5 Problems with Palin

[KarateCowboy]

1. Abuse of power firing of a public safety commissioner for not firing a trooper over her sister's divorce. http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html

These are allegations, nothing proven.

2. Connection to Alaskan secessionists. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04party.html?ref=politics

Wow. So she spoke campaigned to win their vote while remaining a Republican. That's like the abortion/white supremacist link. Meaning absolutely nothing.

3. Flipflop on bridge to nowhere.
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Changing your policy to reflect constituents' interest is not flip-flopping. It is good statesmanship.

4. Firing a librarian while mayor for refusing to censor books. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=2008campaign&position=15

That is a lie. Outright. Actually, it's several. Amazing how so many lies can be fit into one sentence.
First, she never asked the librarian to 'censor' anything. She, at the bidding of her constituency, asked the librarian about the possibility of banning books from the public library. That is, prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for certain books. She never pursued it any further.
Additionally, you are committing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There is no proof of relation between the two events. In reality, Palin did not push the issue of banning books, and her firing has nothing to do with the issue.

truthorfiction.com has clarification of this lie happily repeated by the MSM and Palin haters
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/palin-banned-books.htm

5. Proponent of "teach both sides" in regards to evolution.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

This is actually more frightening than any 'book banning'. The banning of ideas. Some people just can't stand to hear any different ideas outside of their narrow-minded orthodoxy. How is intellectual diversity a bad thing? And anyway it's a non sequitur, as saying she actively promotes it is just another lie. While in office Palin has done nothing to promote the teaching of Creationism.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members

This really is the best they can come up with, I guess. Here are some other shocking headliners. The latest in the Palin controversy:

Palin's dog found rooting in neighbor's trash!

This just in: Palin's great grandmother jumped ahead in line at Ellis Island

Environmental shocker: Palin's cat seen scratching claws on rare Alaskan tree

Obama: still more experienced than Bristol Palin.

Why Palin's husband's DUI is worse than Obama's cocaine use
(headlines courtesy of thepeoplescube.com)

 

[Vene]

This is actually more frightening than any 'book banning'. The banning of ideas. Some people just can't stand to hear any different ideas outside of their narrow-minded orthodoxy. How is intellectual diversity a bad thing? And anyway it's a non sequitur, as saying she actively promotes it is just another lie. While in office Palin has done nothing to promote the teaching of Creationism.

Cool, we have somebody else for the teaching of alchemy instead of chemistry! Fight the power! And I'm sure you wouldn't mind inviting somebody like PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins to speak at your church right? If not, you're against the banning of ideas.

You should read up on Lysenkoism too. It's a fascinating subject.

 

[Corey]

This is actually more frightening than any 'book banning'. The banning of ideas. Some people just can't stand to hear any different ideas outside of their narrow-minded orthodoxy. How is intellectual diversity a bad thing? And anyway it's a non sequitur, as saying she actively promotes it is just another lie. While in office Palin has done nothing to promote the teaching of Creationism.

ACtually...it's rather easy.

One is true (scientifically-speaking: well-supported) while the other is false.

Thank you for playing.

 

[DieHappy]

How is alchemy an alternative to chemistry. Most of chemistry was derived from what alchemists discovered in their quest for gold.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

Palin is a perfect Republican- someone who is hopelessly corrupt, wants to spend and tax the hell out of people while pretending to be fiscally conservative, hates America but uses patrotism as a smokescreen to cover that up, and is a hypocrite and a flip flopper on just about every issue depending on who she is talking to

 

[chaz345]

since when does raising questions about scandals and her position on issues constitute an attack?

Since Obama supporters here defined it as such when very similar questions about his past and his positions were raised.

 

[Tenebrae]

Evolution teaches nothing about God, nor does it exclude God. In fact, if you study evolution even in the most elementary way, you will be even more in awe of the mechanism that God used to create His creatures.

Evolution, while somewhat connected, also says NOTHING about the origin of the universe. Again, it does not include or exclude God in the equation.

If Creationism is taught in schools, which version would you choose? The Christian one? The Muslim one? The Hindu one?

It would be better that the schools do not make any mention of any god, and allow the parents to do their job in regards to religious education.

Lisa

QFT



I totally agree with Lisa on this

 

[The Gregorian]

Yes, because they want it taught in a science class. It isn't science. It is theology. Teach it in theology classes.

Look at it from both ends. Both creationism and evolution are religious questions.

Creationism says "in the beginning something magically created everything." ... yea, that's religious.

Evolution agrees that everything was suddenly magically created, but it says that it happened all by itself and the effect had no cause. ... and somehow all matter in the universe escaped an object that makes a black hole look like a cheap suction cup.

I don't think anyone expects for a christian creation idea to be suggested in science class. However, an honest instructor SHOULD admit that Big bang/evolution is one theory. That it's perfectly logical to believe that such effects may have had a cause. Because currently, Big Bang/Evolution are both taught as unquestionable dogma... and any POSSIBLE acceptance of a cause to the effect is considered scientific blasphamy!

That's the part that goes too far. They should either teach both as a POSSIBILITY (both DO have holes), or they should leave the entire question up as a religious topic. Because "Where do we come from and why are we here" are inherently questions of religion. To teach that your religion (atheism) is absolutely unquestionably true violates the separation of church and state, because teachers are currently attempting to strip people of their religious beliefs in favor of their own (atheism). That should not be government sponsored.

If creationism is presented as a possibility, obviously it's up to the student to decide WHAT created the universe... a God or which or how many or why... all of that.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I fail to see what my support for teaching about Creationism, or lack thereof, has to do with Sarah Palin's totally awesome qualifications to be Vice President.

 

[Vene]

Evolution agrees that everything was suddenly magically created, but it says that it happened all by itself and the effect had no cause. ... and somehow all matter in the universe escaped an object that makes a black hole look like a cheap suction cup.

Big bang =/= evolution. Evolution is the model for how life got to be so diverse. And that's not even the big bang, the big bang is an expansion of already existing energy (not matter, that formed from the energy later).

I don't think anyone expects for a christian creation idea to be suggested in science class. However, an honest instructor SHOULD admit that Big bang/evolution is one theory. That it's perfectly logical to believe that such effects may have had a cause. Because currently, Big Bang/Evolution are both taught as unquestionable dogma... and any POSSIBLE acceptance of a cause to the effect is considered scientific blasphamy!

There is no such thing as scientific blasphemy. You just need to have evidence. If you are interested head over to crevo and the evidence for both the big bang and evolution will be presented. If you want a couple pieces, look up background cosmic radiation and endogenous retroviruses.

That's the part that goes too far. They should either teach both as a POSSIBILITY (both DO have holes), or they should leave the entire question up as a religious topic. Because "Where do we come from and why are we here" are inherently questions of religion. To teach that your religion (atheism) is absolutely unquestionably true violates the separation of church and state, because teachers are currently attempting to strip people of their religious beliefs in favor of their own (atheism). That should not be government sponsored.

I bet you don't realize the majority of scientists are theists. I bet you didn't know that the big bang was proposed by a Christian. I bet you didn't know that one of the leading evolution/biology textbooks is written by a Christian.

If creationism is presented as a possibility, obviously it's up to the student to decide WHAT created the universe... a God or which or how many or why... all of that.

Look up theistic evolution. And look up how the peer review process works, theories only make it into schools after being well established and have shown their predictive power.

 

[Sphere]

Look at it from both ends. Both creationism and evolution are religious questions.

No, they are not.

Creationism begins with a conclusion, and then looks for evidence.
Science (evolution) begins with evidence, and looks for a conclusion.

A religion attempts to explain ultimate reality. Biological evolution is merely the observation of allele frequency changes in given populations. It doesn't explain the origins of life, the afterlife, or anything of that sort. But rather explains the phenomena that we see in present life here on earth.

Evolution agrees that everything was suddenly magically created, but it says that it happened all by itself and the effect had no cause. ... and somehow all matter in the universe escaped an object that makes a black hole look like a cheap suction cup.

Evolution does not say that everything was "magically created". You are thinking about abiogenesis, and perhaps the big bang. Both are totally separate from biological evolution. Which is merely the observation of allele frequency changes in given populations.

I don't think anyone expects for a christian creation idea to be suggested in science class. However, an honest instructor SHOULD admit that Big bang/evolution is one theory. That it's perfectly logical to believe that such effects may have had a cause. Because currently, Big Bang/Evolution are both taught as unquestionable dogma... and any POSSIBLE acceptance of a cause to the effect is considered scientific blasphamy!

Don't kid yourself. There are proud ignorant religious zealots that would love nothing more than to stuff their fanatical dogma down the throats of children, and further degrade our scientific knowledge.

A "theory" in science does not imply uncertainty. A "theory" in science is not a guess. A scientific theory is a solid explanation to explaining the relationship of observable phenomena.

The following are scientific theories:

The theory of gravity.
The germ theory of disease
The atomic theory
The theory of biological evolution
The theory of plate tectonics

All of these have an enormous amount of evidence behind them. Evolution gets all the scrutiny because it factually demonstrates that life on Earth is not static. Though you will find some creationists who challenge a whole slew of valid sciences, they are called "young earth creationists".

Who's beliefs require a total disregard for modern physics, geology, astronomy, biology, paleontology, and anthropology.

That's the part that goes too far. They should either teach both as a POSSIBILITY (both DO have holes), or they should leave the entire question up as a religious topic. Because "Where do we come from and why are we here" are inherently questions of religion.

No, those are not questions of religion. A religion attempts to explain every aspect of life, not just the "wheres" and "whys", but also the "hows" and then "whens". Religions have morals, rituals, and other characteristics that are not found in valid scientific theories such as biological evolution, the germ theory of disease, or gravity.

To teach that your religion (atheism) is absolutely unquestionably true violates the separation of church and state, because teachers are currently attempting to strip people of their religious beliefs in favor of their own (atheism). That should not be government sponsored.

Atheism by definition is not a religion, it is the complete absence of a religion.

If creationism is presented as a possibility, obviously it's up to the student to decide WHAT created the universe... a God or which or how many or why... all of that.

Creationism should be explained in a philosophy classroom. Not a science classroom, because creationism is not science. Because it cannot be observed, tested, or replicated.

If creationists want their ham-handed nonsense to be taught in the science classroom, then we open the floodgates for all other types of nonsense to be brought in as well.

Alchemy, Astrology, Faith Healing, Young Earth & Flat Earth "geology".

 

[Corey]

Looks like you got a natural one on your INT check, with no modifiers. It's obvious you have no idea what I am saying. I know 'non sequitur' may sound like the big words grown ups use, but keep trying, and you'll get it.

Mayhap if you bothered yourself to actually...oh...I don't know...read the thread, you'd have seen why it's relevant.

She's on recording supporting side-by-side teaching in science classes. Anyone who advocates teaching lies doesn't need to be a leader. Especially when the lie threatens (admittedly tangentially) the economy.

 

[oldbetang]

She's on recording supporting side-by-side teaching in science classes. Anyone who advocates teaching lies doesn't need to be a leader. Especially when the lie threatens (admittedly tangentially) the economy.

Ahem...I think a little Factchecking is in order:

Palin, Oct. 2006: 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.
​

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

​

 

[Corey]

Ahem...I think a little Factchecking is in order:

Palin, Oct. 2006: 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.
​

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.


​

Indeed some factchecking is in order...yours. Rule #1 of misrepresentation...never provide a way to get contradicted. Let's see what Palin said before she issued the above "clarification you posted. From the same link as posted above.

FactCheck.org notes:
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: 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. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
​

Hmm...that sure looks like advocacy for teaching creationism in science classes to me. Guess what else. I give far more credence to initial statements than later "clarifications," especially when a topic such as this has be litigated and clarified as well as this one.

 

[oldbetang]

Indeed some factchecking is in order...yours. Rule #1 of misrepresentation...never provide a way to get contradicted. Let's see what Palin said before she issued the above "clarification you posted. From the same link as posted above.

FactCheck.org notes:
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: 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. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
​

Hmm...that sure looks like advocacy for teaching creationism in science classes to me. Guess what else. I give far more credence to initial statements than later "clarifications," especially when a topic such as this has be litigated and clarified as well as this one.

So you have a problem with FactCheck.org? Take it up with them. The fact remains that Palin is not on record supporting teaching creationism and evolution side by side in science class. She did not push creation science as Governor , nor does she advocate for it to be part of the curriculum.

 

[Veritas]

since when does raising questions about scandals and her position on issues constitute an attack?

Why aren't you nearly as concerned about all the problems with Obama/Biden? Why are there numerous lefty journalists in Alaska hanging out at bars flush with cash attempting to dig up dirt on Palin when there is no similar move to do the same with Biden? Look, you've got the press on your side....Republican's don't.

 

[Vylo]

That's a laugh. With all the dirt people have tried to dig up on Obama I would assume they would have no trouble in doing so with Biden. Media would jump on it for ratings. You can't dig if there isn't much there however.

 

[Veritas]

That's a laugh. With all the dirt people have tried to dig up on Obama I would assume they would have no trouble in doing so with Biden. Media would jump on it for ratings. You can't dig if there isn't much there however.

There's plenty there alright. The media just isn't interested in Obama's scandals. They're in the tank with him....he's there guy!

 

[The Gregorian]

I fail to see what my support for teaching about Creationism, or lack thereof, has to do with Sarah Palin's totally awesome qualifications to be Vice President.

Don't get me wrong... she seems like a decent person, and I wouldn't mind seeing her in office at all. ... In a few years.

She's got good ideas, and she's smart! ... but only 2 years of experience... Next election, absolutely. But I'm not comfortable with her as president yet.

And yes... we're voting on HER vs. Obama. No one cares about McCain at all. The only reason anyone would vote for him is because he's an "R" ... which she is as well. His only qualification is "I WAS TORTURED! YAY!"

No. He stayed when he was offered the chance to leave. No one gained anything by him staying... he either lacked common sense, or was just too stubborn to quit. Which is something we do NOT need considering the war we're in.

He has no plans to do anything domestically, and his foreign policy consists of his middle finger. You guys realize his tax system is actually HIGHER than Obamas unless you make over 160k a year? True, if you make 2.9 million a year+ you'll pay much lower taxes... but 95% of us will be paying MORE with McCain in office.

Palin will be just fine in the next election... without McCain.

Now... if we were voting Ron Paul/Palin... I'd be all for that.

 

[The Gregorian]

Big bang =/= evolution. Evolution is the model for how life got to be so diverse. And that's not even the big bang, the big bang is an expansion of already existing energy (not matter, that formed from the energy later).

It's still taught as one answer to creation. Except there's a huge hole no one can fill and we're told to ignore and never question. I.e. Evolution teaches how life evolved, but there are no credible theories as to how life -started-. All I'd ask for a theory with such a giant hole not to be taught as "Unquestionable fact backed by concrete evidence." Of course, you'll say that no science is taught as fact. But try suggesting the possibility that there MAY have been a creator in a room full of evolutionists.

I bet you don't realize the majority of scientists are theists.

Yes... and they claim to believe in a god but teach that he did nothing in the universe. Except "theistic evolution" ... which I think is a perfectly fine compromise. All we're asking for is that the concept of a creator not be labeled as "complete nonsense." ... because at least we believe our magical poof had a cause. Evolutionists teach the SAME magical poof... but claim that it happened on it's own accord.

School can teach how life and the universe behave NOW.... but any questions about how/why life or the universe started are inherently a question of religion. And I don't want my tax dollars to teach one religion as absolute fact to the exclusion of all others.

theories only make it into schools after being well established and have shown their predictive power.

Simply because something is established does not mean that you can jump to whatever conclusions you want.

Yes... many variation of finch are likely related. They likely come from a common ancestor... a finch. Or at least some form of bird. But there has NEVER been ANY evidence for a finch producing a non-bird. Or any animal being bred into any other sort of animal through any number of generations. We know we can breed dogs. That's fine. Chahuahuas evolved from wolves. Perfectly sound logic. There is no evidence at all that chahuahuas evolved from the same ancestor as a potato.