Questions for Sarah Palin.

[Darius11 12]

You know people go back and forth in every thread about her. i wish i could ask her a few questions.


I would like to ask her. Do you believe in the evolution? if she says no she is nuts. If she can not take a body of facts and come to a rational decision then i don't want her. That's MHO

Off course if she did say no i would ask her what she thinks of fossils? I would love to hear her true response


What would your reaction be? If she does not believe in the theory of evolution is that enough to call a crazy religious person?



i really would love to hear from my Republican friends who do believe in the theory of evolution, and do not think fossils were put here by god a few thousand years ago to test our faith ,basically the sane ones.

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

[quade 4]

I'm not saying that Matt Damon is any kind of genius or anything; do NOT make that mistake, however, he's exactly correct when he says this entire thing sounds like a BAD Disney movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Darius11 12]

Yea i am not one to give a shit what a celebrity says either but he has a valid point.

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

[Andy9o8 2]

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.

[quade 4]

Quote

Yea i am not one to give a shit what a celebrity says either but he has a valid point.

Well, I don't give a shit about him saying things he has no knowledge of, but I think we can all agree that he IS a successful person in Hollywood and probably can recognize the plot of a bad movie.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Darius11 12]

Quote

OK, Damon's no pundit, but he did say one thing that bears repeating: bearing in mind McCain's age

With out taking McCain's age in to consideration statistically speaking there is a 20% chance. When you do consider Senator McCain's age,health, and though life i think it would be logical to think the percentage would be even higher.
For me .0001% is enough not to ever have a religious zealot in the highest of office of the US.

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

[Butters 0]

Quote

Well, I don't give a shit about him saying things he has no knowledge of, but I think we can all agree that he IS a successful person in Hollywood and probably can recognize the plot of a bad movie.

All he has to do to recognize a bad movie plot is ask his friends Ben Affleck or Jennifer Lopez if they want to play a part in it ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Yea i am not one to give a shit what a celebrity says either but he has a valid point.

Well, I don't give a shit about him saying things he has no knowledge of, but I think we can all agree that he IS a successful person in Hollywood and probably can recognize the plot of a bad movie.

Just think of the last one. The recovering drug addict who has failed at every thing comes back to save America..........except in the real world it does not end like the movies. I bet there are people who think this is a movie they sure vote like it.

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

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I would like to ask her. Do you believe in the evolution? if she says no she is nuts. If she can not take a body of facts and come to a rational decision then i don't want her. That's MHO

You mean come to the same decision as you right?

What would your reaction be? If she does not believe in the theory of evolution is that enough to call a crazy religious person?

Beleive, as in there is no other possibility? Who's the crazy one now?

i really would love to hear from my Republican friends who do believe in the theory of evolution, and do not think fossils were put here by god a few thousand years ago to test our faith ,basically the sane ones.

Very closed minded as to the possibilities. I thought you Dems accepted everyone and everything .

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 4]

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.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airdvr 210]

So you're saying the existance of God or some other supreme being isn't at all possible?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 4]

Quote

So you're saying the existance of God or some other supreme being isn't at all possible?

I'm saying, categorically and without question, that it is not possible that the Earth is less than several billion years old.

If Sarah Palin does not believe that then I agree with what some people have stated, that it's a scary thing to think that she may be in office. I say it's scary because she would not have a basic understanding of science and how the world works.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

So you're saying the existance of God or some other supreme being isn't at all possible?

I'm saying, categorically and without question, that it is not possible that the Earth is less than several billion years old.

If Sarah Palin does not believe that then I agree with what some people have stated, that it's a scary thing to think that she may be in office. I say it's scary because she would not have a basic understanding of science and how the world works.

But that's not what I asked you.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're saying the existance of God or some other supreme being isn't at all possible?

I'm saying, categorically and without question, that it is not possible that the Earth is less than several billion years old.

If Sarah Palin does not believe that then I agree with what some people have stated, that it's a scary thing to think that she may be in office. I say it's scary because she would not have a basic understanding of science and how the world works.

But that's not what I asked you.

Oh, because your QUESTION looked like it was asking for clarification on my position with respect to this thread.

I answered it. If you don't like the answer, then you might want to go fishing somewhere else.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airdvr 210]

Don't hold back...tell me what you really think

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Muenkel 0]

It really seems like the definition of a 'religious zealot' has moved from an extreme to just plain people who believe in God.

For the record, most Christians do believe in evolution but recognize that noone has found the missing link between ape and human. We do believe dinosaurs were on the earth millions of years ago. This has nothing to do with the Creationist belief. The Creationist belief that at some point in history, God did create humans 'in his image'. At this point, He created the soul. How he did it, we don't know. The most advanced ape in its evolution process could have evolved into a human and God placed the soul. God could just as easily created a human. Believing this theory does not mean the history of the world started at that moment.

This is a person's belief or faith, whatever you want to call it. It does not make them a religious zealot.

FWIW: There's a rumor going around that Gov. Palin wanted only creationism taught in Alaskan schools. This is not true. She wanted both theories taught. You can check Factcheck.org to verify this.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Gato 0]

Quote

In Reply To
So you're saying the existance of God or some other supreme being isn't at all possible?

I'm saying, categorically and without question, that it is not possible that the Earth is less than several billion years old.

If Sarah Palin does not believe that then I agree with what some people have stated, that it's a scary thing to think that she may be in office. I say it's scary because she would not have a basic understanding of science and how the world works.

Quade, haven't you heard?

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

T.I.N.S.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I thought you Dems accepted everyone and everything .

I think most intelligent people accept everyone in that they have the right to be who they are as long as it does not harm other peoples rights. However you point out great problem. When someone is running for the top job the most important JOB in the country i actually would want someone exceptional and not someone average that i can have a beer with.
That's the difference it seems

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

[Darius11 12]

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?

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

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

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

No. Like I said above, most 'so-called' creationists do not dismiss evolution. It simply has to do with when a person believes a human was given a soul by God. It is not a radical belief system at all and very commonly held.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Yea i am not one to give a shit what a celebrity says either but he has a valid point.

Well, I don't give a shit about him saying things he has no knowledge of, but I think we can all agree that he IS a successful person in Hollywood and probably can recognize the plot of a bad movie.

I wonder if we'll find out that Palin is fucking Matt Damon

Remster

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yea i am not one to give a shit what a celebrity says either but he has a valid point.

Well, I don't give a shit about him saying things he has no knowledge of, but I think we can all agree that he IS a successful person in Hollywood and probably can recognize the plot of a bad movie.

I wonder if we'll find out that Palin is fucking Matt Damon

Not that I keep up with these things, but I'm nor sure even Sarah Silverman is doing that anymore.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ion01 2]

www.designinference.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.icr.org/article/242/
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=articles&f_keyword_any=carbon+dating

http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=articles&f_keyword_any=evolution
http://www.discovery.org/

http://www.apologetics.com

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Stephen%20C.%20Meyer&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true

"To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact).... Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes."

The point here is that we, maybe I should just say “I”, don't come the a creator as the answer in the way your question details. I use the same methods as an forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence does. I have found the simplest question that works in all areas - 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? Are you familiar with irreducible complexity and Meyer? Here is his site to help http://www.discovery.org/a/3408
Also, as stated in the quote, information is also a key. If we received a series of radio wave pulses from outer space which could be interpreted into a single sentence such as “We are here” everyone would conclude that aliens sent the message, and rightfully so. We now know of something called DNA which contains so much information that it results in beings, such as us, which are more complex than anything we have every created or even imagined. Just as an archeologist would do, we conclude from such evidence that we were created. This is sound science.

On the other hand evolution requires that you not only ignore such evidence but that you simply have faith (a greater faith than I could ever have) that one day we will find a way to explain how DNA and the Flagella Motor can come about. Yes there are a lot of theories. Do they have a good foundation in observation and experimentation? I can theorize that invisible knomes do my work while I am at home. I may even give all kinds of “evidence” such as the simple fact that when I leave work and set the alarm there is no one left at work and when I get there the next day my spread sheet is on my pc and is done. I, of course, have over look many details in the formulation of my theory such as my computer is connected to a network and can be accessed by other employees who have the same job as I do. Anyways, I think you see my point. People can develop all kinds of ideas but unless they are based in the real world in which we live and takes all evidence into consideration they are nothing more than ideas. Here is something else regarding evolution as science: http://www.icr.org/article/773/

So please look at your own statement and take a body of facts (not assumptions and theories and false evidence) and come to a rational, truely scientific decision.

Regarding fossils, if you will read some of the above material you will find that fossils actually provide a huge challenge for evolution such as partically fossilized dinosaur bones with DNA present in blood cells, that they are found near the surface, the cambrian explosion just for starters.

So the fact that you do believe in evolution enough to call you a unscientific, irrational, illogical, closeminded idiot? (I am not actually calling you this just making a point regarding labels and name calling.)

[Ion01 2]

Just thought I should leave you with this quote from Darwin "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." (remember irreducible complexity?)

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Just thought I should leave you with this quote from Darwin "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." (remember irreducible complexity?)

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

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne