We shouldn't even know what Paul's religion is!

[EWM]

I'm saying that you haven't disproven that belief. Ron Paul apparently believes it. (During the 2008 campaign he both denied the idea that evolution was "wrong" as well as the idea that evolution was "proven".)



I'm also saying that so far you have yet to put forward a cogent argument. In fact you haven't done that from your starting point of this thread. It's one thing to be "right" (and I don't think you're right). It's quite another to at least put forward an intelligent argument as to why you are right. There are several ways the story of Adam and Eve have been attacked over the years. One was that people argued, like you did, that it was impossible for humanity to have descended from 1 or 2 modern humans. Well modern science has now debunked the debunkers and confirmed the creation story on at least that one point. I would expect you to pick some other point of attack, rather than to resort to ad hominems. But apparently that's beyond you.

You seem so glued to your belief in the mythology that you can't understand my points. Even if all of mankind came from two people, those two people had to have been born of other people. No real scientist will say they just appeared in a garden. Ron Paul isn't even saying that. And you want me to disprove the Adam and Eve story? Okay. As soon as you disprove the story of Odysseus escaping the cave after stabbing the cyclops in the eye. And, go!

 

[jmdrake]

You seem so glued to your belief in the mythology that you can't understand my points.

You haven't made any points. You seem so glued to your belief in yourself that you can't understand that you haven't made any points.

Even if all of mankind came from two people, those two people had to have been born of other people. No real scientist will say they just appeared in a garden.

Right. The first people evolved on the arctic circle on in the desert where there was no food. The point that you are failing miserably to understand is that the scientific argument you put forward to prove your hypothesis has already been disproven. So now you are trying to prove your hypothesis by was of itself. That's circular reasoning.

Ron Paul isn't even saying that.

Ron Paul said that he didn't accept evolution as more than a theory and that he believes in a creator.

And you want me to disprove the Adam and Eve story? Okay. As soon as you disprove the story of Odysseus escaping the cave after stabbing the cyclops in the eye. And, go!

You're the one stating a claim so it's up to you to prove your claim. I haven't stated a claim about Odysseus one way or another.

 

[EWM]

You haven't made any points. You seem so glued to your belief in yourself that you can't understand that you haven't made any points.

I've made several. Read them.

Right. The first people evolved on the arctic circle on in the desert where there was no food. The point that you are failing miserably to understand is that the scientific argument you put forward to prove your hypothesis has already been disproven. So now you are trying to prove your hypothesis by was of itself. That's circular reasoning.

Have you never studied evolution? You don't even seem to be able to grasp the basics of it.

Ron Paul said that he didn't accept evolution as more than a theory and that he believes in a creator.

Okay. So at what point did he say Adam and Eve where thrown into a garden together?

You're the one stating a claim so it's up to you to prove your claim. I haven't stated a claim about Odysseus one way or another.

I can back up evolution with piles upon piles of scientific data. What do YOU have?

 

[erowe1]

You may wanna read everything again and try to comprehend my point. To make it simple, I'm saying that God did not put Adam and Eve in a garden where they started mankind.

So a couple days ago, the one thing that made creationists fools was that they believed all humanity came from one man and one woman. Then when you realized evolutionists believed that too, you decided that the thing that made creationists foolish was that they call that man and woman "Adam and Eve" and believe they were created by God.

If that's your objection, then why even bring up the fact that they believe in humanity coming from one man and one woman?

Is it possible that you're not the most qualified person to judge whether or not someone else is an ignorant fool?

 

[jmdrake]

I've made several. Read them.

I've read all of your posts. You haven't made a single point. You've made several attempts at making a point. But you've never made a point.

Have you never studied evolution? You don't even seem to be able to grasp the basics of it.

Yep. And I'm not the one that said something stupid like "Only an ignorant fool would believe humans came from two people". That would be you. And yes I know you would like to ignore that and just concentrate on your "larger hypothesis". But your hypothesis is based on a disproven point. Also I'm pretty sure that every scientist on the planet would say the area where Lucy was found was once a lush garden like landscape. The only thing a scientist would dispute is whether God put Lucy there.

Okay. So at what point did he say Adam and Eve where thrown into a garden together?

At what point did he dispute that? Again Ron Paul is basing his belief in creation on his Christian upbringing. That would include Adam and Eve. Or "Igor and Lucy" if the words "Adam and Eve" are such a problem for you.

I can back up evolution with piles upon piles of scientific data. What do YOU have?

I'm still waiting for you to back up your false claim that all of humanity didn't descend from a single pair of humans. You can't make unscientific claims and then run around and claim "But I'm a scientist".

 

[Narmical]

There is only one thing about a candidates religion that I care about. Weather he thinks its a basis for creating laws. Ron clearly does not. He equated the freedom of prostitution with the freedom of religion. That says it all for me.

Also if he respects the separation of church and state. Many don't, but I think Ron will.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, and since you aren't making any points but just running around in circles I'll let you have the final word. Basically you're boring me. But you have shown at this point what I suspected all along. Your OP really has nothing to do with you being concerned about Ron Paul losing the election. Quite the contrary, you wouldn't mind him losing if he would just succumb to your own narrow view of morality. The fact that he believes evolution is just a "theory" and he accepts creationism flies in the face of your own personal bigotry against those who disagree with you. You know as well as I do that it makes perfect political sense for Ron Paul to do exactly what he is doing with regards to reaching out to Christians. Reversing course on that for the sake of < 40% of the U.S. population and a tiny fraction of the GOP electorate would be extremely stupid. But it would make you feel better personally about supporting Ron Paul. You can take solace in the fact that even though Ron Paul dismissed evolution as "just a theory" (same as most creationists) and spoke directly about a "creator" that maybe, just maybe he isn't as "nutty" as you seem to think Christians are. But if he keeps talking about his Christianity, at some point he'll say something that you just can't stomach.

You know what's ironic about all of this? It shows that Christians aren't the ones who are intolerant. At least not Christians within the Ron Paul movement. When Ron Paul didn't raise his hand at the "Value Voters Summit" on the question condemning evolution, a lot of atheists on the forum were cheering. Most Christians were like "Meh. So what? He probably didn't raise his hand because he accepts microevolution, and regardless he's the best candidate out there." But when Ron later clarified his stance that really bothered many of those same atheists. Now to be fair I've met many tolerant atheists here who don't go around blanket name calling the other side and who haven't made an issue over Dr. Paul considering evolution to be just a theory and who put forward cogent arguments for their side instead of just saying "nanny nanny boo boo you believe a myth" like some here. While I disagree with them, I respect them. Maybe someday when you learn to put forward cogent arguments you'll earn respect among the other side here too.

 

[jmdrake]

There is only one thing about a candidates religion that I care about. Weather he thinks its a basis for creating laws. Ron clearly does not. He equated the freedom of prostitution with the freedom of religion. That says it all for me.

Also if he respects the separation of church and state. Many don't, but I think Ron will.

^Thread winner! +rep.

 

[EWM]

So a couple days ago, the one thing that made creationists fools was that they believed all humanity came from one man and one woman. Then when you realized evolutionists believed that too, you decided that the thing that made creationists foolish was that they call that man and woman "Adam and Eve" and believe they were created by God.

If that's your objection, then why even bring up the fact that they believe in humanity coming from one man and one woman?

Is it possible that you're not the most qualified person to judge whether or not someone else is an ignorant fool?

I think it's possible that many of you are doing a silly little dance around the argument because you can't defend the Adam and Eve mythology.

 

[acptulsa]

There is only one thing about a candidates religion that I care about. Weather he thinks its a basis for creating laws. Ron clearly does not. He equated the freedom of prostitution with the freedom of religion. That says it all for me.

Also if he respects the separation of church and state. Many don't, but I think Ron will.

Hope this sensible posts kills this silly thread once and for all.

Here, have some rep.

 

[erowe1]

I think it's possible that many of you are doing a silly little dance around the argument because you can't defend the Adam and Eve mythology.

Yeah I believe in Adam and Eve. I'm not dancing around that.

But if you don't, why would you make the one thing about it that you charge as foolish to be something that evolutionists also believe? It just makes it look like you're pulling things out of your butt. That's all.

 

[EWM]

I've read all of your posts. You haven't made a single point. You've made several attempts at making a point. But you've never made a point.

Try reading again.

Yep. And I'm not the one that said something stupid like "Only an ignorant fool would believe humans came from two people". That would be you. And yes I know you would like to ignore that and just concentrate on your "larger hypothesis". But your hypothesis is based on a disproven point. Also I'm pretty sure that every scientist on the planet would say the area where Lucy was found was once a lush garden like landscape. The only thing a scientist would dispute is whether God put Lucy there.

No one is saying God put Lucy there. Lucy had parents as well.

At what point did he dispute that? Again Ron Paul is basing his belief in creation on his Christian upbringing. That would include Adam and Eve. Or "Igor and Lucy" if the words "Adam and Eve" are such a problem for you.

"Adam and Eve" are characters in the Bible. Are you suggesting Ron Paul accepts everything in the Bible as literal fact? If you are, please provide a link to a quote that supports your claim.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your false claim that all of humanity didn't descend from a single pair of humans. You can't make unscientific claims and then run around and claim "But I'm a scientist".

Let's quit the nonsense. The idea that two people were put on this earth with no parets to be born from is one of the dumbest myths to believe in. There are absolutely no facts to support such an idea. It's an interesting work of fiction and that's all.

 

[EWM]

Oh, and since you aren't making any points but just running around in circles I'll let you have the final word. Basically you're boring me. But you have shown at this point what I suspected all along. Your OP really has nothing to do with you being concerned about Ron Paul losing the election. Quite the contrary, you wouldn't mind him losing if he would just succumb to your own narrow view of morality. The fact that he believes evolution is just a "theory" and he accepts creationism flies in the face of your own personal bigotry against those who disagree with you. You know as well as I do that it makes perfect political sense for Ron Paul to do exactly what he is doing with regards to reaching out to Christians. Reversing course on that for the sake of < 40% of the U.S. population and a tiny fraction of the GOP electorate would be extremely stupid. But it would make you feel better personally about supporting Ron Paul. You can take solace in the fact that even though Ron Paul dismissed evolution as "just a theory" (same as most creationists) and spoke directly about a "creator" that maybe, just maybe he isn't as "nutty" as you seem to think Christians are. But if he keeps talking about his Christianity, at some point he'll say something that you just can't stomach.

You know what's ironic about all of this? It shows that Christians aren't the ones who are intolerant. At least not Christians within the Ron Paul movement. When Ron Paul didn't raise his hand at the "Value Voters Summit" on the question condemning evolution, a lot of atheists on the forum were cheering. Most Christians were like "Meh. So what? He probably didn't raise his hand because he accepts microevolution, and regardless he's the best candidate out there." But when Ron later clarified his stance that really bothered many of those same atheists. Now to be fair I've met many tolerant atheists here who don't go around blanket name calling the other side and who haven't made an issue over Dr. Paul considering evolution to be just a theory and who put forward cogent arguments for their side instead of just saying "nanny nanny boo boo you believe a myth" like some here. While I disagree with them, I respect them. Maybe someday when you learn to put forward cogent arguments you'll earn respect among the other side here too.

Aww, you're so offended.

Ron Paul seems to have a more open mind than you do. What you don't understand is that I'm pointing out how Paul never said he believed the Bible was a literal interpretation of history. A person can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, and be free minded enough to have their own interpretations. One can believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time. They just don't have to accept early man's vision of what God is. It's just as ignorant to say God definitely doesn't exist as it is to say God definitely exists. But as far as the Bible goes, there's absolutely no evidence to support the wild stories within it as being factual.

 

[EWM]

Yeah I believe in Adam and Eve. I'm not dancing around that.

But if you don't, why would you make the one thing about it that you charge as foolish to be something that evolutionists also believe? It just makes it look like you're pulling things out of your butt. That's all.

Find me one evolutionist who believes God put one man and one woman on this earth who began mankind.

 

[erowe1]

Find me one evolutionist who believes God put one man and one woman on this earth who began mankind.

That's the thing. At first it was just the idea of all humanity having 2 common ancestors that was stupid, then you had to switch it to the idea of there being a God. It's not like you can just say, "That's what I meant."

And, by the way, there are tons of evolutionists who believe God is behind it all.

 

[EWM]

That's the thing. At first it was just the idea of all humanity having 2 common ancestors that was stupid, then you had to switch it to the idea of there being a God. It's not like you can just say, "That's what I meant."

And, by the way, there are tons of evolutionists who believe God is behind it all.

You guys are fucking with me, right? You all conspired together to play this little game like you don't understand what I was getting at, right?

Ha ha. Well done.

 

[erowe1]

You guys are fucking with me, right? You all conspired together to play this little game like you don't understand what I was getting at, right?

Ha ha. Well done.

Sorry. Not buying it.

 

[EWM]

Sorry. Not buying it.

Yeah. I'm not buying the idea that you guys aren't playing games.

 

[TheViper]

And, by the way, there are tons of evolutionists who believe God is behind it all.

Indeed there are but they don't believe in Biblical Creationism.

 

[erowe1]

Indeed there are but they don't believe in Biblical Creationism.

If you mean they don't take Genesis 1 literally, then that's included in the part about them being evolutionists. But they still believe what EWM asked about, which is that God was responsible for putting the first man and woman on the earth.