Ron Paul Naysayers. Put this in your chamber and fire it!

[illbits]

Who would have known that I would stick religion into a political discussion and it would get so heated? Huh.

hahaha. A mix of religion, science and politics always makes for a fun conversation!

[Jeff Bergquist]

There are a couple assumptions of faith that science does make, the most important being that the laws of nature are consistent and understandable, but if you don't start with those assumptions you might as well abandon hope of understanding anything. Thankfully, at least to the extent of human experience and observation, the laws of nature do seem to be consistent and repeatable.

[Heffay]

There are a couple assumptions of faith that science does make, the most important being that the laws of nature are consistent and understandable, but if you don't start with those assumptions you might as well abandon hope of understanding anything. Thankfully, at least to the extent of human experience and observation, the laws of nature do seem to be consistent and repeatable.

That's actually a pretty hot research topic, especially in physics. Trying to find out if universal constants really are constant. Even the assumptions get tested.

[Jeff Bergquist]

That's actually a pretty hot research topic, especially in physics. Trying to find out if universal constants really are constant. Even the assumptions get tested.

Dirac postulated that the gravitational constant was actually a decreasing variable decades ago. Those busybodies are always trying to poke holes in the current understanding.

[Heffay]

That's actually a pretty hot research topic, especially in physics. Trying to find out if universal constants really are constant. Even the assumptions get tested.

Dirac postulated that the gravitational constant was actually a decreasing variable decades ago. Those busybodies are always trying to poke holes in the current understanding.

And what's this crap about the speed of light not being the limit? Stupid LHC. Don't they realize how much paperwork it will take to replace all those "186,000mps. It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!" posters??

[illbits]

There are a couple assumptions of faith that science does make, the most important being that the laws of nature are consistent and understandable, but if you don't start with those assumptions you might as well abandon hope of understanding anything. Thankfully, at least to the extent of human experience and observation, the laws of nature do seem to be consistent and repeatable.

But Dr. Heffay taught us that facts are not legitimate when co-mingled with faith...

[Heffay]

There are a couple assumptions of faith that science does make, the most important being that the laws of nature are consistent and understandable, but if you don't start with those assumptions you might as well abandon hope of understanding anything. Thankfully, at least to the extent of human experience and observation, the laws of nature do seem to be consistent and repeatable.

But Dr. Heffay taught us that facts are not legitimate when co-mingled with faith...

As I mentioned earlier, even the assumptions are being tested. Are the underlying assumptions of religion tested?

[Edward]

The definition of faith that's relevant in this context is "belief in a proposition which has no supporting evidence".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

I'm the smartest guy on the forum.

I don't know. Sounds like something that has to be taken on faith to me.

[Heffay]

I don't know. Sounds like something that has to be taken on faith to me.

It's a theory supported by a preponderance of evidence.

[Jeff Bergquist]

There are a couple assumptions of faith that science does make, the most important being that the laws of nature are consistent and understandable, but if you don't start with those assumptions you might as well abandon hope of understanding anything. Thankfully, at least to the extent of human experience and observation, the laws of nature do seem to be consistent and repeatable.

But Dr. Heffay taught us that facts are not legitimate when co-mingled with faith...

Huh? I don't understand what you mean. Facts are by definition always legitimate, what people do with them, not so much.

“What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”
― Robert A. Heinlein

[illbits]

Huh? I don't understand what you mean. Facts are by definition always legitimate, what people do with them, not so much.

sorry, just dicking around with Heffay. Pay no mind.

[illbits]

As I mentioned earlier, even the assumptions are being tested. Are the underlying assumptions of religion tested?

Yep!

[Pat Cannon]

There are a large number of educational and scientific policies that would be affected by this

If the government gave up it's monopolistic control of the education system this would probably be a moot point.

That's why it doesn't much matter to me what RP's personal beliefs are, he seems perfectly content to live and let live, in the spirit in which the Constitution was framed.

My thoughts exactly. Ron and I disagree on lots of stuff, but we agree that he won't try to force me to join his crazy church and I won't try to get it shut down.

As far as his alleged racist writings, even if he did personally write all of it, what I see there is some truly backward (OK, 'racist') attitude -- mixed in with some politically incorrect but nonetheless valid observation of the sad state of some minority cultures in this country.

[JeremiahMN]

...Pay no mind.

Your most sensible post yet.

[illbits]

...Pay no mind.

Your most sensible post yet.

I'm workin' on it