Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul Doesn't Believe In Evolution

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocsgirl
 





If I'm not mistaken, Albert Einstein believed in God.... just saying.


You are mistaken. He never said that.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


All of these are quotes by Albert Einstein:

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Do you believe in immortality? No, and one life is enough for me.
God always takes the simplest way.
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't malicious.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details.
It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocsgirl
 


Here are a couple more:

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

When the solution is simple, God is answering.

He clearly has his own perspective in what God is, but I suppose he never said he believed in God.....word for word.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocsgirl
 


Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but had a belief in a sort of harmony of the universe, which he calls "God". He is not referring to any god you know of, or even any god at all really. He did not really define his beliefs very well in that regard.

He did, however, make it clear that he does not believe in any religious icon in a supernatural sense.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Ron Pauls extremes are BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! Pleeeezzz.

They must not teach that anymore in today's school's.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


I see.... regardless, he could not deny it.


Nobody should believe in supernatural icons... no matter what the faith, unfortunately too many people have been programmed to think of God in that way.

Anywho... I can't seem to remember what this thread was originally about. LOL



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
RP and God in the same thread...hmmmmm



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
Ron Pauls extremes are BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! Pleeeezzz.

They must not teach that anymore in today's school's.
They are based on his interpretation of the constitution..



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by paganini
I care how a politican can run a country. Their acceptance or disbelief in evolution means diddly squat to me
edit on 3-6-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)


Perfect reply. Pointless things like this or, '______ hates women/squirrels/babys' whatever are ridiculous. Another thing that needs to go are ads stating 'In 199x _____ voted against cute kittens, dont vote for him.' Obviously that's not a real ad, but you get the point.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


So what..

Given my opposition and not complete wholesale support of Senator Paul, I can say......so what.

One thing that I hold him to, if by a long shot were he to be nominated and actually obtain the electoral votes to become president, I would expect him to scold congress for anything that remotely passes his desk that isn't in the purview of Federal Government.

So he doesn't believe in evolution. So what. Hell, I don't believe the dogmatic teaching of Christianity, but still believe there is something out there; a supreme being. What it is, I don't know.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:51 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?


I keep a fairly open mind but could you point me to the proven facts? Facts in the science realm can be replicated and provide the same results over and over. This isn't to say that evolution doesn't occur, but as of now, it is completely based on the observation of inherently objective persons....i.e, humans.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





I keep a fairly open mind but could you point me to the proven facts? Facts in the science realm can be replicated and provide the same results over and over.


This is just one example. Ring species.

en.wikipedia.org...

Another example is viruses going cross species. That is because of evolution as well.

Or how about our appendix? Its thought that it provided some greater function in the past but its nigh useless now and is on its way out altogether.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Or how about our appendix? Its thought that it provided some greater function in the past but its nigh useless now and is on its way out altogether.



I am not discrediting evolution...but words such as "it is thought" are not concrete. It is the same as a deeply religious person saying "it is thought that..."

I didn't intend to engage in a evolutionary debate, just curious as the absoluteness of evolution, when it is after all a theory. Causes do not equate to fact; nor does belief.

Again though, why is it such big news that Ron Paul may think that evolution isn't fact?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





I am not discrediting evolution...but words such as "it is thought" are not concrete. It is the same as a deeply religious person saying "it is thought that..."


That's the thing. I am not claiming anything concrete in that regard. Only theories and speculation as far as I know.




I didn't intend to engage in a evolutionary debate, just curious as the absoluteness of evolution, when it is after all a theory. Causes do not equate to fact; nor does belief.


Ah, Evolution happens there is no doubt at all. Hasn't been for decades. Its the details in the mechanism and such that are up for debate.



Again though, why is it such big news that Ron Paul may think that evolution isn't fact?


I don't know. I expected it and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Like many posters have said, so what? That doesn't matter, everyone is entitled to their beliefs just like a politician is.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


It is the "Evolutionary Theory", is it not? I didn't realize it was regarded as 100% fact, even within the scientific community. So it's not the "Theory of Evolution", it's the "Fact of Evolution"? I suppose we'll now be referring to most theories as fact now, hm. Like, "The Big Bang Fact". Do you believe in the "Big Bang Fact" Domo? I bet you're a crazy and you question it.

Just wondering, if that's what you're implying. Because he didn't say, "I beleeve in Jeezus Chrast, not everlution." He said he doesn't fully agree with it, "as a theory". Almost like he wants to say, it's not particularly sound, and there seems to be more to it than the offered theory.

But no, he's just a loon, and everyone that's going to discuss this in the thread you created is a "paulcrazie".

I realize you and your cohorts believe this is just a playground for you to be divisive, mock, insult and incite nonsense, but at least try to be more constructive about it.
edit on 3-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
so a last place candidate's beliefs in science matters why?!

I am as anti-Paul as they come but this thread was baiting from the start of it and just looking to cause trouble. Rick Santorum gave to creationist charities and institutions. But funny how there wasn't a thread about it here. I guess its because everyone knew that and the santorum supporters didn't care. Just like how the Paul supporters don't care. Does anyone truly vote on if a candidate believes in evolution or not?

I highly doubt it.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:02 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.


You realize it's called the "Theory of Evololution" for a reason, right? There isn't substantiating proof either way. I think Evolution is most plausible theory, but it's far from a sure thing.

Your thread = desperate attempt at trolling and it failed big time.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by paganini
I care how a politican can run a country. Their acceptance or disbelief in evolution means diddly squat to me
edit on 3-6-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)


IF someone doesn't believe in evolution, an undeniable fact, it doesn't say much for their judgement. Their judgement is something they'll need to run a country






top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join