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

[DGS49]

One of the constant irritations of this medium is the pencil-dick pinheads who spend their afternoons trying to find things in postings that could be construed to be incorrect. Usually (as in this case) they are not only wrong, but ridiculously so.

So in the opinion of the person that calls itself "rdean," seeing a blurry black & white representation of a microscopic collection of bumps on a copper plate is "seeing" the atoms.

Can you see the nucleii, the spinning electrons; can you count the protons and neutrons? Obviously, you can't. And this is what would be necessary to confirm current NUCLEAR THEORY. As it is, the THEORY is ENTIRELY based on inferential evidence, because, as I said, nobody will ever see an atom, to examine it and confirm what we believe to be the case. If for no other reason than because the wavelength of the light that we can see is greater (by a large factor) than the size of even the largest atoms.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The theory of evolution tries to explain how life became so diverse. Darwin's theory is that life evolves over time. Since that theory's first appearance, scientists have found a lot of evidence to support that theory. It is accepted by scientists as the best model available. No one pretends it's perfect, just that it makes sense and has a ton of evidence within the field of science.

Yet it is impossible to sit back and watch something evolve, as it takes generations. That does not mean the theory of evolution is false. It simply means we cannot point at something happening and say, "There! That's evolution going on!" Evolution will always be a theory--unless we someday invent a time machine that lets us record generations of animals to see evolution in action.

Creationism is a belief, one without objective evidence to support it. It belongs to the realm of religion, not science, because it requires either faith or widening the definition of the term "evidence" until it fits what one wants it to fit. That's not how science works.

I'm not anti-religion, unless you consider Catholicism to be anti-religion. But it's ludicrous to attack a scientifically-supported theory in favor of a religious belief. You can believe anything you want in this country, but just because you can believe in something doesn't mean you get to change science to support said belief.

 

[Shogun]

One of the constant irritations of this medium is the pencil-dick pinheads who spend their afternoons trying to find things in postings that could be construed to be incorrect. Usually (as in this case) they are not only wrong, but ridiculously so.

So in the opinion of the person that calls itself "rdean," seeing a blurry black & white representation of a microscopic collection of bumps on a copper plate is "seeing" the atoms.

Can you see the nucleii, the spinning electrons; can you count the protons and neutrons? Obviously, you can't. And this is what would be necessary to confirm current NUCLEAR THEORY. As it is, the THEORY is ENTIRELY based on inferential evidence, because, as I said, nobody will ever see an atom, to examine it and confirm what we believe to be the case. If for no other reason than because the wavelength of the light that we can see is greater (by a large factor) than the size of even the largest atoms.

This guy is totally a scientist.

 

[rdean]

One of the constant irritations of this medium is the pencil-dick pinheads who spend their afternoons trying to find things in postings that could be construed to be incorrect. Usually (as in this case) they are not only wrong, but ridiculously so.

So in the opinion of the person that calls itself "rdean," seeing a blurry black & white representation of a microscopic collection of bumps on a copper plate is "seeing" the atoms.

Can you see the nucleii, the spinning electrons; can you count the protons and neutrons? Obviously, you can't. And this is what would be necessary to confirm current NUCLEAR THEORY. As it is, the THEORY is ENTIRELY based on inferential evidence, because, as I said, nobody will ever see an atom, to examine it and confirm what we believe to be the case. If for no other reason than because the wavelength of the light that we can see is greater (by a large factor) than the size of even the largest atoms.

You can't prove what this is. Because the picture is too blurry. It could be a piece of "cheese". Or a "diamond" ring. Or the planet "Jupiter".

And the microscope they used?

Researchers at IBM were able to accomplish this by using a scanning, tunneling electron microscope. This microscope, which has to be held at 268 degrees below zero Celsius and weighs two tons, is capable of magnifying atomic surfaces by 100 million times.

Clearly it's a lie. And you know. But they don't.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0#t=61[/ame]

Nothing better than right wingers explaining "science" as if they knew what they were talking about.

 

[rdean]

How come I always have to provide evidence and right wingers don't?

How fair is that?

 

[Steven_R]

What is it with Republicans and science?

Go look at the Federal Budgets and you'll note that science spending is up under Republican administration.

 

[Steven_R]

Yet it is impossible to sit back and watch something evolve, as it takes generations. That does not mean the theory of evolution is false. It simply means we cannot point at something happening and say, "There! That's evolution going on!" Evolution will always be a theory--unless we someday invent a time machine that lets us record generations of animals to see evolution in action.

Or unless we observe lifeforms with short periods between generations like bacteria.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Ron Paul was on Morning Joe saying at least 20% of school children should be "home schooled".

Clearly, this is why. Republicans call into question the integrity of science and scientists trying to hamstring their children and leave them unprepared for any meaningful future in a modern technological world. Many even say there is no connection between science and technology. It's bad enough what they do to the country, but if they want to ruin their children, fine, just don't drag us down with you.

Did I miss something? Isn't Paul retired?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

No, it is not. It's a theory. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie. That's the LOLberal way.

The concept that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence......it is a FACT. The only theories involve how and why it occurs

That was pretty close, but still not right.

Evolution is a theory that explains the observed data found in fossils. It has been modified as a result of DNA evidence that showed some assumptions originally made were in error. The fact that we use the same word to describe the theory and the data does not make the theory a fact.

From a scientific standpoint, God can be nothing but a theory. A totally unsubstantiated theory

What evidence do you have that science cannot prove that God exists? Are you smarter than the scientists that keep telling me it might be possible? If someone comes across evidence that is scientifically testable, and also proves God exists, does that prove that it isin't science, or does it just prove you are a pretentious idiot?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's not newsworthy. For one, Ron Paul is a former congressman. He's not pushing legislation, he's merely offering his opinion. Second, he's a christian man. Third evolution is a theory. Fourth, and probably most important of all, Rderp and RRer are flaming retards.

That is just a theory

It is a fact, the theory is that you do it on purpose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A "theory" is an explanation of the unknown, based on (hopefully) everything that is known. The evolution of a theory is basically as follows: some scientist publishes his idea in a paper that is reviewed by all the other interested scientists in the world. They evaluate the theory by looking at everything that is known, and seeing if the theory is consistent with it, or has a problem explaining some part of it. Then later, some other scientist comes up with another theory, or a modification to an existing theory, to deal with the anomalies that have been found. The only time that a theory ultimately becomes a fact is when the fact can be directly observed, e.g., it can be observed that the earth is (more or less) a sphere, and not a flat surface or a disc or something else.

Consider "atomic theory" (if you are old enough). For a number of mechanical reasons, no one will ever SEE an atom. And yet its existence was proposed and accepted centuries ago, and decades went by as the scientists of the day proposed different THEORIES of what distinguished one elemental atom from the others, what held them together, the shape of them, and so forth. And over the years, through more and more detailed and microscopic observations, nuclear scientists have a pretty good idea of what atoms are, what they "look" like, how they act, and so on. But without direct observation, it is still just theoretical.

"Evolution" is a THEORY about the origins of life and its development over the eons to manifest itself as we now see. No one has ever observed evolution. No human has ever seen one species evolve into another species, nor has human history ever recorded this phenomenon occurring. We infer that it occurs from geological and fossil evidence.

And essentially all biological scientists (the only ones relevant to this discussion) have concluded that the THEORY of Evolution explains so many of the facts and evidence that we see, that it must be an accurate explanation of the origin of species.

Which does not make it a fact, just a very satisfactory theory. So if Rand Paul has said that "It's only a theory," that's not newsworthy in any way. Ironically, it is a FACT that Evolution is a THEORY. And that reportage is merely another manifestation of the writings of a journalist who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

There can be no doubt that the aforementioned journalist or journalists were virtually salivating at the opportunities when they witnessed a Republican politician speaking to a group of fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. If he says something on the subject that makes scientific sense he will antagonize and alienate his audience; if he says something that will ingratiate himself with the audience (as politicians are wont to do), he will - at least potentially - embarrass himself to the wider audience, whom he will need to woo if he intends to run for President in 2016.

He might have said something nuanced, to the effect that he believes God is the Creator, and doesn't worry about the means that God used to carry out his creation," but that might have incensed the audience even more than just saying, "Genesis is a fairy tail."

Is this newsworthy?

Better close your eyes:

--------------------------------------

But what makes this a big deal is that the film was animated by precisely manipulating individual atoms themselves.

The atoms themselves are on a sheet of copper, and are physically manipulated with a needle being held about 1 nanometer over the surface. The needle is capable of attracting atoms and molecules and moving them into position.

IBM Made A Microscopic Movie (And Star Trek Pictures) With Individual Atoms - Forbes

------------------------------------

Consider this a "teaching moment". Scientists aren't stuck in the early 1900's. They increase their knowledge every year. While the focus is enhanced, the over all picture has already been "developed".

Too bad you refuse to keep up with them, or even read the links you post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the constant irritations of this medium is the pencil-dick pinheads who spend their afternoons trying to find things in postings that could be construed to be incorrect. Usually (as in this case) they are not only wrong, but ridiculously so.

So in the opinion of the person that calls itself "rdean," seeing a blurry black & white representation of a microscopic collection of bumps on a copper plate is "seeing" the atoms.

Can you see the nucleii, the spinning electrons; can you count the protons and neutrons? Obviously, you can't. And this is what would be necessary to confirm current NUCLEAR THEORY. As it is, the THEORY is ENTIRELY based on inferential evidence, because, as I said, nobody will ever see an atom, to examine it and confirm what we believe to be the case. If for no other reason than because the wavelength of the light that we can see is greater (by a large factor) than the size of even the largest atoms.

Don't confuse rdean with science, it gives him a headache and forces his keepers to deal with a creature that makes Jason look like Gandhi.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the constant irritations of this medium is the pencil-dick pinheads who spend their afternoons trying to find things in postings that could be construed to be incorrect. Usually (as in this case) they are not only wrong, but ridiculously so.

So in the opinion of the person that calls itself "rdean," seeing a blurry black & white representation of a microscopic collection of bumps on a copper plate is "seeing" the atoms.

Can you see the nucleii, the spinning electrons; can you count the protons and neutrons? Obviously, you can't. And this is what would be necessary to confirm current NUCLEAR THEORY. As it is, the THEORY is ENTIRELY based on inferential evidence, because, as I said, nobody will ever see an atom, to examine it and confirm what we believe to be the case. If for no other reason than because the wavelength of the light that we can see is greater (by a large factor) than the size of even the largest atoms.

You can't prove what this is. Because the picture is too blurry. It could be a piece of "cheese". Or a "diamond" ring. Or the planet "Jupiter".

And the microscope they used?

Researchers at IBM were able to accomplish this by using a scanning, tunneling electron microscope. This microscope, which has to be held at 268 degrees below zero Celsius and weighs two tons, is capable of magnifying atomic surfaces by 100 million times.

Clearly it's a lie. And you know. But they don't.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0#t=61[/ame]

Nothing better than right wingers explaining "science" as if they knew what they were talking about.

If you were half as smart as you think I am you would be able to point to a molecule that is large enough to see with the naked eye. Since you aren't, all you have is insults.

That said, you still cannot see the atoms because we cannot even detect the electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength small enough to see a proton, much less an electron. Your film is a neat parlor trick, but it is not a picture of an atom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How come I always have to provide evidence and right wingers don't?

How fair is that?

Did someone promise you that life would be fair? They lied.

 

[rdean]

One of the constant irritations of this medium is the pencil-dick pinheads who spend their afternoons trying to find things in postings that could be construed to be incorrect. Usually (as in this case) they are not only wrong, but ridiculously so.

So in the opinion of the person that calls itself "rdean," seeing a blurry black & white representation of a microscopic collection of bumps on a copper plate is "seeing" the atoms.

Can you see the nucleii, the spinning electrons; can you count the protons and neutrons? Obviously, you can't. And this is what would be necessary to confirm current NUCLEAR THEORY. As it is, the THEORY is ENTIRELY based on inferential evidence, because, as I said, nobody will ever see an atom, to examine it and confirm what we believe to be the case. If for no other reason than because the wavelength of the light that we can see is greater (by a large factor) than the size of even the largest atoms.

You can't prove what this is. Because the picture is too blurry. It could be a piece of "cheese". Or a "diamond" ring. Or the planet "Jupiter".

And the microscope they used?

Researchers at IBM were able to accomplish this by using a scanning, tunneling electron microscope. This microscope, which has to be held at 268 degrees below zero Celsius and weighs two tons, is capable of magnifying atomic surfaces by 100 million times.

Clearly it's a lie. And you know. But they don't.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0#t=61[/ame]

Nothing better than right wingers explaining "science" as if they knew what they were talking about.

If you were half as smart as you think I am you would be able to point to a molecule that is large enough to see with the naked eye. Since you aren't, all you have is insults.

That said, you still cannot see the atoms because we cannot even detect the electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength small enough to see a proton, much less an electron. Your film is a neat parlor trick, but it is not a picture of an atom.

You keeps saying what scientists can't do. I provide video and audio and you call it a "parlor trick".

Not only can they see atoms, they can see "photons".



1000000000000 (1 Billion/Trillion) FPS!!! "Ultra High-Speed Camera"

 

[rdean]

How come I always have to provide evidence and right wingers don't?

How fair is that?

Did someone promise you that life would be fair? They lied.

Provide some evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't prove what this is. Because the picture is too blurry. It could be a piece of "cheese". Or a "diamond" ring. Or the planet "Jupiter".

And the microscope they used?

Researchers at IBM were able to accomplish this by using a scanning, tunneling electron microscope. This microscope, which has to be held at 268 degrees below zero Celsius and weighs two tons, is capable of magnifying atomic surfaces by 100 million times.

Clearly it's a lie. And you know. But they don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0#t=61

Nothing better than right wingers explaining "science" as if they knew what they were talking about.

If you were half as smart as you think I am you would be able to point to a molecule that is large enough to see with the naked eye. Since you aren't, all you have is insults.

That said, you still cannot see the atoms because we cannot even detect the electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength small enough to see a proton, much less an electron. Your film is a neat parlor trick, but it is not a picture of an atom.

You keeps saying what scientists can't do. I provide video and audio and you call it a "parlor trick".

It is a parlor trick, and it has nothing to do with seeing atoms.

Let me give you a little science lesson before you say something really stupid. In order to see something you have to be able to bounce light off of it. In order to do that you have to be use a frequency of light that is smaller than the size of the object.

Scanning electron microscopes use electrons vibrating at high frequencies, and low wavelengths, to paint a virtual picture of extremely small objects, but the frequency is limited by the amount of power that can be put into them. We cannot use frequencies in the gamma range because they would be require immense amounts of power and be highly radioactive. If we were capable of using those frequencies we would be able to get clearer pictures of the copper atoms that showed the various protons and neutrons inside the atom, but we wouldn't be able to see the atoms.

What your parlor trick showed were blurry bumps, not clear pictures. It was a massive advancement in technology, and will, eventually, allow engineers to build circuits on the atomic level, thus increasing computing power, but the movie was a parlor trick.

Not only can they see atoms, they can see "photons".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snSIRJ2brEk

1000000000000 (1 Billion/Trillion) FPS!!! "Ultra High-Speed Camera"

That was stupid, even for you. The scientist never made the clam that they would be able to see photons. In order to do that they would have to have a camera that manages to take pictures of photons using something else, it would have to move faster than light to do so. The first might be possible, but the second is not. They just explained it in a way that made it understandable to idiots, which left you out of the loop.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How come I always have to provide evidence and right wingers don't?

How fair is that?

Did someone promise you that life would be fair? They lied.

Provide some evidence.

Of what?

 

[rdean]

Did someone promise you that life would be fair? They lied.

Provide some evidence.

Of what?

That someone besides yourself lied of course.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Rderp strikes again.