I never said that creationism shouldn’t be mentioned at all. If creationism is going to be “taught” in some way in science class, then...
Well you just explained why you're so confused right there. You aren't even familiar with the basics of the controversy. Nobody has ever suggested creationism be "taught" in the sense you're referring to. You say you have no problem with creationism being "mentioned", but that is precisely what so many creationists want. They just want it "mentioned," not "taught" as true. And as far as Palin is concerned, she does not want teachers teaching creationism as fact. She said she doesn't even want it included in teh curriculum. She only supports the idea that it be "mentioned" in the classroom and she supports the process of debate amongst students.
I wouldn’t call that a “debate”
It doesn't matter what you want to call it. It is a debate whether you like it or not. You can't rewrite the English dictionary to suit your own atheistic agenda.
because the question is pretty settled in terms of scientific knowledge.
Again, the question of God isn't settled at all. It depends on what version of creationism you're referring to.
“healthy debate”, which Palin used, connotes that she thinks both sides would be able to present solid support for their assertions. That is patently untrue, and the only way for it to “look” true is if it is presented in an anti-scientific manner, in which teachers – science teachers, to be specific – would ignore the vast amounts of scientific support for evolution and pretend that equivalent support exists for creationism.
That doesn't even come close to what Palin said or thinks. Now you're relying on psychoanalysis while ignoring what she has actually said to teh contrary, just so you can maintain your resentment of her... but you do so on shaky ground because the one think you resent about her, isn't even true.
I didn’t say creationism can’t be mentioned – I said you can’t call it a “healthy debate” when the issue is settled, in terms of scientific knowledge.
You seem oblivious to the fact that most creationists just want it "mentioned" as an opposing argument. None of them want it "taught" as factual and very few of them, if any, want evolution done away with. Since you agree with this, you have to misrepresent their position by saying, Palin supports "teaching creationism in school, as a theory just as legitimate as evolution." This is patently false, and after several posts of correction, you still refuse to own up to it.
Just exactly which “essential difference” was I referencing??? Yes, that’s right, the preceding sentences:
As I said, Palin clearly had all of that in mind or else she never would have said she didn't want it as a part of the curriculum.
If creationism is simply the idea that God created the cosmos, then it has no place in science class at all.
Yes it does, since many former atheists are now understanding that science is telling us precisely that.
But creationism is NOT simply that idea.
I understand there to be various versions of it. I myself have argued for creationism, while strictly referring to the creation of the universe, and not of humanity. As we have already established, evolution in and of itself does nothing to hinder theism. It only undermines the silly Adam/Eve -7 days of creation as commonly interpreted from Genesis.
Technological advances are related to the quality of the scientific education we provide for our children.
Who said otherwise?
If our science teachers begin teaching creationism as if it were an equally viable theory as evolution
Again with the ludicrous strawman. Thisis not what Palin condones, nor do I.
n the eyes of science, they are destroying the quality of scientific education in our country, because they have altered the foundation of science itself.
You're being too melodramatic, and you are doing it to color concern as genuine, when we both know it is all about your hatred of religion - that's it. I mean even if some teachers decided to teach creationism as "an equally viable theory as evolution," to say this is altering the "foundation of science itself" is just making me laugh. Do you even have kids in elementary school? I ask because it blows my mind how many childless atheists are out there complaining about students, who belong to religious families, are actually having a discussion about something they learned at home.
Under this paradigm, he is every bit as unqualified as Obama.
There is no "paradigm" like you imagine. You act completely oblivious to the real world. Have you ever hired an employee, or been hired? Looking through a resume you have various fields of experience to consider and some might pertain to the job more than others.
If I am looking for someone in IT to manage our CISCO routing, I might be impressed with someone who has 25 years experience in IT even if they had no familiarity with CISCO. But I would most likely hire the one whose experience is strictly CISCO, even if this meant the person only had a few years experience in IT. It is absurd to say that just because a candidate has no executive experience, he has no experience at all. Saying he was in "politics" is too vague and doesn't really say much. Experience in the senate lays a basic foundation for the next step up but really, to govern and entire state has far more responsibility than simply representing half of a state.
See what has happened here? McCain and his supporters have been criticizing Obama’s lack of experience.
Compared to his own, yes. And McCain has more experience with four years as a congressman and twenty-three years as a senator. He also served in teh military, was a decorated POW, served as the Navy's liason to the U.S. Senate. Now compare that to Obama's six years experience as a Legislator for Illinois and one year as a U.S. Senator and two years as a Senator campaigning for the presidency.
In choosing Palin, McCain and his supporters will have to “shift the goalposts”, and now it’s “executive experience” that counts.
Why do you refuse to get it straight? Obama has less experience
than McCain. Why don't you show us where executive experience used to
not count. We're waiting.
But they can’t really use this argument, can they, because it then neuters their original argument that Obama doesn’t have the requisite experience!
You just agreed he doesn't have executive experience, so how does this "neuter" their argument when that is exactly what their argument is?
That’s why I think that this was probably a poor choice for McCain.
I suspect he was leaning more towards Romney, but after the “I don’t know how many houses I own” gaffe,
Gaffe? Most millionaires don't know how many homes they have. Especially politicians. They buy up property and sell it all the flippin time. My Dad would probably have to think for a second before telling you exactly how many he had. He is constantly buying and selling.
having another uber-rich candidate probably didn’t look like such a hot idea after all.
Oh yea, these democrats are soooo poor.
Again, your poor reading is a real stumbling block in this conversation.
No, it is your failure to own up to your misrepresentations and your propensity to spin and make excuses.
Obama has always maintained that invading Iraq was a mistake from the very beginning. Other democrats who initially supported the invasion now state that they were incorrect to do so. In contrast, Republicans believe that invading Iraq was a good idea, it a was just mishandled by the Bush crew.
Right.
This is why a Republican who follows this party line will be more inclined to engage in preemptive military actions against other countries, like Iran. I do not believe our country can withstand another such action – economically, militarily, or globally.
I submit that we can handle that easier than an Israel enduring a nuclear holocaust. Iran wants nuclear weapons and they have already stated their intentions. This isn't an ify situation liek Iraq, where there was only speculation about whether they had WMDs and whether they intended to use them against others. Iran is taking advantage of Bush's goof and is relying on liberals in America to implant this "war is never an option" mentality.
In case you haven’t noticed, dart, the democrats wear their Christianity on their sleeves just as much as Republicans do, including Obama.
Uh huh, and Nancy Pelosi, who just gave a rant about how Catholic doctrine doesn't
really prohibit abortion. They are disingenuous idiots who claim a religious base for political reasons alone. But those true practitioners of the faith can see through their game.
I just don’t want her ill-informed religious beliefs affecting our country’s interest, such as my interest in high-quality scientific education in this country.
And I just proved to you that your suspicions regarding this are false, and are entirely based in your own intolerance towards religion. That's it. If you were truly tolerant then you wouldn't be complaining about something she explicity said she wouldn't do.
So what evidence do you have that Obama is “exploiting his color for his own gain”, but Palin is not “exploiting her gender for her own gain”?
Obama recently made a stupid comment at a rally that some republicans won't like him because he doesn't "look like those other faces on our currency." That was his back-door way to race bait. As far as Palin goes, she was just picked out of a hat here. She didn't aspire to get involved in Washington politics at all, let alone the White House. IF you think otherwise, then let's hear the evidence.
I can also make the argument that Obama has fought for what he believes in no matter if it meant fighting democrat or republican. Perhaps your memory fails you, but when he opposed the war in Iraq, most democrats were supporting Bush and the war.
Obama at the time was a nobody (this was before he was elected to the Senate) thus he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. If the war turned out to be a mistake, he could launch hismelf onto the spotlight by saying he was the lone guy who disagreed with it. He didn't lose any democratic friends over that decision. Palin literally made enemies on the republican side because of her stance against Big Oil.
We should never have invaded Iraq. They did not attack us.
Are you truly this ignorant? We didn't
attack "them" either. We invaded the country to topple the dictator. The people were left alone. The military surrendered immediately. It was not a "war" in any conventional sense of the term, because their troops gladly surrendered and their citizens welcomed troops while dancing in the streets. At this point the "war" as was planned, was really already over. What ensued was a manhunt for Hussein. The cluster “F” came about when Bush and his advisors underestimated the insurgency that soon came about. They did virtually nothing to secure the Iraqi borders, which led to an ongoing civil war leading to thousands of deaths and billions more spent.
Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator, but we support other cruel regimes. Saddam did a far better job keeping Islamic radical terrorists out of Iraq than the current regime has been able to.
Again, are you really this ignorant? We did not go there to remove radical terrorists. The biggest terrorist was Saddam himself. He was responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands. Bush had convened with many Iraqi Americans who convinced him that upon the removal of Saddam, Iraq would become a friendly nation and ally to the US.
Controlling Islamic radical terrorists is what should concern us right now.
That is a naïve goal since you cannot "control" anything that's radical.
Attacking Iraq was the sign of a malformed understanding of that part of the world, and a simplistic idea of how democracies work and “spread”, in my opinion.
Agreed. Iraqis should choose whatever government they like, and it won't resemble much of our system when they're done doing that. But so whay? The goal was to remove Hussein. Mission accomplished.
I believe that the Republican party has not accepted that reality, and their continued insistence that it was the right thing to do is, right now, the primary reason I would never vote for a Republican for president, unless they disavowed their party’s stance on that issue.
Well I doubt most Americans feel that way. We'll find out in the coming debates, but I doubt the Iraq war will play a huge part in the minds of fence straddlers.
I think that the refusal to disavow that stance indicates an unwillingness to learn painful lessons from our past history (NOT just Iraq), which indicates a higher likelihood that we will repeat those mistakes again.
And of course, only republicans go to war, right? Kennedy didn't damn near start WWIII when Russia tried to make allies with Cuba, now did he? Johnson didn't prolong the suffering in Vietnam by disallowing our troops from attacking unless attacked first, now did he?
If Obama were picked just due to his race, why weren't Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton picked?
Were they even running for President? These guys have a losing history, and there is too much dirt on both of them as race-baiting bigots.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein