"...a bad night for the GOP"

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

And there's a really simple response. By your standard, nothing but an athiest would qualify. Certainly not Mitt Romney.

To get back to the point, though, I don't see how this makes Huckabee a "disaster" to anyone but nit-pickers like you. If you're making your intelligence assessments based off the "6000-year" argument, you can count yourself in the extreme minority.

I recognize that I'm in the extreme minority, but that's where I stand and I don't consider it nitpicking. Believing the earth is 6000 years old is like believing that the American continent is 3 feet wide. Except in cases where an individual is sheltered to an extreme degree, anyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old is not smart enough to be trusted to do anything more vigorous than pumping gas.

That isn't even close to the only issue I have with Huckabee, but it is a litmus test. Imagine if you discovered he was employed as a psychic medium who communicates with people's dead family members, or that he worshiped satan or something. I'm trying to think of something dumb enough that even you might be offended by it. Those beliefs aren't any dumber than creationism.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I recognize that I'm in the extreme minority, but that's where I stand and I don't consider it nitpicking. Believing the earth is 6000 years old is like believing that the American continent is 3 feet wide. Except in cases where an individual is sheltered to an extreme degree, anyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old is not smart enough to be trusted to do anything more vigorous than pumping gas.

That isn't even close to the only issue I have with Huckabee, but it is a litmus test. Imagine if you discovered he was employed as a psychic medium who communicates with people's dead family members, or that he worshiped satan or something. I'm trying to think of something dumb enough that even you might be offended by it. Those beliefs aren't any dumber than creationism.

Has his 6,000 year old belief affected his ability to govern Arkansas?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I recognize that I'm in the extreme minority, but that's where I stand and I don't consider it nitpicking. Believing the earth is 6000 years old is like believing that the American continent is 3 feet wide. Except in cases where an individual is sheltered to an extreme degree, anyone who believes the earth is 6000 years old is not smart enough to be trusted to do anything more vigorous than pumping gas.

That isn't even close to the only issue I have with Huckabee, but it is a litmus test. Imagine if you discovered he was employed as a psychic medium who communicates with people's dead family members, or that he worshiped satan or something. I'm trying to think of something dumb enough that even you might be offended by it. Those beliefs aren't any dumber than creationism.

Still equating creationism with a belief that the world is 6,000 years old?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Still equating creationism with a belief that the world is 6,000 years old?

Yes, that's generally what it refers to. "Young-earth creationism" is sometimes used, but "creationism" almost always refers to belief in a young earth. It isn't an atheism vs religion issue; it's an evolution vs literal Genesis issue, so "young earth creationism" is redundant in this context. There are obviously many religious people who accept evolution, but they tend to side against the creationists on this issue, and in my experience never identify themselves as creationists.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

That isn't even close to the only issue I have with Huckabee, but it is a litmus test. Imagine if you discovered he was employed as a psychic medium who communicates with people's dead family members, or that he worshiped satan or something. I'm trying to think of something dumb enough that even you might be offended by it. Those beliefs aren't any dumber than creationism.

I would hope that such beliefs would evidence themselves in equally odd approaches to public policy. If you can come up with a Satan-worshipping, seance-communicating public official as an example, I'm all ears.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Has his 6,000 year old belief affected his ability to govern Arkansas?

Dude, I think you answered your own question here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Yes, that's generally what it refers to. "Young-earth creationism" is sometimes used, but "creationism" almost always refers to belief in a young earth. It isn't an atheism vs religion issue; it's an evolution vs literal Genesis issue, so "young earth creationism" is redundant in this context. There are obviously many religious people who accept evolution, but they tend to side against the creationists on this issue, and in my experience never identify themselves as creationists.

No, Woot. Young earth creationism is a subset of creationism. It isn't redundant with creationism. An alternative to young earth creationism is, unsurprisingly, called old earth creationism (also a subset of creationism).

I really don't know why this issue gets you so emotional and irrational.

Assume a politician believes in the 6,000 year old earth policy. Why does that make the politician per se "stupid?" Couldn't the politician believe that God has made it appear that the Earth is older than 6,000 to try faith (or any other number of possible explanations)? Certainly he could. And why would that make him more "stupid" than a politician who believed that Jesus walked on water (when all available scientific evidence suggests people cannot walk on water)? Just so you know, almost every single US president has been a Christian and, presumably, a believer in miracles of some fashion. Were all of them unqualified to hold the office?

Why is a person who believes in the big bang inherently smarter and more qualified to be president of the United States? Don't they have to believe in matter that has existed for eternity (which doesn't really seem scientifically possible) that is the source of all life? We can't prove it has been here for eternity, can we? We can only hypothesize that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

You are so emotionally invested in this issue that you appear to surrender rational thought while, ironically, attempting to cite rational thought in your defense.

[woot]

So the fact that I've never seen it referred to in that way despite caring a lot about the issue and keeping up with all the news makes me irrational? I won't deny that there are people who refer to themselves as old earth creationists, but I haven't heard about them. I think that since creationists, and more recently the "intelligent design" crowd, have been exposed as the "liars for Jesus" that they are, that most of those who technically could be called "old earth creationists" have chosen to avoid any association with the young earth crowd, and therefore eschew the label of creationists. That you have not done similarly places you in the minority, and my use of the term as it is most commonly employed remains acceptable.

I think there are degrees of irrationality. Islam is more irrational than Jainism, creationism is more irrational than stories about Jesus. People love to try to force atheists to declare all religions equally bankrupt, when that is simply not the case.

A strong argument could be made that our best presidents were among the least religious, and that any good the most religious presidents have done has been in spite of their religion. I don't suppose doing so would be of any use to you, however.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

So the fact that I've never seen it referred to in that way despite caring a lot about the issue and keeping up with all the news makes me irrational? I won't deny that there are people who refer to themselves as old earth creationists, but I haven't heard about them. I think that since creationists, and more recently the "intelligent design" crowd, have been exposed as the "liars for Jesus" that they are, that most of those who technically could be called "old earth creationists" have chosen to avoid any association with the young earth crowd, and therefore eschew the label of creationists. That you have not done similarly places you in the minority, and my use of the term as it is most commonly employed remains acceptable.

I think there are degrees of irrationality. Islam is more irrational than Jainism, creationism is more irrational than stories about Jesus. People love to try to force atheists to declare all religions equally bankrupt, when that is simply not the case.

A strong argument could be made that our best presidents were among the least religious, and that any good the most religious presidents have done has been in spite of their religion. I don't suppose doing so would be of any use to you, however.

Now you are just getting ridiculous. Are you really going to try and make an argument that the "best presidents" were the least religious, and where there are exceptions they succeeded in spite of their religion? By all means, Woot, Woot it up!!! I truly cannot wait to read that stimulating Wootercise.

Have you really become so jaded with religion that you can't even acknowledge that some of the nation's greatest leaders WERE religious (and that their religion wasn't a handicap to them)? Seriously, please post your treatise.

And the fact that you are savvy enough to know that there is a category of creationism called "young earth creationism" should have alerted you to the fact that creationism is a general category with subsets and should have alerted you to the fact that there could be another subset dealing with a non-young earth (like old earth). The fact that you haven't heard it used in that context isn't the best evidence you could provide that creationism is redundant with young-earth creationism.

Maybe I should try that tactic. Woot- I have never heard of the big bang. Ergo, there was no big bang. And I REALLY pay attention. So that has to be important.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Now you are just getting ridiculous. Are you really going to try and make an argument that the "best presidents" were the least religious, and where there are exceptions they succeeded in spite of their religion? By all means, Woot, Woot it up!!! I truly cannot wait to read that stimulating Wootercise.

Have you really become so jaded with religion that you can't even acknowledge that some of the nation's greatest leaders WERE religious (and that their religion wasn't a handicap to them)? Seriously, please post your treatise.

And the fact that you are savvy enough to know that there is a category of creationism called "young earth creationism" should have alerted you to the fact that creationism is a general category with subsets and should have alerted you to the fact that there could be another subset dealing with a non-young earth (like old earth). The fact that you haven't heard it used in that context isn't the best evidence you could provide that creationism is redundant with young-earth creationism.

Maybe I should try that tactic. Woot- I have never heard of the big bang. Ergo, there was no big bang. And I REALLY pay attention. So that has to be important.

I'm the one who acknowledged that there are those who believe in creation and evolution at the same time. You're confusing the belief with the use of a label.

As I suggested, I won't bother trying to educate you about the anti-religious leanings of many of our greatest presidents. If you're interested, look it up. Why does this stuff offend you so? You're really acting like a jackass.