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 ...
No... I cannot concieve of "something" that can create a Universe..
But being fairly humble I can deferr to it..
The UNhumble seem to tend to arrogant speculation...
Like.... there is no God.. with all knowing demeanor..
Hopefully I will at some time be lifted to see more of reality than a human can see.. The beings on this planet suck.. And the senses humans have leave much to be imagined.. My spirit soars in my dreams.. Just maybe there is much more to this adventure..
"Spirits loading on track Seven".. am waiting for my ticket to be punched..
If your genes don't fit you must acquit
If your genes don't fit you must go on a diet.
or go off one.
>>Supporting facts isn’t the same as religion.<<
With that I agree 100%!
But one has to be careful about supporting facts. Every argument has supporting facts to one degree or another. But to win the day one must have a significant body of “evidence” to support ones position.
Ptolemy had supporting facts for his theory about our solar system. Ultimately though, the whole thing turned out to be dead wrong at the most foundational level.
Supporting facts can be used by True Believers for the most absurd of positions.
Whatever.
You have your belief. You take your chances. Good luck.
Information theory trumps DNA evidence - every time.
DNA is just "a" message. It is not life. DNA survives physical death.
Information, on the other hand, is the reduction of uncertainty [Shannon entropy] in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is not the message. It is the successful communication of the message.
Science has not yet determined a viable theory for the origin of information in this universe.
To paraphrase Jastrow, one day when the scientists climb the last mountain of knowledge they'll be greeted by the theologians who have been waiting for them all along.
[[You have perhaps the most amazing inability to read simple English sentences of anyone I have ever encountered.
]]
No greater or amazing than you filks ability to feign innocence
[[You have perhaps the most amazing inability to read simple English sentences of anyone I have ever encountered.]]
What you really mean by that of course is that I’m a big poopie head for believing in God
You also need to separate the sample's beta decay from the background.
Yes, this is true. My counter picks up around 12 counts per minute background around here, if I recall correctly. I've heard before that lead plates were used, and I noted when I was at the dentists they put a blanket filled with lead bbs on me when they xrayed my teeth. But one would want to make sure that their lead plates weren't themselves radioactive!
Thanks again,
-Jesse
[ AG- DNA is just "a" message. It is not life. DNA survives physical death.]
-------------------------------
DNA seems to be the "chemical wireing" of the physical machine..
If "life" is spiritual in essence it could answer some questions..
And generate a lot more..
A proper view of both would be required to observe physical spirituality(life) clearly.. Could answer what being crazy is.. and lend clues to what being sane is.. We hear a lot about physical health but rarely about spiritual health.,.
It could be that physical health is highly dependent on spiritual health.. And that "healing" requires BOTH..
http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+common+descent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Thanks. One good one that you're familiar with would have been sufficient. I think someone already pointed out that posting a link to a list of google results hardly constitutes evidence.
But in any case, I'm reading through the first link -- the 29+ reasons on talk origins.
So far I haven't gotten to the good part yet because I haven't found anything anywheres near evidence. But I'm still reading through it.
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the best evidence is actually no big thing but lots and lots of little things, each by themselves worth almost nothing, but all together, like a bag of a thousand pennies, begin to carry some weight.
The only problem is that just as many little things that didn't make sense with evolution could be discarded quetly as each being of almost no value, and nobody would ever mis them due to the overwhelming number of small evidences in favor.
This way, when someone argues against one of these many little evidences, you can say "Oh well what's the big deal. There's lots of other evidence anyway, why throw out all of science because some little thing doesn't make sense." Of course with this attitude, when it would be possible for every single instance of evidence supporting "Creation by speciation" to be false, and by examining only one of many small evidences at a time, the observers of the debate could continuously be lead to believe that "All the rest of the evidences are true even if the current one is weak." Almost a shell game!
Just for the sake of mentioning one's evidences I shall mention a couple that seem obvious to me.
When I look around, I see certain themes that run through all of life. For example, that mamals and many insects have a sort of bilateral symmetry of visible features. In other words, if they have one of it, it's down the middle. If they have two of it, it's one on the right and one on the left. This goes for a lot of non-mammals as well, like most insects. Now inside, where things aren't visible, there are lots of non-symmetrical things. Obviously lungs and kidneys are laterally symmetrical, but lots of stuff isn't, like guts, liver, spleen, heart, and so on.
Now if the true story was from goo to you by way of the zoo, then I would expect that there would have been many other shapes of animals, with for example, 5 arms or 3 eyes or whatever. But I have yet to find any such species! It sure looks to me like they were all designed by a designer who just did it the way he did it.
Also the similarity of the function of DNA in all life forms. It seems entirely possible and even likely that drastically different types of life forms would have come to be at the DNA level as well.
The Jugular vein: Why is that in such a vulnerable place? You'd think that after millions of generations, a process which developed subtle things like finger prints could have found a better way to protect the main blood return lines from the brain! My only conclusion is that it must have been created that way. After all, the nerve bundle is inside a bone shield. The eyes are set deep in sockets. The lungs and heart shielded by a rib cage all the way around.
The eyeball: I've noticed that the complexity of the eye is rather puzzling. So many vastly different types of animals have eyes which suggests that the eye must have developed so long ago that even the very primitive granddaddy of all complex eyed creatures must have had very advanced eyes. But I wouldn't expect such an advanced eye on such a primitive species. Neither do I find likely the idea that the eye evolved so similarly in multiple independent cases.
Speaking of ball type things, there is another item which is sort of in a vulnerable spot and suffers from the same issue as the jugular would. How come evolution couldn't have put those in where they belong?
Thanks,
-Jesse
Somehow I feel that if your deity came down and told you personality that evolution is how he did it that, rather than accept it, you would convert religions.
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the best evidence is actually no big thing but lots and lots of little things,
It think that's true. It's like a court case where nobody saw the crime but there's blood, a weapon, a pattern of behavior, etc., each of which the defendant might explain away but which taken together point to one overwhelmingly plausible story.
I would expect that there would have been many other shapes of animals, with for example, 5 arms or 3 eyes or whatever. But I have yet to find any such species! It sure looks to me like they were all designed by a designer who just did it the way he did it.
But if we're all one family, why would there be members whose physical appearance is so different? I would expect that if there were a designer who could do anything they wanted, that's when we'd see things like 3 eyes. The problem with attributing it all to a "a designer who just did it the way he did it" is that by answering all questions, it doesn't really answer any. Why do we have finger bones that can be matched up with a bat's wing bones? "Just because he did it that way" isn't a very satisfying answer--to me.
The Jugular vein: Why is that in such a vulnerable place?
Ask your designer. See, that, to me, is one of the innumerable examples of unintelligent design that don't make sense if there's an all-powerful designer. Why am I trying to play basketball on joints that are held together by rubber bands? Why is there a part of my eye I just can't see out of? That's not very good design. But I can understand it as the culmination of a long, long series of engineering compromises and adaptations of old parts to new purposes.
Of course, if there is a Designer and he did use evolution, we are this way just because it's the way he did it. That part holds true no matter how he did it.
Lots of people invoke the name of God for all kinds of reasons. I find your characterization of God to be wrong-headed and offensive.
Of course if everyone saw things the same way, there would not be thousands of religions.
"Ask your designer. See, that, to me, is one of the innumerable examples of unintelligent design that don't make sense if there's an all-powerful designer. Why am I trying to play basketball on joints that are held together by rubber bands? Why is there a part of my eye I just can't see out of? That's not very good design. But I can understand it as the culmination of a long, long series of engineering compromises and adaptations of old parts to new purposes."
[[Lots of people invoke the name of God for all kinds of reasons. I find your characterization of God to be wrong-headed and offensive.]]
Mind explaining what is offensive? My analogy was simply (And obviously) meant to show that God has told us the way to salvation and escape from punishement, and He has clearly told us that IF we decide we don’t want to ride with Him that WE OURSELVES willingly choose the punishement- there is nothign I’ve said that is inconsist4ent with the bible- As I mentioned and explained already- my first analogy wasn’t worked out as well as it should have been, and I corrected the analogy in later posts- so I’m confused as to what Yuo find “offensive”?
[[Of course if everyone saw things the same way, there would not be thousands of religions.]]
Many billions of people have seen things the same as I- Not sure what numbers you’re looking for to cement a consistent view of God- but I suspsect nothign will convince you that one view is biblically correct. God said accept Christ as Savior- enter heaven- fail to do so- then accept the consequences- everythign else regarding religion is just symantics about issues that aren’t really too relevent to the central intended message of the Gospel. Just because peopel dissagree or differ in issues like which day a person should go to church, or if Wednesday night shoudl be set aside for prayer meetings or any other issues that aren’t too relevent to hte central issue of Salvation message doesn’t mean the central issue of CHrist’s death-ressurrection- and orur acceptance or refusal to- means that God’s word isn’t valid or true.
So again- not real sure what all this “Offense” by you is over?
[[Somehow I feel that if your deity came down and told you personality that evolution is how he did it that, rather than accept it, you would convert religions.]]
Why woudl God do that when hte science clearly shows that He didn’t so that? Show how a single cell can violate the natural laws and naturally and randomly go from simplistic to highly complex systems with trillions of complexities all interdependent and self organizing, and you’re accusation will hold some weight- but as it stands- you are telling us that both we and God should ignore the science and just say that Macoreovlution happend? Nope- sorry- aint gonna happen. You can choose ot ignore hte science if you like- but we’ll not do so simpyl because you choose to.
Ah, then believing nonsense about the physical world is not a requirement?
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.