no.

+1

Silly libertarian, intelligent design is for kidz.

-2 [show comment][hide comment]

im not a libertarian, you ass

Evolution is only truly viable because it is the only solution with any base other than "tim told me that paul told me that.... that moses told me that some magic dude told him that he made us." But that does not make evolution necessarily correct. There are other alternatives. Had it not been for Darwin we would probably be believing Lamarck's (which still covers some points darwin's doesn't cover) theory that things just evolve to get better over generations rather than natural selection.

+4

You can't really argue that evolution exists because we see it every day. Animals changing their bodies to adapt to their environment. However this doesn't mean we all came from little microorganisms that were created when lightning struck space rocks in a pool of water or however it goes. Personally it's hard for to believe that just looking at how perfect our world is. It is hard to believe that chance created all of this.

+2

I meant "doesn't exist" in that first sentence.

+1

Ron Paul = Fail* *This distinct fail is classified in the religious section.

-1

uuuh when used in the context of the origin of life and the universe, evolution is a theory

+3

Straw man, no one is debating that evolution is a "theory", only that Ron Paul doesn't believe in it.

+5

I can't believe how many retards don't understand the use of the word "theory" in a scientific context. Also, on Washington DC: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul.

-1

Hey everybody, it's YTMND, let's all have political debates!!!

+5

When a man can't scientifically accept the concept of evolution it makes you question his economic beliefs and his political ideologies. In the context of the absolute ORIGIN of the universe, then I think religious/philosophical beliefs are perfectly acceptable.

-4 [show comment][hide comment]

so ron paul agrees with the scientific community in regards to macro-evolution? Thanks for the info..i guess.

-1

i mean, that it's just a theory, not that the theory is necessarily false.

+1

you think ron paul is racist? here are some quotes from Moser and Huxley, two the great pioneers in evolution: "No full blooded Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or an artist", "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.". There are also numerous quotes from Darwin and other later Evolutionists claiming that blacks are closer to apes on the evolutionary scale than whites. absolutely disgusting

+2

if they were racist its because of the time they live in. Gandhi was a racist...so what? Darwin came up with a miraculous theory that took a lot of work and is completely valid. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is fact.

-8 [show comment][hide comment]

^wrong

+1

A lot of work that is being constantly changed to the point where his original theory is almost annulled because of daily scientific discoveries such as finding a whale buried vertically through over "2 million years world of sediment". I guess he stood on his nose for 2 million years for the sediment to build up? w/e I'm not gonna post anymore cuz i don't like gettin into debates, but there's just too much retarded bullsh*t in evolution

-2

dmaz, you must be a troll with a comment like that

+2

the only time i ever come close to trolling is in discussions like this, which is why i tend to keep out of em. i like goin with the flow and chillin

MattressMan: A ghostwriter wrote those words, not Ron Paul himself. The NY Times concluded this is true because the article was not written in Ron Paul's usual style.

dmaz I hate to say it but in some respects it is true. The genetic similarities are nominal but they do exist. That is why for example most primates are black skinned. However these similarities have more to do with the fact that Africans stayed in Africa where man-kind originated thus less geographic prompting for adaptational evolution and they followed similar paths. Just like how African Americans now have more in common culturally with White Americans then they do with say Nigerians.

-2

PoopinFresh: all I know is all this time he's bragged that he put out his own newsletter himself since 85, and now that people find this horsesh*t, all of a sudden he's saying he had ghostwriters? interesting. regardless who wrote it, he published it, and if he's a true libertarian at all will take at least some personal responsibility for it.

prairiedog, in science a theory is a testable explanation that holds up - to scientists it is interchangeable with the word 'fact' - it has a completely different meaning in science than the Sherlock Holmes theory of Lord Littlebrook clubbing Fancypants Moonshire in the cobbler's lair with a candlestick. Doesn't anyone read?

+1

taboggan

-1

Hes from Texas, what do you expect?

...........

The difference is that huckabee wants to force all schools to teach intelligent design, Ron Paul wants to let the schools decide for themselves.

+2

True, I wish I could vote against someone, seriously, that guy is a f*ckwad, if Huckabee became president I'd actually feel it more honorable to nuke my own country to hell than to let him run it. We'd at least die a somewhat honorable death.

-1

"he wants to schools to teach intelligent design" Huckabee doesn't even believe in creationism you f*cktard and has no intention of changing the science curriculum. The only reason why you came to that conclusion is that Chuck Norris believes in creationism, and Norris believes in Huckabee, therefore Huckabee will randomly enforce creationism in school.

+1

"Huckabee is a f*ckwad because those one guys keep telling me he did the bad things and stuff!" Think for yourself.

+1

I do not think that it's possible to ever see any form of "intellegent design" or "creationsim" in public schools, thanks to the ACLU having our courts by the balls. However, I think that Evolution should be pulled from public schools as well, since it's just as much a religion as creationism. It teaches that Nature is an intelligent force, capable of saving un-needed genes until they can evolve into a useful asset. According to the ACLU's standards, that is unconstitutional.

-2

god damn civil liberties union preventing the dominant religion from imposing itself upon the minority! how unfair! wait a second... i think you might be retarded.

The only religion that the ACLU EVER attacks is Christianity. Where are they in Michigan, where abonoxious Muslim calls to prayer blare down the street every day at noon for entire towns to hear? They hate Christianity, there is no way around it. There's a reason they're called "The Anti-Christ's Loyal Underlings." The ACLU currently exists to suppress Christianity, end of story.

-2

You dumbass, the ACLU defends christians all the times. They even defended Fred Phelps, who is easily the worst face of Christianity on this continent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

+3

Another reason not to vote for him; regardless, this political crap without anything added does not belong on YTMND, even if I agree with it.

-2

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh kay. My impression of him just got shot down a few notches.

+1

you're not the only one

grrrreat

-2

It's great that he is so hell-bent on getting us out of Iraq, but I find his policies on federally funded programs (i.e. KILLING ALL OF THEM) are downright scary. Seriously guys, pull your mouth off of his balls for long enough to realize that he has plenty of flaws, just like the rest of them.

My big beef with Paul is that from everything I've seen, he niether represents the republican base or the mainstream voter. All he's really done is side with the democrats on a lot of key issues, which simply means that he's got a very niche constituency. Personally, I'm going to vote for Mike Huckabee in the upcoming primary election.

-3

Theocracy is comin... to the U S A

+1

Change to KHAAAAAAAAN Paul for a 7.

+4

1 for ron paul

John Locke once said that the only use for government is to protect property. It shouldn't matter what he believes, so long as he doesn't use it as the basis for his administration.

+4

:(

BUDDHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evolution/ ——– Original Message ——– Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400 From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee To: Ron Shank Ron, Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

Great, so why did he say he doesn't accept the theory of evolution?

+3

Another reason why KHAN Paul > Ron Paul

+1

I lol'd. Oh, you Ron Paul fans and your homosexuality...

-2

a theroy is unproven. especcialy in this one where we have other phenomina that can account for the same adaptations to the same species of life.

-3

PACARD 2008!!!! Also ") << the face Ron Paul is pulling

Ron Paul sucks

-4

5'd for anti-Darwin

-1

Ron Paul believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

+3

evolution is more than a theory, it's near fact

-1

No it's not. It's a religious belief. In some ways, it is a "near truth." It's true that small-scale evolution caused a common anscestor to give rise to wolves and the many breeds of dogs. And that evolution can cause variations within a species. But to say that one species can evolve into a higher life form given enough time is not science at all. It's science fiction, and there's no proof anywhere that it actually happens, and there never will be.

-4 [show comment][hide comment]

apparently timstuff is an idiot

timstuff shud be snuffed

-1

when you don't have a fact, its best to go with the best theory you got. considering it will take a thousand years for us to be able to prove this, we have to stick with well formed theories.

-2

It is so frustrating to see how many people have absolutely no grasp on scientific process. If you find evidence that doesn't support the theory, it doesn't mean that the model is wrong, it means that it's incomplete. Everything in science, EVERYTHING, is only a rough approximation that is generated from our very limited vantage point as human beings. Over time, science can refine these theories through rigorous testing and experimentation to explain more and more phenomena, but nothing is ever absolute.

+1

timstuff has upvoted his comment with alts and downvoed ours so he must be right. He is truly an idiot

Hey Timstuff: You're wrong. You're so uninformed you don't even know the name of that retarded arguement. FYI : It's called the problem of "irreducible complexity". It's just another retarded philosophical arguement by churches decades ago that's been shot down (in flames) over and over and over and over again. Unfortunately, uneducated and ignorant preachers keep bringing it up as if it's fresh! Sorry bubs, that was proven wrong decades ago. Get with the times.

I've got two words for you Timstuff: FOSSIL RECORD

+1

solhax, if irreduceable complexity is not true, then answer me this: you were to remove the wheels from a car, would it still be able to function properly, though at a simpler level? Because to deny that irreduceable complexity exists in nature is basically the same as denying that a car needs wheels to drive. Take the flagellum on a single-cel bacteria: the "motor" structure on it is so simple that if you take away any of the components, it ceases to work as a means of propulsion for the bacteria.

-1

^ again, you dont know what you're talking about. In nature incomplete systems still have functionality. In your example, if some of its parts of a flagella are removed, it stilil works in a trajectory system like a syringe that allows bacteria to infect other cells. Also, natural selections adds as well as subtracts. Example - whales have vestigial pelvises, a remnant from their ancestors who essentially had hind legs that they no longer had use for.

+2

Christians will also ask silly questions like "what good is half a wing" or "half an eye" - well what is 100% of an eye, buddy? Humans don't see as many colors as fish, dont see ultraviolet like bees do, dont see infrafred like vipers do, never developed night vision or good underwater vision. Dont see magnetic fields, can't easily detect polarized light, dont have as many foveas as eagles (which is why they have much better focus). It all comes back to adaptation. The "Tornado Argument" is just retarded.

+2

To the Pastafarian congregation: Can I get a RAmen?

RAMEN!

RAMEN!

omg this is so f*cking funny.

+1

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

BRUCE CAMPBELL 2008!

+2

Monkeys to man is a retarded "theory." And Chuck Norris supports Huckabee.

-2

Chuck Norris also supports Bush...

respect actively being lowered.

-1

Note to self: never comment on this page again.

+3

I'd rather my government be weak and not believe in evolution than be tyrannical and believe in stealing my money.

+4

Yeah, it's a shame he's pandering a bit to the Bubba Belt, but politics isn't exactly built on tough love session.

Who cares? Ron Paul wants the federal government out of schools anyways. Huckabee doesn't. That's the difference.

I was into Ron Paul after his initial message. Economy Economy Economy. Great! Oh yeah, then he wants to screw up public education (only the rich get good educations), Overturn nation-wide legalized abortion (women have to travel over state lines to get help), And now he's ignorant enough to deny evolution? What a nut-job. Wtf was med-school teaching back in his day?

hello i awent free child care and take money from other people for feree plz thx

Maybe you should have actually paid attention to what he said. Regarding public education, he only wishes to shut down the department of education down, which has been proven by a variety of independent sources to be a parasitic bureaucracy that has done no good for our public schools. You should also figure out who pays for the public schools themselves: The Local, Municipal Property Taxes.

Also, outside of the department of education, which passes garbage like standardized testing and 'no child left behind', the schools are run by the local towns and cities and occasionally by their states. Back when they had even more local control, in the 1970's and prior, our students were actually doing better.

VOAT RON PUAL OR DIE. seriously i think only PACARD is worthy of the presidency. it would be EPIC

Anyone debating against the theory of evolution in 2007 can only be part some hyper-religious doctrine. Or an idiot.

+1

lol at morons who just take what their textbooks say and believe them blindly. seriously, do some REAL research, and you'll find out that the theory of evolution has more holes in it than a white man telling an armed ACLU-ist that blacks don't deserve preferencial treatment..... oh, and don't just look at sites in favor of your dogma, look at sites which have arguments AGAINST it... then try to prove some of their arguments wrong....

-3

lol at morons who believe that looking at "sites" constitutes "REAL research."

+1

Actually it does, you just have to look at them objectively. If you question everything you eventually come to the truth. Also, feel free to question this phrase ololol.

-1

Also no.

-1

can't believe how many morons there are here.... ffs, evolution *IS* a theory, it's impossible to prove it completely. rather, it's impossible to test it, which is what science is supposed to do with theories. because it's impossible to test it, people just assume it as fact. also, i'm sick of $%&tards with the "magical man" argument... ffs, not everyone who doesn't believe in evolution is a creationist! many scientists don't believe in its dogma, because it has so many freaking holes in it! so STFU guys!!!

-3

"rather, it's impossible to test it" - The fossil record covers major changes, and there are absolutely proven observable changes happening now - moths, fruit flies. There's the "Theory of Evolution", and then there's flat out evolution. Evolution is a proven FACT. There are holes in evolution because it has been studied only a short time, but each new piece of evidence has only strengthened the theory. I suppose you think a testable theory should be abandoned because its still in progress? brilliant.

+2

but here I am, arguing with jakeman, who doesnt even believe Iraqis are humans, and even worse, denies how much more awesome it was around here when Dr L337 was around.

+4

Duh, everyone, look. It's clear from the research that monkeys evolved from humans: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071218/sc_nm/chimps_math_dc