Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution?

[PaulConventionWV]

He has absolutely said that in the past.

Quote me or it didn't happen.

[robert68]

... We happen to know that the only energy that comes into this system is sunlight. That sunlight is destructive unless it is used by living things via photosynthesis. How, then, can sunlight be responsible for the creation of the living things that use it if it is otherwise destructive without the living things to use it?

What is that assertion based on?

[PaulConventionWV]

What is that assertion based on?

It's based on what we observe every single day. Show me an instance in which sunlight that is not utilized by living organisms via photosynthesis creates order and doesn't break things down.

[robert68]

It's based on what we observe every single day. Show me an instance in which sunlight that is not utilized by living organisms via photosynthesis creates order and doesn't break things down.

All living things would die in short order without sunlight. That's the opposite of destructive.

[Suzu]

Interesting that no one's decided to challenge this. Especially you, Suzu.

What I want people to take home about this discussion is that all religions, atheism included, are based on faith

"A-" is a prefix meaning "without"... as in "amoral" (without morals) and "asymptomatic" (lacking symptoms), and "theism" means "belief in a deity". Thus, to be an atheist means that one is without belief in a deity. If atheism is a religion, then unemployment is a job; not collecting baseball cards is a hobby; silence is a noise; pacifism is an act of violence; bald is a hair color; nudity is a costume; stillness is a velocity; anarchy is structured government.

If you want to say that there's no God, the burden of proof lies just as heavily on you as anyone who believes in a deity.

Atheists do not claim that no deity exists. That sort of person would be known as an anti-theist.

This is not a "challenge"; it is an effort to counter disinformation.

[PaulConventionWV]

"A-" is a prefix meaning "without"... as in "amoral" (without morals) and "asymptomatic" (lacking symptoms), and "theism" means "belief in a deity". Thus, to be an atheist means that one is without belief in a deity. If atheism is a religion, then unemployment is a job; not collecting baseball cards is a hobby; silence is a noise; pacifism is an act of violence; bald is a hair color; nudity is a costume; stillness is a velocity; anarchy is structured government.



Atheists do not claim that no deity exists. That sort of person would be known as an anti-theist.

This is not a "challenge"; it is an effort to counter disinformation.

You don't get it. You can't lack belief in a deity. There is no "lack." If a random guy walks up to you on a street and asks, "Do I have a nickel in my pocket?" You don't say, "I lack such a belief because there's no evidence." The proper response would be that you simply don't know at all. While there is a subtle distinction between lacking a belief and making a positive claim to the negative, it is still inaccurate to say that you can simply lack a belief in God.

An atheist's lack of belief is just as unfounded as a positive belief because you have no evidence either way. If you really want to find out if there's a nickel in the guy's pocket on the street, you don't assume there isn't until you see evidence that there is. You take a neutral stance (could be either one, equally) until you find evidence either way that there is or there isn't. You don't lack belief of the nickel until you see evidence of it.

[PaulConventionWV]

All living things would die in short order without sunlight. That's the opposite of destructive.

I said WITHOUT photosynthesis. Living things are sustained through sunlight WITH photosynthesis. Now, can you or can you not find an example of sunlight WITHOUT photosynthesis that is NOT destructive.

[Suzu]

You don't get it. You can't lack belief in a deity. There is no "lack." If a random guy walks up to you on a street and asks, "Do I have a nickel in my pocket?" You don't say, "I lack such a belief because there's no evidence." The proper response would be that you simply don't know at all. While there is a subtle distinction between lacking a belief and making a positive claim to the negative, it is still inaccurate to say that you can simply lack a belief in God.

An atheist's lack of belief is just as unfounded as a positive belief because you have no evidence either way. If you really want to find out if there's a nickel in the guy's pocket on the street, you don't assume there isn't until you see evidence that there is. You take a neutral stance (could be either one, equally) until you find evidence either way that there is or there isn't. You don't lack belief of the nickel until you see evidence of it.

Now you've gotten ridiculous enough to incite me to actually mock you. But I won't bother, because it's about as useless as trying to get a room full of neocons to grasp the concept of blowback.

So instead of reading yet another rant from someone who thinks you've got a few lug nuts rattling in your hubs, enjoy this little presentation:

[GunnyFreedom]

I said WITHOUT photosynthesis. Living things are sustained through sunlight WITH photosynthesis. Now, can you or can you not find an example of sunlight WITHOUT photosynthesis that is NOT destructive.

Human production of Vitamin D. Lack of sunlight leads to depression, and it was found to have a pharmacological cause: moderate sunlight to cause light tanning, is a powerhouse Vitamin D producer, which not only allows us to absorb calcium, but which deficiency was the cause of sunlight depression.

[PaulConventionWV]

Human production of Vitamin D. Lack of sunlight leads to depression, and it was found to have a pharmacological cause: moderate sunlight to cause light tanning, is a powerhouse Vitamin D producer, which not only allows us to absorb calcium, but which deficiency was the cause of sunlight depression.

WITHOUT LIVING ORGANISMS.

[GunnyFreedom]

The actual question if you break it down, is impossible by definition. It actually breaks down to "name one thing built by sunlight that is not a-process-for-building-by-sunlight" so it tends to confine answers to an "impossible box" by setting an unnecessarily restricted paradigm. However, that one is not the asker's fault, that is simply how the English language is in this place.

[PaulConventionWV]

Now you've gotten ridiculous enough to incite me to actually mock you. But I won't bother, because it's about as useless as trying to get a room full of neocons to grasp the concept of blowback.

So instead of reading yet another rant from someone who thinks you've got a few lug nuts rattling in your hubs, enjoy this little presentation:

You're never going to answer my question, are you? You have the gall to come here and mock me when you refuse to even acknowledge the question I asked you several times that you simply avoided? Who are you to mock me?

Heck, you didn't even make an argument here, so you must be admitting defeat, right? Why not just admit you don't know and that your beliefs are based on faith?

Thanks for the straw man video, though. I love it when evolutionists make videos so they can control both narratives simultaneously.

[GunnyFreedom]

WITHOUT LIVING ORGANISMS.

wait, what? Why? you are trying to point to entropy. you are attacking abiogenesis. Don't bother, I don't believe in it, and the people who do are impossible to move without a more fundamental shift in perspective.

[PaulConventionWV]

The actual question if you break it down, is impossible by definition. It actually breaks down to "name one thing built by sunlight that is not a-process-for-building-by-sunlight" so it tends to confine answers to an "impossible box" by setting an unnecessarily restricted paradigm. However, that one is not the asker's fault, that is simply how the English language is in this place.

That's exactly the point. Sunlight wasn't responsible for building the systems that we see. It's a chicken and egg problem or an "impossible box" like you said. Sunlight did not make the primordial soup into photosynthetic systems that utilize sunlight because sunlight itself is destructive.

If you can't name one thing without photosynthesis or vitamin D production (which isn't actually photosynthesis, but that's beside the point) that doesn't become more disordered with sunlight, then you can't say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to earth because "it's an open system." If sunlight doesn't help your case, then your case for the "open system" argument doesn't work.

[PaulConventionWV]

wait, what? Why? you are trying to point to entropy. you are attacking abiogenesis. Don't bother, I don't believe in it, and the people who do are impossible to move without a more fundamental shift in perspective.

They can believe it all they want. I just want to get them to acknowledge that their beliefs require faith and are NOT scientific.

[staerker]

That's exactly the point. Sunlight wasn't responsible for building the systems that we see. It's a chicken and egg problem or an "impossible box" like you said. Sunlight did not make the primordial soup into photosynthetic systems that utilize sunlight because sunlight itself is destructive.

If you can't name one thing without photosynthesis or vitamin D production (which isn't actually photosynthesis, but that's beside the point) that doesn't become more disordered with sunlight, then you can't say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to earth because "it's an open system." If sunlight doesn't help your case, then your case for the "open system" argument doesn't work.

I think your understanding of the 2nd Law is flawed.

The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Assuming that the universe is a closed system, any subsystem within the universe can be considered an open system, with the remainder of the universe, the "surroundings."

So, the entropy of an open system + surroundings cannot decrease.

An open system can be defined whenever and wherever you like, and the law will apply.

Technically, the entropy in a single celled organism could decrease significantly, as long as the surroundings increased to compensate, + entropy production.

Note I don't hold to either of your views, and I'm not entirely sure how this law applies (useful energy != biological utility?.) Interesting.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think your understanding of the 2nd Law is flawed.

The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Assuming that the universe is a closed system, any subsystem within the universe can be considered an open system, with the remainder of the universe, the "surroundings."

Where did I say that the entropy of a closed system could decrease? I know that subsystems can be considered open. I'm arguing on the basis that Earth is an open system and the only energy that comes in is from the sun, barring comets or aliens.

So, the entropy of an open system + surroundings cannot decrease.

An open system can be defined whenever and wherever you like, and the law will apply.

I'm aware of this.

Technically, the entropy in a single celled organism could decrease significantly, as long as the surroundings increased to compensate, + entropy production.

Note I don't hold to either of your views, and I'm not entirely sure how this law applies (useful energy != biological utility?.) Interesting.

You don't seem to have been keeping track of the discussion, but rest assured I know what you mean. I don't think my understanding is flawed, but I'm open to input, so thanks for that.

[staerker]

Where did I say that the entropy of a closed system could decrease? I know that subsystems can be considered open. I'm arguing on the basis that Earth is an open system and the only energy that comes in is from the sun, barring comets or aliens.

I guess it was in response to that, and noting that you are treating the Earth as the system, when you should be treating the organism as the system (or whatever is specifically being analyzed.)

Theoretically the entropy at a point could decrease (given other situational/atmospheric inputs; sunlight is not the only input, and possibly would not be one at all, at certain locations/depths.) at the expense of it's surroundings.

[PaulConventionWV]

I guess it was in response to that, and noting that you are treating the Earth as the system, when you should be treating the organism as the system (or whatever is specifically being analyzed.)

Theoretically the entropy at a point could decrease (given other situational/atmospheric inputs; sunlight is not the only input, and possibly would not be one at all, at certain locations/depths.) at the expense of it's surroundings.

I didn't mean it was the only input as it refers to other organisms. It's the only input into earth's system. So if Earth's entropy has been increasing since the start, you need a really good reason to believe that something just randomly organized itself and then started creating other organized systems from nothing. There's virtually no chance of that happening. I don't know the exact math, but I've seen the numbers and the molecule interactions needed to make a simple amino acid, much less a protein are astoundingly huge, so huge that even billions of years wouldn't be sufficient for it to occur randomly. Besides, what other energy source can you think of that can create order without already existing systems? People can't think of a way that fire, lightning, or the force of the rain beating on the rocks could create order, so they have to appeal to something outside of earth's system, which is where the "Earth is an open system" argument comes from.

This is what I mean, though. Whenever people start talking about entropy WRT evolution, people have to start making up these incredible stories of how it could've happened, and they think their beliefs are scientific. They can't even demonstrate how it could've happened, much less prove that it did. It's just fairy tales about long ago and far away that don't make sense except in the imagination. They defend their beliefs mainly by telling me I can't prove that it didn't happen, which is a very religious mindset. As long as you can't disprove the idea that natural laws stopped applying at one point in time, my beliefs are safe.

Like I said, you can believe that if you want, but don't try to call it science and don't try to push it on me or my kids through the public school system, state-run media and scientific establishment, etc.

[Suzu]

Interesting that no one's decided to challenge this. Especially you, Suzu.

What I want people to take home about this discussion is that all religions, atheism included, are based on faith, and the burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they want to call their non-observable theory "science."

You can't simply assume the negative out of a lack of knowledge. That's an argument from ignorance. If you want to say that there's no God, the burden of proof lies just as heavily on you as anyone who believes in a deity.

This lady argues the case against your way of thinking very well. So I'll let her do the talking.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Anyone posted this video yet?



Start at the 6:00 mark. Ron references liberty as a young idea, comparing the Magna Carta from 800 years ago to the millions of years of history of mankind.

[jmdrake]

Anyone posted this video yet?



Start at the 6:00 mark. Ron references liberty as a young idea, comparing the Magna Carta from 800 years ago to the millions of years of history of mankind.

Considering that, according to evolutionists, man has only been on earth for 200,000 years that's not proof of anything but hyperbole.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Considering that, according to evolutionists, man has only been on earth for 200,000 years that's not proof of anything but hyperbole.

Modern humans, yes. Forebears to **** sapiens existed millions of years ago. But I'm not ultimately concerned with definitions of what qualifies as mankind, or what time frame mankind came to be. The OP was centered on what Ron's beliefs were. Whether he believes in evolution or not is unknown, but it does seem from his statement here that he does not believe in a young earth.

[PaulConventionWV]

This lady argues the case against your way of thinking very well. So I'll let her do the talking.

You're pathetic. You can't answer my questions, so you start avoiding them and you keep posting. Now you're letting someone else do your talking and you still won't answer my questions! What goes through your head that you can't answer my questions and you're still trying to argue? How intellectually dishonest do you have to be not to question your own motive behind responding when you haven't answered my questions?

[Suzu]

You're pathetic. You can't answer my questions, so you start avoiding them and you keep posting. Now you're letting someone else do your talking and you still won't answer my questions! What goes through your head that you can't answer my questions and you're still trying to argue? How intellectually dishonest do you have to be not to question your own motive behind responding when you haven't answered my questions?

Not only am I not fond of writing, I'm also quite short of time these days, and to respond properly would require at least as much writing as a transcript of the video would contain. There's no good reason for me to spend that time writing what is said in the video, which does a very good job of addressing all of your claims. The intellectually dishonest thing would be to refuse to listen to it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Not only am I not fond of writing, I'm also quite short of time these days, and to respond properly would require at least as much writing as a transcript of the video would contain. There's no good reason for me to spend that time writing what is said in the video, which does a very good job of addressing all of your claims. The intellectually dishonest thing would be to refuse to listen to it.

I did watch it, and it basically repeated the same argument I had responded to, so no, it didn't address it at all.

I asked you a question about why you insist that existence requires being part of the MEST universe like 3 pages ago and you have dodged around that question this whole time even though you were clearly aware that I had asked it and yet you still kept responding without even so much as mentioning it. You're clearly trying to avoid answering my question. That's what I'm talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty. Why are you avoiding my questions and yet you insist on continuing to respond to selected parts of my posts.

Now, after spending all this time arguing and writing many posts, you're complaining that you "don't like to write" and "Oh, look at the time!"

Posting videos in response is just a way of disclaiming responsibility for what the video says and making it harder to respond directly. The videos themselves are often just a collaboration of straw man arguments that the people in the video make so that they can control both sides of the narrative and strike down the straw men with ease.

[Chester Copperpot]

I said WITHOUT photosynthesis. Living things are sustained through sunlight WITH photosynthesis. Now, can you or can you not find an example of sunlight WITHOUT photosynthesis that is NOT destructive.

Wow, are you really asking this? Theres a bunch of things that sunlight does without photosynthesis that is not destructive..

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow, are you really asking this? Theres a bunch of things that sunlight does without photosynthesis that is not destructive..

Name one.

[jmdrake]

Modern humans, yes. Forebears to **** sapiens existed millions of years ago. But I'm not ultimately concerned with definitions of what qualifies as mankind, or what time frame mankind came to be. The OP was centered on what Ron's beliefs were. Whether he believes in evolution or not is unknown, but it does seem from his statement here that he does not believe in a young earth.

Well even from that argument there isn't millions of years of history as ancestor of man (again going with the evolutionist position) had the ability to write. In fact recorded history of humans only goes back about 6,000 years. So there's no way of knowing whether Og and Bog had a constitutional caveman republic back in 50,000 BC. I think Ron just threw a number out there. But regardless, it doesn't matter. Whether he believes in a young earth or not, it seems from his other statement that he does not believe in evolution. Just turning your own statement around on you.

Anyhow, I think this is all funny with evolutionists on an evangelical mission to make people accept that macro evolution must be true. I don't know what it is about evolution that turns otherwise rational people is secular-religious zealots. There are holes in the theory and other people can dispute it and still be rational. There are valid parts of the theory and those who accept it can be equally rational.

[robert68]

Name one.

Without warmth there's no life of any kind.