Republican Candidate Stances on Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E&eurl=http://cynical-c.com/

 

and?

 

Denying evolution is like saying sex is only for pro-creation. Human instinct will tell you differently.

 

Some of the candidates have revised and extended their remarks. Huckabee says although he personally does not believe in evolution, he does not object to schools teaching it as a theory, and he does not think they should be required to teach creationism, and he does not know what in the world that has to do with being president of the United States.

Video: Raw Politics: What I meant to say*

 

the instinct (the pleasure factor) is there to ensure that humans engage in the activity. the activity is necessary for procreation. it is not for the happiness or quality of life for the human. the pleasure part is not the point. it is secondary. the fact that it is so strong as to affect the entirety of the life of the human indicates how necessary the activity is for the continuation of the species.

sex is only for procreation. sex drive is only to ensure that sex is had. the fun/pleasure is just a side effect....



but i don't see why evolution and creationism can't coexist. i personally do not take the creation story literally, ie all specific species were plunked down here in their finished forms. for me, it is as simple as understanding that some force stronger than humans (i'll call it god so we will all be on the same page) caused the process that began in that puddle of primordial amino acid goo.....

 

I remember asking about this when I was growing up and you just have to LOVE my Mom's answer. The bible says God created everthing in 6 days and on the 7th he rested...................who knows how long God's day was! I thought it was an interesting interpretation and it did allow me to get through all my science classes.................8)

 

The Hubble Telescope is sending us images of immerging galaxies from billions of years ago and long before Earth existed. Our recorded religious records are approx 6000 years old. Sways me to evolution every time.

 

I am totally sorry but I did not descend from a Geico dude, Dude!!

 

Immaculate conception????

 

Trying to figure out what this has to do with leadership and the presidency. Maybe there are more important things that need to be done.

 

I think it is a warning for folks to try and keep the mistake of the last seven years from occurring again.

Also per the Sunday N&O the Conservative movement is also looking at the results of this answer to determine how these individuals will vote on other issues.

 

If that is true, then the Republicans should not wonder why they continue to lose support and elections. We have so many problems that need leadership, but let's focus on something that has no bearing on what can be done.

 

I believe their view on evolution is very pertinent in evaluating their personal beliefs. And even more so as we have seen in the past few years; what we want and what they vote for doesn't match. They've left the "representative" vote position after the election and taken the "personal" vote position. Whether it is religious or business ties, their vote is being swayed by their personal beliefs.

I want to know, for sure, if they’re ignorant enough to reject evolution.

Sorry, but you did. Recent DNA testing on all divisions of the human specie on the planet earth has linked us all back to one tribe in Africa. This also means we all have a Black ethnic heritage.

 

I beg to differ. Until Science as a whole agrees. That is just a hypothesis.

 

I say that this is as close as you are going to get on a bunch of scientist agreeing. I think you can still find some "Scientists" that disagree with the planet being spherical in nature, does that mean that the planet is flat? Or that we should proceed with life and plan on it being flat just in case?

 

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Perhaps seven of God's days are different than seven of ours. He IS omnipotent after all. And it says in the Bible that he created all the beasts, so why do we doubt that he created dinosaurs? He created them, they lived for a couple million years, and then they died out. Then God created man. I never understood this whole thing about it being one way or the other. Taken at face value, neither makes much sense. A biblical scholar back in the 1600's used the Bible to come up with the age of the earth using mathematical equations. It came out to like 6,000 years old. Now we know from dino skeletons that that can't be. On the other hand, it makes no sense whatsoever that a salamander crawling out of some primordial ocean became every living breathing animal we see today.

Neither present day Christians OR present day scientists were around when the earth (and life) came into existence, so none of them knows squat.

Choose whchever you want, but remember...it's just a belief!

 

Well, now, there's an open mind for you.

They couldn't go back farther than one tribe in Africa? Where did that tribe come from?

Aside from that, though, how can they say that they can trace the DNA back to whatever. How do they know that it isn't the tribe's DNA that can be traced back to an accountant in New Jersey? I mean, DNA is DNA. It's not something that can be "traced" any more than you can trace hair colour, in spite of what some atheist "scientist" says.

 

DNA mapping did, in fact, achieve this exact conclusion. Are we to deny it? If so, then DNA evidence should no longer be admissable in court. DNA should no longer be a scientific basis for researching (and curing) genetic diseases.

You cannot reject portions of scientific proof because you disagree with their conclusions and keep the rest.

I am beginning to believe that in your case you are correct ...you may never have actually evolved!

Me ServerSnapper. Me post many times.

 

Are you going to accept it simply because some guy with an alphabet after his name said so?

Apples and oranges. You're doing exactly what Darwin did. Take a simple observation and then make a wild speculation with no basis of proof.

Observation: Different members of a species gain (or lose) attributes based on what they need to survive in the environment in which they live. (This is called "micro-evolution" or "natural selection")

Wild Speculation: Because humans and apes look similar, they must have evolved from a common ancestor, in spite of the fact that they are a different genus/species. Throughout the history of life on Earth, critters have changed from one genus/species to another. (This is called "macro-evolution", or simply "The theory of evolution").

Where Darwin erred is in the fact that, whatever proto-critter was to give birth to the critter we recognize today, the problem in that two different genus/species cannot mate. Therefore the "parent" had to give birth to two (or more) of different genders. While this is entirely possible on a small scale, we're talking about it occuring millions and millions of times. Highly unlikely.

Show me proof and I will not reject it. As it stands now, there is no "proof" that macro-evolution has ever occured.

 

No need to be jealous Harv. There are plenty of my opinions left to go around. Thanks for noticing.