Mike Huckabee's Magical Beliefs
sdr
candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist
preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical
Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if
creationism should be taught in public schools.
Huckabee -- who raised his hand at a debate last
May when asked which candidates disbelieved the
theory of evolution -- asked this time why there
is such a fascination with his beliefs.
Maybe because if he believes God has told him he
should be the instrument to bring about The End of
The World ... maybe we might want to know that...?
''I believe God created the heavens and the
Earth,'' ''I wasn't there when he did it, so how
he did it, I don't know,'' Huckabee said. But he
expressed frustration that he is asked about it so
often, arguing with the questioner that it
ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views
are.
I wish somebody might ask Hucklebuck whether
he believes in Leprechauns. And if he doesn't,
could he then explain why he believes in some
supernatural creature and not in others... because
this has always baffled me: It seems to me that if I
believed in any supernatural creatures I would
believe in them all. After all, "One magical rabbit is
just as good as every other magical rabbit." And,
certainly a lot many more people have seen and
talked with leprechauns than with gods!
About the only people who still talk with God
these days are those preachers who say things
like, "Me and God were in the Jacuzzi the other
day and He said to me: 'Tell my people to give you
all their money so you can build My House... where
in I will dwell when I return to earth. And,
meanwhile, of course, you can live in there until
I return and have the use on my BMW and shit--"
Now, why anyone would stop at believing in just some
magical creatures and not in as many as are imagined
is a profound mystery to me. There are photographs
of pixies, millions have been bitten by werewolves
AND vampires, thousands of Irishmen drink with their
Leprechauns in pubs every day, so why this refusal
to go all the way, baby? Strange, very strange.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
***************************************
On Dec 5, 7:57 pm, "Doorman" <astroinc_NOS...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Just the fact there are extinct animals, and that
> there are multiple variations within species, proves
> evolution is real. It may well have started by
> intervention of a force foreign to us, but plants
> and animals have evolved.
You're wasting your time: The superstitious
do not understand the difference between
"proofs" and "beliefs." Look at the following
quote:
> You appear to believe in the theory of
> evolution. How can you then not believe
> in all theories, including the theory of
> creationism?
You can say to such persons: "'Beliefs' don't
require 'proofs.'" But they will just fire back
that 'proofs' require 'belief.' And then you will
get into some innate/insane argument which
will only serve to prove that while it is possible
to argue the facts, it's pointless to argue with
persons who literally can/and sometimes do
believe anything/nothing strictly according to
their will or lack of same, or mischievousness.
Pray that we shall 'evolve' a better educational
system out of the fear to not be left (alongside
the wretched Muslims) behind by the unforgiving
advance of civilization.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
Ivar Rosquist
> You're wasting your time: The superstitious do not understand the
> difference between "proofs" and "beliefs." Look at the following quote:
>
>> You appear to believe in the theory of evolution. How can you then
>> not believe in all theories, including the theory of creationism?
I find such assertion truly mystifying. Mr. Huckabee (and many
others) who probably has, at best, a very hazy understanding of Darwinian
evolution, has the chutzpah to proclaim that he does not believe in it.
Really? Doesn't he believe in, say, electromagnetism? Quantum mechanics?
Molecular physics?
He's obviously utterly ignorant, like most creationists, of what
science is all about. For all the moronic creationists reading this:
Science is nothing like your pathetic religion. One does not believe in
scientific theories. Scientific theories either conform with experimental
data as far as we can get such data, or don't. The former case
corresponds to Darwinian evolution. Creationism does not even fall in the
latter, because it is not a scientific theory, but a body of widely
accepted superstitions without any experimental basis.
Timothy Murphy
> Science is nothing like your pathetic religion. One does not believe in
> scientific theories. Scientific theories either conform with experimental
> data as far as we can get such data, or don't.
Which category does String Theory fall in?
Denis Feldmann
maths, thinly disguised as physic.
Proginoskes
> [...]> [...]
> You're wasting your time: The superstitious
> do not understand the difference between
They're also unclear on the difference between "proves the truth of"
and the much weaker "is consistent with".
The classical example is the (actually untrue) fact that scientists
proved that the Earth stopped rotating during the battle mentioned in
Joshua, therefore this "proves the truth of" the Bible.
A better example of this fallacy is: "There are seven days in a week.
The Bible says there are seven days in a week. Therefore this proves
the Bible is true."
--- Christopher Heckman
P.S. One more bit of logic to annoy superstitious people: If you take
100 religions which all claim to be the only true faith, then at least
99 are wrong.
Ivar Rosquist
Nice mathematics, conjectural physics (at best).
pubkeybreaker
Interesting question.
There is more than one meaning to the word 'theory'.
In one case it means an *established* body of knowledge used to
describe some
subject or domain. This is 'theory' with a capital T, e.g. Theory of
Relativity, or
Quantum Theory, or Number Theory, etc.
In another case it means a *proposed* set of explanations about a
particular
subject, but which has not been sufficiently established because of
lack of
evidence and/or lack or predictions.
Clearly string theory falls into the second case. It is a *proposed*
set of
explanations, but which has not yet been established. In some sense
it is a
synonym for 'speculation that has at least some rational basis'.
Martin Trump
>In another case it means a *proposed* set of explanations about a
>particular subject, but which has not been sufficiently established
>because of
>lack of
>evidence and/or lack or predictions.
Should that be called an hypothesis or conjecture?
--
Martin Trump
edt...@comcast.net
Which 99 religions are wrong? About what? Almost all religions hold
the same basic tenets (which if your honestly look, are pretty
universal truths of how to operate successfully as a human.) Is there
another behavior that nearly all of a given species on different
continents, at all times through history have engaged in, that is as
"invalidated"? It's the only area that the "fact" of evolution has
not effected? Why would a species "evolve" a behavior all over the
world randomly and sustain it when it had no value, and was actually
harmful to its survival? My understanding is that animals evolve
socially also-ants and bees were once solo actors, etc. Sure there
have been horrid atrocities in "God's" name (please list the areas of
science which weren't misinterpreted or abused for power in varying
cultures) Of the Scientific theories of say...1BC or 52 AD or 1490 AD
or 1856AD, how many of any hundred were right?? How many 100% right??
Certainly not Copernicus, Darwin, etc. (and don't forget...most
scientists at the time dismissed Darwin, Einstein, etc) Any honest
Scientist will tell you "I don't know". When somethng can't be proven-
disproven. It's not an area of science if it can't be verified/denied
in a controlled study..hence the "theory" for best guesses based on
all current verifiable data." If you actually listen to all the words
Mike Huckabee uses to explain, he does what psuedo-scientist bloggers
refuse,( despite the supposed commitment to science) he says "I don't
know, I wasn't there" We do know that some of the most far-reaching
statements in the bible, (which any scientist would also read if
trying to experiment to find truth), are exactly true statements that
have only relatively recently come into view (thanks to
technology(ies) for scientists. i.e. Ecclesiatisis "Nothing is new
under the sun, everything that is always has been and always will
be" Seems dreamy and mystic, and like a load of ...except that it is
the most accurate up-to-date reality in physics (assuming you believe
in the Big Bang theory and the sun-centered solar system.) The Bible
also gives itself an out - the exact same out Science gives itself.
It is too big to try and understand everything, and truths are
revealed a few at a time, and actually raise more questions than each
answers- its the process that counts. Huckabee puts it (he's actually
quoting a book by John Bertram Phillips) Nobody can claim to
understand and explain everything, If they do, their God is too
small. Insert the word Science for God, and find me a scientist who
disagrees..
I'll quit blabbing soon. I am absolutely a believer in Science AND
God!! They both claim to be and are (when not polluted) at there best
as a fluid process and not end-all mandates. My real point here is to
declare a war on the war that shouldn't exist to begin with. The
false dilemma invades and disrupts honest discussions and thus the
political process. As with Dems and Repubs, rights and lefts, we are
told to pick a side, and quit thinking for ourselves. It is not okay
to say we should be thinkers, but not about everything. That goes for
those that have faith in God, Science, or Both. By the way, why
doesn't someone in the media ask Hillary, John, Barak, if they believe
in the Bible OR Evolution...I bet they say both.....
but nobody wants that out... it would destroy the false dilemma...
Proginoskes
> On Dec 6, 1:27 am, Proginoskes <CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > P.S. One more bit of logic to annoy superstitious people: If you take
> > 100 religions which all claim to be the only true faith, then at least
> > 99 are wrong.
>
About being the only true faith.
> I'll quit blabbing soon. [...]
There's a key on your keyboard labelled BACKSPACE, which makes things
like that go away, so you don't have to post them.
--- Christopher Heckman
Jack Schmidling
Precisely the smokescreen the ignorant media has allowed the
creationists to get away with.
Creationism is simply not a theory, it is at best a hypothesis.
To allow them to use the word theory is to surrender before the war starts.
js
--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Fiber,Gems, Sausage,Silver http://schmidling.com