Posted on 12/04/2007 11:44:21 PM PST by Plutarch
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught in public schools.
Huckabee — who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution — asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.
"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."
"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabee said.
But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are.
"That's an irrelevant question to ask me — I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
The former Arkansas governor pointed out he has advocated for broad public school course lists that include the creative arts and math and science. Why, then, he asked, is evolution such a fascination?
In fact, religion seems to be more of an issue in the GOP Iowa caucuses with one month left before the voting.
In recent weeks, Huckabee has moved from the back of the pack in the state to challenge longtime leader Mitt Romney, who would be the first Mormon president.... Christian evangelicals, by many estimates, make up anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of Republicans who will attend caucuses...
Earlier Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult...
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
Just so that I understand correctly. You believe the creation as depicted in the bible was not a literal description, rather it was metaphorical example that the tribesmen could understand?
The nanny staters by far prefer the vague etherial promises of evolutionism. It’s their rejection of the real world, and it’s ridgid requirements that makes them nanny staters and evolutionists.
I believe that what we are told in Genesis, as penned many years later by Moses is the instruction given to us by the Heavenly Father. Genesis 1:1-2 is a statement of fact of what happened, without a time stamp. The 'In the beginning' creation of the heavens and this earth, took place eons ago, meaning no man knows how long ago. This earth is filled with the evidence that something catastrophic took place upon this earth. Which is exactly what Genesis 1:2 describes without a time stamp. We even in this past generation can observe what kind of destruction takes place from a volcanic eruption. (Mount St. Helens and that one was not even a super-volcanic eruption)
Nowhere in Genesis does it describe much about that first age, such as when the souls (and as noted by previous posters, the spirit, intellect of the soul) were created, however, planted in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 we are told about this time in describing Lucifer and his rebellion and judgment already decided. Paul uses the word predestined for some already judged for those that stood against Lucifer's rebellion.
It is a known fact that the fossilized evidence demonstrates there was flesh animals living at a time where there is no flesh man fossils to be found. Yet God asks Job were he was when all this took place and King Solomon says things were removed from our flesh accessible memory banks.
DNA a 'scientific' learning demonstrates that it is an absolute impossibility that all flesh/humans alive on this earth today could not have possibly come from two people alone without some fast pace activated evolution. Yet Genesis describes two different days of creations of man/woman in these flesh bodies taking place and Peter explains with the instruction of God's measurement of time these days of creation were at minimum thousands of years apart. God told Moses that his creation was 'GOOD'
Genesis sets the parameters/foundation describing the beginning of 'the' flesh man Adam who in original state was in the image of God - us and our - noted in Genesis 1:26 "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness:.... Then we are told that 'the' Adam was put to sleep and a 'curve' (I know that word rib got used in the translation) to form woman. Now for me that gets right into the field of biology given what has been discovered about DNA to consider the original state 'the' Adam was created.
Yes I believe that God literally formed adult flesh beings at two different spans of time with a blank slate in their minds as to what had been before. This being the purpose for all to have same opportunity in spite of what had already been judged. Christ said He foretold us all things and also says that it is not given for all to understand. And NO I do not have all answers, rather given evidence and facts deposited all over this earth know this earth is NOT young, and the closest time stamp we can get to is a best guess as to how long man in flesh bodies have been on this earth.
Here's how the question was formed:
Which ONE statement comes closest to your personal beliefs about the Bible? (Please mark only one box.)Nearly half of the 15% of Americans who identified as Evangelicals picked the first option, as did 11% of Catholics and mainline protestants. You appear to be claiming that what they REALLY meant to pick was the second option.
__The Bible means exactly what it say. It should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects.
__The Bible is perfectly true, but it should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning.
__The Bible contains some human error.
__The Bible is an ancient book of history and legends.
I have never heard that one before. So there were two Adams and two Eves?
The choices in the question are all defective.
The Bible definately does mean exactly what it says, but not all parts of the Bible are ment to be taken completely literally. This is due to several factors:
It contains allegorical passages, which are clearly declared to be allegory before they are given.
It contains many Hebrew idioms which require understanding of the culture of the time to convey the intended meaning.
To say that correctly reading these allegories and idioms requires interpretation is misleading and defeats one’s attempt at Bible study. Learning the cultural elements is not interpretation, and always reading ‘word for word’ is to gloss over much of the clear meaning of the text.
Bible reading requires prayer, before and after, to achieve understanding.
That idea is based in a lack of understanding of physics and chemistry. The evidence proves that the Earth is young if you understand the principles correctly. For example, the expansion of the universe, which is observed by astronomy, and is declared to have happened in Genesis, results in an illusion of age until one applies the principles of General Relativity, which mathematically requires a dilation of time. Russel Humphries' equations prove this.
Huckabee is such a phony. So the former preacher quotes the Bible 50 times per speech. So did the priest arrested for $1.3 fraud theft in CT yesterday and the former priest arrested for pedophilia today in CA. Quoting the Bible doesn’t make you a moral man. And Huckabee’s stand on illegals is immoral.
That idea is based in a lack of understanding of physics and chemistry. The evidence proves that the Earth is young if you understand the principles correctly. For example, the expansion of the universe, which is observed by astronomy, and is declared to have happened in Genesis, results in an illusion of age until one applies the principles of General Relativity, which mathematically requires a dilation of time. Russel Humphries' equations prove this.
Apologetics alert!
Caution -- This is a science-free post!
And you are a science-free propagandist.
I pity your ignorant misery. You are truly pathetic, thrashing in your chosen darkness, rejecting science, and embracing ignorance.
The Russell equations are interesting :) They seem to have a flaw though, they postulate that we are on an event horizon of a white hole imploding at the speed of light. If that is the case time should be stopped not slowed down. Obviously time has not stopped, and they certainly do not take into account the increasing rate of the expansion of the universe.
Nice try. At least Russell attempted to use scientific principles for a young earth theory.
You totally misunderstand Humphreys’ equations.
There has only been one ‘white hole’ and it is the entire universe, and it is certainly not imploding, it is expanding. It is not limited to the speed of light in it’s expansion, since light speed is a feature internal to the thing that is being expanded. We cannot determine the speed of expansion, or even if it truly is still expanding, since our frame of reference is what is expanding.
I pity your ignorant misery. You are truly pathetic, thrashing in your chosen darkness, rejecting science, and embracing ignorance.
Personal attacks are not allowed on this website.
But I guess if you don't have any scientific arguments, you go with whatever you can dredge up.
My turn to ask a question. Does not DNA demonstrate that it is literally impossible for all flesh beings to have descended from only two flesh beings? That is unless you believe in a miraculous paced evolution?
*Gag*
Huckabee NAKEDLY and BRAZENLY wears his religion on his sleeve as a candidate. He is openly presenting himself as the "Christian candidate." He has said outright that divine power is moving his candidacy forward. He is the ONE candidate who has opened himself up to this line of inquiry.
Actually there seem to be two distinct and independent cell types. For our 'flesh' type it appears that it all leads back to a single cell. And no, evolution took place over hundreds of millions of years, fast paced evolution is not required.
Well it has to be imploding if we are at the center of the universe and time dilated.
How can something internal not be consistent with something it is connected too? According to Russell the Universe isn't expanding it is imploding, that is his whole point. The Stars that are billions of light years away were Left there as the earth was rushed to the center of the universe. Maybe you should read a little closer:) I can understand why you are confused, his theory really doesn't make any sense.
Read Humphreys again; you missed most of what he asserts.
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.