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.
No takers, eh?
Pity. I thought I'd win JR a pretty easy $100 donation.
In the twisted thought processes of a brainwashed, public school graduate, who believes in evolution, it only goes to follow.
Kinda doubt it. I'd have to find him to be an interesting person, E-S; someone whose conversation I'd actually seek out.
But... I just don't.
He can stalk me if he wants, I don't mind. I've tolerated yippy dogs before.
Blessings to you both -- and thanks!
****Crickets, crickets*******
Still waiting for an explanation......
Do you mean that no one can defeat the post-modern secularist agenda?
If so, then the ordered world as you and I experience/know it will eventually cease to exist, and probably sooner rather than later....
The result would be a world in which I, a human being, could never feel at home as a "citizen"....
//But God is not in time. So how can man “measure” Him?//
God is not in time or space or matter or energy or physics or eternity but all of these things and more in fact everything comes from him.
Entire creation and all universes from ever past and ever more is held up by his will only.
As Bobby Brown used to say,”That’s my prerogative”
I would not presume to try to explain it.
But science is science, and it is not atheistic, and it does not make reference to God in any of its equations or to explain causation.
Moreover if not mentioning God is atheistic, whose God should be mentioned?
CC already said he was for Mormonism being taught in Utah and Islam being taught in Muslim majority areas of Michigan, do you support the same under the idea that to not mention God is to be atheistic?
Do you think teaching religious beliefs in public school is Constitutional?
Maybe a little scientific thinking would do you some good.
Correlation is not causation.
The decline in academic rigor is caused by socialist public schools, not the few hours at most that they may spend on evolution as a scientific subject in public high schools.
And are you awaiting yet another explanation about chromosomes? Should I find the threads where I have explained it to you before, or do you prefer to continue in your ignorance that chromosome number difference is somehow a barrier to speciation? Is the fact that you still do not understand this indicative of your inability to learn, or do your like pretending that it is a problem because it sounds like it might actually be based upon science and you just hate to lose it as an argument, no matter how incorrect it might be?
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
FYI, I respect YECs -- but not the flawed logic that causes them to discard and/or denigrate the voluminous evidence with which our Creator surrounds us. Furthermore, I do not respect the aggressive proselytization of the YEC fallacy that once was vigorously pursued in the main forum by the one you cited as authoritative.
How many galaxies could Moses see?
Nope, wrong again. Assuming naturalism is a philosophy.
"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"
Too much fantasy in your life, I think. Deep Space 9 is a TV show, not a scientific paper. No scientific paper can be published which appeals to a supernatural creator for the origin of life. A 'natural' creator only pushes the problem of the origin of life off of the earth and out into deep-space 'somewhere', making it even more unobservable. Think outside of the naturalism box, outside.
"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."
A natural explanation for P can never be refuted. I already explained that P is often refuted because of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, it is always a natural explanation because of the philosophy of naturalism. I see that you still have not understood how those two concepts work together to deceive.
And actually, the geocentric model was never refuted. It is still valid under GR. Popularity votes do not a refutation make. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between science and opinion very well.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
This position assumes that reality doesn't exist unless it is supported by a scientific theory. Even 3rd graders know that isn't true.
Why not? Public schools have a long history in this country, with even Thomas Jefferson being a proponent. The Land Ordinance of 1785 specified one acre for a public school in each township, and about half of the founding states had public education in their constitutions.
Education being best managed locally, our problems began when the states started exerting more control over districts and combining them for easier top-down management. Then the federal government got involved, making things even worse.
I started school in 1942 and watched the transformation, Schools started to consolidate in my area in 43,44, but the big change came about as community schools were closed and moved to the bigger and better facilities.
My school had 3 classrooms one Principal(War Vet) his wife and one other teacher. Principals were always classroom teachers in the smaller schools.
Standards for Math and Science began to drop down in early 50's, but the ultimate destruction came under Carter. Pl 94142 and then the Federal Department of Education, finished the job.
Schools in Middle America were not dominated by Marxist, anti Christian zealots as they are today.
There's another problem. Principals used to be experienced teachers. Now they are people who may have degrees in education and experience administering education, but who have never actually taught a child.
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.