5 Problems with Palin

[DaisyDay]

She changed her mind. Is that always bad?

No, that's often a good thing; however, after she changed her mind she spoke untruthfully about it. She said that she told Congress, "...thanks, but no thanks". How is taking the money and spending it on something else saying "thanks, but no thanks" especially when by the time she came into office Congress had already removed the spending stipulation?

A non-issue, since Palin has never advocated that ID be forced into the public school system.

Then what did her saying that she thought "both sides" should be taught mean?

 

[mont974x4]

did you really say "if you dare"? What are you, 10 years old? that made my day.

 

[Vene]

doesn't answer the question.

The evolutionists have long told us Christians to basically "suck it up" in regards to evolution being taught in public schools. So why can't those of you who have such a high regard for evolution even entertain another notion? Are you afraid that creationism might actually stand up to scrutiny in the public school arena? If evolution is so spot on, then it should be able to stand up to criticism and should be able to stand up against other things being taught.

Or does this logic only hold true for Christianity?

I still fail to see how advocating more than just evolution being taught as making Palin unfit for office. I realize why it might make the evolutionists uncomfortable, though.

What evidence do creationists have? Here is a thread asking the creationists here for just that. Nothing was presented. Here is a thread listing some of the various pieces of evidence for evolution. Or should we now teach alchemy in chemistry classes because chemists are scared of it? It's junk, it's pseudoscience and has long been disproven.

So, tell me, what results has creation science brought? Has it made an confirmed predictions? Where is the evidence for it? Which specific brand of creationism is the right one? Omphalos? YEC? Gap? OEC? ID?

By the way, it makes her unfit because I know a bit of history. The USSR rejected evolution in favor of Lysenkoism, it was a disaster. It destroyed their agricultural programs. Or do you want America to starve? We need sound science to sustain our large population.

 

[soblessed53]

You've really got that liberal rhetoric down to a science, dontcha? This is the same tired spiel that has been presented at the last two elections. Didn't help the dems then and it's not going to help now.

Me a liberal,that's really hilarious,considering that I have more conservative views than Palin!

Unlike her, I don't believe in the Death Penalty,either!

 

[Corey]

Again, I see nothing wrong with advocating having different theories taught in school. I'm not here to argue about those theories. The point is, what is so bad about Palin being open to having both taught? How does this make her unfit for office?

Great! I'm glad you're open to theories being taught. Unfortunately, there's only one theory-the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics.

Creationism and ID are mere conjecture (at best).

Oh...and by the by...theory has a specific meaning in science: something can only be a theory after multiple replicative tests that vigorous test its validity--in other scientists have done their level-best to prove it false.

 

[Corey]

So with Palin having more experience than this, how are the dems claiming she lacks experience?

Riiiight. The PTA, mayorship of 6,000 people, and the state 3rd from bottom in population really gives her lots of experience. THe South Side of Chicago (where Obama ran his community group) has more people than Alaska.

I'm not ignoring his experience...it just pales in comparison to the experience of MOST presidential hopefuls...

Yup...we all know how badly Lincoln's presidency turned out. Oh...right. It didn't.

Oh...and "St." Reagan only has 8 years of elective office before becoming President. Obama has 12. Hmmm....

 

[Corey]

I still fail to see how advocating more than just evolution being taught as making Palin unfit for office. I realize why it might make the evolutionists uncomfortable, though.

This is actually a useful question. Here's why:

Biotechnology...specifically manipulation of genetic material for bioengineering and industrial purposes is going to be the primary motive forces in manufacturing and the economy in the next century. Without an understanding and acceptance of evolution, it will be impossible to participate in this. Advocating a pseudoscience to be taught with science undermines and limits understanding.

Just as important, biological organisms since they first came to be have engaged in the next great manufacturing modality: nanotechnology. The manipulation of materials at the atomic level.

 

[Vylo]

On the creationism thing. It belongs in a theology class, not a science class.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Funny how you ran away from this topic on another forum where you were an equal with others and here you are where you have power talking about it again ... and with the exact same people no less.

It shows me quite a bit that you felt you needed to bring my "power" level into play here.

Frankly, this thread was about Palin, not evolution. I only asked why advocating for both being taught made her such a bad candidate and unfit for office. Once again, I claimed that I was not here to argue whether creationism is true or not. Once again, the SAME people, as you kindly pointed out, are trying to drag me into an argument that I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE. I don't know how clearer I could be about that, both here and at any other forums. Yes. I am a sheep, a braindead Christian who merely believes that my Lord created the earth because He says so. That is the viewpoint that you and Vene and others have chosen to take so I will just make life easy and agree with you. Yes. Call me a sheep, call me whatever you like. I believe what I believe BECAUSE I am a Christian.

Funny because, that's exactly how the whole ID propaganda machine works. Get power somewhere and put forth un-evidenced beliefs that can't be argued properly because you can shut down the conversation.

I cannot shut down the conversation, NPH, and you need to stop with the baseless accusations. I do not mod this area.

Here's a link to a YEC learning about evolution. It's full of great conversation and it's interesting to watch a YEC learn why there's no reason to dismiss evolution

Which in the end is totally off-topic to the OP. This isn't an argument about evolution versus creationism. If you want that, go HERE.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

But why does it make Palin unfit for the VP? I'm sure she's not the first person to suggest doing something outside of the norm. Does her saying "both could/should be taught in the classroom" mean she will be a bad VP?

This is actually a useful question. Here's why:

Biotechnology...specifically manipulation of genetic material for bioengineering and industrial purposes is going to be the primary motive forces in manufacturing and the economy in the next century. Without an understanding and acceptance of evolution, it will be impossible to participate in this. Advocating a pseudoscience to be taught with science undermines and limits understanding.

Just as important, biological organisms since they first came to be have engaged in the next great manufacturing modality: nanotechnology. The manipulation of materials at the atomic level.

 

[Corey]

But why does it make Palin unfit for the VP? I'm sure she's not the first person to suggest doing something outside of the norm. Does her saying "both could/should be taught in the classroom" mean she will be a bad VP?

It means she's more beholden to beautiful lies than she is to facts.

It means she's willing to make policy decisions that harm America because it fits her ideology.

It means she has poor intellectual skills.

In my opinion, that's not someone you want as a leader...anywhere.

 

[Vene]

But why does it make Palin unfit for the VP? I'm sure she's not the first person to suggest doing something outside of the norm. Does her saying "both could/should be taught in the classroom" mean she will be a bad VP?

Sure it does. The last time pseudoscience was used instead of science (only creationists say 'teach the controversy' that isn't there) it was a disaster. Read up on Lysenkoism if you don't believe me. Or is reality incompatible with Christianity?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It means she's more beholden to beautiful lies than she is to facts.

Not necessarily (especially because I think it's unfair to call creationism "beautiful lies" but that's just my Christianity showing). I believe it means she wants students to be more open-minded.

It means she's willing to make policy decisions that harm America because it fits her ideology.

Has she tried to enact any policies that would require schools to teach both? I would need to research that. I don't think she has, but I do not know for sure. Basically, I believe that both should be taught, too, but I wouldn't try to go about forcing it. I think Palin probably feels that same way.

It means she has poor intellectual skills.

Why?

In my opinion, that's not someone you want as a leader...anywhere.

But doesn't Obama want his own ideology? Doesn't he want to enact policies that serve his purpose? Don't all politics, to some extent, want this? Otherwise, why become president or vice president. Surely it's not totally to "serve the people"?

 

[Corey]

Not necessarily (especially because I think it's unfair to call creationism "beautiful lies" but that's just my Christianity showing). I believe it means she wants students to be more open-minded.

No...it's something showing but it's not your religion. Creationism is also bad theology.

And...if it's not a lie, please feel free to march over to C&E to show so. Also...open-minded is fine, but open to any drivel is not.

Would you like them taught about pyramid power? Just to be open-minded. People believe in that too. Or about about Xenu?

Gotta be open-minded after all.

Has she tried to enact any policies that would require schools to teach both? [snip]

Doesn't matter. She opened this door by mere mention of teaching the two together.

Why?

How about evolution is based upon decades of experimentation and empirical data while creationism is based upon...what exactly? It's definitely not based on data. Any advocacy for something that is not only unsupported but contradicted by facts indicates intellectual dishonesty at best and outright idiocy at the worst.

But doesn't Obama want his own ideology? [snip]

You're equivocating. If you want to argue political ideology, you'd have some basis because there is room for argument with conflicting data.
However, we're discussing science where one thing (evolution) is supported by data. The other (creationism) is not only completely unsupported but also contradicted by data (i.e., falsified).

A willingness to support clearly falsified flights of fancy is not a suitable quality for a leader.

 

[oldbetang]

Oh course ETHICS are non-issues to Republicans! The party of Watergate,Iran-Contra,and non-existant WMD!

As opposed to the Democratic party? The party of The Clinton Legacy?

What has EVER been a bigger threat to OUR National Security,than Republican Administrations?

Democratic Administrations? ....................Just a thought.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I have a friend that speaks almost fluent Klingon.

I need to rephrase this, it's not completely accurate.

Teaching creationism in Science class is like teaching Klingon in English class. It's not real and it's pretty useless.

 

[Vene]

Beckie, have you read about Lysenkoism yet? Do you see why this is relevant?

 

[Lisa0315]

When something is found to be incorrect within a theory of course scientists don't "change their mind". They simply change the goal-posts.

For years, it was a well-known fact that Pluto was a planet. Now it's not. How does that work again?

At any rate, it would be nice to have both taught in schools, at least high schools, so that students could use their own brains. Everyone's always telling me that in order for me to argue against evolution, I've gotta know what evolution is. I've got to learn about it. Same thing with creationism, but I also believe that the public schools would mess up creationism so badly that the kids wouldn't be getting the whole story. Yeah, I have that much confidence in the public school system.

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

 

[Vylo]

But why does it make Palin unfit for the VP? I'm sure she's not the first person to suggest doing something outside of the norm. Does her saying "both could/should be taught in the classroom" mean she will be a bad VP?

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

 

[Lisa0315]

I don't think any candidate is perfect, and I like Palin alot. Don't get me wrong. However, I hope that Palin is attempting to appeal to a certain group of people (like all politicians do) rather than she is so poorly educated.

Lisa