@MetsFlipper I very much disagree with you, as it shows a fundamental lack of understanding. However, Ron Paul does believe in evolution. Please watch my video response to this video for my apology to him.
Thinking you are wiser then Ron Paul because you feel you know more about "evolution" than him shows quite a bit of ego mixed with ignorance, when he was in pre doctorate schools they prolly didn't have the mandates to pound evolution into the students minds during thier formative years, making them think that the issue is somehow "very important." I sure hope the rest of your generation doesn't have "knowledge about evolution" as the sole most important issue to them when chooseing a leader!
@drunkagain2 Oh, give me a break. I didn't say I was wiser. I also didn't say this was the sole most important issue to me when choosing a leader. You've implied that I'm ignorant, egotistical, and brainwashed, but as you know we don't judge the person we judge the argument. Do you have anything to say to my argument?
@Bubba2x4 I see it as a disconnect between him and reality. If I'm going to vote for someone who has an apparent disconnect with reality, I want to hear him address it head on so I can attempt to discern why the disconnect exists and whether or not I can look past it.
@cainb I agree with you. Him discrediting something so universally accepted is ridiculous If Ron Paul believed in Unicorns, people would laugh at him and see him as a crazy person. No, Unicorns don't affect our government. There would be no law, economic model or anything based around said Unicorns, but people would not vote for him because of this craziness.
If he want's to be crazy, more power to him, but unless he can defend it well. He's not my president.
@KBiddy123 Thanks for watching, and contributing. You win the prize for first person to post a comment agreeing with me. Subscribe if you'd like to watch similar videos in the future! :)
@KBiddy123 Ron Paul didn't reject evolution, he rejected using theory as a basis for decision-making. That can be applied to a number of theories. Like Saddam has WMD's. Or the Mexican drug cartel assassination plot was perpetrated by Iran. Those are theories that, while he doesn't dismiss, he won't accept without more concrete evidence. As President, he is not responsible for providing evidence or claiming what is or isn't real science; that is up to the scientific community to do.
@drshlotzkin I broke down every point you made, you've resorted to insults and calling my point irrelevant. You represent your candidate, just as he represents you, and I don't think you've done a good job of that today. However, I am very glad that you took the time to talk with me, because I don't think we do that enough in the USA. I really do appreciate it.
@TheMango121 I think this is ignorant. Evolution is the basis for modern biology which is a science that could certainly end world hunger. Evolution is as irrelevant in politics as the theory of gravity. I presume you wouldn't vote for someone who didn't "accept" gravity?
@drshlotzkin Not a troll, definitely looking for answers. I don't think that calling into question a fundamental misunderstanding of reality is nit-picking. I will be happy to vote, I may pro-create. If a candidate didn't "accept" the theory of gravity, would you consider him fit for the Office of the President? I doubt it. I understand evolution to be on par with gravity. If I am wrong, I would like Ron Paul to tell me why our realities are so different.
Your "theory of gravity" shtick is a strawman. Perhaps he has some qualms with evolution like some have with "global warming, climate change, AGW" or whatev is the buzzword of the day. This is such a none issue it's not even funny. It may be the "make or break" for you, but for the vast majority it is not. Some believe in God, I don't. I'm not going to base my sole reason whether or not to support them based on that "fundamental difference". Get the "shtick" out of your ass.
@drshlotzkin I think you need to look up what straw man means. I'm not misrepresenting Ron Paul's opinion. He doesn't accept evolution. He has said that. Are you saying that he has not said that?
I would also not vote for someone who didn't accept climate change without addressing it.
He DOES have qualms about evolution. He needs to address them head on. He holds an opinion contrary to nearly every accredited biologist. To pretend like that is a non-issue seems silly to me.
@TheMango121 Ok, that's strange but I appreciate your honesty. It turns out Ron Paul does believe in evolution. I'm currently uploading an apology video right now.
theory of evolution?! are you kidding me? Dude, who gives a poo - there are seriously bigger problems than debating that issue. He's running for president of a dying country, he's not running for god.
@srkh28 He's running for ruler of the free world. If he were running for God, I would have a few more demands. His belief in evolution shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. It shows he is willing to overlook evidence to keep his "faith." That is not a quality I admire, in fact, I abhor it. So, if he is willing to overlook it, that's fine, but I don't want to hear him brush off the question anymore. I want him to address it head on.
if you don't vote for paul based on this ridiculous ultimatum then you don't realise the difference that ron paul actually represents to the other parties/candidates
Are you stupid or what? You're supposed to vote for a president based on credentials, skills and ability to run a nation. The other candidates are establishment puppets, most likely Freemasons but I don't see you complaining about their satanic beliefs.
@EvoLancer91 I'm stupid, yes. I consider the ability to reason to be a very important "credential." I am voting for our president, not only to run our nation, but to rule the free world. I cannot vote in a man who would ignore evidence in the face of faith. If he is not doing that, and has a good reason. I would like to hear it.
The reason I don't complain about some of the other candidates, is I don't think they're worth the time. I think Ron Paul is.
@cainb "I am voting for our president, not only to run our nation, but to rule the free world" It is not the United State's job to rule the world. It sounds like you're not voting for Ron Paul due to his anti-evolution stance but because you're a pro 'New World Order', atheist . Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and as long as Ron Paul does not use religion as a means of justifying any (despicable) actions, he is without a doubt America's best choice. Vote to restore your nation.
besides science of late has become a bit of religion in some areas... science isn't all its cracked up to be, we are always wrong before we are right, and you can bet whats right today will just be wrong tomorrow as we become less ignorant about our surroundings...
and don't take what we know, fundamentally, about our surroundings as fact, we don't know shit, current thinking states we are part of a multiverse and we are all connected through conciousness + that we are nothing by pure energy
@guberskank Thanks for watching. Science has not become a religion at all. It is science. It speaks on the currently accepted theories based on peer review. I assure you that a candidate who did not believe in the theory of gravity, would certainly have trouble becoming president. Just because our scientific ideas change in the future, does not mean we write them off today. If you don't want to take what we know about our surroundings as fact, I don't see why you care who the president is.
he is a man of faith, how can he accept evolution? does any person of faith accept evolution?
to not vote for ron paul because he doesn't drop his faith in Christianity (thats what you are saying isn't it, lets be fair) for the sake of science, thats just madness... we all have our belief systems
@guberskank Hey, sorry. I didn't see you left two comments. My last response was a reply to your second one. My father is a man of faith who accepts evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
I am certainly not asking Ron Paul to drop his Christian faith. I merely want him to address evolution instead of blowing it off. If a person disagrees with a fundamental scientific theory, I want to know, at the very least, why.
@cainb fair enough, i figured the standard thing for a christian to do is to deny evolution as it contradicts the christian faith, at least thats how i rationalised the intensity of the whole creationism/evolution debate
i would also guess that the vast majority of pastors can not accept evolution
imvho evolution/religion both require a bit of faith, evolution is still a theory, one day there could be something that comes along that contradicts it, atm its safe, but it still requires faith
Is it fundamental science or knowledge that evolution theory/s answer all philosophical and religious questions? Many take the good they learn from religions without concretely accepting an one opinion on the deeper meaning, or how the writings may be interpreted regarding the evolution of man and species. Ron spends his time thinking on what would make the world a better place, not on the intricacies of arguments concerning the origins of man. He's not running to be the Oracle.
@colincolenso I don't quite understand your first question. I agree that science doesn't answer all philosophical questions, if that was your point. However, to your point that Ron Paul wants to make the world a better place, I agree that he does. I also think it's quite clear that modern biology, which is supported by evolution, makes the world a better place. So, there is a disconnect there. I am not asking that Ron Paul believe in evolution, I'm asking that he address it.
Come on man, you can't be serious? He's not absolutely perfect so you can't vote for him? Can you at least name a few other things you disagree with him about?
Is he not allowed to believe anything different from you, even though he isn’t forcing that view on you in any way? You want to force your view on him?
Remember, this has no bearing on decisions made if following the Constitution like a President swears an oath to do.
@drshlotzkin I named a few other things I disagree with in another comment to @TMOvids . He is certainly allowed to believe something different than me. I am not forcing my view on him. I am asking him to address a highly controversial stance. Right now, he just shrugs it off. Would you consider a candidate who did not "accept" the theory of gravity? I think the constitution is a brilliant document, but to pretend like a person can follow it without any bias is asinine.
Ok, you must be a troll. Now I'll have to treat you like one. How the F*CK does having a different view on evolution make him an invalid choice for President? You're going with the strawman "theory of gravity"? Asinine? It's a NONE issue. To pretend to think that his views on evolution are going to wildly interfere with his Const. roll as President is quite frankly ASININE. You don't want answers. Either you're fucking stupid, a troll or both. Don't respond, It'll be ignored.
@drshlotzkin Yes, ignoring dissenting opinions is certainly a valid way to promote your cause and convince me you're a reasonable person. I don't think the theory of gravity is a strawman. If there was a candidate who didn't "accept" the theory of gravity, I would certainly want to know why. I would not want him to shrug it off and say it won't have an effect on my presidency. Similarly, I need to know why a seemingly reasonable Ron Paul stands in opposition to every accredited biologist.
Evolution? Hell, everybody believes something different it seems. I can even go with human beings being engineered by aliens. Get over it! Let's vote for a honest man this time, forget about the trivial stuff.
@linkartworks I won't get over it, and I don't think it's trivial. I do think Ron Paul is honest, but I see not accepting evolution as a disconnect with reality. It is a theory accepted on the same exact level as the theory of gravity. I merely ask that he address it, instead of brushing it off.
Evolution has nothing to do with managing the federal government. I understand you feel like this is an important issue, and maybe it is for state and local government, where Ron Paul believes things like education and abortion should be dealt with. What is it that you imagine could happen at the federal level with a President Ron Paul, if he does not accept the theory of evolution?
@chrlpolk Good point! Being able to have one's own opinion is much more important than if you share all opinions with the president. I'd rather disagree with a political leader than agree with one who tries to ram it down everyone's throat.
@drshlotzkin 1. The United States of America. I consider perception a very big issue in a world where countries are so intricately intertwined.
2. I agree that I am talking about a vast majority of people. I have no problem standing in opposition to the majority. I do have issues with religion, but this point is much more specific than that.
3. The beliefs of the President of the USA are automatically propagated.
@drshlotzkin No, Barack is my choice right now, I'm not married to him. I really like RP, but I think to be credible he needs to start addressing these discrepancies with our seeming reality.
@cainb If Barack Obama is your choice, that is fine, I'm not going to talk you out of it. He is an intelligent man. He states that he believes in evolution. But can you name one policy that his belief in evolution has affected? Either we defend individual liberty, or we don't. That is all our federal government is for. I don't care if my auto mechanic believes in black holes, so personally, I don't care if my President believes in creationism, as long as he doesn't push beliefs onto me.
@chrlpolk I don't know that I can name one policy, no. As I've said a few times, it's not that Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution. I do have an issue with that, obviously, but that wasn't the point of this video. My issue is that he won't address it. If he is taking such a radical position, I want to know why. I also don't like the comparison of the leader of the free world to an auto-mechanic. I think it's obvious that there are a lot less things to consider when choosing a mechanic.
@cainb The importance you put on the "leader of the free world" is not actually representative of a free world. The President is not a king, nor an emperor, nor divine, just a mortal human elected by the people to do a specific job. It is important that we choose people based on their ability to govern and their ideas of liberty, which will define how free of a world it is. You are free to vote for who you want, thanks to our Founders, whose Creationist beliefs did not hinder governance policy.
@chrlpolk Leader of the Free World, Figure-head of the Free World, say it however you want, but the US does have that much influence on the world. I question the ability to govern and make rational decisions based on reality when one holds an opinion so radical and steeped in "faith." Many of our founders were atheists, many were deist and very few, if any, were creationists, there is a very large amount of evidence to support that.
@cainb Thomas Paine, arguably the most anti-religious of the bunch, fought against teaching evolution. "Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author." He said that while denouncing a French school that taught evolution. The Founders overwhelmingly agreed with the idea of Intelligent Design. This is a whole other debate that is aside from the current one regarding the importance of that to governance.
@cainb True! And it's likely to change in another 250, because at this point, it's still a developing theory. He said, "And I think it’s a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory." He's not saying that he doesn't accept evolution altogether; he is saying that he doesn't accept things that are only in the "theory" stage. Maybe it's the truth, maybe it isn't, maybe it's lacking; but until it's more conclusive, it's not usable as the basis of decisionmaking.
@chrlpolk I've been with you so far, but this is getting into ridiculous territory. What isn't in the theory stage? Evolution is as conclusive as gravity. We have to base our decision-making on the best guesses we have available. Your comment above is why I need a statement from Mr. Paul on the issue. I will not vote for him until I have a better understanding of why he does not accept evolution. To me it sounds like he is parroting creationist propaganda and I will not vote for a parrot.
@cainb What is in dispute is the idea of macro-evolution - that one species can diverge into two entirely different species. There is, as of yet, no explanation of how one species can branch out, becoming bird in one branch, and mammal in another. Now, as you are rationilizing the argument of the platypus, how does that relate to anything to do with government? Paul stated that the when, how and why we got here is unimportant to his role as President; it's a matter for the scientists to debate.
@chrlpolk Macro-evolution is not in dispute. If you think it is, you've been fed propaganda. The only people who dispute it are creationists who do it on principal because they know it presents issues with their belief in a young earth. Evolution has nothing to do with why we got here. It has a very small amount to do with when and how. The issue is that Paul presents a radical viewpoint, and does not justify it, he dismisses it as irrelevant . Radical viewpoints are not ever irrelevant.
@cainb When we are engaged in our 6th war, unemployment is still high (except in militarism), corporations and banks are controlling our politics, we are taxed heavily to pay just the interest on $20+ trillion national debt, the price of medicine and gas is still rising, as is the price of food - then I guess we can rest assured that our President believes our species formed over millions of years of genetic variation.
@chrlpolk I agree with you on all that stuff, and I'm also sick of it, Charles. As it stands now, I don't think RP is the man for the job, unless he can reconcile his stance on evolution. I find it as strange as not believing in gravity. Thanks so much for all your comments, I hope lots of people read through all these. Take a look at talkorigins . org if you want to learn more about evolution, specifically macro-evolution.
@cainb I'm a musician, evolution doesn't interest me very much. Gravity does, because I have to work with it daily! He didn't say that he believes in Creationism, he said he doesn't know. And because that knowledge wouldn't affect his duties as President (which is uphold the Constitution and value individual liberties), he is not inclined to look into the matter. He believes we should let individuals decide for themselves, without government influence, and that will lead society to the truth.
@cainb 1. You seem to be putting an awful lot of stock on this one issue, can you provide a specific issue or is this just a kind of paranoia you're feeling? Ron Paul's stance is that the Presidncy is a governance job, and that office holds no credibility when it comes to any kind of scientific statement. He makes decisions based upon our founding document, the Constitution. How we got here doesn't matter; we are here now, we have a duty to self-govern, and an individual right to liberty.
@chrlpolk I don't think it's paranoia. I've listed a few of the reasons I think it's an issue in another comment to you. I also understand his position on governing and the constitution. However, to pretend like a person can just govern by the constitution, without any bias, is naive to me. Everything is interpretation. I think if he is disconnected from reality in this way, his bias will also be.
@cainb I understand the argument you're making, but you seem to be awful religious when it comes to this issue. Many Christians would rather have an unqualified Christian candidate, for the exact same reasons you give regardiing "fundamental" basis of decision-making. Evolution isn't something most people think about in their daily routines. I can't imagine a President considering the origins of life when making decisions on how to balance the budget or engage in foreign diplomacy.
@chrlpolk I don't really understand your first point, am I taking something on faith? Are you saying religiousness is a bad thing? I don't have an issue with Christians choosing whichever candidate they want, however they want to choose them. Of course, they will feel the candidate that follows their belief system is the best candidate, with the best fundamental decision making. That's what I'm doing too.
@chrlpolk I don't see evolution playing a roll in the budget, maybe in foreign diplomacy. Definitely in realms of science and probably in policy regarding ethics. Lastly, evolution doesn't have to do with the origins of life, but I take your point anyway.
@cainb Well then, you should love Ron Paul! He doesn't believe that the Federal Government has any place in developing science. That should be the choice of the People - such asscientists who choose to pursue certain avenues. Government should neither encourage nor discourage individuals from pursuing their interests. All of the scientific hangups of the past have been due to some sort of government role in telling people what is or isn't real science. Ron Paul is against government doing that.
@chrlpolk I do love Ron Paul. I would love to debate whether or not science has a place in government another time (I think it does, but I see good points on the other side.) This video is merely questioning why a man with such a radical viewpoint, will not address it. There is some cognitive dissonance going on and I want to know the extent of it, so I can judge whether he is worthy of my vote for president.
I am not religious and I agree that Ron Paul is brilliant, and the best choice. He gets my vote. I think he can beat Obama if the media will start giving him more attention and stop trying to smear him... As far as the theory of evolution goes.. I think Ron's christian faith is too unshakable for him to accept it. It's not going to sway my opinion of him or change my vote.. You can't agree with everything the person you vote for says.. So why not just vote for the person you agree with the most
@FestivalEntertainer I will, and right now that is President Obama. If Ron Paul wants my vote, he will need to demonstrate that he not only understands government, but understands science as well, because I think for the United States to stay viable, we must lead the world in scientific research of every kind.
@cainb I don't understand this. You agree with Paul that we need less government, but then support Obama, because of a difference of opinion with regards to fossils? Jon Hunstman and Gary Johnson are both believers in evolution from the republican side. Is there something else wrong with them? It just seems a spectacularly arbitrary measure on which to decide who you support.
@TMOvids Hey! :) Thanks for watching. I don't JUST disagree on fossils (we would still know evolution is true without fossils, for one.) I also disagree with his ideas to slash research spending, be pro-life, his hack and slash ideas of smaller government, his idea to let the states decide on all issues. I like Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson too. However, I disagree that this measure is arbitrary. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our world and I wonder what else he misunderstands.
@cainb Fair enough :) be nice to see you go into some of these issues a bit more in future vids. Checked some of your others and you certainly have an interesting perspective.
@TMOvids This is my first opinion piece and I certainly am enjoying the response it has gotten. I will definitely delve further and I really appreciate your opinions. I want Americans to open a dialogue. I don't care what you believe as long as you're willing to talk about it. That's my issue with RP right now, he's brushing off evolution instead of addressing it. Please subscribe so you can stay involved in the discussion! Your comment was one of the best so far.
This has been flagged as spam show
Upset that the money bomb at RonPaul2012 did not reach $6Mil?
Well, do something. I went back and donated the same amount again. The money bomb is close to 3mil now - we can do this!
ForLiberty888 4 months ago
Why should it matter if someone doesn't accept the theory of evolution? It DOESN'T matter. Evolution has NOTHING to do with running the country
MetsFlipper 4 months ago
@MetsFlipper I very much disagree with you, as it shows a fundamental lack of understanding. However, Ron Paul does believe in evolution. Please watch my video response to this video for my apology to him.
cainb 4 months ago
Thinking you are wiser then Ron Paul because you feel you know more about "evolution" than him shows quite a bit of ego mixed with ignorance, when he was in pre doctorate schools they prolly didn't have the mandates to pound evolution into the students minds during thier formative years, making them think that the issue is somehow "very important." I sure hope the rest of your generation doesn't have "knowledge about evolution" as the sole most important issue to them when chooseing a leader!
drunkagain2 4 months ago
@drunkagain2 Oh, give me a break. I didn't say I was wiser. I also didn't say this was the sole most important issue to me when choosing a leader. You've implied that I'm ignorant, egotistical, and brainwashed, but as you know we don't judge the person we judge the argument. Do you have anything to say to my argument?
cainb 4 months ago
Why does it matter?
Bubba2x4 4 months ago
@Bubba2x4 I see it as a disconnect between him and reality. If I'm going to vote for someone who has an apparent disconnect with reality, I want to hear him address it head on so I can attempt to discern why the disconnect exists and whether or not I can look past it.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb I agree with you. Him discrediting something so universally accepted is ridiculous If Ron Paul believed in Unicorns, people would laugh at him and see him as a crazy person. No, Unicorns don't affect our government. There would be no law, economic model or anything based around said Unicorns, but people would not vote for him because of this craziness.
If he want's to be crazy, more power to him, but unless he can defend it well. He's not my president.
KBiddy123 4 months ago
@KBiddy123 Thanks for watching, and contributing. You win the prize for first person to post a comment agreeing with me. Subscribe if you'd like to watch similar videos in the future! :)
cainb 4 months ago
@KBiddy123 Ron Paul didn't reject evolution, he rejected using theory as a basis for decision-making. That can be applied to a number of theories. Like Saddam has WMD's. Or the Mexican drug cartel assassination plot was perpetrated by Iran. Those are theories that, while he doesn't dismiss, he won't accept without more concrete evidence. As President, he is not responsible for providing evidence or claiming what is or isn't real science; that is up to the scientific community to do.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
Hey youtubers,
I asked this guy "Who is a better choice for president at this point?" His response was "Barack Obama".
He wants to nit-pick over this NONE issue of evolution.... He is a troll. buh-bye.
Stick with your principals and vote Barack Obama, tool-job.
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin I broke down every point you made, you've resorted to insults and calling my point irrelevant. You represent your candidate, just as he represents you, and I don't think you've done a good job of that today. However, I am very glad that you took the time to talk with me, because I don't think we do that enough in the USA. I really do appreciate it.
cainb 4 months ago
I don't care about evolution.
Thats not going to get more money money
thats not going to help end world hunger.
Evolution is irrelevant in politics.
Nuff said.
TheMango121 4 months ago
@TheMango121 I think this is ignorant. Evolution is the basis for modern biology which is a science that could certainly end world hunger. Evolution is as irrelevant in politics as the theory of gravity. I presume you wouldn't vote for someone who didn't "accept" gravity?
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb
I think you are a stupid fucking troll NOT looking for answers, but to nit pick. Do us all a favor and DONT VOTE, or procreate.
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin Not a troll, definitely looking for answers. I don't think that calling into question a fundamental misunderstanding of reality is nit-picking. I will be happy to vote, I may pro-create. If a candidate didn't "accept" the theory of gravity, would you consider him fit for the Office of the President? I doubt it. I understand evolution to be on par with gravity. If I am wrong, I would like Ron Paul to tell me why our realities are so different.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb
Your "theory of gravity" shtick is a strawman. Perhaps he has some qualms with evolution like some have with "global warming, climate change, AGW" or whatev is the buzzword of the day. This is such a none issue it's not even funny. It may be the "make or break" for you, but for the vast majority it is not. Some believe in God, I don't. I'm not going to base my sole reason whether or not to support them based on that "fundamental difference". Get the "shtick" out of your ass.
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin I think you need to look up what straw man means. I'm not misrepresenting Ron Paul's opinion. He doesn't accept evolution. He has said that. Are you saying that he has not said that?
I would also not vote for someone who didn't accept climate change without addressing it.
He DOES have qualms about evolution. He needs to address them head on. He holds an opinion contrary to nearly every accredited biologist. To pretend like that is a non-issue seems silly to me.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb
I would... honestly.
I have more things to worry about than one persons opinion on a topic that has nothing to do with politics.
TheMango121 4 months ago
@TheMango121 Ok, that's strange but I appreciate your honesty. It turns out Ron Paul does believe in evolution. I'm currently uploading an apology video right now.
cainb 4 months ago
theory of evolution?! are you kidding me? Dude, who gives a poo - there are seriously bigger problems than debating that issue. He's running for president of a dying country, he's not running for god.
srkh28 4 months ago
@srkh28 He's running for ruler of the free world. If he were running for God, I would have a few more demands. His belief in evolution shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. It shows he is willing to overlook evidence to keep his "faith." That is not a quality I admire, in fact, I abhor it. So, if he is willing to overlook it, that's fine, but I don't want to hear him brush off the question anymore. I want him to address it head on.
cainb 4 months ago
if you don't vote for paul based on this ridiculous ultimatum then you don't realise the difference that ron paul actually represents to the other parties/candidates
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank I think I realize very well the difference he represents, which is I why I am so disappointed that he would reject the theory of gravity.
cainb 4 months ago
Are you stupid or what? You're supposed to vote for a president based on credentials, skills and ability to run a nation. The other candidates are establishment puppets, most likely Freemasons but I don't see you complaining about their satanic beliefs.
EvoLancer91 4 months ago
@EvoLancer91 I'm stupid, yes. I consider the ability to reason to be a very important "credential." I am voting for our president, not only to run our nation, but to rule the free world. I cannot vote in a man who would ignore evidence in the face of faith. If he is not doing that, and has a good reason. I would like to hear it.
The reason I don't complain about some of the other candidates, is I don't think they're worth the time. I think Ron Paul is.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb "I am voting for our president, not only to run our nation, but to rule the free world" It is not the United State's job to rule the world. It sounds like you're not voting for Ron Paul due to his anti-evolution stance but because you're a pro 'New World Order', atheist . Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and as long as Ron Paul does not use religion as a means of justifying any (despicable) actions, he is without a doubt America's best choice. Vote to restore your nation.
EvoLancer91 4 months ago
besides science of late has become a bit of religion in some areas... science isn't all its cracked up to be, we are always wrong before we are right, and you can bet whats right today will just be wrong tomorrow as we become less ignorant about our surroundings...
and don't take what we know, fundamentally, about our surroundings as fact, we don't know shit, current thinking states we are part of a multiverse and we are all connected through conciousness + that we are nothing by pure energy
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank Thanks for watching. Science has not become a religion at all. It is science. It speaks on the currently accepted theories based on peer review. I assure you that a candidate who did not believe in the theory of gravity, would certainly have trouble becoming president. Just because our scientific ideas change in the future, does not mean we write them off today. If you don't want to take what we know about our surroundings as fact, I don't see why you care who the president is.
cainb 4 months ago
WHAT?!
he is a man of faith, how can he accept evolution? does any person of faith accept evolution?
to not vote for ron paul because he doesn't drop his faith in Christianity (thats what you are saying isn't it, lets be fair) for the sake of science, thats just madness... we all have our belief systems
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank Hey, sorry. I didn't see you left two comments. My last response was a reply to your second one. My father is a man of faith who accepts evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
I am certainly not asking Ron Paul to drop his Christian faith. I merely want him to address evolution instead of blowing it off. If a person disagrees with a fundamental scientific theory, I want to know, at the very least, why.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb fair enough, i figured the standard thing for a christian to do is to deny evolution as it contradicts the christian faith, at least thats how i rationalised the intensity of the whole creationism/evolution debate
i would also guess that the vast majority of pastors can not accept evolution
imvho evolution/religion both require a bit of faith, evolution is still a theory, one day there could be something that comes along that contradicts it, atm its safe, but it still requires faith
guberskank 4 months ago
Is it fundamental science or knowledge that evolution theory/s answer all philosophical and religious questions? Many take the good they learn from religions without concretely accepting an one opinion on the deeper meaning, or how the writings may be interpreted regarding the evolution of man and species. Ron spends his time thinking on what would make the world a better place, not on the intricacies of arguments concerning the origins of man. He's not running to be the Oracle.
colincolenso 4 months ago
@colincolenso I don't quite understand your first question. I agree that science doesn't answer all philosophical questions, if that was your point. However, to your point that Ron Paul wants to make the world a better place, I agree that he does. I also think it's quite clear that modern biology, which is supported by evolution, makes the world a better place. So, there is a disconnect there. I am not asking that Ron Paul believe in evolution, I'm asking that he address it.
cainb 4 months ago
Come on man, you can't be serious? He's not absolutely perfect so you can't vote for him? Can you at least name a few other things you disagree with him about?
Is he not allowed to believe anything different from you, even though he isn’t forcing that view on you in any way? You want to force your view on him?
Remember, this has no bearing on decisions made if following the Constitution like a President swears an oath to do.
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin I named a few other things I disagree with in another comment to @TMOvids . He is certainly allowed to believe something different than me. I am not forcing my view on him. I am asking him to address a highly controversial stance. Right now, he just shrugs it off. Would you consider a candidate who did not "accept" the theory of gravity? I think the constitution is a brilliant document, but to pretend like a person can follow it without any bias is asinine.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb
Ok, you must be a troll. Now I'll have to treat you like one. How the F*CK does having a different view on evolution make him an invalid choice for President? You're going with the strawman "theory of gravity"? Asinine? It's a NONE issue. To pretend to think that his views on evolution are going to wildly interfere with his Const. roll as President is quite frankly ASININE. You don't want answers. Either you're fucking stupid, a troll or both. Don't respond, It'll be ignored.
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin Yes, ignoring dissenting opinions is certainly a valid way to promote your cause and convince me you're a reasonable person. I don't think the theory of gravity is a strawman. If there was a candidate who didn't "accept" the theory of gravity, I would certainly want to know why. I would not want him to shrug it off and say it won't have an effect on my presidency. Similarly, I need to know why a seemingly reasonable Ron Paul stands in opposition to every accredited biologist.
cainb 4 months ago
Evolution? Hell, everybody believes something different it seems. I can even go with human beings being engineered by aliens. Get over it! Let's vote for a honest man this time, forget about the trivial stuff.
Ron Paul 2012
linkartworks 4 months ago
@linkartworks I won't get over it, and I don't think it's trivial. I do think Ron Paul is honest, but I see not accepting evolution as a disconnect with reality. It is a theory accepted on the same exact level as the theory of gravity. I merely ask that he address it, instead of brushing it off.
cainb 4 months ago
Evolution has nothing to do with managing the federal government. I understand you feel like this is an important issue, and maybe it is for state and local government, where Ron Paul believes things like education and abortion should be dealt with. What is it that you imagine could happen at the federal level with a President Ron Paul, if he does not accept the theory of evolution?
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk Good point! Being able to have one's own opinion is much more important than if you share all opinions with the president. I'd rather disagree with a political leader than agree with one who tries to ram it down everyone's throat.
justineuropa 4 months ago
@chrlpolk There are a few immediate issues I see.
1. We get scorned and lose even more credibility with the western world, because our president doesn't understand a basic facet of biology.
2. He makes decisions based on faith rather than evidence.
3. He continues to propagate and make mainstream the idea that evolution is a myth.
4. If he is disconnected from reality in this way, in what other unknown ways is he disconnected?
That's the majority.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb
1. Who the hell is "We" and when/where has this ever been an issue?
2. You're talking about the VAST majority of people in the world. Your beef seems to be with religion.
3. When does he go out of his way to "propagate" the "evolution is a myth"? What % of time does he spending trying to re-hash this issue mainstream?
4. If you're so fucking stupid and shallow, in what other unknown ways are you fucking stupid and shallow?
--------
5. Who is a better choice for president at this point?
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin 1. The United States of America. I consider perception a very big issue in a world where countries are so intricately intertwined.
2. I agree that I am talking about a vast majority of people. I have no problem standing in opposition to the majority. I do have issues with religion, but this point is much more specific than that.
3. The beliefs of the President of the USA are automatically propagated.
4. Good one.
5. Barack Obama as it stands right now.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb
Your answer to "Who is a better choice for president at this point?" is BARACK OBAMA?
So you really are a troll not looking for any answers but to nit-pick...
drshlotzkin 4 months ago
@drshlotzkin No, Barack is my choice right now, I'm not married to him. I really like RP, but I think to be credible he needs to start addressing these discrepancies with our seeming reality.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb If Barack Obama is your choice, that is fine, I'm not going to talk you out of it. He is an intelligent man. He states that he believes in evolution. But can you name one policy that his belief in evolution has affected? Either we defend individual liberty, or we don't. That is all our federal government is for. I don't care if my auto mechanic believes in black holes, so personally, I don't care if my President believes in creationism, as long as he doesn't push beliefs onto me.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I don't know that I can name one policy, no. As I've said a few times, it's not that Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution. I do have an issue with that, obviously, but that wasn't the point of this video. My issue is that he won't address it. If he is taking such a radical position, I want to know why. I also don't like the comparison of the leader of the free world to an auto-mechanic. I think it's obvious that there are a lot less things to consider when choosing a mechanic.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb The importance you put on the "leader of the free world" is not actually representative of a free world. The President is not a king, nor an emperor, nor divine, just a mortal human elected by the people to do a specific job. It is important that we choose people based on their ability to govern and their ideas of liberty, which will define how free of a world it is. You are free to vote for who you want, thanks to our Founders, whose Creationist beliefs did not hinder governance policy.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk Leader of the Free World, Figure-head of the Free World, say it however you want, but the US does have that much influence on the world. I question the ability to govern and make rational decisions based on reality when one holds an opinion so radical and steeped in "faith." Many of our founders were atheists, many were deist and very few, if any, were creationists, there is a very large amount of evidence to support that.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb Thomas Paine, arguably the most anti-religious of the bunch, fought against teaching evolution. "Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author." He said that while denouncing a French school that taught evolution. The Founders overwhelmingly agreed with the idea of Intelligent Design. This is a whole other debate that is aside from the current one regarding the importance of that to governance.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I agree it's another debate. The theory has also grown a bit in the past 250 years.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb True! And it's likely to change in another 250, because at this point, it's still a developing theory. He said, "And I think it’s a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory." He's not saying that he doesn't accept evolution altogether; he is saying that he doesn't accept things that are only in the "theory" stage. Maybe it's the truth, maybe it isn't, maybe it's lacking; but until it's more conclusive, it's not usable as the basis of decisionmaking.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I've been with you so far, but this is getting into ridiculous territory. What isn't in the theory stage? Evolution is as conclusive as gravity. We have to base our decision-making on the best guesses we have available. Your comment above is why I need a statement from Mr. Paul on the issue. I will not vote for him until I have a better understanding of why he does not accept evolution. To me it sounds like he is parroting creationist propaganda and I will not vote for a parrot.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb What is in dispute is the idea of macro-evolution - that one species can diverge into two entirely different species. There is, as of yet, no explanation of how one species can branch out, becoming bird in one branch, and mammal in another. Now, as you are rationilizing the argument of the platypus, how does that relate to anything to do with government? Paul stated that the when, how and why we got here is unimportant to his role as President; it's a matter for the scientists to debate.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk Macro-evolution is not in dispute. If you think it is, you've been fed propaganda. The only people who dispute it are creationists who do it on principal because they know it presents issues with their belief in a young earth. Evolution has nothing to do with why we got here. It has a very small amount to do with when and how. The issue is that Paul presents a radical viewpoint, and does not justify it, he dismisses it as irrelevant . Radical viewpoints are not ever irrelevant.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb When we are engaged in our 6th war, unemployment is still high (except in militarism), corporations and banks are controlling our politics, we are taxed heavily to pay just the interest on $20+ trillion national debt, the price of medicine and gas is still rising, as is the price of food - then I guess we can rest assured that our President believes our species formed over millions of years of genetic variation.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I agree with you on all that stuff, and I'm also sick of it, Charles. As it stands now, I don't think RP is the man for the job, unless he can reconcile his stance on evolution. I find it as strange as not believing in gravity. Thanks so much for all your comments, I hope lots of people read through all these. Take a look at talkorigins . org if you want to learn more about evolution, specifically macro-evolution.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb I'm a musician, evolution doesn't interest me very much. Gravity does, because I have to work with it daily! He didn't say that he believes in Creationism, he said he doesn't know. And because that knowledge wouldn't affect his duties as President (which is uphold the Constitution and value individual liberties), he is not inclined to look into the matter. He believes we should let individuals decide for themselves, without government influence, and that will lead society to the truth.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@cainb 1. You seem to be putting an awful lot of stock on this one issue, can you provide a specific issue or is this just a kind of paranoia you're feeling? Ron Paul's stance is that the Presidncy is a governance job, and that office holds no credibility when it comes to any kind of scientific statement. He makes decisions based upon our founding document, the Constitution. How we got here doesn't matter; we are here now, we have a duty to self-govern, and an individual right to liberty.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I don't think it's paranoia. I've listed a few of the reasons I think it's an issue in another comment to you. I also understand his position on governing and the constitution. However, to pretend like a person can just govern by the constitution, without any bias, is naive to me. Everything is interpretation. I think if he is disconnected from reality in this way, his bias will also be.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb I understand the argument you're making, but you seem to be awful religious when it comes to this issue. Many Christians would rather have an unqualified Christian candidate, for the exact same reasons you give regardiing "fundamental" basis of decision-making. Evolution isn't something most people think about in their daily routines. I can't imagine a President considering the origins of life when making decisions on how to balance the budget or engage in foreign diplomacy.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I don't really understand your first point, am I taking something on faith? Are you saying religiousness is a bad thing? I don't have an issue with Christians choosing whichever candidate they want, however they want to choose them. Of course, they will feel the candidate that follows their belief system is the best candidate, with the best fundamental decision making. That's what I'm doing too.
cainb 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I don't see evolution playing a roll in the budget, maybe in foreign diplomacy. Definitely in realms of science and probably in policy regarding ethics. Lastly, evolution doesn't have to do with the origins of life, but I take your point anyway.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb Well then, you should love Ron Paul! He doesn't believe that the Federal Government has any place in developing science. That should be the choice of the People - such asscientists who choose to pursue certain avenues. Government should neither encourage nor discourage individuals from pursuing their interests. All of the scientific hangups of the past have been due to some sort of government role in telling people what is or isn't real science. Ron Paul is against government doing that.
chrlpolk 4 months ago
@chrlpolk I do love Ron Paul. I would love to debate whether or not science has a place in government another time (I think it does, but I see good points on the other side.) This video is merely questioning why a man with such a radical viewpoint, will not address it. There is some cognitive dissonance going on and I want to know the extent of it, so I can judge whether he is worthy of my vote for president.
cainb 4 months ago
I am not religious and I agree that Ron Paul is brilliant, and the best choice. He gets my vote. I think he can beat Obama if the media will start giving him more attention and stop trying to smear him... As far as the theory of evolution goes.. I think Ron's christian faith is too unshakable for him to accept it. It's not going to sway my opinion of him or change my vote.. You can't agree with everything the person you vote for says.. So why not just vote for the person you agree with the most
FestivalEntertainer 4 months ago
@FestivalEntertainer I will, and right now that is President Obama. If Ron Paul wants my vote, he will need to demonstrate that he not only understands government, but understands science as well, because I think for the United States to stay viable, we must lead the world in scientific research of every kind.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb I don't understand this. You agree with Paul that we need less government, but then support Obama, because of a difference of opinion with regards to fossils? Jon Hunstman and Gary Johnson are both believers in evolution from the republican side. Is there something else wrong with them? It just seems a spectacularly arbitrary measure on which to decide who you support.
TMOvids 4 months ago
@TMOvids Hey! :) Thanks for watching. I don't JUST disagree on fossils (we would still know evolution is true without fossils, for one.) I also disagree with his ideas to slash research spending, be pro-life, his hack and slash ideas of smaller government, his idea to let the states decide on all issues. I like Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson too. However, I disagree that this measure is arbitrary. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our world and I wonder what else he misunderstands.
cainb 4 months ago
@cainb Fair enough :) be nice to see you go into some of these issues a bit more in future vids. Checked some of your others and you certainly have an interesting perspective.
TMOvids 4 months ago
@TMOvids This is my first opinion piece and I certainly am enjoying the response it has gotten. I will definitely delve further and I really appreciate your opinions. I want Americans to open a dialogue. I don't care what you believe as long as you're willing to talk about it. That's my issue with RP right now, he's brushing off evolution instead of addressing it. Please subscribe so you can stay involved in the discussion! Your comment was one of the best so far.
cainb 4 months ago