Huckabee surging in polls...scary

[kagoscuba 0]

Mr. United States, United by Christ, is surging in the polls...and to think, the following is what he believes (he does not believe in evolution):

The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.

Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1-7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.

The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.

After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14-19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.

Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?

In Genesis 6, we read that all flesh (man and animals) had ‘corrupted his way upon the Earth’ (Genesis 6:12). Perhaps people and animals were killing each other; maybe dinosaurs had started killing other animals and humans. In any case, the Bible describes the world as ‘wicked.’

Because of this wickedness, God warned a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood (Genesis 6:13). God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noah’s family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20).

Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind-the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.

God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.

Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging Water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.

By the way, the Flood of Noah’s day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.

Somehow, believing the crap above makes me worried about his ability to be the President. Call me kooky.

[green 6]

Now, this is seriously creepy news. He has also got some very unattractive views on people who live common-law and on homosexuals and his proposal as how to deal with individuals suffering from AIDS is seriously twisted.

[Theotus81 0]

Now, this is seriously creepy news. He has also got some very unattractive views on people who live common-law and on homosexuals and his proposal as how to deal with individuals suffering from AIDS is seriously twisted.

I don't know what his views are specifically, but I assume he favors marriage (between a man and a woman) rather than shacking up. Is that what you're calling "very unattractive?' Sounds pretty mainstream to me, not to mention documented as the most healthy living arrangment for raising children.

[Theotus81 0]

Somehow, believing the crap above makes me worried about his ability to be the President. Call me kooky.

...that would be insulting. Sort of like characterizing something you don't understand as "crap." For what it's worth, I don't believe in evolution either. I had some problems with my eyes recently and learned more than I wanted to about the incredible design and function of these priceless "body parts" that enable us to see. To suggest that the countless similar examples of intelligent design we see all around (and in) us are somehow the product of mere chance requires (in Senator Clinton's words) the willing suspension of disbelief.

A few hundred years ago scientists told us the world was flat. God's Word (Isa 40:22) said otherwise. There are certainly other examples, but the point is that scientific theory is subject to change. In fact, the theory of evolution continues to, well, evolve. God's Word is unchanging, and He has a better track record!

Now, I don't pretend to completely understand either position, however I do know that there are highly thoughtful and intelligent people on both sides. I've also found that the folks that resort to name-calling and insults are typically the ones who are less confident in their argument.

I don't know who I will support at this point, however even a cursory look at American history shows very clearly that we are a nation founded and governed by many people of faith. That has served us well in the past, and (in my opinion) our "evolution" to a progressively more secular society has not resulted in positive change.

Merry Christmas!

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

This is why ANY republican winning scares me..but Huckabee especially. During the Republican you tube debate they had chances to answer questions about black on black crime and poverty, Romney said "THEY need fathers in the home." Huckabee said "He provided funding for Black illnesses such as HIV," so I don't think it was as simple as him not understanding AIDS..by 1991 there was enough information around for you to know how you contracted HIV, how it evolved into AIDS, and and how to stay safe.

I would like to add that raising kids in a mother, father setting might seem like the only way..because it's the ONLY way some people want to consider. If two Heterosexual Meth addicts have a child and raise it..I bet them being addicts is ok because it's a man and a woman!

[green 6]

I don't know what his views are specifically, but I assume he favors marriage (between a man and a woman) rather than shacking up. Is that what you're calling "very unattractive?' Sounds pretty mainstream to me, not to mention documented as the most healthy living arrangment for raising children.

My mate and I have been shacked up for almost 24 years now, a relationship which has outlasted both his brother's and his sister's marriages. We don't have children. Some couples chose to remain without them. As for the best environment in which to raise children, I agree with you in so far that it should be a stable one with two parents. But I have seen too many sequences of marriage, divorce, and subsequent remarriage to be deluded that all marriages will last. My own marriage lasted all of 5 years.

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

re: "If two Heterosexual Meth addicts have a child and raise it..I bet them being addicts is ok because it's a man and a woman!"

Check the files of any social agency or police force.....Meth addicts of ANY stripe do NOT have a good history of fulfilling the responsibilities of parenthood.

re: ""THEY need fathers in the home."

I was a social worker for nearly 7 years. First hand exposure to such a high percentage of single parent homes having large unsolvable problems was quite convincing that 'fathers in the home' was more often an advantage than 'fathers NOT in the home'.

Graduate level research demonstrated consistently for decades that an intact family has greater emotional, financial and personal resources to provide the greatest nurturing structure....in the greater percentage of families. Not to imply single parents can't or don't manage to do it, just that their odds are longer and the hill they climb is steeper.

The actual case-count demonstrates the increased complexity and difficulty in single parent homes. And right or wrong, issues surrounding homosexual parenting add to the difficulties of rearing children. Parenting is a most difficult job.

Studies mean nothing when you factor in actual people. I am a result of a single parent home. I've never been in any trouble, nor have I used drugs. I am not lacking in any emotional stability, or financial. I have friends who had both parents in the home who are more screwed up than my friends who were reared by single parents. Two parent homes that aren't stable isn't a great place to raise a child either. Gay or lesbian parents would not have half the trouble rearing their kids if 1. folks would leave them alone and give them equal rights, and 2. If heterosexual people would mind their damn business and teach their kids that there is nothing wrong with little Joey, or Kaitlyn just because he/she has two moms or two dads.

My meth parents were an example, but child protective services give drug addicts too many chances to screw up their kids lives!!

[sfeiner 2]

Kagoscuba, I believe all that "crap" too. I wouldn't vote for anyone just because of their religious beliefs but i believe I would vote against an atheist.

[OH Juli 15]

As a queer momma raising my child in a seperate home from her other mother the studies I come across is that children do very well with two involved parents. It's better if they are in the same house but the involvement of the parents is the critical issue; gender is not relevant.

[green 6]

Kagoscuba, I believe all that "crap" too. I wouldn't vote for anyone just because of their religious beliefs but i believe I would vote against an atheist.

Why would you vote against an atheist? Just curious is all. :ranger:

[green 6]

Studies mean nothing when you factor in actual people. I am a result of a single parent home. I've never been in any trouble, nor have I used drugs. I am not lacking in any emotional stability, or financial. I have friends who had both parents in the home who are more screwed up than my friends who were reared by single parents. Two parent homes that aren't stable isn't a great place to raise a child either. Gay or lesbian parents would not have half the trouble rearing their kids if 1. folks would leave them alone and give them equal rights, and 2. If heterosexual people would mind their damn business and teach their kids that there is nothing wrong with little Joey, or Kaitlyn just because he/she has two moms or two dads.

My meth parents were an example, but child protective services give drug addicts too many chances to screw up their kids lives!!

Diva, I haven't read those studies but I have read about them. I think they are referring to the fact that those kids who are raised in 2 parent homes have statistically speaking a better chance of doing well in life than kids who are raised by single parents. This would be because there are two incomes and two sets of energies focused on the children and their well-being. A single parent has half the income, half the time and twice the work. Moreover, it is thought to be a good thing for all kids to be exposed to good role models of both sexes. Boys need to be exposed to decent, emotionally solid adult males for obvious reasons. Girls need this, too. If they don't learn how good men behave they are more likely to make bad choices when choosing their own romantic partners. I mention men because so many single parent families have only a female parent on board.

Of course there are many exceptions to the above and certainly single parent or same sex couple families can be creative about supplying good role models of the missing sex. Good friends and extended families can make up for the lack of an on-site partner of the opposite sex. But being a single parent is hard work. I have a gay friend who is raising her young son alone and one of my two nieces is raising her daughter alone. There are money issues and there are those problems which arise from being constantly squeezed for time.

And you are right when you note that having both parents in the home is not going to guarantee a well-adjusted kid. I for one do not remember my childhood with any fondness. :phanvan

[kagoscuba 0]

It boggles my mind how any rational person could seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old and all dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. It baffles me further that rational people would base this falsehood on a book that is to be believed on faith alone. If the book would have been given to all people of the earth by angels from on high, or if the book mysteriously appeared at the bedside of every newborn, then I might be more inclined to believe its infallibility. Considering its multiple renditions and less than ethical beginning (men chose what it contained and what it did not), to base science on it is indefensible, except by the hopelessly deluded. I am not an atheist, but I am not a blind believer either. Saying the planet is 6000 years old is laughable.

The people trying to say the earth is 6000 years old are doing it from a basis of trying to "shoehorn" their science into what they consider a fact: Genesis.

Scientists trying to determine how old the is are always striving to learn more and question what is already known. While it is true science is guessing the planet is 5 billion years old, you won't find a single credible scientist who would say the planet is less than, say for argument's sake, 1 million years old. Even with that arbitrary number, I would venture a guess 99.9% of credible scientists would scoff at that idea too. For crying out loud, you don't even need carbon dating to do some of the dating. By measuring sedimentary layers a rough idea of time passage can be done, as well as studying ice cores.

The point being, is how can I take seriously a candidate who believes, at his very core, that the points of creationism are indisputable and ignores science? I'm sure he is a very effective preacher and he sounds like a genuinely likeable guy, plus he's a ripper on the guitar, but as President? He'd have had a better chance if the president who preceded him didn't give Evangelicals a bad connotation. 20 years ago I would have never voted for Romney (my Methodist church told me they were a bunch of cultists), but I know better now, and he will likely have my vote. At least he has shown a tendancy to have views more appropriate for the national level.

[gadgetlady 4]

It boggles my mind that anyone can truly believe in molecules-to-man evolution -- that any creature just happened to evolve to the point where it could reproduce, fly, have sight, speak, think, talk, nurse its young, etc. Nature screams design.

[green 6]

Carbon dating indicates that the planet is billions of years old and that it has passed through many eras of development, each one of these lasting millions of years.

As Laurend has so often and so patiently explained, a scientific theory is very different from you or I stating that we have a theory about some issue. Scientific theories arise after much research has been put into an area of study by large numbers of scientists, each seeking to poke holes in the original hypothesis.

So it seems that the Bible called it right on the fact that the planet is a globe, not flat. Basing your absolute trust in the Bible as a rock solid scientific text upon this one success story seems to be an illogical move in my opinion. There are, moreover, many internal contradictions in this sacred document. Why, one doesn't have to stray further than Genesis to discover this.

There may or may not be a Supreme Creator but what makes you believe that this Creator is the version found in the Bible? You must remember that devout Jews and devout Muslims are equally convinced that their God is the right God. And Hindus, Sikhs, and Animists are just as attached to their beliefs. Indeed, there are many other Christian sects which have made their peace between their Christian beliefs and the results of scientific research.

What is disturbing about the notion of a man like Huckabee helming what is arguably the single most important nation, globally-speaking, is that a man like this will inevitably lack the flexibility to successfully guide America in the arena of international diplomacy and will also be unable to make friends amongst the various internal factions in your own country.

[sfeiner 2]

I totally understand where those of you who are not believers are coming from. I have found it impossible to explain faith to non-believers. It's like trying to explain "blue" to a blind person/ Even people of faith are amazed that they were chosen to believe. It's more of something just happening to you than something you learn. It's an overwhelming feeling of love, peace and humility that just happens. When it happened to me I just kept crying with such a feeling of being unworthy to recieve this wonderful gift. Christians just want to share it because it's such a great thing to have and it's hard to immagine someone not wanting it. By the way, I was 52 when the miracle happened to me and my life has changed completely. I'm not the same person now. My faith is unshakable. My God loves me and is always there for me.