Ron Paul: I don't accept the theory of evolution

[PredFan]

I agree with Ron Paul on one thing, if you send your children to a public school, you are guilty of child neglect.

 

[dblack]

Some reactions to a silly thread -

1. So what?

2. Religious people believe all kinds of ridiculous stuff. The concern with a politician's religious beliefs is how they impact their public policy advocacy. The fact that the OP had to scrounge back to 2007 for a record of Paul's personal beliefs re: evolution tells me what I need to know about his political stance.

3. Ron Paul is not a 'standard bearer' for libertarianism. He's one of its most successful advocates, and for that I'm grateful, but libertarians disagree with him on a number of key issues.

4. it's not clear at all that Paul's views on evolution are driving his enthusiasm for home schooling. Everything he's about speaks to something else - he wants to encourage students who will feel free to question the status quo of the warfare/welfare state.

 

[KevinWestern]

The theory of evolution tries to explain how life became so diverse. Darwin's theory is that life evolves over time. Since that theory's first appearance, scientists have found a lot of evidence to support that theory. It is accepted by scientists as the best model available. No one pretends it's perfect, just that it makes sense and has a ton of evidence within the field of science.

Yet it is impossible to sit back and watch something evolve, as it takes generations. That does not mean the theory of evolution is false. It simply means we cannot point at something happening and say, "There! That's evolution going on!" Evolution will always be a theory--unless we someday invent a time machine that lets us record generations of animals to see evolution in action.

Creationism is a belief, one without objective evidence to support it. It belongs to the realm of religion, not science, because it requires either faith or widening the definition of the term "evidence" until it fits what one wants it to fit. That's not how science works.

I'm not anti-religion, unless you consider Catholicism to be anti-religion. But it's ludicrous to attack a scientifically-supported theory in favor of a religious belief. You can believe anything you want in this country, but just because you can believe in something doesn't mean you get to change science to support said belief.

To dismiss the theory of evolution all together is kind of silly, because we know those forces do in fact exist to some degree. I recall an experiment with foxes where they kept separating the naturally aggressive animals from the more docile ones and over time two entirely different types of foxes emerged with different sized tails, colors, etc.

However, can’t creationism and evolution co-exist to some degree? Sure, science might verify that a fox evolves into a somewhat different creature over time, etc, but how strong is the evidence proving that a single cell organism can in fact evolve to an extremely complex human being over the course of hundred million years? Isn’t that aspect more or less speculative?

Also, obviously evolution doesn’t explain why we exist in the first place. So again, I don’t think these two things need to be in total conflict with one another.

 

[rdean]

If you were half as smart as you think I am you would be able to point to a molecule that is large enough to see with the naked eye. Since you aren't, all you have is insults.

That said, you still cannot see the atoms because we cannot even detect the electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength small enough to see a proton, much less an electron. Your film is a neat parlor trick, but it is not a picture of an atom.

You keeps saying what scientists can't do. I provide video and audio and you call it a "parlor trick".

It is a parlor trick, and it has nothing to do with seeing atoms.

Let me give you a little science lesson before you say something really stupid. In order to see something you have to be able to bounce light off of it. In order to do that you have to be use a frequency of light that is smaller than the size of the object.

Scanning electron microscopes use electrons vibrating at high frequencies, and low wavelengths, to paint a virtual picture of extremely small objects, but the frequency is limited by the amount of power that can be put into them. We cannot use frequencies in the gamma range because they would be require immense amounts of power and be highly radioactive. If we were capable of using those frequencies we would be able to get clearer pictures of the copper atoms that showed the various protons and neutrons inside the atom, but we wouldn't be able to see the atoms.

What your parlor trick showed were blurry bumps, not clear pictures. It was a massive advancement in technology, and will, eventually, allow engineers to build circuits on the atomic level, thus increasing computing power, but the movie was a parlor trick.

Not only can they see atoms, they can see "photons".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snSIRJ2brEk

1000000000000 (1 Billion/Trillion) FPS!!! "Ultra High-Speed Camera"

That was stupid, even for you. The scientist never made the clam that they would be able to see photons. In order to do that they would have to have a camera that manages to take pictures of photons using something else, it would have to move faster than light to do so. The first might be possible, but the second is not. They just explained it in a way that made it understandable to idiots, which left you out of the loop.

You're giving me a lesson? In what? Ignorance?

As you can see, visible light is only a sliver of the entire spectrum. If we discounted everything we couldn't see except in our own tiny bit of spectrum, we wouldn't be able to see these kinds of images:

Then you have a microscope with magnification of over 1000,000,000. And the waves are explained to be a mass of electrons. And because you feel the picture isn't clear enough, it's not good enough?

And look at those photons. That is one light pulse. You can clearly see the beginning and end of the pulse as it moves across various objects.

If all that is a "parlor" trick, then it's a pretty amazing "parlor".

Republicans can down science and scientists all they want, but it will be Republicans who already are left at the train station. The only ride left will be a hayride. And it's all they deserve.

 

[PredFan]

Two facts:
1. Evolution
2. Scientists are for sale.

 

[regent]

Come to think of it, this earth is round idea pretty far fetched, as If I can see the earth is flat, and if it was round the people on the bottom would fall off.

 

[PredFan]

Come to think of it, this earth is round idea pretty far fetched, as If I can see the earth is flat, and if it was round the people on the bottom would fall off.

Actually, you can see that the earth is round with your own eyes. Sorry, your little joke fails.

 

[rdean]

Two facts:
1. Evolution
2. Scientists are for sale.

If you work for a living, don't you get paid? The majority of scientists work for private industry. Just like the majority of all workers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Provide some evidence.

Of what?

That someone besides yourself lied of course.

Everyone lies rdean, even me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're giving me a lesson? In what? Ignorance?

As you can see, visible light is only a sliver of the entire spectrum. If we discounted everything we couldn't see except in our own tiny bit of spectrum, we wouldn't be able to see these kinds of images:

Did you miss the part where I mentioned the gamma portion of the electromagnetic spectrum? Does your ability to repeat what I already said make you feel smart?

Then you have a microscope with magnification of over 1000,000,000. And the waves are explained to be a mass of electrons. And because you feel the picture isn't clear enough, it's not good enough?

Electrons are not waves, they are particles, and they only travel in straight lines.

The reason I pointed out the fact that the picture wasn't clear was to make the point that we are not actually seeing the atom, we are seeing the interference pattern of the electron and the outer shell of the electron orbit of the atom. I forgot that I was talking to a guy that thinks in cut and paste at the time, so I didn't make that clear. Sorry.

And look at those photons. That is one light pulse. You can clearly see the beginning and end of the pulse as it moves across various objects.

No you cannot.

If you want proof that the video is using hyperbole I point out the fact that the muzzle velocity of the fastest commercially available bullet is about 1,500 m/s while light travels at 299,792,485 m/s, that is about 200,000 times faster than the bullet, not 1 million. If he can't get that right, why the fuck should I believe it when he claims that he is photographing photons with photons? Especially when they make it clear they aren't actually doing that?

If you watch the video you will see that what they are doing is using a rotating mirror to direct light pulses to different areas of the object they are photographing, and then stitching them all together into a movie. But please, PLEASE, keep pretending you understand science, it makes my day so much more fun.

If all that is a "parlor" trick, then it's a pretty amazing "parlor".

HEre is another amazing parlor trick for you.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIbiFAvtZi8"]Magic Secrets revealed Card tricks - YouTube[/ame]

Republicans can down science and scientists all they want, but it will be Republicans who already are left at the train station. The only ride left will be a hayride. And it's all they deserve.

Pointing out your complete lack of ability to understand science is not being down on science, it is mocking a guy that is so stupid he thinks really neat FX is science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Come to think of it, this earth is round idea pretty far fetched, as If I can see the earth is flat, and if it was round the people on the bottom would fall off.

Another idiot that thinks Columbus proved the Earth was round. I hope that one day schools will stop spreading that lie.

 

[regent]

Come to think of it, this earth is round idea pretty far fetched, as If I can see the earth is flat, and if it was round the people on the bottom would fall off.

Another idiot that thinks Columbus proved the Earth was round. I hope that one day schools will stop spreading that lie.

Actually the school was talking about some Greek, Eratosthenes measuring something. But he was a couple of hundred miles off so I didn't miss much.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Gotta say, a politician's religious choice should really only matter to the extent that said politician would legislate based on the ideals of their religion.

Given Paul's stances on the valid powers of the federal government and legislating morality in general, I can't say that, even if he was still an active politician, I'd be particularly worried about him using political power to push his Christianity on the country.

With most Republicans, I'd be hesitant to make the same claim. Politicians in general should stop trying to legislate moral decency. A lot of people say that the beauty of American freedom is democratic elections. I say the greater beauty is that it's one of the only societies ever founded upon the idea of each individual being able to follow their own conscience so long as the exercise thereof didn't infringe on anyone else's ability to do the same.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Come to think of it, this earth is round idea pretty far fetched, as If I can see the earth is flat, and if it was round the people on the bottom would fall off.

Another idiot that thinks Columbus proved the Earth was round. I hope that one day schools will stop spreading that lie.

Actually the school was talking about some Greek, Eratosthenes measuring something. But he was a couple of hundred miles off so I didn't miss much.

How far off was Columbus?

 

[Dante]

What is it with Republicans and science?

Allergies?

 

[whitehall]

Lets compromise. Not everyone is descended from the apes. Just a few.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ron Paul: I don't accept the theory of evolution - CBS News

Ron Paul was on Morning Joe saying at least 20% of school children should be "home schooled".

Clearly, this is why. Republicans call into question the integrity of science and scientists trying to hamstring their children and leave them unprepared for any meaningful future in a modern technological world. Many even say there is no connection between science and technology. It's bad enough what they do to the country, but if they want to ruin their children, fine, just don't drag us down with you.

"...says that the theory of human evolution is just a theory - "

Do you dispute that?

Do you understand the distinction between "theory" and "law"?




Oh....of course.....it is absolutely essential to Liberals that everybody fall in line......

 

[Steven_R]

Please define a scientific theory and a scientific law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please define a scientific theory and a scientific law.

Are you serious?


Who's operating the keyboard for you?

 

[Steven_R]

Yes, I'm serious. When you write stuff like

"...says that the theory of human evolution is just a theory - "

Do you dispute that?

Do you understand the distinction between "theory" and "law"?

I want to know we're using the same definitions for those terms.