Posted on 06/29/2010 4:21:08 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Rand Paul Won’t Say How Old the Earth Is
Charles Johnson
The Lizard Annex 6-28-2010
From PageOneKentucky.com, here’s a video of GOP candidate Rand Paul addressing a convention of Christian homeschoolers, and dodging a question about the age of the Earth.
The questions asked by the homeschoolers in the video: 1) are you a Christian, 2) how old is the Earth, and 3) will you let the UN take our children. Yep, really. And these are the teachers asking these questions. They’re raising a generation of kids who are ignorant anti-science fanatics, afraid that the United Nations is going to come and kidnap them. Good grief.
Did he dodge the question because he’s a creationist and he knows that he shouldn’t reveal it for political reasons, or because he’s not a creationist and he knows he shouldn’t reveal it for political reasons? Either way, this is very sleazy behavior.
My opinion: I think he probably is a creationist, just like his father Ron Paul, because his world view matches the creationist world view in every respect.
You do.
My kids figured out early on to give back to the teachers what they want to hear, not what they really believe.
Of course. Parents should be free to decide what sort of education their children receive.
That's Capitalism.
And as I said: why don't you just support returning to Creationist Parents the $10,000 per-child, per-year which is currently extorted from them for the teaching of Evolutionism -- and prepare to marvel at the sudden, massive demand which will erupt for scientist-educators from the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and the many other Creation Science foundations.
Of course, many Evolutionists will very quickly be out of a job, without Government Subsidies for the teaching of Child-Abuse Evolutionism. We Parents will not support Child Abusers with our purchasing dollars, for ANY amount of alleged post-graduation "payoff", given the Economic Choice.
ToE, whatever the heck this seems to be, has a basis in science. Scientific method. It has become to some a philosophy. To me, a scientist, it is not a philosophy but a way of explaining nature as seen around us. Using observation and hypothesis testing as a basis.
We’re probably thinking of two different ideas....
The author has strong reason to believe that Rand Paul is a Creationist, and he hates that, because he hates Creationists.
You mean as scientific as *Some how all this chemical soup came together and started life, inanimate substances assembling into sentient life.*
And then, with not precedent to support it, we're assuming that great changes in the numbers of chromosomes, which are usually deleterious, weren't and many life forms evolved all on their own into the variety of life we see on the planet today.
If you're going to state that creationism doesn't produce anything of value, then to be consistent, you're going to need to throw out all the scientific groundwork laid by all the scientists who lived BEFORE Darwin, AND the scientific research done by his peers who disagreed with him.
By your own standard, they produced nothing of value.
'Science-based' means nothing. ID and Special Creation are just as 'science-based' as evolution. The only real difference is the opposing philosophies behind them.
You're misrepresenting the issue to avoid admitting that evolution is the philosophy of naturalism supported by the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Same.
My main thesis is your arrogance of your belief. That can easily and often already is a stumbling block.
That's what I tell my kids. Go ahead and give the answer the teacher wants for the test. That doesn't mean it's true or that you have to accept it as being true.
I explain that, back in my day, we 3rd-graders would point out how So America fit into the shape of Africa as though the two had once been joined. "Oh no, pooh, pooh.", the teacher said. "That's just a coincidence. Science says that didn't happen."
Funny how 3rd-graders turned out to be right and 'science' was wrong. LOL!
That's not scientific at all. That statement violates Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis -- and, of course, in keeping with that Scientific Law, no example of random Abiogenesis of self-replicating Life has ever been observed in any laboratory, anywhere. There's just zero laboratory support for that Evolutionist Myth, anywhere in the world, any time in history. Children should not be taught silly Evolutionist fantasies which violate known Scientific Law -- that's just Child Abuse, IMHO.
But, you knew that already. :-)
What a joke. Homeschooled kids are the only ones capable of thinking out of the box. Public school kids are brainwashed and forced to conform. They don't know how to think originally because they aren't allowed to and aren't encouraged to.
Offense might be taken, but none is intended.
Sometimes taking offense is the only response that 'feels rational'. ;-)
The Christian schools here are public school lite and not nearly as cheap.
If you can get that kind of education for that kind of price, I’d go for it as well.
Imageo Goo instead of Imageo Dei.
Yes, that difference in assumption is going to have huge worldview implications.
ToE has been used by naturalists to attack Christianity. That is most assuredly correct. But the science behind what ToE has morphed into today is not a philosophy. It's based on the scientific method. Hypothesis, Observation.Testing, Conclusion. And it, through many hiccups and sideroads, has become the dominant, most rational for the data, explanation based on experiment (not faith) out there today. That's what good science does. It preens out the crap over time and only the ideas that stand the test of time and repeated questioning remain. See Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Equations...
That was the NON-scholarship price, by the way.
If every government school shut down, suddenly petroleum exploration companies and biotechnology companies will start hiring creationists instead of scientists?
Delusional.
I do support shutting down public education. Problem with reading comprehension?
The post graduation “payoff” is the Free Market finding a value for trained scientists that they have not found for creationists.
Why do you suppose there is a Free Market demand for actual scientists, but no similar demand for creation scientists?
Because capitalism, like natural selection, tends to find out what WORKS.
Science creates value in terms of discovery and use.
Creationism creates nothing of any value in terms of discovery and use.
So? Did I use those terms? Why don't you challenge those that have used them? Why make it about me when it clearly isn't?
I know from personal experience from whence I talk about arrogance being a stumbling block. One I deal with often.....
Not from what I have seen. My homeschool kids have trouble solving the really crazy, wacky problems. Note my sample size is small, but starting to become statistically significant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.