PDA

View Full Version : Kudos to Mike Huckabee


Vegas_Dave
12-18-2007, 11:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA

I really respect this ad.

You may not agree with Huckabee on the content of the ad, but I know that I respect it that the man stands up and just says out loud what every other Christian in this country has thought for years.

I love that there is no "Politically Correct" standpoint from him on this.

I find it funny that people are so ready to stand up for their religious beliefs if they are not Christian, but Christians are chastised for standing up for their beliefs.

Whether you like him or not, there has to be some respect for this approach. Direct honesty.

A few months ago, I did not even know who Huckabee was. Right now, he has emerged as the only Republican candidate that I could vote for.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 11:34 AM
Yes, Kudos to Mike Huckabee.

For having too many skeletons in his closet and asinine views to make him truly electable.

Vegas_Dave
12-18-2007, 11:36 AM
Yes, Kudos to Mike Huckabee.

For having too many skeletons in his closet and asinine views to make him truly electable.

Yes, he is the only one.

Asinine in deed. Show me a single other candidate that the same thing cannot be said for.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 11:37 AM
Yes, he is the only one.

Asinine in deed. Show me a single other candidate that the same thing cannot be said for.

I didn't say he was the only one. Right now, he's the leading one.

All I will say is that if Huck is elected, America is as close to a Theocracy as it has been ever.

Vegas_Dave
12-18-2007, 11:42 AM
I didn't say he was the only one. Right now, he's the leading one.

All I will say is that if Huck is elected, America is as close to a Theocracy as it has been ever.

Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with your last statement though. Regardless of who is elected, their personal views come into play. So whether they are a Christian, a Muslim, a Mormon, an Agnostic, etc...

The question is whether they will impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. There is no way to know but that is also why there are the other branches of the government.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 11:50 AM
Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with your last statement though. Regardless of who is elected, their personal views come into play. So whether they are a Christian, a Muslim, a Mormon, an Agnostic, etc...

The question is whether they will impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. There is no way to know but that is also why there are the other branches of the government.

He's a MINISTER. That will be as close to a Theocracy as we've come.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 11:50 AM
I found this interesting, considering it came from Bill Donahue of the Catholic League.

Catholic League president slams Huckabee for 'subliminal' cross ad
David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Published: Tuesday December 18, 2007

GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee's new Christmas-themed campaign ad -- which may or may not feature a subliminal cross image -- has found an unlikely critic in Catholic League president Bill Donahue.

The opening seconds of Hucakabee's Christmas spot features the candidate seated in front of a window pane which appears to form the shape of the Christian cross. Speaking in the ad, the former Arkansas governor tells viewers that "sometimes it's nice to pull aside" from politics and "remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends."

Donahue, the president of the Catholic League and an ardent defender of Christmas in what he believes is a secular "war" against the holiday, told hosts of the Fox and Friends morning program that the ad had gone too far.

"The whole idea is to give the appearance of a cross," he said, "and this is just injecting religion into politics even too far for guys like me."

Asked if the ad was "too much," Donahue said it was.

"Because there's a pattern here," he added. "Every other word out of [Huckabee's] mouth is that 'I'm Christian.' He's calling into question Romney's Mormonism...let people talk about there faith, but don't sell it on your sleeve."

Added Donahue, "Yeah, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but don't become a salesman. Don't hawk it like that on the street."

The Catholic League president suggested that Huckabee was relying on his faith too heavily as a campaign tactic.

"If it was just the Christmas ad, I wouldn't have one complaint about it," he said. "But when you juxtapose that with all these other kinds of things, there's a subliminal message there, and it's all done intentionally...what he's trying to say to the evangelicals in Western Iowa is 'I'm the real thing.'"

"You know what?" concluded Donahue. "Sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_rips_Huckabee_for_using_subliminal_1218.html


Considering Mr. <s>Nehemiah Scudder</s> Huckabee has already implied God wants him to win while on the stump (how else can we interpret his "Only one thing to account for the poll surge" comment?), this ad doesn't surprise me in the least.


The question is whether they will impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. There is no way to know but that is also why there are the other branches of the government.

There is no way to know, but I can't say I'm comfortable with it. A believer is one thing, but a minister is another IMO.

As someone far more eloquent than I put it...


It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. This is equally true whether the faith is Communism or Holy-Rollerism; indeed it is the bounden duty of the faithful to do so. The custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of heresy to be a virtue.

JMO.

Chiefnj2
12-18-2007, 11:53 AM
I didn't watch the video. Does the family gather around and hang a stray dog?

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 11:55 AM
I found this interesting, considering it came from Bill Donahue of the Catholic League.

Catholic League president slams Huckabee for 'subliminal' cross ad
David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Published: Tuesday December 18, 2007

GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee's new Christmas-themed campaign ad -- which may or may not feature a subliminal cross image -- has found an unlikely critic in Catholic League president Bill Donahue.

The opening seconds of Hucakabee's Christmas spot features the candidate seated in front of a window pane which appears to form the shape of the Christian cross. Speaking in the ad, the former Arkansas governor tells viewers that "sometimes it's nice to pull aside" from politics and "remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends."

Donahue, the president of the Catholic League and an ardent defender of Christmas in what he believes is a secular "war" against the holiday, told hosts of the Fox and Friends morning program that the ad had gone too far.

"The whole idea is to give the appearance of a cross," he said, "and this is just injecting religion into politics even too far for guys like me."

Asked if the ad was "too much," Donahue said it was.

"Because there's a pattern here," he added. "Every other word out of [Huckabee's] mouth is that 'I'm Christian.' He's calling into question Romney's Mormonism...let people talk about there faith, but don't sell it on your sleeve."

Added Donahue, "Yeah, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but don't become a salesman. Don't hawk it like that on the street."

The Catholic League president suggested that Huckabee was relying on his faith too heavily as a campaign tactic.

"If it was just the Christmas ad, I wouldn't have one complaint about it," he said. "But when you juxtapose that with all these other kinds of things, there's a subliminal message there, and it's all done intentionally...what he's trying to say to the evangelicals in Western Iowa is 'I'm the real thing.'"

"You know what?" concluded Donahue. "Sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_rips_Huckabee_for_using_subliminal_1218.html


Considering Mr. <s>Nehemiah Scudder</s> Huckabee has already implied God wants him to win while on the stump (how else can we interpret his "Only one thing to account for the poll surge" comment?), this ad doesn't surprise me in the least.

Donahue isn't a salesman? ROFL

Ron Paul was asked about this:

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BrkltetQ0x4&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BrkltetQ0x4&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

I find it hilarious that he says something and then Fox doesn't like what he said and so they try to sell it as "the truth".

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 11:56 AM
Kudos to Mike Huckabee for what looks to be a carefully crafted and calculated ad. You can buy into his 'lets get away from politics' BS if you'd like, but the sole purpose of the ad was political. He's playing up his faith. The shelf/cross was a nice touch.

Vegas_Dave
12-18-2007, 11:58 AM
He's a MINISTER. That will be as close to a Theocracy as we've come.

But that doesnt change my point. He is an ordained minister. He was also a Governer of a State. So he is instead going to become "Pastor & Chief"? I dont think so.

His choices as President would be based on his beliefs. This is true whether he is a minister or an atheist.

Several US Presidents have been religious teachers, deacons & elders in their faiths. An ordained minister is nothing more then a teacher with formal training.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Donahue isn't a salesman?

He's somewhere between a Salesman and a PR spinmiester, with a dose of Elmer Gantry, IMO.

Though I did love his appearance on the South Park Easter Special. LMAO

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 12:00 PM
<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BrkltetQ0x4&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BrkltetQ0x4&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

Fox must not have much music in their library. I'm sure there haven't been many Ron Paul montages done to Pink songs.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:04 PM
But that doesnt change my point. He is an ordained minister. He was also a Governer of a State. So he is instead going to become "Pastor & Chief"? I dont think so.

Again, he's a MINISTER. So by definition, electing a MINISTER to highest office would be as close to a theocracy as we've been.


His choices as President would be based on his beliefs. This is true whether he is a minister or an atheist.

Can you give an example of an atheist president making a decision based on the LACK of a belief? Please?


Several US Presidents have been religious teachers, deacons & elders in their faiths. An ordained minister is nothing more then a teacher with formal training.

And yet, it's called a theocracy if it's outside the US.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:05 PM
He's somewhere between a Salesman and a PR spinmiester, with a dose of Elmer Gantry, IMO.

Though I did love his appearance on the South Park Easter Special. LMAO

The pope's hat doesn't make sense. Unless it was designed for a rabbit.

Peter Rabbit.
ROFL

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 12:08 PM
There's a difference between personal belief and what you think you should be acceptable for the rest of country. It's not a matter of what religion you are. It's a matter of your ability to separate the two.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 12:10 PM
Haha. The subliminable messages talk again. This comes up every cycle.

I bet the "rats" are involved in promoting this story.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:16 PM
Haha. The subliminable messages talk again. This comes up every cycle.

I bet the "rats" are involved in promoting this story.

I did find it interesting that FOX news picked it up....

Vegas_Dave
12-18-2007, 12:17 PM
Again, he's a MINISTER. So by definition, electing a MINISTER to highest office would be as close to a theocracy as we've been.
"As Close To" I will give you. However, that does not mean that it would be. Can you give an example of an atheist president making a decision based on the LACK of a belief? Please?
Off top of my head, I don't know of any Atheist Presidents. However, look at the complete mis-use of Jefferson's statement "Seperation of Church and State". This is used to keep "religion out of government". This was taken completely out of context from what Jefferson wrote which was:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
The seperation he speaks of is keeping government out of religion.

There are numerous cases where proclaimed atheists try to inflict their will on everyone else. Teaching of evolution in schools is a great example. I have no problem with educating children on the Theory of Evolution. However, when it is taught as the ONLY theory, then it is biased against religion.

The point is that it is not the person's beliefs that are the problem. It is how that person inflicts their beliefs on everyone else. I do not see any religious presidential candidate as one who would greatly force their religious beliefs on the people of the US. That is why there are the various branches of government, the constitution, and general democracy.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 12:21 PM
"As Close To" I will give you. However, that does not mean that it would be.

So we agree.



Off top of my head, I don't know of any Atheist Presidents. However, look at the complete mi-use of Jefferson's statement "Seperation of Church and State". This is used to keep "religion out of government". This was taken completely out of context from what Jefferson wrote which was:

We both know there are quote mines of quote mines on both sides for Jefferson. So it's pointless to quote mine again.



The seperation he speaks of is keeping government out of religion.

Really? No, it's the fact that England's King mandated a State Religion. They didn't like that. THat would be religion in government.


There are numerous cases where proclaimed atheists try to inflict their will on everyone else. Teaching of evolution in schools is a great example. I have no problem with educating children on the Theory of Evolution. However, when it is taught as the ONLY theory, then it is biased against religion.

So ID should be in the SCIENCE classroom. And once again, we have a person who doesn't know that THEORY means.


The point is that it is not the person's beliefs that are the problem. It is how that person inflicts their beliefs on everyone else. I do not see any religious presidential candidate as one who would greatly force their religious beliefs on the people of the US. That is why there are the various branches of government, the constitution, and general democracy.

Yes. Huckabee is a great candidate. You know, pardoning people because they found Jesus. Even though they're murderers and rapists....

Yeah, I know what you mean....

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 12:31 PM
There are numerous cases where proclaimed atheists try to inflict their will on everyone else. Teaching of evolution in schools is a great example. I have no problem with educating children on the Theory of Evolution. However, when it is taught as the ONLY theory, then it is biased against religion.

Jesus F*cking Christ.

What, does everything taught in Science class need a religious counterpart teaching? Gravity has nothing to do with the attraction of objects relative to their mass, it's just God.

What religions are we going to teach? All the major ones? After we're done with those, I've got a set of beliefs I want taught. And so does my friend. And their friend. And their friend.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 12:34 PM
Haha. The subliminable messages talk again. This comes up every cycle.

I bet the "rats" are involved in promoting this story.

After all, Bill Donahue has had so many good things to say about the "rats" over the years.

Now that I think about that...I really can't think of a single instance where that's true... :hmmm:

thehead
12-18-2007, 12:37 PM
Well at least it was not in Spanish Thats a plus :rolleyes:

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 12:38 PM
What, does everything taught in Science class need a religious counterpart teaching? Gravity has nothing to do with the attraction of objects relative to their weight, it's just God.



Ummm....I don't think so.

It has to do with the attraction of objects relative to their mass, not weight, IIRC.

I guess we should have to teach Adam and Eve along with Genetics, though simple genetics conclusively proves it's far too small a gene pool to propagate a species.

Vegas_Dave
12-18-2007, 12:41 PM
So we agree.
However, that does not mean that it would be.


Really? No, it's the fact that England's King mandated a State Religion. They didn't like that. THat would be religion in government.
How is that really different then what I said? He said it because England's Government got into religion. So his statement was against government getting into religion. This is what I said.


So ID should be in the SCIENCE classroom. And once again, we have a person who doesn't know that THEORY means.

Yes, I do think that ID should be taught as another THEORY, just like the THEORY of Evolution. I know very well what it means. The problem is that 6th grade science students don't. So when they are TAUGHT from their teacher about the Theory of Evolution, but then are not given any other THEORY's as other possibities, how do they distinguish?

I was fortunate in that when I was in school, my science teacher started out stating that Evolution is simply a widely accepted Theory. He stated that it is not proven fact. He told us that he was Catholic (public school teacher) and that he realized that many students had religious beliefs that are differing and would contradict the Theory that he was about to teach. However, he could not go beyond that and that was it.

What is wrong with teaching ID as another Theory up against the THEORY of Evolution? If the goal of school is to educate, why choose only one THEORY to use for education? Are people afraid that middle school students cannot make up their own mind? Are they afraid that it might start a discussion at home with their parents? What is wrong with TRULY educating the children rather then only giving them 1 view point when the viewpoint is simply a theory?

You call out others saying that they do not understand the term "theory", but I think that we understand it better then you.

As I said, I have no problem with them teaching the "Theory of Evolution"... but when there are other widely accepted alternative theories out there, why not educate them?

The "Theory of Gravity" is also just a theory... but are there alternative theories that go against it?

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 12:47 PM
[/i]



How is that really different then what I said? He said it because England's Government got into religion. So his statement was against government getting into religion. This is what I said.




Yes, I do think that ID should be taught as another THEORY, just like the THEORY of Evolution. I know very well what it means. The problem is that 6th grade science students don't. So when they are TAUGHT from their teacher about the Theory of Evolution, but then are not given any other THEORY's as other possibities, how do they distinguish?

I was fortunate in that when I was in school, my science teacher started out stating that Evolution is simply a widely accepted Theory. He stated that it is not proven fact. He told us that he was Catholic (public school teacher) and that he realized that many students had religious beliefs that are differing and would contradict the Theory that he was about to teach. However, he could not go beyond that and that was it.

What is wrong with teaching ID as another Theory up against the THEORY of Evolution? If the goal of school is to educate, why choose only one THEORY to use for education? Are people afraid that middle school students cannot make up their own mind? Are they afraid that it might start a discussion at home with their parents? What is wrong with TRULY educating the children rather then only giving them 1 view point when the viewpoint is simply a theory?

You call out others saying that they do not understand the term "theory", but I think that we understand it better then you.

As I said, I have no problem with them teaching the "Theory of Evolution"... but when there are other widely accepted alternative theories out there, why not educate them?

The "Theory of Gravity" is also just a theory... but are there alternative theories that go against it?
Why is it that people assume Evolution is an atheist thing? Further, It is up to the states to decide which theories it will teach. EVEN Further, creationism has no place in a SCIENCE class. It is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It is a religious theory. If you want your school to teach RELIGION classes, by all means, talk to your state legislator about it.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 12:47 PM
[/i]
Yes, I do think that ID should be taught as another THEORY, just like the THEORY of Evolution.

The problem with that is ID places itself outside the Scientific Method, and thus outside Science. It's based on an assumption called "Irreducible Complexity", which simply cannot be tested or verified.

Teach it in Philosophy or Religion classes, because that's what it is. I'm fine with that. If the ID folks cook up a theory not based on Irreducible Complexity that is subject to the Scientific Method, then that's cause for reconsideration. To date, they have not.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 12:47 PM
Ummm....I don't think so.

It has to do with the attraction of objects relative to their mass, not weight, IIRC.

samediffmybad. It's what determines weight.

Taco John
12-18-2007, 01:05 PM
I think Huckabee pours it on a little too thick. But I'd a little biased, so it's hard for me to know where the "too thick" line is, and how much pandering a Christian will accept before thinking the guy crossed the line of crassness.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 01:28 PM
How can Huckabee be a real Christian or even pro-life. He's a candidate of war and torture. I hardly think the current Pope could endorse him.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 02:34 PM
I think Huckabee pours it on a little too thick. But I'd a little biased, so it's hard for me to know where the "too thick" line is, and how much pandering a Christian will accept before thinking the guy crossed the line of crassness.

I think he gets more attitude because he seems authentic. If another candidate were laying the Christian on really thick, it would probably seem phony. But it doesn't seem phony for a pastor to do it. He's got credibility in that respect.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 02:51 PM
[/i]



How is that really different then what I said? He said it because England's Government got into religion. So his statement was against government getting into religion. This is what I said.

No, religion got into government. The person making the decision used his religion to govern. (making a state religion).




Yes, I do think that ID should be taught as another THEORY, just like the THEORY of Evolution. I know very well what it means.

Not even close! Evolution is testable. Your theory is not. At all.

The problem is that 6th grade science students don't.

You obviously don't know what it means as you equate the two above. So, here in lies the problem. Uninformed people teaching uninformed people.


So when they are TAUGHT from their teacher about the Theory of Evolution, but then are not given any other THEORY's as other possibities, how do they distinguish?

Ah, yes, because they're equal at that point. Religion indoctrinates starting at BIRTH. With catholics it's the baptism. With other religions it's different. However, indoctrination and the teachings of the church are instilled at birth and continue til the 6th grade. You would say that a baby isn't able to understand evolution but at the same time deem it understandable - hell, important - to tell them of the OTHER theory as if they will understand it.

You obviously don't get the definition of THEORY.


I was fortunate in that when I was in school, my science teacher started out stating that Evolution is simply a widely accepted Theory. He stated that it is not proven fact. He told us that he was Catholic (public school teacher) and that he realized that many students had religious beliefs that are differing and would contradict the Theory that he was about to teach. However, he could not go beyond that and that was it.

Obviously, he doesn't understand theory either. Or, he's purposefully calling it a theory, like believers in the PR campaign are.

What is wrong with teaching ID as another Theory up against the THEORY of Evolution?

IT'S NOT TESTABLE. PERIOD. Evolution is. The only reason you won't buy into it is because you haven't witnessed humans evolve. And the reason that is is because it takes TIME. Which is the variable right now.

Further, even it if was PROVEN but couldn't be PREDICTABLE, it would remain a THEORY.

That's why.



If the goal of school is to educate, why choose only one THEORY to use for education? Are people afraid that middle school students cannot make up their own mind? Are they afraid that it might start a discussion at home with their parents? What is wrong with TRULY educating the children rather then only giving them 1 view point when the viewpoint is simply a theory?

Are religious people afraid kids can't make up their own mind so they have to for them from birth by instilling a certain religious dogma?

Seriously, you continue to misunderstand the concept of scientific THEORY.

You call out others saying that they do not understand the term "theory", but I think that we understand it better then you.

Define it. Please. I beg you.

As I said, I have no problem with them teaching the "Theory of Evolution"... but when there are other widely accepted alternative theories out there, why not educate them?

What other theories? Please, elaborate? Are they testable?


The "Theory of Gravity" is also just a theory... but are there alternative theories that go against it?

??

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 02:59 PM
IJ, elements of ID theory are testable.

That said, the foundation for the theory, "Irreducible Complexity", is not.

Nuance is important.

Vegas Dave- Yes, there are several schools of thought when it comes to gravitational theory.

From a cursory examination of Wikipedia (far from the best source, but I don't really have time to dig too much right now..)

# Brans-Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
# Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of matter.
# Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity
# In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for small accelerations.
# The new and highly controversial Process Physics theory attempts to address gravity
# The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A. Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation.
# Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
# The satirical theory of Intelligent falling (2002, in its first incarnation as "Intelligent grappling")
# Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 03:02 PM
IJ, elements of ID theory are testable.

That said, the foundation for the theory, "Irreducible Complexity", is not.

Nuance is important.

How is ID testable? The basic tenet of the belief is "God created" which presupposes that there is a god that exist. How do you prove either of those? Especially when they tell you God is SUPERnatural?

And that's a genuine question.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 03:03 PM
I find it funny that people are so ready to stand up for their religious beliefs if they are not Christian, but Christians are chastised for standing up for their beliefs.

Well, the most commonly held position is always going to be criticized by minorities. But minorities aren't going to spend as much time being critical of each other. It's easiest to focus on the one everybody dislikes.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 03:05 PM
Well, the most commonly held position is always going to be criticized by minorities. But minorities aren't going to spend as much time being critical of each other. It's easiest to focus on the one everybody dislikes.

True, even if any belief the majority or minority holds is wrong.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 03:06 PM
How is ID testable? The basic tenet of the belief is "God created" which presupposes that there is a god that exist. How do you prove either of those? Especially when they tell you God is SUPERnatural?

And that's a genuine question.

As I said, ID as a whole is not testable, because of the dependency on the assumption of Irreducible Complexity. This places it outside the Scientific Method.

I've been told by someone whose opinion I do trust that certain elements of ID are testable, as are elements of other psuedo-sciences. I freely admit I do not have the biological background to understand which specific elements of the theory they are referring to, but their devotion to the Scientific Method leaves me willing to accept their answers.

Next time I talk to them, I'll see if I can get some specifics if you have a genuine interest.

Taco John
12-18-2007, 03:07 PM
I think he gets more attitude because he seems authentic. If another candidate were laying the Christian on really thick, it would probably seem phony. But it doesn't seem phony for a pastor to do it. He's got credibility in that respect.



Indeed... I roll my eyes whenever Rudy starts talking about his faith... At least with Huckabee, I know he's sincere.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 03:08 PM
ID as a whole is not testable, as I said, because of the dependency on the assumption of Irreducible Complexity.

I've been told by someone whose opinion I do trust that certain elements of ID are testable, as are elements of other psuedo-sciences. I freely admit I do not have the biological background to understand which specific elements of the theory they are referring to, but their devotion to the Scientific Method leaves me willing to accept their answers.

Next time I talk to them, I'll see if I can get some specifics.


Fair enough. Will you agree, that while elements might be testable, the whole theory is not the equivalent of Evolutionary Theory. Or even on the same level.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 03:14 PM
Fair enough. Will you agree, that while elements might be testable, the whole theory is not the equivalent of Evolutionary Theory. Or even on the same level.

I'd agree with that, though I also admit my own prejudices due to my lack of belief in the supernatural would play a part in that.

Fishpicker
12-18-2007, 03:16 PM
But that doesnt change my point. He is an ordained minister. He was also a Governer of a State. So he is instead going to become "Pastor & Chief"? I dont think so.

His choices as President would be based on his beliefs. This is true whether he is a minister or an atheist.

Several US Presidents have been religious teachers, deacons & elders in their faiths. An ordained minister is nothing more then a teacher with formal training.

I'm glad you brought it up because this is worth repeating. Huckabee doesn't have a theology degree but he has claimed he did on several occasions.

I'm as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well.

an ordained minister would probably have Master's in theology. Huck has a bachelor of arts in religion and a minor in communications in undergraduate work.

edit: master's in divinity not theology, my bad

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 03:34 PM
[/i]



How is that really different then what I said? He said it because England's Government got into religion. So his statement was against government getting into religion. This is what I said.

Yes, I do think that ID should be taught as another THEORY, just like the THEORY of Evolution. I know very well what it means. The problem is that 6th grade science students don't. So when they are TAUGHT from their teacher about the Theory of Evolution, but then are not given any other THEORY's as other possibities, how do they distinguish?

I was fortunate in that when I was in school, my science teacher started out stating that Evolution is simply a widely accepted Theory. He stated that it is not proven fact. He told us that he was Catholic (public school teacher) and that he realized that many students had religious beliefs that are differing and would contradict the Theory that he was about to teach. However, he could not go beyond that and that was it.

What is wrong with teaching ID as another Theory up against the THEORY of Evolution? If the goal of school is to educate, why choose only one THEORY to use for education? Are people afraid that middle school students cannot make up their own mind? Are they afraid that it might start a discussion at home with their parents? What is wrong with TRULY educating the children rather then only giving them 1 view point when the viewpoint is simply a theory?

You call out others saying that they do not understand the term "theory", but I think that we understand it better then you.

As I said, I have no problem with them teaching the "Theory of Evolution"... but when there are other widely accepted alternative theories out there, why not educate them?

The "Theory of Gravity" is also just a theory... but are there alternative theories that go against it?

First of all, Evolution is taught b/c its a science class. Intelligent Design HAS NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION TO TECH RESEARCH. Evolution aids practical research, as such it has secular value. ID is pure religion because it postulates "creation by god" but does not show how this theory helps mankind develop techonolgy.

Fundamentalist Christians constantly try to call evolution a "religious" belief. Evolution is taught in science class because evolution has practical benefit in many areas of research, including virology, parisitology, genetics, zoology, immunology. Evolutionary theories aid in everyday pharmecudical research.

Intelligent Design theories are absolutely useless in the lab. The only science components of "ID" consist of techincal attacks on the data collection methods and reasoning behind evolution evidence. ID makes NO predictions about and provides no guidence in researching viral mutations and predicting lines of beneficial reasearch in the fields listed above.

Show how Intelligent Design can provide a theoritcal base that aids practical research (superior to evolution) and it would be taught in schools. Until that time, you guys that promote ID had better develop your theory and show it has some real world benefit other than for "social engineering".

As it is, ID ONLY pertains to matters of faith. You call "evolution" a religion because you can only see questions about the origin of the species having religious applications. You don't comprehend its research benefits, because you don't understand the research.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 03:53 PM
First of all, Evolution is taught b/c its a science class. Intelligent Design is RELIGION, not science.

I've heard many people forward ID theories that were not at all based on holy text or scripture or anything else.

Whether or not you think these are good science is up to you, but without a doubt, there can be other theories based on science besides the one that the Department of Education or your local school board endorses. The fact that it is not congruent with one scientific theory doesn't make it not a scientific theory.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 04:06 PM
The fact that it is not congruent with one scientific theory doesn't make it not a scientific theory.

I agree wholeheartedly.

However, I am yet to see an ID argument that is not based on the assumption of Irreducible Complexity.

That untestable assumption is why it is a Theological/Philosophical construct, and not a Scientific Theory subject to the Scientific Method.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 04:15 PM
I've heard many people forward ID theories that were not at all based on holy text or scripture or anything else.

Whether or not you think these are good science is up to you, but without a doubt, there can be other theories based on science besides the one that the Department of Education or your local school board endorses. The fact that it is not congruent with one scientific theory doesn't make it not a scientific theory.

True, what makes it not a scientific theory is it's non-testablity. Now, the reason I was commenting on the difference between the two is because ID as a THEORY is NOT the same type of THEORY as evolution.

And yes, there are ID theories that don't use the BIble. And no, they are still not scientific theories.

Do you think there is a reason the Department of Education, scientists and universities all endorse the current scientific theory of Evolution. And I am willing to bet some of those people are believers.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 04:26 PM
And yes, there are ID theories that don't use the BIble. And no, they are still not scientific theories.

Science is an attempt to understand our world using observational evidence. The fact that someone doesn't draw the same conclusions as you from observation doesn't mean they aren't practicing science.

Quite a good example of ideological fascism is the old "we'll kick you out of 'science' if you don't agree with us".

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 04:27 PM
I've heard many people forward ID theories that were not at all based on holy text or scripture or anything else.

Whether or not you think these are good science is up to you, but without a doubt, there can be other theories based on science besides the one that the Department of Education or your local school board endorses. The fact that it is not congruent with one scientific theory doesn't make it not a scientific theory.


Yeah, but you miss the rest of the post. Its not taught at the middle school level because its has no proven practical application. Furthermore, the underlying presumptions of ID conflict with the underlying presumptions of science to point where its a different subject altogether. Whereas evolution is the core theory that holds together every biological science.

For example, they don't teach Lynn Margolis' theory of punctuated equilibrium i middle school. (Margolis theorized that computer models suggest that natural selection doesn't work rapidly enough to explain "bursts" of speciation seen at some periods of earth's history. She then creates a complex theory about how different mechanisms of speciation could show how punctuated equilibrium work). Margolis' work is science because she still presumes that speciation is a natural phenomenon that is predictable.

ID is not science because science presumes that natural phenomenon occur due to natural forces which apply at all times to the entire universe. ID presumes some "creative Force" without any methodology about how this creative force is predictable. Ask any christian if "God's behavior is dictated by circumstance".

God is beyond the scope of science because any "God" is not bound by circumstance.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 04:32 PM
Science is an attempt to understand our world using observational evidence.


Partially correct.

A) Science depends on inquiry according to the Scientific Method.

B) Intelligent Design theory is based on a concept utterly untestable by the scientific method (Irreducible Complexity).

Seriously Cochise, please tell me how this is "ideological fascism"?

To me, it sounds like ID'ers want to redefine the rules of the game so they can play too. Unfortunately for them, Science simply doesn't work that way. You don't get to decide that only part of your theory is subject to the method. Furthermore, Science is the search for "Natural" explanations, not supernatural. ID'ers want to include the supernatural in Science, without a shred of evidence backed by scientific inquiry. That's not ideological facism, that's trying to change the rules when you don't like them because your "theory" doesn't fit the pre-existing framework of inquiry.



Quite a good example of ideological fascism is the old "we'll kick you out of 'science' if you don't agree with us".

I understand the phenomenon you are referring to.

It would apply here if ID theories were testable by the Scientific method. They aren't, so it doesn't. :shrug:

Cochise
12-18-2007, 04:46 PM
[untestable assumptions are] why it is a Theological/Philosophical construct, and not a Scientific Theory subject to the Scientific Method.

Let's put ID aside for a moment.

There are scientists out there who have misgivings about evolution who are not Christians or religious. I saw a guy on.. I think it was KCPT, who was agnostic who had problems with Darwin's (discredited depending on who you ask) tree of life and his eugenical ideas. He said he asked a roomful of other academics if they could name a single thing that they knew absolutely for sure about evolution and he said none of them had any to offer.

But many people who hear this would stifle any discussion of that. It's like to be admitted to any discussion about anything under the auspices of 'science', you have to agree with that one theory.

I think it's quite extraordinary, that scientists - who are supposed to continuously question everything and open new doors and keep exploring every corner of our world all the time, for infinity - aren't allowed to touch this at all. You aren't allowed to question it or they throw you out the back door.

I mean, if this were 500 or 1000 years ago, people would be advocating that Aristotle's ideas about physics should not be challenged in public education. And indeed people at the time did. But it didn't mean that geocentrism was an unassailable fortress of scientific fact.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 04:51 PM
Let's put ID aside for a moment.

There are scientists out there who have misgivings about evolution who are not Christians or religious. I saw a guy on.. I think it was KCPT, who was agnostic who had problems with Darwin's (discredited depending on who you ask) tree of life and his eugenical ideas. He said he asked a roomful of other academics if they could name a single thing that they knew absolutely for sure about evolution and he said none of them had any to offer.

But many people who hear this would stifle any discussion of that. It's like to be admitted to any discussion about anything under the auspices of 'science', you have to agree with that one theory.

I think it's quite extraordinary, that scientists - who are supposed to continuously question everything and open new doors and keep exploring every corner of our world all the time, for infinity - aren't allowed to touch this at all. You aren't allowed to question it or they throw you out the back door.

I mean, if this were 500 or 1000 years ago, people would be advocating that Aristotle's ideas about physics should not be challenged in public education. And indeed people at the time did. But it didn't mean that geocentrism was an unassailable fortress of scientific fact.

IMO, those that would stifle discussion of differing evolutionary/origin theories are wrong-headed. Equally as wrong-headed as those who insist on promoting theories that place themselves outside the Scientific Method (due to untestable assumptions, supernatural phenomenon, etc.) as part of "Science".

It's a unfortunate side effect of politics (both the national and academic flavors) on Science.

As I've said before, if the ID chaps ever come up with a theory that can be tested by the Scientific Method, I'm all for it. Just don't try to tell me the Scientific Method of inquiry has to change just to accommodate a theory. It simply doesn't work that way.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 04:54 PM
Let's put ID aside for a moment.

There are scientists out there who have misgivings about evolution who are not Christians or religious. I saw a guy on.. I think it was KCPT, who was agnostic who had problems with Darwin's (discredited depending on who you ask) tree of life and his eugenical ideas. He said he asked a roomful of other academics if they could name a single thing that they knew absolutely for sure about evolution and he said none of them had any to offer.

But many people who hear this would stifle any discussion of that. It's like to be admitted to any discussion about anything under the auspices of 'science', you have to agree with that one theory.

I think it's quite extraordinary, that scientists - who are supposed to continuously question everything and open new doors and keep exploring every corner of our world all the time, for infinity - aren't allowed to touch this at all. You aren't allowed to question it or they throw you out the back door.

I mean, if this were 500 or 1000 years ago, people would be advocating that Aristotle's ideas about physics should not be challenged in public education. And indeed people at the time did. But it didn't mean that geocentrism was an unassailable fortress of scientific fact.

I don't know what you're referring to but that's how science works. If evidence comes to light showing something new that disproves something else, things are reevaluated.

Just because there are some scientists not ascribing to evolution doesn't mean it's not valid theory.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, I don't think you could be more wrong about how science works.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 04:57 PM
IMO, Those that would stifle discussion of differing evolutionary/origin theories are wrong-headed, IMO. Equally as wrong-headed as those who would promote theories that place themselves outside the Scientific Method (due to untestable assumptions, supernatural phenomenon, etc.) as part of "Science".

I would submit that both sides of the debate contain aspects that are testable and those that are untestable.

The point of what I was saying earlier was, I label as ideological fascism whatever doctrine that says, "you aren't allowed to question that".

I am not advocating creationism replace evolution in education. I just think it should be allowable to say that some people have some misgivings about this theory, or to describe them.

Ultimately in my perfect world this wouldn't even be a problem because education would be privatized and people could send their kids to whatever school they liked.

I just think it's faulty to say, if you don't agree with this then you can't speak, you're not a scientist.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 04:57 PM
Science is an attempt to understand our world using observational evidence. The fact that someone doesn't draw the same conclusions as you from observation doesn't mean they aren't practicing science.

Quite a good example of ideological fascism is the old "we'll kick you out of 'science' if you don't agree with us".

FTR, I have never said that or even think that. I have ALWAYS said science is different than religion for the sole fact that it can reevaluate evidence should new evidence come to light.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 04:59 PM
The point of what I was saying earlier was, I label as ideological fascism whatever doctrine that says, "you aren't allowed to question that".


I agree wholeheartedly. That view is a good chunk of why I reject Religion in general. The labeling of something as "Heresy" is a sad phenomenon, whether it comes from Science or Religion. JMO.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 05:01 PM
I would submit that both sides of the debate contain aspects that are testable and those that are untestable.

What part of evolution is untestable? True, most of the testing relies on the variable of time. But it still is testable just, perhaps, not in your life time.

The point of what I was saying earlier was, I label as ideological fascism whatever doctrine that says, "you aren't allowed to question that".

Science, to my knowledge doesn't do this. It is akin, in my view only, to the default stance/reasonable assumption.


I am not advocating creationism replace evolution in education. I just think it should be allowable to say that some people have some misgivings about this theory, or to describe them.

Why? One is testable the other is not. If you want to include ID or creationism or whatever they call it now, in THEOLOGY class, go ahead. But it is NOT a scientific theory for the reasons Adept has laid out. Mainly, it cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.


Ultimately in my perfect world this wouldn't even be a problem because education would be privatized and people could send their kids to whatever school they liked.

I just think it's faulty to say, if you don't agree with this then you can't speak, you're not a scientist.

And likewise to the other side.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 05:01 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. That view is a good chunk of why I reject Religion in general.

:shrug: I don't think anyone should be telling you that you shouldn't question religion either. One even says in its holy text to test all things and hold onto the good.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 05:02 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. That view is a good chunk of why I reject Religion in general. The labeling of something as "Heresy" is a sad phenomenon, whether it comes from Science or Religion. JMO.

I would agree with both statements - though I clarified my stance on his quote due to our current discussion relating specifically to science.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 05:03 PM
:shrug: I don't think anyone should be telling you that you shouldn't question religion either. One even says in its holy text to test all things and hold onto the good.


I know you don't.

I believe that's one of the reasons we get along, even though we come at the issue from opposing POV's. :toast:

tiptap
12-18-2007, 05:20 PM
Science is an attempt to understand our world using observational evidence. The fact that someone doesn't draw the same conclusions as you from observation doesn't mean they aren't practicing science.

Quite a good example of ideological fascism is the old "we'll kick you out of 'science' if you don't agree with us".

But before kids can run they have to learn to walk. If you think there is no predictive element to scientific theories than you have never done research. It is a false measure of the value of theories to give instruction to students about theories that are poorly supported, like phlogistan or vital forces or ID when redox, biochemistry and evolution give such great understanding of diverse fields from virology to cancer to paleontology. Modern Synthesis of Descent with Modification has fused evolution and genetics to such a degree that you can't talk about one without the other.

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 05:22 PM
But many people who hear this would stifle any discussion of that. It's like to be admitted to any discussion about anything under the auspices of 'science', you have to agree with that one theory.

I think it's quite extraordinary, that scientists - who are supposed to continuously question everything and open new doors and keep exploring every corner of our world all the time, for infinity - aren't allowed to touch this at all. You aren't allowed to question it or they throw you out the back door.




Not true. There's been a lot of questioning of Darwinian "speciation" and if it can explain all the variability we see today. Lynn Margolis provided a lot of theories about "non-darwinian" models of speciation. She has, by no means, been kicked "out the door".

There are many aspects about evolution that are repeatable science fact (such as natural selection driving phenotypic variety and gene expressin WITHIN a species). What the moderator must have asked is the more specialized question is "do you know anything for certain about darwin's speciation model (the mechanism for how one species gives rise to another). No one, has yet, experimentally proved that one species can become another through natural selection.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 05:38 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with your last statement though. Regardless of who is elected, their personal views come into play. So whether they are a Christian, a Muslim, a Mormon, an Agnostic, etc...

The question is whether they will impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. There is no way to know but that is also why there are the other branches of the government.

IJ wants the godless hordes (liberal politicians) to be in charge so he can justify his non belief.

tiptap
12-18-2007, 05:38 PM
Darwin didn't have all the answers. Anyone who teaches Evolution with simply the principles of Natural Selection and time has missed in its entirety the work of Fisher early in the 20th Century. Fisher is famous first for being "Student" of the statistical Student T test. But he moved his work to Biology uniting genetics, statistics of dominant and recessiveness of population, sexual reproduction, natural selection and mutation.

Classically now, a modern class in population genetics is also a course in evolution. That is if you pay attention at all to phenotype. If populations are infinite, if there is no Natural selection, if there is no mutations, if mating is completely random then Fisher proved that the genetic percentage of allele (traits) in that population will not change from one generation to the next.

But we find there is genetic drift. That the above systems do affect the distribution of genetic material within a population. As such evolution is always in evidence.

And the long term evidence connecting say apes and man exist in the shared vitamin C deficency we share. And evolution makes the substantiated prediction that two chimp chromosomes had to fuse in the development of humans. That is found in chromosome 2 that shows remnants of a second centromere (one is used in mitosis) and in remnant teleosome that is the termination "cap" for the end of chromosomes in the middle that divide two sequences of nucleotides that duplicate two separate chromosomes in chimps.

Where are the ID predictions?

a1na2
12-18-2007, 05:42 PM
How can Huckabee be a real Christian or even pro-life. He's a candidate of war and torture. I hardly think the current Pope could endorse him.

I'm not aware that the Pope has any real relationship to U.S. Politics.

The current Pope? I'm sure his background is still being discussed by those that have issues with his connection to the fuhrer.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 05:55 PM
If man actually did evolve from apes why are there still apes?

If evolution is actually true why are we not seeing new races of men?

If evolution starts with the amoeba where did they find the amoeba?

Where did the amoeba come from?

God created the heavens and the earth, for me and many others that is a given. God created mankind, that too is a belief of many.

What was the time frame of the creation? I know popular belief is that the creation was complete in 6 days, or 6000 years if you subscribe to the one day in heaven is like 1000 years on earth.

I believe that there is room for discussion with how long it took for man to be formed in the image of God.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 05:58 PM
If you're subscribing to the Adam and Eve method of creation, where did black people come from?

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:03 PM
I'm not aware that the Pope has any real relationship to U.S. Politics.

The current Pope? I'm sure his background is still being discussed by those that have issues with his connection to the fuhrer.

1. He doesn't. The closet would be that he occasionally meets with the president. He will come to Washington D.C. in April and talk to George Bush. Similar to what we saw with the Dalai Lama this fall.

The Pope does not endorse any candidate. Neither do U.S. Bishops. Although there's usually some talk about some bishops who wouldn't give Communion to so and so for their positions on abortion.

2. He had no connection with Adolf Hitler, except that he was a member of the Hitler Youth, if that's what you mean.

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 06:08 PM
And the long term evidence connecting say apes and man exist in the shared vitamin C deficency we share. And evolution makes the substantiated prediction that two chimp chromosomes had to fuse in the development of humans. That is found in chromosome 2 that shows remnants of a second centromere (one is used in mitosis) and in remnant teleosome that is the termination "cap" for the end of chromosomes in the middle that divide two sequences of nucleotides that duplicate two separate chromosomes in chimps.

Where are the ID predictions?

I have always wanted to see someone do an experiment trying to induce "speciation" in a population.

For example, in many plants, there are quadrapolid versions of normally diploid plants that are considered an individual species because they cannot interbreed with diploid specimens and they breed quadraploid offspring.

I would like to create a sterile "greenhouse" with a diploid species, irradiate the hell out of them, have workers in isolation suits, and see if I can induce speciation. (a stable quadraploid population that breeds true). At least it would show that speciation can result from manufactured selective pressure.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:10 PM
1. He doesn't. The closet would be that he occasionally meets with the president. He will come to Washington D.C. in April and talk to George Bush. Similar to what we saw with the Dalai Lama this fall.

The Pope does not endorse any candidate. Neither do U.S. Bishops. Although there's usually some talk about some bishops who wouldn't give Communion to so and so for their positions on abortion.

2. He had no connection with Adolf Hitler, except that he was a member of the Hitler Youth, if that's what you mean.

Even so #2 is true, there is still quite a bit of conversation regarding the membership. Many know that kids were signed up due to family loyalty or fear from the political machine that was in place in Germany during that era.

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:11 PM
If man actually did evolve from apes why are there still apes?

If evolution is actually true why are we not seeing new races of men?


1. Man didn't evolve from apes.

2. Read this short statement from the AAPA on Biological Aspects of Race:

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 06:11 PM
I'm not aware that the Pope has any real relationship to U.S. Politics.
Last Pope and the current have spoken out about Iraq being a violation of Christian Just War Doctrine, which I happen to agree with both of them on.

The current Pope? I'm sure his background is still being discussed by those that have issues with his connection to the fuhrer.
Link?

Think I may have heard this smear before, by those who are usually anti-Catholic.

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 06:11 PM
If you're subscribing to the Adam and Eve method of creation, where did black people come from?

Actially, many bible thumpers accept the idea of genetic drift driven by natural selection, they just can't accept natural selection as the method one species can become another.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 06:12 PM
Actially, many bible thumpers accept the idea of genetic drift driven by natural selection, they just can't accept natural selection as the method one species can become another.

I'm speaking directly to Tom, as he believes in the creation 'theory' of Adam and Eve.

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:14 PM
Even so #2 is true, there is still quite a bit of conversation regarding the membership. Many know that kids were signed up due to family loyalty or fear from the political machine that was in place in Germany during that era.

Yes. Ratzinger's family disliked Hitler and the events happening at that time. Ratzinger was a member because the consequences of not being one would not be good. And I think he was 14, if I remember right, at the time.

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 06:16 PM
Yes. Ratzinger's family disliked Hitler and the events happening at that time. Ratzinger was a member because the consequences of not being one would not be good.
Thanks for jogging my memory young'in! That's what I recall now that you mention it. I heard he walked away when he could too.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:16 PM
Last Pope and the current have spoken out about Iraq being a violation of Christian Just War Doctrine, which I happen to agree with both of them on.

Think I may have heard this smear before, by those who are usually anti-Catholic.

The first comment is a far cry from endorsing a political candidate.

As for the second comment, you will have to do the digging. I read it in the Kansas City Star. I'm sure other media groups still have some of that information available.

I sure hope that you aren't accusing me of being anti-Catholic. If that were the case I'd have to sever ties with about 40% of my co-workers and many of my friends. My wife was raised Catholic as well, I guess I'll have to get a divorce.

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 06:16 PM
Yes. Ratzinger's family disliked Hitler and the events happening at that time. Ratzinger was a member because the consequences of not being one would not be good. And I think he was 14, if I remember right, at the time.


I heard Ratzinger deserted his unit during the war at the first opportunity, due to his objections to serving nazis.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 06:18 PM
He continually ignores me.

If you're subscribing to the Adam and Eve method of creation, where did black people come from?

BucEyedPea
12-18-2007, 06:20 PM
I believe the Pope has a seat at the UN too.

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:23 PM
Thanks for jogging my memory young'in! That's what I recall now that you mention it. I heard he walked away when he could too.

Ratzinger said that he would skip meetings, with the help of a teacher who would count him as attending (it would affect tuition, which his father needed help with).

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:30 PM
I heard Ratzinger deserted his unit during the war at the first opportunity, due to his objections to serving nazis.

No, I think he was behind the scenes in the war a few times - the New York Times says he dug ditches - but didn't have to do more on the count of him studying to be a priest. He was drafted in Dec. 1944. When the war was almost over, many Germans deserted. Ratzinger was one.

patteeu
12-18-2007, 06:31 PM
If you're subscribing to the Adam and Eve method of creation, where did black people come from?

Africa.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 06:33 PM
Africa.

Sadly that's a better answer than whatever Tom would've given me.

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:35 PM
Sadly that's a better answer than whatever Tom would've given me.

Alabama?

patteeu
12-18-2007, 06:35 PM
Sadly that's a better answer than whatever Tom would've given me.

LOL

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:40 PM
If you're subscribing to the Adam and Eve method of creation, where did black people come from?

I'm guessing that you have missed the point that I am not responding to anything you post as you are an idiot on your good days.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 06:41 PM
LOL

Told you.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 06:41 PM
I'm guessing that you have missed the point that I am not responding to anything you post as you are an idiot on your good days.

You just did respond to me, Einstein.

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:43 PM
LOL

You might think it's funny, but the question he brought up indicates that he believes that Adam and Eve were pearly white. I don't believe that Adam and Eve were caucasian. I also don't believe that holmezzo has a clue as to how races evolved from the beginning, but that is not surprising considering his limited capacity to understand how the creation may have happened.

Jenson71
12-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Staaaarrrttting NOW!

a1na2
12-18-2007, 06:45 PM
Staaaarrrttting NOW!

Not really. There are a number of people here that I don't feel I need to talk to. They can start if they wish, but I have more self control than most of them.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 06:51 PM
I know you don't.

I believe that's one of the reasons we get along, even though we come at the issue from opposing POV's. :toast:

I was surprised once to hear that some Christians were asked "if it were proven beyond a doubt that God does not exist, would you stop believing in God?" and a bunch of them said no. What the heck? Why?

I don't believe in it because I want to be true. I could chose something that made a more rosy picture for everyone. Hey part of me wouldn't mind being out banging chicks like everyone else I know rather than practicing morality as best I can. Those things don't please me anymore, though. I don't believe in this ethos because I want to, it's because I'm convinced it is true.

People all want to make God over in their own image. 'I like these aspects of what people say he is, but I don't like these others, so I'll just choose not to believe those parts'. Well, whatever is the truth, that's what I am bound to believe. The truth is true whether I like it or not. The truth is true whether anyone believes in it or not. It would be better for me to curse him and die than to pretend that what I made up in my head is God. At least that would be honest.

In many places it's "come on in, Jesus will fix all your problems". Well tell that to people in Africa some places where a profession can mean your life. Tell that to a Christian family whose kid was killed by a drunk driver. If anything it promises your life will be harder, because people are going to reject you for believing in it.

We ought to be reverent to God because he created us and because he is who he is and not what we think he's going to give us. He's not Santa Claus.

HolmeZz
12-18-2007, 06:54 PM
You might think it's funny, but the question he brought up indicates that he believes that Adam and Eve were pearly white.

I don't believe in Adam and Eve so I can't believe they were white.

It doesn't matter what race they were in reality. I'm asking you to explain how, genetically, all other races descended from essentially one person.

I also don't believe that holmezzo has a clue as to how races evolved from the beginning

I don't pretend to. You sounded like you were certain of plenty and even asked a few questions because you figured they 'disproved' evolution somehow. I posed a simple question to you and you've still yet to answer it.

but that is not surprising considering his limited capacity to understand how the creation may have happened.

I think you're probably the one who's limited their knowledge capacity here. I tend to look at the universe on a grander scale. You see it as revolving around the human race. I don't.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 06:55 PM
If man actually did evolve from apes why are there still apes?

As pointed before this post, we didn't. We split from them. That explains both.

If evolution is actually true why are we not seeing new races of men?

Time.


If evolution starts with the amoeba where did they find the amoeba?

Where did the amoeba come from?


You are going into the CREATION part. Evolution doesn't attempt to answer this. The Big Bang does.



God created the heavens and the earth, for me and many others that is a given. God created mankind, that too is a belief of many.

If creation starts with God where did God come from? You can't have it both ways. You want to know where the amoeba comes from (which isn't evolution, first of all, but I digress) yet will immediately accept that God just "is" where as an amoeba "is not".

What was the time frame of the creation? I know popular belief is that the creation was complete in 6 days, or 6000 years if you subscribe to the one day in heaven is like 1000 years on earth.

I believe that there is room for discussion with how long it took for man to be formed in the image of God.

So you're not a 6000 year old creationist?

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 06:58 PM
I tend to look at the universe on a grander scale. You see it as revolving around the human race. I don't.

This is a common thinking ground for believers of any kind. Even if there was evidence for a god, who says he's interested in humans? Who says he won't accept skeptics over believers? Who's to say Hindus aren't his favorite?

It's a great quote you have there HolmeZz.

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 07:07 PM
I was surprised once to hear that some Christians were asked "if it were proven beyond a doubt that God does not exist, would you stop believing in God?" and a bunch of them said no. What the heck? Why?

I don't believe in it because I want to be true. I could chose something that made a more rosy picture for everyone. Hey part of me wouldn't mind being out banging chicks like everyone else I know rather than practicing morality as best I can. Those things don't please me anymore, though. I don't believe in this ethos because I want to, it's because I'm convinced it is true.

People all want to make God over in their own image. 'I like these aspects of what people say he is, but I don't like these others, so I'll just choose not to believe those parts'. Well, whatever is the truth, that's what I am bound to believe. The truth is true whether I like it or not. The truth is true whether anyone believes in it or not. It would be better for me to curse him and die than to pretend that what I made up in my head is God. At least that would be honest.

In many places it's "come on in, Jesus will fix all your problems". Well tell that to people in Africa some places where a profession can mean your life. Tell that to a Christian family whose kid was killed by a drunk driver. If anything it promises your life will be harder, because people are going to reject you for believing in it.

We ought to be reverent to God because he created us and because he is who he is and not what we think he's going to give us. He's not Santa Claus.

Thank you, Cochise. I really appreciate the insight into your faith. FWIW this non-believer gives you major kudos for the (IMO) intellectual honesty of your position. Merry Christmas to you (and to everyone else on the Planet, while we are at it). It may be a week early, but I don't know how much time I'll have to be around here the next few days. Cheers, everyone!



Oh- And for my fellow skeptics Vlad and IJ, enjoy the feast of Sol Invictus. Sacrifice a virgin for me.

On second thought, just break her in and then send her over. :)

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 07:11 PM
This is a common thinking ground for believers of any kind. Even if there was evidence for a god, who says he's interested in humans? Who says he won't accept skeptics over believers? Who's to say Hindus aren't his favorite?

It's a great quote you have there HolmeZz.

If you haven't read it, you should pick up Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice.

Seriously, I think you would really enjoy the book. Lots of laughs, some thought provoking moments, and a possible explanation for why religions seem "human centered".

http://www.amazon.com/Job-Comedy-Justice-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0345316509/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198030395&sr=8-1

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 07:16 PM
If you haven't read it, you should pick up Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice.

Seriously, I think you would really enjoy the book. Lots of laughs, some thought provoking moments, and a possible explanation for why religions seem "human centered".

Thanks. I'll check into it. Is it widely available?

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 07:19 PM
Thanks. I'll check into it. Is it widely available?

Just about any Borders or Barnes and Noble, I'd think. It's one of his last books, and almost everything he's written is in print.

Amazon lists a bunch of used copies too. I've often seen it at 1/2 Price books as well.

I really like this comment from a reviewer on Amazon:

Like "Jonathan Hoag," you are never sure where this story is going to end, and I won't spoil it for you here. Except to say that the implied limits on human understanding are bittersweet. We can find true love, Heinlein seems to be saying, and we can live lives filled with love, but we cannot really understand the universe.

This is Heinlein at his best. No pontificating all-knowing protagonists, very little of the political polemics that started with "Stranger." Just an excellent story that invites deeper thought. Highly recommended.

I'd also suggest you read or at least familiarize yourself with the biblical story of Job. You'll enjoy the book more if you do. JMO.

irishjayhawk
12-18-2007, 07:29 PM
Just about any Borders or Barnes and Noble, I'd think. It's one of his last books, and almost everything he's written is in print.

Amazon lists a bunch of used copies too. I've often seen it at 1/2 Price books as well.

I really like this comment from a reviewer on Amazon:

Like "Jonathan Hoag," you are never sure where this story is going to end, and I won't spoil it for you here. Except to say that the implied limits on human understanding are bittersweet. We can find true love, Heinlein seems to be saying, and we can live lives filled with love, but we cannot really understand the universe.

This is Heinlein at his best. No pontificating all-knowing protagonists, very little of the political polemics that started with "Stranger." Just an excellent story that invites deeper thought. Highly recommended.

I'd also suggest you read or at least familiarize yourself with the biblical story of Job. You'll enjoy the book more if you do. JMO.

Does the South Park version of Job count?

Adept Havelock
12-18-2007, 07:38 PM
Does the South Park version of Job count?

LMAO

Close enough, I suppose. It gives the basic gist of the story...sort of.

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 08:16 PM
If man actually did evolve from apes why are there still apes?

Because speciation occurs when a population becomes isolated from the main group and becomes subject to different selective pressures that favor different traits. Over time, the differences become so great that the isolated group can no longer breed with the old group.

The classic example is a pennisula getting cut off from the mainland. The population on the pennisula is isolated if they can't traverse the water obstacle. Then the species faces different survival conditions than the main group b/c there are a different group of competitors or you can have climatic change.

The original group still exists because there are still environments in which they can survive vs competition and reproduce themselves.


If evolution is true then why we not seeing new races of men?


Because no segment of man has even been isolated and subjected to selective pressures different enough that mankind has not given rise to a new species.

Some speculate if a population of humans were to "live in space" long enough, that you are likely to see a new species of man adapted to living in zero g. Or, conversely, if man were to settle the galaxy with multi-generational spacecraft, that man would become multiple species due to isolation of populations on distant planets.

One of the key is there is no "flow of genes" between the old population and new one, because free gene flow will counter-act localized selective pressure. Thus, isolation is not really "geographic" it must be "genetic isolation" between groups.

Some also suggest that man could modify (and possibly speciate) through intentional genetic manipulation



Where did the amoeba come from?


The amoeba is a single cell organsism thought to be the first living thing. This question is unanswered. There have been some experiments with basic elements energized by random electrical discharges (to simulate lightning) that seem to produce protien-like particles.

Yet scientists have no real idea of the intermediate steps that produced the developed cell organelles or even cell structures like a membrane. Of course, cells and tissues decay and leave little to no fossil record.

There are a number of theories which suggest that some cell organelles were originally free-living bacteria that entered into a co-dependent relationship with the modern cell (mitochondria have different DNA than the host cell).

Some researchers even view the modern cell as a community of multiple organisms living in a co dependent relationship.

Science presumes mechanistic explanations for the physical reality of the universe. However, this presumption does not preclude that there are other processes that science cannot understand. Science, however, presumes that it can understand everything it perceives simply because man does not know how much can be learned until scientists make the effort.

In my opinion. the "mechanistic" presumption makes sense because science is intereted in natural phenomenon that mankind can manipulate for its own purpose. Non-natural phenomena are really outside the scope of science.




I believe that there is room for discussion with how long it took for man to be formed in the image of God.

Certainly. Of course, this is question regarding how biblical time frames can be reconciled with geologic theories. Many theologians say that "days" are allegorical for periods of development or that they were simply compared to the "day of the week" to suggest to ancient peoples that creation was a multi step process in a way they could understand.

The Catholic church says that man resembles god in his spirit, thus the specific creation of man and the unique creation of Adam and Eve is a matter of god creating a "soul" for man. THe development of the physical shell can be viewed as a separate process.

Consequently, man could have evolved in a mechanical process like anilmals, when, at some point, God fused a soul with a physical body. THus there would be biologically indentical animals that were not "men" because they did not have a soul. As a result, there would be "other creatures" that were biologically compatible with the children of Adam and Eve.