(01-06-2016 01:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 09:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:04 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I don't know if he is a biblical literalist or not. I have not heard that. If so? I would have the same problem with that as I do Carson and his 7DA ties. I imagine I am not the only one that has a problem supporting a candidate that denies science. Again...I have no evidence that is the case now. Im sure it will be exposed if that is true.

Interesting litmus test. Doesn't explain how it would affect their job. If someone believes the Earth is 6,000 years old does that mean they reject all science? They may still may find validity in the law of Gravity or entropy or the laws of thermodynamics. Why not ask their view on black holes or dark matter. Or if they believe Climate Change is based more on solar activity than Man is that rejecting Science? It's America and you can have whatever litmus test you want. This one seems sort of odd. To be fair I feel the same way about people saying their candidate must be a Christian so maybe I am the weird one

It's a question of judgement. If someone can willfully deny obvious phenomenon that is heavily supported by actual data and evidence, then what kind of person does that make him? The question becomes what else does he deny despite evidence to the contrary? The flip side would also be - what does he believe in despite there being no evidence? No, I am not referring to belief in God. What I'm referring to is if someone supports something that isn't supported by evidence or opposes something that is shown to be true based on the evidence - that's terrible judgement.

That depends on what exactly you call an "obvious phenomenon" that is heavily supported by "actual data and evidence". Unless we have actual proof (that is a first-hand account) of something from more than 6000 years ago, we are merely theorizing. There was a time when very smart people thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that was based on actual data and science of the time.

If someone wants to argue that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is not equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, then yeah, that's kooky and represents a person with a lack reasoning power. If someone wants to challenge the idea of when the Dinosaurs were here, then I am willing to listen if their argument is rational because we base our current understanding on deductions, not actual observations or incontrovertible evidence...but really, what does that have to do with being President.

People will support whomever they want to based on whatever litmus or policy choices they decide. My only point is that challenging something that isn't observable or hasn't been witnessed doesn't mean someone lacks judgment unless their argument is not coherent.

You just made the same argument as Ken Ham on why evolution is wrong. Scientific Theories are not the same as your regular run of the mill theories. Gravity is still a scientific theory. You can't "see" gravity, but you can see the results of what is theorized to be caused by gravity.

DC Talk did a song about that very subject. On Jesus Freak as I recall. Great album (CD, whatever you want to call it).

(01-05-2016 09:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 01:04 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 12:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 12:32 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Think about that statement. How does his view of the age of the Earth affect anything he would do as a President? I like his view on taxes but he believes the World was created in 6 days.
He has a great stance on Immigration but he thinks humans and dinosaurs lived on the Earth at the same time
Great Tax Code. Too bad he believes there was a World wide flood.

I would love to know how ones view of the age of the Earth affects their job as President

I don't know if he is a biblical literalist or not. I have not heard that. If so? I would have the same problem with that as I do Carson and his 7DA ties. I imagine I am not the only one that has a problem supporting a candidate that denies science. Again...I have no evidence that is the case now. Im sure it will be exposed if that is true.

Interesting litmus test. Doesn't explain how it would affect their job. If someone believes the Earth is 6,000 years old does that mean they reject all science? They may still may find validity in the law of Gravity or entropy or the laws of thermodynamics. Why not ask their view on black holes or dark matter. Or if they believe Climate Change is based more on solar activity than Man is that rejecting Science? It's America and you can have whatever litmus test you want. This one seems sort of odd. To be fair I feel the same way about people saying their candidate must be a Christian so maybe I am the weird one

It's a question of judgement. If someone can willfully deny obvious phenomenon that is heavily supported by actual data and evidence, then what kind of person does that make him? The question becomes what else does he deny despite evidence to the contrary? The flip side would also be - what does he believe in despite there being no evidence? No, I am not referring to belief in God. What I'm referring to is if someone supports something that isn't supported by evidence or opposes something that is shown to be true based on the evidence - that's terrible judgement.

That depends on what exactly you call an "obvious phenomenon" that is heavily supported by "actual data and evidence". Unless we have actual proof (that is a first-hand account) of something from more than 6000 years ago, we are merely theorizing. There was a time when very smart people thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that was based on actual data and science of the time.

If someone wants to argue that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is not equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, then yeah, that's kooky and represents a person with a lack reasoning power. If someone wants to challenge the idea of when the Dinosaurs were here, then I am willing to listen if their argument is rational because we base our current understanding on deductions, not actual observations or incontrovertible evidence...but really, what does that have to do with being President.

People will support whomever they want to based on whatever litmus or policy choices they decide. My only point is that challenging something that isn't observable or hasn't been witnessed doesn't mean someone lacks judgment unless their argument is not coherent.

To discount and ignore the fossil record takes one of the largest leaps possible. Personally.... I believe in its literal accuracy more than the Bible.