camilo wrote:Okay, I'm new here but this Ricky baby guy seems to have a problem with liberals, fascists, atheists and sellouts. And liberal sellouts and fascist atheists. I'd be curious as to how he describes himself and his beliefs. What are liberals selling out to? I'm further to the left of most liberals but if I sold out how much could I get? Who would pay me? Would it be more than the stimulus package and would I need to remain non-liberal or could I revert? Could I be a socialist and still collect?

You had to open it didn't you


Allow me to reply with what he will say to you.

Read all of it before you dare to ask me anything you moron

There, now Rick won't have to respond to at least one of the mental midgets who are sooooo beneath him.

camilo wrote:Okay, I'm new here but this Ricky baby guy seems to have a problem with liberals, fascists, atheists and sellouts. And liberal sellouts and fascist atheists. I'd be curious as to how he describes himself and his beliefs.

Rick is a libertarian who supports Ron Paul and has a major beef with the Federal Reserve. He thinks there is a secret, international conspiracy of Jewish bankers to control, dominate and ultimately destroy the world. He thinks the Bush administration planned 9/11. He calls everyone on the board "globalist liberal pussy sellouts" because they refuse to vote solely based on the issues of the devaluation of the dollar and the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on the economy. Further, he lambastes most of us for being lax on illegal immigration and for giving handouts to homeless people. He is adamant that liberals are hypocritical pussies.

Debating the merits of ID/evolution seems to be his new kick.

It seems like he's on the board 24/7. He's kind of a mysterious character. No one really knows much about him. However, he does seem passionate about his beliefs and he is willing to argue stuff in a clear and straightforward manner.

I think that about sums him up. Rick, is any of that inaccurate?

NerblyBear wrote: However, he does seem passionate about his beliefs and he is willing to argue stuff in a clear and straightforward manner.

I think that about sums him up. Rick, is any of that inaccurate?

I answered your question for you.

there is just as much a possibility, no more and no less, that rick reuben (the real one) created the universe as that anything or anyone else did. any reasonable person has to accept that possibility.

if the admission of that fact is some big fucking deal to those who value freedom, so be it. wave your flag of freedom with pride.

Rick is a libertarian who supports Ron Paul and has a major beef with the Federal Reserve. He thinks there is a secret, international conspiracy of Jewish bankers to control, dominate and ultimately destroy the world. He thinks the Bush administration planned 9/11. He calls everyone on the board "globalist liberal pussy sellouts"

So now I am confused. How can you be a libertarian and still rail against liberals? I always thought libertarians were state liberals. I'm not sure if he's a pussy but he does seem hypocritical.

I try to avoid giving handouts to homeless people. Everyone knows they just spend it on strong drink.

steve wrote:

Heliotropic wrote:My biology professor discussed this issue in class, saying that people have the right to publish stupid and inaccurate ideas if they'd like, and that trying to suppress them only draws more misled people to their cause. It's better to let the evidence they present (if any at all) fail the rigors of the scientific method than to censor their idea before it can fail.

The problem is that the mere existence of creationism in a scientific journal is considered "evidence" in the minds of the scientifically illiterate, despite that it is being debunked there, and is used as propaganda by its proponents. If scientific ideas "fail" in publication, they do so only among scientists, as creationism has failed among scientists countless times.

Since creationism is an article of faith among those who believe in it, nothing can ever demonstrate enough for them that it has failed. They believe it not just despite the lack of evidence, but because of the lack of evidence.

Creationism has no place in science. Neither does astrology or any other magic.

I agree that creationism and mysticism do not belong in the scientific community, the idea of "Christian science" simply being a hackneyed attempt to tack on trappings of credibility to their cause. Yet I feel that if the scientific community tries to stop these inane writings from being published that they're compounding the scary totalitarian image science seems to have to many Christians. However, credible scientific publications are no place for theories postulating that god's name can be found in human DNA.

Fundamentalist Christians believe everything is scary and evil. Ever watch 700 Club?

It's 50% self-congratulatory masturbation about how wonderful it is that we're all Heaven-bound, God-fearing Christians, and 50% fear-mongering about the secular world.

Yet I feel that if the scientific community tries to stop these inane writings from being published that they're compounding the scary totalitarian image science seems to have to many Christians.

The scientific community isn't trying to stop any writings from being published--are they? If so, please provide evidence. I keep hearing straw man arguments about how ID and/or religion is being censored or muzzled. I don't see people in the scientific community doing any censoring or trying to stifle free expression. AFAIK, they're just saying that psuedoscience isn't science, and that religious dogma doesn't belong in science classrooms, or public schools.

Science is widely misunderstood and under-appreciated in the U.S. and elsewhere, IMHO. True science can't be "totalitarian".

newberry wrote:
The scientific community isn't trying to stop any writings from being published--are they?

They don't have to. Peer-review weeds bad science out of journals.

ID is kept out of journals not because it's based on religion, but because it's bad science. ID'ers claim the scientific community is biased against them, but it's not true. The scientific community is biased against bad science.

I think it's a bit trickier when we talk about whether or not ID should be taught in schools. Clearly it should not be, but what should we base that judgment on? Constitutional prohibitions on violations of the barrier between church and state? Or a mere qualitative standard: lies should not be taught to school children? Both justifications seem to make sense.

newberry wrote:

Yet I feel that if the scientific community tries to stop these inane writings from being published that they're compounding the scary totalitarian image science seems to have to many Christians.

The scientific community isn't trying to stop any writings from being published--are they? If so, please provide evidence. I keep hearing straw man arguments about how ID and/or religion is being censored or muzzled. I don't see people in the scientific community doing any censoring or trying to stifle free expression. AFAIK, they're just saying that psuedoscience isn't science, and that religious dogma doesn't belong in science classrooms, or public schools.

Science is widely misunderstood and under-appreciated in the U.S. and elsewhere, IMHO. True science can't be "totalitarian".

Most Christians with persecution complexes such as those featured in this movie are not to be taken seriously, but it's true that "scientific findings" with a religious slant that come from sections scientific community are often discouraged. These "findings" as I've said earlier are usually composed of half truths bent to fit the religious goal of the researcher, and usually do more to prove the incompetence of the researcher than his case, yet I still think that if someone wants to write an essay on what he sees as glaring inaccuracies in Darwin's theory he should be able to do so.

Science is following every path that is provided to solving a problem, even pointless ones.

Edit: I don't think I've made myself as clear as I should have; I'm not arguing that people should be able to argue ID or mysticism in scientific journals, but I do think that people with misguided views on established facts and accepted theories should be able to publish their works however erroneous.