JasonC SBB

Gearhead, the most important thing to remember about Ron Paul's religious beliefs is that he does NOT want to use gov't to impose his beliefs on others. In contrast, most other candidates believe they are "right" about their religious believes and want the gov't to impose their beliefs on others - be it Christianity or Atheism.

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

RON PAUL WINS FIRST PLACE IN 2012 ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PRE-PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/0...al-straw-poll/

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

first of all
HELL YEAH
second
thats pretty common for him to win polls
VERY common in fact

it is just uncommon for media to report it
they will report the polls he was in
and won or damn near
but it is common for them to exclude his results from the results

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

skip to the 1:54 mark to see a classic example of his straw poll results being excluded in the media

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Saying theres no proof of evolution is like saying theres no proof the Earth revolves around the Sun, there both technically theories.

I'd like to know more about this. I take it your not saying you don't believe in evolution.

It seems like Jon Stewart covers Paul more then any "real" news channel.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i would be more than happy to discuss this
but please if you want to discuss it further i would really appreciate it if you started another thread.

there are a couple of points i would like to make on it but i just don't want to clog this political thread with scientific theories

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

News Coverage:
"In a surprising twist, Herman Cain came in 2nd place in the Illinois straw poll, beating Romney who came in 3rd. Rick Perry finished a distant 5th with only 2.5%."



On the other hand, does anyone have any data on correlation of straw poll wins relative to actual primary wins?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

doesn't matter what i believe.

Darwin claims that its through a process of random mutations that allows the "fittest" to survive and reproduce.

If this were the case for every mutation that was desirable and worked, then there's be hundreds of thousands of failed mutations.

When's the last time you saw a bird with gills? that's random.

Fossil records proves it wrong. We always find new species, or that current ones stay the same for thousands of years, but never evidence that a species is somehow evolving into something better.

Blaize

You don't understand it. Its not big changes like elephants born with wings. Its Very, Very, small changes like the ever so slightly taller giraffes can reach the food easier, multiplied over millennia. So we don't see it as "mutations" when we look back, we just see that giraffes grew very long necks over time.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

evolution as a rather vague term that includes natural adaption (a blaize pointed out)
and speciation. i dont think anyone with a brain deny natural adaption. most all creationists believe in natural adaptation. that is something we can whitness.

though speciation is a theory that simply can not be observed and therefore not proven
i have yet to hear of proof of this

to me it seems far fetched that we share an ancestor based on ancient bones. its a nice theory
but nothing more than a theory

Blaize

Hey man you have your theory, I have mine. (no magic in mine though).

How this can still be an actual debate, amongst adults, floors me. I have been away to long. In the rest of the western world it simply never comes up. they/we just leave science to the scientists, and understand what religion is, what and who it is for and how to interpret it. People who actually think creationism is literally true are about as common as people who think Bigfoot is alive in the U.S.

But with respect, I should never have posted. These arguments are why I left the U.S. and why I promised myself to not read the political forum here anymore.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

You think THAT is farfetched? There are plenty of things, much more farfetched sounding than this, which are proven each day.

Not saying one way or another is absolutely true. But I think there are a few theories that can be ruled out pretty quickly

This technically is politics right? Well current events at least? oh well.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

im not defending one over the other
im just pointing out that they are both just theories
and to me it sounds rather magical that we are a result of mutations



yeah i feel that there are alot of closed minded people here

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you cant come up with a theory, then get mad when it gets proved wrong more often than not.

talk about a rage quit.


and i never argued for creationism, only against one part of a theory. i question everything.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

agreed.

though there are many farfetched theories that have been proven wrong
the earth was once flat

i will believe in speciation when it is proven
not until

who is down to argue the best way to knit some socks?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Is there any relevance to all of this gearhead?

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I just posted a video of Ron Paul, totally relevant IMO.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

yeah so what

obama used to smoke cigarettes
what does any ot this have to do with politics?

what about a video of a politician eating dinner


i fail to see the relevancy imo

edit:
i guess to be a bit more polite and technical
what i should be asking is
how could this effect his policies?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

update
http://www.pcworld.com/article/24325...ug_cartel.html

JasonC SBB

We can have a much more fruitful discussion of evolution in another thread.