Video: Huckabee impresses at GOP debate
posted at 11:09 am on June 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I like him instinctively even though I disagree with the answer for which he’s getting the most applause this morning. Part of the reason, I think, is because he’s from the south but doesn’t milk the good ol’ boy crap the way southern politicians are wont to do. I could easily live with him as VP, although it’s hard to imagine what ticket he’d end up on. Giuliani/Huckabee seems like an odd match. The pro-choice candidate with the creationist? Thompson/Huckabee is possible, but it’s more regional than a Thompson/Romney ticket would be. (Then again, the Arkansas-Tennessee connection didn’t hurt the Democrats in 1992.) Romney/Huckabee would work, but er, I don’t think we’re going to see Mitt as the nominee.
Anyway, here’s his take on creationism plus his thoughts on why the GOP tanked in the midterms. There’s not much any of us can disagree with there.
…And here are Rudy’s and McCain’s reactions right after Huckabee’s line about people who want to believe they’re descended from primates. Hilarious.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I hearted huckabee after the last debate. He did a good job here as well.
I’m falling away from the creationist point of view; but he gave a pretty good defense of it. I could definitely see him as VP. P? Probably not. But he’s a great speaker and you can see the passion in his point of view.
lorien1973 on June 6, 2007 at 11:19 AM
A very good speaker. Guess all those appearances on Don Imus’ show when he was governor did him some good.
rivlax on June 6, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I am impressed with him too, but while an all southern ticket might work for the Dems (cracker barrel big stick ticket) I don’t think it would fly for the Reps having one. We are all ‘bigots’ by default and that would just be more ammunition for the Donkees.
Limerick on June 6, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Where?
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Heck, I could support Huckabee as the nominee. (fred? has no business on any ticket) In regards to him as Rudy’s VP, usually a VP candidate holds a lot of the same values as the Pres, but has an appeal to a group that the President is weak on. So, I think a Huckabee VP ticket would help Rudy with his pro-choice position, while supporting Rudy’s obvious out of the park credentials on the WoT. A VP can afford to hold steady on all his positions and not have to compromise to the center. Huckabee fits that mold where as the rest of the candidates have shifted positions to appeal to a broader electorate. It wouldn’t be a perfect ticket, but I think it would be enough to beat any pairing the traitorous dems will come up with.
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM
He did great except for adding Iraq to what he said…that is inexcusable…all of them need to man up and figure this out.
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Interesting thoughts. I could happily support that ticket; Huckabee impresses me greatly, almost to the concern that he would overshadow Giuliani.
AP, you say it’s “an odd match”. Too odd?
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I thought he did great. I was impressed with that answer and the answer about how Americans have a culture of life. I didn’t really pay much attention to him before (aside from watching the debates), and I don’t know how much impact he will have this cycle, but I enjoy his answers.
Spirit of 1776 on June 6, 2007 at 11:37 AM
I have posted something similar to this before, but here it is again.
One of the biggest discoveries of the 20th century is that the universe is finite.
God is outside our time/space dimension, the Bible proves this by writing history in advance. So from His Throne, on His clock, He did create the world in 6 days.
1984 Superstrings, 10-Dimensions “science theory”
All of you know the first 3 dimensions and the past and present of the 4th dimension, but do you have any idea what is in the other 6 dimensions? No , but God knows all
The Stretch Factor of the Universe
-The expansion factor: ~10 to the 12th
-16 Billion years x 365 = 6,000,000,000,000 days
-6 x 10 to the 12th days divided by 10 to the 12th = 6 days
.
Exponential Expansion
Day one 8 billion years
2nd day 4 billion years
3rd day 2 billion years
4th day 1 billion years
5th day .5 billion years
6th day .25 billion years
——————————————
15.75 billion years
Even if this does not sit well with your belief, none of us know what the world was like before the flood, much less before the fall of man.
IMHO
.
God Bless you all
.
Jesus is Lord
abinitioadinfinitum on June 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
What the hell is wrong with you?
Watcher on June 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Huckabee is a great, strong, guy. However, I just don’t think he’d pull in the number of Independents needed. The other concern people shared last night, was how we’d get some Democrats to support our ticket. I’m not sure he could do that. If he could win on purely Conservative votes, I think he could, however.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I think CS just doesn’t think he’d make a good President. Same reason you and I probably agree that Ron Paul has no business on anyone’s ticket. He may seem them comparatively.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Nobody named Huckabee is going to be voted in as President.
Hilts on June 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM
From what fred? has shown, yes. Ron Paul is crazy and so far fred? is a fake. Neither are acceptable.
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 11:47 AM
csdeven…..then how do you rate Newt? Seriously, I’m curious.
Limerick on June 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM
He’s pretty much geographically disqualified from a Thompson ticket, but a Giuliani/Huckabee or Mitt/Huckabe would make some sense.
marykatharine on June 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I liked Huckabee’s response on the creation question. Really, it is a position I think more should adopt – the truth of the matter is that the Bible is not a science book. The creation story has a central function – to assert that we are the result of God’s creative initiative. I don’t know how that happened, and it matters little to me how it happened. But I believe that it did.
My atheist friends here can tell me if that is any better, or worse, than the standard 6 literal day defense.
An observation though – he had that answer canned, didn’t he? He knew the question was coming. If not, he is a great extemporaneous speaker.
nailinmyeye on June 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM
As a big-bang Christian what Huckabee said didn’t offend me at all. I don’t care about how or where he found God. I just care that he did.
Limerick on June 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM
csdeven, you’ve lost it completely. Your dislike of the guy has moved into full blown FDS. Look, I’ve even ceded you that he needs a fair bit of work, but you’ve gone off the deep end with this.
I like Huckabee, he’d make a good VP for someone, I agree that people might have a hard time visualizing “President Huckabee.” I will say Allah, I think with a name like Huckabee, you have to not act too good ‘ol boy or else it would absolutely be too much for people.
Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Its just nice to hear someone who can stand up for their core beliefs, whatever they are.
Labamigo on June 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Hmm. Both sound like tickets I could live with.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM
One thing I notice here, is that most agree Huckabee would make a great VP – I agree. Would he take the bottom half, though?
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM
amerpundit….
my impression is that his principles trump his ego….yeah he would take it.
Limerick on June 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Does that really matter as much anymore though? I have a hard time believing it does, just because the ability that candidates have to communicate with voters.
Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM
That was an impressive performance for sure. I loved his answer regarding why the Republicans lost in ‘06, no sugar coating, no BS, just facing it square and taking responsibility. His stock just went up with me.
thirteen28 on June 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Again…agreed.
That’s what I was thinking. I also like the fantasy of Rudy as the figurehead, with Mike H doing the heavy lifting. Oh, that it were so…
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I found him quite riveting as a speaker…It was the voice of a man of conscience and a man who believs in something greater than himself. Really believes. I’d love for him to be my pastor.
tomas on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Yeah. Where?
auspatriotman on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Even though it’s MKH’s world and we just live in it, I tend to agree with Bad Candy’s sentiments here – and particularly for the upcoming election cycle.
I think voters right now really hunger for candidates that have the ability to really communicate effectively, which is one reason Huckabee’s performance stood out. I also think that explains why Fred is generating so much interest and why Rudy is running so strong despite his conservative heterodoxies. All three of those guys have a flair for communication that is superior to most of the rest of the candidates.
thirteen28 on June 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Scientist don’t even believe that the universe started with the Big Bang. Albrt Einstein realized his theory failed to prove the big bang almost as soon as he proposed it.
ScientificAmerican.com – The Myth of the Beginning of Time;
“Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then?”
Edge – The Third Culture – The Cyclic Universe, a talk with Neil Turok; “Even back in the 1920’s, Einstein, Friedmann and Lemaitre… all the laws of physics break down: they give infinities and meaningless results. Einstein himself didn’t interpret this as the beginning of time; he just said, well, my theory fails”
IMHO
God Bless
Jesus is Lord
abinitioadinfinitum on June 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I like everything I’ve heard Huckabee say. If I can only get over the fact that he’s from that state. You know, THAT state…and they even share the same hometown. Is it wrong to be state-biased because of ex-president-slick-willie?
You gotta admire Huckabee’s weight loss story “Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork: A 12- Stop Program to End Bad Habits and Begin a Healthy Lifestyle.”
Brat on June 6, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Agreed. I do see a Fred/Mitt ticket given that Mitt is only 60 years old and would be first in line in ‘12 or ‘16. Then I see csdeven tearing his hair out. My crystal ball is powerful magic.
Bill C on June 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM
you can not get something from nothing, or Order from disorder. Huckabee’s view isn’t un-scientific, its scientific. God is infinite, the creation is finite.
further, how can an atheist have a creation theory without a creator? basic logic…
jp on June 6, 2007 at 12:17 PM
and to add, the Scientific Method(discovered by a Christian Creationist) is based on this pressupostion! That God soveringly controls the universe and makes Science possible.
If everything was constantly evolving and changing then the Laws of Science would also change, but they do not. The atheist world view doesn’t stand up to logic. This worldview could never come up with the Scientific Method on its own, because of its pressupostions.
Modern science would not exist as we know it without Christian Pressupositions.
jp on June 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Interesting theory. Putting Giuliani as the figurehead of the US government, pulling people together, keeping them optimistic, etc., with Huckabee having say in policy.
amerpundit on June 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I’m not even talking the candidates ability to communicate specifically, but the technology to do so. But you’re right too.
Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
ps. I like Huckabee. he has a great sense of humor as well that goes along way in politics.
Can he win the general election is the question, in 2008 specifically? if we lose he may be good for 2012
jp on June 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I have to admit that Huckabee is growing on me.
Benaiah on June 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Kind of like a king and a prime minister, for you Anglophiles… Do I have that right?
Jaibones on June 6, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Although I support McCain, I would’t discount Romney just like that. It’s still a long way to go. Remember the Howard Dean poll-phenomenon gone bust. Also, take into consideration Romney’s history of turning things around – and the fact that he’s the most presidential of all candidates, both Republican and Democrat.
Baphomet on June 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
He only had it canned in the sense that it’s what he’s lived and believed since, at least, the early 70’s. And yes, he is a great extemp speaker. He always has been. Speaking his heart and mind honestly is who he is.
Catseye on June 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
A lot of what he said last night I’ve heard him say verbatim on Hannity’s radio show, especially about our value for life vs. Islamofascist lack of value for it.
Brat on June 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I like Newt. He’s smart and has unique original conservative ideas. He has already given us a date that he will announce if he decides to run and he goes on tough programs and opens himself up to grillings by less than friendly hosts. He strikes me as a real leader.
His problem is his negatives. He had an extramarital affair and has a lot of baggage from his years as speaker. The numbers I have seen show him as unelectable.
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I think he is a great off the cuff speaker.
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Yes, but do we REALLY want to go there?
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
His name is bad jujus. Likeable guy, political poison.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
You can actually support that backstabbing disingenuous political opportunist?? After the Amnesty Bill nonsense??
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Baphomet supports the amnesty bill, so there’s your answer.
Bad Candy on June 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM
MITT! wont take the second seat to anyone, especially someone like fred?. If MITT! doesn’t get the nomination, it’ll be because of his religion and that will never change, so I don’t think he’ll try to run a second time.
At this time, I don’t see any of the current crop of candidates taking a back seat to fred?. Maybe Paul, but the rest have principles that freds? don’t mesh with.
Regardless, Huckabee is gonna show up somewhere in this upcoming republican administration. He’s got too many positives and is very affable.
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
You know I’m using that from now on, right?
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 12:58 PM
May I ask why you support McCain?
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
As long as I get due credit, Hon. ;)
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Oh…eck.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
What a wretched phony this Huckabee is. Did I just hear him say you either believe God created humans or that we evolved “by accident?” That’s the most disingenuous page of the creationist handbook (right next to the atheism-led-to-Stalin page). Darwinian natural selection is the EXACT OPPOSITE of “chance” or “accident.” The theory of evolution states QUITE CLEARLY that the process occurs over time, and that changes occur SPECIFICALLY, not accidentally.
The whole “either you believe God created people or you believe people evolved by accident” is a false choice. And Huckabee’s just another in a long line of blinkered fools to use it in a debate. Complete intellecutal lightweight. So yeah, he’d be a perfect VP in the Quayle mode.
I can’t believe I live in a country where this Huckabee yahoo isn’t immediately laughed off the stage.
Enrique on June 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
CS, I will send you a dollar if Mitt gets the nom. It’s just not likely in ANY stretch of the imagination.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM
A little while ago you called FRED!!11!!!eleven!!1! a phoney… now you think he has principles? Do you mind telling us what you think those principles are? Super double bonus points if you can manage to do that without bitching about his red pickup truck.
Watcher on June 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Um…hate to point this out, Sport, but CREATIONISM and DARWINISM are not opposites. One explains a theory of creation, who’s opposite is the Big Bang theory. Darwinism is about the process FOLLOWING creation – whatever that method was. This comparison always drives me nuts. Apples and oranges.
The question is not whether evolution is “accident”…it’s whether “big bang” was.
God’s creation of everything is not mutually exclusive from evolution. BIG BANG is the opposite (accidental) theory to Creationism.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Also, “accident” implies no driving/guiding force…= No God/Guiding force = Atheism.
If you believe in a driving creative force, you are not Atheist. Thus your argument is invalid.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
The term you’re looking for is “agnostic”…”without knowledge”.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Enrique,
Most reasonable people don’t resort to name calling without insuring that they agree on the terms used in the discussion. As a creationist, Huckabee would see a dicotomy. It’s either intelligent design, or random undirected behavior (an accident). For you to use term “specifically” could imply design. For you to call him a phony, when you no nothing about him doesn’t say much for you. Are you a nutroot troll?
Catseye on June 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Just because you disagree with him doesn’t make him a phony.
Well, that’s the thoery. To assert it as fact you have to demonstrate natural selection occurrs specifically, not accidentally, thus proving the theory true. That’s the scientific method.
shuzilla on June 6, 2007 at 1:35 PM
I liked his answer on his faith, but I distrust anyone who doesn’t think his role in being President should involve “saving the day.”
On a different note, I know where it is on the map, but the (admittedly, few) people I know from Arkansas are much more midwestern in personality, than southern. Huckabee, too, strikes me as midwestern.
Tanya on June 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Scientists readily admit the Big Bang is not what happened at the beginning of the universe, it is simply the first thing we can measure (scientists have narrowed it down to 10^-48 seconds after the universe began) because humans will never be able to see what happened before space and time were in existence, we might not even know if the universe was already in existence before the Big Bang (if you think we live in a multiverse), but ultimately nothing can be proven to have been in existence before the Big Bang, not God, not another universe, nothing.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
He does have a point, however. Huckabee used a pretty obvious logical fallacy (either or) when the two choices are not mutually exclusive or even factually correct.
Just look up: Evolution of Horses. I say this time and time again in these evolution debates but it seems as if nobody wants to read it for fear it will contradict their beliefs. If you believe God put one type of smaller fingered horse on this earth millions of years ago, then killed it off, then put a larger version of the same horse with less fingers, then killed it off, working up until the horses of today, you can believe that, I’ll just look at you strangely.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
You got it! This doesn’t include royalties does it? ;-)
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Nah, just due credit. No money needed. ;)
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I believe many core conservative principles are up for sale in freds? quest for political recognition. His red pickup truck scam is just the tip of the iceberg. Now he’s trying to squirm out of his pro-choice position and refuses to take on tough interviews. His former staff says he can’t speak without a script and we have all seen him blather on for weeks and he hasn’t said anything that the actual candidates have already articulated in very tough venues. A real conservative with all those major issues, would do the movement a favor and just get in or get out.
So, yeah, his principles are at odds with the real candidates and why would they associate with him at that level. freddie boy better hope he gets the nomination because if he doesn’t, he wont be seen in the next administration or any subsequent ones either. AND he’s already given up his job on some TV show he was on.
csdeven on June 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Wow~ I haven’t heard anything about him before during this campaign. How refreshing he was. Calm, frank, sensible. His answer concerning Creation was perfect: He wasn’t there. Truthfully, everyone with an opinion is working from a theory and faith.
I don’t choose who to vote for based on their Christianity. Give me an honest, principled, intelligent, one who puts the security and traditions of America *first*…they will have my serious consideration.
jatfla on June 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Actually to be specific–it isn’t called the “theory of the dinosaurs” for a reason. Sure, we weren’t there, but we still know they once existed.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:10 PM
All interesting arguments, but I disagree with one statement.
He said they they, the republicans, botch the post Katrina event. I believe the bulk of the failure belongs to local and state government. Compare the difference between Louisiana and Mississippi.
Kini on June 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I agree with you Kini…that was bullshite to use that as a reason for our irritation. It’s urban myth, turned legit complaint. Just goes to prove that if you say something enough, it becomes fact.
Ugh.
tickleddragon on June 6, 2007 at 2:26 PM
As much as we may admire Huckabee’s arguments, his knowledge of basic biology is quite lacking. Human beings are primates, by definition. Thus, we are all “descended from primates,” i.e., our parents. I don’t know of anybody – regardless of religious belief – who would argue that I’m not a descendent of my own parents! Perhaps that explains the bemused reactions of Rudy et al.
calbear on June 6, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Actually, wouldn’t one say that we know that we have found evidence of their existence, rather than we know that they existed?
Slight difference, but I am just curious.
Does part of this whole debate turn on one’s definition of knowledge?
nailinmyeye on June 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM
The most important issue of our time is “jihad”. this issue more than any other, we need to find candidates who thoroughly understand it, and have a desire to confront it.
Amazingly few of the candidates, both democratic and republican have said much publicly regarding jihad.
here is a list of the republican candidates who do and do not discuss jihad:
McCain: just does not use the word, seems intent on fighting terrorists but does not address the underlying problem.
Guilianni: Same as McCain, shows no indication iof an understand of the root cause of terrorism, and how it has become a problem here on the home front
Huckabee: Cant find anything where he mentions jihad.
T. Thompson: Nada
Hunter: Strong support for Israel, but seems to go out of his way to avoid the subject of jihad.
Brownback: mentions jihad only in relation to the genocode in the Sudan.
Paul: Has mentioned jihad several times,calls it what it is, but also says it appears around the time we got involved in the middle east, suggesting that somehow, the U.S. is responsible for the current modern jihad.
Gilmore: no mention of his ever bringing up this subject that I can find.
Tancredo: Mentioned is directly in the first republican debate, shows a clear understanding of the relationship between jihad and terrorism around the world.
Romney: Has referred to “global jihad” in several speeches and appearances. Indicates the war on terror is indeed a war against radical jihadists. Has indicated he understands the domestic threat that jihad poses in the U.S. currently, and has noted recent challenges to impose sharia, and jihad in our courts.
F Thompson: Has not declared yet, but has spoken on jihad numerous times including a peice on you tube in which he discusses Ayan Hirsii Ali and islamic jihadists.
The bottom line is this, how can we expect to win the war on terror with a commander in chief who doesnt know or want to know who the terrorists are and why?
Guilianni seems to get a free pass on the war, and McCain also, I just dont get it. We must hold them accountable, and make sure they understand and adress this most important issue.
paulsur on June 6, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Yep. It seems like a pretty solipsist perspective you’re using, but it’s still valid. How do I know you exist? How do I know anyone aside from myself exists at all? What if you all are figments of my imagination (think Matrix or Descartes). You may tell me “I think therefore I am,” but how do I know that isn’t just my mind telling me that so I can soothe the illusion that you really don’t exist?
So yes, when you get into the semantics like that it is pretty much a question about “what is life” or “what is knowledge” or “what is real,” and the thing going for solipsists is that I really can’t prove that you exist (despite what Descartes says), just like I really can’t prove that God exists, just like I can’t prove that dinosaurs ever existed. But if we’re going by a traditional scientific meaning of reality or existence then yes, dinosaurs once did exist.
Actually, I shouldn’t say we can’t really prove solipsism wrong, we can, but the answer isn’t “cogito ergo sum.”
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 2:52 PM
‘knowing’ is covered in philosophy as epstimology, its one of the strong philisophical areas for the proof of the Christian God and worldview.
If Knowledge Then God
jp on June 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Too bad Descartes’ “proofs” of God (and every other philosopher during the Impressionist time period) were nothing more than conjecture that relied on more conjecture that there was a “good” or “bad” in the universe. So yes, if you assume there is “good” and “bad,” you could prove that some sort of god exists, but the problem is that none of the Impressionists proved there was a “good” and “bad.”
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I’m not being as precise as I want to be when I say “Impressionist.” What I mean is the philosophy that the postmodernists were rebuking.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 3:14 PM
thats not Descartes, its about Van Til and other philosophers who tackle this issue from another standpoint. its an interesting article….definitely not post-modern.
jp on June 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM
What physical evidence is there for macro-evolution, i.e., speciation?
archon2001 on June 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM
No, I was just asking. I actually believe dinosaurs existed.
Personally, I hold a limited view of knowledge based on language’s potential within a realistic assessment of its boundaries. If by “knowing” we mean “certainty,” I do not believe that language has the capacity to communicate certainty (except possibly with regards to mathematics). However, if by knowing we mean “reasonableness,” or maybe, “reasonable certainty,” I am all in.
nailinmyeye on June 6, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Ok…If Huckabee’s knowledge of biology is sparse, I’ll admit mine is also. My 2nd grader came home just last week telling me human beings are primates. I flipped. I thought we were Homo sapiens? (you can ignore me if your intelligence is way beyond me. :~)
And I was speaking of the old “theory” of evolution. To believe that as it’s been presented to us ever since I was a child takes a lot of faith.
jatfla on June 6, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I have this challendge to Bible-Believing Christians who believe in Evolution.
God says death entered this world through Adam’s sin.
If nothing died before that, then how could evolution, as it is popularily understood, reconciled?
(I believe the Bible)
VinceP1974 on June 6, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Hmmm. Humans have witnessed the evolution of animals over the past few thousand years, such as the chicken.
I’m not sure how anyone could doubt that humans could be “accidentally” created over the course of almost 5 billion years. Not to mention all the findings of our predecessors, like Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalenis.
I mean, gimme a friggin break Huckabee.
Seixon on June 6, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I am telling you folks, and I have SAID IT BEFORE way back in February)…
IRIS CAMPBELL (former Governor’s wife and STILL the First Lady and BEDROCK of South Carolina’s GOP) chose to endorse Mike Huckabee waaaaaaaaay back.
My crystal ball says>> he will place tightly in the top three in the South Carolina Primary.Because SOuth Carolina is all I KNOW.
THE RNC and the powers that be WILL GRIT THEIR TEETH AND IT WILL COME TO PASS THAT>>>> Huckabee WILL play a role in bringing the Conservatives back into the fold for ‘08 after BUSH has single handedly put us all out to pasture and they have had their fun CHOKING US ALL with Mr.Big Apple.
Everybody thinks a move to the center is where the win is. The “CENTER” may be the sexy filling both parties long to lick for themselves, but like it or not, it is the “same old crackers” on the fringe of a party that HOLDS THE WHOLE MESS TOGETHER.
And the RNC had BEST NOT FORGET IT!!!!!!!!!!
seejanemom on June 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM
An inspirational speaker would certainly make a nice change, but is that really all it takes to generate the remarkable enthusiasm for Huckabee here? I combed the Debate Transcript looking for content that must have escaped me last night, and I’m still stumped. According to Huckabee:
**The Taliban don’t believe Ronald Reagan helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
**He believes in God, but isn’t sure whether it took Him 6 actual days or 6 metaphorical days to create the universe. We”re left to take a wild guess at his position on teaching creationism in science class.
**Homosexuality is an attitude.
**Republicans reneged on promises to “cut spending, lower taxes, bring more government back to local people [is this code?],” botched Katrina and Iraq, ignored corruption and illegal immigrants.
**He thinks Americans are smart enough to know what the problems are, and faults Bush most for not communicating what the problems are.
**We should welcome professional immigrants, and make them cross the border one at a time.
**He’s not your Daddy’s anti-abortion pro-lifer. He is pro-Life at any stage, unlike pro-death jihadists. Being pro-life keeps us free.
I still don’t want to run right out and put him on the GOP ticket. What exactly am I missing?
JM Hanes on June 6, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Geez. If this thread is any indication of the kind of “political” debate a Huckabee nomination will elicit, we are soooo screwed.
JM Hanes on June 6, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I don’t think we’re going to see Mitt as the nominee.
Because of Fred or because he’s a Mormon?
Buy Danish on June 6, 2007 at 7:59 PM
If we don’t get Fred, I want him. He’s my #2 pick.
Plantinga and Van Til both have issues in Theistic Philosophy. Both embrace Fideistic Pressupitionalism, which presupposes things based upon faith.
Rather, Pressupitionalism should move away from being Fideistic and move toward being Rational.
They pre-suppose that knowledge is God required, but rather it is not. Knowledge is self-evident, therefore it just is. They argue that it just is because of God, but that is not provable based upon the priori and then say knowledge is a eternal due to it being an attribute of God, and at the most basic that is unprovable only that reason exists is provable.
Do I know that I know?
If I say negative, then I have just made a self-defeating argument, therefore something is knowable.
Hence, you can argue that it exists because of God or it is eternal based upon Spiritual Monism or even Material Monism or even an uncaused event.
Rather we need to argue from Rational Pressupitionalism.
Do we know if Something/All is eternal or temporal?
If none is eternal, then all is temporal.
If all is temporal, then all came into being.
Being from non-Being is irrational.
Therefore Some/All must be Eternal.
(based upon Square of Opposition)
So is all Matter Eternal (Material Monism)?
First argument based upon change:
Major Premise: If material world was eternal, then it would be self-maintaining.
Minor Premise: The Material world is not self-maintaining.
Conclusion: The Material World is not eternal.
There is only two ways in Material Monism that the universe can be self-maintaining.
One irrationally appeals to an uncaused event (Hawking).
The second is the Big Bang Oscillating Theory The BBOT theory was Sagan’s attempt to get around the eternality problem that Material Monists had.
First there is not enough matter to return matter into 1. Even assuming there was you have to appeal to an uncaused even.
The physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold.
These differences interact.
The interaction continues until sameness is reached.
Sameness remains sameness; it cannot return to differentiation.
Therefore the BBOT is irrational, even if you could account for enough dark matter to return everything together through gravity.
We also know from reason that the immaterial world exists.
Major Premise: If all is matter, then thinking must be motion of atoms in the brain.
Minor Premise: Thinking is not motion of atoms in the brain.
Conclusion: It is not the case that all is matter.
Is it a valid argument?
Well, the Minor Premise is justified.
The motion of atoms can be described in terms of fast or slow, straight or curved, up or down. None of these qualities or combination can be identified as true or false which is an essential quality of thought. Therefore thinking is not motion of any kind. Hence it is rational to say that True and False are immaterial.
I won’t set out the entire argument against Spiritual Monism for brevity’s sake.
The three major arguments against reincarnation are:
1. Reincarnation is ad hoc.
2. If you haven’t yet become enlightened in this eternal process, there is no hope to get it in this life.
3. There are no unique events in an eternal process or being (one that changes it’s intrinsic value).
The short argument against Spiritual Monism’s eternality:
Major Premise: If all is Spiritual, then this process (enlightenment) is an eternal cycle
Minor Premise: This endless cycle makes striving for release meaningless and futile.
Conclusion: Spiritual Monism is both irrational (There is no difference between ordinary existence and enlightenment) and unjust (It is unattainable).
Generally, the Spiritual Monist declares that cycle is an illusion, which means that they have just embraced irrationality.
Since both Spiritual Monism and Material Monism are irrational, there is absolutely no reason to accept that Dualism is anymore rational than both irrational worldviews.
This only leaves Theism as being rational. Is it rational?
Major Premise: Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
Minor Premise: The universe had a beginning.
Conclusion: The universe had a cause.
So it is rational.
Since the Problem of Evil (POE) comes up as an objection, I will address it.
There are necessary conditions for morality.
If there is no metaphysical absolute (if all is eternal and nothing is absolute or transcendent), then there can be no justified distinction between good and evil and therefore no morality.
This is provable.
If there is no personal immortality there can be no morality. If there is no personal continuity there can be no future and no purpose, and if there is no purpose there can be no goal or good.
This isn’t saying that there aren’t good actions by Material Monists or Spiritual Monists.
If there is no freedom there can be no morality.
The good as the end in itself is achieved through choice.
If there is no freedom there can be no choice and therefore the good is not achievable.
If you don’t have a Free Will, you can’t be held accountable for your actions.
If there is no clarity there can be no morality.
If it is not clear what is good then one cannot be held accountable for pursuing the good.
If there is no clarity then there is skepticism and if there is skepticism then there is relativism.
Finally:
If reason does not exist, there can be no clarity, for we could not know. If it is not clear, then we can not know. Since we can know, there must be morality.
So the question, who is responsible for Evil usually pops up. Could it be God? Is it rational to believe it what God who created evil? The second question is, “What role does Moral Evil play?”
Did God create the universe good?
If God is infinitely powerful, He could.
If God is infinitely good, He would.
If He could and He would, then He must.
If he Must, then He did.
Therefore someone other than God is responsible for evil.
So what role does Evil play in the world.
Natural Evil is not the same as Moral Evil (remember the respects). The PoE is not the problem of pain. The presence of pain does not raise the problem as in animals and in willingness to suffer when it makes sense.
For example, I had 3 inches of muscle tissue removed from my leg without the aid of pain killers in order to save my life and my leg.
If Evil is removed abruptly the revelation will not be deepened and if Evil is not removed the revelation will not be seen. The solution is to remove Evil gradually. Evil (unbelief) in every possible form and degree of admixture and conflict with the good is allowed to work itself out in world history. In that process good is eventually and fully realized.
Natural evil (every form of human misery) serves to remove moral evil by restraining, recalling and by restoring mankind. It calls a person to stop and think about the root cause of misery.
See Natural Evil is not the same as Moral Evil. We do not reflect upon Moral Evil, it is only upon having Natural Evil that we actually reflect on Moral Evil. In fact I would say that Natural Evil is very much limited compared to Moral Evil. How many times have we thought in our heart of hearts for evil for someone, yet since we never actually did that evil, there was no Natural Evil for the Moral Evil we committed when we thought of wishing Moral Evil on someone.
Ask yourself, when is the last time you apologized to someone for thinking evil toward them (not saying something, but just thinking it)?
So Natural Evil is a call back. It calls us to God about our fallen state. When someone is murdered, we reflect on that evil. We seek for an answer to it. We seek for a way to solve that Moral Evil.
Finally, who will deal with Moral Evil?
Major Premise: Since God is just, He requires justice for unbelief.
Major Premise: Since man is unjust, he can not be reconciled to God.
Conclusion: Therefore Man is unable to save himself.
Major Premise: Since Man is unable to save Himself, He requires compassion from God.
Minor Premise: Since God is infinitely merciful, He sent someone to reconcile Man to Him.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus came to save the sin of Mankind.
Therefore it is Clear that God exists and is Eternal and Man is accountable.
Romans 1:18-24
timburton(at)coxdotnet
Tim Burton on June 6, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Uh, post-modernists didn’t prove anything, in fact poof and post-modernism is self-defeating. If you know post-modernism’s philosophy (which you use to debunk the philosophy of the “Impressionists”), then you would know that there is no knowledge or absolute meaning, only experience.
In fact, to envoke Post-Modernism as an argument against another philosophy (any philosophy, even Ron Hubbard’s) is self-defeating. In fact, you can’t even know what the impressionists (or anyone else) were trying to say, because meaning was only a cultural construct that has no value.
Anyone who embraces post-modernism should take the first step toward finding that “Final Experience” and commit suicide.
Tim Burton on June 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM
So what did the chicken become, besides a different breed of chicken…Oh, it is still a chicken.
Tim Burton on June 6, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I like Mike Huckabee. He’s charismatic and seems to be the most consistently conservative candidate out there right now. I want to see him mix it up with Fred!
bigbeas on June 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Angry much? Pray to your god and make it all better.
Nonfactor on June 6, 2007 at 11:19 PM
No, actually in the late 70s and during most of 80s, that was many of the Post-Modern Philosopher’s positions. It is called Socratic Irony.
Tim Burton on June 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Former Governor Mike Huckabee from Arkansas was on meet the press yesterday. He made it official that he is doing an exploratory into a possible Presidential bid. I must say the Irishman was asking all the tough questions, and Huckabee was like a sewing machine he didn’t miss a stitch. I need to take a closer look at this guy, he seems promising.
sonnyspats1 on January 29, 2007 at 8:20 PM
I am telling you folks, and I have SAID IT BEFORE way back in February)…
seejanemom on June 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Jane if we were playing poker at this point I would say read em and weep. On the real side though Huckabee seems like a solid candidate so far. His win is our gain.
sonnyspats1 on June 7, 2007 at 1:19 AM
On existance, awarness, and proof:
Decartes: “I think, therefore I am.”
William: “I am, therefore I think.”
William
William2006 on June 7, 2007 at 4:00 AM
Not a shred that wasn’t fabricated, or mislabeled. Ever.
Thank you. Bible-believing evolutionists cannot reconcile the two. They will say that the Bible was “mistranslated” on these points. Every single group that diverges from the Bible ends up with the same argument, that the Bible is inspired, but is mistranslated at the verse(s) that would oppose their erroneous doctrine.
Not so. We are hominids. It is only since the evolution craze that our philum has been redesignated.
A chicken has never been anything but a chicken. Variations and adaptations within species never change the species, and provide zero evidence of evolution.
I’m sure. Honest scientific inquiry:
That’s a taste. More significantly, the treasured “evidence” of linking species between primate and man always consists of one or two samples. As many fossils as we have found of far more ancient species of animals, should there not be thousands of samples of the advancing species that now dominates this planet?
On topic, Huckabee has always been an acceptable candidate to me. His ability to know and express what he believes is quite evident, and he is a constructionist.
Freelancer on June 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I’ll repeat: Evolution of horses. Look it up.
So you believe every word in The Bible to be true? Man once lived for 400 years, there was a flood 4,400 years ago that wiped out life on Earth, human life can be traced back to two homosapiens? You do know all of this has been proven incorrect, right?
Are we not mammals too? Because denying that we are primates is like denying that we are mammals.
Nonfactor on June 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Its you that is making the assertion Nonfactor, so you have the burden of proof. Either link to it or you deserve to be ignored.
Maxx on June 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
Google + 1st link = so hard
Nonfactor on June 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »