Ron Paul Doesn't Believe in Evolution

[Malcolm Equis]

Originally Posted by Akagi

Actually, that's incorrect. Evolution is a constant process. It's happening right now. Every time a new strain of bacteria appears that resists the antibiotics we were previously using to kill it, evolution has occurred.

Fundamentalists posit that there is some kind of magical barrier that prevents billions of years of minor changes causing significant change over time.

The debate over human evolution is in the past.

[Malice]

Originally Posted by Rust

doesn't magically undue everything else he believes in which is inane (i.e. denial of evolution, anti-abortion, anti-stem cells).

Has he ever said that things haven't evolved or does he just believe that God began life? No evidence to support the latter, but it's much different and vastly less idiotic.

About abortion: If you kill a fetus, unless it is a legal abortion, you can be charged with homicide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act

Legally they're considered human, yet abortion isn't outlawed.

What about the death penalty? That's the outright killing of a human, yet it's permissible under certain circumstances.

You obviously didn't watch the video I posted or understand what this legislation would really do. Paul made it clear that it's a complex issue and that states should be able to decide on abortion, even though he thinks it is an act of violence.

Stem cells: He is not anti-stem cells, you dolt, he's against federal funding because he's practically a minarchist and sees no reason for the government to fund that. He's against growing embryos solely for the reason of harvesting stem cells, but he stated that he's had to perform surgery for ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus is growing in a fallopian tube and cannot be saved, and sees no reason why it couldn't be used for stem cells. Once again, he shows that it is a complex issue and should be left to the states. He explicitly states he doesn't want the federal government to legislate on these issues.

Besides, embryos aren't the sole source of stem cells and they're no longer the best source!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0211172631.htm

God you're dense. You're so biased against views that don't conform with your communist beliefs that you can't accept the truth.

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Rust admitted in another thread that he doesn't care who wins the election. I guess he does after all.


And Ron Paul isn't anti-stem cell research, btw.

He's also wants to leave everything up to the states to decide. Doesn't sound so awful once you listen to what he has to say about it.

And his view on abortion comes from his experience working as a physician for however long it was, not from his "Caaarrraaaazzaayyyy chrissstiiaaan" views.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Malice

Has he ever said that things haven't evolved or does he just believe that God began life? No evidence to support the latter, but it's much different and vastly less idiotic.

He has said he rejects the theory of evolution, and believes we were created by god. Sorry, but you can't pull the theological evolution argument here. He's a creationist.

About abortion: If you kill a fetus, unless it is a legal abortion, you can be charged with homicide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act

Legally they're considered human, yet abortion isn't outlawed.

You obviously didn't watch the video I posted or understand what this legislation would really do. Paul made it clear that it's a complex issue and that states should be able to decide on abortion, even though he thinks it is an act of violence.

Yeah, that does not magically do away with Ron Paul's position on abortion, or the fact that he has voted on Federal Legislation banning abortion, and has proposed Federal Legislation that would do much the same.

All you did there was link to other federal legislation which refutes nothing of what I said. Your video, similarly doesn't really deal with any of those issues either.

Stem cells: He is not anti-stem cells, you dolt, he's against federal funding because he's practically a minarchist and sees no reason for the government to fund that. He's against growing embryos solely for the reason of harvesting stem cells, but he stated that he's had to perform surgery for ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus is growing in a fallopian tube and cannot be saved, and sees no reason why it couldn't be used for stem cells.

He is anti embryonic stem cells; he makes that clear in your own video for fucks sake. You clearly don't understand his position. Yes, he is against the funding of those programs (as if that weren't enough) from a fiscal/consitutional/state-rights point of view, but he is also against for the very same reason he's against abortion: he defines life at beginning in conception and has proposed federal legislation forcing that to be the case.

He defines life at conception therefore by his own logic, the acquisition of embryonic stem cells would be murder.

Besides, embryos aren't the sole source of stem cells and they're no longer the best source!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0211172631.htm

God you're dense. You're so biased against views that don't conform with your communist beliefs that you can't accept the truth.

I didn't say they are the best source of stem cell. Before you accuse me of being dense, how about you get my argument right in the first place? Pay attention; they don't have to be the best source for what I said to be true and a problem. So your point is moot to begin with.

But even if we ignore that, you're still wrong. They ARE the best source. Your own link makes that clear. What your link says is that there is a new technique to overcome the ethical issues of embryonic stem cells by getting them from skin cells, however that involves a complex, expensive, process to get those cells that hasn't even been fully validated yet (read your own link).

So even if this new technique were fully developed and could develop those stem-cells of the same quality and with the same properties (which your own article states is still years away) it would still involve a more complicated process than just letting nature do it for us.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Om Namah Shivaya

And Ron Paul isn't anti-stem cell research, btw.

Wrong. He is. He's anti embryonic stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cells are the gold standard of stem-cells. Being against that is a substantial position against stem cell research.

And he is against embryonic stem-cell research. He believes life begins at conception and has proposed federal legislation to enforce that. By doing so, that would tackle both the right to an abortion, as well as embryonic stem-cells which require the destruction of an already-fertilized blastocyst.

[ChargerCarl]

honestly who really cares? aren't his other policy beliefs crazy enough to discredit him?

[Rust]

Anybody who values facts should care.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Rust

Anybody who values facts should care.

either way he's still the only candidate worth voting for.. Anybody who values facts should care.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

Originally Posted by Danger

either way he's still the only candidate worth voting for.. Anybody who values facts should care.

Actually, Gary Johnson does seem like a reasonable candidate. Though it doesn't seem like he wants to completely remove the federal reserve.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Danger

either way he's still the only candidate worth voting for.. Anybody who values facts should care.

According to your shitty bandwagon fad maybe. Not everyone agrees with his libertarian position (and for perfectly valid reasons), and even if you do there is an alternative that doesn't cover his eyes when faced with facts that refute his religious superstitions (i.e. Gary Johnson).

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Originally Posted by Rust

Wrong. He is. He's anti embryonic stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cells are the gold standard of stem-cells. Being against that is a substantial position against stem cell research.

And he is against embryonic stem-cell research. He believes life begins at conception and has proposed federal legislation to enforce that. By doing so, that would tackle both the right to an abortion, as well as embryonic stem-cells which require the destruction of an already-fertilized blastocyst.

Still, that doesn't make him anti-stem cell research completely, which is what I was saying.

I'm not saying I agree with him completely on everything, but there isn't a better option of who to vote for at this point. I know, I know, you're going to bring up Gary Johnson. Guess what? Hardly anyone at all is going to vote for him. Much less than Ron Paul. I'd rather put my vote for Ron Paul, even though Paul probably won't win either. There's a much higher chance that he will over Gary Johnson.

I'd rather have Paul over obama/romney/perry/[insert dumb fuck puppet here] any day. Take a step in the right direction for once.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Om Namah Shivaya

Still, that doesn't make him anti-stem cell research completely, which is what I was saying.

So then that just makes him "anti the golden standard of stem-cell research"... Come on.

It's a difficult thing to swallow because you like him, but you're going to have to accept the fact that someone who would ban the golden standard of stem-cell research in principle (and funding), can accurately be described as anti stem-cell research.

Hardly anyone at all is going to vote for him. Much less than Ron Paul. I'd rather put my vote for Ron Paul, even though Paul probably won't win either. There's a much higher chance that he will over Gary Johnson.

Great. But this thread isn't about rationalizing your vote for Ron Paul in face of another candidate with better policies. The fact is his ideology on evolution and science is awful. The fact also is that he's not the only alternative. If you want to vote for a guy that denies evolution, is anti-stem-cell research and against the right to an abortion, just because you think he might be more popular, that's your business.

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Originally Posted by Rust

So then that just makes him "anti the golden standard of stem-cell research"... Come on.

Or you could just say what he actually thinks, and not throw in that "anti" shit. Just say he's against embryonic stem cell research. If you say anti-stem cell research, it's misleading.

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Ok, so yeah, back to evolution. I still don't see him saying anything about what he's going to do because of his stance on evolution. someone link me to an article or something.

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Om Namah Shivaya

Ok, so yeah, back to evolution. I still don't see him saying anything about what he's going to do because of his stance on evolution. someone link me to an article or something.

Ron Paul On Evolution Vs. Creationism - YouTube

Ron Paul On Evolution Vs. Creationism - YouTube
Video: click to display

However, after hearing this chapter, it sounds to me like Ron Paul DOES believe that the theory of evolution is more than likely accurate, but he also believes that God created the universe, and therefore, God created man. But like I said, its insignificant and has no impact on one's economic or foreign policy, which is the point RP was trying to make

Youtube User: UngratefulLiving420 8 hours ago

[Pindar]

As baffling as it may seem, Ron Paul's beliefs towards evolution shouldn't be a major issue, since it has already been established that the theory of natural selection is the most valid theory to explain life, it is not contingent on whether a candidate approves of it or not. Its obvious that as a doctor he has a rational belief in science, more so then the other irrational Republican candidates running against him. We should thumbs up or thumbs down him on his issues directly concerning the country, his "Austrian Economics" that no nation has adopted, i think purely theoretical....Even he says as the beginning: "Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20098876.shtml

[hampton]

"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. ... "

[Om Namah Shivaya]

Originally Posted by hampton

"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. ... "

who said that?

[ChargerCarl]

ron paul

[Om Namah Shivaya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrxdF5byQM#t=5m42s

johnson supports paul.

[Darkhunter]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

ron paul

Link?

[Haiti's Space Agency]

does anyone believe in evolution?

[Darkhunter]

Originally Posted by a224

does anyone believe in evolution?

*Raises hand*

[DiStOrTiOn]

Originally Posted by a224

does anyone believe in evolution?

everyone besides republicans, rednecks, and general dipshits do.