Heart-ache: Palin wants creationism taught in public schools? Update: Oh noes, Pat Buchanan!
posted at 8:46 pm on August 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If you read Wired? Yes. If you read LGF and get the full context of what she said? No. That makes twice already today that quotes of hers were bowdlerized to make them more nutroots-friendly.
Lot o’ debunking to do before November 4.
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.
That puts her to Jindal’s left, actually. Here’s a bit more, unquoted by LGF, from the Anchorage Daily News article Charles links to:
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.
“It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
“My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’”
I don’t know how to parse all that — she’s happy to let it come up in classroom discussion so long as it’s introduced by kids’ questions and not the teacher himself, I guess — but as long as she doesn’t want to add it to the curriculum I can’t believe she’ll have any problem with independents. In any case, creationism’s not what this election’s about. What this election’s about is whether Palin supported a guy nine years ago who’s still — tragically — so mainstream that you can’t turn on MSNBC or Fox News without stumbling across him. Ben Smith cites old press reports indicating that Palin backed Steve Forbes in 1999, but Buchanan, ever eager to slay the neocon dragon even if it means blaming Churchill for World War II, evidently claimed on Hardball tonight that she was one of his. I can’t wait for the “Countdown” segment explaining why anyone who would associate with Pat Buchanan is unfit for office, followed immediately by yet another 20-minute pundit roundtable featuring Pat Buchanan.
Update: A crucial news bulletin: Palin never actually donated to Buchanan but may have been at a fundraiser for him 12 years ago. Ergo, she hates Jews. I literally laughed aloud at the thought of Chris Matthews trying to paint her as a hatemonger with the hatemonger-in-chief sitting right across from him on his own show.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Good grief. Look at this.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Hello, brother! It’s been a long time since I’ve seen you here. I rarely post anymore myself. Busy with other things.
Notice how this site has skewed left in the past year?
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 12:25 AM
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Go read the link and point out its errors, don’t personally attack me. You asked for proof and I gave you one. Attack the message not the messenger.
barry norris on August 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Good night all.
dedalus you’re right about the Buicks, they really need to evolve more.
Maxx on August 30, 2008 at 12:29 AM
That’s right, Deportation! The Bible dates if you add them up in Scripture comes to about 6 thousand years ago for the creation, not millions. There’s a large difference between 6 thousand and twenty billion. Congress doesn’t seem to understand that, but there is a BIG difference okay… lol …
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Not really above or beyond one thing or another. Just reading and responding to posts. Putting evolution aside, the life we know on earth involves “struggle and death”. Certainly, the suffering of the billions of animals that you refer to doesn’t seem unusual compared to what happens today in a jungle (eat lunch or be lunch) or in an industrial farm (say the slaughtering of chickens by Tyson or Perdue).
I agree with your “retarded” point and can see how many find the meandering troubling. But, I don’t necessarily feel that evolution had to be unguided or proves that we are without a higher purpose. Believing that we evolved from some form of sea life doesn’t diminish my view of humanity any more than understanding embryology and knowing that my children started out as a single cell diminishes my appreciation for their humanity.
dedalus on August 30, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Now with pretty pictures.
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Notice how this site has skewed left in the past year?
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I didn’t think I skewed left, having the name DfD (Democrats for Deportation), did I?
DfDeportation on August 30, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Imagine that, A Democrat that believes in God and Illegal Aliens need to be deported.
DfDeportation on August 30, 2008 at 12:34 AM
That was a FUNNY video! The interviewer wasn’t buying the automakers answers. “The jury is still out on flying cars”
Good stuff, Maxx.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM
I wasn’t referring to you, sir.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 12:37 AM
You can feed these trolls but they just parrot the same nonsense over and over. You can refute every silly claim and they don’t even realize it. They live in a childish fantasy world of Demons and Angels where they are some kind of brave Paladin for their Thunder God from another dimension. Have a ball but they always end up in the same corner with nothing but vicious invectives to spew.
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Hilarious. Much appreciate the late night laugh.
dedalus on August 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM
How about this. Who is a “higher” life form? A high school or a college grad?
DfDeportation on August 30, 2008 at 12:40 AM
You’ll never refute instant creation, sir. Evidence have refuted evolution many times over, but evolutionists continue to shift evidence, redefine terms and shutdown debate.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Does that mean they fluctuate between a monkey and a fish?
DfDeportation on August 30, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Brother Skidd! One of my favourite posters! I hope you’re doing well. Yeah, I was off doing other things … I just started posting again a little while ago. Here fighting some of the scoffers (smiles). Doing what I can in these last days. Yes sir, I noticed that too! How this site is moving farther and farther left all the time. Looks like the Republican party’s moving to the center. Pretty soon there will be little difference between the right and left. Very sad.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 12:44 AM
And the creationist “fire can’t melt steel!!1!” makes its first appearance.
RightOFLeft on August 30, 2008 at 12:48 AM
The only real difference between the parties now is where they want to spend our money. They both refuse to tackle the tougher issues.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Sorry ronsfi but that’s no dice. We need pictures of a species evolving from one kind to another, not simply drawings of various animals that look similar. For example, where are the bones for progressive stages of a dinosaur becoming a bird? We have mountains of fossils so surely they exist… if they ever did exist.
Maxx on August 30, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Oh dear GOD. Please don’t let Hot Air hop on the same CHICKENSHIT BANDWAGON that LGF has jumped on.
I swear for all the smack Michelle talks, her troops sure as hell seem to lack the backbone.
thareb on August 30, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Yeah and we need pictures of God Creating the Universe.
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 12:55 AM
You might do well to go back and understand why the flood took place. It’s been 4,400 years since the flood, that’s what the Bible says. In that flood, many plants, animals, and people drowned. They were buried under the mud and rocks. Where do you think all the gas and oil came from? Every time you go to the gas station you’re pumping in grandpa from the flood. If he would have listened and got on the Ark he wouldn’t be having this problem. Think about the judgment of God on sin every time you use any oil or natural gas or drive down a black-top highway. Such a glaring reminder.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Did any of you guys see this? Tis embarrassing, but, uh… my afraid he been brainwashed.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I’m afraid that is simply fantasy as has been established over and over and over in these hallowed threads.
Every claim creationists make has been refuted undeniably. A small amount of research is all you need do. If you really wanted the truth it is not hard to find.
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Manga.
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Evolutionists need time. LOTS of it.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 1:05 AM
I had to leave LGF d/t all the evolutionist nonsense…please say it ain’t so here now as well?
melachiro on August 30, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Your very sure about something that has never been proven to the undenialable degree you claim.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 1:07 AM
This is an old and hotly contested debate on this site. You’ve never seen it before?
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 1:09 AM
It’s not like we have the last 3 billion years TIVO’d and we can just play it back and watch what happened. What we have is the fossils of a tiny fraction of the organisms that have existed since life first appeared on the Earth. Whatever you think of evolution, the evidence clearly rules out, “the universe was created in its entirety 6000 years ago.”
RightOFLeft on August 30, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Must resist, must resist.
OldEnglish on August 30, 2008 at 1:12 AM
“Undeniably” refers to the claims not the Science. I would say your statement as a whole would make an excellent example of glaring irony. Unless you can produce God. Or say a photo of him creating a bunny or summin.
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 1:12 AM
You don’t need TIVO to win the argument. Just transitional forms There are zero fossils ever found that show transition.
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 1:13 AM
No sir, you’re the one who said you had lots of evidence for evolution. You told me a Pakicetid turned into a whale over 8 million years. Okay, well then what is a Pakicetid? You’re the one who is telling me this happened! But, I see now it looks like you want me to prove it?? Well, that’s great. That’s like me telling you a Chevy and a Pontiac both evolved from a Honda 29 million years ago now go on and prove it! Or maybe you don’t want to tell everybody what Pakicetids are because evolution says land mammals came first, and then they evolved back into the ocean. Think about that.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Goodnight, folks. I’ve have to work tomorrow. G’night, ronsfi, RightofLeft, and all the rest. :)
Skidd on August 30, 2008 at 1:17 AM
I guess I have but I was so disappointed with LGF’s direction and I thought that there were more on this site that already had the blinders lifted from their eyes. They seem to all squawk about how the msm is filled with lies yet when it doesn’t fit their new conservative agenda I guess the msm is full of truth?
melachiro on August 30, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Why do you guys keep making this rediculous claim.
One
many more
ronsfi on August 30, 2008 at 1:22 AM
+1 for apacalyps.
For my part I don’t give a sperm’s snout about supporting causes, religion or dogma, no matter how fashionable. I don’t reject the hypothesis of macro evolution because it contradicts the teachings of this or that religion or this or that interpretation of a Bible text, but because it is logically unsound and, furthermore, when examined step by step, is unable to provide a working explanation for the conclusion it asserts.
The ‘evidence’ so often claimed in support of macro-evolution is explained more satisfactorily by other hypotheses.
Macro evolution was an idea worth exploring but it has turned-out to be a pathetically weak intellectual model that would perhaps have been embalmed long ago if it hadn’t been kept alive by the long-running, misguided and equally useless science-v-religion debate. As a hypothesis it simply does not work, and it is never going to evolve rationally beyond its foundational tenet of the magic mud puddle.
YiZhangZhe on August 30, 2008 at 1:24 AM
What must happen to life in order for it to evolve? Evolution has to use suffering, misfits, death, because it doesn’t know what it wants the first time and can’t make it right the first time. If death is natural, then Jesus’ death had no meaning or purpose.
First place, it’s not what the Bible says, okay. There’s no evidence for evolution anyway, so why compromise a good Book with a dumb theory? I don’t understand why you wanna do that okay. No evidence for it. And that is not the God of the Bible. When I get into a discussion with people who say, wel I believe God used evolution; I say well look, you’re welcome to believe that, however, you need to understand you’re not talking of the God of the Bible. You might be talking about god like Osama Bin Laden talks about god, but that’s not the God of the Bible. He’s got a different god than I do, okay. The Mormons have a different god than I do. Just because somebody says the word “god” does not mean they are talking about the same person that is the God of the Bible. So, uh, no. God did not use evolution to create. There’s no evidence for evolutiona nyways, okay.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Hey, DfDeportation. Don’t know if you’re aware yet, but when you copy and paste somebody’s message to your preview window, highlight it and then press the “quote” button found on top of the preview box. Then clcik the preview button again to make sure you did it right. That’s only if you want. I just noticed you weren’t doing that and that’s how it’s done in case you were wondering.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 1:34 AM
I think I found a transitional species.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 1:36 AM
.
On LGF if you mention that pointing out where criticizing philosophical naturalism has overtaken the curriculum or allowing criticism of — for example — peppered moth studies by pointing out that the scientists that did the study pinned or glued these moths to tree trunks in a laboratory (and that the photos in biology books are unscientific because these moths do not rest on tree trunks in nature), you are branded a young earth creationist nut.
It is typical that LGF (which is why I do not visit too much more their site) would brand her like that, they do it regularly to their readers.
.
papa_giorgio on August 30, 2008 at 1:36 AM
That’s right. And I don’t see it getting any better either. Every decade it just gets worse and worse. Those in government are becoming more corrupt and self serving. And with some of these people here, they are so committed to the evolution theory that no amount of logic can help them see what they do not want to see. The Bible talks much about the state of the world around the time of Christ’s return. Skidd, thank God we’re saved, man. We should give extra thanks to the Lord tonight my friend.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Evolutionists cannot be trusted. They change what they believe all the time. Whatever suits their needs. They will change it. In 1795, around that time, a scoffer named James Hutton wrote a book and said, “I think the earth is much older than most people think.” About that time I think they started off with about 80,000 years. Then by 1900 they had it up to 2 billion years. Now they got it at 4.6 billion years old. So that works out the earth is aging at a rate of 65 millions years per year. Wow! Prior to the 1700’s, most people believed the bible and thought the earth was 6000 years old.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 2:05 AM
This is what you earlier posted:
I gave you one and now for the last time refute the evidence of Pakicetids evolving into whales.
You’re right ronsfi. You present creationists with evidence contrary to their beliefs and they just go crazy with nonsensical responses. But they’ll believe the Bible without the same critical thinking they have for evolution. The authenticity of the Bible can be disproven by Sumerian/Babylonian tablets but they don’t care about the truth.
barry norris on August 30, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Just goes to show how stupidity will always remain within the human race.
barry norris on August 30, 2008 at 2:19 AM
Adds credence to what Lenin said in 1919:
“The cinema must and shall become the foremost cultural weapon of the proletariat.”
Send_Me on August 30, 2008 at 2:21 AM
Anybody who is searching for truth must be prepared to change their minds. If an idea is proposed and tested and found to be false or inadequate then minds should change; that is merely a process of honest enquiry.
Additionally the strength of the evolutionary hypothesis does not rest on the characters or intellectual capacity of those who believe it, just as the the strength of your own beliefs does not rest on your character or intellect. If ‘evolution’ is ‘true’ then it is true even if those who believe it are muddle-headed compulsive fibbers who pass-off cut-and-shut used cars and do part time jobs for snake-heads. Similarly if ‘evolution’ is ‘false’, it is false even if those who believe it are upright citizens of unquestionable moral virtue and a holding a string of academic accolades.
The evolutionary is not to be rejected because those who believe it are somehow less than perfect, but because it comprehensively fails to rationally explain what it claims to be able to explain.
YiZhangZhe on August 30, 2008 at 2:34 AM
All of which explains why AP is a big lefty for pointing out how people are taking Palin’s words out of context, right?
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 2:43 AM
I gotta refute what? You coward. It’s your theory. It’s up to you to defend what you believe. Not me. You said Pakicetids evolved into whales, but you can’t even tell me what a Pakicetids is! I asked what is a Pakicetid?? We will now upgrade your brain, please wait …searching …searching …still searching …sorry NO BRAIN found.
apacalyps on August 30, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Couldn’t resist.
To all those who believe that the earth is six thousand years old, I have a couple of questions.
1) Do you believe that the universe is only six thousand years old? If so, proceed to 2).
2) Do you believe that light travels at 5.9 x 10 to the twelfth power miles per year? If so, do you believe that the farthest galaxy, as seen by Hubble is no more than six thousand light years away?
OldEnglish on August 30, 2008 at 4:29 AM
Actually I have no strong preference for the age of the earth … can I join-in anyway because, if so, I can’t resist either :) I’ll play!
So, Q1 yes (more or less).
proceeds to Q2: yes (more or less).
Now what?
YiZhangZhe on August 30, 2008 at 5:18 AM
Ooops, my bad. I failed to answer your third question tucked away at the end of the second one. Actually I have no idea how far away the furthest object is from the earth. The best answer I could find quickly said umpteen billion light years and that is a lot further than (more or less) 6000 light years.
So, my answer to question 3 is: no.
Yes, I do know what a light year is.
My question is still “Now what?”
YiZhangZhe on August 30, 2008 at 5:38 AM
But how can there be such a thing as a light year when Jesus never specified how fast light travels?
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 5:41 AM
:) Ummm, in the same way that there can be gravity, toilet paper, sales tax, sound waves and sarcastic comments?
Well, perhaps not in the same way as sarcastic comments because I think Jesus might have made a few of those himself and in that case there would be irrefutable evidence for their existence.
YiZhangZhe on August 30, 2008 at 5:51 AM
I’m looking through my Bible and I see no reference to this “light year” thing. Nice try, lefties!
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 5:56 AM
The only link I found from you Barry was this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1283186.
That article doesn’t actually contain anything that could be considered proof. It doesn’t even contain anything which could be considered evidence. What it does contain is (1) a series of reports about objects found and (2) a series of assertions (claims) about those objects and the relationship between them.
The researchers report finding various (fossilised) bits of dead animals animals and then they have provided a bold and confident narrative to join those bits together. Their narrative asserts that there is a relationship of descendency from one creature to another.
To decide whether the narrative might be true we would need to consider the process that would be required to bring about the alleged descendency relationship and then consider whether that process is reasonable and probable. The article doesn’t provide sufficient information or argument for that assessment to be made.
All we have at the moment is, if I simplify greatly, fact-A and fact-B and a claim, unsupported by any further facts and rational argument, that fact-B somehow derives from fact A.
So, while ‘apacalyps’ was perhaps unnecessarily harsh in his or her response, I must agree that you have not yet provided any proof nor evidence to be considered. It seems to me that you have mistaken an entirely speculative hypothesis for ‘proof’.
YiZhangZhe on August 30, 2008 at 6:23 AM
I honestly wish scientists and layman alike would stop bickering over something as stupid as where we came from, and instead look towards where we’re going.
That’s far more important.
Kane on August 30, 2008 at 6:40 AM
Man is a marvelous curiosity. He thinks he is the Creator’s pet. He even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 30, 2008 at 6:44 AM
Living vicariously through other people now, are we.
Coronagold on August 30, 2008 at 6:52 AM
Who knew there were 6000 Jews in Alaska?
Probably there for the Chinese food and the waterskiing.
Exit Question: Is moose stew Kashrut? and can I order some in time for the High Holy Days?
Always Right on August 30, 2008 at 8:10 AM
FWIW, LGF became a bore after Charles went nuts over evolution. I got banned for saying so. Seeing the debate crop up here is annoying. As far as HA turning lefty, I don’t detect that very much. HA has definitely lost its edge, though.
The early days with daily vids was great. Now I see that Michelle is pushing Pajamas TV with a required monthly fee. Mmmmmmm, no thanks. I don’t even have cable, why would I pay for internet TV? I suspect that the PJTV will be fresh and edgey at first, then slip into mediocrity, just as LGF, HA, and tons of other sites have done.
There are few sites that have remained on my favorites for more than two or three years. HA, Hugh Hewitt, and Instapundit are the only survivors. Ann Althouse is approaching the two year mark and keeps going strong.
Ones that I read and abandoned for various reasons, mostly because they weren’t saying anything different or not saying it well were: Captain’s Quarters, LaShawn Barber, Kirsten Powers, Mary Katharine Ham, LGF, and NRO. Tons of others, but those are the ones that come to mind.
HA a lefty site? Nah. Becoming a tired site, though.
Evolution is science? Nah. Science fiction, since it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Tsk, tsk, those pesky things called facts do get in the way of a perfectly flawed theory, don’t they?
windbag on August 30, 2008 at 8:30 AM
It is frequently stated in the propaganda that human DNA is a “mere” 1%-3% more “evolved” than chimp DNA. Humans (and Neanderthals) have an estimated 3 billion base pairs of DNA, meaning 2% equals 60 million more original pairs of DNA. For “evolution” to occur, each new strand of this information must have been properly engineered and then clearly identifed by the gene’s promoter. But that’s cool, because supposedly we’ve had millennia to achieve the gains.
Now, according to the scientists you glorify, humans supposedly split from our common ancestor chimps a wa-a-a-a-ay long time back. Some argue that this common ancestor could not be farther back than 60 thousand years (Giorgio Bertorelle; University of California, Berkley & Bruce Rannala; Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York). Others argue for the opposite, claiming that we share that common ancestor 6 million years back (Douglas J. Futuyma). So using basic math:
——————————————-
60,000 (60 Thousand) – 100 New Base Pairs Per Year
600,000 (600 Thousand) – 10 New Base Pairs Per Year
6,000,000 (6 Million) – 1 New Base Pair Per Year
——————————————-
Even if we accept the 6 million-year hypothesis, it would be impossible for ancient humans to have missed some 5,000 information-adding mutations in chimps, humans, fruit-flies, frogs, etc. over the last 5,000 years. We aren’t talking about a dozen alleles here or there, but *ENTIRE* base pairs. Just in the past 1,000 years, cemetery and battlefield archaeology would have revealed 1,000 to 10,000 pairs of evolved primate-to-human-style difference between Emperor Zhenzong and Jackie Chan, Leif Ericson and Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Edgar I the Peaceful and Benny Hill. If any humans or animals were evolving, we would be seeing and confirming the observable, massive addition of new DNA information (either in regular steps or bursts) in order to jive with the timeline limitations. Yet, we are seeing the opposite. Scientists can’t find one new base pair difference between viking DNA and modern man (Jorgen Dissing; University of Copenhagen), but a trickle of information is being gradually lost with each generation.
Since chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made, that 2% difference will probably be shown to be greater, making the ridiculous number of mutations needed per year even more ridiculously huge. Yoshiyuki Sakaki (Riken Genome Project) already says the diff is more like 15%, meaning 450 million original pairs of DNA, or 75 to 7,500 information-adding mutations needed per year!!! For those of you slow on the intake, that’s 75,000 to 7.5 million new pairs of DNA needed every 1,000 years. A 75,000 base pair difference between Saxons and Soccer Hooligans would be very difficult for Dr. Ron Dixon to miss.
Naturally, all this assumes that human DNA started precisely from chimp DNA, not some even more-primitive “common ancestor,” meaning yet more information-adding mutations would be needed per year.
EVOLUTION + MATH + DNA = EPIC FAIL
TMK on August 30, 2008 at 8:38 AM
I suggest AP take his creationist/evolution debate over to LGF. I feel for most of use, particularly in this case, it’s a non-starter.
BrianA on August 30, 2008 at 8:42 AM
I’ve been reading these evolution debates as they crop up on HA. Now I get to comment.
1. The theory of evolution is nothing more or less than an extrapolation from observations. The experts in the field find it reasonably self consistent and consistent with observations (exuberant and prejudiced amateurs aside).
2. Regardless, there is no way to prove the theory. If you postulate an all powerful entity, there is not way to prove that said entity did not create the universe as is (or as was?) at any time in the past.
3. However, if the universe was created so recently, it was done so in a way that left information suggesting a longer, unguided history. This information is all around us, wherever we look and as plain as the words of a book, for those who know how to read it.
On a separate note, can someone give me a reason why Genesis is taken literally for creationism, but Leviticus is mostly ignored? (I haven’t seen women sacrificing two birds after their period each month to be re-admitted to society.) Its not as if the New Testament reinforces the Genesis story anymore than it reinforces the blood sacrifices of Leviticus.
P.S. BM4, I generally find your comments irrelevant, but I love your Twain quotes.
Count to 10 on August 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM
What is embarrassing is that I am far more closely related to you than I am to monkeys or fish. ;)
Ars Moriendi on August 30, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Every insult they hurl at her a 100 liberal single moms get their conservative wings
Oberbamamouth should be good for a 1.2% swing alone
EricPWJohnson on August 30, 2008 at 9:38 AM
First let me apologize for my late reply – I’m in an entirely different time-zone.
To answer your “now what”. My point is that anyone who accepts the speed of light as fact, and therefore the usage of the term “light year” is valid, and also accepts that the farthest galaxies photographed are in the range of 12 – 14 billion light years away, said light must have taken 12 billion years+ to reach us. This would make the universe to be at least 12 billion years old.
If I understand creationism correctly, our galaxy (or at least our Solar System) was created only around 6000 years ago.
Why would our galaxy be different to all the others?
OldEnglish on August 30, 2008 at 9:45 AM
thats not a surprise, the darwiniacs have lost the debate, so they have to sue, silence, and harass any who dare disagree with their hellish faith in their hairygod dawin.
Dawkins wrote letters to americans in Ohio in 2004 asking them to vote for kerry…of course he was certain we’d listen to such an august person…right, what a moron.
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM
uh yeah your evidence is a very obama-like uhhhhhhh IT EVOLVED…and if you don’t believe it, you’ll lose your job!!! as sternberg, and others found out!
as far as disproving the bible, you really are delusional…..its been tried for centuries…all to no avail…good luck with tilting at windmills…
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 9:50 AM
The left has its Truthers.
We have our Creationists.
Every village has its own village idiots.
Bartrams_Garden on August 30, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Sorry, I don’t go with that as an absolute statement. For more than two thousand years people have believed in some form of the Scriptures, and as late as five hundred years ago one could not call such people idiots, since there was little in the way of actual knowledge. Superstitious, yes, idiots, no.
Today, however, is different. For the last two hundred and fifty years or so, people have had to cope with a change in ingrained beliefs. That’s not easy.
OldEnglish on August 30, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Spoken like a true atheist.
Unfortunately for you, 50% of this country seems to disagree with you about that.
Creationism ABSOLUTELY needs to be taught in schools.
If they do NOT teach it in schools and instead only allow secular humanism to be taught, then it is not an education system…it is a secular humanism indoctrination program..i.e. a STATE RELIGION or secular humanist THEOCRACY.
SaintOlaf on August 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM
you darwiniacs prove the truth of the bible: professing to be wise they have become fools.
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM
How about teaching creationism in the churches and leaving the schools to handle pesky little things like facts and evidence?
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:15 PM
[cue pitchforks and torches]
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I think you underestimate our predecessors. they were smarter than you think. ever hear of the antikythera mechanism?
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM
yeah you so can preach your little atheistic faith in the classrooms….and you can’t even stand up to the evidence, you have to sue, harass, and silence those who disagree.
you darwinists have lost, because your theory is a lie. deal with it.
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
cue darwinists in their starched brown shirts…
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM
My little atheistic faith? So creationism accounts for the evolution of telepathic powers, apparently. ;)
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM
tell me jimmy, are you a good RACIST like your hero darwin?? that plagiarist?? who had to steal evolution from wallace? yeah he’s a real role model!! I can see why you atheists like him!!
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Ooh, brownshirt references. Goodie!
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:19 PM
If you put in three exclamation points, it adds that much more weight.
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:19 PM
guess you don’t know much about your own theory now do you?
even miller admits:
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
perhaps you should get beyond the little soundbites they feed you, and actually learn about the theory you profess to have faith in.
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM
truth hurts, doesn’t it jimmy? evolution spawned a long line of racists, down to watson, and others, today!!
I’m sure you’re very proud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:21 PM
lets see, no fossil evidence, thus the need for punctuated equilibrium, and the biological big bang (surely you’ve heard of that theory) and no evidence of evolution today, the small changes such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics are not evolution, rather changes in the genome, because its still a bacteria. it informs you of nothing, as coyne admits:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
link
all ya got is faith.
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM
It’s not my theory. Do you know much about your blood pressure?
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Well said.
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
yeah it goes down when I make evolutionists look foolish…which isn’t very hard.
right4life on August 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Well, you should probably get it checked anyway. If that’s not too scientific for you, I mean. ;)
Jim Treacher on August 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Jimmy just wants a secular humanist THEOCRACY with no questions asked.
He doesn’t want to complicate his life with understanding the basic spiritual nature of reality.
He wants to make sure that no one else has access to any such knowledge or access to the creationist model and the numerous facts that disprove evolution scientifically.
SaintOlaf on August 30, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »