Were you wondering what Mike Huckabee was up to these days? No? Okay, then you probably won't be interested in this video ....
Why is there such a strong correlation between being stupid and believing in the Bible? How can a man like Mike Huckabee be seriously considered as a candidate for "leader of the free world?"
[Hat Tip: friend fruit]
31 comments :
It can only be the poorly informed or the poorly educated who even claim to "believe the Bible", since the literature in the Bible reflects a multiplicity of viewpoints, and so it makes little sense to simply say one "believes the Bible".
And don't get me started on the claims people make to take it "literally"...
Well, they're using the "there is a debate" tactic because it works. It worked for decades with tobacco smoke and it's working now with global warming.
I just wish the public had a less selective memory.
Sorry, I can't bear to watch. I just had my lunch and would like to keep it down.
Holy sh*t.
Yes, let the debate begin (again). ID will lose (again), hard.
Oh yeah, and your national sales tax idea stunk to high heaven, too.
Hey! Being leader of the free world comes with the job of being President of the United States and if you weren't aware of the fact that we like 'em dumb and sanctimonious, you just haven't been paying attention! Even the smart ones we elect, like Bill Clinton, try to hide it with "aw shucks" demeanors and "common man" speech patterns.
Actually, it's all you furriners' fault! If you had just worked harder and built a lotta nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers and stuff, we wouldn't be in the position of electing some yahoo to the position of leader of the free world!
Today is only April 4. Maybe we're just three days late getting this video, or is the Hucksterbee really that stupid? No, don't answer that question. Hey, Mikey if you believe what you're spouting I have some really high quality vacation property up around Hudson Bay I can let you have for a FANTASTIC price!!
John Pieret says,
Actually, it's all you furriners' fault! If you had just worked harder and built a lotta nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers and stuff, we wouldn't be in the position of electing some yahoo to the position of leader of the free world!
Yeah, right ... blame Canada.
We gave you Captain Kirk and Jack Bauer. Don't blame us if you didn't make one of them President.
Why is there such a strong correlation between being stupid and believing in the Bible?
It's evolution, baby! Clearly there was a random mutation somewhere, a long long time ago, and the "belief in the Bible" gene apeared magically. Those who believed in the Bible then left more offspring, and spread into the land.
There! I just gave you a "scientific" explination. and if you doubt that, you are a creationist.
Hey, I can be an evolutionary biologist too.
Mats
What I have never been able to understand is how you go from, "I can't figure out how the Big Bang happened," to "If the King James version was good enough for our Lord and Savior, it's good enough for me."
We gave you Captain Kirk and Jack Bauer.
No, you gave us William Shatner. Captain Kirk is from (will be from?) Iowa.
Likewise, Jack Bauer is from Santa Monica, California, USA. It's Kiefer Sutherland who is a furrener.
-
So does this help or hurt Huckabee's chance of being selected for the GOP vice presidential nomination?
I suppose this means Chuck Norris will be endorsing the movie soon. We already know that's he's a creationist and will be impressed by Ben Stein's superior acting talent.
We gave you Captain Kirk and Jack Bauer. Don't blame us if you didn't make one of them President.
A ham actor and a torturer? Actually, they've already had one of the first for president, and one of the second is in office right now....
We didn't actually give Captain kirk to the USA. Montreal traded him.
Good Job Governor. Mathematics and Metaphysics continue to be explored at deeper levels and have been suggesting what you are saying for years now.
I find it fairly humorous to see neo Darwinists or atheists calling others uneducated when they lack a credible fossil record, coherent explanation for point of origin, or any explanation of how a closed universe would even metaphysically work.
And if truly all there is to know in this universe is what can be observed, then it essentially no longer matters because our observations boil down to predetermined chemical interactions anyway.
Ironic that Friedrich Nietzsche who said "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how," lacked a why and died in a mental hospital.
Gee, and I was starting to get interested in Sandwalk for a minute there...
Individuals who believe in the Bible are not automatically stupid any more than those who have a PhD are automatically smart enough to balance their checkbook. It's too bad to see such an intelligent site/person stoop to such cheap humor against an opposing viewpoint.
If you had just worked harder and built a lotta nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers and stuff, we wouldn't be in the position of electing some yahoo to the position of leader of the free world!
But when the chinese takes over as leaders of the pack, they do so mainly by numbers in spite of having rejected the popular religious dogma of multiplying as freewheeling polygamous rabbits. Just confirming that sex and population demographics is hot without perverse technology.
they lack a credible fossil record
Ignorance alert.
humor
Eh? I agree that Huckabee makes a fool of himself, but how is that anyone else's fault?
@ Mats:
It's evolution, baby!
While there is no validated model for all religious behavior, it seems to be likely that incompetents cluster around it, both by its nature and by observation.
Mats probably thinks that Mike Huckleberry Hillbilly is a genius.
Guess what, Mats. . . "The Flintstones" is not a documentary.
Hi Mats. We are waiting for you to thank Waldtuefel for the excellent advice to assist you in sorting out reality from fiction (you have to start somewhere). To not do so would be considered rude.
I love how we are constantly told by these people that the "evidence is growing" for a creator, yet this "evidence" is never presented and they have no research programs.
If the evidence is growing, Let's see it. Put up or shut up, Cretins.
Darwinists don't seem to have enjoyed my evolutionary explination for belief in the Bible. I don't understand why. It's just as scientific as any other "explination" tossed around by darwiniacs: make up a story, attack creationists and go home.
But anyway, Larry's atheistic view of Chistians is no surprise. For him, people like Isaac Newton are "stupid".
Mats
Obviously Mats still does not understand that the Flintstones is not a documentary. Every time Mats posts something it provides further strong evidence for the indisputable fact that if brains were dynamite, Mats wouldn't have enough down there for a good fart. And while we fully understand that this makes you a hit with your brain-dead cretin buddies, Mats is too dumb to realize that's as far as it goes. Go back to grade 5 and start over Mats.
Evolution is a theory and NOT a fact. I am in a Bible study with 3 PHD Scientists from a local secular University and we are studying Genesis. They feel it is credible and backs up much of what they are researching. Today's evolutionary teaching is a stretch of what Darwin proposed. It is the new religion of scientists who were indoctrinated by the state. It requires more faith than ID due to the lack of evidence for evolutionary theory. I know that you believe that you are the only intelligent humans and anyone with differing opinions should be silenced. Hmmm... that sounds familiar.
anonymous says,
Today's evolutionary teaching is a stretch of what Darwin proposed. It is the new religion of scientists who were indoctrinated by the state.
Which state would that be? Roughly 99.9% of all scientists in every country in the world accept evolution. Is that because every country in the world is using the same indoctrination manual?
Don't you see that a Bible study group is just another word for indoctrination?
Anonymous is engaging in the usual lies people use on behalf of pseudoscience. All you have to do is anonymously claim that anonymous PhDs in unspecified fields at an anonymous secular university find Genesis "credible" in unspecified ways, and people who want to believe such things will say "That is proof enough for me".
Most of the commenters here have names and know biologists with both PhDs and names who find the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly clear, and know what "theory" means in the sciences. We find these names acquaintances far more persuasive than your anonymous ones.
Larry Moran - do you have some data to show us that 99.9% of all scientists accept evolution? And what do you mean by evolution? I don't know any scientist that has a problem with microevolution, but macroevolution (i.e., origin of species) is not universally accepted.
And if a Bible study group is equivalent to indoctrination, how does that differ from a biology study group (aka biology 101...)?
PS - you can have William Shatner back if you want!
do you have some data to show us that 99.9% of all scientists accept evolution?
I doubt there is much in the way of hard numbers, but a rough estimate would suffice. With 100's of nations, with 10's of universities each and with 100's of biologists educated by each, there could easily be at least 10^5 biologists throughout the world at any time.
At any time the number of scientists who doesn't accept some of their areas main theory/theories is very few, consisting of usual amount of kooks.
0.1 % kooks seems like an estimate consistent with everyday experience in all walks of life. And since creationist organizations can't scramble together lists with even a 100 real biologists that reject all of evolution, it is consistent with this as well.
And what do you mean by evolution?
There is only one fact of evolution, the observable process, and thus one corresponding validated theory that encompass all of its aspects.
Funny that you should ask Larry, as he has contributed more than most to dispel any confusions here - he has posted on a definition of evolution. Any theory elaborating on the definition by predicting the observations consistent with it is an evolutionary theory. And MET is the one that does that best.
I don't know any scientist that has a problem with microevolution, but macroevolution (i.e., origin of species) is not universally accepted.
I doubt "any scientist" would agree with your assessment. I would have terrible problems with even defining "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Can you?
And why would we care about discussing specific mechanisms, as evolutionary phenomena such as speciation is part of MET? Note that this is what a proper definition buys us - you can recognize the process without bothering about exactly how the theory works in minute detail.
IANAB, but as I understand it basic evolutionary mechanisms within a population suffice to explain speciation as well (which is what most often creationists seems to mean by "macroevolution" - though I believe that is wrong), all you need is population isolation. In physics parlance: same theory, different boundary conditions.
In creationist terms I guess this means their "microevolution" explains their "macroevolution". Dunno how they think about science - if they do.
Exact statistics are always hard to come by, but Project Steve at least gives a sense of the consensus.
And what do you mean by evolution? I don't know any scientist that has a problem with microevolution, but macroevolution (i.e., origin of species) is not universally accepted.
Non-constancy of species has been accepted as a fact not only since Darwin, but since Lamarck, whom we mostly remember today as The Man Who Was Wrong (which is unfair, not only because Darwin incorporated a lot of Lamarckian ideas in the later editions of The Origin of Species, but also because being wrong about one thing doesn't mean being wrong about everything else). Lamarck realized that no more than two out of the following three statements can be true:
1. Major geological changes have occurred, and make it certain that the environment organisms experience today is very different from that experienced by some of their ancestors;
2. Modern organisms are well adapted to their environments;
3. Species have remained unchanged since the beginning.
All serious scientists accept that propositions 1 and 2 are true (even creationists accept that proposition 2 is true; Andrew Snelling accepts proposition 1 when he's wearing his geologist's hat, but not when he's wearing his creationist's hat). Therefore, Lamarck realized, proposion 3 must be false: evolution is a fact.
It is one thing to point out legitimate problems with our understanding of evolution. Quite another to debunk the entire philosophy. And way out there to suggest that therefore a supernatural god must have created humanity. Standard well-trodden tactic, suckers. Ain't going to work.
Post a Comment