Well Mike Huckabee has my vote.

[Greyroofoo]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MDUQW8LUMs8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[NoMyths]

It's certainly a great commercial, and hits exactly the demographic from which he (and any candidate) would hope for a huge push.

"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard--only another face."
[Edit: This has since been corrected to "only another fist."]

Maybe the single most absurd thing a presidential candidate has ever said -- absolutely beautiful.

[Butter]

Still waiting for the all-important Jeff Speakman endorsement.

[larrymcg421]

Chuck Norris is going to escort illegal immigrants to school? He's going to carry them to hospitals?

[Anthony]

Maybe the single most absurd thing a presidential candidate has ever said .

actually...

"Read my lips: no....new...taxes."

[NoMyths]

actually...

"Read my lips: no....new...taxes."

That wasn't absurd, it was ironic.

[Marc Vaughan]

Thats fantastic ... :D

[Aylmar]

It's certainly a great commercial, and hits exactly the demographic from which he (and any candidate) would hope for a huge push.

"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard--only another face."

Maybe the single most absurd thing a presidential candidate has ever said -- absolutely beautiful.

I thought it was "only another fist"? I'll have to watch it again...

[sabotai]

I thought it was "only another fist"? I'll have to watch it again...

I thought I heard "another fist" as well.

[Toddzilla]

“Dear Wayne,” Huckabee wrote in a letter to Wayne Dumond. “My desire is that you be released from prison."

He ain't getting my vote.

[NoMyths]

I thought it was "only another fist"? I'll have to watch it again...

Relistened to it and yep, you're right -- it's fist.

Still pretty durned absurd.

[Maple Leafs]

Huckabee has taken the early lead in the all-important "ads based entirely on Internet jokes that have been around for years", but there's still time for others to catch up.

Some quick suggestions:

- lolclintonz ("I can haz vot now pleez?")
- Rudy Guiliani spinning around pretending to be a jedi
- John McCain dropping mentos into coke bottles
- Barack Obama knocking himself out with a nunchuck
- LonelyKucinich52

[Jas_lov]

“Dear Wayne,” Huckabee wrote in a letter to Wayne Dumond. “My desire is that you be released from prison."

He ain't getting my vote.

Yeah, he lost any chance of me voting for him after I learned that he lobbies to get rapists released from prison who go out and rape again. A woman lost her life because he was playing politics.

[Malificent]

It was that whole "doesn't believe in evolution" thing that cost him my vote.

[SackAttack]

Honestly, though, Malificent...does his belief or lack thereof make evolution any more/less factual?

If so, the kinda guy who can change reality with his belief system is probably the best man for the job, don't you think? He could unbelieve Islamofascism after swearing the Presidential Oath and bring the troops home from Iraq on January 21st.

[CU Tiger]

Huckabee has taken the early lead in the all-important "ads based entirely on Internet jokes that have been around for years", but there's still time for others to catch up.

Some quick suggestions:

- lolclintonz ("I can haz vot now pleez?")
- Rudy Guiliani spinning around pretending to be a jedi
- John McCain dropping mentos into coke bottles
- Barack Obama knocking himself out with a nunchuck
- LonelyKucinich52

Or Hillary "Alien Face" Clinton

All your votes are belong to us...

He [Bush] set up us, tha bomb

[Radii]

Honestly, though, Malificent...does his belief or lack thereof make evolution any more/less factual?

I'm probably going to stir up more than intended here, but for many(including myself), failing to acknowledge evolution as something that occurs and is valid scientific theory suggests a much greater problem in a person's ability to see logic and reason. At the very least it has me concerned that his decision making process, potentially on critical world events, might be based entirely on a very narrow religious view and may completely ignore any other opinion, fact, or piece of advice that contradicts his perception of religion. And it is a warning sign to me that a person may be completely out of touch with the world the rest of us live in, even moreso than your average politician.

Based on the current administration, I think that a very large amount of moderates and possibly left leaning people who would be willing to vote for the right republican are going to be more afraid of things like this than maybe we would have been 8 years ago.

[Kang]

I couldn't vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.

[DanGarion]

No matter how Christian I am, I still believe in evolution and I could never vote for someone that completely throws it out the window.

[Vegas Vic]

I couldn't vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.

Hopefully, none of these guys (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660) will ever run for president.

[SackAttack]

I'm probably going to stir up more than intended here, but for many(including myself), failing to acknowledge evolution as something that occurs and is valid scientific theory suggests a much greater problem in a person's ability to see logic and reason. At the very least it has me concerned that his decision making process, potentially on critical world events, might be based entirely on a very narrow religious view and may completely ignore any other opinion, fact, or piece of advice that contradicts his perception of religion. And it is a warning sign to me that a person may be completely out of touch with the world the rest of us live in, even moreso than your average politician.

What makes you think "the world the rest of us live in" is necessarily solid criteria for choosing a President?

The people at-large don't necessarily know best. Look at the last 150 years of American history for examples.

If you want to go a more scientific route, 515 years ago, the world "the rest of us live in" was flat. I guess for some it still is, but hey.

400 years ago, that world was terracentric. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun, it's the other way around!

Hell, Bush caught all sorts of flack for his stance on stem cell research, but the last couple days have brought to light research that shows that it is possible to reap the medical and scientific benefits while avoiding some of the ethical issues that has made it such a lightning rod to begin with.

Science is remarkable in large part because you consistently find that you know less tomorrow than you did two days ago. What we're going to learn about evolutionary theory over the next years and decades may change radically from what is accepted today.

In a sense, I view evolution as the agnostic/atheistic equivalent of the religious litmus test candidates have gone through over the years. Kennedy took some flack because people thought he'd call the Pope on important issues. Romney is taking flack because some people think he would defer to the Mormon clergy in the same way.

It almost seems like Huckabee is taking flack because people are afraid he *wouldn't* consult the scientists.

Don't get me wrong. Two caveats here.

1) I don't think the evolutionary process and creationism are necessarily an either/or proposition. I don't think accepting evolution requires discarding one's faith, and I don't think holding that faith requires rejecting evolution. I'm not a Huckabee supporter.

2) I don't plan to vote for him in the primaries, and I don't know what my Presidential ballot will look like. I just think that one's stance on evolution is kind of a strange weeding-out mechanism.

[Kodos]

Science!

[Radii]

Science is remarkable in large part because you consistently find that you know less tomorrow than you did two days ago.


This is very true and is an important thing in science, but it gets thrown around as a horrible excuse for statements like these because there is no other reasonable way to back up a position. Perhaps natural selection, survival of the fittest, and the theory of evolution haven't quite reached the level of acceptance as "the earth revolves around the sun", it is my opinion that it has come more than far enough that choosing to dismiss it is a sign of serious issues that indicate one is not capable of making competent decisions and one that I could not possibly accept as the leader of my country.

Also, if you really, honestly believe that Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution because he has such a strong belief in the scientific method and the concept that there are no facts in science, only theories that grow stronger as they fail to be disproven, I think you're 100% delusional(I'm not speaking to you directly SA, just the general 'you' out there). Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution because it contradicts his religious beliefs. That tells me enough about him to know that I quite simply cannot trust him to be a leader.

Honest to god in my mind his religious beliefs so cloud his judgment that I think it is not unfair to make a direct comparasion to the level of ignorance shown by the president of Iran when he says that the Holocaust didn't happen. Its not the same on any sort of scale of hatred or intolerance, but as far as allowing one's religion to cloud and confuse reason and judgment, the two are on the same level.

[JPhillips]

Sack: A couple of points. First the very scientists that made the breakthrough in stem cells said they couldn't have gotten there without embryonic stem cells. They also believe that embryonic stem cells are currently more viable than ther method.

Second, applying an equivalence between a flat Earth or a terracentric universe and evolutionary theory is silly. Both flat Earth and terracentric universe theories came about without any real evidence. The people who created those theories didn't have the tools to see it any other way. Evolution, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence backing it up. There may be gaps and some of the specifics may be deemed incorrect in the future, but the body of evidence proves that to some degree evolution is a fact.

Huckabee's denial of evolution is a denial of a mountain of scientific evidence. It does show a willingness to trust belief over empirical evidence. It's one thing to say that he believes God played a role in guiding evolution(a stance that I happen to believe), it's something completely different to believe in that God created everything as is in six days.

Yes, we'll no more tomorrow than we do today, but denying what we know through scientific experiment and the fossil record clearly does show a decision making process more concerned with faith than evidence.

[SackAttack]

Sack: A couple of points. First the very scientists that made the breakthrough in stem cells said they couldn't have gotten there without embryonic stem cells. They also believe that embryonic stem cells are currently more viable than ther method.

Key word there is 'currently,' though. I'm not convinced that the path [edit: past? what the hell was I smoking?] of least resistance is always the best one to take, particularly where medical science is concerned.

Second, applying an equivalence between a flat Earth or a terracentric universe and evolutionary theory is silly. Both flat Earth and terracentric universe theories came about without any real evidence. The people who created those theories didn't have the tools to see it any other way. Evolution, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence backing it up. There may be gaps and some of the specifics may be deemed incorrect in the future, but the body of evidence proves that to some degree evolution is a fact.

My intent wasn't to say that evolution is akin to a flat earth theory. My intent was to say that what we know or believe to be true about evolution today isn't necessarily going to bear any resemblance to what we know or believe to be true about evolution fifty years from now. The scientific method is stronger today than it was 400 years ago, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a breakthrough of some kind that fundamentally changes the nature of the science. I guess all I'm really saying here is that, to me, a large part of science has always been about the open mind. If you go into a study with the mindset that you're going to find something in particular, you're more likely to find what you were looking for than what you weren't. We know that evolution of some kind exists, but to say that we therefore know everything about how it works is disingenuous at best.

I guess you sort of get at what I'm driving at in your next paragraph.

Huckabee's denial of evolution is a denial of a mountain of scientific evidence. It does show a willingness to trust belief over empirical evidence. It's one thing to say that he believes God played a role in guiding evolution(a stance that I happen to believe), it's something completely different to believe in that God created everything as is in six days.

Bolded the bit in which we're in agreement. As to the latter, I think what we start getting into is a semantic discussion of what's meant by "evolution." To some people - think the Scopes trial - "evolution" brings to mind the idea of monkey ----> early man ----> man. Someone who doesn't believe that man evolved from monkeys may well reject "evolution" if that's the concept they associate with the word.

I'm not going to get into "as is" as I don't think I have the words to articulate what I'm thinking on that subject. While I don't know that God *did* create the universe in six days, I gotta think that a Being that exists outside of space and time would certainly have the capability to do so, if the desire to do it existed.

Yes, we'll know more tomorrow than we do today, but denying what we know through scientific experiment and the fossil record clearly does show a decision making process more concerned with faith than evidence.

Well, there's faith, and there's blind faith. Sounds to me like you object more to the latter than the former.

[Crim]

This thread has the potential to spiral out of control.

[Crim]

Dola, in before the [insert undesirable thread consequence here]!

[k0ruptr]

This thread has the potential to spiral out of control.

I'm thinking this thread won't exist in less then a week.

[Cringer]

Though I think creationism is a bunch of poop, I am not going to let that be such a major issue with me that I would automatically rule out a guy for president because he believes in it. I am pretty sure we have had a few successful Presidents in the history of this country who believed in creationism.

A guy who lets out rapists but ignores the West Memphis Three and possibly helping them get a new trial, that's a guy I can rule out.

[GoldenEagle]

I saw Mike Huckabee walking down the street yesterday. He waved at me.

[clintl]

Regardless of whether evolution eventually gets replaced by another theory, young-earth creationism has been thoroughly and irrefutably disproved. It's the flat earth theory of biological orignins. I don't know what kind of creationist Mike Huckabee is, and I don't think he has a dangerous agenda, but if he happens to be a young-earth creationist, I would agree that his thinking skills are suspect. If he's an old-earth creationist, no so much. I think it's more possible to reconcile old-earth creationism with the evidence, even though it's still not science.

[Cringer]

No one ever wants to give aliens the credit they deserve for creating us by genetically altering early 'man' and then leaving us here so they could come back later and abduct us for anal probing.

I'm voting for Riley Martin.

[BYU 14]

As usual this thread gets way too serious. It is actually refreshing to see a lighthearted commerical that hits on some issues and keeps it light, instead of the usual mud slinging and excessiver hyperbole.

[Greyroofoo]

Chuck Norris disapproves of the direction of this thread.

[revrew]

Regardless of whether evolution eventually gets replaced by another theory, young-earth creationism has been thoroughly and irrefutably disproved.

Can you convince a born-and-bred, steeped in the culture Iranian Muslim that Muhammad was really a demon-possessed madman? Of course not. That person has been conditioned, educated, and cultured to revere Muhammad as the Prophet. Would it even do any good to present him with the evidence that suggests the falseness of his religion? No. Why even talk about it? Hardly worthwhile on an Internet discussion board.

What can be said but, "I respectfully submit that you are deceived. Through no fault of your own, you have been conditioned to believe a lie is truth. And while I can't convince of you of truth in this thread, and won't really try, I will send up this dissenting voice rather than allowing your deceived one to be the only voice heard. Perhaps we can still be friends, even though we each believe the other is dogmatically deceived."

In the same way, with the same words, I respond to this statement quoted above.

[clintl]

The evidence is overwhelming that the universe and the Earth are very old. For the universe and Earth to be young would require that the basic laws of physics have changed since their creation. Now, suppose God exists and did make the universe 6000 years ago. Why, if He wants his creations to believe in Him, would He create a universe that appears to 20 billion years old, and tell us it's only 6000 years old? What purpose would that serve? And yes, I know that young-earth creationists blame the deception on Satan. But does that argument have any real logic behind it? Doesn't that really imply that God was not the sole creator of the universe?

I'm not trying to change your mind here. I don't really care on an individual basis whether someone believes in evolution, creationism, intelligent design, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, or that Earth was created from a god's armpit wax (a Northern California Indian creation myth). What I do care about is whether what is taught in public school science classes is science.

And here's where the crucial difference lies between faith and science. Faith assumes a truth, and constructs arguments to support it. It does not look for, and generally either ignores or attacks, disconfirming evidence. Science proposes a hypothesis, and actively seeks out both confirming and disconfirming evidence. And in the long run, science has had a much better track record at advancing knowledge and finding the truth. In every single historical dispute between science and religion, the methods of science have prevailed over religion in understanding how the universe works. And that should be no surprise to anyone, because religious texts were never meant to be science textbooks, and using them that way is a fundamental abuse of their purpose.

And that's what bothers me about Huckabee - he has made statements that indicate he does not understand why creationism is not science. Based on his past record and the nature of his statements, I don't really think that he is going to do anything about it. But there is some potential for mischief there.

[revrew]

Yeah, he lost any chance of me voting for him after I learned that he lobbies to get rapists released from prison who go out and rape again. A woman lost her life because he was playing politics.

The facts of this case, coupled with Huckabee's testimony, make this conclusion suspect. It comes down to a "he said-she said," admittedly, but for those that would accuse Huckabee of covering his tracks, those that are "exposing" his so-called tracks are equally suspect.

Here's what can be verified:

1. The rapist was sentenced to life, but a previous governor (Jim Guy Tucker) made him eligible for parole.
2. The rapist was given an unusually heavy sentence to begin with, and his prison behavior record was untarnished, making #1 above not completely unjustified.
3. The rapist suffered additional consequences in that he was forcibly castrated prior to his conviction, the local sheriff displaying the rapist's testacles on his desk for all to see. Said sheriff later lost a law suit for this morbid humiliation.
4. Huckabee expressed sympathy for the convict, but nonetheless refused further commutation of the sentence on four occasions, leaving the decision strictly to the parole board.
5. The seven-member parole board that paroled the rapist consisted entirely of Democrats, appointed by Huckabee's predecessors, including Jim Guy Tucker.
6. Years later, Huckabee did not extend the contracts of said parole board members, essentially costing them jobs in which they made $75k per year. (one would assume he replaced them with Republicans, but I haven't researched that.)
7. Only 6 years after the parole, and four years after the rapist was re-arrested, in the middle of an election cycle and after their jobs were lost, did 2 former parole board members come forward with the story of Huckabee "pressuring" them. Prior to Huckabee costing them their jobs and seeking re-election --- even at the time of the rapist's re-arrest -- these board members were silent.

Now, of course, who you gonna believe? The man trying to become president? Or the board members with cause and political motivation to be vindictive? Neither are above cause for suspicion. But before you judge one to be lying and the other not, be aware that not only the accused, but also the accusers have cause for falsehood.

[revrew]

And here's where the crucial difference lies between faith and science. Faith assumes a truth, and constructs arguments to support it. It does not look for, and generally either ignores or attacks, disconfirming evidence. Science proposes a hypothesis, and actively seeks out both confirming and disconfirming evidence. And in the long run, science has had a much better track record at advancing knowledge and finding the truth. In every single historical dispute between science and religion, the methods of science have prevailed over religion in understanding how the universe works.

I appreciate the reasonableness with which you have conducted this discussion. I have been in these debates on FOFC before and seen them spiral downward all too quickly. Let me make a few responses:

A close look at the history of science will reveal that its record is marred heavily by the scientists themselves--men and women who assumed a truth, then sought evidence to support it, people who actively ignored disconfirming evidence. I disagree quite vigorously that science has the better track record at finding truth. Science's record of finding truth is a quagmire of failed, flawed, and distorted conclusions that later scientists had to correct. This is not, again, because the principles of science are unnoble, but because of the humans who fallibly attempted to follow them.

Just as mideival scientists often began from a premise of faith, thus distorting their eventual conclusions, our modern biological and earth-history sciences have their roots in a highly materialistic, natural (vs. supernatural) worldview that values only the seen and the rational. I contend that this has--just as it did in mideival times--distorted the conclusions of the prevalent scientific community. It has, I say, violated the very principals you extol in your post. Modern science started with a faith point -- there is no Creator-God -- and has sought the evidence to support it, while ignoring or dismissing the disconfoming evidence. If science is allowed to continue for the next 300 years, I believe future scientists will scoff at how blindly today's scientists followed the dogma of naturalism and correct the many errors today's scientists are thus prone to. (A minority community within science is already doing this, but as in Mideival times, they are persecuted -- only in their careers, not burned at the stake, admittedly. See the story of a friend of mine, Guillermo Gonzalez.)

As for what is taught in schools, the prevalent scientific theories of the day are naturally what should be taught in science class. The theories should be left as theories (not laws), but that's another discussion.

I begrudge no man his faith in science, but beware him of his trust in scientists. And to hear you speak so highly of the history science vs. religion surprises me. Could there be two more mistaken, trouble-causing institutions in all of history (perhaps government and law, but that's another discussion, too)? I certainly wouldn't look to religion for truth. And science has proven its inability to find it as well. I instead, prefer to investigate the God who said, "I am the truth."

[GrantDawg]

The facts of this case, coupled with Huckabee's testimony, make this conclusion suspect. It comes down to a "he said-she said," admittedly, but for those that would accuse Huckabee of covering his tracks, those that are "exposing" his so-called tracks are equally suspect.

Here's what can be verified:

1. The rapist was sentenced to life, but a previous governor (Jim Guy Tucker) made him eligible for parole.
2. The rapist was given an unusually heavy sentence to begin with, and his prison behavior record was untarnished, making #1 above not completely unjustified.
3. The rapist suffered additional consequences in that he was forcibly castrated prior to his conviction, the local sheriff displaying the rapist's testacles on his desk for all to see. Said sheriff later lost a law suit for this morbid humiliation.
4. Huckabee expressed sympathy for the convict, but nonetheless refused further commutation of the sentence on four occasions, leaving the decision strictly to the parole board.
5. The seven-member parole board that paroled the rapist consisted entirely of Democrats, appointed by Huckabee's predecessors, including Jim Guy Tucker.
6. Years later, Huckabee did not extend the contracts of said parole board members, essentially costing them jobs in which they made $75k per year. (one would assume he replaced them with Republicans, but I haven't researched that.)
7. Only 6 years after the parole, and four years after the rapist was re-arrested, in the middle of an election cycle and after their jobs were lost, did 2 former parole board members come forward with the story of Huckabee "pressuring" them. Prior to Huckabee costing them their jobs and seeking re-election --- even at the time of the rapist's re-arrest -- these board members were silent.

Now, of course, who you gonna believe? The man trying to become president? Or the board members with cause and political motivation to be vindictive? Neither are above cause for suspicion. But before you judge one to be lying and the other not, be aware that not only the accused, but also the accusers have cause for falsehood.

Well thought out facts, but as always, well thought out facts have no bearing in politics. Is there any way you can condense all this into simple sound-bites that require no thought to understand? If not, then the damage is done and will not be reversed. Oh, how I used to love politics, and now revile them.

BTW, you know what I've learned just looking a little at all this (I haven't followed any of the presidential race at all at this point, so knew nothing about Huckabee untill this thread)? Huckabee was not consider a strong canidate untill very recently, and now all guns are turning his way because the "powers" of the Republican party are seeing him as a real threat. He is probably going to start growing in the polls for awhile untill the "dirty works" group totally destroy him not long before the main primaries. Who is the power-brokers favorite son right now? Romney? I haven't a clue, because I haven't wanted to pay attention.

[revrew]

My guess is Guiliani is the favorite of the "powers that be," or at least the "people who think they'll be the powers if their man gets elected".

[st.cronin]

My guess is Guiliani is the favorite of the "powers that be," or at least the "people who think they'll be the powers if their man gets elected".

Correct. (afaict)

[Crim]

So, to clarify everyone's position:

Regardless of whether evolution eventually gets replaced by another theory, young-earth creationism has been thoroughly and irrefutably disproved.

I respectfully submit that you are deceived. Through no fault of your own, you have been conditioned to believe a lie is truth. And while I can't convince of you of truth in this thread, and won't really try, I will send up this dissenting voice rather than allowing your deceived one to be the only voice heard. Perhaps we can still be friends, even though we each believe the other is dogmatically deceived.

[revrew]

correct. I've said my piece now. I shall return to my life, and you may go back to your regularly scheduled broacasting.

[JPhillips]

rev: There's a difference between a scientist admitting that there is a gap in evolutionary theory, which they all acknowledge, and asserting that the gap must mean that God created the world in six days six thousand years ago. There are gaps in the fossil record and some puzzling problems within evolution, but the basic premise of species evolving is clear.

Part of the problem, IMO, is trying to turn faith into science. I have my own belief that God played a hand in evolution and that the story of Genesis is an allegory, but one that has the truth of God's hand in it. That faith of mine is unprovable. I can't show any evidence that God created the universe, but I still believe it to be true. However, I don't ever try to equate my belief with the body of evidence that science has collected.

Science doesn't pose a threat to me because most of my faith is grounded in the unknowable. If science could clearly fill in all the gaps in evolutionary theory tomorrow it wouldn't lessen my faith.

[JPhillips]

My guess is Guiliani is the favorite of the "powers that be," or at least the "people who think they'll be the powers if their man gets elected".

I think part of the fun of the Republican primary is that the powers that be are split. Some want Rudy, some want Romney and some want Huckabee. It's a fascinating struggle between the various factions of the Republican party.

[Jas_lov]

The facts of this case, coupled with Huckabee's testimony, make this conclusion suspect. It comes down to a "he said-she said," admittedly, but for those that would accuse Huckabee of covering his tracks, those that are "exposing" his so-called tracks are equally suspect.

Here's what can be verified:

1. The rapist was sentenced to life, but a previous governor (Jim Guy Tucker) made him eligible for parole.
2. The rapist was given an unusually heavy sentence to begin with, and his prison behavior record was untarnished, making #1 above not completely unjustified.
3. The rapist suffered additional consequences in that he was forcibly castrated prior to his conviction, the local sheriff displaying the rapist's testacles on his desk for all to see. Said sheriff later lost a law suit for this morbid humiliation.
4. Huckabee expressed sympathy for the convict, but nonetheless refused further commutation of the sentence on four occasions, leaving the decision strictly to the parole board.
5. The seven-member parole board that paroled the rapist consisted entirely of Democrats, appointed by Huckabee's predecessors, including Jim Guy Tucker.
6. Years later, Huckabee did not extend the contracts of said parole board members, essentially costing them jobs in which they made $75k per year. (one would assume he replaced them with Republicans, but I haven't researched that.)
7. Only 6 years after the parole, and four years after the rapist was re-arrested, in the middle of an election cycle and after their jobs were lost, did 2 former parole board members come forward with the story of Huckabee "pressuring" them. Prior to Huckabee costing them their jobs and seeking re-election --- even at the time of the rapist's re-arrest -- these board members were silent.

Now, of course, who you gonna believe? The man trying to become president? Or the board members with cause and political motivation to be vindictive? Neither are above cause for suspicion. But before you judge one to be lying and the other not, be aware that not only the accused, but also the accusers have cause for falsehood.

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419

Here are the facts that I read. Can we believe an advisor to Huckabee who has coroborated the parole board's story? He obviously wanted Dumond released as he wrote himself in a letter to him. I think the case is pretty strong and all he does is blame it on other people. I don't understand how people can defend this guy.

There's other reasons Huckabee is un-electable. A new story has come out that he wanted to isolate AIDS patients from the rest of the population. I wasn't aware that it was contagious. Now his position has changed and he says, "What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business." Yet when asked if he would veto a repeal of UIGEA as President, he said yes. So I guess our private lives aren't our business, they're the government's. He wants to enforce his morality on everybody else, and that's not right. The creationsim thing doesn't even really bother me. But the rape case and the forcing his goodness on others is damning. Not to mention his fiscal and tax record as Governor were atrocious. I used to think he would be a nice alternative to the neo-con frontrunners, but it turns out he's just the same as they are.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids

[Maple Leafs]

If anybody in this thread actually causes anyone on the other side to say "you know, that's a good point, OK then I've changed my mind", I'll get that person's name tattooed on my scrot.

[Crim]

If anybody in this thread actually causes anyone on the other side to say "you know, that's a good point, OK then I've changed my mind", I'll get that person's name tattooed on my scrot.

I'm reading, interestedly and with an open mind, ML. I am, uncharacteristically for me, undecided amongst the Republican candidates atm.

[Crim]

But my above comment, I think, does not rise to the criteria you set forth so as to compel you to get my name on your scrot. Sigh.

[sabotai]

I'm reading, interestedly and with an open mind, ML. I am, uncharacteristically for me, undecided amongst the Republican candidates atm.

Oh, if that's the case, you're going to have to leave. We don't take kindly to your type around here. ;)

[Maple Leafs]

I'm reading, interestedly and with an open mind, ML. I am, uncharacteristically for me, undecided amongst the Republican candidates atm.
Sorry, I should have added two caveats:

- I'm talking about the creationism/evolution debate, not the overall politcal discussion
- The winner needs to have a short screen name. I'd rather not get into the reasons, they just do.

[Crim]

stop causing problems.


(this was to sabotai)

[st.cronin]

If anybody in this thread actually causes anyone on the other side to say "you know, that's a good point, OK then I've changed my mind", I'll get that person's name tattooed on my scrot.

you know, that's a good point, OK then I've changed my mind

[Crim]

- I'm talking about the creationism/evolution debate, not the overall politcal discussion.
MY BAD I'M ELIMINATED FROM THE CONTEST.
- The winner needs to have a short screen name. I'd rather not get into the reasons, they just do.
I'M BACK IN THE RUNNING!

[Crim]

Other than Icy, I think I've got a good shot at this thing. st.cronin, at nine characters, yeah right keep dreaming.

[clintl]

I appreciate the reasonableness with which you have conducted this discussion. I have been in these debates on FOFC before and seen them spiral downward all too quickly.

And you as well.



Let me make a few responses:

A close look at the history of science will reveal that its record is marred heavily by the scientists themselves--men and women who assumed a truth, then sought evidence to support it, people who actively ignored disconfirming evidence. I disagree quite vigorously that science has the better track record at finding truth. Science's record of finding truth is a quagmire of failed, flawed, and distorted conclusions that later scientists had to correct. This is not, again, because the principles of science are unnoble, but because of the humans who fallibly attempted to follow them.

I've had this discussion with others who believe in creationism, so your criticism of science is not a surprise. However, what you regard as a weakness, I view as science's greatest strength - it's ability to self-correct and weed out errors over time. Many of the "failed, flawed, and distorted conclusions" are not the result of the weakness in scientific methodology, but rather incomplete information and insufficient observational technology. Are scientists fallible? Of course. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But the mistakes get exposed and corrected eventually.

Just as mideival scientists often began from a premise of faith, thus distorting their eventual conclusions, our modern biological and earth-history sciences have their roots in a highly materialistic, natural (vs. supernatural) worldview that values only the seen and the rational. I contend that this has--just as it did in mideival times--distorted the conclusions of the prevalent scientific community. It has, I say, violated the very principals you extol in your post. Modern science started with a faith point -- there is no Creator-God -- and has sought the evidence to support it, while ignoring or dismissing the disconfoming evidence. If science is allowed to continue for the next 300 years, I believe future scientists will scoff at how blindly today's scientists followed the dogma of naturalism and correct the many errors today's scientists are thus prone to.

Really, I think there is a huge diversity of opinion among scientists regarding whether God exists. The thing is, from the point of view of being able to look at scientific evidence and conduct experiments, how do conduct an experiment to test whether God exists? You can't. Or, at least, no one has figured out an experiment that can do this. Just as I don't believe religion is equipped to answer the process by which the universe came into being and evolved, I don't think science is equipped (at least not at this point) to explore the existence of something outside the realm of the natural and observable.

As for what is taught in schools, the prevalent scientific theories of the day are naturally what should be taught in science class. The theories should be left as theories (not laws), but that's another discussion.

In every science curriculum I've ever had contact with, the distinction between a scientific theory and a scientific law are made very clear. However, let's be clear what a scientific theory is: it's a comprehensive explanation of related observed phenomena and experimental results. And students are taught that when observations or results do not fit a theory, then the theory either has to be modified to explain the new results, or replaced. Part of the problem is that most people not involved in science on a regular basis don't remember that, or weren't paying attention in class when the scientific definition of "theory" was taught in the first place.

[Radii]

- The winner needs to have a short screen name. I'd rather not get into the reasons, they just do.


Bah, lame. I was all of a sudden getting very curious to know what "Bea Arthur's Hip"'s opinions on evolution were.

[Crim]

Bah, lame. I was all of a sudden getting very curious to know what "Bea Arthur's Hip"'s opinions on evolution were.

I see your Bea Arthur's Hip, and raise you Jari Rantanen's Shorts.

[DanGarion]

It doesn't really matter who we all vote for since ultimately God will have the candidate he wants put into office, since those that vote will be compelled by God to vote his will...

[DanGarion]

It doesn't really matter who we all vote for since ultimately God will have the candidate he wants put into office, since those that vote will be compelled by God to vote his will...

Hey Marc, why'd you delete your post. It's true! :)