|  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Sarah Palin and Creationism — What Did She Believe and When Did She Believe It?

Posted by Will Moredock on Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:48 PM

The Associated Press put no fewer than 11 fact checkers to work on Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue. I have not heard what they found in their literary inquiry, but Rob Boston of Talk to Action takes Ms. Palin to task, suggesting that she misrepresented the facts in an early vetting by John McCain's staff before she was named to be his running mate. At issue is when she became a creationist. She seems to be one now that she has a huge and crazy right wing constituency that would not accept a secular or rational leader, but Boston says that McCain would not have had her on the ticket if she had claimed to be a creationist in the summer of 2008. Read his take on Sarah's new book at www.talk2action.org/story/2009/11/24/113230/58.


What does Palin really believe about evolution? Who knows? Perhaps she's not even sure. But it does look like we'll have more opportunities to find out since Palin seems determined to do all she can to keep herself on the national stage. The question is bound to resurface.

So I look forward over the next few years to getting some answers to burning questions: Does Palin believe Satan created the fossil record just to fool us? Were there dinosaurs on Noah's ark? Just how old is the Earth, anyway?

If we have to continue to put up with this woman - and it looks like we do - we might as well try to enjoy ourselves.

Topics: National Politics

Tags:

Comments (18) RSS

Showing 1-18 of 18

Add a comment

Transitional fossils don't exist.

Posted by Jason Usry on November 24, 2009 at 7:58 PM | Report this comment

Usry, what are your qualifications to make such a statement?
One word for you: Archaeopteryx.

Posted by FCB on November 24, 2009 at 8:37 PM | Report this comment

Funny. There should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record if evolution took place, yet evolutionists always mention "Archaeopteryx." Is that all they've got? One fossil that might (and I stress "might") be construed as belonging to a transitional species?

Scientists know the fossil record is a problem, and in their zeal to find a single fossil that could conclusively be shown as "transitional" they've accepted specimens as "transitional" which were either misclassified or downright frauds. "Ida" is the most recent example. We have no problem finding fully formed fossils in the record; why are transitionals so hard to find?

And again, if I were a betting man I would bet that every single evolutionist who tries to refute my earlier claim will cite the same fossil (out of how many in the record?) that you just did. That in itself proves that they're not as readily available as you would have people think.

Posted by Jason Usry on November 24, 2009 at 9:24 PM | Report this comment

Again: Your qualifications to make these statements.
I just listed one fossil that even you may have heard of. For many more, go here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Posted by FCB on November 24, 2009 at 10:09 PM | Report this comment

Why does evolution have to be considered to counteract Genesis? If one believes that God is the creator, then why is it so awful to accept that he also created all the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology... and thus used his very own constructs to create us? There is no significance to the "seven days" being no-kidding 24 hour periods... in fact if the earth wasn't created yet then the 24-hour rotation of the earth is immaterial.

Where in the bible does it say that God planted all this false evidence to test our faith? It doesn't. Faith in God as the creator need not treat the creation of man as a "shazaam!" type of magic trick. As God is eternal, the fact that we may have been created something other than instantaneously in one day shouldn't be troubling. Radioactive dating creates irrefutable evidence of the actual age of the earth, as well as all manner of other archeological and anthropological events. Simply because some use evolution as proof to themselves that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that it does. Science is not necessarily the antithesis of religion.

Posted by factoryconnection on November 24, 2009 at 11:20 PM | Report this comment

Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existance of any god, much like toy factories neither prove nor disprove the existance of Santa Clause.

Posted by FCB on November 24, 2009 at 11:53 PM | Report this comment

So what are you inferring with your assertion that transitional fossils don't exist? That the biblical account of Genesis should be interpreted literally? Until Creationists can do something more than just shoot holes in evolution science, they will never gain any credibility.

Posted by Brad Bailey on November 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM | Report this comment

Personally, I favor the population of the earth by crumbs from the Great Cosmic Doughnut theory.

I mean, just do you evolutionists intend to refute *that*, tell me?

Posted by Seneca on November 25, 2009 at 5:16 AM | Report this comment

Personally, I favor the population of the earth by crumbs from the Great Cosmic Doughnut theory.

I mean, just how do you evolutionists intend to refute *that*, tell me?

Posted by Seneca on November 25, 2009 at 5:17 AM | Report this comment

Clearly, Seneca has not felt the loving touch of the noodly appendage. Pesto be with you all, Ramen.

Posted by factoryconnection on November 25, 2009 at 10:01 AM | Report this comment

All fossils are transitional fossils.

Posted by Jared Childers on November 25, 2009 at 10:57 AM | Report this comment

Furthermore, the very notion of "transitional" fossils presumes a fixed-specie viewpoint. If evolution be true, all species are transitional species.

Posted by Jared Childers on November 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM | Report this comment

"All fossils are transitional fossils"

Good point.

Posted by FCB on November 25, 2009 at 11:02 AM | Report this comment

LOL at all these idiots saying "transitional fossils don't exist."

Every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil.

Posted by Chaca on November 25, 2009 at 11:30 AM | Report this comment

Darwin had no idea how easy his job would be 150 years later...all his followers do in response to the fossil problem is say "all fossils are transitional!"

What sophistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_expl… Quote: "Geologists as long ago as Buckland (1784–1856) realised that a dramatic step-change in the fossil record occurred around the base of what we now call the Cambrian.[6] Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to this problem.[7]"

Posted by Jason Usry on November 25, 2009 at 2:06 PM | Report this comment

All his detractors have to say is "transitional fossils don't exist." Talk about sophistry. Shoot those holes, bubba.

Posted by Brad Bailey on November 25, 2009 at 6:51 PM | Report this comment

We "claim" that all fossils are transitional fossils for two reasons. One, because it's true. And two, because, it's become obvious that citing any of the numerous fossils that are the most quintessentially transitional results in slack-jawed, drooling stares from those who find children's fairy tales more believable than logic, science, and fact (aka "creationists," aka "intelligent design" proponents)

Posted by Chaca on November 26, 2009 at 6:12 AM | Report this comment

Oh, and there is no "fossil problem." There's only a willful ignorance and/or stupidity problem.

Posted by Chaca on November 26, 2009 at 7:09 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Classified Listings
Most Viewed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2010, Charleston City Paper   RSS