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 ...
[[It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
]]
Even without havign read that before abotu theory and conjecture, I’ve always felt that and written it as such because that is precisely what it is- an unsubstantiated, unproven, untested conjecture using a great deal of nothign more than assumptions as it’s foundational arguing points. besides- it flies in the face of natural laws and biological laws- something theories simply don’t do (or at hte least shouldn’t do)
[[Most scientists have a hard time accepting ID because it is religion masquerading as pseudo-science hoping to be mistaken for junk science]]
Since you’re a little confused on the issue (for hte umpteenth time) let’s go over definitions once again (once again for the umpteenth time)
“” Intelligent design” is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins...
” Religion” on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800’s that “the term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.” Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890)...
It should be apparent that “intelligent design” does not meet any of these definitions of “religion.” Intelligent design says nothing about whether a person has or should have a relationship with a creator (if there is one), and says nothing about whether there are or should be any obligations or duties owed to a creator (if there is one). Nor does intelligent design require belief in, reverence for, or worship of a supernatural power. Intelligent design does not suggest that the intelligent is a supernatural intelligent cause. Intelligent design simply says nothing of whether the intelligent cause is a supernatural or non-supernatural intelligent cause. Furthermore, intelligent design does not suggest that all else in life is subordinate to it as a theory of origins or is ultimately dependent on it...
Intelligent design has no liturgy or form of public worship, no clergy or people ordained for religious service, no observance of religious holidays, no sacred text, and no churches or other religious institutions. Intelligent design, unlike religion, takes no position on the existence of God or gods, does not require belief in God or gods, takes no position on any theory of morality or code of ethics, presents no opinion as to an afterlife, and holds no opinion on the ultimate meaning of life or the universe” http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20Richardson%20is%20ID%20religion.htm
Tell us again how ID is nothign but a religion-
As you know, I have been getting a lot of grief about the common v. scientific use of the word ‘theory’.
When I found something that would not only validate what was being posted concerning ‘theories’, but would also refute Evolution at the same time, I just couldn’t help myself.
I’ll probably get flamed again for saying this, but AIG has a lot of useful information.
[“” Intelligent design” is a theory of the origins of life that suggests.....]
Ooooohhh he's gona' be mad!
You should have said hypothesis.
(The evidence for ID does not reach the level of theory in his mind.)
Its not nice to talk about someone without pinging them, is it...
[“” Intelligent design” is a theory of the origins of life that suggests.....]Correction:
Ooooohhh he's gona' be mad!
You should have said hypothesis.
(The evidence for ID does not reach the level of theory in his mind.)
I would never argue otherwise.
It appears to me that you are not interested in serious debate on the subject,
On the contrary. I would not have spent so much time tracking down Thewissen's articles and trying to find CottShop's promised exposed blatant lies if I wasn't interested in serious debate. I'm just pointing out that the fact that a bunch of people were wrong about something in the past doesn't prove that other people are wrong about a completely other thing in the present. Pointing out flaws in an argument is part of debate.
Well now, what is the deciding factor? Who is a scientist and who isn't? Are you, Coyoteman, a scientist? Am I a scientist? How do you know that RobRoy isn't a scientist? Can only a scientist define what science is?
Very interesting questions. -Jeses
I keep seeing reference to these mountains of evidence for the old earth, and for the speciation from goo to you by way of the zoo.
(Or as I like to call it, Creation by Speciation.)
Could you please list the best evidence, and how you rate it for confidence?
This constant theme of "Oh there are mountains of evidence" then not providing it is growing tiresome!
Thanks,
-Jesse
The reason I don't buy global warming isn't because I am a Christian -- and I am a Christian and call Christ my savior.
No, I reject man-caused global warming, I reject the idea that anything man does threatens the planet's long-term "health," with complete confidence because I am an educated, a critical thinker, and compute the knowledge to truth about our worldly plane, and the bible says truth is always a good thing.
I am also educated enough to understand the basic tenets of what you call "evolution" and shake my head in sadness at the irony of you declaring it "a form of dogmatic religion similar to global warming True Believers."
It's all about adaptating to survive. Human civilizations that fail to adapt their behaviours to the laws laid down by God, become extinct. God is almighty and works His miracles in ways we can't presume to second-guess. All we can know is that His light is in all truths. If evolution is one of them as to explain how we reached this worldly plane, it's okay with me, because what it tells us about how to get along on this old earth squares with God's MO as to how we get along spiritually.
"All we can know is that His light is in all truths. If evolution is one of them as to explain how we reached this worldly plane,......"I may have misunderstood your post, but is not the Truth of God's Word, as found in Genesis 1, greater than any scientific conjecture coming from an Atheistic world view?
But wouldn't you agree that it's one of the simplist, and if a hobiest were to attempt any radiometric dating experiments, it would be the ideal one? I'm open to suggestions to a better one.
As an archaeologist I send a lot of samples off for dating,
Cool! I always wanted to meet a real life scientist! Can you tell me more? What lab to you usually send them to, and what does it cost? Also, what particular type of archaeology do you work in, and where? Very cool!
and most of the tricky parts are in sample selection and interpretation of the results.
Could you clarify selection and interpretation, here? As an archaeologist, do you do this selection and interpretation?
It wouldn't hurt to clarify that since the suggestion has been made in this thread that scientists select just the evidence that supports their belief.
Also, what do you mean by interpretation? I think radiocarbon dating is pretty well defined -- it should be a matter of science, I'm not sure why different people would interpret it in different ways.
The laboratory process is straightforward, but great care needs to be taken in sample preparation to eliminate contamination.
True enough.
But if you are really interested, here are some good links:
Thanks for the good links!
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating
I must tease you a little here for refering me to a religious website about a scientific matter and in response to a scientific question.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
Haven't had the time to read this one clear through yet. (You provided me with lots of great material!)
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
I did read all the BiblicalCronologist.org links you provided. Very interesting. I also noticed that said website author seems to think that the evidence supports the idea that the Bible is historical, and this raised in my mind an interesting question:
If we were studying a long-lost area of science, and then somebody dug up an anchient sheepskin that talked about this same science from before the time that the knowledge had been lost, I'm pretty sure the scientists studying said science would want to read those old documents.
Similarly, if I (or anyone) do (does) find their obesrvations of the world around them to appear the result of an intelligent creation incident, it makes perfect sense that I would definitely read the Bible as a history book and see what was claimed to have been known before.
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Could you please be so kind as to point out where on this extensive site I would most likely find the information that would be most helpful in teaching me how to perform the excercise of carbon dating?
Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.
This looks interesting, but it thousands of pages worth of material, a lot of which does't speak to my question (which was "how do I.."). Was there a particular issue I would be best to look in?
Thanks very much for the information. Incidentally, most of it was geared towards proving that radiocarbon dating works and is accurate. But my question wasn't whether it was accurate, but "How do I do it."
But I think I did gleam some clues -- C14 comes at about 1part per trillion as compared to non-radioactive carbons.
Now I just need to find out how many beta decays there are per million C14 per second, or however it's done.
I have always enjoyed hands-on experiments. When I was 15 or so I even managed to get (very soft) xrays from a burnt-out flashlight bulb and in another experiment I got soft xrays from a radio tube. (I was only using 20kv or so..) But I never was able to even try radiocarbon dating since I had no way to count the particles. But a couple years ago I got a little counter so I'd like to give it a try, even though I know that I won't be able to get exactly accurate results. It'd still be a fascinating experiment!
Thanks,
-Jesse
But if the doctor looked around more, he'd find something else interesting -- no evidence of Adam ever having eaten anything, or walked anywhere, or done anything. Oh, and there was God saying that he had just created Adam. So now we have Some evidence that Adam has been alive for only a few seconds, and other evidence that appears to provide evidence that he's been alive for 30 years. And then there's God saying that he just created him. Now, the doctor would want to reconsider and realize that Adam's appearance of age was not because he was old or because God wanted to deceive the observing doctor, but because God wanted to create a full-grown man.
Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we're dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we're best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.
Just as in the case of Adam, not all the evidence supports an old earth either. Many believe that the age of the rocks (Incidentally I base my faith on the Rock of Ages, and you on the age of rocks :-) provide evidence that the earth is old. But other things, such as the rate the moon is leaving the earth, the shrinking of the sun, and the like would suggest that the universe is not so old. And then there is, according to the Bible, God telling us, in a round about way, that the universe is not billions of years old, and in a less round about way that he created all the animals and Adam and Eve in six days.
So Why, when our main faith is in God, would we want to choose between two faiths regarding the age of the earth and the origin of life, and choose the one which describes existence without the need of a God, when there is so much indication of an intelligent designer? (Evidences like the unlikelihood of matter coming from almost nothing, and like the forms of life looking like they were intelligently designed by the same being (similar architectural concepts) bilateral symmetry, the great differences between the dumbest(but sane) human and the brightest ape.)
Remember, not all the evidence is on the side of old earth. Whichever side one takes, they will have to put their faith in one set of evidences and disregard another.
Sincerely,
-Jesse
From 19 indicators of an old Earth available at http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm
Or
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
If the Bible is Truth (how is that different than truth?) why are their so many different interpretations of what Truth is?
AIG may have information you find useful, but AIG is not doing science. It is committed, in fact, to doing the exact opposite: religious apologetics. Anyone who quotes them in regard to an issue of science should be aware of this.
Check out their statement of faith, to which all members must subscribe:
Summary of the AiG Statement of FaithFor a slightly more detailed copy of the Statement of Faith, please make your request in writing.
(A) PRIORITIES
(B) BASICS
- The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
- The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(C) THEOLOGY
- The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
- The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
- The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
- The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
- The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
- The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
- Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of manÕs sin.
(D) GENERAL
- The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons--God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
- All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God's wrath and condemnation.
- Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
- The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
- The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
- Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual's repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
- All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
- Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
- Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
- Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
- Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
- The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.
- Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
- The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
- The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
- The "gap" theory has no basis in Scripture.
- The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into "secular" and "religious," is rejected.
- No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Yes. (Ph.D.)
Can only a scientist define what science is?
Who else is qualified? Are we going to let creationists, many of whom are avowed enemies of science, come up with the definitions? Many of them, including many on this website, would rather see most sciences gutted because science doesn't agree with, or confirm, their particular religious beliefs.
Look at the AIG statement of faith I posted above. Folks who accept such a priori conditions have no business telling scientists how to conduct science.
>>The problem is that their are libraries full of evidence support the TOE.<<
...and global warming.
Except there is no “TOE” any more than there is one “Chevy”.
>>If ID isn’t religion why do so many that support ID say that those who don’t are going to hell?
And why do they insist that their god is the god behind ID and that any other suggestion is blasphemy?
Sounds like a religion to me.<<
Yes, it IS religion to THEM, just as TOE is religion to the True Believers.
The KKK claims to be Christian but that is not an indictment of other Christians. There are nuts that will do and say all sorts of silly stuff “in the name of God” that clearly goes against His will, both written and otherwise. That only proves the desire people have to attempt to tap into His power for their own purposes, nothing more.
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.