Page 1 of 2
Who supports Ron Paul?
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:41 pm
by Vince Frantz
Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:25 pm
by Tracy Jones
A president who cannot understand or accept evolution is a president who cannot understand or accept basic science. In today's world, many of our problems and their solutions depend upon science. A president who cannot accept the reality of natural, materialistic science is one who will either not recognize the problems which science tells us about, or will not accept the solutions science has to offer, or both.
Re: Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:47 pm
by Stephen Eisel
Tracy Jones wrote: A president who cannot understand or accept evolution is a president who cannot understand or accept basic science. In today's world, many of our problems and their solutions depend upon science. A president who cannot accept the reality of natural, materialistic science is one who will either not recognize the problems which science tells us about, or will not accept the solutions science has to offer, or both.
Did you listen to his answer? And you do realize that he is a Doctor?
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:10 pm
by sharon kinsella
He hedged and stuttered.
He can be a doctor and not an MD.
A person can be a Dr. and be a fool.
A person can be a president and be a liar.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:19 pm
by Stephen Eisel
sharon kinsella wrote:He hedged and stuttered.
He can be a doctor and not an MD.
A person can be a Dr. and be a fool.
A person can be a president and be a liar.
Ron was a medical doctor. He did not stutter when he said that (in his opinion) evolution was a theory.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:37 pm
by Jim DeVito
In this day and age of impending doom we need a leader who will fully embrace (fund) science not one who will shy away from it. In the coming years we have the opportunity to make great strides in the fields of renewable energy, world food production, illness prevention just to name a few. As the most affluent country in the world it would be a shame to not live up to our responsibility as a leader of invention. The science community needs and must get large amount of money so as not to squander the advancement we have mad so far.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:00 pm
by Stephen Eisel
a leader who will fully embrace (fund) science not one who will shy away from it.
I think that it all starts with our educational system.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:11 pm
by sharon kinsella
Stem cell research.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:17 pm
by Tracy Jones
Ron was a medical doctor. He did not stutter when he said that (in his opinion) evolution was a theory.
Ron Paul is an M.D. There is no excuse for this type of stupidity. This is one topic where he is supposed to know something "it's just a theory" is not a valid answer and that he obviously is not educated on this subject.
For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon some people.
It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:46 pm
by Stephen Eisel
[quote]For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs â€â€
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:03 pm
by Tracy Jones
It seems some refer to “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species.
Macroevolution is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species.
Scientists do not use the terms microevolution and macroevolution in the same way as a creationist would. For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. For creationists, what constitutes microevolution is different from what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:50 pm
by Stephen Eisel
Personally, I believe in evolution to a point. I do not completely understand the entire "theory". How did non-life become life (dead chemicals spawn life?)? Where are the transitional fossils? Is life a natural process?
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:54 pm
by Stephen Eisel
sharon kinsella wrote:Stem cell research.
Are there two types of stem cell research??? Embryonic and adult stem cells????
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:15 pm
by Tracy Jones
non-life become life (dead chemicals spawn life?)
This is called abiogenesis and has nothing to do with evolution.
Where are the transitional fossils?
There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
This is an excellent site
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%252Dtransitional.html
The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:48 pm
by Stephen Eisel
This is called abiogenesis and has nothing to do with evolution.
it does in my pea brain...
