, but certainly not today.
 
2007-12-28 01:41:49 PM
Oh, and he has specifically denied being a young-earth creationist in the past. So, there's that.
 
2007-12-28 01:42:06 PM
KaponoFor3: Durendal: Paulistinians

I like this phrasing a lot better than Paultards.

I just wish we didn't have a fossil record which such large gaps. It'd make the evidence for evolutionary theory even stronger than it exists as is.

Plus, I wish people would realize that you can have a God and still have evolution. Something had to get that evolutionary process started, right? The two definitely aren't mutually exclusive, though they often are made to appear so.


1) If we had twice as many fossils, we'd have nearly 4 times as many "evolutionary gaps to explain".

2) The sticking point in this case is literal Genesis. You can't have life more than 6000 years old if God created the earth in 7 days (again, literal days) no more than 6000 years ago.

Many saner, non-Evangelical branch Christians are okay with God-as-initiator. Most Christians who work in hard sciences are of this variety, IME.
 
2007-12-28 01:43:48 PM
Major Malfunction: Many saner, non-Evangelical branch Christians are okay with God-as-initiator. Most Christians who work in hard sciences are of this variety, IME.

And that's Paul's position, insomuch as he even has one. He's said before that he doesn't like talking about his personal religious beliefs, and thinks they have no place in politics.
 
2007-12-28 01:44:03 PM
Major Malfunction:

1) If we had twice as many fossils, we'd have nearly 4 times as many "evolutionary gaps to explain".

Or, alternately, in a universe where I retain all of my math skills, about twice as many gaps. Sorry.
 
2007-12-28 01:44:15 PM
Ron Paul just lost my imaginary vote.
 
2007-12-28 01:44:38 PM
KaponoFor3: Plus, I wish people would realize that you can have a God and still have evolution. Something had to get that evolutionary process started, right? The two definitely aren't mutually exclusive, though they often are made to appear so.

Yes, but then they would have to admit that the bible isn't literal, and that would take the wind out of the sails behind a lot of other doctrine and dogma.
 
2007-12-28 01:46:10 PM
AlanSmithee: Wha? Dunno of any large gaps. That's something one could have argued one hundred years ago, but certainly not today.

When I say large gaps I'm really just referring to the huge amount of fossil evidence that, over time, has been lost. When I took my general anthropology classes at UCLA in the early 2000's, almost every anthropology professor was of the position that there were huge "gaps" in the fossil record and that we really just have to go with what we have an extrapolate our best theories about what happened.

Major Malfunction: Many saner, non-Evangelical branch Christians are okay with God-as-initiator.

Exactly. Then again, those who view the Bible itself as infallible and read it literally probably do view them as mutually exclusive. But those people seem to be the clear fringe group and definitely don't work in large numbers in the sciences.
 
2007-12-28 01:51:03 PM
Ron Paul is an evolution skeptic, noting that the intelligent design side has "absolute proof"

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

KaponoFor3

I wish people would realize that you can have a God and still have evolution. Something had to get that evolutionary process started, right? The two definitely aren't mutually exclusive, though they often are made to appear so.

All we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely, organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins

Evolutionism makes God superfluous.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson

God makes evolutionism superfluous.
 
2007-12-28 01:54:25 PM
Ok, this one is over.
 
2007-12-28 01:55:02 PM
Bevets in a Ron Paul thread.

This has the potential to be epic.

Don't let me down, Farkers.
 
2007-12-28 01:56:04 PM
Wow, a Ron Paul thread about evolution, plus Bevets. This promises to be interesting.

Mordant: I think that's the point that the rabid anti RP folks are trying to make, that the Republicans really have nothing at all to offer next year. Seems odd that they would do that, but I'll take their word for it.

Until this point, I had nothing against Ron Paul except difference in opinion on how things should work. He offered something resembling substance in an election severely devoid of it. Now nobody has an uncompromised integrity. The closest is Kucinich, if you don't mind the UFO bit, which I don't.
 
2007-12-28 01:57:06 PM
Churchill2004: 1) His whole point was that he's rather disgusted this is even an issue, and that if that's what the election was about he wouldn't be running.

Let's see, it is a very handy example of being able to look at evidence and input from others on a subject you yourself may not be particularly knowledgeable about (though you may have some preconceived notion) and making a decision as to what is likely the closest approximation to the truth. You know, the kind of thing a president is going to have to do in the course of his job.

As I said above, if he doesn't get that, then that makes him a bigger idiot than his answer to the question ever could.
 
2007-12-28 02:00:00 PM
Anyone know which Christian denominations view the Bible as literal?
 
2007-12-28 02:03:01 PM
KaponoFor3: Anyone know which Christian denominations view the Bible as literal?

Do you mean consistently or selectively? Because most of them do at times when it is convenient, and don't when it is inconvenient.

Of course, since the entire premise of Christianity is that God impregnated a human with himself/his son, who thereupon sacrificed himself to absolve the sins of all mankind, you sort of have to accept that part of the story as absolutely literal if you're going to either be or belong to a Christian denomination.
 
2007-12-28 02:04:17 PM
kronicfeld: Do you mean consistently or selectively?

Consistently. Specifically, the ones that would view Genesis as literal, hence invalidating any potential God/evolution cross-over
 
2007-12-28 02:07:42 PM
Sheesh. Did Bizarro U. confer the MD degree?
 
2007-12-28 02:08:45 PM
Sgt Otter: drnugget: I remember a girlfriend in college laughing that 'we didn't come from monkeys'. She was the first person I knew who thought like that and I thought it was so weird. 15 years later and I am still astounded every time someone refuses to acknowledge the science behind evolution and the complete lack of substance behind creationism.

15 years ago, I never heard shiat like this, except perhaps from bible-thumping crazies and inbred retards.

The last 7 years has been like Revenge of the Nerds, in reverse.


I, too, wonder what the hell happened. 15 years ago, I didn't know a single person that didn't believe that the theory of evolution was pretty darn accurate. In fact, I don't know that I know an *actual* person that believes in creationism even today. The only time I run into these people is on the interwebs. I guess it depends on the crowd you are surrounded by. Thank God I am not surrounded by creationists.
 
2007-12-28 02:10:09 PM
Easiest way to determine a Paulistinian -- if they refer to him as "Dr. Paul". Dead give away.
 
2007-12-28 02:12:25 PM
img86.imageshack.us


Volt for Holt in 2008!
 
2007-12-28 02:14:29 PM
Bevets: Phillip Johnson

He's got a law degree. He is no expert in matters scientific.
 
2007-12-28 02:15:43 PM
KaponoFor3: When I say large gaps I'm really just referring to the huge amount of fossil evidence that, over time, has been lost

Ah, thanks for clarifying.
 
2007-12-28 02:17:26 PM
Cagey B: This has the potential to be epic.

politics tab doldrums :/
 
2007-12-28 02:18:43 PM
KaponoFor3: Something had to get that evolutionary process started, right?

Not necessarily. The way this universe is structured could make it ideal for life and evolution. That's just the way things are. You don't need to invoke some sort of superpower to explain it.
 
2007-12-28 02:22:39 PM
whatshisname: Not necessarily. The way this universe is structured could make it ideal for life and evolution. That's just the way things are. You don't need to invoke some sort of superpower to explain it.

That's why it seems more likely that God came about as a result of evolution. Something had to create such a complex being.
 
2007-12-28 02:23:05 PM
Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson


Kome

He's got a law degree. He is no expert in matters scientific.

I was referring to evolutionism -- NOT science.
 
2007-12-28 02:23:17 PM
whatshisname: You don't need to invoke some sort of superpower to explain it

Not even Superman?
 
2007-12-28 02:24:15 PM
Bevets: I was referring to evolutionism

WTF is "evolutionism"? Are you high, man?!
 
2007-12-28 02:27:14 PM
whatshisname: You don't need to invoke some sort of superpower to explain it.

There has to be some sort of first cause, and many people attribute that to God rather than random chance. The way the universe is structured could make it ideal for life and evolution, but we have to use the information we have now to determine how rare it is to actually find signs of such life. Obviously our scientific and galactic exploration/information technology is light years (no pun intended) away from what it would need to be to make a definitive statement like "we are the only life in the universe."

Either way, my main point is that evolutionary theory and the presence of a God are not mutually exclusive. One could very likely have influenced the other.
 
2007-12-28 02:27:33 PM
Bevets: Kome

He's got a law degree. He is no expert in matters scientific.

I was referring to evolutionism -- NOT science.


Except evolution is a scientific field of study. Just because you don't think it is doesn't mean it isn't. Heck, Johnson, Behe and Dembski all agree that evolution is science.

Phillip Johnson also has no problems asserting that intelligent design is religious, specifically Christian, and is thus not scientific.

Also, could you stop changing the font color of your text to red? I have you farkied in red (like a clown's nose), so it makes your posts harder to read.

...

You know what, on second thought, why not just only post in red?
 
Displayed 50 of 812 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report