If Sarah Palin were a Democrat...

[bullypulpit]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

And if you really want the skinny on her acceptance speech, follow the link to:

<center><a href=http://politicsanew.com/2008/09/04/fact-checking-the-sarah-palin-acceptance-speech/>The Political Voices of Women</a></center>

[diuretic]

:lol:

Ain't that Right?

:laugh2:

[midcan5]

Given her beliefs I don't think she could be a democrat? She genuinely seems like a mean, small person with little smarts. Not that all dems possess the best qualities. The only place the basic hypocrisy of this selection is noticed and demonstrated is the Early Show with Jon Stewart. Weird that comedy is the only place truth can be told.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears.

[stephanie]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

And if you really want the skinny on her acceptance speech, follow the link to:

<center><a href=http://politicsanew.com/2008/09/04/fact-checking-the-sarah-palin-acceptance-speech/>The Political Voices of Women</a></center>


you all should of picked the Hill, instead of the boy wonder who has no experience and is just another elitist Democrat who happens to have a little darker skin..now you all are just sounding like...
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thtantrumgr7.gif

[avatar4321]

If she were a Democrat, she wouldnt be experienced at fighting corruption, she'd be leading it.
If she was a Democrat we wouldnt be excited about her strong positions on the issues because they'd be the wrong positions.
If she was a Democrat she would be letting her husband walk all over her.

If she was a Democrat she would have none of the qualities we love about her because she would be fundamentally a different person based on her different paradign.

So your hypotheticals are all nice, but there is a reason therewould be a difference. Its because for some reason in order to be a democrat you hae to be a condescending @$$hole. I dont know why it's like you prescreen the people when you register. Quite frankly, it be nice if you guys tried to be nice once and a while.

[darin]

gawd - it's sickening how much some of you libs HATE that woman.

[theHawk]

If Obama was a Republican, we'd see the following from the left-wing media -

Instead of being "nuanced", he'd be a doddering idiot.

Instead of being a patriot, he would be a traitor for his association with Bill Ayers.

Instead of being connected with the people, he'd be labled racist and a religious nut because of what his preacher said.

[crin63]

If Palin were a DIM-o-crat she would still have more executive experience than the communist organizer, I mean community organizer, Berry.

[stephanie]

If Palin were a DIM-o-crat she would still have more executive experience than the communist organizer, I mean community organizer, Berry.

oh so true..

[Missileman]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

And if you really want the skinny on her acceptance speech, follow the link to:

<center><a href=http://politicsanew.com/2008/09/04/fact-checking-the-sarah-palin-acceptance-speech/>The Political Voices of Women</a></center>

If Sarah Palin were a democrat, her head would explode from the VAST difference between her actions and liberal ideals.

[PostmodernProphet]

If Sarah Palin were a democrat......Obama would win the election.....

[Gaffer]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

And if you really want the skinny on her acceptance speech, follow the link to:

<center><a href=http://politicsanew.com/2008/09/04/fact-checking-the-sarah-palin-acceptance-speech/>The Political Voices of Women</a></center>

But she's a republican and that's what the dems are saying about her.

[CockySOB]

If Obama was a Republican, we'd see the following from the left-wing media -

Instead of being "nuanced", he'd be a doddering idiot.

Instead of being a patriot, he would be a traitor for his association with Bill Ayers.

Instead of being connected with the people, he'd be labled racist and a religious nut because of what his preacher said.

You forgot - if Obama were a Republican, he'd be labeled as an Uncle Tom or race traitor by the black demagogues....

[stephanie]

You forgot - if Obama were a Republican, he'd be labeled as an Uncle Tom or race traitor by the black demagogues....

yepper..or a sell out :clap:

[bullypulpit]

Gawd...It's amazing how fearful y'all are of Obama winning the White House. The operant word here being 'White'.

[Abbey Marie]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat...


She'd look like this:



http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/12/2007-12-01Thomas.jpg

[stephanie]

Gawd...It's amazing how fearful y'all are of Obama winning the White House. The operant word here being 'White'.

damn right I'm fearful...I'm not ready for a full fledged Marxist in the white house..I don't give a shit what color they are...

[darin]

Gawd...It's amazing how fearful y'all are of Obama winning the White House. The operant word here being 'White'.

Obama is white.

[Sitarro]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

And if you really want the skinny on her acceptance speech, follow the link to:

<center><a href=http://politicsanew.com/2008/09/04/fact-checking-the-sarah-palin-acceptance-speech/>The Political Voices of Women</a></center>

You're describing Michelle Osama almost perfectly.:laugh2:

[Sitarro]

You forgot - if Obama were a Republican, he'd be labeled as an Uncle Tom or race traitor by the black demagogues....

Or the old standby....... an Oreo.

[Immanuel]

If Obama was a Republican, we'd see the following from the left-wing media -

Instead of being "nuanced", he'd be a doddering idiot.

Instead of being a patriot, he would be a traitor for his association with Bill Ayers.

Instead of being connected with the people, he'd be labled racist and a religious nut because of what his preacher said.

This deserves some pos rep, but unfortunately, I must spread it around.


Given her beliefs I don't think she could be a democrat? She genuinely seems like a mean, small person with little smarts. Not that all dems possess the best qualities. The only place the basic hypocrisy of this selection is noticed and demonstrated is the Early Show with Jon Stewart. Weird that comedy is the only place truth can be told.


That is right, given her beliefs she would not be accepted under that "big tent" known as the Democratic Party. Since she is unwilling to be led about by a leash, she would be shunned. It is funny how those so-called racists, sexist Republicans have accepted her into their fold.


If Palin were a DIM-o-crat she would still have more executive experience than the communist organizer, I mean community organizer, Berry.

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat we would not even know about her. If Sarah Palin were a Democrat she would not be the Governor of Alaska and she sure as hell would not be nominated for the second highest office in the land.

Immie

[Little-Acorn]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

ANOTHER thread where liberals make up imaginary stuff, pretend conservatives said it, and then bash them for it?

You people really are running out of ideas, aren't you.

My sympathies.

[bullypulpit]

damn right I'm fearful...I'm not ready for a full fledged Marxist in the white house..I don't give a shit what color they are...

The fear of the "Red Menace" died with McCarthy. How '50's of you. :laugh2:

And while we're at it, care to provide some concrete evidence that Obama is, as you so quaintly put it, "...a full fledged Marxist"? Be specific and provide links please.

[bullypulpit]

ANOTHER thread where liberals make up imaginary stuff, pretend conservatives said it, and then bash them for it?

You people really are running out of ideas, aren't you.

My sympathies.

No old son...Just pointing out what the RWN's of America would be spouting in the hypothetical.

It was patently obvious the GOP was out of ideas when McCain gave an acceptance speech which was little more than a paraphrasing of Bush's first acceptance speech at the 2000 RNC. Talk about your intellectual vacuum...If it were any greater, McCain's head would implode. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[emmett]

If Sarah Palin were a democrat she could still kick Obama's ass in a game of one on one basketball.



LOL LOL LOL LOL


Crack Joke of the week! Deliver the rep!

[PostmodernProphet]

Gawd...It's amazing how fearful y'all are of Obama winning the White House. The operant word here being 'White'.

lol....we're not the ones who started this thread....

[crin63]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat we would not even know about her. If Sarah Palin were a Democrat she would not be the Governor of Alaska and she sure as hell would not be nominated for the second highest office in the land.

Immie

Your right Immie! She's over qualified to be Dim-o-crat nominee for the pres or vp.

[NightTrain]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat,


If your Aunt had nuts, she'd be your Uncle.

[SassyLady]

gawd - it's sickening how much some of you libs HATE that woman.

Powerful women is a turn on for some men and scares the crap out of others.

Some men can handle powerful women and others haven't got a clue what they are missing.

[Abbey Marie]

Powerful women is a turn on for some men and scares the crap out of others.

Some men can handle powerful women and others haven't got a clue what they are missing.

Spoken by one who knows the subject very well. :clap:

[avatar4321]

Gawd...It's amazing how fearful y'all are of Obama winning the White House. The operant word here being 'White'.

What the heck are you talking about?

[avatar4321]

Powerful women is a turn on for some men and scares the crap out of others.

Some men can handle powerful women and others haven't got a clue what they are missing.

very true.

[SpidermanTUba]

you all should of picked the Hill, instead of the boy wonder who has no experience and is just another elitist Democrat who happens to have a little darker skin..now you all are just sounding like...
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thtantrumgr7.gif

None of the candidates have experience as President.

But the fact that McCain picked a ticking time bomb for his VP definitely helps. Its only a matter of time before she destroys the ticket. Not many people want to elect hypocrits this blatant.

[Sitarro]

None of the candidates have experience as President.

But the fact that McCain picked a ticking time bomb for his VP definitely helps. Its only a matter of time before she destroys the ticket. Not many people want to elect hypocrits this blatant.


Actually, a Governor, as in Governor Palin, is a state's President........ she is Alaska's President. I bet she would know better than to build a city in a bowl 25 feet below sea level surrounded by water, what do you think...... never mind, I don't give a shit.
Shouldn't you be running away? There's a storm about to get into the Gulf........ quick, runaway spider, run! Storm surge!!!!:finger3:

[bullypulpit]

Actually, a Governor, as in Governor Palin, is a state's President........ she is Alaska's President. I bet she would know better than to build a city in a bowl 25 feet below sea level surrounded by water, what do you think...... never mind, I don't give a shit.
Shouldn't you be running away? There's a storm about to get into the Gulf........ quick, runaway spider, run! Storm surge!!!!:finger3:

That's a stretch...even for you. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

That's a stretch...even for you. :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

chief executive = chief executive is hardly a stretch....

[midcan5]

gawd - it's sickening how much some of you libs HATE that woman.

No one hates this woman, that is a semantic crutch the right has used since Bush turned out to be one incompetent president. I think you need to consider this choice in terms of the country, nothing she has done demonstrates competence. I do not consider banning books and using your political office to go after those who disagree with you the sign of a good politician, nor even a good American. Nor do I consider creationism (religion) a fitting topic for school.


America for Dummies: A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to sanction book banning and creationism as science.

[red states rule]

No one hates this woman, that is a semantic crutch the right has used since Bush turned out to be one incompetent president. I think you need to consider this choice in terms of the country, nothing she has done demonstrates competence. I do not consider banning books and using your political office to go after those who disagree with you the sign of a good politician, nor even a good American. Nor do I consider creationism (religion) a fitting topic for school.


America for Dummies: A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to sanction book banning and creationism as science.

Libs have no problem with liberal women making it in life, and breaking thru the glass ceiling

Libs want the conservative women to be the ones sweeping up the broken glass from the floor

[midcan5]

Libs have no problem with liberal women making it in life, and breaking thru the glass ceiling

Libs want the conservative women to be the ones sweeping up the broken glass from the floor

So dummies in important offices that require complicated choices are Ok with you? Oh sorry you helped put the current dummy in office.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.

[Immanuel]

No one hates this woman, that is a semantic crutch the right has used since Bush turned out to be one incompetent president. I think you need to consider this choice in terms of the country, nothing she has done demonstrates competence. I do not consider banning books and using your political office to go after those who disagree with you the sign of a good politician, nor even a good American. Nor do I consider creationism (religion) a fitting topic for school.


America for Dummies: A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to sanction book banning and creationism as science.

It really doesn't seem that you Democrats are too concerned about a person's qualifications for the Presidency when one looks at the man you have nominated to fill that position.

Exorbitant taxes, skyrocketing government spending, huge unchecked social programs are what he promises us and that is exactly what America does not need today.

What you consider a fitting topic for school is irrelevant. I would say that the exclusion of any age appropriate material to be inappropriate. Funny, how you mention your disdain for book burning (a form of censorship) in one sentence and in the very next you are calling for censorship. Doesn't that sound hypocritical to you?

Immie

[red states rule]

So dummies in important offices that require complicated choices are Ok with you? Oh sorry you helped put the current dummy in office.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to destroy for future generations the natural beauty of Alaska and our coastlines.

Please keep attacking her with the persoanl insults, and not talking about the issues

Keep digging that hole deeper and deeper

The left was so cocky and arrogant before Gov Palin arrived on the scene, and now your desperation is fun to watch

[midcan5]

Exorbitant taxes, skyrocketing government spending, huge unchecked social programs are what he promises us and that is exactly what America does not need today.

What you consider a fitting topic for school is irrelevant. I would say that the exclusion of any age appropriate material to be inappropriate. Funny, how you mention your disdain for book burning (a form of censorship) in one sentence and in the very next you are calling for censorship. Doesn't that sound hypocritical to you?

Immie

I think we need a history of republican rule for dummies. Reagan had the highest peace time tax increase ever, Bush jr and Ronnie created the largest deficits in our history, 'unchecked social programs,' Immie, i give you more credit than that, Bush's only vetoes were child care and veteran care. Clinton raised taxes and we had the best economy since republicans have controlled congress and the pres.

Palin was the one wanting books banned for language. Considering the comments I have heard from her she should look in a mirror.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[red states rule]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat...


She'd look like this:



http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/12/2007-12-01Thomas.jpg

and Dems wanted this as the VP

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/files/oldhillary.jpg

[Immanuel]

I think we need a history of republican rule for dummies. Reagan had the highest peace time tax increase ever, Bush jr and Ronnie created the largest deficits in our history, 'unchecked social programs,' Immie, i give you more credit than that, Bush's only vetoes were child care and veteran care. Clinton raised taxes and we had the best economy since republicans have controlled congress and the pres.

Palin was the one wanting books banned for language. Considering the comments I have heard from her she should look in a mirror.



I don't support McCain/Palin.

I am not a fan of the Bush Admin. They screwed up big time. There is no excuse for what they did. Yet, Barack Obama is promising more of the same old shit. We don't need that.

You are the one who condemned her for banning books in one sentence and in the very next sentence called for censorship. Maybe it is you who should look in the mirror, friend?

Immie

[midcan5]

Immie, are you saying creationism should be taught in schools? There is no science to creationism, and there is the constitutional separation of church and state. To introduce a creator is only to introduce religion, you may think that is censorship, I consider it commonsense, education should be about verifiable information not personal belief systems.

[red states rule]

Immie, are you saying creationism should be taught in schools? There is no science to creationism, and there is the constitutional separation of church and state. To introduce a creator is only to introduce religion, you may think that is censorship, I consider it commonsense, education should be about verifiable information not personal belief systems.

Why am I not surprised a liberal wants to remove all references of God from the public view? The nerve of Gov Palin to want to give the students both sides and allow them to decide which is correct

Where is the outcry of "separation of church and state" when libs like Jesse Jackson are campaigning in black churches, or when liberalism is spoken (or screamed) in Obama's racist church?

[Abbey Marie]

Immie, are you saying creationism should be taught in schools? There is no science to creationism, and there is the constitutional separation of church and state. To introduce a creator is only to introduce religion, you may think that is censorship, I consider it commonsense, education should be about verifiable information not personal belief systems.

Which religion is it introducing?

[darin]

Immie, are you saying creationism should be taught in schools?

Why the HELL do you keep going on with the BULLSHIT Lie "Palin wants Creationism taught in (public) Schools!"???? What is WRONG WITH YOU?



There is no science to creationism,

That's you speculating. There absolutely IS science in intelligent design. If you saw a Buick floating in space, would it NOT be 'scientific' to assume it had a creator?



and there is the constitutional separation of church and state.

Where? Point to the article and paragraph, please.



To introduce a creator is only to introduce religion,

...not if folk choose not to believe. I've been introduced to religions such as Islam and various forms of Christianity - say, Mormonism. I don't believe in either. Knowing those faiths exist doesn't make me partake in them.
Instructing our youth to the effect "We don't know how things were made...but the two most popular theories are 'Things happened by pure random chance, and things were created by a creator' is healthy. But...to your comment. To introduce Macro Evolution to people is to introduce religion too.



you may think that is censorship, I consider it commonsense, education should be about verifiable information not personal belief systems.

....Uh....Everything requires a personal belief system. You personally our earth and everything in the universe happend by accident.

You are so afraid of Truth and Goodness, I pity you.

[midcan5]

Why am I not surprised a liberal wants to remove all references of God from the public view? The nerve of Gov Palin to want to give the students both sides and allow them to decide which is correct

Where is the outcry of "separation of church and state" when libs like Jesse Jackson are campaigning in black churches, or when liberalism is spoken (or screamed) in Obama's racist church?

So witch doctoring should be taught along side modern medicine? When I went to school it was to learn not to make decisions concerning religion v science. I guess that helps explain why you are a fool, you just made the wrong decision. Maybe you should go back and try again. Good luck.



"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years." R. D. Laing

[Immanuel]

Immie, are you saying creationism should be taught in schools? There is no science to creationism, and there is the constitutional separation of church and state. To introduce a creator is only to introduce religion, you may think that is censorship, I consider it commonsense, education should be about verifiable information not personal belief systems.

I am saying creationism should be discussed in schools. I am saying that when evolution is taught as science that other theories should be discussed with an open mind. Discussion is not teaching nor is it interfering with the Separation of Church and State. I do not want the government telling us what religion we should believe. Neither do I believe that faith and religion should be ignored in our schools as it plays a tremendous part in every bit of our lives. Whether you will admit that or not.

Your attempt to hide a creator is nothing more than censorship. You cannot possibly deny that.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Midcan, perhaps you missed my question above. Which religion is being discussed when Creationism is taught?

[Missileman]

I am saying creationism should be discussed in schools. I am saying that when evolution is taught as science that other theories should be discussed with an open mind. Discussion is not teaching nor is it interfering with the Separation of Church and State. I do not want the government telling us what religion we should believe. Neither do I believe that faith and religion should be ignored in our schools as it plays a tremendous part in every bit of our lives. Whether you will admit that or not.

Your attempt to hide a creator is nothing more than censorship. You cannot possibly deny that.

Immie

There's only one problem. The fundies would want to censor the discussion of creationism so that only the Christian version of events is discussed. Kids are smart enough that if you wheel out a hundred different creation "myths", they'll discount the lot...and the fundies know it.

I'll give you this though...at least YOU are honest enough to admit that creationism IS religion...lot's of others here that try that bullshit "it's science" argument.

[darin]

I'll give you this though...at least YOU are honest enough to admit that creationism IS religion...lot's of others here that try that bullshit "it's science" argument.


You know and I know Intelligent Design is just as valid of a theory (Much more valid, IMO) as macro evolution. You know and I know there's very little 'true science' in macro evolution. You aren't honest enough to recognize ANY valid points about ID.

[Missileman]

You know and I know Intelligent Design is just as valid of a theory (Much more valid, IMO) as macro evolution. You know and I know there's very little 'true science' in macro evolution. You aren't honest enough to recognize ANY valid points about ID.

I liked your argument about the Buick. Where ARE all those fossilized Le Sabres?

[Missileman]

You know and I know Intelligent Design is just as valid of a theory (Much more valid, IMO) as macro evolution. You know and I know there's very little 'true science' in macro evolution. You aren't honest enough to recognize ANY valid points about ID.

And Puhleease...don't pretend to tell me what I know. I KNOW ID is pure religious bullshit, nothing more, nothing less.

[Abbey Marie]

I liked your argument about the Buick. Where ARE all those fossilized Le Sabres?

In my MIL's garage. :laugh2:

[darin]

And Puhleease...don't pretend to tell me what I know. I KNOW ID is pure religious bullshit, nothing more, nothing less.

You're too smart to say things like that. You're just pandering to other folk who refuse truth because it scares them. :)

At least have the honesty to concede macro evolution is a theory and has plenty of holes.

[Immanuel]

There's only one problem. The fundies would want to censor the discussion of creationism so that only the Christian version of events is discussed. Kids are smart enough that if you wheel out a hundred different creation "myths", they'll discount the lot...and the fundies know it.

I'll give you this though...at least YOU are honest enough to admit that creationism IS religion...lot's of others here that try that bullshit "it's science" argument.

I am certain there are "fundies" who want only creationism taught in school. I'd disagree with that as well. I do not think that creastionism should be taught as "science" but I believe that when evolution is taught competing or maybe even "completing" theories should be discussed as pros and cons. I have always been one to believe that creationism and evolution can go hand in hand. If there is a God who created the universe then he created all things including the natural laws which would include evolution.

To deny that there is a hole in the theory of evolution is ridiculous. If you are going to teach "macro evolution" as theory (which is the intention and always has been) then you must point out that the theory cannot answer how life began. So from there, creationism and ID can be openly discussed as options. In the same way, creationism does not answer a lot of other question such as what happened to the dinosaurs, when did life begin etc. etc. etc.



Kids are smart enough that if you wheel out a hundred different creation "myths", they'll discount the lot...

Kids are also smart enough to know that there is another "theory" out there known as creationism. At least American kids know this. Ignoring it doesn't change that. Being open and honest about the entire issue is the best way to handle the questions. Kids aren't stupid. Give them the information and let them go from there.

I think honesty is the best policy. Hiding a "theory" is dishonesty. I don't think schools should teach it as fact, I think they should teach it as a belief, just as I believe that proven parts of the "theory" of evolution should be taught as fact, but the unproven parts i.e. how life began, should be taught as hypothesis or conjecture.

Immie

[No1tovote4]

If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, we'd see the following from the right-wing noise machine...

Instead of "Outdoorsy", they'd call her a "lesbian".

Instead of "tough working mom", they'd call her a "child abandoning, manipulative bitch".

Instead of "helping her pregnant teenage daughter", they would accuse her of advocating "democratic values of teen sex and irresponsibility".

And if you really want the skinny on her acceptance speech, follow the link to:

<center><a href=http://politicsanew.com/2008/09/04/fact-checking-the-sarah-palin-acceptance-speech/>The Political Voices of Women</a></center>
If Sarah Palin were a democrat her name would be Barack Obama. The parallels are inescapable. The only differences lie in political view and Palin has some actual executive experience. The right has been telling you that the views are not in line with most of the US and he's riding a wave of popularity that will crash into the beach sometime.... Now the left is attempting to say a person with more salient experience is not experienced enough to be President. Thankfully she's running for VP and can gain experience....

[Missileman]

You're too smart to say things like that. You're just pandering to other folk who refuse truth because it scares them. :)

At least have the honesty to concede macro evolution is a theory and has plenty of holes.

I have never claimed that evolution is anything more than a theory and as far as I know, the theory has no holes. The "holes" are in the evidence required to conclusively prove the theory. As yet, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence found that disproves the theory. If there was, the theory would be abandoned.

[Missileman]

I am certain there are "fundies" who want only creationism taught in school. I'd disagree with that as well. I do not think that creastionism should be taught as "science" but I believe that when evolution is taught competing or maybe even "completing" theories should be discussed as pros and cons. I have always been one to believe that creationism and evolution can go hand in hand. If there is a God who created the universe then he created all things including the natural laws which would include evolution.

To deny that there is a hole in the theory of evolution is ridiculous. If you are going to teach "macro evolution" as theory (which is the intention and always has been) then you must point out that the theory cannot answer how life began. So from there, creationism and ID can be openly discussed as options. In the same way, creationism does not answer a lot of other question such as what happened to the dinosaurs, when did life begin etc. etc. etc.




Kids are also smart enough to know that there is another "theory" out there known as creationism. At least American kids know this. Ignoring it doesn't change that. Being open and honest about the entire issue is the best way to handle the questions. Kids aren't stupid. Give them the information and let them go from there.

I think honesty is the best policy. Hiding a "theory" is dishonesty. I don't think schools should teach it as fact, I think they should teach it as a belief, just as I believe that proven parts of the "theory" of evolution should be taught as fact, but the unproven parts i.e. how life began, should be taught as hypothesis or conjecture.

Immie

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It can't stand up to the most basic of scientific scrutiny. It doesn't compete with evolution on ANY level. And as you've just pointed out, American kids have already been steeped in the Bible's account. It's not necessary to add a Christian disclaimer to science class.

[darin]

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It can't stand up to the most basic of scientific scrutiny. It doesn't compete with evolution on ANY level. And as you've just pointed out, American kids have already been steeped in the Bible's account. It's not necessary to add a Christian disclaimer to science class.


Evolution is not a scientific theory. It can't stand up to the most basic of scientific scrutiny. It doesn't compete with ID on ANY level. And as you've just pointed out, American kids have already been steeped in the Darwinism run amock. It's necessary to add a disclaimer to science class. A disclaimer that Evolution is a best-guess on behalf of some folks - many of whom refuse debate on the validity of their guesses. It's like 'man-made' global warming preachers.

[Missileman]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. It can't stand up to the most basic of scientific scrutiny. It doesn't compete with ID on ANY level. And as you've just pointed out, American kids have already been steeped in the Darwinism run amock. It's necessary to add a disclaimer to science class. A disclaimer that Evolution is a best-guess on behalf of some folks - many of whom refuse debate on the validity of their guesses. It's like 'man-made' global warming preachers.

Jeez D! How long did it take your 4-year-old to type that out?

[No1tovote4]

I've never understood why it is so difficult to consider that an all-powerful God might use something as logical as evolution to create life, that an all-powerful God could make billions of years pass in a 24 hour period without too much hassle, that he could have begun all of this with a bit of dirt and ooze isn't too difficult for me to consider at all.

It isn't like Evolution would dismantle the faith of billions, to me it would just answer the question, "How did God do that?" The fruit of knowledge may have been a sin, but it is what we are now capable of....

If I believed in this religion I'd have no problem making the two things fit together with my faith. It would probably give me even more awe...

[Immanuel]

I have never claimed that evolution is anything more than a theory and as far as I know, the theory has no holes. The "holes" are in the evidence required to conclusively prove the theory. As yet, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence found that disproves the theory. If there was, the theory would be abandoned.

I disagree here.

I don't think evidence will be found that conclusively proves the entire theory false. Evidence may be found that parts of the theory are inaccurate and/or incomplete and from there the theory would be modified as it should be.

If we discovered that there was a huge magnet just underneath the crust of the earth that held all things on the surface we would not discard the Theory of Gravity, we would simply adjust the theory to fit the known facts.

If we discover that there is intelligent life on another planet and that life brought life to earth or refugees from that planet came to earth then we are not going to cast out the entire theory of evolution because of that, we will modify the theory and expand it based upon the new information.

In the same way, if we prove, or could prove, that there is a God and that he, in fact, did create life on Earth, we would not cast away the entire theory of evolution, we would, in fact, modify it to fit current known facts and go from there.

Immie

[darin]

Things swimming around in ooze 'decided' to change themselves to be more productive. Sure...that's scientific. :-/

Matter arrising from non-matter. By accident/random chance. Sounds GOOD, right?

(sigh)

[Missileman]

I disagree here.

I don't think evidence will be found that conclusively proves the entire theory false. Evidence may be found that parts of the theory are inaccurate and/or incomplete and from there the theory would be modified as it should be.

If we discovered that there was a huge magnet just underneath the crust of the earth that held all things on the surface we would not discard the Theory of Gravity, we would simply adjust the theory to fit the known facts.

If we discover that there is intelligent life on another planet and that life brought life to earth or refugees from that planet came to earth then we are not going to cast out the entire theory of evolution because of that, we will modify the theory and expand it based upon the new information.

In the same way, if we prove, or could prove, that there is a God and that he, in fact, did create life on Earth, we would not cast away the entire theory of evolution, we would, in fact, modify it to fit current known facts and go from there.

Immie

Altering a theory to account for new info is different than disproving one. Let's say for argument that they come up with proof that God planted all life in it's current form on Earth a few thousand years ago...evolution goes out the window.

[darin]

I'm saying evolution doesn't even make SENSE. However God created and changed life, Evolution is just SILLY and voilates both common, and sceintific sense. I wouldn't have a problem with OTHER non-ID theories; but the one you cling to takes such amazing amounts of blind faith, I can't dig it.

[Immanuel]

Altering a theory to account for new info is different than disproving one. Let's say for argument that they come up with proof that God planted all life in it's current form on Earth a few thousand years ago...evolution goes out the window.

The first part of this is exactly what I was saying.

As for the second part, I must again disagree with you. If God planted all life on earth and then let it go its own way, evolution is not "wiped out". As I said earlier, if God created the universe, then he created the natural laws along with the universe. We cannot deny Gravity just as we cannot deny that species adapt as times and conditions change.

Discovering God in some far off place called "heaven" watching mankind on Earth would not end the theory of evolution. Evolution would simply "evolve".

Immie

[Missileman]

The first part of this is exactly what I was saying.

As for the second part, I must again disagree with you. If God planted all life on earth and then let it go its own way, evolution is not "wiped out". As I said earlier, if God created the universe, then he created the natural laws along with the universe. We cannot deny Gravity just as we cannot deny that species adapt as times change.

Discovering God in some far off place called "heaven" watching mankind on Earth would not end the theory of evolution. Evolution would simply "evolve".

Immie

Evolution would be out...a new theory called for instance "adaptation" would be in.

You missed this: "Let's say for argument that they come up with proof that God planted all life in it's current form on Earth a few thousand years ago"

[Immanuel]

Evolution would be out...a new theory called for instance "adaptation" would be in.

You missed this: "Let's say for argument that they come up with proof that God planted all life in it's current form on Earth a few thousand years ago"

Well, your bolded part, misrepresents the idea of creationism. So, it does not fit. Creationism does not exclude micro evolution and it never has unless you ask a few of those "fundies" you discribed earlier.

Immie

[No1tovote4]

Evolution would be out...a new theory called for instance "adaptation" would be in.

You missed this: "Let's say for argument that they come up with proof that God planted all life in it's current form on Earth a few thousand years ago"
Again, could not such a God use evolution as a tool to create? Just as you use a screwdriver to build?

The two ideas are not incompatible, only if you want so bad for them to be that you refuse to listen to any reason at all could they possibly be considered so black and white.

[Missileman]

Well, your bolded part, misrepresents the idea of creationism. So, it does not fit. Creationism does not exclude micro evolution and it never has unless you ask a few of those "fundies" you discribed earlier.

Immie

The Christian creation model doesn't have God whipping up man in his present form from a lump of clay?

[No1tovote4]

The Christian creation model doesn't have God whipping up man in his present form from a lump of clay?
A pretty good description of primordial ooze and a capacity to run through billions of years in a matter of ours. I can handle that, all without suggesting that it could not possibly be early man's interpretation of what happened and without discarding any scientific findings we may have that support the Theory.

I can do that without even believing the religion, I'm pretty sure you can too. Even if you pretend you can't.

[Immanuel]

The Christian creation model doesn't have God whipping up man in his present form from a lump of clay?

No, God spoke and man was.

Genesis 1:26-27


26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

As for how God created the universe the Bible doesn't really say. It says, "God said", and it was so. It doesn't say that is all that it took, although pure Creationist (those fundies you like so much ;) ) sometimes claim it does.

Immie

[Missileman]

Again, could not such a God use evolution as a tool to create? Just as you use a screwdriver to build?

The two ideas are not incompatible, only if you want so bad for them to be that you refuse to listen to any reason at all could they possibly be considered so black and white.

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_14.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_16.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_17.html

Which one shall we adopt as a viable scientific alternative?

[Missileman]

A pretty good description of primordial ooze and a capacity to run through billions of years in a matter of ours. I can handle that, all without suggesting that it could not possibly be early man's interpretation of what happened and without discarding any scientific findings we may have that support the Theory.

I can do that without even believing the religion, I'm pretty sure you can too. Even if you pretend you can't.

Except you can't do it without bringing a deity into it.

[darin]

If God didn't use a literal 'day' to creat things, and if he used thousands of years, he likely would not used something so silly and illogical as traditional macro evolution.

Silly things I've heard...

(paraphrased)...so this tree evolved to have it's fruit taste good, so elephants would eat it, thus, in the elephants droppings, the seeds of the fruit, would have fertilizer.

Yeah...the tree evolved it's fruit, just for the taste of elephants. wow.

[midcan5]

I am saying creationism should be discussed in schools. I am saying that when evolution is taught as science that other theories should be discussed with an open mind. Discussion is not teaching nor is it interfering with the Separation of Church and State. I do not want the government telling us what religion we should believe. Neither do I believe that faith and religion should be ignored in our schools as it plays a tremendous part in every bit of our lives. Whether you will admit that or not.

Your attempt to hide a creator is nothing more than censorship. You cannot possibly deny that.

Immie

I'm sure it is on occasion discussed, but it is not material that should be in school. The government is not telling you anything about religion - that does not follow, we have religious freedom. You can believe in the spaghetti monster if you like. No one is hiding anything, Creators, like so many things in life are a part of a person's upbringing thus they do nor belong in the public sphere where there is no agreement.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm sure it is on occasion discussed, but it is not material that should be in school. The government is not telling you anything about religion - that does not follow, we have religious freedom. You can believe in the spaghetti monster if you like. No one is hiding anything, Creators, like so many things in life are a part of a person's upbringing thus they do nor belong in the public sphere where there is no agreement.

Trying a third time- what religion is creationism teaching?

[Immanuel]

I'm sure it is on occasion discussed, but it is not material that should be in school. The government is not telling you anything about religion - that does not follow, we have religious freedom. You can believe in the spaghetti monster if you like. No one is hiding anything, Creators, like so many things in life are a part of a person's upbringing thus they do nor belong in the public sphere where there is no agreement.

Well, I suppose, that this is one thing upon which you and I will have to continue to agree to disagree about.

I try to avoid censorship in all manners. It does not appear that you agree with that.

Immie

[Missileman]

If God didn't use a literal 'day' to creat things, and if he used thousands of years, he likely would not used something so silly and illogical as traditional macro evolution.

Silly things I've heard...

(paraphrased)...so this tree evolved to have it's fruit taste good, so elephants would eat it, thus, in the elephants droppings, the seeds of the fruit, would have fertilizer.

Yeah...the tree evolved it's fruit, just for the taste of elephants. wow.

The story is actually more like this: A couple seeds in some fruit that was eaten by an elephant had a gene mutation that allowed the seeds to survive the digestive tract of an elephant. Those seeds passed that trait on to subsequent generations of trees. The added benefit of surviving the trip was getting planted in a nutrient rich spot to take root.

[darin]

Very much easier for you to buy that than simply understand God designed the ecosystem to work in harmony? Wow.

[No1tovote4]

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_14.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_16.html

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_17.html

Which one shall we adopt as a viable scientific alternative?
Again, no alternative is necessary. What part of what I have been saying is too difficult for you?

[Missileman]

Again, no alternative is necessary. What part of what I have been saying is too difficult for you?

It isn't possible that all of those creation myths are true. Any rational person can recognize them for what they are. It doesn't matter whether the myth is about a giant turtle or the Christian god...they're all myth. That you consider the Christian account more appealing has no bearing on the possibility that it might be true. That you feel compelled to insert a deity into the mix in no way makes it impossible for life to have begun without one.

[CatalystOfChaos]

Faith is believing something you have no proof of and didn't/can't see.

You have faith that your significant other loves you. You can kinda tell whether they do or not, but there's not a lit up indicator on their inner elbow that says "love" or "no love."

If you believe in evolution, you have faith in it. If you believe in Creationism, you have faith in it. Atheists and those who are anti religion hate the word faith and believe it has Christian only contexts.

It does not. Believing in evolution or the big bang is also having faith in something you nor anyone else saw or can prove. People try to claim circumstantial evidence, but there is no evidence.

Choose what you want to believe, recognize you can't prove it, and have faith in it. People need to realize that both camps are faith based.

I don't like the disparaging, but I understand. Christians who believe in Creationism feel that God is being insulted by the Big Bang theory. People who believe in evolution believe that man is being insulted by people believing in a magical myth.

Pick who you'd rather insult.

[Missileman]

Faith is believing something you have no proof of and didn't/can't see.

You have faith that your significant other loves you. You can kinda tell whether they do or not, but there's not a lit up indicator on their inner elbow that says "love" or "no love."

If you believe in evolution, you have faith in it. If you believe in Creationism, you have faith in it. Atheists and those who are anti religion hate the word faith and believe it has Christian only contexts.

It does not. Believing in evolution or the big bang is also having faith in something you nor anyone else saw or can prove. People try to claim circumstantial evidence, but there is no evidence.

Choose what you want to believe, recognize you can't prove it, and have faith in it. People need to realize that both camps are faith based.

I don't like the disparaging, but I understand. Christians who believe in Creationism feel that God is being insulted by the Big Bang theory. People who believe in evolution believe that man is being insulted by people believing in a magical myth.

Pick who you'd rather insult.

I suppose you can argue that it takes faith to believe that 2+2=4. You'd be wrong of course.

Believing a scientific theory that a) has a mountain of evidence that supports its conclusions and b) so far, hasn't been disproven or harmed by any contradictory evidence is not even in the same league as believing in something that has no evidence of support at all.

So please...let's not try to dishonestly equate science with religion or belief in scientific principles with faith.

[CatalystOfChaos]

No, 2+2=4 is not faith.

You can see it, prove it.

Have 2 pebbles in each hand, toss em together, count them again. 4.

That's not faith. Don't be condescending and trivial. :-)

People take the word faith and automatically bristle. Why? It isn't only religious. You can't prove God's existence or Creationism, you can't prove evolution or the scientific theories/origins.

[Yurt]

[QUOTE=CatalystOfChaos;294163]Faith is believing something you have no proof of and didn't/can't see.

You have faith that your significant other loves you. You can kinda tell whether they do or not, but there's not a lit up indicator on their inner elbow that says "love" or "no love."

If you believe in evolution, you have faith in it.

exactly. why is this so hard to explain to people? my guess, for them to answer is to crumble in their faith.


If you believe in Creationism, you have faith in it. Atheists and those who are anti religion hate the word faith and believe it has Christian only contexts.

It does not.

correct about faith and its origins, not so sure about those that "hate"....i am loathe to use such a term unles i have seen those people in action and their hate revealed in a blatent manner.



Believing in evolution or the big bang is also having faith in something you nor anyone else saw or can prove. People try to claim circumstantial evidence, but there is no evidence.

do you honestly know this or do you only believe this?


Choose what you want to believe, recognize you can't prove it, and have faith in it. People need to realize that both camps are faith based.

I don't like the disparaging, but I understand. Christians who believe in Creationism feel that God is being insulted by the Big Bang theory. People who believe in evolution believe that man is being insulted by people believing in a magical myth.

Pick who you'd rather insult.

what exactly do you understand? if it is only the two sentences you wrote, fair enough, if your thoughts alone were inhibited by typed words, however, i suspect there is more to your thinking.




People take the word faith and automatically bristle. Why? It isn't only religious. You can't prove God's existence or Creationism, you can't prove evolution or the scientific theories/origins.

why? accountability

[CatalystOfChaos]

[QUOTE]

exactly. why is this so hard to explain to people? my guess, for them to answer is to crumble in their faith.

correct about faith and its origins, not so sure about those that "hate"....i am loathe to use such a term unles i have seen those people in action and their hate revealed in a blatent manner.

do you honestly know this or do you only believe this?

what exactly do you understand? if it is only the two sentences you wrote, fair enough, if your thoughts alone were inhibited by typed words, however, i suspect there is more to your thinking.

why? accountability

Well, the way people bristle and get angry at the word faith in relation to Evolution or the Big Bang theory indicates if nothing else, extreme irritation with the word lol.

I've gone to secular school. I've gone to a religious based school. From everything I've heard, everything I've seen, "evidence" of either are both circumstantial, relying on preconceived notions. One is the notion that God does in fact exist, and that he did in fact Create everything. That's the evidence needed to make the rest of the circumstantial evidence in Creationism true. Just like for evolution and Darwinism, it hinges upon the preconceived notion that everything came from the Big Bang and the resorting/ordering through evolutionary forms of the remaining particles. No one saw it, no one can prove it, so its all circumstantial.

I understand the reasons why both parties get upset with the other. People who do not believe in God feel that people who believe in Creationism are trying to push their religion onto people who don't want it, don't want to be a part of it, don't believe it, and don't want to be told about it. That they are basing their belief system on myths, on mistruths, on a system of manipulation. I understand these concepts, what they stem from, and why people believe so.

I also understand that people who believe in God and creationism find it insulting when people try to put down their beliefs as simple myths. As though they are completely baseless and without thought or reason. And they feel it is their duty to share God and the ways of God with others. Just as evolutionists believe that they must share their beliefs with all, and show how they feel everything began.

But in the end, they are both based on a preconceived notion and faith in something that is unseen, unrecorded, and unproven.

[Missileman]

[QUOTE=Yurt;294347]

Well, the way people bristle and get angry at the word faith in relation to Evolution or the Big Bang theory indicates if nothing else, extreme irritation with the word lol.

I've gone to secular school. I've gone to a religious based school. From everything I've heard, everything I've seen, "evidence" of either are both circumstantial, relying on preconceived notions. One is the notion that God does in fact exist, and that he did in fact Create everything. That's the evidence needed to make the rest of the circumstantial evidence in Creationism true. Just like for evolution and Darwinism, it hinges upon the preconceived notion that everything came from the Big Bang and the resorting/ordering through evolutionary forms of the remaining particles. No one saw it, no one can prove it, so its all circumstantial.

I understand the reasons why both parties get upset with the other. People who do not believe in God feel that people who believe in Creationism are trying to push their religion onto people who don't want it, don't want to be a part of it, don't believe it, and don't want to be told about it. That they are basing their belief system on myths, on mistruths, on a system of manipulation. I understand these concepts, what they stem from, and why people believe so.

I also understand that people who believe in God and creationism find it insulting when people try to put down their beliefs as simple myths. As though they are completely baseless and without thought or reason. And they feel it is their duty to share God and the ways of God with others. Just as evolutionists believe that they must share their beliefs with all, and show how they feel everything began.

But in the end, they are both based on a preconceived notion and faith in something that is unseen, unrecorded, and unproven.

So, according to you, we should believe that the ancient Iroquois had a creation MYTH, the ancient Greeks had a creation MYTH, the ancient Aztecs, Japanese, Chinese, Egyptians, etc., etc. all had creation MYTHS, but the ancient Jews had creation FACT. Yeah....right.

[CatalystOfChaos]

No.

Did I say the Jewish creation story is fact?

Not once.

I said that all of these creation origins cannot be proven, end of story. I'm saying that you choose the one you believe in (Christian creation story, Evolutionist origin story, whatever) and realize that its still based in faith, not fact.