27 Dec 07
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
27 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by abnoxioThere are two possibilites of coarse. One is that he truly believe what he says and the other is that he is saying these things to court the religious right. In the end a politician does what is politically expedient to get elected, whatever they percieve that to be. It is much like Bush who told people that he was going to get elected via the religious right. At first he was laughed to scorn but not to many people are laughing at him now......well.....that is....at least for that statement. 😛
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
Just to drive home the point after Bush got elected the Democrats saw the importance of relating to the religious right. They then promptly hired consultants to help relate to the religious right. This includes such people as Hillary and Edwards etc, etc. Odds are you will hear dogma from the Democrats this election go round that will sound somewhat "Christian-like" or even "Bush=like" to relate to the religous right. My guess is they will say something to the effect that we need to raise taxes to help the poor etc, etc.
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by abnoxioI am not going to worry about creation or evolution as a test for
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
president, but you can not vote for someone who is over 6 feet tall
if you want, it is your vote.
Kelly
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt does not mean that unless you think your take on evolution is
Almost certainly not. Such a person clearly values religion over science to a ridiculous degree.
your take on science, which is as wrong as saying someone who is
pro-choice is anti-life.
Kelly
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYour opinion on evolution is not high on my list of opinions to take seriously, sorry. I actually know something about biochemistry. You're quite illogical and even if you have a point are unable to express it as a general rule.
It does not mean that unless you think your take on evolution is
your take on science, which is as wrong as saying someone who is
pro-choice is anti-life.
Kelly
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by abnoxioI could never vote for somebody who thought that the world was roughly 6000 years old. Somebody who could honestly believe something that absurd, in the face of all the contrary evidence, doesn't have the judgment necessary to be entrusted with such power.
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by abnoxioDo you have a link where we could find out more about this?
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by abnoxioAfter someone who has so much contempt for the English language and ... nah, the list is too numerous. I think there are a lot more critical issues than how one believes the planet began and what happened next.
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou do tend to worry more about the people than the points being
Your opinion on evolution is not high on my list of opinions to take seriously, sorry. I actually know something about biochemistry. You're quite illogical and even if you have a point are unable to express it as a general rule.
expressed as a rule too, nothing new here either.
Kelly
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrIn some ways it is a mixed bag with him. If he does indeed believe the earth is 6,000 years old, he comes off as rather ridiculous. However, I must say he showed his spiritual balls when he took Romney to task for his less than charitable attitude towards children of illegal immigrants and people who commited crimes in their younger days but who have turned their lives around and have contributed to society, but can't get a pardon so they can get better jobs. He just may be spiritually schizophrenic.
I could never vote for somebody who thought that the world was roughly 6000 years old. Somebody who could honestly believe something that absurd, in the face of all the contrary evidence, doesn't have the judgment necessary to be entrusted with such power.
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by abnoxioI have a problem with someone who wears his "religion" on his sleeve.
It seems that Mike Huckabee (the name "Huckabee" should disqualify him from the start) doesn't believe in evolution, at least not "macro-evolution" whatever the hell that means. I'm a die hard conservative, but I'm going to have a hard time voting for someone who has so much contempt for science.
Fred Thompson looks good to me.
Hey! This is a spirituality forum.
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat if the person finds scientific evidence that compells him to believe in a creationist world, such as a young earth of 6,000 years; instead of millions?
Almost certainly not. Such a person clearly values religion over science to a ridiculous degree.