Ben Carson

[im4wsu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but funds allocation is the responsibility of Congress. I doubt a president would veto a spending bill just because he didn't agree with where a small percentage of the funds were going.

Does Congress ever denote a "small percentage" to anything. Don't they simply override the concept of 100% and make it 1,000,000,000%?

[ShockerEngineer]

My question would be that if Carson is wrong and God didn't create life, where did it begin? Was it when a large planetary mass like the earth collided with the earth resulting in a cataclysmic explosion billions of years ago? This of course, began heat/matter/amoeba forms of life which ultimately evolved into human life as we now know it. What are the chances of that all happening?

This is true faith.

Note: I am not a Scientist so please feel free to correct me

If I remember correctly, they think something may have collided with the Earth early in its existence to form the Moon. That would have been when the Earth was too volatile to support life. But after that, I've heard some theories (like elements that are building blocks of life being brought to Earth by comets), but no one knows for sure and we may never know.

However, we ask "what are the chances of all this happening?" because in our frame of reference (our extremely limited view of the universe), we are totally unique. But, the vastness of the universe is far more than we can comprehend. Life could turn out to be more common than we've ever thought. We're already starting to discover other planets in their star's habitable zone.

As for the topic at hand... Yes, this is one thing I really hate about politics. People usually seem to have one especially salient issue that if a candidate does not agree with them on it, they're automatically trash. In the case of Republicans, a person being Christian seems to do that for people. It's almost as if they think that if such a person gets into office, they'll immediately force everyone to stop teaching evolution, ban abortions, and make gay marriage illegal. I would hope most candidates are wise enough to realize that trying to do such things would be political suicide.

[SHOCKvalue]

As for the topic at hand... Yes, this is one thing I really hate about politics. People usually seem to have one especially salient issue that if a candidate does not agree with them on it, they're automatically trash. In the case of Republicans, a person being Christian seems to do that for people. It's almost as if they think that if such a person gets into office, they'll immediately force everyone to stop teaching evolution, ban abortions, and make gay marriage illegal. I would hope most candidates are wise enough to realize that trying to do such things would be political suicide.

BUT... if the candidate is Muslim, Buddhist, or whatnot, that same demographic you describe would be awash in the glorious zen and glow that is multiculturalism.

White Christian who thinks home schooling is a viable option for families? BAD, BAD, BAD! SCARY PERSON! THREAT TO COUNTRY!

Arab Muslim who forces his wife to walk behind him in a bed sheet, thinks stoning is appropriate punishment, and who believe that ISIS at it's core is actually a good thing? WE ARE ALL SO DIFFERENT IT IS EXCITING! LET'S HUG IT OUT MY NEW BROTHER!

Go figure.

[ShockerEngineer]

Personally, I just want someone to come along who is capable of getting our financial crap in order. That's my big issue. Unfortunately, in this political climate, it's nearly impossible due in part to the whole emotional appeal fueled arguments the Democrats give about equality and "basic human rights" (the definition of which seems to be experiencing a sort of scope creep, by the way). It makes me fear the endgame of all of that is the global redistribution of wealth, and generally forcing everything to be "equal" in a completely unrealistic and unsustainable way. The Republicans are making it worse by fighting from within and consistently coming up with candidates the electorate sees as unelectable.

It isn't even 2016 yet and I'm already tired of the election. Ugh.

[wufan]

Some great points in this thread regarding religion, politics, tolerance, and science. I'm a scientist by education and profession, and though I identify with Christianity, I don't practice. I believe in an old earth, and that evolution should be taught, but have concerns with evolution that I haven't come to grips with. All the while, I am a fiscal republican that doesn't believe in social/moral legislation. Let science inspire theory, religion govern the soul, and government fulfill the civic duties of all.

[ShockTalk]

Personally, I just want someone to come along who is capable of getting our financial crap in order. That's my big issue. Unfortunately, in this political climate, it's nearly impossible due in part to the whole emotional appeal fueled arguments the Democrats give about equality and "basic human rights" (the definition of which seems to be experiencing a sort of scope creep, by the way). It makes me fear the endgame of all of that is the global redistribution of wealth, and generally forcing everything to be "equal" in a completely unrealistic and unsustainable way. The Republicans are making it worse by fighting from within and consistently coming up with candidates the electorate sees as unelectable.

It isn't even 2016 yet and I'm already tired of the election. Ugh.

Some great points in this thread regarding religion, politics, tolerance, and science. I'm a scientist by education and profession, and though I identify with Christianity, I don't practice. I believe in an old earth, and that evolution should be taught, but have concerns with evolution that I haven't come to grips with. All the while, I am a fiscal republican that doesn't believe in social/moral legislation. Let science inspire theory, religion govern the soul, and government fulfill the civic duties of all.

While I generally read, but don't get involved, in the political threads, I'll add some of my thoughts.

I, too, identify with Christianity, but not a fan (through many experiences) of "organized" church going. I do, however, have a strong respect for our forefathers, the strong Christian faith many of them had, and the foundation they built for this great country I am so fortunate to live. I also consider myself a fiscal Republican, a belief in a strong armed forces (not necessarily for the reason one might think), but after that, what would probably be described as a moderate.

With the current social atmosphere, I believe a conservative Republican would generally be hard to get elected President without a lot of other factors present. I think Carson has many: extremely intelligent, well spoken, highly respected as to his accomplishments, is not a professional politician, and, yes, he happens to be a black man. I do, however, believe there is some value to "being a politician" when it comes to handling the public, other elected "politicians", and foreign leaders.

Lastly, we are rapidly going down a road to destruction in many, many different ways. I said years ago that, as a nation, we are going to have to make some very hard decisions that are not going to be pleasant to swallow if we were to turn this nation around. Today, we might quickly be getting to the point of no return. Not wanting to appear as an alarmist, but, regardless of your faith or a belief in a Creator at all, we may all be facing a "come to Jesus" moment sooner than we think.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

BUT... if the candidate is Muslim, Buddhist, or whatnot, that same demographic you describe would be awash in the glorious zen and glow that is multiculturalism.

White Christian who thinks home schooling is a viable option for families? BAD, BAD, BAD! SCARY PERSON! THREAT TO COUNTRY!

Arab Muslim who forces his wife to walk behind him in a bed sheet, thinks stoning is appropriate punishment, and who believe that ISIS at it's core is actually a good thing? WE ARE ALL SO DIFFERENT IT IS EXCITING! LET'S HUG IT OUT MY NEW BROTHER!

Go figure.

LMAO

or better yet ROFL.


Thanks for the comedic relief

[RoyalShock]

Lastly, we are rapidly going down a road to destruction in many, many different ways. I said years ago that, as a nation, we are going to have to make some very hard decisions that are not going to be pleasant to swallow if we were to turn this nation around. Today, we might quickly be getting to the point of no return. Not wanting to appear as an alarmist, but, regardless of your faith or a belief in a Creator at all, we may all be facing a "come to Jesus" moment sooner than we think.

We are becoming Greece, but haven't realized it yet. Only there won't be anyone to bail us out when it comes time to pay the piper.

[shockmonster]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...round-the-sun/

This is a interesting article that breaks down results. The results on the question about the earth going around the sun in one year leads me to one conclusion. We got to get working on improving physical science education LOL.

Here are some quotes from Scientists that would probably never make it into that classroom that shows that Scientists know that they don't have all of the answers to how we are created, and our purpose for being.

"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero".
Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)

"The really amazing thing is not that life on earth is balanced on a knife edge but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural constraints were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life ----of most contrived -----you might say a put-up-job."
Dr. Paul Davies (Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University)

"How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life, as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values".
Professor Steven Weinberg Nobel Laureate of High Energy Physics -- a field of Science that deals with the very early universe.

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being".
Isaac Newton

I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principles. God to me, is a mystery, but is the explanation for th emiracle of human existence".
Alan Sandage Astronomer

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow (founder of NASA's Goddard Institute)

[SB Shock]

Once you understand that we are in a reality that has 10 dimensions - then you understand we live in a shadow of larger reality.

[Rlh04d]

This is the EXACT set of questions that were asked:

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

So if you are a Christian, you have no choice but to select 3, even if you don't agree with the time frame portion of it. They conveniently left off:

4) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time, over an unknown time frame

Seems like that should have been an obvious 4th option, doesn't it?

While I agree with your point regarding the question being poorly designed (as ones with only a small number of options often are), I disagree that "if you are a Christian, you have no choice but to select 3." I have no issue whatsoever accepting both God and evolution. Nor does my grandmother, a scientist who worked for both Wesley and Riverside and has played the organ at a local church for ~45 years, a woman with far more credibility than me when it comes to both matters of science and God.

I have no issue with others who believe differently, but there seems to be an implication there that, to be a Christian, you cannot accept #1, and I wholeheartedly reject that. In my opinion, a nuanced and educated view of science only makes my view of God more expansive and colorful. My God is concerned with the molecular building blocks of all life across an ever expanding universe, over an infinite period of time, across dimensions I can barely fathom. I see no need to justify my faith in opposition to, say, skeletal remains of Homo Naledi. A belief in God that does not need to reject scientific evidence, but rather uses science to acknowledge one's own slowly growing ability to understand and appreciate slightly more of God's work.

A belief that we already essentially understand everything God has done, and exist in our final, perfect form already, while I have no problem with that belief (much as I have no problem with a lack of belief), strikes me as stifling. It is, in my opinion, a view often driven by people who want to be the center of all things (akin to our erroneous view of the sun revolving around the earth), not to appreciate and love all of God's creation. A perception not of man in God's image but God in man's image, one where we define (restrict) Him more by the limitations of our own understanding and imaginations, and, to be blunt, our own arrogance.

[RoyalShock]

A belief that we already essentially understand everything God has done, and exist in our final, perfect form already, while I have no problem with that belief (much as I have no problem with a lack of belief), strikes me as stifling. It is, in my opinion, a view often driven by people who want to be the center of all things (akin to our erroneous view of the sun revolving around the earth), not to appreciate and love all of God's creation. A perception not of man in God's image but God in man's image, one where we define (restrict) Him more by the limitations of our own understanding and imaginations, and, to be blunt, our own arrogance.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can't logically agree with this paragraph. It seems to me that by getting your image of God through what man has so far discovered is restricting the power and ultimate sovereignty of God. I don't yet have a set opinion on young versus old earth (and I may never, as it doesn't directly affect the true core of Christianity - God's redemption of mankind through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ), however God did give us his word in the form he wanted us to understand it. To not allow for the miraculous beginning of life as Genesis describes it is limiting and restricting God to that which science can currently understand. Logically, that sounds like human arrogance to me.

Scripture says there is a perfect form to come, so of course we're not already in our final stage of being. To think that final form is going to come through continued earthly evolution is, again in my opinion, based on the arrogance that science has the final say in human origins and processes and not God.

[_kai_]

[Rlh04d]

I can see where you're coming from, but I can't logically agree with this paragraph. It seems to me that by getting your image of God through what man has so far discovered is restricting the power and ultimate sovereignty of God.

That's not my meaning. My point isn't about defining an image of God through what we've discovered, my point is that discovering new evidence of past works merely increases my appreciation of what God has created -- an appreciation that can never be complete, because we will never be capable of fully understanding it. I mean that in contrast to an opinion that rejects all scientific discovery as being incompatible with God's word if it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. Ultimately science is a process of never ending discovery, not of ultimate, iron-clad conclusions, so anyone who truly appreciates scientific discovery cannot use science to create an unmoving image of anything, God or otherwise. Science is merely what we understand at any given moment. That is why nearly all of science deals in hypotheses and theories, rather than facts. Which is also why I wholly reject any atheist's profession of respect for science, because they reject science by stating a concrete conclusion that something cannot exist due to a lack of evidence of its existence. Agnosticism is entirely compatible with scientific belief, though.

Believing in the literalism of Genesis is anyone's right, and I don't strongly dismiss it either. However, I, personally, believe there is too much evidence of evolution for any explanation other than the "God is testing our faith" defense (or Satan, I suppose?) to be rational given our current understanding, and there is too much else in the Bible that cannot be taken literally for a strict interpretation of Genesis to be unquestionably literal. For instance, there is a clear inability to read 1 Samuel-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles in the Old Testament literally, as they clearly contradict one another. There is also far too much controversy, and far too much input by man, over the canonization or not of particular scriptures for me (Biblical apocrypha for instance, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the recent controversy about "Jesus' wife" and so on), personally, to believe in it literally. Not to mention that a literal interpretation of God's scripture would, again, imply the revolution of the sun around an earth which sits on pillars. Which wouldn't even get into the strong issues I have regarding man's translations of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek texts, and the impact competing interests or lack of nuanced linguistic ability could have on strongly changing those translations from their true meaning.

Throughout most of Christian history much of the Bible has been accepted as parabolic more than literal fact. Historically, despite being a Lutheran myself, biblical literalism's roots are from the Protestant Reformation, where the rejection of Papal authority replaced it with the authority of the scripture itself (read "the scripture" as "the scripture accepted as canonized by Luther") -- and ultimately my belief in the authority of God does not translate into a belief in the authority of Martin Luther. My personal lack of faith in the authority of man in interpreting God's word is the issue I have and will always have with a literal reading of their interpretations of the Bible -- if God gave us his word in the form he wanted us to understand it, as you said, we should all be learning ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and reading it in that form, rather than, say, the translation commissioned by a King of England who gave instructions regarding what he wished the translation to focus on. If you're one to believe in the heavenly right of English kings, for instance, a king's instructions for his translation is entirely within one's comfort zone -- I dismiss the "divine right of kings," personally, conveniently a theory heavily propagated by King James I, he of the aforementioned translation. I personally reject Papal authority and the authority of Luther as well (which, as with everything else I said, isn't a criticism of those who believe otherwise), which means I'm left with no ability to accept any conventional version of the Bible as the undiluted Word of God.

Ultimately, though, getting into individual beliefs in Christianity, where a differing belief in rather minor points becomes a matter of disregarding someone's belief in Christianity, strikes me as too close to the Sunni/Shiite division in Islam to be healthy. I fully accept and celebrate all people who choose to live their lives in accordance with God's word, no matter what version of God's word that is, regardless of disagreements on particular points :) Ultimately whether God made man in the form we exist in now or whether he made us through evolution and the story of Genesis is a parable is wholly immaterial to God's message -- it simply doesn't matter that much to the overall message. My personal journey in attempting to understand my relationship with God better does not mean I reject the faith of others. I only ask the same respect in return.

[wufan]

Climate change is always a fun topic! 30 years ago the earth was cooling. Now it's warming...but only in some locations. The original Kyoto protocol only had an 80% majority (still substantial) and the 20% that dissented were forced to change their opinion or were booted. That's how they claimed 100% agreement. Also, those that continued to dissent were not offered any research grants further perpetuating the scientific certainty of climate change from human cause.

True or false, there isn't anything close to enough data points to prove any theory out and there won't be for hundreds of years.

Climate change debate is the battle of humanity against economy. Poor economy has thus far been much worse to the well being of humanity than pollution ever has. The earth, well it will be around for billions of years longer with or w/o humans.

This is another example of the pride of man thinking that we have some ultimate influence over nature.