South Carolina luvs gulags.

Brit Hume is not brave enough to ask whether any of them would support domestic internment camps along with all torture of those who could be possible suspects (the mostly likely scenario) in the FOX '24' shopping mall bomb fantasy.

But I like watching when Republicans play-act tough. Sharpen those 9-irons, boys (McCain excluded)

For literal sake of argument, here is the transcript:

'Hello, my name is Kelly Tripplehorn, and my company is ready to offer anyone one thousand dollars if they can explain how they are able to account for modern science without invoking god to do so.

Here is the basic problem that all non-theists face when engaging in inductive science: The modern scientific method is grounded in the idea that one is able to correctly form and deduce scientific theories and scientific laws through one's inductive inference, but before we are able to understand what induction is, we must first learn what DEduction is.

Deduction is, for instance, when I say something like "all fire is hot therefore that particular fire over there is hot" - thus, deduction makes inferences from the GENERAL to the specific.

INduction, on the other hand, would be like when a child touches fire for the very first time and he says "Ouch - that fire is hot therefore ALL fire is hot." Thus, induction makes inferences from the specific to the general.

Now for modern science to work, it must assume the truth of induction, or something more commonly known as "The Uniformity of Nature." If one does not assume that the natural laws work uniformly, then modern science as we know it is impossible.

So, for instance, as a scientist, if I release this fork from my hand, I can assume that it will fall towards the ground at 9.78m/s^2.

But if I do not assume the existance of a creator that created this world uniformly, what warrant do I have to believe that this fork, in the future, will continue to fall at exactly 9.78m/s^2. More specifically, what warrant would I have, as a non-theist, to believe that this fork when released, will not just continue to hover in the air, or begin to spontaneously fly upwards. Because, you see, you can not point to the past to prove the future without fundamentally begging the question as to why it is I should assume that the past events will continue to resemble the future events.

As a Christian, though, I do not have this problem, since the first two chapters of Genesis inform me that God created the world with order and uniformity. And, I, as a Christian can assume that the past laws of nature will be like the future laws of nature because god has implicitly told me so in his word.

Unless you are a theist, your worldview cannot even begin to justify why it is that the natural laws of the past will continue to operate uniformly.

Now, by this point, you're probably very confused, so let me give you a very vivid illustration of this.

Suppose you're playing a racecar video game and then I ask you "why is it that you believe your racecar in the next few seconds will not spontaneously turn into a horse?" Now no "thinking person" is going to say "well that's because my car has never turned into a horse in the past." No! noone would say that, because noone would ever believe that the past events govern the future events.

Rather, the videogame designer designed the game in such a way so that the rules and laws of the game operate uniformly.

This analogy applies to real life.

I can say that I have warrant for not believing that my car will spontaneously turn into a horse because I believe in a logical god that has created the world to reflect his own logical nature.

So here's the challenge:

All any non-theist has to do is give a justification concerning their inductive inference. In other words, justify why it is that you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, or that in the next few seconds why it is that you won't spontaneously turn into a grasshopper.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is just dying for someone to answer them, and if you, as a non-theist - that is, if you are an agnostic or an atheist - can get your answer published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and have the Encyclopedia acknowlege that you have justified your inductive inference, then we will give you one thousand dollars.

In the Encyclopedia section entitled "The Problem of Induction," it gives a 250 year history of man trying to justify his inductive inference without invoking God. After having exhausted every notable thinker who has tackled this problem in the last 250 years, the encyclopedia concludes as follows:

"David Humes' simple argument for the impossibility of a justification of induction is a dilemma. Induction is hence unjustifiable."

So in other words, there is not one atheist/agnostic philosopher in the history of the world who has been able to justify his inductive inference, and christians have basically ignored this fact, but that time has now ceased.

So all the agnostic has to do is to submit his response that fully resolves the problem of induction to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, have them publish your answer, and the i53 Broadcasting Corporation will give you one thousand dollars.

All submissions should be emailed to webmaster@plato.stanford.edu. Once again, that email address is webmaster@plato.stanford.edu.

And please remember not to fall into this common trap by saying "well I have to admit that I do not know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the laws of nature will continue to operate uniformly, but I just think that it is highly probable, based on my past experiences." But, as the atheist David Hume has already pointed out to us "probability itself assumes uniformity," and thus probability cannot itself justify belief in uniformity.'

(continued below)

well he does have a semblance of a point.
Hume's argument
- you cannot, ever, be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. I.e. you have to believe it will (and you DO believe it will)
Kant came upon the same conclusion, that you can never know external objects, as they are in or by themselves, you must believe that they exist, or make a statement of beliefe. The reason for believing is
in either science or God is the problem. But, in essence, it is a matter of beliefe. Of course, the reasons for believing in science are perhaps more reasonable, rational and closer to experience but are still matters of beliefe.
For you all atheist go check out
the interesting lecture
"Why only an atheist can believe"
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh_KO4tSMeU]

disclaimer -
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intesity."
W. B. Yeats

LOL. It's like listening to some skinhead or hilter youth, or Brit Hume, or Cartman. There's a whole shitload of QMs blowing innocent people up all over the world, Farhad. Don't waste your time on his ignorant rantings. He's like a one-man "Fox and Friends"... moronic and sad, although good for a giggle now and then.

* Rush Limbaugh -- sought deferment (because of a cyst on his tail end).
* George Will -- sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
* Pat Buchanan -- sought deferment (for bad knee).
* Pat Robertson -- his US Senator father got him out of Korea as soon as the shooting began.

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Matt Drudge: did not serve.
* Steve Forbes: did not serve.
* Tony Snow: did not serve.
* Michael "Savage" Weiner: did not serve.
* Brit Hume: did not serve.
* Roger Ailes: did not serve.

# Paul Gigot: did not serve.
# Bill Kristol: did not serve.
# Ralph Reed: did not serve.
# Michael Medved: did not serve.
# Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
# Anne Coulter: did not serve.
# Jerry Falwell: did not serve.
# Alan Keyes : did not serve.
# Ted Nugent: did not serve.

* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Ari Fleischer: did not serve.
* Andrew Card: did not serve.
* Ken Adelman: did not serve.
# Mitt Romney - did not serve in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France.
# John Bolton: did not serve.
# Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
# Bill Frist: did not serve.
# John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments, to teach business.
# Trent Lott : avoided the draft, did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee" He defeated tripelegic Max Cleland by questioning his patriotism!
* Don Nickles: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.

Tom Brokaw: Senator Quayle, I don't mean to beat this drum until it has no more sound in it. But to follow up on Brit Hume's question, when you said that it was a hypothetical situation, it is, sir, after all, the reason that we're here tonight, because you are running not just for Vice President — (Applause)
Brokaw: And if you cite the experience that you had in Congress, surely you must have some plan in mind about what you would do if it fell to you to become President of the United States, as it has to so many Vice Presidents just in the last 25 years or so.
Quayle: Let me try to answer the question one more time. I think this is the fourth time that I've had this question.
Brokaw: The third time.
Quayle: Three times that I've had this question — and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is what kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president, what kind of qualifications do I have and what would I do in this kind of a situation. And what would I do in this situation? I would make sure that the people in the cabinet and the people that are advisors to the president are called in, and I would talk to them, and I will work with them. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because as vice president I will sit on the National Security Council. And I will know them on a firsthand basis, because I'm going to be coordinating the drug effort. I will know them on a firsthand basis because Vice President George Bush is going to recreate the Space Council, and I will be in charge of that. I will have day-to-day activities with all the people in government. And then, if that unfortunate situation happens — if that situation, which would be very tragic, happens, I will be prepared to carry out the responsibilities of the presidency of the United States of America. And I will be prepared to do that. I will be prepared not only because of my service in the Congress, but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. It is not just age; it's accomplishments, it's experience. I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.
Judy Woodruff: Senator Bentsen.
Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause) What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the —
Woodruff: Please, please, once again you are only taking time away from your own candidate.
Quayle: That was really uncalled for, Senator. (Shouts and applause)
Bentsen: You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator — and I'm one who knew him well. And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.



The way Bentsen manages to make "Senator" sound like a shameful term is just amazing.