Comedian Jim Norton comments on Ron Paul

[Deborah K]

Ah but are all fundamentalist Creationists Christians?

Could their be fundamentalist Muslims or Jews who are also Creationists?

(note, I do not agree with the 'hate' directed at those who hold differing beliefs than me, I'm honestly curious if you think all fundamentalist Creationists are Christians, that's all).

No. But I believe a majority of them are.

 

[rawful]

From yesterday, Patton Oswalt comments on Ron Paul at the 1:01:00 mark.

 

[BW2112]

"Originally posted by ClayTrainer"
I'm not sure there's a branch of knowledge that can even qualify a person for such a job. :o[/QUOTE]

I actually don't want a government at all(Im one of those evil ancaps)for anyone to have to run. But if Im going to vote for someone, evolution will be the furthest thing from my mind.

And TheDrakeMan, could you explain why you -repped me? Im not one of those creationists that you hate, im an agnostic theist(I pray to God even though Im not sure he exists. Sounds stupid I know). I don't care about evolution one way or another. I don't care how we got here. We're here, thats all that matters. And I want us to continue to be here, preferably living in peace. Is it so horrible that I think whether or not RP believes in evolution is less important than whether he towel dries or blows dries his hair after a shower?

 

[BucksforPaul]

For the last time: My POINT was that there is a double standard when it comes to attacking certain groups of people - Christians being one of them. I've already proven that the term 'Fundamentalist' derives from a Christian movement. The term 'Fundamentalist Creationist' is a made up term by the hateful poster, which leaves it up to interpretation. You called my statement ignorant, and have since refused to acknowledge my point which had to do with a PC double standard. But since you seem more hellbent on getting the last word, then have at it. I don't have time for circular arguments.

Edit: Correction, just googled the term 'fundamentalist creationist' - looks like they're Christians: http://www.google.com/search?source...RN_enUS440US440&q=fundamentalist+creationists

Again, show me where I argued with you on your point about the double standard of people criticizing Christianity? Instead you falsely accused me of supporting the OP in question in doing this and tried to put words in my mouth. I am still waiting for you to show me where I attacked Christianity?

I guess in your small world only Christians have the right to be Creationists and everyone else can go to hell. I simply pointed out that TheDrakeMan was insulting all people who believe in a Creator and not only Christians. Then you started arguing about the word Fundamentalist and have continued to do so even going as far as stating that only Christians can be called this word and in fact it came from that movement.

Do me a favor and let the Media know to stop using this word, which obviously only belongs to Christianity, to describe Muslims or any other subject. Then you stated that

The term 'Fundamentalist Creationist' is a made up term by the hateful poster, which leaves it up to interpretation.

and I interpreted it as an attack on all believers in a higher Being which includes Christians.

Your circular argument refuses to acknowledge that other religions besides Christianity also fall in the Creationist category unless you think only Christians have a right to believe in a Creator.

Then your hilarious response to the essential question are all fundamentalist Creationists Christians?

No. But I believe a majority of them are

Hindus and Muslims, who also believe in the Creator, if combined outnumber Christians but I guess majority is what you say it is. You obviously have the right to decide on who can be a Creationist or not. I have no right to be offended by the OP since the issue of Creationism has been patented by Christianity alone.
LOL do I need to define majority to you or is your worldview limited to the US only? Does the evolutionary mumbo jumbo only apply to the US or is it taught all over the World attacking all adherents to a higher Being?

Btw, the word Fundamentalist is derived from the the word fundamental which means:

adjective
1.serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2.of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3.being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.
Noun
a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.

Furthermore the etymology of the word Fundamentalists states

Applied to other religions, especially Islam, since 1957.

I did not know that this word belonged to Christianity, but one learns something new everyday.

 

[SimpleName]

From yesterday, Patton Oswalt comments on Ron Paul at the 1:01:00 mark.

Whats this? Relevant discussion to the thread topic? Oh. Alright. I'm still not sure where this "90% of the things he says is right" stuff comes from? Is that all media fed? Do they hear that on TV and roll with it? How often is Romney right? 10% of the time? Was Obama any more than 90% right? There is no way Ron Paul is 90% right if Obama is more than 90% right. It's impossible. Their politics are on complete opposite ends. No way they can both be right on 9 out of 10 things (politically at least). So that pretty much makes Ron the best choice. Why aren't we voting for him then?!!?

 

[Noleader]

Dr. Paul never said he was a creationist that I heard (I could be wrong). He did say he has some reservations and doubts about evolution. There is nothing wrong with a man of science questioning a theory. Even someone, like me, who accepts evolution does so understanding it is an incomplete theory for which there is no means to test. If someone were to ask me if I beleive in evolution my answer would be a unequivocal NO. Science has no room for a beleif structure... it is all about empirical data.

 

[rawful]

Whats this? Relevant discussion to the thread topic? Oh. Alright. I'm still not sure where this "90% of the things he says is right" stuff comes from? Is that all media fed? Do they hear that on TV and roll with it? How often is Romney right? 10% of the time? Was Obama any more than 90% right? There is no way Ron Paul is 90% right if Obama is more than 90% right. It's impossible. Their politics are on complete opposite ends. No way they can both be right on 9 out of 10 things (politically at least). So that pretty much makes Ron the best choice. Why aren't we voting for him then?!!?

For the "right", he's 90% good except for foreign policy. For the "left", he's 90% good except for laissez-faire economics. I'm guessing Patton falls on the left since he loved Obama.

 

[rawful]

Norton praised Ron Paul again yesterday.

RT @hgratacos: @JimNorton This is why you should do more research on this brilliant polititian. http://t.co/

- It's hard not to like him.

 

[Working Poor]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

are you saying a Dr. does not have knowledge of biology?

 

[Voluntary Man]

I don't like the creationists either. I think it's fine though if they acknowledge that their religious beliefs supersede rational thought though.

For example- the flying Spagetti monster, who is worshipped, teaches creationist mythology. Evolution, physics, etc could still make rational and obvious sense, but you
say no my faith in Spagetti monster sup cedes those things. It's not that they don't make sense, but that religion has to supersede all other things. So you can still be fine with science being taught while worshipping your Gods in your church where it belongs.

I'm sorry, but is Ron Paul running for president or pope? if we can agree that he's running for president, then maybe we can save the all the straw dog "spaghetti monster" crap for a religious debate forum, please?

...unless, of course, you can demonstrate how a political candidate's wholsale acceptance of evolution is going to make your life better or worse.

...of course, then you might also need to address the questions that many scientists (even the non-religious ones) have with evolution.

talk about absolutism. if someone expresses a problem with Newton's explanation of gravity, does he automatically get attacked by knee-jerk militant atheists as a "gravity denier"?

Dr Paul "doesn't understand biology"? i beg to differ.

 

[NYgs23]

You know what, I'll bet 95% of the people that go on about the ignorance of creationists know no more about evolution than the creationists themselves. Are they scientists? Have they done the experiments and gathered the data? Of course they haven't. Their conviction is rooted in nothing more than a blind, mindless faith in scientists or whatever they read in a textbook in 6th grade. Which is just as foolish and anti-scientific as blind faith in anything else.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Creationists should teach their religion in their synagogues, churches, temples and mosques.

Teachers\professors should teach science including evolution in schools, universities, etc.

So, do you believe we should have public schools or private?

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

Jim Norton helped introduce me to politics. He was a frequent guest on the short-lived Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn show. That show got me pumped.

I always loved:

JIM NORTON: Why do you have to be an asshole?

PATRICE ONEAL: Why do you have to be a shell-less turtle?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

SoCons lose big in Texas School board fight


Creationist curriculum thrown out.



Nope, Rick Santorum doesn't get to teach Creationism in Texas schools.

I hope you know what you're doing. If evolution is on top under a controlled system, I wonder how it would fare under a free market? I bet not nearly as good. Since you advocate free markets, you're probably going to see a whole lot more creationism and a whole lot less evolution in schools as a result of the free market.

Beside, I hope you know that you're the crazy one for thinking all life came from a rock 4.5 billion years ago. Not me. That will be realized in the free market and you will understand why my view is called crazy; because it's been suppressed. That's the only reason you have the luxury of calling us whackos instead of the other way around. Once it's not the officially state funded view, you won't have that luxury anymore.

One reallly must wonder what you are so afraid of. Why do you "hate" us so much? Are you afraid we might be right? I think the answer to that question is yes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

FYI - new fossil find reported today in Yahoo:

Notice how, everytime they find something new, it never causes doubt of the theory. It just "rewrites" the theory. These people are assuming evolution as truth and then making the facts fit with the theory. "We know evolution happened, but we just don't know how." Where else is that acceptable in science.

Also, I find it odd that evolutionists are ALWAYS making the claim that you have to be dumb or uninformed to not believe in evolution. Creationists make no such claim.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Dr. Paul never said he was a creationist that I heard (I could be wrong). He did say he has some reservations and doubts about evolution. There is nothing wrong with a man of science questioning a theory. Even someone, like me, who accepts evolution does so understanding it is an incomplete theory for which there is no means to test. If someone were to ask me if I beleive in evolution my answer would be a unequivocal NO. Science has no room for a beleif structure... it is all about empirical data.

Exactly, "for which there [are] no means to test..." That rules out evolution being scientific. By the way, evolution being as solid as people make it out to be requires that it can actually be cogently explained at every step. However, there are still so many holes in it that it boggles my mind people think it i a foregone conclusion that every intelligent person would accept it. Intelligent people can see that there is no known mechanism for the cell evolving. It is all just guess work. Most of the evidence is stuff like, "we think it could have happened this way, therefore, that proves it DID happen!" Any intelligent person can see the idiocy of that idea. Why people can't accept that there are grounds for intelligent people to question evolution (some don't even think it can be QUESTIONED, which puts it on the level of DOGMA) is beyond me.

Can't you all just accept that it's not a rock solid theory and that there is room for intelligent people to doubt it, which many do?

 

[emr1028]

Notice how, everytime they find something new, it never causes doubt of the theory. It just "rewrites" the theory. These people are assuming evolution as truth and then making the facts fit with the theory. "We know evolution happened, but we just don't know how." Where else is that acceptable in science.

Evolution and its mechanisms are sound science. Some of the details are fuzzy. Of course some of the details are going to be fuzzy, we have 4 billion years and unbelievably large scales of complexity to sort out. We will likely never know of 99.99% of species that have lived on this planet. The sheer immensity of the scale of the complexity of evolution on this planet is immense, however we have made great strides in the last ~150 or so years since we've started to piece the puzzle together. I'm sorry but denying the premise of evolution as the means of development of life on this planet just makes you look silly and uneducated.

People once denied that the Earth went around the sun though, so I'm sure that one day we'll live in a society where people throw away their fairytales and accept what is overwhelming-- that we were not put here by some magical being in full human form, but that we instead evolved over 13 billion years from mere hydrogen atoms into the most lowly forms of life, and over another ~4billion years a species emerged on earth capable of discovering its own origins.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Evolution and its mechanisms are sound science. Some of the details are fuzzy. Of course some of the details are going to be fuzzy, we have 4 billion years and unbelievably large scales of complexity to sort out. We will likely never know of 99.99% of species that have lived on this planet. The sheer immensity of the scale of the complexity of evolution on this planet is immense, however we have made great strides in the last ~150 or so years since we've started to piece the puzzle together. I'm sorry but denying the premise of evolution as the means of development of life on this planet just makes you look silly and uneducated.

People once denied that the Earth went around the sun though, so I'm sure that one day we'll live in a society where people throw away their fairytales and accept what is overwhelming-- that we were not put here by some magical being in full human form, but that we instead evolved over 13 billion years from mere hydrogen atoms into the most lowly forms of life, and over another ~4billion years a species emerged on earth capable of discovering its own origins.

Does it make Ron Paul look silly and uneducated? I have a political science degree and have taken many chemistry and biology classes at a prestigious university. Does that make me look stupid and uneducated?

Why must evolutionists always say that people who deny evolution are silly and uneducated? Creationists NEVER make this claim, or at least volumes less than evolutionists do. Why is evolution a premise? Aren't you supposed to make the theory fit the facts intsead of the other way around? Wait, actually, I KNOW that is the case, I'm not asking. So, if evolution deals with such a vast period of history, why does it bother you that there is room for doubt? It's obviously dealing with volumes of history, and not scientific, observable natural processes. You can't take the observable and apply it to millions of years of history without first at least acknowledging that there is much room for doubt. I'm sorry, but you're just being dogmatic. I bet I know more about science than you do. You probably just believe in it because the "scientists" do, or you read it on some blog. So, what gives? Why do you look down on me for believing it may have happened differently, since you acknowledge that the scale is so vast that we can't possibly conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened the way you are suggesting.

Do you rescind what you just said and acknowledge that even intelligent, educated people can find reason not to believe in evolution? I never insulted your intelligence. Please answer this question before you say anything else to me.

 

[dawnbt]

I hate fundamentalist Creationists more than most on this board, but I don't get how someone can choose a politician based on this issue. I don't expect politicians to be knowledgeable about biology.

You hate me for being a "fundamentalist Creationist" although you don't know me? Wow! I wouldn't expect you to understand me I am not filled with hate, but joy. I don't hate others based on their beliefs and allow others to choose how they vote based on their beliefs, not mine.

 

[emr1028]

Ok, well first of all I didn't say that if you don't believe in evolution than you must be stupid and uneducated. I said it makes you look silly and uneducated. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have room for doubt, however at the same time the evidence for evolution is so goddamn overwhelming that honestly, you have to be pretty senseless to entirely reject the theory. You have to be even more senseless to reject it in favor of a book of myths that claims an invisible sky fairy created the universe 6,000 years ago. I don't think that you personally believe that, but at some point the people who do are going to have to come to terms with the fact that what they believe just isn't true, so that we as a species and as a society can move on.

And yes, we have observed evolution through each evolutionary mechanism.

And for the record, I've actually spent quite a bit of time (both in classes and in my spare time) reading about evolutionary theory. I honestly just don't understand how people can deny that given everything we know and understand about the universe and this planet, how people can honestly reject evolution altogether. I'm fairly convinced that a vast majority of people who reject evolution either don't understand it or don't want to understand it.