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 ...
I don’t have a clue how old Huckabee believes the earth to be, but From many - one. seems to have figured it out, even though he isn’t telling anyone HOW.
He still hasn’t provided any sources to back up his accusations.
Maybe he’s found some by now?
How am I posting like an experienced poster? Should I erase from my mind all the knowledge about posting I have gained from posting to other forums before I post in evolution related threads?
Do please let me know as I don’t want to break any of the rules of your site. But before you respond I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence that my first posts were to an evolution thread as my posting history indicated to me that isn’t a correct statement. Perhaps some of my original posts aren’t showing up when I do a search?
Any assistance you can provide in producing those missing posts will be much appreciated.
If Gov. Huckabee feels the earth is less than 10,000 years old well then by definition he is against any science that says the Earth is much older than that.
And that is a rather long list of scientific disciplines.
Evolution hurt Huck alright, the evolution of pardons, illegals and taxes in his years as Governor.
Radiological dating methods exist that have a greater than 7,000 year accuracy.
For example
potassium-40 > 100,000 years
rubidium-87 > 10,000,000 years
thorium-232 > 15,000,000 years
numbers are from memory and may be slightly off.
I do not think the majority of modern physicists believe in ID because the majority of modern physicists are not Biblical literalists.
Are you defining ID or Design as the equivalent of Biblical Creation?
Since I have no problem letting physicists do physics, I have no need to read your selection of books. It is you that is challenging the fundamental concepts of biology without understanding them.
Here’s what I said:
“What science is ok with Huckabee?
Best I can tell, he rules out much of geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology.”
Note that I was asking a question, and was not referring to evolution playing a part in the other sciences.
Quote me “talkng trash.”
Quote me saying I know either how old the earth is or how old Huckabee thinks the earth is.
You said that Huckabee “rules out much of geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology.” That’s a misrepresentation. You’re implying that Huckabee is a knuckle-dragging anti-science troglodyte who — surprise — believes the Bible. That’s “talking trash” about the man.
"If you did not personally witness O. J. committing the alleged murder, you must acquit."
Yep. Find B between A and C, and they simply redefine the terms of the discussion so that there are twice as many "mysterious gaps" (A-B and B-C) as before (A-C).
Basically, "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are ad hoc categories designed to insure that all evidence, by definition, falls into either the "not sufficient" or "doesn't count" categories. The same technique was used Slick Willie's defenders, who put the evidence into two boxes labeled "not rising to the level of impeachment" and "serious if proven true", which by definition would mean that there could never be a legitimate case for impeachment.
What a bizarre question. Abiogenesis can be studied scientifically, per the scientific method. It can also be approached unscientifically, and has been.
I sense you have a variable definition of proof. If the outcome is not consistent with what you desire, it is not proof. If it is consistent, it is. I have run into people who approach science this way for decades, so it is nothing new to me.
I don't doubt that you can "prove" anything you want and deny that there is even so much as evidence for anything you don't want to believe. To describe the way that biologists approach their research as the "same old crap" gives you away as an ideologue who has no interest in advancing science.
Not to you perhaps.
I'll let you in on a secret. After you study bones for 30 or 40 years you can learn some pretty interesting and amazing things from them.
And the folks who study fossil man their whole lives are much better at this than I am.
False. Science works on the assumption of naturalism, that is, it works with what can be observed. Ideally it works by repeatable experiment, but in many fields that is not possible. But by following the scientific method it manages to do pretty well.
Your gripe with science seems to be that it does not confirm your particular idols and demons. Perhaps if you could produce any measurable or observable evidence science could evaluate what you claim.
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.
Scientists who abandon the scientific method for religious dogma and belief are no longer doing science. It doesn't matter if they have "five university degrees" --science is defined by adherence to the scientific method. The fact that some scientists convert to a fundamentalist belief and start preaching its dogma has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion.
LOL. No you simply didn't understand the point. It was that Newton was a great scientist in the area of physics, but was something a nut in other areas of endeavor. Alchemy is not science, it borders on magic.
I hope it is clear now.
Nothing can disprove creation in the minds of creationists. It is a belief that was not arrived at logically and through scientific evidence, so logic and scientific evidence won't alter that belief.
1. Read the relevant post again. There’s a reason scientists use qualifiers.
2. You added the pejoratives, not I.
3. Disbelieving in evolution requires not acckepting the evidence provided by the sciences I mentioned.
4. Plenty of Christians understand that evolution does not contradict the Bible. T
Apologies to all for the multiple typos in my posts since yesterday. I’m using a new keyboard and the keys are a different size and different “feel.”
I’ll go back to using spell check.
Thanks for your replies.
I think that one thing that has bothered me about Genesis is why it did not have some basic information about the nature of things that was unknown at the time. It would have been quite compelling if it had said that the earth went around the sun, or that the speed of light was 186,000 miles/second (or whatever it was in cubits), and that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Or that e=mc2. Facts all known by our Creator, and which would have won over a lot of doubters as the centuries passed.
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.