John McCain has been no fan of the “whacko bird” segment he sees in the GOP. When asked recently on a hypothetical Clinton/Paul match-up in 2016, McCain couldn’t commit to either side.

Report from Politico:

Sen. John McCain says if it in 2016 came down to Sen. Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton for president, he might have a hard time making up his mind.

Asked about the possibility in a new, lengthy interview with The New Republic, McCain (R-Ariz.) quipped: “It’s gonna be a tough choice [laughs].”

McCain said that while a section of the party (including Paul) blocking bills is “of concern,” he understands the Kentucky senator’s agenda.

“Let me just clarify that. I think that Rand Paul represents a segment of the GOP, just like his father. And I think he is trying to expand that, intelligently, to make it larger,” McCain said.

McCain has publicly clashed with Paul before, calling him and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz “wacko birds” for their splits with the party and outspoken political tactics in a March interview. He later apologized. In The New Republic interview, McCain said he tries to keep it respectful.

McCain’s hedging is an illustration of the divide happening within the GOP. The hawkish conservatism espoused by McCain is also being showcased by Chris Christie as well as New York Representative Peter King in recent weeks.

44 COMMENTS

  1. Hillary is another Joe Lieberman: pro-war, subservient to Israel. Lieberman campaigned with McCain in 2008. There’s no reason to think McCain might not campaign with Hillary in 2016, if Rand Paul were the GOP nominee.

  2. This is really irrelevant to Rand Paul. Republican faithful base really isn’t much for McCain. If he goes for Hillary, they’ll say … so what, McCain is only politically relevant to the media. If he goes for Rand Paul, he’ll just be another on the bandwagon. McCain’s support of Rand Paul is irrelevant. Now, if McCain comes out for Christie…it’ll be another nail in Christie’s presidential campaign coffin.

  3. I’m not too convinced Rand Paul is a dove. Bush, Jr was against nation building and also talked about being less interventionist overseas during the campaign – however 9/11 changed that (unless you’re a conspiracy theorist…so, you’ll have a totally different take on his flip). Rand Paul doesn’t sound as isolationist as his dad, but then he could just be tailoring his speech seeing the reaction his dad has gotten…like blaming USA foreign policy for causing 9/11.

    • Yeah, I remember W saying he wanted us to have a HUMBLE foreign policy, and then he got that Napoleon complex once he was in office.

      Ron Paul isn’t “isolationist.” He’s “non-interventionist.” There’s a big difference.

      Paul said, “Isolationism is — is something that the protectionists want. They want to close borders for people coming in, and they want to close trade, and I have no desire to do that all because I’m a free trader and I want as much travel and communication with other countries as possible. This is what the Founders advised. We were never given the authority to be the policemen of the world.”

      Meanwhile, Rand has criticized our foreign adventurism, but at the same time, he has talked about “standing with” Christians around the world, ie, religious interventionism. Ron would never say that.

      • Goethe – “standing with” Christians around the world that’s twice you’ve brought that up – I’m not sure but what Paul was saying, politely, I am against Islamic Fundamentalists.

        • Sam: Me, too. Of course, I’m also against Cristian Fundamentalists and Zionists, as well.

          We have just never, in our history, stated that we are “standing with Christians” around the world. That is dangerous, besides being unconstitutional. We should NOT be committing ourselves in advance, to ANY nutcase Christian group, anywhere in the world. Cripes.

          It’s pandering of the worst kind, since Rand does not have a religious nutcase background, and Ron Paul has assiduously avoiding that kind of commitment to OTHER peoples’ goals.

          Remember also, we said we were “standing with” Eastern European countries in the 50s, but when the Polish rose up, we just watched as the Soviets put them back down. It is “incitement to violence” and puts us in an untenable position.

          It was dumb pandering, and coupled with his otherwise hands-off approach, it is exceedingly dangerous–to us and to the Christian groups everywhere.

  4. McCain does not like the fact younger genuine Republicans are getting attention. He is not even up to the level of a RINO and should just out of the closet and change parties.

  5. Goethe – it is not unconstitutional to stand with any people group around the world, religious, or otherwise. Constitution only states that congress can’t pass laws establishing a religion. To say we stand with Christians, is by no means establishing a national religion for the USA. Yes, it is likely pandering from Rand, but smart pandering. Bush Jr won both times because the Christian community saw him as ‘one of us’ similar to Obama and the ‘low information voter’ (a term recently created by the media). Rand isn’t running for president of the world, he’s running for president of the USA (well, its not official yet), and in the USA Christians by and large are the largest voting group. We’ll see what he does if something actually comes up during his presidency…assuming he runs and wins of course.

    But to the pandering point, Democrats have lost power all over the USA because Christians no longer support them because of abortion…and now marriage redefinition advocacy. The only way Democrats win nationally is because of Christians staying home (which they did for McCain and Romney) and low information voters. Democrats have come to power recently for 2 reasons – Tea Party revolution and Christians staying home during presidential campaigns.

    The Tea Party revolution in the republican party caused the 2006 come to power of the democratic party – because conservatives and libertarians stayed home due to republicans having ‘moderate’ policies. 2008 Obama won because Christians stayed home due to not being inspired by McCain, and ‘low info voters’ turned out. Tea Party revolution caused the 2010 voting flip (a greater numbers loss for the Democratic party than in 1993 when republicans won house and senate). 2012 Christians stayed home again. We’ll see what happens in 2014, the democrats are now taking the Tea Party seriously and trying to get ahead of things…but i just don’t see ‘low info voter’ turn out and Tea Party people will stay zealous until Obamacare is gone (or the TP elects a president and congressional majority who chooses not to repeal it…kind of like the 2005ish time period when republicans tried the amnesty bill..and lost seats in the 2006 campaign..if memory serves)

    This country is still a center-right country, and actually going more towards the right. The ‘Reagan Revolution’ was the first sign of this. And its really bad for a party to be dependant on ‘low information voters’ – it very clearly means the democrats win because people vote them and don’t have information about what they’re voting for. Doesn’t point to a base that will be there long term as they really have no values they want represented…they’re voting for people, in this case Obama.

    • Josh: The idea of “standing by” people of any religion puts us at their mercy. We become (excuse the expression) their b*tch, as we are with Israel. We “stand by” Israel, no matter what abomination they perpetrate, and that includes sinking our ship and killing our people. The idea of becoming subservient to ANY Christian anywhere in the world gives me the heebie-jeebies.

      And, yes, I realize it’s disingenuous pandering to a special interest group, and I don’t like that he has proclaimed himself THEIR b*tch. Why not say we’ll “stand by” people with brown hair? That’s a bigger number. How about “standing by” soccer (football) fans, since they are all over the world, and numerous. Why not promise to “stand by” women? That’s an even bigger number.

      And, you are exactly right. Rand is NOT running for “president” of the world, so he should be talking about preserving OUR rights and avoiding “foreign entanglements” as the Founding Fathers declared, instead of promising to meddle around the entire globe on behalf of foreigners in foreign lands with foreign concerns. And as with the Poland example, the effect will be to pull us into irrelevant disagreements, as well as give those people false hope.

      Rand is not Ron. Rand is nowhere near Ron. I think we need a paternity test.

      • i guess there’s a difference between ‘standing by’ and becoming enslaved. He should clarify what he means by it. Because there will be people like you who thinks it means becoming subservient and people like me who thinks he means defending american missionaries around the world and supporting nations which agree with our national value system…maybe he doesn’t mean either…or somewhere in between.

        Given the Christian-hate these days that’s popular in the USA and around the world, he should clarify. Some people hear Christian and think of Constantinople (the first government imposition of Christianity), while other people hear Christian and think of Mother Theresa.

        • Josh: That’s the problem. When a politician speaks FOR the United States, it doesn’t matter what he MEANS. People who hear him will interpret it the way THEY want. And I can tell you, if someone said they would “stand by” me, what that means to me is that if I piss off some bully, I expect that person to beat up the bully for me.

          To “stand by” is committing action,not just sending a Hallmark card. We “stood by” Berlin for the “Berlin Airlift.” We “stood by” South Vietnam. We “stood by” Kuwait against Saddam.

          It did not even enter my mind that he might have been talking about missionaries. But if that’s what he meant (and I’m sure it’s not), the appropriate thing would be to say that we will “stand by” American citizens, wherever they are. That is appropriate. The United States of America doesn’t defend missionaries because they are “Christian,” but rather, because they are “citizens.” For him to say we commit our country to action for people of a specific religion is just plain wrong.

          No, when he said we would “stand by” Christians around the world, i think it’s pretty obvious that he was promising foreigners that if they get themselves in a jam or a jail, it becomes our problem.

          As for “Christian hate,” hat’s just a reaction to wild-eyed nutcases who claim to be Christians but act like Nazis. IE–going to funerals of dead soldiers and screaming and saying they deserved to die–simply because the military no longer persecutes gays. IE–that “minister” down south who purposely instigates religious violence in places where our soldiers are already in danger. IE–murders of doctors. IE, IE, IE. . .and we don’t even HAVE a “Mother Theresa” in this country. We have televangelists in five-hundred-dollar shoes and thousand-dollar suits.

          • And, you’re right. Who knows what he meant by that statement? If we had good journalists they would ask, “what do you mean by that?” Instead, they just ask, “is “stand by” hyphenated? Note takers. Stenoographers.

            No politician should get away with saying something that outrageous without being nailed.

            • Sadly, it’s worse than I thought. I found this:
              http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/rand-paul-stands-alone-for-persecuted-christians/

              Paul said, “There is a war on Christianity. . .’
              [Oh, pullleeeez.]

              He goes on:

              “In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian, sits on death row. Her crime, according to her, is that she dared to drink from a glass that belonged to a Muslim co-worker.

              “Recently, in Pakistan, a 12-year-old with Down syndrome was imprisoned and charged with a death penalty crime for burning the Quran.

              “After weeks she was released after a local imam was accused of actually sprinkling pages from an Arabic book into a fire near the little girl.”

              OK–so in his speech, he clarified that we are not even talking about American citizens. He is committing us to getting involved in legal matters between foreigners in every country in the world. Does this mean we will not speak out for human rights if they don’t happen to belong to our designated religion??

              Rand is wrong.

            • He is correct that there is a war on Christianity. In the USA it takes a different form than elsewhere in the world. Many have become desensitized to it due to revisionist historical accounts and a media and educational system that believes atheistic secularism to be the objective point of view..not taking sides. So history is told from an ‘objective’ point of view, news is told from an ‘objective’ point of view, scientific process is followed from an ‘objective’ point of view…etc.

              The definition of religion has now been ‘objectively’ co-opted. People who say Jesus has risen from the dead and is alive right now are considered kooks, while people who believe in the big bang theory are considered objective, intelligent, and informed. I can guarantee you, that you’ll find more people who can speak to something specific they *know* God did for them personally, and you will find no one who has ever seen even 1 step of evolution. I’ve seen debates where scientists admit that no one will ever, or has ever, seen evolution actually happen…it takes to long to be observable within in 1 person’s lifetime. So exactly which one is actually accepted on the basis of faith?…i guess that’s a topic for a different stream.

              In the rest of the world, there are martyrs…like real deaths as Rand Paul accurately laid out. There is much more than what he mentioned going on.

              I read the article and the only measures he mentions is, withholding funding from foreign countries who persecute Christians. To me this is brilliant. Many Christians might have a hard time with cutting off funding to foreign 3rd world countries where there is so much poverty. But coming from the point of, we won’t give money to countries who persecute Christians, it will help get the Christians in agreement with cutting off the money.

              He also mentioned Pakistan and the torture of the guy who helped us get Bin Laden.

              I’m really not seeing anything in the article that’s senseless or disagreeable.

              Now going to war against a nation because they are shutting down churches is something totally different.

              It seems all he’s done is included freedom of religion as a basic human right, and is specifying Christianity…because right now they’re the most persecuted….well Muslims persecute each other, too…but it seems they all gang up on Christians.

            • Josh: Evolution is based on the simple fact that beings change, primarily through natural selection. It seems to me, all you need t do to “prove” evolution is to find an example of any species that has changed,and we see that all the time. Every time an insect becomes tolerant of an insecticide, it proves the concept. Every time an antibiotic becomes ineffective, it proves the concept.

              It seems to me, in order to believe in creationism, you would have to believe that “only God can make a tree,” and that nothing can ever change by itself.

              As for Rand, of course he’s going to minimize the impact of his proclamation. Nobody says, “we should do [this] and it’s going to mean a world of hurt for us.” As I say, when we say we’re going to “stand by” is not at all what he’s saying it is. What politicians say–when trying to speak for our nation–is critical. I think this kind of language from Rand disqualifies him from running.

              As for the so-called “War on Christianity,” that is the height of paranoia. You don’t see it, because you are sensitive to any real or imagined slight. But you don’t see it in the same way that a fish doesn’t know it’s in water. Living in America, for a Christian is like that fish in water–everything is set up to make life simple for him. Living in America as any other religion is like a fish out of water. Any questions?

            • Aw Goethe – and i promised myself to stay out of this fracas. btw I got no skin in this game, because like the “forefathers”, while raised Christian, i became just a deist many, many years ago and all paths lead home. The plasma of our blood is the same for all three races and we were all sparked from the same Source of energy. And beyond that, our pure energy form for all planets and universes was derived from that same Energy Source Plasma.

              There in fact is a war on Christianity in this Administration. The forced P.C. has caused many regulations to be changed to eliminate the practice or worship of Christianity in Government. Specifically in the military a bible hidden in personal belongings is allowed but do not have it in your workspace or in public and by no means ever discuss it and definitely don’t evangelize it. some regulations apply to all religions but a Muslim can get away with any of it because it would not be P.C. and the Muslim would whine about it.

              The Administration has misconstrued the difference between make no law based on a specific religious belief and “freedom of religion” Josh brings up some excellent points in his first paragraph. I think a key point is in fact the U.S.was founded in Christian morals and still remains the dominant religion in the U.S. So you might expect any other religion to be at a disadvantage. But no minority religion in the U.S. has to worry about getting their heads cut off.

              As for evolution: Energy cannot be destroyed only changed from one condition to another. just what supplied the energy for the “big bang”. who says that evolution didn’t get a little nudge here and there. think about the complexity, multiplexity, synchronicity, and intricacy of almost every physical thing on this earth, Solar system, Galaxy, etc. If you believe it is all happenstance and random you should be probably be in Vegas playing the odds. There are lots of people who have to have a religion to guide them, reinforce their inherent morals, and the comfort of a multitude for confidence. If they need that to feel comfortable they will “go to Heaven”, so be it, even peacefully evangelize it – but don’t encroach.

              Take a human being, examine every element, do the probability of all the evolution events, without little pushes, to be what we are today in just 60M years. (when all life was supposedly destroyed) or hell, take the probability out to 13.5B years).

            • reposting…my last one ended up in the wrong place…

              Goethe – Regarding evolution, the basis you gave is more of a general high level definition of evolution, but isn’t an accurate definition for evolution. In debates, evolutionists usually start with that definition, but when creationists start drilling deeper into the details…the evolutionists end up agreeing that ‘yes, no one has actually ever seen evolution happen.’

              Technically speaking, natural selection does not cause evolution, it could only preserve it ‘after the fact.’ A more accurate definition of ‘biological evolution’ is – random/chance mutation to the genetic code causing genetic information to appear which did not exist before…and is an improvement. Natural selection would only preserve such a mutation after the fact, but could not produce it.

              Using your example of insecticide tolerance, one of 2 things happens with the insects and insecticide – 1 either the surviving insects already had the immunity or already had the ability to develop it. In either case it is something already existent in the gene code. So natural selection ‘cannot’ cause evolution, it can only preserve it. The thing is, though, that actual evolution (random/chance improvement to gene code) has never been observed by anyone…scientists admit this. A famous evolutionist – Stephen Gould from Harvard – was quoted as saying ‘evolution is unproven and unprovable’ – yet he believed it, and was very open with the fact that evolution is accepted on the basis of faith not evidence.

              Not true about creationism believing nothing can change. All that creationists say is, no one has ever seen evolution happen, which is true. Natural selection is observable, yes, creationists agree with this. Natural selection can be produced in a lab, but evolution cannot.

              In a way, I’m kind of surprised the civil rights community isn’t objecting to Darwinism given the fuller title he gave his book: “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ”

              In America the ‘war on Christianity’ is different than elsewhere, it is currently mainly a societal debate. However, what i stated is true about government, education and the media. In the rest of the world, like the middle east, you can be killed for spreading Christianity, or even converting from Islam. We don’t hear much about this because our media considers it a religious matter, so they don’t cover the stories.

            • REGARDING EVOLUTION–I don’t “believe in” evolution. I just think it’s a rational explanation of why we keep seeing changes in species–and why NINETY-NINE percent of all species are now extinct. Josh, when the scientist said that no one has ever seen the birth of a new species, was probably an admission that evolution occurs slowly, in many steps. You’re saying since we didn’t actually see a mountain rise up from the ground it means that mountains were always there–when we KNOW that tectonic movements DO occur, and they probably caused the mountains to push upward, but nobody was there at the time to put video on their Facebook page.

              REGARDING “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”–The only thing you need to do to disprove “intelligent design” is to find ONE thing that is not intelligent in the design, and there are countless flaws. And the idea that complexity suggests creation is just stupid. We have what we have BECAUSE we have it. To suggest that there’s a “why” to the way things are only works if you buy the original premise. As I said elsewhere, it’s technically called “begging the question” in which you have to argue (beg) the premise (question) in order to “prove” your point, and you can’t prove the premise, so your argument falls apart.

              REGARDING THE BIG BANG–I don’t “believe” in the Big Bang, because it’s just theory. But beyond that, I don’t think it’s a good theory. The Big Bang is based on the silly concept that there had to be a “beginning.” If Christians were smart, they’d be all FOR the Big Bang Theory, because they could use it as “proof” that there was a “beginning,” and if there was a “beginning,” then they can call that beginning “Creation.” Personally, I don’t see any argument for a beginning. Things change. As Hamlet said, the molecules of a king are doomed to go through the guts of a beggar. And the fact that things continually change makes a Big Bang silly, since there must have been something before it. There’s a theory called the “Reciprocating Universe,” which suggests that we are in a cycle of bangs and contractions that keep repeating. I could buy that.

              REGARDING THE WAR ON CHRISTIANITY–Again, people only feel your way because, like fish in water, they think we should ALL be breathing water. Nearly everybody claims to be a Christian, because it’s a lot safer in our society. If people find out that you do not proclaim to be a Christian, there are CONSEQUENCES–I can tell you that from direct observation. You don’t know the consequences and unfairness, because you have never felt it. Your “War” on Christianity is just trying to give some consideration to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Unitarians, Taoists, believers in other religions, and yes, pagans, agnostics and atheists.

    • The tea party was not established until Spring of 2009, after Bo and the big spending started.
      It is not and never was a Republican Party movement, though the head of the GOP tried to say it was.

    • Surfisher:

      I wouldn’t put it in such inflammatory language, but you’re clearly right that they support empire over democracy.

      And I would add to that, now, Rand Paul = Rick Santorum = Michele Bachmann = religious chauvinists.

  6. Are there NO Real Americans left in Congress and Senate?!

    Or are they all cowards?!

    Are both these bodies polluted with anti-Constitutional and American-hating scumbags, that NOT a Single ONE of them will START IMPEACHMENT proceedings against the creature that has usurped for the first time the US Presidency — Barry Sotero, or Hussein Obama….whatever its real name is???!!!

    We all know the charges — but, no-one in Congress or Senate has the guts to be a Real American, and challenge this Usurper of The White House according to Verified Records!

    Contact your Congressmen and Senators, and TELL them this is the reason Barrack Hussein Obama MUST be IMPEACHED! And if you fail to support its impeachment, don’t expect to be reelected!

    The BO lied on all its promises — and once elected did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it said. THAT’S PERJURY! Also, the BO NEVER supplied its original Birth Certificate — but had a fake published!..

    WHO IS THIS Barry Sotero or Hussein Obama, remains a question to THIS DAY!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

    Make this sort video viral!

  7. IMPEACH Barack Hussein Obama — it stumbles-and-bumbles AND STUTTERS (which is usual for this political creature to try and come up with an answer it is not prepared for) while trying to decide what it is: A DICTATOR or NOT….LOL!

    ABSOLUTELY THE BEST VIDEO THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT !!!

    Time to IMPEACH — make this SUPERB 15 minute video viral.

    Also, nice exposure of Hitlery Clinton!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfB7xihoqVo

    If any of you here are true Americans, give this post a thumbs up.

    Thank you!

    p.s. Don’t worry about the NSA (Nazis Spying on Americans) profiling you, they’ve been spying on you illegally for years, and the only way to stop them now is to have Obama IMPEACHED!

  8. Regarding evolution, the basis you gave is more of a general high level definition of evolution, but isn’t an accurate definition for evolution. In debates, evolutionists usually start with that definition, but when creationists start drilling deeper into the details…the evolutionists end up agreeing that ‘yes, no one has actually ever seen evolution happen.’

    Technically speaking, natural selection does not cause evolution, it could only preserve it ‘after the fact.’ A more accurate definition of ‘biological evolution’ is – random/chance mutation to the genetic code causing genetic information to appear which did not exist before…and is an improvement. Natural selection would only preserve such a mutation after the fact, but could not produce it.

    Using your example of insecticide tolerance, one of 2 things happens with the insects and insecticide – 1 either the surviving insects already had the immunity or already had the ability to develop it. In either case it is something already existent in the gene code. So natural selection ‘cannot’ cause evolution, it can only preserve it. The thing is, though, that actual evolution (random/chance improvement to gene code) has never been observed by anyone…scientists admit this. A famous evolutionist – Stephen Gould from Harvard – was quoted as saying ‘evolution is unproven and unprovable’ – yet he believed it, and was very open with the fact that evolution is accepted on the basis of faith not evidence.

    Not true about creationism believing nothing can change. All that creationists say is, no one has ever seen evolution happen, which is true. Natural selection is observable, yes, creationists agree with this. Natural selection can be produced in a lab, but evolution cannot.

    In a way, I’m kind of surprised the civil rights community isn’t objecting to Darwinism given the fuller title he gave his book: “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ”

    In America the ‘war on Christianity’ is different than elsewhere, it is currently mainly a societal debate. However, what i stated is true about government, education and the media. In the rest of the world, like the middle east, you can be killed for spreading Christianity, or even converting from Islam. We don’t hear much about this because our media considers it a religious matter, so they don’t cover the stories.

    • Josh: You keep trying to portray scientists as “believers.” They are not. They just see evidence and try to figure out what it means. They make up theories, and when new evidence appears, they make new theories. It would not shock a scientist to find that there is no such thing as gravity, but rather, what we think is gravity is really a side effect of some other phenomenon.

      At the same time, you don’t have to be a “non-believer” to be a scientist. There is no proof of the existence of God, but there is no proof of no God. (Of course, proving a negative is usually impossible,anyway.) Metaphysics is not physics, but neither does one negate the other.

      What makes fundamentalists look ridiculous is denying things in the real world that seem so self-evident. You’d be much farther ahead if you kept your faith and looked at science as an attempt to understand “God’s universe,” such as in my comment that if you were smart, you’d embrace the Big Bang, because the Big Bang suggests a beginning, and if there was a beginning, then it’s a small step to call that beginning “creation.” Why couldn’t God have created the universe with a Big Bang, instead of a whimper??

      Nothing in science attempts or pretends to attack your belief. It just tries to understand what is. When you try to attack what is, you do yourself a disfavor.

      • Goethe, you are accurate about the scientific process scientists follow about observing things, studying them and coming to conclusions. Sometimes correct sometimes incorrect. Spontaneous generation is an example of a bad conclusion. Global cooling is another example of a bad conclusion. The fact that we have livers and how the liver functions is a good conclusion. Scientists are learning all the time via observation.

        However, evolution does not fall into this category of something observable. Scientists will readily admit (and are already admitting) that the process takes too long to be seen in any 1 person’s lifetime. Evolution is an example of ‘accepted fact’ not ‘observed fact.’ No one has ever seen a positive spontaneous mutation to the gene code. No one has ever seen one species produce a different species. All they have are stories they have concocted about bones they’ve found in the ground.

        Evolution has been accepted as fact because their operating assumption is that the universe came about and we arrived where we are today by completely, and only, natural processes. If God exists and has had any role in the creation of the universe, and bringing things to where they are today…*any* role…then the entire theory of evolution is a fallacy. Why? Because the entire theory is based on an assumption that things came about by completely natural processes.

        Here is the theory of evolution in a nutshell (biological evolution):

        “Some how, some way, a long long time ago the right proteins amino acids some how spontaneously gathered in some random place on the earth, and some how some way…maybe lightning…we don’t know…a living cell was created. Then some time after that, some how, some way, we don’t know how, the cell mutated in a positive way and something new and better was created, um..evolved. This random, spontaneous process of change continued some how, over and over again. Natural selection would preserve these new species because they had improved abilities the previous cells did not so were better able (not equipped) to survive. This random spontaneous mutation process preserved by natural selection has eventually after a long long time produced every plant, every animal, every bacteria, every living thing on this planet.

        Now…this process has never been seen or observed. Being random chance, you can’t predict when its going to happen. And since we’ve never seen it, it must take a very very long time.”

        Stephen Gould was likely the most vocal and outspoken about the faith required for evolution (he was an evolutionist himself). I watched a geologist (who also believed evolution) and when talking about origins he said…’we haven’t the foggiest. And anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something’

        The simple fact is that evolution is accepted on the basis of faith without evidence. Religions are not, people accept religions on faith, but their faith comes from seeing real things experiencing real things, then at some point the decide they will believe the message of the given religion. That is why I said you will find tons of people who will say God did *this* for me, I know it. But you won’t find people who say, they’ve seen anything evolve with their own eyes.

        Does this mean God did everything they thing He did, no. Some are cults and will readily admit that demons do things (Chinese culture is full of this kind of stuff). But the point is true, that people accept religions based on experience and observation, but not evolution (yes other things in science go the observation route, just not evolution).

        • Josh: Fundamentalists fail because they want to. As I say, if they were smart, they’d endorse the Big Bang theory, and say it “proves” that there was a “creation.” Of course, it can’t prove anything, since it’s only a theory, and all of science is just theory, and scientists don’t claim anything other than that.

          Why can’t you just say that humans are trying to come up with specific techniques that God used to do the Creation? And that it is all too Great to be understood?? Or does creation absolutely, positively have to have occurred in six 24-hour days about five thousand years ago??

          Likewise with evolution. No scientist says that evolution absolutely occurred in any specific ways. Again, it’s a theory, and nothing more. Why can’t you say that maybe that’s the way that God made it–or even that the act of creation never ends–that maybe evolution is just part of “God’s plan”?

          Scientists are not anti-religion. They are just “a-religious,” which means they are not theologians, and don’t pretend to be. The trouble with Fundamentalists is that they pretend to be scientists, too–as if “theories” could simply be “denied,” and not disproven.

          “Just say no,” right? You’d get a lat farther if you just said, “maybe” sometimes.

          • Goethe: Fundamentalists don’t fail, because evolution has never been proven. There’s no need to disprove something that has never been proven. All the fundamentalists, the non-evolutionary scientists,the intelligent designers, and others who don’t believe evolution are saying is – there’s no evidence for evolution.

            it is actually the evolutionary scientists that fail to produce any evidence for their theory. As stated, not one single observation of evolution has been found. It is backward engineering, with faulty assumptions. Another example, just read where Darwinists estimate that 99% of all species are extinct (didn’t only see that here), but this is because their theory requires that number for the intermediary species they think *must have existed* in order to support the theory. This is irrelevent to a creationist viewpoint, maybe 99% are extinct, maybe they aren’t….but its further evidence that evolution is accepted first and evidence is sought second…and still being sought.

            All of science is not a ‘theory’ at least not like evolution. Outside of evolution real world observations are required – like the study i just read about how the glycemic index is figured out. Its done by real observation of things in the real world…in action. Giving people different kinds of sugar to see how their body reacts.

            Evolutionists imagine what could have happened in the past, and then say that their conclusions will never be observable in any human lifetime. Errors in the glycemic index can easily be found and fixed, because the current concept can be observed in action. Evolution is a thought exercise…a fantasy…materialistic superstition which will never be observed.

            It won’t be observed, not only because it isn’t true, but the theory is designed to take a very long time. Remember, evolution is a theory designed by the mind of man, without observation of anything active in the natural world to test their theories against.

            The reason that people should not accept either solution (BB or E) is because they have a faulty underlying assumption. The underlying assumption of a self-existent universe.

            Just saying no is a good idea when the idea you’re presented with is a bad idea..

            • Josh: Fundamentalists DO fail, because you can only deal in abstractions and absolutes, whereas scientists only deal with concrete observation and realization that they do NOT know everything.

              You can’t even comprehend what I’m saying because you’re locked in that box. You keep trying to make it sound as if science is the devil’s work, and evil scientists are trying to lead good people astray. Total nonsense. And, again, NOBODY “believes” in evolution. It is not a belief system. It is not something taken on blind faith. It is merely a theory, and it will remain a “VIABLE:” theory until someone (anyone) finds a way to disprove it. But it’s still just a THEORY, it is not a belief.

            • Interesting..ad hominem response?

              Please go back and re-read what I wrote. You are either not reading, or deliberately mistating what I’ve said. No where in anything I wrote is a reference to science generally. In fact, i listed several things people have done using the scientific process (science) – the liver function, glycemic index..there are lots of things science can do when its sticks to what’s really observable. The thing is (and you have not shown how this is an inaccurate statement) that evolution is *not* observed. Evolution is people looking at things *in stasis* and extrapolating on how they might have come to that place.

              It seems you are making the same mistake that evolutionists make (don’t know if you accept evolution or not). The mistake many make is thinking that evolution IS science. Evolution is just an idea, nothing more. Evolution is not science. If scientists dismissed the evolutionary theory, nothing would change, nothing in the real world. We would still get the same cures we get, we would still be able to dissect things and learn about them. So evolution is not science, it is a study of how existence came about given certain assumptions, and to point to its fallaciousness is not an attack on science.

              Evolution is believed, it is taken on faith. Simply because its never been proven, its never been observed. Its not like you can say – combining backing soda and vinegar doesn’t cause a big fizz. Why? Because if someone said that you could say, here, let me show you.

              Evolution – people say – its not true. Response…nothing. There is no response because you can’t take someone and show them evolution. Evolution is an exception within what’s considered accepted science. We don’t completely understand gravity, but we can demonstrate its existence. We don’t completely understand light, but we can demonstrate its existence.

              I know I keep stating the same things over and over, but it seems you aren’t comprehending how evolution is different than other scientific studies. Other things within science require real demonstration, evolution does not. It is accepted without demonstration.

          • To answer these questions: “Why can’t you just say that humans are trying to come up with specific techniques that God used to do the Creation? And that it is all too Great to be understood?? Or does creation absolutely, positively have to have occurred in six 24-hour days about five thousand years ago??”

            One could say that, but it wouldn’t be true. If evolutionary scientists were trying to figure out how God did it, they would ask. But they aren’t. You can’t say that’s what they’re trying to do when they very clearly lay out the process they go through and operating assumptions – both of which exclude God or any non-natural process.

            For the 6 day creation, there’s no reason *not* to accept it. Especially given what is in the rest of the book attached to that story. And also, that the Bible has never been disproven. Similar arguments for gaps in the bible, can also be used for gaps in the evolutionary theory, and that points you straight back to the fact that evolution is accepted on the basis of faith.

            Although i still also know that you will find people all over who will be able to tell you about things they know God did for them personally – evidence. But you will find no one who has ever seen evolution.

            • Josh: You are hilarious. And again, you fail because you build up a fake image of this straw man of science just so you can have an enemy. Science is not a belief system, so there’s no reason you cannot say that they are trying to find answers, but they need to keep trying. Bim-botta-boom, your problem is solved. Instead, you pretend to know EVERYTHING, and as soon as someone realizes that the earth rotates around the sun, you look like a total idiot.

              This is the most hilarious: “If evolutionary scientists were trying to figure out how God did it, they would ask.” Ask whom? You? You know everything? OK, smart guy, tell me where I left my keys.

              And again, the “never seen” argument is just laughable–like saying there’s no such thing as a mountain because no one has ever seen a mountain formed.

            • Just to be clear, I’m not talking about science, but evolution. Evolution requires faith to say its is true or even viable. Saying something is ‘viable’ is synonymous with ‘i believe its possible.’ Viable is a statement of faith, not fact. To say the existence of the sun is Viable would be considered a great understatement. Science is really just a process of investigation. Evolution is something many people believe and are using the scientific process to try and prove, but so far have only gotten as far as accepted truth, and viable theory, but not observable facts.

              Yes, they are trying to find answers. All I’m pointing to is faulty assumptions in their process. One does not need to be religious to be a scientist. One is not required to be an atheist to be a scientist. Every scientists works from within the possibilities their mind can fathom, they’re problem solvers, question answerers. The problem comes with the process of investigating origins – when they exclude the spiritual from the well of possibilities they draw from to investigate, they isolate their study from part of reality and the conclusion will not be accurate.

              I obviously don’t know everything, but there are a few things I do know. And one of the is that evolution has never been observed in the real world. It is a man-imagined process (again not observed…erosion is an observable process, so is aging, so is growth of a plant from seed to full grown plant…but not evolution).

              My point about asking is making very obvious the hole in your statement: “Why can’t you just say that humans are trying to come up with specific techniques that God used to do the Creation?” – if they were interested in God’s techniques…don’t you think they would ask Him? God is a person after all. I mean, wouldn’t it be the obvious thing to do if you were going to try to find out how somebody built something, to first seek the builder?…that’s the answer to your question. In short, if they are trying to find out God’s techniques, asking God should be part of the process shouldn’t it? If not, why not? Why would you not ask God how He built something, but you would ask Shelby how he builds engines as a part of investigating his engine building techniques.

              Your mountain example is a bad one, because mountains can be seen, they exist. The “never seen” argument is a very good one, given that science is about what you can observe. No one can, or has ever observed evolution. I can walk out in my back yard and see all kinds of things, but I can’t see evolution. Nobody can. The mountain example is a bad one.

  9. Given this statement: “we keep seeing changes in species” – you evidently don’t see the assumption you’re making..that evolutionary changes in species are seen. They are not, and have never been seen. Yes, the admission by scientists was pointing to evolution happening slowly, so slow in fact that nobody has ever seen it. What they don’t quite come to grips with is the fact that this means evolution is ‘believed’ not ‘seen.’ One of them even openly said…’it takes too long to happen in any 1 person’s lifetime.’

    This is a clear admission that no one has seen evolution…much less that person himself making the case for evolution. What people often show as evidence for evolution is something like finding animal bones for animals that don’t exist today…and which look an awful lot like animals which do exist today. It is assumed that the existent similar animal of today somehow evolved out of this extinct one. But they don’t realize that it is something that simply went extinct, no evolution, no descendents..just extinction.

    This is easily evidenced by the fact that animals exist today that look a whole lot like each other (cats, dogs, cattle, horses…people!…all of them exist with varying sizes, colors..etc). How is it impossible to the mind of an evolutionist that the extinct species is nothing more than an extinct species? We see species go extinct all the time, does this mean that if we find a similar looking animal walking around today that evolution has happened?

    It is because they accept as reality that God does not exist and the universe is entirely self existent. So, going with that operating assumption, they try to figure out how we got here.

    What I’m saying about mountains (going with the example) is that we can’t assume that the *only* thing which brought about the mountains are completely natural plate tectonics. It is obvious that plate tectonics effect mountains, their heights go up and down all the time. But the evolutionist assumes that the only thing which could have possibly caused mountains to exists are plate tectonics (or some other completely natural process). This is a HUGE assumption. Atheistic evolutionists live in the box of materialism, and because of this their mind is closed to alternative explanations of the origins of the universe and how things came to be the way they are today…at least closed to alternative explanations that don’t fit into the box of materialism.

    Going back to Rand Paul, he is talking about not giving money to governments which are violating the human right of freedom of worship…and is specifically talking about Christians. This is not a bad thing, this is a good thing. Freedom of religion is a basic human right…i would consider atheism to be something that falls into a protected religious status because freedom of religion also means the freedom not to practice religion.

  10. I wish i just could just let this go by –
    prove to to me, anything that wasn’t “designed” in its “beginning”
    Yes, this universe did have a beginning – there is no such theorem that energy comes from “0”
    instead of proving there is a “God”, Creator, etc. – Prove there ISN’T a Source.

    And Goethe, you don’t know who of us have been discriminated against and yes, i know you feel the pain because of personal observation. take off the filters and read several different stories and editorials and figure out that a mild bias generated by Atheists against religion and monotheists in particular for years and years, and then in 2009 it narrowed to Christians because it was not P.C. to bias or even discuss Islam.

    • Sam: I’m not the one making the claims. To me, it seems ridiculous to think there was a “beginning.” If there was a “beginning,” what came before it?? I’m not the one claiming there was a beginning–I’m just doubting that claim.

      And, again, the idea that Christians are discriminated against is just paranoia, since “Christian” images and terminology is intertwined in our daily life, right down to the fact that this year is 2013.

      Trying to keep religion, especially one religion, from controlling the public square is not an atheist plot. It’s a First Amendment mandate.

      All your perceived slights are a teeny, tiny fraction of the domination felt by people of other religions, or non-religion. If you listen to nutcase Christians (that is, the Christians who are nutcases), you’d think there were armed guards keeping them from entering a church. Total martyr complex.

  11. 2016 is far off — NSA (Nazis Spying on Americans) is happening NOW!!!

    Time to IMPEACH Lil’ Hussein !!!
    ——————————————————————————-
    And now, the important News:

    Ron Paul: *Why Won’t They Tell Us the Truth About NSA Spying?*

    “In 2001, the Patriot Act opened the door to US government monitoring of Americans without a warrant. It was unconstitutional, but most in Congress over my strong objection were so determined to do something after the attacks of 9/11 that they did not seem to give it too much thought. Civil liberties groups were concerned, and some of us in Congress warned about giving up our liberties even in the post-9/11 panic. But at the time most Americans did not seem too worried about the intrusion.

    This complacency has suddenly shifted given recent revelations of the extent of government spying on Americans. Politicians and bureaucrats are faced with serious backlash from Americans outraged that their most personal communications are intercepted and stored. They had been told that only the terrorists would be monitored. In response to this anger, defenders of the program have time and again resorted to spreading lies and distortions. But these untruths are now being exposed very quickly.

    In a Senate hearing this March, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Senator Ron Wyden that the NSA did not collect phone records of millions of Americans. This was just three months before the revelations of an NSA leaker made it clear that Clapper was not telling the truth. Pressed on his false testimony before Congress, Clapper apologized for giving an “erroneous” answer but claimed it was just because he “simply didn’t think of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.” Wow.

    As the story broke in June of the extent of warrantless NSA spying against Americans, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers assured us that the project was a strictly limited and not invasive. He described it as a “lockbox with only phone numbers, no names, no addresses in it, we’ve used it sparingly, it is absolutely overseen by the legislature, the judicial branch and the executive branch, has lots of protections built in…”

    But we soon discovered that also was not true either. We learned in another Guardian newspaper article last week that the top secret “X-Keyscore” program allows even low-level analysts to “search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.”

    The keys to Rogers’ “lockbox” seem to have been handed out to everyone but the janitors! As Chairman of the Committee that is supposed to be most in the loop on these matters, it seems either the Intelligence Community misled him about their programs or he misled the rest of us. It sure would be nice to know which one it is.

    Likewise, Rep. Rogers and many other defenders of the NSA spying program promised us that this dragnet scooping up the personal electronic communications of millions of Americans had already stopped “dozens” of terrorist plots against the United States. In June, NSA director General Keith Alexander claimed that the just-disclosed bulk collection of Americans’ phone and other electronic records had “foiled 50 terror plots.”

    Opponents of the program were to be charged with being unconcerned with our security.

    But none of it was true.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard dramatic testimony from NSA deputy director John C. Inglis. According to the Guardian:

    “The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted ‘over the lifetime’ of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.”

    From dozens to “at most one”?

    Supporters of these programs are now on the defensive, with several competing pieces of legislation in the House and Senate seeking to rein in an administration and intelligence apparatus that is clearly out of control. This is to be commended. What is even more important, though, is for more and more and more Americans to educate themselves about our precious liberties and to demand that their government abide by the Constitution. We do not have to accept being lied to – or spied on — by our government.”

Comments are closed.