User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 65 to 72 of 104

Thread: The Mike Huckabee 2008 thread

  1. #65

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Evolution in the broader sense, meaning all the life on Earth is a result of randomness and the speciation of a one celled organism that lived in the oceans billions of years ago, cannot be proven. I think it's important to define what we're arguing here and I've tried to several times. If you and phissionkorps can prove me wrong feel free, but you can't.
    Every organism on the entire planet uses the same codons for the the same 20 amino acids. There is NO reason why these particular 20 amino acids are special (there are literally millions of possible amino acids), and no chemical reason why a given codon should correspond to a particular amino acid. Yet the amino acid code is the same in all living things. If living things were independently created, why would they have the same codons?

    Viri embed themselves in the DNA, but sometimes a mutation occurs and the virus DNA is disabled, leaving it embedded in the cell's DNA. If stuck in a germline cells, the dead virus will be passed on to offspring. The chance of the same dead virus being embedded at the same place with the same disabling mutations are astronomically tiny, yet we see *numerous* dead viri that appear precisely in the same places and with the same mutations in apes, with the greatest similarity in chimps.

    There are only two explanations for this:
    1) all living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor, and humans evolved from other apes.
    2) God is a malicious trickster out to *deliberately* mislead people by planting astonishingly compelling evidence, and is therefore evil.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  2. #66
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Faith itself isn't drastic, but trusting the lead of someone else's faith is. If he wasn't lying, and the odds on that are never good, it was George W. Bush's faith that took us into Iraq. Maybe that's the worst of all possible combinations - a faith-based liar.

    By the way, in many years of participating in or following evolution vs. creation debates, the grand total of people I've seen change sides based on the strength of the other's argument is 0.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #67
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Every organism on the entire planet uses the same codons for the the same 20 amino acids. There is NO reason why these particular 20 amino acids are special (there are literally millions of possible amino acids), and no chemical reason why a given codon should correspond to a particular amino acid. Yet the amino acid code is the same in all living things. If living things were independently created, why would they have the same codons?
    If God is the creator of all living things, then why would it surprise you that they have the same codons? Why would it be necessary for God to create everything individually and so genetically unique from everything else? Logically it would make more sense that if everything was created by the same Creator, that the living things would then have similar makeups.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    There are only two explanations for this:
    1) all living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor, and humans evolved from other apes.
    2) God is a malicious trickster out to *deliberately* mislead people by planting astonishingly compelling evidence, and is therefore evil.

    Mokele
    I think the problem here is with human logic. If you accept the premise that there is a God, why then don't you accept that there are limitations to our minds? It would be like a young child trying to explain to a middle-aged parent an aspect about life that they are innocently naive to^1000000. We are the young child in this scenario, thinking we know everything but we don't. This by no means doesn't mean we should give up trying to understand the natural world around us, what it means is accept that there are limitations to what we can figure out. God is not evil, and how did He plant the evidence? The better question is why would He need to plant evidence when He told us that He created it all? It was the greedy human mind that decided that we know all and came up with the conclusion that God doesn't exist, we're here by random chance.

    I understand the above probably won't mean anything to you because the acceptance that there could be a Creator behind the scenes means some kind of intellectual-inferiority in the atheist scientific-world. Even still, the scenario you given cannot prove how things began. Just as I cannot prove to you by text alone that there is a God who created everything. So therefore we can choose to agree to disagree, and have faith in what we believe to be true.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  4. #68
    NICK,NICK,NICK!!!!! Indians....... likeAstone76's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Kansas, on the plains with the tumbling tumble weeds
    Posts
    168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I understand the above probably won't mean anything to you because the acceptance that there could be a Creator behind the scenes means some kind of intellectual-inferiority in the atheist scientific-world. Even still, the scenario you given cannot prove how things began. Just as I cannot prove to you by text alone that there is a God who created everything. So therefore we can choose to agree to disagree, and have faith in what we believe to be true.

    wow.

    Here's to the first of the of the day fellas!! To old, D.H. Lawrence!!!!

  5. #69
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by herenorthere View Post
    Faith itself isn't drastic, but trusting the lead of someone else's faith is. If he wasn't lying, and the odds on that are never good, it was George W. Bush's faith that took us into Iraq. Maybe that's the worst of all possible combinations - a faith-based liar.

    By the way, in many years of participating in or following evolution vs. creation debates, the grand total of people I've seen change sides based on the strength of the other's argument is 0.
    I don't think Iraq is the result of Bush's so called faith in God. Our faulty intelligence, on top of 9/11, resulted in a hasty and irrational decision.

    Whenever I posted about evolution, the thought that I would change their views wasn't in the equation. The point that was trying to be made is that evolution in the broader sense (involving origin) requires faith, just as it requires faith to believe that God is the creator of all things. There is no universal answer to this question and there never will be until we die and find out for ourselves.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  6. #70
    Doing it wrong until I do it right. xvart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Zone 8
    Posts
    5,594
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Outsiders71 View Post
    I don't think Iraq is the result of Bush's so called faith in God. Our faulty intelligence, on top of 9/11, resulted in a hasty and irrational decision.
    And it's always good judgment on the part of the president to operate with thousands of lives and trillions of dollars based on irrationality. I mean, I argue with my wife on some pretty irrational issues...

    xvart.
    "The tragedy of life is not that every man loses; but that he almost wins."

    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  7. #71
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by xvart View Post
    And it's always good judgment on the part of the president to operate with thousands of lives and trillions of dollars based on irrationality. I mean, I argue with my wife on some pretty irrational issues...

    xvart.
    I'm not here trying to defend President Bush but I believe anyone that was in the office at that time would have done the same thing. You can't place all the blame on him, he didn't photoshop the intelligence reports. Everyone was on edge after 9/11, we didn't know what to expect next, nor wanted to sit around and wait for it to happen. If you want to bash Bush, do it on the failure of him to be honest about Iraq and his game plan in Iraq. We should have sent in everything we had at the beginning, instead of waiting until last year to send in a "surge". Either way we need to stay there now until the Iraqi's can handle it themselves, then leave. Leaving early would be two wins for the Islamic-extremists, a loss for the Iraqi people and a loss for the United States.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  8. #72
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Outsiders71 View Post
    I think the problem here is with human logic. If you accept the premise that there is a God, why then don't you accept that there are limitations to our minds? It would be like a young child trying to explain to a middle-aged parent an aspect about life that they are innocently naive to^1000000. We are the young child in this scenario, thinking we know everything but we don't. This by no means doesn't mean we should give up trying to understand the natural world around us, what it means is accept that there are limitations to what we can figure out.

    There's a fundamental problem in this argument that no one making it ever seems to notice, and it's one of the things about the religious that drive the non-religious so nuts.

    You can't claim that something is far outside human understanding, and then claim to have some understanding of it in the same breath. Why this is an intellectually fraudulent act should be clear.

    Scientists (scientists living their principles, anyway) are fully aware that we don't understand everything. They'll admit to it freely. Our perceptual limitations are the bread and butter of millennia of philosophical thought. And this is the difference between them and the religious. Scientists and skeptics look out into the expansive darkness before them and say, "If anything is out there, I don't yet understand it." The religious look out into the same darkness and say, "There's something out there, and I understand it." To their credit they may not claim to fully understand it, but somehow this "faith" thing makes them feel entitled to claim some kind of special knowledge about it. And then when challenged on that knowledge they turn around and hide behind the unknowability of it all... a tactic that only they seem not to see through.

    Yes, you and I are the young children in this scenario, thinking we know everything when we don't. Except you're trying to tell the other children what it means to be an adult. You claim to have some special understanding about adulthood (or at least have a "faith" about it) that the kids around you don't. By your own logic, should you really be taken seriously here? Mustn't your views on the cosmos be just as hopelessly naive as ours are due to your status as a mere human being?

    And this metaphor doesn't reveal the full extent of our naivety. Children know that adulthood exists. They have an idea of where their understanding is headed. We don't know what exists in the void. It could very easily be something having nothing to do with a deity that no one has ever even considered before.

    Scientists have been disciplined to be honest with themselves and others about what they know and don't know. The religious have not, and typically show no interest in becoming so. When an intellectually honest skeptic argues with you against your position on a deity, he's not telling you, "I know for sure that there is no god." A person saying this is lacking an understanding of falsifiability (a basic scientific principle) and you'd be right to call him on it. What he's usually really telling you is, "You don't know what's out there and please stop claiming that you do." And by your own admission above you should agree that you don't.

    Something knowable is open to logical evaluation. Something unknowable is open only to idle speculation. You can't have it both ways... keeping only the most convenient qualities of each and throwing the others away.

    This "both ways" approach seems unfortunately to be the very definition of "faith" as far as I can tell.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •