Could you vote for a candidate who thinks Earth is 6000 years old?

  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Sep 29, 2008 7:44 PM GMT
    I couldn't--not just because of the looniness of the belief itself, but because of what it says about the candidate's outlook on science, evidence, and, well...reality.

    I'd love Palin to give an update on her current views, but I doubt that will happen.

    From the LA Times:

    After 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.

    Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 8:30 PM GMT
    I'm reminded of the play and movie "Inherit the Wind" in which the William Jennings Bryan surrogate character claims on the witness stand that a "Bishop Usher" has determined that the age of the Earth, based on the totaled ages of figures in the Old Testament, is something over 5000 years.

    And when confronted with a rock, that scientists had determined to be many millions of years old, he declares: "I'm more interested in the Rock of Ages, than the age of rocks!"

    We have in Palin someone who is more interested in her religious beliefs than in facts. This is not a person I would trust with the powers of the Vice Presidency, much less the Presidency, should that need arise.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Sep 29, 2008 9:23 PM GMT
    No
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 9:26 PM GMT
    "No" what?
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Sep 29, 2008 9:30 PM GMT
    No to the question posed in the thread title.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 10:35 PM GMT
    There's a thread title??? I just read the posts. DUH!!!!! icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 11:09 PM GMT
    Sarah Palin on the current economic woes:

    Well, we could all start saving money by cleaning our plates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 11:10 PM GMT
    God, I could not, even if the candidate's other positions are things I favor. And the reason was so well stated by Squarejaw and others above.

    So much of what the Bush Administration has foundered over has to do with disbelieving evidence, not understanding the rules of evidence, falsification of science, suppression of science and misunderstanding the difference between an opinion, a hypothesis, and a theory. This runs the gamut from outright lying about the WMD in Iraq, to complete ignorance on the proven evidence on Global Warming and the human role in that to much more.

    As an aside, but not too far off the topic, is a comment from a movie critic with respect to European movies and American movies that are "mainstream". In American movies that appeal to the masses, the ending has to match morality....the bad guy has to get it...sort of like all the portrayal of gay people as perverted, sociopaths in the movies of the 50s, 60s and to some extent the 1970s. Whatever is the current view of "bad" is dicated by the "moral"majority. That's the America that is represented by Bush and Palin and their ilk. The getting rid of Hussein justified manufacturing evidence to support our invasion.

    In European movies, the morality doesn't necessarily drive the conclusion or resolution of the plot. In other words, your opinion of what is right and wrong doesn't have to be borne out by the plot's conclusion.

    These anti-scientists make me shudder not because some of their morality I might share, but for their suppression of any counter opinion or discouraging debate......sorry for the digression.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 11:13 PM GMT
    I don't think what you said is a digression, but rather a logical and related extension of the topic at hand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 11:14 PM GMT
    God is probably embarrassed that evolution didn't take effect in some family lines. I wonder if Sarah Palin has a tail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 11:30 PM GMT
    No..

    I think that anyone in a position to be VP for any country should realize the difference between fact, and theory. No matter what her personal beliefs are. And it scares me to think that someone who ignores so much (scientific or not) .. could have so much control over my life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 12:45 AM GMT
    Hell no.

    Creationism is NOT EVEN A THEORY!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 12:52 AM GMT
    You know, at this point people are just going to vote no matter what she says or does .. It is like on that old game show .. family feud .. a family member gives a really stupid answer to the poll question but they all look at each other and say .. "good answer, good answer!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 12:57 AM GMT
    evolution_is_a_fact.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 1:02 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidYou know, at this point people are just going to vote no matter what she says or does .. It is like on that old game show .. family feud .. a family member gives a really stupid answer to the poll question but they all look at each other and say .. "good answer, good answer!"


    That's so true! I love that analogy!

    Too bad there isn't a Family Feud scoreboard above Palin's head, that goes "BZZZZZZ" every time she gives a stupid answer.

    "And now it's the Obama Family turn!"

    LMAO!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 1:09 AM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidYou know, at this point people are just going to vote no matter what she says or does .. It is like on that old game show .. family feud .. a family member gives a really stupid answer to the poll question but they all look at each other and say .. "good answer, good answer!"
    This one they do not say "good answer", but they clap at it anyway .. richard dawson is never the same afterwards

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 2:10 AM GMT
    McGay saidGod is probably embarrassed that evolution didn't take effect in some family lines. I wonder if Sarah Palin has a tail.


    Thanks McGay, I spit orange juice on my keyboard when I read that icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 2:19 AM GMT
    I was raised with this same belief (young earth theory), so I can sort of tolerate it. Palin's just a nut job, though.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Sep 30, 2008 2:42 AM GMT
    I often frown on single issue voters. But it would be incredibly hard for me to vote for a young Earth Creationist. I'm an evolutionary biologist. I not only study evolution, I use the very fact that certain aspects of evolution are so predictable to create the strains I want to analyze. Someone who actually believed in an Earth that was only a few thousand years old because some bishop added up the genealogical records in a book of ancient middle eastern mythology and customs and came up with that figure, when offered the option of a rigorous scientific explanation...I just really don't think I could trust them to deal with reality. Or to think for themselves, rather than parrot what they were taught as a small child.

    On the other hand, while I'm currently leaning toward Obama, I still view it as a choice between Obama and McCain, not between Biden and Palin. McCain's selection of Palin when there were so many more sane choices (like, if he wanted to pick a woman with a track record of standing up to her own party, there was the option of Olympia Snowe) has definitely knocked him down a few pegs in my mind as not really thinking things through carefully, but the actual identity of the VP is pretty low on my list of things to care about in the election.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Sep 30, 2008 2:47 AM GMT
    HELL no!

    This country has paid a price each and every time our president's championed ideology over reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 3:23 AM GMT
    SamerPhxAZ saidOh gee, I didn't know there is one thread talk about Palin's Humans & Dinosaurs co-existed. Nice to hear other people opinions. I think she was talking about Cavemans and Dinosaurs.


    Wouldn't matter if she was talking about "cavemans" and dinosaurs, because ancient man DID NOT exist on Earth during the reign of the dinosaurs, which lasted 165 million years, until it ended abruptly 65 million years ago, when (most likely, based upon geological and paleontological evidence as theorized by the Alvarez Hypothesis and backed up by physical evidence of not only the K.T. Layer but also by visual and instrumental evidence discovered by gravimetric and magnetic scans of a massive impact crater near the Yucatan Peninsula which probably formed parts of the Gulf of Mexico) at which time a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers in diameter, slammed into the Earth near present-day Yucatan, causing a global "nuclear winter" as well as massive, choking clouds of ash which obliterated most of the large dinosaurs within a few years.
    To quote one source,
    "Alan K. Hildebrand and Glen Penfield found it (the crater). They discovered the Chicxulub crater site in the Yucatan Peninsula and dated it to be around 65 Ma. The discovery of the impact site, along with debris in the sedimentary record (the above-mentioned K.T. Layer) in North America, provided the proverbial "smoking gun" and much needed credibility to the "Alvarez hypothesis."

    Man, and most other primates, did not emerge for another 60-61 million years, and the earliest hominids which most resembled humans were Australopithicus, Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, and the earliest so far, known as Millenium Man, as well as Homo Habilis at about 6 million years according to fossil records. Finally, Homo Erectus is the most recent of the primitive hominids to most closely resemble modern humans. We even have discovered ancient Native American villages and tools along the Northeast coast of the U.S. that date back around 12,000 years.

    So, sorry, dinos and people were effectively separated by about 59-60 million years. And if anybody seriously thinks they can cast doubt on the accuracy of our scientific knowledge when it comes to serious paleontology and Earth history, I have a 10-inch long maxillary T-Rex tooth I'll be more than happy to bitch-slap you with. Or at least make you do a report on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 3:28 AM GMT
    amen brother

    She is an idiot
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 3:48 AM GMT
    Sarah Palin was probably referring to the Glen Rose (Texas) fossils. According to the newsletter DISCLOSURE: "The second interesting thing is that there may actually be human tracks in these rocks. Some very human-like tracks overlap some of the dinosaur tracks."

    www.scienceagainstevolution.org. Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.

    "Knowledgeable evolutionists don’t claim that carbon 14 dating has anything to do with the theory of evolution. Ignorant evolutionists, however, think carbon 14 dating proves evolution, and continue to make that claim. ...our high schools are apparently filled with kids who have been told by their science teachers that carbon dating proves dinosaurs are millions of years old.

    "There are two main theories about the age of the Earth and the fossils found in the rock layers. The old-earth theory says that the Earth is a few billion years old, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks formed slowly over a long time. The young-earth theory says that the Earth is a few thousand years old, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks were formed rapidly in a world-wide flood.

    "Both of these theories are based on faith. One is based on the idea that a divine being (an intelligent designer) miraculously created life instantaneously. The other is based on the belief that unseen, unknown, impersonal, natural forces miraculously created life over a long period of time. Both theories have been constructed to support one or the other of these two religious beliefs.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 3:50 AM GMT
    Sounds like Palin ties the bone too tight in her Wilma 'do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2008 3:55 AM GMT
    O Lord... why are so many of your followers such fools?