Are you engaging in all this Neo-Lamarckian stuff to defend Ron Paul...? Or is this tangent unrelated to Paul's statement that the jury's still out on whether evolution is right, and he personally doesn't believe in the theory?
If your statements are freelance work to defend Paul, all it does is convince me that Paul's supporters are an odd and facts-be-damned optimistic lot, indeed -- and that he serves as a kind of blank slate onto which folks can project their own wishful political thinking. (Like Yoshie with Ahmedinijad.)
Paul is a GOP fringe candidate who's uncontroversially pro-life, supports the war on drugs, doesn't think evolutionary theory is correct, has professed Jesus as his savior, a newsletter bearing his name endorsed militia movement crap, trumpets the whole "protect our borders"/anti-"North American Union" conspirator crap, etc., etc. Now, we have Dem fringe candidates that are anti-war, believe in the theory of evolution, are against the war on drugs, against Israeli apartheid, and do not want to take labor laws back to the 1800s.
Yet despite that Ron Paul still is some sort of chosen-elect over them. I still am waiting for an answer as to -- why? Because some Dems *also* hate him? Is that it? I'm no Dem, and have hated the fucker for awhile, before TNR, etc.
-B.
Charles Brown wrote:
"But consider this: 1. Birds have been proven to have been descended from dinosaurs. 2. Dinosaurs have been proven to have been exterminated in a catastrophic set of events. 3. Birds are totally absent from the fossil record (ie., according to the evidence they did not exist) before the demise of the dinosaurs. consequently 4. Birds evolved from dinosaurs during the very short period during which the dinosaurs became extinct. [...]"