Mike Huckabee & Evolution

[Man of Faith]

Which would exclude Australopithecus afarensis, which if it isn't a direct ancestor is closely related to our nearest common ancestor. In order for your statement to be true about there being no evidence of humans evolving from anything non-human, then by your own definitions that evidence is forthcoming: you just have to ignore it for your original statement to be "true."

That's all assumption and presupposition that evolution is true. Plus it looks like there were no foot bones found so they put human feet on that animal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no problem determine who is human or not, they wear clothes.

 

[camanintx]

I have no problem determine who is human or not, they wear clothes.

Not a very useful criteria when all you're dealing with are fossils.

 

[Man of Faith]

Not a very useful criteria when all you're dealing with are fossils.

That's because I don't deal with fossils. I let the scientists do that and I listen to the proper interpretation of the evidences. But I would think we might find some evidence of clothing from the past, maybe not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes I remember when he was responding to interview questions regarding his statements and he asked why it would matter if he didn't believe evolution was real since it wouldn't affect his job.

I do maintain the leader of the free world needs to have a grasp on reality, yes.

Yes, that would be nice.

An interesting (and somewhat relevant) story:

Huckabee was the first governor he [Rick Mercer] talked his way into seeing for his 2001 segment [Talking to Americans], which ran originally as part of his This Hour Has 22 Minutes show, then was spun off into an hour-long special.

In front of the Arkansas legislature building, he tells passersby of the endangered Canadian Parliament buildings.

"It's an igloo, you see," he tells one woman.

"And we're worried about global warming and the fact that it might melt. So we're putting a dome over it. But, in order to pay for it, we have to attract tourists.

[...]

He then convinced Huckabee aides that it was important that the Arkansas governor speak out on this, and the result:

"Hi, I'm Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas wanting to say: `Congratulations, Canada, on preserving your national igloo.'"

Mercer remembers that Huckabee first asked whether this was a controversial igloo in Canada.

"He had at least a glimmer of political acumen," he says.

Huckabee surge has satirists smiling - thestar.com

A Google search for "Huckabee national igloo" will turn up many links to clips from the original video.

 

[camanintx]

That's because I don't deal with fossils. I let the scientists do that and I listen to the proper interpretation of the evidences. But I would think we might find some evidence of clothing from the past, maybe not.

If virtually every fossil ever found lacks soft tissue, what makes you think that clothes would survive?

 

[Autodidact]

good post.......do you happen to have any thoughts or info on why theres so much variety of species?

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains exactly this.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's all assumption and presupposition that evolution is true. Plus it looks like there were no foot bones found so they put human feet on that animal.

Well, if you consider Homo habilis to be human; and they've since rejected the notion of using the H. habilis arch until it can be confirmed with an actual A. afarensis fossil. That has very little to do with the evidence of A. afarensis's role in our evolutionary history either as a close cousin or a potential ancestor. How anyone can deny common descent with a straight face is completely beyond me.

 

[Autodidact]

I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence & yet who employs these faculties & that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.
--T.H. Huxley[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

 

[Man of Faith]

Which would exclude Australopithecus afarensis, which if it isn't a direct ancestor is closely related to our nearest common ancestor. In order for your statement to be true about there being no evidence of humans evolving from anything non-human, then by your own definitions that evidence is forthcoming: you just have to ignore it for your original statement to be "true."

In this video starting at 19:25 the debunking of Lucy as being human begins. This is probably not information your evolutionists friends want you to hear.

"apes lack nasal bones"
"the skull doesn't look human"
"the artist editorailzes a human gaze"
"given human body, hands and feet"

Dr. David Menton (AiG)- "Lucy", She's No Lady Video by Darwin

 

[Skwim]

I have no problem determine who is human or not, they wear clothes.

Moderator cut: image removed

Anthropologists encounter a tribe of two-legged Homo nakedesi
​

 

[Autodidact]

Ape or ape like creature, not much difference so I wouldn't worry about equivocating on that minor language difference. The important part is we haven't seen any humans come from any creature other than another human, just like the Bible describes.

Because we can't learn anything except what we see directly with our own eyes? Science is impossible then, can't learn anything from the evidence? And the earth, apparently, is flat? At least, that's what we observe. In addition, we observe the sun moving across the sky, so obviously the earth does not revolve around it. That's what we observe, and that's what the Bible describes.

 

[Meow Mix]

In this video starting at 19:25 the debunking of Lucy as being human begins. This is probably not information you evolutionists friends want you to hear.

"apes lack nasal bones"
"the skull doesn't look human"
"the artist editorailzes a human gaze"
"given human body, hands and feet"

Dr. David Menton (AiG)- "Lucy", She's No Lady Video by Darwin

I'd fully agree that A. afarensis was not human -- were you expecting something different?

A. afarensis however is either an ancestor or extremely closely related to our nearest common ancestor.

 

[Man of Faith]

Well, if you consider Homo habilis to be human; and they've since rejected the notion of using the H. habilis arch until it can be confirmed with an actual A. afarensis fossil. That has very little to do with the evidence of A. afarensis's role in our evolutionary history either as a close cousin or a potential ancestor. How anyone can deny common descent with a straight face is completely beyond me.

It is easy to deny because it isn't true, it is a fabrication from imagination with naturalism as its requisition.

 

[Man of Faith]

I'd fully agree that A. afarensis was not human -- were you expecting something different?

A. afarensis however is either an ancestor or extremely closely related to our nearest common ancestor.

Nobody can know this unless they first suppose evolution to be true.

 

[Autodidact]

I have no problem determine who is human or not, they wear clothes.

1. How do you tell which of these wear clothes?
2. How did you come up with that odd criteria?
3. When a dog wears clothes, it's human?
4. When a person doesn't wear clothes, they're not?

 

[Meow Mix]

It is easy to deny because it isn't true, it is a fabrication from imagination with naturalism as its requisition.

Well unfortunately I have to head for work, but you and I should have a dialogue about some predictions and evidences from common descent models.

 

[Autodidact]

That's because I don't deal with fossils. I let the scientists do that and I listen to the proper interpretation of the evidences. But I would think we might find some evidence of clothing from the past, maybe not.

I see, so you accept the Theory of Evolution then, because that's what the Biologists say is correct?

 

[Revoltingest]

It is easy to deny because it isn't true, it is a fabrication from imagination with naturalism as its requisition.

I thought you'd like to know that I agree completely with your statement, although perhaps not so much with your intent.
- Science does not yield truth regarding the natural world.
- Evolution is a fabrication....presuming this means it's a theoretical model invented by man.
- Naturalism is a presumption underlying the scientific method.
I'm pretty comfortable with all that. Nevertheless, I find the TOE to be the most
useful explanation for what we see in the fossil record, & modern analogues.

Moreover, I find Huckabee at least as rational as the last bunch of candidates fighting to run the country.
So what if we disagree about evolution...we're gonna disagree with leaders about many things anyway.

 

[Man of Faith]

I thought you'd like to know that I agree completely with your statement, although perhaps not so much with your intent.
- Science does not yield truth regarding the natural world.
- Evolution is a fabrication....presuming this means it's a theoretical model invented by man.
- Naturalism is a presumption underlying the scientific method.
I'm pretty comfortable with all that. Nevertheless, I find the TOE to be the most
useful explanation for what we see in the fossil record, & modern analogues.

Moreover, I find Huckabee at least as rational as the last bunch of candidates fighting to run the country.
So what if we disagree about evolution...we're gonna disagree with leaders about many things anyway.

I'm glad that you admit what it is. Now if you want to accpet it that is fine, I don't. The world and creatures look designed for a purpose and I know the designer personally, so I win.