So... What are they afraid of?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Upon re-reading my post, after reading your post, I realize a clarification of my position is in order. In my opinion the amount of supporting evidence for one or the other is irrelevant.

Then how do you decide anything at all? Determining the amount and quality of evidence for one side or another is kind of the way people decide things.

Both sides have the coup de grace that they have to provide to irrefutably prove their side correct. Creationist's would have to provide direct proof of God's existence,

Tell that to Ken Miller, a Catholic biologist and ardent supporter of evolution. If it was proven tomorrow that god existed, that wouldn't change the evidence for evolution in the slightest. Evolution does not equal atheism, no matter how much the creationists say so.

and likewise evolutionist's would have to provide the common ancestor as proof to win the argument.

No, evolution has already been proven. The entire fossil record proves evolution, along with the fact that we have actually observed speciation occurring. I don't know what more you could ask for. You might as well insist that the Big Bang theory hasn't been proven yet until we actually go back in time to witness the Big Bang.

A word devised by science can not be applied to religion. My intent was to put them on par with each other as far as proof goes.

So, Young Earth creationism, which states that the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old, and proves this with a) the bible and b) lies, is somehow on an equal footing with everything we know about the universe today gained from astronomy, geology, archeology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. ?

The thing is, modern creationism isn't just the belief in a supernatural being which is supposedly beyond the purview of science. It's the reaction to facts by people who don't like those facts because they conflict with their favorite idea, and who then either propagate or accept lies and distortions to try and wish those inconvenient facts away. It makes falsifiable claims about the natural world. That those claims have been continuously falsified for the past 150 years hasn't quite gotten through to creationists, however.

I think the problem that Palin and others have is that if they refuse to accept the facts of primate evolution, it will seem odd to put humans in with the rest of the animal kingdom. However, if they accepted the fact that evolution led from Lucy to to the Neanderthals, who made clothes and controlled fire, then suddenly our place among all the other animals on the planet makes a lot more sense.

Evolution is not a left/right issue or an atheist/theist issue. It's a fact, supported by boatloads of evidence.

People who persist in denying facts solely because they contradict their favorite idea are unfit to govern.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I am amazed you don't see the irony in your own post....
You belittle someone who has a belief in something you disagree with...
But you do so, claiming they are somehow less than intelligent, and you try to prove your point with:

A cartoon.

Most people recognize that a cartoon is meant to poke fun at things, not be a true medical standard. The irony that you somehow think a drawing from a cartoon comedy makes your statement irrefutable fact is epic.

The fact that you mistook that picture as an argument, rather than a bit of humor, is pathetic.

What is even more amazing is that those who are scared of people like Palin are also the same ones that cannot let people be because they don't follow along believing evolution.

The only thing fearful about Palin is the damage someone that dumb would wreak upon the country if they ever attained power.

Know why evolutionists can't stand the thought of creationism? Because that means they have to answer for their actions ultimately.

Wrong. Evolution is not atheism. Evolution is completely silent on theism or atheism.

And so you're saying that all those Christian scientists who accept evolution think they have no one to answer to ultimately?

even though evolution lacks any major evidence when looking at life above a certain (and very small) size.

Wrong again. Why don't you look at Talk Origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

or watch AronRa's video series on the foundational flaws of creationism. Though I disagree with some of the claims he makes about the bible, his overall point is good, and he absolutely eviscerates the claims of creationists. Plus, it's pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/user/aronra?b.../0/KnJX68ELbAY

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

The only thing fearful about Palin is the damage someone that dumb would wreak upon the country if they ever attained power.

What kind of dumb are you talking about? 57 states kind of dumb?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

What kind of dumb are you talking about? 57 states kind of dumb?

This is one gaffe. I'm sure Obama has said other things that silly as well. It's inevitable when you spend every day talking endlessly.

Watch those Palin interviews. Those aren't gaffes. That's Palin being unable to speak coherently, and during those moments when she can, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

This is one gaffe. I'm sure Obama has said other things that silly as well. It's inevitable when you spend every day talking endlessly.

Watch those Palin interviews. Those aren't gaffes. That's Palin being unable to speak coherently, and during those moments when she can, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

And those two comedians that got elected into the Wh are better speakers? Let me guess, you have never seen or rather heard Obama speak without a teleprompter? Now, that is in-coherent speaking at its best.
Lay the cool aid off, dude.. seems it impairs your hearing.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

This is one gaffe. I'm sure Obama has said other things that silly as well. It's inevitable when you spend every day talking endlessly.

Watch those Palin interviews. Those aren't gaffes. That's Palin being unable to speak coherently, and during those moments when she can, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

Well it's more than one instance as Thomen points out. I believe that, had it so chosen, the press could have portrayed Joe Biden at least just as negatively as it did Sarah Palin.

Note that is not to say that either of them would deserve it. It just sucks when it's so one sided.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Thomen

And those two comedians that got elected into the Wh are better speakers? Let me guess, you have never seen or rather heard Obama speak without a teleprompter? Now, that is in-coherent speaking at its best.
Lay the cool aid off, dude.. seems it impairs your hearing.

Not to mention Obama just saying plain stupid things like when he said a vast problem exists where doctors are pulling unnecessary procedures just to make an extra buck. Complete and utter nonsense.

Or his saying that his parents were united at the march in Selma, Alabama. Big clue, that march happened in 1965. Obama was born in 1961. Or how about referring to his "Muslim faith" on ABC before George Stephanopolous quickly intervened to save his neck. And much more....

Obama is a walking, talking gaffe machine....

[August]

To be fair anyone can be and has been a walking gaffe machine at some point in their lives, and it's become very easy for modern media to record them.

I sometimes wonder how different our perceptions of various historical figures would be if they were exposed to the same level of scrutiny modern politicians are subjected to.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by August

To be fair anyone can be and has been a walking gaffe machine at some point in their lives, and it's become very easy for modern media to record them.

I sometimes wonder how different our perceptions of various historical figures would be if they were exposed to the same level of scrutiny modern politicians are subjected to.

Very true. And I agree completely. My response is merely to point out that liberals can't call Palin stupid for making gaffes, and then turn around and claim their guy is a genius despite the amount of idiotic things he says and other types of gaffes he makes.

Liberal "Democrats" always want it both ways. And it simply doesn't work logically, no matter how deserving they think they are.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not bad for a twit as some see fit to call Palin:

Harper Collins initially announced a first printing of 1.5 million copies, half a million more than the first printing of Hillary Clinton's long-anticipated memoir, "Living History." But by last Friday, just three days after its release, the publisher announced it would increase those numbers by 1 million.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...palins-factor/

What is it about Sarah that sells?

[Stealth Hunter]

Probably her soccer mom looks, which are pretty good for a woman of nearly 50.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Probably her soccer mom looks, which are pretty good for a woman of nearly 50.

Well there is that and I agree but the book is not about how she applies make up. Not a romance novel! So, what is it?

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't care what she believes about creaton or evolution. In fact, I don't care what she believes at all. The fact remains that she is still a poor spokesperson for conservatism. She gaffes far too often, misquotes the truth and continues to give a poor interview. What frusturates me is that this comes just when conservatism is poised to make a comeback. People have grown frusturaed and disenchanted with Barack Obama and the Democtatic Party. Just when it appears that pendulum is about to swing, Sarah Palin decides that it is a good time to attempt a run at office. People see her and, rightfully, laugh. Here's a woman that cannot speak, write, or even stand and stare, and yet who's ego has given her the notion that she deserves higher public office. Humanity is doomed.

We, the fiscal conservatives, have become the Democratic Party of 2002. We just can't seem to catch a break or do anything right. Damn you, Sarah Palin.

So, what is it?

It is the empty rhetoric of populism.
It sells well even if it has no substance.
"I don't know about you, but I call a pornographic publication pornography, you betcha"

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is the empty rhetoric of populism.
It sells well even if it has no substance.
"I don't know about you, but I call a pornographic publication pornography, you betcha"

How do you know? You have read the book?
How do you know it does not have substance? Again, you read the book?
Is there pornography in the book?