Do You Accept The Theory Of Evolution?

It's not a theory. It's a proven biological process. I wish to Hell people would stop calling it a theory. I think Ron Paul believes the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. He probably thinks the Earth is only 8,000 years old too.
 
Whilst he is one of the religiously blinded, his response to the question was actually more political. You can tell he doesn't want to go either way for the effect it may have on his campaign. He started by responding "That's an inappropriate question for the presidency to be deciding on a scientific answer. And I think there is a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, only as a theory. The creator that I know, you know, created us and the universe, and I just don't think that we are at the point where there is absolute proof of either side."

Not a very ignorant response, in my opinion. He comments on creationism but expresses that it's his opinion, but there is no proof that he is right as well.
 
Carne Seca said:
It's not a theory. It's a proven biological process. I wish to Hell people would stop calling it a theory. I think Ron Paul believes the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. He probably thinks the Earth is only 8,000 years old too.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a theory.

sync0s said:
Whilst he is one of the religiously blinded, his response to the question was actually more political. You can tell he doesn't want to go either way for the effect it may have on his campaign. He started by responding "That's an inappropriate question for the presidency to be deciding on a scientific answer. And I think there is a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, only as a theory. The creator that I know, you know, created us and the universe, and I just don't think that we are at the point where there is absolute proof of either side."

Not a very ignorant response, in my opinion. He comments on creationism but expresses that it's his opinion, but there is no proof that he is right as well.
Click to expand...

He also says that he "knows" the creator that created "us and the universe". That ontop of him not accepting the theory of evolution makes him ignorant and borderline batshit crazy.
 
TheGreenThumber said:
Evolution is a theory.



He also says that he "knows" the creator that created "us and the universe". That ontop of him not accepting the theory of evolution makes him ignorant and borderline batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

First, you are correct:

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Click to expand...
Second, if you want to take it out of context be my guest. I can say "The world as I know it" and at the same time not be saying "I know the world." Seriously, if we are just going to twist words into new formations than this ceases to be intellectual conversation.
 
"The creator that I know, you know, created us and the universe, and I just don't think that we are at the point where there is absolute proof of either side."

He claims to know a creator. Please tell me how I am twisting his words.
 
TheGreenThumber said:
"The creator that I know, you know, created us and the universe, and I just don't think that we are at the point where there is absolute proof of either side."

He claims to know a creator. Please tell me how I am twisting his words.
Click to expand...

Do you read?

"The world that I know" is not "I know the world"
 
sync0s said:
Do you read?

"The world that I know" is not "I know the world"
Click to expand...

"The world that I know" implies that it is your own personal view of the world, and/or what you know of it. He says "The creator that I know", implying that he knows things about this creator, like the idea that said creator "created us and the universe".

Maybe by saying "the world that I know" he isnt claiming something as a fact. But it is still what he thinks and believes.

The world that I know is big. I know the world is big.
The world that I know revolves around the sun. I know the world revolves around the sun.
The world that I know has flying pigs. I know the world has flying pigs.
The creator that I know created us and the universe. I know the creator created us and the universe.

Give me an example where the two do not equate to practically the same statement.
 
TheGreenThumber said:
The creator that I know created us and the universe. I know the creator created us and the universe.
Click to expand...


Your saying that isn't what you said above. You were implying he was saying that he knew the creator personally, thus making him psycho.

Accepting a god as your creator doesn't really make you crazy. Not yet. If he had said that he knew the god personally, then yes.
 
I gotta agree with sync0s on this one. I very much doubt Ron Paul is trying to say he PERSONALLY knows God, like they get together and play golf and drink beer together or something, he is most likely referring to the god most Christians Know, the one that is taught to them in a book, they call that book"The Bible".
 
NoDrama said:
I gotta agree with sync0s on this one. I very much doubt Ron Paul is trying to say he PERSONALLY knows God, like they get together and play golf and drink beer together or something, he is most likely referring to the god most Christians Know, the one that is taught to them in a book, they call that book"The Bible".
Click to expand...

not sure ...we do have some to claim God told them to do this or that...Like they actually had a conversation with god
 
Its not a theory, it is proven and exists.. right along side creationism. they both can co-exist easily. Its the lesser enclosed minds who feel they must "choose" a side to argue..
 
Carne Seca said:
It's not a theory. It's a proven biological process. I wish to Hell people would stop calling it a theory. I think Ron Paul believes the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. He probably thinks the Earth is only 8,000 years old too.
Click to expand...

i don't think that he believes that. i think he just makes such statements to pander to the right, just like any politician.

evolution is just a theory, but there has yet to be a better theory to replace it.
 
Evolution isnt a theory because its a scientifically proven process of biological adaptation to ecosystems for the sake of survival of a species, only ignorants would call it a theory.If something has been proven in a systematically logical process or by scientific method and hypotenized as an identifiable phenomena it can no longer be a theory. wow talk about semantics,guess it should be expected though.
 
Wow i try to stay out of these convos cause i dont need to spend anymore time on this site but..... people (christians) that dont believe in evolution in this time and age are like the catholic church of 1615 putting Galileo (a stout catholic) on house arrest for the remainder of his life for writing a letter to the Grand Dutchess of Tuscany stating that the sun is the center of our planetary system and not the earth as the bible states. Could Galileo really prove it in 1615??? No, but he was on the right track now wasnt he? Im pretty sure if we could get in a time machine and go back to 1615 the christians of then sounded just like creationists of today. Evolution is too simple for (most) people to believe in. Even though our feeble minds cant really comprehend time in billions of years, if you really think about it, it makes sense. The bible states that god made the earth on one ''day'' and then bam Adam was here on another ''day'' and blah blah. It doesnt say anything about dinosaurs or the fact that the air of that time was not suitable for us to breathe. I dont think homosapiens were the only mammals around when the earth was ran by cold blooded dinosaurs. Now if you are a thinker and you can put two and two together that a day to us might not be a day to a god. A day could be 10 million years or so. If a christian wants to go with something like this then id give their theories a little more respect. Im not saying that christians are wrong for believing in a higher power but a book writen by a man, back when we thought the earth was flat and natural disasters were god punishing them, to explain creation is a bad idea. Thank you science. The human brain yearns for answers and when they arent clear we use theories. I tend to be an Occam's Razor type of person. The easiest answer is usually the right answer so if you ask me.. Id say that evolution makes a little more sense than a magic man that we will never see or hear from snapping his fingers and Adam popping out and then god taking a rib from Adam and making Eve and then Cain and Able (their offspring) having sex with Eve to produce more babies and thats how im here today. Typing that made my head hurt.. Man i need to get high:) Sorry for the rant guys.

Science doesnt try to show that god doesnt exist. What science does show is how we can exist without a god.
 
Just to play devils advocate here.. Evolution is just a theory.. That why its called the ''Theory of Evolution''. Just like the Big Bang Theory, its still just a theory cause you cant really prove thats what happened. It raises questions like what was before the big bang? Are these widely excepted in the scientific community? Of course but they cant REALLY be proven. There isnt going to be an AWWW moment like proving the earth is round. If you found a missing link skeleton you could easily say that it was a mutated human like the elephant man.
 
I do believe in evolution myself as far as the parts that are actually proven, but its not something I would go bragging about if I were a politician as in the eyes of MANY this equates to not believing in god,however this is far from the truth , evolution is true scientific fact to some extent as its proven on many levels, however, evolution does not disprove creationism or the existence of god obviously. I would think that Ron Paul is truly an agnostic who has studied the bible even though he claims otherwise I think he does so for political reasons, he has to pick one side or the other in this sense, something he is not keen to doing when it comes to something like this. Ron Paul is an INFJ personality type(Introverted iNtuitive Feeling Judging: http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html) much like myself or gandi which basically assumes that you are a spiritual person but truly deep down you are likely to be considered as an agnostic if you let your real views surface, Ron Paul is also someone who practicies political philosphy, which again goes against any definitive belief in creation vs evolution.

So what we have with this statement is again a common misinterpretation of Ron Paul and/or political philosophy, what we have is an idealist asking a question of political identity to a political philosopher which gives you an answer outside the scope political philosophy, a realm of thought foreign to Ron Paul, thus becoming misinterpreted by those that do not understand philosophy vs identity. You see, If Ron Paul watched entertainment tonite, he wouldn't give two shits about what J-LO wore on the red carpet this week, he would be more concerned with what J-LO had to say about the red carpet, while the man who asked the question of Ron Paul would be more concerned with what she was wearing.

[video=youtube;Q1U7N9AhprU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1U7N9AhprU[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nick17gar
south american jail for 16 months. Supreme court win
Replies
3
Views
605
HydroKid239
HydroKid239
C
DO NOT BUY EXTRACTCRAFT it should be called EXTRACTCRAP
Replies
6
Views
802
thumper60
thumper60
G
What am I?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
HydroKid239
HydroKid239
A
Nutrient PPM Dosage Theory
Replies
4
Views
906
Jimski
Jimski
420AD
Sadly this is not it... (humidifier by SF)
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Hollatchaboy
Hollatchaboy
Back
Top