What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Mike Huckabee 2008 thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #81
For instance if you believe in the big bang theory as the source of how the universe started, how is that not equivalent to believing that God created the universe? They both require the same type of faith, just in a different source. This scenario has nothing to do about knowledge, but everything to do with faith.

Because we have no evidence of God, yet we actually have evidence of the Big Bang, including images showing the temperature distribution at the time.

What I'm trying to say is there is no answer that can be applied universally upon everyone, because every explanation of life requires some kind of faith and it's not fair for the scientific community to try and claim they have the golden answer because they don't.

You really don't understand the difference between science and religion, do you?

Imagine there's a large sack full of something, and nobody can open it. The priest simply proclaims that it's full of bricks based on a vision he had. The scientist pokes and prods the sack, feels that it's full of round things, and hypothesizes they are oranges. When a subsequent scientist repeats the trial, she finds that the round things are too small, and are more likely to be nectarines. All three people could be wrong, but the difference is that the scientists base their hypotheses on evidence, and are willing to acknowledge that they don't know. Even though nobody knows, the evidence DOES show 100% that the contents are not bricks. There's no 'faith' in that - it's simply the product of evidence.

It's the same with evolution - the data lead to a conclusion, subsequent analysis has shown the conclusion to be supported, so there's no reason to regard it as anything but the most likely correct answer. "Faith" plays no part, as nobody says it's absolute truth, only that the evidence supports it, and flatly contradicts creationism.

Do you think the beginnings of the universe, and the origin of life on Earth are things that are knowable and are open to logical evaluation? I don't. I believe they are both unknowable and are only open to idle speculation and faith.

So, fossils don't exist? The cosmic microwave background doesn't exist?

That's like saying we can never know where diamonds come from because nobody watched the current diamonds form. Just because we weren't around to directly observe something doesn't mean it left no evidence of its prior state.

The fact is there isn't 100% evidence, and it's not possible to ever have 100% evidence about the origin of life on Earth. If you want to take the little evidence there is and stretch it by faith, go for it. You can put your faith in whatever you choose to, no one is stopping you.

Strawman. I never said there was 100% proof of a given hypothesis of life on Earth, only that the evidence we DO have flatly contradicts your theory.

To return to the sack analogy, we may not know whether it has oranges or nectarines, but the known roundness *does* rule out bricks.

God is clear about how life on Earth was created and it was not through the speciation of one cell.

No, actually, there's only a myth which cannot be interpreted literally, because it's just plain stupid (we have *proof* that humans were never represented by just 2 individuals, written throughout our genes).

Can you please explain to me what is allegorical about Genesis 1:26-30 and Genesis 2:7? They are affirmations from God that we are not a result of speciation.

See above.

Care to explain how you account for the dead viri in our genomes that are PRECISELY matched to those in chimps?

Care to explain how you can claim God created each species when we have directly observed the evolution of new species in the wild?

Or are you going to just ignore facts and evidence, as usual?

Then do you not accept the Bible as the word of God? He clearly states that He created man.

Does he specify HOW man was created? Does it say he could not have evolved? Remember, these stories may have been divinely inspired, but they were transcribed by barely-literate shepards who thought stars were holes in the blanket of night.

Please show this undeniable evidence starting from the first living organism, to now, showing all the speciations from that original organism.

It's called the fossil record, look it up. Yes, there are gaps, but that no more disproves it than the gaps in history prove that George Washington was a space alien.

How so? There are more historical accounts of a flood than just from the Bible

Actually, the documents of a flood all derive from the Middle East, which makes it more likely they're simply exaggerations of a large local flood. There are no flood records from Andean cultures, or Australia, or the Kalahari. Given that *any* rainfall is a notable event in all three locales, if the Flood were real, I doubt they wouldn't have noticed it.

Do you believe that Jesus actually lived on this Earth 2,000+ years ago? Or is the Bible wrong about that as well, even though there's documents from Jewish and Roman historians about Jesus?

Sure, but that means nothing. Claiming that any factual accuracy of the Bible proves it is the word of God is stupid. I'm writing a novel right now, and it does have factual accuracy - there is indeed a system of abandoned subway tunnels under Cincinnati, but that does not in any way support the existence of aliens and socialist werewolves rampaging through the city.

Mokele
 
  • #82
"Historical accounts" are meaningless..
they could all be small, local floods.
and anyone writing all those "historical accounts" would have no way of knowing what was happening 10 miles from from their home..
"Historical accounts" are meaningless..
The Planet disproves the world-wide Noahs flood myth.


Most incriminating are the societies that have no flood myth whose written histories cover that era. A planet-engulfing flood doesn't just go unnoticed. :)

Especially since Noah and Co. are supposed to be the only survivors.

EDIT: Mokele beat me to it.
 
  • #83
Personally I have been apalled by how much ALL the candidates have been waving the God flag for this election. I have nothing against religion and a candidate having faith in whatever they choose, but I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State and don't wany ANY candidate dragging their religious beliefs into their governing. And I feel the more religiously zealous a candidate is, the more they will be unable to keep their personal beliefs out of their political decisions.

The entire anti-abortion issue is religion based...not based on an individual's right to make medical decisions for themselves and their unique situations. I don't want government mandating what I can do with MY own body.
 
  • #84
Because we have no evidence of God, yet we actually have evidence of the Big Bang, including images showing the temperature distribution at the time.

Science cannot explain the supernatural, only things that are empirical and can be observed/tested. You cannot physically observe or test God, which makes any statement that "we have evidence of this, but nothing of God" stupid. Of course there isn't any scientific evidence for God, that's a GIVEN! People have observed that the Earth was flat and that plate tectonics didn't exist. Anyone can make up a hypothesis based on observations, does that make them fact? No. The real fact here is that no living human observed the origin of the universe and science will never be able to figure it out. Why....because no one observed it! You can't test it either!

It's the same with evolution - the data lead to a conclusion, subsequent analysis has shown the conclusion to be supported, so there's no reason to regard it as anything but the most likely correct answer. "Faith" plays no part, as nobody says it's absolute truth, only that the evidence supports it, and flatly contradicts creationism.

I'm not interested in a most likely answer. If you want to put faith in a most likely answer, go ahead but quit trying to preach it as the way it happened. As stated in the above example, the origin of life on Earth cannot be observed or tested, no one was there. I don't think anyone here argues with the fact that adaptations in populations do occur, because that can be observed and tested. However the propaganda that all life on Earth is a result of a speciation of one ancestoral cell from billions of years ago is fallacy at best. You cannot observe the origin of life and you can't test it!

So, fossils don't exist?

Are you trying to say that if God created all the life on Earth today that there wouldn't be fossils?

That's like saying we can never know where diamonds come from because nobody watched the current diamonds form. Just because we weren't around to directly observe something doesn't mean it left no evidence of its prior state.

No it's really nothing like that. Science could experimentally turn pure carbon into diamonds given the right temperatures and pressure. Tell me, how many populations of primates has science seen evolve into Neanderthals?

Strawman. I never said there was 100% proof of a given hypothesis of life on Earth, only that the evidence we DO have flatly contradicts your theory.

How can science contradict something that is supernatural when it doesn't consider the supernatural in any of its practices? You have a very loosely based scientific theory that doesn't even come from the direct empirical evidence of the event.

No, actually, there's only a myth which cannot be interpreted literally, because it's just plain stupid (we have *proof* that humans were never represented by just 2 individuals, written throughout our genes).

If humans were just represented by two individuals, we wouldn't be here today would we? The Human Genome Project found that the DNA of any two humans was 99.9 percent similar in content and identity. An article published in the journal called "Nature" suggests that there may be a 10% difference.

Care to explain how you can claim God created each species when we have directly observed the evolution of new species in the wild?

Or are you going to just ignore facts and evidence, as usual?

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/evolution_species_error/evolution_error_04a.php

Does he specify HOW man was created? Does it say he could not have evolved? Remember, these stories may have been divinely inspired, but they were transcribed by barely-literate shepards who thought stars were holes in the blanket of night.

No part of the Bible was written by a shepherd...anyways no there is no specification on how man was created. No one is suggesting to know the exact means of how it happened. What I'm arguing is that God plainly states that He created everything, and everything individually.

It's called the fossil record, look it up. Yes, there are gaps, but that no more disproves it than the gaps in history prove that George Washington was a space alien.

The fossil record doesn't prove anything besides the fact that something once lived and died. If God created everything, there would still be fossils. The difference is you take those same very fossils and use them to back your scientific guess.

Actually, the documents of a flood all derive from the Middle East, which makes it more likely they're simply exaggerations of a large local flood. There are no flood records from Andean cultures, or Australia, or the Kalahari. Given that *any* rainfall is a notable event in all three locales, if the Flood were real, I doubt they wouldn't have noticed it.

If you lived back in that time, you're concept of the whole world would be a little different than what it is today. Especially if a huge localized flood in the Middle East occurred you would say the whole world was flooded. Because to you that was the whole world. Regardless there's enough evidence to support there was some kind of great flood in the Middle East, where a majority of early civilization lived.
 
  • #85
The entire anti-abortion issue is religion based...not based on an individual's right to make medical decisions for themselves and their unique situations. I don't want government mandating what I can do with MY own body.

What about the fetus' body? Does it not have rights to life as well, or are we only selfish enough to acknowledge our body with those rights? Life starts at conception, and abortions kill a life. Explain to me how this is religious based.
 
  • #86
What about the fetus' body? Does it not have rights to life as well
No. Until a fetus can pop out and survive on its own (i.e. not hooked up to a bunch of tubes and whathaveyou), all it is is a parasite.

Life starts at conception, and abortions kill a life
Stupid. 1 cell (egg) that has been infiltrated by a piece of DNA with a propeller on it is not life (I realize that technically it is, but you know). End of story. Squashing an undifferentiated ball of cells is not murder any more than skinning your knee is. Its so hard to argue scientific stuff with religious people that don't understand the first thing about it.

Explain to me how this is religious based.
Because religious people (ESPECIALLY catholics) are more or less the only ones that subscribe to the "life begins at conception" horsehockey.


And to what Outsiders said last page that Mokele responded to: no reputable historians talk about Jesus. The ones that were were well known and very thorough in the area at the time (i.e. they would've know about anything of interest he did, especially the "miracles"), either didn't mention him, or just said that he existed with no more than a sentence or two. The one historian that gave a descriptive account of Jesus (can't remember his name) - that document was proven a forgery hundreds of years ago, and every prominent historian since then that has studied it says it was fake. Apparently jesus either didn't exist, or wasn't that much of a bad$#%. Though what I just said is documented fact and cannot be refuted, I'm sure you'll find some nonsensical tangent on it and attempt to discredit hundreds of prominent historians since you "know" better....
 
  • #87
Killing life doesn't mean much. A tumor is alive. And a fetus isn't much different than a tumor.Abortion isn't a ...pretty procedure, but the fetus isn't conscious.

Something can be living, without being alive. A comatose person is "living" but doesn't really have a life. No offense meant by that.
 
  • #88
abortion is one of those topics..........there is no way i could do it.....had a scare when i was young and dumb yet i came to the conclusion of regardless of weither the gal was interested in being a mother or not i wanted the kid, it was my duty to see it through.....an abortion caused by a mistake of MY OWN was not acceptable. however i dont believe i should say what someone i dont know should do so as far as im concerned abortion should be legal......im not one to force my beliefs on another person. as ive said before im concerned about me and my own and what someone else does is not my concern nor do i have a right to regulate it.
 
  • #89
Personally I have been apalled by how much ALL the candidates have been waving the God flag for this election. I have nothing against religion and a candidate having faith in whatever they choose, but I strongly believe in the separation of Church and State and don't wany ANY candidate dragging their religious beliefs into their governing. And I feel the more religiously zealous a candidate is, the more they will be unable to keep their personal beliefs out of their political decisions.

The entire anti-abortion issue is religion based...not based on an individual's right to make medical decisions for themselves and their unique situations. I don't want government mandating what I can do with MY own body.

lol. Once again, PAK coming in late and resurrecting a thread that was pretty much dead. Here we go again!

xvart.
 
  • #90
No. Until a fetus can pop out and survive on its own (i.e. not hooked up to a bunch of tubes and whathaveyou), all it is is a parasite.

Oh great...we're going to call a developing baby a parasite now.

Stupid. 1 cell (egg) that has been infiltrated by a piece of DNA with a propeller on it is not life (I realize that technically it is, but you know). End of story.

How is it not life? If you were not to kill it, it would fully develop into a person such as yourself...

Squashing an undifferentiated ball of cells is not murder any more than skinning your knee is. Its so hard to argue scientific stuff with religious people that don't understand the first thing about it.

The skin cells of your knee don't develop into a living person...that ball of cells does develop into a living person. Excuse me? I don't know anything about it? You seriously have issues if you believe scraping your knee is the equivalent to an abortion. If abortions are no big deal, then why do people go through with them? The reason people seek an abortion is because they want to prevent a life from living and that's the end of the story.

Because religious people (ESPECIALLY catholics) are more or less the only ones that subscribe to the "life begins at conception" horsehockey.

Aren't you the one who has a degree in Biology...? I'm still waiting for the name of that community college you went to. Life starts at conception, there is no refuting that.

And to what Outsiders said last page that Mokele responded to: no reputable historians talk about Jesus. The ones that were were well known and very thorough in the area at the time (i.e. they would've know about anything of interest he did, especially the "miracles"), either didn't mention him, or just said that he existed with no more than a sentence or two. The one historian that gave a descriptive account of Jesus (can't remember his name) - that document was proven a forgery hundreds of years ago, and every prominent historian since then that has studied it says it was fake. Apparently jesus either didn't exist, or wasn't that much of a bad$#%. Though what I just said is documented fact and cannot be refuted, I'm sure you'll find some nonsensical tangent on it and attempt to discredit hundreds of prominent historians since you "know" better....

You can twist things to serve your agendas all you want. However there is ample historical evidence, that Jesus did indeed live.
 
  • #91
abortion is one of those topics..........there is no way i could do it.....had a scare when i was young and dumb yet i came to the conclusion of regardless of weither the gal was interested in being a mother or not i wanted the kid, it was my duty to see it through.....an abortion caused by a mistake of MY OWN was not acceptable. however i dont believe i should say what someone i dont know should do so as far as im concerned abortion should be legal......im not one to force my beliefs on another person. as ive said before im concerned about me and my own and what someone else does is not my concern nor do i have a right to regulate it.

I'm interested in your beliefs rattler. Since you don't say the reason you felt this way was God, why did you think it was wrong to go through with an abortion? Why don't you believe it is just like scraping your knee and killing a few cells?
 
  • #92
personal beliefs...............nothing else. owning up to responsibility....physiologically speaking i believe abortion in the first trimester isnt much different than scraping your knee ect. however ive got my own sense of duty to what i personally believe is right. however i dont believe i can forsee all circumstances, or know everyones personal situation so i dont believe it should be illegal. however i also say you cant force a doc who doesnt believe in it to do it.....
 
  • #93
Since you don't say the reason you felt this way was God, why did you think it was wrong to go through with an abortion? Why don't you believe it is just like scraping your knee and killing a few cells?
physiologically speaking i believe abortion in the first trimester isnt much different than scraping your knee ect

Ohhhhhh! Tried to shut me down and got BURNED! That's what happens when you mess with the best ;)
 
  • #94
Ohhhhhh! Tried to shut me down and got BURNED! That's what happens when you mess with the best ;)

read this through several times and cant figure out WTF your talking about
 
  • #95
read this through several times and cant figure out WTF your talking about

I believe he was trying to say that because you believe scraping your knee is equivalent to an abortion, that I've been burned. Yeah something like that... :poke:
 
  • #96
where i get lost is the idiot was arguing with you not me? because i more or less agree with him it burns you? WFT?
 
  • #97
besides i dont have a bio degree so my opinion dont mean squat to him on things like this
 
  • #98
I was talking about how even though outsiders addressed you, he used my same example, so it at least looked like he was assuming you would say it was something about religion etc (i.e. against what I said)....but you agreed with me. Burn is not towards you rattler...we agree lol
 
  • #100
The real fact here is that no living human observed the origin of the universe and science will never be able to figure it out. Why....because no one observed it! You can't test it either!

No it's really nothing like that. Science could experimentally turn pure carbon into diamonds given the right temperatures and pressure.

So, what you're saying is that if science can demonstrate the principle without direct observation, you only accept it if it agrees with your existing beliefs.

Your intellectual dishonesty is truly astonishing.

However the propaganda that all life on Earth is a result of a speciation of one ancestoral cell from billions of years ago is fallacy at best. You cannot observe the origin of life and you can't test it!

Wrong. We predicted that all life arose from a common ancestor long before we even knew what DNA was. Once we learned the genetic code, we found that the data matched our predictions.

Sensible people, people who don't rely on blind faith, can accept that the data supports the theory, and new data has universally supported it. If the theory was wrong, why doesn't new data contradict it?

Are you trying to say that if God created all the life on Earth today that there wouldn't be fossils?

Yes, unless God were deliberately misleading humans.

Tell me, how many populations of primates has science seen evolve into Neanderthals?

We've observed it. The results are humans, and the evidence is unassailable.

How can science contradict something that is supernatural when it doesn't consider the supernatural in any of its practices? You have a very loosely based scientific theory that doesn't even come from the direct empirical evidence of the event.

Because the supernatural claims that each species was made by God, and we have SEEN new species arise.

If humans were just represented by two individuals, we wouldn't be here today would we? The Human Genome Project found that the DNA of any two humans was 99.9 percent similar in content and identity. An article published in the journal called "Nature" suggests that there may be a 10% difference.

The human genome project also found that humans are 99.9% identical to chimps.

And how about those dead viri? You have consistently refused to face that data. No more dodging. How do you explain that?


You're citing that moron? AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! You're even dumber than I thought! Have you read his work? He's completely ignorant of even basic biology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Oh, look, peer-reviewed articles! How many of those do creationists have? Oh, that's right, zero.

anyways no there is no specification on how man was created. No one is suggesting to know the exact means of how it happened. What I'm arguing is that God plainly states that He created everything, and everything individually.

Wrong. We've observed new species evolving. I win.

The fossil record doesn't prove anything besides the fact that something once lived and died. If God created everything, there would still be fossils. The difference is you take those same very fossils and use them to back your scientific guess.

Only if you're so willfully ignorant that you can ignore all of the evidence.

God deliberately created a series of species transitioning from hoofed mammals to whales? From apes to humans? Of the literally THOUSANDS of other examples of transitional fossils?

Wow, God is a committed liar.

If you lived back in that time, you're concept of the whole world would be a little different than what it is today. Especially if a huge localized flood in the Middle East occurred you would say the whole world was flooded. Because to you that was the whole world. Regardless there's enough evidence to support there was some kind of great flood in the Middle East, where a majority of early civilization lived.

But the bible specifies that the Flood covered the whole world. If they were mistaken about that, could they not also be mistaken about the origins of life?

What about the fetus' body? Does it not have rights to life as well, or are we only selfish enough to acknowledge our body with those rights? Life starts at conception, and abortions kill a life. Explain to me how this is religious based.

Because life does not equal personhood. I can take a person and cut out all of their cerebral cortex, leaving nothing but the medula oblongata. They would still be alive, but they are no longer a person - everything about them, every memory and personality trait, is gone.

Life is irrelevant - personhood is what matters.

Tell me, what about HeLa cells?

HeLa cells are an immortal cell line cultured from the cervical cancer of a woman from the 1950's. Like any normal unicellular species, they can exist indefinitely as long as they get basic nutrients.

Are these cells human life? Should we be unable to do experiments on them?

How is it not life? If you were not to kill it, it would fully develop into a person such as yourself...

Wrong. Of fertilized embryos, an estimated 90% do not ever become humans. They either die of genetic defects or just fail to implant or thrive for whatever reason.

So, since 90% of these "lives" are killed by cricumstance, God is the biggest abortionist of all.

Furthermore, the idea that potentiality has moral consequence is stupid. Let's assume you're perfectly healthy, and I have a cancer that will kill me in 6 months (not true, I'm fine, this is just an example). If someone kills me, is that any less murder than killing you? Our potential for life is vastly different, but in both cases, it's still murder.

Aren't you the one who has a degree in Biology...? I'm still waiting for the name of that community college you went to.

This is hilarious. When you have a disagreement on biological fact, you ignore the expertise of those who have degrees in the subject, but when it comes to abortion, suddenly you're all about credentials.

You're got all the intellectual integrity of a used car dealer.

Mokele
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top