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 never said we can't know anything.
So how do you determine a lie with no truth to compare it to?
Even science has and uses standards to at least calibrate instruments to. You can't look at a yard stick and say it's a meter just because you know it's not a mile long or it looks about right. You compare it to the absolute standard to determine whether or not it's a meter.
In both the examples you give, you are comparing what you heard to some standard. You know that it's impossible that your son went to China during the school day because you know that it's physically impossible to get there in that few hours, not because you didn't know what else he did.
And how do you determine truth?
Too many on this site of late have been defining truth as their particular religious belief. TRVTH, if you will.
They criticize science for its limited ability to deal with emotions, feelings, and the like. Well, at least those things are real and can be observed, and there is a potential for measuring them. Science will get a grasp on these kinds of things before long.
But those who are criticizing science for poor performance in those areas often choose themselves to define TRVTH on the basis of divine revelation and scripture for which there is absolutely no concrete evidence provided.
As I mentioned above, the hot new creationist "museum" has signs scattered about -- "Don't think -- believe." In other words, we have the TRVTH as long as you don't look behind the curtain. That doesn't impress me very much.
That's presuming that what science has measured is correct.
And all it means is that science has measured it.
For a long time after electricity was discovered and even put to use, people didn't know what it was. Would that not have been put in the category of the supernatural by some? Then it would have been not investigated and found out what it really was.
That's the danger of categorizing stuff and writing stuff off just because RIGHT NOW, we don't understand it, or know how to test for it.
Sneering at things we don't understand is no way to learn about them. Miracles and healings happen, they are real and documented. They are not mythology or fairy tales. But we'll never learn about them if they're simply written off as *supernatural* just because they don't fit in someone's belief system, or nice, little box.
Folklore has provided us with remedies for diseases; like foxglove for dropsy. Should we write off the discovery of new medicines for diseases just because it starts as folklore, or old wives tales? They knew what worked, even if they didn't understand it.
What about the occult surgeries and healings that are practiced in some South American countries. Those things happen and people are cured by these witch doctors. It's real. Just because we can't explain it yet, doesn't mean it's not. But let's ignore it because it's *superstitious*....
That's no way to learn anything new.
So then what is the standard to be used to determine these things? Something men made up? How is that different than divine revelation that you sneer at? Is consensus really the way to determine truth?
Theres no doubt about it.. I concur.. Most.. maybe.. ALL religion is a second reality.. and a good bit of science as well.. You seem have missed the message of Jesus in John ch 10.. Thats alright other shamans with a message have too..
Could be most are in a degree of second reality.. including you and me..
The wonder is if we(any of us) can agree on anything at all..
Probably WHY Jesus didnt forbid sheep pens..
One test for morality is how the subject handles facts. If the subject routinely mischaracterizes what others have said, says things that they know are not true and/or calls others out for behavior that they them self do then they are not a moral person.
That is one partial test for morality.
As for beauty multiple algorithms exists for determining beauty of the female form, the male form is somewhat more difficult to determine. But both areas are currently being worked on.
‘Miracles and healings happen, they are real and documented.’
Why don’t people who have lost arms and legs every have their limbs restored?
It can be observed and measured. Divine revelation can't. Otherwise there would not be some 4,300 world religions, most of which believe they, and only they, have the real TRVTH.
ps. What happened to cause you to hate science so much? There is hardly a science thread on this site where you don't show up and denigrate whatever is being discussed.
That doesn’t mean that healings and miracles don’t happen. If they happened all the time, they wouldn’t be miracles. We’d just be like starfish.
Divine revelation has been confirmed. There are many accounts of peoples that the Israelites dealt with that were scorned as myths and fairy tales, until archaeological evidence showed they existed.
There’s plenty of references to scientific facts in Scripture that the ancients had no way of knowing.
There’s prophecy that’s been fulfilled and is going to be fulfilled.
I don’t hate science. Science is a very useful tool that can be used for the betterment of mankind’s lot on this earth. But it’s merely a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. It’s not infallible. What I don’t like is being told I’m wrong when science can’t even tell what right is. Nor do I like it’s abuse to push agenda in public schools and political policy making decisions.
I like the use of science, not the misuse or abuse of it.
When you originally said "Without any knowledge of the truth, there's simply no way to determine if something is a lie," I assumed you meant something more by "the truth" than simply "something not shown to be a lie." If all you're saying is "without any knowledge of what a lie is, there's no way to determine if something is a lie," then you're not saying very much.
But that's clearly not what you mean. In context, it's clear that you mean something along the lines of "how can you know something's a wrong answer if you don't know what the right answer is?" My examples were aimed at showing that it's actually pretty easy.
If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize, but then what did you mean by "the truth" in that first statement?
Or like when science is used as a weapon to bludgeon people with over deciding who should be able to run for president.
There’s plenty of references to scientific facts in Scripture that the ancients had no way of knowing.
There’s prophecy that’s been fulfilled and is going to be fulfilled.
--Noah's ark and a global flood about 4,350 years ago.
--Young earth.
Until you can document those, scripture is not looking very reliable.
You do realize that the early geologists were creationists seeking to prove the global flood. The last of the early holdouts gave up in 1831. Things have gone downhill for flood geologists since then.
Many other scientific discoveries since then have only confirmed the early evidence. There was no global flood about 4,350 years ago.
As for a young earth -- the only folks who believe that are doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Solve these problems first, then try miracles and the rest of divine revelation. But if you can't even get these two basic, simple claims right...
No, it means that scientists have measured it and then other scientists tested their measurements, and then other scientists tested their measurements, and then some other scientists tested the implications of those measurements, and so on. Creationists always like to portray "science" as like one guy operating on his own and coming up with some wacky idea that everyone else just sorta buys into.
People used to think the Iliad was just a myth too, until Schliemann came along. Does that prove Homer received divine revelation?
Why is it wrong to want a commander in chief how has some idea of how our modern weapons system work?
[[If my son comes home from school and tells me they went to China on a field trip that day, I know it’s a lie, even if I don’t know what they really did do.]]
You seem to be forgetting that you know the truth to begin with- that it was impossible for them to hav3 gone to China because of time restraints- now, had your son told you he went to the grocery market down hte street from you, you would have no way of knowing if he was tellign you the truth or not unless you yourself had some truth revealed to you- perhaps from the grocer whom you could then verify if he had or not
We have no one to reveal truth to use, it is something we have to search out ourselves.
[[ps. What happened to cause you to hate science so much?]
I’ll answer htis as well- We don’t hate science- quite the contrary- we love hte truth of science- the reveals, the facts- however, what we hate are people comming along in threads with nothign but assumptions- throwing htem in our faces, and pretending like they have absolutes and call it science when the fact is that they do not have facts- just assumptions- what we further hate is the snide denigrading tones taken on by those who make it their life’s ambition to belittle and malign and attack the characters of those who study and beleive somehtign that doesn’t include an a priori belief in Macroevolution.
Hope that’s clear enough for you.
Not once have I had a scientist tell me that I am going to hell, that I am not moral, that I can not be trusted or that I hate everyone save myself.
I have been called all those things by creationists and, truth be told, much worse things that I will not repeat on this site out of respect for the rules and proper behavior.
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.