Questions for Sarah Palin.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Can natural forces create what I have found? If I have found a piece of fire hardened clay with a carving in it I can easily concluded that it was created; Same with a painting in a cave; Same with an electric motor, which many hold as one of the biggest signs of our scientifically advanced society. When we look in some cells we find an electric motor called a flagella. Why can we not conclude that it was created?

You seem to be overlooking a very important fact. The REASON we believe a carving in a shard of hardened clay is created is because there is a record of such "creations", and more importantly we can reproduce such a creation. You cannot indisputably conclude that the carving, painting, or motor is man-made, but the fact that man can and has made such things stands as compelling evidence that the source is most likely human rather than other natural or supernatural agents.

When you change the object from something inanimate to something with life, the entire attribution breaks down because man has not created life and is not currently capable of it. So instead of pointing to some known source for such objects, "intelligent design" makes a fatal leap of logic that the origin must be some unknowable and all-powerful supernatural being. There is evidence that man has created carvings, paintings, and motors. There is no evidence that a supreme being exists, much less that it created all things, living or otherwise.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

Quote

Yea but if all of Darwin's theories were true, why am I still here?

For the same reason that two directors can produce a play by Shakespeare, add in their own touches, have one be a failure and another success and . . . the play itself can still remain unchanged.

It's a little like asking, "if you climb a branch of a tree, why does the trunk remain?"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

You seem to be overlooking a very important fact. The REASON we believe a carving in a shard of hardened clay is created is because there is a record of such "creations", and more importantly we can reproduce such a creation. You cannot indisputably conclude that the carving, painting, or motor is man-made, but the fact that man can and has made such things stands as compelling evidence that the source is most likely human rather than other natural or supernatural agents.

You seem to overlook the same REASON. There's no evidence humans evolved from one-celled organisms. No evidence of a missing link. You cannot indisputably conclude that humans evolved from algae and it cannot be recreated.

Quote

I have faith, not blind faith. I understand you do not have blind faith either thats good.

However if the question is asked and she does say she believes in creationism would that be enough for you to question her judgment?

Is this a broad statement covering all parties? Every person running is a proclaimed Christian. I assume by the tone of your posts that you support Obama, who is a believer in creationism. The argument over what crazy ass church he attended for 20 years is another thread by itself.

So, why is Palin the only one whose religious beliefs discredit her judgment?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

"Governor Palin, what is your recommendation for the best rifle / caliber and ammo to use to bring down a Moose or Bear?"

Follow-up question... "Governor Palin, what are your tips when it comes to field dressing a freshly killed Moose or Bear?"


Chicks who know guns ROCK!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

There's no evidence humans evolved from one-celled organisms. No evidence of a missing link.

That is simply false.

Quote

You cannot indisputably conclude that humans evolved from algae and it cannot be recreated.

That's not even a reasoning process. Children and savages fill-in gaps of knowledge with fantasy, and persuade themselves to believe the fantasy. Educated adults have no such excuse.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

You seem to be overlooking a very important fact. The REASON we believe a carving in a shard of hardened clay is created is because there is a record of such "creations", and more importantly we can reproduce such a creation. You cannot indisputably conclude that the carving, painting, or motor is man-made, but the fact that man can and has made such things stands as compelling evidence that the source is most likely human rather than other natural or supernatural agents.

You seem to overlook the same REASON. There's no evidence humans evolved from one-celled organisms. No evidence of a missing link. You cannot indisputably conclude that humans evolved from algae and it cannot be recreated.

You are absolutely correct that I cannot indisputably conclude that humans evolved from algae. However I can conclude that evolution most certainly does occur, and I can point to pieces of data that indicate which paths some such evolutions have taken. The theory that humans evolved from algae is compelling because there is evidence in the fossil record of many paths of evolution and there are plenty of pieces in the chain which we can point to as ancestral to homo sapiens. By contrast, the notion that a supernatural entity simply willed all that is into being is wholly without evidence.

On one hand there are observable data to support a theory, a theory that is modified as additional data become available.
On the other hand, there is conjecture without any substantial basis beyond more conjecture.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

OK, Damon's no pundit, but he did say one thing that bears repeating: bearing in mind McCain's age, imagine President Palin facing down Vladimir Putin. How can that not scare the fucking shit out of people?

To my GOP friends, I say: be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

And I am the one said to have an irrational fear

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Very closed minded as to the possibilities.

What possibilities are you talking about that would include the age of the planet Earth being less than say 10,000 years old? Most hard core creationists would place it closer to being about 6,000 years old but I'm allowing for some slop in their calculations.

In either case, they are off by several BILLION years. That's not even up for question among -any- credible geologists.

irrational fear




Remember, you brought it up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Very closed minded as to the possibilities.

What possibilities are you talking about that would include the age of the planet Earth being less than say 10,000 years old? Most hard core creationists would place it closer to being about 6,000 years old but I'm allowing for some slop in their calculations.

In either case, they are off by several BILLION years. That's not even up for question among -any- credible geologists.

irrational fear




Remember, you brought it up

Rush . . . you've clearly gone off the deep end.

What in the world do you think is an irrational fear in the statements of mine quoted above?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Very closed minded as to the possibilities.

What possibilities are you talking about that would include the age of the planet Earth being less than say 10,000 years old? Most hard core creationists would place it closer to being about 6,000 years old but I'm allowing for some slop in their calculations.

In either case, they are off by several BILLION years. That's not even up for question among -any- credible geologists.

irrational fear




Remember, you brought it up

Rush . . . you've clearly gone off the deep end.

What in the world do you think is an irrational fear in the statements of mine quoted above?

What is the matter? You called me irrational for a reason I cant explain.

Thought that was the way you wanted to go?

By the way, all the fear thrown out about her is irrational and you do seem to subscribe to the etreem left nuts statements.

Care to continue?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So, why is Palin the only one whose religious beliefs discredit her judgment?

Because religion is only an issue when it involves a republican - didn't you get the memo?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You seem to be overlooking a very important fact. The REASON we believe a carving in a shard of hardened clay is created is because there is a record of such "creations", and more importantly we can reproduce such a creation. You cannot indisputably conclude that the carving, painting, or motor is man-made, but the fact that man can and has made such things stands as compelling evidence that the source is most likely human rather than other natural or supernatural agents.

You seem to overlook the same REASON. There's no evidence humans evolved from one-celled organisms. No evidence of a missing link. You cannot indisputably conclude that humans evolved from algae and it cannot be recreated.

You are absolutely correct that I cannot indisputably conclude that humans evolved from algae. However I can conclude that evolution most certainly does occur, and I can point to pieces of data that indicate which paths some such evolutions have taken. The theory that humans evolved from algae is compelling because there is evidence in the fossil record of many paths of evolution and there are plenty of pieces in the chain which we can point to as ancestral to homo sapiens. By contrast, the notion that a supernatural entity simply willed all that is into being is wholly without evidence.

On one hand there are observable data to support a theory, a theory that is modified as additional data become available.
On the other hand, there is conjecture without any substantial basis beyond more conjecture.

Blues,
Dave

Of course evolution happens. That's why cave fish are clear and don't have eyes. No need for them. The fact species evolve doesn't mean humans came from algae. It is compelling to listen to someone talk about. There's still no link between humans and apes. There's definitely, not even close to a proven link between one-celled organisms and humans.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Ion01 2]

Actually the fatal leap of logic is to conclude that natural forces can accomplish, over millions of years, something that we cannot accomplish in any lab even with the help or aid of the scientist. It is not science unless it is observable (we have yet to observe any evolution) and testable (we have yet to test evolutionary processes in the lab). Lets also keep in mind that any test that could be conducted or have been attempted ultimately require the input or control of the scientist which would ultimately point to some being controlling the evolutionary process if evolution actually happened.

"With time anything is possible. This myth is the ultimate argument of those who attempt to "explain" the origin of the Cosmos and all life by CHANCE and the natural properties of matter and energy. Evolutionists hope that by invoking immense amounts of time, highly improbable events can somehow be made probable. But with this type of argument it is possible to "explain" ANYTHING. We've all heard it said, for example, that "given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, EVENTUALLY one of them is bound to type the sonnets of Shakespeare error free." But this outrageous myth violates the statistical foundation on which all modern science rests. Statistically controlled experiments are useless if we do not assume that highly improbable events simply do not occur. The probability of any event which has a known number of possible outcomes can be calculated quite easily. The probability of rolling a particular number on a die, for example, is one chance out of six (the total number of possible sides) or 1/6. The probability of getting TWO particular numbers on two successive rolls of the die is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36, which is to say you would expect to succeed once in 36 rolls. What then is the probability of randomly selecting the appropriate letters and spaces from a Scrabble set to spell "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"? There are 26 different letters and a space in the alphabet (total 27) and there is a total of 23 of these letters and spaces in our sentence. The probability of spelling this sentence without error by blindly drawing and replacing letters from our 27 character set is calculated by multiplying 1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 .... 23 times. The answer reveals that we would expect to spell this simple sentence correctly by CHANCE approximately ONCE IN 8 HUNDRED MILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION draws!! If we drew and replaced letters at the rate of a billion a second we would expect to succeed once in 26 THOUSAND, TRILLION YEARS!! Now the simplest living organism is so vastly more complex than our simple sentence, that we have no way of really calculating its probability. If, however, we consider just one one particular protein of average size (say 500 amino acids) from among the thousands of proteins in a living organism, we can easily calculate the probability of forming it by CHANCE. Proteins are made of a tightly linked chain of amino acids. There are only 20 different amino acids used in the proteins of ALL living organisms and they are arranged in a linear sequence much like the letters of a long paragraph. Assuming an inexhaustible supply of each of the 20 different amino acids, the probability calculation would be 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ... 500 times. The number of possible combinations of the amino acids in this protein is 1 with over 600 zeros after it! Even if we were to begin with the proper mixture of 500 amino acids to make our particular protein, we could never get the correct sequence for them by CHANCE. Even if the entire universe were packed tight with computers the size of electrons, each trying a billion combinations of our 500 amino acids a second, we could sample only an infinitesimally small fraction of all of the possible combinations in 300 billion years! Even if every medium sized protein molecule that ever existed on earth were ALL DIFFERENT, our vast "fleet" of busy computers could not be expected to come up with the combination of amino acids in ANY ONE OF THEM in a mere 300 billion years!! What all this means is that if the whole of evolution were reduced to the question of the probability of forming ANY ONE biologically useful protein of average size, we could safely conclude that evolution would be a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY by reason of the fact that there would be INSUFFICIENT TIME AND MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE!!! Now calculate how much faith it takes to believe in evolution."

Also, if some others will read some of the earlier links they will find the numerous problems with evolution and fossil records and other such things. Finding like lucy are such incomplete skeletons that little can be concluded from them, especially when one considers that when lucy was first introduced the scientific community wouldn't accept that it walked upright so the researcher went back to find another knee "in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities."
Also, if we are going to be truely scientific then why can it not also be concluded that this is just another animal which has become extinct instead of the missing link?

Lets also consider, if evolution is true then Hitler was on the right track with the haulcaust and his "super race". This really is the only logical conclusion. Yes there are theories that morality of the next step in evolution, but lets remember they are only theories. Survival of the fittest is the force behind evolution. It is put as simply as if you are more fit you live and reproduce and if you are less fit you will die off. If evolution is what got us from a primordial mud to today why would it not longer work in this fasion all of a sudden?
Evolution is about genetics is it not? Let use the example of breading dogs. If the slow dogs are not removed from the equation they won't get any faster. (this is also a reason the example is not in good support of evolution as it required an intelligence and not "natural forces" in the process.) So if it "refines" the gene pool and furthers evolution by removing the less fit dog why would this not apply to humans? Lets also consider that morals are ultimately abstract ideas so how can they be a product of evolution. If the idea or morals is a result of evolution then we have no free will as we are only subject to our genetics. If evolution has resulted in the idea of morals and we are only subject to them then why so many different ideas of what is actually right and wrong? If its just that the gene pool hasn't been refined yet then why not use our intelligence to clean up the gene pool like we do with dogs? Even if this results in a world war wouldn't that be a good thing as the most fit will prevail and evolution has once again done its job? Even if we destroy ourselves evolution would have certainly created life elsewhere so its not like we will be missed. There would be no afterlife so we wouldn't even no we ever existed in the first place. Since there is no afterlife wouldn't we want to make sure that our good genes went on.
Hilter thought he was providing for the greater good of man by helping evolution to move forward. Yes, many people would have to die as a result but eventually there would be no more disease, genetic faults, and people would live much longer worry free lives. (How is aborting a retarded or down syndrome child any different.) The point is that by his moral which he received through evolution he was doing what was right to mankind.

People get to this point and have a hard time accepting the end result. They then trace back the steps to find the flaw only they don't go back far enough. The flaw is the theory of evolution. However, if evolution is true the everything else follows.

Regarding morals as a evolutionary process:
"A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However determinists believe non-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But, 'ought to change' implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.... CS Lewis argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces. So, if determinism claims to be true then it must be false."

“The complete title of Darwin's most famous work, often abbreviated to The Origin of Species, was The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. As Koster notes about Darwin's view on race, he:
'never considered "the less civilized races" to be authentically human. For all his decent hatred of slavery, his writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people. Racism was culturally conditioned into educated Victorians by such "scientific" parlor tricks as Morton's measuring of brainpans with BB shot to prove that Africans and Indians had small brains, and hence, had deficient minds and intellects. Meeting the simple Indians of Tierra del Fuego, Darwin wrote: "I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man; it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal . . . Viewing such a man, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures and inhabitants of the same world."44”
http://www.biblebelievers.net/CreationScience/kjcevol1.htm
Racism is also ultimately true. There is no possible way that every race has evolved at the exact same rate and evolved to equal status. This is inescapable.

"A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However determinists believe non-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But, 'ought to change' implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.... CS Lewis argued that naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational. For determinism to be true there would have to be a rational basis for their thought. But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces. So, if determinism claims to be true then it must be false."

[Darius11 12]

Irrational fear??? No I am very rationally afraid.


Any VP who answers this

“Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News”


She says “"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
“




Are you fucking kidding me?




I thought this was a slip by Mrs. Mccaine, but it seems that they are using this as an actual strong point for her.
The stupidity of such a statement is too much to take, specially now that it seems it is being used as a platform.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[JackC 0]

Oh good grief, not this load of tripe again. It's really getting old.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Irrational fear??? No I am very rationally afraid.


Any VP who answers this

“Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News”


She says “"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
“




Are you fucking kidding me?




I thought this was a slip by Mrs. Mccaine, but it seems that they are using this as an actual strong point for her.
The stupidity of such a statement is too much to take, specially now that it seems it is being used as a platform.

You take after this but the stupid crap Obama has choked out doent matter?

You are irrational to be grabbing at straws like this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

God gave us fossils and carbon dating to test our faith.......

I thought Satan planted them there to mislead us...now I'm confused.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[shropshire 0]

What a load of bollocks

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Darius11 12]

You know you are getting really good at making unrelated dumb posts. It seems you have changed your style of debate to none specific banter.

I understand why because if you try to think of the situation like her statement about living close to Russia even you would have to admit it’s ridiculous.

At least I hope that’s the case.


Or do you agree with her?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

You take after this but the stupid crap Obama has choked out doent matter?

Like?


I doubt any are as stupid as saying that because you can see Russia from an island in your state you will be able to deal with Russia better. Any one can make a mistake in a speech but to be using this as a platform is idiotic.


It is turly sad that you can not see this or choose not to see it.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rushmc 23]

Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

I doubt any are as stupid as saying that because you can see Russia from an island in your state you will be able to deal with Russia better. Any one can make a mistake in a speech but to be using this as a platform is idiotic.



As i said before above.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I doubt any are as stupid as saying that because you can see Russia from an island in your state you will be able to deal with Russia better. Any one can make a mistake in a speech but to be using this as a platform is idiotic.



As i said before above.

what, your news sources hadnt provided you with the dumb shit he has been saying?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

HHmmm

Do you wonder you think she was being literal? Or maybe speaking in this context?

http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zP8uFPWxaA



All I know is living close to Russia does not equal having foreign policy experience, and its not just her it seems as if the McCaine camp actually want us to think that is a legitimate argument.

I find that simply sad, not only does it show the Mccain/Palin camps stupidity it also suggest that they believe there followers are just as dim. I have not yet seen one person who didn’t see or hear that argument and not laugh their asses off. It is simply a ridiculous assumption, and if it was said once ok but they are trying to make a legitimate case for it.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain