What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
2351 Comments
- julielynn1009, on 12/29/2007, -123/+1131What I think is funny is how people consistently tie scientific understanding to atheism. Being an atheist has zero to do with evolution. Evolution has zero to do with a complete understanding of our existence. Evolution is a well supported theory of the development of every species on this planet. That is it.
My personal concern over the fact that the candidates do not accept evolution has much more to do with how they will treat scientific funding once in office. It makes me sick to think of all the time that has been lost due to lack of funding and how this trend will continue until we, as a society, understand the importance of scientific research.
If you or anyone else does not accept evolution as a theory of species development, then you should be concerned too. Getting a candidate in office that will provide the necessary tools to explore other theories can only benefit your cause. As it stands, evolution is the only acceptable theory available. - Jon20usa, on 12/29/2007, -99/+557Funny how in the article about Mike Huckabee not accepting evolution, Huckabee got slammed for his beliefs. And yet when it is about Ron Paul it is suddenly ok to not accept evolution.
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -38/+331A simple story to understand natural selection,
There's this island that is all covered by white rocks. There are insects living on it walking on the rocks. Birds fly above wanting to eat the insects. At some point, by an accident in the reproductive process of the insects (it's not much more that chemicals being messed up) there's a new kind of that insect that has a white color, while most others had black.
Since the rocks are white, which insects are more likely to be eaten by the birds? The black ones obviously since they contrast more on the white rocks and birds most easily see. The white insects are enlarging their population simply because they happen to be white in a white environment with birds seeking food.
The white ones were naturally selected.
You see, part of it is not just theory, it is common sense. - busket, on 12/29/2007, -36/+304The hive mind of the majority of digg's user base implodes.
- z00k, on 12/29/2007, -73/+303Jesus ***** christ, it's about time this story actually got out.
EVERY TIME, I mean EVERY ... (Check my comment history) that I commented trying to bring this story up or submitted it, Ron paul fans around the world threw one big ***** fit and buried the story, expect this story to be buried as well. - Speck, on 12/29/2007, -81/+267I guess, then, you'd say it's OK to jump off the top of the Empire State Building while we gather all the facts on gravitational theory.
Please. - TripcodeMel, on 12/29/2007, -32/+191If it was anyone else, Digg would have had itself a rape party, instead of falling all over each others' raging hardons trying to change the subject and justify Ron Paul's beliefs.
Not against Ron Paul -- just stating the facts. - toaday, on 12/29/2007, -21/+177Racist.
- annamerikin, on 12/29/2007, -178/+327Yeah, Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate.
NOT. - raymondmarble, on 12/29/2007, -17/+154Actually, no, Speck is correct. Gravity is both a theory and fact, just like evolution.
- inkyblue2, on 12/29/2007, -8/+139evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
if you disagree with me, by all means, please explain. - SickMonkey, on 12/29/2007, -141/+261Ron Paul also doesn't accept a woman's right to choose, the concept of the separation of church and state, and an individual's right to privacy in sexual matters. Take a look at his "We The People Act" if you don't believe me:
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h4379:
All of this directly contradicts the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist. In reality, he's a far right-wing, fundamentalist, deconstructionist who would like to turn the country into a theocracy.
I would really like to hear the Ron Paul supporters answer to this, if they have one? - Evildudetx, on 12/29/2007, -91/+209What an ass.....'Its only a theory'......when will these people learn?
- JimXugle, on 12/29/2007, -24/+133Hrm... but will he shove his beliefs down the throats of the American population?
- richonhill, on 12/29/2007, -21/+122In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -14/+103Accepting science = atheist?
MAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. - Speck, on 12/29/2007, -8/+86http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitatio ...
Or, if you will, "Intelligent Falling" ;) - inactive, on 12/29/2007, -102/+175I care more about how a man runs a country then what his beliefs of creation are.
- KMye, on 12/29/2007, -12/+81Umm, Giuliani and Romney and McCain all said they accept evolution in a nationally televised debate (as opposed to small gathering).
- perhapsimcrazy, on 12/29/2007, -5/+73Darwin would be proud, mate.
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -54/+121Who could have guessed that a decent amount of paul supporters would be the time to reject evolution as well?
- raymondmarble, on 12/29/2007, -23/+90I agree completely, and I'm saddened to see your comment dugg down.
- BassCadet, on 12/29/2007, -8/+73Only on Digg do we have a story titled "Ron Paul Does Not Accept Evolution" dugg DOWN for "Inaccuracy"...
...and the story links to a video where Ron Paul is shown saying that he doesn't accept the theory of Evolution!!!
The blind fanaticism of many (not all) Ron Paul supporters could not be BETTER illustrated. - hamobu, on 12/29/2007, -10/+70It's the "we don't know everything, therefore God" argument.
- raymondmarble, on 12/29/2007, -11/+67You said that you "decided there were too many holes to consider evolution a proven fact".
What holes are these? - undy242, on 12/29/2007, -6/+58First negative article on Paul I've ever seen on digg. This is pure entertainment.
- theuniversal, on 12/29/2007, -18/+69"What I think is funny is how people consistently tie scientific understanding to atheism. Being an atheist has zero to do with evolution. Evolution has zero to do with a complete understanding of our existence."
'Zero' is a big overstatement. Evolution is a story about the 'creation' of life that directly contradicts the biblical story. Evolution has overwhelming evidence for it. The biblical story has overwhelming evidence against it. And the gap is just going to widen. All the mental jujitsu in the world won't be able to save the biblical story. Whereas the atheist position is scientific, as it essentially says "Look, if it walks the a duck and talks like a duck, then I'm going to believe it's a duck until someone shows me otherwise." The duck here being a universe with absolutely no hint whatsoever of a creator. - comrade693, on 12/29/2007, -3/+54The theory of evolution says nothing about how life was started. It just says that life evolved to what it is today.
- Drpencil, on 12/29/2007, -14/+64OR could it be because Mike Huckabee makes no bones about the fact that he wants his religion imposed on society? THAT is why his personal religious convictions matter.
Ron Paul makes no bones about the fact that he doesn't believe the government shouldn't oppose anything on anybody...and THAT is why his personal religious convictions shouldn't matter. - chaosium, on 12/29/2007, -4/+54There are academics who refine any mistakes in evolutionary theory.
THEY ARE EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS.
Even if there is a more accurate model proposed, it will still include our current best understanding of Evolution as it stands. - sodade, on 12/29/2007, -20/+69To take a theory like evolution, with its myriad of proofs, and say that you don't accept that means that you are a ***** yet another whackjob anti-intellectual that is contributing to the dumbification of this country. I expect this kind of idiocy from the masses, but I expect a presidential candidate to be better than that.
- joel8x, on 12/29/2007, -13/+61More importantly, he does believe in the separation of church and state, so his religious views are not important.
- Toshibi, on 12/29/2007, -25/+71I am an atheist and a science freak. Ron Paul is still the best candidate running and I personally don't care, I repeat, DO NOT CARE, if he believes in evolution or not. Let's way the facts here: He doesn't believe in Evolution. That's a -1. He wants to get rid of the Income Tax. That's a +1. He wants to get us out of foreign entanglements. That's a +1. He wants to cut federal spending. That's a +1. He wants to end the federal War on Drugs. That's a +1. He believes in individual liberty. That's a +1. He would end the War in Iraq by bringing our troops home. That's a +1. He wants sound currency. Guess what, also a +1.
So, while I disagree with him on a few things, I agree with him on a majority of issues. If this is the best you folks can come up with then you're really grasping at straws. - LordRedSnake, on 12/29/2007, -15/+61This is a moot point in Ron Paul's case. Even if he was a gung ho believer in evolution he wouldn't be promoting tax dollars to fund scientific research because that's against his principles and outside the role of government.
- neurosport, on 12/29/2007, -37/+83funding for science will no doubt suffer under Ron Paul but not because he is against evolution ... instead because he is against funding anything at all
Ron Paul believes in the private sector, he does not believe in bureacracy
Ron Paul's platform is not perfect, but its the best we have.
Kucinich's platform is better than Ron Pauls in some respects but overall less radical and does not recognize the fact that the entire system is *****, but would rather treat it as something that only needs a tune-up. I would rather have Ron Paul than Kucinich although i would be happy with either. - Mullinsmcd, on 12/29/2007, -19/+64I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and for me , disagreeing with Dr. Paul is not new. I don't agree with him for a lot of reasons, but I know for a fact that he is the best man for the job. All of the many things I agree with him on regarding policy override any differences I might have with him related to personal beliefs.
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -3/+47Most Christians are, in fact, not literalists. That is, the majority of Christians in the world do *not* believe the Bible is literally true, word for word. The evangelist or fundamentalist Christians who do believe the Bible is literally true (have they even read it? It contradicts itself and observable reality constantly) are in fact quite a minority.
Most Christians consider the Bible to contain some historical fact, a lot of allegory and parables, and some myth. - chuckpoole, on 12/29/2007, -9/+52There are many among us that are in various stages of evolution. Your comment made this point quite succinctly
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -7/+49True, Catholics and most mainstream Protestants fully embrace evolution. It's only idiot Brand-X churches (as my grandma used to say) that opppse evolution (though the idiot Brand-Xers are increasingly the norm).
- Fafnir43, on 12/29/2007, -3/+44Interesting example - Newton's law of universal gravitation, F = GMm/r^2, is in fact completely wrong. That's where general relativity comes in.
A law is a consequence of a theory, not the next stage up from a theory. - toasty168, on 12/29/2007, -41/+81we're not going to agree on everything but as long as he doesn't force his beliefs or allow others to force their beliefs on us, he is still our best hope at restoring our country to the principles which make it great.
- Aero347, on 12/29/2007, -11/+51Well whether you believe in a supreme being or not I'd say everyone here just wants the same basic freedoms of free speech, free will, and the right to happiness. So why cut each other down over religious differences?
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -17/+56Like they're trying to bury your comment.
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -24/+62Incredibly ironic that they claim to support freedom yet constantly try to hide any criticism of their candidate. If I were to judge candidates by the people who support them, I'd have to say that Ron Paul is one of the worst.
- Zotnix, on 12/29/2007, -3/+41Um.
Theory of Gravity.
Germ Theory
Theory of Evolution
Theory of Relativity
Electromagnetic Theory
etc
Need I go on? I'm sorry, but there is no "unproven theory." That goes against what a theory *actually is.* And I'm saddened most people don't know what a theory is.
The simplest way to say it. A theory is a model supported by facts. That's it. Evolutionary Theory is a model based on facts known about evolution. - swiftekho, on 12/29/2007, -22/+60At least for a Christian, believing in evolution can mark you as an atheist. It means that you don't believe in the creation story thus debunking the very beginning of the Bible.
Ron Paul has said quite clearly on several occasions that ones religion shouldn't matter in this race... Once in response to Romney having that talk about his Mormon faith and another time with Huckabee had that "subliminal" cross in the background of his commercial. - MacEnvy, on 12/29/2007, -2/+39Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Rom ...
From a statement endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI:
"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." (paragraph 63, from "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004) - tomjunlee, on 12/29/2007, -11/+48I'm just wondering, is there ANYONE who is not a Christian and yet denies the Evolutionary point of view?
I'm really interested in the kind of response I get... - raymondmarble, on 12/29/2007, -7/+43What aspects of the theory do you think are wrong?
- colonelbuckshot, on 12/29/2007, -14/+49It's typical of Ron Paul to answer the question in such a straighforward way, rather than ducking like most politicians would. Sure, it is a mark against him, but it really amounts to very little in the grand scheme of things. All the frontrunning presidential candidates are publically Christian. Unlike most of them, Ron Paul will not push religion or support religiously-motivated neo-conservative policies.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 2357 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is