Ron Paul rejects evolutionary theory

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.

If you could bring back to life some of the 19th century presidents, you'd see a better situation than the one you see now.

Ahhh, Zombie Polk!!

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.

If you could bring back to life some of the 19th century presidents, you'd see a better situation than the one you see now.

Ahhh, Zombie Polk!!

Great Zombie Jesus!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.

Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.

2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.

Can anyone suggest a scientific method to discern between the two hypotheses?

That sounds like a good topic to start a new thread with...

It sounds like a false dilemma. Not being a staunch evolutionist does not necessarily make one a young earther either. CycloWizard is probably not be as smart as thinks he is.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

At the Spartanburg Executive Committee Meeting Ron Paul was asked during a Q&A to clarify his position on evolutionary theory. He claims that he does not accept it as it is "just a theory" and claims that it's a theological question (when clearly it's a scientific question). What sort of effect will this have on Paul's public profile? Will this harm his already very slim chances of getting a nomination or being elected? Does this change your opinion of him?

I don't see this issue as relevant at all. As long as church and stat remain separate, as they would under paul, is it an issue? How could it be?

This is the correct answer. It doesn't matter what Paul believes personally about religion and evolution, as long as he's not shoving it down the country's throats. I'll take Ron Paul's disbelief in evolution over the average Republican and Democrat who want me to bow to their personal gods, be they God or Gaia.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

At the Spartanburg Executive Committee Meeting Ron Paul was asked during a Q&A to clarify his position on evolutionary theory. He claims that he does not accept it as it is "just a theory" and claims that it's a theological question (when clearly it's a scientific question). What sort of effect will this have on Paul's public profile? Will this harm his already very slim chances of getting a nomination or being elected? Does this change your opinion of him?

This doesn't change my mind of Ron Paul one bit. He's an old man, most from his Era are christians. The entire atheist, evolution push came out in recent decades. You can't expect a man to change his mind when as he says "its just a theory"... When he has learned, practiced with different beliefs his entire life. The man is 70 something years old.

Does this fact change anything about Ron Paul? Will he be a different president? Will he still not uphold the consititution because of his beliefs?

I'm sorry to say, a Ron Paul with certain "flaws" (if you want to call it that) is still light years above anything else we have running for office.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This is pretty sad, definitely lose respect for him based on this. I'd like to hear a more in-depth explanation, but being that misinformed about evolution really makes me think twice about voting for him. I guess it's better that he's misinformed on something not terribly relevant to contemporary domestic issues than on something like Iraq.

He is going for the republican nomination. Most republicans reject science and proof and choose to go with a book written by man that can easily be dis proven.

He is doing nothing more than any other politician, curry favoring to his parties beliefs to get elected.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This is pretty sad, definitely lose respect for him based on this. I'd like to hear a more in-depth explanation, but being that misinformed about evolution really makes me think twice about voting for him. I guess it's better that he's misinformed on something not terribly relevant to contemporary domestic issues than on something like Iraq.

He is going for the republican nomination. Most republicans reject science and proof and choose to go with a book written by man that can easily be dis proven.

He is doing nothing more than any other politician, curry favoring to his parties beliefs to get elected.

RP actually strikes me as pretty sincere. His voting record is the most consistent in the race for the past 20 years. He has his values and sticks to them. Which is why this is worrysome, because I think he really believes this and isn't pandering. I'd rather he was.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet.

While your musings may be (sadly) correct, the bolded part of your post disqualifies you from any serious debate.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet.

While your musings may be (sadly) correct, the bolded part of your post disqualifies you from any serious debate.

You don't realize you are being just as ignorant as NaughtyGeek? You reject to even listen to anybody because they arene't of the same postion as you...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Ok so when did evolutionary theory become vital to this nations prosperity or survival? I would think monetary policy, foreign relations and a limited Constitutional government would have far more reaching effects.

 

[manowar821]

That is pretty disturbing... You'd think that the representative for the so called "free world" could get his head around the idea of natural selection. Plus, I REALLY thought that Ron Paul could get his head around the idea.

:\

 

[OutHouse]

why is this a important question to ask somebody who is running for office? i really dont give a crap and fail to see the connection.

 

[clamum]

I think he confused the theory of evolution with the actual ORIGIN of life. As I understand it, there is no scientific consensus on how life first began.

Anyway, seeing that didn't change my opinion of him.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well RP is probably right about Republicans. I see no evidence they evolve at all.

:laugh:

Actually their backing of Ron Paul shows evidence of them de-evolving even further.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Ok so when did evolutionary theory become vital to this nations prosperity or survival?

I would think monetary policy, foreign relations and a limited Constitutional government would have far more reaching effects.

It is absolutely a huge part of monetary policy.

Ever heard of "Faith Based Initiatives"

Bush has pumped more taxpayer money into religious organizations than the history of this country which was never supposed to that that at all to begin with.

The very founding and Constitution of this country has been completely trashed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It is absolutely a huge part of monetary policy.

Ever heard of "Faith Based Initiatives"

Bush has pumped more taxpayer money into religious organizations

uh, no, that would be fiscal policy. not monetary policy.






that said, RP's 19th century monetary policy is reason enough not to elect him.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet.

While your musings may be (sadly) correct, the bolded part of your post disqualifies you from any serious debate.

You don't realize you are being just as ignorant as NaughtyGeek? You reject to even listen to anybody because they arene't of the same postion as you...

LOL, you're funny... no, seriously... as my response indicates, I *did* read his entire post. Comprehension FTW!

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet.

While your musings may be (sadly) correct, the bolded part of your post disqualifies you from any serious debate.

Why's that? Because I dared to throw something out there that flys in the face of what you believe? They call it a THEORY for a reason. It's supported by some evidence but cannot be proven without a doubt. Otherwise it would be Evolution, not the theory of.

Definition of theory. Note speculation, contemplation, guess, or conjecture.

When it's all said and done, it's the most probable theory going but does contradict a lot with our current societal structure. People these days aren't at the "top of the food chain" because they worked hard to get there and have above average intelligence, they are there because their daddy's daddy made out well and passed on the wealth but often times not the genes. Just look at Paris Hilton for a prime example.

With that aside, I do not understand those that are upset that he doesn't believe the theory. It's not a blatant scientific fact that he's rejecting. And by his principles, the last thing he would do is try to force any of us to accept his beliefs. Aren't there a couple hundred more important issues to focus on here?

 

[FoBoT]

for me, that isn't a political issue at all

i am voting based on these issues, in this order

1. illegal immigration
2. taxes

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet. So no, his lack of acceptance of a commonly accepted THEORY does not change how I feel about Dr. Paul.

All that aside, it's the fact that he isn't afraid to state his beliefs that garner the most respect and support from me. He knows full well that there are those who will take issue with his beliefs yet stands behind them anyway. He does not pander to people to gain their support. He speaks his beliefs and allows you to decide weather or not his message rings true for you. More people in Washington should have such courage and commitment to their own beliefs.

Survival of the fittest isn't really a tenet of evolution, it's part of the theory of natural selection, which itself is a subset of evolutionary theory. Additionally you are applying it to individuals when survival of the fittest applies on a species level. When one looks at it from a species pov, and considring the social aspect of human behaviour, helping the less fortunate in order to provide for a more stable society and ensuring the continued existence of a human society makes perfect sense. iow, survival of the fittest should be applied as an inter-species observation, not intra-species.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet.

While your musings may be (sadly) correct, the bolded part of your post disqualifies you from any serious debate.

Why's that? Because I dared to throw something out there that flys in the face of what you believe? They call it a THEORY for a reason. It's supported by some evidence but cannot be proven without a doubt. Otherwise it would be Evolution, not the theory of.

Definition of theory. Note speculation, contemplation, guess, or conjecture.

When it's all said and done, it's the most probable theory going but does contradict a lot with our current societal structure. People these days aren't at the "top of the food chain" because they worked hard to get there and have above average intelligence, they are there because their daddy's daddy made out well and passed on the wealth but often times not the genes. Just look at Paris Hilton for a prime example.

With that aside, I do not understand those that are upset that he doesn't believe the theory. It's not a blatant scientific fact that he's rejecting. And by his principles, the last thing he would do is try to force any of us to accept his beliefs. Aren't there a couple hundred more important issues to focus on here?

PLEASE don't be as naive as getting a hang on the word "theory".... you know, relativity is also a theory... So is probability... so is gravity... there's also a little thing known as "Theory of Computation"...this doesn't mean the concepts are, somehow, irrelevant or false...

If your mind is so skewed towards creationism and the existence of God, that's fine with me... I mean, I can't stop wondering about your blinders, but I can't and won't force you to change your views. I'll just quote Laplace: "I don't need the God hypothesis".

BTW, congratulations on making me fall into the trap of responding you, thus contradicting my previous post... :laugh:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Citrix
why is this a important question to ask somebody who is running for office? i really dont give a crap and fail to see the connection.

Because we once had a nice thing in this country called separation of church and state.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet.

While your musings may be (sadly) correct, the bolded part of your post disqualifies you from any serious debate.

Why's that? Because I dared to throw something out there that flys in the face of what you believe? They call it a THEORY for a reason. It's supported by some evidence but cannot be proven without a doubt. Otherwise it would be Evolution, not the theory of.

Definition of theory. Note speculation, contemplation, guess, or conjecture.

When it's all said and done, it's the most probable theory going but does contradict a lot with our current societal structure. People these days aren't at the "top of the food chain" because they worked hard to get there and have above average intelligence, they are there because their daddy's daddy made out well and passed on the wealth but often times not the genes. Just look at Paris Hilton for a prime example.

With that aside, I do not understand those that are upset that he doesn't believe the theory. It's not a blatant scientific fact that he's rejecting. And by his principles, the last thing he would do is try to force any of us to accept his beliefs. Aren't there a couple hundred more important issues to focus on here?

The best part about the link you posted is that you didn't even read it yourself completely or else you'd have noticed this part

?Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

The word you use as theory is in a non-technical sense. Theory in a technical sense means VERIFIED! Thank you, come again.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

At the Spartanburg Executive Committee Meeting Ron Paul was asked during a Q&A to clarify his position on evolutionary theory. He claims that he does not accept it as it is "just a theory" and claims that it's a theological question (when clearly it's a scientific question).

Great! Just what this country needs... Yet another intellectually challenged idealogue whose range of vision is defined by the deepest inner walls of his rectum. :roll:

Mark this turkey REJECTED!! :thumbsdown:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Citrix
why is this a important question to ask somebody who is running for office? i really dont give a crap and fail to see the connection.

Because we once had a nice thing in this country called separation of church and state.

so religious people can't be elected to office?