What BS.  They did attack her for being mayor of a small town.  Just another version of the guns and Bible attack they used before.

POV, They didn't attack her for her "origins", they questioned her leadership because of her relative inexperience. Fox's graphic is distorting, and misleading, and typical of their overt hype of McCain and their dislike of Obama.

Tommy

We simply disagree on this one.  I believe it was in part an attack using the small town angle.  How anyone in BO camp could use in-experience as an argument is beyond me.  He gives a great speech...but what has he done?

Now that's classic. What has Barack done? Right after saying they shouldn't attack her on coming from a small town (even though thinking people know the issue was experience)? You really are two faced. But hey, here's an issue worthy of discussion:

Friday, August 29, 2008

Sarah Palin on teaching Creationism:

From this (via this via this):

'Creation science' enters the race

GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.

By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 27, 2006
Last Modified: October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." ...

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.

Ok, lets have the debate.  What is wrong with what she said?

Simple. Creationism isn't science. The world is more than 10,000 years old, and contrary to creationist teachings  God didn't plant dinosaur bones to throw off the scientists.

Snoopy said "Simple. Creationism isn't science. The world is more than 10,000 years old, and contrary to creationist teachings  God didn't plant dinosaur bones to throw off the scientists."

Snoopy.

If you really think it all come down to dinosaur bones, then your knowledge of the bible is very limited.  If you want only "fact" taught, then evolution is out.  it is a threory.  A theory with many holes and gaps that can not be filled.  If the purpose of school is learning, then there is no reason to to teach or discuss creationism.

no reason not to teach  or discuss......

You were right the first time.

There is no reason to teach creationism.

I have no problem with kids in religious schools being taught whatever their religion wants to teach but it is not science.

 

Let"s teach astrology along with astronomy. A healthy debate is good right.  How about lectures from the flat earth society.  Maybe a course in ghostbusting could be part of the career education curiculum.  The number of electives could be endless.  We might need to reduce the hours spent on reality based course work. But as has been stated before "reality has a liberal bias" so it would be a good opportunity to get these liberals out of the schools.

Ah, another strawman. I never said anything about the bible, I specifically said creationism. Creationism has one goal which is to debunk evolution by among other things claiming the earth is 10,000 years old and that God planted bones on purpose. The creationist museum has man and dinosaurs co-existing. This isn't about scientific debate, it's about sowing seeds of discontent by making far fetched claims without proof. Putting out thoughts that can never be proved or disproved are not science or theory, it's just an ultimate strawman argument.

But no suprise coming from someone who thinks a former beauty queen become mayor of a town of 5,000 people has more experience than a sitting US senator.

The "fizz" that Palin has created will disapate quickly and then we will have the first Pres. debate. Can't wait for that. Then VP debate. WOW! Biden needs to be carefulf but firm and if he is, Palin will be toast. Going to be interesting. Mc"C" is using bushes playbook.

If the purpose of school is learning, then there is no reason to to teach or discuss creationism.

At least you got that part right...

typos aside, you fail to make your case.  What about all the problems with evolution that make it a theory, and not science?  You will win a spelling contest with me every time....if you want to win a debate, lets see some facts.

A theory is what makes it science.

A theory is not a "guess." A theory is not "speculation."

A theory is a model based on observed facts.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. Have you graduated high school?

You are kididng right?  A theory is an explanation of something.  It is an attempt to understand what we see.  it is not fact. 

A theory is an explanation of something? Really?

A requirement of a theory is it has to be coherent. There is no coherent argument you can present that says the world is 10,000 years old and that man and dinosaur co-existed.

They argue it is the bible.

The Bible is NOT imperical evidence of anything. It is impossible to disprove a negative. Dogma has no place in the political arena as this is a secular society and needs to be kept that way at ALL COSTS.

Really

A theory must have scope, parsimony, and logical consistency.

Scope refers to how much the theory covers, parsimony refers to simplicity, and logical consistency means does the theory make sence.  Evolution has to many gaps to make sence. 

a good theory must also have validity.  Can it be proven.  Evolution can not be proven.

And evolution meets all those requirements. Not so rightwing nutbag re-interpretation of a few hundred scrolls that can't even reconcile the difference between the old testament and the new testament...

If it fits as well as you say...then show me the evidence.  How did man evolve?  Show me the missing link....oh thats right.....you cant

Then it should be a walk in the park for you to prove that the earth is 10,000 years old and man and dinosaur coexisted. Evolution definitely has evidence that lifeforms change over time to adapt to their changing environment, but when the rightwing's first premise is that evidence is a lie, why waste time discussing something  with someone who learned their "science" from "my pet dinosaur"?

You don't understand how science works.  Scientists fill in gaps as new facts emerge and that's all they can do.  They won't accept creationism because there are no facts behind it.  One wonders how it emerged with no facts to support it.

Evolution has to many gaps to make sence. 

And Creationism is a fairytale.

"A requirement of a theory is it has to be coherent. "

Actually, that isn't a requirement of a scientific theory - though it helps!  A scientific theory is based on observable phenomenon, can be used to make testable predictions, and is subject to alteration based on new observations and/or the results of testing it's predictions.  The more the tests and new observations agree with a theory the closer it becomes to being accepted as scientific fact. 

That does, of course, conflict with...and cause a misunderstanding about...the differences between ordinary theory, which is basically a piece of guesswork, and substantially correlated SCIENTIFIC theory.

"Intelligent Design" actually meets the criteria of being coherent.  What it LACKS is usability for making testable predictions and being changeable based on new observations.

A theory is based on facts.  Scientists take a set of facts and examine them in relation to one another and then a conclusion is made.  Creationism is something someone pulled out of their ass.

Under that, we should teach in Physics that we were all sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.  I mean, that explains so much.

The reason that we're tethered to the earth is not because of the universal theory of gravitation.  It's because of invisible snot, that we have to work hard to overcome.  Teach that in science class!

You couldn't be more wrong. Everyone knows it was the great one's noodly appendage that created mankind.

Partially correct. That explains how deomcrats came into existence. Republicans excaped from uranus.

He/She is not kidding, but go ahead and make a fool of yourself,like you have not already.

Deez give up you can't get this type of person to accept that theories offer proof of something. They always claim that a theory is not science they forget about the "theory of gravity". When was the last time you saw something falling up instead of down?

Here you go. Evolution is every bit as much a fact as gravity.

Creationism, on the other hand, is specutlative, and has no business being taught in a science class.

First, it wasn't a spelling contest, it was the brain fart of the century.

Second, theory has the ability to be proven or disproven. Creationism doesn't.

Third, what kind of idiot thinks the creationist museum passes for theory?

wrong again

Theories are supported or not supported.  A hypothesis can not be proven or dis-proven

You're right, you're wrong again. Creationism can't even be called a hypothesis because it's sole basis is a book written by dozens of men over a few hundred years who's main goal was to reconcile enough religious differences to create a unified religion under a central government. Evolution is a theory.

Wow, POV, for as much as you 'know' about the bible, you know nothing about science.

POV, you have faith and strong beliefs. Fine.  Teach it to you kids.  Just don't expect it to be taught to my kids in the public schools under the banner of science.

Damn those scientific theories.

You're absolutely correct. I refuse to believe any of them until they're fact.

Not even that one about gravity! 

Gravity is also "only a theory."

what an easy debate......the best you two can come up with are dino bones and the theory of gravity....lol.....wow

This from the guy who thinks the creationist museum is a solid theory?

BTW, we have way more, but to date your sad little pissing contest has yet to move beyond kindergarten. Why waste time in a serious discussion when the level of retort is "the earth is 10,000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs! You can't prove that wrong because God made up carbon dating to prove your theories wrong!"?

Let us know when you get to the "my pet dinosaur" primer.

Admit it Snoop, wouldn't you love to saddle up?

 

I hear ya, Snoop, but did you notice the dinosaur statue to the right of her?

What's Mel Gibson going to do to that lamb?

I don't like the way he's looking at it. 

Here's a badass Jesus riding it on his T-Rex.

Love the coloring hints at the bottom. 

Bang a gong indeed! 

 

what an easy debate...- pointofview

I hope you didn't work too hard at that.You should try one sometime where you don't get your ass kicked, that's a lot harder.

To all those who like to try to equate the facts of what we know of gravity with the teaching of creationism in schools. If your claim is that gravity is just a theory to be tested why don't you try stepping off a high building without being attached to anything. I'm sure the rest of us woulod be waiting with baited breath to read about the results.

UK, I think you may have misunderstood (or maybe I have) "gravity" was offered as another "theory" that is understood as fact. Wild-eyed Christians have been misled into thinking because rational people call things "theory" that they can present their figments as "fact" because they don't doubt or question them .

There's a big difference.

Scientific Theory must have certain elements.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem".)

Creationism meets none of these requirements.  Tell me, exactly how do you test Creationism scientifically?

Creationism isn't science.  It's religion.

I've got no objections to teaching all of the scientific evidence supporting creationism.  And once those two seconds have passed teachers can move on to teaching the scientifice evidence supporting evolutionary theory.  The only problem is that the vast and varied amounts of scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory requires years and years of study, especially because it's continuing to accumulate at an accelerating rate.

Reality:  Biological evolution is fact.  Common descent is fact.  The EXACT biological and environmental mechanisms are scientific theories, which DOES NOT mean hypothesis, guess or supposition.

After all, she made sure there was enough snow for the Iditarod race. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington.

Actually, gold panning and operating a sluice box isn't a bad skill set to bring to Washington these days, either.

POV, you gotta get off the KoolAid. This is the same BS I heard Rush throwing agaiinst the wall this morning, "It's the bitter-clinging-flyover country-elitist-blah blah blah", and it's custom made for you, ya sucker.

If a candidate used his experience in running a large corporation as a positive in his campaign, would you take that as an insult to people who work at small companies?

 

Why doesn't Rush live in these hinterlands that he so adores?

This is weird. They pick Whatshername for VP and IMMEDIATELY start whining about how mean everybody is to her. Hell, she was just announced five hours ago.

Maybe they plan to pull an Eagleton on her, and Newt Gingrich will step in and save the party.

She's soooo well known. Even Bush said "I met her once when I was reading my pet goat to a first grade class in Alaska. She was sitting in the front row."

can't wait to see tha Ailes memo's Hannity and O'Reilly are receiving

"DISSES"?

A professional "news" organization uses the slang "disses" in regard to the Obama camp?

WTF kind of moronic crap are we going to have to put up with for the next 2 months?

Who would he pick? Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity?

Only Cheney picks Cheney.

Close. I think he'll pick Dick Cheney and himself. They've been running the government for 8 years anyway... why give it up now?

In fact, the Obama campaign challenged Palin's experience,

 

Pot: "Hi kettle!"

Kettle: "Hi pot!"

 

... well, you know the rest.

Not really, DaWuss.  She has no foreign policy experience.

But she does keep her more controversial views supressed. For instance:

1. On socializing - there will be no senior ball because dancing is evil!
2. On Homosexuality - I don't think it's right that republican gays be kept in the closet. I think all gays should stay in the closet.
3. Religion - I'm all for allowing any American the right to practice the religion of their choosing - as long as it's Christian.

*Drinks EIB Kool-Aid*

*Opens the can of sarcasm*

*Cracks open a few wingnuts*

 

... b-but-but Palin's had to deal with illegal immigrants from Canada and Russia!

Palins favorite saying: "Revenge is a dish best served cold by my Attorney General".

Are you being sexist again by implying that her favorite place is in the kitchen serving food?

Bad Snoopy.  Baaaaaaad Snoopy. 

... well, you know the rest.

There's no comparison between Obama and Palin, none that could ever exist in a sentient world. 

My god, if the desperation of this graphic is just a pointer for what is to come in the next two months things are not going to be pretty!! This has to be, in political terms, the greatest attempt at a hail mary pass ever seen! Even seasoned republican commentators are shocked by this move.

 

For over two months the McCain camp has been pushing it's media sources to say that Obama's inexperience is a hinderence to him being POTUS then they go and choose someone who has done the job for less than half of Obama's time as VP? And the thing that l have to say staggers me in the exreme is this:

 

In looking for the so called 18 million Hillary "undecideds" you choose a deeply ebedded, big oil backed,scandel linked, anti-abortion, CREATIONIST!?!?!?

 

 Wow!! Republicans really don't have any repect for the intelligence of the American people do they!!!  

A lot of us don't !

P.S. If these guys win, I'm moving to Scotland !

On a 4-8 year stay or are you making it permanent?

There won't be anything to come back to !

Yes, you pegged it ... "desperation".

That's how the Palin pick is coming across on rightie-hatie-radio today, too. Hannity has been spewing incoherently and Rush ... well, he's just been drooling (more than usual - but he did sound sober today). Clinging to the Palin straw, they both betray how desperate they've been all along.

This is fun. Pass the popcorn?

If I didn't know any better, I'd think Rush had some sort of high school-esque crush on soon-to-be-former Gov. Palin. The two photos on his website say it all.

damn, the good Col beat me to it.

I can't believe they used the word "dissed"  The dumbing down of America via "street talk" continues.

Nice how the anti-woman party has sent a woman to the frontlines to divert the media flak from McCain. She's a DIVERSION, people. Ignore her like McCain will if elected.

Randy