heir proctor
New Member
Well, Ron Paul doesn't.
Evolution is a theory.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.
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.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.
First, you are correct: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.
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.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.
Do you read?"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.
"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".Do you read?
"The world that I know" is not "I know the world"
TheGreenThumber said:The creator that I know created us and the universe. I know the creator created us and the universe.
not sure ...we do have some to claim God told them to do this or that...Like they actually had a conversation with godI 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".
i don't think that he believes that. i think he just makes such statements to pander to the right, just like any politician.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.
So is Gravity. Gravity that when you throw something in the air it will come down is also a theory. So is it safe to say nothing gets pulled to the earth and is floating.Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory. I question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe in either.Evolution is a theory.
Science says otherwise.Evolution is a theory.