Is Ron Paul A Visionary Or A Nut Job?

Which one is he?

  • Visionary

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nut Job

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1

Yrx said:
The only difference between natural and supernatural is the ability to consistantly observe one.
This is exactly why science is science and religion is religion. Science makes observations and predictions on what is observable. Theories are generated based on the evidence, and if new evidence comes to light then the theory is either backed up, modified, or falsified.
Yrx said:
Scientists didn't believe in giant squid for quite some time. :lol:
That doesn't make giant squids supernatural. When giant squids were observed they were acknowledged by science. This is actually a good example of science changing in light of new evidence.

Noone is suggesting that scientific theories are all true, but they are true to the best of our knowledge. If someone finds amazing new evidence they will be lauded in the scientific community. There is no scientific dogma with an agenda. The only "agenda" science has is a search for the truth. If a researcher finds some information which they believe falsifies evolution it will be a shock, but it will be tested. If it is find out to be accurate, then the scientific community will pick itself up and attempt to find the truth. In the religious community individuals that attempt to break religious dogma are castigated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is, you can not physically and literally observe millions of years of evolution. That's an impossibility. You can not repeat the circumstances that things happened under if you don't know them. My problem with evolutionary science is not that they put forward hypothoses and ideas, but tha fact that a great deal of these ideas are presented as indisputable fact in schools and in the general public.

Take the famous fossil Lucy, for example. For many years, they contributed one of her kind to making ancient human-like footprints found near her site. So all the models and illustrations of Lucy show a human-like, upright walking creature with basically human feet. Sometime in the last few years, they found another fossil belonging to the same kind, and they called it Selam. This one was more complete, and it showed that Lucy had feet more like one of the great apes (like a gorilla), and that it couldn't have possibly walked upright and made the footprints it was associated with. In other words, it looks less and less like a human ancestor to the scientific community, and more and more like a species or subspecies of a separate extinct ape.

But where have you heard any of this is the media? What are they teaching in schools? What's championed in museums across the world? This great "proof" of human evolution just completely fell apart, and no one besides niche news sources have said anything about it at all. Kids are going to be taught outright lies that contradict GOOD EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. It's mind-boggling! And people are still going to go into fanatical rants about any number of things like this when they've been outdated.

It's frustrating not because it's thought out, but because people will blindly accept anything as long as they think it's "scientific." The vast majority of people don't realize how much presupposition goes into the conclusions that scientists make. They're not neutral, they're human. You need ideas about the past before you can say anything about it, and scientists all cram their ideas into the other ideas that scientists put forward before them, even if they don't quite fit. Because if you don't accept common ideas, they won't take you seriously. By the way, it wasn't always like this. The founder of NASA was a creationist, haha.

In my eyes, if you go against the complete indoctrination of "Science says Evolution!" then you're putting a lot more thought into it than most people. Because if you believe in something else, you have to know WHY you believe it, instead of relying on every news article about scientists that say this or that, or teh constantly outdated biology books. I'm not saying schools should teach creation, I'm saying that they shouldn't indoctrinate kids with outdated ideas and false evidence, and teach them critical thinking. There are obviously a lot of people that believe evolution by their own thinking, and that's fine. But what's happening is just flocking like mindless sheep, just as they accuse religious people of doing.

Getting back on topic, I think Huckabee is either going to win or come close to winning. He represents a shift in the Republican way of thinking as well as a change in the evangelical community, and it's a good shift in both cases. I can't see Giuliani winning at all, that would be ridiculous. If it isn't Huckabee, I would place my bets on McCain. I can't see anyone really liking Romney that much. Thompson is only starting to show now, but I can't see that picking up either. Ron Paul won't win. Even if more people agreed with his ideas, he's insane. lol
 
Atheism is becoming like a religion in itself, just like in the South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself as he can't wait for the Wii
 
mdinire said:
Atheism is becoming like a religion in itself, just like in the South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself as he can't wait for the Wii
lol, I agree with both the statement and the hilarity of that episode.

By the way, before anyone says anything arguing against my last post, show me I'm blatantly wrong. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it. I'm a freethinking human being who knows his facts and has his own opinion on them. So show me I'm wrong, or don't say anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yrx said:
... show me I'm blatantly wrong...
I think the reason you do not see your creationist 'debunking' of science in the media is because reputable news reporting is too busy reporting facts, such as the following.

Here are some quotes from the first hit returned by google - from the media

QUOTE
All this suggests that A. afarensis divided its time between walking upright on the ground, and climbing trees.


QUOTE
"I’d say it was effectively and fully bipedal, but it might have spent some time in trees," Dr Zeresenay said.


QUOTE
"This is slightly closer to the average in humans than to chimps, which may be a hint that important aspects of behaviour had already started to change 3.5 million years ago," Dr Zeresenay said.

Stop parrotting your creationist websites and look for the real information every time they make a claim against science. Science wants to discover interesting facts about the world, your religious mentors want to keep their tax free collection plates filled up. It makes sense to question them when they try to discredit science.

All you had to do was type lucy +selam into a search engine. You could have saved yourself the effort of writing all that nonsense only to be shown to be wrong with one simple search.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yrx said:
mdinire said:
Atheism is becoming like a religion in itself, just like in the South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself as he can't wait for the Wii
lol, I agree with both the statement and the hilarity of that episode.

By the way, before anyone says anything arguing against my last post, show me I'm blatantly wrong. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it. I'm a freethinking human being who knows his facts and has his own opinion on them. So show me I'm wrong, or don't say anything.

Again you distort the truth by cherry picking only the facts to support your God delusion and leave out all of the facts that go against it. When will you learn. And you claim to be "freethinking" :p That is about as ironic as Faux news is in saying that they are "fair and balanced" ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe in the royal reptile thing. That's why us awesome folk get so much colder than rubbish people; it's our partly cold blood you see.
 
Blah said:
rested on the Sabbath (which is Saturday, btw. Constantine changed the Christian observance to Sunday in an effort to distance them from the Jews. What he did was wrong but nobody cares anymore.)
Okay, please explain this logic to me.

A) The Bible suggests the Earth is 6,000 years old, so it must be true.
B ) The Bible categorically states the Sabbath is holy and anyone working on that day must be put to death. This must also be true as it is the divine word of God.

You ignore and completely dimiss B ) ("nobody cares anymore"), yet hold onto A) as truth.

If your reasoning for creation is solely the infallibility of the Bible, by definition that means the Bible is infalliable, and every word, every command, is inalienably absolute.

Anyone?

edit: B ) makes a sunglasses smiley, so I added a space :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said that the bible is the proof, I only said that is what I believe.

The "nobody cares anymore" part doesn't mean that I don't care, quite the opposite, really. As for being put to death for working on the sabbath, the bible doesn't exactly say that, it's just the interpretation of some Rabbis.
 
Blah said:
As for being put to death for working on the sabbath, the bible doesn't exactly say that, it's just the interpretation of some Rabbis.
Exo 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

This includes: Cooking food on sabbath (Exo 16:25), seek out food in any way on the Sabbath (Exo 16:26), leave home on the Sabbath Exo(16:29), making a fire on the Sabbath (Exo 35:3).

The punishment for breaking these laws was stoning to death, as ordered by GOD in Numbers 15:32-36 and Exodus 31:14 and Exodus 35:2.

Numbers 15:32-36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."

It's pretty damn clear. Apparently you don't know your own holy book too well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
daclassicgamingmaster said:
I really know very little about the Bible itself, but perhaps as a Christian he knows more of the New Testement than the Old? Many Chrisitians only bother to read the New.
Some charlatans try to use that cop-out -- but then they go on to claim that God created the world in 6 days, Adam & Eve, etc. Well, that is all in the OLD Testament. And it is ALL "God's word". You can't cherry pick the bits that match your own views and use the Bible to support it, but conveniently ignore the rest that isn't quite as pleasant for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oops, heh I haven't read in numbers for quite a while.

Anyway, this whole discussion is stupid, thank you and good night.
 
daclassicgamingmaster said:
Ron paul clearly has no chance at winning, so that's all...
Even mainstream Republicans (including Fox News) are trying to "disappear" him. His severely anti-Iraq stance scares the bejeezus out of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to the Christian dogma you only have to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour to go to heaven.

By this logic:
An athiest who is good and follows all of the same commandments (just because it is the right thing to do) will go straight to hell forever after death.

A Christian who is a total asshole but accepts and worships God and claims to be sorry for his sins once a week will be admitted to heaven.

I guess this means that worship of God is actually more important than being a good person.

That makes sense how?

Also:
Ron Paul is also a *racist*. That fits in to his LIBERTARIANISM, he is not a Republican (that is why they don't like him), he is a Libertarian but knew he really had no chance as one. Libertarianism is ok for a small community of rich white men. For everyone else it is a disaster. He is a nut job and racist and I am glad he has no chance of winning.
 
DaveC said:
Ron Paul is also a *racist*. That fits in to his LIBERTARIANISM, he is not a Republican (that is why they don't like him), he is a Libertarian but knew he really had no chance as one. Libertarianism is ok for a small community of rich white men. For everyone else it is a disaster. He is a nut job and racist and I am glad he has no chance of winning.
Libertarianism has nothing in common with racism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top