Palin The Creationist?

I am astounded with the level of ignorance in this country about science. People like you write incredibly stupid (which means low intelligence level) words for everyone to read like your comments on Palin and creationism.
Now, I will write slowly so you can understand me! Evolution was never, will never be SCIENCE. Let's define the basis of science for your benefit, the scientific method:
"Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
Taken from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific+metho d
Theories of the origins of life CAN NEVER BE PROVEN because they can NEVER BE TESTED empirically therefore evolution and creation will always be THEORIES.
Darwin was NOT a scientist, he was a wanna be theologian that dropped out of seminary. Did you know that? Evolution is the most absurd, fantastical LIE this culture has ever swallowed due to mere repetition from the media and the atheists of our times.
It is so cowardly to attack something you don't even comprehend in the least - by that I don't mean creation, I mean your "pet" Hopeful Monster Theory AKA Punctuated Equilibrium AKA nothing to man theory...Give me a break, evolution is a HUGE joke and people like you should do a little research before spewing forth such horrible inconsistent statements...
Maybe you are related to gorillas however nobody will make a monkey out of me....

didn't want a repeat in this New Country of what Henry VIII did in England with the church of England. They didn't want people (literally) losing their heads over their preferred form of worship.

As to the American Heritage Dictionary definition of theory, I did see the words "widely accepted" and creationism is widely accepted. But science has a problem with Intelligent Design, too. Why not teach all 3? What are you afraid of? Okay, let's throw out Creationism and only teach evolution, but at least be honest enough to put a flyer on the front of the science books that says something like: Intelligent Design is a real possibility, too.

First of all, evolution is not a theory about the origin of life, it describes how life has evolved since then. Second of all, evolution is testable because scientists can look for evolution occuring now and in the fossil record. Unlike creationism, which cannot be disproven because it involves the involvement of an omnipotent being, evolution can be disproven by proving that the universe is too young for it to occur, that no traits are hereditary, or that mutations never occur. Finally, creationism (including ID) should not be taught in school because it is pseudoscience and has no supporting evidence.

Dear Michael, you are wrong. What you read in public school textbooks are bold face lies about evolution. The "MISSING LINK" has never been found in the thousands of fossil records examined. NEVER! Thus the terminology so aptly applied ..the still "missing link" between species is missing. Most science textbooks "facts" about this have been proven to have been fraud. There are no known transitional creatures EVER catalogued from the fossil record of current research. It matters not who "accepts" which theory only the oppressive regime that forbids all theories from being known.
It is a fact that this belief in evolution is directly linked to a death culture. Teens who "learned" that they came from monkeys and that life is a matter of "chance" are committing suicide daily in this country and taking other lives with them...The raw data of the universe is the same regardless of your bias. Americans have put on the evolution glasses to look for things to prove evolution that are not there. Only academic honesty and integrity are capable of fostering critical thinking skills into impressionable youngsters. America's liberals choose the belief that is closely associated with their lifestyle, evolution.

Ad hominum attacks do not prove your point, Daniele. Insulting me is just insulting your argument. You're dead wrong about the theories of the origins of life. They can be proven with good science and creationism is not good science. It's not even science. It's religion parading around as science. Did you even look at the link to http://www.talkorigins.com that I posted on my blog? Are you really that judgmental in that you won't even look at the evidence?

And for the last time evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys. It says we shared a common ancestor. That's not coming from monkeys. Read a science book every now and then.

Also, we HAVE found the missing link, but it's not one fossil. It's a collection of fossils that show how early bi-pedal hominids evolved into their current homo-sapian forms. Want a concrete example? Look at Austrailopithicus. That's been proven to be related to humans.

Even if a majority of people believe in creationism, it does not stand because it has no evidence. That's where evolution wins out. There's a mountain of evidence supporting it and that's why it's in the classrooms and creationism isn't.

Again, you are completely delude to think that evolution is a science or that has been proven. You are obviously a product of the spin zone and the evolution doped masses that never really understood science or evolution.
Like I said, the data is the same, there no transitional fossils that would prove that one species mutated into another. You can throw time (millions of years) into the equation to make it more plausible but it simply has no evidence.
Common ancestry does not prove evolution anymore than standing in a garage makes me a automobile. Many classes of creatures share similar features. What intrigues me the most is your fervor in believing that NOTHING can mutate into a something without any intelligence put into it. Have you ever studied a human cell? Any cell for that matter, these are irreducible machines that could not produce anything without all of its parts. Let's go back to fishes walking out of the ocean and eventually becoming Einstein.
If you can't handle intellectua pugilism you should not enter the ring by posting your dogma online.

Any more ad hominum attacks and I will flag you Daniele. But why are you ignoring all the peer reviewed scientific literature that supports evolution? Look up transitional fossils like Australopithicus, Archeoptrx, Kallikk, and homo habilis. And nobody says species mutated from one to the other. That's another sign that you don't know that much about evolution and haven't studied it in any great deal.

Mutation is only a small part of evolution that rarely makes big changes in a species. The major factors that create variation involve reproduction among individuals in a species. Whenever a species reproduces, like humans, there is variation. You get half your father's genes and half your mother's genes. That variation provides factors for natural selection to act on and speciation has been observed many times. Still don't believe me? Check the following link and the long list of references it provides.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And if evolution is wrong then what's the alternative? And where's the peer reviewed scientific literature that supports this alternative? Don't pass it off as truth without providing evidence. That's just being disingenuous. Try looking into the subject a bit. You'll find there's a lot to study and a lot to learn. And please, if you wish to make an argument refrain from using ad hominum attacks.

Jack, it is not easy to be a minority and to be disregarded because some people build evidences to prove evolution.
Read:
http://www.icr.org/article/75/
I don't like to be told what to believe anymore than anyone else. I have studied all these so called evidences and I believe based on scientific evidence that they are apes, not humans.
The models created for Nature History museums are just that - models that came out of someone's imagination.
What is evolution? The theory of origins that believes that all things have evolved from a spark in a puddle. Maybe we can agree to disagree as I know you have the right to your opinion and I to mine. Neither of us are unintelligent as proven by this discussion.
I appreciate your feedback!

Being in a minority has nothing to do with being right. Galileo was right and he was a minority in his day, but the evidence he gathered and the methods he used stood up to the test of time over religious dogma. That is what evolution has produced over the years. The sheer body of evidence supporting it has helped it gain acceptance while creationism and intelligent design fail to gain any level of support in academia. That's why people like Palin try to prop it up so it doesn't completely disappear.

I appreciate the link you provided, Daniele, but the Institute for Creation Research is not a very good source for information. It is horribly bias and has no credibility among academic circles. When I say peer reviewed evidence I mean articles from respected scientific journals that have undergone the rigors of peer review. Talk Origins cites all their sources with such material and that's why they have more credibility.

Just look at the ICR's "About Us" page. It reads as follows:

ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.

See that last line? "Within a thoroughly biblical framework." That means they don't look at evidence empirically. They try to fit it into their narrow worldview. That is not scientific. That is merely pushing an agenda. Science works by looking at the evidence and forming conclusions, not coming in with a conclusion and finding evidence to support it. That's working backwards.

The evolution models are not just some imaginative tool used by scientists, they are derived from large bodies of evidence gathered from chemistry, biology, palentology, geology, and taxonomy (which most people don't know squat about and never gets mentioned in ICR).

And you're wrong once more in defining evolution. It does not say ANYTHING about the origins of life. It only explains the diversity of life. The predominant theory of the origin of life is Abiogenesis, which has a decent body of evidence supporting it but nowhere near the level evolution has. Before you can begin debating evolution, you should know something about it first and do research in areas which are not fundamentally bias towards certain conclusions.

Darwinian evolution has been challenged by a body of scientists that are not Christians.
Natural selection is not evolution, only adaption of the same class.
Scientific evidence does not exist to support the models CREATED by scientists.
There are many other sources that one could access if they are truly pursuing truth, which is the object of science.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Lee-Strobel/dp/B000ION2H G

Whatever happened to academic freedom in America? Why is this issue so inflammatory?
No scientist has ever explained the origin of languages.

Naturalistic explanations for how this universe came into being are no more supernatural than any other explanation.

Over 400 Eminent Scientists Sign “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05072204.html

Once again Daniele, your arguments have some glaring fallacies that do not support your position. The link with over 400 scientists who dissent from Darwinian evolution is a bit off because that list isn't confirmed. And even if it was 400 is less than 5 percent of the academic arena. So that means 95 percent of scientists agree with evolution. Isn't that a little glaring.

And scientists have had that argument before. One of the ways they respond to it is with a satirical little project known as Project Steve. Google it when you get a chance and you'll see why that list you presented does not hold water.

Also, academic freedom is not like political freedom. In the academic world you can't just say whatever you want and expect to be taken seriously. If a scientists proposes something outlandish like some invisible sky god created the universe and everything in it in just 6 days 1000 years ago and only used old myths and fables as evidence their academic career and credibility would be shot. The process of accepting a theory is rigorous and laborious. Scientists must submit their theories to peer review and unless they produce empirical evidence that can be repeatedly tested and verified than their theories will not stand.

I know that book by Lee Strobal and his arguments have the same problems as the ICR. They are fundamentally bias towards a conclusion and he's just interpreting certain facts to support his own dogmatic position. Scientists don't work that way. If they see a fault in any theory, they will call it out because that's how it works in academia. And because there are so many faults in creationist models, they never hold up to even the most basic levels of peer review.

Also, scientists HAVE explained the origin of language. Please check your facts. Here are a few links if you're interested in seeing some authentic, peer reviewed science.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.55. 67

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Languages-Studies-Linguistic-T axonomy/dp/0804728054

I don't think that religion should be taught in science classrooms which is why I dropped the notion of teaching all 3 (evolution, creationism, intelligent design). But I also don't think that the science classroom should be the place to lay the claim that God does not exist. This is happening in "some" science classrooms which is why I included the part about a flyer being added to the science books. No science teacher should be allowed to claim God does not exist.
They can teach what they want, but they should not say such stupid things like God does not exist.

Glad you are a patriot, godless or not.

You couldn't be more wrong about the American founders. The consensus among the colonials and the founding generation was Reformed Christianity. Even the Deists rejected naturalism, believing in a supernatural creator.

Will you answer my reply to you at my blog?

I never said the Founding Father's rejected a supernatural creator. At the time there was no other explanation for the origin of life and the theory of Abiogenesis didn't come along for nearly a century afterward. But the core belief of deism that the founders followed was that there was a creator god, but that god is no longer present and involved in human affairs. Atheism takes it a step further by saying there was no god to begin with.

And I agree that nobody should claim god doesn't exist in a science classroom, but they also shouldn't claim that he does. I came to accept God doesn't exist through a greater understanding of the world and in a free society people should be left to decide what they belief without anybody else intruding on their natural rights to do so.

I agree that teachers should not be allowed to say that God does not exist in the classroom.