What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- AlexPod, on 12/15/2007, -33/+73"I'm telling my dad!" - Jesus Christ, 0033AD.
- Mewchu11, on 12/15/2007, -18/+93Sorry for the comment jacking, but it needs to be said:
I don't like Huckabee, but he did not deny evolution. He stated that evolution might be the "how" to God's "why".
Obviously he insinuated that personally he believes otherwise, but he never goes right out and says "evolution is a load of *****".
/concept_nazi- rpi22, on 12/15/2007, -8/+77During the debate he did raise his hand when asked, "Who here doesn't believe in evolution." Granted, raising hands is a stupid way to ask a candidate a question at a debate, but he did indeed raise his hand to show that he does not believe in evolution. After it caused an uproar, he revised his statement and tried to back peddle.
- pixelate, on 12/15/2007, -16/+7*backpedal
/grammar_nazi- GliTCH82, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4*/spelling_nazi
/vocabulary_police
- GliTCH82, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4*/spelling_nazi
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/15/2007, -7/+1he raised his hand to clarify and take a stand.. many times evolution gets lumped together with 'God no involved with'... but Huckabee clearly said.. something along the lines of, I don't know how humans came about, but I believe God had a hand it in.
- fyngyrz, on 12/15/2007, -4/+10Which makes him a moron not suitable for the presidency. Or a pandering liar - also not suitable for the presidency.
Just like the rest of the candidates. - 5urr3al5am, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2Wow you're over the top! Moron? Because he doesn't hold your same apparently atheists beliefs?
- fyngyrz, on 12/15/2007, -4/+10Which makes him a moron not suitable for the presidency. Or a pandering liar - also not suitable for the presidency.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6I'd agree that raising hands is a bad way to do a debate, but it's a good way of getting an actual answer. Most of the debates involve fuzzy answers like the one showcased here that don't really contain much concrete data, and only answer the question in a tangential manner. And moderators for presidential debates, for whatever reason, only rarly call them on it. At least with a hand raise they're forced to actually answer the question.
- pixelate, on 12/15/2007, -16/+7*backpedal
- chochazel, on 12/15/2007, -4/+20He said he didn't know what someone in the eighth grade should know, but that doesn't matter because he's not an eighth grade science teacher. What else is knowledge, science, learning and rationality if not moving beyond that which is immediately apparent to you? He said we don't know, he meant he doesn't know, but ignorance is no platform on which to stand for office.
- knowthyself, on 12/15/2007, -10/+4Interesting this word "know." I do not think it means what you think it means. This is not the word you're looking forward. Perhaps "believe" might work here.
The fact of our modern knowledge-based existence is that we mostly rely on what others (experts in specialized disciplines) tell us to be true. Are they right? If we are able to verify their claims through our daily experience (e.g. electricity is demonstrated every time we turn on a light switch), then we may believe their claims.
If you think an eighth-grader is in a position to "know" that the modern highly-complex theory of evolution IS TRUTH ... think again.- allatti2d, on 12/15/2007, -5/+3Comment dugg for Princess Bride reference. Perfect.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2I totally disagree. Someone that old is perfectly capable of understanding evolution if he's been well educated. DNA, mutation, selective pressure, speciation. Complex, yes. But not even close to the point where it's somehow beyond them. Heck, my high school was ***** and even we were doing experiments in most of those areas only a couple years further along.
- knowthyself, on 12/15/2007, -10/+4Interesting this word "know." I do not think it means what you think it means. This is not the word you're looking forward. Perhaps "believe" might work here.
- 1town, on 12/15/2007, -1/+8He was asked if he BELIEVED in evolution. He tried to talk his way out of it, but obviously he insinuated that he didn't believe that monkehs and us had a common ancestor (As well as anything else on the planet)
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/15/2007, -6/+1actually if you listen to him thats not what he said ... least you could do it try to be honest
- Scaryclouds, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5It's really difficult to understand what he said, he never explicitly answers such that question. He does believe God designed us. Now we don't know if he believes God then evolved us from monkeys or not, however considering his views the answer is probably no.
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1He made it clear that he doesn't know how humans came into existance, but he believes that God had a hand in it.
- LordByr0n, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8Huckabee, in regards to evolution said "I believe that god made the heavens and the earth. How he did it I dont know. I thought the question utterly silly to be asked at a presidential debate"
Huckabee is a hypocrite. He is all 'God this' and 'God that' and he will flaunt it all over the debates for every vote he can get for it but when you bring science into the debates it suddenly silly and childish.
When religion meets politics it slows down the human race. - AceTracer, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Agreed, he seems very reasonable. He's only saying that he has certain beliefs, just because I don't share those beliefs doesn't mean he's incompetent at governing. Your religious beliefs should be separate from your role in governing. Basic seperation of church and state, if he was a devout Muslim or Jew the same would apply. He isn't inflicting his beliefs on me so why should I care? I'm not going to inflict my beliefs on him either.
Now, if he starts to veto bills or affect his executive decision making based on his religious beliefs, then yes, that's a problem.
- rpi22, on 12/15/2007, -8/+77During the debate he did raise his hand when asked, "Who here doesn't believe in evolution." Granted, raising hands is a stupid way to ask a candidate a question at a debate, but he did indeed raise his hand to show that he does not believe in evolution. After it caused an uproar, he revised his statement and tried to back peddle.
- fzammetti, on 12/15/2007, -3/+49He was asked if he believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago or, as Mahr said, as every scientist int he world believes, billions of years ago. This to me is the question I wanted a straight yes or no on because God could be involved either way, but if you answer no to 6,000 years ago, that tells me you put no stock in scientific evidence and deductive reasoning and you are more interested in what the doctrine of a religion tells you is the "truth". Science can be right in this case and that doesn't take God out of the equation one bit, although it may take *religious doctrine* out of the mix, so that's the question I wanted a straight answer on. Instead, he tried to spin his way out of it. Sorry dude, I'm not fallin' for it. My vote will go elsewhere for no other reason than I can't make a reasoned judgement on the man because he refuses to answer the question straight.
- betterth, on 12/15/2007, -11/+5Well, see it's muddy. You have to realize that he believes in the concept of an "All powerful God".
A God that could have created the world 6000 years ago, but not have created it brand new. Rather, in a mere instant, have created an entire history along with that creation.
When you write a story, you don't have to start at the beginning. In media res.
Perhaps God started our world in media res? (if you believe in God / ID / whatever)
Just food for thought.- fzammetti, on 12/15/2007, -0/+19Well, look, strictly speaking you're right, it could have happened that way. An all-powerful God can, by definition, do whatever it pleases, including I would expect, put any thoughts into my head it wanted.
But, this is more fundamental than that... it comes down to the ability to think reasonably and based on evidence on hand. Let me put it this way... yes, God could have created the Earth 5 minutes ago and embedded 6 billion years of history into it, but that wouldn't change reality for us: our perception of reality, based on the scientific evidence and our ability to reason based on that evidence, would tell us the Earth it 6 billion years old. Assuming we didn't misinterpret the evidence, which is certainly possible, that's reality, whether God made it that way or not. Anyone that denies that reality and instead says "nope, reality must be different than what the evidence suggests" may not be wrong in the end, but they are denying scientific evidence, methodology and basic reasoning.
And *that's* what I have a problem with when judging a potential leader.- betterth, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Oh I totally agree. I am a Christian and a biology major. My family is fundamental and they think I'm crazy, but I have to look at them and laugh when they say things like " I don't believe in evolution". You can't deny what has been scientifically proven. What I can take you into the backyard and set up and experiment to prove.
I acknowledge that science will never disprove theology, and theology will never be proved. It's a choice to believe in it, and it will never have any impact on my science. I find beliefs and knowledge to be separate, and have no problem understanding evolution, the age of our planet, and how life most likely began. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3When you say that you're Christian, do you go to church and follow religious teachings or are you born in a Christian home and have your personnal beliefs?
I'm genuinely interested, btw. Not attacking. You seem very reasonnable. - betterth, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5@ElAssowipe
I was born a southern baptist and attended church regularly. When I hit late high school and college I left the denomination and consider myself a nondenominational protestant because I dislike all of them. They focus on tradition, on law, and on rules.
I haven't attended church in a while, but instead I do visit with like minded friends to discuss our lives and our beliefs. I find that church, before Catholicism turned it into what it is, was simply a gathering of friends talking about God. And that's what I do. I find that through discussion and debate you realize and learn a lot more.
I do not follow most religious teachings, because I am either confused or have decided differently. As a Christian I feel the first and utmost law to live my life by is love. I feel the point of Christianity is to believe in love first and foremost, and while I may do what a traditional Christian would consider sin, I feel like I am living my life in a way that most exemplifies Christ. By loving those around me unconditionally. I may be a total ass hole on Digg, but then again, it's the internet so it doesn't count. :P - ostracize, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1@ElAssoWipo
As someone with similar leanings as betterth, I have to whole-heartedly agree. I find non-denominational churches tend to surround themselves on one truth:
God's love for us, our redemption to him through Jesus, and the Spirit working in our lives is a transcendent truth which applies for anyone regardless of who you are or what you've done.
There is no concept of "my interpretation" is correct or better because that would break from the non-denominational label in the first place. It is not surprising that megachurches are typically non-denominational because the message will reveal itself to be true and appeal to anyone from any tradition.
That's why I hate reading a lot of the anti-Christian comments here on digg because most people have this preconceived notion that Christianity implies indoctrination, anti-free thinking, etc when really that's just a traditional view that doesn't hold true nearly as much anymore. Christians are realizing that none of that stuff matters because the message will still reveal itself to be true anyway.
- betterth, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Oh I totally agree. I am a Christian and a biology major. My family is fundamental and they think I'm crazy, but I have to look at them and laugh when they say things like " I don't believe in evolution". You can't deny what has been scientifically proven. What I can take you into the backyard and set up and experiment to prove.
- fzammetti, on 12/15/2007, -0/+19Well, look, strictly speaking you're right, it could have happened that way. An all-powerful God can, by definition, do whatever it pleases, including I would expect, put any thoughts into my head it wanted.
- Rocketeer, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0fzammetti, forgive me for bringing attention to your mistake in jumping to conclusions about whether or not creationists put stock in scientific evidence, but you missed the obvious alternative that I happen to believe. I believe the earth is billions of years old, but created by God. The 6000 year ago creation of earth is referencing where God recreated or wiped clean what was already on earth and started over. There is evidence of previous human existence beyond 6000 years ago in the fossil record, but they were prior to Adam and Eve, when God started over. Many believers don't buy my explanation and would prefer to believe that it all started 6000 years ago, but God doesn't have to tell us everything... he has no obligation to reveal that, but if you interpret the words in Hebrew used in Genesis 1, you can see that a previous existence is inferred. Check out the writings of Steve Quayle, specifically in his book "The Giants of Genesis 6" where he breaks down the Hebrew words chosen to tell the story of creation and how they are used in context... very fascinating stuff if you have an open mind and are curious.
Cheers...
- betterth, on 12/15/2007, -11/+5Well, see it's muddy. You have to realize that he believes in the concept of an "All powerful God".
- D3koy, on 12/15/2007, -7/+4Wasn't Jesus dead by 33 CE?
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -0/+10Strictly speaking, no.
- Synova, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4If you want to get specific, most historians believe he died in 29 A.D. It was kinda late to change the whole Gregorian calendar back 4 years though.
- aeiou, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Biblically speaking, he died a few months into 33CE
- ostracize, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Biblically speaking, he isn't even dead.
Sweet Zombie Jesus indeed!
- ostracize, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Biblically speaking, he isn't even dead.
- CompIsMyRx, on 12/15/2007, -3/+6Only if you think he existed at all.
- Neiby, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Exactly. Unbiased secular historians tend to think that there really isn't much evidence to prove that he existed in the first place. You can find "evidence" if you look for it, but none of it is incontrovertible or uncontested.
- ostracize, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2There is about as much evidence for his existence as most other ancient historical figures (eg. Confucious, Homer, Archimedes, Buddha, etc.) Not many seriously question their existence because it doesn't stir up a ***** storm like questioning Jesus' existence.
If written documents have been passed down to us claiming those people existed, and we accept that, then it's still pretty reasonable to assume Jesus existed too. (The stories about him are of course more likely to be embellished, but accepting his existence is a pretty reasonable stance) - aeiou, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Those are probably the same historians that denied the existance of David, Belshazar, and many other people and places that are in the Bible. They have consistently been proven wrong.
- ostracize, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2There is about as much evidence for his existence as most other ancient historical figures (eg. Confucious, Homer, Archimedes, Buddha, etc.) Not many seriously question their existence because it doesn't stir up a ***** storm like questioning Jesus' existence.
- Neiby, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Exactly. Unbiased secular historians tend to think that there really isn't much evidence to prove that he existed in the first place. You can find "evidence" if you look for it, but none of it is incontrovertible or uncontested.
- satanatnmtedu, on 12/15/2007, -5/+29Maher asks him about being descended from monkeys. Evolution doesn't state we evolved from monkeys.
- busta, on 12/15/2007, -3/+19If Jesus is in memory location #0033AD, as you've said, and we can logically assume that God will reside in the memory location #00000000... then god must occupy a space of 13,229 bytes in main memory.
- JayTaph, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11which is enough space for an embedded linux kernel,.. so it would make sense..
- ZachSka87, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Jesus Linux!
- JayTaph, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11which is enough space for an embedded linux kernel,.. so it would make sense..
- SportsQs, on 12/15/2007, -5/+1
- Humptydank, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1God is on a different machine. Try pinging 127.0.0.1, he's usually there.
- Daniel591992, on 12/15/2007, -6/+28Ron Paul denied evolution too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q- CompIsMyRx, on 12/15/2007, -4/+12Ron Paul also wants to ban abortions. What else is new?
- nakani, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4Ron Paul believes in separation of church and state, so why does it matter what he personally believes? Besides, I thought that his answer was pretty damn thoughtful for a Christian. I would definitely like to have a discussion with Paul on the subject (1 on 1)
/agnostic- Totalchaos02, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Your ability to think logically matters.
- alphaterminus, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2If Jesus were alive today he'd be flying a blimp over the east coast of the United States. If you get right down to it, the historical Jesus was a hippie who preached peace and goodwill. Paul the apostle pissed on Christianity and his inclusion in the Canon is what lead to Western religion being used as a tool of control. The only figure in large religions worse than Paul the apostle is Mohammed.
- drose424, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Have you read a bible? Like actually. Paul went from a system of control and power to being a humble, broken servant of Jesus Christ. Paul was a Pharisee and had it made in the Jewish sense, he even hunted down and killed Christians before Christ appeared to him and made him his servant. Jesus changed his name from Saul to Paul. Paul means low one, seriously that wasn't an accident. Even Paul says there is no greater sinner then himself. You have been feed a false gospel. Christ preached salvation through him, the cross, not peace and love for the sake of it, peace and love are of him and his father. In the end, apart from the father no one will have these. Read the word and explore for yourself. You will be surprised what they didn't teach you on Sunday's.
More than a hippie, a philosopher, a moral teacher, he is the Christ, the anointed one, and he has sacrificed himself so that we may know his Father.
John 14:6: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
- drose424, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Have you read a bible? Like actually. Paul went from a system of control and power to being a humble, broken servant of Jesus Christ. Paul was a Pharisee and had it made in the Jewish sense, he even hunted down and killed Christians before Christ appeared to him and made him his servant. Jesus changed his name from Saul to Paul. Paul means low one, seriously that wasn't an accident. Even Paul says there is no greater sinner then himself. You have been feed a false gospel. Christ preached salvation through him, the cross, not peace and love for the sake of it, peace and love are of him and his father. In the end, apart from the father no one will have these. Read the word and explore for yourself. You will be surprised what they didn't teach you on Sunday's.
- Blah_Blah_Blah, on 12/16/2007, -3/+3seriously, whether he believes in evolution or not does not matter when his ability to manage a country is the concern. turning this into a religion vs. atheist argument is just ridiculous.
- FadieZ, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Digg, you can really be a bunch of assholes sometimes. I mean I respect Bill Maher but I really don't appreciate the fact that he was pushing his beliefs on Huckabee, and on top of that you guys digg this ***** up. Be an atheist, be a theist .. hell, you can just not give a *****, but don't push your beliefs on others regardless.
- drose424, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Bill Maher shouldn't have his own TV show. I would equate him to the liberal Bill O'Rielly. Doesn't care what others think and just wants to make people that don't believe in what he believes look foolish. I would feel pretty safe to say that he doesn't know anymore about the theory of evolution than Huckabee. So many people cling onto beliefs, when they don't even know what they believe in.
- Mewchu11, on 12/15/2007, -18/+93Sorry for the comment jacking, but it needs to be said:
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -33/+193He is a smooth talking -- crazy ass mofo.
- fedorafandango, on 12/15/2007, -4/+27Yeah, but he's right about the CNN debates though, they're a damn joke.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -12/+2CNN - Clinton News Network.
It is funny how much CNN is pushing Clinton. After the last democratic debate, while Wolf Blitzer was talking, every "random" image on the monitor behind him was of Hilary Clinton. All of the commentators after the debate would talk about Clinton. Then there was a "random" undecided guy who just happened to pick Clinton over Obama even though CNNs own poll had Clinton third behind Obama and Edwards among undecided voters. - krnldmp, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3You need a preacher to tell you that?
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -12/+2CNN - Clinton News Network.
- streak, on 12/15/2007, -7/+20The last thing this country needs is a bible preacher in the bully pulpit.
- PorkFat, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2He stated in the debate that if president, his religious views would not interfere with sound, rational decisions. If he is to be believed, that would be very unlike numb nuts GWB. Huckabee is an ordained minister. If he denied his ideas about a creator now, he would be labeled a hypocrite and flock would abandon him. The religious right has great sway in the US and he'd be an idiot to give up that easy vote. If this guy took the primaries and went up against Clinton II, then I would hope any sane person would vote for Huckabee.
- streak, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3"I would hope any sane person would vote for Huckabee."
That would indeed be insane.- PorkFat, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0I said against Clinton. Voting for 4 more years of that BS should be grounds to get you committed. If we want true change we need to stop incumbency and nepotism.
- MrFunions, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1if you want true change then you ought to vote 3rd party.
- streak, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3"I would hope any sane person would vote for Huckabee."
- FadieZ, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2He wasn't ***** preaching you retard. He was just stating his honest beliefs. Are you people so blind that you don't see this?
- PorkFat, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2He stated in the debate that if president, his religious views would not interfere with sound, rational decisions. If he is to be believed, that would be very unlike numb nuts GWB. Huckabee is an ordained minister. If he denied his ideas about a creator now, he would be labeled a hypocrite and flock would abandon him. The religious right has great sway in the US and he'd be an idiot to give up that easy vote. If this guy took the primaries and went up against Clinton II, then I would hope any sane person would vote for Huckabee.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/15/2007, -15/+7so does Ron Paul
- NinjaJoey, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3"He is a smooth talking -- crazy ass mofo
"so does Ron Paul"
Are you answering the right question?- damndj, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2No, he meant the last thing this country needs is Ron Paul.
- damndj, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2No, he meant the last thing this country needs is Ron Paul.
- NinjaJoey, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3"He is a smooth talking -- crazy ass mofo
- insecuregirl, on 12/15/2007, -9/+2hey,,,CHUCK NORRIS supports Huckabee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- goldfishey, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2yes, but at least he has an excuse, he can simply claim he's been smacked in the head one too many times.
- insecuregirl, on 12/15/2007, -7/+2http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?arti ...
chuck norris support huckabee...case closed - Spudster, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11Huckabee is an incredibly slippery and skilled politician. I'll give him credit, he made himself seem like a Christian who believes in evolution. But the reality however is that Huckabee is a young earth creationist who is trying to play down his fundamentalism in order to win the nomination now that he has a shot at winning.
- tetsuwan, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5He used the classical "we don't know" answer to the age of the earth. That's almost as bad as standing in a rain and saying "some people claim that it's raining, but we don't know".
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/15/2007, -5/+7Huckabee is a goat *****.
(sorry i couldn't think of anything else to say) - tillerman00, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Alright, Huckabee. I gotcha. See clearly where you stand on this issue now. You have your perspective, I have mine. We're men, each subject to our own relative belief systems--- Jesus Christ, Huckabee, what the ***** is that? (kills Huckabee)
- thebrawl, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1he's also slow. i learned it in 5th grade.
- wheninva1, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2My god, the hypocrisy on Digg is amazing,
Ron Paul on evolution: “It’s a Theory … I don’t accept it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q
- fedorafandango, on 12/15/2007, -4/+27Yeah, but he's right about the CNN debates though, they're a damn joke.
- caferrell, on 12/15/2007, -169/+32Why do idiots want to discredit Christianity by opposing reason? Our God is reasonable, in fact, as made clear at the beginning of the Gospel of John, He is reason.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote a beautiful tract about this that is only known because of its reference to the unreasonableness of Islam. Islam demands unquestioned faith in a capricious deity. Benedict's treatise should be read by all the Evangelicals who doubt science.
http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2007 ...
And this link is much easier to read and argues convincingly that an out of hand rejection of reason is caused by a weak faith.
http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2007 ...
We want a President who has faith in a benevolent God and who also will always use reason when he makes judgments. Mr. Huckabee falls short.- mrsdz50, on 12/15/2007, -8/+2blog site is down!
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -11/+70caferrell : "Islam demands unquestioned faith in a capricious deity"
As little sense as belief in supernatural being makes, Islam actually makes slightly more sense than Christianity. In Islam - for example - you are born without sin, so if baby dies it goes to heaven. In Christianity, no matter what the circumstance, unless you were baptized you are going to hell. The reason for that is even dumber - you are responsible for the original sin of Adam and Eve and unless you wash it off, your ass is going to hell. Same is true for worshipers of other religions. In Islam, if you are a Buddhist and a good person you can still go to heaven unless someone explains Islam to you during your lifetime and you reject it. That kind of makes sense - since you should not be held responsible for never having an opportunity to learn of the "truth". In Christianity, a Buddhist person that never harmed another living creature is going to hell, while Tony Soprano is going to purgatory and then heaven. And what is up with that "Jesus died for your sins" bull? Why does all all might God have the need to impose the ultimate guilt trip on me. And how is he doing me a great favor and showing me mercy by having bunch of Romans torture and kill his son?- caferrell, on 12/15/2007, -26/+7Those questions are a little too ddp to answer in aparagraph or two, but I suggest to you from the standpoint of a man who spent 20 years as an ardent atheist and a student of religions that there is good reason to blieve in our Christian God.
As for the reasonableness of Islam and other fundamentalist religions I truly think that you would be well served to read the Pope's teatise on faith and reason. The link below seems to work.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -7/+23Those questions are little too hard you mean. You'd have to invent even more stupid crap to answer them.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -5/+22Learn about Islam from Pope? Yeah that makes sense!
And what is that paragraph about faith coming from the soul and not from coercion? That would make more sense before they persecuted Galileo and BBQ-ed Copernicus for saying that earth is not the center of the universe. I am sorry to tell you this, but you do not have a moral high ground over Muslims. You are just as nutty and unreasonable as they are. You faith does not make more sense than other faiths, and science and reason are not on your side.
I have met Muslims, and Christians that are just like you. They all have wonderful scientific proofs that their faith is the true one and that other faiths are obviously false, and if people would only read this, that and the other book they would be convinced too. But there is still no proof that God exists. And not only that, there are still many examples of your faith and any other faith that simply feel wrong. Yes, I am talking about babies going to hell, and people getting killed en-mass to make room for other chosen people. How can a true faith that comes from God feel wrong? Maybe it's because it is all a load of bull! - Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -5/+16"from the standpoint of a man who spent 20 years as an ardent atheist" is just an argument from authority - a classic invalid logical premise. And, with respect, you have no authority. Just because you went from atheism to belief in Christianity doesn't prove some kind of heightened reasoning - although your comments are far more reasonable than most fundamentalists I have read recently. It is just going from one dogmatic belief to another.
I personally am not a member of any particular faith, but I'm not an atheist either. I simply consider the question of the existence of a supreme being an unanswerable one. What I do know for sure is that the Bible is not the word of God. Because it contains numerous errors, provable historical inaccuracies and anachronisms. God, if it exists, does not make mistakes. The Bible makes tons. Anyone who believes the Bible is the unadulterated message from the creator of the universe to man is a fool, simply put. It outs itself as nonsense in the first chapter of Genesis. - Synova, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1^ Amen to that Warty.
- concactus, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3amen to that
- allatti2d, on 12/15/2007, -5/+7hamobu -
I see that you are really pigeonholing Christianity. My Christian upbringing does not state that babies must be baptised. You can't speak for all religions without knowing all the subsects, and there are a LOT of those. You must be getting Christianity confused with Catholicism, which in my mind is mostly a cult, although I know there are many subsects of Catholicism as well.
And don't get me started on Popes!!! Talk about cult leaders... sheesh...- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2I dunno. That sounds like a lot of hair-splitting to me. Does your upbringing say that non-christians will go to hell?
- allatti2d, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1No.
And I believe most organized religions are cults. I do not belong to nor subscribe to one particular organized religion. I guess I am a generic Christian. Probably somewhere between protestant and buddhist. - hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Allatti2d: " I guess I am a generic Christian. Probably somewhere between protestant and Buddhist."
WTF! I guess I have never encountered a cross between a protestant and Buddhist! You are definitely not a generic christian. Tell other Christians that non-Christians will not go to hell and that you are a cross between a protestant and a Buddhist and see what they say to that.
- allatti2d, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1No.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2I dunno. That sounds like a lot of hair-splitting to me. Does your upbringing say that non-christians will go to hell?
- graeh, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Not to split hairs - but it's catholocism that sends unbaptised babies to hell, or, purgatory. However, recently the pope decided to rearrange the entire afterlife to ensure that unbaptised children now went to heaven as the notion of innocent children who died during childbirth going to hell/purgatory wasn't going down so well in this day and age.
Protestantism generally declares that those who are mentally unfit/unable to understand and ask for salvation go to heaven.
Either way - it's still pretty damned amusing that a guy in a pointy hat can undo and rearrange apparently the entire afterlife on a whim because it's not "popular" anymore. Says a lot for those of you who think you have an iron clad contract to go somewhere and get something in the after life. If it becomes unpopular at a later date, some mortal on earth can change it right out from under you.
Once again - props to religion.
- caferrell, on 12/15/2007, -26/+7Those questions are a little too ddp to answer in aparagraph or two, but I suggest to you from the standpoint of a man who spent 20 years as an ardent atheist and a student of religions that there is good reason to blieve in our Christian God.
- caferrell, on 12/15/2007, -32/+2http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2007 ...
http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2007 ... - rpi22, on 12/15/2007, -7/+17If there is a god, perhaps god is the one responsible for the evolution that our science can prove happened. We have genetic evidence using DNA markers, fossils, all sorts of empirical evidence, and no other reasonable explanation for it. Perhaps Huckabee hasn't evolved far enough to grasp the concept? Or god is just "testing our faith..."
- eminem213486, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2there is no god, its just not *natural.*
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -10/+24Here are 871 passages from the bible in which god threatens to kill people:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.htm ...
God doesn't exist. And in any case, how does a reasonnable, thinking being exist before there is something to think about or reason with?- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -6/+13They say that morality comes from Gob, but God sometimes just seems so morally wrong.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -5/+15Not to mention that he constantly contradicts himself, because he's perfect.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/ ... - GMorgan, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Morality derives from logical actually, ask the Greeks. Religion sort of tagged onto it later.
- elvisv, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Great, now I have "The Final Countdown" in my head.
- GliTCH82, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Here's like the best performance of that ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkMWdI2IKiw
- GliTCH82, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Here's like the best performance of that ever:
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -5/+15Not to mention that he constantly contradicts himself, because he's perfect.
- Victorioso, on 12/15/2007, -17/+4Here is something children can understand, but evilutionists cant :
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis ...
if it is cut off please take the [*] out ::
.cosmicfingerprints*com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -4/+13HAHAHAHA, that was like an encyclopedia of examples of fallacious reasoning.
Evolutionists can't understand it because every single argument is a fallacy. On top of having no sources, no references, absolutely ZERO factual evidence and not a single demonstration of logical proof, every single one of his arguments is fallacious.
You might need this to identifiy them all:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
What a ***** waste! - ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -4/+8OH and I forgot: this clown doesn't even remotely understand evolution.
- acceptab1euname, on 12/15/2007, -5/+6b,b,b,b,b,but, all codes were designed by a mind and DNA is a code!!! just accept my unproven assertion!!!
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -4/+8I liked how he explains that patterns occur naturaly, but codes (an identified and defined pattern) don't.
- Victorioso, on 12/15/2007, -9/+4You own me an apology. Do the right thing, if you can, and apologize.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -5/+8I don't owe you *****. You're pathetically stupid. Go ***** yourself. And please, don't talk to children. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
- tubeblender, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5@ Victorioso
What EIA said. - Chassit, on 12/15/2007, -3/+9Fallacious reasoning is an understatement...
- imperium2000, on 12/15/2007, -4/+6Victorioso, you again? Didn't you use the ***** logical fallacies the last time, ran away and claimed we were being mean?
Same old trick, same old ***** arguments. - acceptab1euname, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5@Victorioso: Alright, then.
...
On behalf of everybody on Digg.com, I'm sorry you posted a link to something stupid and got your feelings hurt by the inevitable tearing-apart of the content. I'm sorry you're an idiot.
Happy now? - agaudet, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2You and your God owe me an apology for every second that you wasted of my life
I was born and forced into catholic slavery, and now that I am free, I want an apology!
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -4/+13HAHAHAHA, that was like an encyclopedia of examples of fallacious reasoning.
- kmesp86, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1"How does a reasonable, thinking being exist before there is something to think about or reason with?"
Our God has always existed. He is also omnipotent and created everything, including thinking and reasoning. He extends above and beyond all reason since he created it.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -6/+13They say that morality comes from Gob, but God sometimes just seems so morally wrong.
- Kishoba, on 12/15/2007, -7/+18Wow, people like you drive me crazy. It's so hard to watch you talk as of you think you are making a logical argument, when in reality your just a disillusioned idiot. You're the source of so much pain. Just shut up.
- veilrap, on 12/15/2007, -3/+13Yeah it's true Religion causes pain. Everything from personal pain to Jihads and Crusades to mental instability and poor resaoning skills.
- Isidore, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Atheists have caused more pain the the 20th century than all the bigotry of the inquisitions and crusades combined. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ...
- acceptab1euname, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3....were all dictators who wanted to control their populations. Why on earth would they permit any competing systems of control (i.e. religions)? Don't confuse the effects of dictatorships that ban religions under the guise of state atheism with all the people who simply don't believe in any gods.
I believe the grandparent post was saying something about poor reasoning skills?
- acceptab1euname, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3....were all dictators who wanted to control their populations. Why on earth would they permit any competing systems of control (i.e. religions)? Don't confuse the effects of dictatorships that ban religions under the guise of state atheism with all the people who simply don't believe in any gods.
- Isidore, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Atheists have caused more pain the the 20th century than all the bigotry of the inquisitions and crusades combined. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ...
- Victorioso, on 12/15/2007, -12/+3People that demean others simply for disagreeing with them should do the "shutting up". Simple rule : Treat others the way you would want to be treated. A five-year-old can understand that, I wish more people would follow it, it would make things much more tranquil.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12It's not because they disagree, it's because they lack the mental capability to understand.
Would you respect someone who believes in Santa Clause? What if he argues that heaven is in fact in the clouds? What if he thinks the easter bunny is real and claims he can demonstrate that scientifically and then proceeds to show you a children's book about the easter bunny as proof?
Well that's what you look like to us: an idiot. I can't respect you just because you have ideas. That's not something to respect. Intelligence is something to respect, being moral and just is something to be respected. Fairy tales and idiotic ramblings about things that don't exist do not deserve respect. They deserve ridicule.- Victorioso, on 12/15/2007, -7/+3Yes, you can. You can use respect because you want the same from others. You dont have to have respect for their beliefs to respect them as you would want to be respected. Who is the "us" you mention ?
As I said, a five year old can understand that the correct way to act is to treat others they way you would want to be treated. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -3/+7You don't command respect, you earn it. That's why I don't respect you. There's nothing to respect.
- imperium2000, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6Don't bother debating this retard. I did the last time and he kept pulling the same ***** arguments and demanding apologies for having his lies exposed and arguments shredded. He is the epitome of dishonest Creationists.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -2/+7I find them funny. They amuse me, like clowns.
Like the way he asks for an apology and respect when his first comment qualified all evolutionists as being less intelligent than a five year old while taking the time to purposely insert the word "evil" in evilutionist. - tybris, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2"What if he argues that heaven is in fact in the clouds? "
That would actually make sense... from a historical, anthropological perspective. - allatti2d, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5EAW - please stop relating God to Santa and the Easter Bunny! That's just not fair, and not a good comparison. If you hate all things God and have no tolerance for all things God, do you also hate all things Santa and all things EB?
I mean, you can be an atheist all you want and disbelieve in the entire Bible, but please don't rag on the two big ones of our society!!!!! My children will never forgive you. And neither will my dad, who really is Santa Clause. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2Please explain the difference between God and Santa.
- tubeblender, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3May the GSM bless you and yours this meatball season! Pastafarians ftw.
@allat
Please explain then the difference between teh Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky and God?
Oh, blessed is he that makes the finest of fiery meatballs. Hail thee! I can't wait for GSM Day!!! All the pasta I can eat.
- Victorioso, on 12/15/2007, -7/+3Yes, you can. You can use respect because you want the same from others. You dont have to have respect for their beliefs to respect them as you would want to be respected. Who is the "us" you mention ?
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12It's not because they disagree, it's because they lack the mental capability to understand.
- veilrap, on 12/15/2007, -3/+13Yeah it's true Religion causes pain. Everything from personal pain to Jihads and Crusades to mental instability and poor resaoning skills.
- cpbrown, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12there are 2 different creation stories in genesis (2nd one starts in chapter 3 and states that man was created before plants and animals, then woman, the most famous one is chapter 1 where it is plants, animals etc then man and woman - the contradiction is in chronology) ... to take it literally you need to throw logic out of the window .. hence creationists are not rational, so it is not worth the effort trying to convince them by using reasonable argument.
- kelly, on 12/15/2007, -5/+3Actually, you're wrong.
The first reference is that God **made** the animals and the second reference says God **formed** the animals so that Adam could name them.
To summarize... God made animals... then Man, then reproduced an example of every one of those animals before Adam so that he could name each of them.- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5That is stretching it so far as to be ludicrous. Either it is the literal word of god, or it is a vague bunch of stuff that you can interpret any way you see fit, in which case, it is worthless.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -3/+4Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib) - ostracize, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1This "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude to this issue is exactly why everyone hates people like you.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6That's not it at all:
In the beginning there was nothing except for the ice of Niflheim, to the north, and the fire of Muspelheim, to the south. Between them was a yawning gap (the phrase is sometimes left untranslated as a proper name: Ginnungagap), and in this gap a few pieces of ice met a few sparks of fire. The ice melted to form Eiter, which formed the bodies of the hermaphrodite giant Ymir and the cow Auðumbla, whose milk fed Ymir. Auðumbla fed by licking the rime ice, and slowly she uncovered a man's hair. After a day, she had uncovered his face. After another day, she had uncovered him completely: Búri.
Ymir fathered Thrudgelmir, as well as two humans, one man and one woman. Búri fathered Borr. Borr had three sons, Vili, Ve, and Odin, who killed the giant Ymir. In the vast flood of Ymir's blood, both the primordial man and woman died. Thrudgelmir was also drowned, although not before he had fathered Bergelmir. Bergelmir hid in a hollow tree trunk and survived. Odin and his brothers used Ymir's body to create the universe : they ground his flesh into dirt, and the maggots that appeared in his flesh became the dwarves that live under the earth. His bones became the mountains, and Odin strew his brains into the sky to create the clouds. The universe comprises nine worlds, of which this earth (Mannheim) is central.
They placed the four dwarves Nordri (North), Sudri (South), Austri (East), and Vestri (West) to hold up Ymir's skull and create the heavens. Then using sparks from Muspelheim, the gods created the sun, moon and stars. As Odin and two others (the Eddas say Hœnir and Lóðurr, these are thought to be kennings for Vili and Ve) walked along the beach, they found two pieces of driftwood. From these, they created the 'first' human beings (the previous two having drowned in the flood of Ymir's blood), Ask and Embla. Ymir's eyebrows were used to create a place where the human race could live in; a place called Midgard.[3]
The gods regulated the passage of the days and nights, as well as the seasons. Sol is the goddess of the sun, a daughter of Mundilfari, and wife of Glen. Every day, she rides through the sky on her chariot, pulled by two horses named Alsvid and Arvak. This passage is known as Alfrodull, meaning "glory of elves," which in turn was a common kenning for the sun. Sol is chased during the day by Skoll, a wolf that wants to devour her. Solar eclipses signify that Skoll has almost caught up to her. (It is fated that Skoll will eventually catch Sol and eat her at the end of the world; however, she will be replaced by her daughter.) Sol's brother, the moon Mani, is chased by Hati, another wolf. The earth is protected from the full heat of the sun by the dwarf Svalin, who stands between the earth and Sol. The flaming manes of Arvak and Alsvid provide the light for the earth.
The Norse story is much more interesting.- sodoh, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Not only more interesting but points out another serious flaw. How can anyone claim their god is the real god?
- kelly, on 12/15/2007, -5/+3Actually, you're wrong.
- tybris, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4If religion was truly about reason, logical reason, then you would see God is an assumption, made by man.
- MSP1, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2"Our God is reasonable". You really shouldn't assume people will know which god you are talking about. Every religious myth has a different god or gods. Please be more explicit and less insular.
- anhedonia, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I agree with you on this part: "Mr. Huckabee falls short."
- lfroker, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2you're an idiot. just cause its written somewhere doesn't mean its true. do you believe a bunch of kids ride around on broomsticks somewhere in northern England?
- mllawso, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0Don't drink the kool-aid
- Chris88, on 12/15/2007, -56/+150lol silly american politician he knows less than a 10 year old. I mean does he still believe in santa claus and the easter bunny??? Although a 10 year old would i know but thats beside the point. :p
- patapoof42, on 12/15/2007, -20/+6lol..... silly foreign digger
- stavro, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3i'll admit i was reading chris88's comment like Boris from Bullwinkle and Rocky
- theradical, on 12/15/2007, -6/+19bill maher is an idiot aswell. "evolution is about we came from the monkeys" what the hell? no it's not!
- tbydal, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11I think he was just trying to provoke a ludicrous statement from huckabee, which would have been fun if it succeeded.
- vade79, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2It was in context to the question/argument...
- Psi57, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3I think the kids in that "8th grade science" class know more than he does.
- TitanX13, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1if they dont ask to be acussed from the part about evoultion
- drose424, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0Hey Chris what can you tell me about evolution? Explain to me the theory of irreducible complexity, and how evolution accounts for this, or even what it means. Don't cheat.
- patapoof42, on 12/15/2007, -20/+6lol..... silly foreign digger
- Appox, on 12/15/2007, -98/+32Mike Huckabee seemed quite sensible to me, he has his own views, leave him alone.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -9/+22That is because is very charming and witty. But it is not reasonable to deny all the evidence that points to evolution.
- itsthebrod, on 12/15/2007, -8/+39Yeah, sensibly disillusioned. We really don't need MORE simple-minded idiots wanting to inject religion into politics. Haven't the last eight years been enough for that *****?
- buildbyflying, on 12/15/2007, -6/+231. Sensible is not enough to get you to the white house.
2. Huckabee is not sensible -- sensible is understanding that science wins in the end. Why do Christians accept dinosaurs? Because they ahve to.
3. "leave him alone" -- no. he's running for public office. privacy laws state that we can hold him up to intense scrutiny. - pintomp3, on 12/15/2007, -1/+16you're argument makes sense for how we should treat the homeless guy on the corner, not someone who is running for leader of the free world.
- Me1000, on 12/15/2007, -2/+13Huchabee is an idiot!
He doesn't understand the concept of evolution!
Natural Selection occurs under several conditions, one of the biggest one is "Nonrandom Mating"
Evolution is anything but random!- goldfishey, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1its weird, I bet folks like Huckabee all have dogs too. Yet they fail to see the obvious. Natural Selection is pretty much how Wolf became cute little Fido. Through limited and incidental and then extensive and deliberate human intervention.
- janoo1989, on 12/15/2007, -12/+4Huckabee denies evolution... Kucinich thinks he saw a UFO...
so who are you voting for?- Ag3ntOrang3, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7Kucinich, obviously. In the Democratic camp he seems to be the only sensible one. Oh no, he saw a UFO! He must be completely insane. Grow up.
- forgiste, on 12/15/2007, -1/+8I'VE seen a UFO before too. Just because someone has seen a weird light in the sky doesn't mean they're a kook. He didn't say they were aliens, he didn't say he was abducted. What the ***** is wrong with you people!? I'm slipping gracefully out of sanity, all the while being constantly reminded that intelligence and rational thought are dead.
- Steroblo, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0If, in your opinion, intelligence and rational thought being dead coincide with people believing in a God, then to you there never has been rational thought. There have always been people on this earth that believe in a higher being. Whether or not they are right is irrelevant.
- WilliamDavis, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1"He didn't say they were aliens"
Even if he would have, there are many, many serious scientists that believe aliens exist. It's just stigmatized from former government ops trying to discredit and destroy honest people so they could keep their operations secret. Anyone who continues that sort of nonsense today is just a tool for a 60 year old government. - DarkSamus, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2kucinich is the man for having a wife like that
- tubeblender, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4Kucinich way before Huckabee. At least Kucinich wants to impeach the war mongering simpleton running our country. I'm leaning towards Ron Paul, but I'll guarantee you that Ghouliani, Hitlery, or any other status quo motha ***** ain't getting my vote.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5UFOs (whatever they really are) have shown up on radar, and have been seen by trained observers on occasion, such as pilots. God has never shown up on any scientific instrument and is only seen by mentally ill people.
- Totalchaos02, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1It is far more likely that he saw a UFO than that all of evolutionary biology is wrong.
- tybris, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Yes, leave him alone. Especially during the primaries. No need to bring up his name.
- drose424, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0That's funny you are one of the few people making since here and you are buried. I hope you get to read this encouragement before it is buried too.
- Somniis, on 12/15/2007, -41/+302We do not need a theocracy. I hope Huckabee and any others like him do not win.
- pintomp3, on 12/15/2007, -14/+65anyone who doesn't believe in separation of church and state is not fit to be president. this include ron paul.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/15/2007, -27/+8It doesn't include Ron Paul.
- chaosium, on 12/15/2007, -10/+27Ron Paul is a Creationist who does not believe in the separation of Church and State.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -4/+22Sadly, it does. This can be backed up with quotes.
- pintomp3, on 12/15/2007, -3/+24except it does:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.ht ...
- s1mph0ny, on 12/15/2007, -12/+5I suppose you'd prefer the church of Oprah.
- forgiste, on 12/15/2007, -5/+14Oh wow.... I had no idea Ron Paul was against separation of church and state.. There's always a catch. I guess I'm voting Kucinich now.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -5/+10Yeah, there are some worrying things that Ron Paul seems to believe.
http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vot ...
http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a ... - random19, on 12/15/2007, -7/+12Paul is *not* against separation of Church and State. You are misconstruing his words.
- renzien, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2He believes that congress shall make no law regarding religion, which is what the constitution states.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -5/+10Yeah, there are some worrying things that Ron Paul seems to believe.
- betterth, on 12/15/2007, -2/+10Paul is against Federal regulation of religion so it's irrelevant what his personal feelings on the matter are :shrug: Just like abortion, he refuses to handle it at a federal level so his beliefs on the topic are pointless.
Unlike other candidates, Paul understands the difference between what he believes in and what is best for our nation as a whole. That alone makes him the best candidate out there. - Frnnkdlxx, on 12/16/2007, -4/+1Ron Paul is Jesus... Therefore, he IS Church and State... .*waits for you guys to be totally amazed* yeah...that's right...
- renzien, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2FUD.
Ron Paul believes that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW (...) Read your first amendment. He would be opposed to a law, for instance, banning prayer in public schools. This is consistent with the constitution, and if you disagree with that policy, you should amend your constitution.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Actually, the constitution clearly and deliberately grants freedom of religion. How can you be free to practice your own religion if the states are allowed to pass laws that establish organized prayers in public buildings such as schools or instruct court houses to showcase the ten commandments? These are both things Ron Paul believes they should be allowed to do. This is one case when Ron has seriously misunderstood the constitution. It is the governments job to protect everyones right to believe what they wish NOT "make no law" concerning religion.
In other words, you're wrong.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Actually, the constitution clearly and deliberately grants freedom of religion. How can you be free to practice your own religion if the states are allowed to pass laws that establish organized prayers in public buildings such as schools or instruct court houses to showcase the ten commandments? These are both things Ron Paul believes they should be allowed to do. This is one case when Ron has seriously misunderstood the constitution. It is the governments job to protect everyones right to believe what they wish NOT "make no law" concerning religion.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/15/2007, -27/+8It doesn't include Ron Paul.
- krnldmp, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5Hope hasn't a damned thing to do with it.
- michelspc, on 12/15/2007, -8/+14A President's personal beliefs are just that and should not influence public policy.
- fzammetti, on 12/15/2007, -2/+22Yeah, but that's a naive, idealistic thing to say. Anyone who thinks our public leaders aren't influence by personal beliefs *IN ALL CASES* is being naive. Their personal beliefs may be that they don't believe in anything, but that's still a belief, and it'll still have at least *some* bearing on their decisions. That's why questions about religion are important to ask: not because I care one bit what the person believe, you can believe any damned thing you want in my opinion, but I as a voter have to make a judgement how I believe your beliefs will impact your decision making, and make my own decision about where I like what I believe you'll do. So, it'd be nice if personal beliefs didn't influence public policy, it'd make my decision a lot easier, but that's just not realistic at all.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6They inevitably will, though.
- cquinnd, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5"should not" being the operative term. Since we have clear evidence from past (and current) administration that a President's personal beliefs *do* influence, or affect, how they implement public policy... then we have to take the responsibility to take those beliefs into account in determining if they are best suited for the job.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Mr. President please disregard the fact that your religion says if you this part of your job you will burn in hell for all eternity, and do this part of your job.
- phronko, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Being able to distinguish fantasy from reality is not a "personal belief", it's a skill that's essential for being a successful president. Science is basically looking at reality, figuring out what's real, and figuring out how it works. Decisions that ignore science - ignore reality - are based on false premises and unlikely to be the right ones.
- BlazinEurasian, on 12/15/2007, -2/+20State and religion must be separated. Religion has caused too many wars.
- kilodelta, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1so have States
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Perhaps, but at least those wars generally end in less than a thousand years.
- kilodelta, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1so have States
- forgiste, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Stop hoping and make sure you vote.
- Zombi, on 12/15/2007, -3/+8Huckabee is too much of a wild card, there is no way he would win. I wouldn't doubt that even a few of the neo-cons think he's crazy. Chuck Norris is endorsing you in your commercials? Really Huckabee? REALLY!!!!?
- tubeblender, on 12/15/2007, -4/+0God bless Chuck Norris!!!!
/written for the sake of self preservation - vade79, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I'm not a Huckabee fan...by any means, but "blah blah blah blah, [name here] can never win"...I hate that *****.
- tubeblender, on 12/15/2007, -4/+0God bless Chuck Norris!!!!
- evodude, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1Ditto. And if he does win, I'm moving to Canada.
- pintomp3, on 12/15/2007, -14/+65anyone who doesn't believe in separation of church and state is not fit to be president. this include ron paul.
- Drkboarder, on 12/15/2007, -41/+9He may be a fool for saying we don't know much about evolution, but he has a point that it really isn't an important part of a debate. Every citizen has a right to religion and that includes the president. Unless he supports ridiculing evolution in textbooks, I'm not going to hold it against the guy. But lol, he needs to research current day viruses and bacteria for Christ's sake.
- itsthebrod, on 12/15/2007, -3/+25It's a matter of logic and reasoning. If someone doesn't believe something despite thousands and thousands of people who are smarter on the topic than you telling them it's true, how the hell are they going to run a proper presidency?
- blumer, on 12/15/2007, -13/+4Yeah, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about two comments down. "The other side doesn't agree with me, so they must be morons!" There are thousands and thousands of people smarter on the topic than him that believe in creation, too, and are even respected by the people who don't! There are valid reasons to come down on either side of the debate. Instead, though, you disqualify him from the presidency because he's not "smart enough" to have fallen on your side of the line.
- cranium, on 12/15/2007, -4/+16One side has a mountain of evidence and the other side has zero evidence. To equate their perspectives is in itself idiocy.
- itsthebrod, on 12/15/2007, -3/+11Creationism versus evolution is all about evidence and science and nothing about "agreeing with sides." Evolution has hundreds of thousands of independent observations supporting it. Creationism has 0. Please tell me how these are equal in ANY way.
- blumer, on 12/15/2007, -13/+4When you hold to the opinion that creationism has exactly zero scientific evidence to support it, you're either ignorant, or discounting out-of-hand anything that supports it as incorrect.
- GMorgan, on 12/15/2007, -2/+13Where is this evidence then. I've seen some farcical misunderstanding of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics but that wasn't evidence in favour of creationism. Most of the 'science' 'in favour' of creationism is little more than badly thought out attacks on evolution. Creationists need to understand that disproving evolution is not the same as proving creationism, badly attempting to disprove evolution is entirely meaningless.
- chaosium, on 12/15/2007, -2/+10Creationism is a god of the gaps argument, which starts off from a position of no evidence and can never progress to a position of evidence.
- cquinnd, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6blumer do you even understand what *scientific evidence* is?
Creationism has no evidence that can be proven thru independent research and observation, that can be validated thru measuring those results thru other (less controversial) fields of science.
Evolution works as a science because we can use math, physics, geology, biology and historical reports to prove or disprove its claims.
- chaosium, on 12/15/2007, -1/+10"There are thousands and thousands of people smarter on the topic than him that believe in creation, too,"
No, there aren't.
- manitoba98xp, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1I'm going to get dugg down for this…as with every balanced comment on religion I've made…being Christian doesn't make you particularly intelligent or stupid. Being Muslim doesn't make you particularly intelligent or stupid. Being atheist doesn't make you particularly intelligent or stupid.
Einstein was atheist.
Newton was Christian.
There have been brilliant Christians and brilliant atheists, stupid Christians and stupid atheists. Calling religion a "childish fantasy" or similar is no better than calling atheism "sinful". Why not judge people based on their morals, their talents, and their merits, rather than on their personal beliefs? I may not support Huckabee, but I think he makes a good point. Religion need not be a factor in a presidential election.- itsthebrod, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5You deserve to get dug down for bringing up two silly examples. Newton may have been a Christian, but only because everyone else was in those days. There was no science to support any other theory besides there being a God. Evolution was unheard of. In today's age with today's modern technology and education and general know-how, if someone refuses to accept science, they are a moron. And they do not need to be in office.
- manitoba98xp, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The two need not be mutually exclusive. One can have religious beliefs and still be intelligent. One can have religious beliefs and still accept modern science.
Do I believe that there is literally a supernatural, omnipotent being orchestrating the world? No. But it doesn't matter.
P.S: You're going to be disappointed when the presidential election rolls around. There's a sizable portion of America that will not elect a President who isn't Christian. - manitoba98xp, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Oh, and one more thing: here's a pair of quotes from your recent comments.
"If someone doesn't believe something despite thousands and thousands of people who are smarter on the topic than you telling them it's true, how the hell are they going to run a proper presidency?"
"Newton may have been a Christian, but only because everyone else was in those days."
Are you suggesting that any atheists in Newton's day were stupid because plenty of more intelligent people disagreed?
- manitoba98xp, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The two need not be mutually exclusive. One can have religious beliefs and still be intelligent. One can have religious beliefs and still accept modern science.
- itsthebrod, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5You deserve to get dug down for bringing up two silly examples. Newton may have been a Christian, but only because everyone else was in those days. There was no science to support any other theory besides there being a God. Evolution was unheard of. In today's age with today's modern technology and education and general know-how, if someone refuses to accept science, they are a moron. And they do not need to be in office.
- blumer, on 12/15/2007, -13/+4Yeah, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about two comments down. "The other side doesn't agree with me, so they must be morons!" There are thousands and thousands of people smarter on the topic than him that believe in creation, too, and are even respected by the people who don't! There are valid reasons to come down on either side of the debate. Instead, though, you disqualify him from the presidency because he's not "smart enough" to have fallen on your side of the line.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -2/+15You would think the presedent should be more qualified than 8th grade science teacher.
- cquinnd, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Did he even say teacher? I thought he was just comparing himself with an 8th grade student.
- allatti2d, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1RTFA ... WTFV
- cquinnd, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Did he even say teacher? I thought he was just comparing himself with an 8th grade student.
- koft, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1It does belong in the debate, I don't want to vote for some idiot who thinks the earth is 6k old or that we are all descendants of some guy who had a rib yanked out to make a woman.
- tubeblender, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1You had me at "He may be a fool". Well then, he has my vote, because as we all know we can't have too many fools in D.C. running our ***** into the ground. It would be better if the President of the United States did not pray or rely on an imaginary being to help him make decisions. Just a thought.
- chillmandan, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2He deny evolution, he just supported some sort of divine intervention within the creation of man. I didn't see a single time where he denied evolution, all he states is he doesn't know where man came from but he knows that God created him. Is there anything wrong with that?
- Drkboarder, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Did you guys watch the video? Because he does agree the earth may be billions of years old, he just happens to believe in God. I'm an atheist who definitely does not support Huckabee. All I'm trying to do is defend the man's rights and you digg me down. Like I said, if he used this logic in some sort of political agenda, then I would have an outcry. But as for now, let the man believe in his bible and the all knowing Jesus. You people do know that Ron Paul is a baptist, but I suppose his views on God don't matter because it's Ron Paul and Ron Paul is Ron Paul.
- renzien, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1RP is a *protestant
http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+religion&i ...
- renzien, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1RP is a *protestant
- tybris, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2We know a amazingly great deal about evolution. THAT is what people don't know.
- Friern, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1It definitely belongs in any debate. Rationality aside, the President steers the direction of the country's scientific advancements through funding, grants, and legislation. Citizens deserve to know how a candidate may or may not spend their money.
- itsthebrod, on 12/15/2007, -3/+25It's a matter of logic and reasoning. If someone doesn't believe something despite thousands and thousands of people who are smarter on the topic than you telling them it's true, how the hell are they going to run a proper presidency?
- doctorfungi, on 12/15/2007, -36/+149I'm a conservative... and Huckabee pisses me off to no end.
- midwestcaveman, on 12/15/2007, -7/+24That's because Huckabee is not a conservative. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I like Obama better then this guy.
- Me1000, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12Im a ron paul supporter, and I would vote for obama right after kucinich!
- askantik, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Kucinich
- Me1000, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12Im a ron paul supporter, and I would vote for obama right after kucinich!
- londubh, on 12/15/2007, -1/+33Well, I'm a progressive and Hillary pisses me off to no end.
- askantik, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Kucinich
- Ag3ntOrang3, on 12/15/2007, -14/+5Well I'm a human being, Thanks for putting yourselves into nice neat little groups for me. Why do people have to belong to a group? I'm conservative! I'm progressive! ***** YOU. I'm a ***** person and I don't need to belong to something to feel I am important. Go kill yourselves and help strengthen the gene pool.
- swr1ght, on 12/15/2007, -2/+9I'll group you...You're angry. Bitter. And a little violent.
You Sir/Madam are a conservative.
- swr1ght, on 12/15/2007, -2/+9I'll group you...You're angry. Bitter. And a little violent.
- datdamonfoo, on 12/15/2007, -12/+4I'm an Obama and/or Hillary supporter and I would vote for Ron Paul right after Huckabee. Why? At least Huckabee is honest about his ineptitude.
- midwestcaveman, on 12/15/2007, -7/+24That's because Huckabee is not a conservative. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I like Obama better then this guy.
- omnithought, on 12/15/2007, -50/+284"Hi, I'm Mike Huckabee and I like to ignore reality. Vote for me so we can cast out imaginary demons together and blow up the world to bring Jesus back!"
- mypreciousss, on 12/15/2007, -1/+8jebus*
- themakasu, on 12/15/2007, -1/+15http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q
Yes when Huckabee says he denies evolution, digg bashes him to no end. When Ron Paul denies evolution, you guys blow it off.- nakani, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul believes in separation of church and state, so why does it matter what he personally believes? Besides, I thought that his answer was pretty damn thoughtful for a Christian. I would definitely like to have a discussion with Paul on the subject (1 on 1)
/agnostic
- nakani, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul believes in separation of church and state, so why does it matter what he personally believes? Besides, I thought that his answer was pretty damn thoughtful for a Christian. I would definitely like to have a discussion with Paul on the subject (1 on 1)
- andyeddy, on 12/15/2007, -4/+2He is not denying evolution and he is not denying science; he is denying atheism. And I think that all serious candidates (on both sides of the political spectrum) are like-minded. In fact, I think that it is no small majority of the American people who believe that something more than chance produced existence.
- omnithought, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. And what good reason is there to deny atheism, especially since it is based on reason and facts? Atheists simply state that there is no evidence for god and they're right. There isn't. If you disagree, show me some.
- blumer, on 12/15/2007, -41/+11It would be nice if rather than deriding the opposite side and ridiculing them because their origins views are different, everyone could just acknowledge that there are logical, sensible reasons to come down on either side of the debate. There's a whole lot more to the argument than can be captured in either a two-and-a-half minute clip designed to parade someone around as the village idiot or a 200-comment thread on digg, which, as Huckabee described the debates, is "more like a gameshow than ... a serious discourse."
When people on either side of the debate are honest, they acknowledge that there are reasons to hold each view. Too bad the internet doesn't promote honesty with either oneself or with the multitude of strangers one disagrees with.- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -6/+26There are reasons for both sides. One side has logical reasons, and the other side does not, but they all have reasons.
- MasteRR, on 12/15/2007, -2/+14"there are logical, sensible reasons to come down on either side of the debate." Really?
Science: Observer the world, search for evidence. Create a theory based on observations and evidence. Revise thoery as more evidence is found that confirms/denies this theory. The theories themselves evolve. Logical.
Religion: Create a theory. Find evidence to confirm this theory. Ignore all the overwhelming evidence that denies this theory. Illogical.
How are both sides logical?- cquinnd, on 12/15/2007, -5/+2Where did he say both sides were logical?
- MasteRR, on 12/15/2007, -2/+14"there are logical, sensible reasons to come down on either side of the debate." Really?
- chaosium, on 12/15/2007, -4/+17The only reasons for being a creationist are a scientific ignorance and a willful ignorance.
- quaxon, on 12/15/2007, -3/+9"scientific ignorance and a willful ignorance"
or as so many of you call it, 'Faith'
- quaxon, on 12/15/2007, -3/+9"scientific ignorance and a willful ignorance"
- Burrito, on 12/15/2007, -4/+18That's a nice thought Blumer but evolution isn't something scientists made up to disprove the bible. It's based on the accumulated tangible evidence that human beings have collected since they crawled out of the caves. To brush all that aside because he doesn't believe in his heart that it's right is absurd.
Huckabee is running for the President of the United States, not the “President of The Christian Nation of America”. I’d like a President that believes in facts over myth. I’ve had a President for the last 8 years that trusted his gut instead of facts and the results have been pretty shameful. I’m tired of my country being the laughing stock of the world.
Fair or unfair, Huckabee deserves every negative Digg, we Digg Americans can give him.- platypibri, on 12/15/2007, -6/+3The fossil record is a series of snapshots over time. To claim you have anything more than an "educated" guess as to what happened between snapshots is simply arrogance. You were not there. You did not observe, and you certainly cannot reproduce. I know, I'm attacking the foundations of your religion and it pisses you off, but if you really had proof that did not include speculation, you'd be posting it here instead of deriding people of faith. Some of the best minds of THIS generation, and men smarter than you or I believe in God. Get over yourself. Here's a link to a semi-decent and very readable summary of the various "Old Earth Creationism" debates on wikipedia. Why don't you at least read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
- Nidy1, on 12/15/2007, -3/+9I think my major problem is that so matter how much evidence is found, religious people will always say God did it. For example:
Religious person asserts God created us.
Scientists' show substantial evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
Religious person asserts God created us, through Evolution.
etc.
No matter how much scientific evidence is present, religious people, at least the ones I talk to, will back it up a step and just say that God caused whatever new thing scientists' figure out.
Sorry if that didn't make sense, I tried to explain what I meant the best I could.- Lythium, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3The absence of god is as impossible to prove (given the current evidence) as the presence of god. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, rational discourse becomes impossible because there is one answer for everything: "god did it."
Logical arguments can never work against faith, just as faith-based arguments can never work against logic. The two sides are talking from such different standpoints that the argument of one will always be an unintelligible fallacy to the other. There can _be_ no rational debate. - platypibri, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2Yes, you are right. I will always think "God did it." But, you see, my passion for HOW God did it is insatiable, and I probably keep up with scientific discovery better than most artists out there. I see all these opinions that Christians are close minded science deniers. At least as far as I am concerned, there is nothing farther from the truth. But people deride me for always framing discovery in the context of God, when they ALWAYS frame discovery in the context of no god. And if you are an Atheist, no amount archaeological discovery proves to you folks that if nothing else, The Bible is an extremely accurate history book and not a "fairy tale". The accuracy of that history is compelling, unless you dismiss it out of hand because of your faith in "no god". My main frustration with atheists is they make religious claims all the time (it happened this way, before time began, and we know it!), but they deny that much of what they say is speculative origin philosophy, aka, the Atheist Faith. And they are pretty dogmatic about it. We really aren't all that different. I just call my God YHWH, and you call your god Evolution.
- platypibri, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2So, basically what we are seeing is that no matter how logical, reasonable, open minded or fair a person is, they will be dugg down for professing faith in God, or being critical of the Atheist Cosmology. And yet, some how I am intolerant. heh.
- MadSquirrel, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1@platypibri, Basically, Yes.
2 Peter 3:3-7 - First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Great Link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/
- Lythium, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3The absence of god is as impossible to prove (given the current evidence) as the presence of god. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, rational discourse becomes impossible because there is one answer for everything: "god did it."
- Nidy1, on 12/15/2007, -3/+9I think my major problem is that so matter how much evidence is found, religious people will always say God did it. For example:
- platypibri, on 12/15/2007, -6/+3The fossil record is a series of snapshots over time. To claim you have anything more than an "educated" guess as to what happened between snapshots is simply arrogance. You were not there. You did not observe, and you certainly cannot reproduce. I know, I'm attacking the foundations of your religion and it pisses you off, but if you really had proof that did not include speculation, you'd be posting it here instead of deriding people of faith. Some of the best minds of THIS generation, and men smarter than you or I believe in God. Get over yourself. Here's a link to a semi-decent and very readable summary of the various "Old Earth Creationism" debates on wikipedia. Why don't you at least read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
- acceptab1euname, on 12/15/2007, -2/+14No - "MAGIC MAN DONE IT!!" is *not* a logical, sensical position to take. I don't have to respect both sides of an argument when one side is patently ridiculous.
- blumer, on 12/15/2007, -8/+4I have never said that "MAGIC MAN DONE IT!!" is a "logical, sensical [sic] position to take." Did you read my post at all? There is science on both sides, but if you want to reduce it down to stupid-sounding quips that encompass the other side's entire position, "Amino acids and lots and lots and lots of time" is not a logical, sensible position either. This is exactly what I'm talking about, though. I try to make the simple statement that there is scientific evidence on both sides (and perhaps even more on the evolution side), but everybody skips right past the *HEART* of my statement and goes directly for quips about irrationality, illogicality, and "MAGIC MAN."
When even this simple point just falls on deaf ears, it reinforces what I already knew: the internet is not now, never has been, nor will it ever be, a place for reasoned discussion.- acceptab1euname, on 12/15/2007, -3/+8There is no science behind a supernatural being whose existence cannot be observed, tested, or verified. If you'd care to show me some, I'll reconsider my statement. Until then, it basically DOES boil down to 'MAGIC MAN DONE IT!', whether you like it or not. 'Amino acids and lots and lots and lots of time' is logical and sensible when there's mountains of actual scientific research and evidence to support it. I'm all about reasoned discussion, but claiming there's science behind an invisible supernatural sky-father is the furthest thing from reasoned.
- Lythium, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5I saw a great comic once (can't find the image, unfortunately): it's a bunch of guys in lab coats watching another guy densely cover a blackboard with what appear to be scientific formulae. Right in the middle of the board is the phrase "here a miracle occurs," followed by more formulae.
- platypibri, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3"lots and lots of time"=Atheist Magic
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -4/+9There is not any science or scientific evidence that supports the existence of God. I would love to agree with you if there were, because I'm not an atheist (for reasons stated above), but there simply isn't any evidence. It is all wishful thinking and sophistry.
Faith is a different thing altogether.
There is TONS of evidence for evolution and natural selection - it has been observed in the macro and micro level. And museums are simply overloaded with physical evidence. There is nothing for God or God's act of creation. Not a single jot. It is just wishful thinking.- platypibri, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3There is the problem of irreducible complexity. The eye ain't an eye till it's an eye and before that it's dead weight. Evolution is apparently a pretty good pre-planer.
- MadSquirrel, on 12/15/2007, -6/+4@Wartyboskfapped
We know that each snowflake is different, because it is the result of a natural process, but what if you found that every snowflake on the North Pole was the same?
Would the logical conclusion be that they were manufactured or the result of a random process?
So, if I look at DNA, each nucleotide is made of one Right-handed five carbon sugar and one Left-handed nucleic acid, and just like the snowflakes they can form randomly, but in this case they all have to be manufactured.
Also:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Information_Theor ...- Lythium, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5Your analogy is quite naive. Snowflakes are truly the products of RANDOM processes guided by nothing more than physics/chemistry. Evolution is a REACTIVE process, in which changes in the structure influence (positively or adversely) the likelihood of the given gene to survive and prosper. There is no corrective mechanism in snowflakes, so they are all different. There IS a corrective mechanism in genetics, so there is a much greater tendency toward similarity.
- MadSquirrel, on 12/15/2007, -4/+3@Lythium,
No, it is a to the point argument, your assumption is that you have to have a manufactured environment to begin with, and I’m pointing out that the manufacturing process has to be created in the first place or your “evolution” can’t even begin. Second, based on the understanding of information, you can not create information randomly, so again it is a very straightforward and analytical assessment of the problem.
Lastly show me one example of an entire information structure coming into existence by random chance. That is a transmitter, a transition message, a receiver, and a functional output product. An example would be an e-coli forming the ability of photosynthesis.
Please read the linked article for a deeper understanding than you already have.
Pease cite one example of a naturally occurring chemical reaction that produces Chirality; if you can you will win the next Nobel Prize in Science, because that is the killer for all experiments that attempt to produce life. Also, look up Thalidomide and Mad Cow disease.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 12/15/2007, -3/+6@MadSquirrel
What if? What if the moon were made of cheese and I farted clouds of gold dust? Let's stick to data that is real and not supposition. - ArandiaT, on 12/15/2007, -3/+4Wow, MadSquirrel has NO CLUE how evolution works. Species and yes, amino acids all appear (mostly) the same because they're the forms that are best able to survive.
If you were to apply evolution to snowflakes, in such a way that say, the more triangular a snowflake is the more likely it is that a copy of it will fall from the sky, then yes, you'd have nearly uniform triangular snowflakes. For snowflakes, this replication is absurd. For species, it is not. - MadSquirrel, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4@Wartyboskfapped,
Thalidomide – Name one experiment that proves your point… I’m waiting… I’m still waiting …
If you don’t want the truth, don’t ask for it.
@Arandia,
All you’ve proven is you don’t know what you are talking about.
1) You do not understand the processes attributed to evolution, and there effect.
2) You don’t understand basic chemistry.
3) You don’t understand modeling and simulation.
4) You don’t understand science and the scientific method.
Being that you are so brilliant in your own mind, answer the questions in the linked article and your will be the next Nobel Prize winner. Oh, I’m sorry your just talking out you’re a--.
- acceptab1euname, on 12/15/2007, -3/+8There is no science behind a supernatural being whose existence cannot be observed, tested, or verified. If you'd care to show me some, I'll reconsider my statement. Until then, it basically DOES boil down to 'MAGIC MAN DONE IT!', whether you like it or not. 'Amino acids and lots and lots and lots of time' is logical and sensible when there's mountains of actual scientific research and evidence to support it. I'm all about reasoned discussion, but claiming there's science behind an invisible supernatural sky-father is the furthest thing from reasoned.
- blumer, on 12/15/2007, -8/+4I have never said that "MAGIC MAN DONE IT!!" is a "logical, sensical [sic] position to take." Did you read my post at all? There is science on both sides, but if you want to reduce it down to stupid-sounding quips that encompass the other side's entire position, "Amino acids and lots and lots and lots of time" is not a logical, sensible position either. This is exactly what I'm talking about, though. I try to make the simple statement that there is scientific evidence on both sides (and perhaps even more on the evolution side), but everybody skips right past the *HEART* of my statement and goes directly for quips about irrationality, illogicality, and "MAGIC MAN."
- platypibri, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3The fact of the matter is, the atheist origin requires a whole lot of time to be correct. About 14 or 15 billion years, if I'm up on my reading. This is based on things like the constant of the speed of light, red shift, blue shift and the like. Well, I'm putting a link in my post. It's all theoretical, but if it proves to be true, and the speed of light can be both accelerated and decelerated, that will throw your entire time line into question. Who's to say something as singular and cataclysmic as the big bang could not have accelerated light and/or energy significantly past the stable speed of light for an undetermined period of time? That would call your entire age of the universe, and the amount of time evolution had to act, into question. The most inaccurate thing about your theory is the time line. My point is, The Universe, Earth, and everything has an "apparent age" that may not be it's actual age. And if that's the case, evolution needs some outside help. And that would be, well, divine. Here's the link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/epf ... - hiddenopal, on 12/16/2007, -1/+0I completely agree with you blumer. I do not agree with Huckabee's opinion on evolution, but it isn't like he's alone. I think it is unfair to target him when two others raised their hands at that debate. I also do not believe that people are actually reading, and UNDERSTANDING, what you are saying.
- lquid, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0To bad ur opinions don't count to the masses when we don't have to see you in person. The internet is hivemind, think of it first or gtfo.
God(even though i don't believe in you/it/thing/(and dog spelled backwards)) I love the internet.
- hamobu, on 12/15/2007, -6/+26There are reasons for both sides. One side has logical reasons, and the other side does not, but they all have reasons.
- bustaballs, on 12/15/2007, -8/+19I think everyone saw this coming.
- TruFan, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1yeah, i was thinking the same thing: "who is this a surprise to?"
- aguitarhero, on 12/15/2007, -33/+208Huckabee: "I thought the question was silly"
It most definitely was NOT. If a person is willing to deny important scientific fact because of his or her religious belief, what else would such a person be willing to deny? And more importantly how would that effect his or her actions?
I am especially thinking of those desperately waiting for a a nuclear bomb to go off, because that would mean Jesus would come save the believers.
It would be extremely dangerous put all the guns power in such a persons hands.- mufasa, on 12/15/2007, -1/+18"I do not believe in gravity"
- Lythium, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4Too bad gravity believes in you ;)
- issachar, on 12/15/2007, -2/+9I think if you watch the video again, you'll notice that what he thought was that the question format of "yes or no", "raise your hand" was silly. And I agree. If that's how your debates are run, then they are basically game shows. I'm glad we take our leadership debates a little more seriously in Canada.
- aguitarhero, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Well that is debatable, he said "None of us are running to be an 8. grade science teacher" implying that it in fact was the question itself he had a problem with.
However I see your point, and do very much agree. The debates focus very much on trivial matters, and could go much more in depth with real issues. - caketank, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1It's a yes or no question because the issue is extremely simple. You either reject a long-standing, extremely well-supported scientific theory without any evidence against it, or you don't. Raise your hand or don't. There are no shades of gray on this particular question.
- armoreddillo, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I actually like the occasional " yes or no" or "raise your hand" format for questions.
It (should) force the candidates to actually give a valid response.
How many times have you herd the moderator supply a question to which nearly all candidates take a neutral stance, and in turn evading the actual point of the question?
Seems like the point of a debate is to get REAL answers,
not political jargon or unwarranted rants on other topics.- issachar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0Of course I've heard a politician give a non-answer to a question. When I hear it in a debate I take it as a mark against that candidate. (And that's assuming that their opponent, doesn't rake them over the coals for not giving an answer in their followup).
Taking a complex question and turning it into a yes or no doesn't help a debate. It just simplifies the format. Additionally if someone is against something, (or for), WHY they hold that view is more important than a simple yes/no.
- issachar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0Of course I've heard a politician give a non-answer to a question. When I hear it in a debate I take it as a mark against that candidate. (And that's assuming that their opponent, doesn't rake them over the coals for not giving an answer in their followup).
- aguitarhero, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Well that is debatable, he said "None of us are running to be an 8. grade science teacher" implying that it in fact was the question itself he had a problem with.
- Qtip42, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Ya the
- mufasa, on 12/15/2007, -1/+18"I do not believe in gravity"