It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Doesn't Believe In Evolution

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose

Originally posted by biggmoneyme

Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
reply to post by Domo1
 


Evolution has countless flaws, believing in it with every ounce of your consciousness is just as ignorant as believing in creationism with the same mentality.

Ron Paul is one of the rare intellects that leaves everything on the fence.


ah i think evolution is fact, technology builds on itself. you had to have a wired phone before a cordless phone. but that real question is evolution really random? i have my doubts over that


Evolution and change is a fundamental basis of our time controlled reality. However i am referring to how humans got to where we are today. There is a missing link we are yet to discover.


The idea of a searching for a "missing link" is the definition of not understanding Darwinian evolution at all. Evolution occurs in a CONTINUUM!! There are no clearly delineated "start" and "stop" points for a species. Thus every time a new hominid is found it adds a piece to the story. Hence...we can accurately pinpoint a species to have a "start" and "end" point as a ballpark approximation.

The only way to have an absolute perfect record of when certain mutations of genes occurred to bring about certain characteristics of modern humans would be to have the full and complete genomes for every single hominid who has ever existed decoded and stored. This is impossible since not only have we not found enough specimens....but we know for absolute certainty that NOT EVERY HOMINID WHO EVER EXISTED WOULD HAVE BEEN preserved well enough.

Although...even if they HAD BEEN, it's not like there would be a single point in time when homo ergaster or homo hedielbergensis spontaneously began producing only "modern" children. Each INDIVIDUAL genetic mutation might be happen spontaneously...but the modern human foot might be the result of 10,000 such mutations and rearrangements.

Similarly...even if hypothetically a single individual spontaneously developed all 10,000 genetic mutations and had a modern human foot seemingly out of nowhere...these traits might take 200-300 years to work their way through even a relatively small troop of early hominids depending on the overall dominance/recessivity of said gene mutation.

That is the fallacy of finding a "missing link" in a strict sense.

However, in a more general or broad sense the proverbial "missing link" HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED....A COUPLE OF TIMES OVER. Most notably with the subset of homo erectus known as homo ergaster as well as the recent discovery of Australopithecus Sediba which shows a "head to foot" synthesis of traits between the Australopithecus and Homo family tree.

Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by soaringhawk
Evolution is a lie. The proof for a God is all around us in the creation and in our own makeup.


So why can't both be true? Why can't God have used evolution as part of His creation process?
He easily could have used His other creations on other worlds (ET) to seed the Earth and/or
to get an evolution process started.

Why do people think it has to be one or the other?
Why do 'people of faith' tend to constrict how God operates?
God can do whatever He wants and He can create however He wants.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
So what Paul doesn't believe in proven facts? So what if Paul wants to ignore reality? So what if Paul say's that he is smarter than everyone who has studied the subject?


No...not "so what"!!

The fact that Ron Paul doesn't believe in such a simple and well-proven scientific concept is absolutely disturbing.

However...I just find it to be LESS disturbing a current president who has signed in more pieces of fascist legislation and executive orders than even his Bush/Cheney predecessors OR a political candidate who thinks Jesus was trucking around in modern-day St. Louis w/ the Indians because a convicted felon and renowned con-man claimed that an "angel" named Moroni (yes..."moron"+i") gave him magical golden tablets that said so.

So...Ron Paul still has my vote. Unfortunately the rest of our species is simply too stupid to back an atheist, science-believing, libertarian candidate. I can scream and shake my fist at the 83% of United States citizens who still believe in ancient superstitions and boogeymen...but no matter how hard I yell the Baby Boomers are basically going to have to die off in order for the country to stop choosing it's leader based largely upon the professed religious kookery they believe in.

Until then...I suppose I would rather have a science-denying libertarian that a science accepting fascist.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Evolution is a theory. It hasn't be 100% scientifically proven. It has, for the most part, be proven to a degree that makes it an acceptable hypothesis that has various scientific means to prove parts of it.

I happen to believe in it, and consider it proven, but it is only a theory. Until we develop time travel, it will remain a theory, even if we prove that evolution is real and can point to something current as evidence, doesn't mean that's how everything started here, it's only 1 solution out of many.

I tend to stick to the solutions that don't involve the hidden hand of some deity.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
It has been empirically proven that the functional protein sequences are indeed rare amongst the vast amount of combinations possible, so rare in fact that even creating one simple 100 amino acid string is well beyond the reaches of random mutation. 1 in 10^125 I believe. That's one hundred and twenty five zeros folks, a pretty big number for a little sequence. These odds can and have been calculated and verified experimentally.

For a 100 amino acid sequence you need 99 peptide bonds between each. There's a 50% chance of getting one peptide bond.

You need 100 left-handed amino acids. The odds of getting a single left-handed amino acid is 50%

You need to choose the correct amino acid for each of the 100 links. 1/20 for each step. You might realise that the odds are exponential, and this is just a simple sequence. Some sequences are made up of thousands of amino acids.

Random mutation and natural selection must be nothing short of MIRACULOUS in order to be able to create even one simple protein.

If you believe it's possible, good for you. But I have no idea on what you base that on. Except perhaps simple conditioning. And of course by default you must also believe that natural forces can create a chemical language.
A chemical language so complex and efficient that it dwarfs any made made system of coding.

Oh well, good luck with that!

There's only one thing that creates languages you know.
edit on 4-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by soaringhawk
Evolution is a lie. The proof for a God is all around us in the creation and in our own makeup.


So why can't both be true? Why can't God have used evolution as part of His creation process?
He easily could have used His other creations on other worlds (ET) to seed the Earth and/or
to get an evolution process started.

Why do people think it has to be one or the other?
Why do 'people of faith' tend to constrict how God operates?
God can do whatever He wants and He can create however He wants.



Agreed. If one believes in an omnipotent deity...it would seem only common sense that said deity would have been able to employ Darwinian Evolution as part of The Grand Design.

However...I think "common sense" is the operative word here. We are talking largely about a group of people who "believe" that the Babylonians were struck down because they were building a tower that was tall enough to reach "heaven" (as in the ethereal dimension...not as in "the heavens" or "the skies") despite the salient and material fact that any one of these believers needs to do nothing more than buy an airplane ticket to witness firsthand that any "heaven" which MIGHT exist CERTAINLY isn't located up in the clouds.

Rigid bible-believers are quite simply not very intelligent and exceedingly bad at critical thinking. Thus, the logic which you have presented is all but lost on them.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Domo1
 


Evolution is a theory. It hasn't be 100% scientifically proven. It has, for the most part, be proven to a degree that makes it an acceptable hypothesis that has various scientific means to prove parts of it.

I happen to believe in it, and consider it proven, but it is only a theory. Until we develop time travel, it will remain a theory, even if we prove that evolution is real and can point to something current as evidence, doesn't mean that's how everything started here, it's only 1 solution out of many.

I tend to stick to the solutions that don't involve the hidden hand of some deity.


Is calculus "real"? That's only a scientific "theory". What about gravity? Is the Pythagorean Theorem valid?

Evolution is 100% scientifically proven and WE CAN WATCH IT HAPPEN. It's DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE Exhibit A is the common dog. Mastiffs and Chihuaha's BOTH started out as WOLVES for f&^%ks sake. In the early 1900's a guy by the name of Whittaker Boykin created a brand-new dog breed in South Carolina called a "Boykin Spaniel"...largely regarded as the finest hunting breed on planet earth.

What's the mystery here? If the ENTIRE archeological, fossil, and genetic record of the hominids is not "proof"...THEN WHAT THE HELL IS???



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Domo1
 


Well, it is called "The THEORY of Evolution." Gravity can be and has been proven, so it isn't a theory. There are holes all throughout evolution. If you think that your great, great, great (x 20) grandfather was an amphibian that crawled out of the ocean then you are in need of a vacation.


No..."gravity" is a scientific theory because it has been proven, tested, and is directly observable....just like Darwinian Evolution is. It's a question of grammar. The term "theory" in scientific parlance means that the HYPOTHESIS has been tested, re-tested, and proven to be true countless times and is directly supported by an incredible amount of physical evidence and/or quantifiable mathematics. You are ascribing the colloquial definition of the term "theory" to the problem. In "everyday-speak" a "theory" is whatever kind of random nonsense a person guesses or speculates to be true.

However, on a positive note I think I have found your problem in accepting Darwinian Evolution. Namely, a really, really, REALLY, poor understanding of basic arithmetic. Given that the historical arithmetic mean for human reproduction is between 22-23 years my 20x "great-grandfather" was a Renaissance-era Western European or Scandinavian who had most likely at least heard tales of the New World from the Columbus expeditions SIXTY YEARS OR SO EARLIER. In fact...I can pretty much guarantee he wasn't an amphibian.

However...going back an extra billion or so years from the orignal 460 years that you proposed really opens up quite a lot of possibilities.




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Anyone who disputes evolution has absolutely no basic understanding of biology.
Biological evolution happens. It's a fact. It has been seen to happen on a cellular level. The common flu virus is evolution in action every single year.

Now, there is a big difference between known cellular evolution and the theory that man came from apes.

This is where most people become confused.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JailTales
 


Evolution is a crap theory with # evidence. But wait, they taught it in school!!!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by braydenf
 





what is your point to this thread?


I wanted to see if any Paul supporters would be willing to openly state they disagree with Paul on ANYTHING. A few have, and I admire them for their honesty. You can still like Paul and disagree with one thing. I really like a number of Paul's opinions. That doesn't mean I would vote for him. You can want to vote for him, and still disagree. Or can you?


ahh excuse me... seems like a very productive thread... why not post that in the OP instead of making it sound like you posted this because you got your feelings hurt in another thread?
or can i? i never said anything about him one way or the other. On this topic i do agree with him.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by hoochymama
 





Can the Mods help out on this one cuz this could get ugly.


Oh it probably will. Further proving the point that it is impossible to ever fault Paul on a single thing, and that this cult of personality is out of control. He said it, there is nothing misleading about the title of the thread.


If his idea about evolution had any bearing on what kind of a president he would be, then it would be worthy of discussion. But he's made it perfectly clear that his being a Christian is separate from his being a congressman, or president.

Seems to me you're just nit-picking to find something wrong with him. And this is all you can come up with? You sure you don't want to include his Texas accent, or the way he gestures with his hands?

/TOA



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


I for one abhor religious dogma. Having said that, I also abhor scientific dogma. Yes, there is many levels of consciousness that do create lower levels of experience and there is a one consciousness field form which even those are made of (actually all is made of the background one consciousness field/manifested field of creation that sits at the core/singularity of the sacred geometric stricture of the emptiness field which exists that were both created for the purpose of manifestation by Source and "Source Beings"). So yes, there is higher intelligence at work, yes there is a natural process of evolution of life from on a planet, and yes aliens (mane faction and civilizations involved) did come in and manipulate the "appropriate life form" already in existence to create this latest batch of modern homo sapiens for a variety of purposes - nothing is black and white at these levels). I would day 80% of the human genetics is highly corrupted at he moment by reptilian genetic manipulation and infusion, and 20% by annunaki. Characteristics of the 80% is propensity to violence, aggression (on top of the primate tribal like and protection of territory instincts) that easily fall into imposing emotional will or beliefs onto others and desperately seeking to be part of a "hive/group collective" and very solar plexus based - which of course is not helped by the egoic construct that comes from the disconnected state that this manipulation brought about for the human). Characteristics of the annunaki strains is feelings of superiority and a more mental center/chakra based, including the third eye (a lot of these individuals have fallen into the new age groups). The most "natural" to earth are the strains of the black race, and are more lower chakra based. Of course all of these are further influenced by the unnatural constructs of the "horoscopes", karmic layers, negative interferences, programming and etc. But also by the natural frequencies of the Soul, which in a natural state of being would be the only determinant factor of the human level of expression.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I don't know what OP is getting at. I know hardly anything about RP apart from many people here seem to like him. I studied Chemistry and Biology at a fairly high level (high school I guess you guys would call it). You will find that not a whole many things in science are absolute fact.

In fact I think OP is shooting himself in the foot as indeed, most things in science are only theory. There are many examples where scientists have had to revise or rethink their ideas. I don't think RP's statement is that bad. If he said it is complete BS and shouldn't be considered as a theory EVER, I would be more inclined to agree with you.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by paganini
 


So lets say Ron Paul believes in unicorns. Also that he is an intergalactic space alien? He can't get anything done and is incredibly ineffectual, which to me says that he would be very bad at running a country.


He believes in a lot of outlandish and supernatural things being a christian. So do many other politicians and they manage to be effective in running a country.



ha. What country do you live in? Not the US I assume.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I don't believe in Darwinism. Evolution within a species can occur but Darwinism is about species change. Evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinists have hijacked the word "evolution".



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowhammer
I don't believe in Darwinism. Evolution within a species can occur but Darwinism is about species change. Evolution is not Darwinism. Darwinists have hijacked the word "evolution".


It's actually quite the opposite. Creationists have made up the modern concept of "Darwinists" or "Darwinism", that term hasn't been viable since the 1800s. There's no such thing as a darwinist today. There are evolutionary biologists, who study evolution. Look up modern synthesis if you are actually interested in learning about the science behind evolution, rather than some dishonest creationist propaganda. The only people against evolution are the people that aren't willing to actually learn about it.

Also I don't think Ron Paul ever said that he didn't believe in evolution. He said that he believed in god and that people were created, it doesn't mean god couldn't have used evolution. I do prefer to have a presidential candidate that isn't anti science, so hopefully that's not true although we're kidding ourselves if we think Ron Paul ever had a chance. Sure evolution is a theory... but theories are based on facts in science.
edit on 4-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Everything that you post becomes progressively more incorrect. It's sad, but it's kind of funny too.

No, you cannot observe massive change over massive periods of time. No, evolution hasn't been close to proven.

No, the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, even the interpretation of the fossil record within the current paradigm doesn't prove evolution.

Yes, what can prove it??? Nothing. There is no evidence that can prove a belief system except to prove to an individual that THEY believe in it. That's all. Without you being able to realize that, it showcases that you are absolutely less scientific than those who realize what a theory is.

There are other explanations for all available evidences for MANY of the false paradigms that actually explain much of the evidence better and don't require the ignoring of some evidences like your glorious (sarcasm) paradigms that you have been indoctrinated into.

Jaden

p.s. That Ron Paul doesn't blindly accept the paradigm showcases WHY he is the best candidate for president. We don't want a president that blindly accepts what authority tells him. It's obvious that the left only wants people that will though...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nimsu1987
I don't know what OP is getting at. I know hardly anything about RP apart from many people here seem to like him. I studied Chemistry and Biology at a fairly high level (high school I guess you guys would call it). You will find that not a whole many things in science are absolute fact.

In fact I think OP is shooting himself in the foot as indeed, most things in science are only theory. There are many examples where scientists have had to revise or rethink their ideas. I don't think RP's statement is that bad. If he said it is complete BS and shouldn't be considered as a theory EVER, I would be more inclined to agree with you.


Unfortunately, more and more people are lauding pseudoscience as science and are trying to state something as fact that is far from it. It started when, in order to obtain grant monies, scientists started stating that they could determine fact with multi-variable inductive logic arguments.

It has destroyed the credibility of the sciences to anyone who rationally evaluates the actual and not the contrived evidences.

Jaden
edit on 4-6-2012 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


You make a good point Jaden. I was reading about what the US gov has spent research on over the past few years, and it seems that some scientists will research anything, so long as they get their money. By writing this I am not attacking the US, it happens over here in the UK too. Just trying to look for the link.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join