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 ...
Have you developed a test for God that can be used in the scientific process? Such a test would go a long way to proving your point but until such a test exists science will have to remain neutral, not hostile, to the question of if God exists and what effect he has on the universe.
I beg your pardon?
A polite inquiry into your use of a term marks me a “retread” who is “soon to be zapped”?
Can we please save the acrimonious tone for when there’s actually some bitterness between us? Fighting at this point seems entirely premature.
[[Okay. Which ones and where?]]
Lol- go play your silly games elsewhere- I’m not itnerested-
[[he has a deep fear of his conscience and therefore is compelled to try and deny God. In a “scientific” way.]]
True- but hte problem is science only confirms God for htose who aren’t willing to compromise scientific integrety and intellectual honesty. Those who are willing to accept just so stories of Macroevolution over the evid3nces for aN Intelligent Causation do so purely on religious faith that God didn’t create each species uniquely and fully.
Science may be neutral, but scientists are not. They need to be more objective, like they claim they are.
You are ducking my question.
“create each species uniquely and fully”
Then why isn’t that indicated in there genetic structure?
[[You seem to think that the maligning is a one-way street. I have heard ID folks say plenty of malign things about those who accept evolutionary theory]]
Nope I donm’t think it’s a one way street- but the majority of maligning does coem from Macroevolution advocates who have no scientific support for the idea of Macroevolution- their only hope is to malign and try to assasinate hte character of those presentign hte scientific evidences showing that Macroevolution is biologically impossible, and showing furhter evidence that the design witnessed in nature indicates a strong possibility of an intelligent causation.
[[My point about ID is simply that those who seek acceptance of it for purposes of science as opposed to other disciplines have no chance of success until they proceed in accordance with the scientific method.]]
Your point was understood from the begiining- no need to explain to me what you intended- it is clear that you ignore the scientific facts presented by ID, ignore the fact that they do empiracle science (Which is a scientific standard that is LACKING in macroevolution hypothesis- which by your account should render Macroevolution an unscientific endeavor, and show ID to a the more strictly scientific discipline) and you ignore or simply are unaware of the sceicne that is actually conducted with ID.
The simple fact is that ID meets every ‘guideline’, every disciplined requirement, yet those who reject it do so based purely on unscientific bias and preference for hteir own scientifically unsupported, untestable, unfalsifiable ‘science’ that is based purely on assumptions and guesses and imaginary scenarios. And no matter how many times you and others repeat your accusations- the facts do not change, and ID remains a more strictly scientific method that does Macroevolution. The ev9idences found in nature point much more strongly to ID and discontinuity than it does to common descent ‘with modification’, and that is a fact.
This is not a game. You accused me of something. Well back it up.
[[If you can deny their existence, after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be that you choose, for religious reasons, not to accept that evidence]]
No sir- We reject it based solely on the fact that the biological evidence refutes the claims that they are ‘transitional’, and no amount of postings abotu species change within their own KINDS will undo the fact that every ‘transitional’ that is claimed to be a ‘missing link’ is nothign but a MICROEvolutionary change within a species KIND, and not a much different biologically unique process of Macroevolution. Small changes in info already present can’t create the NECESSARY NEW information needed to move a species beyond it’s own KIND
Many ‘transitions’ huh Coyote? How are the transitions between the Hippo and whale going for you guys these days? It’s a far far leap from a hippo to a whale- and simply showing homological similarities while ignoring the VAST biological differences is nothign but a fairy tale belief that the two were part of a transition. It’s kiddie science to suggest that a few homological similarities suggest the two species KINDS are related and that one evolved into the other- Where’s thje evidence for this Coyote? Where are the ‘transitionals’? Where are the species of transforming hippos losing hteir legs? Losing their tails? Developping more streamlined bodies? Where is the biological evidence showing the developement of NEW information gradually? It’
s ALL missing Coyote- Trillions of differences, and yet you claim a couple of homological similarities is enough to show a Transition? Lol- What a powerful faith you have in your religious belief about life! You can keep insulting ID’ists, but you sir are entirtely the same in your beleif- I take that back- You are more ‘scientifically stunted’ to have so much faith when so much scientific evidence is missing, and so much counter evidences clearly refute Macroevolution.
“We don’t know how, but Nature musta dun it” is every bit a faith as “God lives and will judge everyone who rejects Him”. As ES says, get aboard the gravey train, cuz your train is derailing fast.
No, I haven’t but there’s none needed nor would it be accepted.
Scientists would find some alleged technicality to determine that the experiment wasn’t *scientific*, if only for the reason that it’s dealing with what they have labeled the *supernatural* and that the supernatural isn’t (allegedly) testable by the scientific method. They have predetermined that God cannot be tested so any experiment to try to *prove* Him would be rejected off hand.
Nice little Catch 22.
The evidence is staring you in the face, anyway. The order and complexity that science absolutely depends on is evidence enough. Order and complexity are observable phenomena.
Tell me... Don’t scientists consider an well planned and executed experiment to be indicators of intelligence and design in their work? Or is what happens in the lab just a random, unguided set of circumstances?
God exists and the evidence is more than scientific, but since it doesn’t fit within the parameters set by scientists, they will never acknowledge it as real. For so many, anything not labeled *scientific* doesn’t exist. The whole world cannot be reduced to a scientific experiment.
Hahahaha- You first accuse me of maligning God by assigning the word’ degredation’ to a race- somethign I clearly did NOT do, and now you’re playing the victim? As I said- go play your silly little games elsewhere!!!
[[Ring species do not, as you point out, show “where the species came from beforehand or what will happen with it” — but the example of ring species I provided was not intended to show that. It was intended only to show how incorrect are the religious beliefs that there are no transitionals and that speciation is impossible.]]
You clealy misunderstand biology- Ring species absolutely do show where they come from and where they will go biologically- They can ONLY go within the parameters of their own KINDS- somethign you fail to understand apparently- looking at htem biologically, it is easy to see where they can go within the parameters of species KINDS- You also fail to understand that ring species clealry are NOT transitions between dissimilar KINDS, but are ONLY transitions WITHIN their own KINDS- fully within the parameters of MICROEvolution, and it is NOT somethign ‘religious’ peopel reject as you falsely claim!
[[But I fully expect that no amount of evidence will convince creationists of this. They are fully committed, for religious reasons,]]
LOL- We’re fully committed to scientific reason- what we’re NOT committed to however is the silly religious dogma that species evolved from one another through common descent when htere is absolutely ZERO evidence to support that mistaken ASSUMPTION/(religious belief)
[[Ring species are an example of speciation, or macroevolution as creationists are fond of calling it.]]
Bzzzt! Get back to us when you understand the difference between MICROEvoltuion and MACROEvolution
Which God exists? How do you know that yours is the correct one?
What about all the genetic evidence?
[[Then why isn’t that indicated in there genetic structure?]]
It isn’t? Have you not looked into the billions of genetic differences between dissimilar kinds? Each species has species specific information that number in the billions- somethign the ‘apes are similar to man genetically’ advocates keep hidden from you because it seriously undermines their claims!
The genetic codes for apes and quite a few other creatures are available for download from numerous sites on the Internet.
If scientists are trying to hide the data they are doing a rather horrible job of doing so.
[[If scientists are trying to hide the data they are doing a rather horrible job of doing so.]]
They hid it quite well for decades failing to display the evidence which refuted their false claims which they intentionally kept from the public. That info is now available showing htat apes and man are NOT 98% genetically similar as was claimed for decades, but that the differences amount to a much more seriously different 80% or so- it is alos intentionally kept from the public the fact that the even IF it were 98% as was falsely claimed, the differences are in the billions- which means that Nature must have pulled off some incredible biologically impossible supernatural miracles when the Apes supposedly transitioned to man (Or even if, as some claim, we both transitioned from another species)
The info has only been available for a few years. Before that time we didn’t have access to the tools necessary to sequence an entire genome.
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.