Comedian Jim Norton comments on Ron Paul

[jct74]

Interesting comments. If you are not familiar with this guy, he is a very popular, very vulgar comedian who is a co-host on the Opie and Anthony Show. He has 130,000 twitter followers.


Watching Ron Paul clips. He seems to really know his shit. He is answering specific questions smartly. His suit fits poorly. I like him.



Wait, does Ron Paul really not believe in evolution? Please tell me that isn't true.



I think Ron Paul is a smart guy, answered questions brilliantly. But I will never support someone that thinks evolution is wrong.



@JasonLCox: Who cares if he believes Jesus rode dinosaurs? If he can fix this country, he can f*** my mother for all I care.”- Good point



What I DO like about Ron Paul is that he answers questions directly. I guess i'm up in the air. Enough politics, I need my ass eaten.

http://twitter.com/#!/JimNorton

[TheDrakeMan]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

[RonPaulCult]

Haha - I guess this forum isn't the only place that thinks he needs a new suit.

I'm a big comedy fan and used to see Jim Norton live back when I lived in NYC. Just so you know - this guy would make fun of handicapped people to their faces. I mean - he takes vulgar to a new level.

As I recall he doesn't like most politicians and he probably leans right of center.

[BUSHLIED]

If ROn doesnt believe in evolution he loses a few points in my book...but right, I don't care about that as it is irrelevant to politics...

[Knightskye]

EDIT: I looked on his Twitter page, and these tweets hadn't even arrived yet, but now I see them. Awesome.

[LibertyEagle]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

That's a very odd comment to make, seeing as Ron must win over a great many CHRISTIAN Republican voters, in order to win the Republican primary.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a very odd comment to make, seeing as Ron must win over a great many CHRISTIAN Republican voters, in order to win the Republican primary.
This^^ It's important to keep in mind when trying to talk to potential voters. I hate that about politics myself, but that's how the game is played at this time. BTW, Drakeman, et. al.-it would be wise to tone down the anti-Christian stuff, especially in the GP forum. These boards are monitored by the opposition.

[jct74]

This video needs to be posted in this thread. Jim Norton vs. Jesse Ventura on the Opie & Anthony Show. Classic!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvKgj_EjUDw

[RonPaulCult]

If ROn doesnt believe in evolution he loses a few points in my book...but right, I don't care about that as it is irrelevant to politics...

Just for the record, all he said is that evolution is a theory and doesn't have FULL proof to it yet. He didn't entirely dismiss it.

Come on guys, you know Ron Paul is more thoughtful than that!

[Agorism]

I don't like the creationists either. I think it's fine though if they acknowledge that their religious beliefs supersede rational thought though.

For example- the flying Spagetti monster, who is worshipped, teaches creationist mythology. Evolution, physics, etc could still make rational and obvious sense, but you
say no my faith in Spagetti monster sup cedes those things. It's not that they don't make sense, but that religion has to supersede all other things. So you can still be fine with science being taught while worshipping your Gods in your church where it belongs.

[CaptainAmerica]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology. hate is a strong word.

[Agorism]

Creationists should teach their religion in their synagogues, churches, temples and mosques.

Teachers\professors should teach science including evolution in schools, universities, etc.

[MJU1983]

I do find it funny that people on both sides of the evolution "debate" can be so closed minded. Since no one really knows anything, why call people names for holding opposing viewpoints on an issue that is a non-issue with no way to prove? Obviously creatures have evolved and adapted to survive over time. I suppose this debate is really about our origin and no one knows that for sure. Did everything evolve out of dust? Were we created by some God or alien race perhaps? Who knows. Why this is even an issue in a Presidential debate is mind boggling. Either you want these wars and killing to end, you want the police state to end, you want the Crony Capitalism to end, or you don't. So, keep wasting your time alienating voters over non-issues or don't. It's your choice.

FWIW, I tweeted that guy back some quotes:

http://twitter.com/#!/mju1983/status/111315187780423681

[KurtBoyer25L]

There are more than two possible positions a person can have on this damn issue. Why does nobody get that?

[Sentient Void]

Indeed. Ron Paul himself said that there's no reason why belief in God and the *Theory* of Evolution (notice that it is not called a *Law* of Evolution) have to be mutually exclusive. One can believe in both.

Personally, I find the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for the creation of life and the rise of intelligent life - humans.

Ron Paul rightly just says that it's a theory (though it is backed by mountains of powerful evidence), and it hasn't been *proven*. This is a fact we all must accept, whether we believe in it or not.

[BucksforPaul]

Creationists should teach their religion in their synagogues, churches, temples and mosques.


Completely agree.


Teachers\professors should teach science including evolution in schools, universities, etc.

Teaching the theory of evolution in schools funded by "Creationists" is the problem and that is the main reason why schools should be run locally and not by the Department of dumbafication. In addition, the schools should also teach that this is only a theory and not Fact as some here like to believe.

[kpitcher]

*Theory* of Evolution (notice that it is not called a *Law* of Evolution)
This always irks the hell out of me. Science has theories, it's a presumption of how the universe works based on empirical data and a consensus of peer reviewed work. It's not "just a theory", no different than we won't go floating off into the sky because there is only a theory of gravity. Nothing personal just trying to clear up an all too common wording problem. In science a Hypothesis would be what many consider theories, and a theory is equivalent to a law.


While I was raised going to a private catholic school with a religion class every day, but I was still taught evolution and other theories of science, I won't harp too hard on Paul as he gave a reasonable answer saying he's unsure. Politically it's better than coming off on either side and if we didn't have a Dep of Education then it wouldn't be a presidential matter.

The possible candidate that does scare me, religiously, is Palin. She was a member of a church that taught we're in the "End Times.". If someone truly believes we're in the end times and that the future is already written, then I wouldn't trust that person to have rational judgement if anything even has a whiff like it's right out of revelations. I have friends who have bible studies specifically on End Times and that's all fine and dandy on a personal level but I wouldn't want that level of rationale being Commander in Chief. Hopefully Palin isn't an issue this time around.

[rawful]

I love Norton, so I was ecstatic when I saw those tweets. He's very public about visiting prostitutes, so perhaps Ron's stance on that could lure him in more.

[kpfareal]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

Ron Paul has a BA in Biology from Gettysburg College.

[Krugerrand]

Creationists should teach their religion in their synagogues, churches, temples and mosques.

Teachers\professors should teach science including evolution in schools, universities, etc.

Personally, I prefer the conclusion: End all public financing of education and let schools teach what ever they want. Let parents send their children to whatever school they like.

There are bigger problems with what our schools are teaching and not teaching than origins of the universe.

[specsaregood]

If ROn doesnt believe in evolution he loses a few points in my book..

Last I checked, good science shouldn't require "belief".

[mczerone]

There are more than two possible positions a person can have on this damn issue. Why does nobody get that?

That's unpossible. You either are a blue liberal or a red conservative. Either a country music fan or a pop music fan. Either a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan. Either a Darwin fellator or a 6000 year old Earth believer. Either a FoxNews watcher or an NPR listener. Either you are a turban wearing jihadist or a Christian-god fearing 'merkan.

There's no middle ground anywhere, and there are only binary options: you're either with me or against me! (and why should I change? Your the one that sucks.)

Sadly, this is what passes for rational thought among the bulk of the population today.

[Agorism]

Personally, I prefer the conclusion: End all public financing of education and let schools teach what ever they want. Let parents send their children to whatever school they like.

There are bigger problems with what our schools are teaching and not teaching than origins of the universe.

That's not the issue. Whether we have federal control or local, and most here favor local, I still don't want the creationists on these school boards.

[specsaregood]

That's not the issue. Whether we have federal control or local, and most here favor local, I still don't want the creationists on these school boards.

How many kids in school do you have?

[Agorism]

How many kids in school do you have?

I don't post personal information, references, even alma mater, etc on internet. Sorry.

[specsaregood]

I don't post personal information, references, even alma mater, etc on internet. Sorry.

What, you mean that avatar isn't really you?

[Krugerrand]

That's not the issue. Whether we have federal control or local, and most here favor local, I still don't want the creationists on these school boards.

I'd prefer to see free-market driven schools over Agorism-gets-to-decide-who-sits-on-a-school-board system. They can teach Cookie Monster created the universe if that wins out in the free-market.

[Revolution9]

There are more than two possible positions a person can have on this damn issue. Why does nobody get that?

There is a third. Creavolutionism which is based on morphic resonance fields.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

That's not the issue. Whether we have federal control or local, and most here favor local, I still don't want the creationists on these school boards.

How very fundy of you.

Rev9

[Agorism]

I'd prefer to see free-market driven schools over Agorism-gets-to-decide-who-sits-on-a-school-board system. They can teach Cookie Monster created the universe if that wins out in the free-market.

I agree with that. However, I don't want creationist influencing things, and I want them off the school boards. Fight about it on a local level or fight about it on a national or whatever, but I don't want them influencing. Unless we just have completely privatized schools I want to keep the creationists out.

[specsaregood]

There is a third. Creavolutionism which is based on morphic resonance fields.
Rev9

There is a fourth, genetic experimentation by alien scientist visitors.

[Krugerrand]

There is a fourth, genetic experimentation by alien scientist visitors.

I bet they got de-funded.

[Krugerrand]

I agree with that. However, I don't want creationist influencing things, and I want them off the school boards. Fight about it on a local level or fight about it on a national or whatever, but I don't want them influencing. Unless we just have completely privatized schools I want to keep the creationists out.

Are you suggesting by legislation bar people holding certain beliefs from school boards?

[specsaregood]

I bet they got de-funded.

Which is why they left us in this unfinished state!

[IndianaPolitico]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.
Hate? So much for tolerance...

[Shane Harris]

am i the only one here who is very disgusted with the arrogance of scientists. so-called scientific fact changes quite often, and it is way too simple to state that evolution started the universe lol boom we figured it out. things adapt and mutate. solves all questions. king me bitches haha seriously even darwin didnt extend his theory of evolution as far as scientists do now. its ridiculous. the basic theory is pretty much fact, and no one can refute evolution WITHIN species. but once you make that interspecies jump and say we evolved from caterpillars, well sorry but that takes more faith than believing creationism, which btw isnt somehow dismantled by any theory of evolution? if billion year evolution were true it would had to have started somewhere? where did the universe come from? these are questions scientists cant answer. however we know that the universe is expanding, and from this fact we might be able to suppose that it has always been expanding (this is what scientists usually do despite having any reason to assume regularity) then it must have started at one point. a singularity. something came from nothing. and then there was light. interesting?

[Agorism]

Are you suggesting by legislation bar people holding certain beliefs from school boards?

No I wasn't, but that's an interesting proposal. I was suggesting keeping them off. In Texas, the sane people recently defeated the creationists who were infiltrating the boards as the Creationist curriculum got thrown out.

[Agorism]

SoCons lose big in Texas School board fight (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/update-social-conservatives-lose-out-in-texas-evolution-vs-creationism-curriculum-debate)


Creationist curriculum thrown out.

The lessons in question included a lab comparison on chimpanzee and human skulls, the fossil record and cell complexity. A board-appointed reviewer had called the lessons errors and recommended changes, but a group of scientists objected on Friday, threatening to re-ignite a fierce debate over teaching evolution in Texas public schools.

The board‘s social conservatives compromised when it appeared they would lose a vote to reject the reviewer’s changes in favor of the original lessons. Instead of a showdown vote on evolution, the panel agreed to approve the material and have Education Commissioner Robert Scott continue working on the lessons in question with publisher Holt McDougal.


Nope, Rick Santorum doesn't get to teach Creationism in Texas schools.

[amy31416]

ARGH. I tolerate the colloquial use of "theory" and "law" when it is not applied to scientific notions, but when you're talking about science, use the $#%@&!$ scientific definitions of the word!

Thanks!


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
Useful Prediction: If I leave food items open to the air, they will spoil. If I want to keep them from spoiling, I will keep them covered.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

[specsaregood]

Nope, Rick Santorum doesn't get to teach Creationism in Texas schools.

I wasn't aware that he even had his teaching credentials. Learn something new everyday! Thanks Agor.

[specsaregood]

ARGH. I tolerate the colloquial use of "theory" and "law" when it is not applied to scientific notions, but when you're talking about science, use the $#%@&!$ scientific definitions of the word!

Thanks!
How about the word "belief" or "believe". How do those fit in with scientific notions?

[Deborah K]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

Funny, this double standard in political correctness. Had you posted, "I hate muslims more than most on this board", or "I hate women more than most on this board", or blacks, or any of the other politically correct sacred cow - you would have been eaten alive. But attack Christians and you get a pass. :rolleyes:

[amy31416]

How about the word "belief" or "believe". How do those fit in with scientific notions?

In what sense? I don't even know how to answer such a general question, belief isn't defined scientifically (at least in the hard sciences, perhaps in psychology.)

Perhaps you mean that someone believes something (has a hunch?) and thus forms a hypothesis to test their beliefs?

[specsaregood]

In what sense? I don't even know how to answer such a general question, belief isn't defined scientifically (at least in the hard sciences, perhaps in psychology.)

Just wondering because proponents of evolution, usually say "believe in evolution". The standard definition of the word usually requires some form of faith or trust.

[Danke]

This video needs to be posted in this thread. Jim Norton vs. Jesse Ventura on the Opie & Anthony Show. Classic!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvKgj_EjUDw

Jesse looked like he was about to beat the shit out of that guy.

[amy31416]

Just wondering because proponents of evolution, usually say "believe in evolution". The standard definition of the word usually requires some form of faith or trust.

Well, if you read the article that I posted, and the examples given for something like the theory of evolution, the sheer complexity and vastness of such a theory generally means that no one person is an expert in all aspects. If someone is completely strict with themselves in terms of scientific language, they wouldn't use the term "believe" unless they were deferring to one or many authorities who have done the research, and that does imply some level of trust.

That does not make it, in any sense, a religious belief. Every component of evolution that is claimed to part of the theory of evolution has evidence, along with massive amounts of experimental data, along with reproducible experimentation that is applied to technology--like being able to either engineer things genetically, or even just artificially "evolve" various species by subjecting organisms to differing physical conditions.

ETA: However, many lay people and scientists in different disciplines may well be using "believe" in the sense that they trust the scientific method and the majority of scientists over many years of observation, testing, etc.

[specsaregood]

ETA: However, many lay people and scientists in different disciplines may well be using "believe" in the sense that they trust the scientific method and the majority of scientists over many years of observation, testing, etc.

Well, I would kindly suggest that those people stop using the term "believe" as it gives the impression that evolution is a religion, not science. I'd suggest that "accept" would be a better word.

[amy31416]

Well, I would kindly suggest that those people stop using the term "believe" as it gives the impression that evolution is a religion, not science. I'd suggest that "accept" would be a better word.

Lay people are not trained in scientific language, and scientists outside of evolution are probably using the word correctly.

All I asked is that when people talk about science and they use the word "theory" that they don't use it in the colloquial sense. That is reasonable, because the colloquial definition of the word implies "pulled it out of my ass," which is miles apart from the scientific definition.

[osan]

What would you rather, someone who is honest and upon whom you can rely to at least do his level best to right this badly listing ship we call the United States and who happens not to blindly accept evolution, or someone who does but is nothing better than Stalin, Mao, and Obama?

[osan]

So, um.... who was that little prick stepping all over Jesse? Was that Norton or one of the other stooges? I have trouble hering everything cause i'm in the hospital, it is nosy, and I forgot the phones.

Seemed awfully rude, though.

[bolil]

Just wondering because proponents of evolution, usually say "believe in evolution". The standard definition of the word usually requires some form of faith or trust. Yeah, If only he'd believe in Greek Mythology he would be my pick...

[bill1971]

Just for the record, all he said is that evolution is a theory and doesn't have FULL proof to it yet. He didn't entirely dismiss it.

Come on guys, you know Ron Paul is more thoughtful than that!

Well put. He also won't impose his views on others. It's not like his uncertainty about how life evolved changes his ecomic knowledge or his belief in personal liberty.

[ProBlue33]

Some people on RPF even now don't get it, to win the GOP primary you need to believe in creation and not evolution, and proclaim it, you my hate that but it is a fact.
Since this is the first goal, if you don't support him talking about it, then you might not want to really win the primary based on your personal opinion.
For the record I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue.
And how is it that a man so smart with every subject you support him on, is suddenly really dumb on just one ?

[amy31416]

Some people on RPF even now don't get it, to win the GOP primary you need to believe in creation and not evolution, and proclaim it, you my hate that but it is a fact.
Since this is the first goal, if you don't support him talking about it, then you might not want to really win the primary based on your personal opinion.
For the record I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue.
And how is it that a man so smart with every subject you support him on, is suddenly really dumb on just one ?

Ha?

[libertarian4321]

That's a very odd comment to make, seeing as Ron must win over a great many CHRISTIAN Republican voters, in order to win the Republican primary.

Although Ron generally pulls no punches in saying what he really believes, I keep hoping this is the exception- that he really doesn't believe the creation myth.

Ron knows that any politician, from EITHER party, must Kowtow to religious interests to have any hope of being elected. Any politician who even hints at not being a "believer" is DOA in this country.

Even an atheist would have to pretend to be a believer if he had any hope of winning. I suspect that it's pretty common for politicians to profess false belief in "God" just so they can win elections.

Even if Ron really does believe this religious stuff, I'm willing to overlook that flaw and support him because he is the best candidate by far.

[Sentient Void]

ARGH. I tolerate the colloquial use of "theory" and "law" when it is not applied to scientific notions, but when you're talking about science, use the $#%@&!$ scientific definitions of the word!

Thanks!


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
Useful Prediction: If I leave food items open to the air, they will spoil. If I want to keep them from spoiling, I will keep them covered.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

Thank you for clearing this up. This actually really helped for me - as I've been confused about the two terms for a while now.

[palm]

I have a question about evolution

Correct me if I am wrong, but life originated from (a) bio-genesis, correct?
And what resulted from that process was a single cell organism, and I have questions about that.

1. So in order to get a cell you need DNA to replicate or give the initial structural information for the cell and in order to get DNA you need a cell because the cell produces DNA. So how can you get one without the other? I know the bit about a protien and a self replicating polymer, but that is still devoid of the information necessary to produce genes.

So how can you have DNA without a cell and a cell without DNA?

2. If we originated through from the single cell organism, through the process of random mutation and natural selection, remember adaptation is not a function of the organism, in most cases, but of the environment. Organisms who mutate structures and functions that better suit them for the environment live on and reproduce other organisms with those same mutations. My question is, how can an single cell organism purely through random mutation, (which is caused by radiation, transposons (information structures of dna in the first place), mutagenic chemicals or errors that occur during dna processes) develop benenifiacl mutation such as a brain (which has a mutual relationship with a nervous system) develop contingencies with other randomly produced structures?

If life is 3.5 billion years old, maybe it could happen, that has a problem in a of itself.

thanks fam

[mczerone]

Funny, this double standard in political correctness. Had you posted, "I hate muslims more than most on this board", or "I hate women more than most on this board", or blacks, or any of the other politically correct sacred cow - you would have been eaten alive. But attack Christians and you get a pass. :rolleyes:

I think "fundamentalist Muslims" might have flown. And there's a difference between people who choose their beliefs and people who are born female, black, or many of the other "sacred cow" groups.

I don't hate groups, btw, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of your response.

[silverhandorder]

I have a question about evolution

Correct me if I am wrong, but life originated from (a) bio-genesis, correct?
And what resulted from that process was a single cell organism, and I have questions about that.

1. So in order to get a cell you need DNA to replicate or give the initial structural information for the cell and in order to get DNA you need a cell because the cell produces DNA. So how can you get one without the other? I know the bit about a protien and a self replicating polymer, but that is still devoid of the information necessary to produce genes.

So how can you have DNA without a cell and a cell without DNA?

2. If we originated through from the single cell organism, through the process of random mutation and natural selection, remember adaptation is not a function of the organism, in most cases, but of the environment. Organisms who mutate structures and functions that better suit them for the environment live on and reproduce other organisms with those same mutations. My question is, how can an single cell organism purely through random mutation, (which is caused by radiation, transposons (information structures of dna in the first place), mutagenic chemicals or errors that occur during dna processes) develop benenifiacl mutation such as a brain (which has a mutual relationship with a nervous system) develop contingencies with other randomly produced structures?

If life is 3.5 billion years old, maybe it could happen, that has a problem in a of itself.

thanks fam

1. They think first came dna and then it was covered by a membrane. There were experiments that proved dna can be made in environment that was present during earth formation.

2. Brain comes much later than single cells.

[SkarnkaiLW]

I have heard about those experiments, IIRC they were a bit flawed, because in the lab they removed some of the chemical byproducts that would have impaired the process, but would have been present if such things were going on in the early days of the earth.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/ The reddit folks asked him about evolution TWICE :P
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/h19vb/more_evidence_that_ron_paul_believes_in_evolution/

[BucksforPaul]

Funny, this double standard in political correctness. Had you posted, "I hate muslims more than most on this board", or "I hate women more than most on this board", or blacks, or any of the other politically correct sacred cow - you would have been eaten alive. But attack Christians and you get a pass. :rolleyes:

Most Muslims are also creationists so your statement is full of ignorance. TheDrakeMan was addressing everyone who does not believe that Humans came from monkeys and instead were created by a higher Being. In fact, I do not see the word Christian in his post. :rolleyes:

[Ronpauljones]

There isn't any proof of creationism.

There isn't any proof of evolution.

There I fixed it :)

[palm]

1. They think first came dna and then it was covered by a membrane. There were experiments that proved dna can be made in environment that was present during earth formation.

2. Brain comes much later than single cells.

1. Please provide references, I heard the bit about RNA synthesizing itself, but that requires all the necessary rare proteins to be there at the right time and conditions and survive the wrath of nature.

2. I am referring to any randomly produced structure hold contingencies with any other structure, i.e. eyelids-eyes, skin-digestive and immune system, fins need bones or cartilage.
-----------

In order to get new structures in an organism you need mutation and for information to be added to the genes of the organism --

I cant imagine how the sun shining down hard enough on a sack of bones and nerves can create animals that produces breast milk with just the right stuff to feed their young.
-------------------

Scientist right now cannot replicate the effects of any mutations, I cant see how chance can do it.

I believe in some form of guided evolution myself.
It just confuses me, but I have more problems than the ones I posed

[BW2112]

Yeah! Who cares that he wants to end all the wars, abolish the income tax, irs, the federal reserve, end the war on drugs, etc. HE DOESN'T FUCKING BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, OMG OMG OMG! I mean fuck that guy right:rolleyes: I think I'll vote for someone more rational, like Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. They may be business as usual politcians, but at least they believe in evolution. That means they're rational:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::r olleyes:

In all seriousness, what does belief or disbelief in evolution have to do with running a country?

[TheDrakeMan]

Funny, this double standard in political correctness. Had you posted, "I hate muslims more than most on this board", or "I hate women more than most on this board", or blacks, or any of the other politically correct sacred cow - you would have been eaten alive. But attack Christians and you get a pass. :rolleyes:

Since when were Christians the only Creationists? Have you forgotten people who think Aliens created man, Hinduism, & Islam? And how many times have you been threatened by an evolutionist? Creationists have threatened to kill me several times for just stating my opinion.

[TheDrakeMan]

Ron Paul has a BA in Biology from Gettysburg College.

When? Since the time Ron has gone to college, there have been new discoveries that help further prove evolution. Like I said, I could not care less if a politician believes in Creationism. I'm mainly annoyed with the Creationists who simply dismiss every bit of evidence for evolution. It gets annoying REAL fast. I believe there was more to evolution & life than just chance, and I think God or a higher power may have intervened with human evolution. But I am open to facts.

[palm]

When? Since the time Ron has gone to college, there have been new discoveries that help further prove evolution. Like I said, I could not care less if a politician believes in Creationism. I'm mainly annoyed with the Creationists who simply dismiss every bit of evidence for evolution. It gets annoying REAL fast. I believe there was more to evolution & life than just chance, and I think God or a higher power may have intervened with human evolution. But I am open to facts.

isn't evolution just chance?

[NYgs23]

I wonder how many people who pat themselves on the back for "accepting evolution" do so because they've actually studied the scientific data and not because they just trust whatever their old textbooks, the media, and some bloggers they like said about it.

I'm not saying I don't accept evolution and the common origin of species through mutation and natural selection. I actually think it makes more theological sense then the idea of God needing to sporadically meddle in the species development as according to intelligent design.

But I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who claim to be "scientific" because they support evolution do so for the most anti-scientific reasons.

[Deborah K]

Since when were Christians the only Creationists? Have you forgotten people who think Aliens created man, Hinduism, & Islam? And how many times have you been threatened by an evolutionist? Creationists have threatened to kill me several times for just stating my opinion.

If I'm wrong that a majority of 'Fundamentalist Creationists' are Christians, then by all means provide the stats and I'll correct myself. As to your implication that Creationists are violent, how bout proving that as well.

[Krugerrand]

I wonder how many people who pat themselves on the back for "accepting evolution" do so because they've actually studied the scientific data and not because they just trust whatever their old textbooks, the media, and some bloggers they like said about it.

I'm not saying I don't accept evolution and the common origin of species through mutation and natural selection. I actually think it makes more theological sense then the idea of God needing to sporadically meddle in the species development as according to intelligent design.

But I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who claim to be "scientific" because they support evolution do so for the most anti-scientific reasons.

Frankly, I'm surprised by how passionate both sides are on the issue. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Deborah K]

Most Muslims are also creationists so your statement is full of ignorance. TheDrakeMan was addressing everyone who does not believe that Humans came from monkeys and instead were created by a higher Being. In fact, I do not see the word Christian in his post. :rolleyes:

The phrase was 'Fundamentalist Creationist'. Regardless, his remark was hateful, but by all means, feel free to defend hateful people and deliberately ignore my point. Let me ask you, would my point have been any more valid had I used his original phrase rather than using the word 'Christian'? :rolleyes:

[Deborah K]

I think "fundamentalist Muslims" might have flown. And there's a difference between people who choose their beliefs and people who are born female, black, or many of the other "sacred cow" groups.

I don't hate groups, btw, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of your response.

No, the point is, that if people are going get their panties in a knot over hateful comments that involve an entire group of people, then the ridiculousness is when some groups are fair game for hateful comments, while others are sacred cows.

Is this really that difficult?

[gcdugas]

If we all evolved from primordial ooze then we have no more rights than a cockroach and we may be killed or exterminated en mass. You cannot have human rights without a creator who has set mankind apart from the animal kingdom.

[headhawg7]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.These topics are used as distractions to pander to special interests. WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT EVOLUTION!!!

[nobody's_hero]

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. - Einstein

I think he said it best.

[swiftfoxmark2]

Science without religion becomes tyranny when applied to government policy. Just ask the millions dead from the communist regimes.

[ClayTrainor]

Lay people are not trained in scientific language, and scientists outside of evolution are probably using the word correctly.

All I asked is that when people talk about science and they use the word "theory" that they don't use it in the colloquial sense. That is reasonable, because the colloquial definition of the word implies "pulled it out of my ass," which is miles apart from the scientific definition.

I'm soooooo with ya on that.

I can't help but be a little irked by "it's still just a theory" statements, which I encounter on a far too regular basis.

[mosquitobite]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?313264-How-NOT-to-debate-the-Christian-voters/

[ClayTrainor]

Yeah! Who cares that he wants to end all the wars, abolish the income tax, irs, the federal reserve, end the war on drugs, etc. HE DOESN'T FUCKING BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, OMG OMG OMG! I mean fuck that guy right:rolleyes: I think I'll vote for someone more rational, like Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. They may be business as usual politcians, but at least they believe in evolution. That means they're rational:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::r olleyes:
. I'm with ya


In all seriousness, what does belief or disbelief in evolution have to do with running a country?

I'm not sure there's a branch of knowledge that can even qualify a person for such a job. :o

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I honestly dont understand who hoopla about evolution?

[Krugerrand]

FYI - new fossil find reported today in Yahoo:

Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution
http://news.yahoo.com/closest-human-ancestor-may-rewrite-steps-evolution-141606435.html
A startling mix of human and primitive traits found in the brains, hips, feet and hands of an extinct species identified last year make a strong case for it being the immediate ancestor to the human lineage, scientists have announced.

[jct74]

More from Jimmy a few minutes ago. He still has Ron Paul stuck on his mind.


Post-debate poll: Ron Paul won overwhelmingly (54%). Does it mean anything? Maybe. Am I a douche for answering my own question? Absolutely.


http://twitter.com/#!/JimNorton

[ClayTrainor]

Jim norton is a very funny guy. Glad to see Ron Paul has begun to influence his thoughts.

[blsheets]

i love seeing Lil' Yimmy taking a positive notice of Ron!

[jct74]

Jim norton is a very funny guy. Glad to see Ron Paul has begun to influence his thoughts.

Yeah, his tweets are cracking me up. He goes from Ron Paul in one tweet to this in his very next tweet:


I just joined an Argentinian camel toe website. I can't decide if that makes me a piece of shit or the greatest guy on earth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Almost 2 pages debating a non-issue? sheesh!

[SimpleName]

Every thread that even vaguely mentions religion turns into this. Not sure why I mentioned it, but thought it was worth it.

I love Jim. He actually has a lot of similar beliefs to Ron, mostly pragmatically, but still similar! He always goes on about us getting the heck out of foreign nations. But the social libertarianism and honesty of Ron Paul should be something to attract him much more. He'll never be a Paulite. Its not his nature, but he may embrace him. Norton is close friends with Bill Burr and Joe Rogan who both support Ron. They may be able to teach him a thing or two.

[dannno]

Yeah, his tweets are cracking me up. He goes from Ron Paul in one tweet to this in his very next tweet:

Following.

[dannno]

I just took a treacherous shit. An 80-wiper.

What did I sign up for...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG0zirJ6pZg

[BucksforPaul]

The phrase was 'Fundamentalist Creationist'. Regardless, his remark was hateful, but by all means, feel free to defend hateful people and deliberately ignore my point. Let me ask you, would my point have been any more valid had I used his original phrase rather than using the word 'Christian'? :rolleyes:

Wow you completely missed my point. Most people who believe in a higher Being are Creationists and Drake was attacking all of them. This would include Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. I didn't know that Christians had the sole rights to be creationists and everyone else be damned. I was not defending the attack on Creationists because I am one of them and was just pointing out that Drake was attacking all people who believe in a Creator. We are on the same side here on this issue, at least I think, and just because I did not want to get into an endless debate with people who believe we came from monkeys did not mean that I was defending him.

If you would have used the original phrase then I probably would not have posted my original comment. Again, Christians do not have a patent on being Creationists nor do they have IP rights on this issue. Evolutionists attack all people who believe in a God and that is the main reason why they will stifle anyone who challenges their bogus theory.

Here is one criteria given by the creator of the hoax of evolution in order to test his theory:


If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189


Now here is a cell
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301images/Cell_structure.jpg

If one removes any one of these parts the cell will die so how did this cell come into being in the beginning if it cannot exist without even one of its parts?

[Bordillo]

adam and eve were dinosaurs, problem solved

[Deborah K]

Wow you completely missed my point. Most people who believe in a higher Being are Creationists and Drake was attacking all of them. This would include Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. I didn't know that Christians had the sole rights to be creationists and everyone else be damned. I was not defending the attack on Creationists because I am one of them and was just pointing out that Drake was attacking all people who believe in a Creator. We are on the same side here on this issue, at least I think, and just because I did not want to get into an endless debate with people who believe we came from monkeys did not mean that I was defending him.

If you would have used the original phrase then I probably would not have posted my original comment. Again, Christians do not have a patent on being Creationists nor do they have IP rights on this issue. Evolutionists attack all people who believe in a God and that is the main reason why they will stifle anyone who challenges their bogus theory.

Here is one criteria given by the creator of the hoax of evolution in order to test his theory:


Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189


Now here is a cell
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301images/Cell_structure.jpg

If one removes any one of these parts the cell will die so how did this cell come into being in the beginning if it cannot exist without even one of its parts?


Getting back to my original accusation of the double-standard found with political correctness, the hateful remark was aimed at 'Fundamentalist Creationists'. Here is the primary definition of 'Fundamentalist':


1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

[Todd]

That's a very odd comment to make, seeing as Ron must win over a great many CHRISTIAN Republican voters, in order to win the Republican primary.

I'm still surprised after all these years how few get this.

[BucksforPaul]

Deborah,

The word Fundamentalist is also used to describe Muslims, Jews, political fundamentalist.


a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

[Deborah K]

Deborah,

The word Fundamentalist is also used to describe Muslims, Jews, political fundamentalist.

Given the primary definition of Fundamentalist, it is clear the term derives from a Christian movement. In the real world, people identify Fundamentalists as Christians, NOT Muslims or Jews. Sorry if you don't like that or want to admit to it. You'd rather make a stink about the definition of what a 'fundamentalist' is, rather than have to admit that there is validity to my complaint about the double standard. Whatever, if you're okay with attacks on Christians (Fundamentalist Creationists), then you're as much at fault for the double standard as the person who made the hateful comment.

[BucksforPaul]

Given the primary definition of Fundamentalist, it is clear the term derives from a Christian movement. In the real world, people identify Fundamentalists as Christians, NOT Muslims or Jews. Sorry if you don't like that or want to admit to it. You'd rather make a stink about the definition of what a 'fundamentalist' is, rather than have to admit that there is validity to my complaint about the double standard. Whatever, if you're okay with attacks on Christians (Fundamentalist Creationists), then you're as much at fault for the double standard as the person who made the hateful comment.

Where did I say it was okay to attack Christians? Stop putting words in my mouth and acknowledge the fact that the word Fundamentalist is also used to describe Muslims and various other groups. How many articles have you read describing the war on terror where the author describes Muslims as Fundamentalists? So using your definition of fundamentalism the author means Christian Muslims. In the real world the word fundamentalist has been used to describe Muslims as much as Christians at least in the last 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

According to you Christians have the sole right to be Fundamentalist Creationists and every other religion be damned. You would rather make a stink about only Christians being fundamentalists rather than acknowledging the fact that other religions also do not believe in the hoax of evolution. Show me where I attacked Christianity or any other religion before making absurd accusations?

[Deborah K]

Where did I say it was okay to attack Christians? Stop putting words in my mouth and acknowledge the fact that the word Fundamentalist is also used to describe Muslims and various other groups. How many articles have you read describing the war on terror where the author describes Muslims as Fundamentalists? So using your definition of fundamentalism the author means Christian Muslims. In the real world the word fundamentalist has been used to describe Muslims as much as Christians at least in the last 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

According to you Christians have the sole right to be Fundamentalist Creationists and every other religion be damned. You would rather make a stink about only Christians being fundamentalists rather than acknowledging the fact that other religions also do not believe in the hoax of evolution. Show me where I attacked Christianity or any other religion before making absurd accusations?


For the last time: My POINT was that there is a double standard when it comes to attacking certain groups of people - Christians being one of them. I've already proven that the term 'Fundamentalist' derives from a Christian movement. The term 'Fundamentalist Creationist' is a made up term by the hateful poster, which leaves it up to interpretation. You called my statement ignorant, and have since refused to acknowledge my point which had to do with a PC double standard. But since you seem more hellbent on getting the last word, then have at it. I don't have time for circular arguments.

Edit: Correction, just googled the term 'fundamentalist creationist' - looks like they're Christians: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNRN_enUS440US440&q=fundamentalist+creationists

[tangent4ronpaul]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

But I would expect a MD to know about biology. If I was looking for a doc, this would probably be a deal breaker.

[tangent4ronpaul]

adam and eve were dinosaurs, problem solved

lol

[WilliamC]

Funny, this double standard in political correctness. Had you posted, "I hate muslims more than most on this board", or "I hate women more than most on this board", or blacks, or any of the other politically correct sacred cow - you would have been eaten alive. But attack Christians and you get a pass. :rolleyes:

Ah but are all fundamentalist Creationists Christians?

Could their be fundamentalist Muslims or Jews who are also Creationists?

(note, I do not agree with the 'hate' directed at those who hold differing beliefs than me, I'm honestly curious if you think all fundamentalist Creationists are Christians, that's all).

[Deborah K]

Ah but are all fundamentalist Creationists Christians?

Could their be fundamentalist Muslims or Jews who are also Creationists?

(note, I do not agree with the 'hate' directed at those who hold differing beliefs than me, I'm honestly curious if you think all fundamentalist Creationists are Christians, that's all).

No. But I believe a majority of them are.

[rawful]

From yesterday, Patton Oswalt comments on Ron Paul at the 1:01:00 mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6ISfMGLMyQ

[BW2112]

"Originally posted by ClayTrainer"
I'm not sure there's a branch of knowledge that can even qualify a person for such a job. :o[/QUOTE]

I actually don't want a government at all(Im one of those evil ancaps)for anyone to have to run. But if Im going to vote for someone, evolution will be the furthest thing from my mind.

And TheDrakeMan, could you explain why you -repped me? Im not one of those creationists that you hate, im an agnostic theist(I pray to God even though Im not sure he exists. Sounds stupid I know). I don't care about evolution one way or another. I don't care how we got here. We're here, thats all that matters. And I want us to continue to be here, preferably living in peace. Is it so horrible that I think whether or not RP believes in evolution is less important than whether he towel dries or blows dries his hair after a shower?

[BucksforPaul]

For the last time: My POINT was that there is a double standard when it comes to attacking certain groups of people - Christians being one of them. I've already proven that the term 'Fundamentalist' derives from a Christian movement. The term 'Fundamentalist Creationist' is a made up term by the hateful poster, which leaves it up to interpretation. You called my statement ignorant, and have since refused to acknowledge my point which had to do with a PC double standard. But since you seem more hellbent on getting the last word, then have at it. I don't have time for circular arguments.

Edit: Correction, just googled the term 'fundamentalist creationist' - looks like they're Christians: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNRN_enUS440US440&q=fundamentalist+creationists

Again, show me where I argued with you on your point about the double standard of people criticizing Christianity? Instead you falsely accused me of supporting the OP in question in doing this and tried to put words in my mouth. I am still waiting for you to show me where I attacked Christianity?

I guess in your small world only Christians have the right to be Creationists and everyone else can go to hell. I simply pointed out that TheDrakeMan was insulting all people who believe in a Creator and not only Christians. Then you started arguing about the word Fundamentalist and have continued to do so even going as far as stating that only Christians can be called this word and in fact it came from that movement.

Do me a favor and let the Media know to stop using this word, which obviously only belongs to Christianity, to describe Muslims or any other subject. Then you stated that
The term 'Fundamentalist Creationist' is a made up term by the hateful poster, which leaves it up to interpretation. and I interpreted it as an attack on all believers in a higher Being which includes Christians.

Your circular argument refuses to acknowledge that other religions besides Christianity also fall in the Creationist category unless you think only Christians have a right to believe in a Creator.

Then your hilarious response to the essential question are all fundamentalist Creationists Christians?


No. But I believe a majority of them are

Hindus and Muslims, who also believe in the Creator, if combined outnumber Christians but I guess majority is what you say it is. You obviously have the right to decide on who can be a Creationist or not. I have no right to be offended by the OP since the issue of Creationism has been patented by Christianity alone.
LOL do I need to define majority to you or is your worldview limited to the US only? Does the evolutionary mumbo jumbo only apply to the US or is it taught all over the World attacking all adherents to a higher Being?

Btw, the word Fundamentalist is derived from the the word fundamental which means:

adjective
1.serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2.of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3.being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.
Noun
a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.

Furthermore the etymology of the word Fundamentalists states
Applied to other religions, especially Islam, since 1957.

I did not know that this word belonged to Christianity, but one learns something new everyday. :rolleyes:

[SimpleName]

From yesterday, Patton Oswalt comments on Ron Paul at the 1:01:00 mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6ISfMGLMyQ

Whats this? Relevant discussion to the thread topic? Oh. Alright. I'm still not sure where this "90% of the things he says is right" stuff comes from? Is that all media fed? Do they hear that on TV and roll with it? How often is Romney right? 10% of the time? Was Obama any more than 90% right? There is no way Ron Paul is 90% right if Obama is more than 90% right. It's impossible. Their politics are on complete opposite ends. No way they can both be right on 9 out of 10 things (politically at least). So that pretty much makes Ron the best choice. Why aren't we voting for him then?!!?

[Noleader]

Dr. Paul never said he was a creationist that I heard (I could be wrong). He did say he has some reservations and doubts about evolution. There is nothing wrong with a man of science questioning a theory. Even someone, like me, who accepts evolution does so understanding it is an incomplete theory for which there is no means to test. If someone were to ask me if I beleive in evolution my answer would be a unequivocal NO. Science has no room for a beleif structure... it is all about empirical data.

[rawful]

Whats this? Relevant discussion to the thread topic? Oh. Alright. I'm still not sure where this "90% of the things he says is right" stuff comes from? Is that all media fed? Do they hear that on TV and roll with it? How often is Romney right? 10% of the time? Was Obama any more than 90% right? There is no way Ron Paul is 90% right if Obama is more than 90% right. It's impossible. Their politics are on complete opposite ends. No way they can both be right on 9 out of 10 things (politically at least). So that pretty much makes Ron the best choice. Why aren't we voting for him then?!!?

For the "right", he's 90% good except for foreign policy. For the "left", he's 90% good except for laissez-faire economics. I'm guessing Patton falls on the left since he loved Obama.

[rawful]

Norton praised Ron Paul again yesterday.


RT @hgratacos: @JimNorton This is why you should do more research on this brilliant polititian. http://t.co/

- It's hard not to like him.

[Working Poor]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

are you saying a Dr. does not have knowledge of biology?

[Voluntary Man]

I don't like the creationists either. I think it's fine though if they acknowledge that their religious beliefs supersede rational thought though.

For example- the flying Spagetti monster, who is worshipped, teaches creationist mythology. Evolution, physics, etc could still make rational and obvious sense, but you
say no my faith in Spagetti monster sup cedes those things. It's not that they don't make sense, but that religion has to supersede all other things. So you can still be fine with science being taught while worshipping your Gods in your church where it belongs.

I'm sorry, but is Ron Paul running for president or pope? if we can agree that he's running for president, then maybe we can save the all the straw dog "spaghetti monster" crap for a religious debate forum, please?

...unless, of course, you can demonstrate how a political candidate's wholsale acceptance of evolution is going to make your life better or worse.

...of course, then you might also need to address the questions that many scientists (even the non-religious ones) have with evolution.

talk about absolutism. if someone expresses a problem with Newton's explanation of gravity, does he automatically get attacked by knee-jerk militant atheists as a "gravity denier"?

Dr Paul "doesn't understand biology"? i beg to differ.

[NYgs23]

You know what, I'll bet 95% of the people that go on about the ignorance of creationists know no more about evolution than the creationists themselves. Are they scientists? Have they done the experiments and gathered the data? Of course they haven't. Their conviction is rooted in nothing more than a blind, mindless faith in scientists or whatever they read in a textbook in 6th grade. Which is just as foolish and anti-scientific as blind faith in anything else.

[PaulConventionWV]

Creationists should teach their religion in their synagogues, churches, temples and mosques.

Teachers\professors should teach science including evolution in schools, universities, etc.

So, do you believe we should have public schools or private?

[Napolitanic Wars]

Jim Norton helped introduce me to politics. He was a frequent guest on the short-lived Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn show. That show got me pumped.

I always loved:

JIM NORTON: Why do you have to be an asshole?

PATRICE ONEAL: Why do you have to be a shell-less turtle?

[PaulConventionWV]

SoCons lose big in Texas School board fight (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/update-social-conservatives-lose-out-in-texas-evolution-vs-creationism-curriculum-debate)


Creationist curriculum thrown out.



Nope, Rick Santorum doesn't get to teach Creationism in Texas schools.

I hope you know what you're doing. If evolution is on top under a controlled system, I wonder how it would fare under a free market? I bet not nearly as good. Since you advocate free markets, you're probably going to see a whole lot more creationism and a whole lot less evolution in schools as a result of the free market.

Beside, I hope you know that you're the crazy one for thinking all life came from a rock 4.5 billion years ago. Not me. That will be realized in the free market and you will understand why my view is called crazy; because it's been suppressed. That's the only reason you have the luxury of calling us whackos instead of the other way around. Once it's not the officially state funded view, you won't have that luxury anymore.

One reallly must wonder what you are so afraid of. Why do you "hate" us so much? Are you afraid we might be right? I think the answer to that question is yes.

[PaulConventionWV]

FYI - new fossil find reported today in Yahoo:

Notice how, everytime they find something new, it never causes doubt of the theory. It just "rewrites" the theory. These people are assuming evolution as truth and then making the facts fit with the theory. "We know evolution happened, but we just don't know how." Where else is that acceptable in science.

Also, I find it odd that evolutionists are ALWAYS making the claim that you have to be dumb or uninformed to not believe in evolution. Creationists make no such claim.

[PaulConventionWV]

Dr. Paul never said he was a creationist that I heard (I could be wrong). He did say he has some reservations and doubts about evolution. There is nothing wrong with a man of science questioning a theory. Even someone, like me, who accepts evolution does so understanding it is an incomplete theory for which there is no means to test. If someone were to ask me if I beleive in evolution my answer would be a unequivocal NO. Science has no room for a beleif structure... it is all about empirical data.

Exactly, "for which there [are] no means to test..." That rules out evolution being scientific. By the way, evolution being as solid as people make it out to be requires that it can actually be cogently explained at every step. However, there are still so many holes in it that it boggles my mind people think it i a foregone conclusion that every intelligent person would accept it. Intelligent people can see that there is no known mechanism for the cell evolving. It is all just guess work. Most of the evidence is stuff like, "we think it could have happened this way, therefore, that proves it DID happen!" Any intelligent person can see the idiocy of that idea. Why people can't accept that there are grounds for intelligent people to question evolution (some don't even think it can be QUESTIONED, which puts it on the level of DOGMA) is beyond me.

Can't you all just accept that it's not a rock solid theory and that there is room for intelligent people to doubt it, which many do?

[emr1028]

Notice how, everytime they find something new, it never causes doubt of the theory. It just "rewrites" the theory. These people are assuming evolution as truth and then making the facts fit with the theory. "We know evolution happened, but we just don't know how." Where else is that acceptable in science.


Evolution and its mechanisms are sound science. Some of the details are fuzzy. Of course some of the details are going to be fuzzy, we have 4 billion years and unbelievably large scales of complexity to sort out. We will likely never know of 99.99% of species that have lived on this planet. The sheer immensity of the scale of the complexity of evolution on this planet is immense, however we have made great strides in the last ~150 or so years since we've started to piece the puzzle together. I'm sorry but denying the premise of evolution as the means of development of life on this planet just makes you look silly and uneducated.

People once denied that the Earth went around the sun though, so I'm sure that one day we'll live in a society where people throw away their fairytales and accept what is overwhelming-- that we were not put here by some magical being in full human form, but that we instead evolved over 13 billion years from mere hydrogen atoms into the most lowly forms of life, and over another ~4billion years a species emerged on earth capable of discovering its own origins.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49i8HYMp2k

[PaulConventionWV]

Evolution and its mechanisms are sound science. Some of the details are fuzzy. Of course some of the details are going to be fuzzy, we have 4 billion years and unbelievably large scales of complexity to sort out. We will likely never know of 99.99% of species that have lived on this planet. The sheer immensity of the scale of the complexity of evolution on this planet is immense, however we have made great strides in the last ~150 or so years since we've started to piece the puzzle together. I'm sorry but denying the premise of evolution as the means of development of life on this planet just makes you look silly and uneducated.

People once denied that the Earth went around the sun though, so I'm sure that one day we'll live in a society where people throw away their fairytales and accept what is overwhelming-- that we were not put here by some magical being in full human form, but that we instead evolved over 13 billion years from mere hydrogen atoms into the most lowly forms of life, and over another ~4billion years a species emerged on earth capable of discovering its own origins.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49i8HYMp2k

Does it make Ron Paul look silly and uneducated? I have a political science degree and have taken many chemistry and biology classes at a prestigious university. Does that make me look stupid and uneducated?

Why must evolutionists always say that people who deny evolution are silly and uneducated? Creationists NEVER make this claim, or at least volumes less than evolutionists do. Why is evolution a premise? Aren't you supposed to make the theory fit the facts intsead of the other way around? Wait, actually, I KNOW that is the case, I'm not asking. So, if evolution deals with such a vast period of history, why does it bother you that there is room for doubt? It's obviously dealing with volumes of history, and not scientific, observable natural processes. You can't take the observable and apply it to millions of years of history without first at least acknowledging that there is much room for doubt. I'm sorry, but you're just being dogmatic. I bet I know more about science than you do. You probably just believe in it because the "scientists" do, or you read it on some blog. So, what gives? Why do you look down on me for believing it may have happened differently, since you acknowledge that the scale is so vast that we can't possibly conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened the way you are suggesting.

Do you rescind what you just said and acknowledge that even intelligent, educated people can find reason not to believe in evolution? I never insulted your intelligence. Please answer this question before you say anything else to me.

[dawnbt]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

You hate me for being a "fundamentalist Creationist" although you don't know me? Wow! I wouldn't expect you to understand me I am not filled with hate, but joy. I don't hate others based on their beliefs and allow others to choose how they vote based on their beliefs, not mine.

[emr1028]

Ok, well first of all I didn't say that if you don't believe in evolution than you must be stupid and uneducated. I said it makes you look silly and uneducated. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have room for doubt, however at the same time the evidence for evolution is so goddamn overwhelming that honestly, you have to be pretty senseless to entirely reject the theory. You have to be even more senseless to reject it in favor of a book of myths that claims an invisible sky fairy created the universe 6,000 years ago. I don't think that you personally believe that, but at some point the people who do are going to have to come to terms with the fact that what they believe just isn't true, so that we as a species and as a society can move on.

And yes, we have observed evolution through each evolutionary mechanism.

And for the record, I've actually spent quite a bit of time (both in classes and in my spare time) reading about evolutionary theory. I honestly just don't understand how people can deny that given everything we know and understand about the universe and this planet, how people can honestly reject evolution altogether. I'm fairly convinced that a vast majority of people who reject evolution either don't understand it or don't want to understand it.

[dawnbt]

It just blows my mind that to be told that we were created by and in the image of a loving creator strikes such an angry cord in some, but tell them they were created by sludge which formed into a flea ridden ape and "That's cool! I like that!" :rolleyes:

[emr1028]

It just blows my mind that to be told that we were created by and in the image of a loving creator strikes such an angry cord in some, but tell them they were created by sludge which formed into a flea ridden ape and "That's cool! I like that!" :rolleyes:

"Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars"

[dawnbt]

Nope. No stars here.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok, well first of all I didn't say that if you don't believe in evolution than you must be stupid and uneducated. I said it makes you look silly and uneducated. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have room for doubt, however at the same time the evidence for evolution is so goddamn overwhelming that honestly, you have to be pretty senseless to entirely reject the theory. You have to be even more senseless to reject it in favor of a book of myths that claims an invisible sky fairy created the universe 6,000 years ago. I don't think that you personally believe that, but at some point the people who do are going to have to come to terms with the fact that what they believe just isn't true, so that we as a species and as a society can move on.

And yes, we have observed evolution through each evolutionary mechanism.

And for the record, I've actually spent quite a bit of time (both in classes and in my spare time) reading about evolutionary theory. I honestly just don't understand how people can deny that given everything we know and understand about the universe and this planet, how people can honestly reject evolution altogether. I'm fairly convinced that a vast majority of people who reject evolution either don't understand it or don't want to understand it.

So why is it that you see it as acceptable to insult my intelligence like you are, and I don't do the same thing? Could it be that your worldview is more dogmatic than mine? Also, I guess I was right that I have more education than you on the subject. How do you then acknowledge this and still get on your high horse?

Let me give you a little lesson. This is very basic stuff:

I acknowledge that species change over time. We have genetic drift and Mendel's pea plant experiments. We have mutations. However, almost all the mutations are harmful rather than helpful. I acknowledge that we observe genetic changes over a few generations. This, however, does not mean we can extrapolate and "fill in the blanks" with our imagination and say it happened progressively over millions of years. Everywhere in nature, you see that there are limits to genetic changes. Why make an exception for evolution? There are limits. There are many holes in the theory of evolution, such as how you get the information to go from non-life to life, or from protein to cell. There is no basis in genetics for believing something this dramatic can occur in the genetic code. I don't expect you to change your mind, but at least acknowledge that evolution can be reasonably doubted. The evidence is not overwhelming. What you're doing now is called DOGMA. Do you know what that means?

[certaindeath4]

I wonder, why is it that creationists spending their time refuting holes in the story of evolution, saying it isn't proven "enough", when, confronted by the same question, they offer no evidence of their own? Talk about a double standard. And yes, context is everything, because we are talking about what should be taught in SCIENCE classes, not philosophy. Evolution may be incomplete, and there may be some teachers who push it too far without enforcing the responsibility of the individual to search for evidence to back up their claims, however, it is the best "science" we have to explain the origins of man, and it should continue to be taught until it is disproved. Same goes for the theory of gravity, relativity etc etc.

[kuckfeynes]

None of this really matters. There is so much misunderstanding on both sides that they each only attack the extremes.

Most creationists I know do not reject evolution completely, they just reject it as proof against a creator.

Most science geeks I know do not try to use evolution as evidence against a creator, just evidence against the literal accuracy of Genesis and other religions' creation stories.

What matters is this: If a group of parents want to send their kids to a privately funded school that values dogma over science, that's their choice. I went to a school like that, academically it was better than the public school (no thanks to my parents' tax dollars), and yes eventually I did learn about evolution.

No one should have the right to force anyone to teach their kids anything. And no one should have the right to forcibly confiscate their wealth to subsidize schools that contradict their beliefs, however illogical they may seem.

[rawful]

Norton just said he's officially a Ron Paul guy and hope he wins. Send him some supportive tweets!

[yokna7]

I love Opie and Anthony. Lil' Jimmy Norton is on board I think, but Anthony is a neo-con. We'll work on it.