"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[LittleNipper]

They told you.

The specifics are unimportant, I just want to know if you are against the principal of people (heterosexual) unable or unwilling to procreate getting married.

Why would they tell me? I personally feel the old folks are far better off unmarried than living apart in an old folks home. Old folks cannot adopt kids. I simply see no real point to your persistance than to give substantiation to homosexual marriage. I see no religious nor functional rationalization that supports homosexuality. It is like saying I wish to go for a drive and having but two cars without engines, or two engines without chassis. One gets nowhere fast; however, that was not the object of "going for a drive....."

 

[Valkhorn]

I see no religious nor functional rationalization that supports homosexuality.

Sometimes the purpose of marriage isn't to procreate. Sometimes it's just because two people want to spend the rest of their life together and want to officially commit.

Sometimes they just want to be recognized like other people and have the same rights that others do.

The funny thing is if this was 50 years ago and it was 1958 you would be the same kind of person arguing against interracial marriage. I'm sure if this was 1958 you would be proclaiming that there is no religious or functional reason that a black person cannot marry a white person.

If this were a hundred years and some change ago, you would be arguing the same thing but in terms of class - you would probably argue that you shouldn't marry below your station or your class - and in fact people like you thought that very thing back in the 1800s or so. They thought it was religiously and functionally based to prevent marriage from between two different classes as well.

How long did it take for slavery to be eradicated even though religious fundamentalists thought it was condoned in the Bible? How long did it take for blacks to get the same rights as whites even though they weren't slaves because some people thought that God made them inferior.

And, how many more years are we going to need before people who are gay get the same rights as everyone else?

The last time I checked they were still people who wanted to marry other people - and I can see no reason to prevent that which is not religiously based.

Of course you can correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Vene]

Why would they tell me? I personally feel the old folks are far better off unmarried than living apart in an old folks home. Old folks cannot adopt kids. I simply see no real point to your persistance than to give substantiation to homosexual marriage. I see no religious nor functional rationalization that supports homosexuality. It is like saying I wish to go for a drive and having but two cars without engines, or two engines without chassis. One gets nowhere fast; however, that was not the object of "going for a drive....."

We ask because it is a double-standard. The same logic you used against same-sex marriage are those that can be used against sterile couples. And unlike some people I don't think that there needs to be a reason to grant people rights, I think there needs to be a reason to take them away.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Sorry but it is not related at all. Viewing data that can be proven isn't even in the same field as viewing pieces of the past that must be fused with large amounts of imagination to even fathom. If one chooses to believe this, that is one's prerogative, but do not confuse it with actual, provable evidence.

 

[~A.Pure.Heart~]

"A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.​

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).​

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."​

Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution."​

source​

Oh, that is just too funny! *knee slap*

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

Oh, that is just too funny! *knee slap*

Yeah, I agree that a man running for president that doesn't accept evolution is pretty hysterical.
It's also kind of scary that a man running for president can be so anti-science and ignorant. No wonder the U.S. is lagging so far behind in science education.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Yeah, I agree that a man running for president that doesn't accept evolution is pretty hysterical.
It's also kind of scary that a man running for president can be so anti-science and ignorant. No wonder the U.S. is lagging so far behind in science education.

Show me where he has denied science. I mean actual provable, can show with absolute tangible evidence that can be seen here and now. Without this you are talking about something you have faith in, and therefore have no cause to judge others with faith in something else.

 

[Braunwyn]

When someone says that he does not accept evolution, what he really means is that he does not accept common descent of apes and humans. I think you would be hard pressed to find a person who denies allele frequencies change over time if you explained it to him.

this thread has gone in many directions since this morning so sorry if this response is out of place.

Given where we are heading as a technological society, I really think any president should be somewhat familiar with current issues. Denying evolution as common decent would have to include a "but" on the part of the canidates answering the question. Either at the time of the question or later. I can only gather that they are indeed misinformed since they did not offer further explantion (from what i've seen) and that's not acceptable to me.

 

[Braunwyn]

GOD made man in HIS image. GOD made monkeys in ours.

A. I don't see how this is at odds with humans being made in the image of god, if the final image is what matters. It's the process that you don't seem to like.

B. I've never heard that monkeys were made in our image. Is that in the bible? C. that's funny as all heck! and fitting to boot. thanks for the chuckle.

 

[atomweaver]

Show me where he has denied science.

Huckabee said he didn't believe in evolution, in the first republican debate. That's what you call denying the science...

I mean actual provable, can show with absolute tangible evidence that can be seen here and now.

My dear, you yourself (and every last person around you) are carrying roughly 200,000 ERVs in each and every last cell of your body, which are 100% positive grade A USDA Prime evidence of the veracity of Theory of Evolution. The only real question is, will you be honest with yourself in evaluating the evidence?

Without this you are talking about something you have faith in, and therefore have no cause to judge others with faith in something else.

I accept the theory of evolution, because the evidence supporting it is so excessive, that it would be perverse to withhold assent to its accuracy. Faith is for theology, and George Michael songs , but not science...

 

[Wyzaard]

I see no religious nor functional rationalization that supports homosexuality.

Ummm... why should homosexuals have to 'support' anything for you?

 

[Brennin]

this thread has gone in many directions since this morning so sorry if this response is out of place.

Given where we are heading as a technological society, I really think any president should be somewhat familiar with current issues. Denying evolution as common decent would have to include a "but" on the part of the canidates answering the question. Either at the time of the question or later. I can only gather that they are indeed misinformed since they did not offer further explantion (from what i've seen) and that's not acceptable to me.

You are free to care about it, of course, just as I am free not to.

 

[Braunwyn]

The BIG problem that you are not being told is that HIV is not the major concern. HIV destroys the body's ability to fight diseases. The person infected dies as a result of a secondary infection. The problem comes that people with HIV spead dangerous communicable diseases that were once almost gone from the general population. Healthy people can contract Tuberculosis from a coughing AIDs patient. The same is true of Pneumonia, etc... A healthy person can die of Tuberculosis if not immune. In fact these diseases (once rare) are becoming very widespread. So the homosexual can harm others inadvertantly through his actions. No one is an island.

the rate of HIV is fairly low among eta: homosexual women from what i understand. I know a lesbian couple and they are such wonderful people. They have two happy children and a beautiful home. One is an ER nurse. the other is a mid-wife that travels to Africa several times a year to lend a helping hand to needy women. I don't know a better couple to be honest. On the flip side, one of my best friends is a born again. She just divorced her abusive alcoholic husband (she has her own problems though) and her kids are caught in the middle. Long story short. the kids from the first couple are in a safer, healthier environment.

Also, and I don't mean to be offensive to the men here, but I suspect high rates of HIV among homosexual men because men in genral tend to be more promiscuous. I know many hetereo men (christians too) that try to tie as many knots on their belts as possible.

I also doubt that Aids rates in Africa are and have been soaring due to homosexuality.

 

[Braunwyn]

You are free to care about it, of course, just as I am free not to.

lol oh i know. most people don't care. it's nothing new.

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

Romanseight2005 said:

Show me where he has denied science.

Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee#Public_comments
"
Huckabee has voiced his support of creationism. He was quoted in July 2004 on Arkansans Ask, his regular show on the Arkansas Educational Television Network: "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." Huckabee also stated "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."[150][151][152][153] In the Third GOP Debate in June 2007, Huckabee was asked by Tom Fahey whether he believed in evolution, and he responded, in part: "I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don’t honestly know, and I don’t think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president ... if anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it--I don't know how far they will march that back..."[154][155] "

This is a presidential candidate who denies reality based on his religious beliefs. How does this affect his position on federal research on Darwinian medicine, for example.

mean actual provable, can show with absolute tangible evidence that can be seen here and now.

I just showed you that he actually said "I do not necessarily buy into traditional Darwinian theory, personally." The man says it himself! What more evidence do you need?

Without this you are talking about something you have faith in, and therefore have no cause to judge others with faith in something else.

No, evolution is NOT something we have faith in, it's a fact, it's observable, testable. We have such a good understanding of it we can practically apply it in medicine, farming, industry. So yes, we have cause to judge Huckabee's ignorance and anti-science stance.

 

[John1222]

Most of the presidents in the past were Christians,and it's safe to say many of those were creationists.Som of the most recent creationists tthat we managed to survive are:


Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush

I'm not sure if evolutionists are afraid of creationists,or just simply hate them.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Most of the presidents in the past were Christians,and it's safe to say many of those were creationists.Som of the most recent creationists tthat we managed to survive are:


Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush

I'm not sure if evolutionists are afraid of creationists,or just simply hate them.

people who understand the science behind the theory of evolution are afraid of what happens when people who want to act as if 3000 year old semi nomadic tribal stories are scientific fact get into positions where they can dictate scientific funding and education issues...

So I guess you could say that yes, "evolutionists are afraid of creationists" in extremely broad, round about terms

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

Most of the presidents in the past were Christians,and it's safe to say many of those were creationists.

So what, most of the presidents in the past didn't believe in atomic theory. You can't present them as supporters of creationism if they didn't have the evidence for evolution we have now.

And I question most of the modern presidents you've mentioned as creationists. It took me all of 5 minutes to find that Jimmy Carter was most definitely NOT a creationist and would be insulted by the accusation.

From here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html

"Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday he was embarrassed by the Georgia Department of Education proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum.
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," Carter said in a written statement."

So whatever your source was for claiming Jimmy Carter is a creationist is 100% wrong.

I'm not sure if evolutionists are afraid of creationists,or just simply hate them.

No, definitely afraid of them. Their antiscience fanaticism is detrimental to the U.S., especially now when the theory of evolution is so vital to the world we live in.

 

[TroubleShooter43]

So you feel that religious people need to leave the United States and move somewhere else, or just keep quiet and let the secular humanistic evolutionists run everything they way THEY see fit?

No, I think that voting decisions should be made based on a rational analysis of the candidates and who amongst them is best able to make enlightened and informed decisions. Basing ones vote solely on which version of god the person worships or doesn't worship is the wrong criteria. If you were electing a church elder, then it would make sense, but it is wholly inappropriate when choosing the person to lead the secular nation.

 

[LittleNipper]

Ummm... why should homosexuals have to 'support' anything for you?

They don't and they cannot. That would only serve to undermine THEIR position.