# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul was asked about Paul Broun

## Warlord

So, as proof of his seriousness, Paul was quick to throw his science-skeptical colleagues under the bus. “Most Republicans live in this century, not two or three centuries ago,” he said, responding to questions about Georgia Rep. Paul Broun’s notorious YouTube rant, in which he called evolution and the Big Bang “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

Yet Paul is actually supporting Broun in his run for the Senate, an example of the  political double-speak that characterized much of his diplomatic conversation with me. It’s understandable here: it’s not easy to appeal to both the anti-authoritarian bastion of San Francisco without abandoning his religious base.

Full thing
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ertarians.html

-

I knew they would try something like this but looks like Rand artfully answered. 

Broun has a great chance of being a senator and joining Rand Paul, Mike Lee etc.

Support Rep. Broun against the attacks from the liberal elite:

*Join his July 12th moneybomb and pledge to donate plus invite everyone you know!

*

----------


## jtstellar

so he indirectly criticized broun, now that's a double speak?  if he says he won't endorse broun anymore, that will be a double speak.  and this writer has a math BA degree?

----------


## Christian Liberty

You can be a YEC without being an authoritarian.  I am.

----------


## compromise

They are misleading readers. The Paul who endorsed Broun is Ron Paul. Rand Paul has not endorsed Paul Broun.

----------


## talkingpointes

So do I get credit for this yet ?

----------


## Debbie Downer

> It’s understandable here: it’s not easy to appeal to both the *anti-authoritarian bastion of San Francisco* without abandoning his religious base.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

----------


## Debbie Downer

> You can be a YEC without being an authoritarian.  I am.


Young earth creationism has got to be one of the most idiotic things one can believe in.

----------


## Antischism

Paul Broun is a god-awful religious bigot with an absolutely terrible foreign policy stance.

----------


## Warlord

> Paul Broun is a god-awful religious bigot with an absolutely terrible foreign policy stance.


He's really not that awful and he's a constitutionalist endorsed by Ron.  He's not really a neocon and his foreign policy is probably more down to where he's from and the kinds of people he's trying to win over not because he's a war monger.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> god-awful religious bigot


Projection?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Young earth creationism has got to be one of the most idiotic things one can believe in.


Actually, this is the most idiotic:




> the anti-authoritarian bastion of San Francisco

----------


## Antischism

> Projection?


Nah, I prefer LCD screens.

----------


## Brett85

I have to say that it's quite disappointing if Rand actually believes in bogus science like evolution.

----------


## compromise

> I have to say that it's quite disappointing if Rand actually believes in bogus science like evolution.


He did not say he believes in evolution. Why are you trying to spin everything he says?

----------


## Brett85

> He did not say he believes in evolution. Why are you trying to spin everything he says?


I'm not.  Why do I always get accused of stuff like this in every single post I make?  You are simply incapable of handling any post on Rand's subforum in which the post doesn't proclaim Rand as being almighty God.  I said "if" he believes in evolution.  I don't know precisely what Rand meant with his comment.  Hopefully he was just miquoted or taken out of context.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I have to say that it's quite disappointing if Rand actually believes in bogus science like evolution.


Evolution is more plausible than the world being 5000 years old.

----------


## compromise

> I'm not.  Why do I always get accused of stuff like this in every single post I make?  You are simply incapable of handling any post on Rand's subforum in which the post doesn't proclaim Rand as being almighty God.  I said "if" he believes in evolution.  I don't know precisely what Rand meant with his comment.  Hopefully he was just miquoted or taken out of context.


Rand has been chosen by the almighty God to lead these United States of America. That's why its so important he wins in 2016.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand has been chosen by the almighty God to lead these United States of America. That's why its so important he wins in 2016.


I hope you're right.  That still doesn't mean that we can't hold his feet to the fire on certain issues and disagree with him from time to time.  (Although I'm not saying this issue is as important as others.  If Rand believes in evolution I just disagree with him.)

----------


## Brett85

> Evolution is more plausible than the world being 5000 years old.


It's about 10,000 years old.  There's very little evidence of an old earth and a lot of evidence of a young earth that has many different layers that was caused by a great flood.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> *It's about 10,000 years old.*  There's very little evidence of an old earth and a lot of evidence of a young earth that has many different layers that was caused by a great flood.


Except for the fact that literally every branch of science disproves that.

----------


## compromise

> I hope you're right.  That still doesn't mean that we can't hold his feet to the fire on certain issues and disagree with him from time to time.  (Although I'm not saying this issue is as important as others.  If Rand believes in evolution I just disagree with him.)


Ron did not believe in evolution, and as someone who grew up in his household, I doubt Rand does either.

----------


## Brett85

> Except for the fact that literally every branch of science disproves that.


No, they have a different *theory.*  That's why it's simply called a *theory.*  If evolution were proven it would be called a law.

----------


## Brett85

> Ron did not believe in evolution, and as someone who grew up in his household, I doubt Rand does either.


What do you think he meant by his comment then?  Or do you just think that he was misquoted as is often the case?

----------


## brandon

> No, they have a different *theory.*  That's why it's simply called a *theory.*  If evolution were proven it would be called a law.


You have a very serious misconception about how science works.

----------


## Brett85

That comment just doesn't really sound like Rand to me, because even if he believes in evolution it doesn't seem like him to criticize a fellow Constitutional Conservative like that.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> No, they have a different *theory.*  That's why it's simply called a *theory.*  If evolution were proven it would be called a law.


I never said anything about evolution being fact. I'm still not convinced it is, but I do think there is a lot of evidence to support it. 

The claim that the world is 10,000 years old is absolutely idiotic and has been disproven by every branch of science from biology to geology to physics to astronomy.




> What do you think he meant by his comment then?  Or do you just think that he was misquoted as is often the case?


He meant that people living in the 21st century understand that the earth is older than 10,000 years and aren't so scared or insecure in their belief in God to dismiss scientific evidence.

----------


## Brett85

> You have a very serious misconception about how science works.


No, if evolution were proven it would be a law, like gravity.  You can't prove something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, which is why scientists themselves have many different theories about how the universe began.  Even scientists who believe in evolution in general don't all agree with each other on the Big Bang.  When scientists themselves have so many disgreements on this it's something that can't be proven.  It's simply a theory.

----------


## Brett85

> I never said anything about evolution being fact. I'm still not convinced it is, but I do think there is a lot of evidence to support it. 
> 
> The claim that the world is 10,000 years old is absolutely idiotic and has been disproven by every branch of science from biology to geology to physics to astronomy.


It hasn't been disproven, simply disagreed with by scientists who start from the premise that science and supernatural events can't be related.

----------


## compromise

> What do you think he meant by his comment then?  Or do you just think that he was misquoted as is often the case?


He probably meant that he disagreed with Broun's tone and/or his focus on that issue.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Ron did not believe in evolution, and as someone who grew up in his household, I doubt Rand does either.


"I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." 

- Ron Paul on evolution

----------


## compromise

> "I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." 
> 
> - Ron Paul on evolution


"I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all."

- Ron Paul on evolution

----------


## brandon

> No, if evolution were proven it would be a law, like gravity.  You can't prove something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, which is why scientists themselves have many different theories about how the universe began.  Even scientists who believe in evolution in general don't all agree with each other on the Big Bang.  When scientists themselves have so many disgreements on this it's something that can't be proven.  It's simply a theory.


No you have a very very very serious miconception about the fundamentals of the scientific method. Science doesn't prove anything. The *theory* of Gravity is a great example because it has been changed and refined so many times (from the Newtonian theory to the Theory of general relativity, and beyond) and still has serious shortcomings that will likely lead to a new theory in our lifetimes.


Science makes observations about nature and comes up with testable hypothesis. They then try to disprove their hypothesis. Once enough people have tried to disprove something and failed, it becomes a theory.  There is no proof in science.

----------


## Brett85

> "I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." 
> 
> - Ron Paul on evolution


Well, that's probably true.  Neither side has 100% proof that their side is correct.  But Ron didn't really say which side he agreed with in that comment.  But in another comment he made he said that he didn't except the theory of evolution.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> It hasn't been disproven, simply disagreed with by scientists who start from the premise that science and supernatural events can't be related.


Of course it has been disproven. There is unbelievable amounts of evidence that the world is older than 10,000 years, from geological evidence to biological evidence, from the fact that we can see stars that are thousands of light years away, etc, etc etc.

Also, evolution and God are not incompatible. Neither are science and supernatural events. Science does not claim to be able to explain all things, nor can it.

----------


## Brett85

> The *theory* of Gravity is a great example because it has been changed and refined so many times (from the Newtonian theory to the Theory of general relativity, and beyond) and still has serious shortcomings that will likely lead to a new theory in our lifetimes.


Gravity is a law, not a theory.  Evolution is a theory, not a law.

----------


## Brett85

> Also, evolution and God are not incompatible.


I guess not, as long as you simply tear out the entire book of Genesis from the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

Like I said, there's a lot of scientific evidence for a young earth and a global flood that occurred.  There are many creation scientists who conduct hour long seminars explaining the evidence for a young earth.  I can post some links later when I have time.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Gravity is a law, not a theory.  Evolution is a theory, not a law.


Look up the difference between law and theory in science.

----------


## radiofriendly

Is this actually happening? Is this turning into a bash creation/bash evolution thing? One thing is for sure, libertarians shouldn't be surprised when academia or an established elite claim to have a monopoly on Truth. The europeans think that the ECB is capitalism for crying out loud! I will throw this out there... My dad is a biology professor (just retired) and he doesn't believe in macro evolution. Is he crazy? I'm on the fence on the issue, but I do firmly believe that the heart of this debate/argument is a religious question. It ain't about no science project you remember from grade school. GK Chesterton was open to theistic evolution, but he brilliantly attacks the dogmatism of 'scientism.'

As early as 1920, G.K. Chesterton argued against what he saw to be the worship of science (now sometimes called scientism), which already was being invoked in education and ethics.2 He also observed nearly a century ago that Darwinist scientists were more and more turning their science into a philosophy.3 These scientists were forbidden by their own belief system from believing in miracles, regardless of where the evidence led. This led inevitably to scientists making bizarre claims as to what natural processes alone could accomplish. Things that the old science at least would frankly have rejected as miracles are hourly being asserted by the new science.4

Chesterton conceded that these materialists were completely logical and reasonable in their belief system, but that it was a very small internal consistency which denied even the possibility of miracles; their belief system explained everything by natural events, which can be logical enough (bearing in mind that there is a difference between logical consistency and truth), but because that was the central tenet of their ideology, they could not admit even one miracle. He argued that the orthodox Christian was freer than the materialist because Christians could believe in both natural and supernatural causes for events; Christianity can explain both physical laws and miracles. As Chesterton wrote:

As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madmans argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out.Chesterton

The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. 

*If you don't think beer is a miracle and you've found a biochemistry textbook that explains away lightning bugs...you've missed the point...although you have become a tragedy which has it's own kind of beauty.

----------


## Brett85

> Look up the difference between law and theory in science.


"a law is something that has been proven over and over again and is considered a fact.

a theory is something that seems true but hasn't been proven or disproven"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4185929AABGXRi

----------


## Brett85

Obviously those people aren't experts, but their answers are exactly correct.

----------


## brandon

Gotta love the stubborn religious guy making an argument that you can only prove things that you can directly observe.


/facepalm I'm out

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I guess not, as long as you simply tear out the entire book of Genesis from the Bible.


No, you just have to accept that the Bible is not a book on science and that is is full of allegories and metaphors. That does not mean it is not theologically true, just not a literal account of how the world and mankind were created. Even St. Augustine accepted this.

----------


## erowe1

> Of course it has been disproven. There is unbelievable amounts of evidence that the world is older than 10,000 years, from geological evidence to biological evidence, from the fact that we can see stars that are thousands of light years away, etc, etc etc.


If I believed the universe was 1 second old, there would be no possible way to disprove that using any kind of science. You would have to bring your religion into it before you could even call anything evidence against my view.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> If I believed the universe was 1 second old, there would be no possible way to disprove that using any kind of science. *You would have to bring your religion into it.*


Christianity?

----------


## Brett85

> No, you just have to accept that the Bible is not a book on science and that is is full of allegories and metaphors. That does not mean it is not theologically true, just not a literal account of how the world and mankind were created. Even St. Augustine accepted this.


Then you have to decide which parts are metaphorical and which parts of literal.  You could say that Christ's death and resurrection was simply metaphorical and not a literal event, and if you believed that it would conflict with the core of what Christianity is, and anyone who believed that Christ's death and resurrection didn't literally happen couldn't claim to be a Christian.  So I don't really see how you can say that the book of Genesis is metaphorical but other parts of the Bible are literal.  How do you decide which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal?

----------


## erowe1

> Science doesn't prove anything.
> ....
>  There is no proof in science.





> Gotta love the stubborn religious guy making an argument that you can only prove things that you can directly observe.


Uh.

----------


## brandon

I don't believe anything can be proved outside of a closed system....

----------


## erowe1

> Christianity?


Sure. Or whatever other religion. But the only way you could even employ science to try to prove it wrong would be in light of whatever that religion is.

If your religion insists that no miracle has ever happened, then you can believe that it's possible to extrapolate the patterns of the physical universe that we observe today backwards in time ad infinitum and thus figure out the age of the earth. But if that isn't part of your religion, then there is no way for science to do that for you.

----------


## erowe1

This comment is going to hurt Rand. He's not just saying he doesn't believe in miracles, but that he doesn't think you can be an educated person if you do.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

("Uh oh, an internet argument over religious issues.  I'm out.")

----------


## Debbie Downer

> This comment is going to hurt Rand. He's not just saying he doesn't believe in miracles, but that he doesn't think you can be an educated person if you do.


Where did he say he doesn't believe in miracles or that only uneducated people do?

----------


## erowe1

> Where did he say he doesn't believe in miracles or that only uneducated people do?


He said, “Most Republicans live in this century, not two or three centuries ago." According to the article this was in reference to what Paul Broun said about the age of the earth. Granted, that could be a misrepresentation of what Rand said.

Since the entire basis for the old earth view is the assumption that no miracles have ever happened, he's saying that people in this century shouldn't believe in miracles.

ETA: It kind of reminds me of this condescending tweet that was the beginning of the end for John Huntsman's campaign in 2012.

----------


## amy31416

> No, they have a different *theory.*  That's why it's simply called a *theory.*  If evolution were proven it would be called a law.


Get yourself a damned dictionary and shut your mouth. I'm tired of explaining what a scientific theory is on this board every couple weeks.

----------


## supermario21

I don't care how anyone feels about the issue, but Broun was definitely over the top when he said that stuff is "lies from the pits of hell" or whatever he said. Ron didn't say it like that. Also that's shoddy journalism, the link used to describe Rand's supposed endorsement of Broun is RON doing it!

----------


## Debbie Downer

> He said, “Most Republicans live in this century, not two or three centuries ago." According to the article this was in reference to what Paul Broun said about the age of the earth. Granted, that could be a misrepresentation of what Rand said.
> 
> *Since the entire basis for the old earth view is the assumption that no miracles have ever happened, he's saying that people in this century shouldn't believe in miracles.*
> 
> ETA: It kind of reminds me of this condescending tweet that was the beginning of the end for John Huntsman's campaign in 2012.


Not true. The vast majority of Christians reject the unscientific and nonsensical "theory" of young earth creationism yet fully accept the existence of miracles. You can also believe in evolution, God and miracles at the same time. None is mutually exclusive. 

Rand never said anything about miracles nor the people wo believe in miracles. I'm sure Rand, as a Christian, believes in them. 

Even people whose faith is science accept that science can't explain everything and many accept that there may be supernatural occurrences and miracles.

----------


## erowe1

> Not true. The vast majority of Christians reject the unscientific and nonsensical "theory" of young earth creationism yet fully accept the existence of miracles. You can also believe in evolution, God and miracles at the same time. None is mutually exclusive. 
> 
> Rand never said anything about miracles nor the people wo believe in miracles. I'm sure Rand, as a Christian, believes in them. 
> 
> Even people whose faith is science accept that science can't explain everything and many accept that there may be supernatural occurrences and miracles.


If the vast majority of Christians believe that it's possible for science to prove the earth is old, then the vast majority of Christians believe that no miracle has ever happened. Either that, or they have no command of logic, in which case it is they who are the uneducated ones.

Science cannot give us the age of the Earth without uniformitarianism.

----------


## erowe1

I once had a conversation about this with this influential Catholic who was a long-time member of the National Science Board. When I asked him if he believed in miracles, his answer was that he did, because he believed that the transubstantiation of wine and bread into Jesus's blood and flesh was miraculous. So the one thing he came up with as his best example of a miracle is something that, even according to himself, has absolutely no empirical evidence. It reminded me of the guy on Mystery Men who had the power of invisibility but only when nobody was looking, including himself.

----------


## wormyguy

Science is not even required to disprove YEC.  _Documented human history_ extends back further than when the Earth was supposedly "created."

----------


## erowe1

> Science is not even required to disprove YEC.  _Documented human history_ extends back further than when the Earth was supposedly "created."


First of all, that's not true.

Second of all, there are different versions of Young Earth Creationism. The claim that the Earth was created in precisely 4004 BC or whatever is something that I'm sure some believe, but it's a caricature to say that's the norm for young earthers.

----------


## XTreat

> Rand has been chosen by the almighty God to lead these United States of America. That's why its so important he wins in 2016.


If he was chosen by god to lead the US then isn't his victory already assured? Sweet I'll spend that money on bacon and new PC parts.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No, they have a different *theory.*  That's why it's simply called a *theory.*  If evolution were proven it would be called a law.


Wrong. Hypothesis become theories. Hypothesis and theory don't become laws.




> No you have a very very very serious miconception about the fundamentals of the scientific method. Science doesn't prove anything. The *theory* of Gravity is a great example because it has been changed and refined so many times (from the Newtonian theory to the Theory of general relativity, and beyond) and still has serious shortcomings that will likely lead to a new theory in our lifetimes.
> 
> Science makes observations about nature and comes up with testable hypothesis. They then try to disprove their hypothesis. Once enough people have tried to disprove something and failed, it becomes a theory.  There is no proof in science.


Yep, first it's a hypothesis. 

A hypothesis attempts to explain a phenomena. 

Then if it's experimented on, results are repeatable to confirm it, and no tests disprove it, then it becomes a "theory". If a repeatable test ever contradictions a theory, then it is disproven. All theories are subject to being disproven (which often results in a new hypothesis, that then becomes the subject of more testing, and possibly a new theory). 

Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are scientifically illiterate, and use the term "theory" when they really mean hypothesis.

A "law" is an observation of an actual phenomena, and does not attempt to explain how or why. It's always repeatable. An apple falls to the ground. We call that phenomena "gravity". It is the "Law of Gravity". There is no explanation involved.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Full thing
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ertarians.html


I'd call that a hit piece on Rand.

----------


## asurfaholic

I've spent a whole ton of time researching the YEC info and the traditional science view that the earth is millions of years old. 

Sorry, but the only things that make consistent sense are the ones that point to a young earth. 

I'm with T Conservative on this 100%. 

*scoots out real quick*

----------


## compromise

> If he was chosen by god to lead the US then isn't his victory already assured? Sweet I'll spend that money on bacon and new PC parts.


No, he was merely chosen by God. Those misguided by Satan will reject him, just as they rejected Jesus. We must help our new savior, Senator Rand Paul and fulfill God's will.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> He's really not that awful and he's a constitutionalist endorsed by Ron.  He's not really a neocon and his foreign policy is probably more down to where he's from and the kinds of people he's trying to win over not because he's a war monger.


He supports profiling of Muslims and believes we're being infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood. The man makes it a point to tell voters that his voting record is the same as Ron Paul except on foreign policy, which is the best thing about Ron Paul, as far as I'm concerned.

Good to know, Rand Paul didn't ensorse him. We don't need him associating with characters like Todd Akin or this guy: no way of knowing what kind of crazy/stupid thing there're going to say next.

----------


## Warlord

> He supports profiling of Muslims and believes we're being infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood. The man makes it a point to tell voters that his voting record is the same as Ron Paul except on foreign policy, which is the best thing about Ron Paul, as far as I'm concerned.
> .


That's just politics and because your standard Republican doesn't like Ron's foreign policy. If you look at his record it's pretty good.

----------


## jtstellar

ron never clarified on whether he believes in the orthodox creationism theory.. he just said there were holes in evolutionary theories that cannot yet be explained, leaving room for people who wish to leave some religious elements in there to do so.. 

he has compared his beliefs to 'hobbies' during the reddit interview when the creationism question came up.. i believe he is closer to the founders in that regard.  i forget the term.. deists?  the belief system that says there may have been some universal force at work during the creation of the world, be it deity or otherwise, but that it is no longer involved in influencing contemporary human events.  

this goes along with everything else he espouses, just like the founders, that people's actions carry consequences, tread carefully in foreign policy, blow back, etc.  if you believe god is behind you in every war, why ever be afraid of ill conceived foreign policy aliances and blow back?  god will smite your enemies before they ever get close to you.  ron paul isn't saint in every regard and he indeed is more religious than most people of gen Y, but if you had to categorize, i would say he is closer to being a deist, as the founders were, than a fundamentalist christian.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> It's about 10,000 years old.  There's very little evidence of an old earth and a lot of evidence of a young earth that has many different layers that was caused by a great flood.


What's your point? You want every Republican politician to say it publicly to make people like you feel more comfortable in their delusional worldview? What's the point of politicians debating evolution or the age of the earth anyway?

----------


## JCDenton0451

> That's just politics and because your standard Republican doesn't like Ron's foreign policy. If you look at his record it's pretty good.


His issues with Muslims is a real problem, and it indicates that he's just a religious bigot, who would gladly vote for an invasion of another Muslim country given the chance. He also seems real dumb, Todd Akin dumb, his comment on evolution (and embryology) was waaay over the line. 

BTW, is embryology anti-Christian too? I wasn't aware of that.

----------


## jllundqu

Ok I'll bite.... who the $#@! is Paul Broun and why does anyone give a $#@! what idiotic ramblings he has on youtube?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Traditional Conservative- Fellow young earther here... how exactly do you explain the whole star thing scientifically?  It doesn't seem like you can without a purely faith-based explanation such as "God created the light closer to us" or some such.  Which is fine if that's the case, but its not really science in that case.

----------


## jllundqu

> I've spent a whole ton of time researching the YEC info and the traditional science view that the earth is millions of years old. 
> 
> Sorry, but the only things that make consistent sense are the ones that point to a young earth. 
> 
> I'm with T Conservative on this 100%.


um... earth is billions (with a 'B') years old.  For dang sake, the oldest fossils known are microscopic cellular filaments petrified in the Apex chert of Western Australia  provide a minimum date: Life was present at least 3.5 billion years ago on Earth!!!

----------


## jllundqu

I am a firm believer in God, (more of a Deist or Universalist) but having faith does not mean throwing basic math out the window just to remain true to your religion.

----------


## jllundqu

lol

/thread

----------


## Brett85

> Get yourself a damned dictionary and shut your mouth. I'm tired of explaining what a scientific theory is on this board every couple weeks.


Thanks for reminding me why you're on my ignore list.  May God have mercy on your husband if you have one.

----------


## TaftFan

BACK TO POLITICS...

I emailed them about their error. They make Rand look like a hypocrite by saying he endorsed Broun, but it was actually Ron that did.

I am hoping Rand still does.

----------


## Brett85

> What's your point? You want every Republican politician to say it publicly to make people like you feel more comfortable in their delusional worldview? What's the point of politicians debating evolution or the age of the earth anyway?


No, I think they should just keep quiet about it and not say anything.  It's not a good idea for Rand to discuss the issue at all, but it's an even worse idea to attack those of us who do believe in young earth creationism.  That's basically what he did here if the quote from him in this article is correct.

----------


## compromise

> No, I think they should just keep quiet about it and not say anything.  It's not a good idea for Rand to discuss the issue at all, but it's an even worse idea to attack those of us who do believe in young earth creationism.  That's basically what he did here if the quote from him in this article is correct.


He's not "attacking" anyone. If you oppose Rand, you oppose God.

----------


## Brett85

> He's not "attacking" anyone. If you oppose Rand, you oppose God.


I don't oppose Rand.  I just don't like what he said here, if the quote is correct, and that's a big "if" considering that they misquote him all the time.  If the quote is correct it sounds like he's saying that those of us who don't believe in evolution live in the 18th century.

----------


## compromise

> I don't oppose Rand.  I just don't like what he said here, if the quote is correct, and that's a big "if" considering that they misquote him all the time.  If the quote is correct it sounds like he's saying that those of us who don't believe in evolution live in the 18th century.


If you know they misquote him all the time, why are you making such a big fuss?

----------


## erowe1

> @Traditional Conservative- Fellow young earther here... how exactly do you explain the whole star thing scientifically?  It doesn't seem like you can without a purely faith-based explanation such as "God created the light closer to us" or some such.  Which is fine if that's the case, but its not really science in that case.


I wouldn't say you can't. Russell Humphreys is an accomplished physicist who has tried (he believes successfully) to do just that.
http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time.../dp/0890512027

What's important to me though, is that you still can say that God created the light already en route. No, this is not science. But the denial of it is not science either. Similar remarks could be made about every single argument for the old earth.

----------


## green73

> I don't believe anything can be proved outside of a closed system....


How about radioactive dating? Is that just a theory?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He's not "attacking" anyone. If you oppose Rand, you oppose God.


This is blasphemy, as are several other things you said during this thread.

----------


## Brett85

> If you know they misquote him all the time, why are you making such a big fuss?


I'm not.  You're the one making a big fuss about me simply disagreeing with the idea that those of us who believe in young earth creationism are living in the 18th century.

----------


## jllundqu

> This is blasphemy, as are several other things you said during this thread.


"If you oppose Rand, you oppose god?"  Did someone on RPF really just give me a religious ultimatum as to who to support in elections???

I'm sure Ron Paul would take issue with that (non) logic.

----------


## Brett85

> Ok I'll bite.... who the $#@! is Paul Broun and why does anyone give a $#@! what idiotic ramblings he has on youtube?


He's someone who Ron Paul himself endorsed for the U.S Senate in Georgia.

----------


## Brett85

> @Traditional Conservative- Fellow young earther here... how exactly do you explain the whole star thing scientifically?  It doesn't seem like you can without a purely faith-based explanation such as "God created the light closer to us" or some such.  Which is fine if that's the case, but its not really science in that case.


I'll do some research and get back to you on that later today.  I read an article that explains that, but I'll have to find it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "If you oppose Rand, you oppose god?"  Did someone on RPF really just give me a religious ultimatum as to who to support in elections???
> 
> I'm sure Ron Paul would take issue with that (non) logic.


I think Rand would too, for that matter.  He's not perfect, but I don't think he believes himself to be either.




> I'll do some research and get back to you on that later today.  I read an article that explains that, but I'll have to find it.


Yes, thank you

----------


## JCDenton0451

> @Traditional Conservative- Fellow young earther here... how exactly do you explain the whole star thing scientifically?  It doesn't seem like you can without a purely faith-based explanation such as "God created the light closer to us" or some such.  Which is fine if that's the case, but its not really science in that case.


A star is basically a giant ball of gas, formed by the forces of gravitation, with constant thermonuclear reactions going on in the center of it. Here is a wikipedia article for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

Gosh, why do some people take pride in their ignorance?

----------


## compromise

> This is blasphemy, as are several other things you said during this thread.


Christ stands with Rand. Read the New Testament, there's unmistakable similarities between what Jesus advocated and what Rand's advocating today. God helped Rand do a 13 hour filibuster, no normal man without God's blessing could perform such a feat.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I'm not.  You're the one making a big fuss about me simply disagreeing with the idea that those of us who believe in young earth creationism are living in the 18th century.


Most YEC believers are simply not smart enough to understand what he was talking about anyway. And they don't read The Daily Beast. It's not going to hurt Rand politically, if that's what you're worried about.

----------


## jllundqu

> Christ stands with Rand. Read the New Testament, its the same thing Rand Paul is advocating.


Okie Dokie, now...

r/facepalm

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christ stands with Rand. Read the New Testament, there's unmistakable similarities between what Jesus advocated and what Rand's advocating today. God helped Rand do a 13 hour filibuster, no normal man without God's blessing could perform such a feat.


God may have helped him (Although I don't think its impossible to do non-miraculously) but to say "To be against Rand is to be against God" is to presume that which you cannot know.  Frankly, I doubt God approves of Rand' strategy, but that's just me.

----------


## erowe1

> A star is basically a giant ball of gas, formed by the forces of gravitation, with constant thermonuclear reactions going on in the center of it. Here is a wikipedia article for you:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
> 
> Gosh, why do some people take pride in their ignorance?


You missed what FF was talking about.

And let's be honest, you're really in no position to talk about ignorance when it comes to science.

----------


## erowe1

Every single president we've had, and every single world leader there ever was, regardless what any of them stood for, was the precise person God chose for that role at that time. This will still be true of the winner in 2016, no matter who it is.

----------


## amy31416

> Thanks for reminding me why you're on my ignore list.  May God have mercy on your husband if you have one.


He understands English and the basics of science.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Every single president we've had, and every single world leader there ever was, regardless what any of them stood for, was the precise person God chose for that role at that time. This will still be true of the winner in 2016, no matter who it is.


Then you must understand, the reason Abortion has come to be the law of the land is because God intended it to happen?

Divine determinism FTW!

----------


## erowe1

> Then you must understand, the reason Abortion has come to be the law of the land is because God intended it to happen?
> 
> Divine determinism FTW!


Of course. That couldn't possibly not be true. The same goes for the Holocaust and everything else that has ever happened.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Of course. That couldn't possibly not be true. The same goes for the Holocaust and everything else that has ever happened.


So, why participate in politics? If it changes nothing. The God will simply get rid of Abortion, when he gets tired of it.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> How about radioactive dating? Is that just a theory?


Radioactive dating is Satanic magic.

----------


## erowe1

> So, why participate in politics? If it changes nothing. The God will simply get rid of Abortion, when he gets tired of it.


I have half a mind to give up on politics anyway. So that's not an especially compelling point to me. But it's a particular example of the more general question of why do anything at all. I admit that this kind of question is hard to think about. I have my answers. But whatever the best way to look at that is, it doesn't stand as any kind of objection to determinism, since the question remains no matter who you are and what your view is. All events have prior causes. We can't go back and change what those prior causes are, and even if we could it would be because of whatever prior cause might cause us to do that. We could try to get out of that by saying that some or all events simply have no cause. Thy just happen haphazardly. But that would still lead us back to the very same problem of our being victims of something that ultimately transcends us.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## JCDenton0451

> I have half a mind to give up on politics anyway. So that's not an especially compelling point to me.


You might want to give more thought to it. The country will be better served if religious fundamentalists just stick to their religion.

----------


## compromise

When Rand Paul arrived at the Sea of Galilee, a double rainbow formed over it. This can only be a sign from God - it was the day when God chose Randal Howard Paul to lead the American people.

----------


## matt0611

> Except for the fact that literally every branch of science disproves that.


Science has "disproved" a worldwide flood too. 

You must have a very strange interpretation of the book of Genesis huh. For someone who calls himself a Christian and a Bible-believer.

----------


## matt0611

> So, why participate in politics? If it changes nothing. The God will simply get rid of Abortion, when he gets tired of it.


This makes absolutely no sense. God uses the actions of people to carry out his will as well. 
So it makes no sense to say "don't do anything, God will do it."

There's also things that are right and things that are wrong. Just because God is in control of all things, doesn't mean you should just act immoral. 

From your point of view you're still in control of your actions.

----------


## jllundqu

> When Rand Paul arrived at the Sea of Galilee, a double rainbow formed over it. This can only be a sign from God - it was the day when God chose Randal Howard Paul to lead the American people.


"Oh, well, then it's a good thing you weren't stopped in front of an IHOP!"  Fools Rush In, 1997

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, thank you


Here you go.  I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but this seems to contain some plausible explanations.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...tarlight-prove

----------


## Brett85

> It's not going to hurt Rand politically, if that's what you're worried about.


That's what I'm worried about.  I think this could hurt Rand politically if word of this ever gets out.  Voters in Iowa care far more about things like this than they care about the war on drugs or anything like that.  I hope I'm wrong, but it's generally a good idea to simply stay away from the evolution/creationism debate if you're a politician.

----------


## jllundqu

> Radioactive dating is Satanic magic.


Jesus Horses are Satanic magic, too!  You know..... Dinosaurs!

----------


## asurfaholic

> You might want to give more thought to it. The country will be better served if religious fundamentalists just stick to their religion.


I neg repped this post because of the outright insult towards ANY ONE who carries a faith. If your view of politics is that anyone with religious views have no say in politics, then you are a debt to the Ron Paul Forums, and an agent of a very satanic mindset. 

Sorry if that irks you.

----------


## KingNothing

> Young earth creationism has got to be one of the most idiotic things one can believe in.


Agreed.  They might as well believe that the world is flat, too.

----------


## KingNothing

> He did not say he believes in evolution. Why are you trying to spin everything he says?


And, holy Christ on a cracker, why would it be so terrible if Rand endorsed the idea of evolution?

----------


## erowe1

> And, holy Christ on a cracker, why would it be so terrible if Rand endorsed the idea of evolution?


It wouldn't be terrible. But being condescending to anyone who believes in miracles isn't going to help him.

----------


## compromise

> And, holy Christ on a cracker, why would it be so terrible if Rand endorsed the idea of evolution?


I did not say it would be terrible if he did endorse the idea of evolution. Traditional Conservative accused Rand of being an evolutionist and that it was a terrible political move.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I did not say it would be terrible if he did endorse the idea of evolution. Traditional Conservative accused Rand of being an evolutionist and that it was a terrible political move.


It would have helped him in the general election.

----------


## KingNothing

> It wouldn't be terrible. But being condescending to anyone who believes in miracles isn't going to help him.


I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.  In fact, it seems like the only people around here who feel that way are the ones who believe that there is science that supports the notion of a young earth.

Personally, I've no clue if there is a God or not, but it certainly seems reasonable to believe one may have kick-started the whole "universe" thing with a Big Bang 14 Billion years ago, and forced evolution to take place on Earth.  The evidence that we have today overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Earth is MUCH older than 6,000 (or 10,000) years, to say nothing of the universe that contains stars billions of light-years away emitting light that we can see today.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I neg repped this post because of the outright insult towards ANY ONE who carries a faith. If your view of politics is that anyone with religious views have no say in politics, then you are a debt to the Ron Paul Forums, and an agent of a very satanic mindset. 
> 
> Sorry if that irks you.


Can you read? I meant to say bad things tend to happen when religious fanatics try to impose their dogmatic views on a society (see Taliban). "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - this is what good Christians are supposed to believe, and in fact most do. The problem we have is a relatively small, but vocal, angry, militant fringe that just won't accept any compromises. They want their God to run everything.

----------


## Danan

> He said, Most Republicans live in this century, not two or three centuries ago."


Isn't that a true statement? Why would you imply that this statement has anything to do with what Paul Broun said? You should take it as literal and then it's simply true: Most Republicans live in this century, not two or three centuries ago.

Wasn't that the line of reasoning you employed when Rand said the statement in your signature:



> Im not a libertarian. Im not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.


That's at least how I remember it. I could be totally wrong here and tbh I don't really care about any of it either.

----------


## Brett85

> It would have helped him in the general election.


Most normal people don't care whether a candidate for President believes in evolution or not.  It's not a political issue at the federal level.  I don't care whether Rand believes in evolution or not.  I just thought it was a condescending remark towards those of us who believe in young earth creationism.  Comments like that aren't going to help him with evangelicals in Iowa.  How many of them do you think believe that the earth is billions of years old?

----------


## Brett85

> Agreed.  They might as well believe that the world is flat, too.


This is the prime reason why public schools should be abolished.

----------


## amy31416

> This is the prime reason why public schools should be abolished.


Do you believe the Earth is flat?

----------


## asurfaholic

> Can you read? I meant to say bad things tend to happen when religious fanatics try to impose their dogmatic views on a society (see Taliban). "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - this is what good Christians are supposed to believe, and in fact most do. The problem we have is a relatively small, but vocal, angry, militant fringe that just won't accept any compromises. They want their God to run everything.


Yes I can read, and even if you meant to say what you say you meant to say, you still said what you said, which is neg rep worthy. You have an axe to grind with the Christian faith, its glaringly obvious.

And, being a Christain, I have never ever seen this small, vocal, militant wing of the Church. Methinks you are hallucinating or just making stuff up.

But whatever floats your boat. Keep saying things that are hateful towards any group or organization, and I will keep neg ripping you.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> *Most normal people don't care whether a candidate for President believes in evolution or not.*  It's not a political issue at the federal level.  I don't care whether Rand believes in evolution or not.  I just thought it was a condescending remark towards those of us who believe in young earth creationism.  Comments like that aren't going to help him with evangelicals in Iowa.  How many of them do you think believe that the earth is billions of years old?


Is that an acknowledgement that fundies are not exactly normal? Because they sure do care whether a politician believes in evolution. In fact they tend to focus on silly litmus tests like this while ignoring candidate's record and other much more important qualities. Now, it's very easy for any politician to claim he believes in YEC, there is no cost to it (in the Republican primary that is, it's in the general election where this silliness becomes a liability). The practical result is that Republican debate often turns into a clown show, with various opportunistic candidates making all sorts crazy/outrageous statements while bidding for the affections of the Religious right. 

Now if only Republican establishment had some real balls (and brains), they would find a way to put a stop to that. Say, make every candidate sign official pledge that they believe in evolution, and let the fundies deal with it.

----------


## matt0611

> This is the prime reason why public schools should be abolished.


Yep. People should be free to have their kids learn what they want and not have have other people's views shoved down their kids throats.

I think its absolutely ridiculous for anyone who says they believe whats in the Bible and also say they "believe in evolution" but it honestly doesn't matter to me as long as they're not trying to make it mandatory to be taught this and exclude that, especially on the Federal level which should have no role in education whatsoever.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you believe the Earth is flat?


No, I don't believe that one species has ever evolved into another species when there's absolutely no fossil evidence of that.  I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

----------


## Brett85

> Now if only Republican establishment had some real balls (and brains), they would find a way to put a stop to that. Say, make every candidate sign official pledge that they believe in evolution, and let the fundies deal with it.


If they did that they would become even more of a joke than they are now.  How exactly is evolution an issue at the federal level again?  Do you support federal involvement in education?  Literally the only people who care what a politician thinks about evolution are progressive Democrats.  They're the ones who made such a huge deal about Rubio's non controversial comments several months ago.  My liberal relatives seem to have a litmus test that a politician has to believe in every aspect of evolution in order for them to consider voting for them.  Most people are going to vote for a candidate based on issues that affect their lives, not based on the candidate's religious beliefs.

----------


## matt0611

> If they did that they would become even more of a joke than they are now.  How exactly is evolution an issue at the federal level again?  Do you support federal involvement in education?  Literally the only people who care what a politician thinks about evolution are progressive Democrats.  They're the ones who made such a huge deal about Rubio's non controversial comments several months ago.  My liberal relatives seem to have a litmus test that a politician has to believe in every aspect of evolution in order for them to consider voting for them.  Most people are going to vote for a candidate based on issues that affect their lives, not based on the candidate's religious beliefs.


That's because progressives look to politicians to run and control every aspect of their lives and everyone else's, which is why they require them to agree with them on issues such as these. They want to shove their views down other people's throats at the point of a gun for "their own good". 

It couldn't be up to individuals or parents to make these decisions on their own, no, no, no. We can't have that!

----------


## amy31416

> No, I don't believe that one species has ever evolved into another species when there's absolutely no fossil evidence of that.  I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.


Okay then. Considering it's essentially the same thing--I'll just have to say "whatever." And as an aside-fossil evidence is evidence against a young Earth.

You're not very good at "ignoring" people.

----------


## Brett85

> Okay then. Considering it's essentially the same thing--I'll just have to say "whatever." And as an aside-fossil evidence is evidence against a young Earth.
> 
> You're not very good at "ignoring" people.


Yeah, I guess there's not much point of adding people to my ignore list when I just click to open their posts and read them anyway.  There is a lot of evidence that fossil layers were formed by a great flood, but I doubt if you and many others here are open minded enough to even consider that.

----------


## jtstellar

rand will know how to handle this question if it ever comes up.. trust me.. whether he has religious elements in his beliefs or not

----------


## amy31416

> Yeah, I guess there's not much point of adding people to my ignore list when I just click to open their posts and read them anyway.  There is a lot of evidence that fossil layers were formed by a great flood, but I doubt if you and many others here are open minded enough to even consider that.


I'm all for it, but do know that I'm educated in carbon-dating.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> If they did that they would become even more of a joke than they are now.  How exactly is evolution an issue at the federal level again?  Do you support federal involvement in education?  Literally the only people who care what a politician thinks about evolution are progressive Democrats.  *They're the ones who made such a huge deal about Rubio's non controversial comments several months ago.*  My liberal relatives seem to have a litmus test that a politician has to believe in every aspect of evolution in order for them to consider voting for them.  Most people are going to vote for a candidate based on issues that affect their lives, not based on the candidate's religious beliefs.


Lot's of people were making fuss about Rubio's comments including a young Republican named George P Bush. Because Rubio's answer to a simple question was retarded and non controversial only in the eyes of Religious loons. I for one think Rubio knew Earth is 4.5B years old. But he just didn't dare to answer the question directly, lest Religious right might crucify him. Yes, he wasn't afraid to start his Amnesty push, but he sure was afraid to admit Earth is significantly older than the fundies believe.

"The party of stupid". 

This is what religion did to the Republican party.

----------


## Brett85

> Lot's of people were making fuss about Rubio's comments including a young Republican named George P Bush. Because Rubio's answer to a simple question was retarded and non controversial only in the eyes of Religious loons. I for one think Rubio knew Earth is 4.5B years old. But he just didn't dare to answer the question directly, lest Religious right might crucify him. Yes, he wasn't afraid to start his Amnesty push, but he sure was afraid to admit Earth is significantly older than the fundies believe.
> 
> "The party of stupid". 
> 
> This is what religion did to the Republican party.


Why should he have answered the question at all?  What does evolution or the age of the earth have to do with being President of the United States?  Is it your view that it's the role of the President or the roll of the U.S Congress to get involved in the creationism vs. evolution debate and determine the science standards that each school should teach?

----------


## anaconda

> Evolution is more plausible than the world being 5000 years old.


Noah's Ark had to be really crazy. Two of everything on that boat. Just wow.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Noah's Ark had to be really crazy. Two of everything on that boat. Just wow.


Dinosaurs weren't invited

----------


## XTreat

> Noah's Ark had to be really crazy. Two of everything on that boat. Just wow.


Especially at 30,000 ft.

----------


## matt0611

> Noah's Ark had to be really crazy. Two of everything on that boat. Just wow.


Not everything. Not sea creatures (obviously), Not insects etc. 

And not one of every species either, but one of every _kind_, which is much broader than species.

----------


## FriedChicken

> Dinosaurs weren't invited


Why do you say that? Dinosaurs are reptiles, meaning they start out very, very small but never stop growing until they die. So, in young earth theory where man and dino's shared the earth, he would have just taken babies. 

The bible documents pre-flood lifespans reaching the 900's. I'm assuming that you're not convinced of those lifespans but there are definitely some plausible theories that could explain the long lives - in that world practically every reptile would eventually become a dinosaur size. Especially since the environment that allowed them to live that long would have also caused them to grow [I think] a little faster rate of growth than the current environment.

lifespans noticeably decline after the flood.

----------


## Brett85

So many people here who don't believe in miracles.  Such a shame.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Why do you say that? Dinosaurs are reptiles, meaning they start out very, very small but never stop growing until they die. So, in young earth theory where man and dino's shared the earth, he would have just taken babies


Please don't tell me you actually believe humans and dinosaurs lives together...

----------


## Debbie Downer

> So many people here who don't believe in miracles.  Such a shame.


I certainly believe in miracles. Christ performed quite a few and God has performed countless since then. That doesn't mean I believe humans and dinosaurs enjoyed a cruise ship together with Noah.

----------


## green73

> I certainly believe in miracles. Christ performed quite a few and God has performed countless since then. That doesn't mean I believe humans and dinosaurs enjoyed a cruise ship together with Noah.


Do you know Tim Calhoun?

----------


## Brett85

> I certainly believe in miracles. Christ performed quite a few and God has performed countless since then. That doesn't mean I believe humans and dinosaurs enjoyed a cruise ship together with Noah.


The Bible mentions dinosaurs numerous times, so if you say that humans and dinosaurs didn't live together, then you're simply rejecting something else talked about in the Bible.

----------


## KingNothing

> The Bible mentions dinosaurs numerous times, so if you say that humans and dinosaurs didn't live together, then you're simply rejecting something else talked about in the Bible.


They rode around in dino-cars, and flew across the world on pterodactyls. Says so right there in the bible.

----------


## KingNothing

> Why do you say that? Dinosaurs are reptiles, meaning they start out very, very small but never stop growing until they die. So, in young earth theory where man and dino's shared the earth, he would have just taken babies. 
> 
> The bible documents pre-flood lifespans reaching the 900's. I'm assuming that you're not convinced of those lifespans but there are definitely some plausible theories that could explain the long lives - in that world practically every reptile would eventually become a dinosaur size. Especially since the environment that allowed them to live that long would have also caused them to grow [I think] a little faster rate of growth than the current environment.
> 
> lifespans noticeably decline after the flood.


I used to be a skeptic, but I think I agree with this now.  Seems completely logical.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ("Uh oh, an internet argument over religious issues.  I'm out.")

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I certainly believe in miracles. Christ performed quite a few and God has performed countless since then. That doesn't mean I believe humans and dinosaurs enjoyed a cruise ship together with Noah.


So in other words, you are not a Christian and you don't believe God's Word.  Fine, don't pretend to be one anymore.

----------


## FriedChicken

> Please don't tell me you actually believe humans and dinosaurs lives together...


I didn't say I believed it and since you asked so nicely I won't tell you that I do. 
Anyone that believes in a 6 day creation HAS to believe that dinosaurs and man existed together ... cause they were created in the same week.

I was just making the observation that reptilian babies are very small, even large reptiles. So if Noah brought baby dinos with him they wouldn't have been any more trouble than other creatures. In fact less since they would probably eat much less as some reptiles can go a while without food. 

And if the bible is correct about people living to the 900's before the flood - imagine the size some reptiles would get with 10x's the growth period. There is some good theories out there to explain how that kind of age is possible. Not that I think I would be the best at explaining the theories or anything.

I'm very curious, Debbie, do you believe in a global flood?

Someone showed me a list once of all the cultures that have a story about a massive, great, global, etc. flood. It was pretty impressive. The fact that so many cultures have a story about, I think, is evidence enough to have an open mind about the event and look at the earth for evidence of it.

----------


## FriedChicken

> So in other words, you are not a Christian and you don't believe God's Word.  Fine, don't pretend to be one anymore.


... because this thread wasn't de-railed _enough already_.

----------


## Brett85

> So in other words, you are not a Christian and you don't believe God's Word.  Fine, don't pretend to be one anymore.


Yeah, I have more respect for the people who believe that the earth is billions of years old and admit that they're atheists than the people who claim to be Christians who believe in this garbage.  If you're someone who believes that the earth is billions of years old and that we all evolved from monkeys, why not come out and admit that you're an atheist and that you believe that the Bible contains false teachings?

(That question obviously isn't directed to you but to people here who claim to be Christians and believe in evolution)

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Yeah, I have more respect for the people who believe that the earth is billions of years old and admit that they're atheists than the people who claim to be Christians who believe in this garbage.  If you're someone who believes that the earth is billions of years old and that we all evolved from monkeys, why not come out and admit that you're an atheist and that you believe that the Bible contains false teachings?
> 
> (That question obviously isn't directed to you but to people here who claim to be Christians and believe in evolution)


Did I say I believe in evolution? I don't. 

However, like St. Augustine, I don't not believe the Genesis creation story depicts ordinary solar days but rather read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true. I believe that God created everything that has ever existed and will ever exist. He created the earth and the heavens, he created man and every animal...Did he create it in 6 earth days? No, I don't think he did. And you don't have to believe that to be Christian. If you claim you must believe that and cannot believe that Genesis 1 is an allegory to be Christian, then I guess St. Augustine wasn a Christian.

----------


## anaconda

> Why do you say that? Dinosaurs are reptiles, meaning they start out very, very small but never stop growing until they die. So, in young earth theory where man and dino's shared the earth, he would have just taken babies. 
> 
> The bible documents pre-flood lifespans reaching the 900's. I'm assuming that you're not convinced of those lifespans but there are definitely some plausible theories that could explain the long lives - in that world practically every reptile would eventually become a dinosaur size. Especially since the environment that allowed them to live that long would have also caused them to grow [I think] a little faster rate of growth than the current environment.
> 
> lifespans noticeably decline after the flood.


So dinosaurs _were_ on that Ark. Awesome.

----------


## Danan

> So dinosaurs _were_ on that Ark. Awesome.


Dinosaurs are just *really* old lizards!

----------


## TaftFan

> So dinosaurs _were_ on that Ark. Awesome.


We have dinos today.

----------


## Debbie Downer

Neither crocodiles/alligators or Komodo dragons are dinosaurs, although both species have been around for *millions* of years.

----------


## Warlord

Bringing back on topic slightly... I bet Rep. Broun is a little to out of the mainstream of pre-approved opinion for Jack Hunter.  I wonder if Rand will follow his father and give an endorsement in this race or whether he and Jack thinks GA could be better represented by a Log Cabin Republican and gay rights fanatic?

----------


## matt0611

> Did I say I believe in evolution? I don't. 
> 
> However, like St. Augustine, I don't not believe the Genesis creation story depicts ordinary solar days but rather read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true. I believe that God created everything that has ever existed and will ever exist. He created the earth and the heavens, he created man and every animal...Did he create it in 6 earth days? No, I don't think he did. And you don't have to believe that to be Christian. If you claim you must believe that and cannot believe that Genesis 1 is an allegory to be Christian, then I guess St. Augustine wasn a Christian.


So you're an old-earth creationist?

But you believe dinosaurs and many other animals existed and then died out millions of years before humans existed? So there was death and disease and destruction for millions of years before the fall of creation? I don't see how that lines up with Genesis.

----------


## TaftFan

What do ya'll think about "polystrate fossills"?

----------


## Brett85

> Did I say I believe in evolution? I don't. 
> 
> However, like St. Augustine, I don't not believe the Genesis creation story depicts ordinary solar days but rather read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true. I believe that God created everything that has ever existed and will ever exist. He created the earth and the heavens, he created man and every animal...Did he create it in 6 earth days? No, I don't think he did. And you don't have to believe that to be Christian. If you claim you must believe that and cannot believe that Genesis 1 is an allegory to be Christian, then I guess St. Augustine wasn a Christian.


How do you determine which parts of the Bible are allegorical and which parts are literal?  It seems to me like you just pick and choose what you want to believe.

----------


## Danan

> How do you determine which parts of the Bible are allegorical and which parts are literal?  It seems to me like you just pick and choose what you want to believe.


How do you determine which ones are allegorical and which ones are literal?

----------


## Danan

> We have dinos today.


Those aren't dinosaurs.

You could argue that these are, though:

----------


## Brett85

> How do you determine which ones are allegorical and which ones are literal?


The only parts of the Bible that are clearly allegorical are the parts that clearly say that a certain story is allegorical.  An example of an allegorical part of the Bible would be Jesus' parables such as The Prodigal Son.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You might want to give more thought to it. The country will be better served if religious fundamentalists just stick to their religion.


It's interesting that you say this on a forum named after the Christian, Ron Paul.

Perhaps you should give it more thought before you wholesale insult Christian fundamentalists.

----------


## Danan

> The only parts of the Bible that are clearly allegorical are the parts that clearly say that a certain story is allegorical.  An example of an allegorical part of the Bible would be Jesus' parables such as The Prodigal Son.


How do you know that other parts aren't allegorical? You too are making a personal judgement call here. It doesn't matter whether you say have of them are literal and half allegorical, if you say all of them are literal or all of them are allegorical - it's still you deciding so without any way to prove it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How do you determine which ones are allegorical and which ones are literal?


The Bible itself determines it's own use of allegory.  The creation account is not allegorical.

----------


## Danan

> The Bible itself determines it's own use of allegory.  The creation account is not allegorical.


The Bible is a book, an object. Objects don't do anything. The reader has to interpret what's written. Why would we assume everything in the Bible to be meant literal? Is there some kind of preamble saying, "Warning! The following content considered to be understood literally, unless explicitely mentioned otherwise"?

And even if there were such a preamble , would that have to be understood literally?

----------


## Warlord

This is going to be a monster of a thread...

Warlord should start more Paul Broun topics though I'm not sure if it's helping him. If you want to support a Ron Paul endorsed constitutionalist for the senate and possibly the only one who can win on a small budget in 2014 then please pledge.

The thread has even attracted JCD to warn us about the political implications of being religious.

----------


## Brett85

> How do you know that other parts aren't allegorical? You too are making a personal judgement call here. It doesn't matter whether you say have of them are literal and half allegorical, if you say all of them are literal or all of them are allegorical - it's still you deciding so without any way to prove it.


The book of Genesis gives absolutely no indication that what's written is meant to be allegorical.  There are certain stories in the Bible that are allegorical, and the Bible makes it clear to the reader that these are allegorical stories.  The book of Genesis is written as a historical text, that's the type of text contained in that book.  There's absolutely no indication at all that Genesis is simply allegorical when the type of text that's written is historical in nature.  The entire Old Testament is historical in the sense that it describes who the ancestors of Jesus were.  If Genesis and other old Testament books are simply allegorical, then that would mess up the entire historical context of the Old Testament since the Old Testament is intended to describe the events leading up to Jesus' death on the cross and describe how Jesus was a descendant of many Old Testament figures.

----------


## matt0611

> The book of Genesis gives absolutely no indication that what's written is meant to be allegorical.  There are certain stories in the Bible that are allegorical, and the Bible makes it clear to the reader that these are allegorical stories.  The book of Genesis is written as a historical text, that's the type of text contained in that book.  There's absolutely no indication at all that Genesis is simply allegorical when the type of text that's written is historical in nature.  The entire Old Testament is historical in the sense that it describes who the ancestors of Jesus were.  If Genesis and other old Testament books are simply allegorical, then that would mess up the entire historical context of the Old Testament since the Old Testament is intended to describe the events leading up to Jesus' death on the cross and describe how Jesus was a descendant of many Old Testament figures.


Yep.

Jesus also talked about Noah as if he was a real person who existed in history and not just an allegorical figure.

----------


## anaconda

> Neither crocodiles/alligators or Komodo dragons are dinosaurs, although both species have been around for *millions* of years.


Much like John McCain. Except that McCain _is_ a dinosaur.

----------


## TaftFan

> Much like John McCain. Except that McCain _is_ a dinosaur.


Ever since McCain was called moss covered I thought of the (seaweed covered) scuba diver from scooby doo.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Yeah, I have more respect for the people who believe that the earth is billions of years old and admit that they're atheists than the people who claim to be Christians who believe in this garbage.  If you're someone who believes that the earth is billions of years old and that we all evolved from monkeys, why not come out and admit that you're an atheist and that you believe that the Bible contains false teachings?
> 
> (That question obviously isn't directed to you but to people here who claim to be Christians and believe in evolution)


So what you're saying in effect is that only a minority of Americans are good Christians. The majority are actually atheist. lol

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Ho...n-Origins.aspx

----------


## jllundqu

> Yeah, I have more respect for the people who believe that the earth is billions of years old and admit that they're atheists than the people who claim to be Christians who believe in this garbage.  If you're someone who believes that the earth is billions of years old and that we all evolved from monkeys, why not come out and admit that you're an atheist and that you believe that the Bible contains false teachings?
> 
> (That question obviously isn't directed to you but to people here who claim to be Christians and believe in evolution)


With all due respect...  a VAST majority of "Chirstians" have a compatible view with both science and religion.  THey accept that God did in fact create the universe, just not in the way (or timeframe) as described in Genesis.  Spew your venom elsewhere. 

In other news:  Did you guys hear about how easily it is to derail a thread on RPF??  All you have to do is mention a differing viewpoint and POOF!  The crazies come out to attack!  Kinda crazy huh??

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Based on the content of this thread, it should be in the Religion sub-forum, not the Rand Paul sub-forum, IMHO.

----------


## Brett85

> So what you're saying in effect is that only a minority of Americans are good Christians. The majority are actually atheist. lol
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Ho...n-Origins.aspx


This poll actually shows that the plurality of Americans, 46%, believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.  So I guess 46% of the American people are "radical religious right conservatives?"  How does believing in creationism hurt a Presidential candidate in a general election again?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yep.
> 
> Jesus also talked about Noah as if he was a real person who existed in history and not just an allegorical figure.


Yes, Adam too.  Jesus spoke of Adam as a real person in his real historical context.  That is why the people like Debbie Downer who are advancing the idea that the Old Testament historical accounts are not to be believed are not Christians.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Let's go for Derrick Grayson in the first round, and the Broun in the runoff. I'll always support genuine Ron Paul liberty candidates first.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> This poll actually shows that the plurality of Americans, 46%, believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.  So I guess 46% of the American people are "radical religious right conservatives?"  How does believing in creationism hurt a Presidential candidate in a general election again?


I wish Gallup provided a geographic breakdown, but I'd wager that a disproportionate amount of these undereducated types reside in the South, which isn't terribly  competitive politically anyway. All we have is data on independent voters, where a clear majority are not creationists. Interestingly, there is little difference between independents and democrats in terms of their views on evolution. It's the Republican voters that really stand out.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I wish Gallup provided a geographic breakdown, but I'd wager that a disproportionate amount of these undereducated types reside in the South, which isn't terribly  competitive politically anyway. All we have is data on independent voters, where a clear majority are not creationists. Interestingly, there is little difference between independents and democrats in terms of their views on evolution. It's the Republican voters that really stand out.


Arguments from popularity are not valid.

----------


## KingNothing

> Based on the content of this thread, it should be in the Religion sub-forum, not the Rand Paul sub-forum, IMHO.


And it should only be in the religion sub-forum because we don't have a "stupid people post here" forum.

----------


## KingNothing

> So you're an old-earth creationist?
> 
> But you believe dinosaurs and many other animals existed and then died out millions of years before humans existed? So there was death and disease and destruction for millions of years before the fall of creation? I don't see how that lines up with Genesis.


And yet this gives you MORE cause to believe Genesis.

----------


## jllundqu

> No, he was merely chosen by God. Those misguided by Satan will reject him, just as they rejected Jesus. We must help our new savior, Senator Rand Paul and fulfill God's will.


I am convinced you are joking at this point... there's no way you actually believe Rand Paul is "the savior"  lol

You had me going for a minute.

----------


## jllundqu

Oh and for all you 'the world is only 10,000 years old - Creationists'.... the freakin POPE weighed in on the subject in 1951.  Even the POPE can't deny basic math and says that science and religion are indeed compatible:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM

----------


## jllundqu

Written by Pope Pius XII

D. THE BEGINNING IN TIME 

35. First of all, to quote some figures-which aim at nothing else than to give an order of magnitude fixing the dawn of our universe, that is to say, to its beginning in time- science has at its disposal various means, each of which is more or less independent from the other, although all converge. We point them out briefly: 

(1) recession of the spiral nebulae or galaxies: 

36. The examination of various spiral nebulae, especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations, that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the "expanding universe," it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning. 

(2) The age of the solid crust of the earth: 

37. To calculate the age of original radioactive substances, very approximate data are taken from the transformation of the isotope of uranium 238 into an isotope of lead (RaG), or of an isotope of uranium 235 into actinium D (AcD), and of the isotope of thorium 232 into thorium D (ThD). The mass of helium thereby formed can serve as a means of control. This leads to the conclusion that the average age of the oldest minerals is at the most five billion years. 

(3) The age of meteorites: 

38. The preceding method adopted to determine the age of meteorites has led to practically the same figure of five billion years. This is a result which acquires special importance by reason of the fact that the meteorites come from outside our earth and, apart from the terrestrial minerals are the only examples of celestial bodies which can be studied in scientific laboratories. 

(4) The stability of the systems of double stars and starry masses: 

39. The oscillations of gravitation between these systems, as also the attrition resulting from tides, again limit their stability within a period of from five to ten billion years. 40. Although these figures may seem astounding, nevertheless, even to the simplest of the faithful, they bring no new or different concept from the one they learned in the opening words of Genesis: "In the beginning . . .," that is to say; at the beginning of things in time. The figures We have quoted clothe these words in a concrete and almost mathematical expression, while from them there springs forth a new source of consolation for those who share the esteem of the Apostle for that divinely inspired Scripture which is always useful "for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing" (2 Tim., 3, 16

----------


## matt0611

> And yet this gives you MORE cause to believe Genesis.


I never said that's what I believe, I was asking what he believes.

The Genesis account doesn't line up with evolution. But I'm not an evolutionist. So I have no conflict of beliefs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh and for all you 'the world is only 10,000 years old - Creationists'.... the freakin POPE weighed in on the subject in 1951.  Even the POPE can't deny basic math and says that science and religion are indeed compatible:
> 
> http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM


Uh...Rome and all the Popes have left Christianity many centuries ago.  None of them are Christians or believe the Bible anymore.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh and for all you 'the world is only 10,000 years old - Creationists'.... the freakin POPE weighed in on the subject in 1951.  Even the POPE can't deny basic math and says that science and religion are indeed compatible:
> 
> http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM


Many evangelics don't even believe that Catholics are Christians.  Personally I'm not sure, but it is somewhat of a different religion since it's more works based.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Many evangelics don't even believe that Catholics are Christians.  Personally I'm not sure, but it is somewhat of a different religion since it's more works based.


Catholicism doesn't and never has taught salvation by works or that we can ever do anything to merit our salvation.

----------


## compromise

> Many evangelics don't even believe that Catholics are Christians.  Personally I'm not sure, but it is somewhat of a different religion since it's more works based.


I'm not sure that's true any more. A lot of Evangelicals voted for Catholic Santorum for faith-based reasons and they would never vote for someone they didn't think was a Christian.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Oh and for all you 'the world is only 10,000 years old - Creationists'.... the freakin POPE weighed in on the subject in 1951.  Even the POPE can't deny basic math and says that science and religion are indeed compatible:
> 
> http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM


The pope is just one man, and is corruptible like all humans.


And he seems to be forgetting that God created time. Anything is possible really when God, who created time, also created the earth. Maybe its part of the design. I have full faith that God can make a rock that appears older than what it is.

No, I don't have the answers to every question, but I have a rock solid faith that God created these things so we can worship his name if we choose.

----------

