0:21 By nominating supreme court justices you have powerful control over such matters, that you are obviously emotionally interested in.
0:30 Ok, since it's so "simple" for you, then who or what created God? If you answer no-one, then why take the extra step and just say the universe always was? Now THAT'S "simple."
1:36 You don't know??? So T-Rex was stomping around during the Egyptian Empire? You can pick up Geology for Dummies (literally in this case) for $12.95 on Amazon, Huck.
If you can't comprehend the very basics of evolution, there is no reason why anyone should believe that you are capable of running the most powerful nation in the world.
@Pooternackle5 Working at Fox news or something ? We may get a little fanatic at times, but you should listen to Ron Paul, hes the one running for President, not us.
oh my god, get the facts..... what a moron. We and primates have a common ancestor. If you weren't there then how do you KNOW that God created everything..... the answer should be " It allows me to sleep at night better if God did and I hope God created it, but I wasn't there, SO I DON'T know"
No one said the beginning of the universe was an accident Mr. H. It would be more appropriate to say it was chance, like winning the lottery...... and guess what, we won.
Yes Evolution is a theory. But so is Gravity. If that some how disproves the existence of God, Religious people would deny that too. Maybe then they could all float the fuck away!
OK now, this is when these people really piss me off. He's picking and choosing what to believe & not believe. The one and only piece of "evidence" that he has to support his claim is the bible. Therefore, he can't say "this part here, is 100% true and I know that for a fact, but this other part, I just don't know. Maybe it's a figurative meaning." Fuck that! Either it's all 100% true and literal or none of it is. There are no directions/disclaimers to read the bible. Pick a side & stick to it.
so, he doesn't know whether the Earth and life as we know it were created in 6 days? Well, it IS in the bible, isn't it? Is he refuting that claim? He may not know, but don't you think GOD would know? Afterall, the bible is his word....
I agree with huckabee, like he said if anyone wants to believe that they are desendants of a primate, they are wlcome to do so. There is not enough evidence to report "the theory of evolution" as fact, and yes there has to be belief in each side, the same evidence could be used to prove a number of other theories. So If people want someone who believes or accepts the theory of evolution then vote for them.
@stargirlsusan You are clearly not a scientist, so who are you to think that your interpretation of the evidence is just as valid as the experts who have access to and understand all of the evidence? Almost all biologists, zoologists and scientists in similar fields accept evolution to be true, and don't quote some of that "Expelled" bullshit at me, that is simply not true. There are a couple creationist scientists, and they are not "expelled". What about Michael Behe?
There's no evidence for Evolution? Do you now how a virus becomes immune to medicine? Do you know how we have weiner dogs? Do you know why we have corn and potatoes? Do you know that we have hundreds upon hundreds of fossils dating us back to the hominids in Africa? Do you know that if a monster who was only visible to 1% of the population and ate the other 99% the survivors would bread babys that could see, and avoid, the monster too thus surviving and perpetuating that trait?
While his answer was eloquent and reassuring to his religious base, it is invalid because it was mere reinstatement of faith with no evidence.
There is however a HUGE amount of evidence which clearly indicates that we are direct decedents of extinct apes and hominids (Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons & so on). This evidence goes WAY BEYOND just the fossil record, it is also VERIFIABLE through DNA sequencing, and all branches of science confirm evolution as a FACT.
I don't particularly like Huckabee, but I think that was a reasonable answer... mostly. I mean, the word "evolution" implies change over time. It doesn't necessarily mean God didn't cause it.
Good grief. This question does matter. Especially in regards to his policies surrounding education and science. If he doesn't respect basic scientific facts, he does not deserve to be president.
This guy is an complete idiot, sorry America but look at your selection of Republican candiditate's Palin - Huckabee - Trump, that doesn't sound like a field of republicans but something off the disney chanel..
I'm amazed that he thinks this question is irrelevant to ask of a Presidential candidate. His answer shows the contempt he has for the scientific community around the world, who have proven time and time again the veracity of Charles Darwin's theories
He's obviously confused as to what evolution is (evolution does NOT say that we came from monkeys) it simply points to common ancestors and development of species over millions of years based on fossil records that have been discovered and that hang in any natural history museum. There is debate over how evolution occured and how it started (perhaps divine intervention) but simply saying God did it doesn't answer any real questions. My advice: read a book on evolution it isn't the devil.
Mike handled that well, knowing that the Six Day Creation is a point of ridicule for atheists, liberals, and the like. But they're real problem is accountability. They can't stand the concept of a being accountable to a holy God who created them, loves them, and one day will judge them. I wonder why they don't run headlong into the loving arms of Jesus, our Savior, and escape the judgement of the unredeemed?
@stevehart001 Not all liberals are atheist, not all conservatives are christian. People should believe what they want. I know you think you're being nice but to some people talking about judgement day as if you have evidence for what it will be like, makes people uncomfortable. I don't ridicule you for being christian though, i'm just saying. You have to understand how you come off to people. Yeah maybe there's a God, but there is absolutely no evidence, it's faith, which is good and bad.
@stevehart001 I hate this reasoning. "Nobody can possibly come up with a different answer to this question than me, so anyone who says they have must have some ulterior motive". No, you moron, atheists don't believe in god because they don't think that there is a god. There is no other reason. Don't dare presume that you know what i am thinking better than I do.
@fukinblowme And you're going to be eaten by a dragon. Does that scare you? No, because you do not believe in dragons (or so I assume). Why are you threatening me with something i don't believe in?
@procritic09 Because whether you believe in Hell or not is not an issue. Fact is, Hell IS real and when you get there you're going to have your balls roasted like chestnuts.
To accept evolution you have to accept that the creation story in Genesis isn't true. But Genesis is the source of the Judaic/Christian position that God created the Universe. So you are accepting that God was the creator becasue it says so in a book that you don't believe is actually true. It's like accepting that there is a giant in the sky because it says so in Jack and the Beanstalk but denying that the beanstalk grew from magic beans because science says it is not possible.
@TheSmithDorian They are actually quite compatible (barring the hard-liners who say the earth is only a few thousand years old). The book of Genesis is quite vague on which parts are symbolic and which parts are literal. It is not a stretch at all to take the "7 day" idea as a metaphor, it is a simple matter to reconcile the two by saying that God started it all then either guided evolution or let evolution take its course.
The problem with saying that Genesis was meant only to be symbolic is that the Bible is simply not written that way. The Bible includes has genealogies that go right back to Adam and you also a number of NT authors that believed that Adam was a real human being, so if was a symbolic story then people like Paul and Luke were mistaken in their beliefs.
You could argue that the part of Genesis concerning the creation of the universe was meant to be symbolic but not the part about Adam
@TheSmithDorian You are correct in that regard. Adam is not symbolic, though the way he came about could have been. After all, even in evolution someone had to be the first to become homo sapien.
I don't think there was a first homo sapien (i.e. an individual). It's a broad term that refers to a gradual change in one branch of the homo genus that took place over a period of perhaps 20,000 years. I suppose though that you could say, if you wished, that at a certain point in time God took a lower creature (homo erectus) and endowed it with a human soul to create man (Adam) and that thereafter the his offspring were humans. That would be a harder story for science to dispute
There is still the problem though with the extent to which the the book of Genesis and the OT as a whole is either symbolic or supposed to be symbolic. Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel for instance can't really be true so at what point in the Bible timeline are we supposed to believe that it stopped being symbolic and become a factual account of events? Abraham - Moses - the occupation of Israel by the Jews - David and Solomon - the Assyrian conquest of Israel?
@TheSmithDorian 1. And those questions are why religious scholars outside of the Church get paid :-).
Its always interesting when historians, scientists, and theologians converge on a topic. For example, research shows that there could have been a massive flood around the time Noah was purported to have lived. It certainly wasn't world-wide, but may have covered a large area that for early people might have constituted the "known world." That certainly doesn't prove that there was...
@TheSmithDorian 2. an Ark or that Noah saved a bunch of animals, but it can make someone wonder. Even more surprising (and I always considered this symbolic), a group of scientists modeled natural conditions that could have actually caused a parting of the Red Sea. Apparently, it actually could have happened (albeit under pretty rare conditions). I think CNN reported on it last year if you want to check.
In the end, I'll be the first to admit none of this can be proven for certain. And...
I think the problem is not with the Bible itself but rather with peoples perceptions of what it represents or is supposed to be. If you look at it as divinely inspired 100% literal truth then it is always going to come up short.
If you look at it though as a human work testifying to man's hopes, dreams, fears and belief in the divine it becomes an invaluable work of history.
"If they want a president that doesn't believe in God there are probably plenty of choices"
Who are you thinking of Mike - there were no presidential candidates on offer that don't believe in God. That's a sad commentary on the intelligence of the American electorate as a whole.
And I guess people would prefer a president that's rational all of the time, no matter what the subject is. Rationality for the win! ;)
And one more thing BBoyFury: thanks for your friendly comments, you seem like a nice person. I often get very nasty reactions because some people find my comments provocative. Being provocative is never my goal though, I just want to give my honest opinion. Thanks.
@1144bram Cheers to that. Too many people get their panties in a bunch over a simple discussion. I can't even begin to list the number of things that have been insinuated about me just because of how I vote or what my opinion is.
Here's to reasonable people like us, and the increasingly rare art of disagreeing civilly.
Anyone who takes anything from the bible literally is irrational. If you believe there is a god because 'it's in the bible' you are being irrational. A rational person reading the bible would appreciate it's lessons, it's metaphorical stories and it's messages, but would never deduct from it that there must be a god, or that evolution must be false. I'm not saying religious people are irrational all the time but when it comes to religion (or anything that intervenes with it) they tend to be so.
Huckabee is awesome. And he's absolutely right. Why does the media (and many in the general public) insist on asking these questions that have no bearing on a man's (or woman's) ability to be President?
@BBoyFury They ask these questions so that, if he says he believes in creationism, they can ridicule him and call him stupid. Thats what they did to Dan Quail, thats what they did to Sarah Palin thats what they did to George Bush. Huckabee gave a great answer and, although I believe in evolution, I also believe he has every right to disagree and I liked how he was intimidated by the tone of the question which was definately an attempt to make him look foolish for his beliefs.
@wackotaco It does, however history has shown many rational thinkers who were also religious. Even those who were called "enemies of the church" during the dark ages, like Galileo for example, maintained their belief in God while studying evidence and logically examining the world around them. These questions are Catch-22's where one answer means your faith isn't strong and the other means you aren't rational, but the fact is one can have both.
@BBoyFury It's perfectly rational to theorize about the existence of some sort of higher intelligence. Issues regarding the origin of life or the "fine tuning" of the universe might lend some credence to such speculation. What troubles me is when people claim to know things they clearly cannot know or believe things in spite of the evidence. The evolution/creation debate is a perfect example of this. It's a sad thing that people still let religious dogma get in the way of their better judgment.
@wackotaco What about those who are able to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific facts? Like what we see here, where he basically says God did it, but the way He did it could have been evolution? How do you feel about that?
@TheSmithDorian That and that the book is infallible, remains with no contradictions at all despite being written by over 40 authors over thousands of years, and because it has answers to every situation and every prophecy but the future ones have come true. And evidence.
You believe matter just suddenly made a universe and single celled organism because some philosophers told you it could happen despite science saying it is not possible.
"You believe matter just suddenly made a universe and single celled organism because some philosophers told you it could happen despite science saying it is not possible"
No I don't believe that any more than I believe that a creator god could spring into existence from nothing.
My point was that you cannot accept evolution and the truth of the Bible - it is one or the other, they are incompatible positions.
@TheSmithDorian So what do you believe? Glad you see the truth though about evolution and the Bible. I'm now extremely confused about you. :P
Also, to me it makes perfect sense that an intelligent Creator just existed. Something had to have been eternal, and science complies with a Creator rather than just random chance. Just my take on that.
To me it does not make perfect sense that an intelligent creator just existed and science certainly doesn't comply with the idea of a creator. In fact it contravenes every aspect of science that humankind has knowledge of.
However, so does the idea that the universe itself existed forever or just sprang into being in an instant.
The human mind cannot concieve infinity in any real or practical way. All current explanations are a mystery - incomprehensible to the human mind.
@TheSmithDorian Exactly! Thank you for not being one of those dumb people who can't see science doesn't agree with any origins philosophies. THANK YOU! But yeah, I think it's impossible everything just happened randomly, it makes MUCH more sense to me that we were created on purpose.
@1144bram It's not that he doesn't understand the concept; it's that he doesn't believe it to be why we're all here. Would he call you stupid for not believing what he believes? Probably not. So why do you insist on it?
@kendraware09 He doesn't understand it, to me it's pretty simple to see that, why else would he evade the question like that? They ask him about evolution and he gives an answer concerning creation/abiogenesis/how it all got here. The latter and evolution are two completely different subjects. Also, anyone who has half a brain and looked in to it would see evolution is a fact. It's not about belief, it's about evidence. Or he hasn't looked in to it (ignorance), or he doesn't get it (stupidity).
@1144bram In common discourse today, believing in creation and believing in evolution are considered opposed. He stated his believes without closing his mind off to possible evidence of evolution. And by scientific definition, evolution is a theory. A convincing one, but still a theory. To say it has gone from theory to law is to not fully understand the scientific process of that transition (I say this as a scientist who believes in evolution).
@BBoyFury Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. Facts have their way of being described by scientific theories yes. But to state that evolution itself is a theory is nonsense. It's the same with gravity. We have the fact that there is such a thing as gravity and we have the theories describing gravity, but to say gravity itself is a theory is BS. I'm tired of hearing such statements over and over again. And to hear it from a fellow scientist makes me feel very sad. :( ;)
@1144bram I stand corrected, yet I don't feel bad about it since you seem smarter than the average poster :). Though I am more on the physics side of things, so you'll have to forgive me for not having all the facts about evolution. haha.
Regardless, I do like the way he answered. Alot of people do this awkward verbal dance with questions like this, and he outright said, after stating that he thinks God started it all, that he honestly "doesn't know" HOW it went down...
@1144bram ...which I can respect since 1. some people take more convincing than others and 2. it's quite possible he's spent his time educating himself in other things, and hasn't done much research into evolution. At least he's not saying "it definitely didn't happen," like most people without the facts do.
In other news, this character limit on posts can be annoying.
@BBoyFury He didn't have to state his believes, he should have given an answer to the question. But he chose to evade it. If he was honest he would have responded otherwise, something like ''I'm a politician, not a scientist, I haven't studied this particular subject thoroughly, so I haven't got the knowledge to judge it's proprieties nor deny it's existence.'' But he's not honest now is he? For the record: this guy wants creation to be taught in science class. I wouldn't call that rational. ;)
Lol "Gid loves us" WHAT???????? Where was god when the holocaust,rawandan genocide, the Spanish inquistion, and other brutal atrocities ocurred????? God (if he exists) is indifferent to our struggles and I seriously doubt that evolution is false.....
If your electing the most powerful leader in the world who, after all the scientific and empirical evidence has been put forth on a subject, continues to deny it on the basis of "faith", would you trust them? Also evolution is a fundamental part of modern science from everything to biochemical and genetic research. If someone does not hold scientific evidence in high regard its unlikely they would place much emphasis on it. These are important things for a president.
I think "Do you believe in evolution?" is a loaded question. Evolution is a scientific theory, not some doctrine to believe in or reject. Scientific knowledge grows and changes all the time. Science makes its best guess from what can be observed. Huckabee is not rejecting science, nor is he compromising his beliefs. He's saying that ultimately, we don't know.
@OpRedDawn True, "best guess" was not a good term to use. It is much more than a guess. However, scientific knowledge is growing and changing all the time. Less than 100 years ago it was scientific fact that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat. As our technology advanced, our knowledge increased and now we know different. I accept evolution as the most valid scientific theory on the orgin of life. I do not "believe" in it as an irrefutable fact.
@OpRedDawn In order for something to be a scientific fact, it must be able to be observed, tested and repeated with the same results. Any theory on the origin of life or the universe will never be established as scientific fact because it cannot be observed, tested or repeated. However, with the evidence acquired, it makes for a valid scientific theory and the best one at the present time.
@backwoodsninja Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Again, science doesn't really use facts. No matter how solid the model, all it takes is one well-constructed experiment to change everything
Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, that study is called abiogenisis and scientists at harvard have recreated ancient earth environments. But that's besides the point. Scientific theory is different from common perception of what a theory is. It describes HOW processes work. Evolution, as with any scientific theory such as atomic theory, theory of relativity, doesn't need to be proven correct: it only needs to be proven wrong to be scrapped.
@kaiserbunny132 I agree with you. I also agree with Mr. Huckabee that, "Do you believe in evolution?" is a flawed question. It's too broad. Is he talking about a species changing over time (microevolution)? Is he talking about complex life developing from single celled organisms (macroevolution)? And is either question even politically relevent? Why aren't they asking him if he believes in the first law of thermodynamics?
First of all "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are common misconceptions, they are both the same and is simply titled evolution. But to answer your question as i told razzledazzle1714 If your electing the most powerful leader in the world who, after all the scientific and empirical evidence has been put forth on a subject, continues to deny it on the basis of "faith", would you trust them? Evolution is a fundamental part of scientific advancement and research. So its valid.
@hlyleh lol what are you talking about dude? you're spewing a bunch of fact-less information. please show me the millions of people who believe in evolution and God. don't make shizzle up.
@MrFrancewa 45% of Americans were YEC at most in 2004. Another 45% believed in Theist evolution. That's around 125 million people. And given that this is America, around 90% of them were Christian, while the other 10% were probably Muslim, Jewish or other. That's over 100 million Americans that are Christian and believe in Evolution. The numbers are even higher now because there are more people and a larger portion of them accept Theist Evolution.
1:47 What in the world are they laughing at? Govenor Huckabee made a perfectly valid point regarding the age of the earth. Science is what can be observed, experimented and reproduced. No-one has ever observed life coming from none life. No-one has ever observed the inception of the earths existence. To claim to have such knowledge is laughable, not the other way around.
I just started reading about these things about three days ago, so I really have no idea how to hold my position. I'm trying though! I will come back when I've done some more research. Just don't die anytime soon :) maybe Jesus could win you over :D.
I'd be happy to provide you with more resources, if you'd like? Don't worry, they're not like the creationist propaganda mills, like way of the master, or Kunt Hovind, etc, who basically make up bullshit to sell to people. 90% of the people I've come across peddling creationism don't even understand evolution, and instead make up stuff that makes no sense. If you want to understand then it'd be a good idea to read up on what evolution actually is - not what...
@Vehementi Okay so you're saying a 'complex' system is just a tie in of other, more simple systems that originally served a different function. A kind of genetic scaffolding? How would they tie in, or join together to form a complex system?
@ccsniper Ken miller explains it like this, if you have a mouse trap, its function is to squish mice, but if you take it apart, it won't be able to squish mice, so is a mouse trap irreducably complex?
No, because you could use the spring as a tie clip, or use the wooden block to prop up a short leg on a table to stop it wobbling. Different functions, same peices.
Evolution builds new systems out of existing ones.
Again, watch this; /watch?v=ffcWKOZfTxE Miller explains it a LOT better than I.
@Vehementi Sometimes these new systems can also have functions that neither of the previous systems or parts had, but are more beneficial to the specie's ability to survive.
Eventually, these systems can keep on evolving, too, as further mutations adapt and refine the system in subsequent generations.
The goal of simple life forms is to continue to live. In evolution, the environment is supposedly a main factor in determining which life forms are better at living. Screw ups in our DNA sequencing sometimes can enable one life form to be better able at surviving, and when it reproduces its descendants will eventually over take the rest of life.
The heart, can you refute that as an irreducibly complex system? What would be the purpose of a large muscle that does nothing?
@ccsniper When DNA copies itself it never copies itself perfectly, there's always going to be little errors. Sections can get duplicated, Base pairs can be inverted. A thymine-adenine pair can become a guanine-cytosine pair, etc, things like that. Some of these mutations are harmful, some are benign, some are beneficial. The beneficial ones stand a better chance of being passed on, the benign ones that don't help or hinder will generally be passed on too, but the harmful ones will be...
@ccsniper ...will be weeded out through the environment.
There are loads more thigns that factor into evolution, but that's the basics of it.
Personally, I don;t know the evolution of they heart, but from what I do know, it started off as just a tube with a muscle around it that contracted and extended, the same type of primitive heart is still found in some invertrebrates.
If you wanted you could do some research on the subject. Just google "Evolution of the heart." You'll find something.
@ccsniper ...not what creationist propaganda claims it is. They're mostly just strawmen.
Also, if you come across a creationist argument, chances are you can find out why it's wrong on talkorigins (Google it.). It ALWAYS provides sources for its refutations, so you're free to research yourself.
Of course, let all believe on Spontaneous generation as well.
Why not?....oh maybe we can also believe that the earth is the center of the universe..better yet, let's all believe that the earth is flat !
For God sakes, these morons are dinosaurs....we evolve from the primates.... we just not were magically generated by a God
With modern science, I can believe that there are people out there that still believe this garbage..even more I can believe that this guy had a chance to become president
An "accident" implies there was a conscious behind it. A descison was made that achieved an undesirable result. Huckabee just used the fallacy of a false dichtomy AND attacked a strawman.
On top of that, the evidence for evoluion in overwhelming. MtDNA, ERV markers, atavisms, chromosomal fusion, etc.
I don't see how, or why, anyone could vote for a president that decides somethig contrary to what the evidence says.
I'm not going to argue with you about how logical Mike Huckabee's argument was, but the evidence for evolution is NOT overwhelming. There are many obstacles that come into direct contradiction to macro-evolution. The five main ones are 1. Genetic limits 2. Cyclical change 3. Irreducible complexity 4. Non-viability of transitional forms and 5. Molecular isolation. Not to mention the fossil record doesn't support evolution at all, but rather the sudden appearance of species.
@ccsniper Let's take one of your "obsticals" shall we, and see how it stands up to scrutiny?
Irriducable complexity? "Irriducable complexity" assumes that a system will ALWAYS have performed the same function. So far, every example of irriducable complexity given by cretards has been shown to've formed from multiple systems, that served different functions. /watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU Watch this, Ken Miller explains it better using the flagellum as an example.
@Vehementi Let's take one irreducible complex organ. The eye, how does something go from not seeing, to seeing? Everything in it is required to make the leap of a blind organism, to one that sees.
@Vehementi He doesn't explain how the organism could of "seen" light, or dark. Blind people can't detect light. How did it achieve the ability through an evolutionary process to detect light?
@ccsniper Light sensitive cells. A tiny patch of them.
Watch the lecture he gave to those kids, he actually goes into a bit more detail. (He also does the same with camouflage and wings, in different videos.).
@Vehementi Also Evolutionist do not have an explanation of how inanimate matter came to be living organisms. The late Carl Sagan, in his fiction novel "contact" (though based on the real SETI program) believed prime numbers would prove the existence of an intelligent being, but for some reason the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias in the first one-celled life does not.
@ccsniper And gravityists don't have an explanaton to how
Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different scientific theories.
And yes, we do have a pretty good idea about how life formed, and the first single-celled life wouldn't've been NEARLY as complex as cells today, that have gone through countless millions of generations of evolution. The first cells would've been simple RNA patterns (Not even containing any "code", yet.) with a shell of fat acids around it, called a lipid.
@Vehementi There is no evidence for an atavism in a human other than a functional "tail", which could easily just be called an elongated spine, an extension of something that already exist. When a deformity (or an "evolutionary throwback")flows with the argument Evolutionist are trying to make, they use it. They would never use the existence of two heads, extra digits, or functional extra limbs to support the evolution debate, saying that we "evolved" from creatures with two heads, or 8 limps.
@ccsniper Well, no, a functional tail is an atavism, as is ducks with teeth and dolphins with visible hind limbs.
Everything else you've mentioned is a deformity, the difference is, the atavism is when an ancestral inactive gene becomes active. we all have the genes for a functioning tail they're just inactive, but we don't all have the genes for extra limbs.
@Vehementi Didn't the supposed existence of our "ancestors" traits come into existence through natural selection "choosing" which deformities in a creatures genetic make up would enable a life form to surpass its original natural form? In this argument, an Atavism is just a "throw-back" of a deformity, or is the same as a modern deformity such as extra digits.
Mike Huckabee has no intellectual honesty. Until an American audience would be more inclined to "Booo" and pour derisive laughter on such a person - rather than applaud them - than we shall be a screwed-up country - and things will get worse.
Intellectual Honesty Folks - you either have it, or you don't.
@procritic09 as far as im concerned slavery hasn't been abolished. its just appeared under a new form. we are all slaves under the government. We worked hard to establish the constitution. Today we are trying to create a new one. One without "In God we Trust." A Godless Country is a hopeless country. Thus the reason America is going downhill. We don't trust God anymore.
@Stunt36 What? A godless country is a hopeless country? WHAT? Look at very, VERY non-religious countries like Sweeden, the life satisfaction levels are FAR higher and there are less homeless people, etc. And you clearly do not know what the word SLAVE means. A slave isn't paid. I am truly amazed that there are people as stupid as you on the earth.
@procritic09 Actually in the past, slaves were people with no money, the equivalent of bums in today's society, who would ask to receive pay, food, and shelter in exchange for physical and other types of labor. Slave wasn't a derogatory word back then. And Godless country's...like Russia, China, and any communist country where people suffer from no rights. There is no satisfaction where there is no God. Only a dead end with no hope.
@Stunt36 Are you aware that those words weren't put on most of our money until the 1950s and any of our money until the 1860s? People like you like to pretend that those words and the words "under God" were always there, but they weren't. Fascist bigots in the 1950s made a lot of changes that would have made our founding fathers sick to their stomachs,
What he says sounds nice but makes little to no sense. First of all, although he may not be writing the curriculum for 8th grade science, I feel the President should at least hold an 8th grade science understanding. Second of all, "the basic question" was not "whether there is a god or not," it was "do you believe in evolution." If you think that's the same thing, you are ignorant (very). Also he says "if we want a President who doesn't believe in God there are plenty of choices." Huh?
@Drahthaar422 Ron Paul is even worse on this subject. At least Huckabee admits he doesn't know and seems to indicate that it might even be the case that evolution happened under a god's control. Paul hasn't indicated anything of the kind and shows a profound ignorance of what evolution and scientific theory is, which is very scary for a presidential candidate and a fucking doctor.
No matter what his beliefs may be, how can a U.S. presidential candidate be SO absolutely ignorant of such a well established scientific theory? He acted like he didn't expect a follow up question. If he were to deny gravitational theory or atomic theory we would call him a lunatic. What makes evolution different that makes this man immune to a bombardment of criticism.
@cavinpatch Your ignorant to creation,,we are nothing like ape like animals .Lucy is not becoming human..nor did we come from bacteria,or from the backs of crystals.thats ignorant
@5tonyvvvv Haha! What are you talking about? Here's a tip...why don't you use the cranial capacity that evolution gave you to study a freshman college course in biology or anthropology before you claim to know more than biologists and anthropologists themselves. What evidence do you have that allows you to dismiss the fact that life evolves?..perhaps you're the 'ignorant' one
He simply does not want to admit that he is a young earth creationist because he knows it will lose him votes.
I personally would never vote for someone who believed the biblical account of creationism because of what is says about that individual's mindset. I prefer people who are capable of rational thinking ... particularly if they have their finger on the button.
@bustermk2 well it does say in in 2 Peter 3:8 that an 1000 years is like a day to God. So the question becomes. Did God create the earth in 6 days by his standards or 6 days by ours. I'd assume that's why he said "I don't know"
@bustermk2 so what...u believe it happened by accident random bullshit chance. Your ignorant to creation,,we are nothing like ape like animals .Lucy is not becoming human..nor did we come from bacteria,or from the backs of crystals.thats ridiclious
Could you direct me to the science journal that describes evolution as "accident random bullshit chance"?
Evolution is natural selection or survival of the fittest. It is supported by piles of evidence for those of us willing to do even the slightest amount of research on the subject.
@bustermk2 yes, time, matter and space came from nothing and blew up and made everything we see today. thats really random. That is the base of your religion.
@bustermk2 thats exactly what im saying. Add all this "scientific" bullshit with loads of lies you guys call facts, and end up with the same thing just without salvation and a reason to live...make sense???
It isn't what "we guys" call facts ... they are just facts. They are testable and observable.
Religion on the other hand isn't. We cannot see physical evidence of God's existence and it is becoming increasingly obvious that God's existence isn't required to explain the observed universe.
All that religion offers is the "hope" of salvation ... but there is no evidence to suggest that that is any more real than any of the other claims made by various religions.
@procritic09 WRONG..Humans are not primates..Lucy a misidentified knuckle walking extinct chimp..how about Piltdown man or Nebraska man,,science made of whole animal half ape half human..all LIES!!..everything brings fourth its own kind,with variation of course and limits..and no new information is added..its still its own KIND!!!
@procritic09 then break down a modern protein,and make a primitive cell..Venter has tried this..and failed..this can not be done..The problem is left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic and prevent abiogenesis. Furthermore, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids. All attempts have resulted in disaster and no life was ever made..
@procritic09 it should be easier to make one..by removing the molecular machines..and having less proteins..which will mean less DNA damaging the organism..but in your mind this cell could live with very little information...so whats your Answer??
@cavinpatch Anyone that makes comments like that is a immature stupid person.grow up Moron..your positive you have no spirit and soul and you will just rot in ground ?..your pathetic ..go back to playing video games and watching porn loser..
i believe your an idiot who goes of what he is told
yes determining if your blind sheep malleable to stupid ideas might make a crap prez
MrStatu101 1 week ago
why is everyone so upset about this answer. it's pretty funny.
nfnkalyan 1 month ago
0:21 By nominating supreme court justices you have powerful control over such matters, that you are obviously emotionally interested in.
0:30 Ok, since it's so "simple" for you, then who or what created God? If you answer no-one, then why take the extra step and just say the universe always was? Now THAT'S "simple."
1:36 You don't know??? So T-Rex was stomping around during the Egyptian Empire? You can pick up Geology for Dummies (literally in this case) for $12.95 on Amazon, Huck.
tmc359 3 months ago
If you can't comprehend the very basics of evolution, there is no reason why anyone should believe that you are capable of running the most powerful nation in the world.
Pooternackle5 4 months ago
@Pooternackle5 You try to tell that to a Ron Paul supporter. LOL.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk I try to avoid Ron Paul supporters if at all possible. They are crazier than even the most deranged Glenn Beck listener.
Pooternackle5 3 months ago 2
@Pooternackle5 You dont like freedom????? kidding. Yeah I know.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@Pooternackle5 Working at Fox news or something ? We may get a little fanatic at times, but you should listen to Ron Paul, hes the one running for President, not us.
RukaPrijateljstvaBiH 1 week ago
Shameful political pandering and dodging the question.
CarlSagan6 4 months ago
I'd rather go to an un-Godly place a.k.a hell if these folks are going to be in "heaven" .
nsl610 5 months ago
oh my god, get the facts..... what a moron. We and primates have a common ancestor. If you weren't there then how do you KNOW that God created everything..... the answer should be " It allows me to sleep at night better if God did and I hope God created it, but I wasn't there, SO I DON'T know"
nsl610 5 months ago
God these debates are just rhetoric filled mindless speach. I can't stand watching them.
totaljking12 5 months ago
Huckabee is delusional. How does he actually KNOW what he's saying?
FaganRoberts 5 months ago
No one said the beginning of the universe was an accident Mr. H. It would be more appropriate to say it was chance, like winning the lottery...... and guess what, we won.
LiveTheWild 5 months ago
Yes Evolution is a theory. But so is Gravity. If that some how disproves the existence of God, Religious people would deny that too. Maybe then they could all float the fuck away!
23RMD 5 months ago
OK now, this is when these people really piss me off. He's picking and choosing what to believe & not believe. The one and only piece of "evidence" that he has to support his claim is the bible. Therefore, he can't say "this part here, is 100% true and I know that for a fact, but this other part, I just don't know. Maybe it's a figurative meaning." Fuck that! Either it's all 100% true and literal or none of it is. There are no directions/disclaimers to read the bible. Pick a side & stick to it.
duvalinhn 5 months ago
so, he doesn't know whether the Earth and life as we know it were created in 6 days? Well, it IS in the bible, isn't it? Is he refuting that claim? He may not know, but don't you think GOD would know? Afterall, the bible is his word....
Cherrypicking..."they're" all guilty of it.
slothtopsy 5 months ago
Nice guy. Total moron.
drgoldteef 5 months ago
Good thing he wont run again.
zebulan94121 5 months ago
I agree with huckabee, like he said if anyone wants to believe that they are desendants of a primate, they are wlcome to do so. There is not enough evidence to report "the theory of evolution" as fact, and yes there has to be belief in each side, the same evidence could be used to prove a number of other theories. So If people want someone who believes or accepts the theory of evolution then vote for them.
stargirlsusan 6 months ago
@stargirlsusan You are clearly not a scientist, so who are you to think that your interpretation of the evidence is just as valid as the experts who have access to and understand all of the evidence? Almost all biologists, zoologists and scientists in similar fields accept evolution to be true, and don't quote some of that "Expelled" bullshit at me, that is simply not true. There are a couple creationist scientists, and they are not "expelled". What about Michael Behe?
procritic09 6 months ago
There's no evidence for Evolution? Do you now how a virus becomes immune to medicine? Do you know how we have weiner dogs? Do you know why we have corn and potatoes? Do you know that we have hundreds upon hundreds of fossils dating us back to the hominids in Africa? Do you know that if a monster who was only visible to 1% of the population and ate the other 99% the survivors would bread babys that could see, and avoid, the monster too thus surviving and perpetuating that trait?
Harrymfink 6 months ago
While his answer was eloquent and reassuring to his religious base, it is invalid because it was mere reinstatement of faith with no evidence.
There is however a HUGE amount of evidence which clearly indicates that we are direct decedents of extinct apes and hominids (Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons & so on). This evidence goes WAY BEYOND just the fossil record, it is also VERIFIABLE through DNA sequencing, and all branches of science confirm evolution as a FACT.
/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc
esiosan 7 months ago
I don't particularly like Huckabee, but I think that was a reasonable answer... mostly. I mean, the word "evolution" implies change over time. It doesn't necessarily mean God didn't cause it.
namordecai 7 months ago
Perhaps we should all cease being civil about it — republicans are idiots.
TheGutterMonkey 7 months ago
Good grief. This question does matter. Especially in regards to his policies surrounding education and science. If he doesn't respect basic scientific facts, he does not deserve to be president.
acherrybalm 8 months ago
This guy is an complete idiot, sorry America but look at your selection of Republican candiditate's Palin - Huckabee - Trump, that doesn't sound like a field of republicans but something off the disney chanel..
marleyman14 8 months ago
makes me glad he's not running for preisdent this time.
Akira89M 8 months ago
Comment removed
arp2283 8 months ago in playlist Random
If a President can't even understand 8th grade biology, why should we elect him/her?
So basically the idea is that an 8th grade science teacher will make better president than these "politicians".
Neosaigo 8 months ago
"If they want a president who doesn't believe in god there's probably plenty of choices"
no
notoriousm 9 months ago
Excellent response from Governor Huckabee!
chrissy07cook 9 months ago
I'm amazed that he thinks this question is irrelevant to ask of a Presidential candidate. His answer shows the contempt he has for the scientific community around the world, who have proven time and time again the veracity of Charles Darwin's theories
jampt1989 9 months ago
He's obviously confused as to what evolution is (evolution does NOT say that we came from monkeys) it simply points to common ancestors and development of species over millions of years based on fossil records that have been discovered and that hang in any natural history museum. There is debate over how evolution occured and how it started (perhaps divine intervention) but simply saying God did it doesn't answer any real questions. My advice: read a book on evolution it isn't the devil.
thenaj88 10 months ago
He's not denying it, he's clearly open to the possibility of theistic evolution
jared201345 10 months ago
Mike handled that well, knowing that the Six Day Creation is a point of ridicule for atheists, liberals, and the like. But they're real problem is accountability. They can't stand the concept of a being accountable to a holy God who created them, loves them, and one day will judge them. I wonder why they don't run headlong into the loving arms of Jesus, our Savior, and escape the judgement of the unredeemed?
stevehart001 10 months ago
@stevehart001 Not all liberals are atheist, not all conservatives are christian. People should believe what they want. I know you think you're being nice but to some people talking about judgement day as if you have evidence for what it will be like, makes people uncomfortable. I don't ridicule you for being christian though, i'm just saying. You have to understand how you come off to people. Yeah maybe there's a God, but there is absolutely no evidence, it's faith, which is good and bad.
thenaj88 10 months ago
@stevehart001 I hate this reasoning. "Nobody can possibly come up with a different answer to this question than me, so anyone who says they have must have some ulterior motive". No, you moron, atheists don't believe in god because they don't think that there is a god. There is no other reason. Don't dare presume that you know what i am thinking better than I do.
procritic09 6 months ago
@procritic09 You're going to burn in Hell you bastard.
fukinblowme 5 months ago
@fukinblowme And you're going to be eaten by a dragon. Does that scare you? No, because you do not believe in dragons (or so I assume). Why are you threatening me with something i don't believe in?
procritic09 5 months ago
@procritic09 Because whether you believe in Hell or not is not an issue. Fact is, Hell IS real and when you get there you're going to have your balls roasted like chestnuts.
fukinblowme 5 months ago
@fukinblowme How do you know that hell is real, and which one is the real one?
Just saying shit doesn't make it true...
Zentz29 5 months ago
@Zentz29 HELL IS REAL BECAUSE CHRISTIANS SAY SO. I CAN'T WAIT TO GO TO THE BBQ.
fukinblowme 5 months ago
@fukinblowme troll...
Zentz29 5 months ago
@Zentz29 YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR THAT !!!
fukinblowme 5 months ago
@fukinblowme How Christian of you. :3 Can't believe how damn stupid people are (STILL).
InFlamesHeavier 5 months ago
@InFlamesHeavier I'm really an Atheist.
fukinblowme 5 months ago
I dont agree with his political view or religious, but he has got a way with words
ThatKidWithTheVideos 11 months ago
To accept evolution you have to accept that the creation story in Genesis isn't true. But Genesis is the source of the Judaic/Christian position that God created the Universe. So you are accepting that God was the creator becasue it says so in a book that you don't believe is actually true. It's like accepting that there is a giant in the sky because it says so in Jack and the Beanstalk but denying that the beanstalk grew from magic beans because science says it is not possible.
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian They are actually quite compatible (barring the hard-liners who say the earth is only a few thousand years old). The book of Genesis is quite vague on which parts are symbolic and which parts are literal. It is not a stretch at all to take the "7 day" idea as a metaphor, it is a simple matter to reconcile the two by saying that God started it all then either guided evolution or let evolution take its course.
BBoyFury 11 months ago
@BBoyFury
The problem with saying that Genesis was meant only to be symbolic is that the Bible is simply not written that way. The Bible includes has genealogies that go right back to Adam and you also a number of NT authors that believed that Adam was a real human being, so if was a symbolic story then people like Paul and Luke were mistaken in their beliefs.
You could argue that the part of Genesis concerning the creation of the universe was meant to be symbolic but not the part about Adam
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian You are correct in that regard. Adam is not symbolic, though the way he came about could have been. After all, even in evolution someone had to be the first to become homo sapien.
BBoyFury 11 months ago
@BBoyFury 1
I don't think there was a first homo sapien (i.e. an individual). It's a broad term that refers to a gradual change in one branch of the homo genus that took place over a period of perhaps 20,000 years. I suppose though that you could say, if you wished, that at a certain point in time God took a lower creature (homo erectus) and endowed it with a human soul to create man (Adam) and that thereafter the his offspring were humans. That would be a harder story for science to dispute
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@BBoyFury 2
There is still the problem though with the extent to which the the book of Genesis and the OT as a whole is either symbolic or supposed to be symbolic. Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel for instance can't really be true so at what point in the Bible timeline are we supposed to believe that it stopped being symbolic and become a factual account of events? Abraham - Moses - the occupation of Israel by the Jews - David and Solomon - the Assyrian conquest of Israel?
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian 1. And those questions are why religious scholars outside of the Church get paid :-).
Its always interesting when historians, scientists, and theologians converge on a topic. For example, research shows that there could have been a massive flood around the time Noah was purported to have lived. It certainly wasn't world-wide, but may have covered a large area that for early people might have constituted the "known world." That certainly doesn't prove that there was...
BBoyFury 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian 2. an Ark or that Noah saved a bunch of animals, but it can make someone wonder. Even more surprising (and I always considered this symbolic), a group of scientists modeled natural conditions that could have actually caused a parting of the Red Sea. Apparently, it actually could have happened (albeit under pretty rare conditions). I think CNN reported on it last year if you want to check.
In the end, I'll be the first to admit none of this can be proven for certain. And...
BBoyFury 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian thank you for a very interesting and engaging conversation on the topic. Civil discourse is too rare around here. Cheers.
BBoyFury 11 months ago
@BBoyFury
Yes - you too.
I think the problem is not with the Bible itself but rather with peoples perceptions of what it represents or is supposed to be. If you look at it as divinely inspired 100% literal truth then it is always going to come up short.
If you look at it though as a human work testifying to man's hopes, dreams, fears and belief in the divine it becomes an invaluable work of history.
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian I'm with you 100% there.
BBoyFury 11 months ago
Another example of Huckabee's delusion thinking;
"If they want a president that doesn't believe in God there are probably plenty of choices"
Who are you thinking of Mike - there were no presidential candidates on offer that don't believe in God. That's a sad commentary on the intelligence of the American electorate as a whole.
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
everybody has a right to their own opinion.
getbackonthefield 11 months ago
"unfair question" Wtf is unfair about it you fucking moron?!!!!
Why should people elect a dumb fuck who denies science which has been accepted as fact for years?!!!!!
I'm sorry in science classroom they teach fucking science not your creationist bullshit!!!
knobcheese22 1 year ago
And I guess people would prefer a president that's rational all of the time, no matter what the subject is. Rationality for the win! ;)
And one more thing BBoyFury: thanks for your friendly comments, you seem like a nice person. I often get very nasty reactions because some people find my comments provocative. Being provocative is never my goal though, I just want to give my honest opinion. Thanks.
1144bram 1 year ago
@1144bram Cheers to that. Too many people get their panties in a bunch over a simple discussion. I can't even begin to list the number of things that have been insinuated about me just because of how I vote or what my opinion is.
Here's to reasonable people like us, and the increasingly rare art of disagreeing civilly.
BBoyFury 1 year ago
Anyone who takes anything from the bible literally is irrational. If you believe there is a god because 'it's in the bible' you are being irrational. A rational person reading the bible would appreciate it's lessons, it's metaphorical stories and it's messages, but would never deduct from it that there must be a god, or that evolution must be false. I'm not saying religious people are irrational all the time but when it comes to religion (or anything that intervenes with it) they tend to be so.
1144bram 1 year ago
And yes I insist on calling the things by their name, ignorane by ignorance and stupidity by stupidity. ;)
1144bram 1 year ago
Huckabee is awesome. And he's absolutely right. Why does the media (and many in the general public) insist on asking these questions that have no bearing on a man's (or woman's) ability to be President?
BBoyFury 1 year ago
@BBoyFury They ask these questions so that, if he says he believes in creationism, they can ridicule him and call him stupid. Thats what they did to Dan Quail, thats what they did to Sarah Palin thats what they did to George Bush. Huckabee gave a great answer and, although I believe in evolution, I also believe he has every right to disagree and I liked how he was intimidated by the tone of the question which was definately an attempt to make him look foolish for his beliefs.
MrPattermike2 1 year ago
@BBoyFury Well, it does matter whether or not you're a rational human being that values evidence!
wackotaco 1 year ago
@wackotaco It does, however history has shown many rational thinkers who were also religious. Even those who were called "enemies of the church" during the dark ages, like Galileo for example, maintained their belief in God while studying evidence and logically examining the world around them. These questions are Catch-22's where one answer means your faith isn't strong and the other means you aren't rational, but the fact is one can have both.
BBoyFury 1 year ago
@BBoyFury It's perfectly rational to theorize about the existence of some sort of higher intelligence. Issues regarding the origin of life or the "fine tuning" of the universe might lend some credence to such speculation. What troubles me is when people claim to know things they clearly cannot know or believe things in spite of the evidence. The evolution/creation debate is a perfect example of this. It's a sad thing that people still let religious dogma get in the way of their better judgment.
wackotaco 1 year ago
@wackotaco What about those who are able to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific facts? Like what we see here, where he basically says God did it, but the way He did it could have been evolution? How do you feel about that?
BBoyFury 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian That and that the book is infallible, remains with no contradictions at all despite being written by over 40 authors over thousands of years, and because it has answers to every situation and every prophecy but the future ones have come true. And evidence.
You believe matter just suddenly made a universe and single celled organism because some philosophers told you it could happen despite science saying it is not possible.
Songwriter4God 11 months ago
@Songwriter4God
"You believe matter just suddenly made a universe and single celled organism because some philosophers told you it could happen despite science saying it is not possible"
No I don't believe that any more than I believe that a creator god could spring into existence from nothing.
My point was that you cannot accept evolution and the truth of the Bible - it is one or the other, they are incompatible positions.
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian So what do you believe? Glad you see the truth though about evolution and the Bible. I'm now extremely confused about you. :P
Also, to me it makes perfect sense that an intelligent Creator just existed. Something had to have been eternal, and science complies with a Creator rather than just random chance. Just my take on that.
Songwriter4God 11 months ago
@Songwriter4God
To me it does not make perfect sense that an intelligent creator just existed and science certainly doesn't comply with the idea of a creator. In fact it contravenes every aspect of science that humankind has knowledge of.
However, so does the idea that the universe itself existed forever or just sprang into being in an instant.
The human mind cannot concieve infinity in any real or practical way. All current explanations are a mystery - incomprehensible to the human mind.
TheSmithDorian 11 months ago
@TheSmithDorian Exactly! Thank you for not being one of those dumb people who can't see science doesn't agree with any origins philosophies. THANK YOU! But yeah, I think it's impossible everything just happened randomly, it makes MUCH more sense to me that we were created on purpose.
Songwriter4God 11 months ago
You seriously want a president who is to stupid/ignorant to understand the concept of evolution? You silly Americans make me laugh. :)
1144bram 1 year ago
@1144bram It's not that he doesn't understand the concept; it's that he doesn't believe it to be why we're all here. Would he call you stupid for not believing what he believes? Probably not. So why do you insist on it?
kendraware09 1 year ago
@kendraware09 He doesn't understand it, to me it's pretty simple to see that, why else would he evade the question like that? They ask him about evolution and he gives an answer concerning creation/abiogenesis/how it all got here. The latter and evolution are two completely different subjects. Also, anyone who has half a brain and looked in to it would see evolution is a fact. It's not about belief, it's about evidence. Or he hasn't looked in to it (ignorance), or he doesn't get it (stupidity).
1144bram 1 year ago
@1144bram In common discourse today, believing in creation and believing in evolution are considered opposed. He stated his believes without closing his mind off to possible evidence of evolution. And by scientific definition, evolution is a theory. A convincing one, but still a theory. To say it has gone from theory to law is to not fully understand the scientific process of that transition (I say this as a scientist who believes in evolution).
BBoyFury 1 year ago
@BBoyFury Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. Facts have their way of being described by scientific theories yes. But to state that evolution itself is a theory is nonsense. It's the same with gravity. We have the fact that there is such a thing as gravity and we have the theories describing gravity, but to say gravity itself is a theory is BS. I'm tired of hearing such statements over and over again. And to hear it from a fellow scientist makes me feel very sad. :( ;)
1144bram 1 year ago
@1144bram I stand corrected, yet I don't feel bad about it since you seem smarter than the average poster :). Though I am more on the physics side of things, so you'll have to forgive me for not having all the facts about evolution. haha.
Regardless, I do like the way he answered. Alot of people do this awkward verbal dance with questions like this, and he outright said, after stating that he thinks God started it all, that he honestly "doesn't know" HOW it went down...
BBoyFury 1 year ago
@1144bram ...which I can respect since 1. some people take more convincing than others and 2. it's quite possible he's spent his time educating himself in other things, and hasn't done much research into evolution. At least he's not saying "it definitely didn't happen," like most people without the facts do.
In other news, this character limit on posts can be annoying.
BBoyFury 1 year ago
@BBoyFury He didn't have to state his believes, he should have given an answer to the question. But he chose to evade it. If he was honest he would have responded otherwise, something like ''I'm a politician, not a scientist, I haven't studied this particular subject thoroughly, so I haven't got the knowledge to judge it's proprieties nor deny it's existence.'' But he's not honest now is he? For the record: this guy wants creation to be taught in science class. I wouldn't call that rational. ;)
1144bram 1 year ago
Such a good speaker, and he knows his stuff. Huckabee for 2012
cletiger10 1 year ago
thats all we need a mormon president that believes that the garden of eden was in missouri and the indians are a lost tribe of isreal!!!
oh yeah not to mention mormons believe that blacks are the seed of cain (i.e. the devil)
viego215 1 year ago
Lol "Gid loves us" WHAT???????? Where was god when the holocaust,rawandan genocide, the Spanish inquistion, and other brutal atrocities ocurred????? God (if he exists) is indifferent to our struggles and I seriously doubt that evolution is false.....
Awesomechild96 1 year ago
What do these questions have to do with his ability to be president? Really, these questions are so pointlessly stupid in a presidental debate.
razzledazzle1714 1 year ago
@razzledazzle1714
If your electing the most powerful leader in the world who, after all the scientific and empirical evidence has been put forth on a subject, continues to deny it on the basis of "faith", would you trust them? Also evolution is a fundamental part of modern science from everything to biochemical and genetic research. If someone does not hold scientific evidence in high regard its unlikely they would place much emphasis on it. These are important things for a president.
kaiserbunny132 1 year ago
I think "Do you believe in evolution?" is a loaded question. Evolution is a scientific theory, not some doctrine to believe in or reject. Scientific knowledge grows and changes all the time. Science makes its best guess from what can be observed. Huckabee is not rejecting science, nor is he compromising his beliefs. He's saying that ultimately, we don't know.
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja It's not a loaded question. If you don't accept evolution, you're just plain ignorant or dishonest. Science isn't the "best guess"
OpRedDawn 1 year ago
@OpRedDawn True, "best guess" was not a good term to use. It is much more than a guess. However, scientific knowledge is growing and changing all the time. Less than 100 years ago it was scientific fact that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat. As our technology advanced, our knowledge increased and now we know different. I accept evolution as the most valid scientific theory on the orgin of life. I do not "believe" in it as an irrefutable fact.
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja Well, science doesn't really claim things as facts. In common speaking, we do. Evolution is both a theory, and a fact.
OpRedDawn 1 year ago
@OpRedDawn In order for something to be a scientific fact, it must be able to be observed, tested and repeated with the same results. Any theory on the origin of life or the universe will never be established as scientific fact because it cannot be observed, tested or repeated. However, with the evidence acquired, it makes for a valid scientific theory and the best one at the present time.
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Again, science doesn't really use facts. No matter how solid the model, all it takes is one well-constructed experiment to change everything
OpRedDawn 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja
Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, that study is called abiogenisis and scientists at harvard have recreated ancient earth environments. But that's besides the point. Scientific theory is different from common perception of what a theory is. It describes HOW processes work. Evolution, as with any scientific theory such as atomic theory, theory of relativity, doesn't need to be proven correct: it only needs to be proven wrong to be scrapped.
kaiserbunny132 1 year ago
@kaiserbunny132 I agree with you. I also agree with Mr. Huckabee that, "Do you believe in evolution?" is a flawed question. It's too broad. Is he talking about a species changing over time (microevolution)? Is he talking about complex life developing from single celled organisms (macroevolution)? And is either question even politically relevent? Why aren't they asking him if he believes in the first law of thermodynamics?
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja
First of all "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are common misconceptions, they are both the same and is simply titled evolution. But to answer your question as i told razzledazzle1714 If your electing the most powerful leader in the world who, after all the scientific and empirical evidence has been put forth on a subject, continues to deny it on the basis of "faith", would you trust them? Evolution is a fundamental part of scientific advancement and research. So its valid.
kaiserbunny132 1 year ago
Not only are we descendants of a primate, we are primates.
He makes it sound like you can't believe in evolution and God, when millions, if not billions of people do believe in both.
hlyleh 1 year ago
@hlyleh lol what are you talking about dude? you're spewing a bunch of fact-less information. please show me the millions of people who believe in evolution and God. don't make shizzle up.
MrFrancewa 1 year ago
@MrFrancewa 45% of Americans were YEC at most in 2004. Another 45% believed in Theist evolution. That's around 125 million people. And given that this is America, around 90% of them were Christian, while the other 10% were probably Muslim, Jewish or other. That's over 100 million Americans that are Christian and believe in Evolution. The numbers are even higher now because there are more people and a larger portion of them accept Theist Evolution.
hlyleh 1 year ago
@MrFrancewa And in other countries the numbers of YEC's are way lower.
hlyleh 1 year ago
oh yes....vote me! I believe in god!
Its obvious that evolution didn't effect him at all....
limokontore 1 year ago
"if you want a president that doesnt believe in god, im sure there are plenty of choices" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dpesh7 1 year ago
1:47 What in the world are they laughing at? Govenor Huckabee made a perfectly valid point regarding the age of the earth. Science is what can be observed, experimented and reproduced. No-one has ever observed life coming from none life. No-one has ever observed the inception of the earths existence. To claim to have such knowledge is laughable, not the other way around.
elitegumby 1 year ago
@elitegumby
Actually, they were laughing because he said "I wans't there" (that's obvious.)
Also, look up what abiogensis is. Life can arise from no life.
Onepretentiousdude 1 year ago
Comment removed
ccsniper 1 year ago
I just started reading about these things about three days ago, so I really have no idea how to hold my position. I'm trying though! I will come back when I've done some more research. Just don't die anytime soon :) maybe Jesus could win you over :D.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper Well, good luck. :)
I'd be happy to provide you with more resources, if you'd like? Don't worry, they're not like the creationist propaganda mills, like way of the master, or Kunt Hovind, etc, who basically make up bullshit to sell to people. 90% of the people I've come across peddling creationism don't even understand evolution, and instead make up stuff that makes no sense. If you want to understand then it'd be a good idea to read up on what evolution actually is - not what...
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi Okay so you're saying a 'complex' system is just a tie in of other, more simple systems that originally served a different function. A kind of genetic scaffolding? How would they tie in, or join together to form a complex system?
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper Ken miller explains it like this, if you have a mouse trap, its function is to squish mice, but if you take it apart, it won't be able to squish mice, so is a mouse trap irreducably complex?
No, because you could use the spring as a tie clip, or use the wooden block to prop up a short leg on a table to stop it wobbling. Different functions, same peices.
Evolution builds new systems out of existing ones.
Again, watch this; /watch?v=ffcWKOZfTxE Miller explains it a LOT better than I.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi Sometimes these new systems can also have functions that neither of the previous systems or parts had, but are more beneficial to the specie's ability to survive.
Eventually, these systems can keep on evolving, too, as further mutations adapt and refine the system in subsequent generations.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi
The goal of simple life forms is to continue to live. In evolution, the environment is supposedly a main factor in determining which life forms are better at living. Screw ups in our DNA sequencing sometimes can enable one life form to be better able at surviving, and when it reproduces its descendants will eventually over take the rest of life.
The heart, can you refute that as an irreducibly complex system? What would be the purpose of a large muscle that does nothing?
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper When DNA copies itself it never copies itself perfectly, there's always going to be little errors. Sections can get duplicated, Base pairs can be inverted. A thymine-adenine pair can become a guanine-cytosine pair, etc, things like that. Some of these mutations are harmful, some are benign, some are beneficial. The beneficial ones stand a better chance of being passed on, the benign ones that don't help or hinder will generally be passed on too, but the harmful ones will be...
Vehementi 1 year ago
@ccsniper ...will be weeded out through the environment.
There are loads more thigns that factor into evolution, but that's the basics of it.
Personally, I don;t know the evolution of they heart, but from what I do know, it started off as just a tube with a muscle around it that contracted and extended, the same type of primitive heart is still found in some invertrebrates.
If you wanted you could do some research on the subject. Just google "Evolution of the heart." You'll find something.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi check your inbox.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper ...not what creationist propaganda claims it is. They're mostly just strawmen.
Also, if you come across a creationist argument, chances are you can find out why it's wrong on talkorigins (Google it.). It ALWAYS provides sources for its refutations, so you're free to research yourself.
Vehementi 1 year ago
"Interesting that the question would be asked of somebody running for President"
Well it became a major issue by your fellow Christians Mr Huckabee.
philster61 1 year ago
Of course, let all believe on Spontaneous generation as well.
Why not?....oh maybe we can also believe that the earth is the center of the universe..better yet, let's all believe that the earth is flat !
For God sakes, these morons are dinosaurs....we evolve from the primates.... we just not were magically generated by a God
With modern science, I can believe that there are people out there that still believe this garbage..even more I can believe that this guy had a chance to become president
mcline007 1 year ago
An "accident" implies there was a conscious behind it. A descison was made that achieved an undesirable result. Huckabee just used the fallacy of a false dichtomy AND attacked a strawman.
On top of that, the evidence for evoluion in overwhelming. MtDNA, ERV markers, atavisms, chromosomal fusion, etc.
I don't see how, or why, anyone could vote for a president that decides somethig contrary to what the evidence says.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi
I'm not going to argue with you about how logical Mike Huckabee's argument was, but the evidence for evolution is NOT overwhelming. There are many obstacles that come into direct contradiction to macro-evolution. The five main ones are 1. Genetic limits 2. Cyclical change 3. Irreducible complexity 4. Non-viability of transitional forms and 5. Molecular isolation. Not to mention the fossil record doesn't support evolution at all, but rather the sudden appearance of species.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper Let's take one of your "obsticals" shall we, and see how it stands up to scrutiny?
Irriducable complexity? "Irriducable complexity" assumes that a system will ALWAYS have performed the same function. So far, every example of irriducable complexity given by cretards has been shown to've formed from multiple systems, that served different functions. /watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU Watch this, Ken Miller explains it better using the flagellum as an example.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi Let's take one irreducible complex organ. The eye, how does something go from not seeing, to seeing? Everything in it is required to make the leap of a blind organism, to one that sees.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper The eye isn't an example of irriducible complexity, either: /watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
Vehementi 1 year ago
@ccsniper He makes a demonstration to kids, too. I think this might be better suited to you. ;)
/watch?v=sUjd8x-1xM0
/watch?v=ffcWKOZfTxE
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi Please refrain from insulting me personally.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@Vehementi He doesn't explain how the organism could of "seen" light, or dark. Blind people can't detect light. How did it achieve the ability through an evolutionary process to detect light?
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper Light sensitive cells. A tiny patch of them.
Watch the lecture he gave to those kids, he actually goes into a bit more detail. (He also does the same with camouflage and wings, in different videos.).
Vehementi 1 year ago
@ccsniper Basically, if the light is hitting the light sensitive cells, then they're on, if they're not hitting them, they're off.
The signal os sent to the brain, so it can basically tell if it's in dark or light.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi Also Evolutionist do not have an explanation of how inanimate matter came to be living organisms. The late Carl Sagan, in his fiction novel "contact" (though based on the real SETI program) believed prime numbers would prove the existence of an intelligent being, but for some reason the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias in the first one-celled life does not.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper And gravityists don't have an explanaton to how
Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different scientific theories.
And yes, we do have a pretty good idea about how life formed, and the first single-celled life wouldn't've been NEARLY as complex as cells today, that have gone through countless millions of generations of evolution. The first cells would've been simple RNA patterns (Not even containing any "code", yet.) with a shell of fat acids around it, called a lipid.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi ...to how the brain works.*
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi There is no evidence for an atavism in a human other than a functional "tail", which could easily just be called an elongated spine, an extension of something that already exist. When a deformity (or an "evolutionary throwback")flows with the argument Evolutionist are trying to make, they use it. They would never use the existence of two heads, extra digits, or functional extra limbs to support the evolution debate, saying that we "evolved" from creatures with two heads, or 8 limps.
ccsniper 1 year ago
@ccsniper Well, no, a functional tail is an atavism, as is ducks with teeth and dolphins with visible hind limbs.
Everything else you've mentioned is a deformity, the difference is, the atavism is when an ancestral inactive gene becomes active. we all have the genes for a functioning tail they're just inactive, but we don't all have the genes for extra limbs.
Vehementi 1 year ago
@Vehementi Didn't the supposed existence of our "ancestors" traits come into existence through natural selection "choosing" which deformities in a creatures genetic make up would enable a life form to surpass its original natural form? In this argument, an Atavism is just a "throw-back" of a deformity, or is the same as a modern deformity such as extra digits.
ccsniper 1 year ago
Although he presented himself very well, there is no substance underneath that confident exterior.
nonoxynol 1 year ago
Mike Huckabee has no intellectual honesty. Until an American audience would be more inclined to "Booo" and pour derisive laughter on such a person - rather than applaud them - than we shall be a screwed-up country - and things will get worse.
Intellectual Honesty Folks - you either have it, or you don't.
minitrueful 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@minitrueful
What are you even talking about?
Luftwaffels 1 year ago
@minitrueful last i remember this country was built on biblical knowledge. And it was definitely better then.
Stunt36 1 year ago
@Stunt36 It was better then? That is possibly the most idiotic statement i have ever heard. Have you ever heard of SLAVER-FUCKING-Y?
procritic09 1 year ago
@procritic09 as far as im concerned slavery hasn't been abolished. its just appeared under a new form. we are all slaves under the government. We worked hard to establish the constitution. Today we are trying to create a new one. One without "In God we Trust." A Godless Country is a hopeless country. Thus the reason America is going downhill. We don't trust God anymore.
Stunt36 1 year ago
@Stunt36 What? A godless country is a hopeless country? WHAT? Look at very, VERY non-religious countries like Sweeden, the life satisfaction levels are FAR higher and there are less homeless people, etc. And you clearly do not know what the word SLAVE means. A slave isn't paid. I am truly amazed that there are people as stupid as you on the earth.
procritic09 1 year ago
@procritic09 Actually in the past, slaves were people with no money, the equivalent of bums in today's society, who would ask to receive pay, food, and shelter in exchange for physical and other types of labor. Slave wasn't a derogatory word back then. And Godless country's...like Russia, China, and any communist country where people suffer from no rights. There is no satisfaction where there is no God. Only a dead end with no hope.
Stunt36 1 year ago
@Stunt36 Are you aware that those words weren't put on most of our money until the 1950s and any of our money until the 1860s? People like you like to pretend that those words and the words "under God" were always there, but they weren't. Fascist bigots in the 1950s made a lot of changes that would have made our founding fathers sick to their stomachs,
firegod001 1 year ago
What he says sounds nice but makes little to no sense. First of all, although he may not be writing the curriculum for 8th grade science, I feel the President should at least hold an 8th grade science understanding. Second of all, "the basic question" was not "whether there is a god or not," it was "do you believe in evolution." If you think that's the same thing, you are ignorant (very). Also he says "if we want a President who doesn't believe in God there are plenty of choices." Huh?
newdimensionfilms 1 year ago
Ron Paul has this same view. watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
Drahthaar422 1 year ago
@Drahthaar422 Ron Paul is even worse on this subject. At least Huckabee admits he doesn't know and seems to indicate that it might even be the case that evolution happened under a god's control. Paul hasn't indicated anything of the kind and shows a profound ignorance of what evolution and scientific theory is, which is very scary for a presidential candidate and a fucking doctor.
firegod001 1 year ago
No matter what his beliefs may be, how can a U.S. presidential candidate be SO absolutely ignorant of such a well established scientific theory? He acted like he didn't expect a follow up question. If he were to deny gravitational theory or atomic theory we would call him a lunatic. What makes evolution different that makes this man immune to a bombardment of criticism.
cavinpatch 1 year ago
@cavinpatch Your ignorant to creation,,we are nothing like ape like animals .Lucy is not becoming human..nor did we come from bacteria,or from the backs of crystals.thats ignorant
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Haha! What are you talking about? Here's a tip...why don't you use the cranial capacity that evolution gave you to study a freshman college course in biology or anthropology before you claim to know more than biologists and anthropologists themselves. What evidence do you have that allows you to dismiss the fact that life evolves?..perhaps you're the 'ignorant' one
cavinpatch 1 year ago
He simply does not want to admit that he is a young earth creationist because he knows it will lose him votes.
I personally would never vote for someone who believed the biblical account of creationism because of what is says about that individual's mindset. I prefer people who are capable of rational thinking ... particularly if they have their finger on the button.
bustermk2 1 year ago
@bustermk2 well it does say in in 2 Peter 3:8 that an 1000 years is like a day to God. So the question becomes. Did God create the earth in 6 days by his standards or 6 days by ours. I'd assume that's why he said "I don't know"
goalmaster14 1 year ago
@bustermk2 so what...u believe it happened by accident random bullshit chance. Your ignorant to creation,,we are nothing like ape like animals .Lucy is not becoming human..nor did we come from bacteria,or from the backs of crystals.thats ridiclious
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
Could you direct me to the science journal that describes evolution as "accident random bullshit chance"?
Evolution is natural selection or survival of the fittest. It is supported by piles of evidence for those of us willing to do even the slightest amount of research on the subject.
bustermk2 1 year ago
@bustermk2 yes, time, matter and space came from nothing and blew up and made everything we see today. thats really random. That is the base of your religion.
Stunt36 1 year ago
@Stunt36
So everything came from nothing ... exactly how is that different from the religious position?
bustermk2 1 year ago
@bustermk2 thats exactly what im saying. Add all this "scientific" bullshit with loads of lies you guys call facts, and end up with the same thing just without salvation and a reason to live...make sense???
Stunt36 1 year ago
@Stunt36
It isn't what "we guys" call facts ... they are just facts. They are testable and observable.
Religion on the other hand isn't. We cannot see physical evidence of God's existence and it is becoming increasingly obvious that God's existence isn't required to explain the observed universe.
All that religion offers is the "hope" of salvation ... but there is no evidence to suggest that that is any more real than any of the other claims made by various religions.
bustermk2 1 year ago
Elect Huckabee for four more years of Republican controlled Dark ages.
viletree 1 year ago
"...but you know if anybody wants to believe they are descendents of a primate they are certainly welcome to do it..."
I'm sorry to break it to you, Governor Huckabee, but not only are you the descendent of a primate, you ARE a primate! :)
cavinpatch 1 year ago
@cavinpatch Your a stupid kid shut your mouth
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv that is a fact, humans are primates. That has nothing to do with evolution, we were classified as primates before Darwin was born.
procritic09 1 year ago
@procritic09 WRONG..Humans are not primates..Lucy a misidentified knuckle walking extinct chimp..how about Piltdown man or Nebraska man,,science made of whole animal half ape half human..all LIES!!..everything brings fourth its own kind,with variation of course and limits..and no new information is added..its still its own KIND!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@procritic09 then break down a modern protein,and make a primitive cell..Venter has tried this..and failed..this can not be done..The problem is left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic and prevent abiogenesis. Furthermore, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids. All attempts have resulted in disaster and no life was ever made..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@procritic09 it should be easier to make one..by removing the molecular machines..and having less proteins..which will mean less DNA damaging the organism..but in your mind this cell could live with very little information...so whats your Answer??
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv i talked to god last night he told me you squealed like a bitch when jesus fucked you in the ass
cavinpatch 11 months ago
@cavinpatch Anyone that makes comments like that is a immature stupid person.grow up Moron..your positive you have no spirit and soul and you will just rot in ground ?..your pathetic ..go back to playing video games and watching porn loser..
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fisherman209.blogspot.com My BLOG
Evolution is just a theory, and one with no basis. However secular scientists often want to pass it off as fact.
lionheart209 1 year ago