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.
A scientific explanation for the hypothesis of abiogenesis is at least seeking a scientific explanation. That is what scientists do. There well might be a physical process brought to bear when God called for the oceans and the land to bring forth life.
Proposing how life could form by natural means no more removes God as its ultimate creator than proposing how stars could form by the natural means of gravity and nuclear fusion removes God as the creator of that star.
Not the Chromosome thing AGAIN?!?!!?!? I would explain it to you AGAIN, but I know from experience that you are absolutely immune to the actual information and will instead pretend that chromosomal differences is some huge barrier to evolution, which only shows how little you know or understand or CARE to know or understand the subject.
Scientists doing science is not the same as a creationist doing creationism. All the scientists who lived before Darwin produced valuable contributions to science when they proposed physical causes to explain physical phenomena; they did nothing of any value for anybody by proposing supernatural causes to explain physical phenomena.
This is actually the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed; then P is supported. This works if and only if all alternatives to P are proved to be impossible.
The philosophy of naturalism is what forces 'science' to conclude that what is observed happened without cause and for no reason through purely natural methods. Alternatives to P are excluded by definition. This is a philosophical choice, a scientific axiom, not an empirical fact.
Sure. One does not have to believe in the unscientific Myth of random Abiogenesis to perform work in biotechnology or petroleum exploration. John Rockefeller seemed to do fairly well; he bluntly stated, "God gave me money".
Ultimately, Businesses won't hire Evolutionists, if there aren't any to hire because Parents won't purchase the services of Child-Abusing Evolutionist Schools.
Given a Free Market educational system -- Creationists outnumber Evolutionists already and will breed more children and educate them in Creationism; Evolutionists don't number nearly as many, don't breed nearly as many children, and so will lack competitive purchasing power, and so will be bred out of existence.
This is desirable, and all to the good.
You can never prove all alternatives to be impossible. Like trying to prove something can’t be done. Your logic itself is holey. ;)
Science is in no way forced to say there is no cause except natural. Make a testable experiment that involves the supernatural. Do it. And then analyze the results.
If you’re saying the scientific method is a philosophy, not true. It’s just a way to solve problems, guidelines as Jack Sparrow would say.
So, you “scientists” make the assumption of an ordered, discoverable, rule-based universe
and pat yourselves on the back for excluding the concept of a Creator.
Pair?
LOL...the clean beasts went in by sevens and the unclean by pairs.
Every one have its own kind (genus).
Yes, Mr. Johnson apparently can't stand the fact that Rand Paul proceeds from a belief in Imago Dei. Suspects him, probably with very good reason, of being a Creationist.
Oh, my! A Creationist, Homeschooling advocate in the US Senate!!
Woe is us. Please don't throw me in that thar briar patch.
Which is why using the fallacy of affirming the consequent as though it is some empirical standard of truth is a bad idea. Now there is 'holey logic'.
Better to just honestly admit that you hold to a particular philosophical worldview. That would destroy science's credibility in this area, however because it would then be obvious that it is simply a competing yet opposite philosophy. It is only by irrationally clinging to the claim of being 'scientific' that the scientific 'house of cards' stands to the uninformed masses. This is why 'scientists' resist admitting that they hold to a philosophy.
"Science is in no way forced to say there is no cause except natural. Make a testable experiment that involves the supernatural. Do it. And then analyze the results."
Well, that street goes both ways. Show me one example where science is allowed to come to a conclusion that is non-natural. The fact that you can generate irrational statements doesn't support your belief in naturalism.
You're making the very mistake you claim to see in your homeschool students. You're merely repeating one-sided beliefs without recognizing that they apply equally to your own position. Try thinking outside the naturalism box.
"If you’re saying the scientific method is a philosophy, not true. It’s just a way to solve problems, guidelines as Jack Sparrow would say."
You are confusing the philosophy with the fallacy. They are two separate things.
In evolution's case, they combine to generate an incorrect conclusion that has the appearance of being 'scientific'. It's not scientific, it's philosophical.
Same w/ the Big Bang. The philosophy combines with the fallacy to generate an incorrect conclusion that appears 'scientific'. It's not scientific, it's philosophical.
The scientific method is a fallacy. If P, then Q. Q is observed therefore P is supported. This 'works' and the theory remains 'supported' as long as not-Q remains unobserved. Again, this is why 'science' changes all the time. Not-Q is constantly being observed and 'science' constantly changes.
Since the origin of the universe and of life is not observed, but inferred, not-Q can never be observed and P can never be refuted. This is why evolution is, at it's core, a philosophy and not science.
The attack on Rand Paul adequately points out that he must be what we need, or why would they attack?
One rarely sees the wackos getting attacked; I guess that’s cuz only wackos do the attacking.
.
Yes, indeed, the “two of each” is the excepted generality, but there were more of some commanded by God to be included on the ark.
Good to know that before public schools no one believed in evolution.
“Derisive name calling...”
.
That wasn’t Derisive name calling, it was stating the facts as they clearly are.
Its the way that the Apostle Paul did it, and the way that every true Christian will do it.
.
You can believe whatever silly, unscientific Evolutionist fantasies you want. (Shrugs).
Just don't use Creationist monies to mandate the teaching thereof in the Government Schools.
Preferably, we ought to abolish Government Schooling altogether.
Thanks you, E-S.
I'm assuming you mean hypothesize, test,evaluate is a philosophy. I so, I concur. Never thought of it as such. It's just a way to solve problems that deals with what we can observe. And is repeatable. To many disparate researches.
Well, that street goes both ways. Show me one example where science is allowed to come to a conclusion that is non-natural. The fact that you can generate irrational statements doesn't support your belief in naturalism.
Ok then, beginning of life. Science just doesn't know how life began. The reasons are varied. The hypotheses are many. No one theory exists. And a creator is one such hypothesis. But the key to a scientific explanation is testability. And a Creator, if we could look at many different worlds with life, has the possibility for testability. A variant of this was a Deep Space 9 episode I think
And P can be refuted. Look at early ideas for origin of universe.From Earth centered to Heliocentric to Galaxycentric to Universe itself. P is often rejected due to data and predictions based on P.
Have you ever done real science???? Seriously.
“If Rand Paul is a YEC, then I don’t want him on my school board.”
.
And that is exactly why nobody in their right mind would have you on their school board! :o)
(but we will be glad to keep you here as a freeper)
.
I'd say the abolition of Government Schooling is a pretty good thought. I certainly like thinking about it.
Howzabout you -- Abolish Government Schooling, and return the money to the Parents to select the School of their choice. Are you For, or Against?
” He was even frequently skeptical of the existence and nature of God.”
.
That is an absolute falsehood!
.
Point is that most simply accept what they learned in Sunday School as gospel truth and never really read the book themselves so no wonder some people think Moses took only pairs of animals onto the ark.
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.