PDA

View Full Version : WOW: Ron Paul pulls a Huckabee


irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 02:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

At about 2:40


Color me shocked. It comes from a doctor and a man of the science realm.

That is, I'm not surprised to hear it coming from a minister. I am surprised to hear it coming from a man of science; a DOCTOR.

So there are a couple things here. First, is that I find it increasingly difficult to digest the fact that we are in the 21st century and we cannot find an elect(able/ed) official who sides with SCIENCE. Or, for that matter, can understand the nomenclature; specifically "theory".

Now, I know that I will not find a candidate that is ideal. Non-believers are not electable (sad as that is). So, I must find the candidate that most aligns with me on most of the other areas. So while Paul loses some ground with me, he stills seems to be up there. Unfortunately, Kuicinich doesn't look to stand a chance.

Anyway, I must point out a comment on reddit.com that explains my thoughts on both Paul's comments and Huckabee's. And it explains my thought better than I can.





He basically says that it's a scientific matter, and it's not up to the politicians to discuss it.

That's not what I heard. What I heard him say was:

a) "I thought it was a very inappropriate question... for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter."

Asking whether a presidential candidate accepts evolution is not like giving them a pop quiz in organic chemistry. It's a test to see whether their public decisionmaking skills are compromised by the strength of their religious beliefs.

Evolution is not scientifically controversial at all, and it's not even necessarily religiously controversial. The Bible is filled with parables and metaphors, and there is absolutely no reason not to see the Genesis story as one, as a metaphorical description of the creation of the universe and humanity. A candidate who cannot accommodate his religious views with universally accepted science is dangerous for the public to put their trust in, and that's why asking if they believe in evolution is relevant.

b) "It's a theory -- the theory of evolution -- and I don't accept it."

Of course, evolution isn't a theory in the layperson's usage of the word, the way Ron Paul means it, as a sort of hopeful guess. Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity. I don't need to fight this particular battle again tonight, but I will note that the "just a theory" defense is among the lamest possible, and really ill befits a doctor.

c) "I think it's a theological discussion..."

If you asked someone, "Why do objects fall down," and they said, "I think that's a theological discussion," you'd back away slowly. The truth of evolution is not a matter decided by theological discussion, but by science.

I think the best answer religious anti-evolutionists can give when asked this question is to tell the truth:

"I know that evolution is a scientific fact, but I also have religious beliefs that say there is more in the world and its history than science can ever know. I choose my religious beliefs as a source of truth over science in this matter."

The fact that so many antievolutionists can't acknowledge this indicates an amount of self-deceit that is unhealthy and unworthy of the public trust.

alnorth
12-17-2007, 02:41 AM
*shrug* I understand that politicians have to say certain things to be elected, and he may even believe it for all I know. The president doesnt have a whole lot of influence over the progress of science and technology. As long as they dont bar evolution or insist on teaching their creationist myth in public schools, I dont care.

Taco John
12-17-2007, 03:23 AM
I've tried to care about this whole evolution vs. creationism discussion,
but in the end I get bored and want to talk about things that actually
matter.

Taco John
12-17-2007, 03:24 AM
Also, just to point something out:

Evolution is not considered scientific "fact."

It's still "The Theory" of Evolution.

Ultra Peanut
12-17-2007, 03:27 AM
Eh, just because he's DELIVERED FOUR THOUSAND GILDED BABIES FROM GOLDEN VAGINAS doesn't mean he's well-versed in other areas of science.

Besides, this is the same guy who thinks there's a real War on Christmas going on.* Is this really a shock?

*Without even getting into the rest of his insane positions.

Besides, it's a theory -- the theory of gravity -- and I don't accept it.

Ultra Peanut
12-17-2007, 03:28 AM
Also, just to point something out:

Evolution is not considered scientific "fact."

It's still "The Theory" of Evolution.You ****ing numbskull.

I actually yelled that at my monitor, purely on instinct.

chagrin
12-17-2007, 08:03 AM
I've tried to care about this whole evolution vs. creationism discussion,
but in the end I get bored and want to talk about things that actually
matter.

the flip flopping continues, hilarious

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 08:21 AM
Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity.
Isn't it the LAW of gravity?

Silock
12-17-2007, 08:44 AM
That's not what I heard. What I heard him say was:

a) "I thought it was a very inappropriate question... for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter."

Asking whether a presidential candidate accepts evolution is not like giving them a pop quiz in organic chemistry. It's a test to see whether their public decisionmaking skills are compromised by the strength of their religious beliefs.

Evolution is not scientifically controversial at all, and it's not even necessarily religiously controversial. The Bible is filled with parables and metaphors, and there is absolutely no reason not to see the Genesis story as one, as a metaphorical description of the creation of the universe and humanity. A candidate who cannot accommodate his religious views with universally accepted science is dangerous for the public to put their trust in, and that's why asking if they believe in evolution is relevant.

Except it's not quite that black and white. The original poster was right -- it's not like organic chemistry. We are all influenced by our opinions, whether they come from religion or from somewhere else. Every politician has them and has had them. I don't agree with people that don't believe in evolution, but I know one thing: Paul won't try to force his belief about it on anyone else, and that's good enough for me.

b) "It's a theory -- the theory of evolution -- and I don't accept it."

Of course, evolution isn't a theory in the layperson's usage of the word, the way Ron Paul means it, as a sort of hopeful guess. Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity. I don't need to fight this particular battle again tonight, but I will note that the "just a theory" defense is among the lamest possible, and really ill befits a doctor.

Except there are many holes in the theory of evolution, which is why it's still a theory. There are certain aspects of evolution that are observable and able to be confirmed. There are certain aspects of the theory of evolution that remain firmly in the realm of guessing, because we've never seen those things happen anywhere in the world or in a lab -- even though we're pretty sure they happened.

c) "I think it's a theological discussion..."

If you asked someone, "Why do objects fall down," and they said, "I think that's a theological discussion," you'd back away slowly. The truth of evolution is not a matter decided by theological discussion, but by science.

I think the best answer religious anti-evolutionists can give when asked this question is to tell the truth:

"I know that evolution is a scientific fact, but I also have religious beliefs that say there is more in the world and its history than science can ever know. I choose my religious beliefs as a source of truth over science in this matter."

Paul didn't say that. He said that he doesn't really know either way, and it's not something that should influence an election.

Silock
12-17-2007, 08:46 AM
Also, just to point something out:

Evolution is not considered scientific "fact."

It's still "The Theory" of Evolution.

Well, I don't think he's disagreeing with the mechanics of evolution, but whether or not life arose purely by chance. I think that's what a LOT of people mean when they talk about "evolution" but it falls under that umbrella. If you listen to what he said, he was talking about the origins of life, and not the whole coming from monkeys bit.

Jenson71
12-17-2007, 09:14 AM
Eh, just because he's DELIVERED FOUR THOUSAND GILDED BABIES FROM GOLDEN VAGINAS doesn't mean he's well-versed in other areas of science.

Agreed. Calling Dr. Paul a man of science is wrong. And so is his position on evolution. A person who doesn't think evolution is real - is fact - is just showing their ignorance.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-17-2007, 09:15 AM
Devolution>Evolution.

Iowanian
12-17-2007, 09:24 AM
Of ALL the issues a president must deal with on a day to day basis, of All the important items he'll be charged to deal with and problems to fix, that you give a shit about this.

Why spend so much time being outraged, shocked, disparraged by something in which you don't believe?

The fact that you're shouting the loudest, doesn't make you right. It also doesn't discredit the belief system of millions of people who see things differently.


maybe you should concern yourself with finance, budget, taxes, welfare, national defense, future military strategies, the supreme court justices of the future, education, health.........you know....shit that actually matters.


I think its quite possible to believe in BOTH creation and evolution. I don't believe I came from a monkey, but I do realize things have evolved and constantly change. I think evolution is merely a tool of my maker....an instruement to implement his plan.

SNR
12-17-2007, 09:27 AM
It's kind of depressing to me, sure. I do know that Paul won't force his belief onto others though. In the grand scheme of Republicans releasing their statements of faith, Paul was rather non-boisterous about it. I don't think he really attempted to reach out to Christians in this country by saying "Look at my religious beliefs. Vote for me." because he knows that's what's wrong with politics these days. Hence, the science vs. creationism debate has no place in the federal government, which means it's not important that anyone know how he stands on it.

Look at his stance on drugs and gay marriage. He's fine with both of those things, though he personally does not support them, because those stances are consistant with his beliefs.

I really wouldn't put too much into this irish, because of all the candidates that choose not to believe in evolution, Paul is the candidate that would make it the least noticeable.

Cochise
12-17-2007, 09:29 AM
I wonder if there has been a single day in the past 200+ years where the President's view on this subject made him somehow less fit for office.

Iowanian
12-17-2007, 09:30 AM
You can't reason with a knowitall cochise.

dumbf@ckary knows no bounds.

Cochise
12-17-2007, 09:41 AM
You can't reason with a knowitall cochise.

dumbf@ckary knows no bounds.

Oh my goodness! I'm not a republican and these republicans don't agree with me? HOW DARE THEY!

We are getting invaded by KILLER_jayhawks here lately. The place is becoming toxic

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 09:51 AM
The president doesnt have a whole lot of influence over the progress of science and technology.

That's correct. The president's role is actually very limited under the Constitution. Since Paul honors the Constitution more than any other candidate this is a mountain out of a molehill.

As long as they dont bar evolution or insist on teaching their creationist myth in public schools, I dont care.
Since Paul is a Federalist, who believes in decentralization this will not occur...he will leave education to the states where it belongs. Paul doesn't even think there should be a Dept of Education. Paul believes other people's children, including religious folks, should be educated according to the values of the parents until the child reaches adulthood.

There is nothing to fear with someone's belief in evolution if they don't feel the Federal govt should regulate education or much else. The one to worry about is Huckleberry Hound. These are the KEY differences between the two men.

Nothing to worry about...move on.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 09:56 AM
Look at his stance on drugs and gay marriage. He's fine with both of those things, though he personally does not support them, because those stances are consistant with his beliefs.

If you mean his beliefs regarding governance perhaps...but I doubt he believes in those things personally. Paul may not believe in evolution personally, but his philosophy of governance would not allow him to force this on others. He may just not fund certain things though. Even a real libertarian should be fine with that. It's the big govt types that would have an issue with it.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 10:04 AM
Irish, I don't think you understand libertarianism. A libertarian can be very religious, as much as those on the RR. They can be very conservative culturally too. They are not necessarily libertines. It's their philosophy on governing and govt control that makes them different from someone like a Huckabee.

Don't forge there's left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism...Paul is right libertarian: conservative culturally for themselves and/or allowing local areas to decide.

Ultra Peanut
12-17-2007, 10:06 AM
Look at his stance on drugs and gay marriage. He's fine with both of those things, though he personally does not support them, because those stances are consistant with his beliefs.Shrilly shrieking STATES' RIGHTS to justify your homophobia is hardly progressive.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 10:08 AM
Shrilly shrieking STATES' RIGHTS to justify your homophobia is hardly progressive.
Increasing centralized power isn't either. That's what all govts did throughout history until the American experiment in liberty though limited govt. Increase govt power for your wishes, then when someone gets in office later they can use that same power in a way you don't like. The only solution is not prevent it.

Ultra Peanut
12-17-2007, 10:13 AM
Increasting centralized power isn't either. That's what all govts did throughout history until the American experiment in liberty.Yeah, protecting certain individual liberties at a federal level is totally going to oppress everyone.

Of course, I'm not surprised that the DOMA is fine by supporters of the guy who sponsored the We the People Act.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 10:34 AM
Yeah, protecting certain individual liberties at a federal level is totally going to oppress everyone.
Depends on what it is. The question is also who is oppressing who? You want to use the power of the central state to coerce others accept every cultural trend or fad by placing them into the public arena even when it's private behavior. The Constitution does not grant that. Those powers belong to the states. Plus, it leads to more contention culturally.

Freedom for you in a personal intimate and private matter means freedom for others.

patteeu
12-17-2007, 10:43 AM
Of all the things on which to base a belief that Ron Paul would not be a good POTUS, this is pretty insignificant, IMO.

OTOH, if you find his theory on this subject suspect, why would you have complete faith in his completely unproven theory of blowback reduction as foreign policy?

banyon
12-17-2007, 11:00 AM
You want to use the power of the central state to coerce others accept every cultural trend or fad by placing them into the public arena even when it's private behavior. .

Yeah! We want government to make it a crime for people not to wear Crocs. :rolleyes:

http://kampera.up.seesaa.net/image/crocs_mammoth.jpg

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 11:12 AM
Yeah! We want government to make it a crime for people not to wear Crocs. :rolleyes:

http://kampera.up.seesaa.net/image/crocs_mammoth.jpg
Utterly unpossible. ;)

http://baltimore.injuryboard.com/crocs-can-be-dangerous.php

Cochise
12-17-2007, 11:38 AM
On second thought, the government might need to protect the losers of life's fashion lottery.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 11:56 AM
Of all the things on which to base a belief that Ron Paul would not be a good POTUS, this is pretty insignificant, IMO.

OTOH, if you find his theory on this subject suspect, why would you have complete faith in his completely unproven theory of blowback reduction as foreign policy?

I support blowback for a simple fact: empathy. If the US was doing what they are in other countries and I am a member of those counties, I might get enough conviction to attack back.

You'd hate if others occupied or set up military bases HERE.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 11:57 AM
Agreed. Calling Dr. Paul a man of science is wrong. And so is his position on evolution. A person who doesn't think evolution is real - is fact - is just showing their ignorance.

I tried to say in the OP that I didn't think it would do much. HOWEVER, I guess I didn't get across that it's more the fact that - and it's been proven time and time again by numerous people in this thread - that people don't understand the terminology. THEORY, in the scientific world, is different than a "guess" or whatever it is people want to call it now.

That worries me more.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 11:59 AM
I wonder if there has been a single day in the past 200+ years where the President's view on this subject made him somehow less fit for office.

This is a fair point and it's a point that I tried to address in the OP. It's not the TOP category in my voting outlook.

Having said that, it has to be addressed AT SOME POINT. If we got to the "law" (since no one gets the terminology) of evolution, and people still stopped believing in it, would you say it's a valid question? Would you say we'd need to address it?

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Of ALL the issues a president must deal with on a day to day basis, of All the important items he'll be charged to deal with and problems to fix, that you give a shit about this.

You obviously fail to look at the big picture. If this is one area where religion rules over science and education, then where else? Same goes for Huck.

Why spend so much time being outraged, shocked, disparraged by something in which you don't believe?

Not really sure how this applies in this case. But on the broader spectrum, it's because the BELIEVERS inject their BELIEFS into everyday life.

The fact that you're shouting the loudest, doesn't make you right. It also doesn't discredit the belief system of millions of people who see things differently.

ROFL. You're absolutely right in the first sentence and same goes for you. But then you make almost the same mistake in the second. Just because millions of people see things differently doesn't mean they are right. Millions and millions of people before Christianity believed in religions that was pagan. Did that make them right?


maybe you should concern yourself with finance, budget, taxes, welfare, national defense, future military strategies, the supreme court justices of the future, education, health.........you know....shit that actually matters.

And that's why I said what I said in the OP. Apparently, it wasn't clear enough. That said, it is concerning.


I think its quite possible to believe in BOTH creation and evolution.

Gee, you think? The fact people can't see that is sad in and of itself.


I don't believe I came from a monkey, but I do realize things have evolved and constantly change. I think evolution is merely a tool of my maker....an instruement to implement his plan.

You didn't come directly from a monkey. There were monkeys and then a branch split off due to some development (most likely brain) and there were humans and monkeys. But you didn't descend from a monkey per se.

oldandslow
12-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Isn't it the LAW of gravity?

Yeah, its just that the heliocentric theory has you confused.

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 12:09 PM
This is a fair point and it's a point that I tried to address in the OP. It's not the TOP category in my voting outlook.

Having said that, it has to be addressed AT SOME POINT. If we got to the "law" (since no one gets the terminology) of evolution, and people still stopped believing in it, would you say it's a valid question? Would you say we'd need to address it?
Speaking of not understanding the terminology.
A law is an OBSERVATION that has not been refuted by data collected to date.
A theory is an EXPLANATION that has not been refuted by data collected to date.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:09 PM
It's kind of depressing to me, sure. I do know that Paul won't force his belief onto others though.

And that's why it would never knock him as much as it did Huckabee who's a MINISTER. Talk about theocracy.



In the grand scheme of Republicans releasing their statements of faith, Paul was rather non-boisterous about it. I don't think he really attempted to reach out to Christians in this country by saying "Look at my religious beliefs. Vote for me." because he knows that's what's wrong with politics these days.

I agree with you for the most part. However, not with the finishing clause. I don't think he knows that's what's wrong with politics, but it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

Hence, the science vs. creationism debate has no place in the federal government, which means it's not important that anyone know how he stands on it.

I would contend it does. Reason being: It's education based and it's science based. How can a leader of this country veto or pass legislation that is in either of those two categories without believing in a BASIC tenet of those.

Look at how Kansas is the laughing stock of the world. Look how we play round robin with legislation on curriculum. And when it supports creationism, the universities distance themselves and are close to disregarding the legislation.

It's pretty important and it's gaining ground in importance. Personally, I think it's a sign of the generation gap. I think my generation (college students and below) are going in this direction (it being an issue).


Look at his stance on drugs and gay marriage. He's fine with both of those things, though he personally does not support them, because those stances are consistant with his beliefs.

Fair enough. Though I would consider - and I've heard his reasoning TJ - the yearning to over turn Roe v Wade to be religiously motivated. But that's merely conjecture.


I really wouldn't put too much into this irish, because of all the candidates that choose not to believe in evolution, Paul is the candidate that would make it the least noticeable.

And that's the point I tried to make, but apparently failed to.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:11 PM
Speaking of not understanding the terminology.
A law is an OBSERVATION that has not been refuted by data collected to date.
A theory is an EXPLANATION that has not been refuted by data collected to date.

Partially correct. However, what do you call something that has been both observed in small areas (evolution in the cell) but haven't had enough YEARS to observe it in larger areas (populations).

I would call that pretty much between the two.


And I don't think it's the correct definition.

patteeu
12-17-2007, 12:14 PM
Personally, I'm more concerned when Ron Paul repeatedly pulls a Kucinich.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:14 PM
The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:

* Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

* Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-10/940942724.Sh.r.html

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:14 PM
Personally, I'm more concerned when Ron Paul repeatedly pulls a Kucinich.

What's an example of that?

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 12:20 PM
Partially correct.
Actually, IJH, he's entirely correct
;)

patteeu
12-17-2007, 12:21 PM
What's an example of that?

Calling for retreat from Iraq, for one.

Speaking of which, has Ron Paul's foreign policy and/or his stump speech been updated to fall into line with the nuances in Ayman al Zawahiri's latest video proclamation (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1137942530/bclid1155254697/bctid1346592062)?

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 12:22 PM
;)


Umm, no. :)

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 12:25 PM
Umm, no. :)
Dude, it's practically my original words rearranged.

AND it's a snippet from an article pointing out the fallacy of thinking of laws and theories in a hierarchical sense.

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 12:31 PM
Partially correct. However, what do you call something that has been both observed in small areas (evolution in the cell) but haven't had enough YEARS to observe it in larger areas (populations).

I would call that pretty much between the two.


And I don't think it's the correct definition.


I would say that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are in two different stages of being "proven." I believe we can agree that micro-evolution is an observable and even predictable situation. However, macro-evolution must remain a theory at this time as the empirical data does not exist due to the time spans needed for such observations.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 02:10 PM
I would say that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are in two different stages of being "proven." I believe we can agree that micro-evolution is an observable and even predictable situation. However, macro-evolution must remain a theory at this time as the empirical data does not exist due to the time spans needed for such observations.

But see, they're both THEORIES. That's why people get confused.

God created the world is not the same THEORY as the THEORY of evolution.

EDIT:

Also, is it not an easy jump (whether it's true remains to be seen) that a micro-evolution over time would become a macro-evolution?

I just don't see how one can accept one but not except the other without immediately jumping to "we came from apes", which isn't true in it's own right.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 02:11 PM
Dude, it's practically my original words rearranged.

Not entirely, that's why I said partially correct.


AND it's a snippet from an article pointing out the fallacy of thinking of laws and theories in a hierarchical sense.

Exactly. And that's part of the misconception of the definition of THEORY.

irishjayhawk
12-17-2007, 02:19 PM
Well, I don't think he's disagreeing with the mechanics of evolution, but whether or not life arose purely by chance. I think that's what a LOT of people mean when they talk about "evolution" but it falls under that umbrella. If you listen to what he said, he was talking about the origins of life, and not the whole coming from monkeys bit.

Which, and I think you'd agree, is the BIG BANG not evolution.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. And that's another reason why the candidates who answer in this way show their ignorance.

alnorth
12-17-2007, 06:21 PM
Yeah, its just that the heliocentric theory has you confused.

LOL, I was just about to point this one out when you beat me to it. This "its only a theory" crap has got to be the lamest arguement around, exploiting different meanings of the word.

Apparently we definitely do have this whole gravity thing worked out, but the theory that the earth and planets all revolve around the sun? ehh.... not sure bout that one. We'd better just call that looney idea a "theory".

Anyway, as I and others mentioned before, RP's thoughts on this issue are completely irrelevant.

Silock
12-17-2007, 06:27 PM
Which, and I think you'd agree, is the BIG BANG not evolution.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. And that's another reason why the candidates who answer in this way show their ignorance.

Well . . . kinda. We see amino acids and other essential proteins come about by pure random chance all the time. We've seen them appear in asteroids and meteorites. What we haven't seen, in a lab or in nature, are certain essential life compounds come together by pure random chance to form DNA. Probability says that the Earth hasn't even been around long enough for that to happen, but that doesn't mean it didn't; it just means that something that was already insanely unlikely to happen happened sooner than anyone expected. That's where all the panspermia hypotheses come from. In any case, that's still part of evolution, and not exactly still in the realm of "Big Bang."

Being a doctor, I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Paul doesn't believe in the observable micro-evolution effects, even if he may not agree with certain aspects of macro-evolution.

Silock
12-17-2007, 06:34 PM
LOL, I was just about to point this one out when you beat me to it. This "its only a theory" crap has got to be the lamest arguement around, exploiting different meanings of the word.

Apparently we definitely do have this whole gravity thing worked out, but the theory that the earth and planets all revolve around the sun? ehh.... not sure bout that one. We'd better just call that looney idea a "theory".

Anyway, as I and others mentioned before, RP's thoughts on this issue are completely irrelevant.

Technically, we haven't gotten the whole "gravity" thing worked out. When speeds approach the speed of light or the mass is very, very great, Newton's laws of gravity and motion break down and do not hold true. We must use relativity.

We see the observable effects of what we call gravity, but no one is even sure where it comes from. There's no "graviton" that we know of. Some superstring theorists believe that gravity is simply a form of energy that's leaking into our 3 dimensions from other, smaller and more complex dimensions.

So, Newton's laws work fine here on Earth, but beyond that, they don't work so well. They're able to be used perfectly here on earth, and they are every day in engineering and other fields, but they're hardly the end-all, be-all authority when it comes to gravity and motion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-17-2007, 06:36 PM
Ron Paul is a man of principle who would never say what his constituents liked just to get into office.

alnorth
12-17-2007, 06:37 PM
Technically, we haven't gotten the whole "gravity" thing worked out. When speeds approach the speed of light or the mass is very, very great, Newton's laws of gravity and motion break down and do not hold true. We must use relativity.

We see the observable effects of what we call gravity, but no one is even sure where it comes from. There's no "graviton" that we know of. Some superstring theorists believe that gravity is simply a form of energy that's leaking into our 3 dimensions from other, smaller and more complex dimensions.

Yeah I realize that, one of the most interesting classes I had in college were the advanced Physics courses I took before I decided to switch my major. I was making fun of the folks who use the fact-theory arguement, because most people seem to think that we do know all about gravity.

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 06:45 PM
Not entirely, that's why I said partially correct.




Exactly. And that's part of the misconception of the definition of THEORY.
I'll bite, what part have you deemed me wrong on?
Before you answer, make sure you understand what I've actually said.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-17-2007, 06:46 PM
Yeah I realize that, one of the most interesting classes I had in college were the advanced Physics courses I took before I decided to switch my major. I was making fun of the folks who use the fact-theory arguement, because most people seem to think that we do know all about gravity.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater via gravity simply due to its limitatitions relative to quantum mechanics is really, really f*cking stupid.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 06:47 PM
Before you answer, make sure you understand what I've actually said.
Well now, I would say this is quite practical. :)

clemensol
12-17-2007, 06:56 PM
Isn't it the LAW of gravity?

A large portion of science and math is based on "theories"... things called theories that are now accepted as fact. For example, calculus is based on the fundamental THEORY of calculus not the fundamental law of calculus. It doesn't make it any less of an accepted scientific fact.

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 06:58 PM
A large portion of science and math is based on "theories"... things called theories that are now accepted as fact. For example, calculus is based on the fundamental THEORY of calculus not the fundamental law of calculus. It doesn't make it any less of an accepted scientific fact.
I'll just give you a minute to finish the thread, . . . now are we up to speed?

tiptap
12-17-2007, 07:15 PM
Ok just to give a new line of proof of the fact of evolution and to show Iowanian that he does share a relationship with an ancestor to Man and Monkeys I forgo my Vitamin C shared DNA defect across Man and Monkeys for this.

One often stated failing in linking Apes (technically Chimpanzees) with man is that while Apes have 48 Chromosomes, Man only has 46. This had been somewhat of a quandry with the discovery and study of Chromosomes but with the onset of DNA sequencing of both Man and Chimp we have a necessary prediction from Evolution. TWO OF THE CHIMP CHROMOSOMES HAD TO FUSE, period. Well lo and behold the evidence of the fusing exists on the Human 2nd Chromosome. This follows from it being nearly identical to two Chimp Chromosomes, has two centromeres and finally a remnant misplaced telomere. (The former is involved in mitosis and latter in the end structure of Chromosmes.)

I don't know what kind of proof you need but we are Pan (As in Ape Genus).

tiptap
12-17-2007, 07:17 PM
And I will use this against Paul with my son who was considering Ron Paul's candidacy. It will seal it.

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 07:21 PM
I really do have to say that this thread has been a fun read and all but it was not originally trying to answer whether evolution (macro) is more or less correct than ID or creation. I agree with those posters who point out that this all has very little to nothing to do with how a person is going to act in office. I am much more interested in how they feel about things that directly affect my family and myself. The economy, the GWOT, infrastructure issues, etc. In reviewing these issues, I find myself behind Dr Paul much more than any candidate in my memory.

It is kind of nice to have a candidate I feel like supporting instead of one that I might be able to stand and who is not as bad as the other options.

Silock
12-17-2007, 07:28 PM
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater via gravity simply due to its limitatitions relative to quantum mechanics is really, really f*cking stupid.

Of course. That's exactly why we must keep things in proper perspective, especially when it comes to a particular candidates non-issues.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 07:35 PM
I merely wish to point out that Nostalgia rules the interest in Ron Paul. He is of the early 20th Century Republicanism of isolationism and pure capitalism. It also seeps into his thinking about the world and science. As such on both the economic and scientific grounds he is stuck too much in the insufficient ideas of that era. His rhetoric and focus ring of that time and as such resonate with present verbal inherited arena used in discussions.

It is only a 100 years behind the present needs.

Silock
12-17-2007, 07:39 PM
Right, because the politicians of today clearly have all the right answers.

SNR
12-17-2007, 07:40 PM
I merely wish to point out that Nostalgia rules the interest in Ron Paul. He is of the early 20th Century Republicanism of isolationism and pure capitalism. It also seeps into his thinking about the world and science. As such on both the economic and scientific grounds he is stuck too much in the insufficient ideas of that era. His rhetoric and focus ring of that time and as such resonate with present verbal inherited arena used in discussions.

It is only a 100 years behind the present needs.Woah woah arbitrary assertion woah

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 07:42 PM
I merely wish to point out that Nostalgia rules the interest in Ron Paul. He is of the early 20th Century Republicanism of isolationism and pure capitalism. It also seeps into his thinking about the world and science. As such on both the economic and scientific grounds he is stuck too much in the insufficient ideas of that era. His rhetoric and focus ring of that time and as such resonate with present verbal inherited arena used in discussions.

It is only a 100 years behind the present needs.


Personally I think the politicos of 100 years ago ****ed us all and it is time to go back and try again. We took a wrong turn and we need to return to that crossroads and take the correct path. Continuing down this path will not get us anywhere.

alnorth
12-17-2007, 07:44 PM
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater via gravity simply due to its limitatitions relative to quantum mechanics is really, really f*cking stupid.

I'm assuming you are agreeing with me here, but your tone seems to imply that you didnt bother to read nearly every single post I made in this thread, including reply #1 at the top.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:04 PM
Woah woah arbitrary assertion woah

What is arbitrary? Ron Paul is a stated Libertarian. That aligns him with liberal Republicanism of the early 20th Century. Those ideals don't deal fairly with the rise of industrial and now informational corporations as compared to individual rights. Not because it doesn't herald individual rights but it does so to distract the extent to which choice has been set by an agenda of consumption and coercion for the benefit of too few. Now I don't mean to go the distance and wish to deprive those align with merited enterprise their reward but not to the extent that that profit, that focus, robs the chance of the money, representative of an economy's production, to percolate through the economy with grace and focus. And in a highly evolved economy that will require that fairness pays for all citizens a place at the table if not in the main hall.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 08:14 PM
What is arbitrary? Ron Paul is a stated Libertarian.
Can you quote me where he has ever stated that he is a Libertarian?

Whenever, someone on tv brings up his run on the Libertarian ticket he says he's a Republican who is a Constitutionalist. Then adds that it is a fairly Libertarian document.

Those ideals don't deal fairly with the rise of industrial and now informational corporations as compared to individual rights. Not because it doesn't herald individual rights but it does so to distract the extent to which choice has been set by an agenda of consumption and coercion for the benefit of too few.
This could make a long debate that I don't have time for but this is absolute BS, and pure opinion. Must be based on history written by progressives like Eugene Debs.

Now I don't mean to go the distance and wish to deprive those align with merited enterprise their reward but not to the extent that that profit, that focus, robs the chance of the money, representative of an economy's production, to percolate through the economy with grace and focus. And in a highly evolved economy that will require that fairness pays for all citizens a place at the table if not in the main hall.
Usually when someone claims they don't want to do a certain thing, they are actually do that thing. So what do you recommend? Especially when the word "fair" is subjective.

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 08:19 PM
I agree with those posters who point out that this all has very little to nothing to do with how a person is going to act in office. I am much more interested in how they feel about things that directly affect my family and myself. The economy, the GWOT, infrastructure issues, etc. In reviewing these issues, I find myself behind Dr Paul much more than any candidate in my memory.

It is kind of nice to have a candidate I feel like supporting instead of one that I might be able to stand and who is not as bad as the other options.

It's called unfair discrimination since it has nothing to do with the job, at least how Paul would execute it which is per the Constitution. Bigots aren't only on the right.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:23 PM
Ron paul is a very smart man.
I too am a man of science and dont believe in macro evolution. Its an unproven theory.

I've argued this to death on the coalition and other sites. For me it comes down to cell biology and simple organic chemistry.

the building block of life is DNA, which is formed by codons.
The simplest DNA is thousands of base pairs long. Thus they have to attach to the right nucleotide (C,T,A, or G) and be in the correct chiral form (rotation). If it doesnt it is useless. The likelihood of each nucleotide coming together is 1 in 4, the likelyhood it is in the right chiral form is 1 in 2. Now do that for 1000 pairs. The probability of that alone by simple chance is 8.12 raised to the -904. Lets just say that is nearly impossible. Now think of all that needs to happen just to duplicate it.

DNA is essentially like computer software that is useless with hardware. i.e. DNA would quickly unravel and disintegrate without a nuclear membrane to protect the acidic nucleotides (thus it doesnt leave the nucleolus). It cant unzip without unzipping enzymes, it needs messenger RNA and Transfer RNA to get out of the nucleolus to the cytoplasm where it is read and the appropriate proteins made on ribosomes. All that needs a lipid membrane so that all the contents dont seperate to far away making replication impossible and so that the machinery doesnt disintegrate.

Basically none of this could occur independently. If DNA somehow evolved, it wouldnt last without protection from a nucleolus, and it could never code for anything and be usefull without all the other machinery. Those machinery could not evolve independently because they are useless without the other and because they need to be coded for by DNA (i.e. so the machinery is transfered to another cell).

Look at the organism, and they all have this. For those who argue prions and viruses, I say they arent life. Prions are just protein that alters other protein and makes it tangle up. Viruses dont have their own machinery, they need a host to inject their "software" into so that it is replicated.

I am reminded of my Physical Chem profs demonstration. Imagine a balding (think Curly of the Stooges), old and sometimes distant man. And now imagine him with a freshly obtained samurai sword (his son during WW2) rather threateningly welded above your head. "Don't worry the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that this is in an metastable state and should be as harmless as crumpled rust fillings."

The question of duration is not resolved by the boundaries set by probability and ultimate entropic arrow flow. It is set by the conditions the material immediately finds itself. The success of globular, cellular, Protein and DNA have been won over time and trial driven by billions of years of solar radiant and earthly geothermal energy flow that worked on a set of conditions, that in response to that energy flow, wound about itself an existence that is self replicating from exiting starting materials.

The evidence is the DNA which retains the blueprint that is shared and edited in descent, as animals find themselves in distinct and disparate circumstances. If DNA was simply an alphabet it would not need to show such strong duplication in the genotype to correlate with the phenotype of the organisms.

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 08:26 PM
It's called unfair discrimination since it has nothing to do with the job, at least how Paul would execute it which is per the Constitution. Bigots aren't only on the right.


I wouldn't call it "unfair" since all the other politicos out there pander to the religious voters. I don't think this is a subject that I care one way or the other about with any of the candidates.

At the same time, I am amazed at what people look at when deciding who to vote on. My mother and wife both vote based on abortion beliefs. On opposite sides though. :) My wife will not even consider voting for Paul due to his being pro-life. I have explained that he would not look to make abortions illegal, just get the feds out of the equation. Doesn't matter to her, if he is not pro-choice, she will not vote for him. Period. :shrug:

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:28 PM
Can you quote me where he has ever stated that he is a Libertarian?

Whenever, someone on tv brings up his run on the Libertarian ticket he says he's a Republican who is a Constitutionalist. Then adds that it is a fairly Libertarian document.


This could make a long debate that I don't have time for but this is absolute BS, and pure opinion. Must be based on history written by progressives like Eugene Debs.


Usually when someone claims they don't want to do a certain thing, they are actually do that thing. So what do you recommend? Especially when the word "fair" is subjective.

Progressive Taxes for example. (I pay the second highest tax bracket)

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Progressive Taxes for example. (I pay the second highest tax bracket)


Yep. Income tax, one of the most oppressive things ever foisted on the American public. Hmmm, that came about nearly 100 years ago. :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 08:32 PM
I wouldn't call it "unfair" since all the other politicos out there pander to the religious voters. I don't think this is a subject that I care one way or the other about with any of the candidates.

At the same time, I am amazed at what people look at when deciding who to vote on. My mother and wife both vote based on abortion beliefs. On opposite sides though. :) My wife will not even consider voting for Paul due to his being pro-life. I have explained that he would not look to make abortions illegal, just get the feds out of the equation. Doesn't matter to her, if he is not pro-choice, she will not vote for him. Period. :shrug:

I understand.I used that example, only, because the left uses that against the right regarding private employers hiring people on the basis of race, religion or creed when it has nothing to do with job performance or having any effect on it such as following the Constitution.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:32 PM
I wouldn't call it "unfair" since all the other politicos out there pander to the religious voters. I don't think this is a subject that I care one way or the other about with any of the candidates.

At the same time, I am amazed at what people look at when deciding who to vote on. My mother and wife both vote based on abortion beliefs. On opposite sides though. :) My wife will not even consider voting for Paul due to his being pro-life. I have explained that he would not look to make abortions illegal, just get the feds out of the equation. Doesn't matter to her, if he is not pro-choice, she will not vote for him. Period. :shrug:

How do you see the feds in the question now? Funding for a medical practice? Or do you mean an overturn of Roe as a federal ruling?

BucEyedPea
12-17-2007, 08:33 PM
Progressive Taxes for example. (I pay the second highest tax bracket)
Well, I consider that punishing someone for their merits more than anything. Therefore, I consider it unfair, as well as Marxist.

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 08:37 PM
How do you see the feds in the question now? Funding for a medical practice? Or do you mean an overturn of Roe as a federal ruling?


As with so very, very many things, this should be decided on a state by state basis. So yes, Roe V Wade should be thrown out. (Don't tell my wife I just typed that, the bed is so much warmer than the couch!)

My vision is 50 states that all are a little different than the rest. Basically little countries that are united in this great union for the sake of better defense and international trade options. If the state you are in decides that abortions should be funded by the government, great. If the next state over outlaws abortion completely, great. Move to the one you agree with more. Jobs are not good enough where you would rather live? Start your own or decide which is more important to you, the value of the livelyhood or the rights of an unborn fetus (isn't unborn fetus redundant?).

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:41 PM
Yep. Income tax, one of the most oppressive things ever foisted on the American public. Hmmm, that came about nearly 100 years ago. :hmmm:

Wrong instead it should be represented in investment income as well.

See somehow you think in a system with finite people that redistributions process aren't necessary to facilitate enterprise. Hoarding is the result of pure ownership. Flow of material and money through the society requires that the process be shuffled to give new players a real chance. But you need to have a system, that will need to be modified as the really smart people get good at it, that upends just enough of the winners of the present situation and forces them to win those lost (taxed) assets again so that we gain by their renewed efforts economically.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 08:48 PM
As with so very, very many things, this should be decided on a state by state basis. So yes, Roe V Wade should be thrown out. (Don't tell my wife I just typed that, the bed is so much warmer than the couch!)

My vision is 50 states that all are a little different than the rest. Basically little countries that are united in this great union for the sake of better defense and international trade options. If the state you are in decides that abortions should be funded by the government, great. If the next state over outlaws abortion completely, great. Move to the one you agree with more. Jobs are not good enough where you would rather live? Start your own or decide which is more important to you, the value of the livelyhood or the rights of an unborn fetus (isn't unborn fetus redundant?).

And you wonder at all why your wife is so determine in her resolve on this. 'Give an inch and you'd take a mile. I have a good mind to tell her of just how much you two are at odds about this.

I am very much for reducing the number of abortions. I would do so by increasing funding and access to birth control by requiring all Insurance Programs to fund birth control pills. But this isn't a compromise that is acceptable even though the pill duplicates a women's natural state of either being pregnant or nursing. Well . .

Hydrae
12-17-2007, 08:49 PM
Wrong instead it should be represented in investment income as well.

See somehow you think in a system with finite people that redistributions process aren't necessary to facilitate enterprise. Hoarding is the result of pure ownership. Flow of material and money through the society requires that the process be shuffled to give new players a real chance. But you need to have a system, that will need to be modified as the really smart people get good at it, that upends just enough of the winners of the present situation and forces them to win those lost (taxed) assets again so that we gain by their renewed efforts economically.


Honestly, you lost me on this one.

Maybe my problem is that I have never been in a position to have serious investments and certainly no opportunity to horde diddly squat. I just see my government taking my hard earned money before I receive it so they can give it someone else. I understand the costs of government and that the government does not have money of it's own (simplistically speaking) but I want it out of my back pocket. We ran this country from a century and a half without an illegal (and IMO unconstitutional) income tax and did fine. I believe if we put the onus for most of the governmental functions on a more local level (states rights again), we can run the fed on tarrifs again. The current system has put all of us back into a taxation without representation situation again.

I am about to leave work so will be gone from here until tomorrow probably. Good discussion, I am enjoying talking without the name calling that is so common around here!

tiptap
12-17-2007, 09:23 PM
I was giving you credit for your stated scientific understanding. You stated cellular biology as the basis of your reasoning. I used terms appropriate to most people's biological training. So if I suddenly overstepped on the vocabulary than perhaps it is because your real expertise isn't biological but say engineering or such and you have had enough math to be able to compute factorals and probabilities based upon non interacting, non-factoring entities. That is the premise of what your calculation you so vehemently push as overwhelming in its conclusion against evolution.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 09:35 PM
The statement about phenotype (modern scientific use: body type, genus; christian use: Kind, genus) and genotype (Modern use is DNA sequence) is that if the triad of DNA/RNA was an alphabet than the 'writer' would not be subject to rehashing the same thing in the same order to obtain an animal. Kinds in the christian sense could easily have been orchestrated ad hoc so to show no relationship in the genotype and still reflect a phenotype (body genus animal) that had similarities. On the other hand evolution REQUIRES that genotype and phenotypes have to both show similarities even down to mistakes in DNA (that is how most stealing of computer code is discovered as well as evidence of connection in evolution, in the mistakes copied). And with the sequencing of DNA of lots of different species, when god could have easily let nature declare his handiwork, instead evolution necessary correlation holds up between genotype and phenotype animal after animal up and down the descent tree of life.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 09:56 PM
are you always this wordy?
My bachelors was in biology.
My post graduate degree is in a science field (i shall keep that to myself for anonymity sake).

My calculations on DNA are simple organic chemistry. Look what each nucleotide is made of, what it can pair up with, the rotation. etc. One can calculate what that would be via simple random chance alone.

I'm not trying to push anything. i am just trying to inform. Anyone can look this up for themselves starting with a 6th grade cell biology book. If one just asks where all the components come from one can see macro evolution unravel quickly.

I take my cue from Dobson, you know Lewis Carroll, (read the bottom quote). Each nucleotide cannot pair up with just any other nucleotide. That ignores completely the reverse pairing across the double strand. This is what I take objection to. You wish to treat the sequence as non determine chemically and so completely random. The chemistry is more involved than your calculations even hint at. And therefore the astronomical number you compute is not representative of the system. It is not an argument that I merit.

It is interesting that you interpret microevolution as a protein mistake that somehow influences next generational expression of genotype. There was a recent article in the Scientific American about environmental influences of genetic expression. But the range is limited by the DNA for that generation produced. It does not go so far as to produce new species as that requires a pool of sexually independent genetic organisms whose genetic component differs enough to remove the chance of interbreeding. So I am not sure what you are specifically referring to there.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 10:17 PM
I shortened your quote simply because the rest was repetitive. You say the "writer" would not be subject to rehashing the same thing, but i argue why would they change? Its the old saying,"K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid) and ,'if it aint broke than dont fix it.'

And anyway its not exactly the same. you can only do so much with DNA..i.e it will only code for 64 or so diffrent amino acids which than go on to make tons of diffrent proteins. So the building blocks are the same, big deal! We are all typing with the same english alphabet and keyboard with limited set of keys but look at the diffrent words we can type and even make up "aeghlkadjgl."

you might argue that the code is all in the same in a particular order (plagirism), but even typing this statement if i want to quote you and it to show up correctly i have to use the quote boxes and have the characters in a proper order (yes i know thats a very simplistic argument).

It could just be that DNA is written and coded for in a certain way because of the way its read (from one end to another and not in the middle), a "start" and "stop" around coding triplets, and for the products (amino acids) to come out a certain way.

Thats why macro evolution addresses the "origin of species" but not the "origin of life" Once you have that single cell someone can argue (somewhat unrealistically) that it evolved into all the species of the world, but how that cell came about....evolution and primordial soup cant explain.

Ok so we have moved from a discussion of Macro Evolution, which predicated upon sexual interaction, which you concede to a degree can account for the descent of organisms we see all around us, having established the Eukaryotic Cell, to a discussion of how the cell evolved in the first place. First you are correct about how the hostile conditions at the earths surface as far as sunlight and such. Most scientists look to geothermal and reducing systems as the origins for cellular beginnings. I would suggest you look at chemical clock systems where repeated, cyclical reactions can produce reagent and such and not see the biological systems are very refined such systems. And at each significant step the reactions efficiency allows it to claim resources for itself from the environment.

Silock
12-17-2007, 10:19 PM
I am reminded of my Physical Chem profs demonstration. Imagine a balding (think Curly of the Stooges), old and sometimes distant man. And now imagine him with a freshly obtained samurai sword (his son during WW2) rather threateningly welded above your head. "Don't worry the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that this is in an metastable state and should be as harmless as crumpled rust fillings."

The question of duration is not resolved by the boundaries set by probability and ultimate entropic arrow flow. It is set by the conditions the material immediately finds itself. The success of globular, cellular, Protein and DNA have been won over time and trial driven by billions of years of solar radiant and earthly geothermal energy flow that worked on a set of conditions, that in response to that energy flow, wound about itself an existence that is self replicating from exiting starting materials.

The evidence is the DNA which retains the blueprint that is shared and edited in descent, as animals find themselves in distinct and disparate circumstances. If DNA was simply an alphabet it would not need to show such strong duplication in the genotype to correlate with the phenotype of the organisms.

Wow, that's a lot of big words for something that you could have restated to say "Yeah, well, we really don't know." I'm not expecting you to prove it. I believe it could have happened, contrary to what findthedr said, but I still recognize the fact that we haven't seen anything that shows absolute proof that it did. So, it's still a theory, and it's still a giant unknown as to the exact mechanics. I don't understand how you can blame anyone for being skeptical in this regard.

If there's one certainty in science it's that absolutely nothing is certain. At the beginning of the 20th century, many scientists proclaimed that we were close to knowing everything that there is to know. Whoops.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 10:22 PM
You ask why the writer wouldn't KISS his operation. And the answer is to not confused us that evolution is at work. I didn't ask the writer to redo the protein sequence for a ribosome. But if the writer had chosen a different coding triad for different KINDS (genus) the protein sequencing could have been the same but the coding would have been different and we would know beyond a doubt that evolution was absolutely wrong. Instead you want god to be a tease.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 10:47 PM
We do know about Eukaryotic Evolution. It is in the fossil record. You see the geological sequence of appearance of newer animals that at the top come to resemble animals now alive. It is the DNA which shows in shared Vitamin C defect of the fourth step of production across New and Old World Monkeys , Apes and Man. We inherited (and overcame) the handicap. Or the 2nd Chromosome fusion of two Chimp Chromosomes with remnants of the second centromere and the teleo sequence. The correlation between genotype and phenotype.


But I am too tired to continue this so I am having a glass of wine and going to bed. Goodnight all.

tiptap
12-17-2007, 11:09 PM
if you want a tease than look at dating of "old things." It can be dated via hundreds of diffrent means, such as via carbon dating, radiological isotopes etc. It all varies and gives diffrent ages of things.

simple as this. right now believing in macro evolution requires faith (at least when it comes to the origin of life).

believing in God requires faith too.
but, i dont want to get into theology since that is not my expertise. lets see what science is able or unable to explain....

Carbon dating is tricky to do well. But the ice core from Antartica show clear yearly deposits and can go back 700,000 years. That is order of magnitude greater than 10,000 years by biblical reckoning. The stars distance from earth is pretty fixed. We can parallax out to 400 light years or such. And we get the reference stars of known output and color that we see giving us the energy output of said stars. And using the inverse light law we see the drop in energy from more distant stars with the same spectrum and can determine their distance in 10 of billion of light years. Which if light is a constant or near constant velocity gives us a universe of that age. Radioisotope dating can be fooled by not knowing the mother isotopes amount but the bias is to make the appearance of being younger. That kind of information and helium ash in the sun make the solar system about 5 billion years old.

Then there was Lord Kelvin's pronouncement that the earth could only be at best 150,000 years old because the earth would have cooled down a lot more over 100 of millions of years required by Darwin. Only to add the caveat that this would not be true if there was some still unknown source of heat. And lo and behold Darwin notion won out because Radioactive heat sources met the criteria to meet Kelvin's conditions. Who'd a guessed Darwin over Kelvin and predicted the existence if not the character of new energy source.

alnorth
12-18-2007, 12:22 AM
Wrong instead it should be represented in investment income as well.

See somehow you think in a system with finite people that redistributions process aren't necessary to facilitate enterprise. Hoarding is the result of pure ownership. Flow of material and money through the society requires that the process be shuffled to give new players a real chance. But you need to have a system, that will need to be modified as the really smart people get good at it, that upends just enough of the winners of the present situation and forces them to win those lost (taxed) assets again so that we gain by their renewed efforts economically.

Wouldn't our sizable estate tax pretty much take care of that? This is one of the few issues I disagree with the GOP on regarding taxes, I am fine with an estate tax preventing rediculously powerful family dynasties like we had early last century, as long as its set high enough to hit very few others. I might tinker with it though. Right now its probably too low if you ignore Bush's temporary sunsetting reform, bump it up to 3-4 million per person and its probably good.

We arent living under the rule of a few very wealthy families anymore, in two or three generations if the children are worthless lazy bastards, then the huge family wealth is pretty much taxed and scattered out and the younger generations need to achieve on their own merits again, making way for new money and power like Bill Gates. In a few decades no one is probably going to care about the Hilton family anymore.

tiptap
12-18-2007, 07:09 AM
Yes, I am ok with estate taxes. The problem is if wealth is turn over before death to the next generation and that transfer isn't tax. It should be. We had that loophole year about 10 years ago it seems when the really rich could avoid the estate taxes as they passed their assets to trusts for the next generation, still operating trusts and all.

I don't mind changing taxation to consumptive taxes but I don't want to destroy income taxes completely at the same time. Anyway I am not arguing the details of redistribution only that it is essential to oil the process of free enterprise so that innovation and reinvention is supported.

tiptap
12-18-2007, 07:20 AM
can be asexual


not familiar with "chemical clock systems" (I shall look it up 2morrow) but it sounds like you are talking about are enzymes and catalysts. Catalysts are fine and dandy for inorganic chemisty, but are only as good as their is substrate. Enzymes (for organic chemistry which is the basis of life) have very tight working parameters. Its kinda like saying that you have a machine to make rubber (for a tire), but you dont have all the other stuff or how to make it. anyway...i'll look it up.
goodnight.

Asexual evolution gave us bacteria. Occasionally you get transfer of DNA material. The result is a very large variance in biochemistry of small single cell life. That was the dominant visual life on earth for several billion years. (First in a reducing atmosphere and under water to protect from Ultraviolet rays and then in an oxidizing atmosphere that allowed surface interaction with the build up of Ozone and support of Eukaryotic life.) And then sex, a oxidizing atmospher, gave new virgin field to take advantage of and the result is the bursting of diversity of multicelled life. All the animals and plants you see. Evolution occurs much faster with sex than with asexual situation. So in half a billion years you get the diversity you see today.

tiptap
12-18-2007, 07:48 AM
One last jab at this attempt to state the astronomical chances of life make it impossible to arise on its own.

I am going to translate the discussion to a physics model because it is easier to visualize and then I will discuss how it works with biochemistry. Take a 1 meter cube of very rigid clear acrylics and place inside 10,000 (100 squared) one centimeter in diameter steel ball bearings. Now if we move this box and content above the plane of the solar system to a place of truly small micro gravity we can shake the container and eventually (after a long time) the bearing will distribute themselves randomly in the cubic space. And as the House I could take bets on where balls would be found compared to the three faces of reference and make a living if I reserved a few spaces as places one couldn't make a bet. But as soon as I take this cube to earth the house Me, would lose everything and OWE gazoos of money all at once because most people would be able to predict where the balls would land and of course that is from the effects of gravity.

Well gravity's effect is seen all the time every nanosecond in density effects and bouyancy and such. But for biology or specifically biochemistry there is the additional force of electromagnetic field. That is what holds atoms together and this field is thousands of times stronger than gravity. So the organizational effect is there at a stronger force level.

What your example of simple probabilities represents is a world free of these organizing forces. Chemists have spent years dealing with activity constants, free energy, enthalapy, activation energy, etc tracing the organizational possibilities of chemical electromagnetic forces. And biochemical reactions take place in their local environment just as readily as the ball bearing fall to the bottom of the cube in my example. Quite deterministically. This is what your numbers game completely ignores.

And as long as their is a churning of energy flow though the system (solar and geothermal effects) the earth will have all chemical combinations given a possibility. Some are more stable and self replicating and that is the beginning of a self assembling process. It has to have energy flow and organizing forces and that is what we have on this planet.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 07:58 AM
Can you quote me where he has ever stated that he is a Libertarian?

Whenever, someone on tv brings up his run on the Libertarian ticket he says he's a Republican who is a Constitutionalist. Then adds that it is a fairly Libertarian document.


This could make a long debate that I don't have time for but this is absolute BS, and pure opinion. Must be based on history written by progressives like Eugene Debs.


Usually when someone claims they don't want to do a certain thing, they are actually do that thing. So what do you recommend? Especially when the word "fair" is subjective.

Why would you even try to split hairs like this? How libertarian does a libertarian have to be to be a libertarian? I'm sorry, but no amount of denying it is enough when you've been the party's candidate for President. And why would he deny it anyway? He's definitely a libertarian by any reasonable definition of the word even though he's not currently a Libertarian party member.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 08:43 AM
Why would you even try to split hairs like this? How libertarian does a libertarian have to be to be a libertarian? I'm sorry, but no amount of denying it is enough when you've been the party's candidate for President. And why would he deny it anyway? He's definitely a libertarian by any reasonable definition of the word even though he's not currently a Libertarian party member.
I'm not the one splitting hairs. Paul seems to be. He seems to be saying he's fairly libertarian more than anything. He even came out and said his background is Old Right. It seems to be that Paul's self label is intellectually accurate.

Go over to the Mises site, and into their blog, there's some real hard-core pure libetarians in there. They call themselves mini-anarchists. Some have donated to Paul's campaign but won't vote because that's getting involved with the state. Real ones believe in no national boundaries too as the ultimate in free trade so anyone can work wherever they want.

Then there's sites like Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) started by Jacob Hornberger for the exact reason that Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) had so many conservatives entering it that it was no longer really libertarian. It
may seem like splitting hairs to you,but some of these hard core libertarians take it seriously.

Then there's CATO which attempts to use libertarianism within our current big govt framework. They are known for this. They even had a guy connected with it ( can't remember his name) who's been dissing Paul because of his FR rhetoric. Think he's a Milton Friedman guy. MF gets criticized by Miseans because he wouldn't abandon the state.

Then there's the Ayn Rand Institute folks, of which Sowell is a member, who get called out on other libertarian sites as "Regime Libertarians" for supporting the war in Iraq. These guys want them to turn their Libertarian cards in.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 11:24 AM
I'm not the one splitting hairs. Paul seems to be. He seems to be saying he's fairly libertarian more than anything. He even came out and said his background is Old Right. It seems to be that Paul's self label is intellectually accurate.

He's being a politician. Calling yourself a libertarian has more negative connotations than saying you're a limited government conservative or someone who believes in the constitution. But if Ron Paul isn't a libertarian then for all practical purposes, there's no such thing as a libertarian other than the tiny group that is even more extreme than Paul (e.g. the open borders crowd).

Go over to the Mises site, and into their blog, there's some real hard-core pure libetarians in there. They call themselves mini-anarchists. Some have donated to Paul's campaign but won't vote because that's getting involved with the state. Real ones believe in no national boundaries too as the ultimate in free trade so anyone can work wherever they want.

Then there's sites like Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) started by Jacob Hornberger for the exact reason that Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) had so many conservatives entering it that it was no longer really libertarian. It
may seem like splitting hairs to you,but some of these hard core libertarians take it seriously.

Then there's CATO which attempts to use libertarianism within our current big govt framework. They are known for this. They even had a guy connected with it ( can't remember his name) who's been dissing Paul because of his FR rhetoric. Think he's a Milton Friedman guy. MF gets criticized by Miseans because he wouldn't abandon the state.

Then there's the Ayn Rand Institute folks, of which Sowell is a member, who get called out on other libertarian sites as "Regime Libertarians" for supporting the war in Iraq. These guys want them to turn their Libertarian cards in.

So in essence, you have some kind of extremely narrow view of what a real libertarian is, but "neocon" describes a huge group of people whose only similarity to one another seems to be that they disagree with you on one or more topics. Please.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 11:30 AM
No I do see a spectrum of libertarianism. I just see that it clips off at certain points on that spectrum...unlike someone holding to a modicum of libertarian principles and thinking that's libertarianism. I told you that theseare based on reading material at FFF, Cato, FEE and paleo-con sites. There is a degree of consensus about it in those circles as I have stated. Guess you don't travel in those circles to really know. NRO won't do it.

This is exactly why I don't classify myself as one. I say I'm a conservative with a libertarian streak. It's more accurate. Of course, paleo-conservatism is a next door neighbor to it, with overlaps...but even considering that I'd have to add the libertarian streak. I believe in the non-agression doctrine as much as possible.

No, Paul is not being a politician. He comes out pretty much as a he has voted in congress. Sorry but it won't fly despite the Straussian attempt. :p

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:11 PM
Ron paul is a very smart man.
I too am a man of science and dont believe in macro evolution. Its an unproven theory.

I've argued this to death on the coalition and other sites. For me it comes down to cell biology and simple organic chemistry.

the building block of life is DNA, which is formed by codons.
The simplest DNA is thousands of base pairs long. Thus they have to attach to the right nucleotide (C,T,A, or G) and be in the correct chiral form (rotation). If it doesnt it is useless. The likelihood of each nucleotide coming together is 1 in 4, the likelyhood it is in the right chiral form is 1 in 2. Now do that for 1000 pairs. The probability of that alone by simple chance is 8.12 raised to the -904. Lets just say that is nearly impossible. Now think of all that needs to happen just to duplicate it.

DNA is essentially like computer software that is useless with hardware. i.e. DNA would quickly unravel and disintegrate without a nuclear membrane to protect the acidic nucleotides (thus it doesnt leave the nucleolus). It cant unzip without unzipping enzymes, it needs messenger RNA and Transfer RNA to get out of the nucleolus to the cytoplasm where it is read and the appropriate proteins made on ribosomes. All that needs a lipid membrane so that all the contents dont seperate to far away making replication impossible and so that the machinery doesnt disintegrate.

Basically none of this could occur independently. If DNA somehow evolved, it wouldnt last without protection from a membrane to protect it, and it could never code for anything and be usefull without all the other machinery. Those machinery could not evolve independently because they are useless without the other and because they need to be coded for by DNA (i.e. so the machinery is transfered to another cell).

Look at the organism, and they all have this. For those who argue prions and viruses, I say they arent life. Prions are just protein that alters other protein and makes it tangle up. Viruses dont have their own machinery, they need a host to inject their "software" into so that it is replicated.

Even the simplest cell (prokaryotic) needs this stuff (not a nuclelus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

so to say that life evolved would be akin to saying your computer evolved, and all of the components came together by random chance along with the simplest software (BIOS). not likely, and practically impossible.

Again, if you're conclusion is random chance, you obviously are generalizing most of it. It's not random at all. In fact, you're arugment is pretty weak. (See 747 Gambit on wikipedia)

Microevolution exists. Everyone can agree on this. It's macro-evolution that people get hung up on. But this really makes no sense. The REAL reason people don't accept it is because we cannot TEST it RIGHT NOW. However, that's not necessarily true, either. We just can't test it with respect to humans. And that's why it's a theory. It's a theory because it's OBSERVABLE but it isn't PREDICTABLE. Gravity is both, hence the law. (See Baby Lee, that was my point about you being almost correct. You were correct but you forget important details.)

A good example of this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation See Dodd's Fruit Fly experiment.

Again, it's only "unproven" - in your sense - because the variable it needs to be tested, with respect to humans, is TIME.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:12 PM
It's called unfair discrimination since it has nothing to do with the job, at least how Paul would execute it which is per the Constitution. Bigots aren't only on the right.

It has a lot to do with the job. But that's not what I want to address.

There is absolutely nothing here to suggest the people asking the question or the people reacting to his response are Bigots. That's lunacy.

If they are bigots, then I guess you are a Paul Bigot as you'll defend him to the death...

So, please, stop using bigot to generalize especially when it has no place whatsoever.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Sorry, but some folks just plain hate religion. This has nothing to do with how Paul would govern since his basis is the Constitution. It would have something to do with how Huckabee would govern however. In the case of the latter, it's fair discrimination and not based on all things religious. So, what I said is not a broad generalization, it's narrowed down to those who can't see the difference.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:29 PM
Sorry, but some folks just plain hate religion. This has nothing to do with how Paul would govern since his basis is the Constitution. It would have something to do with how Huckabee would govern however. In the case of the latter, it's fair discrimination and not based on all things religious. So, what I said is not a broad generalization, it's narrowed down to those who can't see the difference.

Way to dodge here.

It has nothing to do with religion and every thing to do with basic science. I guess it's narrowed down to those who can't see the difference.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 12:37 PM
In your opinion I'm dodging. The president's hat is not the hat of a scientist. My point still holds. Especially, if you can see the similarity. There's nothing wrong with defending one's candidate either. At least I understand his philosophy governance.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:46 PM
In your opinion I'm dodging. The president's hat is not the hat of a scientist. My point still holds. Especially, if you can see the similarity. There's nothing wrong with defending one's candidate either. At least I understand his philosophy governance.

Yet he has the hat of decider. And decider gets to decide on things. You know, like science things. And education things...

You never had a point because you dodged the first point: the use of the word bigot.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 12:54 PM
Yet he has the hat of decider. And decider gets to decide on things. You know, like science things. And education things...
That's George Bush's line. Ron Paul doesn't believe in that. He allows the individual to decide. He allows you to run your own life...as well as the state's who are in charge of education budgets.

He's not going to fund education or science federally. He's the antithesis of big govt. That's what you're not getting. You need to look up what limited govt is per the Constitution as far as Paul stands....as well as what libertarianism is. The govt doesn't get involved in these things. Any science funding would mainly be limited to defense.

You never had a point because you dodged the first point: the use of the word bigot.
Just because you don't agree with my point doesn't mean I'm dodging anything. Besides I clarified why I used it in a later post.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:57 PM
That's George Bush's line.

I know, that's why I used it.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in that. He allows the individual to decide. He allows you to run your own life...as well as the state's who are in charge of education budgets.

He's not going to fund education or science federally. He's the antithesis of big govt. That's what you're not getting. You need to look up what limited govt is per the Constitution as far as Paul stands....as well as what libertarianism is. The govt doesn't get involved in these things. Any science funding would mainly be limited to defense.

Trust me, I know.


Just because you don't agree with my point doesn't mean I'm dodging anything. Besides I clarified why I used it in a later post.
You have yet to address my point about not using bigot so broadly. Just as you get in trouble for your neo-con label.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 01:06 PM
No I do see a spectrum of libertarianism. I just see that it clips off at certain points on that spectrum...unlike someone holding to a modicum of libertarian principles and thinking that's libertarianism. I told you that theseare based on reading material at FFF, Cato, FEE and paleo-con sites. There is a degree of consensus about it in those circles as I have stated. Guess you don't travel in those circles to really know. NRO won't do it.

This is exactly why I don't classify myself as one. I say I'm a conservative with a libertarian streak. It's more accurate. Of course, paleo-conservatism is a next door neighbor to it, with overlaps...but even considering that I'd have to add the libertarian streak. I believe in the non-agression doctrine as much as possible.

No, Paul is not being a politician. He comes out pretty much as a he has voted in congress. Sorry but it won't fly despite the Straussian attempt. :p

I really don't understand why you run from the libertarian label so hard. There are spectrums of belief for any ideology. There's nothing special about libertarians in that regard. It's absurd to say that one of only 5 people who have run for President in the past 2 decades on the Libertarian Party ticket is not a libertarian. It's amazing that you would even try to rationalize that position.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 01:06 PM
I did, IJH. That it was over your head I can't help.
Also, I don't have to address anything you demand...that was my opinion...that there are bigots on the left and the right.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 01:13 PM
I really don't understand why you run from the libertarian label so hard. There are spectrums of belief for any ideology. There's nothing special about libertarians in that regard. It's absurd to say that one of only 5 people who have run for President in the past 2 decades on the Libertarian Party ticket is not a libertarian. It's amazing that you would even try to rationalize that position.
I'm not running from it, that's why. I admitted I was fairly libertarian. I just don't see myself wholly in that camp...as a lump sum total. As I've said before, it's mainly current issues that make that part of me stand out more. I'vve also said that some regs such as those in the early progressive movement I don't have much problem with...it's the continuing excess of such that bothers me. I don't know why you're trying to teach me about spectrums of belief when I said the same. You're preaching to the choir.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm not running from it, that's why. I admitted I was fairly libertarian. I just don't see myself wholly in that camp...as a lump sum total. As I've said before, it's mainly current issues that make that part of me stand out more. I'vve also said that some regs such as those in the early progressive movement I don't have much problem with...it's the continuing excess of such that bothers me. I don't know why you're trying to teach me about spectrums of belief when I said the same. You're preaching to the choir.

But yet, anytime anyone calls Ron Paul a libertarian, you deny it. He's not the type that wants to eliminate our borders and he may not be the type that wants to privatize all roads, but he's a libertarian. He's as libertarian as anyone within the Republican party.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 01:40 PM
Pat, I'm done arguing with. You twists things around way too much. I haven't denied anything about Paul...I was simply pointing out how Paul has consistently answered that question live on tv is all. I know what I saw him say. I find it odd that he answers it that way.