Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
So you take the same approach to things that liberals do? By that I mean facts don’t matter but feelings do?
And not only that, but incorrect all in the same way and by the same amount. That's the part that gets me--to believe in a young earth, you have to not only nitpick each line of evidence individually but find some way to dismiss the fact that they all point to the same answer.
What is even more amazing is that the Bible doesn’t place an age on the Earth.
Given that the genealogies may not be complete and that next to no time frame is given for each generation adding them up is impossible.
[[Just run away like the Devil is after you, then. Because that’s what Cottshop’s “father” sound more like than God. ]]
God isn’t bullying anyone- He’s told you right flat out you have a choice to make- drive yourself (which I should have used in the analogy instead of making it seem that God is driving you) and end up in prison at hte end of the trip, or ride with Him to disneyland
[[Get out of the car, call 911, and tell them your father is drunk and threatening you]]
Very funny- actually made me laugh- good one. But no- that wasn’t hte analogy- I sjhould have perhaps said that God (The parent) offers you a ride which He has said will take you to disneyland- and you have the option of drivign yourself, and ending your journey by going to prison, or you can trust God, and beleive that He will justify your step of faith by haviong a persona son Father relationship with you along the trip.
[[I’m really sorry about the problems you have with your father. Mine died recently at age 96, but in my wildest nightmare I could not visualize distrusting him. I really don’t have a frame of reference for understanding your point]]
My relationship with my father is fine- thanks for inquiring- I didn’t say my analogy was perfect, and as I mentioned above, I should have stated the ‘father’ tells the child either trust him and end up in a good place, or drive alone, and end up not so good. But please do feel free to itnentionally misinterprete my meanings while feigning innocence.
[[but find some way to dismiss the fact that they all point to the same answer.]]
Which is what they do- you may dissagree, and you may choose to beleive in dating methods that have serious problems beyond 7000 or less years, but doing so is a persoanl choice, and is not not scientifically validated factual truths.
[[They appear to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Isn’t that just a little bit removed from almost all the evidence?]]
What ‘evidence’ are you referrign to? Do you mean removed from some people’s opinions about what the empiracle known facts mean based on their belief in systems that have problems dating materials beyond 7000 or less years? No- it is not removed from the empiracle facts- it is however removed from old age believers opinions however. There is plenty of evidences that suggest young earth as well. It would seem, that old age advocates beliefs are removed from the young age evidences as well. Every refuting young earth evidence is simply explained away with more imaginary scenarios about past events for which scientists have no idea as to what actually happened or what conditions existed- it’s all a big guessing game.
Still sounds psychotic to me.
I did and I'll do it again. A parent who offers such a choice would, to my way of thinking, be a psychotic or drunken bully. When he posted it, it immediately reminded me of this news story, in which a girl called 911, because her father was driving drunk and "want[ed] to take [her] to Florida." Might've been the Disney reference.
[[But the thing about the Web is that you can go back and correct errors when you find out about them. Sarfati has had ample opportunity to correct his out-of-date statement (I’m being charitable here), and in fact has gone in and added a reference to an addendum on another page written in 2002. But for some reason he hasn’t bothered to change the text of what he originally wrote to reflect what he should now know.]]
It is customary on the web to keep the written material while posting updates or corrections- why? Because to change the material after the fact would be immediately pounced upon by vultures looking for an easy meal- claiming that hte person was ‘tryign to cover’ their tracks by deleting material that they later learned turned out not to be quite true.
[[The original material is still there, uncorrected, and it’s still being quoted on other creationist sites as fact. How dishonest do you have to be before “liar” is an accurate description?]]
I don’t know about ‘other sites’ but dread’s implied accusation was that AIG was being dishonest, and this turns out not to be the truth. His implied accusation was also that AIG couldn’t be ‘trusted’ and that all the material is, in his words, “shi+’ because evidently, in his mind, a couple of printed articles were later discovered to contain errors, and he was implying that Serfati intentionally lied- and htis turns out not to be the truth either.
As for ‘how much’ you tell me? I see a LOT of folks on here citing Talkorigins, panda’s thumb and other such sites which have been more than sufficiently shown to contain actual flat out lies and blatant misrepresentations, yet apparently, that’s just fine if the site contains some actual factual science? Double standards here? Why I think it is my dear sir- To boot- AIG wasn’t itnentionally doing anything like TO and PAT and other sites do.
[[So I ask you, which is more deceptive: an author that clearly says “we’re going to base our calculations on a situation that probably never existed but will give us some numbers to start with,” or an author that conceals information in his possession without giving any hint what it is?]]
I’ll tell you what is more deceptive- those hwo would attempt to assign an intent to someone without knowing what the other papers held in the first place- He’s ‘concealing’? Really? and you know htis how? If you want to accuse him of something- why not ask him directly- accuse him directly instead of behind his back? He’s always been forthright, honest and open to inquirey as far as I nkow
[[If you could point me to a specific lie that is exposed, I promise to go read it. I followed a few links, and most of them just argue against the Talk.origins conclusions without actually exposing any lies, or even accusing TO of lying.]]
You sure you want to know?
Lies: Results 1 - 30 of 30 from www.trueorigin.org for lie
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.trueorigin.org&q=lie&sitesearch=www.trueorigin.org&client=pub-0415278686017492&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en
Untruths: Results 1 - 8 of 8 from www.trueorigin.org for untrue
False Claims: Results 1 - 30 of about 67 from www.trueorigin.org for false
Dishonest: Results 1 - 14 of 14 from www.trueorigin.org for dishonest
False Claim: Results 1 - 30 of about 49 from www.trueorigin.org for false claim
misleading: Results 1 - 26 of 26 from www.trueorigin.org for misleading
It's sometimes called calculating MTBF. And it is not silly. And nobody mentioned relying on miracles over getting brakes fixed until you did. That is called a straw man.
[[Still sounds psychotic to me.]]
Yes- you’re right- A parent warnign their child abotu danger is just being psychotic-
[[A parent who offers such a choice would, to my way of thinking, be a psychotic or drunken bully.]]
It’s called free will sir- A parent can extend free will to their child by giving a warnign such as “Don’t touch the stove, or you’ll get burned, OR, a parent can be a dictator and force their child to act and behave agaisnt their will in every situation. You love your freedom, but complain about the results of your choice in the end?
There would b3 no TRUE love IF God simply made everyone choose and love Him- Yet He gave us free will to do as we please- BUT that doesn’t mean He should refrain from giving warnings just because You don’t think them comfortable, and it doesn’t make Him psychotic for giving hte warnigns well in advance. The fact is that sin can NOT enter heaven because of God’s Holiness, and God has given you and I a way to have our sins forgiven IF we so choose to accept willingly- Don’t blame God for the choices you make- He isn’tforcing you to do anything- He has simply told you how things must be, how to escape the punishments of your own sin, and what you do with the info is entirely up to you.
And so why hasn't he? Rather than address the issue (much less post a correction) himself, he refers readers to another page, whose author doesn't address it either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.