• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

what you described is natural selection. Natural selection results is variation within a species due to survival of the fittest. Evolution results in speciation where one species becomes another different species.

Natural selection is part of the theory of evolution.
 
Natural selection is part of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is dependent on natural selection, but natural selection is not part of the theory of evolution. They are separate but evolution pulls from natural selection.
 
IMO, while Governor Huntsman is a solid candidate, I believe he has lost his opportunity to play a meaningful, even significant role in the nominating process. In part, the loss of that opportunity is self-inflicted. An inactive campaign schedule has led to a lack of visibility. Incredibly, if one looks at his calendar, one finds no events for August 12 through August 21.

10 days without even a single event amounts to hibernation when one needs to build a national profile. A candidate who is not nationally known can ill afford to pass any days without events. Now that Governor Perry has entered the race and the race is beginning to focus on a smaller set of candidates (Romney, Bachmann, and Perry), it will be even more difficult for Governor Huntsman to gain attention.
 
Last edited:
Evolution is dependent on natural selection, but natural selection is not part of the theory of evolution.

That is nonsensical.
 
That is nonsensical.

How so? Natural selection is a theory independent from evolution, evolution is a theory that pulls from natural selection. I don't see how this is nonsensical.
 
How so? Natural selection is a theory independent from evolution, evolution is a theory that pulls from natural selection. I don't see how this is nonsensical.

It's nonsensical because natural selection is a component of the theory of evolution. It makes no sense to say that the theory of evolution depends on natural selection, but natrual selection isn't a part of the theory of evolution.
 
It's nonsensical because natural selection is a component of the theory of evolution. It makes no sense to say that the theory of evolution depends on natural selection, but natrual selection isn't a part of the theory of evolution.

they theory of evolution is dependent on natural selection, natural selection is not dependent on the theory of evolution. Natural selection can be true without evolution being true. They are two separate theories but evolution pulls from natural selection. Natural selection does not pull from evolution and is not dependent upon evolution to be a sound theory.
 
they theory of evolution is dependent on natural selection, natural selection is not dependent on the theory of evolution. Natural selection can be true without evolution being true. They are two separate theories but evolution pulls from natural selection. Natural selection does not pull from evolution and is not dependent upon evolution to be a sound theory.

The fact that natural selection stands on it own does not mean that it isn't a component of the theory of evolution. But this is a silly discussion about semantics.
 
Saying something is "just a theory" doesn't actual offer any rebuttal or hold much meaning
Nor did your response in comparing evolution to the theory of gravity, which was kind of the point.
 
How is it that liberals don't think no god could have had a hand in evolution, but yet they ascribe so easily to the religious cultism of Global Warming?
 
It's nonsensical because natural selection is a component of the theory of evolution. It makes no sense to say that the theory of evolution depends on natural selection, but natrual selection isn't a part of the theory of evolution.

False. Natural selection even fits into creationism. It's stands as a theory on its own.
 
the authority appealed to is actually an authority in the field under discussion, it's not a logical fallacy. It's only a logical fallacy when one appeals to a an expert in one field for his opinion on an unrelated matter.
Whether or not it qualifies as a fallacy (I don't believe that claim was made) it is nonetheless an appeal to authority and therefore (logically speaking) not a particularly strong argument.
 
I was not trying to offer a rebuttal against evolution
No, you were offering a rebuttal to a "just a theory" argument, by (perhaps not intentionally) implying that all theories are created equal, that if we accept the theory of gravity, so should we accept the theory of evolution because they are after all, both scientific theories. Such an argument/rebuttal is about as weak as the "just a theory" argument itself.
 
False. Natural selection even fits into creationism. It's stands as a theory on its own.

Which is irrelevant. The greenhouse theory also stands on it's own, but it's still a central part of AGW theory.
 
How is it that liberals don't think no god could have had a hand in evolution, but yet they ascribe so easily to the religious cultism of Global Warming?
I think you're wrong. I'm a liberal atheist, yet if you ask me is there any chance of there being a God and having a hand at some part of the universe's developement I'd have to say that I can't prove it wrong. I think it's as unlikely as any other random theory that has no supporting evidence, but I wouldn't say it's impossible and I think most atheists/agnostic liberals would agree with me.
 
[/SIZE]

Read more: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy' - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com


I have already contributed to his campaign once, and this makes me want to send the guy another check. However, since reason and sanity are not virtues Republican Primary Voters want in a candidate this year, I don't think this will help him out any.

Wow! Could it be we have a Republican candidate for the presidency who isn't batsh**t crazy, one who actually understands science and isn't stuck in the 15th. century?

That sounds too good to be true.

I wonder what Romney has to say on the issue of scientific progress... pro or con? maybe he actually agrees with Huntsman, but knows he has to get the nutter vote in order to be nominated.
 
Wow! Could it be we have a Republican candidate for the presidency who isn't batsh**t crazy, one who actually understands science and isn't stuck in the 15th. century?

That sounds too good to be true.

I wonder what Romney has to say on the issue of scientific progress... pro or con? maybe he actually agrees with Huntsman, but knows he has to get the nutter vote in order to be nominated.

Thankfully Romney accepts AGW theory. Rush's comment upon hearing that Romney reaffirmed his stance: "bye bye nomination."

Apparently acknowledging reality now disqualifies you from being the Republican nominee.
 
Whether or not it qualifies as a fallacy (I don't believe that claim was made) it is nonetheless an appeal to authority and therefore (logically speaking) not a particularly strong argument.

Actually, logically speaking, appeal to authority of this sort is considered a strong induction. If a premise based on this strong induction is used in a logically valid deduction, it is presumed to be sound.
 
False. Natural selection even fits into creationism. It's stands as a theory on its own.
Very well. I can see where your coming from but out of curiousity, can you answer my favorite question? A question I've never heard a good response to from any creationist I've ever met?

If you believe that natural selection is a good theory that stands on it's own, and you believe that populations of animals can change over time to adapt to environments and surroundings through survival of the fittest, what parts of humans and chimps are so different that it can't be explained that humans came about by tiny changes over a long time changing from our common ancestor we share with them?
 
I think you're wrong. I'm a liberal atheist, yet if you ask me is there any chance of there being a God and having a hand at some part of the universe's developement I'd have to say that I can't prove it wrong. I think it's as unlikely as any other random theory that has no supporting evidence, but I wouldn't say it's impossible and I think most atheists/agnostic liberals would agree with me.

You lost me at atheist. Sure, all this just got here by accident. You betcha. Carry on.
 
Sure, all this just got here by accident.

That is a nonsense statement because for something to be an accident, it must, by definition, occur in a way other than was intended.

It is impossible for this all to have gotten here by "accident" if a deity doe snot exist. It can only happen if there is a deity.


IMO, one should really have a basic understanding of the meanings of the words they chose to use before being arrogantly dismissive of someone else's beliefs.
 
Last edited:
You lost me at atheist. Sure, all this just got here by accident. You betcha. Carry on.

His Point <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> You
 
You lost me at atheist.
I can point you in the direction of a really good doctor to diagnose and treat your attention deficit disorder but other than that I'm not really sure if I'm the person to help you with your affliction here. I'm not a terribly patient person. Sorry about that.
 
Evolution is a myth to many people who think that God made everything as it is, and it will never change. They never consider that God may have included evolution in his plans.
Note that many who support evolution fall into this camp as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom