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 ...
Well I don't do Augustine, but American Creationisas do not have the monopoly upon foolishness.
what you are missing is that anytime science tries to narrow the study and not include obvious creator pointers, it turns into it’s own type of dogma and religion. A religion of false knowledge. You can’t see beyond your teaching on this and have discarded your God given commonsense for a discredit theory...discredited by many scientists. Fact.
This document from 1904 explains:
"In the early days of the Churches of Christ on the Western Reserve--and probably this was true elsewhere--it was not a difficult thing for a young man to enter the ranks of the disciple ministry, if he was a Christian, had fair gifts of body and mind, knew the alphabet of the gospel of Christ, was willing to study and had a desire to preach, he was encouraged to preach. Very few of the early disciple preachers ever "studied for the ministry," or were ever "ordained" to the ministry, in the modern, ecclesiastical sense of those terms. Hence in the commonly accepted sense he was never a preacher or minister; but this may also he said of hundreds of other preachers in the Churches of Christ, at that time, before and since. He did, however, "preach the Word." He did hold "revival" or protracted meetings and often with great success."
People of Faith know a lot more about science than People of Science know about faith.
Any fair reading of Genesis is consistent with the general state of knowledge of the world at the time it was written. Thus it assumed that the world’s creatures were created in the final form, which is clearly not the case.
In order to narrow the debate, I find it helpful to ask the following questions:
Do you believe that the earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old? If not, how old is it? Do you believe that the universe came into being about 12 to 14 billion years ago? If not, how old is the universe?
Do you believe that the first life forms on earth were primitive one celled organisms? If not, what were the first organisms? How long after the earth was populated by one cell organisms did the first mutlicellular organisms arise? What sort of organisms were these?
Thanks for your indulgence.
Hey, that’s real cute. Now, please explain to me the difference between a “miracle,” and the notion that the first living cell fell together by chance in a primordial soup. And while you’re at it, please explain to me how the latter notion can be “falsified.”
In case you are too dense to understand what I’m getting at, let me spoon feed it to you. The notion that the first living cell fell together by chance is similar in principle to the notion that the entire text of the Gettysburg address once appeared on the sands of the Sahara desert due to random winds.
Can you prove that never happened? No you can’t. That makes it “unscientific.” By the same token, the notion that the first living cell fell together by random chance is “unscientific.” But for some reason many Ph.D.s in science insist on studying it. I wonder why. Is it possible, perhaps, that your definition of “scientific” is bullcrap?
If their story was internally consistent it would hold more weight. For instance, if Adam and Eve were the first humans, who did their children mate with?
The "fine tuning" or Anthropic Principle just means that a universe with slightly different parameters would not permit the development of intelligent life. But this doesn't mean that the universe is designed. Maybe there are other universes that have no intelligent life. Maybe there are other reasons that parameters have to be set the way they are to produce a functional universe.
Anybody who appears here to be anything but a God-fearing righteous Christian will have an antagonistic welcome.
I'm not sure you should associate biology with "science" that has this measure of success.
Evidence From Bite Marks, It Turns Out, Is Not So Elementary
In spite of the evolution of other forensic sciences, bite-mark analysis remains an inexact tool. A 1999 study by a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, a professional trade organization, found a 63 percent rate of false identifications.
Why is it, then, that bite-mark analysis remains part of the forensic arsenal? There is, experts say, a mix of ignorance on the part of jurors and defense lawyers about the evidence’s scientific shortcomings and the overzealousness of prosecutors and their expert witnesses, who are seen as too quick to validate an unproven technique.
There's that pesky word "proof"(proven) again.
Rather, the hypothesis that the Earth is flat is disproved. Science can disprove things easily enough--find evidence that renders a hypothesis incorrect. E.g.:
Theory: Literalist Biblical Creation
Hypothesis: If the Solar System is 6000 +/- 1000 years old, then Literalist Biblical Creation is supported.
Method: Radiologically date meteorites.
Observation: Meteorites are > 7000 years old.
Result: The hypothesis is disproved and the theory must be revised or discarded.
Coyoteman, did I do that right? It looks like I just rendered obsolete the entire field of Creationism, and that's not something I'd do lightly. And I haven't done any research design since the halcyon school days.
(On topic, I don't think it was evolution what done in Huckabee. He never really had a chance.)
Before he met Wilma.
[[If their story was internally consistent it would hold more weight. For instance, if Adam and Eve were the first humans, who did their children mate with?]]
Their genetically pure sisters and brothers- so on and so forth= next objection?
Genesis was penned by Moses over a thousand years after the fact. So what we are told up until the life of Moses would have had to be 'given' knowledge. Genesis says there was 'In the beginning' but give no clue as to when this was, and then we are told that the earth became without form and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Other Scriptures, by different writers say there was a big flood prior to that flood of Noah, wherein NO flesh was saved.
In order to narrow the debate, I find it helpful to ask the following questions: Do you believe that the earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old? If not, how old is it? Do you believe that the universe came into being about 12 to 14 billion years ago? If not, how old is the universe?
I believe this earth is filled with evidence that it is multiple of millions could even be billions of years old. I do not know the actual number and I do not believe that any man knows either. The Bible describes an 'age' that *WAS* prior to this flesh *age*. However, humans were NOT in a flesh body as were creatures (dinos) and plant life, of which fossil remains have been discovered down through the years.
Do you believe that the first life forms on earth were primitive one celled organisms? If not, what were the first organisms? How long after the earth was populated by one cell organisms did the first mutlicellular organisms arise? What sort of organisms were these?
Answer to first question is I do not believe there is evidence of any 'hot' steaming primordial bowl of soup wherein a single cell got 'hot and bothered' and either split or united with another cell to form the first stages of what is now called ascendancy or descendants. If this is what took place then there would still be 'hot' steaming bowls of soup with the same activity taking place.
Thanks for your indulgence.
[[Method: Radiologically date meteorites.
Observation: Meteorites are > 7000 years old.]]
Can you prove they are the dates that show up? No- they can’t- so their assumption is just that- an assumption, and hterefore nothign is disproven- Radiological dating methods are known to be accurate only to about < 7000 years- beyond that they are not accurate nor can they be proven to be accurate and MUST rely on assumptions- Are you saying then that their assumptions trump our assumptions then? On what basis then?
Any literal reading of Genesis would demonstrate that the Adam and Eve were NOT the first or the only humans created in the beginning of this flesh age. Now why is it that the evolutionists refuse to accept what Genesis literally says??? Is it a thing of 'knowledge' passed down through the ages??
Dead bones talk if one knows how to listen.
Anyone who joins FR and posts on a evo thread from the start, posting like an experienced poster has retread written all over them.
There have been plenty of previously banned FRevos who have been back. Some have been caught and some not, so it’s not unlikely at all to expect it again.
You wish it were true. It isn’t. Too bad for you.
Contradiction in terms.
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.