Ron Paul Unfairly Kicked Out of Debates

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Lorizael
But I thought you believed in evolution?

Yes I do because it is a scientific fact. We have observed it. It is really not a theory anymore.

He has demonstrated a CLEAR desire to shrink the size of govmt and protect our rights, so who cares what his religious beliefs are? If they interfered with his job it would be a problem, but it does not seem likley to. He comes down on the "right" side on most enviromental and scientific issues.

His FIRST response to answering a question about evolution was to state that it was not relevant to the issue of the presidency and that he thinks it is a fine topic for intellectual discussion and that he is not sure either side has it right.

He did not even say "Jesus" in his response.

Sounds like a reasonable response to me, was not evangelical at all, nor was he hostile to the idea of evolution. The man is allowed to have his own religious beliefs and the fact he does not compromise them for votes when he gets these sorts of questions scores big points with me.

http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evolution/

He is the only canidate I see on either side right now, with real integrity and a respect for the constitution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Because the purpose of this particular debate is for the New Hampshire primary.

which just happens to be to elect someone to a national office.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Yes I do because it is a scientific fact. We have observed it. It is really not a theory anymore.

Evolution = scientific subject.

His FIRST response to answering a question about evolution was to state that it was not relevant to the issue of the presidency and that he thinks it is a fine topic for intellectual discussion and that he is not sure either side has it right.

He did not even say "Jesus" in his response.

Sounds like a reasonable response to me, was not evangelical at all, nor was he hostile to the idea of evolution. The man is allowed to have his own religious beliefs and the fact he does not compromise them for votes when he gets these sorts of questions scores big points with me.

Evolution = religious subject.

Hmm. Which one is it?

[Vesayen]

Way to misquote.

The first statement is in response to someone saying I don't believe in evolution.

The second is what Ron Paul said on the subject.

If he wants to say it is a religious subject, that is fine, since he is commited to preserving our rights anyway, which is what I said in the only part of my post you did not quote.

He has demonstrated a CLEAR desire to shrink the size of govmt and protect our rights, so who cares what his religious beliefs are? If they interfered with his job it would be a problem, but it does not seem likley to. He comes down on the "right" side on most enviromental and scientific issues.

[Lorizael]

I didn't quote that part because I don't care about his stances. I care about the fact that you're a hypocrite for not heaping insults on someone who doesn't seem to understand evolution; you've done so vigorously in the past.

[Heraclitus]

I have a shocking thought: Maybe he does understand evolution and is lying. Whether he is lying to himself or to the US public is another matter.

Anyhow I suspect Versayen is being pragmatic, criticizing Ron Paul on this account will do no good to anyone.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Yes I do because it is a scientific fact. We have observed it. It is really not a theory anymore.

Wrong. Evolution is, and always will be, a theory, unless and until we can go back in time. Scientists well understand the difference between fact - what we have seen - and theory, an explanation that fits the available observed facts. Seeing evolution in the present is not equivalent to observing the evolution of Man. Your statement here just underlines that you're not a scientist (I hope...)

[Vesayen]

Not hypocritical at all.

My previous insults on anti evolution nuts evolution are because most of the people who hold that insane view usually want to shape the world around it, OR they structure their world view around it.

Ron Paul does not want to stop teaching evolution in schools, he does not want to institute school prayer.

His world view is fine, he has very libretarian ideals. People can believe whatever the hell they want as long as it does not effect my life, Ron Paul believes the govmt should not be interfering with my life so he if does not believe in evolution, that is fine, his belief will have no effect on me.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Wrong. Evolution is, and always will be, a theory, unless and until we can go back in time. Scientists well understand the difference between fact - what we have seen - and theory, an explanation that fits the available observed facts. Seeing evolution in the present is not equivalent to observing the evolution of Man. Your statement here just underlines that you're not a scientist (I hope...)

Tell me one thing a scientist would call a fact.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Wrong. Evolution is, and always will be, a theory, unless and until we can go back in time. Scientists well understand the difference between fact - what we have seen - and theory, an explanation that fits the available observed facts. Seeing evolution in the present is not equivalent to observing the evolution of Man. Your statement here just underlines that you're not a scientist (I hope...)

Of course I am not a scientist but that does not mean I cannot be informed on the subject. You do not put on a white coat and "POOF" you know the information. Trusting information because a scientist said something is a pretty poor idea. If you want to get to the truth, whenever possible, you should dig through the science yourself, not trust the "authority in a coat". Why? Because different men in labcoats say different things and it ceases to be about the science but then becomes about "Well I trust this guy! Your scientist sucks!" This is how the issue of global warming has ceased to be about the science at all, but which labcoat to trust.

We have observed evolution in short lived creatures.

If you are claiming that because we did not observe something, it can not be known for virtual certainty, you are going to run into some serious trouble.

Should everything in the field of geology then be discounted because it is "theory"? After all, we have not seen the techtonic plates move across the planet, though we have observed very small changes in our own lifetime.

What about the other hominids which went extinct only a few hundred thousand years ago? What about the fossil record showing the changes in animals over millions of years? If you want to discount the fossil record and say "God put the fossils in the ground to trick us" then the discussion is moot because every answer will be "God did it" and it ceases to be an discussion of facts and logic, but one of faith.

Originally posted by Lorizael




Tell me one thing a scientist would call a fact.

Our knowledge of science is incomplete and changes rapidly. Certain things however, seem to be certain. They may change later but for now, they seem to be facts. Entropy seems to be a fact, for now, this could change tommorow. Till we get strong evidence it is false, I'll accept it as a fact.

Very little is "fact", really "fact" does not usually mean certain, absolute truth when discussing science, instead it means "proboably true, with overwhelming certainty, based on what we know today." Even the laws of thermodynamics are under attack today, though they have been since their inception.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Not hypocritical at all.

My previous insults on anti evolution nuts evolution are because most of the people who hold that insane view usually want to shape the world around it, OR they structure their world view around it.

Ron Paul does not want to stop teaching evolution in schools, he does not want to institute school prayer.

His world view is fine, he has very libretarian ideals. People can believe whatever the hell they want as long as it does not effect my life, Ron Paul believes the govmt should not be interfering with my life so he if does not believe in evolution, that is fine, his belief will have no effect on me.

This is consistent enough. I'm done. This thread shouldn't be about evolution.

[Vesayen]

I am very glad to satisfy your test of consistancy .

Some of my views are pretty far out there for most folks, but I try to keep them consistent. Holding a belief which does not mesh with your other beliefs is usually a sign that one or more of them is wrong or illogical, or both.

"Gut feelings" have no real place in political discource in my opinion, or at least they should not.

[-Jrabbit]

I have a feeling you're wrong about that...

[Heraclitus]

Having a consistent worldview is very important to me, and I think the world would be a better place if it was such to all men.

[Deity Dude]

Did Ron Paul ever say

a) he didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

or did he just say

b) it wasn't an appropriate question in a political debate.

I totally agree with answer "b" because the only point of that question to a politician is to cause controversy. Afterall when will his opinion on evolution ever come into effect in office.

If his answer was "a" I don't find it disqualifying for the reasons given above. But I find it unlikely that a medical doctor would believe "a"

If someone here says that his answer was "a" please provide a source or stop saying he said that. This si the whole problem with "non-mainstream" candidates. In the Democratic debates they asked everyone about 10 questions then the asked Kucinech if he saw a UFO. I am not a Kucinech fan but I use it as an example of what the media does to candidates they don't like.