Ron Paul

[Guest Steve Cook]

You miss my point. De facto, those events that occurred x thousand or million or billion years ago have no current witnesses and thus any evidence is open to interpretation. Much as Newton interpreted and Einstein re-interpreted the evidence. That is how science progresses.

Are you suggesting that unless you are able to directly, sensorially experience a phenomena it cannot, in principle, be researched and understood?

If so, there is no logical reason why you should single out temporally inaccessable phenomena. Logically, you would have to include spatially inaccessible phenomena also.

So, I would guess that rules out all of cosmology and much of molecular science for starters.

I could go on.

Or do you just like to include those places where your "god" can still hide?

Edited November 29, 2008 by Steve Cook

[dirtyrottenscoundrel]

Firstly, religion is not a theory. Do I really need to provide you with the technical explanation of why this is the case? If I do, then you are lying about working in a scientific field. Either that or you are incompetent when it comes to basic scientific practices in which case you need to consider changing professions.

Secondly, you have quite simply not seen science and religion ripped equally to shreds. This is nonsense by any definition and you are either making it up because it suits your pre-determined prejudices or, again, you are scientifically incompetent.

You can, of course, dismiss science from a religious standpoint. But, by definition, this will be an irrational and non-falsifiable dismissal. Science can very easily show the inconsistencies in religious stories. It also happens to be able to substantiate such accusations of inconsistencies with logic and empirical evidence.

In any event, it hardly takes a scientific training to show such inconsistencies. Merely a rational mind.

Yes, can you please provide a logically deductive argument as to why religions do not involve theories? Also, you mention rationality. Could you please define what rationality is, and how it is possible to prove or measure rationality, and how belief in the rational/scientific method can overcome phenomenological constraints? Thanks.

Edited November 29, 2008 by dirtyrottenscoundrel

[Guest Steve Cook]

Yes, can you please provide a logically deductive argument as to why religions do not involve theories? Also, you mention rationality. Could you please define what rationality is, and how it is possible to prove or measure rationality, and how belief in the rational/scientific method can overcome phenomenological constraints? Thanks.

A theory is something that seeks to to explain emphirical observations falsifiably. By this is meant that such theories must be testable. If, after constant testing, they have not been proved to be false, then one's confidence in their validity grows. However, one's confidence can never be infinite in scope since this would require an infinite number of test. Nontheless, the more tests that are applied without falsifying the theory, the closer to infinite confidence one gets.

Religions seek to fit observations to beliefs rather than the other way around. Furthermore, these beliefs are not falsifiable. As such their validity is untestable. Thus, religious beliefs are not theories.

Define "phenomenological constraints"

Edited November 29, 2008 by Steve Cook

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/video/1833

Mike

the video doesnt appear on the link

is it just me or has Gordon Brown censored it

[Minos]

Hear, hear.

I think it is a very topsy-turvy world where one is assumed to be an illiterate, non-functional, intellectual deficient because one believes in intelligent design and/or creation, especially when those who make the dismissals can barely string a sentence together let alone spell correctly.

If it is intelligent design, why are there so many defects?

[Guest Steve Cook]

If it is intelligent design, why are there so many defects?

[endgame]

Evolutionary theory, far from being riddled with holes, is expremely powerful in its predictive capacity precisely because it provides such a comprehensive explanation of how life originated and changes over time.

Religious stories are so riddled with holes and inconsitencies as to make them utterly useless as explanations for our existence, save as a fiction to comfort the old, the weak and the feeble minded.

God created evolution

[Bloo Loo]

If it is intelligent design, why are there so many defects?

a thing without fault would offer no opportunity for improvement. Life would be automatic, we would have no souls or interest, indeed, awareness would be a lifelong curse.

[MOP]

The fact remains, Ron Paul has been on the ball. He warned about this mess for years and he has been proved right. He stands out from the headless chickens that are currently running things and bringing the whole system down. That makes him rational enough in my book. If he wants to be a Christian, then let him be one!

[Minos]

The fact remains, Ron Paul has been on the ball. He warned about this mess for years and he has been proved right. He stands out from the headless chickens that are currently running things and bringing the whole system down. That makes him rational enough in my book. If he wants to be a Christian, then let him be one!

Indeed, none of us are perfect.

[Guest Steve Cook]

The fact remains, Ron Paul has been on the ball. He warned about this mess for years and he has been proved right. He stands out from the headless chickens that are currently running things and bringing the whole system down. That makes him rational enough in my book. If he wants to be a Christian, then let him be one!

Well, I can certainly agree with the general sentiment in this post

[Grime- skint wouldbe ftb]

The only reference I can see to any kind of racism is a single quote:

QUOTE

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Hardly national front material!

As for him being involved in stock scams.. links?

Can't help thinking you are deliberately trying to nit-pick. Character assassination aside, which of his policies did you actually disagree with?

But a stupid generalisation. I have been robbed at knifepoint by "athletic" blacks, and by blacks that were overweight. Not sure what the fleet-of-footness had to do with anything.

[MOP]

Well, I can certainly agree with the general sentiment in this post

Thanks Steve. Shame the US public can't see it.

[BoomBoom]

Thanks Steve. Shame the US public can't see it.

Only amongst the Paulians residing in the Paulosphere was he ever considered a real candidate.

[JOliver]

Evolutionary theory, far from being riddled with holes, is expremely powerful in its predictive capacity precisely because it provides such a comprehensive explanation of how life originated and changes over time.

Religious stories are so riddled with holes and inconsitencies as to make them utterly useless as explanations for our existence, save as a fiction to comfort the old, the weak and the feeble minded.

I'd love to know that, mind linking such explanation?

[huw]

Only amongst the Paulians residing in the Paulosphere was he ever considered a real candidate.

Agreed, everyone else knew that it was going to be BAU.

[BoomBoom]

I'd love to know that, mind linking such explanation?

Are you looking for an abiogenic explanation or one that encompasses the entirety of all existence?

[MOP]

Only amongst the Paulians residing in the Paulosphere was he ever considered a real candidate.

Oh and that's nothing to do with the money men being scared sh*tless of him is it?

Remember:

No backing from the bankers = no chance of winning.

[IMHAL]

Are you looking for an abiogenic explanation or one that encompasses the entirety of all existence?

Thats funny - I was talking to a person who researches genetics and how a species changes from one kind to another kind and he, with his current level of research told me that this link had not yet ben discovered - or do you know different?

HAL

[JOliver]

I work in a scientific field and know plenty of eminent people in that field who go to church every Sunday and do not subscribe to evolution theory. Does this mean i should ignore them and question their achievements and their ability to think in the workplace? I have seen both theories easily ripped to shreds time and time again, so i see no point in fighting over it all. The whole Creation vs Evolution thing gets boring after a while.

Ignore Albert Einstein first:

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

Albert Einstein

[Guest Steve Cook]

I'd love to know that, mind linking such explanation?

erm

Try any basic GCSE textbook covering basic genetic theory and evolutionary theory

Progress up to A level and beyond. The number of titles is almost infinite in number and all are fully referenced to the original research.

Better still why not take a read of the original body of work that provided the framework on which much of evolutionary theory still rests. Namely Darwin's "Origin of Species"

On a more scientifically populist front, try "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. I should say, despite being populist, it is also rigorously referenced to the research on which it is based.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Steve Cook

[huw]

And I restate, why did this newsletter continue to run under his name for decades if it was not representative of his views?

How long has the Bible run, claiming to be representative of God's views?

Seriously, RP's explanation couldn't be much clearer:

For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

Statements that he has disowned, and of which he appears to have been unaware, seem a flimsy foundation on which to build such animosity as you display toward the man ... is there anything else you'd like to tell us about the reasons for your position?

[BoomBoom]

Thats funny - I was talking to a person who researches genetics and how a species changes from one kind to another kind and he, with his current level of research told me that this link had not yet ben discovered - or do you know different?

HAL

Natural selection of random genetic variations.

[BoomBoom]

Ignore Albert Einstein first:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

Or try reading more of what he actually said. He believed in God of sorts, but one that was not involved with human affairs, maybe even unaware of our existence, and certainly nothing like the God of Christianity.

[JOliver]

erm

Try any basic GCSE textbook covering basic genetic theory and evolutionary theory

Progress up to A level and beyond. The number of titles is almost infinite in number and all are fully referenced to the original research.

Better still why not take a read of the original body of work that provided the framework on which much of evolutionary theory still rests. Namely Darwin's "Origin of Species"

On a more scientifically populist front, try "the Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Nontheless, despite being populist, it is also rigorously referenced to the research on which it is based.

Sorry none of these (apart from Dawkins, did not read) were convincing enough for me. I can see how lizards or chimps evolved into humans, but I'm still to read a comprehensive argument how lizards (or bacteria, or amoeba, does not matter) appeared in the first place.