Mike Huckabee & Evolution

[LuisDantas]

I wonder if there will still be Creationists in, say, fifty years from now. The idea is clearly on its last legs.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder if there will still be Creationists in, say, fifty years from now. The idea is clearly on its last legs.

I offer a money back guarantee they'll be here long after I'm dead & gone.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder if there will still be Creationists in, say, fifty years from now. The idea is clearly on its last legs.

Creationism seems to have a life that does not depend on veracity.

 

[LuisDantas]

But at some point it just becomes too difficult avoid realizing the truth, doesn't it? It used to be much worse back in the early 20th century, I believe.

 

[Sunstone]

But at some point it just becomes too difficult avoid realizing the truth, doesn't it? It used to be much worse back in the early 20th century, I believe.

I hope you're right. But I kinda doubt you are. The opposition to evolutionary theory is institutionalized. That is, there are organizations dedicated to opposing in it and to promoting lies. Those organizations will outlive all of us.

 

[RedOne77]

I wonder if there will still be Creationists in, say, fifty years from now. The idea is clearly on its last legs.

It's been on its last legs for a while, yet the American population has been more or less consistent in the percentage of people who reject evolution for decades. And given the education system, I doubt the American public will change that much in 50 years, let alone eliminate creationist thinking.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Where does DNA and genome sequencing point? DNA points to ID because that is a code that is read and interpreted by organisms to tell it how to form.
Where does the fossil evidence point? We see in the fossil record that animals haven't evolved from their originial forms, called living fossils.
Where does the geological evidence point? To a global flood.
Where does the anthropological evidence point? We see that only humans come from humans and have never seen anything different. We see that any verifiable humans traces that we have we always find evidence of intelligence and not tree dwellers.
Where do the modern occurrences of changes in allele frequency point? micro-evolution
Where does natural history point? To animals reproducing after their own kind.

Like I said...

If you dismiss the evidence simply because it does not conform to your preconceived notion of Creationism, then it is you who are making the false assumptions.
And you are then being dishonest with yourself.

 

[Autodidact]

Did it take a creator to produce a car with all its working parts interacting together for one purpose?

If I have to explain this to another creationist over and over I may start breaking forum rules.

MoF: The ToE is NOT NOT NOT about whether it took a creator or not. We can all agree that it took a creator, ok? That's not the question. The only question is HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW the creator created it? Did He do so by ToE, by some other as yet unsupported hypothesis, or by magic poofing? Science says by ToE. What do you say? Remember:

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

Should I change this idiotically stupid phrase to my sig? Would it help? How many times have you seen my type these words to MoF alone?

 

[Autodidact]

I've already seen all the evidence and it is all based on the assumption that evolution is true. You are being scammed.

You are lying. In fact, you have steadfastly refused to even look at the evidence, and further, you don't even know what ToE is, so could not possibly have considered the evidence that supports it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are lying.

You are so certain that he doesn't believe what he says? No doubts at all?
This smacks of intolerance indeed.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wonder if there will still be Creationists in, say, fifty years from now. The idea is clearly on its last legs.

I offer a money back guarantee they'll be here long after I'm dead & gone.

Creationism seems to have a life that does not depend on veracity.

But at some point it just becomes too difficult avoid realizing the truth, doesn't it? It used to be much worse back in the early 20th century, I believe.

From my crystal ball.....

New New York Times/Post
August 12, 3011
Scott Ross, Science Editor


Fossils of Creation Man Found!!

Anthropologists in Greater Britain have unearthed fossils of yet another infamous Creation Man (homo ignoramus).
Creation Man, as many readers may know, was a phenomenon of the late Twentieth and early Twenty-First Centuries. Known primarily for their lack on reasoning, and religious adherence to pseudoscientific 'magic', Creation Man became extinct during the New Age of Scientific Enlightenment of the mid Twenty-First Century.
"We can see here," notes anthropologist Greggory Nighthawk, "the sloping shoulders and thick skull indicative of Creation Man."
Many fringe-groups disagree as to whether Modern Man is actually descended from Creation Man, some claiming that homo ignoramus is a failed offshoot from homo sapiens sapiens that died out due to extreme irrationality and intentional ignorance.
"To claim we descended from the ignoramus is an insult to modern man", replied Dave Stohles of the British Society for Humanity, a splinter group that interestingly was formed after the failure of the white racial movement popular in the same era as Creation Man.

 

[Michael Hawley]

I've already seen all the evidence and it is all based on the assumption that evolution is true. You are being scammed.

Hi Man of Faith,

Have you seen the evidence from peer reviewed literature or from another source? The reason I continue to stress this is because a mandate for research to be published in scholarly journals is that the facts must unavoidably lead to the conclusion. If they do not, the selected peers will reject it. Once it finally gets accepted, then the community of experts get the opportunity to rip it apart. Scientists are actually more ruthless on other scientists than you are.

If you ever get the opportunity to read peer reviewed literature, you will see. ...or you can merely believe what you want to believe.

Sincerely,

Michael Hawley
Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hello,
My name is Michael Hawley and although new to this forum, I have been studying the evolution/creation controversy for 35 years. Of all the online forums discussing this issue, I have decided upon this one for numerous reasons. I am quite excited to join in on the discussions (although my six kids do keep me busy).
One of the top potential Republican presidential candidates for 2012, Mike Huckabee, publically admitted he does not believe in evolution. In 2007 during his 2008 bid for the presidency, he stated,

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that. I just don't happen to think that I did."

Although Mike Huckabee is very intelligent and is a skillful politician, in this particular case he has fallen prey to what psychologists call assimilation. His beliefs have blinded his judgment. The question that was directed to him was if he believed in evolution. His reply is filled with misconception.

1) Evolutionary biologists and anthropologists do not claim human beings came from today’s apes, such as chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas. Common ancestry (which conforms to genetics) argues that we share a common ancestor with today’s apes, but it was not a chimp. The experts refer to these extinct organisms as ape-LIKE primate ancestors and their morphology is just as distinct from modern apes as they are with human beings.

2) His reply did not answer the question. Evolution is not common ancestry. Evolution is defined as, “A change in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool within a population over time” and common ancestry is a genealogical organization of relatedness. Evolution occurs within a population from one generation to the next. I pick on this misconception because man did not evolve from apes. Man evolved from man. A species is defined by the overall gene pool, or the totality of genetic characteristics or alleles. On average, a mammal species has about 40 different alleles per characteristic, such as the shape of the nose or eye color. Because of genetic phenomena, such as mutation and recombination, each generation of a population possesses a slightly different gene pool. The species is evolving from itself.

3) In one respect Huckabee is correct, but he then contradicts himself. Biologically, human beings are apes (even though humans attempted to separate their categories). When we categorize all organisms genetically and morphologically, human beings fit into the “great apes” category. Great apes are distinct from all other extant organisms because they possess all of the following features: hair, fingernails, tailless primates, large brain-to-body ratio, binocular vision, tool use, etc. There is nothing biologically that separates us. Yes, we have the largest brains, but that is not a separator; it merely defines the extremes within a group. Looking at it this way, man evolved from apes because man is an ape. Man just did not evolve from a different kind of ape.

I am looking forward to your replies.

Sincerely,
Michael Hawley
Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

Everyone is welcome to their own beliefs....His is just baseless and stems from denial and ignorance....

 

[Man of Faith]

Hi Man of Faith,

Have you seen the evidence from peer reviewed literature or from another source? The reason I continue to stress this is because a mandate for research to be published in scholarly journals is that the facts must unavoidably lead to the conclusion. If they do not, the selected peers will reject it. Once it finally gets accepted, then the community of experts get the opportunity to rip it apart. Scientists are actually more ruthless on other scientists than you are.

If you ever get the opportunity to read peer reviewed literature, you will see. ...or you can merely believe what you want to believe.

Sincerely,

Michael Hawley
Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight

I've never heard of a peer reviewed scientific document that has common ancestry as its conclusion.

 

[Man of Faith]

I wonder if there will still be Creationists in, say, fifty years from now. The idea is clearly on its last legs.

Everybody alive today will be a creationist 120 years from now.

 

[LuisDantas]

If cars were made out of flesh and bone then we could say there is no reason for a creator?

As long as they could reproduce themselves inexactly, and had access to raw materials to do so, then yes, we in all likelihood could.

 

[LuisDantas]

Everybody alive today will be a creationist 120 years from now.

It would take an indescribably shameful holy war for that to be even remotely possible, pal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everybody alive today will be a creationist 120 years from now.

My ambition is to be worm castings & hostas in 120 years.

It would take an indescribably shameful holy war for that to be even remotely possible, pal.

I believe he's joking - we'd die & meet our maker, hence the post-death conversion to his belief system.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've never heard of a peer reviewed scientific document that has common ancestry as its conclusion.

Never heard of Darwin then? Or Wallace? Or pretty much every known biologist since?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I've never heard of a peer reviewed scientific document that has common ancestry as its conclusion.

"...which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not..."