Dr. Paul KNOWS SCIENCE, he's a Medical Doctor, a Surgeon & Majored in Biology. THE ONLY THING RON HOLDS DEAR ARE FREEDOM, CHOICE & THE US CONSTITUTION. His Personal Beliefs about Religion, Abortion or Evolution WILL NEVER AFFECT his Public Policies. Ron WONT Overturn "Roe v Wade", Ron believes in the separation of Church and State, Ron believes in Freedom (of Religion & to do what you want) & Choice. They killed JFK for wanting Gold Standard. We need to lower Inflation and Improve Economy.
Anybody who says that Darwin´s theory is somehow a scientific fact seriously needs to re-study.No one would deny that species change over time, they ´´evolve´´; they adapt to their environment.But THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY, is that Darwin´s theory, claims that BECAUSE of those evolutionary changes, all life has emerged from one single ancestor, and that this process that we call ´evolution´, contstantly gives birth to new forms of life.
Do you know what that means to be made in Gods image?What sets man apart from every other living thing on the entire planet. His ability to love,and hate build buildings,electricity,go into space,fly planes,ect ect
What sets us apart from every other ANIMAL is that we're made IN GODS IMAGE. Sorry there are no green headed aliens out there. Perhaps more humans.
(But that would require the existence of honey bees wouldn't it) Or maybe they have their own kind of space bananas? Haha, Atheists...
@Kr0n1k4Lyfe Your argument is based on ignorance and wishful thinking. You just don't know anything about evolution, and I'll assume know quite a bit about creationism, i.e. you only know 1 side of the coin and therefore shouldn't draw conclusions nor laugh at the other side (atheists) because you're not informed enough to make those conclusions. I'd like to think we're the favorites of some divine being too, but I learned about evolution and know things that contradict that.
You know Evolution is a theory for people that believe there is absolutely no divine interference in the creation of life?Ron paul has a brain and he understands he has a heart that pumps blood to it,he knows there is divine pressence in life.Life itself is a MIRACLE.But an Atheist will want you to think its not a miracle, its a simple process..so they can believe there is no intelligence involved in lifes creationThis happened because God was taken out of SCIENCE! You're made in GODS Image!
All great men in history have believed in God, granted that for most of history they didn't have the science to study it. I agree with Paul on the fact that it is a theory still. Not completely proven, that is why it is theory. I am more convinced on ancient alien theories than God though. If you study history you notice the farther back you go the more advanced civilization becomes. I do not believe Paul's personal views on creationism vs evolution should be a dictation on his presidency.
Evolution is not a generaling theory as in, "Oooooh, ya know, I have a theory that you can tell how much a restaurant thinks about its food by the quality of its veggie burgers." Fine theory, fine.
No, Evolution is a "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" not to be confused with a connotation of generalizing. Paul knows this... just remember Paul knows this and it's a window into who he really is and how he really thinks and it's pretty fucked up.
I don't know that he will ever answer directly one way or another, but I find it inconceivable that an obstetrition, an expert in embryology and the proofs of evolution that it provides, would not believe evolution to be true. See my comment directly below. Unless I hear him say it clearly and directly with my own ears, I will not believe it. We know all too well how internet material can be doctored. Stay frosty people, don't be so quick to believe what makes no sense.This is too important.
"I don't accept it, uh...as a theory..." at 3:13. Listen very closely to his word choice. I don't think he's denying the theory..he"s hemming and hawing trying not to offend his ignorant audience. He's dancing around the subject. But saying he doesn't accept it as a theory can also mean he doesn't accept it as a theory because he accepts it as fact, not that he doesn't accept the theory because he doesn't believe it altogether. This is a politicians answer, there is still room to doubt.
yay ron paul has a chance like the devil dose at beating god i dont really have an opion about god and shit i just thought would say that and the only reason y ron paul sucks major ass if he where where huckbee is and i hate huckabee but at least huckabee wont get rid of the EPA and or the FDA
oh yeah, because the EPA and FDA have done such a GREAT job.. i mean the EPA with telling people after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe when it was potentially harmful and the FDA with the vioxx scandal and the ketek scandal and the aspartame controversy. who would want to get rid of those great track records?
the EPA and FDA were broken long before bush, they are corrupt organizations by nature and will ALWAYS favor the interests of industry and the powerbrokers in washington over of the interests of the people. all the evidence shows that private consumer protection groups are FAR more effective at protecting consumers than any government agency ever has been.
sometimes you have to take the time to find the info yourself and not count on the government to protect you. they will usually fail.
the republicans break and the democrats fix it ron paul is a libertainrian i no but he wants to do worse he wants to make it like the past when there was black air and everybody was pour and couldnt afford anything
@mattykRonPaul2012 well maybe that is because i went to school that was private in america (actually spelling isnt my strength its math but from somebody who likes ron paul has to be stupider or extremely rich and not care that they will die from not having food that is actually ediable but only poisonness that will have mad cow diasease
i guess you want to die from mad cow though since you like ron paul and he wants to get rid of the EPA that is stopping mad cow from entering this country
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwin was a loser whose ideas have inhibited real science for 140 years. Science doesn't need him, medicine doesn't need him, and politics doesn't need him. Hasta la vista, Baby.
Some creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not big enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is used to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)
Well, the Bible says that God "opened a window in Heaven" through which the rain poured, so I guess the Flood must have consisted primarily of fresh water. But then again I don't know how fresh the water would be in Heaven, haha. How about we just consider it a mythical story like the Jews do, and move on.
I still think the "HeLa" cells that I mentioned about a month ago in these comments provide for one of the best examples of speciation. (Click "view all comments" and search for my "name") Search for this phrase in Google: speciation instances HeLa
"Modern Darwinism IS a hypothesis. It HASN'T been proven."
Wrong and wronger. There is no such thing as "Darwinism". Theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. It is a big difference. We see the proof that evolution occurs every day. Google instances of speciation.
"(Heck, one of the key components, creation by random mutations in germ cells, has been experimentally falsified.)"
The generation of novel DNA code by mutations is a fundamental and indispensable plank of the Darwinian hypothesis. Yet, scientists have been subjecting fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) to concentrated mutagens for the equivalent of one million human generations and the only thing they have to show for it is a single enzyme.
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme." ~Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48
(Since Taylor wrote that, I understand that a new enzyme has been isolated.)
Science not knowing an answer does not mean you can just throw in fairy tail bullshit to explain something. Thats irrelevant though, because evolution has constantly been proven right again and again in scientific evidence. You dumb fucks don't know shit about biology, and the bullshit you are spewing out just shows your ignorance to the subject. Stop humiliating yourself and get fucking educated before you argue on a topic.
well, you are told what right and wrong is and you believe it. if you were born with it, YOU wouldn't need to go to church to see how you are SUPPOSED to act.
evolution is a theory. so it "intelligent design", or rather, creationism.
read up on quantum physics. once you realize we come in and out of existence all the time, it'll make you think in different directions than both of these.
so if right and wrong is decided by the individual and some one thinks it's okay to eat babies thats just fine and if another person thinks it's ok to rape and murder thats okay to because they believe it. There is no way to tell right from wrong out side of the Bible. I have studied quantum and it still cannot explain how we can tell whats right and whats wrong out side of the Bible.
"Right" and "wrong" aren't fact. They're opinion. We each have our own sense of what is "right" and what is "wrong" based on what we have been taught and on our own experiences. Any action can be interpreted as right or wrong depending on who interprets it.
"...note the successes of Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism, ENGINEERED BY US. The demoralizing effects of these doctrines upon the minds of the [public] should be already obvious to us."
(From a French work first published in the early 1900's in which the writers take credit for engineering Darwinism and foisting it off on an unsuspecting public as part of an elaborate, long-range plan of worldwide conquest.)
Most intelligent people know the mutation factor is dogma for simpletons. If you help promote it you access elite sponsored grants. Obey/agree, be a peon/shill, get work. Evolution was pitched by Darwin, the theory was grasped by future Zionists. If you actually research you'll learn Darwin was a racist bigot. He also claimed a living cell to be very simple in design, yeah right. Evolution's a tool for corporatism.
SCIENCE UPDATE: "Members of the Autism Consortium scanned the entire human genome and discovered that sections of chromosome 16 are either deleted or duplicated in some people with autism. The autism spectrum include symptoms ranging from learning delays to more complex problems in which children avoid social interaction or do not speak."
yeah, I'm sorry but someone who doesn't buy evolution running for president needs to get out of the stoneage, this is the 21th century
weren't we supposed to have that settled by now, it's been two centuries and people still can't grasp it? what's next, ron paul doesn't believe the world is round
I can't blame you, though. It has to be pretty embarrasing to be aligned with those who think that small incremental changes accumulate to produce large morphological differences.
I would probably vote for Ron Paul after watching all the war mongering coming from the Democrats tonight on the ABC debate. ABC barred Dennis Kucinich from attending for no legitimate reason.
A REAL and FAIR election would have Ron Paul running against Dennis Kucinich.
After all the years of studying biology and the other sciences realated to medicine, how can a doctor still not believe in evolution?
Answer:
Doublethink - The act of simultaneously and fervently holding two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Remember the girl just recently who had FOUR arms and FOUR legs?
This is how evolution works. Genetic mutations have shown diverse ways the human body can change. When these 'changes' live and flourish, it is called speciation. (Look up 'speciation' in Wikipedia for more info.)
Not to long ago, people believed the world was flat, even after science proved it was round.
Read the article 'Monkeys do math as well as college students' at PRESSESC(dot)COM for even more info.
Scientific theories are not to be believed in. They are theories, good until proven otherwise. RP states that it's science, and then moves on to the theological question. "Do you believe that God create the universe and Man, or evolution did it?". Here, science is innapropriate for that question.
You clearly have no clue what theory means in a scientific context.
Ron Paul can state what he wants, but just because it appeals to the supernatural does not mean it is exempt from scientific evaluation. The evidence for evolution is ubiquitous, and for creationism nonexistent.
Perhaps I do not, despite the fact that I am a scientist. Let me rephrase. Science is a structured body of knowledge, not some faith to be "believed" in. Faith can't be falsifiable, therefore it's not science. You cannot use science to prove or "disprove" that God made Man.
I will concede to this, but this does not mean there is any reason to have faith in the first place. There are claims made by faith that can be tested, such as a God who answers prayers. Any correct experiment without bias tells us that the prayers are not answered.
Faith is non-falsifiable. It is irrational. By definition. If you arrive at this conclusion by a rational process, you have not voided faith of its personal value. Some people feel good with it, let them be. You can believe in God _and_ defend evolution. It is not a zero-sum game.
Science isn't a utility for disproving faith-based claims, it is a utility for attempting to find truths. If the science happens to be in discord with dogma and you reject it because of faith-based thinking, then you lose my respect. This is what Ron Paul has done. If you reject evolution for scientific reasons on the other hand, no integrity is lost.
No, not truths - facts, the workings of the world. And there are no contradictions. If science doesn't agree with dogma, then one is wrong. And evolution is a scientific matter. The Genesis, on the other hand, is part of faith.
I think RP was unfortunate in his remarks, but I have no doubt that he will make his thoughts very clear. And they will conform to rational science _and_ his faith. See you when that happens.
Just like anyone who believes evolution is a law. Question everything, especially authority.
However, at this time Intelligent Design should not be talk as science because it is not. But I believe we should teach at least 2 religions as we should teach at least 2 languages and the metric system in general ed.
The only way this could be a problem at all for anybody is if he would start to preach his beliefs or make schools teach creationism or something of that sort. Do you honestly think Ron Paul would be the one to do that?
why is this such a huge thing? he's not going to come door knocking and force his beliefs on you. he chooses to follow god because it supports a healthy direction in life. he chooses not to believe evolution because firstly, it's a theory and secondly, doesn't give smart moral values. either way - who cares? Isn't America built on the freedom of speech?
He can beleive the sun is actually Apollo in his chariot for all I care, but I do think that the lack of belief in a scientific theory that has been supported by all available scientific evidence makes him a poor candidate for leader of the country.
Too bad - I donated to his campaign too. Now I'm not sure I'll vote for him.
Actually, science is the pursuit of truth, not truth itself. There is much we don't understand about this world, including the origin of man. Here's a question: If people evolved from apes why can't people crossbreed with apes?
01keef, that is an excellent question. Llamas and camels are cross fertile, even though they have been separated some 20 million years. I don't know that cross species fertility studies have ever been conducted on humans and apes. Even if we're NOT cross fertile, that doesn't imply we're not related. Chickens and penguins share a common ancestor--just a more distantly related one.
yes, Pasha582, good point. I, however, am more interested in not killing people, i.e. ending the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism abroad. This is why I support this guy, Ron Paul. I personally don't buy into Creationism either. Ron Paul will not stand in the way of science. In fact, his populist views would bring great positive changes in science, technology, medicine, the economy, the environment.
don't be silly. i find it hard to believe both stories. there isn't enough scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution (hence why it remains a theory). there is no missing link between us and apes which is the defining characteristic in the theory - where did we come from. this is such a pathetic thing to get worked up over. i'm sure you don't agree with everything your friends do.
Are you serious? The evidence is easily accessible and the fossil record supports evidence without a doubt. You are just refusing to look for yourself.
i'm not refusing anything. it's a world wide, well known fact that thee is no link between man and monkey. there is an evolutionary path for everything but us. neither story is proven for OUR existence. if this is something that can persuade you vote, you lead a boring, ignorant life.
Gruzman, you are sorely mistaken about the connection between men and apes. It is pretty well established, both through fossil skeletal morphology and through genetics. Google the GULO gene, and ask yourself why a gene for synthesizing ascorbic acid should be broken in precisely the same way in apes and humans and not that way in any other mammal.
i'm happy to admit we are very similar in respects but no more so than other species are alike to one another. just send me a link for the homosapien between what we are now and when we were supposedly apes. the part that is missing where we developed vocal chords, our arms shrunk, our legs grew, we lost complete hair coverage and we grew noses and other differentiating face structure.
gruzman--on the topic of "missing links," what do you call Australopithecus (the various species?) What do you call neandertal? To claim there is no "missing link" is disingenuous, in that every time a link is discovered you can simply claim there are two new gaps.
yes we as a species have evolved to but can only be traced back to a certain point. there are humans with larger skulls and bigger hunches but this can only go back so far. there is a huge gap between where man walks upright with equally sized limbs and where there is the monkey that predominantly walks on all four.
you dont need the bible to tell what is right and wrong. there are many vicious verses in the bible, if i choose to follow those i would have the same blanket you would for that argument.
not every scientist believes it thousands Don't. The majority thought for two thousand years that heavier objects fell faster than smaller objects and they were wrong.
Scientist thought the earth was flat and that blood letting was necessary, they were wrong and they are wrong about evolution. Hitler said if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough the people will believe it, he also believed in evolution and killed millions of people because of it. Again if evolution is true how do we tell right from wrong and whats the point to life?
Isn'titobvious--science is self-correcting and progressive. (Compare that to religious belief--such as creationism). Consider fossil stromatolites, ediacara, acanthostega, eusthenopteron, tiktaalik, and panderichthys. Then ask yourself why paleontologists have all the best evidence, and creationists none.
That argument is rediculous. No scientists think of evolution as a religeon. By the way nearly every biological mechanism in our bodies is an example of a beneficial mutation. (so there are millions)
there are certain bodily systems that are irreducible complex like a mouse trap, which shows they must have been designed. But the bigger issue is that you don't want to look at the evidence for creation because you want to believe there will be no consequences for your sin. If there is no God then how do we tell right from wrong? the Bible says Psalm 14 "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God..."
That evolution part would be a deal breaker if I thought it mattered. Just proves that I don't agree with him on EVERYTHING just the vast majority of important issues. As a science teacher I would like to ask if he does not "accept" other theories such as "gravity", "the atom", "plate tectonics", etc, etc, etc, etc.
A theory is a just a way to explain a series of facts and phenomena that have been repetitively tested (example: differences in amino acids in different species or the age of bones found in different strata or natural selection or genetic variation). A creation is unscientific merely because a Creator resides outside the realm of observation and does not need to obey the laws of physics. A creator lies outside of science and thusly can not be considered as a valid scientific theory.
that was a very intelligent response!Isn't it funny that their religion evolutionism takes more faith than Christianity. In the beginning nothing became something and it exploded (Big bang or Cosmic evolution).
Except for of course, all of those fossils like Tiktaalik. And the genetic evidence, like human chromosome #2 being formed from two ape chromosomes. And thousands of other pieces of evidence.
And not to mention the fact that as a creationist, you are forced to believe in "super evolution" to explain how all of the animals changed from two of each "kind" into all the species we see today.
A gene confers benefits without any disadvantages until the affected population reaches a critical mass, because in order for it to confer a disadvantage, it must meet up with another copy of itself. Hard to do when the gene is rare. The rarer the gene, the faster it spreads.
As the gene becomes more common, the spread slows down and the gene frequency reaches equilibrium where the average benefits conferred equal the average disadvantages conferred.
"Fitness" doesn't mean "strength" or "viciousness", it means "ability to reproduce", and in modern Darwinian theory, it is not *individuals* that are "fit", it is *genes*.
If slightly larger brains allowed us to have more children than those so unmodified, then genes for this property would spread.
At the individual level, there's no arguing that brain size has been an advantage. There are billions of us, and only a handful of apes.
This would be because there is no difference between the "micro" and "macro" levels of evolution. It is the exact same mechanism operating over a longer time.
This is not "magical transformation". THAT is creationism.
If you imagine a winged gliding "bird" in a tree, there will always exist some gap between trees across which the bird cannot glide given its current set of wings. Not successfully gliding results in death.
Therefore, natural selection will cause increased wing length. Once the wings have been built, there is another smooth gradient towards increased ability to use those wings for self-powered flight.
Indeed, "logic is your friend". I would suggest that "education" might be another potential friend with whom you are yet unacquainted.
Natural selection occurs at the level of the gene--that is what replicates and "competes" to fill the gene pool.
Evolution (defined as "change in allele frequency over time") has not only BEEN OBSERVED occurring, it MUST occur as a matter of fact. It is a property of any system of competing replicators with variable heredity and differential fitness.
4) No one claims that organisms "magically transform into something else". If you could demonstrate this, it would be excellent evidence for creationism.
3) Humans having "less DNA than a chimp" says absolutely nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory, and your claim that it does demonstrates absolute ignorance.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. All other great apes have 24 pairs. As a test of common descent, they sequenced the human genome and the chimp genome, and compared them.
Human chromosome #2 is formed from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. We know this to the exact locus where the fusion occurred.
Like I was saying I don't know if you are willingly ignorant or
if your like I was and haven't looked for the answers. I thought evolution was the only answer to the fossils. I was sure they were evidence and I was amazed to find out the textbooks are inaccurate.
Teaching evolution is a feeble attempt at destroying our culture. Hitler believe evolution thats why he killed the Jews and the blacks he thought they were less evolved and says they weren't even human.
Which would make sense if evolution was true it would mean that one race is probably more advanced but it isn't. It is the foundation for murder, Nazism, socialism, communism, racism and is really a sick religion plus we are forced to pay for it being taught in our schools.
I don't know if your willingly ignorant, not wanting to look at the evidence for God and creation or you were just like me and that is all you had been taught, but I pray you do your research and find out why you believe what you believe.
1. Sickle cell demonstrates what is known as "heterozygous advantage". When one copy of the gene is inherited, malarial resistance is conferred without anemia. When two copies of the gene are inherited, anemia occurs.
So long as the affected population stays below a critical level, the SC gene will be SURE to spread, as it usually confers benefits with no disadvantages.
These legends and myths we find in just about every culture just confirm that the Bible is true. if you look at some of the ancient letter characters depict the story of Noah and the trinity.
Here's a Bible verse worth checking out 2peter3:3 " Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days scoffers,walking after their own lust,
and saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." this shows us that there will people in the last days that are rejecting God and the Bible because they want to be able to sin as they please, with out guilt.
No, it confirms that there is a great deal of cross culture seeding of myths across the globe, and that it's quite possible that there is a center of civilization.
Let's put this to bed - the ONLY people opposed to evolution are those who's belief system is damaged by it, i.e. the bible-thumping fundamentalists and their pseudo-scientist cheerleaders Behe and Gish.
There are volumes and volumes of scientific support for evolution. Creationists have just one piece of evidence - the Christian bible.
They may find it interesting that the entire book of Genesis was plagiarized - in many cases word for word - from the much older "Epic Tales of Gilgamesh".
Wow. I respect Ron Paul's work for constitutional rights and some other issues, but this statement is one of many indicators he doesn't have the judgment to be president. Luckily Obama has experience as a constitutional law professor, so hope for change is still here.
Notice Ron Paul doesn't say he's a believer in typical Christian creationism either. Actually he says both are only theories. While many say there are mountains of scientific evidence of evolution, one must still make a leap of faith to believe it is proof.
exactly both evolutionism and Christianity are faiths, but evolutionism is government supported and we are forced to pay taxes to support it being taught in our school system, is this really freedom of religion?
Evolution is not faith. It is the best current explanation for how the earth's species have come about given the evidence that is available and observable.
Evolution has evidence to support it, Christianity doesn't; isn't that the whole point of religion? You need to have faith that your religion is true because there's no evidence to support the existence of a god.
Scientific theory, even if widely accepted, is not written in stone. There is much to be learned about our universe, and I question anyone who thinks they have the final answer. I additionally question those who put too much stock in their own beliefs. I like Ron Paul because he is an advocate of free thinking.
Obama lacks in experience and is nothing but a corporate shill with a friendly face. If he wasn't they wouldn't be giving him oodles of money. Why judge a candidate by his religion? Its about the issues!
Obama has actually had the most donors of any campaign, almost half a million. And most of those have been small money donors. It's not solely about the issues, it's about judgment too. And if Ron Paul can't look at modern biology and see more than a hypothesis, he doesn't have the judgment to lead this country. His stances on issues like immigration, where he has no real plan, reflect this lack of judgment.
evolution is a joke, no one really believes it. There is no evidence, it's a state supported religion. Any one who knows biology knows that evolution is impossible.
>> Why judge a candidate by his religion? Its about the issues!
And one of those issues is if he's able to understand what a scientific theory is. As a doctor, I'd expected better from him. -- Former Paul supporter.
No one expects politicians to be scientists. However, voters need to know that a "scientific theory" is a good explanation of something. To be a good explanation, a theory must fit the facts. Evolution is an explanation of the course of life on Earth that fits the facts. Persons who don't accept the theory of evolution should be excluded from science-based professions such as medicine. I would never trust my medical care to Dr. Ron Paul or to any other doctor who does not "believe" in evolution.
This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question. If you are actually personally interested in what "backing" exists for evolution, consider these indisputable statements: no reputable scientist disputes the theory of evolution; evolution is regarded as the foundation of the bioloogical sciences.
This has been flagged as spam show
THINK
Dr. Paul KNOWS SCIENCE, he's a Medical Doctor, a Surgeon & Majored in Biology. THE ONLY THING RON HOLDS DEAR ARE FREEDOM, CHOICE & THE US CONSTITUTION. His Personal Beliefs about Religion, Abortion or Evolution WILL NEVER AFFECT his Public Policies. Ron WONT Overturn "Roe v Wade", Ron believes in the separation of Church and State, Ron believes in Freedom (of Religion & to do what you want) & Choice. They killed JFK for wanting Gold Standard. We need to lower Inflation and Improve Economy.
halcyon0830 1 week ago
Figures that Ron Paul supported Sanford!! LOL!!
Viracocha711 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anybody who says that Darwin´s theory is somehow a scientific fact seriously needs to re-study.No one would deny that species change over time, they ´´evolve´´; they adapt to their environment.But THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY, is that Darwin´s theory, claims that BECAUSE of those evolutionary changes, all life has emerged from one single ancestor, and that this process that we call ´evolution´, contstantly gives birth to new forms of life.
For this claim there is no hard evidence, period.
Kr0n1k4Lyfe 1 month ago
Do you know what that means to be made in Gods image?What sets man apart from every other living thing on the entire planet. His ability to love,and hate build buildings,electricity,go into space,fly planes,ect ect
What sets us apart from every other ANIMAL is that we're made IN GODS IMAGE. Sorry there are no green headed aliens out there. Perhaps more humans.
(But that would require the existence of honey bees wouldn't it) Or maybe they have their own kind of space bananas? Haha, Atheists...
Kr0n1k4Lyfe 1 month ago
@Kr0n1k4Lyfe Your argument is based on ignorance and wishful thinking. You just don't know anything about evolution, and I'll assume know quite a bit about creationism, i.e. you only know 1 side of the coin and therefore shouldn't draw conclusions nor laugh at the other side (atheists) because you're not informed enough to make those conclusions. I'd like to think we're the favorites of some divine being too, but I learned about evolution and know things that contradict that.
ohforfsakeletmein 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You know Evolution is a theory for people that believe there is absolutely no divine interference in the creation of life?Ron paul has a brain and he understands he has a heart that pumps blood to it,he knows there is divine pressence in life.Life itself is a MIRACLE.But an Atheist will want you to think its not a miracle, its a simple process..so they can believe there is no intelligence involved in lifes creationThis happened because God was taken out of SCIENCE! You're made in GODS Image!
Kr0n1k4Lyfe 1 month ago
Comment removed
Kr0n1k4Lyfe 1 month ago
All great men in history have believed in God, granted that for most of history they didn't have the science to study it. I agree with Paul on the fact that it is a theory still. Not completely proven, that is why it is theory. I am more convinced on ancient alien theories than God though. If you study history you notice the farther back you go the more advanced civilization becomes. I do not believe Paul's personal views on creationism vs evolution should be a dictation on his presidency.
mattykRonPaul2012 4 months ago
@mattykRonPaul2012 AMEN
iampotts02 1 month ago
Evolution is not a generaling theory as in, "Oooooh, ya know, I have a theory that you can tell how much a restaurant thinks about its food by the quality of its veggie burgers." Fine theory, fine.
No, Evolution is a "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" not to be confused with a connotation of generalizing. Paul knows this... just remember Paul knows this and it's a window into who he really is and how he really thinks and it's pretty fucked up.
nyomythus 5 months ago
I don't know that he will ever answer directly one way or another, but I find it inconceivable that an obstetrition, an expert in embryology and the proofs of evolution that it provides, would not believe evolution to be true. See my comment directly below. Unless I hear him say it clearly and directly with my own ears, I will not believe it. We know all too well how internet material can be doctored. Stay frosty people, don't be so quick to believe what makes no sense.This is too important.
mowthpeece1 5 months ago
"I don't accept it, uh...as a theory..." at 3:13. Listen very closely to his word choice. I don't think he's denying the theory..he"s hemming and hawing trying not to offend his ignorant audience. He's dancing around the subject. But saying he doesn't accept it as a theory can also mean he doesn't accept it as a theory because he accepts it as fact, not that he doesn't accept the theory because he doesn't believe it altogether. This is a politicians answer, there is still room to doubt.
mowthpeece1 5 months ago
Ron Paul is from TEXAS if he said he believed in evolution he would get ZERO VOTES
321lawc 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
so lonely tonight on cam have msn!!! msg me jane23belle
bodge123 3 years ago
this is AWESOME
aprilshowers495 3 years ago
yay ron paul has a chance like the devil dose at beating god i dont really have an opion about god and shit i just thought would say that and the only reason y ron paul sucks major ass if he where where huckbee is and i hate huckabee but at least huckabee wont get rid of the EPA and or the FDA
kazooga1234 4 years ago
oh yeah, because the EPA and FDA have done such a GREAT job.. i mean the EPA with telling people after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe when it was potentially harmful and the FDA with the vioxx scandal and the ketek scandal and the aspartame controversy. who would want to get rid of those great track records?
rapsody 3 years ago
right now ya the EPA is broke but we should get rid of it completely just fix it so its back to how it was b4 bush broke it
kazooga1234 3 years ago
the EPA and FDA were broken long before bush, they are corrupt organizations by nature and will ALWAYS favor the interests of industry and the powerbrokers in washington over of the interests of the people. all the evidence shows that private consumer protection groups are FAR more effective at protecting consumers than any government agency ever has been.
sometimes you have to take the time to find the info yourself and not count on the government to protect you. they will usually fail.
rapsody 3 years ago
the republicans break and the democrats fix it ron paul is a libertainrian i no but he wants to do worse he wants to make it like the past when there was black air and everybody was pour and couldnt afford anything
kazooga1234 3 years ago
@kazooga1234 Or how they didn't know how to write, right? Oh, and btw in terms of low wealth, the word is "poor," not "pour."
mattykRonPaul2012 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mattykRonPaul2012 well maybe that is because i went to school that was private in america (actually spelling isnt my strength its math but from somebody who likes ron paul has to be stupider or extremely rich and not care that they will die from not having food that is actually ediable but only poisonness that will have mad cow diasease
i guess you want to die from mad cow though since you like ron paul and he wants to get rid of the EPA that is stopping mad cow from entering this country
kazooga1234 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwin was a loser whose ideas have inhibited real science for 140 years. Science doesn't need him, medicine doesn't need him, and politics doesn't need him. Hasta la vista, Baby.
SirAdricTheBrave 4 years ago
Comment removed
halldbe 3 years ago
@halldbe This was so ignorant that I think it just gave me cancer.
SashaNein 1 year ago
@SashaNein agreed, and deleted.
halldbe 1 year ago
Ron Paul 08!
D00MHeart1 4 years ago
Something to ponder:
Some creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not big enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is used to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)
WikiYourRights 4 years ago 2
Well, the Bible says that God "opened a window in Heaven" through which the rain poured, so I guess the Flood must have consisted primarily of fresh water. But then again I don't know how fresh the water would be in Heaven, haha. How about we just consider it a mythical story like the Jews do, and move on.
frellthat 4 years ago
@WikiYourRights wouldn't Fish survive the flood, because was a large amount of.... water....
paperhandsunion 1 year ago
I still think the "HeLa" cells that I mentioned about a month ago in these comments provide for one of the best examples of speciation. (Click "view all comments" and search for my "name") Search for this phrase in Google: speciation instances HeLa
WikiYourRights 4 years ago
Dr. Paul gave the correct answer and did so in a way that his audience of laymen could understand.
Modern Darwinism IS a hypothesis. It HASN'T been proven.
(Heck, one of the key components, creation by random mutations in germ cells, has been experimentally falsified.)
Well done, Dr. Paul.
SirAdricTheBrave 4 years ago
"Modern Darwinism IS a hypothesis. It HASN'T been proven."
Wrong and wronger. There is no such thing as "Darwinism". Theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. It is a big difference. We see the proof that evolution occurs every day. Google instances of speciation.
"(Heck, one of the key components, creation by random mutations in germ cells, has been experimentally falsified.)"
Cite your source.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
"Cite your source."
The generation of novel DNA code by mutations is a fundamental and indispensable plank of the Darwinian hypothesis. Yet, scientists have been subjecting fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) to concentrated mutagens for the equivalent of one million human generations and the only thing they have to show for it is a single enzyme.
Hypothesis falsified.
SirAdricTheBrave 4 years ago
I said cite your source, not your errant opinion.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme." ~Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48
(Since Taylor wrote that, I understand that a new enzyme has been isolated.)
P.S. I love you, too, kaysandesses.
SirAdricTheBrave 4 years ago
Only scientific sources are relevant to scientific topics. Creationist propaganda is not relevant. Try again.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
Are you really stupid or are you just trying to persuade me that you are?
1) Taylor is on YOUR SIDE!
2) His comments are echoed, in one form or another, by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists ON YOUR SIDE!
Shut the f**k up and go back to sleep.
SirAdricTheBrave 4 years ago
") His comments are echoed, in one form or another, by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists ON YOUR SIDE"
Then surely you can provide some evidence of this. Regardless, the text is 25 years out of date.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
Good night, kaysandesses. Sleep tight, sweetheart.
SirAdricTheBrave 4 years ago
Go away freak.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
Lol @ anyone who supports Ron Paul.
avatarse 4 years ago
yay u like to laugh at my sister to
kazooga1234 4 years ago
Science not knowing an answer does not mean you can just throw in fairy tail bullshit to explain something. Thats irrelevant though, because evolution has constantly been proven right again and again in scientific evidence. You dumb fucks don't know shit about biology, and the bullshit you are spewing out just shows your ignorance to the subject. Stop humiliating yourself and get fucking educated before you argue on a topic.
SteveFeces 4 years ago
If evolution is true how do we tell right from wrong?
isntitovbious 4 years ago
well, you are told what right and wrong is and you believe it. if you were born with it, YOU wouldn't need to go to church to see how you are SUPPOSED to act.
evolution is a theory. so it "intelligent design", or rather, creationism.
read up on quantum physics. once you realize we come in and out of existence all the time, it'll make you think in different directions than both of these.
or maybe evolution is a tool of creationism.
open your mind. it's fun.
halfour 4 years ago
so if right and wrong is decided by the individual and some one thinks it's okay to eat babies thats just fine and if another person thinks it's ok to rape and murder thats okay to because they believe it. There is no way to tell right from wrong out side of the Bible. I have studied quantum and it still cannot explain how we can tell whats right and whats wrong out side of the Bible.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
"Right" and "wrong" aren't fact. They're opinion. We each have our own sense of what is "right" and what is "wrong" based on what we have been taught and on our own experiences. Any action can be interpreted as right or wrong depending on who interprets it.
namenamenamename 4 years ago
"If evolution is true how do we tell right from wrong? "
Evolution has nothing to do with societal mores.
kaysandesses 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...note the successes of Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism, ENGINEERED BY US. The demoralizing effects of these doctrines upon the minds of the [public] should be already obvious to us."
(From a French work first published in the early 1900's in which the writers take credit for engineering Darwinism and foisting it off on an unsuspecting public as part of an elaborate, long-range plan of worldwide conquest.)
chainbanger40 4 years ago 2
Most intelligent people know the mutation factor is dogma for simpletons. If you help promote it you access elite sponsored grants. Obey/agree, be a peon/shill, get work. Evolution was pitched by Darwin, the theory was grasped by future Zionists. If you actually research you'll learn Darwin was a racist bigot. He also claimed a living cell to be very simple in design, yeah right. Evolution's a tool for corporatism.
eye8one2 4 years ago
Strictly in the interest of science, right PartyGirl?
chainbanger40 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE UPDATE: "Members of the Autism Consortium scanned the entire human genome and discovered that sections of chromosome 16 are either deleted or duplicated in some people with autism. The autism spectrum include symptoms ranging from learning delays to more complex problems in which children avoid social interaction or do not speak."
Ah, the Modern Synthesis at work. Ain't it grand?
chainbanger40 4 years ago
"I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design -- we are losing this battle."
~Michael Ruse, in an email to Daniel Dennett
chainbanger40 4 years ago
Ron Paul is an idiot. Good things kiddies can't vote, and conspiracy theorists aren't a majority.
scienceisrocklol 4 years ago
Well said.
noellennon 4 years ago
yeah, I'm sorry but someone who doesn't buy evolution running for president needs to get out of the stoneage, this is the 21th century
weren't we supposed to have that settled by now, it's been two centuries and people still can't grasp it? what's next, ron paul doesn't believe the world is round
Krakko44 4 years ago
Oh, we understand the hypothesis, crackhead. We just know it is a crock of s**t.
chainbanger40 4 years ago
the world being round is a crock of shit?
Krakko44 4 years ago
Oh, now you want to change the subject.
I can't blame you, though. It has to be pretty embarrasing to be aligned with those who think that small incremental changes accumulate to produce large morphological differences.
chainbanger40 4 years ago
I'm not changing the subject, I just asked if you thought the world was round or not, and now you're avoiding the question
Krakko44 4 years ago
Alright, I'll bite.
No, I DON'T think the world is round. I believe it to be an oblate spheroid, more or less.
chainbanger40 4 years ago
the bible and scientists say its round
kazooga1234 4 years ago
He doesn't believe in evolution? What a dumb fuck. He obviously has no idea what "theory" means in a scientific sense.
taxmonkey123 4 years ago
no he's not a dumb fuck. not dumb enough to stick his foot all the way in something like that
circlenumberseven 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You believe in Darwinism, Monkey? What a dumb fuck!
chainbanger40 4 years ago
Find out the REAL TRUTH!
If you watched the ABC debate tonight, you heard Ron Paul say that it's inflation that has caused the reclining value of the Dollar.
It is the FEDERAL RESERVE which prints 'dollars' and then LOANS these papers to the government AT INTEREST!
The price of OIL and GOLD are rising at the SAME RATE! It is the FEDERAL RESERVE's dollar that is worthless!!!
PLEASE read the Wall Street Journal article Ron Paul referred to in the debate! (Find it at your local library)
WikiYourRights 4 years ago
I support Dennis Kucinich for President.
I would probably vote for Ron Paul after watching all the war mongering coming from the Democrats tonight on the ABC debate. ABC barred Dennis Kucinich from attending for no legitimate reason.
A REAL and FAIR election would have Ron Paul running against Dennis Kucinich.
WikiYourRights 4 years ago
Let me rephrase what I just said... I would vote for Ron Paul if he was on the ballot and Dennis Kucinich was not.
The other Dems want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq but want to CONTINUE the occupation.
WikiYourRights 4 years ago
Question:
After all the years of studying biology and the other sciences realated to medicine, how can a doctor still not believe in evolution?
Answer:
Doublethink - The act of simultaneously and fervently holding two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
READ IT!
WikiYourRights 4 years ago
GRUZMAN:
Remember the girl just recently who had FOUR arms and FOUR legs?
This is how evolution works. Genetic mutations have shown diverse ways the human body can change. When these 'changes' live and flourish, it is called speciation. (Look up 'speciation' in Wikipedia for more info.)
Not to long ago, people believed the world was flat, even after science proved it was round.
Read the article 'Monkeys do math as well as college students' at PRESSESC(dot)COM for even more info.
WikiYourRights 4 years ago
You're promoting Huckabee with this bullshit, and if you really want to worry about a Christian who will fuck things up...
keep taking snipes at the only rational Republican/Constitutionalist running, idiots.
happyjesucr 4 years ago
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
GunnarDeStroi 4 years ago
Who gives a rats ass about RP's faith? Whos to say you cant be a good libertarian and still believe in a creator?
Take a look at his policies and you will see that his vision is based on the American Constitution NOT religious dogma.
This is coming from an Evolutionist of the highest order btw...
GunnarDeStroi 4 years ago
@ 5.38 min the guy on the far right decides to check out ron pauls shoes! lol.
verbenarock 4 years ago
Scientific theories are not to be believed in. They are theories, good until proven otherwise. RP states that it's science, and then moves on to the theological question. "Do you believe that God create the universe and Man, or evolution did it?". Here, science is innapropriate for that question.
antoniocostaamaral 4 years ago
You clearly have no clue what theory means in a scientific context.
Ron Paul can state what he wants, but just because it appeals to the supernatural does not mean it is exempt from scientific evaluation. The evidence for evolution is ubiquitous, and for creationism nonexistent.
ilesspwns 4 years ago
Perhaps I do not, despite the fact that I am a scientist. Let me rephrase. Science is a structured body of knowledge, not some faith to be "believed" in. Faith can't be falsifiable, therefore it's not science. You cannot use science to prove or "disprove" that God made Man.
antoniocostaamaral 4 years ago
I will concede to this, but this does not mean there is any reason to have faith in the first place. There are claims made by faith that can be tested, such as a God who answers prayers. Any correct experiment without bias tells us that the prayers are not answered.
ilesspwns 4 years ago
Faith is non-falsifiable. It is irrational. By definition. If you arrive at this conclusion by a rational process, you have not voided faith of its personal value. Some people feel good with it, let them be. You can believe in God _and_ defend evolution. It is not a zero-sum game.
antoniocostaamaral 4 years ago
Science isn't a utility for disproving faith-based claims, it is a utility for attempting to find truths. If the science happens to be in discord with dogma and you reject it because of faith-based thinking, then you lose my respect. This is what Ron Paul has done. If you reject evolution for scientific reasons on the other hand, no integrity is lost.
ilesspwns 4 years ago
No, not truths - facts, the workings of the world. And there are no contradictions. If science doesn't agree with dogma, then one is wrong. And evolution is a scientific matter. The Genesis, on the other hand, is part of faith.
antoniocostaamaral 4 years ago
I think RP was unfortunate in his remarks, but I have no doubt that he will make his thoughts very clear. And they will conform to rational science _and_ his faith. See you when that happens.
antoniocostaamaral 4 years ago
I'm not encouraged by this, no more then I am by Bush believing the moon is the backside of the sun.
unclebeen 4 years ago
Anyone who does not believe in evolution has questionable judgement. Thats why its an issue.
mtgentry 4 years ago
Just like anyone who believes evolution is a law. Question everything, especially authority.
However, at this time Intelligent Design should not be talk as science because it is not. But I believe we should teach at least 2 religions as we should teach at least 2 languages and the metric system in general ed.
caleb4mj 4 years ago
talk=taught, you know what I meant..
Anyone who does not question everything, even the laws of physics, is missing the whole point of science itself.
caleb4mj 4 years ago
>>> You have not and will never be able to offer me an explanation as to how the first pair of wings (gliding or flying).
Haven't you ever seen a gliding squirrel? Don't you have any imagination at all?
netdance1 4 years ago
The only way this could be a problem at all for anybody is if he would start to preach his beliefs or make schools teach creationism or something of that sort. Do you honestly think Ron Paul would be the one to do that?
xihixmoe 4 years ago 2
Yes, I believe it is very likely he would favor a "teach the issue" stance
ilesspwns 4 years ago
why is this such a huge thing? he's not going to come door knocking and force his beliefs on you. he chooses to follow god because it supports a healthy direction in life. he chooses not to believe evolution because firstly, it's a theory and secondly, doesn't give smart moral values. either way - who cares? Isn't America built on the freedom of speech?
gruzman 4 years ago
He can beleive the sun is actually Apollo in his chariot for all I care, but I do think that the lack of belief in a scientific theory that has been supported by all available scientific evidence makes him a poor candidate for leader of the country.
Too bad - I donated to his campaign too. Now I'm not sure I'll vote for him.
netdance1 4 years ago
Actually, science is the pursuit of truth, not truth itself. There is much we don't understand about this world, including the origin of man. Here's a question: If people evolved from apes why can't people crossbreed with apes?
01keef 4 years ago
01keef, that is an excellent question. Llamas and camels are cross fertile, even though they have been separated some 20 million years. I don't know that cross species fertility studies have ever been conducted on humans and apes. Even if we're NOT cross fertile, that doesn't imply we're not related. Chickens and penguins share a common ancestor--just a more distantly related one.
pasha582 4 years ago
yes, Pasha582, good point. I, however, am more interested in not killing people, i.e. ending the Iraq war and U.S. imperialism abroad. This is why I support this guy, Ron Paul. I personally don't buy into Creationism either. Ron Paul will not stand in the way of science. In fact, his populist views would bring great positive changes in science, technology, medicine, the economy, the environment.
01keef 4 years ago
don't be silly. i find it hard to believe both stories. there isn't enough scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution (hence why it remains a theory). there is no missing link between us and apes which is the defining characteristic in the theory - where did we come from. this is such a pathetic thing to get worked up over. i'm sure you don't agree with everything your friends do.
gruzman 4 years ago
Are you serious? The evidence is easily accessible and the fossil record supports evidence without a doubt. You are just refusing to look for yourself.
ilesspwns 4 years ago
i'm not refusing anything. it's a world wide, well known fact that thee is no link between man and monkey. there is an evolutionary path for everything but us. neither story is proven for OUR existence. if this is something that can persuade you vote, you lead a boring, ignorant life.
gruzman 4 years ago
Gruzman, you are sorely mistaken about the connection between men and apes. It is pretty well established, both through fossil skeletal morphology and through genetics. Google the GULO gene, and ask yourself why a gene for synthesizing ascorbic acid should be broken in precisely the same way in apes and humans and not that way in any other mammal.
pasha582 4 years ago
It's not monkeys anyway.
We are APES. That isn't even a debate point.
The questions that ARE debatable are how it came about that we diverged from chimps (i.e. the merging of chimp chromosomes, which we know occurred)
Anyone who confuses apes and monkeys should just shut their mouth.
Letranger 4 years ago
i'm happy to admit we are very similar in respects but no more so than other species are alike to one another. just send me a link for the homosapien between what we are now and when we were supposedly apes. the part that is missing where we developed vocal chords, our arms shrunk, our legs grew, we lost complete hair coverage and we grew noses and other differentiating face structure.
gruzman 4 years ago
gruzman--on the topic of "missing links," what do you call Australopithecus (the various species?) What do you call neandertal? To claim there is no "missing link" is disingenuous, in that every time a link is discovered you can simply claim there are two new gaps.
pasha582 4 years ago
yes we as a species have evolved to but can only be traced back to a certain point. there are humans with larger skulls and bigger hunches but this can only go back so far. there is a huge gap between where man walks upright with equally sized limbs and where there is the monkey that predominantly walks on all four.
gruzman 4 years ago
such a selfish reason of not voting netdance1, im sad evolution has not changed the way of your thinking.
Rawranator24 4 years ago
you dont need the bible to tell what is right and wrong. there are many vicious verses in the bible, if i choose to follow those i would have the same blanket you would for that argument.
gunranger 4 years ago
Then how do you tell right from wrong out side the Bible?
isntitovbious 4 years ago
our free will allows us to form our own ideas... without outside influence... isn't that... obvious?
joebarone 4 years ago
Natural law - the same way that all those non-bible beleiving folks (there are billions of them, you know) do every day.
That you even need to ask this...
netdance1 4 years ago
not every scientist believes it thousands Don't. The majority thought for two thousand years that heavier objects fell faster than smaller objects and they were wrong.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Scientist thought the earth was flat and that blood letting was necessary, they were wrong and they are wrong about evolution. Hitler said if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough the people will believe it, he also believed in evolution and killed millions of people because of it. Again if evolution is true how do we tell right from wrong and whats the point to life?
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Do you have any sources for your claims?
loveR0B0T 4 years ago
Isn'titobvious--science is self-correcting and progressive. (Compare that to religious belief--such as creationism). Consider fossil stromatolites, ediacara, acanthostega, eusthenopteron, tiktaalik, and panderichthys. Then ask yourself why paleontologists have all the best evidence, and creationists none.
pasha582 4 years ago
Also..
"If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist."
-New York Mayor Ed Koch
PUMAZ1 4 years ago
That argument is rediculous. No scientists think of evolution as a religeon. By the way nearly every biological mechanism in our bodies is an example of a beneficial mutation. (so there are millions)
PUMAZ1 4 years ago
there are certain bodily systems that are irreducible complex like a mouse trap, which shows they must have been designed. But the bigger issue is that you don't want to look at the evidence for creation because you want to believe there will be no consequences for your sin. If there is no God then how do we tell right from wrong? the Bible says Psalm 14 "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God..."
isntitovbious 4 years ago
That evolution part would be a deal breaker if I thought it mattered. Just proves that I don't agree with him on EVERYTHING just the vast majority of important issues. As a science teacher I would like to ask if he does not "accept" other theories such as "gravity", "the atom", "plate tectonics", etc, etc, etc, etc.
PUMAZ1 4 years ago
Gravity is observable and testable Evolution is not, it's a religion.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
A theory is a just a way to explain a series of facts and phenomena that have been repetitively tested (example: differences in amino acids in different species or the age of bones found in different strata or natural selection or genetic variation). A creation is unscientific merely because a Creator resides outside the realm of observation and does not need to obey the laws of physics. A creator lies outside of science and thusly can not be considered as a valid scientific theory.
loveR0B0T 4 years ago
that was a very intelligent response!Isn't it funny that their religion evolutionism takes more faith than Christianity. In the beginning nothing became something and it exploded (Big bang or Cosmic evolution).
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Except for of course, all of those fossils like Tiktaalik. And the genetic evidence, like human chromosome #2 being formed from two ape chromosomes. And thousands of other pieces of evidence.
And not to mention the fact that as a creationist, you are forced to believe in "super evolution" to explain how all of the animals changed from two of each "kind" into all the species we see today.
Bueller007 4 years ago
It's simple.
A gene confers benefits without any disadvantages until the affected population reaches a critical mass, because in order for it to confer a disadvantage, it must meet up with another copy of itself. Hard to do when the gene is rare. The rarer the gene, the faster it spreads.
As the gene becomes more common, the spread slows down and the gene frequency reaches equilibrium where the average benefits conferred equal the average disadvantages conferred.
Bueller007 4 years ago
"Fitness" doesn't mean "strength" or "viciousness", it means "ability to reproduce", and in modern Darwinian theory, it is not *individuals* that are "fit", it is *genes*.
If slightly larger brains allowed us to have more children than those so unmodified, then genes for this property would spread.
At the individual level, there's no arguing that brain size has been an advantage. There are billions of us, and only a handful of apes.
Bueller007 4 years ago
This would be because there is no difference between the "micro" and "macro" levels of evolution. It is the exact same mechanism operating over a longer time.
Bueller007 4 years ago
This is not "magical transformation". THAT is creationism.
If you imagine a winged gliding "bird" in a tree, there will always exist some gap between trees across which the bird cannot glide given its current set of wings. Not successfully gliding results in death.
Therefore, natural selection will cause increased wing length. Once the wings have been built, there is another smooth gradient towards increased ability to use those wings for self-powered flight.
Bueller007 4 years ago
Indeed, "logic is your friend". I would suggest that "education" might be another potential friend with whom you are yet unacquainted.
Natural selection occurs at the level of the gene--that is what replicates and "competes" to fill the gene pool.
Evolution (defined as "change in allele frequency over time") has not only BEEN OBSERVED occurring, it MUST occur as a matter of fact. It is a property of any system of competing replicators with variable heredity and differential fitness.
Bueller007 4 years ago
4) No one claims that organisms "magically transform into something else". If you could demonstrate this, it would be excellent evidence for creationism.
Bueller007 4 years ago
3) Humans having "less DNA than a chimp" says absolutely nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory, and your claim that it does demonstrates absolute ignorance.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. All other great apes have 24 pairs. As a test of common descent, they sequenced the human genome and the chimp genome, and compared them.
Human chromosome #2 is formed from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. We know this to the exact locus where the fusion occurred.
Bueller007 4 years ago
2) We don't expect to find all transitional fossils because of:
a) the nature of fossilization ("extremely rare")
b) the nature of speciation ("occurs among small isolated groups")
c) the fossil record itself ("often documents sudden migrational events, not evolutionary events")
d) the nature of evolution ("life changes faster than rocks").
At any rate, he has already provided you
He has provided you with a link to talkorigins(dot)org. There is lots of information there.
Bueller007 4 years ago
Like I was saying I don't know if you are willingly ignorant or
if your like I was and haven't looked for the answers. I thought evolution was the only answer to the fossils. I was sure they were evidence and I was amazed to find out the textbooks are inaccurate.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Teaching evolution is a feeble attempt at destroying our culture. Hitler believe evolution thats why he killed the Jews and the blacks he thought they were less evolved and says they weren't even human.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Which would make sense if evolution was true it would mean that one race is probably more advanced but it isn't. It is the foundation for murder, Nazism, socialism, communism, racism and is really a sick religion plus we are forced to pay for it being taught in our schools.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
I don't know if your willingly ignorant, not wanting to look at the evidence for God and creation or you were just like me and that is all you had been taught, but I pray you do your research and find out why you believe what you believe.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
What "inaccuracies" would those be?
Bueller007 4 years ago
1. Sickle cell demonstrates what is known as "heterozygous advantage". When one copy of the gene is inherited, malarial resistance is conferred without anemia. When two copies of the gene are inherited, anemia occurs.
So long as the affected population stays below a critical level, the SC gene will be SURE to spread, as it usually confers benefits with no disadvantages.
Bueller007 4 years ago
> It's quite easily verified. Google 'Epic
> Tales of Gilgamesh'.
OK, I did.
What parts of Genesis is plagiarized "word for word" with Gilgamesh?
I am an atheist, so of course I read the Bible. I had to read Gilgamesh too. You tell me where there is word for word plagiarism.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
THIS CAN'T POSSIBLY BE COVERED HERE!
THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH
"I opened the window and light fell on my face. The ship lay upon Mount Nisir. Mount Nisir held the ship and allowed it not to move."
"When the seventh day arrived, I released a dove."
THE BOOK OF GENESIS
8:4
...the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat.
8:6
At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made, and sent forth a raven.
google "The Flood Myth: Babylonian Origins" in quotations
wulfgang66 4 years ago
These legends and myths we find in just about every culture just confirm that the Bible is true. if you look at some of the ancient letter characters depict the story of Noah and the trinity.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Here's a Bible verse worth checking out 2peter3:3 " Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days scoffers,walking after their own lust,
and saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." this shows us that there will people in the last days that are rejecting God and the Bible because they want to be able to sin as they please, with out guilt.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
> These legends and myths we find in just about
> every culture just confirm that the Bible is
> true.
No, it confirms that there is a great deal of cross culture seeding of myths across the globe, and that it's quite possible that there is a center of civilization.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
This doesn't seem very "word for word" to me.
Nearly every single culture has a flood myth, the notable exceptions are any people that live on plateaus, like the Tibetans.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
Let's put this to bed - the ONLY people opposed to evolution are those who's belief system is damaged by it, i.e. the bible-thumping fundamentalists and their pseudo-scientist cheerleaders Behe and Gish.
There are volumes and volumes of scientific support for evolution. Creationists have just one piece of evidence - the Christian bible.
They may find it interesting that the entire book of Genesis was plagiarized - in many cases word for word - from the much older "Epic Tales of Gilgamesh".
wulfgang66 4 years ago
> They may find it interesting that the entire
> book of Genesis was plagiarized - in many
> cases word for word - from the much older
> "Epic Tales of Gilgamesh".
Look, I'm an atheist, but this is not true.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
"Look, I'm an atheist, but this is not true."
Because you say so?
It's quite easily verified. Google 'Epic Tales of Gilgamesh'.
wulfgang66 4 years ago
Oh you wacky creationists!
1) The sickle shaped cell provides greater resistance to malaria.
2) The fossil record
3) The genome of humans and chimpanzees are 96 percent similar.
4) Viruses evolve around our medicines
It's laughable to compare the scientific evidence for evolution to the scientific evidence for creation - the bible.
wulfgang66 4 years ago 4
why can't we mate with chimps, then? just a question to ponder.
01keef 4 years ago
If you're happy with the state of human anatomy, physiology, and mental capacity for the most part then they've all been beneficial haven't they?
A quick example would be sickle cells which offer improved resistance to malaria.
You'll find all the evidence you need here:
talkorigins dot org
And those damn viruses just keep evolving around our medicines, don't they?
wulfgang66 4 years ago 3
Wow. I respect Ron Paul's work for constitutional rights and some other issues, but this statement is one of many indicators he doesn't have the judgment to be president. Luckily Obama has experience as a constitutional law professor, so hope for change is still here.
IAmPauliver 4 years ago 3
Notice Ron Paul doesn't say he's a believer in typical Christian creationism either. Actually he says both are only theories. While many say there are mountains of scientific evidence of evolution, one must still make a leap of faith to believe it is proof.
01keef 4 years ago
exactly both evolutionism and Christianity are faiths, but evolutionism is government supported and we are forced to pay taxes to support it being taught in our school system, is this really freedom of religion?
isntitovbious 4 years ago
Evolution is not faith. It is the best current explanation for how the earth's species have come about given the evidence that is available and observable.
PUMAZ1 4 years ago
Evolution has evidence to support it, Christianity doesn't; isn't that the whole point of religion? You need to have faith that your religion is true because there's no evidence to support the existence of a god.
iceheart920 4 years ago 3
Evolution is a theory, some parts of it are true but other parts are not so true.
Only a Sith think in absolutes.
soulmantim 4 years ago
Which parts are not true? Please make your claims instead of using circumlocution. All of the evidence is against you.
Wow, America really is scientifically illiterate..
ilesspwns 4 years ago
Scientific theory, even if widely accepted, is not written in stone. There is much to be learned about our universe, and I question anyone who thinks they have the final answer. I additionally question those who put too much stock in their own beliefs. I like Ron Paul because he is an advocate of free thinking.
01keef 4 years ago
Obama lacks in experience and is nothing but a corporate shill with a friendly face. If he wasn't they wouldn't be giving him oodles of money. Why judge a candidate by his religion? Its about the issues!
01keef 4 years ago
Obama has actually had the most donors of any campaign, almost half a million. And most of those have been small money donors. It's not solely about the issues, it's about judgment too. And if Ron Paul can't look at modern biology and see more than a hypothesis, he doesn't have the judgment to lead this country. His stances on issues like immigration, where he has no real plan, reflect this lack of judgment.
IAmPauliver 4 years ago
evolution is a joke, no one really believes it. There is no evidence, it's a state supported religion. Any one who knows biology knows that evolution is impossible.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
>> Why judge a candidate by his religion? Its about the issues!
And one of those issues is if he's able to understand what a scientific theory is. As a doctor, I'd expected better from him. -- Former Paul supporter.
netdance1 4 years ago
me thinks you protest too much netdance1
soulmantim 4 years ago
No one expects politicians to be scientists. However, voters need to know that a "scientific theory" is a good explanation of something. To be a good explanation, a theory must fit the facts. Evolution is an explanation of the course of life on Earth that fits the facts. Persons who don't accept the theory of evolution should be excluded from science-based professions such as medicine. I would never trust my medical care to Dr. Ron Paul or to any other doctor who does not "believe" in evolution.
ferrierd 4 years ago 4
what is you best piece of evidence for evolution?
isntitovbious 4 years ago
This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question. If you are actually personally interested in what "backing" exists for evolution, consider these indisputable statements: no reputable scientist disputes the theory of evolution; evolution is regarded as the foundation of the bioloogical sciences.
ferrierd 4 years ago
Following comment was in response to the question, "what is you best piece of evidence for evolution?"
ferrierd 4 years ago
Like Global Warming is true and scientific? ROTFL
EEmperor444 4 years ago
> Like Global Warming is true and scientific?
> ROTFL
It probably is true, but the governments won't do anything about it, you may as well accept this.
Gore's plan to to pay tyrants in power to not allow their population to develop - this is exactly what "carbon credits" will do.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
A message to Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel supporters: PLEASE JOIN FORCES!!!
Dennis Kucinich (2nd most popular on the net) and Mike Gravel's been endorsed by Ralph Nader.
Although they disagree on some issues they are the only three candidates that are honest by a long shot.
Don't be fooled by the Republican vs Democrat BS we are all Americans.
Please repost this on as many videos as you can and demand that Kucinich and Gravel support Dr. Paul.
worldcitizen2008 4 years ago
Evolution: "its a theory" -- here's a theory: Ron Paul is sucking up the nitwit bible thumpers of South Carolina.
Funny that he spouts off political/economic theories like they're fact.
GeorgeBright 4 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the second law of thermodynamics states that all things ten to disorder, thus making evolution impossible.
isntitovbious 4 years ago
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
This is the debunked and tired argument of the creationists.
wulfgang66 4 years ago 4
Well if the earth isn't a closed system like you say then how is carbon dating even accurate?
isntitovbious 4 years ago
WAY too deep a topic for this board. Visit the link I posted above.
It has to do with the definition of chaos. Are humans order from chaos or do we add to chaos?
wulfgang66 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lost my vote. Nutjob.
mattdammit 4 years ago
really?