Comments for Palin Claimed Dinosaurs And People Coexisted »
Posted By garyh84 1 year, 3 months ago in Political NewsAfter conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 274
-
88%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
-
buckncindykillComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
80%
StevieGee1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does a line item veto have to do with dinosaurs? We have a Vice Presidential nominee who doesn't believe in science. Who believes that the world is 6000 years old and flat and the center of the universe and coming to an end in 2012. Protoham had nothing to say about that so he starts to spew drivel about line item vetoes? Typical.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
17%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, Dionys. Are you saying Muslims DON'T believe humans existed with Dinos, and that Muslims agree with evolutionists, Allah waited billions of years to produce humans to do five times a day, every day, of butt in the air? Are you SURE about that, O "I'm not a Muslim"?
Reply-
67%
mark-stevens1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And Christians praying to a cross, a tool that represents the way the Romans executed criminals... by the way it took God seven days to create a universe that is 13 billion light years in size, did he have to make it that big... maybe if half that size could have been done in a couple of days... what was a day back than in the beginning
Reply-
-
-
89%
Wolfie20071 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You are talking about Catholics not Christians. They also pray to statues.
Reply
Imagine, your hate is derived from ignorance!"
What?? Are you saying Catholics are not Christians? Ignorance is ignorance no matter where it derived from. You need a good check up.-
-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So many responses. I don't know where to post this. What does Catholicism have to with Christianity? Someone tell me how you have all been led to believe that they are the same? I have nothing against the people themselves who follow the Catholic Church. But that Church could not be further away from Christ and his teachings, and even the Old Testament. Does not one person speak with knowledge of which they are speaking? Liberalism, it constantly amazes me. Once again, what does the teachings of the Catholic Church have to do with Jesus, except using his name to promote their agenda?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
86%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
-
40%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
-
60%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It's just that Dionys is making fun of Palin for believing people existed with dinos. Being that Dionys is a Muslim, I was asking him if Muslims DON'T believe like Palin."
Reply
I wasn't making fun of her. I was criticizing her for holding dogmatic beliefs with no foundation in fact and for being a literalist interpreter of the Bible, which is impossible when one actually looks at the conflicts of fact within the Bible.
Plus I'm not a Muslim and I don't really know what the majority of Muslims believe regarding Evolution / Creationism. I do know that the majority of them aren't young-earthers, however. Just like the majority of Christians aren't. Thank God.-
33%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I wasn't making fun of her. I was criticizing her for holding dogmatic beliefs with no foundation in fact and for being a literalist interpreter of the Bible, which is impossible when one actually looks at the conflicts of fact within the Bible."
Reply
Mutainia: NOT making fun of her, just saying "Well that would be par for the course considering her young-earth beliefs, extremist 'evangelical' stances and insane lack of education and knowledge." In otherwords, you're just calling her and young-earthers "insane". Ok.
"Plus I'm not a Muslim"
Mutainia: RIIIIGHT. :)
"and I don't really know what the majority of Muslims believe regarding Evolution / Creationism. I do know that the majority of them aren't young-earthers, however."
Mutainia: What is it, O "I'm not a Muslim? "don't really know what the majority of Muslims believe regarding Evolution/Creation", or, KNOWING that "the majority of them aren't young earthers..."? Which is it?
"Just like the majority of Christians aren't. Thank God."
Mutainia: How do you know? By the way, what's so horrible for believing in a young earth? Why 'Thank God" to believe there is evolution instead of what the Bible infers?-
50%
hamy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You should really look at why this makes you so angry that you have to pour over someone's words to try and find things to argue over. It saddens me to think that you are more concerned with someone else's religion who isn't running for political office so harshly when the woman who would be second in command according to your preferences believes that christian doctrine should be taught in publicly funded schools. Someone who continuously has cut funding for unwed mothers and doesn't believe that a woman should have rights over her own body. Someone who continues to push for "Abstinence only" programs in school when they have not only been proven not to work, but her OWN DAUGHTER is pregnant at 17.
Reply
That record shows a lack of judgement. It shows a lack of world view. And the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By her pushing her abstinence only program again and again and expecting that, unlike her own daughter, other kids won't get pregnant, she is truly insane.
-
-
29%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
You have absolutely no understanding of what Christians believe. The fact that atheists believe evolution has all the answers is where your head is I guess.
There is no effective way to date material using carbon or other isotopes. The same mammoth had way different date for the front and the rear. One speciman was given a date of 500,000 years ago plus or minus 500,000. A living seal was dated 60,000 years ago.
There are many problems dating the different layers. The evolutionists use a tautology. That layer is this old because of the bones in it. Those bones are that old because they are in that layer.
Then there is the problem that some of the layers are in a different order in different places. Another problem is that petrified trees have been found going through several layers.
Evolutionists always ignore the problems they can't answer.
It is not as simple as you try to make it seem.-
83%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You're wrong in oh so many ways."
Reply
If you don't even understand the physics behind carbon dating and it's limits, I can't even start arguing with you. I just don't know where to start.
"Evolutionists always ignore the problems they can't answer."
All are already explained, try reading something other than Hovind.
Ok, for the sake of the debate:
"That layer is this old because of the bones in it. Those bones are that old because they are in that layer."
This is just another lie.
"The same mammoth had way different date for the front and the rear."
If this is one of Hovind's claim, this is a lie, since the paper Hovind quotes specifically says they're 2 different animals. Go find the source and read it! If it's not then I would need the source of that claim.
"A living seal was dated 60,000 years ago."
The short explanation of this is, carbon dating doesn't work on sea organisms, nor animals that eat seafood, why? Because marine animals doesn't get their carbon from the air.
"Then there is the problem that some of the layers are in a different order in different places."
Something that geologist solved in the 19th century.
"Another problem is that petrified trees have been found going through several layers."
Rapid burrial is responsable for this, and this is one of the best evidences aganist Young Earth Creationism, if this trees were caused of a single world wide flood, how come that they're the exception and not the rule?
-
-
-
100%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's just that Dionys is making fun of Palin for believing people existed with dinos
Reply
I think he was criticizing believing our planet was created 6000 years ago. Anyone who professes that belief is opening themselves up for critisism.
I don't believe Dionys is a Muslim-
-
-
-
50%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You probably don't believe he's a Muslim because you've never been critical of Islam with him.
Reply
Islam is the same basic belief as Christianity. God and all the angels in Heaven versus the Devil and all the demons in Hell. I don't believe in either God or the Devil. I feel that the religionist are the cause of most of the world problems.
Is not believing in Allah or that mohamand was not in anyway a profit being critical of Islam?-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Islam is the same basic belief as Christianity. God and all the angels in Heaven versus the Devil and all the demons in Hell. I don't believe in either God or the Devil. I feel that the religionist are the cause of most of the world problems."
Reply
Mut: The thing is, though, a Christian isn't ordered by his God to carve your atheistic head off for not accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. GOD saves the "fun" for Himself. Allah, for some reason, wants to put blood on the hands of His/Their/It's followers.
"Is not believing in Allah or that mohamand was not in anyway a profit being critical of Islam?"
Mut: Critical like a dull knife at your throat, yes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
60%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Hey, Dionys. Are you saying Muslims DON'T believe humans existed with Dinos, and that Muslims agree with evolutionists, Allah waited billions of years to produce humans to do five times a day, every day, of butt in the air? Are you SURE about that, O "I'm not a Muslim"?"
Reply
Who said anything about Muslims?
Even most Christians agree with evolutionists.-
17%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Who said anything about Muslims?"
Reply
Mutainia: No one. But, even though you said that you aren't a Muslim, everything about you makes me think that you are. And, since you were making fun of Palin for believing people existed with dinosaurs, it forced me to ask you if Muslims believe people existed with dinos like a LOT of Christians believe, rather than your saying "even most Christians agree with evolutionists". As a matter of fact, most Christians DON'T believe with evolutionists. That is a lie. MOST Christians believe the Genesis account, OR, they aren't really Christians. A Christian is supposed to believe what Moses taught, even if it Moses taught stoning and a reality that goes counter to the notion of the earth being billions of years old.-
83%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As a matter of fact, most Christians DON'T believe with evolutionists. That is a lie."
Reply
I was taught evolution in a Catholic school with Catholic teachers. Very few Canadian Christians believe that Genesis is a literal account, it is only (so far as I know) recently, that the growing movement towards scientific ignorance has created so many literalist Christians.
Btw, a CHRISTian is supposed to believe what JESUS CHRIST taught. (You may want to look into the roots of the words. You may also want to see how frequently Jesus used parables to present his lessons, a trick he MAY have learned from his Father in the writing of the Old Testament... Just some food for thought.)-
25%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You were taught evolution in a Catholic school? I guess you believe what you were taught? You say a CHRISTian is supposed to believe what JESUS CHRIST taught. Are you saying that Jesus preached evolution through parables? If not, what does Jesus using parables have to do with Christians believing in evolution or not? Just wondering.
Reply-
83%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I was taught evolution in a Catholic school... and it made sense.
Reply
What does Jesus using parables have to do with literal interpretations of the Bible?
Well, Jesus words were often metaphors. It's possible then that his Father also used metaphors, and therefore not everything in the Bible must be literal truth, even it is the Word of God.
Jesus didn't teach evolution through parables, believing in his teachings and example does not preclude believing in anything else. But as a Christian, I don't have to believe what Moses taught, beyond the ten commandments.
Have you ever wondered why they call them the Ten Commandments? And yet Leviticus goes on to list hundreds upon hundreds of laws "given at the same time"? It's almost as though there was a team of lawyers crafting their own interpretations of 10 very simple, very basic, laws. Stick to the 10 and the 2.-
25%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, you believe in the Bible, you just believe it's a book of symbolism and metaphor, like the Quran saying the sun "runneth to a RESTing place", or, the Hadith saying the sun "has to ask permission of Allah to rise again" after "prostrating under the throne of Allah", true? THAT kind of metaphor? If so, how much do you believe the Bible is to be taken literally, or, to be taken like the Quran and Hadith?
Reply-
86%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure about the Bible. I don't believe that it is entirely a fabrication, and I know that it is not entirely literally true.
Reply
I believe it has a lot of important lessons contained within. I look to the 4 Gospels as my primary moral guide. Whether Jesus actually existed as described, the actions and teachings accredited to him make him a valuable role model, and if one were to live by that example, one would be a credit to society.-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hardly. We can see all of the components that make up a primitive cell being formed naturally today, it's not that much a stretch to realize all those pieces could, and did come together as naturally as each component forms.
Reply
No matter how well we understand the process of life, even when (and if) we reach the point of creating actual life in the lab and when (and if) we discover and compare extra terrestrial life we still won't know the exact means life began on Earth-so people will always be free to insert magic into the process if they wish.-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've talked with atheists, who claim to be scientists. They really seem to get excited over self replicating molecules, but, if you talk about how jostling them in vents, or, having them resting on special ancient sea floors that no longer exist will add a code TO those molecules to the point where a reverse disintegration will take place, and, a "simple" cell forms, then they start showing their spiritual side that is loaded with faith. Atheists LOVE to talk DNA, NOT the instructions they contain that would make life. Instead, they say things like "when (and if) we reach the point of creating actual life in the lab". In otherwords, it's IF we can do something that could ONLY come about through accident, meaning, accident is smarter than a lab scientist.
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Accident? Who said that? I suspect life begins where the conditions are favorable for it, no more accidental than liquid water. It's no accident there is no liquid water on the moon, conditions aren't right for it.
Reply
Science hasn't made any stars or recreated plate tectonics but I see no reason to insert magic into either process, the same goes for the origin of life on Earth. Magic has never once been verified in any way, shape or form and to insert such as the cause of ANYTHING is what takes faith. Natural processes on the hand are obervable and verifiable, to assume natural processes is not a leap of faith.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
80%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That is a lie. MOST Christians believe the Genesis account, OR, they aren't really Christians."
Reply
Well golly, using that sort of 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, you could say that NO Christian accepts evolution, since if they did, they wouldn't be a 'true' Christian, yes?
BTW, there is a HUGE difference between believing God created everything and believing God did it all in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago.-
33%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"you could say that NO Christian accepts evolution, since if they did, they wouldn't be a 'true' Christian, yes?"
Reply
Mutainia: You can read, alright.
"BTW, there is a HUGE difference between believing God created everything and believing God did it all in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago."
Mutainia: So, believing God created it all in six literal 24 hour days some 6,000 years ago cancels out God creating everything? Is that what you mean? Well, what do you mean?
-
-
50%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Mutainia: No one. But, even though you said that you aren't a Muslim, everything about you makes me think that you are. "
Reply
Well you're more than welcome to your delusions. I don't have to justify or explain what my faith tradition is to you or anyone else for that matter. If you want to obsess over Islam and make false claims that I subscribe to that tradition, you can persist in your obsession and lies, as you always have.
"it forced me to ask you if Muslims believe people existed with dinos like a LOT of Christians believe, rather than your saying "even most Christians agree with evolutionists". "
Which I answered to the best of my knowledge. I would imagine that most Muslims, as most Christians, don't read their holy texts as literal, inerrant truth. This could be said of any tradition, excepting of course the small percentage of extremists found within any tradition.
"As a matter of fact, most Christians DON'T believe with evolutionists." Is English your first language? Maybe you used to be a Muslim and are projecting? Most Catholics believe in Evolution and it is Catholic dogma that Evolution co-exists just fine with Catholic dogma, cannon law and theology. I would expect that the majority of non-literalist Christians also understand that there isn't a single contradiction between the Bible and Evolution.
"MOST Christians believe the Genesis account, OR, they aren't really Christians."
There's nothing that conflicts with Evolution in Gensis unless you're a literalist. If you're a Bible literalist, you have a lot more contradictions to worry about within the Bible (and especially the Gospels) than evolution/Genesis.
"A Christian is supposed to believe what Moses taught, even if it Moses taught stoning and a reality that goes counter to the notion of the earth being billions of years old."
What kind of weird Christian are you? A Christian is literally a 'little Christ,' and in being a little Christ we use Christ's life as example and his life as given to us in the Gospels as our guidance.-
-
50%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I provide evidence of your lies every single time you lie. Other people understand you're lying.
Reply
As for it being a 'Jihadi' thing to do, my understanding of a 'Jihad' is a Holy War with strict guidelines as to how you can act under those circumstances. Given how many times BushCo and various other self-proclaimed Christians lie, it seems silly to link lying to 'Jihadists.' It seems much more like the ugly side of Human nature to me.
Calling you a liar doesn't make someone a Muslim. It simply makes that person correct more often than not.-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I provide evidence of your lies every single time you lie. Other people understand you're lying."
Reply
Mutainia: Again, point to a place where I've lied, O "I'm not a Muslim". It is SOOOOO Jihadi to either use ad hominem or, accuse the other guy of being a liar without evidence. So, again, GIVE an example of where I've lied. :) Oh, by the way, I bet you think I'm a Bush supporter, huh? That I support a guy who said Islam is a "religion of peace", huh? Well, I hope you're right when you accuse Bush of being a liar...because if he was telling the truth when he said "Islam is a religion of peace", hey, God help us.
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your profile CONsists of an endless paragraph of this tripe:
Reply
"When a mutated superhuman became the captain of a ship named "Mutainia", little did he and his peaceful crew realize that it contained a robot with a mind-control ray, and that Mutainia was actually an incredibly powerful weapon designed by a robot race to lower the defenses of the earth's galaxy for invasion...."
You expect anyone to take you seriously? Yours is exactly the mentality that the bushCo/cheney crime family have depended on for years.
Moron...-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, I don't think people would give a rat's ass if I presented them with a profile of myself, so, instead, I copied and pasted, a simple, sci-fi childrens' parable, on how I feel we can end Islamic terror. If you hate my writing, and think it's written by a moron, I bet you aren't much of a fan of Star Trek, the Bionic Man, and Japanese sci-fi, which my series borrowed a lot from.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wrote this series when I was a kid. So, yeah, it's pretty dated. I'll never publish it now. "Newtin Vs. The Ramadars" on Propeller, is the closest it will ever get to being published. By the way, I can understand why you'd look down on the Bionic Man, but, "Star Trek"? I guess you are sooooo smart, you only watch TV shows like "Masterpiece Theatre" and movies like "Howard's End" and "Reds", huh? Actually, I bet you LOVED "Lawrence of Arabia", right? No, I bet you REALLY loved "The Messenger"...THAT would be your all time favorite, huh, O "I'm not a Muslim"?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
22%
TruthDetector1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Insane lack of knowledge and extreme hate derived from ignorance. I know that ignorance does not like facts but here is one fact for you. There is not one iota of evidence ever found or brought forward that proves the theory of Evolution. Before you respond and prove yourself as over schooled and undereducated, give me one piece of evidence. Just one. If you come up with something stupid like "Lucy" or "Neanderthal man", all who have been proven false, it won't work. I am talking about real evidence, like the believe that a cow had a dog or a Giraffe had a baby lion. That has never happened, but somehow you find it safe to mock someone who doesn't believe it. If you come up with some evidence, take it to the following website, they are offering $250,000.00 for the evidence. "http://www.drdino.com". Or post it here and I will collect. .............waiting.
Reply-
-
20%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the begining there was nothing.
Reply
Then there was a big mass.
Then that mass exploded.
After millions of years suns formed and then planets.
After millions of years life came out of the primordial goo.
Where is the evidence of any of this?
I laugh a lot.-
-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You forgot to mention jostling atoms in thermal vents creating a reverse disintegration (anti-entropic effect of an object) to the point where the atoms form DNA strands that get jammed up into a bubble, I mean, lipid bilayer, and, with more jostling, form a code on how to turn that bubble, I mean, lipid bilayer, into a "DNA factory", that quickly evolved switches to turn off the production of DNA in time and, at the same time, make the bubble form two bubbles, I mean, two lipid bilayers forming TWO more lipid bilayers, and, so on and so forth. And such complexity coming about through "random" accident. Yeah, I laugh a lot myself.
Reply -
CoatlComment removed: Spam
-
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Listen, when the Greeks had their creation stories, they were used to explain the unexplainable. Such as the stories were *myths* then, they were taken as truth.
Reply
The same happened for many religions, they invented myths to explain the beginning of creation. Each of them, in turn, have been ridiculed for being ignorant stories.
What make Christianity different?
Oh, and you ask for evidence?
I wouldn't be talking, as there is more evidence to evolution than to creationism. And that the Bible has waaaay to many contradictions to be considered a reliant source of information.
-
-
-
70%
Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TruthDetector:
Reply
There's also no evidence whatsoever that you exist. You could be in a pod inside the matrix.
But if you were running for office and actually SAID you were in a matrix pod, the public and the media wouldn't be out of line for calling you insane.
The fact is, while evolution cannot be proven without making assumptions, it's a MUCH more useful theory in terms of advancing human knowledge about the world than creationism. Since we cannot predict God's actions (if he or she exists), then creationist models do nothing to advance our understanding of the world and they give us nothing upon which to build future advancements in that understanding.
The ability to use a model as a foundation upon which we can build further knowledge about our world is the most important property of the theory of evolution, and for that matter, of any other scientific model.-
29%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you ignore is that both evolution and religions are based on faith. There is no use for the complete view of either ideas in science. Science is based on FACTS to try to come up with theories of how the world works today.
Reply
The fossil record does not support the Evolution basic concept. That an animal slowly became a different kind after a very long period of years. Those fossils don't exist. In fact the more we know about microbiology and DNA the more unlikely that seems to be able to happen. What seemed a good theory when all we knew about cells was that they existed now makes it much more unlikely it happened. It also makes it extremely unlikely that life started in the primordial goo.-
60%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Those fossils don't exist."
Reply
As a matter of fact, they do. I'd take a look at the evolution of the horse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_hors...
It is perhaps the most complete series we have to date.
I'd also check out ugulates to cetaceans. What is remarkable about this series is that analysis of the phylogenetic tree PREDICTED the discovery of a fossil, including the approximate geologic strata. -
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No fossil record? Very interesting...
Reply
Source?
My claim:
Scientists have been able to make "life" at its most basic state, called the Miller-Urey experiment.
Proof:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiolo... -
100%
Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, both evolution and religion are based on faith--one is faith in an entity that is unknowable through observation, and the other is based on what we can see and measure in the world around us. (And of course, that's exactly why science is great for learning more about that world, and using that background for creating new discoveries that enable us to live in the world.)
Reply
But you ignore a couple of things, Endoscopy.
Evolution doesn't quite work the way you say. An animal doesn't slowly become a different kind--a life form mutates many different ways and one or several of the new forms succeeds because of an inherently better mechanism for adaptation than the others. evolution
Regardless, what matters is what you can DO with either evolution or creationism. Creationism can't be used to predict what will happen or to expand further knowledge and create new technologies. Science--and specifically, evolution--can. Medical advances using genetic engineering come from theories stemming from evolution, for example.
I've never argued that the existence of a god or gods is impossible. We can never know with any certainty. What I've always said is that religion is best left to philosophy and spirituality, while science is best left to discovering the physical world.
And creationism--which is not based on observation--is best left out of a science classroom. If you want to talk about the nature of the assumptions necessary to make science work (for instance, that our oservations are reliable), then that falls under the category of philosophy--that's epistemology or metaphysics, not science.
Now, if you want to talk about teaching religion as a philosophy in schools, that's a whole other can of worms having to do with separation of church and state, which I won't get into here.
-
-
-
80%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" I am talking about real evidence, like the believe that a cow had a dog or a Giraffe had a baby lion."
Reply
LOL I love how Hovind (may he rest in jail) and his little zombies want you to prove to them the cartoonesque vision they already have about evolution. Now how it really is, but what they have misunderstood it to be. This is not about evidence or lack of (I really would love to hear how is that homo neanderthalensis have been proven false, since we have even their DNA); this is about trying to prove their "truth" as they already had imagined it. -
-
100%
SaveTheEarth1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, dumbass First of all, evolution is a theory, and theories cannot be proven, only supported. Second of all, a Giraffe would not have a cow or anything of the sort. Evolution is based on change over time, and by time I mean millions and millions of years. Subtle changes in genetic material in combination with an ever-changing environment add up to changes in physical characteristics over time. If you don't beilive it there are examples of evolution in action. When a species, say a bird for example, has its geographic range separated by a barrier, the two halves of the distribution experience slightly different environments and will adapt differently. After a period of time, if individuals from separate halves of the distribution are brought together, they will not interbreed due to differences in physical characteristics such as coloration or may not be successful in mating due to differences in chromosomes.
Reply-
Neutral
TruthDetector1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Name calling huh? Must be a liberal. So with this long explanation of half this and half that and environment and millions of years and stuff, like Obama your mama would say is "above my pay grade", just give us an example of this half thingys or whatever. Just one example. Oh yes, for you and all the other very intelligents out there, a theory is a theory and can be used to build upon when fact present themselves. But what happens to a theory when after many, many years, there are still no facts to support the theory? As a matter of fact, but of course it is just facts, there has been proof over and over that the theory of evolution could not have happened. That is why the "Theory" has changed over and over and over and over again. Every part of the evolution theory has been proven wrong. Yet they still teach it in the schools. Why do you think all these smart Liberal professors in Berkley, and other so called institutes of learning , will not debate Dr Holvin? Not one! Well, here's my theory, "How can you debate the truth, with a defunct theory?" You must be a young one, fresh out of the brain altering public school system. Now give me some fact to support your theory or bow down and accept that you are actually the second word in you response.
Reply-
Neutral
traveler20001 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Concerning "name calling"
Reply
I also hate that. It is wrong and shouldn't happen. We can disagree on things, but should respect each others opinions (even stupid ones). It does happen unfortunately from both sides. However, it is a FACT, that it comes mostly from the "conservative" and "non liberal" side
Science is based on experience.
Many theories often can not be completely right from the first moment
New facts and research might correct or fine tune a theorie
A lot of facts however do defend and proof evolution.
And, by the way, if I understand you well, the Bible and "intelligent design" are a fact?????? says who?
-
-
-
100%
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll agree that evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Facts and theories are two different things. Facts are based on observation. Theories explain and interpret the facts. The facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories. Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's, but gravity didn't take a vacation while waiting to hear which theory was going to prove the most popular. That man has evolved from the apes is a fact whether or not the theory that explains it is Darwin's or someone else's yet to be proposed.
Reply-
Neutral
traveler20001 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree in great lines,
Reply
however, Einstein's theory of gravity and relativity does not replace Newton's: it fine tunes it and explain things on a different scale.
Newton's theory and laws still stands on the "normal" "visible" scale and time frame.
also, man does not really evolves from "apes" (well, most of us don't .... lol) rather,we have the same ancestries/roots.
-
-
-
31%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that there is evidence from several sources that it could be a fact. What would they have been called in old documents? The term dinosaur is a relatively modern word so it would not have been used. There is some credible accounts that the Chinese emperors had "giant lizards" pull the emperors cart. There are accounts of "dragons" that are not part of make believe. There are writings that use words and phrases describing for very large animals not known today.
Reply
How credible are these writings? Any one of them can probably be discredited but the amount of them presents a problem.-
73%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are always capable of good research, albeit even if you ignore other research. You are willing to put the research into anything if it will further a conservative claim, even if it is something as rediculous as dinosaurs and humans coexisting.
Reply
There are tons of writings pertaining to the inferiority of a black race....does that make them right?
(i'm sure there are plenty more examples but, cmon).
The only dinosaur we coexist with is John McCain.-
-
-
67%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, in War As I Knew It, General George Patton, one of the greatest Generals in US Military history, stated that he doubted that black soldiers had the mental capacity to operate a tank.
Reply
Obviously this has been proven false time and time again.
Now...because George Patton said it, is it true? -
-
-
67%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are deailng with people seeing things they didn't understood, Marco Polo wasn't a biologist so his writings about dragons can be taken more seriously than the reports of mexicas of people half beast half men when they saw the Spaniards on their horses. For what we know it's more likely that he had saw Komodo dragons. He could have seen a living fire breathing chineese dragon, but the first explanation is more likely isn't it?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
75%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Travels of Marco Polo is hardly infallible. Legend has it the book was dictated to a fellow prisoner and written in Old French (a language Polo didn't even know). It has gone through several translations and different versions often conflict. The original is long lost.
Reply
Further, there is much discussion how much of Polo's account is first-hand and how much is the re-telling of accounts he learned from other traders.
-
-
-
71%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are also plenty of writings about:
Reply
Unicorns
Hippogriffs
Winged Horses
Gorgons
Giants
Cyclopes
Leprechauns
Griffins
Basilisks
Centaurs
Harpies
Imps
Faeries
Gnomes
Manticores
Vampires
Zombies
Succubi
etc.
etc.
Writings about important figures are frequently embellished based on local folklore and include all sorts of magical objects, places, and animals.
Science has yet to find a bona fide dinosaur fossil above the KT boundary, much less one with any evidence of humans.-
-
40%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's one explanation as to why we do not see mythological creatures anymore.
Reply
http://www.vidilife.com/video_play_1124011_Robot_C...
-
-
33%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you raise some valid points, Endo. Cultures around the world have had independant legends about dragons... many of them are probably based in some sort of fact - and there may have been some survivors to the mass extinction events (in fact, it's quite likely that there were). Pterodactyls, especially, with their ability to travel long distances may have survived for a time, and gone extinct much more gradually, possibly with a few surviving into the time of humans. But the legends point to the unlikelihood of large numbers of dinosaurs cohabitating with humans. If they were common, legends wouldn't have been formed.
Reply
It's also been suggested that the Loch Ness Monster was a descendant of the dinosaurs. -
33%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Komodo dragon is a fairly large lizard. Here's a random, unprovable, theory, just made up by me that makes sense:
Reply
The Komodo's ancestor was much larger, it was used by Chinese emperors to pull carts, but obviously the largest of these were most useful at this task.
Like dogs and primates, the Komodo's ancestors were much less aggressive and easier to control once neutered, so this was done before they were put into service.
The smaller Komodos were not as useful for pulling carts, so they were released to the wild or used for breeding. Over time, by not allowing the larger specimens to reproduce, the breed became smaller and smaller.
Is the Komodo the descendant of a much larger dinosaur? Maybe, and maybe the Chinese are largely responsible for its diminished size and reduced ferocity.
-
-
-
100%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Has it? She's claimed previously to being a young-earther. Which means she believes the earth is around 7000 years old (I forget the exact number). Does she then believe that Fossils were put there by God to test our faith? Many young-earthers believe dinosaurs and humans walked side by side. What does she believe?
Reply-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually we young earthers don't believe God put fossils here to test our faith, but, believe the only reason we HAVE fossils, is due to the flood causing mud-slides. I mean, to me, dinosaurs are miss named. They should be called "mudslidesaurs", due to the fact that just about every dino is found to have been killed in a mudslide, or, something that makes it looked like it drowned.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"tually we young earthers don't believe God put fossils here to test our faith, but, believe the only reason we HAVE fossils, is due to the flood causing mud-slides. I mean, to me, dinosaurs are miss named. They should be called "mudslidesaurs", due to the fact that just about every dino is found to have been killed in a mudslide, or, something that makes it looked like it drowned."
Reply
You're joking, right? You're just a troll. No one could possibly be as ridicuous as you are and really believe all the crap you post. -
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I bet you'd think she'd be smarter if she believed, exCUSE me, THOUGHT, that jostling atoms creates a reverse disintigration, making something SO complex, it forms not only a long DNA strand, but, puts code ON that DNA strand, telling it to form a "simple" cell, true? That that strand of DNA will get inside a lipid bilayer, (a bubble), and, have all the instructions on it to TURN the bubble, I mean, (lipid bilayer), into a "DNA factory", all the while not ONCE asking who is in charge OF that factory to create the switches to keep the DNA factory from created a bunch of worthless DNA that, eventually would destroy the bubble, excuse me, "lipid bilayer". IF she believed that, (rather than fossils being the result of a flood), why, you'd think she was SMART, true?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
buckncindykillComment removed: Spam
-
80%
HateKoolAid1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh give her a break, she probably saw Raquel Welch running around in an animal skin bikini in "One Million Years B.C" and thought she was watching a fact based movie. A lot of kids did back then. Now why she still believes that today only republicans can answer.
Reply -
81%
miklkit1 year, 3 months ago
-
44%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amazing how the liberals take any story and believe it. Even after it has been disproved. You people want to believe bad things about her so you grab onto any story no matter how ridiculous. The source for this story is a very biased one. It has the smell to it of a lot of the lies told as stories on this site.
Reply-
-
50%
HateKoolAid1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It may be to much to hope for but this would be a good question for her in the debate. Did humans hunt down dinosaurs for food? Her answer would have every republican (except those like endo) in America choosing that moment to leave the room on some excuse just to avoid the embarrassing laughter.
Reply-
20%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rush has an independent agency that checks his facts. At times his rating goes as low as 95%. He uses the recording of people from before the point of interest to a bit after it. That puts the quote in context. Try again about Rush.
Reply
How about all of the Palin lies posted as stories on this site. Banned books. Fired the librarian. Member of the Alaskan Independence Party. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Lie after lie after lie after lie.
That is the liberal way. If there is nothing there twist something way out of shape, turn it into a lie and publish it. The tiny tie to fact will make people believe it.-
75%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like Obama's muslim background or his birth certificate or his militant black views?
Reply
Lie after lie after lie.
And Rush Limbaugh is a big fat racist drug addicted blathering piece of elephant sh@t. And most independent agencies will verify THAT as fact also. -
-
-
0%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It IS an interesting question... and might even be possible... if following the mass extinction period some dinosaurs survived, they may have continued to survive for some time, until a hunter with cunning and tools came along and killed the rest (much like he wiped out the American Buffalo).
Reply
The dinosaur bones would have even likely been scattered by the nomadic early humans, making it difficult to find them in a common timeline... interesting thoughts...-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ah yes, random speculation as a grounds for dismissal of other posts.
Reply
:-)
Hey, I'm just throwing ideas out there, coming up with possible defenses for dinosaurs alongside humans... I'm not saying they're likely nor even things I believe... but what if???
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hold on, Endo. You spend a great deal of time on this thread DEFENDING the notion the dinos and humans co-existed. If you don't think there is anything wrong with that idea, then the claim that Palin thinks as you do should not only be 'no big deal' , you should be celebrating.
Reply
-
-
-
-
82%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
She just scares me more and more.
Reply
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/0... -
69%
cockerwoobie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, give her a chance. We could very well have coexisted with the dinosaurs. Who’s to say this is even our planet? What happened to thinking outside the box? We may have just landed here, started shooting at, and bombing the dinosaurs when they tried to eat our little ship. Once we killed them all we covered them up with dirt and stomped on the pile to confuse future generations. When we learned that we were too stupid to repair our ship we used the spare parts to build the pyramids. This would explain the demise of the dinosaurs where the pyramids came from and why we can’t find the missing link. If we go one step further…a couple lonely guys stuck on a planet might have just started chasing furry tail thus we as humans are the funniest looking mammals out there.
Reply-
-
-
63%
chevydog1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course they existed together. Just go to "B.C." on comics.com and you can see them from time to time with people. He doesn't just make it up.
Reply
On a more serious note, I understand that somewhere (undisclosed location) here's a birth certificate showing McC born in 3998 BC. Obama is a relative newbie, being born in 3964 BC. -
78%
traveler20001 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
---- ......started shooting at, and bombing the dinosaurs when they tried to eat our little ship. Once we killed them all we covered them up with dirt and stomped on the pile to confuse future generations. When we learned that we were too stupid to repair our ship we used the spare parts to build the pyramids......------
Reply
"Jesus", Oh my God.....
Are you saying that GWB and co were already ruling in those days?????
-
-
74%
doublebell-721 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
She's a religious nutcase. Unfortunately, there are millions who share her views. The only way to save our country (and a woman's right to choose and equal treatment of gays and lesbians) is to get out and vote Democratic across the board. Only when the Democrats control all three branches of the government (Congress by a much larger margin than now) will we have basic common sense in our country.
Reply -
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned15 Replies
-
81%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Her beliefs are parallel with most of Christianity. They all seem to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. What I've never been able to get one of them to address, however, is the fact that there are Asian records dating back 10,000 years. How can that be possible on an earth that didn't exist for the first 4,000 years of recorded Asian history?
Reply
By the way.....there is no mention in the 10,000 years of recorded Asian history of dinosaurs roaming the earth alongside human beings.-
85%
PapaWolf1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Her beliefs are parallel with most of Christianity.
Reply
Don't you DARE compare her fanatic, ridiculous, extremist beliefs on the majority of Christianity. I am a Christian AND a Democrat - no matter what the Karl Roves & Rush Limbaughs of this world want you to believe - and most of my Christian friends disagree with the beliefs of these fanatic fringe.
Again (from another thread) - Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilot was a governor.-
33%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
-
79%
Aidenag1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lot's of Christians do not believe in the crazy stuff that the fringe in their religion do. It's just like any religion. I mean not all Muslims think it's OK to go around killing people in the name of their god. it's the same type of stereotype really. Christianity has so many branches and subdivisions that there will always be some who believe in nutty stuff such as speaking in tongues, or snake handling, and those who are mentally stable, and believe in things like evolution.
Reply
In short, like all religion's, just be wary of the fringe fanatics in them. People like Bin Laden, Palin, Pat Robertson, and so on. The guys who make everyone else in their religion cringe anytime they open their mouths.-
40%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know that the radical fringe beliefs aren't shared throughout Christianity, just like radical fringe beliefs aren't shared by any other large group..that is why it is the "radical fringe" instead of mainstream.
Reply
That being said.....the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old is NOT a "radical fringe belief" shared by only a few crazy Christian extremists. That is the shared belief throughout Christianity and Judaism. That is how the Bible is interpreted by the MAINSTREAM.
Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that all Christians believe the far-out claims that the radical fringe like Palin do. If it came across that way then let me set the record straight right here. That is NOT what I was saying at all and I'm sorry if that is how it sounded. However, the 6000 year old earth IS what I was talking about. If there are Christians out there who DON'T believe this to be true, then I'd like to hear from them because they would be the first I have ever found who would say such a thing. Are there any??????-
86%
Mdiar1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, quite a few. I live in a town with no less then two Assembly of God churches and I come across them quite often. I'm not necessarily a Christian, but while I was one a few years ago, I believed the Earth to be about 5 billion years old. Not a Christian today, still believe the Earth is 5 billion years old. I could go on. My mother is a Christian and attends one of those Assembly of God churches. She is absolutely convinced the Earth is... 5 billion years old. My father, same story. I don't know, I've really always associated the "6000 year old Earth" claim with the 19th century for the most part.
Reply-
100%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Based on loads of personal experience, I think those people are the exception rather than the rule. Growing up in an ultraconservative bible-belt town, I have heard the claim MANY times from MANY people from MANY different churches.
Reply
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tons of them. Your idea of the mainstream is pretty far off. It's true that all of Christianity studies a bible which includes the Creation story: Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.
Reply
And it's quite possible that many children believe it's literally true... but then they go to school and learn about evolution in science class and this belief dissipates. This was true for me, raised in the Roman Catholic Church at a Roman Catholic school. I think Catholic is about as mainstream as branches come.-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What are you on about? Am I sure about what?
Reply
God? Of course not.
If I had all the answers I wouldn't still be looking for them. Unfortunately, there's no evidence for or against God (though there is much evidence against the LITERAL truth of the Bible). This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means that not everything you read about Him is literally true. Disproving a theory based on an assumption only disproves the assumption, not the entire theory.-
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, first off...
Reply
Where'd Cain's wife come from?
How did Noah repopulate the earth with only his family?
Why does God hate shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12)?
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
The Bible is the product of man, and is fallible.-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where'd Cain's wife come from? She came from Adam and Eve. Apparently, back then, you could marry your sister. God knew, apparently, that Cain would live long enough to either marry his sister, or, marry his great grand-daughter (people lived for hundreds of years back then).
Reply
How did Noah repopulate the earth with only his family? How do you know Noah was the only one to create an Ark? It's not just the Bible that talks about the Flood, you know. And, even if he WAS the only one to have built an Ark, remember, people lived hundreds of years, there was no TV, and, they were probably very horny. I'm thinking, though, that there were MANY Noahs back then, though, all over Pangaea.
Why does God hate shrimp?
Maybe God was alergic? I kid. Hey, thanks to Jesus, God doesn't have anything against it now. :)
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bluedragon's reply below is about right.
Reply
Also, there are different versions of the bible, any of which I've read are translations... and most of us will acknowledge that information is lost in translation, just as photocopying takes away from the quality of the original. There have been far too many places and times for the Bible to have been modified by man's hand... for the first couple of thousand years, it was just an oral tradition. The stories were likely embellished over time (as my wife is prone to do) and many of them could have been stories/allegories in the first place (like Jesus' parables).
In short, the Bible that I have read makes no claims to being a literal history, so I have no reason to believe that it is.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
80%
traveler20001 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm raised Christian/Catholic and went to Catholic schools all my youth, including university.
Reply
I am an atheist now (since very long).
However, I was always taught (in all my Catholic schools) that (most of)t he Bible story was not to be taken literally. The Bible was in most part to big taken symbolically.
As far as I remember, the Catholic Church does accept the scientific theory (and facts) of evolution, and not so long ago the pope confirmed this. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First off, I would like to thank everyone who has responded respectfully to this. Its an interesting topic, I think. There have been some amazing responses to this and I have to admit, I'm taken aback by some of them. It is certainly something that begs a lot more investigation. I'm afraid my point was lost, however, and that's my fault I think. I look back at what I wrote and I can see that I didn't really communicate it very well, so let me try again.
Reply
I am not saying that there aren't people who are Christian who have beliefs contrary to the Bible. As individuals, there are as many ideas and opinions and versions of that truth as anyone could imagine. What I am saying is that it has always been my understanding that Christianity (religion), by definition, DOES ascribe to the 6000 year old earth. Theologically, that is their stance. That goes for both Catholic and Protestant denominations, as well as Judaism. That Biblically speaking, that is the understood age of creation and life on earth.
That is not to say that science hasn't had its effect on church members, but if the actual teachings of the churches are now saying that evolution is accepted as a viable explanation of how the world came into being, then that is a position that completely contradicts the entire foundation of Christian/Judaic thought. An acceptance of evolutionary ideas is completely contradictory to Biblical teachings of Creationism.
Is that really what people are saying? Your preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. are actually supporting evolution over creation as an explanation to how the world came into being?
-
-
-
-
-
71%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That really ****** me off. Don't you DARE attack someone's faith based on their political beliefs. I'm not going to hear this drivel.
Reply
The GOP does NOT (I repeat does NOT) have the monopoly on Christianity.
You make me sick. You are a disgrace to Republicans in general, and DEFINITELY a disgrace to good Christian people in America.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,"
"Judge not, and you shall not be judged"
"How can you point out the splinter in one's eye, while ignoring the plank in your own?"-
-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Resist not evil."
Reply
"Jesus wept."
"That which you do to the least among you do also for me."
"Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
"When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
"Be passersby."
"Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again."
"What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."
"I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries.
"There was a rich person who had a great deal of money. He said, 'I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing.' These were the things he was thinking in his heart, but that very night he died. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!"
"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
gregoryhagansComment removed: Retracted by user
-
50%
rosecityfriend1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh please, this is just hearsay. People will make up all kinds of stories to have their 5 minutes of fame. Sarah Palin has said her dad was a science teacher, so I find this "claim" difficult to believe. Let's have some healthy skepticism, folks, and not believe everything you read, especially in the Huffington Post.
Reply -
-
70%
Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When running for governor of Alaska in 2006, Sarah Palin made it abundantly clear that she supported teaching religious ideology in public schools where they should be teaching science and fact:
Reply
Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both [evolution and creationism]. 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."
This wasn't the first time Sarah Palin expressed her support for creationism, According to Philip Munger, Palin was part of efforts to get an evangelical, creationist school board in Mat-Su Borough: "I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them." -
67%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh please, this is just hearsay.
Reply
Wasilla Resident Philip Munger Claims that Sarah Palin Told Him She is a Young Earth Creationist
It is not hearsay. It is evidence from an eye witness. The eye witness still lives in the town.
If you have a site that debunks this claim, please post a link to it. None of the others who don't believe it have provide any links yet.
-
-
73%
antibrainwasher1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pathetic, you republican yellow bellied cowards are still swiftboating and spewing your liquid crap and supporting this evangelical creationist moron.
Reply
You hypocrites have managed to completely destroy the economy in just 7 years, following your hyena princples of greed and ignorance over rationality and what's best for the country. The unexamined life is not worth living, and you have dragged the country down into the sewer from whence you came, repugnican slime, a sewer of religious superstition masquerading as policy.
Repugnicon anti-intellectual slime cannot support this Palin evangelical creationist moron, she's even stupider than them, so all they have left to do is projectile vomit their lies and swiftboating character attacks like the ignorant cowards they are. -
-
-
-
-
-
50%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The con a$$es are at it again.
Reply
Neg the fact that I live in KC and have visited some public schools in Kansas. Whoever negged that comment is pathetic.
Please, o anonymous negater, please enlighten me of how I am wrong in saying that I am from Kansas City and have visited public schools in Kansas?
Oh....wait....no, that's right! You're just playing the system like all other Republicans! You make me vomit.
::blechh:: (vomits all over anonymous negater) -
-
-
-
Neutral
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know, but here's an even better site.
Reply
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/0...
I've only posted this link hundreds of times.
-
-
83%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well actually that would be correct. In FACT we still do...
Reply
Alligators, Iguanas.. and of course my favorite the Komodo Dragon...
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/rept... -
huyznaetktoComment removed: Spammer
-
38%
lloydm651 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When I see the words Huffington post,I skip the story and go directly to the comments, but first I write down how many are to stupid to read,useally about ninty percent,and it's pretty close.We know she didn't say it,and we also know the Post will run with anything that they know is totally false knowing the injured party won't fight back in fear of being called a whiner.
Reply-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
67%
Georgia501 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the account is true, Palin refers of course to the Paluxy prints which were not conclusive. However, from that same river bed do come clearly human and clearly dinosaur footprints--albeit separated by a number of yards--that are on the same strata or level. This does not prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, but it allows for the possibility.
Reply
Scientists refer often to their much-vaunted dating methods. Here's how that works: any dating of an artifact that is consistent with the evolution paradigm gets published. Any dating of an artifact that is outside the paradigm is dismissed as an anomaly. There are many anomalies that never get published. The idea that dating methods are consistent--even when performed on the same artifact the same way--is merely an idea, not fact.
As for evidence of the young earth, it's been said (though I've not corroborated this yet) that natural gas takes only 40,000 years to seep through rock formations into the atmosphere. We can also measure the flow and accumulation of river deposition at the mouths of the world's rivers. There simply is no evidence any where of 1 million+ years of river sediment accumulation. The easiest way to observe this is to compare old New World maps of the Gulf Coast shoreline at the mouth of the Mississippi. Scientists and cartographers can extrapoate backwards to a consistent arc of the shoreline, unbroken by the Mississippi delta. What they cannot do is show that it took in excess of a million years to accumulate all the land that breaks the plane of the arc.
Proof? No...but it draws the old earth theory into question and should not be dismissed. Evolutionists will always choose the phenonema that supports their view. Thus, they quickly point to things like petrified trees as proof of an old earth, but neglect to mention a stand of trees in Canada petrified instantly by lightning. It's this myopic treatment of the topic, let alone the arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension of evolutionists that feeds skepticism of their claims.
For example, you can go to Talk Origins and find that this website is not content to argue in favor of evolution. They have added a page dedicated to debunking the bible, even buying into such shop-worn lies as the OT reference to a rabbit that chews its own cud, despite the availability of Christian apologetic links that fully and accurately rebut this lie. It's as if they can't help it or are confident that their audience won't bother to look further.-
50%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the account is true, Palin refers of course to the Paluxy prints which were not conclusive."
Reply
Some resemble human tracks, however: "We noted that many of the Taylor Site "man tracks" did have a general oblong shape, rounded heel, and mud push-ups around the back and sides of the track, but differed in significant ways from what would be expected from genuine human tracks. Most splayed into a wide "V" at the anterior, and some showed long, shallow groves at the anterior in positions that were incompatible with a human foot."
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm
-
-
86%
truthsabitterpill1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm a skeptic in all things, especially those that offer no proof save the expectation of faith.
Reply
Faith is not proof, faith is not theory, faith finds no facts, refutes no claims or is skeptical of hearsay.
Therefore I am a skeptic of anything that demands my faith to believe it is truth.
I am not a scientist who studies evolution, nor am I a theist that studies religion. It matters not if evolution is fact or simply a theory based on information that has been extrapolated from our physical existence. The one thing I am sure of: religion has no physical manifestations that can be evidenced or studied.
I no more believe the bible as fact as I do Homer's 'Iliad and the Odyssey'.-
-
50%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like nobody cares about your belief that John McCain won the debate on Fri (HA!).
Reply
Like nobody cares about your belief that Democrats are incapable of being Christian...Jesus said we are the salt of the earth, but YOU, Wolfie, are most assuredly the SCUM of the earth.
-
-
40%
Georgia501 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well then, let'a examine something science can observe over and over yet not explain. In the unborn human, the eye begins to form at the end of a stalk, extended out from the brain. There is initially no optical nerve.
Reply
To form the optical nerve, axon neural fibers begin to stretch from the brain toward the eye. Counterpart axon neural fibers emerge from the eye, and stretch toward the brain. Estimates of these fibers, which grow into the optical nerve, range from 800k to 1.2 million. So we're talking about 1 million fibers per eye.
In order for eyesight to occur, each of these axon neural fibers must grow toward and connect to the opposite axon neural fiber. But that's not all. Each one must find its EXACT counterpart. One single miss--or misconnection--and there will be no eyesight in that eye.
Science can watch this happen. There are even photos if not video footage on the web to observe. But science has absolutely no explanation for this.
Thousands of years before science had the wherewithal to merely begin asking the question, it was written that we were "knitted together in our mother's womb."
That's 2 million axon neural fibers per person. There are billions of people. And that's only for eyesight, much less the rest of the organs that must likewise connect to the brain in order to function. All knitted together, apparently by an "unseen hand." I doubt if there are many manufacturing plant workers who could make that many connections requiring similar precision without any error. But here we see it happening with near-flawlessness all day long over and over.
This may not mean a thing. It could mean everything. But clearly there's no need for condesending on Christians who believe they have a reasonable basis to believe in what appears to be so much more than "intelligent design" The example above is more like "divine facilitation." (You were not being condescending...I'm not saying you were. But many are.)
Being Christian does not mean putting your brain and thoughfulness on hold. It does mean you believe in God and the things of God that go beyond--not against--rational thought.-
-
-
50%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that's not a stretch I don't know what is.
Reply
You know, it's possible that Jesus was talking about a person who literally had a plank of wood stuck in their eyes socket when he said "how can you point out a splinter in someone's eye while ignoring the plank in your own?", but it's still most likely a figurative expression. -
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Basically, that amounts to an argument from incredulity.
Reply
Each molecule in the ice crystal of a snowflake has to match it's position exactly with 5 others in order to form the 6-pointed patterns we see. And there are millions of molecules in each snowflake. Does God make each snowflake, or is there something about the chemistry of water when it freezes? The angle of the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen atoms dictates the way the ice crystals will form.
Just because science doesn't know everything about everything doesn't mean God can automatically be justified as filling in the gaps.
Here's a couple of questions about the eye. Is a blind spot 'perfect design'? How about the fact that the blood vessels are in FRONT of the retina, instead of behind it, where it would make more design sense?
I agree with your notion of God being beyond rational thought. I wonder why Christians get so threatened by something like evolution?-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Just because science doesn't know everything about everything doesn't mean God can automatically be justified as filling in the gaps."
Reply
That is why I did not employ the existence of God to backfill after the fact. I clearly pointed out merely one example where God's word provides an explanation long before man knew there was a question. There are many examples of this in the bible. In the supposed mythical book of Genesis, God puts Adam into a deep sleep, then removes a riib. How long did it take modern medical science to use anesthesia? God then closed Adam's wound with skin. Do we not use skin grafts to cover wounds today? God instructs Abraham to circumcise newborns on the 8th day after birth. Blood coagulation peaks in a newborn male on the 8th day after birth.
There is a pattern of revelation occurring prior to man's intellectual grasp of revealed knowledge, including Daniel's prediction that a time would come when man would "go to and fro and knowledge would increase." This pattern does not prove anything, and it does not position the bible to serve as an inexhaustible answer box to every whim of man's curiosity about the natural world. But it clearly provides the Christian with a satisfactory basis for belief in and trust of the living God.
-
-
100%
rivermint1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Georgia,
Reply
I like the thoroughness of your posts even if I disagree with your position.
I can understand where folks would see the vast complexitiy and precision in the universe and propose the idea of an intelligence behind everything.
I think the only thing that bothers me about the idea is that no one ever seems to think that the universe might be self motivating and that the laws of the universe itself may account for what seems to be complexity.
It is not necessary that a personality be responsible for any of this, just as rivers polish rocks smooth as a function of being rivers so maby life and complexity arise naturally as a function of what everything is made of.
Sorry to get all philosophical.-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
River,
Reply
Thank you. I just get annoyed by either creationists or evolutionists who take to looking down on the other side. The work of inquiry and the wonder of discovery is worthwhile in its own right. I just don't get why--excuse the cliche--we can't all just get along and agree to disagree while we enjoy the learning process.
-
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
50%
Georgia501 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's another example I like to discuss. Suppose you were walking across a field, and you came across a large, rusty old gear sprocket. You might pick up this old sprocket, observe its design, count its teeth, and maybe even see if it had a serial number.
Reply
The one thing you would not do: question whether or not this object was engineered to exact specifications by a manufacturer to fulfill a specific purpose. That this object began on a drawing board or cad-cam application, moved into design, testing, etc., and eventually production and assembly, would be a foregone conclusion. Our landfills and junk yards are full of objects like this.
Then you walk into a classroom. The person in front is presenting a video presentation of a cutaway of the mitochondria. It has been magnified thousands of times, so that it fills the entire screen. The image pans to the rear of the mitochondria, and this series has to do with the motive power of this organism. In the image, the outer shell is removed, so that the inner workings of the organism is revealed. There to your astonishment, you see two interlocking sprocket gears at right angles, spinning away.
Why is it there's not a single evolutionist on the planet able to make merely a timid suggestion that the precision of this microscopic motor, performing its purpose before his very eyes, might have been designed by someone?
One simply cannot reasonably reconcile a foregone conclusion regarding the old, rusty, heavy, crude sprocket gear that is intuitively denied the sleek, microscopic, precise and operational double sprocket gears of the mitochondria. The problem is, evolutionists dismiss the notion that this be expected of them.
Pop quiz: how many mitochondria are spinning away in your body right this second?-
100%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is it there's not a single evolutionist on the planet able to make merely a timid suggestion that the precision of this microscopic motor, performing its purpose before his very eyes, might have been designed by someone?"
Reply
Because it's a replicating system and evolution is the best explanation of complexity in replicating systems with at least one type of selection.
The question here is, would a caveman think that the design in a watch is different to the design in a diamond?-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Replication implies still greater complexity, thus reducing the likelihood that a system could simply evolve on its own. I don't see how evolution can be the best explanation when all that we know of the human experience with technology is that complexity requires a substantial foundation of experimentation, planning, organization, and intuition, moreso as the complexity increases.
Reply
I don't know the answer to your hypothetical. Since more people live in caves today than at any time in history, I would need to know more about the particular cave dweller in your hypothetical. But if the reference is to those in history, who like today's primitive aborigine people, have no ability, education or experience with complicated organization, organisms, and devices, I can't see where they would initially see any difference.
-
-
Neutral
rivermint1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think that an organism is the same thing as a machine. Also it is a flaw to jump from the idea that because humans produce items which are purposfull within the limits of human context, that everything else that looks complicated must have been "created" by a personality.
Reply
I think that existence is self motivating and any deeper law that would be considered godlike is fundamentally beyond personality.-
-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All matter is merely a few types of sub-atomic particles that exhibit certain properties and behaviors resulting in the table of elements, which elements likewise exhibit certain properties and behaviors that effectively give rise to the entire natural universe.
Reply
What we call an organism and a machine is in both circumstances a swirling cloud of sub-atomic particles. So I'm not certain we have the prerogative to declare a segregation with regard to origins, apart from the obvious fact that aritcles of human manufacture are a step beyond the natural world. Certainly the delineation is useful for purposes of analysis and learning.
-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The simply answer is: metal is not known to self-organize beyond the lattice formed when it crystallizes. Organic molecules ARE known to self-organize. Under certain conditions, organic molecules can form into long chains, theoretically eventually becoming self-replicators. This replication is sometimes imperfect which can lead to changes in the molecular pattern. Patterns that are hardier or perhaps provide some measure of protection get 'selected' and will eventually dominate the sample.
Reply
Patterns do not necessarily mean intelligence, either. A snowflake forms into a six-pointed 'sprocket'. Ocean waves produce regular patterns in the sand. A stone under a constant drip will eventually form a bowl.
What if you found a perfectly-formed golden cube? One might indeed think it was designed, unless one was familiar with how iron pyrite crystallizes.-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem with "self-organization" is that it is based on the observation of things organized, past tense, not things that engage in self-organizing on any level that begins to approach the complexity of the natural world.
Reply
And there are hurdles to leap, such as binary systems that are funcitonal only if both elements of the system occur simultaneously. An example would be hydrochloric stomach acid and stomach lining. The acid can eat through any human tissue except the stomach lining. The stomach lining has no reason to develop unless it faces a threat from the acid, yet if it faces that threat, it cannot develop. So the lining cannot develop in the presence of the acid, and if the acid does not break down food, the host cannot survive. No doubt evolution has an explanation for this, but there is no explanation that can be observed and subject to repetitive analysis. It is more reasonable to believe that both elements occured simultaneously, for that is compatible with human experience with chemical compunds: certain compounds require special containment, and certain containers are useful only for certain compounds. Note that this is only one example, There are dozens of examples of this throughout nature.
-
-
-
-
100%
PainGoddess1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So if they existed together where is the evidence of human bones in a large predator? Something always turns up. It took us a few million years to get where we are now so I guess it will take that long to convince the rest of the real truth. Hamburger helper did not contain raptor meat>>>>>>>:)
Reply -
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Osbama_lin_BidenComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
100%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush know humans and fish co-exist ... peacefully..
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Jcrk6jGfo&fea...
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.