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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Belief or disbelief aren't the only ways to view it. There's also the realization that when it comes down to it you really can't be sure either way, hence theories.

Would have been interesting to hear the rest of what he was saying in that clip.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Your example is badly thought out. Gravity is not a theory. It's a fact and is described as a scientific Law. Evolution IS a theory. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. By the way, not that it matters, but I used to believe in the theory of evolution until I started reading about it. I now believe that it's a bad theory that's full of holes. I wish I could remember the name of the Nobel prize winning scientist who said that if the Theory of evolution were tested with the same rigor as any other theory, it would fail miserably. The theory that makes the most sense to me now is Intelligent Design which, if you know anything about it, you'll realize that it is NOT creationism. And yes some Creationist proclaim it as Intelligent Design by God but dismissing ID for that reason is like a Creationist saying the the Theory of evolution should be dismissed because some of it's proponents are atheists. The validity of any theory does NOT depend on the spiritual beliefs of it's supporters. Period.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Ron Paul supporter here. I agree with Ron Paul that there is not enough proof to say evolution is 100% certain. But I disagree with him on his creationist views. That being said, so what? What does this have to do with him on a political level? The mans still has by far the greatest morals, ethics, politics Ive seen in government!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Thanks for the heads up, now I'm definitely changing my mind about Ron Paul
(sarcasm)

2nd line.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 





Belief or disbelief aren't the only ways to view it. There's also the realization that when it comes down to it you really can't be sure either way, hence theories.


I understand what you are saying. Consider this.

A friend of yours tells you he has just seen a flying pig. Your not sure if this is true or not. You debate with yourself that it may be true, but you come to the conclusion that you don't know if it is true or not. Thus, since you dont know, you also don't believe. Hence, you have disbelief since you don't believe.
edit on 3-6-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Disbelief is the absence of belief. If you don't believe in something then you have disbelief in it, even if you don't have strong feelings toward it.


The ambiguity of the belief/disbelief dichotomy makes it worthless.

If I can't remember where I left my front door key, but I know it's either in the pocket of my jacket or on the table downstairs, then why shouldn't I be on the fence as to its whereabouts ?

If you forced me into the intellectually dishonest, conveniently rigid belief/disbelief dichotomy, then I would - technically - have a disbelief in it being in either location.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
One of the things that contributes to Ron Paul's character is the sincerity of his christian beliefs.

His belief system is not just a theory to him, it's his reality.
He also knows Christ never made anybody do anything, they had there liberty when it came to morality.
Jesus liked to educate people, and hoped they would change, when they heard the message.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





If I can't remember where I left my front door key, but I know it's either in the pocket of my jacket or on the table downstairs, then why shouldn't I be on the fence as to its whereabouts ?


This isn't a yes or no question. Thus, its not really an accurate representation of my point.




If you forced me into the intellectually dishonest, conveniently rigid belief/disbelief dichotomy, then I would - technically - have a disbelief in it being in either location.


I am not forcing you into anything, forgive me if that's how it came off. Its not bad to admit a disbelief, even if you don't know either way. That is, in fact, just the thing. If you don't know, you cant believe. And without "belief" you are left with disbelief, since that is the definition of the word.

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



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
I saw a thread earlier deriding people that didn't like Paul and blathering on about how many idiots there are in America that believe in Creationism. Guess who else does? Ronnie believes that evolution is just a theory (implying a theory isn't kinda a big deal - you know, gravity etc...) but will you die hards fault him for it? Of course not.

Seems to me the only idiot here was the one deriding other members for their belief. I think he gave a decent and most importantly honest answer, especially if you listen to the last part of it. I am not a Ron Paul fan, although I think he has some decent ideas, like ending the wars and bring the boys home and all that, but he did not weasel out of a difficult question. And it will give him some points with fundamentalist Christians. However, I trust that as a politician he knows to keep the state and religion separated. It would be a problem, if he wanted to - or had stated bluntly that he would - abolish the teaching of evolution in favor of creationism or even to have them taught side by side. Not that it will ever happen, at least in my opinion; he's just way behind in the race and apparently can't raise any more money for his campaign or he has capitulated and sees no reason to raise and spend more money with no chance of winning. Of course, it aint over until the fat lady sings.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I think we need to know the definition of "theory" before we start comparing evolution to the big bang, etc..

(From www.merriam-webster.com...)
1: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
2: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory
3: a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

Evolution as a theory has been widely accepted in the international scientific community for years just like the theory of gravity. While we cannot sit there and observe evolution in real time we can look at the fossil records along with the dna of related plants and animals and conclude that they have evolved over time. Please see the following link for credible scientific evidence and more information on evolution:

evolution.berkeley.edu...
www.wired.com...
abcnews.go.com...

Now as far as Dr Paul goes...If you're going to lead the country and have the nuclear codes I want to know if you believe that we lived with dinosaurs and if you think the earth is only 6,000 years old. if you're are willing to ignore solid scientific theories and facts I can't have complete faith in you.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it. It is a religiously based belief that everything was created because "God" got bored and lonely.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

edit on 3-6-2012 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
This isn't a yes or no question. Thus, its not really an accurate representation of my point.


Of course it's a yes or no question. Is the key in the pocket of my jacket ? Yes or no ?

Technically, I would have a ''disbelief'' in the key being there, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out, nor would I have an ''active disbelief'' in it being there.

The difference between a passive and active disbelief is the essential part here - a difference which is conveniently ignored by those with agendas and a Ph.D in intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Many people don't beleive either.

I myself ????

We do find ourselves whith a lack of bones BIG TIME on how we became and in such a short time period?

We have more chance coming from a Zebra than a horse to the Zebra?

Ron is a pretty cool guy.

Im not into politics, but he does make some VERY solid points that are real.

He is kind of an isolationist what I think,,but the world is to messed up and tied to everyone now?
Kinda like shut the door and ignore?

I like Ron.

I'd care less what Bush or Obama thinks thinks on the orgins of man,,they are more than welcome to give an opinion though.,,LOL



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Ron Paul crazies...


And voila! That's how fast one loses any form of respect here on the forum. You attack the posters instead of their points of view. You come out flying with childish name calling because you clearly lack any ability to actually come with any factual debate material.

Grow up and try again.


As for the OP and his Ron Paul issue: Is it really an issue or just something you're trying to make into an issue so you have more "ammunition" against Ron Paul? If Ron Paul isn't your vote, who is? Because the only person I've heard make ANY sense this election round is in fact RON PAUL. Same in 2007. Yet, because people wanted to believe they could fix the country without doing anything, they voted for Obama because he promised change.

I'm sure Ron Paul won't be elected. The powers that control such things don't want him in office for the same reason they had to kill JFK. Because he doesn't play by "their" rules. He plays for US, not THEM. And that's a big no-no. Big corporations and bankers are the presidents concern, we the people are nothing.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I don't have a problem with his beliefs.

However, when he doesn't believe in something which has such overwhelming evidence to back it up, then you have to question whether his personal faith (which many of his supporters presumably won't share) will override a more logical view in more important matters which he would oversee.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
What is the purpose of this thread ?
The MSM can't dig up any dirt on Ron Paul so internet trolls kick-up dirt and hope it sticks on the man.
Your efforts are worse than the MSM black out, but keep trying , you guys are always good for a laugh.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 






The difference between a passive and active disbelief is the essential part here - a difference which is conveniently ignored by those with agendas and a Ph.D in intellectual dishonesty.


I am not trying to be dishonest, I do acknowledge there is a difference between saying something doesn't exist and being skeptical of its existence.

What I am saying, however, is that in regards to this there are three answers.

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

Yes falls under belief.

No and maybe fall under disbelief since they are not outright belief.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Evolution and creationism belief are a MOOT point.
As are race , relegion and sexual preference .
These are not requirements to be president.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Ron Paul believes in individual rights under liberty. I have explained this before on this site. There isn't anything he would do as president that would suddenly support the idea that others should not believe in evolution, or for that matter creationism. People have the freedom to do what they want to as long as it doesn't hurt other people, under a Paul presidency. Although I believe in Evolution, he is right in the sense that it is still a science, and there is still much to learn from it. It is one thing to say that he personally holds a belief, and another entirely to say that he would mix it with politics. Thats why he said it was an inappropriate question in the video, as it had no bearing on his presidential race.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by wlord
 


It's not ''logical'' to be on the fence about evolution.

There are reams and reams of documented studies and evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Like I've said previously: anyone who doesn't believe in evolution are either those who don't want it to be true, or those who don't understand the process and mechanisms.


I dont think anybody is saying evolution is not a theory.
Who here has said this, and has Ron Paul said evolution is not a theory?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join