Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 89

Thread: "I find these kinds of ignorant beliefs really annoying"

  1. #1

    "I find these kinds of ignorant beliefs really annoying"

    (In regards to Ron Paul being religious, and his stance on evolution).

    This is how I responded:

    What do you think of THESE ignorant beliefs?

    1. The media reports the news

    2. Our representatives represent us

    3. We are at war with 5 countries defending national security

    4. The federal reserve is necessary for a healthy economy and wealth

    ...No response.


    Please don't let this subject turn into a heated argument. The point of this thread is to help people focus on the issues that matter when they're hung up on something that won't affect them at all.
    Last edited by Matthew Zak; 08-20-2011 at 08:42 AM.
    O.B.A.M.A. = One Big Ass Mistake, America



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    What IS his stance on evolution? Because evolution is a theory based on random mutation, NOT adaptation as most believe, and therefore most people I know are at least somewhat skeptical of current evolution theory.

    If he's a skeptic it's not nearly as unbelievable as the things you listed. Also you don't have to believe in creationism to be skeptical of evolution theory
    Last edited by LibertyEsq; 08-20-2011 at 08:18 AM.

  4. #3
    Oh please, not again.

    I don't care about Ron Paul's religious beliefs, including his belief on evolution/creationism, because he isn't interested in forcing that belief on me.

    I personally think one way and personally believe that those who think the other are ignorant and superstitious, but who cares because I'm not trying to force that belief on you.

    People should be free to teach their children wrong if that's what they want, but not with taxpayer money.

    And that goes for both sides of the argument.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  5. #4
    But for the record, "evolution skepticism" is balogney. All scientists are skeptics, and 99.9% support it as the best-working explanation for genetic mutation and the survival of species over time. Certain mechanics of evolution and mutation however are observable/testable/repeatable and facts.
    Last edited by PEnemy; 08-20-2011 at 08:25 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEsq View Post
    What IS his stance on evolution? Because evolution is a theory based on random mutation, NOT adaptation as most believe, and therefore most people I know are at least somewhat skeptical of current evolution theory.

    If he's a skeptic it's not nearly as unbelievable as the things you listed. Also you don't have to believe in creationism to be skeptical of evolution theory
    A lot of people refer to this video, and say they could never vote for him because of this.

    O.B.A.M.A. = One Big Ass Mistake, America

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    But for the record, "evolution skepticism" is balogney. All scientists are skeptics, and 99.9% support it as the best-working explanation for genetic mutation and the survival of species over time. Certain mechanics of evolution and mutation however are observable/testable/repeatable and fact.
    Sorry, But I'll never believe that there are deepsea fish with lightbulbs on their heads through pure genetic mutation (which is all evolution theory is). Call me crazy

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Zak View Post
    A lot of people refer to this video, and say they could never vote for him because of this.

    Well no offense to Ron Paul, but his biological study was nearly half a century ago... I think they still lit their lamps with oil at the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEsq View Post
    Sorry, But I'll never believe that there are deepsea fish with lightbulbs on their heads through pure genetic mutation (which is all evolution theory is). Call me crazy
    They're not lightbulbs. You're crazy.

    That was easy.
    Last edited by PEnemy; 08-20-2011 at 08:28 AM.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEsq View Post
    Sorry, But I'll never believe that there are deepsea fish with lightbulbs on their heads through pure genetic mutation (which is all evolution theory is). Call me crazy
    How dare you argue against the state-endorsed religion!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    Well no offense to Ron Paul, but his biological study was nearly half a century ago... I think they still lit their lamps with oil at the time.




    They're not lightbulbs. You're crazy.

    That was easy.
    Obviously they aren't LITERALLY lightbulbs. Not sure if troll

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    How dare you argue against the state-endorsed religion!
    Don't insult actual religions.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEsq View Post
    Obviously they aren't LITERALLY lightbulbs. Not sure if troll
    I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. "Can you form sentence?"

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. "Can you form sentence?"
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/futura...-not-sure-if-x

    ...

  15. #13
    My younger brother hit me with this crap last night about why he would not support him. Really irked me. He just hates to admit that he's wrong. He loves Krugman btw. Ugh.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    But for the record, "evolution skepticism" is balogney. All scientists are skeptics, and 99.9% support it as the best-working explanation for genetic mutation and the survival of species over time. Certain mechanics of evolution and mutation however are observable/testable/repeatable and facts.
    Thank you for setting the record straight. The next time I read an article by a non-Christian skeptic of Darwinism like Michael Behe, I'll remember that he must be lying about being a scientist.

  17. #15
    It's ironic, too. Ron Paul wouldn't push his beliefs on us... he would leave it up to the states... but people are afraid his stance on religion would incorporate religion into education, so they won't vote for him. Meanwhile they'll vote in some one who has no problem taking their money and pumping it into a failed federal education system that forces a terrible curriculum down our throats.

    I think we need to stress the importance and BENEFITS of states rights because there's a HUGE disconnect there.
    O.B.A.M.A. = One Big Ass Mistake, America

  18. #16
    An explanation of the luminescent esca:

    So the angler fish did not actually evolve a light organ using its own chemical processes, but rather entered into a symbiotic relationship with luminescent bacteria. That is also true with most other deep sea fish with luminescent organs. The angler fish use the light from the bacteria to attract prey.

    Though the exact process by which the symbiotic relationship arose in this case is not known, numerous such relationships exist and have evolved because they provide a benefit for the symbiotic organisms. In this case, the bacteria have a safe haven against those organisms that would eat them, and the angler fish has a means to attract prey by using the light. The process by which symbiosis occurs is one of the many examples of what is called co-evolution. It starts out simply and then the species involved gradually evolve through natural selection to enhance the symbiosis because it enhances survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    Thank you for setting the record straight. The next time I read an article by a non-Christian skeptic of Darwinism like Michael Behe, I'll remember that he must be lying about being a scientist.
    Good, please do.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    FWIW to all those who naively believe that evolution only has to do with life and biology you are years and years behind the science.

    Just like quantum mechanics spread from explaining the photoelectric effect to underpinning all of physics and having applications beyond physics (i.e. our very consciousness is based on quantum mechanical processes occurring inside our brain cells which makes our brains true quantum computers, but that's a different discussion) evolution has gone far beyond explaining diversity in life to being applied to economics, artificial intelligence, and chaotic systems analysis in general.

    Arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    FWIW to all those who naively believe that evolution only has to do with life and biology you are years and years behind the science.

    Just like quantum mechanics spread from explaining the photoelectric effect to underpinning all of physics and having applications beyond physics (i.e. our very consciousness is based on quantum mechanical processes occurring inside our brain cells which makes our brains true quantum computers, but that's a different discussion) evolution has gone far beyond explaining diversity in life to being applied to economics, artificial intelligence, and chaotic systems analysis in general.

    Arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity.
    What's gravity?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    An explanation of the luminescent esca:

    Good, please do.
    If one was a skeptic, why would Darwinism be exempt from skepticism?

    Oh, that's right. Because you are religiously committed to it. Oh well....so much for skepticism.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    An explanation of the luminescent esca:

    Good, please do.
    The perfectly placed stalk that juts out symmetrically between the angler fish's eyes isn't made of bacteria. It also begs the question how random mutation rather than adaptation would produce such an appendage to hold clumps of bacteria directly in front of its face.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    Oh, that's right. Because you are religiously committed to it.
    So it is wrong to be religiously committed to something? Surely not because you're likely religious yourself. So you must instead believe it is bad to be religiously committed to a scientific idea?

    Well here is where you misunderstand me. I am not religiously committed to evolution based on emotion, faith, and family ties. I am convinced by reason that evolutionary ideas are valid and satisfactory.

  25. #22
    Listen, we're not going to change Ron Paul's mind on evolution and we're not going to make that video go away, so we need to focus on comforting people that it doesn't matter what he believes because he'll never legislate religion.
    O.B.A.M.A. = One Big Ass Mistake, America

  26. #23
    He's running for the Republican nomination. Even if he did believe in evolution (I'm not saying he does), it would be foolish to say that.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    So it is wrong to be religiously committed to something? Surely not because you're likely religious yourself. So you must instead believe it is bad to be religiously committed to a scientific idea?

    Well here is where you misunderstand me. I am not religiously committed to evolution based on emotion, faith, and family ties. I am convinced by reason that evolutionary ideas are valid and satisfactory.
    I'm sure it's "reason" that allowed you to determine he was religious without him mentioning it anywhere or providing any evidence to support that assumption.
    Last edited by LibertyEsq; 08-20-2011 at 08:45 AM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    It is not that creationism rejects science. We just have a different starting points.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    What's gravity?
    Magic.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    So it is wrong to be religiously committed to something? Surely not because you're likely religious yourself. So you must instead believe it is bad to be religiously committed to a scientific idea?

    Well here is where you misunderstand me. I am not religiously committed to evolution based on emotion, faith, and family ties. I am convinced by reason that evolutionary ideas are valid and satisfactory.
    No, religious commitment is not wrong in and of itself, it is simply the nature of truth and reasoning.

    Since Darwinism is a fairy tale imposed on the evidence after the fact, it merely shows that you have chosen this as the starting point for interpreting the "evidence" you find.

    It says nothing about the evidence and everything about your religious starting point.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    FWIW to all those who naively believe that evolution only has to do with life and biology you are years and years behind the science.

    Just like quantum mechanics spread from explaining the photoelectric effect to underpinning all of physics and having applications beyond physics (i.e. our very consciousness is based on quantum mechanical processes occurring inside our brain cells which makes our brains true quantum computers, but that's a different discussion) evolution has gone far beyond explaining diversity in life to being applied to economics, artificial intelligence, and chaotic systems analysis in general.

    Arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity.
    It's the life and biology explanation of evolution I'm challenging. Whatever applications the theory has to economics, etc. are insufficient to explain how random mutation has alone accounted for changes in biology.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEsq View Post
    I'm sure it's "reason" that allowed you to determine he was religious without him mentioning it anywhere or providing any evidence to support that assumption.
    It is.

    I assumed a religious background based on my past experience in similar conversations.

    1) He used the term "Darwinism," which is an archaic and specific word not perfectly synonymous with evolutionary theories, but he used it as such (implying a religious bias and historical ignorance).

    2) His inclusion of the phrases "religious adherence," and "state-endorsed religion;" Accusations I only hear from those who see evolutionary explanations and inferences as a threat to their own religious explanations of historical life. You see, they see it as a false or competing religion/philosophy. By declaring "Darwinism" the False God, they can claim its scientific proponents as brainwashed hypocrites. This False God infected their "good science" with religion.

    Which is of course balogney. Scientists are inherently motivated by criticism and recognition for new, critical ideas. Can you imagine the acclaim that would go to a scientist who proved the rest to be fools and all wrong? There is a huge incentive there already. The "religious" accusation made against scientists and amateurs who ascribe to their theories is inaccurate at best and paranoid at worst.

    *EDIT*-
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    No, religious commitment is not wrong in and of itself, it is simply the nature of truth and reasoning.

    Since Darwinism is a fairy tale imposed on the evidence after the fact, it merely shows that you have chosen this as the starting point for interpreting the "evidence" you find.

    It says nothing about the evidence and everything about your religious starting point.

    Proof of concept.
    Last edited by PEnemy; 08-20-2011 at 09:12 AM.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by PEnemy View Post
    What's gravity?
    Great question.

    Newtonian gravity breaks down from observations in our solar system and the orbit of Mercury.

    So far Einsteinian gravity seems to hold for all observations we have done, but it breaks down for singularities and at the quantum level.

    The reconciliation of quantum mechanics and gravity, like is being attempted with string theory and brane theory, should allow us to describe the Universe as it existed prior to the big bang, how it will exist at any arbitrary time in the future, and what happens inside black holes.

    Personally I'm not quite to the point where I understand the mathematics, but I'm working on tensor calculus now in my spare time and am starting to get there.

    Having a PhD in Genetics just isn't as interesting to me as I thought it would be, or rather it didn't teach me how to ask the really interesting questions, so I'm trying to be a more of mathematician than a bench scientist, and there is a huge amount of work being done on mathematics and evolution these days.

    Exciting times for those with intellectual curiosity.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 06:53 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-14-2012, 02:11 PM
  3. "I find these kinds of ignorant beliefs really annoying"
    By Matthew Zak in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-20-2011, 01:02 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 05:14 PM
  5. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 05:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •