Ron Paul rejects evolutionary theory

[SickBeast]

edit: This is pointless and has gone way off topic.

 

[Legend]

I really don't think Paul's beliefs would be relevant under his platform. He is for strict constitutional government, meaning a separation of church and state at the Federal government, and not controlling your lives. He wants to disband the department of education so that parents and people in local communities can lobby with how their money is spent on their children's education, rather than having Federal bureaucrats deciding.

I'm a strong Paul supporter, but I don't agree with him on everything.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Well, you can believe anything you want. You can also prove just about anything you want, if you try hard enough.

Please show me a Bible translation that does not include the six "days" of creation.

In terms of the Earth being 6,000 years old, I was given this information from a friend. I have never read anything personally within the Bible which relates to the age of the Earth or the universe.

If you take the theory of evolution to the extreme, it pretty much states that we evolved from an amoeba. That directly contradicts the Bible, no matter how you translate it. :light:

The "days" is allegory to justify resting on the Sabbath. Recall that, in the Bible, the Egyptians forced the Hebrew slaves to work every single day. So they invented the weekend. You should thank them.

The 6,000 years thing that your friend told you about was the invention of an Anglican bishop named Ussher who lived in the 17th century. It came into prominence in the Christian community only in the 1800s after an American publisher started putting it into editions of the KJV Bible.

It does? How about you show me where? Chapter and verse please. I'll be waiting.

Like I said, I'm not a Christian, but you find a lot of silly and incorrect notions about other peoples' beliefs on the internet, and yours is just one of them. And I find such generalizations to be bigoted.
While there are certainly a lot of "fundamental" types who hold to a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that is exactly as you describe, most religious people accept scientific theories like Big Bang and evolution. In fact, many scientific people are religious. OMG can you believe it! And the Pope even tells Catholics to accept those theories and insists that they be taught in Catholic schools worldwide. Which should be no surprise, since the church took part in the development of these scientific theories, especially the Big Bang.

If you're not Christian I find it rather amusing that you're attempting to refute me on this...

The simple fact that you need a verse pointed out shows me that you are talking through your hat on this one.

Creation is described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 as occurring in six "days": Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves" (Living Bible).
Day 7: God rested. Followers of the Documentary Hypothesis believe this to have been a later addition, 4 placed there to give theological justification for the Sabbath (Saturday as a day of rest).

Take note how it says God created plants, sea animals, birds, and land animals. Are you telling me that Christians everywhere are contorting this to effectively state that God allowed plants to evolve into sea creatures?

I find it incredible that you consider my statements about Christians "bigoted", and then go ahead and post what I've bolded above! :Q

As for the Big Bang theory, that one is largely supported by the Muslim community. There is some sort of verse in the Koran that they say supports it.

Many Christians consider Genesis allegorical Some do take it literally, but it isn't necessary to do so. I know Christian scientists and they have no problem with faith and science. Because someone else may doesn't compel them to have that kind of angst.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

Which is why you too intend on voting for a religious candidate who will keep us in Iraq, right?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Well, you can believe anything you want. You can also prove just about anything you want, if you try hard enough.

Please show me a Bible translation that does not include the six "days" of creation.

In terms of the Earth being 6,000 years old, I was given this information from a friend. I have never read anything personally within the Bible which relates to the age of the Earth or the universe.

If you take the theory of evolution to the extreme, it pretty much states that we evolved from an amoeba. That directly contradicts the Bible, no matter how you translate it. :light:

The "days" is allegory to justify resting on the Sabbath. Recall that, in the Bible, the Egyptians forced the Hebrew slaves to work every single day. So they invented the weekend. You should thank them.

The 6,000 years thing that your friend told you about was the invention of an Anglican bishop named Ussher who lived in the 17th century. It came into prominence in the Christian community only in the 1800s after an American publisher started putting it into editions of the KJV Bible.

It does? How about you show me where? Chapter and verse please. I'll be waiting.

Like I said, I'm not a Christian, but you find a lot of silly and incorrect notions about other peoples' beliefs on the internet, and yours is just one of them. And I find such generalizations to be bigoted.
While there are certainly a lot of "fundamental" types who hold to a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that is exactly as you describe, most religious people accept scientific theories like Big Bang and evolution. In fact, many scientific people are religious. OMG can you believe it! And the Pope even tells Catholics to accept those theories and insists that they be taught in Catholic schools worldwide. Which should be no surprise, since the church took part in the development of these scientific theories, especially the Big Bang.

If you're not Christian I find it rather amusing that you're attempting to refute me on this...

The simple fact that you need a verse pointed out shows me that you are talking through your hat on this one.

Creation is described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 as occurring in six "days": Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves" (Living Bible).
Day 7: God rested. Followers of the Documentary Hypothesis believe this to have been a later addition, 4 placed there to give theological justification for the Sabbath (Saturday as a day of rest).

Take note how it says God created plants, sea animals, birds, and land animals. Are you telling me that Christians everywhere are contorting this to effectively state that God allowed plants to evolve into sea creatures?

I find it incredible that you consider my statements about Christians "bigoted", and then go ahead and post what I've bolded above! :Q

As for the Big Bang theory, that one is largely supported by the Muslim community. There is some sort of verse in the Koran that they say supports it.

Many Christians consider Genesis allegorical Some do take it literally, but it isn't necessary to do so. I know Christian scientists and they have no problem with faith and science. Because someone else may doesn't compel them to have that kind of angst.

Thanks. I wish people would actually study subjects beyond just hasty googling...
Text

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

Which is why you too intend on voting for a religious candidate who will keep us in Iraq, right?

You know, it would be funny if it weren't sad.

It just gives a whole new perspective of what has been going on here at ATPN ever since I have been here, and most likely before that.

It has never been about the number of Americans killed in Iraq. It has never really been about Christianity, nor the loss of freedoms, nor the CIA destroying tapes, nor the Patriot Act. It's all been about "the Republicans did it."

It's been all about party rather than principle. And this is exactly why our country is in such bad shape.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

Which is why you too intend on voting for a religious candidate who will keep us in Iraq, right?

You know, it would be funny if it weren't sad.

It just gives a whole new perspective of what has been going on here at ATPN ever since I have been here, and most likely before that.

It has never been about the number of Americans killed in Iraq.

It has never really been about Christianity, nor the loss of freedoms, nor the CIA destroying tapes, nor the Patriot Act.

It's all been about "the Republicans did it."

It's been all about party rather than principle.

And this is exactly why our country is in such bad shape.

Congratulations for finally getting something right for a change.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

Which is why you too intend on voting for a religious candidate who will keep us in Iraq, right?

You know, it would be funny if it weren't sad.

It just gives a whole new perspective of what has been going on here at ATPN ever since I have been here, and most likely before that.

It has never been about the number of Americans killed in Iraq.

It has never really been about Christianity, nor the loss of freedoms, nor the CIA destroying tapes, nor the Patriot Act.

It's all been about "the Republicans did it."

It's been all about party rather than principle.

And this is exactly why our country is in such bad shape.

Congratulations for finally getting something right for a change.

And thank you for proving my point, douchebag #1.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

Which is why you too intend on voting for a religious candidate who will keep us in Iraq, right?

You know, it would be funny if it weren't sad.

It just gives a whole new perspective of what has been going on here at ATPN ever since I have been here, and most likely before that.

It has never been about the number of Americans killed in Iraq.

It has never really been about Christianity, nor the loss of freedoms, nor the CIA destroying tapes, nor the Patriot Act.

It's all been about "the Republicans did it."

It's been all about party rather than principle.

And this is exactly why our country is in such bad shape.

Congratulations for finally getting something right for a change.

And thank you for proving my point, douchebag #1.

 

[Vic]

I wish Dave would go BACK to being a Republican.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

Which is why you too intend on voting for a religious candidate who will keep us in Iraq, right?

You know, it would be funny if it weren't sad.

It just gives a whole new perspective of what has been going on here at ATPN ever since I have been here, and most likely before that.

It has never been about the number of Americans killed in Iraq. It has never really been about Christianity, nor the loss of freedoms, nor the CIA destroying tapes, nor the Patriot Act. It's all been about "the Republicans did it."

It's been all about party rather than principle. And this is exactly why our country is in such bad shape.

:thumbsup:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
And I was completely talking about Hillary.

I could see the confusion though because I had momentarily forgotten that she and Bill aren't of the same faith. She attends GW's church, the United Methodists. My bad. Doesn't change the rest of what I said though.

Yes, it does, and you're just as wrong. Please show me where I said I support Hillary. FYI, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I'll probably re-register as an Independent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
And I was completely talking about Hillary.

I could see the confusion though because I had momentarily forgotten that she and Bill aren't of the same faith. She attends GW's church, the United Methodists. My bad. Doesn't change the rest of what I said though.

Yes, it does, and you're just as wrong. Please show me where I said I support Hillary. FYI, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I'll probably re-register as an Independent.

Good for you then. It's about time I saw some consistency in your opinions beyond just the usual traitor-in-chief bot replies.

What about Obama? He's an Evangelical. Can you imagine what he would have said in the exact same situation in Spartanburg, SC?

Whoa... funny, there aren't any atheists running for the major parties. So no matter who gets the Dem nod, I suggest you become an independent, because all of the candidates represent the views that you said earlier in this thread constitute automatic rejection.

 

[bamacre]

LOL, Harvey's gonna vote for an Independent, and the media keeps asking Paul if he'll run as an Independent.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: GrGr
Hmm, interesting. RP would potentially be a great candidate if he didn't have a leg in the 19th century.

Some things don't change. He has made very valid and strong arguments showing that most of the problems we have today are due to our ignoring of the constitution and warnings from our founding fathers.

And no other candidates are talking about monetary policy, which is an extremely important issue. Perhaps they don't understand it.

so Bamacre how much do you get paid to defend this Ron guy??

Ron Paul does not need defending.

How much did he pay for that answer?

Originally posted by: bamacre
LOL, Harvey's gonna vote for an Independent, and the media keeps asking Paul if he'll run as an Independent.

Yeah, they hope he'll be to the Republicans what Ralph Nader is to the democrats.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
I wish Dave would go BACK to being a Republican.

No, you keep him.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans: even the "smart" ones are dumb. No surprise here.

So what does that say about people like you who scream about Republicans, and then back the pro-Iraq war, pro-corporate Hillary?

Talk about dumb...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
I wish Dave would go BACK to being a Republican.

No, you keep him.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. We have enough douchebags already.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This is pretty sad, definitely lose respect for him based on this. I'd like to hear a more in-depth explanation, but being that misinformed about evolution really makes me think twice about voting for him. I guess it's better that he's misinformed on something not terribly relevant to contemporary domestic issues than on something like Iraq.

He is going for the republican nomination. Most republicans reject science and proof and choose to go with a book written by man that can easily be dis proven.

He is doing nothing more than any other politician, curry favoring to his parties beliefs to get elected.

RP actually strikes me as pretty sincere. His voting record is the most consistent in the race for the past 20 years. He has his values and sticks to them. Which is why this is worrysome, because I think he really believes this and isn't pandering. I'd rather he was.

Exactly my thoughts. Scary really.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
I can't see how anyone can buy the theory of evolution. Isn't one of it's primary tenants "survival of the fittest?" I don't know about you, but looking at the way our society has evolved, survival of the fittest is not what drives it. We continuously want to help "the less fortunate" and continue to allow morons to breed. If this is human nature, we surely didn't evolve to get where we are. We are the most self destructive species on the planet. So no, his lack of acceptance of a commonly accepted THEORY does not change how I feel about Dr. Paul.

All that aside, it's the fact that he isn't afraid to state his beliefs that garner the most respect and support from me. He knows full well that there are those who will take issue with his beliefs yet stands behind them anyway. He does not pander to people to gain their support. He speaks his beliefs and allows you to decide weather or not his message rings true for you. More people in Washington should have such courage and commitment to their own beliefs.

Survival of the fittest isn't really a tenet of evolution, it's part of the theory of natural selection, which itself is a subset of evolutionary theory. Additionally you are applying it to individuals when survival of the fittest applies on a species level. When one looks at it from a species pov, and considring the social aspect of human behaviour, helping the less fortunate in order to provide for a more stable society and ensuring the continued existence of a human society makes perfect sense. iow, survival of the fittest should be applied as an inter-species observation, not intra-species.

"Survival of the fittest," as TLC implies, is a complete mistatement of natural selection. A better phrase would be "persistence of the most useful genes." "Most useful" could mean, for example, "causing the lowest basal metabolism" (genes that would be highly useful [and thus likely to persist and become more dominant] during a long period of famine, but counter-productive during a long period of plenty) - assuming there weren't other countervailing forces in the environment that watered down the effect of the basal-metabolism genes.

whoa there pardner, what'd you say about lil' baby jesus?

 

[jackschmittusa]

NaughtyGeek

As a matter of fact, Darwin did not use the phrase "survival of the fittest". It was a term made popular by people favoring Eugenics and others like Hitler.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I hope you all can tell the family members of those in Iraq that you chose to keep them there because Paul said he thought evolution is a theological theory.

I'm sure they'll understand.

Nicely put. Did anyone else read this?

 

[extra]

So what? He also wants more local and state control over education, so I'm not in the least bit worried he'd try to force his views on the nation's kids. He's also anti abortion! Yet doesn't think the federal gov. should regulate it!

One of the few able to seperate their personal views from what should be government policy. Sanity!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: extra
So what? He also wants more local and state control over education, so I'm not in the least bit worried he'd try to force his views on the nation's kids. He's also anti abortion! Yet doesn't think the federal gov. should regulate it!

One of the few able to seperate their personal views from what should be government policy. Sanity!

Don't go speaking your lies here mister! We all know good and well that if Ron Paul is elected president the first thing he would do is make everyone denounce science and embrace radical Christianity or you will have your head severed from your body.