Sarah Palin

[Craig Lamson]

Creationism is religion. Should we teach religion is science class? What about the separation of church and state?

Seperation of church and state? Exactly how does that apply in this in instance?

The problem is that we don't teach religion in our schools, lest we 'offend" someone. Heck in most places singing christmas carrols is impossible. In the case of the origins of life, science has a theory, back by incomplete evidence, and it must be taken on FAITH that the theory is correct, given that the evidence in incomplete. We don't know that the thjerory for the origins ofg life is correct. So whats the harm in saying so and then pointing out there may other possibilities such as intelligent design or creation?

I have great respect for science. I also know that science sometime make the wrong conclusions. And some things are simply beyond the current state of science and perhaps will always be.

Craig I imagine there is a college or university near you,perhaps you should run you misunderstanding by one of the biology profs there. There is no no doubt in the scientific community about the validity of evolution. It is only unproven to the extent we can't travel back in time and observe it taking place. Relativity is also still classified as a "theory" but the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and energy created by various nuclear power plant is quite real. You think Creation should be taught as an equally valid theory but it is backed by only a handful of scientists only one ,a bio-chemist, with expertise in a relevant field. All last time I checked were evangelical Christians.It makes just as much sense to teach the Kayapo creation myth or Elijah Mohammed's evolutionary theories.

I don' tmisunderstand Len, but it appears YOU do. I'm not denying that things evolve, in fact I agree that humans have evolved. What I question and what science CAN'T answer is how did it all start. What is the origin of life on earth? In this context creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it, is every bit as vaild as what ever science wants to speculate. Now you say creationism is a religious belief..and evangelical in nature. Why? Because it fits your wordview about evangelicals. Some one MUST be religious and moreso evangelical to look around as wonder if the whole of the earth and all of its lifeforms, humans included are here simply by chance? Science can't prove it, and to beileve they have is a true article of faith.

I think student should be exposed ot ALL sides of an argument. And make no mistake there is an argument on the origins of lfe. Failure to do so reduces education to indoctrination.

[David G. Healy]

Creationism is religion. Should we teach religion is science class? What about the separation of church and state?

Seperation of church and state? Exactly how does that apply in this in instance?

The problem is that we don't teach religion in our schools, lest we 'offend" someone. Heck in most places singing christmas carrols is impossible. In the case of the origins of life, science has a theory, back by incomplete evidence, and it must be taken on FAITH that the theory is correct, given that the evidence in incomplete. We don't know that the thjerory for the origins ofg life is correct. So whats the harm in saying so and then pointing out there may other possibilities such as intelligent design or creation?

I have great respect for science. I also know that science sometime make the wrong conclusions. And some things are simply beyond the current state of science and perhaps will always be.

of course.... human evolution and the big bang can be sorted through, if you DON'T get hung up on what else, TIME. Sans TIME, both evolution and the big bang (GOD inspired) work hand in glove... a primary dilemma:TIME (and all its connotations). The debate isn't about evolution or science per se, its a debate about human beings, US! Our human frailties and ideas, real or imagined! And GROWTH, to what end and for WHAT reason... Then the ever perplexing, WHY. And there's only one place that answers that....

[Pamela Brown]

where is Osama Bin Laden?

He's probably dead, and has been that way for years. Dead men don't wear plaid - I mean, dead men tell no tales.

I disagree.

If that were the case, one would think the Bush regime would establish proof of that and use that to their advantage. Since they haven't, I think we can surmise that they know he's alive and well flitting around in the mountains somewhere, and we're just supposed to forget all about him.

[Pamela Brown]

Sure teach creationism, as part of religious studies where it belongs...

Exactly. Creationism because it is based in faith, and evolution because it is based in science. Individuals - or parents - can say that in this respect, they accept faith over science, and that is perfectly okay. Just don't confuse creationism belonging in a science class.

Darwinism doesn't belong in a science class either.

[Ron Ecker]

where is Osama Bin Laden?

He's probably dead, and has been that way for years. Dead men don't wear plaid - I mean, dead men tell no tales.

I disagree.

If that were the case, one would think the Bush regime would establish proof of that and use that to their advantage.

When you've got a bogeyman to keep your people in fear and justify endless war, it defeats the whole purpose to have him turn up dead.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Ron Ecker

[Christopher Hall]

where is Osama Bin Laden?

He's probably dead, and has been that way for years. Dead men don't wear plaid - I mean, dead men tell no tales.

I have thought OBL to be dead for quite a few years.

Mullah Omar may also be dead.

I think that Al-Zawahiri (sp?) is alive.

[Pamela Brown]

I have thought OBL to be dead for quite a few years.

Mullah Omar may also be dead.

I think that Al-Zawahiri (sp?) is alive.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Bush administration made such a big deal out of claiming they were going to track them down and bring them to justice, and then, unable to do so, expects us not to hold them acocuntable. Al Zawahiri is alive and captured. Why don't they at least account for the whereabouts of the others? Are they going to drag them out as arch-villains after the new 9-11 of the new administration?

[Christopher Hall]

I have thought OBL to be dead for quite a few years.

Mullah Omar may also be dead.

I think that Al-Zawahiri (sp?) is alive.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Bush administration made such a big deal out of claiming they were going to track them down and bring them to justice, and then, unable to do so, expects us not to hold them acocuntable. Al Zawahiri is alive and captured. Why don't they at least account for the whereabouts of the others? Are they going to drag them out as arch-villains after the new 9-11 of the new administration?

Pam-

I agree with Ron that OBL is better alive than dead to the Administration.

It is news to me that Al Zawahiri is alive and captured. Are you sure that's correct?

Chris

[Ron Ecker]

Oh, the Perils of Sarah Palin. It's becoming a real soap opera.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/_palin_fam...celebrity/65407

Yes, I know, it's the National Enquirer. But it sure got it right on John Edwards. In fact I think it has a pretty good record on getting things right. (It's not really that hard, if the mainstream media simply won't go there.)

And Levi Johnston is unhappy about the upcoming shotgun wedding? But he looked so happy on TV! Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Pamela Brown]

It is news to me that Al Zawahiri is alive and captured. Are you sure that's correct?

Chris

I am mistaken. It is another dude that was caught -- the one with the photo with mussed up hair and torn t-shirt and a somewhat similar name...

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Oh, the Perils of Sarah Palin. It's becoming a real soap opera.

Some members may not know that, in my spare time, I am a songwriter. I am currently working on a song based on the melody of THE MAN WHO BROKE THE BANK AT MONTE CARLO. Please hum along with the words of the tagline, and see if it has commercial potential.

THE GAL WHO HELD UP BOTH ENDS OF THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/...d_b_125240.html

[John Simkin]

Oh, the Perils of Sarah Palin. It's becoming a real soap opera.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/_palin_fam...celebrity/65407

Yes, I know, it's the National Enquirer. But it sure got it right on John Edwards. In fact I think it has a pretty good record on getting things right. (It's not really that hard, if the mainstream media simply won't go there.)

And Levi Johnston is unhappy about the upcoming shotgun wedding? But he looked so happy on TV! Ha ha ha ha ha.

The link does not work. What did it say? Have her lawyers ordered it to be taken down?

[David G. Healy]

Oh, the Perils of Sarah Palin. It's becoming a real soap opera.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/_palin_fam...celebrity/65407

Yes, I know, it's the National Enquirer. But it sure got it right on John Edwards. In fact I think it has a pretty good record on getting things right. (It's not really that hard, if the mainstream media simply won't go there.)

And Levi Johnston is unhappy about the upcoming shotgun wedding? But he looked so happy on TV! Ha ha ha ha ha.

The link does not work. What did it say? Have her lawyers ordered it to be taken down?

the link above works... as of 1 minute ago...

[Evan Burton]

Didn't work here, either:

Not Found

The requested URL /_palin_family_shockers_what_sarahs_really_hiding/celebrity/65407 was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Perhaps it is something to do with people outside the US?

[John Simkin]

Maybe those who can access this page could post the text on the forum.