http://www.plime.com/politics/en-ushttp://www.plime.com/politics/http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/

comments (35)   related   share   edit history (0)

< 1 2 >

http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q36« Inc0m : I don't think being skeptical of general scientific consensus makes you stupid I think it just means you put your trust else were.Trouble is, if you hold stock in young-earth, things like oil reserves take on a whole new meaning. There's no point worrying about sucking all the oil out of the earth because it doesn't take that long to make anyway. I mean - heck - it can only be a few thousand years to replenish the earth - MAX right?

The other worrying thought is that there's a large percentage of evangelicals that believe we're in end times too, which means things like global warming don't really matter because we'll all be taken up in the rapture before the world goes to hell in a hand basket. One step further is that good little Christian Presidents may even help rapture along a little...

Evangelical Christian Presidents? I think I'd rather live under a Muslim theocracy.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q35http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q34« Boomshank : Nope - not usually. They might hand-pick their closest staff members, but beyond that, the institution is pretty much in place.

You're right in some respects. A lot of advice would be coming from people they put there, but there would be an incredible amount of times when other specialists are brought in to advise.Got it.

So, the question now becomes one of how stubborn is he and on how many topics? A modern politician can't afford to be stubborn on too many issues and hope for their career to survive.


(goes off to study Huckabee's record in Arkansas some more)]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q33« ieldanth : Doesn't he hire his own advisors? What fool would not listen to people who they specifically hired to give them information? Especially if they are all in agreement?

(other than Bush, of course)Nope - not usually. They might hand-pick their closest staff members, but beyond that, the institution is pretty much in place.

You're right in some respects. A lot of advice would be coming from people they put there, but there would be an incredible amount of times when other specialists are brought in to advise.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q32« naughtiousmaximus : Science doesn't have all the answers, and realistically hasn't even got a good start on sorting out which questions are actually worth asking.I don't believe anyone has said that it does. I do, however, believe that it has a pretty good start in asking questions that matter.

Get over it. Real scientists have no issues with this idea, the apologists and "true believers" on the other hand...

What idea are you talking about?

Religion, in this case fundamentalist Christian belief, has only one answer, but it works for any possible question. Other than the approach, I see very little to separate them from many of the science crowd.

The approach is a difference and it separates science and faith in vast ways. Religion makes claims with absolutely no supporting evidence. Science finds the evidence first and then makes the claims. That's enough of a difference to me.

The reality is, science acts very much like a religions some days, being very dogmatic, so should be very careful about stone-throwing.

Name one instance in which science, as a whole, has been dogmatic and then maybe I'll take that argument as valid.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q31« Boomshank : You're missing the point.

It's not about the age of the earth.

It's about faith in your advisors.

If there's an overwhelming consensus from all your presidential advisors and yet you choose to ignore that advice, YES that's a problem when it comes to leading the country.Doesn't he hire his own advisors? What fool would not listen to people who they specifically hired to give them information? Especially if they are all in agreement?

(other than Bush, of course)]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q30
Religion, in this case fundamentalist Christian belief, has only one answer, but it works for any possible question. Other than the approach, I see very little to separate them from many of the science crowd.

The reality is, science acts very much like a religions some days, being very dogmatic, so should be very careful about stone-throwing. Having said that, fundamentalists should at least consider that they might have misinterpreted certain bits (regardless of who/what wrote the book, presumably it was a human reading and interpreting, how can a mistake at that point be offensive?).

As for "The Huckster" for president, his religious beliefs should not be a test for office, but before you vote for him, make sure you agree that policy in line with "an apocalypse is coming soon" world-view is what you actually want. Whether it's what he believes or not, it's his position towards the electorate.

Cheers]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q29
The logical individual takes it one step further and denies the theists modern god.

The issue lies in the fact that Christian America represents the majority vote.

There are no political platforms that embraces atheism. The ability the seperate church and state in America has been lost. For a candidate to declare an athiest or agnostic belief, would be complete career suicide (despite that statistically, atheists and agnostics outnumber Judaism + Muslim voters, they are just unorganized). They would never work in politics again. Now, would you lie about your beleifs to make millions? Nah, politicians never lie.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q28« Boomshank : You're missing the point.

It's not about the age of the earth.

It's about faith in your advisors.

If there's an overwhelming consensus from all your presidential advisors and yet you choose to ignore that advice, YES that's a problem when it comes to leading the country.Beat me to it.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q27« maven : I think the president would be better off saying he doesn't know much about science and is looking forward to working with accredited professionals that do understand it than to make statements that indicate not only willful ignorance but a closed mind.I agree with you all three times!]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q26http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q25http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q24http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q23« ieldanth : If we have some issue that requires us to know the age of Earth, yes. I may be wrong, but I don't know that the age of Earth comes up much in policy decisions.You're missing the point.

It's not about the age of the earth.

It's about faith in your advisors.

If there's an overwhelming consensus from all your presidential advisors and yet you choose to ignore that advice, YES that's a problem when it comes to leading the country.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q22« makri : I had never heard of anyone in the modern world who would really believe that before I met some Americans. I don't think there are many people like that outside US borders.I'd back you up on that one.

I'm from the UK, so when I started running across young-earthers for the first time over here I was initially amused, until I realized they were deadly serious.

Part of the problem is that it's becoming institutionalized over here. As far as the religious institution anyway. The big ones like Focus on the Family have more money than places to shove it, so they're everywhere. People who surround themselves with the evangelical institution are bombarded with things like young-earth messages from lots of directions at once, so when someone like me comes along and says, "But there's lots of evidence to the contrary for young-earth and none for it," they look at me like 'who am I to refute their minster, and radio host, and magazine writer and novelists'.

It's a scary, scary situation.

Don't shrug it off like it's a little closet phenomenon - it's not.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q21« 2manyusernames : Well it is just as easy to let a man out of prison thinking he has been rehabilitated and be proven wrong without religion coming into it.

I will grant you as I mentioned that his views on evolution have no bearing on his ability to lead the nation. What about if he truly believes that contrary to common sense and massive evidence (oh yeah, evidence that was either planted by God to test us or by Satan to lure us away), that the earth is only 6000 and some odd years.

Wouldn't that show that the man may not be right to lead the entire country. Wouldn't that indicate that such a delusion, such a refusal to accept the truth may cloud some of his decisions?If we have some issue that requires us to know the age of Earth, yes. I may be wrong, but I don't know that the age of Earth comes up much in policy decisions.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q20"...if anybody wants to believe they're the descendants of a primate, they're welcome to do it."*sigh* We didn't decend from apes, no matter how much the current US president may resemble one.

Mr. Huckabee needs to go back to grade 6 science.

And geography, for that matter. There is no National Igloo here.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q19« ieldanth : A president has to handle things that are happening now, not 6,000 or 6 billion years ago. His stance on what happened before recorded time isn't exactly relevant to what is happening today. If he was being elected as president of a paleological society, I would have my doubts. If evolution was absolutely essential to the day to day running of a country, I would be concerned. Trouble is, on the macro scale, evolution happens over millions of years. Long after we are dust, it might matter.

In other words, he may be wrong about evolution, but I simply don't see it as relevant to his ability to run the country. I can find other ways of determining if he is logically deficient without filtering them through the lens of my own belief systems. Letting a man out of prison on his word that he was reformed only to have the man kill again is one glaring example.Well it is just as easy to let a man out of prison thinking he has been rehabilitated and be proven wrong without religion coming into it.

I will grant you as I mentioned that his views on evolution have no bearing on his ability to lead the nation. What about if he truly believes that contrary to common sense and massive evidence (oh yeah, evidence that was either planted by God to test us or by Satan to lure us away), that the earth is only 6000 and some odd years.

Wouldn't that show that the man may not be right to lead the entire country. Wouldn't that indicate that such a delusion, such a refusal to accept the truth may cloud some of his decisions?]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q18« Boomshank : I think you'd be VERY surprised to see stats on how many Christians believe in a young earth.I had never heard of anyone in the modern world who would really believe that before I met some Americans. I don't think there are many people like that outside US borders.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q17« blurmore : The number of people who truly believe the earth and life is only 6000 years old is probably the same number who believe the earth is flat. I think you'd be VERY surprised to see stats on how many Christians believe in a young earth.

I'm not a Christian but I've been going to churches and gently asking lots of questions and I'd say the evangelical movement in America is made up predominantly of people who are being spoon-fed and therefore believe the young earth 'theory'.

Now when you figure the evangelical movement is taking off in North America like a bonfire at a fireworks factory, the numbers on young-earthers is large - and growing daily.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q16« dollyllama :
We share all but one gene with chimpanzees.We may share some similarities to chimps but not that much. We only share 96% of our genome with chimps.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q15
In other words, he may be wrong about evolution, but I simply don't see it as relevant to his ability to run the country. I can find other ways of determining if he is logically deficient without filtering them through the lens of my own belief systems. Letting a man out of prison on his word that he was reformed only to have the man kill again is one glaring example.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q14http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q13« coldbladed : Nah, not at all. Like I said, statements that make you think one way or the other. I may be a Christian but I'm undecided on the issue of evolution as I can see it both ways.

Thumping the Bible won't make me think evolution is wrong but believing in God doesn't mean science is wrong either.

All I'm saying is that I haven't been convinced and in my opinion there isn't convincing enough info out there (for me). And yes I have looked.Well spoken. Both concepts can easily co-exist. There is nothing in either idea that precludes the other.


I can't watch the video. Does Huckabee believe that the earth is only a few 1000 years? That is a delusion that is not shared by the majority of Christians.

I have no problem with him if he feels evolution isn't the complete answer or even if it is not any part of the answer. If he thinks the earth is a few 1000 years, than he really has no business being anywhere near power of any sort.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q12« coldbladed : Nah, not at all. Like I said, statements that make you think one way or the other. I may be a Christian but I'm undecided on the issue of evolution as I can see it both ways.

Thumping the Bible won't make me think evolution is wrong but believing in God doesn't mean science is wrong either.

All I'm saying is that I haven't been convinced and in my opinion there isn't convincing enough info out there (for me). And yes I have looked.You haven't looked very hard, seriously. That's not meant as an insult.

We share all but one gene with chimpanzees. The similarities alone are striking but the evidence is nearly unequivocal. What would it take for you to be convinced?]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q11« dollyllama : But some guy with a white collar is? How odd.Nah, not at all. Like I said, statements that make you think one way or the other. I may be a Christian but I'm undecided on the issue of evolution as I can see it both ways.

Thumping the Bible won't make me think evolution is wrong but believing in God doesn't mean science is wrong either.

All I'm saying is that I haven't been convinced and in my opinion there isn't convincing enough info out there (for me). And yes I have looked.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q10« coldbladed : If its proven why is there debate/doubt? Why is the facts/proof so hard to come across? I've seen a lot of statements that make you think one way or another in the moment but nothing that makes me say, ok ya that right there decides it for sure.

Some brainiac in a lab coat saying it isn't enough for me to accept it unequivocally.Therein lies one major difference between those of faith and those who follow logic.

If even someone who strongly believes in evolution as Mershaulk were to see proof that evolution was false, than he'd throw it out and accept that he was wrong.

Those who have faith may never give up their beliefs no matter what sort of proof is given.

That is why there is so much debate. No amount of proof whatsoever will make many of such people give up their faith in the bible.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q9« coldbladed : If its proven why is there debate/doubt?In the scientific world there is no debate/doubt that it happened. These things only arise when some theists feel threatened when they're told that their creation myths aren't true.

Why is the facts/proof so hard to come across?

Do some research. Facts aren't hard to come across at all.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q8I have no issues with the video, I've just got a couple questions on the paragraphs after it...

Why does she mention "In science, being a "theory" is not a step below a "law."" When that wasn't even brought up in the video?

And when she says, "If you did, you would know that we do know the age of the earth. It's 4.5 billion years old." He admits ON the video that he doesn't know how old the earth is and that it could be that old.
/end slight rant]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q7« coldbladed : If its proven why is there debate/doubt? Why is the facts/proof so hard to come across? I've seen a lot of statements that make you think one way or another in the moment but nothing that makes me say, ok ya that right there decides it for sure.

Some brainiac in a lab coat saying it isn't enough for me to accept it unequivocally.But some guy with a white collar is? How odd.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q6« Maven : You'd probably be disappointed by the number of past presidents that wouldn't qualify by those standards...Even for their time period.I don't think I'd even be surprised, I would just hope that the populace were smart enough to stop electing them, that's the disappointing part :/]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q5
Some brainiac in a lab coat saying it isn't enough for me to accept it unequivocally.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q4
/threadjack]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q3http://www.plime.com/politics/l/46610/1/rss0_91.rss#q2