Ron Paul Doesn't Believe In Evolution

reply to post by RSF77


This thread was a response to the thread whining about some 40% of people not believing in evolution, while only 12% support Paul. It's hysterical how much attention and love that thread got, and now it comes out Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Can't question Paul.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by RSF77

 

This thread was a response to the thread whining about some 40% of people not believing in evolution, while only 12% support Paul. It's hysterical how much attention and love that thread got, and now it comes out Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Can't question Paul.

Don't care, evolution being a theory (or believing it or not) has nothing to do with the presidency or anything. But since this troll thread is on the topic of Ron Paul (just as you made it so) and IN the 2012 elections forum (as it shouldn't be) AND you are trying to promote this nonsense, I'm going to go ahead and post this here too:

Fake slate in Maine:


Fake slate in Nevada:


Oh, look what we found:



Enjoy.

reply to post by RSF77

Don't care, evolution being a theory (or believing it or not) has nothing to do with the presidency or anything.

It really should bother you that this guy doesn't believe in evolution. He's a wacko. Also stop calling this a troll thread. It's not.

who cares? some people don't believe in UFOs. Some people don't believe in psychic phenomena. Yet anyone whose experienced them knows differently, but in the end what does it really matter? it doesn't matter, we're still all stuck on this backwards ass planet

reply to post by biggmoneyme


Because it's about as ludicrous as saying that the Earth is flat. You don't want a president like that, and again this thread is a response to another where Paul supporters gleefully ridiculed people for not believing in evolution.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by RSF77

 

Don't care, evolution being a theory (or believing it or not) has nothing to do with the presidency or anything.

It really should bother you that this guy doesn't believe in evolution. He's a wacko. Also stop calling this a troll thread. It's not.

But this is a troll thread and trolls are not qualified to start threads.

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.

Again, a theory is a description of a set of facts. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution describes those facts.

Originally posted by CallYourBluff

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by RSF77

 

Don't care, evolution being a theory (or believing it or not) has nothing to do with the presidency or anything.

It really should bother you that this guy doesn't believe in evolution. He's a wacko. Also stop calling this a troll thread. It's not.

But this is a troll thread and trolls are not qualified to start threads.

I suggest you watch your step. Domo is a great contributor to the site and does not deserve to have his post written off with a shout of "troll!". Especially by a new member such as yourself.

Originally posted by definity
Evolution can NOT be scientifically proven though, it is based upon several assumptions, so saying Evolution is a theory is correct. its just as much a theory as Creationism except Evolution has more fact to back it up.

Yes, like Gravity is a theory, the same as little atomic angels holding us down to the earth.
See, same thing...sure, gravity may have more facts to back it up..but its still equal...is it gravitational theory, or my random hypothesis of angels...see...why are we not teaching atomic angel theory in classrooms?!!

Originally posted by CallYourBluff

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by RSF77

 

Don't care, evolution being a theory (or believing it or not) has nothing to do with the presidency or anything.

It really should bother you that this guy doesn't believe in evolution. He's a wacko. Also stop calling this a troll thread. It's not.

But this is a troll thread and trolls are not qualified to start threads.

Is that why you haven't started a thread?

Typically, people calling other people trolls are the trolls themselves...or just idiots.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Being right..for not "believing" in evolution?

No, that would be wrong.

Evolution can NOT be scientifically proven though, it is based upon several assumptions, so saying Evolution is a theory is correct. its just as much a theory as Creationism except Evolution has more fact to back it up.

reply to post by definity


It has been proven, time and time and time again. A scientific theory and the layperson's "theory" that you are thinking of are completely different.

That idiot danced around that question.....

Religion has taken a great man like Ron Paul and turned him into a puppet... disgusting...

reply to post by Domo1

But Unicorns DO exist. As do the Ouroboros.

Bestiaries have animals in them from outside-of-European animals, many out of Africa.

Just because people were writing these books based upon animals that they had never personally seen, that does not mean that the animal did not exist at all. They were deriving some of the information from older texts from people who may have been where the animals were. Sometimes they added in information to make their Bestiaries "more epic", but that doesn't mean squat about the original information being fake.

So, when they say that Unicorns are Rhinos, they have some reason to:

Original texts on Unicorns use the plural for horns. The only way to be UNI and still have more than one is if they're talking about not having mirroring horns like a cow or a deer has, Unicorns have no twinning of their horns, when they have more than one. Also, most older "drawings" (from descriptions) put the unicorn as having a scaly or pebbled hide--which bears no resemblance to the modern idea of what a Unicorn should be. So when people say that the original texts on Unicorns were talking about a Rhinoceros, they are pointing to texts nearly as old as the Roman Empire's use of Rhinos in spectacles. Not that hard for this creature to be described and drawn from description, then embellished over the years, when the connection is more than merely plausible.


So an Ouroboros is, modernly, a snake with it's tail in it's mouth. Earliest drawings give it legs--and call it a serpent. That means that something is off in our understanding of what they meant, if they could draw legs and still call it a serpent (i.e. words change). The problem is that the one lizard that is known to do this is from South Africa. It is too small to be used in the spetacles. But we forget that Europe has been using information from the Roman Empire from nearly the beginning of the Empire, and Rome did go through Africa.

So: Another "fictitious animal" is real:



Therefore your argument falls a bit more than flat, when looking at which country was around which empires.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I suggest you watch your step. Domo is a great contributor to the site and does not deserve to have his post written off with a shout of "troll!". Especially by a new member such as yourself.

When did the memo come out that we here on ATS are in the business of "tough guying newbies", I didn't get it.

Why would he have to "watch his step", lol. Is he going to be internet punished because he didn't write 2nd line like the rest of the people that do it and don't even understand the meaning behind it.

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I suggest you watch your step. Domo is a great contributor to the site and does not deserve to have his post written off with a shout of "troll!". Especially by a new member such as yourself.

When did the memo come out that we here on ATS are in the business of "tough guying newbies", I didn't get it.

Why would he have to "watch his step", lol. Is he going to be internet punished because he didn't write 2nd line like the rest of the people that do it and don't even understand the meaning behind it.

edit on 3-6-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

Did I threaten to attack him or anything? No. I told him that because its true, he should watch his step. Not out of fear of me, but out out of respect for a contributing member of this site.

I apologize if you found my post threatening.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I apologize you found my post threatening.

I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I apologize you found my post threatening.

I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

I apologize "If" you found my post threatening.