First Draft. NH Adv. by LLepard. Comments

[Mark]

I would like to know whether or not Dr. Paul believes in evolution.

Okay, I found a video where someone asked about the debate question where it was asked. (about 2:30 in)

His answer is very eloquent and precise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

Now, you have to keep in mind that Ron is very intelligent and precise in his answers.

He was asked about "The Theory of Evolution" which refers to Darwin's theory of course:

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). [/FONT]

Now, as a Christian who believes in God, I don't believe in Darwin's theory either.

However, that doesn't preclude me from believing that evolution exists.

People even have evolved. Two people of different races that have a child have created an evolved child.

A child different from both of them, a human that's evolved from two separate races into a distinct being that's a combination of the two.

A mule is an evolved creature created from a horse and a donkey.

Follow me?

 

[bluemarkets]

Fantastic effort!

That letter is straight from the heart ... it will touch a lot of people!

I think it would be wise though, to leave out the section about evolution.

As a christian reading this, not knowing anything about Ron Paul, this would be an immediate turn off. Faith and religion divides and convictions run deep, deep enough to ignore the issues all together.

The goal is to get them to look into Ron Paul more and his stance on the major issues. (Not if he believes creation/evolution) Ron Paul hits every major issue dead on 9 times out of 10.

I am what you would call a "fundamental christian", but first heard of Ron Paul in a S&P futures chat room and his position on the FED. I did my own research and here I am today on the Ron Paul bandwagon, less than 1 month ago.

Again brilliant piece ...

just my 2 cents

 

[webber53]

Rent the movie and watch it all!

I would change Mr. Smith goes to Washington to "One of us, goes to Washington"
I thought, who is Mr. Smith??


It is long and wordy, and hard to read. But that maybe to the lack of formating.

Anyways, GREAT letter.

and I agree, don't mention the evolution paragraph either.

I would like to donate also to help in future adds. You shouldn't bear the burden by yourself.

It is a 1939 B&W movie starring Jimmy Stewart about a young impressionable Junior Senator from Oregon that goes to Washington D.C. and discovers the corruption inside the beltway and tries to change the system the only way he knows how. It is a classic Patriotic movie that deals with how corrupt Washington D.C. was even way back then!

 

[Rob]

Okay, I found a video where someone asked about the debate question where it was asked. (about 2:30 in)

His answer is very eloquent and precise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

Now, you have to keep in mind that Ron is very intelligent and precise in his answers.

He was asked about "The Theory of Evolution" which refers to Darwin's theory of course:

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). [/FONT]

Now, as a Christian who believes in God, I don't believe in Darwin's theory either.

However, that doesn't preclude me from believing that evolution exists.

People even have evolved. Two people of different races that have a child have created an evolved child.

A child different from both of them, a human that's evolved from two separate races into a distinct being that's a combination of the two.

A mule is an evolved creature created from a horse and a donkey.

Follow me?

I don't, and I think that's because you're not using the definition of evolve that science has. Could you clarify? (I wouldn't be talking about this here, but I think this thread is safe from becoming a warzone so I will.)

 

[Chadd Murray]

Do you think humans are in the same family of creatures as apes? If you don't, you're just flat out denying the science.

 

[Mark]

You're right on that according to this...I learn something new everyday!

For more information on this.

I mean no disrespect to you, but evolution doesn't work with the God of the Bible, the two are incompatible. They can't both be right. One has to be right, one has to be wrong. You have one position and I have a different position. We don't seem to be changing our positions any time soon.

I've gotta get back to studying. Blessings.

No argument friend. I posted this already, but a mule is an evolution between a donkey and a horse.

And that's not incompatible with God's ways.

I don't believe in Darwin's theory, but I don't believe that God couldn't use evolution if He wants to either.

Remember, God can do anything, except lie. The Bible even says so. No human knows God's "Mind" so to speak,
so I'm not "going there" in saying what God did to advance His Creation.

Thanks for the Blessings!

The Father's Best Possible Blessings to you too.

 

[Rob]

Do you think humans are in the same family of creatures as apes? If you don't, you're just flat out denying the science.

Humans, according to accepted biology, ARE technically speaking apes. But this guy knows that.

 

[Pure Excess]

Thanks! You are an INSPIRATION! Amazing words~!

 

[OferNave]

Let's please not get into an evolution debate here. Nothing good will come of it. Stay focused on the ad.

 

[davidkachel]

1. Missing closing parenthesis in first paragraph.
2. To be consistent, where you talk about Hillary without using her name, you should also refer to Obama without using his name.
3. Leave this out: "If it sounds like I am mad, you’re right. I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. (Source: Howard Beale: Network)"
4. Change "mad" to "angry" in succeeding paragraphs.
5. Michael Moore can only hurt you. I would remove this reference and quote.

 

[Lord Xar]

Take The Evolution Out Of The Ad.

It Lends Nothing To The Debate And Will Alienate People.

 

[Rob]

Let's please not get into an evolution debate here. Nothing good will come of it. Stay focused on the ad.

Yeah you're probably right, I'm just having some big problems now that I realized Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution. I suppose I'll deal with those issues elsewhere, I don't want to damage the campaign.

Perhaps we should set the controversial clause to a poll? Or perhaps that it's controversial so be enough reason to not include it?

 

[Mark]

I don't, and I think that's because you're not using the definition of evolve that science has. Could you clarify? (I wouldn't be talking about this here, but I think this thread is safe from becoming a warzone so I will.)

Sure, the Precise theory that Darwin expounded, I believe, leaves out the creation of animals in any other method other than being "undirected".
.

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]"Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification".[/FONT]"

.
The term "undirected" is key, for it presumes no Creator that "directed" the beginning of advanced creatures.

.
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process.
Darwin wrote,
"…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap,
but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1]
Thus, Darwin conceded that,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down."
.

Darwin theorized that no complex organism existed before one evolved from a simple organism.

Thus, it flies in the face of there being a Creator who created complex organisms.

Which in turn, denies the existence of a Creator who formed creatures that began beyond being a simple organism.
[/FONT]

 

[constituent]

it's beautiful.

how long do you have?

do you want to stick w/ the testimonial voice?

would you like it to sound more or less like reporting?

how much action?

how much zang?

how much pop?

personally, i think we could condense what you've got right now into about 350-400 words.

or....

i'll knock you out an a+ in the next 18-24 hrs. if you need it right away...

if you have a couple days that'd be awesome... assuming that is the case, i'll
get you a draft copy w/in the next day and we'll go from there...

do you need/want my e-mail addy?


...oh yea, and can we sneak a ronpaulnation.com in there somewhere?

 

[davidkachel]

OK, now for the general criticism...

In the first few paragraphs (talking about the America you grew up in) you had me, tear brought to the eye, the whole thing. You successfully connected with your audience.
Then it went cold because you started meandering. You should have stuck with that theme, which is a good one and is also broad enough to make all your points fit within it and still be the dominant theme throughout the whole thing.
The way you can get away with a piece this long and still get people to read it is to lead them down a single path... the America you grew up in. All the points you want to make will fit that nicely.

 

[KeyLimer]

Read the whole thing. Great. Builds nicely to the climax.

People buy papers not least to get this sort of raw info - to fill the gaps set up by the 15 sec blips they see on TV.

(I just read the whole comments to see if anyone else woulod mention taking out Michael Moore - I would think he's too much of knee-jerk hot button name for traditional Republicans)

I like it because there's nothing woolly about the issues and the facts. Bang bang, These are the problems. bang. Here's the solution.

I also like the fact that James Stewart is finally being connected - evenly loosely - with Dr. Ron Paul...surely the best possible association to make in people's minds.

Very good. Open-hearted and sincere article, I thought.

 

[Mark]

Yeah you're probably right, I'm just having some big problems now that I realized Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution. I suppose I'll deal with those issues elsewhere, I don't want to damage the campaign.

Perhaps we should set the controversial clause to a poll? Or perhaps that it's controversial so be enough reason to not include it?

I agree with dropping it, but you have to realize,
the concept of Evolution completely denies the existence of a God Who created life beyond anything other than a simple organism,
and it should come as no surprise to you that Ron does believe that there is a God Who created both simple and complex organisms.

 

[constituent]

Sure, the Precise theory that Darwin expounded, I believe, leaves out the creation of animals in any other method other than being "undirected".
.

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]"Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification".[/FONT]"

.
The term "undirected" is key, for it presumes no Creator that "directed" the beginning of advanced creatures.

.
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process.
Darwin wrote,
"…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap,
but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1]
Thus, Darwin conceded that,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down."
.

Darwin theorized that no complex organism existed before one evolved from a simple organism.

Thus, it flies in the face of there being a Creator who created complex organisms.

Which in turn, denies the existence of a Creator who formed creatures that began beyond being a simple organism.
[/FONT]

assuming we ignore darwin's knowledge/thoughts on/of hog farmers selectively breeding swine....

...and

"Darwin theorized that no complex organism existed before one evolved from a simple organism."

fact or crap? crap. Darwin was a Christian.

but all this is for another thread

 

[nbhadja]

Yeah you're probably right, I'm just having some big problems now that I realized Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution. I suppose I'll deal with those issues elsewhere, I don't want to damage the campaign.

Perhaps we should set the controversial clause to a poll? Or perhaps that it's controversial so be enough reason to not include it?

I am an atheist and believe in all of evolution, but it makes no difference if RP believes it or not. He NEVER injects his views into anything he shouldn't, the way it should be.

 

[ggibson1]

Yeah you're probably right, I'm just having some big problems now that I realized Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution. I suppose I'll deal with those issues elsewhere, I don't want to damage the campaign.

Perhaps we should set the controversial clause to a poll? Or perhaps that it's controversial so be enough reason to not include it?

Its ok to be a religious person that doesnt want to let Science trump god... as long as that person doesnt want to force their view on others then they are a good person. I have religious friends who know that I think their entire belief system is bunk and they think I am totally missing the coming "END OF DAYS" yet we get along just fine because we control our EGOs... just like RON PAUL!!!