Palin Has Not Pushed Creation in Schools as Governor

By Dan Joling|Associated Press Writer

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

As for her personal views on evolution, Palin has said, "I believe we have a creator." But she has not made clear whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.

McCain said during a debate last year that he believed in evolution when it came to the origin of life.

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. 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."

In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

Creationism is the belief that the Earth and its creatures were created by a deity. It's an alternative to the origin of life explanation taught in public schools under the theory of evolution, which puts forth that all living organisms descended from a common ancestral gene pool.

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution.

"But," he added, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

believer »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, while your issue is a hypothetical one I do believe what happened is the Christian community got caught napping when it came to the issue of origin of life and the evolution/creation debate and initially they responded from an emotional and defensive position on these issues. Now I know I'm stepping out of my league but I do believe that there are some in the scientific community who have and are doing their homework and finding legitimate data to show that there are options to the evolutionary view in these areas and who are specifically adhering to the creationist view in these matters. Personally, I don't believe we'll ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which view is the totally correct view. But if the Christian community has learned anything it is that operating by blind faith is not a wise option.
agentorangex »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:34 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Most if not all creationists I know see the origin of life as a major if not the major point in the debate"

Lets hypothetically say next year we find out how life started natrually and it's consitant with all evidence. Do you think this would crush such creationist views? No, not really. Why? Their views (and please I hope I am not offending) are not based on the demonstrable supportive evidence, but the absense of evidence, the deep seeded need to believe (faith) and quite frankly no amount of evidence, no matter how supportive, how irefutable, how consistant, or by whom, from where, or how would convince them otherwise. Evidence means nothing.

Still, with explaining origins of life, they'd naturally fall back to another gap of ignorance like how the universe started and clutch to this while the impending tidlewave of evidence elsewhere keeps on trucking. It's sorta like a game of make believe, the evidence really doesn't really exist if you refuse to acknowledge it or even contemplate how to think critically about it.

The refusal to think critically about it, or the general mistrust of science in general is perhaps the core issue whereby preachers like Ken Ham can erect a facade of dichotomy. Really, creationism has itself evolved with modernity of science (Intelligent Design), so this would seem like the next sensible path for the faithfull who abide in science.
believer »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, and trust me I put very little faith in polls and being a fan of Joshua and Caleb I certainly don't adhere to the belief that if it's a majority decision it must be right.
believer »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, but I think that's what muddies the waters in the evolution/creation debate. Most if not all creationists I know see the origin of life as a major if not the major point in the debate. And what I'm hearing you say is that a majority if not all evolutionists don't see that as a major point in the debate perhaps not even a point at all. Plus, we talked about "AX" before and that's when the major leaguer came out in you and the minor leaguer came out in me.
agentorangex »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:14 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,

majority opinon doesn't make it so, the demonstrable evidence and logical, reason based justification does.

If you would mind, I would like your view on Acheropteryx and why it's 'fully bird' as most creationists contend.I might have asked before, but matheletes certainly wont respond, he's more interested in stall tactics. Cheers.
agentorangex »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"but I do think it would be interesting to have a poll taken to see how many average Americans believe that evolution is about the origin of life and that the Big Bang Theory explains how this all began."

I don't know if you knew this, but most people don't understand many things in science. What science is, how it works is generally outside the scope of knowledge for at least all but 25% of the populace, and therefore taking a poll on such a question is irelevant.

Polls do not gauge 'truth' in terms of knowledge of science. Polls will show you some people think he Earth is flat ( I am not joking) and that around 1/2 of all people don't know the Earth revoles around the sun.

Polls don't substantiate the claim, demonstrable evidence does. And frankly if they don't review the evidence their opinon is little more than that, an opinon.
believer »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:18 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, I do hear what you're saying, but I do think it would be interesting to have a poll taken to see how many average Americans believe that evolution is about the origin of life and that the Big Bang Theory explains how this all began. My sense is a majority would agree with both. If that's true I guess that supports the view that just because a majority of people agree with something it does necessarily mean it's true or right.
agentorangex »

Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:46 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"but isn't the Big Bang Theory a way that students are taught the origin of life?"

No, not at all. See this is what I find troubling, folks who ridicule something wrongly. The BB theory deals with the expansion of matter/energy in the Universe. It doesn't describe the origins of matter or energy, nor does it describe the origins of life (replicating molecules). or evolution, or anyting biological. It briefly describes the consistant evidence regarding the expansion of the Universe, and very litter else. It doesn't explain the the formation of Earth, Sun, or the planets either, that is related to Nebular cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Science theories are complimentary pieces of a pie we call knowledge. No single applied science theory as piece explains all things in all realms of the pie, they overlap a little in some respect. But there is no overlap in some fields, like biology and cosmology.
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Ax and Acanthastega are unique animals as well, but how do you prove they are "transitional"?"

Well, AX and acanthostega are hardly the only specimins demonstrating such intermediate traits. The evidence we have in the fossil record and based on the theory suggests such intermediates must exist, otherwise it would be pretty hard to explain where the firts birds came from and same with the first tetrapod amphibians. Still care to discuss AX traits yet?
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Are those not unproveable assumptions?"

Ha, no. The theory of evolution suggests we SHOULD find such intermediates, remember in Origins? I am guessing you've not read it. And what do you know the past finds have lead us to make falsifialbe predictions for where other intermediates should be and Tiktaalik is a perfect example of such a process.

"Using that logic, the platypus is a transitional form between birds (beak and eggs) and mammals (fur and lactation)."

No, no, no. The platypus is an ancient mammal (part of the monatremes) and its descendants or close kin which gave rise to the first marsupials. Even Genetic analysis backs this up.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/the-platypus-ge.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

The platypus is mammalian, the major unique characteristic for it is its egg laying ability (but it's eggs are more leathery unlike the hard shelled avian eggs), but this group is ancestoral to those first mammals who would go on to give live birth, evident by their amniotic shared history.
believer »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, but isn't the Big Bang Theory a way that students are taught the origin of life?
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"When you brought up Acanthastega, you asked, "Fish or amphibian?" You set up the dichotomy"

Oh pleaese, I set nothing up. I was arguing from the get go that it was intermediate to to define is as fully fish or fully amphibian is wrong b/c when one objectively review its anatomy clearly its neither of existing groups but rather something inbetween. You creationists ask for a given type of species which demonstrates characteristics intermediated between the ancestor and its descendant and what do you know when we find them you act like they are (somehow?) still 'fully fish' despite all of its obvious amphibious traits.

"Can it not be its own classification of animal, a third way, so to speak?"

Yeah, an intermediate, that WOUDLD be its own classification. The reason for why it is intermediate has to do with the lineaous taxonomic system which was setup to organize organisms, and in such instances they dont' fit nicely into either typical groups, they bridge the gap between such groups. All one needs to do is review its anatomy and morphology!
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Let's put your Ax quest to rest. You stated that I believe it is "fully bird." Please show me where I said that."

Correction, I never really said you said 'it's fully bird'. Rather I suggested like AIG, ICR and other creationist outlets you woud define it as 'fully bird'. Oddly enough, you've yet to even bother to defin it at all, and thus have left it open to defining in terms AIG would use. If you don't define it as fully bird, then how do you define it, and MOST importantly WHY. What objectvie evidence about this species leads to assert what you think it is. I can vouche for why it's intermediate and have done so, I am looking for your facts and your side of evidence.
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:58 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,

besides the reference to the Urey and Miller experiments there really isn't anything being taught in public schools for the origins of life, all they do is generally rerence this once experiment and little else. Much of this is b/c a present we don't have a comprehensive understanding fow how life emerged and therefore to teach anything on it, especially at this level, isn't practical.
mathetes »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent,

Let's put your Ax quest to rest. You stated that I believe it is "fully bird." Please show me where I said that. When you finally give up (because I've never said that), I will accept your apology.

The discussions of Ax and Acanthastega seem related, IMHO. When you brought up Acanthastega, you asked, "Fish or amphibian?" You set up the dichotomy; I told you my thoughts about it. Now you want to know what I think about Ax: reptile or bird? Why another dichotomy? Can it not be its own classification of animal, a third way, so to speak?

Because these animals seem to have characteristics of two different families of animals, you see them as trasitional animals (fish-Acanthstega-amphibians; reptiles-Ax-birds). Are those not unproveable assumptions? Using that logic, the platypus is a transitional form between birds (beak and eggs) and mammals (fur and lactation). Instead, I see it as just what it is, a unique animal with a mosaic of characteristics. Ax and Acanthastega are unique animals as well, but how do you prove they are "transitional"?
believer »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:41 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, since if I'm correct there is no real science that specifically teaches the origin of life should the origin of life be taught at all in science classes? And would it be appropriate to use what creationism teaches as the origin of life since no other form of science has proven the exact cause for the origin of life?
believer »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:40 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, I appreciate your responses and will do my best to differentiate between the two issues of evolution and the origins of life.
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:26 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,

IMHO, part of the reasons some equate the two as the same is ignorance, the other is that for them it allows them to craftly erect a fallacious strawman arguement for which they can later attempt to shoot down much easier than what evolutionary theory really entails. Instead of refuting of addressing the evidence for evolution, they erect the strawmen and naw at it and bring it down while thinking that it actually did something. Star2 did this over and over.
agentorangex »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:22 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"many school districts and in the minds of most people evolution and the origin of life are considered one in the same"

Well, that just goes to show how wrong and misinformed people are, horrid education in science at it again. Though, this goes a long way to explaing why an adult could end up on 'The View' and doubt he spherical nature of Earth. It's glorified ignorance, nothing more. It doesn't change what the actual study of evolution involves. Just b/c one is ignorance of gravity doesn't mean they can think that it some how involves biological evolution, oh wait, Ben Stein already has.
believer »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, whether you choose to agree with it or not in many school districts and in the minds of most people evolution and the origin of life are considered one in the same or the discussion of them is so closely linked they appear to be one in the same. I know what you are saying is totally correct from the true evolutionists point of view, but I'm just sharing what I've experienced in the real world.
agentorangex »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"which brings us back to my first premise that either both of these theories with regard to the origin of life "

A, it (evolutionary theory) has nothing to do with the origins of life. Hiow many times must this be stated? Evolution deals with diversity of life, not the origins of it. Heck, even the basic understanding of the biological terminology would have gotten you that.

"if we use the definition that for something to be true science it must be observable, testable, and repeatable"

B, the definition of Science and its methods are far more broader than this. Again, indirect observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
agentorangex »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Mathetes,

"Were you not the one who pointed out that true science is observable, testable, repeatable? I agree completely."

(Palms face while laughing) And this Mathetes is why we laugh at creationists all day long, as the other poster has pointed out it appears you're not fully understanding how science even works. They think something in science must be directly observed for it to count as evidence, but this isnââ‚¬â„¢t so. Weââ‚¬â„¢ve never directly observed an electron, but we know they exist based on INDIRECT observations. This is for the same reason even though no one ever directly observed a murder in crime they can be found guilty based on empirical testing of evidence.

"I love science: chemistry, physics, anything that has to do with the present. It's the historical science based on assumptions"

More nonsense. You, like Star and all other creationists have no problems with any science, so long as they donââ‚¬â„¢t challenge your faith, otherwise it wouldnââ‚¬â„¢t be an issue. If you 'love physics' then how old buddy can you so easily reject its evidence regarding the age of the Earth and Universe? This is WHY you refuse to even review the evidence on AX and all its non bird traits. You wouldnââ‚¬â„¢t want to challenge something for which you hold so dear.
agentorangex »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Mathetes.

Way to avoid the evidence, again.

"you discount evidence and people which don't agree with your view."

Oh please, I am the one talking about for why they're intermediate, you wont even bother to address their traits in any manner other than retorting from AIG or some other apologetics site. I want to know from YOU why such traits makes AX 'fully bird', is it that hard to discuss the obvious traits which aren't bird like?

"even though you haven't published anything in the field either."

Well, unlike them at least I discuss the obvious non bird traits, something they, or you, do not even bother to do. The only thing they can offer is 'it is fully bird' and not an objectionable reason or justification WHY baseed on any evidence. All they have is a dercy from fiat. Just like you.
believer »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steveh20, thanks for the info and I'll look forward to hearing more about this.
steveh20 »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Believer

The person who you wrote about is professer Michael Reiss, an Anglican minister, he is the educational director (he's not in charge) of the Royal Society (which I visit sometimes, spent a great eveing there a little while ago with Peter Higgs), he has claimed that journalists have mis quoted him so I wouldn't get to excited. This has been running in our papers for the past few days.
Regards
Steve
scitsonga »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:23 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

hey believer, yeah I never got the sense you were anti-science, but look at different than I do. hope you have a good day.....
believer »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:11 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

scitsonga, hopefully you don't think I'm anti-science, but I do always consider as you called it "the God factor" in all areas of life and more specifically my life. And I see God working around us on a daily basis as well as God working in my life and the lives of people around me. But I think where you and I differ is that if it came down to choosing sides on an issue you would side with science and I would side with God. But I also believe that in a large majority of issues God and science are in complete synch. I just heard very quickly on a radio news report that a man who is in charge of some scientific organization in Great Britain that Charles Darwin was a member of said that he would have no problem if creationism was taught in the classroom and that students were told that evolution is just one theory. Hopefully, I'll hear more details, but I sense we'll see it on CP soon.
scitsonga »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer, of course nothing is 100% certain, but when all the data and evidence is taken in account for an old earth/solar system, its reasonable to conclude that the solar system is in the millions and billions of years old, not thousands. My career is in science, I see science work, and I see the theories of science work. I use scientific theory to plan and perform experiments and use scientific theory to analyze the results of those experiments. It always amazes me that the theories work. Scientific theories lead to the development of new drugs, medical imaging instruments (MRI, ultra sound), make the internet possible, allow humans to design high energy particle colliders that are used to treat cancer and help understand the nature of the universe. Someday our dependence on fossil fuels will come to and with the development of new technologies- possibly developed from discoveries made from the new Large Hadron Collider just started up in Europe.

I see science work everyday based on the same principals that determine the age of our planet and solar system, thatââ‚¬â„¢s why I accept that the earth is in the billions of years old, not thousands.
believer »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:34 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

scitsonga, because if we believe the Bible is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God it requires young earth creation and I believe based on the research I've read that there is valid scientific support for a young earth creation, but I don't think that either young or old earth creation/evolution can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and there comes a point where a person has to choose which concept they will believe.
scitsonga »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer, thanx for your tip on the flag/delete. i posted then realized an error. I have tried to delet before without success. I use a mac, perhaps I will try my firefox browser to see if that works any better. Thanks again..
scitsonga »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer

There is always a certain level of error involved in all measurements. A good part of a scientists training involve error analysis. A good experimentalist will describe the level of error and uncertainty in their results. In fact most peer reviewed scientific journals require it. The earth and the rest of the solar system is generally considered to be about 4.5 billion years( +/- 1 %). There are a number of radiometric methods used on many types of rock formations, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial. An interesting element I think of to indicate that the earth is older than what young earth proponents advocate is the level of terrestrial plutonium, a heavy metal. Heavy metals are produced in supernovae, the earth is thought to be made of metals that were produced in supernovae explosions through the process of nuclear fusion. The most significant type of plutonium is Pu-239, it is produced here on earth in nuclear reactors for use primarily in nuclear weapons. Pu-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years and should have been produced in supernovae events as were many dozens of other heavy elements resulting from nuclear fusion. The significance of this is that if the earth were young (10,000 years), there would be naturally occurring Pu-239, yet none has been found. The most stable isotope is Pu-244, its half-life is 80 million years. That means after 80 million years, half is gone and turned to something else. After about 55 half-lives, Pu-244 can barely be found without tremendous amounts of effort. This finding alone tells us earth is very old.

what I don't understand is why some Christians insist the earth is young (<10,000 years)?
believer »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

scitsonga, if you want to flag yourself all you have to do is put your mouse on delete and even though it doesn't appear to do anything when you remove you disengage your mouse your post will totally disappear and unless someone saw it no one will know it was there, but some have said for them that does not work, but its worked for me every time.
believer »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

scitsonga, isn't it true that all age-dating methods including those which point to a young earth rely on unprovable assumptions which can be interpreted to conclude either an old earth or young earth viewpoint.
scitsonga »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:04 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer "observable, testable, and repeatable."

Perhaps you and mathetes are a bit confused on the observable part. Observable does not mean an observer need be at the place at the time of an event for it to satisfy scientific criteria as to how and whether an event occurred. Take for example Meteor Crater in Arizona. It has been determined thru geologic analysis of its rock strata using the disciplines of chemistry and physics that the crater was created 50,000 years ago. None of the scientist were there at the time of course, but thru the use of established scientific principles, can gain some notion of events that occur thousands and millions and billions of years ago. Observable here means examine the evidence.

The theory of evolution doesn't actually say anything about the origin of life, it only describes life once it started and of course- evolved. Evolutionary biology too use scientific methodology to find evidence to support the theory of evolution. If a biologist were to make a discovery(s) that contradicts the theory of evolution, then that would be the end of the theory. Evolutionary biology is science for the aforementioned resons , evolution is a fact, thats why it is in the science classroom. Creationism is not science and therefore should not be in a science classroom. Is it testable, is it observable thru the evidence, is it measurable? Doesn't appear to be. Perhaps in philosophy or religion classes is where it might find a suitable home. If creationism were allowed in the US science classroom we would be the laughing stock of the world. The US is losing its edge in science, the average american knows next to nothing about science. A country whose populace is ignorant of science will seriously fall behind the rest of the industrialized world that increasingly place more emphasis on science education. Just recently The Large Hadron Collider in Europe started up. The US use to be the leader in high energy physics, no longer. The LHC cost about 8 billion US dollars to construct, Americans were not willing to fund it. 8 billion is only 20 days worth the occupation costs in Iraq. While the US is expending its resources to expand its imperial power , most of the the rest of the industrialized world is putting its resources into cutting edge technologies and knowledge.
believer »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes and scitsonga, which brings us back to my first premise that either both of these theories with regard to the origin of life should be allowed to be presented in science classes or neither one should be allowed if we use the definition that for something to be true science it must be observable, testable, and repeatable. Either we ignore the definition for both or we enforce the definition for both. And as much as agent wants to disagree with this most people associate evolution with the origin of life too include many elementary and secondary school science teachers.
scitsonga »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:04 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, probably not productive for a scientist to discuss science with a creationist, its a dead end........
mathetes »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

scitsonga,

Were you not the one who pointed out that true science is observable, testable, repeatable? I agree completely. Problem is, you can't go back and observe the actual conditions which existed at the beginning of the cosmos, the formation of our earth, or the beginning of life. What we do know is that intelligence is required for coherent information, such as is found in our DNA; such information never emerges from chaos by natural processes alone.
mathetes »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

scitsonga,

Then you would be wrong again. I love science: chemistry, physics, anything that has to do with the present. It's the historical science based on assumptions (some true, some false, some unproveable) which bothers me.

In the discussion I was having with agent, he was arguing that Acanthastega was a transitional form because it has physical characteristics of fish and amphibians.

However, as was announced today, physical characteristics have value in proving the relationships between animals, specifically, emus and ostriches are not closely related, though it appears that way. That fascinates me, even as it puts another nail in well-secured coffin of the study of homology between species.
scitsonga »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, no I didn't miss the sarcasm, I rather enjoyed it. I dont need to look at your past posts to see that you are not a person of science and do not appear to have an understanding of the way science works. My hunch is that you are a creationist, and as far as I can tell, there is no science there. If you are a creationist, I say fine, good for you, but just know that it is not science unless you can back it up with data that can be independently verified because science demands it.
mathetes »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

And that, scitsonga, was the rhetorical device known as sarcasm. Obviously you missed it.

Did you go back and read the posts? Do have anything constructive to add? Or do just want to take cheap shots?
scitsonga »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathese "Yep, that's it, I just fail to grasp it. "

glad we agree.....
scitsonga »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes, its clear you have little knowledge of science and the scientific method used by scientist. If a scientist in his or her respective field does not publisch in peer reviewed journals, then their work will never be taken seriously.. The scientific process is all about scrutiny and verification by your peers. This is something creationist really fail to grasp. You might recall the "cold fusion" experiments that were announced in the late 80's by Pons and Fleischmann via the press as opposed to peer reviewed journals. They had gained fame for a few days, then misfortune after that because their work could not be duplicated, they have been largely discredited.
mathetes »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, you wrote:
"I think you don't want to discuss AX (like you haven't already and continually dodge it) b/c it would mean actually having to critically thinking about all of its obvious non-bird traits and then having to spin it (somehow?) to be 'fully bird'."

I have told you why I don't want to discuss Ax with you: you discount evidence and people which don't agree with your view. Period. After I sign off, you can make your snide and/or derogatory comments about me if you like, but you are only making yourself look foolish. I hope you will not do that.

Second, please compare your contradictory statements:
"I work in IT, but in college I took paleontolgy courses earlier on, I told others this. Besides, one doesn't have to be an expert to objectively look at the evidence, study it, and make sound logical deductions based on them."

Your response to: "PhD scientists at ICR + AiG."
"Oh yes, you mean those who don't publish their work in the peer reviewed scientific literture? Awefully credible."

So on the one hand, we should not believe PhD's in their respective sciences because they are not published, but we should believe YOU because you had some paleo courses years ago, even though you haven't published anything in the field either.

What is the difference between you and them when it's time "to objectively look at the evidence, study it, and make sound logical deductions based on them." Oh, yea, they have the academic credentials and years of experience.

And please don't say it's because you can look at things "objectively." You can't and you don't. In fact, you explained that you choose to post here because like your screen name, you want to wreak havoc among the Christians here, like the chemical defoliant did to soldier's health.

So I'm moving on to more profitable endeavors. I, along with several others, will continue to pray for you. Sometimes you seem to be so close to understanding that God does exist and that you'll never understand Him with your natural senses (our conversation on prayer and miracles). I pray that you will take the step of faith and reach out to Him. He's already reached out to you in the person and work of Jesus. I'll be around when I can and I'll help you any way I can. Shalom.
agentorangex »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:00 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Which part of your computer background makes you an authority more knowledgeable than them?"

I work in IT, but in college I took paleontolgy courses earlier on, I told others this. Besides, one doesn't have to be an expert to objectively look at the evidence, study it, and make sound logical deductions based on them. It's like detective work.

"And you still wonder why I won't waste time with you on Ax?"

I think you don't want to discuss AX (like you haven't already and continually dodge it) b/c it would mean actually having to critically thinking about all of its obvious non-bird traits and then having to spin it (somehow?) to be 'fully bird'. Let's just discuss it and why according to creationists its 'fully bird', I want to hear the gross rationalization of all its non birds traits and other oddities like why we can induce modern birds to express a relic genetic trait for teeth, reptilian teeth too. Isn't that odd, why would they have the hidden genetic information for teeth?
agentorangex »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"PhD scientists at ICR + AiG."

Oh yes, you mean those who don't publish their work in the peer reviewed scientific literture? Awefully credible. Besides, I wasn't appealing to ANYONES credentials, I was simply debating the facts of its anatomy, something you're not really doing. Quit dodging and address it's non-fish features.

"Now you are dismissing the findings of paleontologists at the Univ of Chicago"

No I'm not, they stated it couldn't walk, but this is irelevant as noted by how the lungfish and mudksipper use less and still move from pond to pond, which is all it would have been doing terestially anyway. It wouldn't have had to walk 30 miles, it would be like a mudskipper which used its primitive appendages to migrate from pond to pond, ya know for food.
mathetes »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent, you wrote:
"You're missing the point. Mudskippers and lungfish have less than what this species had and they make do in moving about and going to different bodies of water."

You have dismissed the findings of the PhD scientists at ICR + AiG. Now you are dismissing the findings of paleontologists at the Univ of Chicago. Which part of your computer background makes you an authority more knowledgeable than them? Is it because you've read a lot of web sites?

And you still wonder why I won't waste time with you on Ax? Whatever authority I cite, you would discount them in favor of your own opinion. No thanks, good night.
scitsonga »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mathetes "Sure, you've got bones buried in dirt and rock, but is millions of years the only explanation? Especially in light of the records left by eyewitnesses, should not science consider changing its date for dinosaur extinction?"

bones buried in dirt is called data, its called evidence. "eyewitnesses" is not data inthe physcial sciences, might be evidence in court of law sometimes, but not evidence in science. My brother had an iguana that sorta looked like a dinosaur but wasn't. Perhaps the drawing depicts dinosaur like creatures, or perhaps were from the imaginations of the artist. Unless other physical evidence can show that man and dinosaur coexisted, then so far, science says that they didn't. Have dinosaur fossils been found in those jungles and places that contain the paintings? Any other information or data to go on. In the case of the mastodon, which went extinct about 10,000 years ago, spears from humans that hunted them have been found in mastodon's fossilized remains. Anything like that been found with dinosaurs. You can bet that if a paleontologist were to make such a discovery, that person would become famous and would be able to publish a very interesting paper in the scientific journals "Science" or "Nature", very prestigious journals indeed.
scitsonga »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hey believer, "I should have said many in the scientific community as there are some who do consider the "god factor" as they do their scientific research."

Well, I gotta tell you, I am a member of the science community, and I have never heard a scientist consider "god factor" or supernatural events to describe a result or event, it wouldn't be science if they did. My take on the world, is that given enough time, money and resources, the universe and all the stuff in it can be explained thru science. Your take, is different, thats your perspective and I respect that. I hope you have a good night.....
agentorangex »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:09 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"it could barely lift its head out of the water in the shallows, so land travel probably was not a behavior of Acanthastega."

You're missing the point. Mudskippers and lungfish have less than what this species had and they make do in moving about and going to different bodies of water.

"How we can we have a helpful discussion?"

Explain why Archeoptryx is 'fully bird' with all its non bird like traits, that's how.
agentorangex »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"they said it had lungs, but it also had gills - does anything besides fish have gills?" No, but you're missing the whole point. What known creature would have BOTH lungs and gills if not an intermediate? This is what evolution argues, an intermediate aught to have both traits, somewhere in between. It also had a neck, pectoral girdle, pelvic girdle, limbs, digits (full arms & legs) things NO fish has, and yet had gills. Clearly it's neither 'fully fish' nor 'fully amphibian', thus it bridges the gap as an intermediate inbetween.

"had limb digits inside its fins - does anything besides fish (and a few mammals) have fins?"

It didn't have fins, it had full on digits, look at the pictures. Webed hands if you will, but not fins, fins don't consist of digits attached to a wrist.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story