[imgv94]

I think he would definitely win if he were a white man and had a more normal name. The whites in the south won't let a black person win and a lot of people are going to be turned off by his full name

Barack "HUSSEIN" "OBAMA"

Too bad cause he is a great candidate.

[CrazyL]

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee impressed me the other night on the GOP presidential debate. The last democrats one that was on was mostly Hillary & Edwards going at it, I'll have to rewatch that one some other time.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by crazyl

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee impressed me the other night on the GOP presidential debate. The last democrats one that was on was mostly Hillary & Edwards going at it, I'll have to rewatch that one some other time.

As far as I'm concerned his being a creationist is a nonstarter.

[BigBollocks]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

As far as I'm concerned his being a creationist is a nonstarter.

Funny how strong of an anti-Christian current we have in this country. The atheists have become more close-minded, angry, and tending to stick their own flock more than the believers. I think a lot of the pseudo-Christians have turned people off more than anything.

[BigBollocks]

Originally Posted by imgv94

I think he would definitely win if he were a white man and had a more normal name. The whites in the south won't let a black person win and a lot of people are going to be turned off by his full name

Barack "HUSSEIN" "OBAMA"

Too bad cause he is a great candidate.

I actually think the exact opposite might be true IMGV. I don't think he's going to win simply due to his inexperience. I can't think of one President in this country's history who had less political experience entering office than Obama would if he were to win. He's only been a Senator for two years mind you. I definitely think his charisma, reasonableness, and intelligence has allowed him to shoot up so quick, but I don't think the fact he's a minority has hurt him in rising so incredibly fast either. Generally one has to pay decades of dues in being a politico in order to garner the internal support that Obama has now...

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

Funny how strong of an anti-Christian current we have in this country. The atheists have become more close-minded, angry, and tending to stick their own flock more than the believers. I think a lot of the pseudo-Christians have turned people off more than anything.

It's not about being an atheist versus being a Christian -- it's about wanting a President capable of utilizing critical thinking skills when presented with an issue that requires more than just a knee-jerk response.

I'd be be just as unlikely to vote for an atheist disbeliever in the theory of gravity as a Christian disbeliever in the theory of evolution. Regardless of personal religious philosophy, I simply have a hard time putting my trust in a candidate so clearly disinterested in rational scientific explanation and discourse. That doesn't make me anti-Christian, it just makes me anti-bullshit.

As far as this supposed "anti-Christian" current goes, I'd argue that far more of an anti-atheist sentiment exists (specifically as it relates to presidential electability). According to a recent Gallup poll, for example, 53% of those questioned stated that they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist presidential candidate, versus 43% for a homosexual, 24% for a Mormon, 7% for a Jew, and 5% for a black candidate.

[Willie Bee]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

I can't think of one President in this country's history who had less political experience entering office than Obama would if he were to win.

Depends on how you define 'experience,' BB. Obama had seven years in the Illinois legislature before being elected to the US Senate in '04. Bush only had five years -- technically, not even that -- as Texas governor before winning the White House.

I do agree with you that experience is an issue, just as it was for me with Bush. I'm a bit turned off by 'the whites in the south' comment earlier in the thread. There have been black and Hispanic mayors all over the south in the past 15 years or so. I do think that anyone with a Muslim name right now is going to have a tough row to hoe. But more than his name, the little bit out to the side of his name -- DEM -- is going to be his biggest drawback here in Texas. Mother Teresa could be on the Democratic ticket here and 80% of the sheep in his state would vote for Adolph Hitler instead if he had REP or GOP next to his name.

[BigBollocks]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

It's not about being an atheist versus being a Christian -- it's about wanting a President capable of utilizing critical thinking skills when presented with an issue that requires more than just a knee-jerk response.

I'd be be just as unlikely to vote for an atheist disbeliever in the theory of gravity as a Christian disbeliever in the theory of evolution. Regardless of personal religious philosophy, I simply have a hard time putting my trust in a candidate so clearly disinterested in rational scientific explanation and discourse. That doesn't make me anti-Christian, it just makes me anti-bullshit.

As far as this supposed "anti-Christian" current goes, I'd argue that far more of an anti-atheist sentiment exists (specifically as it relates to presidential electability). According to a recent Gallup poll, for example, 53% of those questioned stated that they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist presidential candidate, versus 43% for a homosexual, 24% for a Mormon, 7% for a Jew, and 5% for a black candidate.

Interesting Gallup poll Ganchrow. Funny how much perceptions have changed throughout the last century as well. I obviously would have guessed that more people would have a problem voting for a woman than a minority, as blacks were allowed to vote before women as well. I would not have guessed that being Mormon was so much more of a barrier than being Jewish, however. Is there any candidate that you're leaning towards and wouldn't mind sharing right now?

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by BigBollocks

Is there any candidate that you're leaning towards and wouldn't mind sharing right now?

I'm mildly a fan of Ron Paul although I do have a problem with his rather populist platform on immigration and free trade.

As far as candidates with a more realistic shot at winning go ... I'd have to say Stephen Colbert.

[curious]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

It's not about being an atheist versus being a Christian -- it's about wanting a President capable of utilizing critical thinking skills when presented with an issue that requires more than just a knee-jerk response.

I'd be be just as unlikely to vote for an atheist disbeliever in the theory of gravity as a Christian disbeliever in the theory of evolution. Regardless of personal religious philosophy, I simply have a hard time putting my trust in a candidate so clearly disinterested in rational scientific explanation and discourse. That doesn't make me anti-Christian, it just makes me anti-bullshit.

As far as this supposed "anti-Christian" current goes, I'd argue that far more of an anti-atheist sentiment exists (specifically as it relates to presidential electability). According to a recent Gallup poll, for example, 53% of those questioned stated that they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist presidential candidate, versus 43% for a homosexual, 24% for a Mormon, 7% for a Jew, and 5% for a black candidate.

So, when a person accepts the theory of evolution as a "fact" and won't consider any other possibilities (I am not a christian and don't accept creationism either) do you apply the same critique to them? Because that would include pretty much all the presidential candidates?

And when a person accepts the global warming myth as "fact" do you apply this same critique to them? Because that throws out the entire democratic slate of candidates?

What about the myth that oil is running out? Same thing applies. That knocks out pretty much all presidential candidates?

I don't see anyone I can vote for because none of the candidates have even tried to address the real problems this country faces with anything more than sound bites.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by curious

So, when a person accepts the theory of evolution as a "fact" and won't consider any other possibilities (I am not a christian and don't accept creationism either) do you apply the same critique to them? Because that would include pretty much all the presidential candidates?

The theory of evolution is as much fact as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity.

The Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ entry at the Talk.Origins.org Archive quotes Stephen J. Gould:

Originally Posted by Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Originally Posted by curious

And when a person accepts the global warming myth as "fact" do you apply this same critique to them? Because that throws out the entire democratic slate of candidates?

What about the myth that oil is running out? Same thing applies. That knocks out pretty much all presidential candidates?

I don't want to get into some huge epistemological debate but I think it's clear that there's a world of difference between reasonable, good faith debate over contentious issues (which lies at the very heart of the scientific method) and a perverse refusal to accept the overwhelming wealth of evidence in support of a particular theory for no reason other than that theory disagrees with ascientific dogma.

[curious]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

The theory of evolution is as much fact as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity.

The Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ entry at the Talk.Origins.org Archive quotes Stephen J. Gould:


I don't want to get into some huge epistemological debate but I think it's clear that there's a world of difference between reasonable, good faith debate over contentious issues (which lies at the very heart of the scientific method) and a perverse refusal to accept the overwhelming wealth of evidence in support of a particular theory for no reason other than that theory disagrees with ascientific dogma.

Excuse me but evolution is not on the same par with gravity. Evolution does NOT have overwhelming evidence to support it. The so-called fossil record shows ZERO cases of a crossing of the species barrier. Evolutionists claim that humans "evolved" from lower primates but they have no fossil record to prove it.

Darwin himself disavowed his earlier theories in his later years. I find it interesting that evolutionists always overlook that.

[Ganchrow]

These issues (and many others) are addressed in the Talk.Origins FAQ, which has been compiled over the course of several years. I'll reproduce a few response here:

Originally Posted by curious

Excuse me but evolution is not on the same par with gravity. Evolution does NOT have overwhelming evidence to support it.

"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of