The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
-41 votes

Are You Anti-Science?

Are you a Creationist? Do you want your kids to grow up with Creationist beliefs?

Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" lays it on the line for parents.

http://youtu.be/gHbYJfwFgOU



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

darwinism

It's obvious to me that Ron Paul is at the leading edge of human evolution. And he has five children so he is definitely winning in the game of natural selection.

Humans in the future will probably look more like Ron Paul and less like Gloria Steinem or Barney Frank. If Wikipedia is anything to go by, Bill Nye appears to be a biological dead end destined for genetic extinction.

As an amateur anthropologist, my observation is that the bipeds that frequent the Daily Paul tend to be highly advanced hominids with superior cognitive abilities and strong survival instincts. Meanwhile, TV watchers, Obama and Romney voters, Keynesians and Raiders fans appear to be several branches lower on the evolutionary tree, somewhere between Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalis.

"I ain't the dying type."

Reader, writer, soldier.

Cyril's picture

+1 I like your style as much as what you mean.

+1 I like your style as much as what you mean.

Oh yes. Ron Paul is definitely a winner, for all of the rationale you pointed out.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

A Professor Of Zoology Speaks "Creationism vs Evolution"...

The Fossil Record Speaks the truth....

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conflict_-_Eng...

Title: 105 - The Genes of Genesis
Author: Walter J. Veith
Description: Darwinism and natural selection as models for the evolution of life are contrasted with origin by design. Biochemical evolution, speciation, and the origin of variety are presented in full multimedia format. This fascinating lecture includes examples of irreducible complexity, discusses the core of genetic problems involved in the evolutionary process, and is presented in simple terms so that even non-scientists can understand the principles involved.

Mr. Nye Represents The Elitist/Atheistic Viewpoint That

Chrisitans are definetly opposed to. Why is teaching kids about the difference between creationism vs.evolution is a bad thing? How could anyone know that there isn't a higher power with conscience and intelligence? Why do I have to believe in gradualistic evolution versus evolution in conjunction with more sudden climate change or catastrophies being the reason for what we see and what animals and life survive to this day? What equation proves there is not an existence with greater knowledge, scale and power that we are not aware of due to the physical and dimensional constraints of the world we live in? Don't buy the Nye elistic, look-down-on Chrisitans BS, he is no more authority on the origins of the universe than an invalid - also Chrisitians can be great engineers and scientists. My advice is to keep the faith and dream big and keep learning. I would love to debate this guy.

Cyril's picture

Science and Faith are orthogonal : why and how so, in two points

1) Science doesn't reject faith NOR does science have to sustain faith.

2) Faith doesn't reject science NOR does faith need to explain science.

"Why so, how so ?" - here are useful hints :

On point 1), learn about the Greatest Virtue of ANY SERIOUS science - Humility about itself, in its senses, speculations, models, predictions, verifications, refinements, and loopbacks :

e.g., why a "Closed World Assumption" vs. "Open World Assumption" [1] ? - what is "Entailment" / the "Modus ponens" [2] ? and for the VERY HARDCORE stuff, the meaning of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems [3]

[1]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_world_assumption
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world_assumption

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems#Discussion_and_implications

On point 2), learn about The Wager - where faith is, at worst, just the matter of bothering to go for one side of it (out of the two possible) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

So, my answer is "no" : I'm certainly not anti-science, and am rather pro-science, indeed, as long as it doesn't interfere with, impair, or violate the morality values provided by my faith.

But then again, when "science" does so (tampering with faith or morality), it usually has a suspicious, active agenda against faith or morality, and just ISN'T ANY SERIOUS SCIENCE ANY LONGER, and becomes as worthless or harmful (and annoying) as ... idiotic SUPERSTITION OR BIGOTRY.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

This is impressive.

You express this so eloquently. If you ever write a book, I would read it.

Yes...and hopefully there

Yes...and hopefully there will come a da when science and faith can coexist in harmony.

I'm anti public education...

...so the point is moot.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

This debate: about ORIGINS, makes America great!!!

...I am "lessgovernment" on this forum linked below, back in the district where I ran for State Representative - for what it's worth, I took on the task of "defending" the "you cannot PROVE evolution, it is a FAITH" position to a guy who called himself "xerxes" until his rudeness got him booted from the public forum.

Me and this guy went back and forth for many weeks; after he was booted, he came back with his Christian bashing under two more names "monroemonkey" and "reason". This thread linked below led to his dismissal.

http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=26690.0

If you're interested in the creation/evolution debate, and find it entertaining to see "lay people" slug it out in written form, this NEXT thread below may also entertain you. I don't have all the answers, but, I am pretty certain conscious and creation revelation reveals there is a Creator - and we better find out what He wants, and do what He says before we each draw our last breath.

http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=26318.0

Majority opinion is not always right; just look at destruction that has been heaped upon our nation by the money-serving, felt-need Christians in the Republican party through REJECTING Ron Paul's faith-derived positions of reverence for a Creator and reason to "do no harm" for 30 years! Our founders wisdom is out the window by ALL "progressives"; and evolution theory is for God-rejecting progressives - I see variations in the "kinds", I do not see one "kind" of animal turning into another "kind" of animal over millions of years just because someone found some bones in the dirt.

We need to teach the 3 R's in public schools, not ORIGINS, because it is purely FAITH-BASED...both theories are RELIGIOUS, evolution however is TAX-supported!

http://postimage.org/image/cjzi9t077/

Why do we have to fight about this on the DP?

*face palm*

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous
http://youtu.be/cjkvC9qr0cc

There's no need to fight.

There's no need to fight. This is a discussion. Positions are either rational or irrational.

BS

You can tell by your headline. It cracks me up separation of church and state but you force people to teach/learn atheistic origins in public school .. where is the freedom there?

There is so much freakin evidence the earth is 6000 years old it is amazing .. Not enough sediment in the ocean, oceans don't contain enough salt, C14 found in diamonds and the list goes on and on.. But the so called "scientists" don't want to mention anything contrary to their presuppostions it is amazing

And for anyone to believe everything in the universe living or non-living evolved from a hydrogen atom (big bang theory) needs thier freakin head examined

Science = big money Go

Science = big money

Go figure.

I often forget that there are

I often forget that there are actually people out there who deny evolution. To me this is like denying that ice is cold. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported. No person who has half a brain would deny microevolution (evolution on the species level). We observe microevolution on a daily basis. Species DO change in response to environmental changes. Look up “soapberry bug beak length” for a good example of microevolution in modern times. Macroevolution is a little trickier and requires the application of not just natural selection, but also gene flow, drift, mutation, etc. I can understand why someone who lacks a scientific background, or has a low IQ, would have a hard time grasping macroevolution, because it is a little more complex (nothing a good book can’t cure). But you people who deny evolution as a whole either lack an understanding of the basic sciences, or are just delusional. I like to think that it is just a misunderstanding of basic science… This is quite evident when you read comments about man evolving from the ape. No one in science (that I know of) has ever claimed that man evolved from monkeys. There is, however, support for the theory that man and ape diverged from a common ancestor. You guys are arguing against scientific principles that are overwhelmingly supported. I would love to learn that I get to see grandma and grandpa again one day, and that I don’t have to worry about death, and that my life has a defined purpose, etc. But these concepts represent a delusional fairy tale.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

Or not.

I know two Ph.D scientists from prestigious universities, and they don't get macroevolution.

I don't know of any

I don't know of any creationist who denies mirco evolution..However, what you cannot find is any shred of credible evidence in support of macro evolution. Where are all the in between species fossils? And therein lies the problem of evolution and why so many people continue to question it.

Also, this is the Daily Paul, named after the good doctor himself. He is one of those who does not believe in evolution, by the way.

Is he delusional?

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

In-between fossils? I took a

In-between fossils? I took a comparative anatomy course a few years ago, and it is my understanding that most transitional forms are present in the fossil record. Eustinopteron, pandricthyes, icheostaga, acanthostega, archaeptaryx, microraptor, tiktaalik, australopithacus africans, the list goes on and on... What missing links are you referring to?

I know I butchered the spelling there. Sorry!

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

The motorcycle "evolved" into a car

yeah i studied the similarities and you can tell a direct relationship evolution in action

I am encouraged that such an intellectual as yourself had to

come to your conclusion through the works and summaries of others and NOT yourself. There is hope for all us low IQ people to differentiate between micro and macro-evolution - yippee!!!

Now tell the truth - you don't believe in God because you hate just yourself or yourself and fellow man?

What is your contribution to advancing science by the way? Looking down on Chrisitians and being disrespectful to them? Hopefully that is not the extent of it.

Why the fuck waste time on what other people believe and just respect that others views will change at different speeds - or not at all - and actually go do something useful with all that superior knowledge and intellect of yours.

Otherwise just go fuck yourself - may as well, your usefulness to society through advancement of science will be nothing to be remembered.

It's obvious that I've hurt

It's obvious that I've hurt your feelings and I apologize. This thread may not be suitable for those who are overly sensitive. I've never stated that there is no God. From a scientific perspective, the question of God's existence cannot be answered. I obviously don't believe in a god the same way that you do, but I don't deny god. AND I don't hate myself or anyone for that matter... I spent 4 years studying evolution, and I think it is a beautiful thing. I get really frustrated when people stomp on something that I am passionate about and base their argument on a single book of relatively unknown origins (genesis), and one which cannot be confirmed. I feel obligated to defend the works of my predecessors. Aside from that, I am a very nice person :)

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

Science intends not to

Science intends not to discredit God. Science is only there to explain how "things work". But how did science become? The answer is God.

That's interesting

Macro is difficult because of the "leaps" that are shown in the fossil record. I understand that within the scientific community there is a debate regarding macro evolution, between "gradualists" and "punctualists." All of course accept evolution, but have disagreements in the details.

"and that my life has a defined purpose, etc. But these concepts represent a delusional fairy tale."

I have to scratch my head at this one. Haven't you found enough purpose in life to justify the time you've taken to make your point on this thread?

I think you're deluding yourself if you believe you that a "defined purpose" is a fairy tale.

The fairy tale is that you exist. If you take atheism to its logical end, you should accept that everything you say and do will ultimately be forgotten. The world you inhabit looks more like a dream. What value do dreams have? Isn't your life, in this Godless universe, a fairy tale?

You’re absolutely right… Good

You’re absolutely right… Good catch. What I was referring to was a “predetermined purpose,” one that was determined before I ever came into existence (a few people have alluded to this concept in this thread). I define and redefine my purpose in life on a daily basis. You lost me with the dream stuff, and I'm not sure about the dispute within the scientific community on macroevolution. But I like to stay informed, so i will look into it. Thanks!

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

Phxarcher87's picture

Yeah I cant believe Dr. Paul

Yeah I cant believe Dr. Paul would believe in a delusional fairy tale, what an idiot. His IQ is probably so low.

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

If asked, Ron Paul would deny

If asked, Ron Paul would deny any claims that 911 was an inside job. He would have you to believe that, despite any contradictory evidence, he accepts the official story surrounding 911. However, there are a few clips floating around youtube where Paul indicates that he sticks to the official story for political reasons, not because of personal convictions. I've always assumed that this is also true in regards to Paul's position on creation. Paul is far too intelligent to believe in special creation. My point is, in the case of Ron Paul, it is actually smart to deny evolution.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

To the contrary,

RP does not lead anyone to believe that he accepts the official 9-11 story. He says that the investigation needs to be re-opened.

Phxarcher87's picture

So your saying Dr. Paul is an

So your saying Dr. Paul is an atheist?

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

I don’t think that Paul would

I don’t think that Paul would personally deny the overwhelmingly supported science, he is a scientist after all. Science deals only with matters which are falsifiable, and testable. The existence of a god can never be proved or disproved, and is therefore non-scientific. I personally do not consider myself an atheist, and until someone presents me with the evidence, I would never deny the existence of a God.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

Phxarcher87's picture

Dr. Paul is a great example

Dr. Paul is a great example of what a christian is. He in my opinion is the poster boy for Christ. He spent a life delivering babies not killing them. He also fights for liberty and truth and loves his neighbor.

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

Dr. Paul is a man of

Dr. Paul is a man of unwavering integrity. There’s no doubt about that. But to suggest that it’s because he gets up every morning and reads the 10 commandments is an insult to his lifetime dedication to self discipline and sound moral judgment. Gandhi was Hindu, how is this possible?

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government