Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sarah Palin & Intelligent Design + Creationism
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 1 of 51 (481420)
09-10-2008 8:15 PM


Is Sarah Palin serious about creationism and ID in schools?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by petrophysics1, posted 09-10-2008 8:56 PM obvious Child has not replied
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2008 8:58 PM obvious Child has replied
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 09-11-2008 12:21 AM obvious Child has not replied
 Message 31 by Discreet Label, posted 09-12-2008 1:52 AM obvious Child has not replied
 Message 50 by Watson75, posted 09-18-2008 1:41 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 51 (481429)
09-10-2008 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
09-10-2008 8:15 PM


Vote McCain/Palin
Vote !!!!!!!!!!!!! McCain/Palin 2008
I sent them $2500.
I guess, you now know where I stand!
Try putting something of value, and backed up, in your OP, and I might consider answering it.
Sincerely
Martin P. Granica
21 Neosha Trail
P.O. Box 247
Boulder, Wyoming 82923
U.S.A.
P.S. I do not answer people who will not tell me who they are and where they live.
P.P.S. A Republican since 1964.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 8:15 PM obvious Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 09-11-2008 3:40 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 3 of 51 (481430)
09-10-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
09-10-2008 8:15 PM


Is Sarah serious...
No.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 8:15 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 9:23 PM Coyote has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 4 of 51 (481432)
09-10-2008 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
09-10-2008 8:58 PM


Re: Is Sarah serious...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2008 8:58 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2008 10:01 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 51 (481434)
09-10-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by obvious Child
09-10-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Is Sarah serious...
Check out more recent statements, and what she did as Governor.
She is not going to try to force creationism into the classrooms.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 9:23 PM obvious Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 09-10-2008 10:50 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 6 of 51 (481437)
09-10-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
09-10-2008 10:01 PM


Re: Is Sarah serious...
Even if she did, the VP/President have no say in the matter. Educational curriculum is decided on the state and local level, not the federal, and by school boards, not the heads of teh Executive branch.
Not to mention any attempt to do so would be swiftly struck down by the courts, just as happened in Dover.
Not to mention McCain isn't going to win, anyway. Regardless of how many anti-science theocratic homophobic racist anti-choice anti-freedom pro-war anti-regulation anti-working-class assholes send him $250. McSame is Bush on steroids, and his running mate is a nightmare of scandals left and right, including the repeated boldfaced blatant lying every time she says that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" for the "bridge to nowhere" (she is on record as only opposing it 2 years after the project was already canceled, and she certainly didn't say no to the $300+ million given to the state before that - in fact, her opposition only began after her attempts to get $300 million more from Congress for the project failed). I have very little confidence in the American voters, but seriously, McCain/Palin is even worse than another 4 years of Bush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2008 10:01 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 11:13 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 7 of 51 (481441)
09-10-2008 11:45 PM


It seems Palins focus is on drilling oil in our own country getting focus on the economy with an independence off foreign oil. Drill baby drill CafePress.com : Not Found
P.S. Maybe the issue is evolution job security given evolution is a story is based on transistional fossils that interestingly are still missing. I suppose kids should beable to ask questions where are the missing links and why are they still missing.
Seems she is more for allowing challenging Evolution theory in a classroom without the teacher fearing losing tenure. If a teacher understands radioactive decay they should bring up primordial polonium decay supports a young earth that it trumps the old earth folk given it has to be primordial polonium decaying to give its signature. The teacher should not lose tenure for teaching science that uses the elements of the earth to support a young earth premise and by understanding radon decaying into polonium the student is getting a greater grasp of the sciences. Understanding why its an young earth given the physics of polonium and if its a young earth then question the theory of evolution. I can empathize with Palin wanting to allow honest questioning of evolution but can also see this is not what the evolutionists want questioning that which they have no answers too. If teachers could but question these two points without even mentioning creation or ID the students would gain a grasp of the missing transistionals and the young age of the earth.
P.S. Now that its obvious of the young age of the earth and the missing transistional fossils lets allow truth to be questioned in the theory being promoted and see how long it can stand if teachers do not fear losing tenure, etc...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.
--- David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003
Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2008 12:46 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:45 AM johnfolton has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 8 of 51 (481442)
09-11-2008 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
09-10-2008 8:15 PM


Is Sarah Palin serious about creationism and ID in schools?
When are these ultra rightwing creos going to get it through their heads that creationism & ID are not science and don't belong in science classes. They are based on religion and belong in churches.
Democrat since as long as I can remember.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 8:15 PM obvious Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 2:37 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 51 (481445)
09-11-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by johnfolton
09-10-2008 11:45 PM


Creation "science" again
Now that its obvious of the young age of the earth and the missing transistional fossils...
Claiming that either of these topics belongs in science classes is just one more example of the dishonesty of the creationist argument -- creation "science" is religious apologetics, and has nothing to do with science. In fact, it is the opposite of science!
Science, which relies on evidence, supports an old earth and has found numerous transitionals.
Why, here's one now!

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name:
Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8),
Homo erectus (3, 4, 7),
Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: Default 404 | Museum of Science, Boston

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 09-10-2008 11:45 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 3:04 AM Coyote has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 10 of 51 (481449)
09-11-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by bluescat48
09-11-2008 12:21 AM


When are these ultra rightwing creos going to get it through their heads that creationism & ID are not science and don't belong in science classes. They are based on religion and belong in churches.
You do agree teachers should beable to challenge the scientific merits of evolution without fear of losing tenure. Thats all I see Palin wants so the kids understand all the different scientific theory of the origin of life. What are the evolutionists afraid of if evolution is not a religion?
Oh...thats right I forgot evolution roots are from the atheist religion. hmmm...maybe its time you switched and become a Christian? Is it possible to be a democrat and a christian? It says all things are possible with God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 09-11-2008 12:21 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:52 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 09-11-2008 3:03 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 11 of 51 (481450)
09-11-2008 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by johnfolton
09-10-2008 11:45 PM


quote:
It seems Palins focus is on drilling oil in our own country getting focus on the economy with an independence off foreign oil.
If you actually believe that, well, there may be some slim chance of hope for you. Even at the most generous, optimistic estimate, we'll still be importing the vast majority of our oil. America simply cannot produce that much. Furthermore, prices won't fundamentally change based on additional US supply. If you understand how the market for oil works, you'll know McCain/Palin's plan is a joke.
As for the alleged lack of transitional fossils, you are either lying or are ignorant.
Here's two fat lists of numerous transitional species.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
CC200: Transitional fossils
And there is no evidence for a young Earth. None.
And your alleged polonium argument is a PRATT
CF201: Polonium Haloes
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
You lose.
Feel free to try again
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 09-10-2008 11:45 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 3:33 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2008 11:50 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 12 of 51 (481451)
09-11-2008 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by johnfolton
09-11-2008 2:37 AM


Darwin was not an atheist. Nor was Mendel. Nor was Alfred Wallace.
Furthermore, ID nor creationism are theories. Theories require facts and experiments. ID nor Creationism have any actual science.
And evolution is not a religion. A religion generally requires faith. I can touch, see, eat and observe the various products of evolution. You cannot do that for creationism or ID.
How about, for a change, you actually provide evidence? I know it's a stretch as a creationist, but try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 2:37 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 3:49 AM obvious Child has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 51 (481454)
09-11-2008 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
09-11-2008 12:46 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Off topic post hidden.
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
You know primordial polonium halos pretty much trumps the old earth stuff perhaps you could start rewriting paleontology 101. It was primordial polonium halo's think it Gentry work that proves its a young earth.
Your fossil is good example to explain to the students why the evolutionists date sediments is to give whatever age to the fossil they need without actually directly dating the fossil. That the age is assumed by indicator fossils, sediment layers, and other bogus reasonings when these same fossils are dated by C14 to be only thousands of years old.
That baumgardener and all of the RATE Boys talks of directly dating with carbon 14 that there is still enough of a ratio left in those young bones to date these kind of fossils directly and they are all dating young. Imagine that the paleontologists were off by near a 1.75 million years.
Then explain in spite of new technology the paleontologists refuse to believe any ratio is left when clearly all fossils of this type are all dating thousands of years old.
If they were 1.75 millions of years old they simply would not have any ratio left. That this is another prime example of the young earth phenomenom thats being excluded from the textbooks because its scientific evidence of an young earth! Yes Creation science again and again, etc...
Edited by AdminNosy, : off topic post hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2008 12:46 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2008 10:11 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 51 (481457)
09-11-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by obvious Child
09-11-2008 2:45 AM


Off topic post hidden.
As for the alleged lack of transitional fossils, you are either lying or are ignorant.
You need billions of transisitional fossils if the earth is but a young earth. How pray tell did the butterfly morph into a bird just how did the wing evolute the fossil record is quite clear all the fossil record from the cambrian explosion came fully formed. Why pray tell is that unless they were all created as the fossil record attests fully formed. How is the fossil record lying, etc...
And there is no evidence for a young Earth. None.
Quote the part relevant about primordial polonium could not be evidence of a young earth and why, etc... What I remember is that polonium parent is formed by a mobile decay thus the concentric circles means the polonium is primordial or from the beginning of the earth before the polonium had time to decay. Do you have a different decay path to polonium to explain the concentric halo's that could only be so perfectly formed if it was primordial polonium, etc...
Surely if the National Academy of Sciences would of stood up and shown Gentry wrong instead they have only shown that they can not so they dare not cause its an young earth. The National Academy of
sciences can not lie their way out of this one so they dare not, etc...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.
We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates
Edited by AdminNosy, : Off topic post hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:45 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 4:04 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 21 by AdminNosy, posted 09-11-2008 9:59 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 51 (481458)
09-11-2008 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by petrophysics1
09-10-2008 8:56 PM


Re: Vote McCain/Palin
petrophysics1 writes:
P.S. I do not answer people who will not tell me who they are and where they live.
Two points.
First, EvC Forum has no requirement that members relinquish anonymity in order to engage in discussion. You cannot make up your own rules here.
Second, EvC Forum's position on maintaining anonymity is that it is in most member's best interest to do so.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by petrophysics1, posted 09-10-2008 8:56 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024