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

[ChrisHanson]

Sigh...

You have no idea what youre talking about. NOBODY believes that new species evolve in a matter of a few years. Thats utterly retarded and a straw man argument of the highest order. Now if you care to see how species evolve over many millions of years, consult the fossil record.

Of course nobody is saying that...you're using it as your foundation though, right? lol...You say I have no idea what I'm talking about, but this one post alone from you proves that you're lost. "Consulting the fossil" record proves squat, genius. lol....

Let me explain it a little further for you. Evolutionists claim that we can't see evolution because new generations take millions of years to form, right? Well, that's not so with bacteria or certain insects. Some of which create new generation in less than 20 minutes. And guess what? Not ONE of these have EVER been observed to change into fish or a frog or anything else other than what it started out as.

All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.

[ChrisHanson]

So a scientist acknowledging that a theory is incomplete makes the entire field incorrect? If that's your basis of comparison, then we know absolutely nothing about the world. Everything we know is a theory and incomplete. Even something universally accepted, such as gravity, is still a theory and incomplete. If that's your basis for criticism, then you're simply looking for reason not to believe it. The paragraph you quoted is simply a scientist discussing some of the issues they are still trying to hash out.

Rafiki is correct. Despite the fact that there is still a lot we don't know, what we have is mountains of evidence supporting what we do know, and extremely little contradicting it. The fact that the theory is incomplete simply means we have more research to do. It means we have more fossils/and or genetic data to find to fill in those missing areas of knowledge. It doesn't make it incorrect.

Your second paragraph just highlights your lack of understanding of what evolution is. I won't address that...

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else that wants to answer it)

Do you think humans evolved from apes?

[Locke]

Let me explain it a little further for you. Evolutionists claim that we can't see evolution because new generations take millions of years to form, right? Well, that's not so with bacteria or certain insects. Some of which create new generation in less than 20 minutes. And guess what? Not ONE of these have EVER been observed to change into fish or a frog or anything else other than what it started out as.

You just continue to highlight your complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution. Why would bacteria or insects evolve if they don't have something to adapt to? Things like bacteria and insects have such a short lifespan that there is no time for natural selection. If an entire generation of insects lives and dies within a week, what does it matter if one gets selected out at 5 days, instead of dying naturally at 7 days? This is why we don't see much evolution is things with extremely short lifespans. Of course, these are the organisms that creationists like to harp on because they don't understand the theory and think it's a contradiction...

[NY8123]

He has a right to believe in anything he wants to believe. Evolution most definitely occurred in nature but there is no definitive answer no matter what Scientists or Theologists might claim.

For example if the Ancient Alien theorists are correct then both occurred, evolution and engineering based on a higher order. Life is far to complex to be understood completely (God like) and evolves and adapts to ever changing conditions (evolution).

All I know is when I die, there better be an answer one way or another becasue if I close my eyes and all that's playing is a re-run of Ren and Stimpy, I'll be pissed off to no end!

[Locke]

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else that wants to answer it)

Do you think humans evolve from apes?

I think its plausible, and all evidence points to it. As it stands, it is still a theory and scientists are willing to revisit it if evidence shows up that gives us a different picture. As it stands, there is absolutely nothing that points to that being incorrect.

I certainly think it's much more believable than females being nothing more than the rib of a male...

[ChrisHanson]

You just continue to highlight your complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution. Why would bacteria or insects evolve if they don't have something to adapt to? Things like bacteria and insects have such a short lifespan that there is no time for natural selection. If an entire generation of insects lives and dies within a week, what does it matter if one gets selected out at 5 days, instead of dying naturally at 7 days? This is why we don't see much evolution is things with extremely short lifespans. Of course, these are the organisms that creationists like to harp on because they don't understand the theory and think it's a contradiction...

Sorry, you're ignorance is showing greatly.

Adaptation (microevolution) is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about evolutionists who think everything "evolved" from a one celled organism. Adaptation is NOT changing from a bacteria to a frog. Micro vs Macro....Learn about it and get back to me.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

I think its plausible, and all evidence points to it. As it stands, it is still a theory and scientists are willing to revisit it if evidence shows up that gives us a different picture. As it stands, there is absolutely nothing that points to that being incorrect.

I certainly think it's much more believable than females being nothing more than the rib of a male...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Not ONE...ONE credible scientist believes that humans evolved from apes... HAHAHAHAH!!!


/end thread.

[tylerdolphin]

What in the world are you even talking about? Of course theres no clear point where one species becomes another. Thats like having a line where black gradually turns white and asking you to point to where "white" begins and black ends. Its nonsensical. The fossil record is chock full of our ancestors. Do we have every single link? No, because thats impossible. There no point where we became a human. Theres a **** ton of fossils showing the gradual transition of that though, as there is for many other species. Im not sure you understand the theory.

[tylerdolphin]

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else that wants to answer it)

Do you think humans evolved from apes?

Absolutely. Not apes as we know them, but we had a common ancestor.

[ChrisHanson]

What in the world are you even talking about? Of course theres no clear point where one species becomes another. Thats like having a line where black gradually turns white and asking you to point to where "white" begins and black ends. Its nonsensical. The fossil record is chock full of our ancestors. Do we have every single link? No, because thats impossible. There no point where we became a human. Theres a **** ton of fossils showing the gradual transition of that though, as there is for many other species. Im not sure you understand the theory.

Not true at all.

[Locke]

Sorry, you're ignorance is showing greatly.

Adaptation (microevolution) is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about evolutionists who think everything "evolved" from a one celled organism. Adaptation is NOT changing from a bacteria to a frog. Micro vs Macro....Learn about it and get back to me.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm done. You don't even know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, and what adaptation is. You guys are all the same. You get called out on your lack of understanding, then you get defensive and call the other person ignorant. It's almost like everyone got handed the same pamphlet on how to redirect an argument...