Brownsville TReal Estate Investment Data texas.wallering.com [url=http://texas.wallering.com] Texas Market Analysis[/url] http://texas.wallering.com
San Antonio Real Estate Market Analysis texas.wallering.com [url=http://texas.wallering.com]...

"However I will still continue to support Ron Paul, because the other issues like war and IRS (taxes) and obeying the rule of law, are very very very very improtant comparing to the issue of evolution."

True. Anyone who thinks a candidate's beliefs about evolution are more important than his beliefs about starting wars ought to have his head examined.

WRT Paul, evolution isn't an issue, period.

"I think that Ron Paul is the only one leave people free to believe what they want to believe."

Well, that's why whether Paul believes in evolution or not isn't an issue. That Mike Huckabee, for example, denies evolution is or should be an issue, since as a socon Huckabee cannot be trusted to keep his private beliefs out of his public office. However, Ron Paul is a strict libertarian and constitutionalist, who can be trusted to keep his private beliefs private; so the fact that he 'doesn't accept the theory' but 'doesn't worry about it' is only an interesting bit of trivia, nothing else.

"I should point out that it looks like that there is only one solution to the problem of a corrupt, misguided, media and corporation entagngled goverment, just make it smaller in safe limits."

A thoughtful perspective.

However I will still continue to support Ron Paul, because the other issues like war and IRS (taxes) and obeying the rule of law, are very very very very improtant comparing to the issue of evolution. I think that Ron Paul is the only one leave poeple free to believe what they want to believe.

I should point out that it looks like that there is only one solution to the problem of a corrupt, misguided, media and corporation entagngled goverment, just make it smaller in safe limits.

Many Christians are theistic evolutionist including Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the Genome Project. For a good read on this view, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" by Francis S. Collins.

Dr. Paul answered in an appropriate way--not dogmatic. If he were as confident in having it all figured out like many here, then we should be concerned. Go Ron Paul

"Back at 12:36 am PST George Dance did say to me...
" "I think you might have misunderstood my point.
"Mr Dance, your problem is not that I misunderstand you, your problem is that I understand you all too well."

Well, if you understood my point, then please address it: Tell me what you think belief in a scientific theory has to do with the question of whom to choose for President?

"I don't believe in evolution, I accept that the phenomenon we call evolution occurs and has occurred ever since life arose all those billions of year ago, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best description we have at this time of that phenomenon.

"Using the Biblical measure of a human generation that means there are 25 generations per millennium. Which means that in 6,000 years there have been 150 generations. Think about that. Now go to a time scale of millions of years. Twenty-five thousand human generations over a span of one million years. This in a universe where things change, where persistence in conditions is remarkable not for its ubiquity but for its rarity. What is remarkable about life is that it evolved a mechanism that does a very good job of keeping things from falling apart.

" The big mistake people make about evolution is thinking that it is totally random. Evolution is not totally random; there are physical, chemical, and historical constraints. How the universe works and what has happened before limits what can result. Life does not evolve to fill any available niche, life only evolves to fill an available niche when changes occur that allow life to so evolve. The necessary changes, the necessary mutations don't occur, that niche remains unfilled. Tree kangaroos don't fill the monkey niche in New Guinea, tree kangaroos fill the same environmental niche in New Guinea as monkeys do outside of New Guinea, and do so very poorly. If monkeys ever established themselves on the island of New Guinea, the tree kangaroos of New Guinea would be doomed to extinction."

Thanks for your views. I'd be keenly interested in them, say, you were my daughter's science teacher. Similarly, I'd be keenly interested in Dr. Paul's views on the subject if he were my daughter's science teacher. But he's not: He's running for President, a job in which his beliefs about evolution will play no role whatsoever.

"But, do we really need a President who knows what he's talking about?"

We need a President who knows what he's talking about on foreign policy, fiscal policy, defense, immigration - in every area tht falls under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the federal government. Neither science nor education do so - the Constitution gives the President, and the entire federal government, no authority respecting either one. On both, the President should be doing nothing; and so long as he respects the Constitution and does nothing, what he has to say on either topic is irrelevant.

"No, Mr. Dance, I understand you very well indeed."

I think you might have misunderstood my point.

Mr Dance, your problem is not that I misunderstand you, your problem is that I understand you all too well.

I don't believe in evolution, I accept that the phenomenon we call evolution occurs and has occurred ever since life arose all those billions of year ago, and that the Theory of Evolution is the best description we have at this time of that phenomenon.

Using the Biblical measure of a human generation that means there are 25 generations per millennium. Which means that in 6,000 years there have been 150 generations. Think about that. Now go to a time scale of millions of years. Twenty-five thousand human generations over a span of one million years. This in a universe where things change, where persistence in conditions is remarkable not for its ubiquity but for its rarity. What is remarkable about life is that it evolved a mechanism that does a very good job of keeping things from falling apart.

The big mistake people make about evolution is thinking that it is totally random. Evolution is not totally random; there are physical, chemical, and historical constraints. How the universe works and what has happened before limits what can result. Life does not evolve to fill any available niche, life only evolves to fill an available niche when changes occur that allow life to so evolve. The necessary changes, the necessary mutations don't occur, that niche remains unfilled. Tree kangaroos don't fill the monkey niche in New Guinea, tree kangaroos fill the same environmental niche in New Guinea as monkeys do outside of New Guinea, and do so very poorly. If monkeys ever established themselves on the island of New Guinea, the tree kangaroos of New Guinea would be doomed to extinction.

But, do we really need a President who knows what he's talking about?

No, Mr. Dance, I understand you very well indeed.

evolution is still a THEORY, it is not a LAW, nor a FACT. Heck, even Newton's Laws got a shakeup when Einstein and the THEORY of Relativity came into the picture. If you are truly a man of science, you will easily see this distinction.

A LAW and a THEORY are two very different things, not degrees of the same thing. A theory will never become a law, no matter how much evidence it has, and a law was never ever a theory. A law is an absolute description of what happens, a theory is an explanation for why it happens.

With gravity we have:
1. The FACT that it happens
2. The LAWS of how it will happen
3. The THEORY of what makes it happen

Similarly, with Evolution we have:
1. The FACT that it happens (based on observation)
2. The LAWS of how it will happen (thanks Mendel)
3. The THEORY of what makes in happen (this is all Darwin contributed)

Maybe that's why my blog never has 100-plus comments on any one thread...

But I still urge you to see the bigger picture:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/scheuer7.html

"..a person need not agree with Dr. Paul on each and every issue, but only on the most important issue: America’s future economic viability and its sovereign independence as a nation. On this issue, Dr. Paul puts U.S. economic, constitutional, and national security interests first, and he does so in a frank, clear, and unflinching manner."

I happen to believe in evolution, but I'm still interested in arguments to the contrary :) How does this issue matter?

I also disagree with some more of Dr. Paul's ideas, but looking at the entire picture, I still strongly support him. I always know where he is coming from. And he will do the most important things that he says. That is more important to me.

I mean, come on, look at the other candidates- there's really no competition for Ron Paul, man! Be fair and use this same nitpicking standard on who you're gonna vote, I bet you won't find anyone else out there to your liking, either.

Mike Scheuer says it better:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/scheuer7.html

"Of course one need not agree with all of Dr. Paul’s views to recognize the chance he presents for Americans to begin to alter the disastrous status quo policies – foreign and domestic – being advocated by the other presidential candidates.."

If you have studied Paul enough you would know he is not usually on either side of these either/or debates, but takes a different, more thoughtful approach. That way would be to state the obvious - we don't know exactly one way or the other. But you can't compare Paul's approach to those of Huckabee or Pat Robertson who would likely be (or claim to be) 100% believers of Creationism. Sure there are a lot of plausible things explained by evolution, but there are no finite or "scientific" answers.

Fred Reed has described it well:

"...evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not to tie to observable reality."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

You have to understand there is a difference between Ron Paul's position as a skeptic or purist (in the scientific sense) and those true believers of either evolution or creationism. To take this clip and assume Paul disputes everything about evolution is a major leap.

As for your comments about Free Trade, I think the U.S. government is already working more along Paul's lines by doing bilateral agreements with different countries (rather than taking a multi-lateral approach that includes the creation multi-lateral organizations that can demand changes in U.S. law - as has happened with the WTO.)