Huckabee
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
Huckabee
Huckabee wins Iowa
-
Bryan Schwegler
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Re: Huckabee
Stephen Eisel wrote:Huckabee wins Iowa
Not super surprising, but I was a little amazed by the fact he's received about 10,000 more votes than the next highest person.
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: Huckabee
It was a shocker for Romney...Bryan Schwegler wrote:Stephen Eisel wrote:Huckabee wins Iowa
Not super surprising, but I was a little amazed by the fact he's received about 10,000 more votes than the next highest person.
-
sharon kinsella
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
- Contact:
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
Danielle Masters
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Lakewood, OH
I just don't feel comfortable with this guy. Mike and I have been talking trying to decide who we will support and never have we had such a tough time. We have looked at all candidates from both parties and well we aren't impressed with anyone.
As for Huckabee I am not surprised he won, but the margin is shocking. I wonder if it will be closer in other states.
As for Huckabee I am not surprised he won, but the margin is shocking. I wonder if it will be closer in other states.
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
One of my problems with this guy is, he lies.
He lied on his resume for the job of President. He stated he had a degree in theology when in fact he doesn't. He was on Meet the Press Sunday calling Willard Romney a liar and Tim Russett did not raise the numerous times that Huckabee has been caught lying.
One of my problems with this guy is, he lies.
He lied on his resume for the job of President. He stated he had a degree in theology when in fact he doesn't. He was on Meet the Press Sunday calling Willard Romney a liar and Tim Russett did not raise the numerous times that Huckabee has been caught lying.
Mankind must put an end to war or
war will put an end to mankind.
--John F. Kennedy
Stability and peace in our land will not come from the barrel of a gun, because peace without justice is an impossibility.
--Desmond Tutu
war will put an end to mankind.
--John F. Kennedy
Stability and peace in our land will not come from the barrel of a gun, because peace without justice is an impossibility.
--Desmond Tutu
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
pardon
Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris in his corner. Chuck Norris owns some big Casinos. If Mike Huckabee is elected President he will pardon Chuck Norris for making the show "Walker: Texas Ranger"(it was terrible).
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
Tracy Jones
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:26 pm
No politician, least of all the President of the United States, can afford to deny what science informs us about reality. Politicians who do this cannot be trusted to come to accurate conclusions about technological and scientific problems or issues, cannot be trusted with leadership of a nation that depends upon science and technology, and cannot be trusted to do a good job at separating evidence from personal faith.
Lawrence Krauss writes in New Scientist about this problem:
'Let's take scientific literacy. [Arkansas Governor Mike] Huckabee, for example, openly stated that he does not know if the Earth was created in six days, 6000 years ago. This represents a remarkably open mind in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was not. This point is no more unresolved than the question of whether the Earth is round, or whether it goes round the sun.
If a potential president is unwilling to accept the fundamental results of chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy and geology, all of which tell us that a six-day creation is incompatible with everything we know about the world, and all the principles on which we base modern technology, then how can that individual be expected to assess the complex scientific and technological issues that will form the basis of US policy over the next eight years? Those who reject evolution owe the country an answer to that in the upcoming debate.
There is also the question of leadership. The US remains at the forefront of the technological world thanks to generations of scientific leadership. As many have pointed out, this is now in jeopardy, in part because the country is not doing a good enough job of educating the technical workforce needed to man the economic engines of the 21st century.
Finally, and most fundamentally, there is the distinction between beliefs and evidence. Three candidates have spoken in the debates so far to explain their views on evolution: Brownback, Huckabee and Arizona senator John McCain, who had stated that he believes in evolution but later congratulated Huckabee on his statements, including that "if anybody wants to believe they are descendants of a primate they are certainly welcome to it".
All three answered the evolution question as if it was a religious point, rather than a scientific one. ...The candidates' confusion on this matter is serious, and we should worry about it a great deal in a would-be commander-in-chief. Whether the issue is descent of species, weapons of mass destruction or human-induced global warming, we may believe what we want, but if we ignore the evidence we can be wrong in ways that can have manifest and serious consequences.
Science is not mere storytelling. It makes predictions that help us to control our destiny. The actions of the president and indeed any politician should be based on the best possible evidence, not a priori beliefs, whether they are ideological or religious. Our future depends on it.'
When we elect a president — or any politician for that matter — we have to assume that they will face questions, issues, and problems which they haven't quite faced before. This means that in choosing a politician, we can only rely partially on their past history and what they say about their general policies. More important is their overall character and their ability to make sound decisions, their reasoning skills, and their overall intellectual character. This is what will tell us about how they do when they are faced with new problems.
If someone is in denial about reality and science because they think it conflicts with their religious ideology, how can we trust them to fairly, reliably, and reasonably deal with new scientific or technological issues they face?
Lawrence Krauss writes in New Scientist about this problem:
'Let's take scientific literacy. [Arkansas Governor Mike] Huckabee, for example, openly stated that he does not know if the Earth was created in six days, 6000 years ago. This represents a remarkably open mind in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was not. This point is no more unresolved than the question of whether the Earth is round, or whether it goes round the sun.
If a potential president is unwilling to accept the fundamental results of chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy and geology, all of which tell us that a six-day creation is incompatible with everything we know about the world, and all the principles on which we base modern technology, then how can that individual be expected to assess the complex scientific and technological issues that will form the basis of US policy over the next eight years? Those who reject evolution owe the country an answer to that in the upcoming debate.
There is also the question of leadership. The US remains at the forefront of the technological world thanks to generations of scientific leadership. As many have pointed out, this is now in jeopardy, in part because the country is not doing a good enough job of educating the technical workforce needed to man the economic engines of the 21st century.
Finally, and most fundamentally, there is the distinction between beliefs and evidence. Three candidates have spoken in the debates so far to explain their views on evolution: Brownback, Huckabee and Arizona senator John McCain, who had stated that he believes in evolution but later congratulated Huckabee on his statements, including that "if anybody wants to believe they are descendants of a primate they are certainly welcome to it".
All three answered the evolution question as if it was a religious point, rather than a scientific one. ...The candidates' confusion on this matter is serious, and we should worry about it a great deal in a would-be commander-in-chief. Whether the issue is descent of species, weapons of mass destruction or human-induced global warming, we may believe what we want, but if we ignore the evidence we can be wrong in ways that can have manifest and serious consequences.
Science is not mere storytelling. It makes predictions that help us to control our destiny. The actions of the president and indeed any politician should be based on the best possible evidence, not a priori beliefs, whether they are ideological or religious. Our future depends on it.'
When we elect a president — or any politician for that matter — we have to assume that they will face questions, issues, and problems which they haven't quite faced before. This means that in choosing a politician, we can only rely partially on their past history and what they say about their general policies. More important is their overall character and their ability to make sound decisions, their reasoning skills, and their overall intellectual character. This is what will tell us about how they do when they are faced with new problems.
If someone is in denial about reality and science because they think it conflicts with their religious ideology, how can we trust them to fairly, reliably, and reasonably deal with new scientific or technological issues they face?
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
Ryan Salo
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:11 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259350.htm
FYI - Where Tracy gets some of her rhetoric.
Sources explain a lot.
FYI - Where Tracy gets some of her rhetoric.
Sources explain a lot.
Ryan Salo
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
ape man
The creation myth/origin of judaism, christianity, and islam are essentially the same Adam and Eve story.
Evolution theories, being real science, could probably be considered less heretical than modern creationist ideas. Evolution doesn't take the bible into account, while creation "science" ideas directly hijack biblical origin theories in an attempt to look less silly compared to real science.
Primates are a simple taxonomic discription. Technically, humans are primates. Your own children will be descended from primates, you are a primate, and your parents are primates.
If god did create humans in his own image, then why did God create so many earlier versions of bipedal primates before humans over a span of several millions of years? They had fire and stone tools and probably could talk. Are they all in hell today?
Evolution theories, being real science, could probably be considered less heretical than modern creationist ideas. Evolution doesn't take the bible into account, while creation "science" ideas directly hijack biblical origin theories in an attempt to look less silly compared to real science.
Primates are a simple taxonomic discription. Technically, humans are primates. Your own children will be descended from primates, you are a primate, and your parents are primates.
If god did create humans in his own image, then why did God create so many earlier versions of bipedal primates before humans over a span of several millions of years? They had fire and stone tools and probably could talk. Are they all in hell today?
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
It is hard to reconcile the fossil record with the bible. It depends on which primate fossils you consider human and not human. But we know many of these primates could use fire and make tools and probably talk. Presumably, God would have ‘created’ each version of them, even if there is no clear species line of demarcation between them.
Today we make cars. An 85 nova is a car, and a 67 nova is also a car. They don’t look much like each other. They were both created. A Model T is more different from a 2008 Corolla than a human is from a gorilla. Its got different shaped parts, and is made from different metal alloys and plastics and has a bunch of electronics parts and comes in more shades of black paint. No matter how many cars I observe in parking lots and on the highway, I don’t see most of the models of cars from the history of cars.
Most of the varieties of dogs around today have only been around for a few hundred years. A few broader categories of dogs have only been around for a few thousand years. Most of them don’t look like wolves or Carolina yellow dogs or dingos. Maybe if civilization collapses and the next civilization has no knowledge of dogs they will dig up all these fossils and classify them as different species of canines and try to trace the evolution of canines.
Today we know a lot about chemistry and genetics. We can use DNA and chemistry testing to identify people, to identify diseases, and to make medications for diseases. We know a lot about how DNA works. If there is some divine Creator, they would obviously know much more about DNA than us. They would monkey around with it just by thinking about it every few hundred thousand years, moving a few dna molecules here and there they way those guys on cable tv weld together custom motorcycles. I doubt they would materialize whole new lifeforms within a sphere of light with inspirational music in the background and Disney cartoon characters and angels looking on in awe and reverence.
If we could “makeâ€Â
Today we make cars. An 85 nova is a car, and a 67 nova is also a car. They don’t look much like each other. They were both created. A Model T is more different from a 2008 Corolla than a human is from a gorilla. Its got different shaped parts, and is made from different metal alloys and plastics and has a bunch of electronics parts and comes in more shades of black paint. No matter how many cars I observe in parking lots and on the highway, I don’t see most of the models of cars from the history of cars.
Most of the varieties of dogs around today have only been around for a few hundred years. A few broader categories of dogs have only been around for a few thousand years. Most of them don’t look like wolves or Carolina yellow dogs or dingos. Maybe if civilization collapses and the next civilization has no knowledge of dogs they will dig up all these fossils and classify them as different species of canines and try to trace the evolution of canines.
Today we know a lot about chemistry and genetics. We can use DNA and chemistry testing to identify people, to identify diseases, and to make medications for diseases. We know a lot about how DNA works. If there is some divine Creator, they would obviously know much more about DNA than us. They would monkey around with it just by thinking about it every few hundred thousand years, moving a few dna molecules here and there they way those guys on cable tv weld together custom motorcycles. I doubt they would materialize whole new lifeforms within a sphere of light with inspirational music in the background and Disney cartoon characters and angels looking on in awe and reverence.
If we could “makeâ€Â