Dr. Ben Carson speaks truth to Obama at prayer breakfast.

[wygator]

His boldness and intelligence is remarkable...

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?clipid=4353213'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?clipid=4353213&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?clipid=4353213' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?clipid=4353213&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

[Row6]

His boldness and intelligence is remarkable...

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?clipid=4353213'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?clipid=4353213&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?clipid=4353213' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?clipid=4353213&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

He lost me on the first sentence of his invocation when he blasted the "godless". That would be me.

[g8orbill]

your loss

[PSGator66]

This guy was spot on! Row6 - you are part of the very small minority and I feel sorry for your so - called Godless life but it explains a lot about your posts.

[QGator2414]

I have been trying to find this video but it is not showing for me. Any help?

[Row6]

your loss

you wish

[Row6]

This guy was spot on! Row6 - you are part of the very small minority and I feel sorry for your so - called Godless life but it explains a lot about your posts.

Don't waste your sympathy - I require none.

[rivergator]

This guy was spot on! Row6 - you are part of the very small minority and I feel sorry for your so - called Godless life but it explains a lot about your posts.

This must be one of those posts that Dave and others were complaining about on the other thread - you know, how non-Christians are always deriding Christians. No, wait a minute ...

[malligator]

I thought closed-mindedness was a singularly Conservative trait. Hmmm...guess not...

[lacuna]

He lost me on the first sentence of his invocation when he blasted the "godless". That would be me.

Row, it was not an invocation but if you are offended by the Bible verses he read, fast forward a bit. A little past the 2 minute mark Dr. Carson says, "Now it's not my intention to offend anyone ..." then goes on to say he has discovered it is difficult to speak to a large group of people and not offend anyone. He is not a fan of political correctness.

By taking offense to his comments in the first few seconds of the video, then refusing to listen to the rest you confirm what he is said about Political Correctness.

[rivergator]

I thought closed-mindedness was a singularly Conservative trait. Hmmm...guess not...

nothing is a singular trait of either side. you really should know that.

[108]

what ever happened to the Religion forum?

i can't for the life of me relate to the belief of the god of religion...it takes such a gigantic leap of faith to go from the seemingly rational belief that maybe their is a creator of some sorts, to the dogma of religion

believe what you want, but its all just beliefs, treating it as fact is a strike on your own intellectual honesty

[lacuna]

This must be one of those posts that Dave and others were complaining about on the other thread - you know, how non-Christians are always deriding Christians. No, wait a minute ...

It's done by intolerant people on both sides.

And as you brought up the other thread that has been since been removed, I want to say I am aware that the comments I made directed towards DaveFla and his responses to me on that thread were no doubt the probable cause for its removal. I'm sorry for the posts and would like to see the thread purged of those exchanges and returned to the Forum page. Thanks.

[Row6]

Row, it was not an invocation but if you are offended by the Bible verses he read, fast forward a bit. A little past the 2 minute mark Dr. Carson says, "Now it's not my intention to offend anyone ..." then goes on to say he has discovered it is difficult to speak to a large group of people and not offend anyone. He is not a fan of political correctness.

By taking offense to his comments in the first few seconds of the video, then refusing to listen to the rest you confirm what he is said about Political Correctness.

That would be like me saying "believers are all creepy idiots, but hey, no offense intended." That's not ignoring political correctness (something that religious conservatives practice their own version of) but being an unselfaware jerk.

I don't agree with your assessment.

[malligator]

what ever happened to the Religion forum?

i can't for the life of me relate to the belief of the god of religion...it takes such a gigantic leap of faith to go from the seemingly rational belief that maybe their is a creator of some sorts, to the dogma of religion

believe what you want, but its all just beliefs, treating it as fact is a strike on your own intellectual honesty

His speech was about education, the deficit, and healthcare. Of course, your mind probably closed like a steel trap as soon as you heard a Bible verse so you wouldn't know that.

[Gatormb]

what ever happened to the Religion forum?

i can't for the life of me relate to the belief of the god of religion...it takes such a gigantic leap of faith to go from the seemingly rational belief that maybe their is a creator of some sorts, to the dogma of religion

believe what you want, but its all just beliefs, treating it as fact is a strike on your own intellectual honesty

Well now, we could hijack the thread to "election"? Naw!

[108]

His speech was about education, the deficit, and healthcare. Of course, your mind probably closed like a steel trap as soon as you heard a Bible verse so you wouldn't know that.

lol, actually it did, but more due to the responses afterwards that seemed more like a religious conversation

apologies :joecool:

[malligator]

That would be like me saying "believers are all creepy idiots, but hey, no offense intended." That's not ignoring political correctness (something that religious conservatives practice their own version of) but being an unselfaware jerk.

I don't agree with your assessment.

His point was that as soon as you say something offensive most people close up like a clam and want to hear nothing else the person has to say. I can see he was talking about you.

Heck, I recommend you not watch it, because it wasn't a particulary moving speech. It was okay, but nothing worth spending 26 minutes on. However, to stop within seconds because you heard a Bible verse at the National Prayer Breakfast certainly does show he had a point about political correctness.

[QGator2414]

I can't see the video but here is another great Dr. Carson video and at the 5:45 mark he has a disclaimer for those easily offended (probably similar)...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=i-Foz-EjZ3g

[squigator]

He lost me on the first sentence of his invocation when he blasted the "godless". That would be me.

And he lost Obama long before he stated his flat/fair/non-progressive tax opinion. I'm surprised they let this guy speak in Obama's presence. Loved it!

[Row6]

His point was that as soon as you say something offensive most people close up like a clam and want to hear nothing else the person has to say. I can see he was talking about you.

Heck, I recommend you not watch it, because it wasn't a particulary moving speech. It was okay, but nothing worth spending 26 minutes on. However, to stop within seconds because you heard a Bible verse at the National Prayer Breakfast certainly does show he had a point about political correctness.

I have no obligation to watch any video posted on TH but gave this a shot. From you and Lacuna's description he seems to think he can say whatever he wants and somehow defend himself as being a straight shooter for doing so. A non-PC straight shooter is someone who can accept himself and his own beliefs in criticism, not one who wallops his perceived enemies because he happens to have the stage. Since I roundly denounce the idea that the "godless" - like me - are somehow befouling the earth, I can't accept that as valuable criticism but the ignorant rant of a fool.

[Row6]

And he lost Obama long before he stated his flat/fair/non-progressive tax opinion. I'm surprised they let this guy speak in Obama's presence. Loved it!

Quite a "non-partisan prayer breakfast", apparently featuring a speaker rude enough to promote his entirely partisan political beliefs before a captive audience.

[QGator2414]

I am being reminded of Fox and Friends yesterday morning when one of the attorneys debating the new Florida business logo using a necktie for the I being sexist saying...

We should just paint the world beige.

Hilarious and it hits home seeing the sensitivities on this thread...

[Dreamliner]

Quite a "non-partisan prayer breakfast", apparently featuring a speaker rude enough to promote his entirely partisan political beliefs before a captive audience.

Now, if he can just manage to legislate, ram through by brute force his entirely partisan political beliefs, Obama will have an honest competitor.

[malligator]

I have no obligation to watch any video posted on TH but gave this a shot. From you and Lacuna's description he seems to think he can say whatever he wants and somehow defend himself as being a straight shooter for doing so. A non-PC straight shooter is someone who can accept himself and his own beliefs in criticism, not one who wallops his perceived enemies because he happens to have the stage. Since I roundly denounce the idea that the "godless" - like me - are somehow befouling the earth, I can't accept that as valuable criticism but the ignorant rant of a fool.

And, again, if you'd listened to the speech you'd know he has no perceived enemies. I know nothing of the man, but his site says he is a pediatric neurosurgeon. He is also obviously a philanthropist.

Take a look at his site and tell me who his perceived enemies are. www.carsonscholars.org

[Row6]

Now, if he can just manage to legislate, ram through by brute force his entirely partisan political beliefs, Obama will have an honest competitor.

I feel your pain.

[rivergator]

And, again, if you'd listened to the speech you'd know he has no perceived enemies. I know nothing of the man, but his site says he is a pediatric neurosurgeon. He is also obviously a philanthropist.

Take a look at his site and tell me who his perceived enemies are. www.carsonscholars.org

I'm not going to watch a 26-minute video, but reading a bit on him, it's clear he's a very smart and accomplished guy. Apparently he believes the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, so there's that ....

[Row6]

And, again, if you'd listened to the speech you'd know he has no perceived enemies. I know nothing of the man, but his site says he is a pediatric neurosurgeon. He is also obviously a philanthropist.

Take a look at his site and tell me who his perceived enemies are. www.carsonscholars.org

I heard him quote scripture which denounced the "godless", so he apparently thinks I'm his enemy.

[malligator]

I'm not going to watch a 26-minute video, but reading a bit on him, it's clear he's a very smart and accomplished guy. Apparently he believes the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, so there's that ....

He's given 5200 college scholarships to deserving children, so there's that, too...

[rivergator]

He's given 5200 college scholarships to deserving children, so there's that, too...


Yep, very impressive.

[DaveFla]

This must be one of those posts that Dave and others were complaining about on the other thread - you know, how non-Christians are always deriding Christians. No, wait a minute ...

No... More like this one...


what ever happened to the Religion forum?

i can't for the life of me relate to the belief of the god of religion...it takes such a gigantic leap of faith to go from the seemingly rational belief that maybe their is a creator of some sorts, to the dogma of religion

believe what you want, but its all just beliefs, treating it as fact is a strike on your own intellectual honesty

[Dreamliner]

I feel your pain.

Thanks, and your inconsistency is duly-noted.

[malligator]

I'm not going to watch a 26-minute video, but reading a bit on him, it's clear he's a very smart and accomplished guy. Apparently he believes the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, so there's that ....

Derision. How surprising.

[rivergator]

No... More like this one...

So there's criticism from both sides, huh? Kind of makes the claim that it comes from side look pretty silly, don't you think?

[DaveFla]

I'm not going to watch a 26-minute video, but reading a bit on him, it's clear he's a very smart and accomplished guy. Apparently he believes the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, so there's that ....

Is there a link to him saying this? I ask because often the people who criticize Catholics for their beliefs make this claim. It's not something those in the Catholic religion say.

[DaveFla]

So there's criticism from both sides, huh? Kind of makes the claim that it comes from side look pretty silly, don't you think?

You have to look to see who hurls the fire insult. Most Christians don't go around and arbitrarily insult those who do not have faith. On the other hand, it is common for those who disbelieve to be the first to hurl insults at those who choose to believe.

If you still insist this isn't true, then there is really no reaso to continue to discuss this further.

[Row6]

You have to look to see who hurls the fire insult. Most Christians don't go around and arbitrarily insult those who do not have faith. On the other hand, it is common for those who disbelieve to be the first to hurl insults at those who choose to believe.

If you still insist this isn't true, then there is really no reaso to continue to discuss this further.

Dude, watch just the first minute of the video - which is the subject of this thread - and say that.

[malligator]

I heard him quote scripture which denounced the "godless", so he apparently thinks I'm his enemy.

No. You think he thinks you're his enemy. I've looked around his scholarship website and see no religious requirment for scholarship receipients so he must be giving out a lot of money to people he considers his enemies. Or...you know...maybe he doesn't consider them...or you...his enemy.

[rivergator]

You have to look to see who hurls the fire insult. Most Christians don't go around and arbitrarily insult those who do not have faith. On the other hand, it is common for those who disbelieve to be the first to hurl insults at those who choose to believe.

If you still insist this isn't true, then there is really no reaso to continue to discuss this further.

Complete and total BS.

[DaveFla]

Dude, I can't on my iPhone, dude.

[Row6]

Dude, I can't on my iPhone, dude.

Get an android.

[DaveFla]

Get an android.

I had one, but a little Preparation H got rid of it right away.

[lacuna]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/ben-carsons-creationist-views-spark-controvery-over-commencement-speech/2012/05/08/gIQAi0vs An unusual controversy has erupted at Emory University over the choice of famed neurosurgeon Ben Carson to deliver this year’s commencement address because he does not believe in evolution.

Nearly 500 professors, student and alumni signed a letter (see full text below) expressing concern that Carson, as a 7th Day Adventist, believes in creationist theory that holds that all life on Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. It rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is the central principle that animates modern biology, uniting all biological fields under one theoretical tent, and which virtually all modern scientists agree is true.

The letter’s authors are not seeking to have Carson disinvited. Instead, they say it was written to raise concerns about his anti-scientific views.

Carson has given dozens of commencement speeches and received some 50 honorary degreesm but this is apparently the first time that his views on evolution have become an issue at a graduation.

Carson is world renowned for his work with children, becoming in 1987 the first surgeon to successfully separate siamese twins conjoined at the back of the head. In 2000 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.BU_blog.html

[Row6]

I had one, but a little Preparation H got rid of it right away.

Good one!!

[lacuna]

Yes, he's definitely a creationist.

http://www.icr.org/article/benjamin-carson-pediatric-neurosurgeon-with-gifted/

A Creationist

After Dr. Carson reviewed in detail the evidence for design in nature, he concluded, "I just don't have enough faith to believe" that the living world happened by evolutionary processes.9 He added that 150 years after Darwin, there is still no evidence for evolution.

It's just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is "Well…uh…it's lost!"…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, "Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we'll probably never find it," doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response.10

Carson concluded that the "plausibility of evolution is further strained by Darwin's assertion that within fifty to one hundred years of his time, scientists would become geologically sophisticated enough to find the fossil remains of the entire evolutionary tree in an unequivocal step-by-step progression of life from amoeba to man."11

As a neurosurgeon, he stresses the "factors that contribute to the failure to utilize fully the most amazing God-given resource, our brain, such as peer pressure and political correctness, which often limits our willingness, even as objective scientists, to have thoughtful, rational discussions about evolution versus creationism."9 It is even harder for him to accept how so many people who can't explain how evolution can account for all life claim that it is a fact, while at the same time "insisting anyone who wants to consider or discuss creationism as a possibility cannot be a real scientist."10

[Emmitto]

Yes, he's definitely a creationist.

http://www.icr.org/article/benjamin-carson-pediatric-neurosurgeon-with-gifted/

A Creationist

After Dr. Carson reviewed in detail the evidence for design in nature, he concluded, "I just don't have enough faith to believe" that the living world happened by evolutionary processes.9 He added that 150 years after Darwin, there is still no evidence for evolution.

It's just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is "Well…uh…it's lost!"…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, "Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we'll probably never find it," doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response.10

Carson concluded that the "plausibility of evolution is further strained by Darwin's assertion that within fifty to one hundred years of his time, scientists would become geologically sophisticated enough to find the fossil remains of the entire evolutionary tree in an unequivocal step-by-step progression of life from amoeba to man."11

As a neurosurgeon, he stresses the "factors that contribute to the failure to utilize fully the most amazing God-given resource, our brain, such as peer pressure and political correctness, which often limits our willingness, even as objective scientists, to have thoughtful, rational discussions about evolution versus creationism."9 It is even harder for him to accept how so many people who can't explain how evolution can account for all life claim that it is a fact, while at the same time "insisting anyone who wants to consider or discuss creationism as a possibility cannot be a real scientist."10

Perhaps if there were a book. Or many books, all supporting evolution/geologic time one way or another, gathered together into one really large book. That would be overwhelming evidence!

[LittleBlueLW]

I heard him quote scripture which denounced the "godless", so he apparently thinks I'm his enemy.

You are not godless Row. You are your god.

[DaveFla]

Is there a link to him saying this? I ask because often the people who criticize Catholics for their beliefs make this claim. It's not something those in the Catholic religion say.

Anything? River??

[malligator]

Anything? River??

See lacuna's posts, especially the first where many Emory faculty, staff, and alumni were unhappy giving an honorary degree to an eminent neursugeon and first-class philanthropist because of his religious views. How very open-mined and progressive of them.

[malligator]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-3-veSwIWhw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What a horrible, hate-filled religious nut. :roll:

[JerseyGator01]

This thread might set the Too Hot record for hijacks. The video must be on the mark.

[QGator2414]

Good discussion on science and faith...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=JPxGnN7RV1Y

Not sure why my videos are not I bedding like they use to. This video is:

Richard Dawkins & Daniel Dennett vs. Francis Collins & Benjamin Carson - Science and Faith

[lacuna]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y

[g8orbill]

you wish

actually row-I don't wish and I will pray for you

[QGator2414]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y

Thanks lacuna! Don't know why my iPad is not embedding like it use to...

[wygator]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/ben-carsons-creationist-views-spark-controvery-over-commencement-speech/2012/05/08/gIQAi0vs An unusual controversy has erupted at Emory University over the choice of famed neurosurgeon Ben Carson to deliver this year’s commencement address because he does not believe in evolution.

Nearly 500 professors, student and alumni signed a letter (see full text below) expressing concern that Carson, as a 7th Day Adventist, believes in creationist theory that holds that all life on Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago. It rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is the central principle that animates modern biology, uniting all biological fields under one theoretical tent, and which virtually all modern scientists agree is true.

The letter’s authors are not seeking to have Carson disinvited. Instead, they say it was written to raise concerns about his anti-scientific views.

Carson has given dozens of commencement speeches and received some 50 honorary degreesm but this is apparently the first time that his views on evolution have become an issue at a graduation.

Carson is world renowned for his work with children, becoming in 1987 the first surgeon to successfully separate siamese twins conjoined at the back of the head. In 2000 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.BU_blog.html

Yes...once again the tolerance of those bowing at the altar of evolution is on full display. The fact that this accomplished man of science actually offers reasoned thought for his position only makes it more impossible for him to be tolerated.
Academic freedom on a college campus? Not anymore.

[QGator2414]

Yes...once again the tolerance of those bowing at the altar of evolution is on full display. The fact that this accomplished man of science actually offers reasoned thought for his position only makes it more impossible for him to be tolerated.
Academic freedom on a college campus? Not anymore.

Yep

[rivergator]

Yes...once again the tolerance of those bowing at the altar of evolution is on full display. The fact that this accomplished man of science actually offers reasoned thought for his position only makes it more impossible for him to be tolerated.
Academic freedom on a college campus? Not anymore.

Why is it that you guys always need to paint disagreement with creationism and the idea that the planet is only 6,000 years old as intolerance?
Does that mean that your disagreement with evolution is also simply close-minded intolerance?

[wygator]

Why is it that you guys always need to paint disagreement with creationism and the idea that the planet is only 6,000 years old as intolerance?
Does that mean that your disagreement with evolution is also simply close-minded intolerance?

It's not simple disagreement that is intolerance, but the refusal to even permit a discussion.

You don't see the creationists trying to stop evolution from being taught, or demanding that evolutionists should be silenced.

[WESGATORS]

believe what you want, but its all just beliefs, treating it as fact is a strike on your own intellectual honesty

Is it safe to surmise that "it's all just beliefs" is also just a belief...that, perhaps, you are treating as fact?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[rivergator]

It's not simple disagreement that is intolerance, but the refusal to even permit a discussion.

You don't see the creationists trying to stop evolution from being taught, or demanding that evolutionists should be silenced.

No one is stopping your discussion here. As far as the classroom, yes it should be limited to science, not faith.

[QGator2414]

No one is stopping your discussion here. As far as the classroom, yes it should be limited to science, not faith.

Okay and science has proven we came from another species how?

And science has shown where that species we came from formed how?

[QGator2414]

It's not simple disagreement that is intolerance, but the refusal to even permit a discussion.

You don't see the creationists trying to stop evolution from being taught, or demanding that evolutionists should be silenced.

Yep.

While I disagree with macro evolution or the idea we were once a monkey I do think micro evolution is happening...

That said I don't mind discussing it as I am fascinated by the belief of others...

[rivergator]

Okay and science has proven we came from another species how?

And science has shown where that species we came from formed how?

We are not going to address or solve the entirety of biological sciences here. Suffice to say that science classes should teach the best that science has determined at that point.
Not faith. Not that woman was created from man's rib. Not that man and dinosaurs lived together. Or that unicorns were real. Not that the sun crosses the sky because Helios pulls it by a chariot.
The best that science has determined at the time.

[wygator]

Yep.

While I disagree with macro evolution or the idea we were once a monkey I do think micro evolution is happening...

But when defining terms, it isn't microevolution that modern evolutionists are referring to.

Micro evolution is simply change within the genetic range of a species.

Darwin's famous finches changed beak sizes, colors, whatever. But at the end of the day, they were all still finches.

We've radiated fruit flies for generation after generation and created all manner of mutation. But they all remained flies.

For the most part, it's bait and switch. Think about it. The evolutionists give the examples of the finches and peppered moths, and then extrapolate that given enough time, those tiny changes will accumulate into entirely new animals.

[QGator2414]

We are not going to address or solve the entirety of biological sciences here. Suffice to say that science classes should teach the best that science has determined at that point.
Not faith. Not that woman was created from man's rib. Not that man and dinosaurs lived together. Or that unicorns were real. Not that the sun crosses the sky because Helios pulls it by a chariot.
The best that science has determined at the time.

What part of the theory of macroevolution gives you any confidence we came from some other species? What part of that theory gives you confidence that not only did we but this other species along with the rest of life came from a cell that started splitting? And in our case created two genders dependent on each other?

I am fine with science being taught. But science has not proven we came from another species so why can we not discuss the other plausible ideas?

[QGator2414]

But when defining terms, it isn't microevolution that modern evolutionists are referring to.

Micro evolution is simply change within the genetic range of a species.

Darwin's famous finches changed beak sizes, colors, whatever. But at the end of the day, they were all still finches.

We've radiated fruit flies for generation after generation and created all manner of mutation. But they all remained flies.

For the most part, it's bait and switch. Think about it. The evolutionists give the examples of the finches and peppered moths, and then extrapolate that given enough time, those tiny changes will accumulate into entirely new animals.

Which is why it is so frustrating we cannot discuss ID...

IMO people are just fearful of it. Why I do not know? But IMO if you think about it ID makes more sense...

[WESGATORS]

The problem with Creationism taught in a science classroom is primarily due to it's lack of falsifiability. If there is no evidence that you could accept that would suggest something is wrong, then that something has no business in a science class.

However we got here, there's a method to it. Whether that is evolution or something else, the method is what is relevant to a science class. Creation without a proposed analyzable method has nothing to do with science.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

I am fine with science being taught. But science has not proven we came from another species so why can we not discuss the other plausible ideas?

How would you craft a curriculum to include Creation? How much time would you dedicate to it and what would be the science related to its discussion? Let's try to establish the details of what it is we would like included in a science class (or link to another location if this has already been established).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[QGator2414]

The problem with Creationism taught in a science classroom is primarily due to it's lack of falsifiability. If there is no evidence that you could accept that would suggest something is wrong, then that something has no business in a science class.

However we got here, there's a method to it. Whether that is evolution or something else, the method is what is relevant to a science class. Creation without a proposed analyzable method has nothing to do with science.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

It seems then we can start teaching we did not come from another species based on science then... ;)

[QGator2414]

How would you craft a curriculum to include Creation? How much time would you dedicate to it and what would be the science related to its discussion? Let's try to establish the details of what it is we would like included in a science class (or link to another location if this has already been established).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

It is a fair point but as wy was getting at evolution is taught deceptively IMO. We could start with a focus on separating macro and micro evolution maybe...

[rivergator]

Which is why it is so frustrating we cannot discuss ID...

IMO people are just fearful of it. Why I do not know? But IMO if you think about it ID makes more sense...

No, we're not fearful of intelligent design. But science is about what we know. Intelligent design just claims that every we don't know "Uh, God did it."
That's not science. That's faith. Religion/science. Not the same thing.

[WESGATORS]

It seems then we can start teaching we did not come from another species based on science then... ;)

Maybe the curriculum has changed, but I was taught that evolution is the strongest available theory not that it was a matter of fact. The idea being, "we think this is how it went, but we're open to alternatives that we can analyze or reasons that we can refute any part of the theory."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[QGator2414]

No, we're not fearful of intelligent design. But science is about what we know. Intelligent design just claims that every we don't know "Uh, God did it."
That's not science. That's faith. Religion/science. Not the same thing.

And what do we know? Do we know we came from another species? Do we know species actually mutate into another species?

[oragator1]

And what do we know? Do we know we came from another species? Do we know species actually mutate into another species?

Honest question, have you looked at the science behind fossil records and evolution?

[QGator2414]

Maybe the curriculum has changed, but I was taught that evolution is the strongest available theory not that it was a matter of fact. The idea being, "we think this is how it went, but we're open to alternatives that we can analyze or reasons that we can refute any part of the theory."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

That is just it. The theory has basically proven we did not come from another species. Micro evolution is a different story...

[WESGATORS]

It is a fair point but as wy was getting at evolution is taught deceptively IMO. We could start with a focus on separating macro and micro evolution maybe...

I don't agree with his assessment of how evolution is taught; at least, that's not how it was taught for me. The changes that we see with micro-evolution at the very least have to make you ask, what the limit is, right?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[QGator2414]

Honest question, have you looked at the science behind fossil records and evolution?

In depth no. Skimmed the topic once (brought on by a too hot thread) once in the last year (maybe two as time is hard to remember with a 4 year old, two year old and baby due Monday) looking at both sides.

[WESGATORS]

The theory has basically proven we did not come from another species.

I think I missed something here. What theory has proven this?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

[QGator2414]

I don't agree with his assessment of how evolution is taught; at least, that's not how it was taught for me. The changes that we see with micro-evolution at the very least have to make you ask, what the limit is, right?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

To a point but the macro genetic change idea not really...

[oragator1]

In depth no. Skimmed the topic once (brought on by a too hot thread) once in the last year (maybe two as time is hard to remember with a 4 year old, two year old and baby due Monday) looking at both sides.

I would suggest when you get time to give it a fair full look and see if it modifies your view at all. There are pretty clear, documented examples of evolution of one species to another over time, and when you look at the total picture it presents (including us humans) it is a very reasonable conclusion to draw, based on what has been found, where and how old it is, how isolated species change, how natural disasters like the dinosaur extinction event change the evolutionary path, how by nature organisms modify into more complicated species etc. I am not saying take my word for it that it's the right answer but give it a open look when you have time and let me know what you think. And if it doesn't move you at all, then you can be that much stronger/secure in your belief and defense of it with the full understanding of what others perceive as the merits of the counter argument.

[oragator1]

By the way, as someone who has said repeatedly I am a science person, the way I overcome the dichotomy is to believe in a certain fatalism about the nature of the universe. If there is a God, they could have easily set a path in motion knowing all of the consequences, which would allow for science/evolution and religion. And if you are prone to believe in it, nothing would preclude them from a tweak now and then(or more) to keep things on that path. That's why when people ask I say I am somewhere in the triangle between Christian, Agnostic and Deist.

[wygator]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

Row, did you read the site you linked to? It actually confirms my earlier suggestion that much of evolutionary "proof" is bait and switch.

Read throughout the site and pretty much all of the examples are changes over time within the same species. They try to do a comparison of the skeleton of a whale and hummingbird, but it appears quite tortured to me.

They discuss homologous structures, both at the cellular level and the bony structures, as a certain example of related descent between different animals. But if an intelligent designer was going to create a wide array of animals to live in the same environment, wouldn't that designer likely use some similar structural designs?

Interesting also that they try to use differing breeds of dogs as an example of the power of natural selection, yet there is nothing natural about the selection process that leads to the development of breeds. That is a process that is directed by intelligent agents (dog breeders). If we stopped directing the breeding and the breeds interacted freely, dachshunds and chihuahuas would probably disappear quickly and the rest would blend over time into indistinct mongrels...or even wolves.

Row, please review the site and suggest to me which page, in your opinion, displays the best evidence of MACRO evolution

[wygator]

The problem with Creationism taught in a science classroom is primarily due to it's lack of falsifiability. If there is no evidence that you could accept that would suggest something is wrong, then that something has no business in a science class.

However we got here, there's a method to it. Whether that is evolution or something else, the method is what is relevant to a science class. Creation without a proposed analyzable method has nothing to do with science.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media//02/75502-004-47C41965.jpg

Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

http://magazine.foxnews.com/sites/magazine.foxnews.com/files/styles/700_image/public/BananaRepublic_0.jpg

[WESGATORS]

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

At a *minimum* it's falsifiable to the extent that we can observe the events going forward. If the theory is false, we can expect no further differentiation of species to the extent that you would consider it "macro." If the theory is true, then we may be able to observe further differentiation of species. Necessarily, other factors may be considered as to why things changed.

But if you asked a macro-evolution theorist if one could devise a test that would have him reconsider the theory, I would say the answer would be yes. The same cannot be said of a Creationist.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

Perhaps they're *both* right. The concept of Creation refers to an ID, but what if God's design involved evolution?

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:

...

Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

...


Yep, I agree. Both designed. But science deals with the *how* (process) not the *why* (purpose). One example of evolution can be seen in the transformation of a new zygote to a newborn baby. How can we say that this is possible, but the transformation of life over many, many, many years is something that God is not capable of?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wygator]

At a *minimum* it's falsifiable to the extent that we can observe the events going forward. If the theory is false, we can expect no further differentiation of species to the extent that you would consider it "macro." If the theory is true, then we may be able to observe further differentiation of species. Necessarily, other factors may be considered as to why things changed.

But if you asked a macro-evolution theorist if one could devise a test that would have him reconsider the theory, I would say the answer would be yes. The same cannot be said of a Creationist.



Perhaps they're *both* right. The concept of Creation refers to an ID, but what if God's design involved evolution?



Yep, I agree. Both designed. But science deals with the *how* (process) not the *why* (purpose). One example of evolution can be seen in the transformation of a new zygote to a newborn baby. How can we say that this is possible, but the transformation of life over many, many, many years is something that God is not capable of?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

When you see design, mustn't there be a designer?

[WESGATORS]

When you see design, mustn't there be a designer?

Of course, but science doesn't care about intent only about process.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Itssaul]

Religion: requires data to disprove it and calls everyone hell bound for doing other wise, yet requires NO data to prove it.


Example: hey guys, god talked to me. He's actually black, and he's pretty cool too. Says all the worship is weird bc he's just a normal guy in his realm. Seriously there's a whole bunch of them! Disprove me, go 'head. I have FAITH and I will die for this idea. Now all I need to do is indoctrinate everyone through horribly questionable tactics.

[DaveFla]

See lacuna's posts, especially the first where many Emory faculty, staff, and alumni were unhappy giving an honorary degree to an eminent neursugeon and first-class philanthropist because of his religious views. How very open-mined and progressive of them.

I didn't see where he said the earth is only 6,000 years old, as was the claim...

[Row6]

Row, did you read the site you linked to? It actually confirms my earlier suggestion that much of evolutionary "proof" is bait and switch.

Read throughout the site and pretty much all of the examples are changes over time within the same species. They try to do a comparison of the skeleton of a whale and hummingbird, but it appears quite tortured to me.

They discuss homologous structures, both at the cellular level and the bony structures, as a certain example of related descent between different animals. But if an intelligent designer was going to create a wide array of animals to live in the same environment, wouldn't that designer likely use some similar structural designs?

Interesting also that they try to use differing breeds of dogs as an example of the power of natural selection, yet there is nothing natural about the selection process that leads to the development of breeds. That is a process that is directed by intelligent agents (dog breeders). If we stopped directing the breeding and the breeds interacted freely, dachshunds and chihuahuas would probably disappear quickly and the rest would blend over time into indistinct mongrels...or even wolves.

Row, please review the site and suggest to me which page, in your opinion, displays the best evidence of MACRO evolution

So, you think someone designing a whale would use a hummingbird as a pattern. Why? Since you have such high standards of proof, surely you must have some verifiable evidence for your belief in a designer, right?

[QGator2414]

I would suggest when you get time to give it a fair full look and see if it modifies your view at all. There are pretty clear, documented examples of evolution of one species to another over time, and when you look at the total picture it presents (including us humans) it is a very reasonable conclusion to draw, based on what has been found, where and how old it is, how isolated species change, how natural disasters like the dinosaur extinction event change the evolutionary path, how by nature organisms modify into more complicated species etc. I am not saying take my word for it that it's the right answer but give it a open look when you have time and let me know what you think. And if it doesn't move you at all, then you can be that much stronger/secure in your belief and defense of it with the full understanding of what others perceive as the merits of the counter argument.

That's just it. When I did spend some time (again not in depth) I gain a stronger belief in that macro evolution is not the answer. Besides the statistical improbabilities of macro evolution I also get hung up on the where/how the first living cell appeared. And it just did is not solid science for me... ;)

[QGator2414]

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media//02/75502-004-47C41965.jpg

Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

http://magazine.foxnews.com/sites/magazine.foxnews.com/files/styles/700_image/public/BananaRepublic_0.jpg

Said much better than I could have said it...

[wygator]

So, you think someone designing a whale would use a hummingbird as a pattern. Why? Since you have such high standards of proof, surely you must have some verifiable evidence for your belief in a designer, right?

I think no such thing. Apparently though, Berkley thinks they are related.

My evidence for a designer is comparable to evolutionists evidence that all life came from one original source. Since no one was there at the origin, it is not testable, falsifiable or otherwise within the realm of traditional scientific inquiry by strict definition.

Obviously we can examine historical, fossil and other evidence and draw conclusions.

I believe the incredibly complex design of life, the interaction of hormones and enzymes and the factories to produce and release them in the right amounts at the right times, the differentiation of cells and the ability as a fetus grows for these cells to go to the right places and develop into specialized organs, a brain that functions in ways that computer designers still dream of, the process of healing when injured, eating most anything and having the body turn it into usable energy, are all evidence that there must be an intelligent agent involved in our creation.

Here is a video from Johns Hopkins that demonstrates how complex the process of something that we consider quite ordinary really is...the coagulation of blood.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hematology/Coagulation.swf

[AzCatFan]

I think no such thing. Apparently though, Berkley thinks they are related.

My evidence for a designer is comparable to evolutionists evidence that all life came from one original source. Since no one was there at the origin, it is not testable, falsifiable or otherwise within the realm of traditional scientific inquiry by strict definition.

Obviously we can examine historical, fossil and other evidence and draw conclusions.

I believe the incredibly complex design of life, the interaction of hormones and enzymes and the factories to produce and release them in the right amounts at the right times, the differentiation of cells and the ability as a fetus grows for these cells to go to the right places and develop into specialized organs, a brain that functions in ways that computer designers still dream of, the process of healing when injured, eating most anything and having the body turn it into usable energy, are all evidence that there must be an intelligent agent involved in our creation.

Here is a video from Johns Hopkins that demonstrates how complex the process of something that we consider quite ordinary really is...the coagulation of blood.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hematology/Coagulation.swf

The difference between evolution and ID in terms of the scientific method is evolution can be examined and questioned if and when new evidence is discovered. ID, on the other hand, is tautology. Something or someone created us because all things created has a designer. The only things that may be tested or hypothesized here is who or what is the something or someone that is the creator. And given that most creation stories throughout history have little or no basis in scientific fact, this discussion is best left to theology classes, and not science classes. That's not to say ID can't be mentioned in science class, but I'd prefer something like, "There are other, competing theories to the origin of species like ID, but in this science class, we are going to learn the most widely accepted, scientific theory. If you wish to further your knowledge of the competing theories, feel free to do your own research."

One thing that hasn't been mentioned before in regards to macro evolution is time. I know evolutionists usually groan when time is mentioned, but if evolutionary theory is true, humans have only been around for 10,000 years out of the 1-2 billions years life has existed on Earth. And we have only been recording our history for the past 5,000 years, give or take. To put this in perspective, there are 31,557,600 seconds in an average year (365.25 days to account for leap years). Using the assumption life is 1 billion years old, if it were compressed into a year, humans would only exist the last 5 minutes 15 seconds, and only have recorded the last 2 minutes 37 seconds. Now, there is a lot you can learn about a year in 2 minutes 37 seconds, but there is so much infinitely more you won't learn about.

With time in context, consider the total number of organisms that have lived in the past billion years, and then consider the number of fossils we have found. Fossils have only been searched and cataloged for about the past 150 years. The evolution puzzle could have thousands of pieces that we either haven't found yet, or may never found. And while we think we know what the completed puzzle looks like, it's not like we know for sure. Does this mean God is the answer?

Maybe, maybe not. We may never know for sure, but just saying God is the answer, or the "God of the gaps," if you will, again is tautology. It doesn't belong in science class.

[JerseyGator01]

Ben Carson, meet the IRS.

[reformedgator]

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media//02/75502-004-47C41965.jpg

Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

http://magazine.foxnews.com/sites/magazine.foxnews.com/files/styles/700_image/public/BananaRepublic_0.jpg

+1 It's more about the suppression of evidence than it is the lack of it.

[FearNoSpear]

you wish

I don't think anyone wishes that upon you.

[FearNoSpear]

That would be like me saying "believers are all creepy idiots, but hey, no offense intended." That's not ignoring political correctness (something that religious conservatives practice their own version of) but being an unselfaware jerk.

I don't agree with your assessment.

And I would still be open enough to hear what you had to say after the fact. Being a believer who you may deem a creepy idiot. Your opposite stance doesn't offend me. To be offended would make one overly sensitive. Sometimes you can learn the most from those that think nothing like you.

[QGator2414]

And I would still be open enough to hear what you had to say after the fact. Being a believer who you may deem a creepy idiot. Your opposite stance doesn't offend me. To be offended would make one overly sensitive. Sometimes you can learn the most from those that think nothing like you.

Yep

[GatorAvatar]

Imagine Jesus hanging out with these hateful 'Christians'. What a joke. Jesus preached tolerance, love, respect and most of today's Christians like this clown and Pat Robertson preach hatred.

[TWGator]

Imagine Jesus hanging out with these hateful 'Christians'. What a joke. Jesus preached tolerance, love, respect and most of today's Christians like this clown and Pat Robertson preach hatred.

Where did he "preach" hatred?

[GatorAvatar]

Where did he "preach" hatred?

Didn't he put Obama in his godless place?

[QGator2414]

Feel better avatar?

[TWGator]

Didn't he put Obama in his godless place?

THAT'S what you got out of that speech?

[wargunfan]

What part of the theory of macroevolution gives you any confidence we came from some other species? What part of that theory gives you confidence that not only did we but this other species along with the rest of life came from a cell that started splitting? And in our case created two genders dependent on each other?

I am fine with science being taught. But science has not proven we came from another species so why can we not discuss the other plausible ideas?

Now that we have discovered the unbelievable complexity of a single cell, I would like to hear the detailed evolutionary explanation as to how the first cell originated out of the primordial ooze. That should really be interesting to learn about steps one through one million.

[HALLGATOR]

In depth no. Skimmed the topic once (brought on by a too hot thread) once in the last year (maybe two as time is hard to remember with a 4 year old, two year old and baby due Monday) looking at both sides.

Off topic, but congratulations and hope everything goes OK.

[wargunfan]

As a Christian I can't see how the idea of a young earth holds much water. I don't deny that God is capable of creating in any way He chooses but it doesn't seem plausible that He would create fossils and ways to date them just to deceive us. I also don't believe there is any real evidence that mankind evolved from some ancient hominid. A tooth here and a bone there isn't convincing. Even if humans appeared 100,000 years ago that is but a blink of the eye in terms of evolutionary time scales. It appears to me that mankind appeared on the planet fully formed as a species. What happened to the species from 100,000 BC to 6,000 BC is only vaguely understood. My bottom line is that macro evolution does not account for the appearance of mankind.

[gatorman_07732]

This is a fascinating guy with fascinating ideas and a fascinating background. This is a little long (27 min), but really would recommend listening.

Dr. Benjamin Carson

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_break fast_criticizes_obamacare.html

[mocgator]

Here is a self made Dr lecturing a pampered Marxists. And the Marxist despises him.

Delicious.

[gatorman_07732]

This guy has incredible substance and a great story. This is a man that should held up and celebrated in the African American community.

[theorangebluewinagain]

This is a smart man. Notice that he does not use a telepromtor to speak and that he helps people help themselves. Obama can not hold a candle to this man. Dr Carson speaks of working together, of being united. Obama wants one way and pits groups against each other.
No doubt when his 8 years are done it will be clear that his way was the wrong way.

[Gatormb]

Thanks lacuna! Don't know why my iPad is not embedding like it use to...

Get a Droid. Oh wait. :laugh: Love[LIST=1]
Love ya Dave.

[DaveFla]

As a Christian I can't see how the idea of a young earth holds much water. I don't deny that God is capable of creating in any way He chooses but it doesn't seem plausible that He would create fossils and ways to date them just to deceive us. I also don't believe there is any real evidence that mankind evolved from some ancient hominid. A tooth here and a bone there isn't convincing. Even if humans appeared 100,000 years ago that is but a blink of the eye in terms of evolutionary time scales. It appears to me that mankind appeared on the planet fully formed as a species. What happened to the species from 100,000 BC to 6,000 BC is only vaguely understood. My bottom line is that macro evolution does not account for the appearance of mankind.

The "6,000 year old Earth" claim is a straw man the strict Evolutionists created in order to make Christians look foolish... Not very many, if ANY, actually believe this. Yet, it doesn't stop them from making the claim. I'm still waiting for river to prove his claim that this Dr. Carson has made the claim that he believes the Earth is but 6,000 years old.

[Row6]

I think no such thing. Apparently though, Berkley thinks they are related.

My evidence for a designer is comparable to evolutionists evidence that all life came from one original source. Since no one was there at the origin, it is not testable, falsifiable or otherwise within the realm of traditional scientific inquiry by strict definition.

Obviously we can examine historical, fossil and other evidence and draw conclusions.

I believe the incredibly complex design of life, the interaction of hormones and enzymes and the factories to produce and release them in the right amounts at the right times, the differentiation of cells and the ability as a fetus grows for these cells to go to the right places and develop into specialized organs, a brain that functions in ways that computer designers still dream of, the process of healing when injured, eating most anything and having the body turn it into usable energy, are all evidence that there must be an intelligent agent involved in our creation.

Here is a video from Johns Hopkins that demonstrates how complex the process of something that we consider quite ordinary really is...the coagulation of blood.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hematology/Coagulation.swf

So, you don't agree that whales and hummingbirds don't share bone structure, even though one weighs several tons and lives in water, while the other weighs an ounce and flies? Do you seriously maintain that good design dictates that, and that both these animals - along with humans - all appeared on earth at the same time?

Whoops, excuse me. Got an itch around my coccyx!

[rivergator]

The "6,000 year old Earth" claim is a straw man the strict Evolutionists created in order to make Christians look foolish... Not very many, if ANY, actually believe this. Yet, it doesn't stop them from making the claim. I'm still waiting for river to prove his claim that this Dr. Carson has made the claim that he believes the Earth is but 6,000 years old.

DAve,an article has already been linked.I guess your point is that just because he's a 7th Day Adventists and that religion believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago doesn't necessarily mean he believes it. Is that it?

[DaveFla]

DAve,an article has already been linked.I guess your point is that just because he's a 7th Day Adventists and that religion believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago doesn't necessarily mean he believes it. Is that it?

Your claim was that he said it. I'm just waiting for you to substantiate that claim...

In fact, I believe it was you who tried to chastise me in another thread for trying to find guilt by association.. That's exactly what you're doing here.

[rivergator]

Your claim was that he said it. I'm just waiting for you to substantiate that claim...



No, that's not what I said. Go back and read it again.

In fact, I believe it was you who tried to chastise me in another thread for trying to find guilt by association.. That's exactly what you're doing here.

I'm not sure that sharing the belief of your church is exactly 'guilt by association.' I suppose it's possible that he doesn't believe anything his church does, but that'd be a bit odd, don't you think?

[Gatormb]

The difference between evolution and ID in terms of the scientific method is evolution can be examined and questioned if and when new evidence is discovered. ID, on the other hand, is tautology. Something or someone created us because all things created has a designer. The only things that may be tested or hypothesized here is who or what is the something or someone that is the creator. And given that most creation stories throughout history have little or no basis in scientific fact, this discussion is best left to theology classes, and not science classes. That's not to say ID can't be mentioned in science class, but I'd prefer something like, "There are other, competing theories to the origin of species like ID, but in this science class, we are going to learn the most widely accepted, scientific theory. If you wish to further your knowledge of the competing theories, feel free to do your own research."

One thing that hasn't been mentioned before in regards to macro evolution is time. I know evolutionists usually groan when time is mentioned, but if evolutionary theory is true, humans have only been around for 10,000 years out of the 1-2 billions years life has existed on Earth. And we have only been recording our history for the past 5,000 years, give or take. To put this in perspective, there are 31,557,600 seconds in an average year (365.25 days to account for leap years). Using the assumption life is 1 billion years old, if it were compressed into a year, humans would only exist the last 5 minutes 15 seconds, and only have recorded the last 2 minutes 37 seconds. Now, there is a lot you can learn about a year in 2 minutes 37 seconds, but there is so much infinitely more you won't learn about.

With time in context, consider the total number of organisms that have lived in the past billion years, and then consider the number of fossils we have found. Fossils have only been searched and cataloged for about the past 150 years. The evolution puzzle could have thousands of pieces that we either haven't found yet, or may never found. And while we think we know what the completed puzzle looks like, it's not like we know for sure. Does this mean God is the answer?

Maybe, maybe not. We may never know for sure, but just saying God is the answer, or the "God of the gaps," if you will, again is tautology. It doesn't belong in science class.

Lotta words above to describe the evolutionist's favorite mantra (as scientific as it may be :roll:)

"Given enough time anything can happen." :lie:

[gatorman_07732]

It's people like Dr. Benjamin Carson that this country needed in the conversation of healthcare reform. Too bad it didn't happen

[DaveFla]

No, that's not what I said. Go back and read it again.



I'm not sure that sharing the belief of your church is exactly 'guilt by association.' I suppose it's possible that he doesn't believe anything his church does, but that'd be a bit odd, don't you think?

I did. You made the claim that he believed the earth is only 6,000 years old. I asked you to provide proof. Lacuna linked to some Washington comPost blog article which made the attempt to do what your are doing here; that is, discredit the doctor for being affiliated with a group who may, or may not believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

The use of the absolute term "anything" above is yet another river-isms... To you, apparently, it is absolute. Either he belongs, and therefore, agrees with everything his group claims to represent, or he believes nothing the group believes, right?

Is it possible that he belongs to this group, yet doesn't agree 100% with everything they espouse? If not, isn't that contrary to that which you accused me of doing in e other thread.

It's simple. Provide me with a link where Dr. Carson claims that he believes the Earth is but 6,000 years old. I'm not even saying that he didn't say it, but only asking you to show me where he said it. It's clear that the Washington comPost won't back up their insinuation, but we all know that they're MUCH less credible than you are (and I mean that quite sincerely).

[Row6]

Too bad he has no manners and is apparently absorbed in his own sense of self importance.

The event was a "non partisan" prayer breakfast, not a spot for back benchers to promote their political ideas. The president followed with his remarks which ignored this fool and spoke in non partisan terms about working together despite differences in the name of faith and brotherhood.

[DaveFla]

Too bad he has no manners and is apparently absorbed in his own sense of self importance.

The event was a "non partisan" prayer breakfast, not a spot for back benchers to promote their political ideas. The president followed with his remarks which ignored this fool and spoke in non partisan terms about working together despite differences in the name of faith and brotherhood.

I actually agree with this. It was the wrong venue to criticize Obama even though he wholly deserved this criticism, and MORE.

Of course, you also agree that the State of the Union address was the wrong venue for Obama to criticize the SCOTUS, right?

[JerseyGator01]

The doctor just wanted to ensure that the media didn't cover the prayer breakfast, so he criticized the Messiah.

[rivergator]

I did. You made the claim that he believed the earth is only 6,000 years old. I asked you to provide proof.

You really need to learn the difference between "You said he said" and "apparently he believes ..."

Lacuna linked to some Washington comPost blog article which made the attempt to do what your are doing here; that is, discredit the doctor for being affiliated with a group who may, or may not believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.



Really, the Wash Post article was an attempt to discredit him? Did you read it? It explains there's a protest and said what the protest was about. And it went on to say:

Carson has given dozens of commencement speeches and received some 50 honorary degreesm but this is apparently the first time that his views on evolution have become an issue at a graduation.

Carson is world renowned for his work with children, becoming in 1987 the first surgeon to successfully separate siamese twins conjoined at the back of the head. In 2000 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.

He is also known for his own life story — he was raised by a single mother in Detroit and struggled for a time in school but wound up at Yale University — and for his philanthropy: The Carson Scholars Fund recognizes exceptional young people.

Carson works at Johns Hopkins University, where he is director of the Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, co-director of the Craniofacial Center and a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery and pediatrics.

real hatchet job, huh?

[gatorman_07732]

I actually agree with this. It was the wrong venue to criticize Obama even though he wholly deserved this criticism, and MORE.

Of course, you also agree that the State of the Union address was the wrong venue for Obama to criticize the SCOTUS, right?

Screw that, they should have had people like him involved for ideas in healthcare reform instead of a bunch of lawyers and politicians. I'm sure he feels like much of the rest of us, that Obama stuck up our a$$. I sure hope you don't think Obama doesn't play by these nice tidy rules.

[DaveFla]

You really need to learn the difference between "You said he said" and "apparently he believes ..."



Really, the Wash Post article was an attempt to discredit him? Did you read it? It explains there's a protest and said what the protest was about. And it went on to say:



real hatchet job, huh?

I don't see where I used the term "hatchet job"... Perhaps you will point that out to me when you post your link to this Dr. saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Anyway, this was the part of the comPost's blog article of which I was critical:


An unusual controversy has erupted at Emory University over the choice of famed neurosurgeon Ben Carson to deliver this year’s commencement address because he does not believe in evolution.

[does he not believe in evolution? If not, do you or the comPost have a link?]

Nearly 500 professors, student and alumni signed a letter (see full text below) expressing concern that Carson, as a 7th Day Adventist, believes in creationist theory that holds that all life on Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago [IOW, lacking credible evidence Carson has EVER espoused this, this is merely guilt by association the comPost is attempting to use to discredit the good doctor...]. It rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is the central principle that animates modern biology, uniting all biological fields under one theoretical tent, and which virtually all modern scientists agree is true.

The letter’s authors are not seeking to have Carson disinvited. Instead, they say it was written to raise concerns about his anti-scientific views.

Carson has given dozens of commencement speeches and received some 50 honorary degreesm but this is apparently the first time that his views on evolution have become an issue at a graduation.

Carson is world renowned for his work with children, becoming in 1987 the first surgeon to successfully separate siamese twins conjoined at the back of the head. In 2000 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.BU_blog.html


As you are proving in this discourse, the claims are easier made than proven.

I'm done....

[QGator2414]

Off topic, but congratulations and hope everything goes OK.

Thanks. Have a date tonight with my four year old at the Father/Daughter Dance for Ambleside assuming her little brother does not interrupt... :)

[QGator2414]

Get a Droid. Oh wait. :laugh: Love[LIST=1]
Love ya Dave.

Actually upgraded to the 20th century yesterday with a Samsung Galaxy...

[Row6]

I actually agree with this. It was the wrong venue to criticize Obama even though he wholly deserved this criticism, and MORE.

Of course, you also agree that the State of the Union address was the wrong venue for Obama to criticize the SCOTUS, right?

I appreciate your fair minded approach to this event, but no, the proper subject of SOTU speech are political issues of the day, and saying he disagreed with a SC decision is not an insult.

[DaveFla]

I appreciate your fair minded approach to this event, but no, the proper subject of SOTU speech are political issues of the day, and saying he disagreed with a SC decision is not an insult.

Nor was Dr. Carson's criticizing Obama for the tremendous debt he has run up, but the venue, like the SOTU, was wrong.

I figured your hypocrisy would not allow you to be consistent here. That's ok, just as long as you can see it as well.

[lacuna]

I could find online no evidence Dr Carson directly said he believes in a young earth. But the fact is he is a Seventh Day Adventist so it logically follows he affirms the SDA doctrines. Looking at statement of beliefs on the church's website this is what I found:

Affirmations

As a result of the two international conferences and the seven division conferences, the Organizing Committee reports the following affirmations:

We affirm the primacy of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of origins.

We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.

We affirm the biblical account of the Fall resulting in death and evil.

We affirm the biblical account of a catastrophic Flood, an act of God's judgment that affected the whole planet, as an important key to understanding earth history.

We affirm that our limited understanding of origins calls for humility and that further exploration into these questions brings us closer to deep and wonderful mysteries.

We affirm the interlocking nature of the doctrine of creation with other Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.

We affirm that in spite of its fallenness nature is a witness to the Creator.

We affirm Seventh-day Adventist scientists in their endeavors to understand the Creator's handiwork through the methodologies of their disciplines.

We affirm Seventh-day Adventist theologians in their efforts to explore and articulate the content of revelation.

We affirm Seventh-day Adventist educators in their pivotal ministry to the children and youth of the church.

We affirm that the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church identified in Revelation 14:6, 7 includes a call to worship God as Creator of all.

http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat54.html

[rivergator]

Lacuna, Dave seems quite upset that I said "apparently Carson believes" one of the basic tenets of his church.

[DaveFla]

You could, of course, make that assumption, but again, one could also make the assumption that all Muslims at terrorists because their Q'uran calls for Muslims to kill all infidels, but this was yet another argument river argued against.

So we agree. The attempt to paint Dr. Carson as one who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old is, indeed, a false assumption.

Thank you.

[wygator]

Of course, it is OK to say his church believes this. However, it is not OK to ASSUME he agrees with every doctrine of his chosen church.

Analogy...if you are a Democrat or Republican, do you always agree with every item on the party platform, or with every belief of your chosen candidate? Of course not.

I think we need to approach it in this fashion absent direct quotes on the issue from Dr. Carson himself.

[oaklandroadie]

Too bad he has no manners and is apparently absorbed in his own sense of self importance.

The event was a "non partisan" prayer breakfast, not a spot for back benchers to promote their political ideas. The president followed with his remarks which ignored this fool and spoke in non partisan terms about working together despite differences in the name of faith and brotherhood.

Ohh, if we could only access the way back machine to see how Row felt about Colbert going after Bush at the correspondent's dinner!

[MichiGator2002]

BS. The Marxist was called out by a far smarter man and the Marxist didn't like it. How dare someone have a thought that isn't in line with the Marxist's talking points. Our President is a child.

Hmm... in the past I have compared Obama to guys like the Duvaliers, or to Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus. Never occured to me to go with Queen Isabella II of Spain, but maybe you are on to something.

[mocgator]

Dissent is patriotic if you're a white millionaire cable TV comedian, not if you're a black neurosurgeon.

[gatorman_07732]

Dissent is patriotic if you're a white millionaire cable TV comedian, not if you're a black neurosurgeon.

I break down to simply dissent is not allowed if you don't think like them. Once you do then they try to make you out to be stupid. You know, the whole "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it thing".

[108]

conservatives always seem to give more credence to a black man who speaks more towards their views in the age of Obama...as if their opinion holds more weight

there are a number of them who are making a very good living taking advantage of this shallow respect

about the speech, he is obviously thoughtful and educated, and no-doubt PC can go too far, but being anti-PC isn't an excuse to be offensive. One can make a point without being offensive, even if it offends because of its truth. Conservatives seem to think it means you should be able to say whatever you want, in whatever manner you want, without people disagreeing or opposing it.

in the free market place of ideas, there are opinions and opposing opinions...free speech goes both ways

trying to censor disagreement to speech is no different than those trying to censor speech itself

[DaveFla]

conservatives always seem to give more credence to a black man who speaks more towards their views in the age of Obama...as if their opinion holds more weight

there are a number of them who are making a very good living taking advantage of this shallow respect

about the speech, he is obviously thoughtful and educated, and no-doubt PC can go too far, but being anti-PC isn't an excuse to be offensive. One can make a point without being offensive, even if it offends because of its truth. Conservatives seem to think it means you should be able to say whatever you want, in whatever manner you want, without people disagreeing or opposing it.

in the free market place of ideas, there are opinions and opposing opinions...free speech goes both ways

trying to censor disagreement to speech is no different than those trying to censor speech itself

Obama is a known liar. Thus far, Dr. Carson has not lied to me.

[GatorAvatar]

So Obama goes to a conservative prayer breakfast, and some conservative 'Christian' doctor attacks him. Surprise surprise. The so called Christian Dr. slams political correctness. Hmmmm I wonder what Jesus thinks of that. Remember Jesus was being crucified on the cross, but he remained politically correct, and even managed to pardon a thief whilst being killed. Today's fake Christians amaze me, they are disrespectful, opposite of humble and think they know it all.

[lacuna]

So Obama goes to a conservative prayer breakfast, and some conservative 'Christian' doctor attacks him. Surprise surprise. The so called Christian Dr. slams political correctness. Hmmmm I wonder what Jesus thinks of that. Remember Jesus was being crucified on the cross, but he remained politically correct, and even managed to pardon a thief whilst being killed. Today's fake Christians amaze me, they are disrespectful, opposite of humble and think they know it all.

Avatar, Dr. Carson did not 'attack' Obama. He did take the opportunity to propose changes to government policies and procedures but it was not in any way shape or form an 'attack' on Obama.

Jesus was not politically correct. He offended a good many people during his ministry. I share your dismay that some who profess Jesus as their savior display offensive attitudes, but Dr. Carson was not offensive towards Obama when he took exception to the tax schedule or to health care policies developed by the Feds.

[The_Graygator]

Next on the news...


"Dr. Ben Carson killed in tragic drone attack accident".

[108]

Next on the news...


"Dr. Ben Carson killed in tragic drone attack accident".

its cute that you guys think the POTUS is threatened by differing opinions

[gatorman_07732]

its cute that you guys think the POTUS is threatened by differing opinions

Well he certainly shows no respect for opposing views.

[rajinGator]

The Right embraces the Dr. Carsons of this country, the Left embraces the Sandra Flukes..............hmmmmmm.

[rivergator]

The Right embraces the Dr. Carsons of this country, the Left embraces the Sandra Flukes..............hmmmmmm.


i kind of think the right embraces ted nugent ...

[rajinGator]

i kind of think the right embraces ted nugent ...

Yes, we do embrace much of his belief system.

[rivergator]

Yes, we do embrace much of his belief system.

the part about underaged girls and draft-dodging?

[GatorAvatar]

Next on the news...

"Dr. Ben Carson killed in tragic drone attack accident".

Level of immaturity being displayed here is amazing.

[GatorAvatar]

The Right embraces the Dr. Carsons of this country, the Left embraces the Sandra Flukes..............hmmmmmm.

Joe the Plumber, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Tea Party crazies...

[rivergator]

Level of immaturity being displayed here is amazing.


you really have to wonder how incredibly stupid people have to be to claim that anyone who disagrees with Obama is killed. it's like dealing with retarded children.

[rajinGator]

the part about underaged girls and draft-dodging?

Don't know about any of that but to my original point, Dr Carson's basic message resonates with the Right, Fluke's resonates with and is trumpeted by the Left...............interesting.

[GatorAvatar]

you really have to wonder how incredibly stupid people have to be to claim that anyone who disagrees with Obama is killed. it's like dealing with retarded children.

I shouldn't be amazed, but then again everytime they come up with something jaw dropping.

[rivergator]

Don't know about any of that but to my original point, Dr Carson's basic message resonates with the Right, Fluke's resonates with and is trumpeted by the Left...............interesting.


sure, if you cherry pick really hard. Remember, the only reason that Fluke got much attention was because prominent Republicans called her a slut because they disagreed with her opinion on whether birth control should be covered by insurance.

that is such a cool and mature reaction.

[GatorAvatar]

sure, if you cherry pick really hard. Remember, the only reason that Fluke got much attention was because prominent Republicans called her a slut because they disagreed with her opinion on whether birth control should be covered by insurance.

that is such a cool and mature reaction.

So the right call her a slut, and they blame her for the notoriety that followed.

[g8orbill]

the takers know what their boy is and as long as he keeps promising to take from the evil old rich and give it to the them-they do not care what he is-this attitude is how most dictators rise to power

[rivergator]

the takers know what their boy is and as long as he keeps promising to take from the evil old rich and give it to the them-they do not care what he is-this attitude is how most dictators rise to power

you know Bill, you can claim all you want that I'm a taker. But we've been on this board together a long time. And you know by now that I work, my wife works, we pay taxes, we own a home, we've put three kids through college, few people here have spent more time volunteering with youth activities than I have.
sure, call me a taker if you it makes you feel better about yourself and your politics. But you and I know it's BS.

[MichiGator2002]

its cute that you guys think the POTUS is threatened by differing opinions

There has never been a thinner skinned President, at least not in the age of electronic media. Still remember his butthurt over ear jokes at the start of his campaign, and his general, pathological aversion to self-deprecation. Very insecure and vindictive man whose good graces seem entirely contingent on how well those in contact with him molly-coddle him. It is almost stunning to see him "snap frown" at any question from the press he finds inimical or unexpected.

[GatorAvatar]

There has never been a thinner skinned President, at least not in the age of electronic media. Still remember his butthurt over ear jokes at the start of his campaign, and his general, pathological aversion to self-deprecation. Very insecure and vindictive man whose good graces seem entirely contingent on how well those in contact with him molly-coddle him. It is almost stunning to see him "snap frown" at any question from the press he finds inimical or unexpected.

Hilarious, in a sad way.

[rajinGator]

So the right call her a slut, and they blame her for the notoriety that followed.

The Right placed her on the platform as a speaker in the Democratic Convention?

She received wild applause from the attending audience.

[wygator]

So Obama goes to a conservative prayer breakfast, and some conservative 'Christian' doctor attacks him. Surprise surprise. The so called Christian Dr. slams political correctness. Hmmmm I wonder what Jesus thinks of that. Remember Jesus was being crucified on the cross, but he remained politically correct, and even managed to pardon a thief whilst being killed. Today's fake Christians amaze me, they are disrespectful, opposite of humble and think they know it all.

I guess you missed this address of Jesus to the Pharisees and Rabbis of his day:

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:13 - 33

Or when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’[a]; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’[b]”

47 Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him.
Luke 19:47-47

Not only was Jesus very politically incorrect, speaking the TRUTH to power is, at least in part, the reason he was crucified. He was a threat to the power and influence of the chief priests.

[mocgator]

its cute that you guys think the POTUS is threatened by differing opinions

He is positively mortified that anyone should challenge his Marxist anti colonialist beliefs.

[lacuna]

Wygator, those were certainly some of the examples of Jesus being non PC I was thinking of but there is another one perhaps even more shocking. According to Matthew in the 15th chapter, Jesus referred to a Gentile woman as a dog:

Matthew 15:22-28 ... A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

[GatorAvatar]

I guess you missed this address of Jesus to the Pharisees and Rabbis of his day:

Matthew 23:13 - 33

Or when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple:

Luke 19:47-47

Not only was Jesus very politically incorrect, speaking the TRUTH to power is, at least in part, the reason he was crucified. He was a threat to the power and influence of the chief priests.

Thanks for the evidence. I'm not a christian. I guess the image of Jesus I had was wrong. I have always thought that Jesus was this calm, loving, eversmiling diplomat.

[g8orbill]

since you are not a Christian-how would you know what or who Jesus is?

[Row6]

Nor was Dr. Carson's criticizing Obama for the tremendous debt he has run up, but the venue, like the SOTU, was wrong.

I figured your hypocrisy would not allow you to be consistent here. That's ok, just as long as you can see it as well.

You'll have to explain my supposed "hypocrisy". A prayer breakfast and a SOTU speech are not the same event and their purpose is not similar - but I already explained that and you haven't offered a reason why they are.

[Row6]

Ohh, if we could only access the way back machine to see how Row felt about Colbert going after Bush at the correspondent's dinner!

A non-partisan prayer breakfast and the WH Correspondents Dinner are not similar events.

[Row6]

BS. The Marxist was called out by a far smarter man and the Marxist didn't like it. How dare someone have a thought that isn't in line with the Marxist's talking points. Our President is a child.

You wish. Your President followed the "smarter man" and made neither reference to him or his remarks and politely - unlike your rude hero - did not try to score political points with a captive audience that was there for other purposes.

[Row6]

I break down to simply dissent is not allowed if you don't think like them. Once you do then they try to make you out to be stupid. You know, the whole "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it thing".

It was non-partisan prayer breakfast.

[Row6]

So Obama goes to a conservative prayer breakfast, and some conservative 'Christian' doctor attacks him. Surprise surprise. The so called Christian Dr. slams political correctness. Hmmmm I wonder what Jesus thinks of that. Remember Jesus was being crucified on the cross, but he remained politically correct, and even managed to pardon a thief whilst being killed. Today's fake Christians amaze me, they are disrespectful, opposite of humble and think they know it all.

It wasn't a "conservative" prayer breakfast, it was non-partisan prayer breakfast.

[DaveFla]

For the life of me, I can not understand how the liberal mind justifies this hypocrisy. It's pitiful, really.

[Row6]

For the life of me, I can not understand how the liberal mind justifies this hypocrisy. It's pitiful, really.

Apparently you can't understand a lot of things.

[DaveFla]

Neither the prayer breakfast nor the SOTU address were appropriate venues for criticism such as this. You simply can't criticize instance one without criticizing the other.

[DaveFla]

Apparently you can't understand a lot of things.

As car as the liberal mind goes? You are absolutely 100% correct. Not an ounce of reason or responsibility included.

[gatorman_07732]

It was non-partisan prayer breakfast.

Sorry but this guy articulated ideas and did it very well. Like I said earlier, it should have been people like him that were brought in for ideas in healthcare reform, and not done behind closed doors with lawyers and politicians. It's interesting that you view the problems such as the debt as partisan. FYI, the good Dr. is not a Republican or a Democrat.

[Row6]

Avatar, Dr. Carson did not 'attack' Obama. He did take the opportunity to propose changes to government policies and procedures but it was not in any way shape or form an 'attack' on Obama.

Jesus was not politically correct. He offended a good many people during his ministry. I share your dismay that some who profess Jesus as their savior display offensive attitudes, but Dr. Carson was not offensive towards Obama when he took exception to the tax schedule or to health care policies developed by the Feds.

He was offensive to the purpose of the event, which was a non-partisan prayer breakfast. Unless he thinks he is Jesus, practicing humility and restraint and.sticking to the purpose of brotherhood through faith should override his desire to set everyone straight on his political solutions to the nation's problems. That's what the president had the good manners to do, and we all know he thinks he's the messiah.

[reformedgator]

Hilarious, in a sad way.

I agree that it is hilarious if it wasn't the fact that he is the president. We would hope our elected leader would be more mature in his actions & ability to respond in all situations. He has not demonstrated that he is able to that & that is sad.

[Tim85]

Ben Carson for President:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578292302358207828.html?m od=djemEditorialPage_h


His two ideas:

"We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes. Some people say, 'Well that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.' Where does it say you've got to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot. We don't need to hurt him. It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands. That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs."

Not surprisingly, a practicing physician has un-PC thoughts on health care:

"Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you're born 'til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there's nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they're going to learn how to be responsible."

[QGator2414]

Sorry but this guy articulated ideas and did it very well. Like I said earlier, it should have been people like him that were brought in for ideas in healthcare reform, and not done behind closed doors with lawyers and politicians. It's interesting that you view the problems we such as the debt as partisan. FYI, the good Dr. is not a Republican or a Democrat.

+1

Listened to the whole thing for the first time this morning. Unfortunately it was only partisan to the sensitive out there who allow people with other views to close their mind and do not want solutions...

[Row6]

Neither the prayer breakfast nor the SOTU address were appropriate venues for criticism such as this. You simply can't criticize instance one without criticizing the other.

No, I just did, and would hold the same opinion, no matter who was president at the time.

[Row6]

Sorry but this guy articulated ideas and did it very well. Like I said earlier, it should have been people like him that were brought in for ideas in healthcare reform, and not done behind closed doors with lawyers and politicians. It's interesting that you view the problems such as the debt as partisan. FYI, the good Dr. is not a Republican or a Democrat.

The good Dr should run for office if he wants to promote his ideas, not use a non-partisan prayer breakfast for that purpose.

[chemgator]

Quite a "non-partisan prayer breakfast", apparently featuring a speaker rude enough to promote his entirely partisan political beliefs before a captive audience.

Why do you think he's partisan? He merely presented facts about politics, education, health care, and other topics, and proposed intelligent solutions. Yes, he seems to be a fiscal conservative, but that doesn't make him partisan--it makes him responsible. Are you saying that one of the political parties (i.e., the democrats) has fiscal irresponsibility as a main political platform? That's an interesting concept.

[gatorman_07732]

The good Dr should run for office if he wants to promote his ideas, not use a non-partisan prayer breakfast for that purpose.

He had the stage and made good use of his time which is admirable. You just don't happen to like what he said because it was counter to your ideology. Careful what you ask for, because he retires in July.

[Row6]

Why do you think he's partisan? He merely presented facts about politics, education, health care, and other topics, and proposed intelligent solutions. Yes, he seems to be a fiscal conservative, but that doesn't make him partisan--it makes him responsible. Are you saying that one of the political parties (i.e., the democrats) has fiscal irresponsibility as a main political platform? That's an interesting concept.

He used a non-partisan event which was meant to promote brotherhood through faith to promote his political ideas. If he limited his discussion to his admirable work with school kids or as a surgeon he would be in bounds. Promoting a political agenda which is not a matter of fact and not shared by some in the audience who might otherwise applaud him and good works was poor judgement and bad manners. As I noted already, the president made no similar appeal for his political ideas, and if he had, could be rightly criticized for it.

[Row6]

He had the stage and made good use of his time which is admirable. You just don't happen to like what he said because it was counter to your ideology. Careful what you ask for, because he retires in July.

I don't like bad manners and don't consider what he said either noteworthy or some threat to the president's agenda which I generally support. That is not the point.

[gatorman_07732]

I don't like bad manners and don't consider what he said either noteworthy or some threat to the president's agenda which I generally support. That is not the point.

Bad manners? Are you crazy? You're way out on a limb.

[mocgator]

You wish. Your President followed the "smarter man" and made neither reference to him or his remarks and politely - unlike your rude hero - did not try to score political points with a captive audience that was there for other purposes.

The Wall Street Journal chimes in.

Carson for President

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578292302358207828.html?m od=djemEditorialPage_h

[HALLGATOR]

Alright folks, enough with the insults.

[QGator2414]

Oxymoron...

Non partisan event with DC politicians attending...

[rivergator]

The Wall Street Journal chimes in.

Carson for President

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578292302358207828.html?m od=djemEditorialPage_h

For president based on one breakfast speech? He's hardly the first to favor a flat tax.

[The_Graygator]

Level of immaturity being displayed here is amazing.



I'll remember that next time I'm called a gun-nut, a race-baiter, or a racist by a lib on these boards. lol :roll:

Btw, it was a joke, but I guess poitnging out how your 'savior' King Obama thinks he can just "off" anyone he wants with a drone is sort of a touchy spot with you libs.

You get what you vote for...

[GatorAvatar]

It wasn't a "conservative" prayer breakfast, it was non-partisan prayer breakfast.

LMAO...semantics. Everyone knows this prayer breakfast is a conservative gathering.

[GatorAvatar]

Why do you think he's partisan? He merely presented facts about politics, education, health care, and other topics, and proposed intelligent solutions. Yes, he seems to be a fiscal conservative, but that doesn't make him partisan--it makes him responsible. Are you saying that one of the political parties (i.e., the democrats) has fiscal irresponsibility as a main political platform? That's an interesting concept.

He did it at a FREAKING prayer breakfast. Get it? This is not a place to discuss policy but a prayer breakfast. Geez.

[g8orbill]

free speech avatar-since you admit to not being a Christian I am surprised you would use the not at a prayer breakfast excuse

[rivergator]

He did it at a FREAKING prayer breakfast. Get it? This is not a place to discuss policy but a prayer breakfast. Geez.

The man can say what he wants. I'm not sure the protocol at a prayer breakfast, but I doubt that it's nothing but prayers ....
I just don't see the problem with the guy saying what he thinks.

[GatorAvatar]

free speech avatar-since you admit to not being a Christian I am surprised you would use the not at a prayer breakfast excuse

I was responding to the argument that he was not partisan...of course he was partisan.

[GatorAvatar]

The man can say what he wants. I'm not sure the protocol at a prayer breakfast, but I doubt that it's nothing but prayers ....
I just don't see the problem with the guy saying what he thinks.

Yea I agree...I was responding to the poster who says he was not partisan.

[chemgator]

He did it at a FREAKING prayer breakfast. Get it? This is not a place to discuss policy but a prayer breakfast. Geez.
Obviously, he was praying that Obama would get his head out of his a$$ and start leading the country. What's wrong with that? It's pretty clear that he thought Obama could benefit from the wisdom of a simple doctor, backed up by facts. He was doing Obama a favor, by telling it to him straight. Should he pray that another 60 million children get added to a failed education initiative called Head Start? Does his message have to revolve around the president's agenda if the president is present? Or does it have to be all about vague prayers for health and world peace if it is a prayer meeting?

[chemgator]

I was responding to the argument that he was not partisan...of course he was partisan.
In what way was he partisan?

[mocgator]

Do I need to remind you all about the democrats that seem to love to use funerals as campaign rallies for their leftist causes....

[DaveFla]

In what way was he partisan?

Obviously, by daring to disagree with Obama's failed policies. That makes him both a partisan AND a racist...

[GatorAvatar]

Obviously, by daring to disagree with Obama's failed policies. That makes him both a partisan AND a racist...

SMDH

[GatorAvatar]

In what way was he partisan?

I can't help you.

[QGator2414]

In what way was he partisan?

He (one who works in the healthcare field) offered an idea to help fix the problem (while stating the issue as a whole was too complex to dive into there) that is unable to be comprehended by partisans that only see the government as the answer...

[rivergator]

Some pretty outrageous overreactions to Carson's speech here:
- He shouldn't have mentioned policy
- He should be president
- Obama will kill him
- The left hates him
- Anyone who disagrees with him is racist.

Just a bit over the top.

[DaveFla]

I listened to an interview with Dr. Carson this morning. He's an "independent", just like our own phil and OBOB...

[orangeblueorangeblue]

:laugh:

And shockingly, I too think Obamacare is a disaster.

[gatorman_07732]

I listened to an interview with Dr. Carson this morning. He's an "independent", just like our own phil and OBOB...

:laugh:

[wygator]

A prayer breakfast hosted by the President at the White House, inviting politicians and religious leaders, is an event that is in part political as it is also religious.

The President invites the religious leaders in an attempt at outreach and for dialogue.

Aren't Obama's birth control policies a key issue in our society at the intersection of religion and politics?

Aren't pastors supposed to preach uncomfortable truths? I know Dr. Carson isn't a pastor, but he was invited to speak in this venue because he is an accomplished professional who is also a man of deep faith.

[QGator2414]

A prayer breakfast hosted by the President at the White House, inviting politicians and religious leaders, is an event that is in part political as it is also religious.

The President invites the religious leaders in an attempt at outreach and for dialogue.

Aren't Obama's birth control policies a key issue in our society at the intersection of religion and politics?

Aren't pastors supposed to preach uncomfortable truths? I know Dr. Carson isn't a pastor, but he was invited to speak in this venue because he is an accomplished professional who is also a man of deep faith.

Enough with the common sense and reality.

He hurt the feelings of some insecure people...

[lacuna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast

The National Prayer Breakfast is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February each year. The founder of this event was Abraham Vereide.[1] The event—which is actually a series of meetings, luncheons, and dinners—has taken place since 1953 and has been held at least since the 1980s at the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue NW.

The breakfast, held in the Hilton's International Ballroom, is attended by some 3,500 guests, including international invitees from over 100 countries. The National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by members of the United States Congress and is organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a conservative Christian organization more widely known as "The Family". Initially called the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, the name was changed in 1970 to the National Prayer Breakfast.

It is designed to be a forum for the political, social, and business elite to assemble and build relationships. Since the inception of the National Prayer Breakfast, several U.S. states and cities and other countries have established their own annual prayer breakfast events.

Every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the annual event.[2]

Rev. Jim Wallis, founder and president of the Christian social change group Sojourners and a regular attendee of the National Prayer Breakfast, said of the event "it's sort of a time to — where people want to acknowledge the importance of prayer and faith. And that can be kind of a civil religion, civic faith kind of common denominator thing. Or it can be much too sectarian where some people feel left out of it. I remember my favorite ones are when Bono spoke at the prayer breakfast and talked about every faith tradition calls us to stand with those who are left out, left behind. I remember Senator Mark Hatfield spoke years ago when I was in seminary and he called the war in Vietnam a national sin and shame in front of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. I saw their faces and they weren't happy with that. So when it can raise up issues that we ought to be accountable to, whether we are religious or not, I think that's when it's probably at its best."[12]

In 2010, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders to refrain from attending the National Prayer Breakfast. Executive Director Melanie Sloan criticized the organizing group, The Fellowship,* for being what she described as intolerant and secretive

Former speakers also include Tony Blair (2009) and Mother Teresa (1994).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29

The Fellowship,* also known as the Family,[1][2][3] is a U.S.-based religious and political organization founded in 1935 by Abraham Vereide. The stated purpose of the Fellowship is to provide a fellowship forum for decision makers to share in Bible studies, prayer meetings, worship experiences and to experience spiritual affirmation and support.[4][5]

The organization has been described as one of the most politically well-connected ministries in the United States. The Fellowship shuns publicity and its members share a vow of secrecy.[6] The Fellowship's leader Doug Coe and others have explained the organization's desire for secrecy by citing biblical admonitions against public displays of good works, insisting they would not be able to tackle diplomatically sensitive missions if they drew public attention.[6]

Although the organization is secretive, it holds one regular public event each year, the National Prayer Breakfast held in Washington, D.C. Every sitting United States president since President Dwight D. Eisenhower, up to President Barack Obama, has participated in at least one National Prayer Breakfast during his term.[7][8][9][10]

The Fellowship's known participants include ranking United States government officials, corporate executives, heads of religious and humanitarian aid organizations, and ambassadors and high-ranking politicians from across the world.[1][11][12][13][14] Many United States Senators and Congressmen who have publicly acknowledged working with the Fellowship or are documented as having done so work together to pass or influence legislation.[15][16]

[lacuna]

Obama also spoke at the Breakfast. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/at-prayer-breakfast-obama-issues-call-for-humility/

Mr. Obama’s speech to the bipartisan gathering of political and community leaders at the Washington Hilton was less overtly political than it was last year, toward the beginning of his re-election campaign, when he tied Jesus’s teachings to his call for higher taxes on the wealthy. But in the past – Thursday’s speech was his fifth appearance as president at the breakfast – he has used the gathering more as an opportunity to discuss his faith.

The rarity of such a cordial gathering of members of different parties was noted by the other public officials who spoke. Mr. Obama added, “I do worry sometimes that as soon as we leave the prayer breakfast, everything we’ve been talking about at the prayer breakfast seems to be forgotten.” ...


... Mr. Obama made only passing references to his debt and tax negotiations with Congress, and he did not respond to criticism by the previous speaker, Dr. Benjamin Carson, the Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon famous for separating conjoined twins, of Democrats’ approach to tax policy and health care. Mr. Obama also did not address gay marriage, drones or any of the other current debates in Washington.

[wygator]

Mother Teresa spoke at the prayer breakfast during Clinton's tenure in office.
She said:

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself." She spoke also of contraception: "The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception."

Surely, we can't criticize Mother Teresa, can we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXn-wf5ylgo

[GatorAvatar]

Mother Teresa spoke at the prayer breakfast during Clinton's tenure in office.
She said:

Surely, we can't criticize Mother Teresa, can we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXn-wf5ylgo

Did she speak of abused kids by the catholic church priests? Or Palestinians who are/were under apartheid? I bet she did...she loves peace.

[Tim85]

Dr. Ben Carson isn't done:

"There are a group of people who would like to silence everybody and have everybody go along to get along, but that's not going to be very helpful for us in the long run, in terms of solving our problems. And somebody has to be courageous enough to actually stand up to, you know, the bullies."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/11/dr_ben_carson_on_criticizing_obamacare_somebody_ha s_to_stand_up_to_the_bullies.html

"One of the things I also said during the speech is there will be some people who will say, 'but you’re a doctor and you’re a surgeon, you should be sticking to that.' And I mentioned the fact that five physicians signed the Declaration of Independence and were involved in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and several other things.

There’s absolutely no reason at all that physicians, scientists, shouldn’t be involved in things that affect all of us. We’re people who've learned how to make decisions based on facts, empirical data, rather than on ideology, and one of the geniuses, one of the real things that made us a great nation, is that we brought people from all backgrounds into the legislative process. So that all of us would be able to place our interests there and we've gone significantly away from that.

And no one goes up to a lawyer and says why are you getting involved in this, that and the other thing. I don't see why they would say it to a physician, who has more education than anyone else in society. "

[g8orbill]

I find it humorous that the libs are so upset about what this Dr said-he told the truth about what he thinks of obamacare

libs will be in shock when they find out just how much this program is going to actually cost them-row being a Sr Citizen will be very surprised as to what it will mean to him

[rivergator]

who is trying to silence Carson?

[Matthanuf06]

Few things:

1. Brilliant Man

2. He definitely took advantage of the situation. He's retiring from surgery, and politics is a definite possibility. Although I'm not sure why it's bad to take advantage of an opportunity.

3. He's best point was elsewhere. We need to make decisions based on facts and empirical data; not ideology. Education and knowledge needs to run our nation, not feelings and emotions. Now I think he contradicts himself slightly by relying on God in that case.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

There's nothing more inspiring than a guy who can gracefully deliver a series of over-simplifications with great conviction.

[Matthanuf06]

There's nothing more inspiring than a guy who can gracefully deliver a series of over-simplifications with great conviction.

Isn't that what our population always votes for? It's the #1 quality we look for.

[QGator2414]

There's nothing more inspiring than a guy who can gracefully deliver a series of over-simplifications with great conviction.

hope and change