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 ...
How do you know he feels the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
The only comments in the article indicate that he doesn’t believe in evolution without the involvement of a creator and that he *doesn’t believe in evolution*.
The hysterical evos took it from there. Lots of assumptions with little basis from what I can see, unless someone has any evidence from any other sources, which no on has yet provided.
I apologize for not keep track of what my first post was.
But perhaps, just perhaps, your time would be better spent on learning about science rather than falsely accusing others of being former users of this site.
But I must ask, is it against the rules to post in such threads unless you have been a member for x number of days? Because try as I may I am unable to find such a rule.
This is what I posted.
BEGIN QUOTE
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.
END QUOTE
Please point out where I said that he believes the Earth is 10k years old? It was a simple question asking for evidence one way or another.
It appears that you are the one making assumptions for reasons that I can barely understand. What have I done to you to warrant such lies, misstatements and slander against myself?
I never said you did.
In post 28 I asked you how you knew he ruled all those other branches of science. You never answered.
However, your assumption that he rules out much of geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology must be based on something, since that’s the usual accusation made against YECs.
So the question still remains, how do you know that he rules out much of geology, physics, cosmology, astronomy and most of biology?
What? The Bible isn’t long enough for you?
Historical accuracy isn’t enough either?
There are many places where scientific facts that the ancients had no way of knowing are mentioned and they are routinely dissected and shredded in an attempt to find inaccuracies to disprove Scripture’s validity.
Even if those numbers you gave were in there, they’d be attacked any way. And they’d be totally meaningless to the vast majority of humans for most of their history and then there’s the translation issues.
What it gets down to is this....
************************************************************
Luke 16: 27-31 “He [the rich man in hell] answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “
***********************************************************
Even if those facts that you listed were in Scripture, no doubters throughout the ages would have been convinced to believe. They would have found ways to excuse it, explain it away, or otherwise discredit it, just as they do now.
Believing is a choice. It’s not a matter of *can’t* believe, but *won’t* believe.
What scientific knowledge was first revealed in the Bible?
Well, vitamin D was mentioned in the argument and sunburns/cancer weren't.
I never said it was against the rules. But nice try.
And you wonder why I think you post like a retread.
It is ugly that some of God's children would say that the sin committed by the Adam caused other children's skin to reflect mutations. When in fact the other children already existed before the Adam was formed and committed that sin. The 'sin' had NOTHING to do with any biological degradation and or curse placed because of that sin.
Yup- and htese people had spread out from their birthplace to inhabit another area and establish a comunity there- it in no way means that there were ‘other people’ created- it simply means that the offspring of Adam moved along to other places and Cain went to another comunity and m arried his kin-
Peter says that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years to us and a thousand years to us is as a day with the Lord. That would mean that from the 6th day creation until the creation of the Adam and Eve could be as much as two thousand years. That give much time for there to be many many peoples born into this flesh age. And thus there would have been quite a population for Cain to find a wife out side of his own family.
First- you seem to be trying to make a race issue out of nothing- Yes- we are ALL God’s workmanship - every color, every person- ALL are from the original which was indeeed VERY good BEFORE the fall which introduced problems that Adam and Eve did NOT have to face had they not caused the curse to come upon mankind Secondly- the DNA mutations only came AFTER the fall and mutations have NOTHING to do with a person’s race in regards to making one inferior or another superior- we are ALL susceptible to degredation and the result of degredation- no man has escaped the problems of the curse- so NO man can claim superiority- we are ALL less ‘perfect’ than Adam and Eve were before the fall, and infact, Adam and Eve may have been people of color, so that would mean- if anything- that we who are white are lesser than the original creations.
Moses penned Genesis and since Moses had not yet been born until long after the days of creation what we are told up until the time Moses walked this earth could only have been given to him by Heavenly instruction.
There are two different days of creation described and then IIPeter 3 says he does now want us as Christian to be willingly ignorant about three different heaven/earth ages and how long a day is from the Creator's time clock.
What Genesis does NOT describe in these days of creations is the creation of the souls, yet it is that very thing that made the newly formed/created flesh being to have life when the 'breath of life' (literally means soul) was breathed into their nostrils. DNA does NOT identify the soul it identifies flesh and flesh relationships.
Now further when the Adam was formed/created he was placed into a sleep and something was removed from him word is 'curve' to make woman. So man in the image of the OUR likeness (Genesis 1:26) would be a different DNA than the DNA of man after the 'curve' was removed to form the woman.
For any Christian of any race to make the claim that race is caused by a curse from the Garden Party causes a race problem.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning.....
lol- how manytimes you going to post that refutted chart of fully ape and fully human skull representations?
Fossil Fossil: KNM-ER 3733 has been fully refutted as being a link between our two distinct species, and NOTHING about MICROEvolution prevents ring species- it still is NOT MACROEvolution aND fully falls within the parrameters of species KINDS- How many years have you been posting outdated refuted evidences now Coyote? And how many years have the refutations been presented to you without you acknowledging htem? The lurkers notice alright- they notice the consistent ignoring of scientific facts by Macroevolutionists and notice the assumptions and imaginary scenarios that drive Macroevolution
How many kinds of fruit have you ever eaten and then realized you were naked and then sewed fig leaves together to cover your nakedness? Christ knew what happened in the Garden He was there signified as the tree of life.
“I don’t understand how redshift is evidence of the age of the earth, perhaps you could enlighten me?”
The redshift of light from distant galaxies is evidence that the universe is expanding. It is also evidence of the big bang origin of the universe. Cosmologists currently estimate the age of the universe at something like 14 billion years. Exactly how they came up with that estimate is beyond me, but Hugh Ross is an expert on it.
You have a strong attachment to the notion of literal 24-hour creation days. I’m not an expert on biblical translation, nor do I want to be, but I was impressed with Hugh Ross’s explanation when I heard it several years ago.
Incidentally, I read a book several years ago called “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald Schroeder, who has a PhD in theoretical physics from MIT (IIRC). He claimed that if you account for relativistic time dilation in the early universe (when gravity was much stronger), what would seem like billions of years to us could actually be 24 hours in “God’s frame of reference”. If that is true, then we have reconciliation of “young earth” and scientific views. However, I am not qualified to say whether Schroeder got it right or not — PhD from MIT notwithstanding.
Assuming for now that Schroeder got it wrong, we are left with a choice. Either the Bible creation days are “long” days, or the Bible is scientific nonsense. You are welcome to take the latter view, but I’ll go with the former.
[[As I am certain you understand, but repeat here for the sake of clarity, evolution functions as a series of minor, beneficial changes over the course of generations (and, as a result, thousands of years), that eventually results in a plant or an animal sufficiently diverged from its ancestors that it can no longer be thought of as the same species (at least, in common thought; scientifically, the point where it’s considered a separate species is if they can no longer reproduce with one another).]]
Yep- which is called discontinuity- no species links exist between dissimilar KINDS though as it is biologically impossible for one kind to becoem another kind without the lateral gene transference between two dissimilar KINDS- species vary greatly due to MICROEvolution, but they always remain fully within their own KIND
And vitamin D is a basis of your argument for "improvement". You now support evidence counter to your argument.
P.S. Siberia is not equatorial either.
Reject away. But until you learn something about the subject, your rejection means nothing.
Well fine since you answered me, I think in an attempt to answer my question, and failed to convince me. I told you why. Just-so stories don't hack it.
Modern groups have vitamin D fortified milk (that's the reason its there!). Groups in the far north supplement their diets with fish oils. They live too far north to get any appreciable vitamin D from the sun, and they can't expose their skin to the sun for very long anyway, lest it freeze.
Concerning vitamin D Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse.
...
"Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness," Marshall added. "Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively."
[[May I take your refusal to provide links which you yourself said you had quite a few as evidence that you really don’t have any such links?]]
No you may not take it that way- I explained why I didn’t take the time to re research- I also told you to run searches LIKE that which I described- try varying the words- be creative
quote:
Dark skin is ideal for Africa and other equatorial areasMost scientifically literate people are aware the reason is it screens UV, even though that fact has no Biblical support.
We are truly the stupid party.
[[Well fine since you answered me, I think in an attempt to answer my question, and failed to convince me. I told you why. Just-so stories don’t hack it.]]
Really? Because it seems the just so stories about Macroevoltuion suit you just fine
[[”Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness,” Marshall added. “Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively.”]]
On the other hand manyt of the diseases caused by such things a low Vit D result in overactive imune systems which end up attackign one’s own body, so the reverse is also true, that supplimenting Vit D and the resulting suppression of the imune system is infact benificial to those sufferign the ravages of overactive imune systems
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.